Nick Begich Would Work To Obstruct The Federal Government’s Ability To Conserve Alaska’s Unique Environment And Landscape By Releasing Protected Lands To State Control

Begich Wanted To Introduce Legislation That Would “Allow Greater Access To Rural Areas Of Alaska.” “We must introduce legislation that will allow greater access to rural areas of Alaska through roads, rail, and ports. The resources necessary for our nation and our state’s prosperity are abundant within Alaska, but are often stranded as a result of underinvestment in Alaskan infrastructure. Legislation should provide for streamlined right-of-way access through Federal lands and supportive access reform that will allow Alaskans to unlock the incredible potential of our state.” [Juneau Empire, 8/12/22]

Begich Wanted To Convert Federal Land In Alaska To State Control, Which Would Open Up Opportunities For Extractive Industrial Development

Begich Supported A “Framework That Removes Alaskan Resource Development From The Executive Discretion Of The Presidency.” Begich: “In Congress, I will support a framework that removes Alaskan resource development from the executive discretion of the presidency and limits federal overreach while also supporting Alaska’s right to produce — rights that were promised to us at statehood.” [Anchorage Daily News, 8/24/24]

Begich Claimed That More Federal Lands Should Be Converted To State Control. “The best way to handle land management conflicts between the federal government and the state of Alaska is to convey more lands to state control, allowing for greater local management and decision-making. The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Chevron deference […] can help Alaska assert more control over its lands and resources. One practical solution to these conflicts is the creation of an ‘Alaska Access Package.’ This package would aim to resolve land access issues by establishing clear, unambiguous guidelines for traversing federal lands to access state lands. It would ensure that Alaskans have the necessary routes and permissions to develop and utilize state lands effectively, without being hindered by federal regulations. Such a package would promote collaboration between state and federal governments, streamline access procedures, and ultimately support the responsible and sustainable development of Alaska’s resources.” [Alaska Beacon, Candidate Survey, Accessed 9/10/24]

• ZeroGPT Identified Begich’s Responses To The Alaska Beacon’s Candidate Survey As Possibly Having Been 100% AI-Generated. Zero GPT’s analysis identified Begich’s responses to the Alaska Beacon’s candidate survey as 100% AI-generated. AI text generators can produce false information; Zero GPT claims that it detects AI text with 98% accuracy. [Zero GPT, Accessed 9/10/24]

Image: see original report, p. 55

[Zero GPT, Accessed 9/10/24]

Federal Land Management Protected D-1 Designated Areas From Extractive Industrial Development And Helped Tribal Communities Sustain Their Way Of Life. “The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) took a big step toward finalizing protections for 28 million acres of federally-managed ‘D-1’ lands in Alaska, including 1.2 million acres in the Bristol Bay region. The review was prompted when the outgoing Trump Administration threatened to open these long-protected lands for extractive industrial development. BLM’s final environmental impact statement is one of the final steps in the agency’s multi-year review of how lifting existing protections would impact D-1 lands. This included potential impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence practices, and our Tribal communities who depend on D-1 lands to sustain traditional ways of life.” [Alaska Native News, 7/8/24]

74% Of BLM Land Under Review Gave Rural Indigenous Communities First Priority For Natural Resources Under A Federal Designation. “Approximately 80 percent of Alaska Native villages (183 total) and more than half a million people live within 50 miles of the BLM lands under evaluation. Of the lands under review, 74 percent are designated by the federal government as areas where rural community residents have priority to hunt and fish for subsistence.” [Center for American Progress, 6/21/24]

The Trump Administration’s Initial Attempts To Remove Federal Protections From Indigenous Peoples’ Land Failed Because They Neglected To Consider Subsistence Needs. “In January 2021, the Trump administration attempted to lift D-1 protections on 28 million acres of BLM lands across five of the agency’s planning areas […] Shortly after taking office, the Biden administration took a hard look at the rushed public land orders, determined they were legally flawed, and put them on pause. Among other legal deficiencies, the Department of the Interior cited the ‘failure to adequately analyze potential impacts on subsistence hunting and fishing.’” [Center for American Progress, 6/21/24]

