The National Park Service celebrates its centennial this year, a commemoration that won't warm the hearts of those Alaskans who accept the notion that NPS is the "overreaching" federal agency operating in Alaska that they should hate, and fear, the most. The agency manages about 54 million acres of Alaska land in 15 units, the most famous of which is Denali National Park. That's just more than half the amount of land Congress titled to Alaska at statehood.
Alaskans have been schooled by some of their politicians to resent federal ownership of land in Alaska. Sixty percent of Alaska is in federal title, and there are those in the state who see that as a theft, the federal government having taken "our" land.
But such an idea betrays a profound ignorance of American history and the American system of governance. All land in America not titled to the several states was "federal" at one time, and in their Constitution the American people declared that Congress should decide how to dispose of their land, how it should be used (Article IV). They also charged Congress, and only Congress, with creating new states. So the American people purchased Alaska in 1867, albeit ignoring the question of indigenous title, which they took up much later, in 1971. Having purchased it, most Americans would argue that they have the right to do with their property whatever they wish; it's theirs, after all. In 1958, they decided to create the state of Alaska and to title it with 104 million of Alaska's 375 million acres; that 104 million acres is larger than the entire state of California.
Still, Alaskans have good reason to be concerned about the federal government owning so much of Alaska and to worry about how the government uses it. That's because development, exploitation, of the state's natural resources — oil, gold, other minerals, forests, fish — is the only element from which to construct an economic base for the state, aside from federal dollars that come here. Economies of scale defeat profitable commercial manufacturing or agricultural production in Alaska, so turning those resources into consumer products — gasoline, jewelry, the lead in car batteries, two-by-fours, fish sticks — is what provides jobs and revenue for Alaskans.
Congress was well aware of this circumstance when it created the state and urged that the state select for its title land with development potential. Congress also committed to developing as much federal land in Alaska as feasible and has honored that commitment, mostly with gas and oil leases in Cook Inlet and in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
But development on much federal land in Alaska is restricted or prohibited, and a common Alaska complaint is that access to those lands is unreasonably limited. For many Alaskans, any limitation on development seems threatening because of the state's extreme reliance on resource exploitation. It's not that Alaskans don't love their environment; they use it at a higher rate than residents of any other state use theirs. The problem comes when environmental regulation conflicts with resource development because of the potential for jobs and revenue.
The 54 million acres of national park lands in Alaska protect some of the most significant natural landscapes and environmental features in the world. This was a decision of the American people, acting through their elected representatives. During the campaign for the 1980 Alaska lands act, ANILCA, both the press and environmental spokespeople referred to many of these lands as "America's environmental crown jewels." These are lands Americans want to hand off unmanipulated to countless future generations.
Most Alaskans support that protection, except when it comes into conflict with potential economic development. Many Alaskans don't recognize the paradox that, while preserving an unparalleled environmental legacy, these lands also contribute significantly to Alaska's economy. Last year, 2.66 million visitors to Alaska's NPS lands spent nearly $1.2 billion in the state. Along with the 17,000 associated jobs, NPS brought about $1.7 billion here.
Expressed resentment and strident critiques of federal management of Alaska lands generate polarization and prevent exploration of cooperative mechanisms that serve multiple interests. Most reasonable leaders and managers respect those who transcend differences and find the points of consensus. In the long run, it's more productive.
Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.