United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-579

March 2003

Proceedings:

Hidden Forest Values

The First Alaska-Wide

Nontimber Forest Products

Conference and Tour

November 8-11, 2001
Papers were provided by the authors in camera-ready form for printing. Authors are responsible for the content and 

saccuracy. Opinions expressed may not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Proceedings:

Hidden Forest Values

The First Alaska-Wide

Nontimber Forest Products

Conference and Tour

The Millennium Hotel

Anchorage, Alaska

November 8-11, 2001

Compiled by the Alaska Boreal Forest Council, Fairbanks, Alaska

Published by U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-579
This page was intentionally left blank.
i

Summary 

The Hidden Forest Values Conference brought together a diverse assemblage of 

local, state and federal agencies, tribal governments, traditional users, 

landholders, cottage enterprises and other Nontimber Forest Products (NTFP) 

related businesses, scientists, and experts. The purpose of this forum was to 

exchange information, cooperate, and raise awareness of issues on sustainable 

and equitable, environmentally and economically viable opportunities for NTFP in 

Alaska. This discourse sought a balance of development and sustainability, with 

respect for traditional uses.

Nontimber Forest Products were defined by the Conference organizers as biological 

material harvested from the forest that has not been produced from commercially 

sawn wood such as lumber, pulp, and paper. 

These proceedings include extended summaries of presentations by speakers and 

panelists at the conference. All summaries were compiled and edited by the Alaska 

Boreal Forest Council and reviewed by the authors. Some authors elected to 

provide their full presentation or supplemental material; those are included in 

Appendix V. 
ii

Preface 

In the Spring of 2000, a small group of entrepreneurs, researchers, community leaders, and 

state and federal personnel gathered to discuss the future of Nontimber Forest Products 

(NTFP) in Alaska. Ever increasing interest in and use of these products had begun to raise 

questions for users and managers regarding sustainability, access, development and 

protection. Instead of answering these questions, the group raised more issues such as: 

what is the definition of an NTFP, what is sustainability, who should be promoting the 

industry and conducting research and development? 

We strove to answer these questions. But, how to begin? “Hold more meetings,” the 

agency staff said. “Ask more questions,” declared the researchers. “Talk to the people,” 

implored the community leaders. “Look at this a new way,” the entrepreneurs suggested, 

“the problem is an opportunity.” The starting point became clear—we needed to hold a 

conference and get more people involved. Where else could we meet, ask more questions, 

talk to each other and begin to look at things in a new way? 

That day we made two key decisions for the conference. First, no meaningful discussion 

regarding NTFP could take place without fair representation of the various and divergent 

views from the extensive group of NTFP users. Therefore, the conference forum had to 

welcome diversity and create a comfortable environment for all participants. Our speakers, 

panelists, and topics also needed to reflect the variety of views: empirical science and 

traditional knowledge, protection and use, research and development. Second, we adopted 

a broad working definition of NTFP to include all biological products harvested from a forest 

ecosystem, excluding primary timber products such as lumber, composites, and paper. 

These choices led to long planning meetings, difficult decisions and even heated debates. 

Holding small and focused conferences for every user group would have been a lot easier, 

but much less effective. Bringing everyone together exposed new ideas, perspectives and 

created balanced discussions. This type of interaction is vital to the future creation and 

acceptance of statewide policies regarding NTFP use in Alaska. 

Comments from the conference participants reflect the excitement and interest that was 

generated: “This is the best conference I have ever attended”, “I am now inspired”, “It was 

very good to hear from Elders”. These proceedings document and endorse the informal and 

inclusive style set by the conference. 

The most important result of the conference has been to raise awareness of NTFP issues 

statewide. Since the conference the newly formed NTFP workgroup has been busy. We 

developed and staffed a state fair booth, presented at The Tongass Centennial: The Next 

100 Years, developed a booth for the October 2002 Alaska Federation of Natives annual 

convention, will represent Alaska in an NTFP focus group at the Society of American 

Foresters national convention, and of course we worked hard to create the proceedings you 

now hold! In addition, one member of our working group is now on the Pacific Northwest 

NTFP Council. Lastly, we are gearing up to plan the next NTFP conference, tentatively 

scheduled for February 2004 in Sitka. 

If you would like to be involved in future efforts by the Alaska NTFP Workgroup, check out 

Appendix IV. We look forward to hearing from you. Enjoy these proceedings! 

Rachel Morse, Alaska NTFP Conference Workgroup Chair
iii

Acknowledgments 

Conference Sponsors 

USDA Forest Service, State & Private Forestry 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Alaska Wood Utilization Center 

University of Alaska Southeast, Sitka Campus 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Alaska 

USDA National Agro-forestry Center 

Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska Fairbanks 

USDA Cooperative States Research, Education and Extension Service 

Anchorage Soil & Water Conservation District 

Alaska Association of Conservation Districts 

Alaska State Dept. of Nat. Res., Alaska Natural Resource Conservation and Development Board 

Alaska Forest Association 

Koncor Forest Products 

Palmer Soil & Water Conservation District 

Wasilla Soil & Water Conservation District 

Upper Susitna Soil & Water Conservation District 

Cameron Birch Syrup & Confections, Inc.

2001 Conference Planning Committee 

Marlene Cameron ...............Cameron Birch Syrup & Confections, Inc. 

Linda Christian*...................USDA Forest Service, PNW Res. Sta., Alaska Wood Utilization Center 

Robi Craig...........................Sitka Tribe of Alaska 

Helen Dangel......................Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska 

Jan Dawe............................Alaska Boreal Forest Council 

Robert Gorman ...................University of Alaska, Cooperative Extension Service 

Gary Laursen......................University of Alaska Fairbanks, Institute of Arctic Biology 

Mitch Michaud* ...................USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Rachel Morse+ ....................Alaska Soil and Water Conservation District 

Rhoda Portis.......................USDA NRCS, Mat-Su RC&D 

Steve Simmons...................Chickaloon Village Traditional Council 

Alan Vandiver ....................USDA Forest Service, State & Private Forestry 

Robert Wheeler ..................University of Alaska Fairbanks, Cooperative Extension Service 

Phyllis Woolwine*................USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest

* denotes Conference Planning Committee Co-chairs

+ denotes current NTFP Working Group Chair 

See Appendix I for current addresses. 

Proceedings compiled by the AK Boreal Forest Council: Jan Dawe, Kimberly Maher, Jennifer Nehlsen 

Conference photos by Joey Pavia, USDA Forest Service, PNW Res. Sta. AK Wood Utilization Center 

The views and opinions expressed within this document do not necessarily reflect the position of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, the PNW Research Station, or the Alaska NTFP Workgroup. 
This page was intentionally left blank.
1

Table of Contents 

Summary.............................................................................................................. i

Preface................................................................................................................ ii

Acknowledgments............................................................................................. iii

Keynote Speaker Gina Mohammed ................................................................... 3

Topic: Traditional Uses..................................................................................... 5

Lead Speaker Dolly Garza (p. 6) 

Traditional Uses Panel (p. 9) 

Irene Jimmy (p. 9) 

Jesse Johnnie (p. 9) 

Rita Blumenstein (p. 10) 

Teri Rofkar (p. 11) 

Steve Simmons (p. 12) 

Breakout Session: Traditional Uses and Social, Ethical & Spiritual Aspects

(p. 14) 

Topic: Biological Sustainability...................................................................... 15

Lead Speaker Nan Vance (p. 16) 

Biological Sustainability Panel (p. 20) 

Glenn Juday (p. 20) 

Dolly Garza (p. 21) 

John Zasada (p. 23) 

Gary Laursen (p. 24) 

Breakout Session: Biological Sustainability (p. 26) 

Topic: Economic Opportunities ..................................................................... 27

Lead Speaker Jim Freed (p. 28) 

Economic Opportunities Panel (p. 31) 

Elstun Lauesen (p. 31) 

Jean Wall (p. 32) 

Nikolai Shmatkov (p. 33) 

Breakout Session: Economic Opportunities (p. 35)

Topic: Landholders Policy and Access to NTFP Resources........................ 37

Landholders Panel (p. 38) 

Phyllis Woolwine (p. 38) 

Dave Kelley (p. 40) 

Roger McRoberts (p. 41) 

David Duffy (p. 42) 

Bob Sam (p. 44) 

Breakout Session: Landholders Policy/Access to NTFP Resources (p. 46)
2

Topic: Social, Ethical and Spiritual Aspects of NTFPs..................................47

Lead Speaker Michelle Davis (p. 48) 

Social, Ethical and Spiritual Aspects Panel (p. 51) 

Victoria Hykes-Steere (p. 51) 

Marla R. Emery (p. 53) 

Linda Christian (p. 55) 

Andrea Carmen (p. 56) 

Topic: Secrets to Success—Small Business Startup....................................59

Lead Speaker Tim Brigham (p. 60) 

Secrets to Success—Small Business Startup Panel (p. 64) 

Stan Steadman (p. 64) 

Marlene Cameron (p. 65) 

Dick Baldwin (p. 66) 

Rod Hilts (p. 67) 

No Breakout session

Appendices 69

Appendix I – Current Contact Information for Conference Speakers, 

Panelists, and Organizers (p. 69) 

Appendix II – Conference Agenda (p. 75) 

Appendix III – List of Figures and Tables (p. 77) 

Appendix IV – NTFP Workgroup Activities (p. 78) 

Appendix V – Presentations and Posters (p. 81) 

 (Includes full text of materials submitted by presenters) 

Appendix VI – Conference Photos (p. 143) 
3

Keynote Speaker 

Gina H. Mohammed, Research Director, 

P & M Technologies 

Biography - Gina holds a B.S. in Biology from the University of 

Toronto in Ontario, and a Ph.D. in Plant Physiology from Simon 

Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. She began her 

career as a research scientist at AgriForest Technologies in 

Kelowna, B.C., working for nine years on forest biotechnology, 

then as a research scientist with the Ontario Forest Research 

Institute, Ministry of Natural Resources. During her ten years at 

OFRI, she was a project leader in seedling establishment 

physiology, applications of remote sensing, development of 

commercial tests of plant viability and vigor, and emerging 

opportunities in nontimber forest products. 

 Figure 1 – Gina Mohammed 

Gina has served as Adjunct Professor at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, and in a variety of 

advisory roles to government and industry, including scientific advisor to the federal Industrial Research 

Assistance Program. She and her husband now own P & M Technologies, a science and information 

technology company in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada. 

Gina has helped to organize community and government information sessions and conferences 

on nontimber forest products, including the Nontimber Forest Products Conference 2000: A Focus on 

Sustaining Renewable Resources and Development of Nontimber Forest Products in the Algoma District 

of Ontario. Gina has authored or co-authored 115 scientific papers plus several magazine articles on 

nontimber herbal products.

The Hidden Face of the Forest: 

Nontimber Products and Values

In North America, there is a growing momentum in forest management to 

accommodate and encourage nontimber products and values. We are starting to 

acknowledge that the nontimber resources of the forest are key, not only to expanding 

community and rural economic outlooks, but to the overall health and sustainability of 

forests and forest-based industries. Importantly, the nontimber arena forms a veritable 

melting pot for the interests of all users of the forest – including the public, 

entrepreneurs, native groups, forest industry, and government. But along with 

embracing the opportunities available for individual and group benefits, we must be 

vigilant in respecting the biological, cultural, and spiritual significance of the forest. 

These potentially conflicting facets are significantly portrayed in the North, where the 

forest is the lifeblood of so many. Nontimber products cannot be considered in isolation 

from nontimber values; otherwise, the longevity of the nontimber industry itself will be 

curtailed. Further, the paths chosen by a particular region in its pursuit of nontimber 

prospects may be quite unique, reflecting the historical strengths and makeup of the 

area and its populace. 

This presentation offers an overview of the Canadian nontimber sector –

including case studies, cooperative efforts among users, and the role the government in 

fostering the nontimber sector of the North. The lessons being learned in Canada will 
4

be considered in light of opportunities, potential pitfalls, and recommendations for 

Alaska. Recommendations include an emphasis on ecotourism aspects as a 

complement to Alaska’s already-strong tourism industry. Research and information 

needs are also discussed. 

Major nontimber forest products in Canada are maple products, Christmas trees, 

honey, and more recently, ginseng, wild mushrooms, wild berry products, and various 

nutraceuticals. There is an increasing trend for cultivation, both in conventional nursery 

settings and in forest “farming”. Northern communities also have a strong native 

traditional arts and crafts industry. Problems have arisen with unregulated wild-crafting 

and the associated risks to sustainability of specific nontimber resources. Also, there is 

a great need to coordinate Native interests with conventional business sectors. The 

provincial and federal governments of Canada have several funding programs to 

encourage both research and development (R&D) as well as economic development, 

and these are drawn upon heavily in the North. Forest management by government 

and industry is changing gradually to reflect the needs and interests of the nontimber 

sector, both as a source of products and as an embodiment of cultural and spiritual 

values. It is also recognized that nontimber aspects are a critical piece of current worldwide efforts to establish and certify the sustainability of forestry practices. The need for 

research, education, and communication is being addressed at a variety of levels, both 

public and private. 