Begich Supported Lifting Alaska’s Public Land Orders

Begich Supported Lifting Alaska’s Public Land Orders. Host: “Do you support lifting public land orders? If so, how will you work with the state and DOI to accomplish it?” Begich: “I absolutely support lifting public land orders. These orders were issued in the 70s and intended, as many government programs, to be temporary. As we know, it seldom proves to be the case. Once a government program goes into place, it never seem to go away. Over 50 million acres of Alaska lands remain under PLOs today, and we just saw yesterday, again, the Harris Biden Administration has no intention of lifting these public land orders. Here again is why elections matter, and it’s part of the reason why the House Resources Committee chair, Bruce Westerman, endorsed me this morning. He knows that I will be a tireless champion for Alaska’s resources in the House and will leverage every opportunity to force the lifting of these PLOs through committee amendments and must pass legislation in order to make sure that Alaska retains the right to produce our own resources.” [YouTube, Anchorage Daily News, [20:59], 8/28/24]

2021-2024: Begich Accepted At Least $85.9K From Employees Of The Construction, Development, And Real Estate Industries

[Federal Election Commission, Alaskans for Nick Begich, Receipts, Accessed 9/19/24]

Begich Condemned The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Which Sought To Protect Alaska’s Natural Ecosystems And “Traditional Ways Of Living On The Land”

Begich Condemned ANILCA And Said That Alaska Had Been Denied The “Ability To Develop Our Own State, Our Own Resources.” BEGICH: “The reason why we’re continuing to take this money is because we’ve been denied the ability to develop our own state, our own resources in Alaska. This started, with President Carter put ANILCA through, which locked up enormous amounts of Alaska land.” [YouTube, Michael Dukes Show, 1:10:46-1:12:19, 4/1/24]

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Sought To Protect Alaska’s Natural Ecosystems And Landscapes While Preserving “Opportunity For Traditional Ways Of Living On The Land.” “In 1980, when Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), it recognized the importance of protecting Alaska’s splendid natural ecosystems and landscapes, while preserving the opportunity for traditional ways of living on the land to continue.” [National Park Service, accessed6/6/24]

ANILCA Explicitly Protected Subsistence Uses For Rural Residents Of Alaska. “Congress acknowledged the exceptional and unique conditions of life in Alaska’s rural areas in Title VIII of the Act, noting that: ‘The Congress finds and declares that the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska, including both Natives and non-Natives, on the public lands and by Alaska Natives on Native lands is essential to Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence’” [National Park Service, accessed6/6/24]

Rural Alaska Natives Relied “Significantly On Subsistence Harvests, Which Constitute 50-90% Of Their Dietary Intake.” “Rural Alaska Native communities rely significantly on subsistence harvests, which constitute between 50% to 90% of their dietary intake. The loss of access to these vital sources of food would have profound consequences.” [Alaska Beacon, 4/12/24]

ANILCA Was Created In Response To A Lack Of Protection For Alaska Native Hunting And Fishing Rights. “In 1980 Congress reacted to the State’s lack of protection of Alaska Native subsistence uses and attempted to carry out the unfulfilled settlement of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights through the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980.” [University of Alaska Fairbanks, accessed 6/6/24]

Native American Rights Fund: ANILCA “Recognizes That Subsistence Fishing Is Essential To Alaska Natives’ Physical, Economic, Traditional, And Cultural Existence.” “The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) recognizes that subsistence fishing is essential to Alaska Natives’ physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence, and mandates a subsistence fishing preference for rural residents whenever it becomes necessary to restrict fishing to conserve fish populations.” [Native American Rights Fund, Press Release, 4/2/24]

Begich Agreed “100%” That The Federal Government Was Wrong To Block Pebble Mine Development And Supported A Lawsuit Seeking “Billions Of Dollars” From The Federal Government In Response

Begich Agreed “100%” That The Federal Government Was Wrong To Block Pebble Mine Development And Supported A Lawsuit Seeking “Billions Of Dollars” From The Federal Government In Response. Kelly: “We have a mine, called Pebble Mine, that could be developed in Alaska. But it’s been a great source of controversy because there’s some conflicting views over whether developing Pebble Mine would jeopardize a very, very lucrative and essential fishing area up here in Alaska […] What I do not support is the federal government coming in with a preemptive veto, not listening to the voices of the natives who live in the region, not listening to the voices of the people here in Alaska who’ve studied it, not listening to the voices of the people who understand the fish in Bristol Bay, not listening to any of them, and just imposing their decree as bureaucrats from Washington, D.C. without even stepping foot in the area, Nick, and saying, ‘No, we know better as Washington, D.C. bureaucrats, as government officials from on high, to decide what you’re gonna do with your resources in D.C.’ And Mary Peltola just introduced an act to support permanent preemptive vetoes from the federal government on Alaska’s development of resources.” […] Begich: “100%. I couldn’t have said it any better and I totally agree with everything you just said, and let me just add one additional piece to that. You know, the administration, our gubernatorial administration, is actually suing the federal government because of this attempted preemptive veto of the project out in that region of our state. And they’re suing for hundreds of billions of dollars, because when the state selected these lands, they did so at statehood because they recognized the mineral potential for this region […] and at the same time that we have this lawsuit going forward, we have Mary Peltola trying to take it off the table.” [Rumble, STAND_Show, [23:12], 6/19/24]

