On January 6, 2026, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Division of Forestry & Fire Protection (DFFP) will meet in person at the Kenai Peninsula College to discuss the potential establishment of a new state forest on the Kenai Peninsula.
Currently, Alaska maintains 3 state forests: Haines State Forest (286,000 acres), Southeast State Forest (46,592 acres), and Tanana Valley State Forest (1.8 million acres). On May 2, 2025, Governor Dunleavy referred House Bill 218 and Senate Bill 188 to the Legislature. These bills propose the expansion of the Tanana Valley State Forest by 600,000 acres. The bills remain pending in committee.
Alongside the pending legislation to expand the Tanana Valley State Forest, DNR and DFFP also express interest in creating the Kenai Peninsula State Forest with the primary goals of “timber production, regeneration, and active management… while maintaining opportunities for recreation, hunting, fishing, and other public uses.”
As of now, there is no active proposal to create the new state forest in Kenai, but if the community shows active interest and support of the project, DFFP may develop a proposal to the State Legislature. The public may attend the Jan 6 meeting, 6-7pm, in Homer at the Kenai Peninsula College, Kachemak Bay Campus. The public may also submit written comments via email to [email protected] or via mail. If you wish to mail a public comment, please send to this address:
Alaska Division of Forestry & Fire Protection
ATTN: Special Projects Coordinator
550 W. 7th Ave. Ste. 1450
Anchorage, AK 99501
Written comments will be accepted until 5:00 p.m., Friday, January 16, 2026.
I remember in ’79 all there was from the Y to Anchorage and Seward was the Kenai Burn. I used to hunt rabbits on the weekends.
Ugh. Alaska is a colony and overrun with degenerate environmental socialists
If State Forest regulations are less restrictive (dare I say nazi-like?) than KNWR regulations, then I’m all for it. I hate that you can’t use bicycles or even carts on many of the Refuge trails, can’t cut down a dead tree, etc. The Refuge folks treat it like it’s THEIR land, not ours, and that we are trespassing. I believe that State personnel would probably be more sensitive to the needs of Alaskans than the feds are.
Geezuz man, you have the entire peninsula to do what you want, but there’s ONE place to advance a quieter, more wildernessy use and it’s all bitchorama from you.
That’s an emotional observation tied to a gross negligence of the data. Sorry bud, all you need to do is just read about how locked down Alaska is to State ownership, the Feds, and the “first nations”.
Nonsense
How many bureaucrats will this add to State government if it happens?
How much land is in government hands 🤔 We need to get land into private ownership and stop the growth of government ✍🏼 This is not what is needed and needs to stop the growth of governments control of over 90% of Alaska’s state lands🕵🏻♂️ Wake up Alaska!!!
No, no, and no.
To much of Alaska is owned by the Feds, the State, and the native corps.
Sell the land to private individuals.
We need development to create jobs for our youth.
Damn the environmentals and the Lower 48’ers that want to turn Alaska into one big wildlife preserve bereft of development.
Timber, mining, coal, oil, natural gas – AND NO TRAWLERS.
Donewithit. The proposal would result in more timber being cut. This is a state proposal – has nothing to do with conservation.
Anything the government runs effectively locks up the land and prevents people from using it.
Right John. You mean like the pavement at Lake Otis and Tudor? Government owned.
Oh look! We’re going to lock up more land in a state where 85% is already owned by Feds, State, Natives and more. Stop the madness!
I’m sick and tired of our state land being locked away. Under our constitution we are supposed th have land for development, no where does it say parks, preserves and locked away. Alaskan can’t prosper if there’s no development
Not one of the commenters here actually understand the state’s intention. But those die-hard terms like lockup and too much Feds and too much government are fun to say.
When I agree with Evan S Singh, you know there’s been a miscommunication somewhere! The Feds have nothing to do with this, and it appears neither does locking up any land. If anything it could create more access.
Hey! We’re buds!
Good catch. Thank you.
It seems to be lost on some commentators here that this land already belongs to the state, specifically it belongs to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and would be transferred to the Division of Forestry and Fire Protection (DFFP).
The local area forester said “It is to allow timber, as I said, for industry to progress. But it also allows better access in. If we can put in some sales here, there in different places within the state forest, it allows more access for the public to get further into different areas in the state forest as well.”
I’m not for or against this potential move yet withput more information, but it doesn’t look like the purpose is to lock up the land.
Here we go again 🤔 if you wanna do anything, put 50% of it out for private use and then we’d be talking about our constitution and not continued management by government which has not worked out very well over the years so let’s make a deal half of it you gonna have with the State deal you’re proposing and the other half put it out for sale at a reasonable price for private use👏👏 Then will be Alaskans again 🕵🏻♂️
Gee. I wonder if this State move would have anything to do with the coming carbon credits rip off?