v-- 



69 



harvest areas of less commercial 

 value.'" said Jim Clark, attorney for the 

 Alaska Loggers Association. 



A section of the bill also locked-in 

 an annual Forest Service appropria- 

 tion of ""at least $40,000,000 annually or 

 as much as is necessary to main- 

 tain the timber supply from the 

 Tongass National Forest to dependent 

 industry at the rale of 4.5 billion board 

 feet per decade." These two stipula- 

 tions, the funding and the harvest 

 amount, made the Tongass National 

 Forest like no other. 



The figure 4.5 billion may sound like 

 a huge number of board feet, but that 

 allowable harvest is the amount of 

 public timber taken from Washington 

 and Oregon national forests in one year, 

 not ten years. Although those two 

 states' national forests are one third 

 larger than the Tongass. their harvest 

 rate is seven times what is taken out of 

 the Tongass under a plan of 4.5 billion 

 board feel per decade. Regional 

 forester Mike Barton said Ihe Tongass. 

 if managed only for trees, could yield 

 1.1 billion board feet of timber in one 

 year, three limes what is harvested. 



How did Congress arrive at the $40 

 million funding and the harvest level or 

 4.5 billion board feet per decade, or 450 

 million board feet per year? The 450 

 million figure was the amount of 

 timber the Tongass was capable of sus- 

 taining, as estimated by the Forest Ser- 

 vice. This is actually 70 million board 

 feet less than the 1970-77 average of 520 

 million board feet per year. (Under 

 terms of the long-term contracts, the 

 two limber companies are guaranteed 

 a combined total of 300 million board 

 feet per year. The difference between 

 this number and the total Tongass 

 allowable harvest of the 450 million 

 board fool amount goes to all bidders, 

 including 80 million for small bus- 

 inesses.) 



The $40 million figure included the 

 entire Forest Service timber harvest 

 budget for the Tongass of $23.5 million 

 (1978 level), plus $11.7 million for add- 

 ed investments and an inflation factor 

 to bring the total to $40 million. These 

 added in\"estments included in- 

 vestments in roads, thinning, advanc- 

 ed logging technology to help lower the 

 cost of the marginal timber and to 

 achieve a supply average of 450 million 

 board feel. This was viewed as compen- 

 sation for more productive lands going 

 inlo wilderness. It should be remem- 



Mlld temperatures and abundant rainfall allot* harvested areas to naturally reseed and rapidly 

 regenerate In the Tbngass. Inset: An estimated 12.000 Bald Eagles reside In Southeast Alaska. 

 Belo\< : Fores: products lotted through the Tongass .Varrons 



bered the "450" level is not a mandated 

 level of harvest. The real harvest level 

 is mandated by supply and demand of 

 forest products, but cannot average 

 more than 450 million board feet per 

 year. From 1982-88. the average timber 

 harvest from the Tongass has been a 

 little over 300 million board feet per 

 year. 



This so-called subsidy to the timber 

 industry, various pro-industry groups 

 counter, is a misnomer, They say the 

 few million dollars being spent on add- 

 ed investments is as much a subsidy for 

 Southeast wilderness, as agreed to by 

 Congress in 1980. When one considers 

 the 3000 direct and indirect timber jobs 

 and the payrolls, plus their income tax- 

 es going to the national treasury, the 

 figure seems to be well spent. Environ- 

 mental group spokespersons and others 

 say the 1980 Act was never a compro- 



mise and that a deal that was a deal 

 has gone sour and should be amended. 



Why does Washington shell out $50 

 million annually to chop down towering 

 Sitka spruce trees in an ecologically 

 fragile Alasiian wilderness? It's 



wrong to degrade this irreplaceable na- 

 tional treasure; it's a scandal to do so 

 at taxpayer's expense. (New York 

 Times editorial. 1988) 



The negative magazine articles and 

 newspaper editorials speak about log- 

 ging in terms of "destruction" and 

 "devastation." not of its renewability. 

 The titles of these pieces strike deep: 

 "Paradise in Peril" (Life. 198T) ; "En- 

 ding the Rape of the Tongass" (New 

 York Times. 1988), "The Forest Ser- 

 vice Follies" (Sports Illustrated. 1988); 

 "Trashing the Tongass" (Audubon. 

 198T). These articles have been strewn 



