America’s Rainforest Under Threat: How Alaska’s Tongass National Forest needs your help
Tongass National Forest. Photo by Henry Hartley. Wikimedia Commons.
Centuries before chainsaws were invented and logging corporations founded, the towering trees of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest were growing. Trees that soar to the sky today were already shooting into adolescence when Columbus sailed the seas.
The gentle giants amaze visitors with their arresting size — some trunks are as big as dining room tables — but these rare trees are a disappearing breed.
About 50 percent of the Tongass’ largest trees are gone forever, victims of intensive logging practices that began half a century ago.
What’s left of this majestic, ancient forest remains threatened by logging.
And despite recent collaborations that would finally ease logging in the forest’s oldest areas, legislation in the U.S. Senate threatens to open up thousands of acres of public land to more intensive logging practices.
Share the Story
Introduced in April, 2009 by Alaska Senators Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich, the legislation proposes to give more than 65,000 acres of some of the oldest, most biologically rich lands in the Tongass to Sealaska Corporation, a native corporation that has already harvested at least 189,000 million acres of the Tongass.
America’s Rainforest at a Crossroads
The Tongass has reached a critical crossroads.
This forest once sprawled across southeast Alaska carpeting the state’s panhandle with thick legions of soaring spruce, hemlock and cedar.
Today the Tongass covers 80 percent of southeast Alaska’s coastal terrain, inland mountains and much of the Alexander Archipelago. It is the largest remaining temperate rainforest in the world.
But heavy clearcutting has gouged much of the oldest forests in this stunning landscape. Sweeping views are marred by awkward patchworks of clearcuts. A network of decaying logging roads worms through the land creating erosion on the way.
Despite years of logging, wild and timeless places do persist in the Tongass. This forest of all forests continues to hold value that far transcends what a logging company can fetch for its harvested timber.
Besides possessing some of the world’s most incredible trees, the Tongass is an enchanting and fertile land of water, woods and mist. It encompasses thousands of islands, fjords and waterways where steep coastal cliffs and fog-shrouded woods creep out to water’s edge. Sea otters and humpback whales make regular appearances under the shadows of coastal trees, while further inland, stunning mountain vistas mingle with glaciers and green valleys.
The very age of this forest is what creates the extreme biodiversity the Tongass is known for. The forest provides rich conditions for larger wildlife and for undergrowth and soils that teem with tiny life. Moss creeps into every wooded crevice, while streams swell with salmon allowing black and brown bears to thrive. Bald eagles, wolves, deer and many other animals abound here as well.
The forest has also nurtured and sustained local people for centuries and remains the basis for economic opportunities. And its unique mix of land and water, trees and animals offer the trip of a lifetime for cruise goers and wilderness lovers who enjoy unparalleled adventures from kayaking and fishing to hiking in the shadows of giant trees.
Saving This Rare Forest
The Wilderness Society is in the midst of a major effort to ensure sustainable forest management on the Tongass.
Expert staff in our Alaska office are working with locals, the Forest Service and other groups, to create innovative solutions to traditional rivalries between timber interests and conservation groups. Together, we have been building a sustainable future that transitions the timber industry from logging in ancient forest to sustainably harvesting younger trees. Read about our vision.
Together we are making significant progress in resolving long-standing conflicts between competing groups in the Tongass, but the Sealaska bill would undermine much of that, all for the sake of one single interest.
There is hope for saving the last of America’s rainforest. But we must act now to defeat this bill. Please click here to help us save the Tongass.
* Correction: In the original version of this article, The Wilderness Society incorrectly stated the number of acres that Sealaska has clearcut. We regret the error. To be more precise, Sealaska's representative testified before Congress that the company has harvested 189,000 acres of the 290,000 acres they own, including more than 81,000 acres of clearcuts.
photos:
Tongass National Forest. Photo by Henry Hartley. Wikimedia Commons.
Tongass National Forest. Photo by John Schoen.
About Laura Bailey
Before joining us in 2008, Laura worked as an editor, writer and reporter for a variety of print and online media, including the Gannett-owned Army Times newspapers, Military Times national news Web sites, and the Fort Collins Coloradoan... More about Laura Bailey
Legacy Comments
here is what the LA Times
here is what the LA Times Editorial stated today
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-tongass14-2010apr14...
FRIST LOOK AT THIS VIDEO
FRIST LOOK AT THIS VIDEO WHICH SHOWS THE SCOPE OF SEALASKA LOGGING AROUND ONE OF THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRQre80IVj4
SECOND REalize that natives made this video hate Sealaska logging.
