The report of the Governor’s Timber Task Force is an unfortunate formula for disaster that will exacerbate conflict and distract Southeast from the hard work necessary to move forward together on timber issues. The unrealistic plan would remove over 2 million acres from the Tongass National Forest and with it federal protections for salmon streams and other habitat. The recommendations are based in confrontational politics and a misguided nostalgia for times past. The small group that made these recommendations was in no way representative of the diverse stakeholders of the Tongass. The report will fuel conflict over land management in Southeast Alaska, leading to a dangerous stalemate that will hurt the fishermen, hunters, tourism operators and others working on the Tongass today.
The report is infused with nostalgia for the days of large-scale old growth logging on the Tongass; a time when the Forest Service was controlled by the large pulp companies. A forest managed for the profit of foreign overseers made for a comfortable life for some. For others, like independent businesses, fishermen and sportsmen interested in clean water and good habitat, or Native people with an ancient relationship to this land, this influx of outside people and foreign money was not as welcome. The short lived success of the large-scale timber industry of the past was based on the ecological and social degradation of Southeast Alaska, and its mistakes should not be repeated.
The Timber Task Force was composed of people who walked away from participation in the Tongass Futures Roundtable, a multi-party collaborative group founded to deal with exactly the issues addressed by this Task Force. The Roundtable requires that people with differing views persuade and educate each other to come to a reasonable consensus. This is difficult and slow work. The people in this Task Force refused this challenge.
The Governor’s solution was to form a group of like-minded people anxious for a return to an unachievable past. The predominance of industrial representatives is as striking as the absence of rural community representatives, conservationists, Native voices, or independent scientific and policy advisors. Governor Parnell could take a lesson from former Governor Knowles, who in 1997, at the height of the downfall of the timber industry, established a timber task force that offered visionary and practical recommendations. This task force was made up of Southeast mayors, industry representatives, Sealaska, conservationists, and state and federal agencies. The recommendations made in 1997 provide a blueprint for a sustainable industry.
The failure of the Task Force to consider known objections to their proposals from powerful interest groups, both in and outside Alaska, has led to a set of radical recommendations that are obvious precursors to major conflicts with important and influential stakeholders, not least of which is the Federal government itself.
Unlike the Governor and his Task Force, we are serious about the future of Southeast Alaska. There will be a forest products industry that will sustainably coexist with our other major industries, but it will likely look much different than the past. It will be based on high value added local manufacture at a community scale, informed by collaboration with communities rather than imposed from above. It will rely on finding the maximum local employment per unit of wood cut rather than the export of minimally processed products. We believe that the quality of our wood and of the products local craftsmen make using this wood are world-class. This vision is compatible with Federal management of the National Forest, with preserving our quality of life as measured by maintaining traditional use and recreational opportunities, and with maintaining our world-renowned rainforest.
• Ketchel is the executive director of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, a regional environmental advocacy group active in timber issues for more than 40 years.




Comments (11)
Add commentTFR is a failure
Tongass roundtable has been a complete failure and waste of public and Tribal funds. Unless of course your plan was to delay and obstruct the ability of people to make a living from the forest. In the what five years of TFR, not one single resource development project has come forward. Really, Lindsey, why don't you tell everyone why all those folks left TFR? Well let me, because the environmentalist on the panel violated TFR agreements and sat face to face with all the other users and flat out lied to them as their home offices filed a lawsuit.
TFR was a boondoggle from the beginning and the sooner it is flushed the better. Mayor Sanford, exiting this group should be towards the top of your agenda.
Take my ball and go home
Notice how every time the Alaska government doesn't like what starts to come out of a panel of experts seated to find solutions, it bashes the group, leaves, goes into a corner and pouts, then seats its own hand picked group of "yes" men. Examples? Bristol Bay environmental assessment. State did not like what the EPA came up with, so convened its own panel minus the one real scientist. Cruise ship discharges? Same thing. Polar bear endangered species? More of the same. Water quality work group? Populated with all the largest polluters in the state.
When will the people that live here have a say rather than the largest corporations and their bought-and-paid -for politicians?
The TFR is a non-representive body
It purposely runs right past many serious stakeholders and gets into trading lands in peoples back yards who are not at the table. Using it as an example of what is right is laughable.
It should have been shut down years ago but that would have meant some program directors at some big money foundations would have had to fess up and eat a colossal failure on their watch. So they just keep the thing going even though it's a joke.
A few misguided and ethically challenged green groups cling to the TFR because they know it's a good money source as long as these foundation program directors are stuck between a rock and a hard place about shutting the failed project down.
Right on,Governor!
Keep up the good work. Full speed ahead!
Well, alaskaguy
It is "Our" ball and it is also "Our" home.
The real outside money represented in that panel comes right out of new york...
Sure ahha
Right. The Pebble Partnership is Alaskan as is the cruise ship industry. BP oil sitting on the panel setting our water quality standards. Right. Next thing you will say is that ITT Rayonier should represent SE in the legislature. A few polar bears or beluga whales get in the way of Royal Dutch Shell, just give them a place at the table because corporations are (Alaskan) people too.
SEACC
This is just more SEACC obstructionist drivel.
Parnell's scheme won't be any
Parnell's scheme won't be any more successful than the TFR was. He's simply playing politics...as usual.
So, what's the way forward then?
The TFR is hardly a model for success
and in fact is an illegal federal advisory committee used by the Forest Service - the primary TFR's architects - for lobbying purposes. Moreover, anyone concerned about fiscal waste ought to ask for a true accounting of the taxpayer's dollars spent on this failed venture (GAO?) not to mention voluntary disclosure of the wads of private cash big foundations with direct ties to "outside people and foreign money" threw at these groups in order to privatize public resources for profit.
Although plenty has gone on in these meetings, including some pretty "radical recommendations" like transfer of one million acres to the State, (not so different from Parnell's group, eh?) you'll never read about or listen to an accurate accounting in any media because the TFR's own rules prohibit filming or recording proceedings. Meetings are intentionally held during weekday banker hours, in locations that are expensive to travel to and during times when normal folks are busy trying to earn a living. The TFR even has "break out" groups which are where the really wacky stuff is brewed.
The TFR and Parnell's Timber Task Force aren't really all that different from one another except one operates in the light of day and the other essentially behind closed doors.
Congress ought to investigate the Forest Service’s role in the TFR. This is a story begging to be told.
Really Javier?
I sat through one in Juneau. It was easy to get to (well, it was in Douglas, so...) and open to the public.
You're complaining about public money being spent on it. And you're complaining about private money being spent on it. I think you've pretty much run out of flavors...except maybe foreign money?
How is the Southeast Conference any different?
You have diametrically opposed interests - one wants to clearcut old growth with no limits, and the other wants to turn Southeast into a big park. I can't envision any structure that's going to bring these two to a consensus.
Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian
We are the people of the forest, we will continue to fight before we become the people of the stumps.