94 



SEACCt H«.r.o( Sutcm,.. 00 HR. ;413 

 TVinu Bjy, AUtLi July 3, 1»9« 



they leave, they leave with the knowledge that they can return to the same spot on their 



public land, again and again and again. This is a freedom that is held dear and you 



want to rip it away. 



Lets talk about rights. You make a big deal about attempting to protect valid, existing 

 rights in this bill. What about our rights -- the rights of the public to own and benefit 

 from their public forest lands? Aren't these rights valid and existing? 



In your January 25, 1996, press release, you claim that "This bill is about control - 

 Alaskan control of the forest - and stabilization for the people who depend on forest 

 resources to survive ...." We strongly disagree with your characterization. On the second 

 to las< page of your bill (Section 7 (f)), you take your doubJe-baireled shotgun, load it 

 up with buckshot and blast away at every single protected acre on this great forest 

 by repealing all statutory land protections for wilderness and leglsbted LUD II 

 areas, and salmon stream buffer zones. What stability will this bill provide 

 commercial fisheimen who depend upon these "million-dollar" salmon watersheds. 

 What stability will this bill provide to recreation and tourism businesses whose customers 

 come to see wild and beautiful country? Have you considered the impact of your bill on 

 Tongass-dependent communities, such as Pelican, Elfin Cove, Yakutat, Point Baker, Port 

 Protection, Kupreanof, Tenakee, Gustavus, Hydaburg, Edna Bay, Craig, Klawock, 

 Angoon, WTiale Pass, Petersburg, Juneau, and Sitka -- seventeen communities have 

 publicly supported protection of areas which are near and dear to them. If this bill is 

 your answer, then your answer must be "no." 



From virtually every community in our region -- where ever you look , you see the 

 Tongass. These public lands are where Alaskans hunt, and fish, and walk in the woods. 

 This is where people who work in the timber industry find the trees to cut and send to the 

 mills. The watersheds of the Tongass produce over 80% of the salmon harvested in our 

 region; salmon that our commercial fishermen depend upon. The bounty of the Tongass 

 has been an incredible sustainable renewable public resource for Alaskans and all 

 Americans. Our way of life depends on the Tongass. Your bill will not promote 

 "stabilization," but destabilization, and destruction of a way of life. 



In a January press release, you state that "Because assuming control of the Tongass is 

 voluntary and conditions are minimized, no one could construe this bill as a federal 

 mandate. It is the opposite of a mandate, because it gives up control, ...." Who are your 

 trying to fool? Your bill Is loaded with federal mandates and conditions, including 

 the repeal of all statutory land protections, Section 7(f); re-instatement of the Alaska Pulp 

 Corporation contract, Section 5(c); the Slate's compliance with Title VllI of ANILCA, 

 Section 6(c); thehandingover of more than 200,000 acres of prime forest land to five (5) 

 new, for-profit Native corporations, Section 6(e); payment of 25 percent of the net 

 receipts for all timber sold on the Tongass to the United States for 10 years after the State 

 receives patent to lands in the Tongass, Section 6(g); and, the assumption of all 

 obligations of the United States under the Ketchikan Pulp's 50-year pulp contract. 

 Section 6(h). Your bill does not give up control to the State of Alaska but merely shifts 

 federal obligations to the State, in a most irresponsible way. 



