The Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska is truly a “salmon forest” — with over 5,500 rivers and streams, our “crown jewel” of the U.S. Forest system is a natural salmon factory that belongs to all Americans.
The Tongass is one of our nation’s last salmon strongholds and could be at risk — a bill currently pending before Congress would give some of the most productive old-growth forest in the Tongass to the Sealaska Corp., which has a history of clear-cutting its lands within in the forest.
I ask that our congressional delegation vote against this bill. Instead, the delegation should work on a balanced bill for the Tongass that includes conservation measures which are essential to the future of the Tongass, and the sustainable commercial fishery whose future relies upon a healthy forest.
Jos Bakker
Auke Bay
Comments (13)
Add commentNo Compromise Needed
There is no need to keep wasting money and time on an unnecessary bill. No compromise is necessary. These are taxpayer dollars that are being wasted churning this thing over and over for years on end. As everyone already knows, Sealaska has it's selections already on file with the BLM and they could be completed tomorrow if Sealaska would quit holding out for more.
The recently released Audubon report proved their out-of-box selections would result in unprecedented high grading of some of the last remaining, hi-volume stands of old growth trees in SE Alaska. These trees are important for all species, not just salmon.
Moreover, last November the governor's own appointees to the State's Citizens Advisory Commission on Federal Areas stated, "...the Commission has concluded that the corporation's land entitlement can be adequately met with lands from the ANCSA withdrawal areas added by Congress in 1976 ... and therefore ... we cannot support passage of S 730 or HR 1408." So what are we waiting for?
Trout Unlimited Aids Sealaska Land Grab --Deserves No Compromise
Currently, Trout Unlimited is shopping their "Tongass 77" Watersheds Protection Campaign which they intend to use to aid the passage of the Sealaska Legislation.
This is clear because Trout Unlimited tried and failed with this identical tactic at theTongass Futures Roundtable. Tongass 77 is really just their recycled Devil's Club Proposal used to cut a deal with Sealaska.
Trout Unlimited needs to be honest about how they market their campaign to commercial and sport fishermen. To generate support for a conservation proposal like Tongass 77 without revealing its true cost of a corporate land grab is disingenuous at best.
If TU is successful, we will eventually see this Tongass 77 packaged with the Sealaska legislation in an Omnibus Lands bill.
No one is arguing against Sealaska getting their land entitlements as identified in ANCSA, and agreed to by all parties. Sealaska has already made those final selections but has requested they not be conveyed because the Sealaska legislation will be far more valuable to the corporation.
This is a taxpayer rip-off under the guise of fulfilling remaining ANCSA land entitlements. The millions of dollars of taxpayer funded roads and the nearby old growth represents the last of the best big tree forests on the Tongass.
The whole premise of S.730 / HR 1408 (written by Sealaska executives) is a political payback for Sealaska campaign donations to Senator Murkowski.
The corporate foundation funders of the Tongass Futures Roundtable continue to pay organizations like TU to manipulate the legislative outcomes of corporate giveaways of public lands. These groups like TU and others at the Tongass Futures Roundtable have no legitimate business allowing the Tongass to be ceded to the likes of the worst private land managers in the history of the Tongass.
very unfortunate you cant accept the reality
Trout Unlimited respects the bill because the conservation values are evident in this bill. They recognize the value to the general public that is manifested in the legislation that will release 77 fish streams to the public once Sealaska is able to make it's remaining entitlement selections outside the arbitrary withdrawal areas that were established due to existing timber contracts with Pulp companies that are no longer in business. The fact that fisheries conservation group like Trout Unlimited recognizes the bill is an asset to conservation, I fail to see how any individual or group could claim this bill is a threat to the environment or fisheries.
You may not see the threat...
But many others do. There is no question that logging down to the streamside had a determental effect on salmon streams. How could it not? It is so obvious that run off, lack of adequate of shade during dry spells and the blowdown of remaining trees in the skinny buffer strip allowed by the lax State of Alaska Forest Practices Act.