Vehicles that hold promise for development and refinement of the nontimber 

sector include ecotourism initiatives such as native botanical gardens, cooperatives for 

product marketing as well as R&D, the development of more value-added products, and 

products from weeds or wood waste. Greater use of weeds or waste products of wood 

processing are especially noteworthy in supplementing traditional timber activities, and 

prominent examples are available, mainly from western Canada. 

Development of the nontimber sector must occur in harmony with all partners of 

the forest, but the particular concerns of native groups warrants special attention at 

these relatively early stages. Native perceptions of the forest and its place in people’s

lives, their sharing of traditional knowledge, their access to the forest, and their full 

participation in any economic benefits that accrue will be central to the ongoing 

fruitfulness and success of any nontimber endeavor. 
5

Topic: Traditional Uses 

	



	

	




	

	



	

	



	

	



	

 	!"#



	
6

Traditional Uses Lead Speaker 

Dolly Garza, Professor, Marine Advisory Program, 

University of Alaska 

Biography - Dolly Garza (Skungwaii) is Haida/Tlingit, originally from Ketchikan 

Alaska. Dolly’s educational life has been long; and she is still learning from her 

elders and people. Dolly has a B.S. in Fisheries Science from the University of 

Alaska Fairbanks; a M.S. in Fisheries Management from the University of 

Washington; and a Ph.D. in Marine Policy from the University of Delaware. 

Through her educational pursuits, Dolly is always supported by her family and 

reminded of her obligations to help her people protect Native use of, and rights 

to, resources. 

Figure 8 – Dolly Garza 

Dolly is a professor and has worked with the University of Alaska Marine Advisory Program for 18 

years. She brings marine and Native education to schools through workshops and as a guest teacher. 

Dr. Garza is the author of “Survival Training for Alaska’s Youth,” and “Tlingit Moon and Tide,” both 

curricula for schools. As part of her job she works with tribal bodies to provide technical and biological 

information and advise on subsistence management issues. 

Dolly is a member of the Haida Descendents dance group in Ketchikan where she is learning to 

drum and speak basic Haida. She is a cedar and spruce root basket weaver, and a Raven’s Tail 

apprentice weaver with Teri Rofkar. 

Dolly serves on several organizations including the Alaska Sea Otter and Stellar Sea Lion 

Commission, the Alaska Native Science Commission, the Alaska Marine Safety Education Association, 

the Southeast Regional Subsistence Advisory Council, and the Alaska Science and Technology 

Foundation. 

Traditional Uses and Management 

 Haida Intro: Translation: 

Kilsly ganga Chiefs 

Kuljaat ganga Ladies held in high esteem 

Xaada la Isis Good people 

Iljuwas di nan u iijan My grandmother was Elizabeth Gardner 

Suteen di ow u ijan My mother is Myrna Garza 

Skungwaii hinu di kigaga I am Dolly Garza 

Keeys Xaadas, Salants, I am northern Haida: Salants Clan 

Kallna du di ijan Bullhead house

As the keynote for this section on traditional uses I hope to provide a framework 

that sets the stage for the following panel. The early ethnographic documentation on 

the uses of resources by Alaska Natives generally focused on the harvest of fish and 

marine mammals, and the collection of valuable cultural items for museums. The uses 

of plants for food, medicine, weaving, shelter, and culture were generally not 

documented until after disease and alcohol had significantly reduced Alaska’s Native 
7

population. Much of the important information on medicinals and uses of plants was 

lost as elders died all over Alaska. 

Early explorers came to the Americas to find, claim, and exploit resources. Their 

initial reports to Euro-Asia claimed that these lands were uninhabited and resources 

untouched. We know this is largely untrue. There were an estimated 33,000 Natives in 

Alaska in 1880. This represents a remnant of the pre-contact population – after foreign 

diseases devastated communities and regions for decades. Some communities had 

already lost at least one half of their members to the early diseases of alcohol, common 

colds, venereal disease, and general warfare. In other areas smallpox or influenza had 

destroyed whole communities. I haven’t been able to find a population estimate for precontact but it surely was much larger. 

One could argue that many of these lands were fully occupied with population 

densities, or community sizes based on the availability of 1) drinking water over the 

year, 2) material for shelters or homes, and 3) seasonal food and the ability to store 

food. The development of at least eight well-established cultures in Alaska also 

depended on the availability of resources for clothing, transportation, culture, medicine, 

and the knowledge of weather patterns and seasonal changes. 

When the early explorers came to southeast Alaska it is estimated that there 

were at least 10,000 Tlingit and Haida. There were communities along all major rivers 

and streams. Community sizes generally numbered in the hundreds, and only a few 

communities were large. Sub-groups would split away and move as resource demand 

around the community exceeded local capacity. What the early explorers saw 

appeared to be “untouched” forests, creeks plugged with salmon, thousands of sea 

otters rafted here and there. 

If you talk to Natives you will hear we take “only what we need.” If you talk to 

biologists they will tell you we should take only the harvestable surplus – a mere percent 

or two of the total population. Thousands of salmon are needed to lay millions of eggs 

in order to ensure thousands will survive to continue the salmon’s cycle. Perhaps what 

the explorers saw was pure utopia – a perfect relationship between man and the land 

and sea. I have heard that the word “Indian” came from an early Spanish explorer who 

when he saw “America” proclaimed “en dios” – in God – or in heaven, such was the 

beauty of the land and its people. During his time, in the 1500’s, tens of thousands, 

perhaps several hundred thousand indigenous people lived across the Americas. 

A respectful relationship with the land, critical to cultural survival, had developed 

over thousands of years. Each upcoming generation had to be taught when, where and 

how much to harvest. Inclement weather, physical strength and endurance, seasonal 

migration, and varying seasonal needs all served to naturally limit harvest levels. In the 

forest it was work to fall one large cedar tree let alone enough to put up a large clan 

house. This required the work of the community. There were no exports of raw lumber 

because other communities had access to their own trees. Carved masks, dance staffs, 

or paddles were traded across villages – small market: high value – but low volume 

production. Berries, devils club, spruce root, tea, and Indian potato were picked in short 

seasonal spurts. In most cases, harvest time was limited by the ripeness of the berry or 

the need to harvest another resource with a short window of opportunity. 

To help children remember the importance of respecting resources, stories were 

told of respect and consequences for disrespect. A girl who disrespected bears ended 
8

up marrying them. A boy who disrespected moldy salmon was captured by the salmon 

and lived with them. He returned with the spawners, transformed back to human, and 

carried the message of respect for salmon to his community. 

Wars were fought when outsiders tried to harvest a clan’s resource. In areas of 

abundance, such as herring spawn in the Sitka area, outlying clans were invited in by 

the controlling clan and allowed to harvest only so much to bring back to their 

communities. This process strengthened inter-clan relations. 

Sustainable conservation is the proper allocation of resources over time to 

provide consumptive uses to humans. Preservation, by definition, seeks to keep 

something in an untouched form and disallows human use. 

Our people were conservationist in the truest sense of the word, as 

demonstrated by the reports of the early explorers and ethnographers; reportedly 

untouched lands lived on by tens of thousands. Our communities were located to take 

advantage of area resources and the size of the community depended on the 

harvestable surplus from those resources. When we look at today’s communities and 

the needs of the broader global community we have to wonder if any community is, or 

could be, sustainable within itself. 

We, as Natives, still maintain a cultural connection and a tribal obligation to care 

for these resources and help in whatever way seems possible. We go to meetings and 

plead to have the Gravina Island timber harvest reduced, eliminated, or have the 

transfer site moved to protect subsistence clam and beach asparagus beds. We attend 

meetings to let managers know they are taking too many salmon, too many trees, 

destroying too much precious habitat. We work to regain access to restricted parks like 

Glacier Bay National Park where we are denied use of spruce roots for weaving, 

berries, egg gathering; things we did for generations in documented Tlingit territory. 

We feel our words are not being heard. We come to feel the process is to fulfill 

a mandate, and not to address the conservation of the environment. Or we come to 

understand that the agencies, although sympathetic, have to meet broader agency and 

department goals: to maximize uses, to provide economic benefit and jobs. We find 

that national directors who must answer to Washington D.C. policies and politics 

overpower regional managers who listen and support our concerns. We find that, after 

thousands of years of acting as stewards to these lands, we are now anecdotal. 

We commend the US Forest Service for its beneficial MOUs (memorandums of 

understanding) with tribes such as Sitka Tribe. We ask you to remember that this is not 

a process to fulfill a mandate to us: it is necessary to help maintain a precious 

ecosystem. We also ask that you not forget the voices of the individuals, Native and 

non-Native, who attend these many meetings, and demonstrate their commitment by 

their very presence. 

I appreciate being given the opportunity to present to this conference and hope 

we can contribute to developing policies and plans which conserve the resource to 

ensure they will be used and honored by generations to come. 
9

Traditional Uses Panel Members 

Irene Jimmy, Sitka Tribal Kayaani Commission 

Biography - Irene is a member of the Sitka Kiks.adi Tlingit Clan (Raven, Frog). She is a traditional Tlingit 

weaver and a founding member of the Kayaani Commission (traditional tribal plant use commission). 

Irene is also a member of the Sitka Tribe of Alaska’s Council. 

I am a founding member of the Kayaani Commission (a traditional tribal plant use 

commission started in 1997) and a traditional Tlingit weaver. I went to Sheldon Jackson 

College for seven years. Through my art I appreciate my culture. 

In 1998, the Kayaani Commission had five commissioners. A conference that 

year brought awareness of the importance of the Commission. I thank Phyllis Woolwine 

for coming to that conference. 

Sitka is well known for spruce root baskets. The techniques we use today are 

the same as were used years ago. An artist makes her baskets, blankets, and beading 

for her family, for the continuity of culture. I do not sell my baskets commercially. 

I am concerned with how to harvest products from the forest. We always take for 

granted that plants will continue to grow in the forest as ‘storage’ for our culture. Today 

I’m hearing talk about dividing up these products for economic value. I am really 

concerned about them continuing for their cultural use. I am concerned for the products 

that have brought my people as far as they have.

Jessie Johnnie, Sitka Tribal Kayaani Commission 

Biography - Jessie is a member of the Chookaneidi Tlingit Clan (Eagle, Brown Bear). She is a fluent 

Tlingit speaker and knowledgeable culture bearer. Jessie was raised by her grandmother in the 

traditional Tlingit manner and calls upon this early training when she teaches others in and outside of the 

classroom. 

I’d like to thank Lee for welcoming us to his ancestors’ land; and also the 

Eskimos and Aleuts from outlying lands in southcentral Alaska. It gives me pleasure to 

talk about what our ancestors gave to this generation. We strive to teach younger 

generations respect for the land, rivers, mountains to seashores, where ancestors 

collected medicines: plants from tops of mountains combined with things from the sea. 

We are very careful about how we harvest because our people believe that anything 

growing or moving has a spirit. When we go out to harvest we know that we are taking a 

spirit so we leave something behind. 

Today the logging industry breaks my heart. When I travel to all the places 

where our ancestors used to get food, all you see are stumps of trees from which the 

Tlingits used to get roots. If they felled a tree they would use every bit of that tree for 

medicine, for art, for warmth, for housing. And in this day and age a lot of people don’t

know that the inner bark of a pine tree can be used for food. When I was a little girl they 

would put all of us to work taking the sweet part of the bark off the tree. It was an all 

day job. Then my grandmother would build a big fire and we would put the bark 

shavings on skunk cabbage leaves and fern leaves and then cover it and build a fire all 

day. We used to make our bread on those fires, too. And a lot of people don’t realize 
10

that everything that we do, we use every bit of it (including) anything that is killed for 

food. If there is too much for one household, then it’s shared. 

It gives me great pleasure to tell you today a little bit of what our ancestors went 

through. Even the Athabascans, the Eskimos, when we were put in Alaska, our 

ancestors were already here. And they survived, all of the Native people survived from 

time immemorial. They learned how to survive the harsh weather. They taught and left 

behind a legacy for all of us to adhere to, to hand down to the younger generation. And 

it amazes me now our mode of travelling was done by canoes that were made out of 

trees and it took probably eight days to travel from Cordova, to Yakutat, all the way up 

to Anchorage. Some of our ancestors were fur traders and they were known at the 

Great Lakes in Minnesota. So you can see that our ancestors did not stay in one place 

but they traded for many things that we now have. The most important thing that I think 

about today is our products for medicinal use. People come and take what is ours 

without asking our permission. Devil’s club is an example. We respected the devil’s

club because it was a spiritual healing plant. And the translation doesn’t sound good in 

English, but in Tlingit it means “something very solid.” I want to thank you for sharing 

what little I can with you. 

Rita Blumenstein, Tribal Doctor, Traditional Healing Program, 

Southcentral Foundation 

Biography - Rita is employed as a Tribal Doctor Mother, grandmother, great grandmother, wife, aunt, 

sister, friend, Tribal Elder: Born on a fishing boat and raised in Tununak, Alaska. Attended Montessori 

school in Seattle for 4 years. Married and has raised two children. Worked at many hospitals delivering 

babies as a doctor’s aide in Bethel and Nome. Has traveled and taught all over the world, earning money 

for Native American Colleges. Taught basket weaving, song and dance, and cultural issue classes at 

many schools and programs. Participated in many healing conferences where her teachings of the 

“Talking Circle” were recorded and published. 

