Talk:Tongass National Forest

Origin of word "Tongass"

What is the etymological origin of the word "Tongass"? Badagnani 06:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it derives from the name of a Tlingit clan near Ketchikan; the name seems to be generally given as Taantakwaan in Teh Intarweb at large, but a check on that from someone with more direct knowledge would probably be A Good Thing. At that, the same goes for whether it's a "clan" or a "tribe" with component clans of its own. I'm seeing both, and have no idea which is more correct... —Zero Gravitas 06:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I just got this email from the public relations/Web person at the Tongass National Forest:

Subject: Re: Question

From: "Merrily J Jones"

Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:05:30 -0800

I'm afraid we don't have a good comprehensive history of the Tongass to post on the Web. However, we do know that the forest was named for the Tongass tribe, a group of Tlingits who lived near Ketchikan. There's no agreement on what the word actually means, and we defer to the Natives themselves for any interpretation of their names. The Website for the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska is at http://www.ccthita.org/.

Merrily J. Jones, Public Affairs Specialist/Web manager

Tongass National Forest - Petersburg --Badagnani 20:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure of the meaning and source of the name in Tlingit, but I’ve asked the community for some definitions. The khwáan or “regional people” of the Ketchikan-Saxman area are called the Taanta Khwáan (“sea lion people”). The Tsimshian IIRC call them Tamgas, which may be where the name comes from.

I think the article on Tlingit explains the khwáan concept, but in short it’s a regional grouping of Tlingit people based on their home towns, separate from their clan affiliations. It’s become somewhat synonymous with the groupings formed as ANCSA village corporations in the 1970s. — Jéioosh 01:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Endangered species and forest health

I have to take issue with the logic of this statement:

"The health of the forest is evident in that there are no threatened or endangered species to be found in the forest or the streams."

Endangered and threatened species are generally those which are most sensitive to changes in their habitat, and are habitually found exclusively in high-value habitat. If anything, absence of indigenous endangered species would indicate poor ecosystem health.

I think what the writer meant to communicate was that the forest's health can be implied from the fact that none of its indiginous species are on the threatened or endangered list. But even this statement has logical flaws.

A better statement would be "The forest's healthy flora and fauna populations attest to the health of the ecosystem."

--Virginia Ryan 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think most people know that. If you have expertise in this subject and know this to be true, you should fix it. But a brief explanation of what you said here might be in order. It might be good to find out why the original editor wrote what they did, in reference to the actual situation as regards endangered species on the ground there. The statement may not have been accurate in the first place, or maybe the situation has changed since that text was written. Maybe you could check with people at the Tongass to see what they have to say about the current situation regarding endangered species there as well. Badagnani 23:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence, since it is untrue. The marbled murrelet, for one, is an endangered species that lives in the Tongass. There are also other threatened species that have been proposed to be listed, such as the alexander archepelago wolf. AlaskaTrekker 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The marbled murrelet is not listed as endangered in Alaska it is listed as endangered in Washington, Oregon and California. The alaxander archepelago wolf currently has no special protections, though it may have been proposed to be listed as threatened —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.225.37 (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

External Link?

• Temperate Rainforests of the North Pacific Coast

This is a reference, but as I wrote it and it's from my organization, I'm not sure I'm allowed to add it. Feel free to remove from the list if you feel it is not a good reference. AlaskaTrekker 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved this section down to the bottom to be chronological, as is standard for talk pages. As to the material in the Logging section and the reference: the section is very strongly stated, using words such as "conspired" and "recalcitrant", which, without very strong reference support, violate neutral point of view. Given that this is controversial material, it's particularly important to avoid a conflict of interest and to use reliable sources. If this content can be more directly referenced to the sources used in Temperate Rainforests of the North Pacific Coast, it would probably be OK, as long as those references are strong enough to support contentions like "conspired".

A more minor issue is that the new material is verbatim from the current reference, which is copyrighted. That will look strange to anyone looking at this, and indeed it is strange, since the source in question doesn't have an NPOV policy.

So I think the section needs to be edited and differently cited. Not sure if I'm going to do it myself. -- Spireguy 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference for conspiracy by KPC and APC is a lengthy description of a court case eventually finding them guilty of said conspiracy, described at length in this book: Tongass: Pulp Politics And The Fight For The Alaska Rain Forest - Kathie Durbin, 1999

If someone has an online reference for that info, it could be used instead AlaskaTrekker 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs cleanup

the following "international border runs along the crest of the Boundary Ranges of the Coast Mountains (see Alaska boundary dispute)." is out of place. I think they are trying to say that the Tongass National Park is the only national park on an international border.

