Sealaska Lands Trade Meetings - Ketchikan and Craig

[ata]

Hi All:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has posted a draft of the Sealaska lands bill on her web site. Feb. 21 and 22, her Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee staff will hold informational meetings in Ketchikan and Craig to discuss changes in the bill and seek comments regarding additional revisions prior to introduction.

The informal meetings, which will be conducted by McKie Campbell, the minority Staff Director of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, will be held from 4 to 6 p.m. on Feb. 21 in the Ketchikan Borough Assembly Chambers on Whitecliff Drive, and the next day, Tuesday, Feb. 21st at the Craig High School Auditorium from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

More of this press release and info on the bill can be found here:
http://murkowski.senate.gov/public/inde ... kaLandBill

Comments on the new draft bill are due to Murkowski's staff by March 4. ATA has not had time to review the new bill.

Hopefully some of you will be able to attend the Ketchikan and Craig meetings!

Dale
ATA

[ata]

Hopefully this link works:
http://murkowski.senate.gov/public/inde ... kaLandBill

[mydona]

Some of the good news is that Sea-Alaska has dropped most of the lands out of the N. end of Prince of Wales Is. The web site has a lot of maps indicating lands they want. While this is good for the residents of Baker/Lab bay-Pt. Protection not becoming land locked it seems that a large area has not been reported/ mapped. IMO they are entitled to the lands but they should chose lands in the areas in the original agreement and within historical/cultural sites. Sure would be nice to get some written agreement that says they will not close lands to the general public. And a better stewardship of their own lands would be a benefit to the corporation and fish habitat.

[Salty]

Interesting that the only hearings are in Craig and Ketchikan. I guess they don't want to hear from the rest of the communities in SE affected by this deal.

[John Murray]

If SEALASKA real mission is to "preserve Tlingit,Haida and Tsimshian culture for future generations"they would beef up their logging practices to at least USFS TONGASS NF standards.As it stands they log under the State of Alaska standards which are very weak.This is a particularly a problem for coho habitat.SEALASKA can claim they are responsible for"Stewardship of the land and forest resources". But are they really concerned about the long term?

[ericv]

John Murray's observations, comments and references regarding Sealaska and State of AK logging specs is 100% accurate. Sadly the lay public, the politicians and many shareholders are completely clueless to all this. I spent 12 years with the USFS in the Northern S.E. Alaska region, many of them packing the paint gun that marked in the boundaries to be logged. Subsequent years were spent monitoring all phases of the logging from start to finish for compliance to the environmental standards assessed by the multitude of resource specialist we often brought out to our units prior to release. Was it perfect? No, but at least the USFS had to have their units signed off by no fewer than 8 different resource division specialists; Log Engineering, Silviculture, Rec & Lands, Fisheries, Wildlife, Soils, Archeology, and Landscape Architecture personnel. Many thousands of "As Planned" harvest acres were deleted due to various specialist concerns identified on the ground. Units that had to exceed 100 acres required special clearances and all units had mandatory "leave strips" that kept timbered land between units aiding in wildlife access corridors. Again, was it perfect? No but at least efforts were made and during the 12 years I have been away from that line of work, resource and environmental protection guidelines have been further implemented by the USFS whether you love 'em or hate 'em.

Class I fish streams received a minimum 100' buffer which often reached outwards of 200' after field assessments. Braided Class II & III streams also received buffers as well as riparian zones. Soil specialists deleted areas of wetlands as well as a restricting logging to terrain slopes of less than 75% which was primarily an effort to avoid catastrophic debris slides that could plug a stream system fatally.These logging operations were monitored on a near daily basis by crew like myself. USFS log utilization standards required cutting logs to a 6" top, pulp and utility grade wood was required to be removed and utilized.

Sealaska and other private land holders are as John said, bound by State of Alaska Forest Practices Act. They mean well but they are woefully inadequate in many fronts, especially in personnel to field monitor and environmental/habitat protection measures. Class I fish streams receive a meager 1 chain buffer (66 feet), there is NO buffer required for Class II & III streams or riparian zones. There are no restrictions on percent slope to log and no restrictions to unit size which in many cases Sealaska and Shee Atika Corporations run into the thousands of single unit acres. The harvest unit boundaries are NOT required to be layed out by State Foresters.This is almost exclusively done by the private companies field foresters with no oversight what so ever. There is little to no ground preview by State Foresters before logging begins. Resource specialist are rarely if ever, field verifying any of the boundaries and units layed out by private hands. Log utilization standards are abysmal; cut to a 10" top and only sawlog grade logs need to be removed, pulp and utility grade wood can lay felled, left and wasted. USFS harvested logs must be made into pulp and or sawed into cants in domesetic industries prior to export. State of Alaska allows raw log shipment to foreign countries with zero domestic modification what so ever.

