villages and families have camped and fished on Admiralty and the the island belongs just as much to my people as it does to Angoon. Kootznoowoo does not represent the total Tlingit community at therefore should not be allowed to control access to historical sites f archaeological or anthropological research.

The power of Angoon should not be allowed to reap monetary g from the legislation by being able to enter into agreements with the Secretary of the Interior for research programs related to preservation or all Tlingit cultural resources.

The proposed authority to be vested with a few people of Angoor Kootznoowoo, Inc., the fish and game advisory committee and the is highly undemocratic, as their self-interest would more likely tha not forego any interests other than their own.

The impact of H.R. 5605 and H.R. 39 needs no explanation. Th bills are unrealistic and do not represent the desires of the people does it reflect our interest in Admiralty which is from a cultur historical and business viewpoint.

Should H.R. 5605 and H.R. 39 be approved, and I hope not, the urge you to consider not giving Angoon special treatment, instead a local villages and tribes should be allowed a voice in all decisions affecting cultural, historical and subsistence activities. In all instances. the subsistence life styles of my people should be protected a maintained.

In closing, H.R. 5605 and H.R. 39 are unrealistic, excessive nature, not aware of our Nation's needs for resources and not responsi to Alaskan's needs. I urge you to allow all selections under the Alask Native Claims Settlement Act to take place first, including our siste corporations, Goldbelt and Shee Atika. Then let's inventory o resources both locally and nationally before locking up millions a millions of acres of native Alaskan land. This concludes my statement Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Gray, you've been very helpful t the subcommittee and we get your point very clearly. Mr. GRAY. Thank you for letting me testify.

STATEMENT OF HARVEY MARVIN, SECRETARY,
HUNA TOTEM CORP.

Mr. MARVIN. Mr. Chairman, I'm Harvey Marvin, secretary and member of the board of directors for Huna Totem Corp. Mr. Willians is chairman of the board and has already addressed himself to the current legislation being considered. I would like to make only two points, Mr. Chairman.

The intent of Congress was to grant fee simple title to lands to Natives when they passed the Native Claims Settlement Act on December 18, 1971. I recognize 17(d) (2) is also part of that act. however, the point I would like to make is that title to the lands have been delayed for the Natives and here you are proposing new legisla tion, or different legislation.

The second thing I would like to point out is something that you would probably call an emotion only to myself and probably various (indiscernible) to this country. Mr. Chairman, when the Claims

Settlement Act was being prepared I was among those Native people who traveled many miles and visited many people and spent a lot of my own time working on behalf of our people. I know the parts of the bill and one of the things I took pride in, Mr. Chairman, when I told my own children, this is the only country in the world where the Native people of that land would be dealt with fairly. No other country would deal fairly with their citizens but America has.

Mr. Chairman, my youngest daughter who was only a baby to me at the time is now a teenager and at dinner she looked across at me and said, Dad, we haven't got title to our land yet. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to you once again to consider implementing the intent of Congress to give fee simple title to the Native lands before you give any further consideration to the Wilderness Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Marvin. Very good, gentlemen, thank you very much. OK, the next witness is Mr. Derek Poon, Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Foundation. [No response.] Mr. Poon is not here. Next we have Sherry Gross, business manager, United Fishermen of Alaska. [No response.] Miss Gross is not here. Next we have Denna Cline, vice president, Juneau Audubon Society. Ms. STOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I am Luisa Stoughton and Denna asked me to read her statement.

Mr. LEGGETT. OK, Miss Luisa Stoughton, testifying on behalf of Denna Cline.

STATEMENT OF DENNA CLINE, VICE PRESIDENT, JUNEAU AUDUBON SOCIETY, PRESENTED BY LUISA STOUGHTON

MS. STOUGHTON. I would like to restrict my brief comments primarily to H.R. 39 and H.R. 5605.

Since we believe H.R. 39 offers the most promise for obtaining permanent protection for significant portions of the Alaskan Wildlife resource and its habitat of all the legislative proposals thus far put forward pursuant to mandates of the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act, we give it our wholehearted support. This is in full realization of the fact that this proposed legislation will in fact be modified and strengthened in the following months.