Third don't go by the collaborative message of let's work it all out that Karen Harding has expressed between Sealaska and communities in SE Alaska like Port Protection, Edna Bay, eight other communities who do not want to see Sealaska log second growth timber that is under a hundred years old.
There is hardly any wildlife left around these communities because half the old growth was logged already. Sealaska's bill would include 55% of old growth.
These are real conflicts that can only be resolved through vigorous opposition not round table baloney
Please call your senators today and tell them no on S 881.
Thank You
What is at stake in Alaska
As a TWS member, I just want to make sure that other members understand the full implications of the Sealaska Bill for wilderness on the Tongass National Forest in SE Alaska.
I stress that everyone supports the Sealaska Corporation receiving the lands that they are due. What is opposed is the manner in which the pending Sealaska Bill unilaterally selects land outside of the existing agreements set by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. This contrasts sharply with the multilateral broad-based approach established by ANCSA and also has unprecedented impact on designated wilderness.
The current Bill categorizes kinds of selections Sealaska can make:
1. Economic development areas (e.g. logging areas)
2. Alaska Native Future Enterprise Sites (developed tourism areas)
3. Sacred, Cultural, Traditional, Historic Sites, including Customary Trade and Migratory Routes
Sealaska's Bill prohibits the first two categories from being selected in wilderness, conservation system unit or LUD II area. However, by my count, 10 of the Enterprise Sites occur close to wilderness such that wilderness character would be degraded. The development of these Sites, the motorized use, displacement of wildlife, loss of solitude, noise and light pollution would all detract from the wilderness character and experience. Some of these Sites are across a bay/cove from wilderness; some are less than 1000' away from wilderness. In short, this will bring development right up to the doorstep of wilderness.
What is more concerning is how the Sealaska Bill addresses the third category. Sealaska already owns many Sacred Sites within designated wilderness in the Tongass. These already-owned Sites are governed under a restrictive covenant that prohibits any development or use that would disturb the sites. Consequently, these Sites are all undisturbed. The pending Bill selects 197 new Sacred Sites, 64 of which are in wilderness by my examination, and replaces the restrictive covenant with a token one such that the Sites may be developed.
Interestingly, 11-12 of these 64 Sacred Sites in wilderness occur in the Glacier Bay National Park Wilderness. The Bill expressly notes that these Sacred Sites will not be conveyed to Sealaska but will remain with the NPS and the Bill authorizes an agreement on joint management of these Sites.
The Bill does not withhold the conveyance of the other 52-53 Sacred Sites in USFS wilderness areas. In other words these would be conveyed to Sealaska creating private inholdings with development and commercial use potential, both of which counter the purpose of wilderness. The Sealaska Bill specifically provides for "site improvement activities" at these newly selected Sacred Sites. These activities are to be compatible with the character of the Sacred Sites, but it would be the for-profit Sealaska Corporation alone that would determine compatability.
It is worth noting that these Sites occur in naturally charismatic areas - prime shoreline, coves, viewpoints, river confluences and the like. Many of the other 133 Sacred Sites outside of wilderness are in valued LUD II or other treasured areas.
At least as alarming is that the Sealaska Bill replaces the restrictive covenant on all existing Sacred Sites (not just the newly selected Sites). This adds scores more Sites in wilderness that are privatized and available for development.
The privatization of scores of Sites combined with the replacement of the covenant restricting development and commercial use creates a potential for private inholdings available for commercial development unparalleled in the history of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
I appreciate that The Wilderness Society, other conservation groups, many local Southeast communities are against the current Sealaska Bill. I hope these points underscore the direness of the situation. Many of these wilderness areas are the cream of the crop - among the wildest places that exist in our entire country.
I fear that some will be seduced by an Omnibus Bill that designates another million or more acres of wilderness in the Lower 48. It would not be worth passing such an Omnibus Bill if this Sealaska Bill is part of the package. This is much much worse than the Izembek Refuge trade-off from the last Omnibus Bill. Another way to look at it would be to pick 15 of your favorite wilderness areas in the Lower 48, and then to pick 200 choice sites in these areas, some up to 100 acres in size, that would be transferred to a profit-driven corporation. That is what we are facing.
Thanks for your support!
Everett Rowdy
Juneau, Alaska
Saving the Rain forest?
I am not going to make this long and drawn out...saving the rain forest? Why do you send me an envelope in the mail with another envelope inside that says "Citizen Petition Packet Enclosed"? Where does "save some trees" come into effect?
I love what your organization's mission/vision is...however, could you please find a better way to "advertise" than sending so much paper in the mail...please. I work at a non-profit whose mission is to use our resources wisely (short version) and I do not appreciate all of the paper that is used in your mailing.