The big issue is monitoring. During my years with the USFS, the State Forestry crew out of Juneau had precisely 3 field going staff for the ENTIRE S.E Alaska region. My shop, on my single district, had more than that. I know for fact that they were lucky to make maybe 2 or 3 trips per year for a few days to "monitor" tens of thousands of acres of massive clearcuts in the Port Fredrick region near Hoonah where I worked. There was near 0 percent monitoring during the actual logging process. I knew these guys because our jobs were the same and we chatted frequently about these issues.

All this creates the perfect storm for the worst logging practices in our country. Sealaska will do as they have done before and I second John's statement that I challenge the corporation to at least log their land to the USFS resource specs if they truly are "Stewards of the Land". I'm not anti-logging per say, I feel there is room for small scale, domestic, locally based, sustainable, value added wood industries that keep it all within country. I am a third generation logger and spent many years as a tree thinner/planter and forester. I am completely against blatant waste of a resource that directly affects our fisheries. We have the best grade timber, the cleanest waters, the purest air and absolute best fisheries in our lap and many want a piece of the pie. Sealaska has done many beneficial things for their shareholders, logging is not one of them.

Thanks John for your post. It is with hope that we can stay informed and unified to assure that not only our fisheries but all resource extraction or visitations industries conduct their trade in an ethical and sustainable way. Its not just for us, it's for our kids as well, let your voice be heard.
Eric Van Cise - F/V New Hope - Sitka, Alaska

[Salty]

Wow, what a passionate, informed, informative post. While not a forester, I did spend 20 years on the SCS board and know we lost the battle to make the state forestry act what we would like. Doesn't look like a good year to get funding for repairing damage to the over 2,000 streams in the Tongass where fish habitat and passage is degraded.

[mydona]

Some of the reason for a meeting in Craig is because of the grass roots movement out of Port Protection and Edna bay. I mentioned that "land locked" is because Sea Alaska considers that it's their land and do as they please including gate the road to the northern 1/2 of POW. This closed minded-ness is what set off the community of Pt Protection. With the fire and loss of communications from there this could be a major loss of a strong unified voice during a critical time in these negotiations. A second reason for the Craig meeting might have to do with the out rage from Craig city counsel had when Albert Kookish tried to strong arm them into concessions and support of Sea-Alaska's policies.

[ericv]

I got a bit wind-baggy on my previous post but I must admit my blood boils when I hear and see misinformation given forth by Sealaska and other corporations. I failed to give mention or give credit to the USFS Hydrologists and Road Engineers whom both added their input into resource protection measures.

Google Earth yourself to the Port Fredrick region across from Hoonah. View the areas immediately surrounding that community. Head over to Kake and view their backyard. Now zoom over to Cube Cove, Florence Lake area on the western side of mid Admiralty Island to see "Land Stewardship". Some of was done by Huna Totem and Shee Atika corporations but Sealaska was no different. I have physically walked (crawled and thrashed) through many of their cutting units and the wastage is appalling.

There have been more than a few serious "Red Meat and Board Feet" logger types I've known that have refused to partake in corporation logging. Even from their perspective, these guys knew when things weren't right or ethical.

I best let sign off. Just keep an open mind and be willing to ask hard questions about all this, our fisheries truly depend on sound resource management practices and healthy stream systems - be it private or public lands.
Eric

[John Murray]

Thanks for your thoughts Eric.Its good to have someone with first hand knowledge.I just got a copy of the new blll.Like Dale mentioned comments are due March 4.To me that is too quick of a timeline.That's a bummer for getting good imput.I don't see what the rush is.Well its worth phone call to DC.to find out.

[ata]

Hi All:

If you comment on the bill, would you please send a copy ATA? It's important that we understand what you like and don't like about the current bill. None of us are experts on every area in the region, so specific thoughts about that are VERY helpful! As someone noted above, Murkowski has been paying attention to concerns and seems to be trying hard to find a solution that everyone can live with.

