The Tongass Futures Roundtable (TFR) remains an excellent opportunity for charting a sustainable future for all of the communities of Southeast Alaska. Recently several organizations have withdrawn from TFR including the state of Alaska, Alaska Forest Association, Southeast Conference, two major players in what is left of the timber industry, a recreational member and possibly some environmental organizations. Some timber interests have withdrawn due to the inability of TFR to find a solution for a stable timber supply from the Tongass National Forest. Others have withdrawn because their limited specific interests such as recreational tourism were not, in their opinion, being adequately addressed. Others remain in TFR because they have a global perspective of our community needs and what TFR can accomplish.
I understand the frustration of organizations that have withdrawn. I do not begrudge their decisions to withdraw. Their commitment to TFR was to address the timber supply needed to sustain and grow a timber industry or tourism and recreational pursuits. I am more concerned about the state of Alaska’s decision to withdraw. The state should be globally focusing on the issues facing the Southeast economy and how desperate some of our rural communities are for new economic opportunities. The state needs to have a place at the table to hear communities’ needs and to lead in a sustainable community effort. At the same time, I commend the U.S. Forest Service for its continued commitment to TFR and its efforts to work toward the global needs of our Southeast communities.
As a long-term member of TFR, my perspective is that TFR is about more than just timber, recreational tourism or conservation. My repeated mantra to the group is “timber and beyond.” Timber is an important backbone to our regional economy and supports our core infrastructure. But we must look for opportunities beyond timber to grow our communities and to provide hope to our rural residents. TFR enables us to show that we are listening and paying attention to the community’s plight and are willing to work with them in a collaborative manner to create a sustainable future for their communities.
I for one, see TFR as a place where very diverse and often contentious interests are willing to meet. It has become a place where discussion of old and new ideas can occur between historic protagonists. As a result, there was some progress on timber. There is also a germination of new ideas to create sustainable new jobs that are lifestyle compatible and give the communities some glimmer of hope for the future. Examples include forest stewardship contracting, biomass to energy commitments and successful launch of oyster farming in several rural communities. Another milestone is the recognition that the Tongass National Forest is a Native place. The forest is a place with an exceptional rich history and vibrant Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian culture. “Tongass” is a Native name. It is one of few places in the world where the indigenous people still live in their homeland even after their encounters with resource exploiters and new immigrants. The Tongass is a place where newcomers and the indigenous people are finding a way to cooperate to advance the well-being of our region both economically and by celebrating our respective cultures, history and heritage.
For me TFR is more about an opportunity for villages and the rural communities and various interest groups who cherish Southeast Alaska to have an equal voice at the table. At TFR no one small voice can be overridden by dominant forces or a majority vote. In this way all interests are on equal footing. For me and as a director of Sealaska Corporation, we believe that TFR is a righteous initiative and deserves to continue. We are reaffirming our commitment to TFR and we are willing to be the last man standing in defense of the good work that TFR has accomplished, defending the people who have worked so hard to find a way to build sustainable communities in our region. We believe that TFR is the right place to accomplish that goal.
• Mallott is a longtime Juneau resident and current director of Sealaska Corporation.
Comments (43)
Add commentI take issue...............
This statement, "It is one of few places in the world where the indigenous people still live in their homeland even after their encounters with resource exploiters and new immigrants." This is an attempt to distance Sealaska from the responsibility of the clear cuts at Hoonah and Kake, and confirms critics assertions that Sealaska's Management drives wedges between the races.
Actions speak louder than words
"TFR enables us to show that we are listening and paying attention to the community’s plight and are willing to work with them in a collaborative manner to create a sustainable future for their communities."
If Mr. Mallot were genuinely interested in rural communities concerns and their sustainable futures, he would have Sealaska withdraw their destructive lands bill.
The economic impact this legislation will have on those communities lying within the Thorne Bay Ranger District, where most of Sealaska's economic development selections are being taken from, will be a final blow to their struggle for survival.
These selections will take the heart out of the USFS plans to transition to second growth management. The oldest managed second growth is on Kosciusko Island, the largest area targeted by Sealaska, and home to the community of Edna Bay.
The real truth here is that Sealaska's "Jobs Protection Act" = Jobs Displacement. In order to provide the economic opportunity Sealaska desires, opportunity will have to be taken from someone else.
Thorne Bay Ranger District will reportedly see staff reductions of more than 20. That means twenty families living in the region will be moving somewhere else for work.
