153 



Directors stated in a press release dated October 26, 1980: "After 

 deliberation, we have unanimously voted to publicly oppose the present bill. 

 We feel that Section 705 is disastrous to the long term management of the 

 Tongass." It was bad law then, and it is bad law now. 



By contrast, the pulp mills were quite pleased with the 

 "compromise" in 1980. Looking back at Section 705 five years after enactment, 

 Mr. Jim Clark, the primary lobbyist for APC (both then and now), stated in a 

 southeast Alaska newspaper: "In 1980, it looked as though we had won. So, 

 the question is, what has gone wrong?". Clark knew that Section 705 was 

 Indeed a good "deal" for APC and KPC. Their contract areas were almost 

 untouched by ANILCA's wilderness designations, and in the few cases where they 

 were affected an equal amount of "substitute timber" was granted under Section 

 1315(e). When asked by the Senate Energy Committee if Tongass wilderness 

 "adversely affected the timber base in the contract area of the two mills", 

 the Forest Service replied: "No. Only the Alaska Pulp Corporation contract 

 was affected by the Wilderness designations in ANILCA....in accordance with 

 ANILCA Section 1315(e) we have provided Alaska Pulp Corporation with 



substitute timber ' approximately equal in volume , species, grade and 



accessibility---'." (S.Rpt. 100-548, page 491). 



THE TONGASS TIMBER SUPPLY FUND IS NOT A "WILDERNESS SUBSIDY". The Alaska 

 delegation and the timber industry claim that the Tongass Timber Supply Fund 

 is a "wilderness subsidy" . They claim because the "Alaska Lands Act excluded 

 lumbermen from working in much of the best Tongass forests." 



Wilderness designations have had no negative effect on the ability 

 of the Forest Service to meet timber demand. In 1985 the Forest Service 



34 



