When I see the shirt- it tells me basically…
You want the world to basically go around sneezing and carrying H1N1, SARS, and various other germs with them? That is the message you are sending.

I won’t claim that I know about the history of this forest or all the details about how much wood there is to log in Canada. But from this little snippet this place sounds like something of significance.

At the same time: people do need to understand – there has to be a balance:

Paper is a necessity. There’s nothing wrong with replanting and harvesting forest. The same way we have trout farms and cow farms and chicken farms.

In the US we have forest preserve sections that are usually cared for quite well. But at the same time – areas of WI are getting logged because the trees have died of droughts especially the Nicolet section.

If the Boreal system is that essential and historic then yes- Canada should do something to preserve it. But at the same time.

Some ecologists can’t be ecological nazis- there is give and take. The idea would be to develop a product that replaces the need for paper or develop some other compromise and yes I believe paper recycling is important.

THERE IS A RECALL EFFORT UNDER WAY AGAINST ALASKA SENATOR ALBERT KOOKESH
IF YOU LIVE IN SENATE DISTRICT C, GET THE PETITION HERE.
http://www.ednabayalaska.net
INSTRUCTIONS WHERE TO MAIL ARE AT THAT LINK
Kookese tried to “extort” in the words of the Anchorage Daily News one of the communities which was considering S 881. The ethics committee found he was guilty and admonished him. Admonishment is not enough for a lot of his voters who want him out of office.

please fax Senator Bingaham today US SENATE

I for one, is the MD for LJEL in Ghana and seeking for a startup funding for Cashew plantation project on a two miles square of land which could plant over 200,00 trees which could give employment to millions of people in the district where land has been secured. But who will fund this project when all search both home and abroad is proving futile.
I blame no one because, potential investors who could help have been duped various sums on the internet and would never click and read you advert so as to invest. To this end, I implore the UN to get more closely with grassroots people worldwide to implement good ideas like this which could eradicate poverty from the surface of the world.

I wish to say to you – “Best of luck!”
I live in Bermuda where the locals call it “Mexican Pepper.”
I have no idea how this plant came to have its name changed.
However; I will tell you that, there is a plus+ side, to this invasion of sorts.
Bees LOVE this plant!

If you like honey – then start making bee hives as fast as you can!
In my experience – although invasive (and I find the sapp more bothersome than poison ivy)-; plant life will show dramatic improvement in the near future.
Pruning almost constantly in the summer months is required and (if you are like me:-) please wash off the sapp after about 3 hours or so!

Thank you
C. Bruce

The opening paragraph of Mr. McNeil’s letter clearly sets the tone for the Sealaska/ congressional delegation’s attitude toward the rest of us who do NOT stand to benefit from Sealaska land bill S881. To state, “The Tongass National Forest is a Native Place” clearly implies that those of us who are non-natives do not belong here, should not have a say, and our opinions are dismissible. As far as this land bill “enabl(ing) the government to complete the contract that it made with Sealaska and other Alaska Natives when it enacted ANCSA in 1971″, one of the biggest issues is that the public lands they are now trying to take WERE NOT a part of the “contract”! These are public lands we have, as individuals, communities, and taxpayers to the federal government poured years and money into roading and managing, and built our very livelihoods around. Surprise! These value-added, roaded, multiple-use, highly used public areas are now the very areas they want to grab.

The worn-out line of “The Sealaska land legislation not giving Sealaska any more land than it was entitled to under ANCSA” defies logic as well. On whose spreadsheet do the “pristine unroaded lands” acres have the same value to the public as the roaded public lands on which we drive, hunt, fish, recreate, cut firewood, support small logging sales, and access our communities? It sounds very noble to “preserve over 270,000 acres of inventoried roadless and over 112,000 acres of productive old-growth stands” but Sealaska knows and we know that means nothing when it’s time to put food on our tables. As a private corporation, Sealaska has much fewer restrictions than the federal government on how it manages its lands; it can export logs in the round, and no expensive lawsuits or requisite public accountability and NEPA process. If THEY can’t make money – or as high a profit as they’d like – on their unroaded lands, then it’s egregious to expect anyone else to, and it’s callously unconscionable to instead take away the very land base which communities need to eke out a living in these tough economic times.