I'm not sure what you mean by releasing 77 fish streams to the public. Sealaska has indicated interest in almost every sockeye producing stream on Baranof Island as a cultural site. In a separate BLM conveyance, they have chosen Redoubt Falls, the closest sockeye subsistence stream to Sitka. There is no legal mechanism that would guarantee continued public access to the stream once Sealaska takes control, and this is true of any sockeye streams selected in the proposed Sealaska bill.
So far Trout Unlimited is publically opposing the Sealaska bill.
your correct in that logging
your correct in that logging to the streamline is detrimental to fish habitat; its why Sealaska does not do it. They invest considerable revenues into scientific research of fish habitat. In fact there was recently a conference the other day where a graduate student presented his research regarding buffer regulations Sealaska follows to preserve sensitive fish habitat. I also cant help but point out a lot of Sealaska board members are or were in the commercial fishing industry- they fish in the S.E. too- why would they allow logging activities and support timber development if it was a threat to their and their fellow fisherman's livelihoods? Again, Trout Unlimited recognizes the conservation value apparent in this bill; why would they support it otherwise?
Excellent question. Why indeed?
ravenhouse - I know you are a thoughtful person, so I was wondering what your opinion is of the Forest Service stream buffers (100 feet vs State of Alaska 60 feet with allowances to cut inside the buffer)? Is the Forest Service being overprotective of salmon streams? Is their science flawed? In one of Lisa Murkowski's recent amended bills she threw in temporary 100 foot buffers which need to be adopted in 5 years by the industry controlled State Forest Practices board. This was to appease fishermen who are very concerned about Sealaska logging near anymore salmon streams. Sealaska has hired guns working diligently on proving their case that small buffers are adequate, which is reminiscent of the tobacco industry with their multiple studies.
As far as commercial fishermen on the Sealaska board, I can only say I am very disappointed in their short range outlook. Certainly the hefty salary and health benefits that come with a Sealaska board gig can smooth over potential dips in commercial fishery income. I can't say that most fishermen have that luxury,
ravenhouse
ravenhouse: You are very clueless as to what you are talking about. Project 77 refers to a scam the TU is working to pump Moore foundation for cash. It is a separate although connected issue.
TU and Nature Conservancy have basically enabled the barf pieces of the Sealaska bill to go forward so that they could bag some cash in a larger deal - some wacky large scale dream plan for millions of acres of wilderness. It wont work but they were willing at one point to throw the Sealaska land component into it and totally screw resident sportfishermen with all its bad aspects. They were badly deluded into thinking they were some sort of power players and could use the Sealaska part to help move the rest. It was the equivalent of Beavis and Butthead thinking they were Jack Welsh.
What ultimately happened - in my opinion - is they simply lost all credibility by monumentally screwing over the common sport fisherman who uses the streams that Sealaska wants to seize and monopolize in their bill. With this loss of moral stature they have achieved little more then a refill of their coffers and a total loss of any status of leadership among educated and knowledgeable conservationists in the region.
The Sealaska bill is toast......
forgetaboutit......The Native people that worked clearcutting for Sealaska told of clogged streams that weren't cleared until the day before inspections, if at all. Too many video's as evidence, too much opposition. Sealaska keeps running it up the flag pole and no one salutes but a few bootlickers and hangeron's.
Sealaska: New Business
Term Limits, 8(a) damage control, oversight.
Terminate their terms,
New Business:
1) Independent Investigation of their sordid pasts.
2) Prosecute to the full extent of the Law (no plea deals)
3) Extinguish their retirement plans
4) Redistribute those millions in stock options and IRAs to their village victims
5) After they serve their time in jail, banish them to their clear cuts on Long Island, make them subsist on Roundup-soaked salmon berries
That and.............
Let my people go!
Same old NIMBY Arguments by New Alaskans
As a life long Alaskan, and a descendant of a hundred generations of Alaskans it is so frustrating to read writings from people who have moved up to Alaska as a logger than when they retire from making all their money cutting down trees, they start complaining about the Indians cutting down trees.
And the biggest hater against Indians is Dominic Slobato (Ponythatwalks).
J. J. - Douglas
Jimmy Jack*** does it again.....
Jimmy Jack*** does it again. Ignores Sealaska's record in the Tongass.
Jimmy's just another brown nosing hanger on. Sealaska's management cultivates these types.