Sealaska Corporation wants to make their remaining land selections from areas that will support continued forestry operations. The Alaska Forest Association wants that too. The lack of access to timber from federal lands has already cost us too many jobs in this region; we can’t afford to lose the Sealaska jobs as well. I have reviewed the areas that are available for selection within the original ANCSA guidelines and I agree that the legislation is necessary because the remaining timberlands in these areas will not sustain long-term, economic operations.
There are some who do not want the timber industry to continue in Southeast Alaska. They hypothesize that timber harvest, particularly in certain stands identified in the legislation would threaten critical habitat for goshawks and wolves. It won’t! State and federal biologists have identified 21 separate biogeographical provinces (ecosystems) in Southeast. Most of these regions have more than 90 percent of the original old-growth stands remaining and none have less than 70 percent. The legislation will not change those percentages and there is no risk to wildlife or fish habitat; only our timber jobs are at risk.
Besides, Sealaska is a good steward of their land; I have seen this with my own eyes. Yes, over the last 30-years they harvested much of the mature timber that is not protected by Sealaska because it is in eagle buffers, municipal watersheds and in other sensitive areas from the lands that have already been conveyed. Remember that the lands they have chosen to harvest are managed for timber growing. Virtually all of the harvested areas support fast-growing, young-growth trees that will supply timber to the next generation. A third of the land identified in the current legislation is older young-growth that will make Sealaska’s transition to young-growth harvesting occur more quickly. Sealaska funds ongoing research to insure water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and timber values are maximized and their harvest operations are performed in compliance with the State Forest Practices Act. This is a good company that will take good care of whatever lands they manage; we don’t want to lose these timber operations or the jobs that they support.
Owen Graham
Executive Director
Alaska Forest Association
Comments (23)
Add commentHow can Sealaska Shareholders..........
believe what this guy says when Sealaska's ex President Robert Loescher and Byron Mallott contradict him in the video "Fate of the Tongass"........http://vimeo.com/10319712
Mr.Loescher states that they should have never done what they did. Mr.Mallott says Sealaska didn't know enough about business to understand the meaning of stewardship.
Mr.Loescher goes on to say that the Tongass should never again be part of a balance sheet of any Corporation.
Now that Sealaska logged at unsustainable rates, contrary to Sealaska propaganda, Sealaska Shareholders are to set aside the warnings of our leaders?
The same reasoning could be
The same reasoning could be said for the conservationist, interest groups, and others who oppose the legislation: They get paid for what they say.
The only unbiased view you will get is to ask some random person on the street in Somewhereville USA. The opposition has been pumping a ton of money into their fight and their getting their cut.
When you want professional advice, and expert opinion, you have to pay people for their time, research, and experience.
Certainly the tobacco industry understands your logic
Paid consultants like Douglas Martin don't stay hired very long unless they come up the results needed. Sealaska has been contracting with Doug since 1994, perhaps earlier.
@ravenhouse: conservationist
@ravenhouse: conservationist groups are motivated by what they think is right. They don't get awarded an expensive contract or extra jobs if they win. Ergo, they are less biased than those who advocate for logging, because they have dollar signs in their eyes (that doesn't mean they're CORRECT, just less likely to have ulterior motives).
Last time I checked,
Last time I checked, conservationists get a paycheck-some get paid quite well in fact. But your naive to not understand that every group is diverse and certain individuals have motivations and ambitions that can be masked with simply a desire to "fight the good fight".
I agree with you and believe that what your saying is there ARE people who, from their point of view, think their doing "the right thing" (and thats a very general, highly SUBJECTIVE phrase), but there are people who are opportunists and see it as a moment to take advantage of the situation, having other goals and agendas, not really having one care or another as to the outcome.
Conservationists, like any other group, are filled with people who have a percentage of disingenuous, opportunists.
Oh, I'm sure there are
Oh, I'm sure there are conservationist opportunists. But at the same time, working in the conservation field often requires good credentials (degrees in the biological or environmental sciences, law degrees, etc.), doesn't pay very well, and doesn't really benefit any person or industry when they succeed.
It's quite different than an industry or organization that has clear benefactors.
Agreed Persnickety. I would
Agreed Persnickety. I would say to be an Executive Director you need credentials, education and professional skills as well.
Loggin'? What jobs??
Logging jobs, by definition, are temporary.
Case in point:
100 Trees + 1 Logger > [Logger cuts down 100 Trees] = 1 Unemployed Logger.
A blind man could see that the "logging industry" was not made to benefit trees or loggers, just quick profit for whoever owned the trees.
