Recent critics of the Governor’s Timber Task Force recommendations claim that the establishment of a State Forest from portions of the Tongass would remove federal protections for salmon streams and would hurt fishermen, hunters, tourism operators and others. Those criticisms are unfounded. Both State and Federal land are required to maintain a minimum of a 100-foot salmon stream buffer and the State Forest Practices Act was designed specifically to protect salmon habitat. The Forest Service and the State Division of Forestry have both done a good job of managing timber harvesting without harming stream habitat. In fact, the salmon returns in Southern Southeast Alaska have doubled over the last 50 years, even in the most heavily logged watersheds.
SEACC in particular criticized the Task Force because some of the participants had walked away from the Tongass Futures Roundtable. I was one of those who walked away, but only after five fruitless years of seeking consensus. During those five years we had to endure relentless appeals and litigation on every significant timber sale that was offered by the Forest Service. The employment in our industry declined every year while we participated in the Roundtable.
The State has provided a stable but small timber supply from the limited land they manage in Southeast Alaska. Our goal is to have the State manage about 12% of the Tongass. This will provide our industry a stable timber supply that will allow restoration of the jobs we have lost. We envision several mid-size mills and a number of smaller mills that together will be able to manufacture products from all the different types of trees that grow in the forest. Not just the high-grade logs, but also the low-grade logs. The larger more reliable harvest levels provided by the State Forest will enable the industry invest in new mills and equipment and to construct the necessary logging roads and allow more efficient barging of our wood products.
The State Forest will provide plenty of fish and game and lots of recreation opportunities and the Forest Service will still have 88% of the forest to manage.
Owen Graham
Executive Director
Alaska Forest Association
Comments (6)
Add commentCut, thin, manage
I agree with Owen. The Tongass National Forest, which encompasses roughly 17 million acres and extends 500 miles northward along the Pacific coastline from the Alaska-Canada border. As a matter of scale, consider that the largest national forest outside of Alaska (Nevada's Toiyabe) weighs in at 4 million acres. Alaska needs to manage the resources. This includes supporting the timber industry. Supporting Jobs in Alaska, supporting families. With SE Alaska's fast regrowth rate, we can harvest timber under a sustainable plan. Shutting it down is not the answer.
not a reliable messenger
I respect Mr. Graham's right to speak his opinion, but i would question his credibility to speak to this issue. Specifically, I would cite that Mr. Graham has already had a long career during the boom-times of Alaska logging and only has experience in one type of industry and one type of paradigm. There is no innovation if we just keep trying to do what we did back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's. Mr. Graham lived in the days when there was always more to log over the next ridge and they could just keep going without thinking about the consequences. If we had listened to Mr. Graham and his timber industry cohorts instead of putting the brakes on the high levels of logging pre-TTRA, we would not have any logging whatsoever because they would have cut everything down. Mr Graham is not thinking about the future, he is just thinking about trying to keep the only thing going that he has ever known.
Mr. Graham talks about 12% of the Tongass and how little that is. But anyone who lives here knows that the good places are concentrated. you don't hunt deer over 100% of the landscape: you focus on the 30% of the land where the deer spend their time or the 12% of the land where they are during the rut or the winter. You don't fish on 100% of the land, you focus on the 20% of the land where the best fishing is. Mr. Graham wants the 12% where the best trees are. These are also the same places where the best fishing and the best hunting is.
The times have changed Mr. Graham. If you can't change with the times, let new leaders step up who can. We need innovation and forward thinking in Alaska... not the same-old/same-old.
I would agree. Unfortunately
I would agree. Unfortunately as long as there are extreme groups throwijg legal action against every single deal there will be people that push back just as hard. When the extreme of one group says 'no cutting' and the other says 'clearcut2sea' no one wins and you can't compromise. I will say I'd much rather lock down the Forrest's then let them be over logged, again.
I beg to differ
If we look back and say, oh I didn't like what happened so let's not do a thing forward thats not progress. I know that timber regrowth rate is much faster in SE Alaska. I know that companies have to 'thin' the forest to manage growth. I know that there are enough checks and balances in a planned harvest. Today there are alternative harvest methods, traditional, helicopter, etc. plus management of streams. Doing nothing out of fear that we may or may not mess up is not being smarter. Alaskan needs jobs. There are millions of acres. Responsible development is proposing a sustainable use plan. I am not commenting on Mr. Graham qualifications, or intentions. I am actually speaking in favor of Multi-year Timber Sale for Mill jobs, logger jobs, truck hauling jobs, flaggers, chokers and shoremen jobs.
Still missing the target
None of these plans comment on the ability for 50% of Alaskan timber to be exported as raw logs. This kills any ability for any of these measures to create new, or sustain mill jobs. It's far cheaper to mill wood from the lower 48, that's why our 2x4's come from Georgia. It's the rules laid out in basic supply and demand economics. We can't produce wood as inexpensively as they can in the lower 48. The creation on new mills and jobs is an illusion. Change the export law and then maybe we'll see something happen.
Great explanation
I commend the author on a concise and refreshingly accurate article.