If folks think the timeline is too short, then that's something important that you should add to your comments. Be prepared to offer a better timeline. ATA is concerned about that, too, because we can't even meet to have a detailed discussion before the deadline. Our board meeting will be just starting on the day comment is due.

Dale
ATA
130 Seward #205
Juneau, AK 99801

[Salty]

Not to change the subject, but is anyone getting anything organized for donations for Port Protection? When I talked to the processor who buys fish from Port Protection he said with the phones down there hadn't been much contact.

[mydona]

See PPV burns in the trollers talk page

[valianthunter]

Mark and Lisa and the Tongass Futures Roundtable groups who have been secretly negotiating on this bill are doing Alaska's Natives, the fisheries community and the recreation industry a tremendous disservice by continuing the policy of settling the land claims through further uneconomical resource extraction.

I wouldn't mind letting Sealaska out of the box if we do some real out of the box thinking and redefine the box. The current box is the timber industry. That is a bad box for everybody, including Sealaska's shareholders. The only beneficiaries are Sealaska's corporate officers.

Sorry for the unduly long and wandering post, but there is a tremendous amount of misinformation out there from all involved. The most credible people on the bill tend to be residents of northern POW and the "hook and bullet" crowd who tend to be adversarial with commercial fishing interests on fishery allocation issues at times. With regard to the Sealaska bill, they are our best friends. If you can make it to the end, I will give you a solution.

I would ask people commenting on this bill to stop praising the Forest Service. Remember that the environmental impacts of logging are not just buffer sizes but are also related in some way similar to the three key rules of successful fishing - location, location, and location. Timber economics right now are like fishing Edgecumbe in the winter when there is no fish in the Sound - you have to fish the corner, or you don't make money. Except, of course, the corner only reproduced large-tree old growth once every 500 to a thousand years and you've already taken too much of the quota.

So the efforts to continue clearcut logging in key fisheries habitat should all be lumped together - whether Sealaska, State of Alaska, Forest Service or the Knights of the Tongass Futures Roundtable proposals. They are all charging for the corner, and looking to liquidate the habitat that plays a key role in your mixed stock fishery in the process. The different state and federal standards are about the same thing as using different gear - sure, the guy with the hot spoon and two deckhands on a big steel boat (Sealaska logging under Alaska state law for private timberlands) is going to catch more. But they ain't the only guys looking to swipe the cookie jar. And the real problem is that all of the guys have dipped their fingers into the cookie jar of large-tree forests on the southern Tongass too many times.

Please tell Lisa and Mark that you want Sealaska to get into a different business and you want them to quit supporting wasteful funding for Forest Service timber projects as well. Again, the real problem is just whether or not to let Sealaska out of the box. The problem is how we define the box. The ANCSA box that Sealaska was put in - the timber industry, is not economically or ecologically sustainable at the scales currently contemplated by the corporation, state or feds. Making Sealaska dependent on timber was a purposeful attempt by Ted Stevens and friends to enroll Alaska's Natives in unsustainable and marginally profitable resource development with an eye towards ensuring that some other entity reaps the rewards.

Again, don't trust what some of the environmentalists are saying about the new Forest Service turning over a new leaf. The facts don't bear that out. The Forest Service wants to, and is planning to log the same general areas that Sealaska wants. The problem is that the only way for large scale operators to make money is to clearcut large areas on Prince of Wales that have cedar that they can export as raw logs. What the Sealaska bill is really about is that the Tongass has run out of economically valuable timber that can sustain operations like the Forest Service's and Sealaska's big sales. All that is left is on Prince of Wales. There is very little profit even in that. The Forest Service must subsidize logging on public lands. Fiscal conservatives, please take note - there is a cost to revenue ratio of at least 35:1 for public land timber sales when you factor in money spent to build and maintain fishkilling roads. I can empathize with the support for timber jobs in southeast communities, but it is different than fishing. The Forest Service program regardless of old or young growth is poorly planned socialism, and fiscal conservatives should recognize it as such. If we're serious about the economy, the Tongass Forest Supervisor's timber sale planning office is a good place for Congress to cut the fat off the budget.