I am talking from my heart. I’ve written some poems interconnected with Mother 

Earth. I am honored being up here, speaking. Thank you for inviting me. 

My first language is Yup’ik. I come from very powerful people like my 

grandmother. I grew up with the earth. I eat it. I was born in a fishing boat and I’m

allergic to seafood. My father was a fisherman, but died one month before my birth. My 

mother is Yup’ik and Athabascan. I don’t know much about Athabascan culture but I 

respect that. Even the little bit of Russian that I am, I respect that too. Yup’ik is what I 

know well. It was my first language. 

I really don’t have a title. But I find I’m gifted with my hands and can turn babies. 

I’m a basket maker and storyteller. I went to Old Crow in 1952 and I’m so glad I got to 

go. Right now I’m working at the Southcentral Foundation’s Traditional Healing 

Program as a Tribal Doctor. I handle the difficult cases that other people can’t fix. 

People are looking for a miracle. The miracle is hidden within each of us. You need to 

be like a plant. You need to nurture yourself, know yourself. We forget that somehow, 

somewhere. We need to be getting everyone together by talking circle. 

I would like to share that I had scarlet fever, I had polio, I had diphtheria and I 

pulled through it. I didn’t talk for two years because I had a hole in my throat. A 
11

medicine woman who used saliva helped me and that’s how her healing was. When she 

put her mouth to the scar, it was gone. I don’t share these things very much. I feel 

today that it’s time to share because how are you going to get well if you don’t have a 

spirit from some other people? 

Storytelling was our first school. Probably we learned by listening and action. In 

western culture, you take notes and put them away. I don’t know how many times you 

use them. In our culture we hear the stories many times until they become part of a 

body, mind and soul. 

It’s like food. You don’t survive if you don’t eat healthy foods. I know how to use 

the herbs in my village. All I know is in my home in Nome and in this area around 

Anchorage. I’ve been living in the valley for twenty to thirty years now. I lived in Nome 

before. Now the medicine that we use, they’re afraid of it because we don’t know how 

to prove it works.

Teri Rofkar, Raven Art 

Biography - Teri is a traditional Tlingit artist and basket weaver. She follows the steps of her ancestors, 

striving to recapture the woven arts of an indigenous people. She believes that the ancient ways of 

gathering spruce root, with respect for the tree’s life and spirit, are a rich lesson in today’s world. 

Traditional methods of gathering and weaving natural materials help her to link past, present and future. 

I originally talked about a Kayaani Conference that took place in Sitka. Irene 

Jimmy and Jesse Johnny were very instrumental in organizing this gathering. It was a 

powerful conference, talking about "sacred plants" and ways of using them. Critical and 

fragile knowledge of the plants was shared. The group of people were from all over 

Alaska. When building awareness on a global scale, it is important to realize these 

things are happening here. 

My own knowledge is based on spending a lot of time in the woods since I was 

little. In the Tlingit culture we reference the animals, plants, and inanimate places and 

objects as containing a spirit. In this regard, I have spent many hours in the presence of 

the Tree People, just building a relationship. One example I gave was: "When is it time 

to gather the spruce roots?" It isn’t always the same date on the calendar. The natural 

elements, rain, snow, temperature, etc. influence it. I have kept track of these things 

and, over the years became better at figuring out just the right time to start. Then it 

came to me! I gather roots in the same fringe of the forest that bears dig roots to get 

their systems going in the spring. The bears are digging chocolate lily bulbs and lupine 

roots. I don’t have to keep track of all of those weather and temperature indicators. The 

Bear People let me know when it is time to gather! The word really travels around town 

when the bears come out of their dens. Knowledge based on natural indicators, rather 

than our own layer of information, is very accurate. 

I went on to describe how to gather the spruce roots with sensitivity to the tree 

and its life journey. These trees are not just a resource for us, they are our neighbors, I 

leave offerings; after all I am going to visit them again. There are ways to gather 

materials without causing too much harm to the plants, but an intimate knowledge of the 

life and cycle of these plants is needed. In the Tlingit culture these were traditional 

harvesting techniques passed down for over five centuries. Today it is called science. I 
12

gave an example of traditional methods as science while working with a wood specialist 

during a basket conservation workshop. We compared spruce roots I had gathered that 

year (early 1990’s) and roots that my great, great grandmother had prepared from the 

mid 1800’s. To the naked eye they were very similar, but when viewed under the 

microscope they told a different story. My root was jagged and uneven, while the old 

root was split so evenly that we were able to count the cells, and the count was the 

same all the way across! The root was split accurately at the cell level! Now that is an 

intimate relationship when the materials are split so accurately they have strength that 

the original structure provides! 

I realize that some of the traditional gathering methods have steps that I do 

because that’s the way it was always done. Just because I don’t know the science 

behind it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I really hope that this group can highlight the value 

of these materials, how important our relationship is with the plants, instead of just 

viewing them as a "product for manufacturing!" I have brought spruce roots to weave 

with and I will have a basket in progress during this conference. Please visit with me 

and ask questions. 

Steve Simmons, Forester, Chickaloon Village Traditional Council 

Biography – Steve is the Lead Forester with the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council. 

I work for Chickaloon Village, an Athabascan Nation sixty miles east of 

Anchorage on the Glenn Highway. I‘d like to speak about traditional use with respect to 

spirituality, commercialism, and protecting the resource of NTFPs. It’s a fascinating 

field. There are a lot of opportunities and possibilities out there. There are also a lot of 

opportunities and possibilities for the destruction of the resource. The ideals and the 

practices of our elders should be built into everything we do with respect to NTFPs, 

especially the education process. Everything is interconnected — fish and wildlife, 

trails, NTFPs. 

I manage a forestry department charged with economic resource development, 

timber harvest, building roads and trails. What’s good for the tribe is good for the future 

generations. The dilemma is this: How do we create a balance so that we don’t exploit, 

or even appear to exploit, the resources up to a point where they may not exist? The 

pressure is already on with respect to our fish and wildlife resources and our traditional 

access to trails and hunting areas. ATV use is increasing the pressure at a tremendous 

rate. People go out hunting or just recreating on four wheelers and the next thing you 

know they’re responsible for driving over people’s traditional berry picking grounds. It’s

easy to get out there with a machine and just pick, pick, pick. We’re already seeing 

heavy use in the south central area. It’s ringing the alarm bells but we’re not quite sure 

what to do about it. We’ve talked about farming, or establishing an area that can be put 

into production for our own particular use, or for economic development initiatives. But 

at the same time there are many people in the tribal communities who don’t agree with 

this approach. 

Commercialism and spiritualism do not mix well, so we have this constant 

dilemma. How do we create economic development but maintain spirituality, with 
13

respect for the Creator’s tools that He has put before us to use? On a personal level it’s

fine to harvest for whatever our needs might be. If our harvest exceeds our capacity to 

store it, it’s shared first and then taken home. 

I’d like to give you all some ideas about education. For example, when we 

encourage our berry pickers or jam producers to go out and pick, maybe we can sit 

down and say, “There are certain practices and ideals that we’d like to see utilized so 

the berry patches are not picked clean.”

Chickaloon Village is involved in a few economic development activities. One of 

them is birch syrup development. We’re really proud of it. The tribe pulls together into 

something that we have fun doing. It’s a challenge. We’ve combined a lot of our 

departmental assets to make the job easier — but with the exception of a prayer and an 

offering in the startup phase, there’s very little spirituality about it. It’s about maximizing 

the potential of the labor force. It’s about minimizing your efforts so that you can get a 

nice product out on the market for a reasonable cost, which of course the producers can 

be proud of while creating some economic development for your people. 

The further we go down this road, the more discussion occurs as to how do we 

create a balance between the spiritual aspect of traditional uses and increasing 

commercialism. Right now we have no answers. If anyone has any answers, I’d be 

willing to hear them. The best thing we can do is to just keep moving forward at a slow 

pace. We should get into some serious discussions about regulation. At the federal and 

state level, these kinds of discussions are already happening with regards to ATV (all 

terrain vehicle) use. They need to happen. Alaska’s not going to like it, but the 

destruction that is happening to the trails is immense, to the point that trails that have 

been in use for hundreds, maybe even thousands, of years have been totally destroyed. 

The Native people won’t attempt to use them, or can’t use them. The BLM (Bureau of 

Land Management) is looking to address these issues. There are provisions in the 

Alaska Native Lands Settlement Act that also apply. Maybe we can create some 

commissions or boards to work alongside these people at the state and federal levels 

so that our concerns of overuse and exploitation of NTFPs can be addressed. 
14

Breakout Session (Combined): Traditional Uses and

Social, Ethical and Spiritual Aspects of NTFPs

What Who Comments 

History of treatment of 

Native knowledge 

Someone to work 

with Native people 

on grant to Native 

tribe/Regional 

health program 

Where: Alaska history curriculum 

development for public schools 

How: Continuing forums between 

agency people and Native community 

‘Witchcraft’ went 

underground 

Southcentral 

Foundation 

Where: Bring healers together again 

Sharing traditional 

healing methods with 

western medicine 

facilities 

Healers/doctors 

Special relationship 

between Native people 

and governments: 

Government to 

government, federal, 

state, cities 

Federal/ 

state/city 

How: Bring these groups together 

about access 

Certification of harvesters How: Promote ethical and spiritual 

gathering methods 

Table 1 – Issues raised during the combined breakout session of the Traditional Uses Group 

and the Social, Ethical and Spiritual Aspects of NTFP Group. 

The breakout session for the Social, Ethical & Spiritual Aspects Panel was combined 

with the breakout session for the Traditional Uses Panel at the request of the breakout 

session participants. 
15

Topic: Biological Sustainability 

	



	 	



	

	



	

	



	

	



	
16

Biological Sustainability Lead Speaker 

Nan Vance, Research Plant Physiologist, USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR 

Biography - Nan is currently Supervisory Plant Physiologist and Biology 

and Culture of Forest Plants Team in the Resource Management and 

Productivity Program at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory, in Corvallis, Oregon; she just completed a six-year 

term as Team Leader. Nan’s extensive education has earned her a B.A. 

in Mathematics and Psychology, a Masters in Education for 

Environmental Studies, a M.S. in Forest Tree Physiology, and a Ph.D. in 

Plant Physiology. 

Prior to her work with the Pacific Northwest research Station, Figure 14 – Nan Vance 

Nan worked for Oregon State University (OSU) as Supervisory Plant 

Physiologist, with research areas in plant physiology, environmental biochemistry, and conservation and 

reproductive biology of forest plants. During this time she also had a courtesy appointment as Assistant 

Professor for both the College of Forestry and Department of Botany and Plant Pathology at OSU. 

In recent years, Nan has played key roles in the development of Forest Service NTFP policy at 

the national level, as well as in Alaska. She is widely sought, both throughout the United States and 

internationally, for her expertise as one of our nation’s authorities on the biological sustainability of NTFP. 

Nan has published numerous papers, books and reports on biological sustainability of NTFP, 

most recently the Forest Service publication “Special Forest Products Species Information Guide for the 

Pacific Northwest" (PNW GTR-513). 

Biological and Conservation Considerations in the Use of Wild Plants 

for Nontimber Forest Products

The conservation and sustainable management of hundreds of commercially 

important plant and fungal species depends upon implementing effective strategies not 

only for sustainable harvest, but also for species, habitat, and ecosystem protection. 

Applying an understanding of the biological adaptations and limitations of plants, as well 

as their patterns of growth, reproduction, regeneration, will help to promote their 

conservation and contribute to sustainable harvest and management. Maintaining 

viability and future evolutionary potential of plant species will also require putting into 

use an understanding of how species and their habitats are influenced by climate, soils, 

landforms, and history of disturbance such as fire and disease (Vance 2002). But the 

collection and use of wild plant species cannot be properly addressed if it is concerned 

only with plant species and their habitats and does not include the human relationship 

with the plant resource. 

Biological and ecological models may be of little value in projecting long-term 

species or ecosystem sustainability unless human interactions with plants are 

considered and can predict the behavioral relationships of people with their 

environment. 
17

Are there any intrinsic features of selective resource use that have elements of 

sustainability? Selection of plant resources for local availability, abundance, and quality 

of desirable species are energy saving criteria for a variety of animals from insects to 

ungulates and humans. As resources are depleted, animals migrate or select different 

species. If they can’t, their use is regulated by their failure to thrive or reproduce. Long 

histories of traditional harvest and use of native plants may provide models that help 

define sustainability. Humans also have generally selected species that were abundant 

and accessible for use, recognizing that it is energy efficient to have a reliable and 

accessible food resource. That indigenous people select from diverse and locally 

abundant plants suggests they might favor consistently available botanical resources 

that could sustain them at a most efficient level (Moran 1979, Phillips and Meilleur 1998, 

Salick et al. 1999). Over time, harvest technologies evolved that would help to insure 

the sustainability of their food, shelter and medicinal resources. These harvest 

technologies may provide models or a basis for developing sustainable harvest and 

plant conservation strategies for species of interest today (Lantz 2001). 

