The Pros And Cons Of ANILCA

The passage of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) had two sides, one supporting it and one opposing it. The supporters were considered conservatives. The conservatives supported ANILCA because it would protect a lot more land from the government's use. Many major national conservationists were involved with the act, like George Bird Grinnell, Charles Sheldon, and Belmore Browne (akhistorycourse.org). George Bird Grinnell was an anthropologist and served as president of the National Parks Association (fws.gov). Charles Sheldon was a conservationist and was considered the “Father of Denali National Park.” Belmore Brown was an artist who support and painted about ANILCA (alaskannature.org). The conservationist supported ANILCA
because it made 104 million acres of Alaskan land into national parks and preserves, national forests, and national fish and wildlife preserves. About half of the land, 50 million acres, was set aside as wilderness. The opposers of ANILCA were developers, further more much of urban Alaska didn't want ANILCA. The Anchorage Press complained that locking up our mineral resources in Alaska. Tom Snapp, editor of a Fairbanks Weekly Paper, wrote, "We were supposed to be taken in as a state on an equal basis, but we're not going to be allowed to develop the way other states develop their resources”.(akhistorycourse.org) They didn’t want ANILCA because the state wouldn’t be able develop the possible natural resources like oil, natural gases, and other fossil fuels. Also all the subsistence and sport hunting is now illegal in multiple areas of Alaska which provides a lot of food they now can’t have.
ANILCA has a negative effect on Alaskan land usage. After the 104 million acres given to Alaska in the 1958 Statehood Act and the 44 million acres in Native title in ANCSA in 1971, this was the last major land act for Alaska. If you add the pre-statehood federal set asides for parks, forests and monuments, only 74 million acres of land in Alaska remains open. It is controlled by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as public area. Altogether, the federal government owns 60% of Alaska, 224 million acres and most of it is in are off limits to most economic development. If it was open it economic development we would have more job opportunities which would increase Alaska’s population and economy.
Also Alaska is in a little financial crisis so if the land opened up we might be able to find oil and natural gases and that would help Alaska gain revenue.