Sealaska's profits, if any, are indeed derived by the flexibility in state law to get around the 100 foot buffers. But please keep in mind that the hundred foot buffers are themselves of limited value in many areas where there are a lot of previous clearcuts. This is because of "microclimate" - when you deforest an area, it gets hotter overall. No wonder there have been fish kills in the hundreds of thousands on Prince of Wales in recent years, including, particularly, 2004 when we had that memorably hot summer. The pink salmon run even-year cycle has still not recovered from that, coming in at less than half of recent historical averages in subsequent cycles. Imagine another hot summer, and impacts on the three thousand miles of coho streams on POW - by far the biggest island producer of wild coho in the region. There have been and will continue to be millions of dollars in losses to our fisheries that add to the tremendous public cost of subsidizing these operations. So again, the Sealaska bill is part of a competition between multiple timber interests to get at the last of the big cedars and the economic impact to our fisheries from Sealaska, the Forest Service and state timber sales are very real - there will be the lost opportunity costs associated with fewer fish, and potential timing and area restrictions down the line as ADF & G does what they have to do to get some escapement to heavily damaged watersheds. People need to understand that the Forest Service is spending millions in tax dollars to cut our own throats in lost fishing opportunities down the line, and indeed, as the seine fleet can testify, over the past decade.

Whether it's Sealaska, the state, the Forest Service or the Wilderness people at the Roundtable who want to legislate the Tongass into state logging zones or Wilderness, taking too much habitat out of one area does not work for mixed stock fisheries. When you wipe out one area, fishing on healthy stocks gets restricted. The Forest Service, Sealaska and state of Alaska have already taken over 40% of the large-tree old-growth forests on Prince of Wales. This is a lot of habitat loss, and you don't need a science degree to know that at certain levels of habitat loss, you lose wildlife and fisheries habitat. If you do have a science degree, you will know that 40% is too much. If you have a self-educated degree in the history of West Coast salmon fisheries, you know that this has been proved time and time again up and down the Pacific Coast.

I was fishing as a kid in Washington in the 1970s when the Boldt decision came down that split the fishery into treaty and non-treaty allocation. People thought it was about race, politics, treaties, sport-commercial allocations, whatever. We had cork wars and screw boldt bumper stickers and guns fired on the grounds. We fought between fishery user groups while Weyerhauser and the BPA went about business as usual. The real issue wasn't really about dividing the pie between user groups. It was that somebody else nuked most of the pie. I think we all know what ended up happening in Washington and similarly, in B.C. over the next thirty years - the southernmost boundary of our annually sustainable salmon fisheries is at Dixon Entrance.

Forest Service management, as well as the Sealaska bill, promises to move that boundary a little further north. All that garbage the Tongass Futures Roundtable environmentalists are pushing about a Forest Service "second-growth transition" is nonsense. It's nothing more than a foundation funded fantasy. The same timber beasts who ran the Forest Service a decade ago are still there, and they are currently implementing the Bush administration's plan to increase logging on the Tongass. So praising the "new" Forest Service for doing a few little projects to restore fish habitat is kind of like praising your child for picking up a toy in between efforts to destroy the house. The reality is that, from both a fiscal and a fishing perspective, the only timber operations that should be happening on the Tongass are those smaller mills in Thorne Bay or other communities that work off the existing road system and actually mill logs that could be used locally. Everything else is a waste of money that's better spend on closing roads and replacing culverts and hurts the businesses that can make money on their own without a public subsidy. Even Sealaska's logging operations benefit only their corporate officers. The marginal dividends given to Sealaska shareholders come primarily from revenue sharing with the other native corporations - i.e. Arctic Slope Corporation's mineral estate largely floats the whole dividend program.

So tell Lisa and Mark that they are doing a tremendous disservice to Sealaska's shareholders by condemning them to the timber economy. Tell them they are risking our multi-million dollar fisheries in pursuing this bill because of how localized habitat destruction affects mixed stock fisheries.