Otherwise...keep up the good work.
Getting to rational policy recommendations...
Frankly, the statements of the Wilderness Society soliciting my support for "saving the Tsongas" really miss the mark. I am sure that I'm as avid a supporter of wilderness and wilderness preservation as anyone, but... to omit and gloss over mention of the phenomenal destruction which has already occurred and is ongoing in the Tsongas associated with global warming and increases in the devastaion of the forest Wilderness Society is so emphatically trying to save, does us all a disservice.
Areas of "old growth" forest are rapidly undergoing insect based destruction associated with global climate change and have been wasting away for years! Why don't the appeals include mention of this? Sensible forest management and improvement strategies include increasing the proportion of "new growth" to old in any kind of sustainable approach to combatting the raging insect epidemics. Logging must be targeted and regulated to allow it to focus on salvaging viable (still useable) timber from the already significantly degraded areas and in a way that promotes and supports restoration efforts. It may well be that species mixes must be intentionally altered and change promoted if any semblance of a "preserved" ecology is even possible in the face of the combination of human-induced global climate change and the insatiable demand for timber resources which competes effectively with our need to sequester carbon rather than releasing more into the atmosphere and oceans.
The Wilderness Society and the Truth
I'm disappointed to read unequivocally false statements coming from a well recognized organization. Not to mention, you have completely ignored the first people of the Tongass.
Below is a letter to the editor I sent that was in response to an earlier letter saying that Sealaska wasn't honoring Native values by cutting trees.
This letter is in response to a “Letter to the editor” (August 11, 2009) by Gretchen Goldstein.
The author states, “Living in harmony with nature is not compatible with clear-cut logging” and “Unfortunately, the way they (Sealaska) make money often overrides their Native culture’s traditional values.”
Please do not insult Native people by simplifying our world into the black and white world of disaffected environmentalists. Why do anti-logging proponents think they feel the negative effects of logging more than Natives just because we’re the ones doing the logging? This assumption is a failure to understand the plight of Indigenous people.
No one understands the paradox of respecting the natural world and natural resource development better than us. We’ve been the stewards of our land for more than 10,000 years… we understand the concept of balancing our present day needs with unforeseen future obligations.
I am a shareholder of three southeast Native corporations – all three have practiced clear-cutting. I understand the realities my corporations faced and know that our leaders have never taken land stewardship lightly.
In fact, I embrace our history of “clear-cutting”. Cutting down our own trees has saved us! Our trees have allowed us to be respected and relevant stakeholders in our own country. The foundations of southeast Native corporations are built on timber revenue.
The timber business has provided enormous positive contributions to the Native community. Sealaska’s timber revenue funded the creation of the “Sealaska Heritage Institute” (SHI). SHI is the primary driving force behind saving our endangered indigenous languages.
I understand some believe that no amount of human benefit justifies the commercial harvesting of trees. I disagree. Some contributions such as language and culture are so vital to our existence, that their loss would be devastating. Trees grow back, but once we lose our language and culture, they may be gone forever.
We lost the Eyak language last year. We only have a handful of Haida speakers left. Tlingit, a language that once dominated southeast Alaska may be gone in my lifetime. Time is running out.
The late Frederica DeLaguna said to me, “Without language a culture will die... It will be like what Roman culture is to us today”. If we can somehow save our languages, our culture stands a chance to survive.
Environmentalists talk about the importance of “biodiversity”, but what about “cultural diversity” and “language diversity”. Our Hemlock and Spruce may help us save our language and culture. Generations from now, our descendants will thank us for cutting our trees.
Ironically, we had to sacrifice our language to become citizens and vote... And now we’ve had to cut our trees to save our language.
These issues are complex and like many times in our history have made for tough decisions. It is our “Native Culture’s traditional values” that provides the ability to adapt and persevere through the rising tides of change.
Morgan Howard
Tlingit, Teikweidí Clan, Eagle moiety
Sealaska, Goldbelt and Yak-tat Kwaan shareholder
In the interest of full disclosure Morgan Howard
Please don't insult us by hiding the fact that you make a living by producing video for Sealaska and live in the Seattle area.
