In her October 22 My Turn, Lindsey Ketchel described the Tongass Futures Roundtable as “a multi-party collaborative group” which “requires that people with different views persuade and educate each other to come to a reasonable consensus” regarding management of Southeast Alaska’s national and state forest lands. Ms. Ketchel did not mention that as executive director of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, she serves on the roundtable.
Unfortunately, the Tongass Futures Roundtable is an exclusive, non-governmental, privately funded, self appointed group which purports to represent a broader portion of the Southeast Alaska public than it really does. The roundtable and its members do a grave disservice and injustice to citizens who expect public discussion about the Tongass National Forest and other public lands to be aired entirely through public forums. Examples are public involvement efforts required by the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, other federal and state laws and regulations, and Congressional and state legislative deliberations. For the U.S. Forest Service to be a member of the Tongass Futures Roundtable is at best a circumvention of these public processes. At worst, the agency’s participation in the roundtable raises serious legal questions.
Alaskans do not deserve to have public land management considerations aired even partially by an exclusive, privately funded, and self appointed group such as the Tongass Futures Roundtable.
Bruce Baker
Juneau
Comments (9)
Add commentAgreed
So what's your solution? Status quo? Parnell's DOA plan? Something else?
Usually when someone makes charges that a process excluded certain groups, what they're really saying is that they want some other groups excluded (i.e. environmental groups, forest products industry, Natives...). Your letter has that ring tone to me.
Bruce, in 2004 you wrote a letter to the Empire complaining about the State's role in the review of the Kensington permit. You said; "Alaskans deserve better. If the state won't look out for environmental protection, we can be thankful that EPA and NMFS are."
Now you're saying that Parnell will operate differently if 2 million acres fall under his purview? Please explain your optimism.
Excellent letter Bruce!
It is the membership and who is paying the expenses of TFR that need to be examined. Nature Conservancy by a grant of the Gordon Moore Foundation is funding some of the participants and logistics while other members are out of pocket.
Out everybody
next up, Chamber of Commerce, SE Conference, Alaska Miners Association, Rain Forest Center, you name it. Whats good for the goose....
Note to "Agreed"
Baker's solution is evident in his letter to the editor. As for your comment regarding "Parnell" and "2 million acres, neither is the subject of, nor is either mentioned in, his letter.
True, Otter
But on May 11, 2011 he wrote a My Turn praising Parnell's decision to pull out of the TFR and set up a Timber Task Force. He even went on to claim that the State would be accountable to the public and "balance protection of wildlife".
Quite a far cry from his 2004 letter, isn't it? Makes one wonder what's going on...
Reply to "True, Otter"
Yes, the state is by law accountable to the public for the balanced protection of wildlife (and other public interest values). So are federal agencies. The Tongass Futures Roundtable is not accountable to the public.
The difference...
...is that the TFR has no authority to implement anything. They don't manage the land. They're impotent. And the process has failed, so it should be terminated, and replaced with something else.
If Parnell took possession of 2 million acres of the Tongass, what makes you think he would be any more responsible than Murkowski was in the Kensington decision that you decried?
And once the State had ownership, there'd be no NEPA or other federal agency veto over many decisions, as opposed to the Kensington issue.
Again, why the optimism for State stewardship now, when you didn't have it in 2004? What's changed?
TFR=Sham
The TFR was a sham from the beginning. Go back to the original seating arrangement as compared to who was sitting at the head of the table. Then follow the progression of who pulled out of the TFR and look at who is left. Nothing was being produced by the group except to stall for time. Stalling was the goal of many when the group was set up.
I chuckle every time I read or heard about “low impact, sustainable uses for the Tongass.” I envision 4,000 independent loggers all cutting down spruce to home manufacture guitar backs. That type of thinking is nice, but will never come about because it is pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
Thorne Bay, here we come with direct daily air freight flights to the Martin Guitar Co. because them old-time loggers are out and we are the new generation that is in and making a killing at it.
Thanks for your informed and thoughtful letter Mr. Baker -
Seems that privatization of public resources in order to circumvent those pesky federal regulations was the reason the TFR was formed in the first place. Good 'ol Betty and Gordon Moore were thinking two steps ahead of everyone else - with their wads of cash. Figured they could get the greens addicted to the greenback$ while industry capitalized, all the while singing Kumbaya together at the TFR.
However, it didn't quite work out that way, but the funders are not deterred - despite the TFR having absolutely no credibility. Just keep pumping cash their way - including Trout Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy and SEACC with a mandate that they'll cut a really good deal someday soon - like trading away public lands that aren't at risk, to say - Sealaska (we all know what their land ethic is like) - all in the name of the politically correct "stakeholders" mind you.
Most municipalities & independents, already on tight budgets, finally wised up a while back - but the big Green boards continue to send representatives. Guess that insures the B & G continual funding and a circle that eventually eats itself.