Also, many fishermen who may be members of environmental groups have probably been exposed to the notion that Sealaska needs to be part of a "comprehensive legislative solution" or similar nonsense through negotiations with "stakeholder groups". B.S. Tell Mark and Lisa also to quit devolving the secret negotiations of this bill to the groups of the Tongass Futures Roundtable who are all committed to the false pretense of the "timber economy." The Big W Wilderness groups have and will compromise fisheries interests in any deal. They want to zone the Tongass into sacrifice zones for logging and Wilderness areas. This combines too much protection with not enough. The Big W's are The Wilderness Society, the Alaska Wilderness League, the Nature Conservancy, and some local allies that seem to have recently come into a lot of money. There is plenty of information online about who funds groups like the Nature Conservancy and the funding entities are not friends of fishery habitat. The Big W Wilderness groups and their allies are one of the reasons the bill has been kept alive for a fourth consecutive year because they have been negotiating with Sealaska behind the scenes and in essence encouraging an "out of the box" solution that sadly stays within the "timber box." So please don't ask Mark and Lisa to support a broader comprehensive legislative solution to the "Tongass problem" even if requested to do so by the likes of environmental groups. The Forest Service, Sealaska's corporate officers, the state of Alaska, and the Tongass Futures Roundtable collaborative environmentalists all claim to have these half-baked solutions to rural unemployment that all seem to be bad for fisheries and wildlife or involve wasting millions of dollars or both. Please understand that in this day and age of post 1970's grassroots environmentalism that "stewardship" means publicly funded road construction and logging and "collaboration" is not so much about working with others as it is about which corporate foundation is stuffing your organization's back pockets with thousand dollar bills. There are good environmental groups but there are a lot of rotten ones as well. As stated earlier, with regard to this issue, the best allies for the fishing fleet are the organized hook and bullet crowd.

I have been troubled by the Sealaska bill for several years because there doesn't seem to be an obvious solution that would do right by Alaska's Natives - that is, recognize that they did get screwed by ANCSA and do deserve better compensation for their land claims in terms of dividends and jobs. While traveling the other day, I read what seems to be a real possible solution - perhaps Mark and Lisa could give all the ANCSA corporations a special dispensation to feed a huge and growing market for health care products. Since Congress is acting, perhaps we wouldn't even need to decriminalize or legalize this product at the state level. Check out the most recent issue of Mother Jones which has a great article complete with numbers about modern American pull yourself up by the bootstraps entrepreneurialism. Then think about Congress investing in and authorizing Alaska's Native Corporations to get ahead of the curve and seize upon the increased momentum for modern medical marvels. Thirty years ago, parents were lecturing kids about this and today they are asking them for cookie recipes to ease aches and pains and ameliorate more serious diseases. The numbers can bear it out - another multi-million dollar industry with numerous economic ripple effects. Why not tap into this market now? If you want real capitalist Green Jobs, I say there's your answer. Let Sealaska out of the box, but give them Green Jobs for rural economies. And save the fish for us.

[valianthunter]

For those of you who may remember the old fishsniffer, it's worth typing in http://counterpunch.org/bacher01092009.html for a little article that illustrates some of the issues in my previous post. It's about collaboratively brokered deals that screw fisheries and would be of some interest specifically to California trollers with regard to water diversions.

[valianthunter]

One more thing - the bill contains "conservation areas" for salmon that supposedly would compensate to some degree for logging.

I have not taken the time to review them comprehensively, but there are spreadsheets produced by timber industry experts and available on the FS website that contain appraisal data for all logging areas (entitled VCUs) across the Tongass National Forest. Basically, for nearly everywhere but POW, the appraisals are deficit, meaning that it would cost the timber operator more to log the area than they would receive by the time they transport the logs at the mill. It would kind of be like hand-trolling for humpies at the Fairweather grounds in September. You just wouldn't do it even if you could.

I suspect that a lot of the conservation areas are deficit appraised, meaning that they wouldn't be logged anyway so the conservation areas are meaningless. For the conservation areas outside of POW, you can just about guarantee that this is true.

[Salty]

Wow, another impassioned, articulate, informative post. I am feeling more informed and entertained every time I access this forum lately. I love the analogies to trolling the cape during the winter and hand trolling humpies at the fairweather grounds in September.

Good post, entertaining enough to keep me reading, and informative enough to make it worth my while, thanks.

[ericv]

Whether or not folks agree with ValiantHunters posts, in my opinion and my past work history, he/she has critically done their homework on this issue. Some viewers may be puzzled as to why so much space is spent on this issue, the answer is the ramifications are huge to not only us as fishers, but all of us (human, wildlife, marine life etc) who reside in this region.

I posted above about my time in the Timber Shop with the USFS and again, though efforts were made, it wasn't perfect. To this day there are many USFS Tongass NF employees who truly are concerned and very dedicated about these issues and also understand what ValiantHunter has written is the truth - yet as in many cases, these folks are not at the top of the decision tree. It is power, politics and profit that drives this whole equation, often out of the public's radar.