One of our main reasons for supporting H.R. 39 is because of the wilderness protection it offers. Many would argue for further delays. and more study before designation of wilderness areas. This may sound well and good. But, based on what we have witnessed as wilderness studies were conducted on existing national forests, parks and wildlife refuges in Alaska since passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, and the foot dragging that has occurred throughout the review process, we are less than reassured that further delay would be wise.

What does the record in fact show? Despite the fact wilderness studies have been conducted on millions of acres in Alaska, only about 76,235 acres of offshore island, or 0.02 percent of the State have actually been designated and protected as wilderness. Alaska, despite having more de facto wilderness than any other State in the Union, actually has less protected than 13 other States.

Because it is so close to us we would like to speak specifically of Admiralty Island. It is an insular ecosystem unique in the world.

It's American bald eagle and grizzly bear populations reach some of the highest densities known for the species. And its scenery and recrea tional opportunities are nothing less than spectacular. Many of our members visit Admiralty to sightsee, hunt, fish, canoe, kayak, hike, camp or just plain relax from the humdrum. Most of us have chosen to live in southeast for these reasons and we believe the island wil become even more popular because of them. Tourism is the fastest growing industry in southeast with Admiralty one of the natural spectacles to be enjoyed along the Alaska Marine Highway and easy to visit on even a short stay in this area.

Managementwise, Juneau Audubon believes Admiralty Island should be viewed in the ecosystem sense and that it is deserving of wilderness designation as are the other southeast areas that are mentioned in H.R. 39. If placed in the national wilderness preserve tion system along with these other proposals, we believe it should remain under Forest Service jurisdiction. We could only support refuge designation for Admiralty if it was included in this designation of wilderness and the same protection of the Native's rights that are included in H.R. 5605 were applied. No matter who the manager is, however, Admiralty wilderness values should be given maximum protection, for that is what makes the island what it is. We believe existing uses including aircraft and motorboat access, shelter cabins, and trails should be allowed to continue.

Our members have been extremely proud to learn that we have much in common with the people of Angoon in that we believe the island should be preserved in its natural state for the benefit of both residents of the island and visitors. We applaud and support their courageous and farsighted efforts and hope this committee will listen carefully to the people of Angoon and will see the good sense and wisdom in their proposal. The Angoon bill is a clear indication of the way in which local residents wish to cooperate in the protection and management of their land and adjacent public lands. This is what true cooperative management is all about.

In conclusion, we would like to urge you to share information and thoughts with the members and staff of the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Alaska Lands. The questions and issues you are addressing are not easy ones and there is too much at stake not to take advantage of all the testimony and the research that has been done. Thank you.

Mr. LEGGETT. All right, thank you very much, Don't cabins have to be removed in the wilderness?

Ms. STOUGHTON. No; not to my knowledge.

Mr. LEGGETT. OK. Now, we have Marcus Jensen.

STATEMENT OF MARCUS JENSEN

Mr. JENSEN. My name is Marcus F. Jensen and I have lived in Alaska 48 years. I am married and have one son who also makes his home in Alaska. I have served in both the House and Senate of the Alaska Legislature for a total of 8 years. As one of the few master guides, I have guided for over 32 years in both southeastern Alaska and the interior. I am chairman of the Guide Licensing and Control Board, which governs the actions of the 450 registered guides in Alaska. The guiding industry does over $20 million worth of business

n a year and most of it stays in the State, turning over many times. The license money obtained from the nonresidents who hunt in Alaska pays for over 75 percent of the State's game budget.

All the Alaska guides appreciate the fact that to have sizable game herds, the habitat supporting these animals must be protected. To that extent I personally endorse the concept of the Federal Government being concerned about impact in vital areas. Because of the scarcity of road systems in Alaska, I think it will be many, many years before large parts of Alaska are touched by man except by means of airplanes and track vehicles, plus, of course, the many waterways that are used for navigation. Animal harvesting and industry can work side by side in most cases. Enough restrictions can be put on the land, such as the type of vehicle travel, along with good game management practices, to make the multiple use concept work.

