504 



Now, is this very broadly understood by science? 



Mr. Williams. Well, we are lacking a volume of research in 

 Alaska but the amount of research that has been done in B.C. and 

 other areas, what most of them show is that initially, and this 

 holds for game as well as our benefits in clearcut areas, to game 

 but it can be to the fish. By opening it up, you may provide more 

 life, and there may be more food. There may be an actual larger 

 production that comes in at that stage. Then if the weather is good, 

 it is not a problem. 



Senator Wirth. But is it commonly understood — is there any dis- 

 agreement with the fact that, as you state, old growth forests are 

 important to successful salmon spawning? 



Mr. Williams. Not in my mind. It is proven that old growth for- 

 ests will over time provide these things. Second growth forests, 

 unless they are intensively managed, do not in and of themselves 

 offer those things. 



Senator Wirth. Well, I asked the question because we have been 

 hearing a lot of testimony yesterday that old growth forests are, in 

 fact, a waste and ought to be torn down because we are not using 

 the resource properly. And I just raise this because it seems to me 

 that was a pretty strong statement directly to the contrary, and I 

 wanted to know how firmly this was backed up. 



Mr. Williams. It is backed up enough for the National Marine 

 Fishery Service to recommend that that old growth habitat certain- 

 ly be maintained at stream side to a 30 meter minimum, but we 

 realize that that is a minimum we are talking about, only. 



Senator Wirth. I just have a few brief questions on that. In going 

 back to the Chuck River drainage issue at Windham Bay that you 

 raised, Mr. Mathisen, it seems to me that this is another good case 

 study of how targets of the Forest Service drive decisions that 

 might otherwise not be made. Is that the reason that you bring this 

 up? 



Mr. Mathisen. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly my point. That was 

 fairly explicit and one that I had very close hands on knowledge, 

 and the fish in the area can document anything I say on it. 



Senator Wirth. Again going back to our earlier discussion about 

 the TLMP and the 4.5 billion board feet which drives other uses 

 and other priorities very strongly, which is why many of us want 

 to remove that, and why I think that kind of requirement does not 

 appear in any other national forest. 



Mr. Williams, do you have any personal observation yourself on 

 the effect of logging on your fishing business? 



Mr. Williams. Well, definitely our problems became quite obvi- 

 ous here in the last 10 years and in areas where logging was done 

 in the 1960s. The practices of logging in the 1960s is probably com- 

 parable to some of the stuff that is happening in South America 

 right now. We clearcut right dov/n to the sides of the rivers, and 

 we sit back and continue to hope that these rivers will continue to 

 produce salmon like they did. But 25 years later it does not appear 

 that Mother Nature is helping out the system much. In the studies 

 I read, it looks like it takes 80 to 200 years to start regaining a 

 sense of normalcy to these river systems, or at least provide some 

 kind of old growth characteristics in the national forests for the 

 river balance. 



