525 



would be 27.1%. 



THE COST OF WILDERNESS 



A subject that is often mentioned is the so called "$40 

 Million Subsidy." This amount was not requested by the timber 

 industry during the ANILCA debate. Rather, industry asked that 

 Congress not trade commercial timber in areas designated for 

 timber harvest for timber located in wilderness areas. The 

 timber to be traded to the industry was not economically feasible 

 for harvest due to significant additional roadbuilding and 

 logging costs. The Congress, recognizing that it was unfair that 

 the better timber be taken away, added $12 million to the already 

 allocated $28 million Forest Service budget bringing the total to 

 $40 million. 



Analyzing this supposed subsidy from another viewpoint it is 

 evident that the additional money required for the Forest Service 

 budget and the loss of commercial timber resources was the cost 

 of additional wilderness. Environmentalists complained about the 

 amount added to the Forest Service budget but said nothing about 

 the value of the wilderness maintained by giving up the good 

 commercial timber. 

 PENDING LEGISLATION 



AWIT supports Senator Murkowski's bill, S. 237. It provides 

 for intensively managed forests so that a maximum harvest of 4.5 

 bbf/decade is achieved. This is the amount estimated necessary 

 to maintain the historical timber employment base. The bill also 

 retains the current 50-year contracts with Alaska Pulp 

 Corporation and Ketchikan Pulp Company. As noted earlier, these 