Plants that are widespread, abundant, and common usually have robust 

regeneration, reproduction and growth. In addition spatially and seasonally selective 

user patterns, such as migrating to grassland areas for digging roots in the Spring and 

to upland forests for harvesting berries in the Fall, distribute harvest over a variety of 

species and tends to conserve plant resources (Turner and Efrat 1982, Hunn 1991). In 

many cases, setting spatially limited fires to open the understory would increase berry 

production or otherwise improve abundance of usable plants (Anderson 1996). Thus, 

selecting species that vary in food production over space and time, and are common, 

abundant, and locally available; and augmenting desired species’ persistence through 

cultural treatments that maintain bio-complexity are practices that might contribute to 

sustainability of used species without detriment to whole plant communities (Vance 

2002). 

Similar user practices may in some degree apply to traditional wildcrafting. In an 

assessment of over 70 floral and fungal species that supply many herbal and other 

commodities in the Pacific Northwest, most of the species harvested were found to be 

common and relatively abundant (Vance et al. 2001). Various plant species have 

supported “brush pickers” in that region for decades. Across the U.S., herbalists and 

wildcrafters have been collecting, using, and selling products from local populations of 

plant species for generations. Their livelihoods probably depended upon local trade 

and reliable markets. But they also depended upon the abundance, diversity, and 

availability of the local biota to provide a dependable resource without the expenditure 

of much economic energy (capital). Typically plants would be harvested to encourage 

regeneration and many of the products would come from renewable portions of plants, 

or their fruits (Cunningham 1991). 

The above discussion only suggests kinds and amounts of harvest and use that 

might sustain the user, plant resource, and habitat. But how does one evaluate if 

sustainability is in effect? On managed but uncultivated forestlands, a largely 

unanswered question is how to measure sustainable harvest of botanically useful 

species. On timberlands sustainability of a commercial species is quantified by the 

replacement of the species harvested in a purported sustained yield formula. While 

monitoring harvest activities is important, monitoring a number of plant populations 
18

across a species’ native range to determine the level at which extraction exceeds 

replacement may not be practicable or useful. As was true for calculating carrying 

capacity, harvest levels that begin to reach a plant population’s replacement capacity 

may be too high for maintaining population viability in the long term. Accurate models of 

plant population viability in response to harvest would have to account for climatic 

variations that affect population demographics, recruitment, mortality, and reproduction, 

as well other factors that affect species distribution, abundance, and growth (Marcot and 

Murphy 1996). 

Harvesting levels and associated ecological, sociological, and economic factors 

should be examined through garnering information from local commercial and traditional 

harvesters. Historical use and customs, understanding of how harvest affects species, 

knowledge of species demographics, distribution and variation, current problems with 

harvest, and historical and present importance of species to culture and economic 

stability of community should be understood. Are species being harvested to serve a 

mass or niche market, local and regional economies, and/or to support tradition and 

custom? Are there historical records that can be referenced for comparing to present 

plant population sizes and levels of harvest in relation to human population growth rates 

that would affect demand and use? 

Application of the biological knowledge of a plant harvested for NTFP, its 

patterns of growth, reproduction, regeneration, and ecological requirements and 

limitations are essential to sustainable harvest and management. Maintaining viability 

and future evolutionary potential of plant species will also require putting into use an 

understanding of how vegetation patterns are influenced by climate, soils, landforms, 

and history of disturbance such as fire and disease. The conservation and sustainable 

management of hundreds of commercially important plant and fungal species will 

depend upon implementing effective strategies not only for sustainable harvest, but also 

for species, habitat, and ecosystem protection. Although inventories, monitoring, and 

appropriate application of ecological information will not guarantee that plant species, 

communities, and habitats will be sustained, they are at greater risk without these 

actions. These actions are necessary if strategies are to be developed that afford 

protection of forest flora, reduce risk to the environment, and save cost to society as 

well. To sustain long-term harvest of wild plants and plant parts for NTFP, the 

challenge will be to accommodate the biological and ecological requirements of these 

species, their habitats and associated plant communities while under increasing 

pressure from complex social and economic forces. 

References 

Anderson, M.K. 1996. The ethnobotany of deergrass, Muhlenbergia rigens (Poaceae): its uses and fire 

management by California Indian tribes. Economic Botany 50: 409-422. 

Cunningham, A.B. 1991. Development of a conservation policy on commercially exploited medicinal 

plants: a case study from southern Africa. In The Conservation of Medicinal Plants, edited by O. 

Akerele, V. Heywood, and H. Synge, 337-351. London, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Hunn, E. 1991. The plateau. In The First Oregonians, edited by C.M. Buan and R. Lewis, 9-14. Portland: 

Oregon Council for the Humanities. 
19

Lantz, T. C. 2001. The population ecology and ethnobotany of Devil’s Club (Oplopanax horridus (Sm.) 

Torr. & A. Gray ex. Miq.; Araliaceae). M.S. Thesis, Department of Biology, University of Victoria, BC. 

Canada. 

Marcot, B.G. and D.D. Murphy. 1996. On population viability analysis and management. In Biodiversity in 

Managed Landscapes Theory and Practice, edited by R.C. Szaro and D.W. Johnston, 58-76. New 

York: Oxford University Press. 

Moran, E.F. 1979. Human Adaptability and Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. Boulder CO: 

Westview Press. 404 p. 

Phillips, O.L. and B.A. Meilleur. 1998. Usefulness and economic potential of the rare plants of the United 

States: a statistical survey. Economic Botany 2: 57-67. 

Salick, J., A. Biun, G. Martin, L. Apin, and R. Beaman. 1999. Whence useful plants? A direct relationship 

between biodiversity and useful plants among the Dusun of Mt. Kinabalu. Biodiversity and 

Conservation 8: 797-818. 

Turner, N.J. and B.S. Efrat. 1982. Ethnobotany of the Hesquiat Indians of Vancouver Island. Cultural 

Recovery Paper 2. Victoria, BC: The British Columbia Provincial Museum. 99 p. 

Vance, N.C. 2002. Ecological Considerations in Sustainable Use of Wild Plants. In Nontimber Forest 

Products in the United States, edited by E.T. Jones, R.J. McLain, and J.Weigand. Lawrence, KS: 

University Press of Kansas. 445 p. 

Vance, N.C., M. Borsting, D. Pilz, and J. Freed. 2001. Species information guide to special forest 

products in the Pacific Northwest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station GTR-PNW-513. 169 p.
20

Biological Sustainability Panel 

Glenn Juday, Professor of Forest Ecology, University of Alaska 

Fairbanks 

Biography - Glenn received his Ph.D. at Oregon State University on old-growth forests of the Oregon 

Coast Range. He was Alaska Ecological Reserves Coordinator from 1977 through 1988, and has been 

Professor of Forest Ecology with the Forest Sciences Department at UAF since 1981. A member of the 

Bonanza Creek Long-Term Ecological Research Group, Glenn’s research involves long-term studies and 

issues of biological diversity, especially under management. 

Sustainability is not unchangeability. When we talk about sustaining human uses 

and the potential of the forest to meet different human needs and desires, we are talking 

about something that’s unchanging in only a limited sense. But we know we are dealing 

with nature, which is changeable. These two contradictory ideas are rectified when we 

consider “integration over spatial and temporal scales.” This scientific term means that 

sometimes you have to find what you’re looking for in other places because it’s not time 

yet for it to be produced on a particular piece of land, given the way nature changes. 

The conceptual scheme for talking about the nature of change in forest systems is 

called the “disturbance regime.” Characteristics of disturbance regimes provide ways to 

describe and understand them: 1) Kind or type of disturbance: Is it a blowdown, insect, 

or fire disturbance? 2) Amount or size of disturbance: Is it a small or a huge forest fire? 

3) Rate: Does it burn every 1, 10, 50, 100, or 300 years? 4) Timing: Does it burn in the 

spring, mid-summer, or fall? 5) Pattern: does it kill every tree or every other tree, or 

only the understory? The connection between sustainability and disturbance regime is 

this: Sustainability depends upon the stage of forest development that your desired 

organism is found in — early, middle, or late — compared to the disturbance regime. 

Succession — forest development through time — is one of the most important 

ecological concepts, but succession never happens in the abstract, it always happens in 

real space. I have been monitoring successional change and development in the 

Bonanza Creek Long Term Ecological Research site near Fairbanks. I’ve been 

personally involved for almost twenty years. One of the most interesting comparisons is 

between two upland sites that had well-developed older white spruce. One of the sites 

is still an old spruce forest. We’ve mapped and measured every tree and know that not 

much change happens there. Sooner or later there’s likely to be a fire; in fact a 

charcoal layer in the soil shows that a fire in about 1785 initiated this stand. It went 

through a series of readily recognizable stages until it finally returned to mature spruce. 

The old white spruce site is matched with a nearly identical site that supported an oldgrowth white spruce stand but which burned in the 1983 Rosie Creek Fire. It doesn’t

look anything like the older stand now. The exact character of the new forest has been 

determined by factors such as distance to the fire’s edge, to seed source, and other 

processes. Immediately following the Rosie Creek fire, we experimented by allowing 

salvage logging on part of the burn and maintaining an unlogged research reserve on 

the other part, where we let the burnt logs fall and cover the ground. The tremendous 

accumulation of logs on the research reserve shows just one difference that forest 

management can produce as one of the influences on succession. 
21

I have developed a conceptual scheme to identify what kinds of organisms are at 

different levels of abundance following a stand-replacing disturbance (fire) — going from 

“0” immediately following the fire to about 200 years — on a particular area of boreal 

forest. The immediate flush of flowering plants following a forest fire decreases as the 

canopy closes in. Flowering plant diversity is then partially renewed as trees fall and 

create canopy light openings in mid cycle. The tremendous abundance of burnt logs on 

the research reserve at Bonanza Creek will become the substrate for wooddecomposing fungi. Fungal diversity will reach a maximum in mid-successional stages 

as the old logs become well decomposed and new logs are added. Late in succession 

arboreal lichens reach a maximum after the canopy reaches its maximum depth and 

large-diameter limbs and trunk surfaces have been colonized for more than a century. 

The higher humidity, shade, and needle litter in late successional stages create the 

conditions for mosses and similar plants. 

These examples show that biodiversity characteristics change over the 200-year life 

cycle of a typical boreal forest. If we want to target any species for management, we 

have to understand successional history at both the stand and landscape levels. 

Disturbance characteristics create conditions for different populations of organisms. If 

you want to harvest nontimber forest resources, this is the kind of perspective you have 

to adopt to understand the landscape you’re dealing with. Fires and other disturbances 

happen all the time. The landscape changes constantly and the relative abundance of 

the species you want to target will change accordingly. 

Dolly Garza, Professor, University of Alaska, 

Marine Advisory Program 

Biography - Dolly has a B.S. in Fisheries Science from the University of Alaska; a M.S. in Fisheries 

Management from the University of Washington; and a Ph.D. in Marine Policy from the University of 

Delaware. Her credentials in western science are strengthened by her value for the traditional knowledge 

of her people. In addition to her role as University Professor, Dolly serves several organizations including 

the Alaska Sea Otter and Stellar Sea Lion Commission, the Alaska Native Science Commission, the 

Alaska Marine Safety Education Association, the Southeast Regional Subsistence Advisory Council, and 

the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation. 

Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Sustainable Development 

Use of Co-management 

I would like to make several points on traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and 

sustainable development in federal forestlands. In building from my previous 

presentation, I will point out what I think is currently missing in today’s management that 

can be taken from traditional Native management and stewardship. 

Historically, areas were owned by tribes or clans and managed for use by the 

community. The clan or village leader would determine harvest levels and times. This 

level of control was needed to ensure resources were sustained from one generation to 

the next. Berry patches were held by clans and occasionally branches were broken to 

encourage a thicker berry crop. Spruce root gathering areas were cleared of other 

vegetation to give the spruce roots maximum nutrition and to make gathering beautiful 
22

straight spruce roots possible. Strict rules were applied to gathering and using devil’s

club as a medicine. 

Can this use and management process be brought forward to today’s

management of the Tongass and Chugach forests? The use of co-management, the 

shared responsibility to act as stewards to a resource, is gaining ground in resource 

management paradigms. It has become evident that if stakeholders take part in the 

development of plans and are equally liable for the consequence of the management 

they will work harder to find sustainable plans and activities. When stakeholders can 

comment only on a draft that is near complete and will not change much they feel they 

are not being listened to, and disassociate from the process. We witness this in poorly 

attended public meetings. 

Education and Respect 

Many harvesters are young adults, who are out on an adventure. They may 

travel to an area to harvest mushrooms and leave once they are done with money in 

their pocket. They do not have the same respect for the area as the local residents who 

think of next year’s crop and the health of the habitat as they harvest the mushrooms or 

berries. This ignorance of conservation needs and ecological balances can result in 

over-harvesting and habitat degradation. 

Harvesters should be required to receive certification from a short course on the 

ecology and sustainable nature of the habitat and specific resource. They should also 

be required to sign a contract to tie continued harvesting opportunities with conservative 

practices. 

