 By Don Hernandez February 05, 2010
We think that the whole process of how this public lands bill has proceeded is wrong; when we called for public meetings, we got a visit from Sealaska executives and board members. They tried to convince us that they would be good neighbors and we gave them a whole list of reasons why we could not accept being surrounded by private land. Sealaska made a few minor and meaningless revisions to the bill and then reported back to our Senators that they were working with the local communities to resolve issues. Is it right that the corporation who stands to benefit from legislation holds the meetings to hear public testimony, and then reports back to our representatives? We are grateful to the Craig City Council for asking that our senator come to the island to hear our concerns. This request, coming from the island's largest community, got Senator Murkowski's attention, but it is two of the smallest communities on the island who would be most directly affected and that is why the residents of Point Baker and Port Protection have invited Senator Murkowski to visit our communities. When Senator Murkowski visits Craig, she will see what Sealaska Corporation land looks like after every available acre has been clearcut in the last 25 years. She will hear how the local economy has boomed and then gone bust as a result of Sealaska's round log export. When she visits Point Baker and Port Protection she will see multiple use land management and a sustainable economy. She will be asked, "Are we to compensate Sealaska for the short-sighted unsustainable exploitation of their lands. Is it justified to rewrite the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which was ratified in 1971, so that Sealaska can trade land that is already available to them for land that has been improved at taxpayer expense with roads, bridges, a log transfer facility, and thousands of acres of tree thinning? Do you want public land which has been used by people from all communities on the island as well as residents of Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan for all kinds of public uses to be turned over to private ownership? When Senator Murkowski visits Point Baker, Port Protection or any community on Prince of Wales Island she will see an existing forest economy. catching salmon commercially or for subsistence, hunting for deer to feed your family and cutting firewood to heat your home, Getting a free-use permit to harvest trees and having the lumber milled locally or purchasing lumber from one of the many small mill operators on the island to build a home, an artist or artisan creating or making works inspired by their surroundings, taking visitors out fishing or sightseeing, or working on a stream or wildlife restoration project are all part of our forest economy. This economy has sustained the rural communities of the Tongass for generations and could continue to do so for many more. But all of these forest dependent activities are threatened if we allow some of the most valuable public forest land left on the island to be cut and shipped overseas. Supporters of the Sealaska Lands Bill say that the timber industry is dying and that Sealaska must have this land in order for it to survive. When Senator Murkowski visits Prince of Wales she will see that there is a viable alternative to failed timber management practices of the past. Let's work together to promote an existing way of life, and encourage the growth of a more sustainable forest economy. Don Hernandez Received February 04, 2009 - Published February 05, 2010 Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews. Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.
|
