303 



forest products industry is 24 percent and 3,500 jobs, and all other 

 forest products another seven percent, 1,000 jobs. 



My question is, who is right? 



Ms. Troll. I will be real diplomatic about this. I think that when 

 you look at the McDowell report, you will find that the seafood in- 

 dustry and the timber industry make pretty much on par equal 

 contribution to the regional economy of Southeast Alaska. 



A lot of this discussion gets to being the timber jobs versus the 

 environment, and the reason I keep bringing up the job contribu- 

 tion that we make is it is oftentimes overlooked. 



The Department of Labor statistics as you used, Senator, they do 

 not take into account the seasonal employment, where the 

 McDowell report was the first of its kind that changed, actually 

 went in and did the survey of crew members and all, the skippers 

 and everything else. 



Those sorts of employee relationships do not lend themselves to 

 Department of Labor statistics. McDowell actually went in and sur- 

 veyed and got them, and that was the first real definitive study 

 that we had about the contributions of the seafood industry. 



I do not have my McDowell report in front of me, but I remem- 

 ber it being about 4300, which is comparable to the statement 



Senator Murkowski. Well, I would buy a tossup, so I am not 

 going to pursue it. 



Ms. Troll. Senator, if I could just comment. 



Senator Murkowski. Mr. Finney is nudging you a little bit. Go 

 ahead. 



Ms. Troll. I just wanted to go back to your earlier statement 

 about the fact of the fluctuations in the fish runs and start right 

 off by thanking you for your aggressive leadership on the driftnet 

 issue. As I stated earlier and in our previous testimony, it is our 

 intent that once we get that issue satisfactorily resolved that we 

 have someplace for the fish to come back. 



Senator Murkowski. I hope so. 



Ms. Troll. Some of the systems that were indeed very heavily 

 logged have not come back yet, and so that is why we still feel 

 there is substantial need for buffers. When you look at the sites in 

 the areas and case by case things, it does weigh out. 



Also, as you know, fluctuations are a result of fish and game 

 management. For many of those years in the early seventies there 

 was no fishing. We had to sit tied to the dock. We incurred an eco- 

 nomic cost to allow that production to come back up. 



There is lots of reasons for the fluctuations. We do not point the 

 finger that logging is the result of all of those fluctuations. We do 

 have evidence to show that we can minimize logging impact to fish 

 by the buffers, and that is where we are coming from. 



But thanks again for all your work. 



Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. I think we have got an 

 interesting deal with the Taiwanese which was just signed last 

 night, that we can talk about at a later time. But it is better than 

 it was. It is not perfect, but better nevertheless. 



I am curious to know how the two of you feel the tourism indus- 

 try rolls into this, because there are those that suggest: Well, you 

 know, the tourist sees the clearcut and goes away with a bad taste 

 in his mouth. We have got clearcuts which are on Forest Service 



