According to a recent study by the U.S. Forest Service titled, “Characterization of Resident and Non-resident Visitors to Alaska National Forests,” the most popular primary recreation activities for non-residents include hiking, viewing nature, and fishing. As a tour operator myself, I would agree with this research, and would add that the beauty and wilderness of the Tongass National Forest is what makes Southeast Alaska one of the best places on earth to work.
I have grave concerns about the future of our precious lands and waters, as well as the impact on the ecotourism industry itself, with the reintroduction of the Sealaska bill. If the bill passes, there will be a very serious negative impact on what visitors love most about Southeast Alaska, which in turn, means that it will have a very serious negative impact on the ecotourism industry. Sealaska has chosen places for clear cutting where tour operators take their clients to experience “The Last Frontier” — the same lands that Sealaska has selected as “enterprise zones.” These wilderness areas are experienced by a vast and diverse clientele and also provide a home and are the summer feeding grounds for humpback whales and sea lions, as well as bald eagles and brown bears.
A recent study conservatively estimated that nature-based tourism contributed $277 million in direct business revenue for just a small sample of Southeast Alaska communities (Sitka, Prince of Wales, Hoonah, Juneau, Petersburg, and Wrangell). And, what’s more — ecotourism is top three in terms of driving our local economies. Our clients stay in local hotels, eat in local restaurants and buy local and all of us buy our provisions locally. What happens to the ever-growing local ecotourism industry if the timber industry continues its domination? Today, the region’s timber revenue is in decline and the industry accounts for less than 1 percent of local jobs — in fact, revenue from recreation, tourism and commercial fishing far exceed that from timber. It is time to reprioritize what we value and what is valued to ensure the growth of the ecotourism industry. We need to start to value wilderness and quiet, back country places and finally acknowledge that we need to move beyond the industry of the past: timber.
We must make this transition — as we speak, wilderness is slipping away from us: to timber companies, to cruise ships visiting in the Tongass and to Sealaska, who is looking to select the so-called “enterprise zones” smack in the middle of one of the last real wilderness areas. Without a specific definition of what an “enterprise zone” means, there is no answer to what type or scale of development might happen here. While I understand the importance of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the needs of the Native people of Southeast Alaska, please keep in mind that a thriving industry in Southeast Alaska relies on this area, as well, to provide a truly unique wilderness experience.
Unfortunately, on an almost daily basis, we seem to be losing the ability to do just that. People come to Alaska to experience “The Last Frontier,” which will be a thing of the past if we don’t make every effort to protect what little wilderness truly remains. If Sealaska develops our wilderness areas, will our customers still come? We all have a responsibility to protect the Tongass — without it, Southeast Alaska becomes just another Disneyland — a facade of wilderness with little substance.
• Swanson is the owner and operator of All Aboard Yacht Charters and president of Southeast Alaska Wilderness Tours Association.
Comments (27)
Add commentAnother Disneyland?
The Tongass is a quite a few million acres larger than Disneyland.
Also Disneyland has much better transportation and lots of jobs.
Also -- when was the last time you saw a timber company?
This is a real goofy article.
Wonder!
I wonder if Mr. Swanson lives in Southeast or if he merely views it's residents as interfering with his wilderness exploitation!!
Either Or?
John- you have chosen not to live here year 'round. Why that is, I'm not sure, but our communities need residents that are employed most of the year, not just during the summer. Your statement that timber accounts for only one percent of local jobs conflicts with your statement that continued domination by timber interests will destroy your business. And then you go on to disparage the cruise industry, the same folks who seemingly share the same environmental values with you, as an industry to whom wilderness is "slipping away." They visit the many of the same places as your vessel and truth be known, much of the millions of dollars in ecotourism is generated by visitors off the large cruise ships. The problem facing us is not an "either/or" equation, having to choose one industry over another. We are in this together. There are many ways to make a living in Southeast Alaska. Diversity in economics, like diversity in ecosystems, is essential to our economic health. I'd like to think that seasonal visitors don't begrudge those of us who need to make a living here that opportunity. There is room for us all.
Where do I start?
"What happens to the ever-growing local ecotourism industry if the timber industry continues its domination? Today, the region’s timber revenue is in decline and the industry accounts for less than 1 percent of local jobs — in fact, revenue from recreation, tourism and commercial fishing far exceed that from timber."