I worked during the days of the 50 year timber contracts as a Timber Layout Forestry Technician. Later years found me as a Log Harvest Inspector in the Sale Administration shop. I carried cards that certified me as a Timber Cruiser and Utilization Log Scaler. It was a 100% subsidized industry at the tune of millions upon millions of tax payers dollars annually to enable operations to continue each year. The "handtroller fishing humpies out on the Fairweather grounds" mentioned above by ValiantHunter says it all. On Chichagof Island, mainline new-road construction costs ran all told, roughly $50,000.00 per mile, when I left over 140 miles of mainline had been built. Corporations receive subsidies and credit for costs incurred on road building. They then gate them off even to the shareholders so they don't have to pay to maintain them. APC (Alaska Pulp Company) Reps used to joke with me in the field that the giant spruce cost them the price of a cheeseburger and fries which sadly was the truth. One single, 4 foot on the butt end diameter, spruce tree that's pushing 120+ feet in height could in contrast, render a fortune potentially worth tens of thousands of value added dollars to a single skilled man or woman's value added hands. Think about it, those of you who are bean counters.

The mantra is always about "Alaska" or "Shareholder" jobs, economy and preserving an industry. To say otherwise said you were a commie greenie. The cold reality during my days (and I suspect today) was that a high majority of the actual on the ground timber workers ID cards and residence were not from Alaska. Arrive in April, leave in October. For the corporations it was the same or worse. Yes some shareholders worked in the brush, yes when the log ships came to town they were the ones doing most of the stevadoring; pushing log bundles with pike poles and helping load the ship for her non-stop trip to Inchon, Korea with a hold and deck full of virgin, unprocessed sawlogs. The pulp and utility grade wood meanwhile lay felled and wasted in the brush or stacked mountain high on the landings. Even a Brownie with "4 claw drive" could hardly maneuver it's way through the wastage.

As stated by ValiantHunter accurately, both the USFS and private timber interest are still in the mode of big sales. They claim it is the only way to attract and sustain the industry. So we low ball everything with tax payer (you) subsidies and it attracts a logging operation and personnel from OUT of Alaska in nearly all cases. The remaining timbered land in SE cannot sustain this model of logging. It is not profitable or responsible, never was, never will be - period.

Myself and many others in the USFS tried in vain to convince the powers that be to stop wasting time and money planning these huge sales. Many times the cost of all this far exceeded any possible economic gain and many sales to this day sit on the shelf because even the timber companies know it is not profitable. Big sale planning keeps many people's paycheck coming, people who make the ultimate money out of this whole deal - not the fisherman or shareholder. Time and again I would point out that if the money spent on big sale planning was directed to small scale, sustainable, localized cottage industries it would work - if they'd simply try. It did and still does fall on deaf ears because the "big players" are taken out of the picture.

In my opinion there is a forest economy out there, it is just not as glamorous or big dollar as the 50 year pig out days. Be it Federal, State or private entities looking to log, they, as ValiantHunter well articulated, need to ditch the Big Box logging theory or in many cases logging altogether. Certain select existing road areas could be rehabed enough to allow small scale, Ma and Pa operators to work a small patch. The cost to re-activate these access roads could be pro-rated out to those who opted to log available areas or credited if they assist with it. These areas could be limited to select harvest only, existing windfall or extremely small patchwork clearings of less than 2 acres. Timber could be sold to them to harvest at fair market value, performance bonds could be mandated to assure harvest plan compliance and only refunded if done so. The biggest hurdle, but not impossible is the LTF's (Log Transfer Facilites) that would be required for areas that do not connect into a viable road network. LTF's are basically where the main logging road hits shoreline requiring usually some type of bulkead or skid system to get the logs into the water. Temporary, low cost units could be done, in many cases using models that capitalize on the use of the tides to float the shore side logs free. The cost shared in part by the harvesters. The Ma and Pa operations could in turn do as they wish with their logs with the stipulation that it must remain domestic. Be it ball point pens turned on a lathe to rough sawn 6 x 6 cants, the choice would be there's. It's not rocket science, it was done it the past and it can be done again.