Do not be fooled. The “jobs” Sealaska creates are for Sealaska’s beneficiaries and come at the expense of the communities and public at large. How often have we seen notices for employment opportunities with native entities, with the qualifier, “Native Preference Applies”? The truth is, there is hardly enough to go around now. Individuals and communities on Prince of Wales and Kosiousko Islands are barely hanging on, and looking for creative ways to diversify out of old-growth-centric industry, and rebuild flagging economies. The glory days of big timber profits are gone. The glory days of big corporation dividend checks are gone too! Instead, there is a delicate, and hopefully recovering, balance of communities involving small mills, wood products, commercial fishing, some tourism, some civic employment, public lands management, and subsistence and cottage industries for which the public lands and multiple-use management are critical components of survival. In order for everyone to survive, everyone is now trying to make do with less than we may have enjoyed in the past. More for Sealaska, of our critical public lands, means less for communities and families who are right now only hanging on by their fingernails. You can’t rob from Peter to pay Paul, without Peter starving to death. And that is a fact to which Sealaska and, inexplicably, our own elected officials are apparently turning a deaf ear.

As for Sealaska’s leadership making “nearly 200 visits to communities across the region” to try to sell the idea of the “land grab”, why are we then hearing more and more opposition to this bill? I believe they only visited Point Baker/Port Protection once. By the public and municipal comments I have seen, spanning the past few years, this has not been a well-received proposal. Whatever major compromises Sealaska claims to have incorporated don’t seem to have won the buy-in of the affected communities or individuals. The same roaded public land base they’ve had in their gunsights has changed little if at all. That is the core issue. How is it that a proposal of such magnitude, basically a land disposal of some 85,000 acres of the most used and valued public land base, is not the subject of widely publicized public hearings in every affected community, public scoping and input, and extensive environmental and economic analysis? It would appear that the proponents would prefer quite the opposite, but now at last the cat is well out of the bag and the outcry is growing.

I own property in Point Baker. My father has lived there for 50 years. It is one of the communities, along with Port Protection and Edna Bay, to be the most immediately devastated by this land bill. If this bill passes, I probably will forego planning to ever build on my property. The only road that approaches Point Baker/Port Protection would become private road. Surrounding these tiny communities with private native corporation land will soon squeeze them out of existence. I don’t know which communities Sealaska’s “goals” are “in alignment with”, but it certainly is none of those three. For Mr. McNeil to imply that their “surveys” show buy-in from the public merely highlights the fact they have not, are not, and don’t intend to, address the concerns of these communities, which is, do not take away the public roads and public land our communities need to survive. How many times is this repeated before Sealaska hears us? Before our elected representatives listen to us?

Mr. McNeil sounds like he expects us “critics” of their land bill to provide alternatives for their corporation’s economic sustainability. Well, we all want economic sustainability. There is no miracle cure. No one has ever guaranteed MY economic sustainability. We all have equal opportunity to work hard and succeed. I grew up financially poor but determined to work hard, and that I have done. As to the question about how many more people will lose their jobs, well, if Sealaska’s bill passes, it will surely be a lot! And when he talks about “job prospects for our youth”, does he just mean native youth? What about my kid? I do know he doesn’t get native preference for jobs. I know he isn’t allowed to hunt or fish on corporation land. I guess they weren’t talking about my kid. At least on public land, they can all hunt and fish…native and non-native equally.

Mr. McNeil insults the communities and individuals who have serious issues and concerns over this land bill by accusing us of “misrepresenting the legislation” into “sound bites”. Like many of the “critics” I have lived in Southeast a long time – 35 years. I have hiked, hunted and fished on public lands, I have driven up and down the length of Prince of Wales many times. The north end is in particular a public treasure. We all love these lands and we are fighting for our livelihoods and the continued full use of our public lands. No one is out to deny the legitimate settlement of the ANCSA issue. While this should have been done 40 years ago, it was not, but waiting for huge public investments such as roads in order to gain value-added benefits at the public’s expense is just plain wrong. Sealaska needs to settle ANCSA based on the land selection areas authorized by the original Act and let us ALL get on with building an economically strong Southeast Alaska together. Our
accessible public lands are PUBLIC LANDS, to benefit ALL OF US, not just a select private group.

