240 



era. Change is necessary to stimulate and facilitate diversification 

 of the economy of southeast Alaska and preserve and protect the 

 natural resources that are our heritage. 



On the other hand, Congress must not lose sight of the underly- 

 ing purposes of the legislation that created the old management 

 regime. Congress must be careful not to close the door to southeast 

 Alaska's economic future as it seeks to correct the imbalances that 

 are now evident. 



Sealaska supports many of the modifications suggested by S. 346 

 and S. 237 but supports neither bill. It urges the committee to use 

 these vehicles to craft a far more positive and comprehensive ap- 

 proach to the future of southeast Alaska. 



We urge the committee to turn the Tongass timber legislation 

 into a forwardlooking economic development bill. In our region, 

 Tongass legislation has been viewed negatively. It has been seen as 

 a threat to the livelihood of an important segment of our popula- 

 tion and has been a horribly divisive force in our region. 



We think that the Tongass legislation should be a positive event, 

 a unique opportunity to seize the moment and put building blocks 

 in place to create an economy that our children and our children's 

 children can rely on. 



How do we do this? First we must look at what is wrong and cor- 

 rect it. We see four overriding problems. Tongass forest manage- 

 ment must be driven by multiple use considerations, including the 

 diverse economic needs of the several forest dependent industries. 



Today, the engine that drives the Tongass is two long-term 

 timber contracts. They should be one of the cars pulled by the 

 engine of multiple use. 



Certain features of the Tongass management should be corrected. 

 For example, independent purchasers have been effectively pre- 

 cluded from acquiring an economic supply of wood. As a result, 

 their ability to produce new products that are demanded by the 

 market has been all but eliminated. They should be assured of a 

 sufficient economic and reliable timber supply. 



Ultimately, Tongass management legislation must solve the real 

 estate allocation issue. Final legislation should be sufficiently com- 

 prehensive to solve many of the land disputes left unresolved by 

 ANSCA and ANILCA. Among these controversies are Admiralty 

 Island and a host of other native exchanges that would implement 

 ANSCA and create economic opportunities. 



Additionally, certain lands should be reallocated for conservation 

 as well as economic reasons. We support the addition of seven fish- 

 eries management zones which satisfy both of these objectives. 



The lesson of section 705(a) of ANILCA is an old one. You simply 

 cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand. In that section. Con- 

 gress directed a great deal of money at protecting the dependent 

 timber industry and preserving jobs in that industry. It provides 

 little money to tourism, commercial fishing or mining. After eight 

 years of experience, we see that the timber industry jobs are down, 

 excluding the native timber contribution, but fishing and tourism 

 are booming, and mining is growing. 



In order to have a dependable, sound economy in southeast 

 Alaska, we must allocate our resources sensibly, and we must allow 

 the market to drive us. 



