Print Window Close Window Non-Timber Forest Uses The rolling hills and lowlands of Interior Alaska’s boreal forest ecosystem are adorned with slender black spruce, taller white spruce, white-trunked paper birch, gray-barked aspens with fluttering leaves, shrubby willows and alders, and the occasional other woody species. But this is only the barest beginning of what the boreal forest entails; there is far more to the forest than its trees. Likewise, humans are dependent on the forest itself, and not just the timber or pulpwood that can be obtained from it. The Alaskan boreal ecosystem also includes the species in the understory, in natural clearings, in old fire-scars and in areas of partial regrowth. Purple fireweed, beds of moss, and rich patches of wild cranberries and blueberries are part of the forest. So are the many species of fungi, birds, mammals, insects, and other invertebrates that inhabit the soil, the muddy pools of the muskeg, and the trees themselves. Such aspects of the ecosystem have always been of interest to biologists and ecologists—but in recent years, economists and even sociologists have started paying closer attention to the non-timber values of forests. How can we place value on a forest? It’s not an easy task, when so many of the forest’s assets cannot easily be placed on a consistent or meaningful commercial scale—values such as habitat protection, watershed protection, viewshed, tranquility, oxygen production, recreation, and wildlife viewing. Non-timber values usually refer to attributes of direct or indirect value to humans, and can include both extractive and non-extractive uses. For example, cross-country skiing, bird-watching, photography, or picnicking are non-extractive. Hunting, fishing, or gathering berries, mushrooms, tree bark or wild herbs are extractive uses, and the rewards of such efforts are often referred to as non-timber products. It is generally easier to place concrete economic values on non-timber products than on non-extractive uses, except in cases where money is directly exchanged, as in fee-collection for recreation and tourism. For the most part, such “passive” uses are devalued in the face of economic arguments for logging. Adding to the confusion, logging – or the road-building that facilitates it – is often subsidized. Thus, increasingly, forest conservationists have turned to non-timber forest products to help explain how economic value can be obtained from a functionally intact forest. These forest products can include foods, medicines, fuels and raw materials. In the boreal forests of Alaska, traditional Native uses point to some of the products of the forests. The importance of non-timber products first began to gain credence in reference to the world’s tropical forests, where slash-and-burn agriculture has decimated millions of acres. Admittedly, the boreal forest does not harbor the astonishingly large number of different species found in lower latitudes. However, Alaska’s boreal is rich with life, and has higher densities of large game and edible fish than many warmer regions. The area has a strong tradition of forest uses, including some of those outlined below. Gathering: This includes plant materials for food or other uses. Mushrooms, young spring greens, cranberries, blueberries, raspberries, salmonberries, bunchberries, birch syrup, birch bark and reeds (for baskets) are some important examples. Hunting and trapping: This includes both large and small game, hunted or trapped for food or for skins. Game species of the boreal forest include moose, caribou, Dall sheep, bear, wolf, snowshoe hare, beaver, coyote, lynx, martin, muskrat, marmot, mink, weasel, land otter, fox, squirrel, and various bird species such as grouse, ptarmigan, ducks, and geese. Most hunts are regulated by the state Department of Fish and Game. Fishing: Fishing is classified as subsistence, sport fishing or commercial. Salmon fishing is of particular importance—coho, Chinook, sockeye, chum and pink are the five varieties found in Alaska’s rivers and streams. Forest practices along the banks of salmon-spawning streams can affect erosion, siltation, large woody debris deposition and water temperature, and can thus affect the fish. Other species in Interior Alaska include sheefish, Arctic grayling, northern pike, burbot, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout, whitefish and Arctic char. Tourism: Forest tourism includes all of the categories listed under recreation, plus guided nature walks and boat tours. Tourism is a growing source of revenue in Interior Alaska. Many of the travelers who visit Denali National Park continue to Fairbanks or points further north. In addition to those who are interested in hunting and fishing, an increasing number can be categorized as eco-tourists, with an interest in local wildlife and ecology. Recreation: Recreation can include bird watching, boating, hiking, skiing, and mushing. Four-wheelers and snowmachines can be included in this category, although in some cases their use is controversial or non-compatible with other uses. At some point or another, almost every resident of the Interior takes part in one or more of these forest activities. Other non-extractive uses: Of all the non-timber values of a forest, watershed protection, habitat protection and aesthetics can be the hardest to value economically. This is not to say that they have no economic impact; a healthy aquifer, clean air, beautiful views and plentiful wildlife have profound effects on property values and on the amount of money people are willing to spend to visit a place. Unfortunately, such indirect benefits are often externalities—uncounted by those who make choices about development and land use. For this reason, in the boreal forest and elsewhere, short-term profits and jobs from logging and mining are often given precedence over uses that might in the long run end up being more lucrative—not to mention more environmentally friendly. |