Good Stewards? Guess the guy hasn't been to Kake
When Sealaska was logging on Kupreanof, they left the hemlock to rot on the ground after cutting it since their Asian buyers didn't want no stinkin' cheap wood, only the old growth spruce, cedar, round logs for them.
Not to mention how Sealaska shafted Kake Tribal on the equipment deal they had to settle out of court for tens of milliions of dollars, never want to do business with a company like Sealaska that will breach a major contract.
This guy must be like the McDowell Group - pay them enough money and they will ghost write the bible for you and even claim you are Jesus.
I have to disagree Seadog.
I have to disagree Seadog. The McDowell group makes no qualitative arguments for Sealaska; they NEVER say they are "good" or "bad". All of their reports are purely a quantitative analysis; essentially data driven. Professional research firms like them would never "cook" the numbers to simply make a buck-earning such a reputation would put them out of business as no one would hire them for objective reporting.
McDowell Group.......
The report states that Sealaska paid shareholders 7.9 million for an average of $432 per shareholder in 2008.
It doesn't report that Sealaska Shareholders paid Sealaska's Management, under 50 people $7,085,448. in 2008 for an average of $141,170. each. The lions share of that money went to Sealaska's CEO $729,513. He doesn't even live in Alaska.
Add to this the damage to the forest at Hoonah and Kake the fibs of the rate Sealaska logs and the ignoring of the 188 Natives that petitioned Sealaska not to clear cut the forest at Hoonah.
But the real topper is the 122 million dollars Sealaska wrote off within three years of the clear cut at Hoonah. Ravenhouse I'm sure you must realize that the problem is that people simply don't trust The Sealaska Corporation.
Now frost that cake with Kookesh in Craig and I'm sure you can understand where the opposition is coming from.
You have been defending Sealaska's management for months, where's your help from management? They have left you "swinging in the wind" on your own in the court of public opinion.
purely quantitative analysis - no such thing
Ravenhouse, too bad you never had a chance to go to a good graduate school and learn about how to lie with statistics, there is no such thing a purely data driven, unbiased report produced for a client -- in fact, that is the reason for hiring a consultant to begin with, to shift the burden on to them so you can use the same dataset but claim since a contractor did it for you it is unbiased. The use of consultants is a silly little game played by public agencies and private corporations to pound their point at arm's length.
I agree Seadog, and yes, Ive
I agree Seadog, and yes, Ive taken three stat classes; one of them in graduate school. And your right; you can skew stats to lie but all it takes is statistical analysis to reveal that. Furthermore, where the spin comes in on statistics is when you make a qualitative argument; essentially you use the data to make a claim about an issue or topic.
NONE of the McDowell reports make categorical arguments about Sealaska. For example, they do not argue Sealaska is a "Good Steward" or that they are "The BEST employer. They simply review the spending of the corporation and break down the Southeast economy into its constituent parts and analyze the economic impact it has on the local economy. Its all just straight forward measurement. They dont take their findings and argue on the behalf of Sealaska or take sides on the Lands bill.
McDowell..
It reports that Sealaska paid 20,000 shareholders 7.9 million dollars or $432 each in 2008. It doesn't mention that Sealaska paid 50 Managers and directors $7,085,448 or more than 141 thousand each, with the lions share going to Sealaska's CEO with $729,513. for 2008. Sealaska's CEO dosen't live in Alaska.
Sealaska's Operations and Permanent fund paid shareholder $242 each for 2010 with Management (50 people) being paid $7,990,972. or $159,000 each and Sealaska's CEO still doesn't live in Alaska.
Sealaska's spin is always how much they want to help the little people.
underground demonstrates the
underground demonstrates the perfect spin on stats-he divides the salaries only between managers and directors; not the entire staff of SHI, Sealaska and subsidiary staff. He did that to fluff the numbers making a category (executive and officer salary) appear in a manner that is not its true form. The 7.9 million needs to be properly divided amongst the entire population; not select group.
Furthermore, he fails to compare separate populations and groups that are of a similar size and population; THEN compare salaries and compensation. When making a statistical argument, you cant judge a population in and of itself on raw data; you MUST do comparison and follow the formula to determine the standard deviation. From that point you plot the conclusion on a bell curve and find acceptable range of deviation. Only then can you argue whether or not your hypothesis has validity.
You get them and I'll post them.......