Also, the comment that 70,000 some people require the Tongass for survival is misleading, as they are several small towns (e.g. Juneau) that survive more from tourism and sea trade than subsisting off of the bounty of the Tongass. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amundsonsc (talk • contribs)

I have to take issue with a couple of statements here: first of all -- the Tongass is a National Forest, not a national park. The two are vastly different, with widely divergent legal bases and standing. The 70,000 plus people who live here -- and I am one -- depend on the Tongass National Forest for our livelihoods in many ways. I suspect few of those tourists would come here, save for the wildlife, cultural history, scenic beauty, and other attributes of the Forest -- which comprises about 85% of the land base between Dixon Entrance and Yakutat. You don't have to be picking berries, catching salmon or hunting deer to be dependent on the Forest -- though many of us do those things as well.

The "catastrophic effects" of timber harvest are dramatically overstated in this writeup and most others you will read. About 500,000 acres of the 17 million have been harvested. Nearly all of it has regenerated, and many of the second-growth stands from logging 40 or 50 years ago are producing commercial-sized logs again.

Be very careful what you read, and consider the motivations of those who write it. In southeast Alaska, we have become many people's hobby...Muledeer 22:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)muledeer

No offense, but why don't you come up with some evidence to support your claims, and help us to improve the article? Making unsubstantiated claims and stating opinion in the talk section is not constructive.Athene cunicularia 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Am certainly pleased that "nearly all" of the 500,000 acres that have been "harvested" have been regenerated. Whew. And I thought half of the old growth forest had been cut down. Good to hear that the 70,000 people there can continue to rely on the National Forest for their livelihood. Or-- let's certainly hope so. An improved "history" section could explain how they got there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.45.63 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to jump in here and let folks know that some Tongass NF staff will be adding some information to this wikipedia entry. We'll document as we go. Please let us know if you take issue with what we do, and we can work on this forum to come to resolution. Thanks! Tongass National Forest (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what will be the particular focus of these edits? This discussion section focuses specifically on the logging of trees in the forest; is that the section which your staff plans to add information about? Does this interest in assisting here have anything to do with the imminence of the U.S. presidential election? Badagnani (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, we're hoping to flesh out some of the ecology section, and work some on the logging section, perhaps add other sections such as recreation or even information on the Tongass Futures Roundtable. Our edits really have nothing to do with the election-- we will continue to participate on this forum well after the election, regardless of outcome. The staff who will be assisting with this work are all civilian employees, not appointees, and as such, will continue to work here long after the election. Ultimately, our concern is with providing accurate information to the general public as collected, analyzed, and presented by the many forest service employees-- and our partners-- who work on these issues everyday.Tongass National Forest (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I had asked about your department's interest at this particular juncture, not in the edits themselves. The current time (early-to-mid September 2008) is clearly a time of enormous interest in all things related to Alaska, both within the U.S. and around the world. Badagnani (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits to ecology section

I have made a number of additions to the Ecology section, to describe in more detail some of the past harvesting on the Forest. In a former iteration of this section, the following sentence was published: "Only 4 percent of Tongass is the low-elevation old growth forest that is both essential for wildlife and the timber industry. Over half of this area has been logged." I could not find a citation for this, and I researched through the NF data to try to determine how that 4% number may have been determined, to no avail. In its stead, I have provided up-to-date comparable data on big tree, low elevation forest, and have sourced it to the data provided in the most recently published Environmental Impact Statement from the Tongass National Forest Land Management Plan.Tongass National Forest (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tongass National Forest (talk • contribs)