What Does the Community Want? 

If development is to occur in an area, the community should be part of the plan. 

Private land owners, including village and regional Native corporations, may be 

interested in developing small scale harvesting opportunities but lack the development 

or administrative skills. Too often permitting, whether experimental or commercial, 

occurs before concerned citizens are able to raise their concerns in the proper forum. 

By the time concerns are properly put forward, harvesters/businesses can claim they 

have already invested their life-savings in the business start-up and will suffer 

irreparable harm if not allowed to continue harvesting. 

Community members need information on what “flux harvesting” looks like and 

its potential impacts on community services. If dozens or hundreds show up in 

Winnebagoes or trucks with tents to take advantage of a seasonal opportunity, how will 

that affect community member harvest opportunities? How will such flux harvesting 

affect parks, campsites, etc., and who will be responsible for increased use of public 

facilities such as restrooms? 

Plan for Average Returns — Not Exceptional Returns 

A continuing error in resource management is the slow push to maximize the 

harvest and benefit from a resource year after year. Small businesses do not plan for 

seasons when environmental changes/factors lead to poor production. They end up 

blaming government and expect compensation for lost opportunities. The potential 

harvestable surplus from an area needs to be calculated based on fluctuations as well 

as overall ecological stability. 
23

John Zasada, Northern Silviculture Project Leader, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Grand Rapids, MN 

Biography - John has been working for the Forest Service in land management research for 40 years. 

From 1968-1985 he worked for the USDA Forest Service Institute of Northern Forestry in Fairbanks. 

Among his many special interests are silvicultural systems for integrating timber and special forest 

products values; and trying to understand harvest, treatment and use of various natural materials for 

basket making. He has a personal interest in birch bark weaving. 

Careful Harvest of Nontimber Forest Products—Some Considerations 

Many of us derive personal pleasure and income from the harvest of nontimber 

forest products (NTFP). The question is—do we know how to harvest in a manner that 

does not unnecessarily harm the plant and that leaves it in a condition to recover from 

the effects of harvesting? In other words, is harvest of NTFP sustainable? The following 

considerations provide a guide that I have developed for my own thinking regarding 

“careful” harvest practices and gaining access to materials for harvest. These few 

guides are by no means original or all-inclusive. They were developed by combining 

basic concepts of plant growth and information provided by experienced, thoughtful 

harvesters. 

1. Whenever possible, harvest materials from areas that are scheduled to be disturbed 

for other reasons, e.g. timber harvest, land clearing, road construction, etc. Harvesting 

in these areas utilizes materials that are otherwise destroyed and takes pressure off 

areas where disturbance will not occur. In particular this applies to materials like birch 

bark that when harvested leaves the trees unattractive and may result in mortality of 

some trees and inner bark of other trees—those removals that might particularly stress 

a plant. These areas will also be good sources of landscaping materials—that is, they 

provide transplant materials. One can learn about these areas by talking with local 

foresters, keeping your eyes open for land clearing or tree cutting activities, advertising 

in the newspaper or by word-of-mouth. In my own experience one learns about these 

areas just before the operation is about to start and you have to be ready to do your 

harvesting at a moment’s notice. 

2. If harvest is from areas that will not be disturbed as in “1” above, an effort should be 

made to protect the growing points of the plant to the maximum extent possible. The 

main aboveground growing points are terminal and lateral buds, and the cambium (the 

layer between the wood and inner bark) (Note: there are also below ground growing 

points on roots and rhizomes that are important.) The protection of these growing 

points will reduce the likelihood of serious long-term damage and allow the plant to 

recover as quickly as possible. For some species, willows for example, individual plants 

recover quickly and seem to benefit from some pruning. But, even for these plants, the 

rate of recovery to a desired form or size will depend on the buds left for shoot and leaf 

development. 

3. Damage to a plant can be both direct and indirect. Direct damage is immediate and 

results from the removal of the desired part of the plant. Indirect effects occur, for 

example, when harvesting results in making the plant less resistant to pathogens and 
24

insects. Indirect effects may not become obvious for many years after the harvest of 

materials. 

4. Be selective of the materials that are gathered. Know what you want and harvest only 

those materials that are useful; minimize waste. This can also reduce harvest effects on 

the plant. 

5. Bear in mind that careful harvest methods may allow future harvests of the same 

material from the same plant. Also keep in mind that severe damage to the plant may 

eliminate the potential for future harvests of different materials from the same plants. 

6. There is often a “best” time of the year to harvest a plant material to assure the best 

quality and the least damage to the plant. This information can be gained by careful 

observation, reading, or consulting others who are willing to share their experience. The 

best information often comes from those that have spent time in the past gathering and 

learning from their efforts. 

7. Always get permission from the landowner. Offer to pay for materials or offer some 

of the value-added product that you are making for the right to gather on private lands. 

Working with landowners can be a key to learning about opportunities in the future. 

In summary, what careful harvesting practices come down to is a respect for the 

plant and respect for future uses of the plant while gaining the personal satisfaction or 

income that is derived from harvesting NTFPs. 

Gary Laursen, Senior Research Scientist, Institute for Arctic Biology, 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Biography - Gary has been a working mycologist for 34 years and a teacher of biological science for 50 

cumulative years. He has research interests in Arctic, Subarctic, and Subantarctic fungi, especially the 

mushrooms and toadstools. Gary has developed an international research team investigating fungal 

taxonomy, ecology of high latitude tundra environments, edibility by humans and other mammals, and 

symbioses. His photographs of fungi are published broadly. The Mushrooms of Denali National Park & 

Preserve is in its final preparation for a 2002 printing.

Sustainability of Cryptogams in High Latitude Alaskan Forests: 

Unregulated Botanical Forest Products 

All of us are challenged to become, if not already, vigilant stewards of our lands. Five 

points are necessary to consider in any future discussion of forest cryptogams as 

NTFPs. We must: 

I. Identify potentially useable cryptogams (defined here as mushrooms, lichen, 

mosses, parasites of mosses, lichen, and mushrooms, slime molds, fern, 

horsetails, and clubmosses). 

II. Consider what potential uses cryptogams have. 

III. Conceptualize what will ultimately drive the harvesting of cryptogams. 
25

IV. Address what we need to know to successfully, but not destructively, harvest 

cryptogams. 

V. Provide recommendations to initiate dialogue as to how best to go out and do 

this. 

Due to space limits, this summary only enlarges upon Point V. Recommendations to 

initiate dialogue: 

1. Cottage Added Value ‘Industry’ (CAVI) should depend more on ‘nomadic/itinerant’

collecting of annually renewed resources than attempts to ‘culture’ due to: 

♦ The high costs in materials and finances for initial set ups and maintenance, 

♦ The uncertainties of fruiting responses in any one area/region during any given 

year, a function of soil moisture, temperature, substrate inoculation, and having a 

thorough understanding of the reproductive biology and roles played by species 

taken, 

♦ Any cottage industry is a long-term commitment to the missions of finding, 

collecting, preserving, packaging, and marketing with no assurance of large sum 

income. 

2. Low-intensity, long-term monitoring and inventory development to assess species 

and species availability are mandatory as their presence and abundance is 

intrinsically linked to environmental parameters. Having this knowledge is 

paramount to the success of any CAVI utilizing cryptogams. 

3. Market and management driven funding is needed to correlate cryptogam 

productivity, habitat preference, disturbance sensitivity, and environmental health to: 

a) Develop long-term monitoring, 

b) Successfully build meaningful inventories, 

c) Ascertain adequate monitoring procedures, 

d) Understand the reproductive biology, symbioses and host interactions, 

population dynamics, genetic plasticity and fruiting responses, 

e) Integrate scientific findings with indigenous knowledge to maximize the harvest 

and creative uses of NTFP products. 

4. Use mission oriented data gleaned from research to: 

a) Assess cost effectiveness, renewable and sustainable harvesting, 

b) Provide forest managers with ammunition to engage in proactive, cause and 

effect assertions rather than reactive, after-the-fact knee jerk responses to 

‘crises,’

c) Develop a meaningful and non-burdening permitting system cordial to the 

process, and provide encouragement to its participants. 

d) Bring forward TEK into land/resource management guidelines (e.g. develop 

cedar bark harvesting methods with input from traditional users). 
26

Breakout Session: Biological Sustainability 

• Reduce human population 

• Harvest monitoring to gather baseline data to assess sustainability 

• Basic resource inventory data/ survey: vegetation, landscape, etc. 

• Who: Coordinated effort is best: Federal, State, Native corporations 

• Define sustainability 

• View both positive and negative aspects of management 

• Understand ecology of relationships 

• Species sustainability guidelines 

• Understand cycles of change 

• Potential effects of climate change 

• Promote education on forest sustainability: materials, training, etc. 

• How to measure sustainability: methodologies 

• Quantify expected range of variability 

• Exotic species 

• Assess impacts within high use areas 

• Promote NTFP demonstration projects statewide 

Who: interagency, local business 

Where: Homer Demo Forest—Homer 

Skyview High School—Homer 

Heritage Park—North Pole 

White Stone Farm—Delta 

Pearl Creek Elementary School—Fairbanks 

• Create an interagency/business NTFP organization, include Mental Health Trust 

Land managers 

Table 2 – Issues of biological sustainability of NTFP in Alaska.
27

Topic: Economic Opportunities 

	



	 




	






	 




	
28

Economic Opportunities Lead Speaker 

Jim Freed, Professor, Special Forest Products Extension, 

Washington State University 

Biography - Jim Freed is the Special Forest Products 

Extension Professor for Washington State University (WSU), 

based out of Olympia, Washington. As such, he has the lead 

responsibilities for all special forest products educational 

programs for Washington State University. He has been an 

Extension Professor for WSU since 1977, and for Ohio State 

University from 1973 to 1977. Jim’s professional work has 

focused on developing economic benefits for forestland owners 

through enhancement of native plants for the production of 

NTFP. He has focused on giving landowners the decisionmaking tools to manage their lands sustainably, both for the plants Figure 19 – Jim Freed

and the families and communities that rely on them. 

Jim has been involved in twenty-nine international projects whose focus has ranged from 

developing NTFP marketing and management cooperatives, to the development of markets for products 

produced in the Pacific Northwest. He is presently working on a project with the Maki Indians to develop 

a community-based forestry program with a focus on NTFP. Jim has been a co-investigator on six 

research projects with the USDA Forest Service, Oregon State University, Washington State University, 

and University of Idaho. He has written over one hundred articles for newspapers, magazines, 

periodicals, and journals, covering forest management for sustainable production, commercial production 

of new products, international marketing, direct marketing to consumers, and management of locally 

based NTFP businesses. 

On October 2, 2001, Jim successfully initiated the Northwest Harvesters and Research 

Association (NHRA). It will be working with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to 

develop management plans for over 37,000 acres of working forest, and will include NTFP as an integral 

part of the total management plan. This relationship is unique in that it also uses harvesters to develop 

and conduct inventory and research programs for understory management. 

Economic Opportunities for Nontimber Forest Products in Alaska 

It’s really interesting that what drives economics is, “Can I make money with 

this?” Making money without conscience will cause problems, but the real driving force 

for the people to be in the forest is that there’s value in what people are removing from 

the forest. In today’s discussions, what we haven’t come to yet is what we want to talk 

about: Can we make money at it? The driving force is that there is value to what we are 

removing from the forest whether we are harvesting for commercial use, personal use, 

gifts, or subsistence. 

I work with small landowners, people who own around 5 acres, who want to know 

what they have on their property so they can use it themselves. In the state of 

Washington, 90,000 people own between 5-30 acres of land. Most of the people have 

no idea what they have there. Once they find out about it, it’s amazing how they value 
29

their land differently. Now it’s not just a place to harvest trees, but it becomes their 

personal garden. They develop a relationship with the land. 

If you want to look at what’s going on in the forest, there are not many people in 

forestry who will listen to you about NTFPs. You have to talk the economic terms 

foresters relate to on an economic base: board feet, tons, cubits, volumes per acre. If 

you’re going to be starting a business, then you should be talking with horticulturists, 

who have so much knowledge that we have not yet drawn upon. A horticulturist knows 

more about a plant than a forester. The horticulture industry works with the plants to 

use in people’s everyday life for food, ornamental value, etc. There isn’t a plant that 

we’ve talked about that a horticulturist hasn’t looked at somewhere in the world, 

because each plant we’ve talked about today has been developed somewhere in the 

world, and therefore is being managed, especially woody species and associated 

flowering plants. 

How plants respond to management is really important since that’s what you’re 

sustaining your business on. Without knowing how much resource is out there and how 

much you can harvest, it will be difficult to start up a business of any size. Things that 

you need to know are how sustainable the resource is, what its uses are, the annual life 

cycles, how they respond to fertilization, how they respond to overstory removal, etc. 

One great resource for information are wildlife people. They can tell you how plants 

respond to overgrazing. They can tell you the distribution of fungal spores based on 

different wildlife. They know that flying squirrels eat spores of a white fungus that grows 

on Douglas fir and larch. As the fungus goes through the squirrel’s digestive system, 

they put down the spores for the fungus to reproduce. When talking to matsutake (pine 

mushroom) collectors, they say that some of the best places to collect matsutakes in the 

Olympic Peninsula are where the elk have been. Elk feed on matsutakes and the 

mushrooms go through their digestive systems. Working with a fungi researcher, I 

learned that the best reason that matsutakes can’t be grown commercially in a 

darkhouse is because they haven’t been through an animal’s digestive system. 

Once we know all about a species, we tend to assume all species with the same 

common name are the same everywhere. But this not so. A huckleberry growing in 

Alaska is probably not the same as one growing in Carson, California. Through the 

growing range of huckleberries, the size of the fruit is different and the sugar content 

varies. This influences the chemical components and the capability of the plant to be 

transported, to store well, etc. 

Most of the fruits and vegetables that we eat everyday are not managed because 

they taste good; they’re managed because they ship well. Most of the berries that you 

buy at the store, no matter how organic that they are, have been designed and 

researched for how well they ship. There was a great book written in the 1970’s, Hard 

Times, Hard Tomatoes, which is all about new varietal forms that are designed so they 

harvest and ship easily. This book talks about the research that was done to develop 

square watermelons so that they could be shipped nicely. The major reason that many 

special wild edibles will not enter a major market anywhere is because of the lack of 

post-harvest care. After picking, products need to be cooled to have a shelflife, whether 

this is refrigeration, dehydration, or fast freezing. The next step in setting up a 

marketing plan is looking at not only when do you pick, but what is your post-harvest 

care of your wild edibles? What is its shelf life? 
30

One thing that needs to be considered is: what are some of the opportunities and 

markets for the resource? When I first came to Washington, there was a group of 

people growing zucchinis, and they wanted to do all these wonderful things with 

zucchinis. What they found out is that zucchini plants are quite plentiful and one 

zucchini plant takes care of about thirty families. People would joke that even in the 

summer when the temperature was 100 degrees F, people would roll their windows up 

in their cars so that people could not slip zucchinis into their back seats. It’s important 

to know what the markets are. 

When we’re thinking about markets, we think too large. We think about a global 

market. We want everyone in the world to buy one of our products. That’s a lot of 

people. I recommend that we start small and get our skills together. Some of the most 

successful organic farmers that I have worked with started out providing for themselves. 

Then you can sell to friends when you have surplus of what you gathered for yourself. 

Think about selling at farmers markets and look at traditional markets where Native 

people sell items such as smoked salmon, sweet grass, and juniper berries to mainland 

Natives and people no longer living in the area. Make contracts for amounts that you 

can handle. Take direct orders; an example of this is a business where people select 

their Christmas tree in July. The tree is cared for all year and then cut down at 

Christmas. 

One of the biggest value-added characteristics you can add to a product is 

scarcity. If you say one per customer, people will do everything they can to get two. My 

mother doesn’t eat at McDonalds ®, but she shops there to get the toys with the Happy 

Meals®. She’ll go to different McDonalds® to get all the different toys for her 

grandchildren. Don’t try to supply the world with it. This will also help with resource 

protection because if you’re supplying a lot of it, you’re not going to make much money 

per pound of it and then you’re going to use up the whole resource. If you limit it and 

put that in your marketing system—say that you’re only going to sell one hundred of 

something—then you’ll create a waiting list. A waiting list will increase the value of what 

you have. If you can get as much as you want, then the item looses value. Supply 

those people who want it and who will pay a premium for it. People will pay more for 

what they want than for what they need. 

Sustainability in marketing is as important as sustainability of the resource. 

Provide high quality with your product—set it up so customers tell others about it. Give 

your customer what they want and let them know all the work that goes into it. Educate 

them about what it takes to produce the high quality product you do. Great words that 

should be added to marketing programs are: fresh, wild, organic, sustainable, 

traditional, and authentic. Sit down with the Native Alaskans, Native Americans, or First 

Nations and see if they certify. Products that have been certified that they have been 

harvested, picked, and cared for in the way that Native peoples say it should be done 

have an added value that can not be gotten otherwise. 

There are a lot of products out there and different ways of marketing. Do what 

you know and start out small. Get things real concise and deliver high quality products. 

If you don’t deliver high quality, it can cost you a lot, especially with food safety. Look at 

what buyers want. Look at what can you do and what the ecosystem can produce 

sustainably. What can you do to add value to that? 
31

Economic Opportunities Panel 

Elstun W. Lauesen, Consultant, The Alaska Resources Commodities 

Trading & Investment Corporation (ARCTIC) 

Biography - Elstun has worked in community and economic development throughout Alaska and the 

Pacific Northwest. He is a Former Economic Development Planner for the Alaska Department of 

Community and Regional Affairs. He has just recently ended a term appointment with Economic 

Development Agency in Washington State. During his Alaska tenure, Elstun undertook cooperative 

NTFP product development with Native organizations in Interior Alaska. 

An Integrated Approach to the Commercial Utilization of 

Non-Forest Resources of Forest Lands

In 1984, the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. (TCC) undertook an ambitious 

planning effort that took over a year to develop. The result was a Five Year Overall 

Economic Development Plan for the TCC region. The plan outlined over 60 projects and 

milestones to cover the five-year period from 1985-1990. 

The TCC planning office identified commonalties among those projects which 

were based upon “renewable resources:” they have high subsistence or traditional use, 

their utilization is based upon existing skills, the resource is readily accessible, and the 

resource has some readily achievable commercial value. A large number of those 

resources are what are termed here as ‘non-forest resources.’

It made sense to TCC to consolidate the development of those renewable 

resources in order to more efficiently achieve marketability. The Alaska Resources 

Commodity Trading and Investment Corporation, or ARCTIC, was formed to direct the 

research and development, planning and design, capital formation, marketing, and the 

product-to-market QA/QC needed to meet market specifications. ARCTIC was formed 

as a cooperative corporation with each village in the region capitalizing 100 shares of 

the company. Eventually, both grants and loans were secured to finance the needed 

working capital and equipment for ARCTIC. 

ARCTIC’s twin missions were to ensure that the production of commodities was 

‘appropriate’ for the local culture (non-invasive and not competitive with 

subsistence/traditional uses) and to ensure that the distribution of benefits and burdens 

of ownership was ‘equitable and fair’.

Case Study: Claire Burke Corporation, Minnetonka Industries (MI), Minnetonka, 

Minnesota. ARCTIC hired a consultant, Charles Walsh, owner of the Alaska Tea 

Company of Fairbanks, Alaska to assist in the research and development of botanical 

products. An advertisement in an herb commodities market report led us to contact 

Minnetonka Industries (MI). MI was searching for an alternative source of ‘tree cones’ to 

use in their ‘Claire Burke’ line of potpourri which they distribute through Nordstrom’s

stores, among others. Their existing source of cones, the South African Sugar Pine, 

was being excluded due to a boycott of South African products. The consultant secured 

a description of the South African cone and compared the form, size and weight of that 

cone with the Alaskan-grown cone. The size, weight and form of the two types of cone 

were close enough to warrant a contact with MI. After a preliminary discussion with MI, 
32

we mailed a sample to them of our cones. After receiving them, MI telephoned ARCTIC 

and discussed price and shipping specifications. Upon receiving a purchase order for 

tonnage of the product, we produced specifications, a price list for freight on board 

(FOB) in Fairbanks, Alaska, deadline for receipt of shipments, shipper agreement, 

warehousing agreement and all of the numerous details involved in a consolidated 

shipping deal. We were required to deliver the product on three different dates. We 

agreed to invoice each shipment separately. We agreed on a price of $4.50 per pound 

FOB Seattle. Many trials and errors attended the startup of this project. The first 

shipment resulted in a net loss, the second, a breakeven, and the third a small profit.

Jean Wall, Associate State Director, Alaska Small Business 

Development Center 

Former Owner of Alaska Wilderness Gourmet, Inc. 

Biography - Before her current role, Jean was a small business owner herself with Alaska Wilderness 

Gourmet, Inc. 

My company, Alaska Wilderness Gourmet, Inc., utilized Alaska’s wild and 

domestic berries for the wholesale commercial production of jams, jellies, syrups, 

vinegars, and sauces. In 1986, I began seven months of research and spent $7,000 

looking at the feasibility research before taking the step forward to develop products. I 

began my business in 1987. My company typically purchased 7,000 to 10,000 pounds 

of wild Alaska berries annually from individual pickers located across the state. I also 

purchased domestic raspberries from Mat-Su Valley growers. 

At the time that I was developing my company, the Japanese market was quite 

big. I worked with buyers from Japan and learned what products they were interested in. 

I developed a business plan with Japan as primary market and with Alaska as the 

secondary market. A challenge showed up immediately: Japan’s emperor died and 

commerce stopped for four months. I then switched the emphasis to my secondary 

market: wholesale sales to Alaskan gift shops. 

Another challenge was the fluctuation in berry crops between collection areas 

and between years. The logistics for getting berries from remote places was difficult, 

and berries were collected from Ketchikan to Nome. Berry picking locations had to be 

diversified since it could be a bad berry year in some areas of the state. 

Nurturing people to pick wild berries is very intensive. Pickers vary by year and 

new people have to be recruited and trained. The Exxon Valdez oil spill clean up 

employed a lot of people who would otherwise pick. Fire fighting was another source of 

employment that occupied my berry pickers. 

My assets to sustain the business were flexibility, diversification of product and 

leverage of co-pack opportunities. As a business owner, I could contribute back to a 

segment of community by being flexible in scheduling production. This allowed for 

employment of good people, such as moms with kids in school. Product diversity was 

high with eight different berries and an array of fifty products with still more products to 

be developed such as fruit leathers and dried products. Other products were packaged 

in the facilities, including barbecue sauce and peach jam. 
33

I believe my business was sustainable and viable through automation, good 

management and initial adequate capitalization. I sold my business assets in February 

1995. 

Nikolai Shmatkov, IUCN- The World Conservation Union Office for CIS 

(the Countries of the former Soviet Union) 

Biography - Nikolai earned his MS in Forestry (1995) from the Moscow State Forest University, including 

courses and field studies on NTFP both there and at Suffolk University (Boston, MA). He subsequently 

worked as a consultant for the Department of Dendrology, Forest Selection, and Botany for the Moscow 

State Forest University at field research activities in the Vologda Region of Russia. Nikolai currently 

works for IUCN – The World Conservation Union Office for CIS (the Countries of the former Soviet Union) 

as an NTFP component co-coordinator for the IUCN-CIDA project “Building Partnerships for Forest 

Conservation and Management in Russia.” The project component objective is development of NTFPbased sustainable business opportunities for local populations (mostly indigenous) in the Russian Far 

East.

Building Partnerships for Forest Conservation and Management on Kamchatka 

(the Russian Far East) 

The International Project of IUCN-The World Conservation Union “Building 

Partnerships for Forest Conservation and Management in Russia” is funded by the 

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and was started in October 2000. 

The project objective is to create the conditions for effective partnerships 

between governmental and social organizations and to draw different social groups into 

the process of decision-making for forest conservation and management. The Russiawide Project consists of three components: “Assessing the Management Effectiveness 

of Protected Areas”, “Public Involvement in Forest Management”, and the regional 

component “Building Community Capacity for Sustainable Nontimber Forest Products 

Harvesting, Monitoring, and Marketing on Kamchatka and Sakhalin.”

The objective of the nontimber forest products (NTFP) component is “to build the 

capacity of local communities to establish ecologically, socially, and economically 

sustainable NTFP-based businesses through a participatory process.”

The major partners of IUCN Office for Russia/CIS in the implementation of the 

NTFP component are the Indigenous peoples’ communities and associations of 

Kamchatka and Sakhalin; NGOs (non-governmental organizations); scientific and 

educational institutions; other international projects and organizations, such as the 

IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forests Program, and the United Nations Development 

Program; natural resource managers; and local and regional authorities. 

The NTFP component develops opportunities for the integration of Native 

people’s interests and values, the priorities of protected areas, and sustainable NTFPbased small business development. We provide business and legal training; consult on 

small business development, including community-based enterprises; and support 

sustainability and monitoring programs. 

The NTFP component was started only a year ago, but it has already done a lot 

to meet its objectives. Through workshops and active discussions with community 
34

members NTFP products have been selected for further test marketing. Emma Wilson, 

the Project Consultant from the Scotts Polar Institute in England, has done a lot of work 

on building partnerships with local communities. The communities did a lot of 

independent work to select the products according to the proposed criteria, which helps 

to assess economic and environmental sustainability of a potential product. With the 

help of Tim Brigham, the NTFP business development consultant from Canada, several 

marketing trainings were provided to local communities. Local communities organized 

an herbal tea competition with tasting of various traditional and original recipes of herbal 

teas prepared by community members, including Russians and Natives. The 

competition turned into marketing research. Participants saw how popular herbal teas 

are and, on the basis of the questionnaire distributed, they made some preliminary 

conclusions on the potential of some specific herbal tea recipes for further small 

sustainable business development. Aboriginal community leaders believe that this 

competition was a very positive experience, and it should be turned into a regular herbal 

tea festival. 

Finally, local communities for test marketing in Russia and abroad produced 

some samples of herbal teas, dried berries, and created the original hand-made 

packaging for these products. The test marketing this fall clearly demonstrated high 

interest in this product of Canadian and Alaska business people interested in further 

business partnerships with Kamchatka producers for marketing these products in North 

America. 

One of the basic principles of the project has been a participatory approach to 

project development and implementation. This allows for more pragmatic decisions 

based on local experience and also gives the community a stake in the project. 

Although community economic development is the primary goal, the participatory 

approach has led to cultural benefits being given more attention in the project. The 

revival and sharing of indigenous knowledge – especially for younger people – has 

been identified by participants as a key concern, and will be a focus of educational 

materials developed as part of the project. Currently our local partners are developing 

publications on the role of NTFPs in material and spiritual culture of the aboriginal 

nations of Kamchatka. They are looking for partners to develop these publications 

further. 
35

Breakout Session: Economic Opportunities 

What Who When Where 

Alaska NTFP Listserv CES soon near here 

NTFP Association Agencies and NTFP 

businesses 

Saturday Turnagain 

Facilitate NTFP 

independence 

NTFP Association early Alaska 

Alaska NTFP Marketing 

Clearinghouse 

NTFP Association later Alaska 

Connect Alaska NTFP w/ 

Russian NTFP 

Nikolai soon Moscow 

NTFP Information 

Resources 

NTFP Association, 

professional and 

commodity groups 

NTFP website 

Table 3 – Issues related to NTFP economic opportunities in Alaska. 

Please note: the Economic Opportunities Breakout Session participants created this matrix for its 

priority steps. The session members went on to evaluate how easy or difficult they felt a number 

of additional steps might be to accomplish (see page 38). 
36

Breakout Session: Economic Opportunities (Continued):

Possible Next Steps: 

E = Easy H = Hard U = Umph 

H Unified Tribal – Public Lands Permitting 

E Business Skills Development 

E Business Retention & Expansion 

H Alaska Native certification of NTFPs 

U Small Business Finance 

E Small Business Clearinghouse 

E NTFP Organization – Association 

E NTFP Business Agency Involvement 

Clone Marlene 

H NTFP Harvesters Best Management Practices 

U Alaska Marketing "Mentoring" 

E Facilitate Independent 

E Access to Science and Information 

E NTFP List Serve 

U Monitor Local, State, Federal NTFP 

E Connect NTFP Association and Forest Managers 

H Research NTFP 

Table 4 – Next steps for the Economic Opportunities Breakout Session. 
37

Topic: Landholders Policies and Access to NTFP Resources 

	



	






	





	



 


	


!
"#$

	

38

Landholders Panel

Phyllis A. Woolwine, USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest 

Special Forest Products Coordinator 

Biography - Phyllis is a botanist with 18 years of experience in the ecology and uses of plants native to 

Southeast Alaska. She is the outgoing Special Forest Products (AKA NTFP) Coordinator for the Tongass 

National Forest, and played a central role in developing NTFP policy for both the Alaska Region of the 

Forest Service and the Tongass National Forest. In preparation for this conference, she also surveyed the 

other major Federal landholders in Alaska for their policies on access to NTFP, and has summarized 

those answers as well. 

Summary Information on Access to Nontimber Forest Products on 

Federal Lands in Alaska

NTFP Access in National Forests in Alaska 

Subsistence Use: No permit is required for subsistence use by rural residents. The 

Forest Service in Alaska uses ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act) Title VIII as one source for guidelines, and applies them to NTFP. Therefore, 

subsistence use includes customary trade and barter by rural residents as defined in 

Title VIII. Subsistence is the top priority for NTFP use on National Forests in Alaska. 

This applies when resources are limiting, and also for planning harvest areas. 

Personal Use: No permit is required for personal use of NTFP on National Forests in 

Alaska. The only exceptions will be where local impacts need to be mitigated. (This 

exception applies to Subsistence too.) Personal use is second only to subsistence for 

priority of use. 

Educational Use and Non-Commercial Research: For other authorized non-commercial 

uses, a Free Use permit is required. Some NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) 

review may be necessary depending on the nature and quantity of the request. 

Commercial Use: Commercial use of NTFP requires a Forest Products Removal Permit. 

Bioprospecting of a commercial nature is included in this category. The minimum 

charge for a commercial use permit is currently $10, but that might go up depending on 

new national policy. The permitting process for commercial use is not currently a quick 

turn-around. A new program and policy, combined with necessary NEPA oversight and 

many concerns about commercial use, slow the process. Districts also must contend 

with low staffing and lack of experience with the program. NEPA scoping always 

includes tribal consultation. 

Overall, the Forest Service approach to this program is to protect traditional uses, allow 

for development of new community-based industries to strengthen local economies, and 

prevent negative effects of NTFP harvest activities. 
39

NTFP Access on Bureau of Land Management Land in Alaska 

From: Mike Zaidlicz, BLM Anchorage office. Mr. Zaidlicz is involved in all aspects of 

permitting on BLM lands. 

Subsistence and Personal Use: These two types of use are treated mostly the same by 

the BLM. Both are allowed and at this time neither requires a permit for most NTFP. 

Exceptions are firewood, posts & poles and house logs; these would require a permit, 

usually free. 

Commercial Use: A charge permit is required for commercial harvest of NTFP. The 

process and permit varies depending on the size of the sale. NEPA clearance is 

required before a permit can be issued. This may take some time if the area is not 

already cleared. Also, a permit might not be issued if there are concerns about impacts 

to traditional use areas, or other conflicts. 

Research Use: Research and bioprospecting would require a permit, usually a free use 

permit, unless there is a discovery and return to harvest larger quantities. 

NTFP Access on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska 

From: Tony Booth, Division of Refuges, Region 7 and Ken Rice, Branch of Policy 

Development and Planning, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Subsistence and Personal Use: Traditional gathering of NTFP for personal or 

subsistence (i.e., non-commercial) use is allowed on all refuges. No permits are 

required for such use. 

Commercial Use: Commercial harvest may be authorized only within those portions of a 

refuge designated in the "Intensive Management" category. There are very few 

Intensive Management areas within the refuges in Alaska, and they are fairly small. 

Therefore, there is a very small portion of refuge areas where commercial use of NTFP 

might be permitted. Any commercial gathering or use of plants on refuge lands would 

require a special use permit and compatibility determination. 

NTFP Use in National Parks

From: Steve Carwile, Compliance Officer for Denali National Park. 

Personal Use: The Park Service’s general provision is that no natural resources can be 

removed from the National Parks. However, individual park superintendents have the 

authority to make a list of edible fruits, including mushrooms, which can be used for 

personal use. The berries can be removed from the park for consuming, preserving and 

storing, but there is a limit to the quantity that can be taken. This is a park-by-park list, 

so those interested should check with the individual park’s regulations. For such berry 

picking, no permits are required. No herbs or other NTFP can be removed from the 

park. 

Subsistence Use: In accordance with Title VIII of ANILCA, local rural residents of 

National Parks can take larger amounts as needed of berries and other NTFP, including 

firewood and in some cases house logs. Amounts depend on what can be justified by 

the need of the subsistence users. No permits are required. 

Commercial Use: No commercial harvest of NTFP is allowed on National Parks, except 

what might be considered customary trade & barter under Title VIII of ANILCA. 

Research Use: Plants can be sampled for authentic research activities under an 

appropriate institution such as a university. Such use must be authorized under a 
40

research permit. Bioprospecting might be permitted in this way as well, but would 

require NEPA clearance to proceed. 

Dave Kelley, Permitting Program Manager, Southcentral Region Land 

Office, Division of Mining, Land and Water. 

Biography - Dave has worked for the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and 

Water, Southcentral Region Land Office for the past 10 years. He has been very active in the 

development and refinement of the state’s land use permitting program. Dave is currently the region’s

Permitting Program Manager. 

The Division of Mining, Land and Water has limited experience issuing and 

administering land use permits authorizing the harvest of nontimber related forest 

products. In the past few years, the Southcentral Region Land Office (SCRO), one of 

three regional land offices has issued approximately three permits authorizing the 

harvest of nontimber forest products. There’s probably a lot more activity going on out 

there, but it is difficult for three to four people in the permitting staff to actually monitor 

all of the activity taking place on forty million acres of general state land managed by the 

SCRO. 

No permit is required for the private, non-commercial harvest of nontimber 

related forest products. A land use permit is required for the commercial harvest of 

nontimber related forest products. Commercial entities planning to harvest nontimber 

related forest products must complete and submit an application package consisting of 

the land use permit application, an environmental risk questionnaire, an operations plan, 

a USGS (United State Geological Survey) map identifying the location of the proposed 

activity and a non-refundable $100 application filing fee. If the proposed area of use is 

located within coastal zone boundaries, an Alaska Coastal Management Questionnaire 

must accompany the application package. 

Each complete application is reviewed not only by SCRO, but also other state 

and local resource management agencies and communities that may be affected by the 

proposed activity. The decision to issue or not to issue a permit is typically the product 

of an analysis of the management intent for the proposed area of use, the applicable 

management guidelines and the comments and recommendations received during the 

review period. Fees are comparable to the Forest Service. Permits granting a 

commercial entity exclusive rights to harvest nontimber related forest products are 

rarely granted. If so, such permits can only be granted via a competitive process that 

gives other interested parties the opportunity to bid on the permit. 

Commercial entities seeking a land use permit for the harvest of nontimber 

related forest products need to apply at least ninety days prior to the initial date they will 

need the permit. Applications are available at regional offices.
41

Roger McRoberts, Land Management Agent, Mat-Su Borough

Biography - Roger’s background is in forest management. He was Resource Management Specialist for 

the Mat-Su Borough before his current position. Prior to working for the borough, he worked as a 

consulting forester, primarily for Native Corporations in Southeast Alaska and the Copper River Valley.

The Mat-Su Borough has between 300,000 and 350,000 acres of forested lands 

located north of Anchorage. The land is comprised of a large number of fairly small 

blocks along with a few larger blocks that are hard or expensive to access. In the Land 

Management Division, the policy and procedures for Land Use Permits are 

cumbersome and bureaucratic. One thing the Land Management Division would like to 

see come out of this conference is help coming up with some new ways to do things. 

Unless all you want to do is cross Borough lands using a historic or dedicated 

trail, public access, or easement, you have to have a Land Use Permit. There are two 

different types of permits: a Personal Use Permit and a Commercial Use Permit. The 

deciding factor on choosing a permit is whether or not you intend to resell the resource 

or charge for the activity. The cost for a Personal Use Permit is $15. Permits are valid 

for seven consecutive days with a limit of twenty-one days in a calendar year. A 

Personal Use Permit is available at the Borough office and can be obtained at the time 

of your visit. 

The process for a Commercial Use Permit is considerably more cumbersome. To 

start the process, you must complete an Application To Purchase, Lease or Use 

Borough Owned Land or Resources and pay a $25 application fee. The application is 

then sent through all other Borough departments for review and comment. After the 

comments are received, you meet with the Borough representative handling the 

application for a Pre-Application Conference. At this meeting you will go over the terms 

of your application, costs, and other conditions and requirements determined by the 

Borough. If you want to proceed under the terms and conditions described in the PreApplication Conference, you are required to pay $125 processing fee to continue. 

Most of the permits the Borough has granted so far are for house logs, access, 

easements, and trail rights. The Borough has not seen a lot of NTFP related interests. 

They have had a couple of people approach them with interests in applying for permits 

to harvest birch sap and one for conks. The Borough administration is really interested 

in NTFPs. They would like ideas about how to manage permits, appropriate fees to 

charge, and a way to minimize conflicts between different applicants and between 

applications for NTFPs and other uses. 

Borough land use permits are non-exclusive. Borough code does not allow the 

administration to issue a permit that lasts for more than five years in length. All permit 

applicants must meet the Borough qualifications for a permit or use of Borough land. 

This means that you have to have paid your taxes, obtained a Borough Business 

License, meet insurance requirements, and have not failed to complete any Borough 

contracts within the past five years. The Borough often receives requests for permits 

that cover all land within the Borough boundaries. The Borough can only issue permits 

on Borough-owned land. If you’re interested in an activity or a product to harvest, the 

Borough Land Management Division can help you find an appropriate place with the 

attributes that you need. They have maps and aerial photography showing Borough-
42

owned lands that can help you define an area for your activity and show you how to 

access that area.

David Duffy, CEO, Ninilchik Native Association, Inc. 

Biography - David received his degree in environmental policy and assessment from Western 

Washington University in 1993. He subsequently worked with national tribal groups in environmental 

programs, and with the Pueblo Tribe in Arizona on natural resource policy and planning. In September 

2000, David became Land Manager for the Ninilchik Native Association, an ANSCA village corporation 

that manages 101,000 acres. In December 2000, he was promoted into the CEO position. David’s focus 

is on tribal land management decision-making. 

Prior to serving as the C.E.O. of the Ninilchik Native Association, Inc. (NNAI), I 

worked in the Southwest United States where Native American culture, heritage and the 

sovereign status of tribal governments are widely recognized by the public, state and 

federal governments. Coming to Alaska and working for an Alaska Native village 

corporation, the most challenging questions that I face are associated with widespread 

misperceptions regarding the difference between Alaska village corporations, local tribal 

governments and various Native non-profit organizations. 

