Timber Legislation Threatens Interior Forest Communities

by Douglas Yates

A Guest Opinion article published in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner on Tuesday, April 30th, 1996. Douglas is a writer based in Ester AK as well as Education and Communications Coordinator of ABFC.

Interior forest resources are too diverse an asset to be viewed only as fodder for the international timber industry. Thoughtful, local solutions must be found that build upon the many goods and services our forests provide. In developing options we have much to learn from the experiences of other timber-dependent economies.

As they stand now, the Legislature's crop of timber bills, SB 180 and HB 212, are little more than top-down offerings to global timber markets. The bills will not provide for careful, sustained development of boreal forest resources. Nor do they reflect the wishes expressed by residents of Interior communities.

According to recent public surveys, most residents favor small-scale logging and processing operations with strict qualifications. Such enterprises currently harvest about 1,000 acres annually from the Tanana Basin. SB 180 and HB 212 will increase the Interior's cut levels significantly. The added economic gain is likely to be negligible (or even negative) in light of losses to fish, wildlife, tourism, etc.

When a local tour operator told the Interior delegation that increased timber cutting threatened her livelihood, Rep. Pete Kelly replied, "That's life."

Such attitudes are not respectful of the people's trust, nor do they appear to consider the economic strength of recreation and tourism. According to the U.S. Forest Service, these economic sectors are 32 times as valuable as timber development nationwide. In the National Forests last year, logging accounted for 76,000 jobs and $2.7 billion. In contrast, recreation generated 2.5 million jobs and almost $100 billion. Legislators who dismiss the financial strength of this activity are stuck in a 19th century mindset and need to be roused from their Rip Van Winkle slumber.

Local loggers also are voicing their opposition to SB 180, supposedly drafted to help them (FDNM 4.24.96). Some Tanana Basin loggers say the bill gives an unfair advantage to larger operators who can afford 10-year contracts. SB 180 would accelerate the recent trend to sell larger state timber contracts to the detriment of small players. Subsidies to large-scale corporations and their ability to secure high start-up financing further stack the odds against local entrepreneurs. With these concerns in mind, we suggest a re-examination of the purposes of our state forests. The number of local jobs per board foot means more to community stability than do dollars to corporate pockets.

The Governor's bill, SB 180, was well-intentioned in its original form. It was designed to support existing timber and mill operations and encourage in-state value-added processing. Legislators' amendments have now doubled the board-foot contract size and eliminated limits to the number of contracts allowed per company. These developments constitute an open invitation to large-scale industrial logging with which local loggers and mill operators will be unable to compete. In effect, the amended bill becomes a back-door approach to SB 310, Senator Frank's discredited 1994 timber bill.

While large-scale timber/pulp scenarios are being planned for the Interior (FDNM 4.24.96), state funding for management agencies is dwindling. Inadequate field-level funding for the Departments of Natural Resources (Division of Forestry), Fish and Game, and Environmental Conservation cripples efforts to safeguard compliance with environmental regulations. This is an extremely short-sighted perspective from those who set management policy for Alaska's natural capital assets. SB 180 effectively turns over forest management to private corporations, with little or no monitoring oversight. The best interests of absentee corporations do not reflect the needs of Alaskans.

HB 212 is another outgrowth of SB 310. One provision of the bill changes the purpose of the Tanana Valley State Forest. By altering Sen. Bettye Fahrenkamp's 1983 definition of multiple-use, the bill favors logging above fishing, hunting, recreation, tourism, subsistence, and other uses. The bill also exempts sales of 160 acres or less (70 percent of current Interior contracts) from the standard Five Year Timber Schedule noticing requirement.

SB 180 and HB 212, and the market forces driving them, impose solutions that favor corporate over local interests. These efforts ignore public input and undermine local solutions. Timber sales have historically generated a net loss to the treasury. Simply increasing sales depletes our resources without adding wealth. We can do better than that.

Alaskans are capable of developing a forest industry that is truly responsive to all our needs and aspirations, now and into the future. There's more to a forest than board feet of timber. We must optimize the use of our forest resources within the limits of the land's productivity. We can do this in a manner consistent with community values while diversifying the economy. To do otherwise, threatens the inherent wonder and value of our forest home.

This page last modified on June 4, 2002 .