I feel it is important that only one agency manage fish and wildlife. In this case the State of Alaska should have total management of its fisheries and wildlife. Animals do not recognize any land boundary and management should take in the total movement of those animals that are highly mobile, such as moose and caribou, and even sheep. Just recently the State was given the management of the Kodiak brown bear and is now using a permit system very effectively. Good game management many times calls for fast action because of hard winters and/or increased predator kill. The State hunters and guides, I believe, can relate more quickly to a State agency and get results than they can to a Federal agency where the control usually rests in Washington, D.C. For example, last year another guide and I presented a regulation reducing the hunting period for brown bear on Admiralty Island. At the opening hearing on this regulation, the game board reacted very quickly. They reduced the brown bear season on Admiralty, starting in the spring of 1978, by 50 precent. In effect, the new season should reduce the brown bear harvest by 70 percent for reason that the season closure occurs during the better part of the hunting period.

I am against putting Admiralty Island into a national preserve. I believe the island is big enough to satisfy many needs in a realistic manner. I think it should be the concern of every American to encourage legislation that would keep open the development and harvesting of our minerals, our timber, and our fisheries to the maximum extent. Our country needs a resource base for employment, therefore a compromise on land use is necessary.

More specifically, I think that the Native village of Angoon should have the surrounding area around Mitchell Bay in the status of a wilderness, or recreation area. I believe that an area from South Island in Stephens Passage, west, toward Young's Bay, and Point Retreat to Funter Bay should be a recreational area for the Juneau area residents.

Regarding other parts of Admiralty Island I feel that timber harvesting should be permitted on a rotating basis. The game on the island, that is, the bear and deer, can be compatible with timber harvesting when management controls are instituted. It is very easy for a great many people to become nearly hysterical when they look at barren areas that have just been logged. However, I think that if we want to do something, both for our industry's stability, our balance of payments and especially for the land to reproduce, we should

support timber harvesting where it is practical. In the Tongass National Forest much of the timber today is overripe. In an overripe stand such trees continually blow down and in many cases make such a jungle that man himself cannot penetrate it. Since my years in Juneau I can point to areas that were logged when I first came here and now have heavy regrowth over 50 feet tall. What I am saying is that it helps the land to have the Sun get to it, it helps the growth of the young shrub and supports for many years many more deer than normal. Also, it must be remembered that the rotation in logging areas is probably 100 years or more.

There have been some expressions made publicly that Admiralty Island should be set aside as a national preserve to protect the bald eagle and the Shira brown bear. From my observations, I do not think this would be advisable or necessary. In my opinion, the brown bear needs to be harvested at a certain rate to keep the animal herd healthy and active. I believe men who have studied these animals would agree that where the density of bear gets beyond a certain point, cub and sow mortality increases because of the conflict among the animals themselves. For example, there are places on the Alaska Peninsula that had excellent year-around feed, and no hunting pressure for hundreds of years and very limited hunting pressure until the mid-1940's and the advent of the souped-up Piper Cub plane. In areas such as this the bear did not multiply in big herds as deer and moose would. When the bear population density arrived at a certain point, the old boars killed off many of the sows and cubs and the level was therefore held fairly constant.

In the matter of the subsistence question, I believe the problem should be left to the State of Alaska to handle. Most of the Native villages rely heavily on the sea mammals and fisheries for their yearly subsistence. The caribou and moose are another problem entirely. In the first place, there are now not enough to go around. For the taking of both these species it is necessary to have reduced seasons to give time for the healthy herds to build up again. The State in some cases is restricting types of travel or transportation into areas, which gives the local people much preference over outsiders, in harvesting these animals. This probably is the best way to handle the problem of subsistence without giving preferential treatment to an ethnic group.

One of the key problems the Federal Government must solve to make the Native land claims viable is a system of transportation corridors to take care of future development in the State for the next 100 years. Also, the matter of easements on waterways and through Native lands should be done from the standpoint that the public has use of and access to waterways, with some distance back from high tide or waterline, where they will not be trespassing. Unless all Alaskans are considered in this vital question friction will develop and the State, in the end, will be the loser.

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Jensen, that's very helpful to the subcommittee.

Mr. JENSEN. I'd be very happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Mr. LEGGETT. I'm afraid we just don't have time for questions, thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Joel Bennett.