Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
[6] Section 6 granted the state of Alaska the right to select lands then in the hands of the federal government, with the exception of Native territory.
[8] The Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska decided that Natives should receive $100 million and 10% of revenue[clarification needed] as a royalty.
Notti presided over the three-day conference as it discussed matters of land recommendations, claims committees, and political challenges the act would have in getting through congress.
When the group met a second time early in 1967, it emerged with a new name, The Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), and a new full-time President, Emil Notti.
[8] Among the other task force proposals were an outright grant of 1,000 acres per native village resident; a revenue-sharing program for state land claims and national mineral development projects; secured hunting and fishing rights on public lands; and a Native Commission to administrate state and federal compliance with the provisions of the claims settlement.
[12] They proposed receiving 10% of federal mineral lease revenue for ten years,[13] once the freeze which had been placed on land patents to allow oil exploration was lifted.
[14]: 49 In 1968, the Atlantic-Richfield Company discovered oil at Prudhoe Bay on the Arctic coast, catapulting the issue of land ownership into headlines.
Among those who attended the hearings were officials and legislators, as well as Laura Bergt, Roger Connor, Thoda Forslund, Cliff Groh, Barry Jackson, Flore Lekanof, Notti, and Morris Thompson.
[14]: 153 [21]: 7 [22] The following month, he established the National Council on Indian Opportunity, headed by Vice President Spiro Agnew,[23] which included eight Native leaders: Frank Belvin (Choctaw), Bergt (Iñupiat), Betty Mae Jumper (Seminole), Earl Old Person (Blackfeet), John C. Rainer (Taos Pueblo), Martin Seneca Jr. (Seneca), Harold Shunk (Yankton-Sioux), and Joseph C. "Lone Eagle" Vasquez (Apache-Sioux).
[26] Native leaders, in addition to Alaska's congressional delegation and the state's newly elected Governor Egan, eventually reached the basis for presenting an agreement to Congress.
[20][26] Bergt attended a March 1971 conference of the National Congress of American Indians in Kansas City, Missouri and was able to persuade Agnew there to meet with national officials, herself, Christiansen, an Alaska State Senator; Al Ketzler, chair of the Tanana Chiefs Conference; and Don Wright, president of the Alaska Federation of Natives a week later.
[27] The proposed settlement terms faced challenges in both houses but found a strong ally in Senator Henry M. Jackson from Washington state.
[26] The most controversial issues that continued to hold up approval were methods for determining land selection by Alaska Natives and financial distribution.
Life in the Senate for me was fast-paced from the beginning .... With my experience working in the Department of the Interior and with the Statehood Act, and my faith in the determination and unity of purpose of Alaska's Native people, I believed from the beginning that a settlement could be achieved .... My memories of the Congressional action as ANCSA took shape aren't of a battle as much as they are of long hours of tough, hard negotiating, often two steps forward and one step back ....In 1971, barely one million acres of land in Alaska were in private hands.
[33] That is larger by 6 million acres (24,000 km2) than the combined areas of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.
[38] NASA similarly provided satellite imagery to aid in Native corporations finding areas most suited for vegetation and their traditional subsistence culture.
[38] Natives were able to choose tens of thousands of acres of land rich with timber while Doyon used mineral analysis to attract businesses.
[40] Amendments to ANCSA extended that deadline until 1994, with the expectation that BLM would complete processing of land transfers subject to overlapping Native claims by 2009.
[47][48] Some Natives critiqued ANCSA as an illegitimate treaty since only tribal leaders were involved and the provisions of the act were not voted on by indigenous populations.