The loss of that many residents will cause a drop in enrollment for Southeast Island School District, who at this time supports over 30 full time positions in eight communities in this region.
When you take into account the support jobs for these two entities alone, it spreads out into a domino effect that will cause further economic collapse for the NPOW/Kosciusko area.
How many communities have been allowed to participate in the TFR? There is little evidence to demonstrate a collaborative effort.
It has been over 35 years since Sealaska’s president John Borbridge testified before Congress asking for an amendment to ANCSA allowing them to take their land selections from INSIDE the withdrawal area.
Those are the selections Sealaska submitted to the Bureau of Land Management on June 10, 2008.
That is what they want to exchange with their legislation, the area they asked for in 1975 for the “out of withdrawal” cherry picking they are asking for now.
In that amount of time, communities and businesses have been established in areas that people believed would always be public. Changing the rules for Sealaska now is really unfair to the rest of the people living in Southeast.
The 2004 Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration act clearly states that the selections Sealaska corporation made and placed on file with BLM in 2008 cannot be revoked, rescinded, or modified.
Sealaska needs to do the right thing for everyone's sake; listen to the communities who are imploring Senator Murkowski for attention to their plight, and finalize conveyance of their lawful 2008 selections.
If Mr. Mallot really means what he is saying, then his actions should speak the same as his words.
tfr founders
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2007/11/16/LI200711...
wasn't mallot on the board of the sponsoring group the nature conservancy for awhile where the main purpose seems to be to privatize public lands
Amazing
TFR members filed the lawsuit challenging the roadless rule exemption for the Tongass Forest as their representatives sat down with rest of the members of the roundtable. It was just like Japan sending representatives to Washington DC making nice as the fleet attacked Pearl Harbor. Some TFR members don't even follow their own rules they made up and agreed to.
Why anyone would sit down with and expect anything other than being spit in the face by the likes of SEACC.
Quit pissing our money away on the TFR organization Sealaska.
Tongass Should Be Managed By US Interior / Fish & Wildlife
As long as the US Forest Service retains management of the Tongass National Forest these extremely valuable lands will always be on the chopping block. However, coastal forest lands in Alaska are far more valuable as salmon and wildlife habitat and are the best remaining such lands in the US and North America.
The Tongass should be managed properly by US F&WS under Interior rather than the USFS under Agriculture. In ny case, the state has a tiny stakeholder role in the Tongass discussion - their token state land holdings in SE are just that.
The TFR is only an excellent
The TFR is only an excellent opportunity for charting a future if you are a select group trying to add validity to clear cutting for special interests. The members do not represent the public . They are not accountable to any one but those supplying the funding. There is no equal voice at the table for those outside this select few.
The forest may be a native place, but it is the public's place also. We are all native to this planet, and like it or not, we all live here now and have for many decades. I realize this is a special place for all of us , in many different ways, we must recognize that this home of ours is not just special to natives alone.
Brad - go read the first paragraph again
It's poorly written, but the gist of it is that the State of Alaska, SEACC and other organizations have withdrawn, so take your outrage about wasted money somewhere else. You don't seem to mind the millions Sealaska management has wasted on the Cloverdale casino foreclosure.
seapuppy, you must still have your beer goggles on
Southeast Conference is not SEACC.
Seapuppy, Sealaska business success or failure is not the issue of the article. If I want to address Sealaska issues, I do so with management, the board or directly with shareholders.
who are they anyway?
I attended the meeting in Craig where Murkowski was taking comments about 'the bill' and this stranger got up and she started speaking against harvesting, and the bill. She was quite passionate. While I've lived here all my life, I had NO IDEA who she was. I guessed she was an environmentalist from 'down south' as her words matched those of the environmentalists. I asked around after the meeting about who she was....a USFS worker from Thorne Bay! I truly thought she was SEACC or one of the 'down south' environmentalist.
So, as of April 2010 the USFS litigation bill to taxpayers was over $26 million, battling the environmentalists. I can't help but ask myself, where's the line between the USFS and it's staff, and the environmentalists that we're (the tax payers) racking up the litigation bill with?
I don't even know who the USFS is, even though we share Prince of Wales Island as our home. They are very incubated from the locals.
So now I ask myself, am I going to support those 20 jobs, or the 200 jobs harvesting will create? Am I going to support the USFS logging that same land,...once they get out of their litigation, or am I going to support logging those same areas without the litigation bill because the lands will be transferred for 200 jobs, and in the end the same public access the USFS provides us? I'm supporting 200 jobs!