Anyone concerned about stopping this Sealaska land bill S.881 once and for all needs to contact Senator Bingaman, Sen. Murkowski, and Sen. Begich, as well as local elected officials, to voice their concerns.

Sandy Powers
Ketchikan, AK

About: “35-year resident of Southeast Alaska, POW property owner, directly affected by bill S.881.”

sealaska is a big casino invester and gets some bang for its buck as a result. note its purchase of acres in sonoma county california for a casino

lands shall be selected and conveyed from lands withdrawn by section 16a and not given to the villages except “without the consent of the Governor of the State of Alasaka …lands in Saxman and Yakutat are not avail able for selection or conveyance.”

so then the Gov gave his consent in 1978– this was the wessel op back then– but Sealaska did not negotiate until 2002.

so then sealaska rejected the following areas offered to them by the Forest Service. hence the land grab handle.

clevland, sitko, neka, e spaski, hobart, hoonah, whitestone, e gunnick, chiken creek, alice

If S 881 passes out of committee next month, Southeast Alaska and the nation will be worse off. Here is an untold story.

Back in 1977, Sealaska got Congress to change ANCSA, then six years old. The 1977 amendment required Governor Hammond to consent to transfer of 76,600 acres in Yakutat, and others in Saxman. Also removed from transfer were Sealaska lands around Angoon.

Byron Mallot, chief of Yakutat and powerful Board Member of Sealaska, pulled off a coups. In one sentence, Sealaska insured the lands around these communities were saved from logging.

But by saving his own village, he concentrated the logging around the remaining Native villages of Hoonah, Klawock, Kake, and Hydaburg.

In 1978, Hammond consented to Yakutat lands being transferred to Sealaska if they could exchange these lands to the US Forest Service. As far as I can tell, nothing happened until 2002 when negotiations began between Sealaska and the US Forest Service.

Sealaska was offered lands “of equal value” to the lands in Yakutat. The Forest Service offered: Cleveland Peninsula, Sitko, Neko, E Gunnick Bays,Seal and Chicken Creeks, Alice Lake, and E Spaski, Hoonah, Hobart and Whitestone.

Sealaska rejected the offer. Instead, they began to push for legislation to get in Congress what they could not get from the agency managing the Tongass for all users. S 881 is the latest reincarnation.

Instead of seeking a mere land exchange for the 76,600 Yakutat acres, Sealaska saw an opportunity to reach way beyond anything Congress gave in 1971.

Now 39 years latter, Sealaska wants Congress to give it parcels in bays up and down the 350 miles of the Tongass, and Federal land developed at huge cost to US taxpayers , most of which are in the hunting and fishing grounds heavlily used by the public and none of which were contemplated by Congress long ago.

This bold overreaching beyond the scope of ANCSA is what has ignited a fury among the people living in bush Alaska who made investments of hard labor and money to live next to Federal Land protected by the US Forest Service. A bill so far reaching, should be aired in public.

A public hearing was held in DC but none are scheduled for Alaska despite the clamor to be heard by votes of Craig, Petersburg, Port Protection, Pt Baker, and Edna Bay, with Sitka holding one on Tuesday. A measure that impacts so many lives throughout SE Alaska deserves to be aired in front of Senators Murkowski, Begich, and Bingaman— but popcorn and a tape recorder is the best Senator Murkowski can do.

To refuse to hold hearings and put the brakes on the rush to complete this land grab is to reinforce the public perception of Congress. And it ain’t too good right now.

Landgrabs and worse do pass Congress. But now is not the time to change the face of Southeast Alaska with this terrible bill. If Senator Al Kookesh can issue public threats before the city council of Craig, there is no telling what is going on behind closed doors.

PO BOX 68

Point Baker AK, 99927

The community of Port Protection on the north end of Prince Of Wales Island in South East Alaska is strongly opposed to the Senate bill that would give the private corporation of Sealaska the land surrounding our community. We have worked for decades in good faith with the U.S. Forest Service to protect our most crucial subsistence areas that are within this land that Sealaska wants to grab. Sealaska is entitled to select their remaining lands , but their right to select it outside the area that they originally helped to select and which has been set aside for them these last 38 years is the problem. Their wish to obtain the lands that we have worked to protect and helped manage all these years is not right and if given to them would be a betrayal to all of us who trusted the system and worked with it. Port Protection has actively worked with the USFS for at least 30 years to protect our main subsistence areas, we worked in good faith that this was a important process to participate in, to ensure our local communities survival with a healthy forest environment intact. We succeeded in preserving a fraction of the old growth forest in our area, a multiple use forest used and enjoyed by many regardless of race. With a decision to give this land to a private corporation so that they can clear cut or mine it for short term shareholder profits, the U.S. Senate would turn our many years of participation and trust into a devastating loss and betrayal of that trust.

This is a very unpopular bill here on Prince of Wales Is., with even the main community within Sealaska’s entitlement area opposed to it. The thinly veiled threats to the Craig City Council by Senator Kookesh shows how impossible it is to get any support from our legislators against a large corporation with money to spend and weight to throw around. We have written many letters opposed to this bill over the last few years, to the House of Representatives and the Senate, stating the many reasons against it. Many here who have written in the past have given up, as no one seems to be listening, certainly not our representatives who are heavily lobbied by Sealaska Corporation. ANILCA was included by Congress to protect local subsistence land use against such corporate incursion. Title VIII guarantees subsistence rights of Federal land. Section 802 states that the policy of Congress is to cause the least adverse impact possible on rural residents who depend on subsistence uses of the resources of such land. Our community depends on these lands for subsistence , our fisheries depend also on a healthy forest habitat, and our other major business in the area of tourism depends on a surrounding area that is not wall to wall clear cuts.

Sealaska has targeted the most environmentally sensitive topography to clear cut when they chose karst for their enterprise areas. Karst with it’s many caves and large hydrological systems is a environmentally fragile ecosystem, it needs the protection of the Federal Cave Resources Act that it now has as Federal land. Karstlands tend to grow bigger trees and more salmon ,consequently developed karst areas like this have a long history of timber production. The USFS panel of karst experts in 1993 found karst on North Prince of Wales to be significant at both National and International scales , and concluded that karst was being degraded by timber harvest. In addition their analysis showed karstlands to be critically important to fisheries. This valuable and fragile resource needs to be protected for the future, we do not fully understand the aquatic ecosystem processes in karst landscapes. We know for a fact that scientists and National cave groups have written in opposition to this bill with many good reasons why this bill should not pass because of the karst involved , these are experts on this resource and there fears about logging this area should be taken seriously. Logging does not bring prosperity or jobs , only destruction and loss. When the trees are gone so are the jobs, unless Sealaska will then open a mine and cart the land away also, which could happen.

We are a small community , our main source of income is from fishing. We don’t have the money to compete against a large corporation like Sealaska, they don’t even acknowledge our existence here adjacent to their selected land and the impacts that logging that land would have on our community. Sealaska does not need this area to provide profit to their shareholders, but we desperately need it for our community to survive . Sealaska corporation has not received all the land they are entitled to because they chose not to select it, not because they could not select it . They wish to make it seem as though this land was kept from them unjustly and now they only seek reparation. In the past 38 years other areas not set aside for them have become utilized by others, fought for by others, and depended upon by others , the injustice is in taking that land away from those who have worked so long and hard to protect the vital habitat that they depend on. It would be a major betrayal to our community if this bill is passed.

We are dependent on the Congress to protect our rights in this as our Alaska Senators and Representative have no desire to say NO to a powerful native corporations lobbying.

Sincerely

Secretary

Port Protection Community Association

Port Protection , Alaska

_____________________________________________________________
A RESOLUTION FROM EDNA BAY COMMUNITY IN OPPOSITION TO OUT OF WITHDRAWAL AREA
SELECTIONS IN S.881 – SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE LAND ENTITLEMENT FINALIZATION ACT.
Resolution #10-03:02-19
WHEREAS, the community of Edna Bay is a state established subsistence community that depends on
continued access to the public lands on Kosciusko Island to support the development and economy of
the community; such as free use timber, firewood, commercial timber sales, sand and gravel, and wild
food harvesting; and
WHEREAS, the community of Edna Bay is a remote, isolated community with no road access
connecting it to the main island of Prince of Wales for economic or development support; and
WHEREAS, the out of withdrawal area selections proposed in S.881 encompass three fourths of the
drivable road system and over two thirds of the accessible parts of the island; and
WHEREAS, the loss of such an extensive amount of the public lands on Kosciusko would stop all
future development of the community, thereby effectively ending the community’s existence; and
WHEREAS, the transfer to private ownership of such an extensive amount of the public land currently
used by the community for subsistence resources would suspend guarantees provided them by
ANILCA; and
WHEREAS, the community’s emergency water supply lies within the boundaries of the out of
withdrawal area selections proposed on Kosciusko Island in S.881 – Southeast Alaska Native Land
Entitlement Finalization Act; and
WHEREAS, the effects of the proposed selection on Kosciusko Island in S.881 would demolish the
integrity and future viability of the community, and depreciate the value of properties within the
community; and
NOW THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Community of Edna Bay has formed a resolution in
opposition to S.881-Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act as currently written,
including amendments that propose out of withdrawal area selection of any public lands on Kosciusko
Island.
THIS RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE EDNA BAY COMMUNITY, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
THIS 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010.
P.

The following communities on Prince of Wales and Kosciusko Islands in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest are opposed to passage of S. 881.

No other organization is authorized to represent our position.

We oppose Congress granting any land on Prince of Wales, Kosciusko , and Tuxekan Islands to the Sealaska Corporation outside of the boundaries set by statute by Congress in 1971 known as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

ANCSA fairly designated a large amount of land for Sealaska which is now available off of the Prince of Wales Archipelago where they can complete their final land selections.

There are people who are born (or perhaps it is acquired after birth) with a depth of understanding that goes beyond even their own ability to grasp. Individuals that feel things that most in current culture would consider forgettable, so keenly that the pain overwhelms. They feel and understand things that on a conscious level make NO SENSE.

So I’ll leave you with this thought…

Perhaps all the various comments and discussions here that are distilled down into, “We liked/loved him IN SPITE of these things we see that made him somehow broken or “less” in our perceptions” were all pointing to a single thing…he had a rather profound effect on people and his environment. Perhaps he was something much more special than any of you and you’re just too stuck in current neanderthal perception to see or understand that. He sounds like an old soul to me, and I’ve no doubt the trees actually spoke his name. If you really listen to them (the trees), you may hear them speak it too…

The Alaska Senators, including Mark Begich, are getting roundly chewed out by the people who live on these islands in the Tongass and just going on with business as usual.

So fax Senator Bingaman and tell him what you think.

Stop Sealaska’s land billBy Myla Poelstra | Juneau Empire
Senate Bill 881, the Sealaska landbill, should die in committee. Sealaska’s selections should only occur within the area specified by ANCSA in 1971.

This bill in front of the Senate Natural Resources Committee stands to devastate the transitioning economy of Southeast Alaska.

S.B. 881: Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act does not represent the future for Southeast Alaska. It represents a dying industry that should be relegated to the past. While Sealaska is requesting access to new lands to support its declining timber base, the rest of Southeast Alaska is looking to more sustainable avenues for their future economy.

Just like the “gold rush” days of the late 1800’s, the timber industry’s time in Southeast Alaska has clearly come and gone. The main reason for this are changing attitudes toward conservation and sustainable resource use. The economy of the world has changed, and it is no longer acceptable to destroy irreplaceable resources to profit small numbers of people. Sealaska’s methods of clear-cut harvesting can never be represented as sustainable, as evidenced by their selections in this bill.

They already are the largest private landowner in Southeast Alaska, yet here they are asking Congress to allow them to step outside the boundaries established by ANCSA to pursue economic rewards that are clearly not sustainable.

The remote community of Edna Bay, on Kosciusko Island, has found itself drug into the middle of a land conveyance process that should never have affected it. We are literally fighting for our survival. Sealaska’s selection of almost 32,000 acres of public lands surrounding our community threatens to upend nearly 30 years of hard work and development. Our hard work and investment has resulted in a growing community that includes a school, church, general store, and post office. This community has developed because of continued open access to the extensive road system and public lands surrounding it.

