270 



feet per year is tied up in long-term sales, that leaves only 150 mil- 

 lion board feet for the rest of the industry. Our harvesting capacity 

 alone, 150 to 200 million board feet a year, is greater than that. 



As we said before, instead of talking about diminishing the cut 

 below 450 million per year, we feel that the figures should increase 

 and go back to the ANILCA day levels if at all possible. 



In regard to the long-term timber sales, we feel that straightfor- 

 ward, good, bad or indifferent, a deal is a deal. The contracts, as 

 any first-year law student knows, cannot simply be repealed. If the 

 government wants the timber back, then it will have to negotiate 

 with and pay the parties involved. 



From my point of view, a viable timber industry is required to 

 handle a large percent of timber stands that are highly defective 

 and cannot be manufactured into solid logs or veneer. We have ex- 

 perienced up to over 43 percent in native stands alone of pulp 

 wood. 



In other words, a fully integrated industry is necessary to maxi- 

 mize utilization of available timber. A decline in the timber indus- 

 try will have a devastating effect in rural communities of our 

 native people. Many depend directly and indirectly on a healthy 

 forest products industry. We know that economic decline in the 

 rural areas leads to dependency on government and welfare pro- 

 grams, significantly increased alcoholism amongst the native 

 people. On a larger scale, a decline in one or more of the three im- 

 portant industries in southeast means an overall economic decline 

 for the whole region and it affects every individual. 



As of last year, we only one shareholder who was on welfare who 

 we could identify, which we feel is the intent of ANCSA and the 

 purpose of the native village corporations, and that was our goal. 



We see no reason to withdraw the 23 additional areas from the 

 Tongass, as proposed under Senator Wirth's bill, but feel that there 

 should be some protection as requested by Sealaska. 



One of the things we pointed out last year is if there is to be con- 

 tinued withdrawal of additional areas to satisfy environmental 

 groups, then we feel that the native people of southeast should re- 

 ceive additional lands as well. What is fair is fair. 



The TLMP process is the proper forum in which to review the 

 status of these lands. We support the Murkowski/ Stevens bill be- 

 cause it protects the 4.5 billion per decade, leaves the contracts to 

 be discussed by the Forest Service and the contract holders, and 

 leaves the land allocations to be made by the forest planning proc- 

 ess. 



I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to 

 make the presentation today. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:] 



