308 



Question 4 Do you see a moratorium on logging in some 



areas as a temporary solution to the problem 

 of maintaining wildlife diversity and 

 abundance. 



Yes. A moratorium on logging in high-value 

 wildlife habitat is one component of a 

 solution to the problem of maintaining 

 wildlife diversity and abundance. The extent 

 to which this approach will contribute to the 

 solution will depend upon several factors: 



(1) The length of time a moratorium would be 

 in effect. Because of the long time 

 period required for old-growth conditions 

 to develop (several centuries) , a brief 

 moratorium followed by logging would have 

 negligible value for wildlife, except that 

 it would buy time for a more lasting 

 solution to be found. 



(2) The extent to which the areas selected are 

 representative of important wildlife 

 habitat throughout the forest. 

 Considerable variation in climate, plant 

 community structure and composition, and 

 other important habitat variables exists 

 from north to south and east to west 

 across the forest. Therefore, to be 

 effective, any system of temporary or 

 permanent withdrawals will need to 

 represent these differences. 



(3) The extent to which areas protected from 

 logging are large enough to accommodate 

 viable populations of wildlife. Large, 

 long-lived, mammals such as brown bears 

 require extensive areas of land where 

 development and human activity are minimal 

 if viable populations are to persist over 

 the long-term. For brown bears minimum 

 viable population size is in the hundreds. 

 Smaller populations will run a higher risk 

 of eventual extinction. 



Additionally, while protecting key habitat 

 from logging is a priority in finding a 

 solution to the problem of diversity and 

 abundance, it is not enough, particularly 

 where large mobile species are involved. 

 By way of analogy, establishment of a 

 clean air reserve will not protect the 

 atmosphere "at large" from pollution. In 