Then I'm going to say good bye to the USFS/Environmental circus, and cut my losses with them as a tax payer. Personally, after listening to that USFS worker, I think they are one in the same.
AKINTNet..
You are right on the money....we should follow the money where SEACC gets theres and how it is spent "helping" Alaskans...while the SEACCers are in the spotlight.
The Roundtable started out with good intentions, but was soon dominated by the Greens working their agendas, I am very pleased the Governor bailed out on it....the talks about coming to the middle for development has swung so far to the left, the groups killing resource development, want it all their way and have succeeded in doing so....for now.
I don't think the TFR is
I don't think the TFR is dominated by the greens but by others with special interests. Do you count anyone opposed to logging as green? Does that include fishermen who want to protect fish streams in Karst environments from logging? Does that include subsistence users who want to protect valuable habitat from destructive logging practices? Or sport fishermen and hunters? I don't see any subsistence voices on the TFR. There were quite few timber groups on there and they seemed well represented. Timber always wants to paint everybody else as environmentalists, well we live in this environment and we all depend on it's health to survive.
Byron, Your comments are a
Byron, Your comments are a reflection of the type of frustration Sealaska shareholders receive when wanting change or to discuss Sealaska shareholder issues. You feel Your position in the round table is relevant and is worthy.
This tone or feeling You are experiencing of Your roundtable issue, not being relevant is how Sealaska leaves shareholders feeling with their issues. Welcome to the World.
When You make it possible for open doors to Sealaska shareholders for their concerns, then maybe Your concerns will be taken more seriously. Your comments and insights are falling on deaf ears. Isn't it great to be treated like a Sealaska shareholder. Your Worthy comments are meaningful yet are worthless.
thats the point ravenaquak
Imagine an outside lower 48 anti-fishing group suing every opening of every species of the commercial fishing industry, every year? Because of lawsuits, court scheduling, fishing time and limits are cut by 90 percent. Boat captains have loans against their boats and they cannot make the payment on. Crews are laid off, support industries close, retail sales and sales tax revenue decline, towns shrink, schools close.
Welcome to the timber industry and Southeast Alaska for the past 25 years.
Letting the Tongass National
Letting the Tongass National Forest (Public Land) stand as it is is far more important than jobs.
People can move to find work or people can do other things for work, it is foolish and so shortsighted to think otherwise.
This forest is the last one of its kind on this planet, and we have no rights to it. Every party involved here should take the High Road and let this Rain Forest remain standing as god intended.
Unfair?
I hear people discuss their sentiments, and concerns about having something taken from them that they feel belonged to them, and was rightfully theirs. Those feelings are microscopic compared to the sense of loss in injustice suffered by the Tlingit, Tsimshian, and Haida people who had the entire Tongass taken from them, and all the economic infrastructure that went with it.
It was not until a 100 years later that they (we) were compensated for the theft of their property with a paltry sum that was the biggest swindle since the Louisiana Purchase.
But I want to be clear I am not saying its anyones fault today; what happened, occurred and most of us had nothing to do with it. However, I do feel the history is important to give context to the current debate. The same sense of injustice that some feel about the Lands bill, multiply it by 100 and you might begin to feel the sense of injustice felt by the Native people. Not to mention the social injustice they experienced in their own land for a century as minorities in many respects.
What happened with Seward's purchase, was not fair. The delay of the Lands rights until 1971 was not fair. ANCSA was not fair. The biggest victim ha been the Native people and we should not be made to feel guilty about getting a fair deal when it comes to the compensation for our land.
Other people have posted that Sealaska has lobbied against the selections offered for over 30 years; this is not a new issue or as some have put it, Sealaska is trying to "Take a second bite of the apple". We were offered the stem and seed and to be spoken to and chastised for trying to take a second bite by those whose mouth is full of the apple is patronizing and ignorant. They say this forgetting the apple was ours as a whole from the beginning. Forgive me if I offend anyone but I have strong feelings about this, and again, I only say this because I feel its important to give historical context to this current event.
This legislation benefits the entire Southeast as Sealaska is an important part -not the whole- of the regions economy. The spending of tens of millions flows from communities and businesses and provides opportunities for everyone; shareholder and non-shareholder alike.
I know I have argued aggressively in the past, and I am trying to "tone it down" so I apologize and am working on my diplomacy.