Sealaska ironically has it's richest resource in its shareholders. Their "profit" is in their very own people. The people whose ancestors have occupied this area for tens of thousands of years. Imagine a corporation that looked at all of their hundreds of thousands of clearcut areas as long term money in the bank. Employ their able bodied shareholders to pre-commercial thin the dog-hair regeneration growth coming back. Employ them to do stream and fish habitat restoration. Employ them to work with erosion control and establishing wildlife corridors. Employ them to access the enormous "cull piles" of non-sawlog timber that is decked in mountainous heaps at each former spur road log landing; there's a fortune in firewood and small scale wood for cottage industries there. Imagine how those efforts would look on their glossy brochures, imagine how loud they could toot the horn of "Land Stewardship". Imagine what it could do for the shareholders well being to have long term, meaningful employment. Imagine the pride they could carry in their heart knowing they are a part of healing their sacred land, the land that is the absolute foundation of their culture. I have and continue to have the privilege of knowing many shareholders who know these lands, water and those that dwell in it better than I ever will. They are the fortunate ones who were raised in it or had passed down, the innate care that is required for these lands and water. Why not let them take the helm and lead the way? I wonder what Sealaska's big guns would have to say about all this. It is not impossible to do these things if the right mindset is in place.

Another profit area for Sealaska is again using their very shareholders as there source. Take the lands that have their sacred sites, take their lands that haven't been raped by the saw and leave them just as they are. There is a sustained, life long economy just in how the land lies in it's natural state. Imagine the impact to a visitor being led through this pristine temperate rainforest by a knowledgeable shareholder. The very core of their heritage lies in this untouched land and who better to show it off for the beauty it is - the shareholder. People will and do pay huge bucks to leave their asphalt jungles to seek out areas as nature planned. A whole industry for Sealaska could revolve around showing others what makes their culture tick. The same model could be applied to those shareholders who fish or know the sea like the back of their hand. It doesn't have to revolve around fish boxes and poundage. Let it revolve around showing and educating the clueless and/or curious masses letting them take home their trip forever in their minds, not in a box.

All of this and suggestions by other posters are do-able. The challenge is to reach those at the top, to look at a different, smaller box as ValiantHunter pointed out. It is a daunting task. The shareholders are and can be a powerful voice, especially if unified. If you are one them and feel things need to change, let your voice be heard loud and clear now, for time is truly of the essence. Same for the rest of us who are concerned. If I were a shareholder, I would want to do the above and not see my ancestral land be hogged off for profits to a few, leaving me a scarred and injured land that my forefathers took so much care of.

Thanks ValiantHunter for all your work on this. Light winds, calm seas and clattering poles to you all.
Eric Van Cise - F/V New Hope - Sitka, Alaska

[ata]

Hi All:

Here's a link that will take you to other links to both hear the various perspectives shared at the Craig hearing and also related stories on the bill.
http://krbd.org/modules/local_news/inde ... ock&ID=501

Best!

Dale
ATA

[valianthunter]

Thanks, Eric for the reply. I especially appreciate the reference to "commie greenie" because that is the very political messaging scheme that is a part of Sealaska and other timber & forestry campaigns that really needs to be straightened out. Everybody who opposes this timber sale or this Sealaska bill or that second growth transition is some sort of radical against Alaskan jobs and business.

Forget even the "greenie" stuff and think of this issue as being purely about money. Your money as a commercial fisherman. That's the point I was really trying to drive home. Maybe there is a compromise balance between mining and hydropower and timber and fisheries but the track record for fisheries businesses isn't very good. And here in Southeast Alaska, the contributions of the fisheries economy are overwhelming in comparison to the other resource interests that have negative economic effects on fisheries. So it seems like really bad business for Congress to go forward with the Sealaska bill for the primary benefit of a few corporate officers. Absolutely we want to have small scale operations around that can give us planks and take advantage of the ever-increasing opportunities for salvage logging for value added products. Probably even if these operations did do a little damage to streams through road utilization, many commercial fishermen would reasonably say that it would be an okay compromise to have diversified local economies. But Sealaska's bill and the Ten-year, multi-million board foot "stewardship" projects being promoted by the Forest Service for the next decade are money out of your pocket in two ways: (1) both programs, and especially Sealaska's, will most certainly kill fish, even if you can't count how many and (2) with regard to the Forest Service program, you the money making taxpayer who supports his/her own business is funding this stuff every time you send your January settlement to the IRS as most of us have just done or are about to do.