560 



Lastly, a moratorium on logging in areas with exceptional fish, 

 wildlife, recreation and scientific values would protect the biologi- 

 cal integrity of the Tongass and give the public a chance to be 

 heard. I am personally very familiar with two of these areas, Chi- 

 chagof and Rocky Pass, and if the other 21 are similar, they are 

 worth every effort to give them a chance to survive unaltered. 



In summary. Senator Wirth's bill, S. 346, would accomplish the 

 goals of sound financial basis for the logging industry and, second- 

 arily, the municipal government, as well as provide for a "stay of 

 execution" for 23 pristine areas of the National Forest. 



I thank you for this opportunity to state my views and may you 

 enjoy your stay in Sitka as much as I have enjoyed living here the 

 last 42 years. Again, thank you. 



Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Ms. Calvin. 



STATEMENT OF K.J. METCALF, SOUTHEAST ALASKA 

 CONSERVATION COUNCIL 



Mr. Metcalf. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

 testify today. 



For the record, my name is K. J. Metcalf. I live in Angoon, and I 

 am a business person. I am speaking for the Southeast Alaska Con- 

 servation Council, plus a statement of my own. 



SEACC is a grassroots coalition of 13 organizations in 11 commu- 

 nities. SEACC supports Senator Wirth's bill, S. 346, and believes it 

 would be strengthened by giving permanent protection to the key 

 fish and wildlife areas. 



SEACC opposes Senator Murkowski's bill, S. 237, since it main- 

 tains the status quo and fails to address the problems facing the 

 Tongass. 



The following comments are my own, and they are based on 20 

 years of employment with the Forest Service in the Tongass Na- 

 tional Forest. During this time, I worked on a number of public 

 land management issues. From 1973 to 1978 I was part of the Ton- 

 gass Land Management Planning Process. From 1978 to 1982, I was 

 manager of Admiralty Island National Monument. 



A great deal has been said by the Forest Service and the timber 

 industry about the need to maintain the long-term contracts. We 

 have all heard the rhetoric concerning the obligation of the govern- 

 ment to keep its word and honor its commitment to the timber in- 

 dustry. We have also heard about the need for the Forest Service 

 to complete its planning process, the current Tongass Land Man- 

 agement Plan Revision, prior to any Congressional action. 



I would like to offer a different perspective, a perspective based 

 on personal involvement with and observation of the Forest Service 

 on the Tongass for 20 years. 



In the early 1960s the Forest Service felt they had a mandate to 

 cut 98 percent of the old growth forest, and that was its form of 

 multiple-use management. They approached that with a vengeance 

 and if anybody challenged them they simply said that this was a 

 professional decision and they were professionals. Not only were 

 they, by their own direction, going to donate the old growth, but 

 they were going to maximize the benefits to the timber industry. 



