91 



SEACCl Hcinog Suient- oo H R- :«13 

 Thonie Biy. Aliiti Jul? i. 1«« 



Private corporate land owners do not have to provide access to, or across, privately 

 owned land. This "lock-out" will dramatically effect use by commercial, sport, and 

 subsistence hunters, who used to enjoy their former public lands. 



H.R. 2413 Would Cause Devastating Economic Impacts. 



• Ivocal orriclals have raised concerns about the substantial financial loss to 

 communities. The Forest Service has a payroll of $44 million dollars and employs 

 roughly 1000 people in Southeast. H.R. 2413 would have devastating economic 

 impacts for our region. 



The State Does Not Have The Money Or The Capacity To 

 Adequately Manage The Tongass For Multiple Use And Would 

 Sell Off Public Lands . 



• The State Forest Practices Act, which regulates logging on state and private 

 lands, requires only minimal protection for Tish and wildlife iiabitat. 

 Commercial fishing, tourism, hunting, subsistence, and other multiple uses would 

 suffer. 



• The Tongass costs U.S. Taxpayers over $90 million each year to run. In these 

 tough budget times, the State laclcs the money to run the Tongass 3de<]uately. 



• The logical result of H.R. 2413 would be for the SUte of Alaska to sell off 

 large chunks of th« Tongass to the highest bidder, which in most cases would be 

 timber companies interested in short-term profits, not the long-term health of the 

 Tongass' unique ecosystems or rural communities. The Tongass would most likely 

 become a series of huge pnvate tree farms, and former public hunting areas would 

 tjecome private hunting clubs. This prediction is consistent with Senator Robin 

 Taylor's letter. 



Management Of The Tongass Bv The State Of Alaska Will Not 

 Result In Efficient Production Of More Timber With Less 

 Controversy . 



In response to a May 1996 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office prepared at 

 your request, PUBLIC TIMBER: Federal and State Programs Differ Significantly in 

 Pacific Northwest, you stated your intention to use this report in reviewing proposals to 

 transfer control of some national forests to the stales. This report, however, does not 

 su pport the conclusion that the Stale of Alaska could more efficiently manage the 

 Tongass than the Forest Service . Unlike state forests in Oregon and Washington, which 

 the GAO report reviewed, state lands in Alaska are not managed to emphasize logging 

 and maximize revenues. Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Alaska requires 

 natural resources on state lands to be managed as a public trust and requires that 

 sustained yield management be the management objective rather than maximum short- 