Mr. Swanson, you claim domination by the timber industry and then follow that claim up with evidence to the contrary. It appears that it is the ecotourism industry that is hoping to completely eliminate what remains of the timber industry in Southeast.
Regarding the Sealaska Lands Entitlement bill (S.730), Sealaska is seeking zero acres in Wilderness areas, which are designated by Congress. The Sealaska Lands Entitlement bill does, however, include about 18,000 acres (apprx. 25%) of land currently designated by the Forest Service as non-development. The other 75% of the selected lands are open for development under the current forest plan.
There is plenty of room on the 17 million acre Tongass for all industries, provided it is managed adaptively and based on multiple-use and sustained yield principles.
Swanson says, "“The Last
Swanson says, "“The Last Frontier,” which will be a thing of the past if we don’t make every effort to protect what little wilderness truly remains." Oh, please! Sounds a little like, 'I've got mine, the rest of you stay out.'
http://www.stateoftheocean.or
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/solutions.cfm
There is a pressing need to develop carbon sinks to reduce current CO2 levels in the atmosphere
Forests are integral to regulating the earth's atmosphere and climate change
domination by the timber industry
Mr. Swanson's point is right on - even though 98% of the region's natural resource based employment is tourism and fish, timber gets all the budget and attention from the congressional delegation. The domination that Mr. Swanson is correctly referring to is the dominance of the timber industry over resource allocation issues on the Tongass and not the dominance in terms of employment. He's right that there is little employment but there is a lot of lobbying power and influence over the congressional delegation and Parnell administration- the Forest Service, Sealaska, SE Conference, the Tongass Futures Roundtable and other timber development groups that probably provide more jobs talking about timber than there actually are for people working in the woods.
I guess these people feel a sense of entitlement to the millions of dollars of public money or high value public lands needed to subsidize an export-based industry and figure that the loudest squeaking wheel is going to get the grease. At the expense, of course, of regional economic sectors like fishing and tourism that are actually self-supporting and profitable. How much money is the state going to waste to sue over the roadless rule even though nobody can afford to build the roads to log the roadless areas? The whole program from Sealaska's timber operations to federal timber sale program is nuts.
This was a great article. It doesn't matter where the writer lives. He's right that it is time for this landscape scale old growth clearcutting nonsense to stop.
I respect that everyone has a
I respect that everyone has a right to make a living and I respect that businesses generate revenues and provide economic opportunities to local people. There is a profound difference in the amount of revenues that Sealaska generates with respect to the tens of millions of dollars it spends, and the hundreds of jobs it provides; 400 jobs alone with the Timber industry. The two main logging operations- Alaska Pulp mill and Ketchikan pulp, have been gone for years leaving Sealaska as the main logging operation in SE- its a pathetic argument to say that logging is a dominant entity in the SE when only a fraction of the Tongass is selected for logging.
How many jobs and how much revenue does he contribute? Its been statistically proven tourism is not enough to provide economic opportunities to sustain communities-neither does logging in and of itself- we need all facets to work together to create a diverse stable economy.
Yes, the carpetbaggers have the attitude were supposed to not develop our land and keep it "The Last Frontier" so the snow birds can keep making a buck to our dime. Sloppy letter with no factual relevance.
logging is already and has been occuring in the Tongass
The past two years have proven that tourism and commericial fisheries alone cannot sustain our southeast economy, proven by our declining populations, now redistricting southeast Alaska to a smaller voice at government level.
I have NOT appreciated the so called tourism here in Klawock on Prince of Wales Island. They are granted permission to cross my Klawock Heenya land to fish the Klawock River. Afterwards, on an almost daily basis locals are at OUR river picking up their garbage. They have zero respect for our lands. They 'rape' our river, and leave it at total mess. They come from the local hotels and lodges. Let me tell you about the lodge owners. They DON'T LIVE HERE. They fly in, provide the services, and then go back to their home in the lower 48 to spend their profits....economy rapers. Do they help us clean up the garbage left by their customers, BIG FAT NO!
What about the logging that is already occuring here? Parnell signed a bill to give logs from the Tongass to the local mill. I DO NOT HAVE A BEEF WITH THIS. I have a beef with the fact that you, the second land owner via tax payer, had no public meeting process for this, the same land. Next we'll see the Alaska Mental Health Trust be handed their land from the Tongass. They need this land to survive from the earnings it will provide them.
