Asbestos Forest
Dear Editor: I recently gave a testimony to the Forest Service regarding how the proposed exemption to the Roadless Rule would affect subsistence use.
The following is basically what I said: My name is Jeff Kelly, and I have lived in Sitka for 44 years. I have raised a family utilizing subsistence harvest, and I support the “no action” option for the proposed exemption to the Alaska Roadless Rule, even though the Forest Service has already announced that it’s seeking a full exemption to this rule. Tonight we are asked to only comment on how this exemption would affect our subsistence use in the forest; but the Forest Service recommendation has nothing to do with subsistence. Advocating old-growth logging can only be based on perceived economic value. But I think there is a connection between our subsistence needs and a much higher economic potential that is not being recognized.
The exemption we are discussing is an “Alaska Only” proposal, which does not apply to the Roadless Rule in effect anywhere else in the country. It is interesting that Alaska is the only place where subsistence use of resources is available, thus we are in the only National Forest where a subsistence way of life, which has become crucial to so many of us who live here, is even possible. Also Alaska state law provides for a “subsistence priority,” where harvestable surplus of any fish or game must go to subsistence needs before any commercial or sport harvest. This priority was endorsed and legalized at the federal level as part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). So how can the Forest Service (and our own congressional delegation) in good conscience recommend something that counters both State and Federal regulation, but, more importantly, opposes the vast majority of comments from residents of the Tongass who have testified how this ruling would negatively impact our subsistence lifestyle?
There have been changes in recent years that I believe are important in this issue, which is the increasing number of forest fires and wildfires in the western North America. This is not only happening in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia, but in the interior of Alaska also. These fires have changed the opportunities available for ecotourism in these areas, and will continue in the foreseeable future to limit the places (National Forests, Parks and Monuments among others) people can go to see and enjoy exceptional natural environments. We in the Tongass however are not likely to suffer large scale forest fires, being one of the last remaining intact temperate rain forests. So as the world population increases, and appreciation for the natural world surges due to global environmental destruction, and the places that offer a pristine wilderness experience continues to decline due to forest fires, what do you think an eco-minded Japanese or German person would pay in five, 10 or 50 years to come to an intact old-growth forest?
The current and future potential economic value of ecotourism to the Tongass far exceeds the short-term value of old-growth logging. This provides a sustainable economy, and one that is compatible with the subsistence way of life that so many of us depend on and love dearly.
Jeffrey Kelly, Sitka
