227 



policy is not part of those management alternatives. It is not even 

 being evaluated for regionwide application. So we have every 

 reason to believe that TLMP means status quo, and we find the 

 status quo unacceptable. 



There has been a lot of discussion here about we need to treat 

 Tongass like the other national forests and let the planning process 

 go on. No other national forest has a Congressionally mandated 

 harvest. No other national forest has a 50-year timber contract. 



Therefore, you have the multiple use scheme out of balance. You 

 have the interests and the emphasis on timber. We would like to 

 have that multiple use back in the balance. 



The sideboards that are on the TLMP planning process and the 

 current activities that we see by the Forest Service indicate that 

 TLMP means status quo. Another example of this is in their analy- 

 sis on fish. Under all analyses we have 130 million pounds of fish 

 being produced, even under the maximum timber alternative. 



That indicates that the Forest Service says: Well, maximum 

 timber harvest will have no impact on fish, so all we need to do is 

 think about fish when we get within this 100 feet. It is consistent 

 in all their alternatives, 130 million pounds of fish, which is less 

 than half of what was produced this year by Mother Nature. 



So buffer strips are a management tool for areas that will be 

 logged. Buffer strips are not a substitute for managing entire wa- 

 tersheds for no-logging activities. In the bigger picture of where to 

 cut and where not to cut, United Fishermen of Alaska support a 

 roadless designation, a LUD-II designation, for important fisheries 

 areas, and I have listed those in my written testimony. 



Primarily the ones I need to emphasize right now are those that 

 are on the negotiating chopping block. The Southeast Conference 

 position and things that came out of the last negotiations showed 

 that you were prepared to pretty much cut the heart out of the 

 million dollar fisheries, the Chuck River, the Nutkwa, the Kati- 

 shan, the Lisianski. Anan Creek got dropped completely. 



It was obvious that the give and take had serious consequences 

 for the commercial fishing industries. You have the Chuck River 

 set-aside without the Chuck River, for example. 



We find those sorts of things objectionable. We expect that, if 

 there are going to be any changes being made to the size of the 

 areas, that you do it by keeping the watersheds intact. 



The original Southeast Conference position recognized that value 

 of intact watersheds. The ramrod revision of Southeast Conference 

 ignores that. 



I can get into Southeast Conference later with any additional 

 questioning, but I will keep it short by letting you know that all 

 eight fishing associations that belong to UFA adamantly opposed 

 the revision that was presented and our points of concern were 

 pretty much ignored. So you have got the largest seafood indus- 

 try — the largest industry in the southeast not being an active part 

 of the revised Southeast Conference position. 



In closing, I just would like to get a little bit philosophical, and I 

 will be short. I feel like the challenge of the 1990's is to find that 

 balance between economics and the environment. I like to call it 

 the "environomic solution." 



