319 



Senator Murkowski. The wilderness was obviously upheld, too. 



Mr. Metcalf. That part was. But the fact is that ANILCA sec- 

 tion 8 as far as subsistence, that has not been honored. There was 

 promise of no damage to salmon streams, that obviously has not 

 been honored. Community stability, except for the logging commu- 

 nities, has certainly not been honored. 



So I guess the point being that, yes, there were many deals that 

 were made, but they have not been honored. 



Senator Murkowski. Well, the parallel which I was going to 

 draw, and it is a leading one, obviously. In your statement you say 

 that the problems of the Tongass were created by political decisions 

 and the failure of the Forest Service to honor its commitments. 



We have talked about what those political decisions were. But I 

 think that SEACC in effect is making that same political decision 

 to preempt the land planning process, and that is my own state- 

 ment. You do not have to answer. 



Mr. Metcalf. Well, I guess if we had confidence that the land 

 planning process would work, that would be one thing. But given 

 the sideboards, as was mentioned earlier, on this land planning 

 process, there is no chance it could work. So a political decision is 

 necessary in order to even make the course of that planning proc- 

 ess meaningful in Southeast Alaska. 



Senator Murkowski. Well then, you just hit the stark reality of 

 who has got the strongest lobbyist to dictate the result, which is 

 hardly the way that we would like to do business around here. 

 Maybe it is the way we do business. 



Mr. Metcalf. Well, we feel our position has a substantial grass- 

 roots support in Southeast Alaska. It is a Southeast Alaska prob- 

 lem that has become national in scope. 



Senator Murkowski. Yes, but you would acknowledge that it is 

 not a public participating process. 



Mr. Metcalf. Well, I think these hearings certainly are. 



Senator Murkowski. Oh, absolutely. But your own formulation 

 of your own position representing SEACC is hardly public, as you 

 have described it. It is made up of organizations that have similar 

 views as yours, formulating a position. 



But now we come to the public process, and how the decisions 

 are made obviously reflects on a political reality that is probably 

 true, but perhaps a bit unfortunate, because unless you can have 

 the input from knowledgeable people who are willing to develop a 

 compromise that I can take, as well as Ted and Don, to my col- 

 leagues and say, this is the position of Alaska, it is the position of 

 the Governor, it is the position of the legislature, recognizing that 

 it has to be a compromise, why, we can get somewhere. 



But it is pretty difficult to get anywhere in the atmosphere 

 which we are faced with on these highly emotional issues. I am not 

 criticizing anybody for their own point of view or their own stand. 



But we have clearly here two things before us: the question of 

 additional wilderness in the Tongass, which is certainly a position 

 that is supported by the SEACC group; and the delicate question of 

 buffer strips, which is one I think we could probably resolve. 



But the ability to resolve on additional wilderness is probably 

 one that is going to be very, very difficult to make an accommoda- 

 tion on, and that is unfortunate. 



