216 



that land can be logged. I assume that — so all of that 5.6 or 5.4 mil- 

 lion acres is not technically suitable for timber harvest. 



O.K., from a wildlife perspective then we cannot just look at the 

 forest homogenous land places a lot of that forest land, we have to 

 look at what types of timber are being logged, what types of habi- 

 tat and where they are located and the most important is what is 

 the effect on the wildlife population. It is not always a one-to-one 

 relationship. 



If we look at what has been logged so far we are seeing that vir- 

 tually all of the logging in the Tongass to date has occurred in the 

 lower elevations, high volume old-growth stands, located along 

 valley bottoms, rivers and low-election hillsides. These are far and 

 away the most productive sites in the Tongass and generally the 

 most accessible sites. 



Because of the location and structural characteristics of these 

 stands they also serve to afford a fish and wildlife habitat. For ex- 

 ample, some of the research that we have done on North Admiral- 

 ty Island shows that in the winter of 1982 we had a three-month 

 period that we had moderate snowfall. We had two-thirds of the 

 deer in the North Admiralty Island using one-tenth of the habitat. 

 That was the high volume growth of thirty thousand board feet per 

 acre. If that were to be the 10 percent that was logged, which is the 

 pattern that we see much of the time, it would have a far greater 

 impact on the wildlife population than the percentage that was 

 suggested. 



Another issue I would like to talk about here briefly that has not 

 been brought up, but we hear often the claim that logging is good 

 for deer, it may be good for deer in Oregon and Washington but 

 definitely not the case here in Southeast Alaska. We have a lot of 

 records of research for over 20 years, we have work that has been 

 done by the Forest Service, independent universities at the north- 

 ern end of the panhandle, down to Metlakatla and all points are 

 the same general conclusion that when you log old-growth forests 

 you reduce the capability of that habitat for deer. 



Two main problems would be young clearcuts would produce an 

 abundance of forage and do not provide any protection from the 

 snow in the wintertime, which is a critical season for deer. You see 

 a lot of deer stretched out on a logging road, you see them in the 

 fall and you do not see them in the wintertime. In the stages of 

 forest succession, a 25-year cycle, in 150 years you have got what is 

 called second growth and you cannot have second growth forest, 

 which is important for wildlife in any season. 



Now I hope you get an opportunity to walk through some of 

 those stands while you are out here because they leave a lasting 

 impression. I will just set this up. 



In conclusion I would like to emphasize that the effects of log- 

 ging affect all the species, what the debate is about is how much 

 emphasis be given to these various things, should we be giving up 

 deer for more jobs and now that is an issue that you have to deal 

 with. It has got to be an issue that reflects the best interests of 

 Southeast Alaska and the country. I would just urge that there be 

 some room for flexibility so that we can periodically re-assess our 