Come to Prince of Wales and check out the silvaculture that has and is occuring on ANCSA lands. Unlike the litter bugs, the lands been taken care of for regrowth at four times the rate if it had not been silvacultured.
While here, check out how many acres of Sealaska, Klawock Heenya, Shaan Seet, Haida Corp land has state highways, and our hydro plant on it. No hesitation about working together for our island people.
If you don't like this bill that will solve our economic downturns, then present another one. As far as these people that come from south and make money off our waters, and litter on our lands, to heck with them. They don't hardly even give any jobs to us, even though we are the ones that are the experts of our land. They bring their workers with them. No economic solution there, a bunch of users. juk dei!
Come to Prince of Wales Island, check out the logging that the government and USFS is already doing, check out their silvaculture, check out the so called tourism jobs....notta!
about the garbage the so called tourist leaves in the waters!!
My son and his friend dived our waters to clean it up, and picked up 20 bags in a couple hours! What would the 'down south' lodge owner do if the locals didn't love our land and waters enough to clean up after all these 'sloppy joes' that cross our private land to our river, only to dump on it?
You all really need to come to Prince of Wales Island to see what we put up with. While WE are experts of our waters, many of the charters are folks from south. No economic value to us!
I have no respect for a tourism that dumps on our lands, and a lodge owner that does zero to help clean up the mess his customers leave behind.
Sealaska bill
The bill is bad legislation but not for any of the reasons cited by Mr. Swanson. When the Alaska timber industry provided thousands of year-round jobs there was no evidence that any part of the timber industry, including the logging, conflicted with or hurt any other industry. The tourism industry grew without regard to the pulp mills and sawmills (as did the commercial fishing industry, subsistence harvests of salmon and deer, and the mining industry). Southeast Alaska needs high-paying year-round jobs.
If the so-called wilderness tourism part of the Alaska tourism industry shut down today and moved to Russia no one in Alaska would notice.
the bill represents 1.8 percent of the Tongass
While the bill only represents 1.8 percent of the Tongass, it also represents 400 jobs. There was public and environmental objection raised about harvesting 'old growth' justifying this objection in that we needed to protect a couple endangered species, (keep in mind old growth is what the selections would be if they were made 'in the boxes' that Sealaska was provided to make their selections from because other areas were already encumbered by sawmill leases). So now the bill reflects 'second growth selections'. With that change came yet another set of objections because the second growth selections included roads. During these set of objections there was no mention of how Sealaska, Klawock Heenya, Shaan Seet, and Haida Corp. (ANCSA corporations with land on Prince of Wales island), provided their land free of charge for state highways, hydro plants, and hatcheries that cator their harvest to sports fisheries.
I live here, and have seen most of my family 'weather' the storm of an economic downturn. I'm for this bill for the jobs it'll provide, and on a personal level, the friends and family that'll be able to move home.
During the objection of this bill that carries economic value, I'va asked those that object to how my home island receiving an ecomonic solution from it to provide an alternate solution.... only one with one job, verses this bill that will provide 400 jobs. With this, there's yet another set of objections 'due to the lack of sustainability of timber jobs provide'. Well, check this out, a mere 1.8 percent of the Tongass provides 400 jobs. Then I'm expecting the bills that seek land here to provide as well, they are seeking the land for the funds it will provide them. (AK Mental Health Trust). Who's in line after them?.... At this point, I'm just looking at the jobs, and then how much better our (your's and mine) land is taken care of through silvaculture and pruning, compared to the horrible 'down south' tourism who brings their own workers with them and then takes their profit from our waters and land 'down south' to their home. That does us and our suffering southeast economy no good. You agree with 'them', I urge you to come here to Prince of Wales to help us clean up their littering, get nothing by way of jobs for it, and stand next to us and observe them leaving with their profits at the end of the summer. Zero economic sustainability from 'them', ZERO!
sales
There's also been objection about selling our natural resources internationally. I'm supporting getting the most $$ for our natural resources, just as the commericial fisheries does. For example, they had record sales last summer. Know why? The fish farms failed, so those sales were replaced with our wild salmon with sales to China! Yes, I aplaud getting the most for our natural resources. The justification I heard for 'objecting to international sales of our timber' it takes away jobs. So I ask this objection, what is your take about our international sales of of wild salmon that created record earnings for our commericial fishermen....do you think you need to stop that sale, for the floating canneries, and cold storages around southeast Alaska who would pay the commercial fisherman less? I do not agree with that. Again, I support making the most $$ for our natural resources.