Begich Adopted An Exaggerated Complaint About The Biden Administration’s Use Of Executive Orders, Including Counting The Pebble Mine Rejection Order Three Times. “Nick Begich the Third, who finished second in the primary election for Congress, has adopted the Sen. Dan Sullivan canard that the Biden”administration has crippled our economy by restricting resource development and has now issued 66 executive orders specifically targeting Alaska. As I’ve made clear here before, 66 is an imaginary number…President Biden’s rejection of the oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Ambler Road are each counted six times, while the Pebble mine and the roadless rule in the Tongass are each counted three times.” [Dermot Cole, 8/24/24]

• 2022: When Asked If He Supported “Development Of The Pebble Mine,” Begich Said “A Scientific, Lawful, And Comprehensive Process Must Determine This Outcome.” “To help

Alaskans sort through the dozens of options, we’re asking each candidate where they stand on the issues. Here’s how they responded, in their own words, to the following questions on natural resource development: […] Do you want to see … (Please answer yes or no. If needed, add an explanation of no more than 10 words.) […] 2. Development of the Pebble Mine? […] Nick Begich (R): […] Pebble? ‘A scientific, lawful, and comprehensive process must determine this outcome.’” [KTOO, 6/2/22]

• 2022: Begich Refused To Take A Position On Pebble Mines, Offering That A “Scientific, Lawful, And Comprehensive Process” Should Determine The Outcome.” “Nick Begich (R): Pebble? ‘A scientific, lawful, and comprehensive process must determine this outcome.’” [KTOO, 6/2/22]
• 2022: Begich Did Not Respond To Alaskans For Bristol Bay Action’s Questionnaire And Did “Not Have A Public Record On Pebble Mine.” “This year’s special election for Alaska’s only seat in the U.S. House will play an important role in the fate of Bristol Bay. For more than 20 years, the region has lived under threat from the disastrous Pebble Mine, which would poison the watershed with billions of tons of toxic waste, destroying one of the last great salmon runs on Earth, wiping out thousands of jobs, and devastating communities that have thrived in the region for generations. We asked the candidates if they would stand with Alaskans and help protect Bristol Bay. […] The following candidates did not respond to the questionnaire and do not have a public record on Pebble Mine, so we ask ‘Whose Side Are They On?’ […] Nick Begich III (R).” [Alaskans for Bristol Bay Action, accessed 9/13/22]

360 Scientists Signed A Letter To The EPA Urging The Agency To Reject Pebble Mine Development. “A whopping 360 scientists from Canada, Poland, Australia, the contiguous United States and elsewhere in the world are pleading with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) en masse not to approve the Pebble Mine development in Bristol Bay, Alaska…The letter was sparked by the EPA’s final assessment of the project, which came out in mid-January and concluded that ‘large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed poses risks to salmon and the tribal communities that have depended on them for thousands of years.’ [ICT News, 9/13/18]

The Environmental Damage From Pebble Mine Would Threaten Alaska’s Salmon Industry. “A mining company plans to dig a pit, more than a mile square and a third of a mile deep, over two decades to obtain the metals, estimated to be worth at least $300 billion. Supporters say the project, known as the Pebble Mine, would be an economic boost for a remote region that has missed out on the North Slope oil boom and other resource-extraction development in the state over the past half century. […] But opposition has long been widespread, both in the region and statewide, with concerns about environmental damage and the potential for harming another critical resource: salmon. The fish is the main traditional subsistence food for many of the Alaska Natives in the region and the basis of both a thriving sport-fishing industry and, in nearby Bristol Bay, one of the largest commercial wild salmon fisheries in the world.” [The New York Times, 7/24/20]