1:29
Speaker A
15:06 - 16:36
"the question is more of how to accommodate multiple uses on these sites with the different primary classification use that's, that's identified through that classification name. So the goal in updating the policy is to, to find a way that we can accommodate both wildlife habitat and timber harvest, or both public recreation and timber harvest."
“the question is more of how to accommodate multiple uses on these sites with the different primary classification use that's, that's identified through that classification name. So the goal in updating the policy is to, to find a way that we can accommodate both wildlife habitat and timber harvest, or both public recreation and timber harvest.”
- Speaker
- Speaker A
- Timestamp
- 15:06 – 16:36
- Community
- Alaska News
- Location
- Haines
- Captured at
- June 3, 2026
From the transcript
The change would be that the name wildlife habitat doesn't automatically eliminate the possibility for forest management to occur on that site, which might look like a timber harvest or it might look like a carbon offset project, or it might look like forest health treatment or a fire, like a fuels mitigation treatment. So the question is not so much one of changing the classification or ignoring the values and uses that are present on the landscape, but the question is more of how to accommodate multiple uses on these sites with the different primary classification use that's, that's identified through that classification name. So the goal in updating the policy is to, to find a way that we can accommodate both wildlife habitat and timber harvest, or both public recreation and timber harvest. Does that address some of some part of your question?