Letters like this are kind of silly
They distract from the real issues such as the claim is already closed and you're ripping off public multiple use lands, closing them to access for a bunch of spoiled corporate cry baby special interests.
Sealaska bill is just to distract from CEO's ineptness
All this hoopla is just to distract from all the money these guys lose and their obscene salaries. They treat their shareholders like little peasant dummies.
good, lets focus on our poor economy and figure out solutions
Mr. Good, while you clearly have a beef with Sealaska, the bill itself is a solution to our poor economy. There have been some that feel our trees should be left with the US Forest Service. I disagree because we can't afford them. Last year alone us taxpayers spent over 30 million dollars on lawsuits against the USFS.
And then I urge you to attend a meeting on Prince of Wales about this land transfer for jobs. The biggest objecter was an imported USFS worker! Her objections were EXACTLY the same as those of the environmentalists. TLUMP's a myth that cannot move forward. We bypass it by transferring the same lands the USFS plans to harvest, we bypass the taxpayers lawyer bill, we create jobs. You don't like this, don't attack people or organizations. Instead lets attack our poor economy. IN the mean time, can you come to Prince of Wales and help us clean up after the tourist litter bugs that we allow on our private lands?
Sealaska's annual meeting...........
Management was sorry for another "down" year. Rosita is glad for another year to "service" us. Management produced a video cartoon to counter "Hoonah's Legacy."
Mr.McNeil made a plea for shareholders to answer blogs defending the Sealaska bill, that's more than he's ever done.
Discretionary voting elected all four "endorsed" Board slate Candidates with approximately the same number of votes, again.
Now, thanks to discretionary voting, it's 7.67 million dollars for 20,000 Native shareholders and 7.99 million for 50 of Sealaska's top management and board members again next year.
One thing has changed. Shareholders will be campaigning for Term Limits the entire year. Discretionary voting doesn't apply to Resolutions leaving the path to change clear.
ripping of the publics multiple use of lands NOT TRUE
Mr. Good, once the land is transferred and the ANCSA agreement between the US government and Indian Country is satisfied, Sealaska will be as it has ALWAYS been with it's land, at least here on Prince of Wales Island, and where the majority of the land in the bill is located. ALL and EVERYONE is allowed to hunt, fish, and conduct recreational activities on the land. PLEASE COME TO PRINCE OF WALES AND CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF. Everyone is allowed access on Sealaska's non commerial land/private property. While many on this blog have posted sections of the ANCSA act itself, read the bill to verify the public access the bill provides/protects. The only difference it on USFS land you pay USFS workers to clean up after the users, while the locals clean up our ANCSA land, no bill to the tax payer.
Bill provides only for access/not use
My dream as a Sealaska shareholder has always been to visit Sealaska's largest clearcut. Does anyone know where that is? POW, Hoonah? Actually what I would really like to see is the Sealaska Board and top employees dropped, (maybe via helicoptor) in the middle of Sealaska cut and award a bonus to first one who finds his or her way out.
Sealaska likes to talk about how the bill maintains access. Access means you may traverse across the land to your ultimate destination provided there are no reasonable alternatives. That does not mean you are guaranteed the right to subsistence hunt or fish. After all, it is private property and Sealaska clearly states on their website that non-shareholders are not guaranteed access and must request permission.
Prince of Wales
Sealaska left up to half of the logs it cut on the ground to rot on Prince of Wales. That's a lot worse than plastic bags 006
Sealaska cutting not sustainable
The villages have cut or are cutting now almost all of their trees.
Sealaska did not practice sustainable cutting, because now they are asking for a handout from the government for over 200 million dollars of roads, bridges, and log dumps that you and me paid for.
Why should a private corporation get that freebee when they are making profits by exporting jobs overseas. And the total jobs on Prince of Wakes logging are around 100 , that 400 number is not right.
neither nor or and
Like Cramer, it is good to be diversified.
Getting to diveristy can be tough.
Staying undefeated harder.
Neither liquidation of the forest as it was done several decades ago which was unsustainable nor the 150 million board feet cut by Natives in one year were or are sustainable.
But micro cutting, small mills, local consumption of lumber cut here, spreading out of foot print, cutting Douglas Island till it looks like Hoonah or Hobart or Kassan or Klawock--- all these are possible and impossible.
What is not possible is Sealaska's selections, future sites, and cultural areas in S 730
with feelings towards
with feelings towards tourists on POW like I see here , it is easy to see why tourists would prefer to go some where else to spend their money. Why spend money to look at tree farms, gravel pits and a land that looks like a war zone. Obviously people in Klawock would just as soon stay with their seasonal low paying timber jobs,....... let the US Gov. subsidize the roading and thinning, (Sealaska gets grants from them to do this), ...........and in the end have no real(Old Growth) forests left, while they wait for 100 years for a second growth forest to produce presto logs. You would think that people who live around the forest and profess to love their land, would know the difference between old growth and second growth,( and not just for what it's worth in $) This bill is not about cutting less OG, if it was they would not be targeting the more vulnerable and valuable karst OG. This bill is simply about $ and land for the Corporation.
And don't forget .... the corporation can lose this land or sell it away from the people and there is nothing anyone else has to say about it.
Ravensquak- I have to correct
Ravensquak- I have to correct you: No-Selaska CANNOT in any way shape or form redistribute any of its land. It would be a direct violation of ANCSA policy. The only way Sealaska could transfer its land would be to give it back to the Federal government. Lose its land? Again, the land is held in trust by Sealaska, and since its creation in 1971, it has not "lost" or "sold" a scrap of its land it was originally conveyed. If you are GENUINELY concerned about Sealaska losing the proposed land selection, what historical precedent are you speaking of to justify such a concern? There is no legal incident to justify such a claim and it is a highly emotional speculation to propose such a concern.
Lets not post misrepresentations on this forum-leave that to the people who write their disinformative Op Ed pieces like Wayne Regelin and SEACC and clueless, sloppy letters posted by Swanson. Its fine to disagree and have a perspective, but that last part of your post was simply NOT TRUE.
Raven Squak, CORRECTION re 'feelings' and tourism on POW
Tourists do NOT prefer to go elsewhere. While us locals continue to clean up after they leave on daily, and weekly basis, their numbers continue to increase. PLEASE DON'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THESE TOURISTS PREFER.
In FACT, tourism has increased this year due to the expansion of one of the larger tourism companies. They came here last summer, took in the beauty of Klawock, including our silvacultured areas that can be seen from our home town, complimented, and expanded, to CORRECT YOUR COMMENT ABOUT 'TREE FARMS AND ROCK PITS'. Your lack of facts, assumptions, don't belong here.
I agree with portions of your comments about seasonal employment. As with all of southeast Alaska, SEASONAL JOBS DO NOT SUSTAIN OUR ECONOMY evident by the drop in our population, and re-districting us to an even smaller voice.
DO NOT ASSUME THAT THE PEOPLE OF KLAWOCK PREFER LOW PAYING SEASON JOBS. Your assumptions have no place in this dialog. I pray you get by cutting your southeast neighbors this way, and instead help with constructive solutions about our poor economy, beyond the fisheries and tourism that have proven, alone, cannot sustain us. gunal cheesh.
Raven Squak, the FACT IS the bill does preserve our old growth
Do not mislead with your untruthful comments about the bill. The FACT IS the bill does favor second growth when compared to 'selections within the boxes'. Selecting second growth makes it possible to preserve old growth areas that are being sought protection by conservationists for a couple species they would like to protect. Please just read the latest bill, then make factual comments or informed opinions.
seiner AK, yes the bill does allow access
I'm requesting that you read the bill. It includes access for recreation, hunting, and fishing. I don't know of any other private owner that allows this. Sealaska already allows this on it's non-commerial land on Prince of Wales. It always has, so what the bill states is nothing new to Prince of Wales residents. That's a fact, and that's Sealaska's history of it's land on Prince of Wales. I'm specific to Prince of Wales because the majority of the land selections in this bill are on Prince of Wales Island.
Our Prince of Wales ANCSA corporations provide their private land as listed above, and then for state highways, one right through a beautifully silvacultured area, and for our hydro plant that serves Thorne Bay, Kasaan, Klawock, and Craig. I do not know of any other private land owner that works together and provides for it's surrounding residents this way.