Basic: Alaska
History
The U.S. Department of Interior’s (DOI) Indian Affairs recognizes 227 Native Villages in the state of Alaska. The Alaska Region encompasses 663,268 square miles of land. Within Alaska are a unique and diverse mix of Tribes,
Tribal organizations, and natural features. The entire state of Alaska falls under the jurisdiction of the Alaska Region, with the small exception of the Annette Island Reserve, which falls under the Northwest Region.1
The Army Corps of Engineers arrived in Alaska in 1942 to build the Alaska Highway, bringing disease and quickly depleting natural resources that Native Alaskans relied on. As a result of disease, forced relocation,
cultural assimilation and cultural confusion, and the growing number of white people the percentage of Native Alaskans in the general Alaskan population plummeted from 45 percent in 1940 to 26 percent in 1950 to just
19 percent at the time of statehood in 1959.2
In the late 1950s, oil was discovered on the North Slope of Alaska.3 This discovery forced the federal government to deal with Alaska's aboriginal land ownership, resulting with the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA). Under this settlement the Indigenous People of Alaska 'earned' claim to 44 million acres of land (or 1/9 of Alaska's land area) as shareholders while the rest of the land was 'sold' to the federal government
for $962.5 million. The land was to be managed through 12 newly founded, for-profit, regional corporations, under which Native Alaskans became shareholders and were encouraged to choose stakes in land rich in natural
resources. Current shareholders had to have been born before 1971 or have inherited their shares from someone born before 1971. Younger generations, who may have a greater interest in sustainable land practices and are
more inclined to choose conservation over economic growth don’t have the same voice as shareholders, and some find it more challenging to have their concerns taken into consideration.4
Under ANCSA, Native Alaskans lost their aboriginal hunting and fishing rights, as the land was placed under state management and control over what could and could not be harvested. Today, ANCSA is criticized for not
taking Tribal sovereignty into consideration while it was negotiated and passed. Natural resources remain under state management, control, and restriction for what can and cannot be harvested has led to a loss of food
security in Native Villages. Aboriginal hunting and fishing rights were lost, and at the time that ANCSA was being negotiated, Native Alaskans unfortunately likely did not or were not given an opportunity to understand this loss.
Following the discovery of oil and the passage of ANCSA, the state constructed the 800-mile Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) in 1974 to transport oil from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez.5 From there the oil is transported by
tanker to the rest of the United States and world. TAPS was the start of a long history of resource degradation for the sake of oil drilling in Alaska, and the presence and influence of oil companies in Alaska. Since the
construction of TAPS, Alaska’s boom and bust oil economy has changed the face of their society, the landscape, and the environment. An ongoing controversy surrounds the question of whether to drill for oil in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. This oil, if drilled, would ultimately contribute to climate change by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere when burned. The continued demand for oil ultimately is contributing to another, more
extreme struggle for Alaska Natives.
Bristol Bay, AK is home to one of the largest wild salmon habitats in the world. As wild salmon populations dwindle due to warming waters, water pollution, dams, and other anthropogenic driven factors, protecting the
remaining habitats is essential for the preservation of the species and the cultures that rely on salmon harvests. For decades, the threat of a mine that would unquestionably damage the salmon spawning territory in
Bristol Bay loomed. The Pebble Mine was proposed to be an open-pit copper and gold mine over a mile long, a mile wide and 200 meters deep, which would have destroyed nearly 3,500 acres of wetlands, lakes, and ponds
and 81 miles of salmon streams.6 These estimates do not include waters and habitats that would have been fragmented by the mine or contaminated by mine tailings. Native Alaskans, followed by commercial and recreational
fishermen, seafood processors and marketers, chefs, restaurants, supermarket owners, sport fishing and hunting lodge owners and guides all petitioned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the importance
of protecting Bristol Bay and the damages the Pebble Mine would bring. Under the Obama Administration, their voices were heard, and a study found that even a minor disturbance would dramatically alter the Bristol Bay
ecosystem.7 However, under the Trump Administration, the beginning of the Pebble Mine was once again up for debate, with the interests of private business prioritized. Despite this, finally, in January of 2023, the EPA
essentially vetoed the Pebble Mine, though this decision is expected to be challenged in court for years to come.8
In March 2023, the Biden Administration approved the highly controversial Willow drilling project in Alaska, proposed by ConocoPhillips.9 Although the approved project was scaled down from the original proposal, the
Willow project is still expected to have the potential to produce 180,000 barrels of oil a day, undermining the Biden Administration’s climate goals and commitments.10 It is critical that fossil fuel projects be phased
out, and it is far too late in the climate crisis to approve a new oil and gas project. The effects of this project can be predicted but are currently unknown. However, it is known that this is a step in the wrong
direction as Native Alaskans, Alaskan residents and allies fight for the future of the planet.
The commodification of natural resources is the root of the issues Native Alaskans, and everyone across the globe, faces today. Recognizing these resources for their inherent ecological value and ceasing unsustainable
and harmful operations that rely on them is essential for protecting the environment and the species that share and rely on these resources. These operations lie outside of just fossil fuel extraction – for example,
timber cutting in Alaska leads to further erosion, which amplifies the devasting effects floods and permafrost melt can have on the landscape. Understanding the effects of land management practices and the expansion
of fossil fuel projects on not only climate change as a whole, but on the local environments, will determine how resilient communities will have to become in the face of climate change.
Sources:
