Alaska is so vast that residents in one of its many regions might sometimes think the problems of another region don’t merit their concern.
But one area’s problems sometimes need the attention of all Alaskans.
And that’s the case now following an Anchorage federal judge’s recent decision to reinstate a ban on the construction of new logging roads in the Tongass National Forest in Southeast.
On this one, the Interior must stand with the Southeast timber industry and the communities that rely on what remains of it.
The judge’s ruling is another blow to a region and industry that have been under constant assault by environmental groups and their supporters.
The judge ruled that the Bush administration’s 2003 exemption of the Tongass from the federal government’s Clinton-era “roadless rule” was arbitrary. The Native village of Kake had sued over the exemption.
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski last week took note of the judge’s ruling in a statement that could easily have been a response to any of the setbacks suffered by the industry over the years. “This will make it all the more difficult for the few remaining timber operations that depend on the Tongass and the Forest Service to survive.”
The 17 million-acre Tongass is about the size of West Virginia and is seen by many as the crown jewel of the national forest system. A management plan put in place during the Bush administration set aside a fraction of that, about 3.4 million acres, for logging and other development. Of that total, 2.4 million acres are remote and cannot be reached by logging road.
No wholesale decimation of the forest is planned.
What has been decimated, however, is the Southeast timber industry. The region was once a timber powerhouse, but its mills have since fallen largely silent. And gone are many of the logging jobs.
Why is this something for Interior residents to be concerned about? After all, the Tongass National Forest is about 700 miles from Fairbanks.
Well, do this: Substitute the words “mining” or “oil” for “forest.”
The opponents of responsible resource development are forever in search of their next target. And that is why an attack on development in one part of this resource-driven state should be of concern in all regions.
With the millions of acres burned in Alaska yearly, leaving a forest like this also helps to offset the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Not to mention leaving habitat for wild animals and birds, increasing tourism opportunities, etc.
Agree with your comment, but would add a few more. It's not only that they want to save every square inch of forested land for their own "viewing and tactile pleasure," (good one) but that the great majority of them will never do either one of those.
They just want it to "be" there.
Do they mourn when fires take out great swaths of Alaska's forests? I doubt it, because they have no real attachment whatsoever to the lands they "save." It's all just a grand dream.