Transferring those public lands into private ownership will destroy any chance we have for a future.

Originally a logging camp, Edna Bay has transitioned over the years to support a wide variety of economic opportunities that include commercial fishing, guiding, eco-tourism, cabin rentals and small sawmills that produce locally available lumber. Thanks to investment by USDA, the recent addition of broadband Internet has opened the door to an even wider array of business opportunities that are clearly more sustainable than the one that brought us into existence. We have developed an interwoven economy that will continue to offer prosperity to the region far into the future.

Everyone clearly supports swift completion of ANCSA. Sealaska’s looming legislation has affected migration to the area for almost a decade. Several families who have purchased property in Edna Bay are waiting for the outcome of this bill before making the decision to relocate here. We need continued management by the U.S. Forest Service for people to have access to resources they will need to develop their land. We depend on personal use timber, sand and gravel from the public lands around our community to build here. The cost of importing these materials is more than any of us could bear, and would stop all development in Edna Bay.

If Sealaska had not fought so long against the directive laid out for them by Congress during the establishment of ANCSA, they could already have their land conveyance completed and be pursuing economic opportunities around native communities as they were supposed to. Congress clearly intended for them to benefit their own communities with their endeavors, not destroy already established communities in areas that should never have been threatened by their entitlement.

Sealaska needs to use their resources to develop sustainable economic opportunities for its corporation from within the boundaries established by ANCSA, and allow the rest of Southeast Alaska to continue developing a more sustainable economy based on a balanced use of the forest and wise conservation of our natural resources.

This bill should never pass out of committee, and certainly not without a formal hearing held on Prince of Wales Island, where its effects will be devastating.

• Myla Poelstra is a resident of Edna Bay.

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/021610/opi_563672598.shtml

Have a picture of a 1936 (about) wind blow that has turned into five big trees, with another two further up the trunk that might survive if the bit of trunk just under them were treated with some rooting compound and partly earthed up. (RFS Leighton Grove). They may be wanting to see what nature will do in the long term.

I could send the photo as an attach.

I did once put a Sequoia in the bottom of a crevass being formed near an old Quarry. Pact with the Devil that it would live down there and slowly grow into the sunlight. By he time it gets there the Ozone layer might be destroyed and it will have to regenerate repeatedly until enough Methane gets into the Ozone layer to clean out the Chlorine. Then it will be able to grow out of its protective crevass to seed in the sunlight and repopulate Britain with 100% Sequoia.

Maybe it wasn’t a pact with the Devil, God sent a big wind and around our grove of Sequoias caused three pine trees to fall. One precisely hit a Sequoia and bent it double, another fell at 90 degrees to marl where the head of the bent tree should be pulled down to be layered. We wait to see it we will have a Divine arch rooted at both ends.

We had a Bible from Carrera delivered free just in time to have the back turned into a centenary stone for the IWW, and inset it into a rock along a path in the forest. telling a local Councillor about it, I was told “Carrera? Do you know that is the only town in the world that ever had an Anarchist controlled Town Council?” The free delivery of that piece of marble must be evidence that God exists, is a fully paid up member of the IWW, and is an Anarchist.

The problem there is that the Bible is now readable from the Underworld. So be very careful next time you meet our friend with the cloven hoofs. He may have read the Bible and become a born again Christian.

Please, help us save the few percent of old growth forest remains from clearcutting in Sweden by joining many scientists, biologists, organizations and others in signing an appeal to the Swedish Parliament and Government.
The initiator of the Appeal is the organization Protect the Forest. This year is electionyear in Sweden and with international support we hope to be able to change the directions.
According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency only a few percent of high conservation value forests remain below the mountain region in Sweden, less than one percent is primeval forests, which puts Sweden far below other countries preservationplans like U.S.A , Germany, Costa Rica, New Zealand. among others.

Read more and sign here: http://protecttheforest.se/upprop/en
(Note! Scientists in any of the fields of forest, climate, environment, biology or ecology, and organizations that wish to sign the Appeal can do this by contacting Protect the Forest: viktor.safve@skyddaskogen.se )
With the very best regards.
Maria Westerberg
Protect the Forest