The main thrust of this edit seems to be an attempt to rebut or mitigate environmental groups' concern over the logging in the Tongass National Forest. Is a quest for such "balance" a primary focus of the current management of the forest? Badagnani (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The main thrust of the edits is to try to shed more light on the past and current old growth status on the Forest, and to provide more context beyond the 4% soundbite. I'm not sure I would quantify "balance" to be a primary focus; rather, we are concerned with ensuring that the situation is depicted appropriately, fairly, which means supporting assertions with data and working to meet concerned folks where they're at. I specifically focused on the big tree old growth here because that is where the original content was focused. I suppose I would say that the primary focus of the current management is the same focus we've had for some time: to communicate the complexity and nuance of multiple-use management, and to underscore the rationale the Forest uses in making management decisions. This section doesn't quite get to that point, but we'll try to do more of it in the "Logging" section. Thanks for taking the time to read these over and raise your concerns.Tongass National Forest (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources presenting the 4 percent figure. See this Google search for these sources. Badagnani (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at a few of those; many of them link back to the SEACC site, which does not actually source the data they use to determine that figure. (Also, note that 4% available for harvest, which is what is referred to on the Forest Service sites, is not the same thing as only 4% of the forest being old growth, which is the claim here.) I am working to follow-up on this; as I said above, I cannot figure out how they came up with this figure (I've been working and reworking the data and can't seem to come up with it). In the meantime, I have provided links to data that the reader may peruse and analyze independently of the assertions on the wikipedia site.Tongass National Forest (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe asking their researcher(s) for their methodology and sources would be a good start? Do you know where they are based? Badagnani (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Am following up with some folks, will hopefully track this down soon.Tongass National Forest (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits to logging section, addition of roadless controversy and native corporation lands sections

Have added some more information to the logging section, and added a couple of headers to organize some of the content a bit more. In terms of the logging section additions, I added a sentence on handloggers at the beginning and mentioned the closure of the pulp mills. Also added some information on the appropriations rider that requires the Tongass to offer "positive" sales, and mentioned the idea that the timber harvest program is not the only program run at a deficit to the government. I deleted the "70% of the "70% of the old growth trees in Tongass have been logged" statement, as this was addressed in the ecology section.

I added quite a bit of content to the roadless controversy section, primarily the first paragraph. This is valuable context for understanding some of the rationale for why the roadless controversy is unique in Southeast Alaska.

The Native Corporation lands issue is a big one, but technically, is not one that should be addressed on the Tongass National Forest wiki site (given that the lands, and their management, are not under National Forest jurisdiction). I've given it its own heading to avoid confusion.Tongass National Forest (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Much was just removed or changed, without proper justification. Why was "As of 2007, the forest service has released a new draft plan for the Tongass Forest." removed? Badagnani (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the changes were not to content, rather to style, to ensure that the various pieces of information flowed together. Some minor amendments, such as the addition of "Scheduled to" with reference to the 50 year contracts, serve to more accurately convey the situation (the contracts were cancelled a few years early). The sentence you reference above I deleted because it didn't seem to fit with the rest of the section it was in. It is also inaccurate, as the final plan was put out this year (2008). I meant to correct it and enter it in a new section, but must have just deleted in my haste to finish up yesterday. I will add a corrected sentence back in. Thank you for raising this concern.

I feel compelled to reassure folks that we are not here to hide or significantly change valid content of any kind. The omission of the sentence above was an oversight, not an intentional eradication-- if anything, the more people that know about the Forest Plan and take the time to look at it, the better.Tongass National Forest (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging articles

Was doing stub cleanup, mostly of Alaskan articles with emphasis on National Register of Historic Places stubs. I tagged Alexander Archipelago National Forest to be merged to this article almost a year ago without placing the appropriate tag on this article. Just in case anyone noticed that and was wondering.

Also, I take it that Ketchikan Ranger House is related to the forest. I'm just guessing, though. Obviously, the vast majority of the stubs and sub-stubs catching my attention were created more with regard to the fact that the source material is PD than with anything having to do with providing useful information.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems as though my list of issues with these NRHP stubs grows every time I tackle it. The external links of the article gave me all the information that the article itself didn't. I'm going to tag this one as well.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• yes on merging aanf, it's part of the same park, old name. but no on the ranger house. not that there's much in the article now, but it could be expanded with more history, & photographed, etc. it doesn't "fit" in the general park article, it doesn't even seem to be IN the park, & would probably end up getting deleted as irrelevant. 174.138.205.167 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Alexander Archipelago National Forest; it is (and has been since inception) the Tongass National Forest. The former should be merged into this article if in fact in includes any accurate information. Seems that the Ketchikan Ranger House thing is an historical building matter with nothing to do with the Tongass in a long time. Coastwise (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Tongassmap3.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Map is very, very, very bad

Please add a map to the infobox that actually shows (using shading) the boundaries of this forest, not just a single red dot as if it's a city or town. If this project purports to be encyclopedic, why isn't a proper map already included in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)