How clear-cutting helps save First Peoples' culture in Alask
Mr. Howard seems to offer an argument for the clear-cutting the Tongass that is full of mixed messages. On the one hand, he says he is for the clear-cutting of the Tongass rainforest, a forest that has traditionally provided the livelihood and way of life for native peoples for centuries, and on the other hand he says that he wants to save the dying native languages and cultures of Alaska's native peoples. I'm a bit confused; I seriously question how he expects to have one without the other. If the rainforest (and the sea, the animals, the prairies, etc.,) have been the source of sustenance for First Nations throughout North America for eons of time, how does cutting down and destroying those sources result in saving their culture? I further question whether the establishment of a single institute for native languages, as noble and effective it may be, is sufficient by itself to successfully protect these endangered languages from further slipping to a point of no return. What particularly galls me is that Mr. Howard supports the clear-cutting method and doesn't apparently endorse a sustainable way to manage the Tongass and its wonderful resources, including its old-growth trees. Finally, this current problem is very reflective of the defining challenge of our congressional representative government, i.e., as in the dynamic between local and national interests. The role of the congressperson is dual: to effectively represent his or hers local constituencies and to pass effective legislation that benefits the nation at large. What Alaska's two senators have done in submitting their heavy-handed bill is to seek a special privilege for local interests that loudly blocks out or exempts other, legitimate, and yes, national, interests in the area-in-question in Alaska, and they are asking for local control of this area. The problem is the Tongass is not just a local area; it is listed as public land under Federal jurisdiction, not State jurisdiction. As such, they are obliged to consider not only power-laden local special interests, but also the interests of other stakeholders in the nation-at-large such as tourists, American citizens who wish to visit and enjoy the protected area, photographers, scientists, and so forth...not to speak of the wildlife and plant life that also have a legitimate stake in the survival and sustainability of the Tongass National Rainforest.
letter opposing Sealaska legislation
The letter written to convince legislators to oppose the Sealaska legislation was neither clear nor concise. Infact it was to me confusing and rambly. Reading such a letter makes me think you're not taking your work very seriously. Please, if this is important, and it seems to be, please work harder to distill your arguments. Make your points clearly and succinctly, before you broadcast them. The attention you get from other people, especially those who disagree with you, will be fleeting at best. Please make your words count.
Tongass
Morgan Howard failed to mention that he and his company are employed by the Sealaska Corporation. The management of Sealaska is the most corrupt in Native history. Join the Sealaska Shareholders Underground at "facebook", and stop the corruption.
Sealaska Bill "Sacred" Sites
Re Sacred Historic Sites:
The bill affects two types of historic sites---existing ones and prospective ones.
1) The bill would remove existing conditions (restrictive covenants) which currently limit what Sealaska can do on its existing 1000+ historic sites , to which it has already gotten title under 14(h)(1) of ANCSA. Under current law, Sealaska's uses of those sites cannot interfere with protection of historic nature of the sites. If those sites were left "as -is", ie, with restrictive covenants in place, most commercial uses would be forbidden. Most sales to 3rd parties would not happen. Sealaska says it wants to protect these sites and not use them commerically--then why is it removing the restrictions that protect the sites?
2) The bill would also permit Sealaska to get title up to 3600 acres of new sacred/historic sites (under criteria so loose as to be meaningless, and thus they could get them pretty much anywhere) and own them without restrictions on use, except for the prohibition of mining and timber.
These sites are/will be inholdings in public lands which, under this bill, could be sold to anyone at the whim of Sealaska, or involuntarily lost through bankruptcy if they have been developed or leased. As a private landowner, Sealaska does not have to follow the plethora of protective laws which protect historic sites on public lands, and incidentally involve local tribes in their management.
Most of the coastline of Southeast Alaska is inaccessible, with a very few boat-accessible spots, often where fish streams empty out into saltwater. Native and non-natives alike use these sites for subsistence fishing, hunting and gathering. Many of the best of the fishing sites have been targeted by Sealaska as sacred sites.
Access will become a very divisive issue. People are going to lose their favorite fishing holes, recreation and subsistence sites. This bill would deny access to anyone except those designated by Sealaska, with the exception that it will provide the public the right to transverse the site to get somewhere else for fishing etc---but even that limited right of access can be denied if Sealaska says it interferes with its use and enjoyment. Since salmon streams are in the middle of many of the sites, and sockeye streams are short, being able to transit the site to somewhere else inland doesn't help a fisherman who needs to be by saltwater which is where these sites are. You have to dipnet or fish from the banks near saltwater to get sockeye. ANILCA did not allow racially defined access to fish and game, either does the Alaska Constiturion. But this bill will make access to best fish streams in SE just for natives. White folks have used these streams also for last 200 years. This land is "sacred" to them too. This bill is going to make "race" a big issue.
I need to clarify my
I need to clarify my statement above. Sealaska as about 86 existing ANCSA historic sites which total over 1000 acres (not 1000+ sites).