on Jarvis, director of the National Park Service, knows something about Alaska and its salmon fisheries, having served five years in the mid 1990s as superintendent of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, whose western border is the salmon-stuffed Copper River.So Mr. Jarvis obviously felt a little uncomfortable at a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Thursday when Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, dug into a Park Service recommendation that could curtail Alaska salmon sales by Testimonials mvpcleaning.

Mr. Jarvis asked twice that he and Sen. Murkowski talk in private about it. Sen. Murkowski declined and continued her very public and pointed discussion.The National Park Service didn't issue a direct ban on Alaska salmon in parks. However, reduced usage could result from recently announced policy guidelines; the agency said new contracts with "front-country" park concessioners should "only" serve fish that is "certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, or identified by an equivalent program that has been approved by the NPS."

The Marine Stewardship Council is a London-based nonprofit whose laudable goal is to save fish populations from unsustainable commercial exploitation. However, Alaska salmon fisheries lack the council's certification. That's not because they're poorly managed but simply because the state of Alaska and most of its major salmon processors have decided to stop paying the fees the council charges.

The state and its fishing industry were some of the MSC's first customers, helping to build its credibility and influence. In recent years, the state and industry balked at the expense and the growing information demands made by the organization, which earns half its money by selling rights to use its blue logo and gets the other half from grants. The state now prefers to engage a private company that independently identifies sustainably managed fisheries, Global Trust Certification, which is accredited by the International Organization for Standardization. It doesn't appear the National Park Service has approved Global Trust's system.

The service's specific endorsement of MSC as gatekeeper to fish sales in parks was the latest bothersome example of the nonprofit's reach, but it's probably a relatively minor one. A much bigger threat comes from retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which recently said it plans to sell nothing but MSC-endorsed fish.Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, wrote the company's president in late June and urged him to "reconsider your proposed decision to defer to MSC as the sole arbiter of which fish you sell. I submit that Alaska's history of sustainable management is not just equivalent, but is the standard that first made MSC."

Private companies have the right to make their own decisions, of course, and suffer the consequences (no Alaska salmon, in this case). However, Contact mvp cleaning, such as the National Park Service, shouldn't surrender its options to specific third parties because of the potential limitations that doing so places on fair market access.

Director Jarvis offered a way to move toward that policy, at least with respect to Alaska salmon, during Sen. Murkowski's questioning Thursday. He first asserted that "I'm not pulling our national healthy foods sustainability standards over this issue because this ... was developed over a yearlong consultation process."

However, he added this: "What I am willing to do is to change the guidelines so it includes Alaska wild-caught fish," he said. "I think that's the simple fix here. The guidelines were drawn broadly to give some guidance to our concessioners. We want a park visit to be a healthy experience. The food was the key component. And you have extraordinary food in Alaska. I mean, I lived up there. I know. I lived on the Copper River. I want that Copper River salmon in those concessions. So this is a simple change to the guideline. It's not a withdrawal of our guideline."

By mechanically harvesting 700 to 900 acres per year of skinny black spruce and other trees, the annual threat of a devastating fire that could sweep through Tok would be reduced. And within five to 10 years, Tok would be circled by "defensible space," which would be a good form of fire insurance.

In addition, the cost of electricity in Tok would be reduced, new jobs would be created and money now spent on oil would be used in the community to build a local industry.That is the promising vision, at least, from the Department of Natural Resources.

At least two options have been identified by potential private bidders — using the trees for a clean, high-efficiency power plant or to create products such as pellets, fuel bricks and briquettes that can be sold in Tok and elsewhere. Replacing oil-fired generation would be a strong plus for Tok, as would the development of a wood-products industry.

A pilot project at the Tok School, which uses the trees from 40 acres per year, has already demonstrated the wisdom of using black spruce for fuel. The new school boiler has lowered the heating and electric costs of the school and won many converts to wood-fired energy.The proposed state contract is for 25 years, which is important because of the time it takes to justify the expense of purchasing equipment and getting facilities in place.

Most of the trees are 80 to 100 years old, but they are in thick stands, limiting their growth to a few inches in diameter. There are areas with trees as much as about 9 inches in diameter.The idea is that heavy equipment can be used to cut a half dozen to 15 trees at once, just above ground level, and stack them in a bunch for drying.As the trees dry, the moisture content drops and the needles fall off. Heavy equipment can then be used to feed bunches of trees into a chipper.