I would need access to all Sealaska proxy statements and annual reports. I would need the records about our natural resources and how much have been sold and the prices the assets were sold at. Appraisals of properties sold and who the buyers were. Donations,costs and benefits paid to those in management and Boards of directors.
The purpose of my request is transparency where we Shareholders know more about corporate transactions so we can make educated decisions affecting our rights as shareholders and stock values.
Sealaska / shareholder
RESPONSE;
As I have communicated to you on several occasions, over many years, all other documentation you request below is not among the books and records of account available to shareholders. They are confidential and proprietary documents pertaining to the operations of Sealaska and to the compensation of individuals, which is information protected by state and federal privacy laws.
VP Sealaska Corp.
Here is a list of Public and
Here is a list of Public and Private entities that contracted McDowell Group. No entity Private or Public would hire them if they had no integrity or were unethical in there finding. The purpose of hiring them is to analyze your organizations performance and measure success from an external opinion. It would do your organization no good to consult a firm that was dishonest and unethical and did anything to make a buck.
http://www.mcdowellgroup.net/clients/index.htm
McDowell........
McDowell will withhold the final bill until the customer is happy.
Ravenhouse - only 3 stat classes?
My entire major was in quantitative analysis at a top 25 business school - and you missed the point entirely, using a dataset to selectively prove the point you wish to prove was my point.
And tell where the McDowell Report got their dataset (maybe Sealaska) and who has validated their conclusions? No other organization agrees with the conclusions of the McDowell report that Sealaska commissioned, except Sealaska & its vendors. That should tell you something right there. In fact, no one even really knows what the source of the dataset was - who provided the mystery data anyway? A favorite tactic is to point at a report and say it is all right there, but when you start to tear it apart, there is nothing there at all.
You also fixated only one point, which means I must be correct on the others (and I know I am):
a. Sealaska doesn't create long-term jobs because they send round logs to Asia
b. Sealaska wasted timber over the past 30 years by allowing low graded logs to rot on the ground
c. Sealaska even tried to bankrupt other ANCSA village corporations - not exactly the way to create jobs in local communities, crippling the village corporation, is it?
Nothing that Sealaska has tried to do is sustainable, except keep an ineffectual management and board of directors in place.
And the McDowell Report is featured on the Sealaska website to prove their point, which is interesting in light of the fact that McDowell has been in the pocket of F&G & the commercial fishermen, but even the commercial fishermen are now writing letters against this bill (unless they are one of the UFA Murkowski supporters).
Ravenhouse - McDowell List Clients
Do you thing people are that stupid? That list consists of mostly ANCSA corporations, some state agencies (without the acutal years attached, so we don't know if it was Knowles, Murkowski, Palin, or Parnell), and other for-profit ventures who wanted McDowell to reach a foregone conclusion. Big Deal, so McDowell works mostly for ANCSA corporation management and agrees with Sealaska, is that a surprise? That McDowell agrees with whomever is writing their paycheck?
What about the missing clients, like the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute - a favorite of the FBI & US Department of Justice? What about Chris McDowell being on the board of directors of Alaska Pacific Bank - who received TARP money & backed some of these losers, losing federal taxpayers money along the way?
What have you to say about that?
timber jobs
Wonder if someone could pay McDowell to compare the amount people paid to talk about timber jobs in all private, government, for-profit and non-profit sectors with the amount of people actually working in the mills?
Now that report would tell a story.
I see jaded cynicism knows no
I see jaded cynicism knows no bounds here. This is one big bathroom stall of nanny nanny boo boo back and forth. Its a shame how someone who claims to be an expert on quantitative analysis would claim an independent research firm is nothing more than a bunch of hired guns.
All you have to do is look at the list of their clients and see all the State and local government agencies that have contracted them to research their programs and policies and come to objective, quantified, data driven conclusions.
A group like McDowell wants to sell a quality product and be a successful business. It does that by developing a credible reputation. Clients seek them out for business and management solutions; not a rubber stamp group to tell them what they want to hear. If they developed a reputation as being unethical and generating false conclusions, no one would hire them, because no one would believe their results.
Its obvious too many folks here have drank the cool aid and are paranoid and anyone and anything that isn't with them is against them.
Of course people have to pay McDowell; you went to business school Seadogg - its how the world works get a clue man. Do you expect to get paid for your hard work and the education you paid for that benefits your employer?
To answer your question, no Im not sure your stupid; just really emotional and illogical. Stupid? Maybe...
Geez.....................
Have you ever tried to walk across a clear cut Raven?