Gunalcheesh
lower 48 outside fishing
lower 48 outside fishing groups have no fish habitat left , that is why the industry died off .... is that what we are to expect if we allow the timber harvesters all they want? Maybe if they had started protecting their habitat 100 years ago they would still have an industry. Timber harvest in the lower 48 has become a private tree farm industry, where the soils and conditions are better for regenerating second growth than Alaska, also it is closer to American markets and cheaper to get out. (they don't have to sell to Asia, in the round to make any money) Those trees and forest habitat come no where near that of an old growth forest. Fish have proven themselves to be sustainable if properly managed , but Old Growth is not sustainable in any fashion. The habitat, job opportunities, fisheries, recreation, subsistence, watershed quality,that depend on forest health and old growth are sustainable as long as the old growth is left in place. When I first moved here many decades ago we were told that second growth took 50 years. Now timber harvest wants more old growth so it takes 100 years. Next... because there will still be the last vestiges of the OG reserves left that they want, it will be 200 years....... but we have to keep the heavily subsidized industry going, so give it up.
well said ravenhouse
:)
Akinternetwork?? Limits are
Akinternetwork??
Limits are set on Fishing to insure there are enough fish to return to spawn. I fish for a living and know that regulations are needed because of greed and becuase there are so many people that just do not care. Also the only "outside groups" that any one here should be worried about are the out-of-state fishers. I agree with the comment that the best thing is to just leave the Tongass standing as it is. The other "fact" is that the Tongass is a National Forest it belongs to every US citizen there are no "out siders".
Are not the native people
Are not the native people part of the public? Do they not own this land still with the rest of us as US citizens? Do most Natives have more control over what happens with the land as long as Sealaska Corporation owns it than they do as the public? Seems to me that Sealaska has taken the land away from the Natives just as effectively as the US government did, but left them with less say in how it was managed. Natives can not go out into the public lands and clear cut them but they can go out and hunt, subsist, explore and enjoy them. They can not build a home and live in them but can they do this on Sealaska land? Seams to me Sealaska has pushed this "our land " to their shareholders with no real meaning to it. It is Our land
Mallot 2009
In a letter to the TFR in November 2009, Mallot said that "in order for TFR to claim ultimate success, the separate but integral settlement of Native land entitlements already authorized under ANCSA and being sought pursuant to ANCSA must be responsibly finalized."
Why does he need TFR to do this if he just wants lands sought pursuant to ANCSA? As he pointed out, those lands are already set aside and there is no need for these back room deals.
Raven house? I have lived
Raven house?
I have lived here my whole life (second generation) this is my land but the Natives are claiming it is their land.
And so now MY LAND is being taken from ME and my family by YOU. Yes there certainly is an injustice here. The ANCSA is discrimination against all other Alaskans that were born or raised here, its that simple
TFR owners tryin to cut & paste Natives on it to keep it afloat
That's all that's going on. It's a sinking boat so the powers that be are trying out an old trick. The problem is its a bunch of corporate guys that destroy hill sides. Not your man on the street Natives that we like.
Hi
Hello Byron
The TFR does not speak for
The TFR does not speak for the voices of Southeast Alaska, only for the special interests. I'm not saying these groups are bad, just that there is no place in this group for Public input. Yet they speak as if they do speak for all of us.... without our consent, to give themselves a legitimacy that they don't deserve. It was a good idea that was used poorly.
gunal cheesh yeil hit
Thank you Raven House
sefisher
yea, like halibut.... it has limits, and it was protected how?
and the fish belong too??????
Give me a BREAK Raven House!
Give me a BREAK Raven House! We all suffer from loss in our past but most of us have not been compensated for that loss like the Native Americans have been.
AkInternetwork is Brad
AkInternetwork is Brad Fluetsch an Alaskan Native.
His posts, such arrogance.
The difference .... Jumpstart
The difference is 'the dept' the to original people of the land you're on is covered in our U.S. Constitution. The original people here in beautiful southeast Alaska will only be getting a little more than three percent of their land back...hardly anything to 'swak' about.
Many countries and governments are acknowledging the wrong doing, and making it right. As human's I believe the majority is in agreement with making it right.
There are many sufferages to make right, this is just one.
Brad - go to the TFR website
Southeast Conference is SEACC, inform yourself & check out the membership list
BTW, did you know that the Sea Dogs are the Double-AA affiliate of the Boston Red Sox?