It’s unfortunate that, due to these misperceptions, the non-Native public, federal 

agencies, and state representatives are missing the tremendous potential of creating 

positive relationships with our Native community. Many non-Native individuals and 

government organizations do not understand the complex relationships between 

individual Alaska Natives, and generally tend to think that “Native is Native”.

For clarification, the Ninilchik Native Association is a village corporation 

established in 1972 following the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA). The majority of our shareholders are also shareholders of Cook Inlet Region, 

Inc. (CIRI) – an Alaska Native Regional Corporation. Many NNAI shareholders are also 

registered tribal members of the Ninilchik Traditional Council (NTC), a federally 

recognized tribal government. However, there is a big difference between being a 

shareholder and a tribal member. Similarly, there is a difference between being a 

village corporation shareholder and a regional corporation shareholder. 

As a Village Corporation, NNAI received title to approximately 101,000 acres of 

land on the Kenai Peninsula and on the west side of Cook Inlet through provisions 

established via ANCSA. Additional land conveyances are also pending. The Ninilchik 

Tribal Government (NTG) does not have a significant landbase and, due to the unique 

and complex rationale behind ANCSA, and unlike tribal governments in the Lower 48, 

the NTC does not have a “reservation.” While there is an inherent cultural connection 

between the village corporation and the local tribal government, the major difference is 

that NNAI is a for-profit corporation. Historically, the differences between NNAI and 

NTG were blurred, and often mixed. The distinctions between the corporation and the 

tribe are now well established, but we face challenges in explaining the distinction –

especially when it comes to land ownership and access. 

Although our shareholders are also Ninilchik tribal members, NTG does not hold 

authority over the village corporation, and vice-versa. Access to NNAI land (Native 

land) by NNAI shareholders and NTC tribal members is important – especially at the 
43

local level. ANCSA lands are utilized by the corporation for economic development 

activities, such as timber sales, but are also utilized for recreation and subsistence 

based activities by our shareholders. As a small and semi-rural community with a 

significant non-Native population, access to, and use of, Native land is becoming a 

more and more critical issue. This issue is compounded by the increasing value of 

access to Native land, by non-Natives or the general public, for hunting and recreation. 

In recent years, both the village corporation and the tribal government have 

made great strides towards cooperative land management. As time goes on, questions 

about who owns the land, who has the right to use it, and for what type of activities are 

becoming more and more prominent issues. However, at the end of the day, conflict 

from within the Native community holds no opportunity for progress. 

Ninilchik Native Association has been involved with commercial timber activities 

since the late 1980’s. As a result, nearly all of the commercial forest, over 35,000 acres 

on the peninsula, has been harvested. Commercial timber operation began prior to 

widespread spruce bark beetle infestation, predominantly focused on selective 

harvesting for graded lumber markets. As time went on and the encroachment of the 

spruce bark beetle became more apparent, Ninilchik accelerated its logging activities, 

ultimately transitioning from selective logging for lumber to an export pulp and chip 

market. Through this transition, the paces of timber harvest operations accelerated due 

to intense mortality of spruce stands and market availability. 

Through these logging actions, road access to the Ninilchik Native Association 

lands has increased. Since the late 1980s, over 200 miles of road have been built and, 

from that, access to public lands, federal lands, and other private lands followed. 

Today, with the decline of merchantable timber resources, NNAI is actively 

weaning our dependence on commercial timber operations. However, as a large 

private landowner, we hold an intrinsic responsibility to care for and manage our lands 

in a manner that promotes utilization of non-commercial resources – by and for our 

shareholders. 

To accomplish this goal, NNAI has actively pursued development of positive and 

meaningful relationships with the Ninilchik Tribal Council. To this end, NNAI has 

recently entered into a historic “Cooperative Land Use Agreement” which authorizes 

and endorses the tribal government to represent the non-commercial interests of both 

NNAI shareholders and tribal members. The scope of this agreement promotes use 

and access to Native land for recreation, firewood, berry picking and other subsistencebased activities. 

This relationship building is a means of fostering a clear distinction between the 

roles and responsibilities of a for-profit corporation and a government. As such, NNAI is 

not “in the business” of issuing regulatory-type access permits or policies, but we 

actively seek assistance from the tribal government to represent and protect access to 

native lands. Access permits are not really a function of a for-profit corporation and a 

large landowner. From one perspective, activities related to subsistence, access, or 

recreation, things that require a permit or some sort of authorization, are best held by 

local tribal governments, the local people, and tribal members themselves. The 

corporation’s role should be focused on active business ventures that promote our 

ability to provide financial benefit to our shareholders. 
44

Ninilchik Native Association has 64,000 acres on the Kenai Peninsula and the 

remainder of their lands are on the west side of Cook Inlet. From NNAI’s perspective, 

our only viable solution to non-commercial land use and access is the development of 

solid relationships with the local tribal government, as well as with local non-native land 

owners: the borough, the state, and the federal agencies. NNAI is actively striving to 

integrate our contemporary land management policies with larger-scale planning 

processes, such as the Kenai Peninsula Borough’s Comprehensive Plan. As such, a 

tiered land use plan will promote common adjacent land uses – development, recreation 

and even conservation. As a result, land use conflicts are being minimized, and 

development areas are being consolidated to maximize potential economy of scale. 

As a private corporation, NNAI has neither jurisdiction over nor interest in serving 

as a law enforcement agency. It is not in the best interest of the Ninilchik Native 

Association’s interest to hand out tickets, or to tell individuals to stay on or get off our 

shareholders’ land. 

Access to NNAI’s land and non-commercial resources are influenced by local 

customs and local perception. Through promotion of increased awareness of the roles, 

responsibilities and the differences between various Native organizations, we seek to 

balance our responsibility to shareholders promote the tribal government’s responsibility 

to provide services their tribal members.

Bob Sam, Sitka Tribe of Alaska 

Biography - Recently the Shee Atika ANCSA Village Corporation and the Sitka Tribal Kayaani 

Commission have been coordinating traditional gathering of plant resources from lands managed by the 

corporation. Bob Sam, a Kayaani Commissioner and Tribal staff, discussed this relationship on behalf of 

the Tribe and Shee Atika. In addition to this work, Bob plays many other roles for Sitka Tribe and the 

community of Sitka. He as been a leader in the protection and preservation of historic grave sites, and is 

also a well-known traditional storyteller. 

Growing up in Sitka, I have been with Sitka Tribe of Alaska all my life and have 

been very impressed with the tribal government. The tribal government is a lot like the 

federal government: the Chairman is like President of the United States and the tribal 

council members are like the U.S. Congress. There are tribal judges and social 

services to provide for the people. The tribal government is actively involved in issues 

of cultural heritage in Southeast Alaska since the constitution and by-laws are set up to 

address cultural and historical issues that are important to the people. That’s one thing 

that is different from corporations which are set up to handle sales and development. A 

lot of times the tribal governments and corporations don’t get along because of 

jurisdiction issues for things such as access to their resources. 

The Kayaani Commission was formed by the Sitka Tribe of Alaska to discuss, 

document, and protect their traditional plants. I have been involved with the Kayaani 

Commission since the very beginning. One of the things I was very concerned about 

was access. From 1995-97, I served as a Council member for the Sitka Tribe of Alaska. 

I traveled across the United States meeting with other tribal governments. I met many 

American Indians across the country from California to Florida and began to see a 

picture forming in my mind. In California, weavers no longer had access to materials 
45

because land in California was now in private ownership, and the people were not 

allowed to collect in those areas any longer. In New Mexico, American Indians were 

talking about tea; they were concerned that they no longer had access to go out and 

collect tea because many lands where they used to collect are owned by tea companies 

for commercial use. That produced deep concern about access by Native people. 

When I came back to Alaska from national talks, the United States Forest 

Service had an interest in special forest products. The Sitka Tribe was approached and 

asked to provide a list to the Forest Service of their traditional plants for protection. 

They held a meeting and decided not to give a list of plants because they worried that 

they would leave certain plants out of the list. If they did that, those plants would not be 

protected. “If we lose access to our resources, our people will disappear. We will 

become extinct. We will no longer be part of the land. That is how important this is.” 

It is important to have a ceremony when harvesting plants; it is even more important 

than the scientific information about what to leave when the plant is harvested. The 

ceremony is more important because it’s about human beings approaching the plant as 

a living being. When a person talks to a plant, that person has a continuing relationship 

with the plant. Talking mean to a plant will kill it. 

The Shee Atika Corporation had been involved in timber harvesting on lands that 

are very important to the Sitka Tribe. Land was conveyed to people in the form of 

corporation land, and for non-corporation land, according to the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act, “aboriginal land rights and title to this land is extinguished.” This made 

for tension between corporations and tribal governments. As the Kayaanni Commission 

has developed and matured, the Shee Atika Corporation decided to log the forest close 

to Sitka. This created controversy because many people utilized that land for customary 

and traditional uses for things such as artwork and berry-picking. 

The tribal government decided to start trying to bring corporation and tribal 

governments back together. They talked to the CEO of Shee Atika and set aside a day 

to go out to the land. They utilized a Memorandum of Understanding with the Forest 

Service to use the Forest Service boat to take elderly people out to Catlian Bay to 

gather resources from the land. They saw cottonwood trees growing on Baranof Island 

when cottonwood trees grow nowhere else. It was a unique experience for many of the 

tribal members to go out to this area. The area is important to a certain clan who had 

ownership rights of this area. Many of their ancestors had homes in this area, and 

some of the people were able to go out there for the first time since they were children. 

The Shee Atika Corporation has been very willing to work with the tribal government. 

They are very lucky to have their elders.
46

Breakout Session: Landholders Policy and Access to NTFP 

Resources 

What Comments 

Determine how different agencies 

administer NTFP programs 

Where: example: Tongass terms and 

conditions 

Determine who has specific interest in 

NTFPs in Alaska 

Where: in land management and economic 

development agencies 

Interagency coordination. Strive for 

consistent policies 

Where: State—Parks: Federal—Park, 

USFS, USFWS, BLM: Private —

Corporation, Traditional 

How: Interagency MOU? 

Comment: Be aware of different missions 

and restrictions and laws 

Who are the groups using NTFPs? Where: business, households, agencies 

Comment: examples of projects: Who’s

Who in the Woods-Alaska Boreal Forest 

Council. Statewide database project: DCED 

Set up an information program for land 

management entities/businesses/ 

Where do people fit? 

Consider addressing NTFP in land 

management strategies 

Develop a set of “Best Practices” and do 

workshops, demonstration 

projects 

See Sustainability info 

Set up a demonstration program for NTFP 

(i.e. Kenai 700 acres) 

Re Kenai: is this a landscape? 

Monitoring: before and after timber 

harvest 

Comment: multiple use timber sale (take 

birch sap, bark, then cut) 

Data sets: 1) Land status maps 2) Where 

is the resource? 3) Resource capability 

(maintaining/enhancing) 

Re Inventory: See Sustainability 

Develop motorized vehicle access Who: USFS/DOT/DOF/BLM/BIA 

Re Inventory: See Sustainability 

Table 5 – Issues related to landholders and NTFP in Alaska. 
47

Topic: Social, Ethical, and Spiritual Aspects of NTFPs 

	



	







	






	


!"
 



	

#
$ !" 



	
48

Social, Ethical and Spiritual Aspects Lead Speaker

Michelle Davis, Alaska Regional Coordinator, Native American Fish & 

Wildlife Society 

Biography - Michelle Davis has served for nine years as the Alaska 

Regional Coordinator for the Native American Fish & Wildlife Society, 

a national Native organization that supports tribal natural resource 

management. She has developed programs on water testing training, 

tribal uses of Geographic Information Systems and environmental 

contaminants. She is a Tlingit Tribe member, from the Eagle Moiety, 

Killer Whale House. Her grandfather is Ray Paddock Sr.; her mother 

is Shirley Davis, nee Paddock. 

Among her accomplishments at the NAFWS, Michelle drafted Figure 30 – Michelle Davis

a paper on traditional plant protection. This paper, along with her efforts to educate and raise awareness 

of the issues of bioprospecting in the traditional territories of Alaska Natives, led to the passing of Alaska 

Federation of Natives Resolution 00-48. This resolution supports a two-year moratorium on commercial 

harvest of plants to provide time for the Native community to negotiate sound protocols and research 

sound strategies for the protection their indigenous rights. It further urges the formation of an 

independent statewide Native plant commission to provide education and access to other international 

Native peoples’ organizations and technical assistance to Alaska Natives regarding traditional plants.

My genetics involve much of Alaska’s history: Aleuts, Russians, surveyors, 

midwives, fishermen, loggers, strong women, and bead-workers. I am a student of my 

entire heritage. Through my mother I am a Tlingit tribal member and I will reference 

some parts of that heritage. Though I live a fairly modern, urban life, my family still 

keeps with many of our traditional ways. On some mornings, the most knowledgeable 

and well-respected women in our family gather together the younger women and, 

sometimes, some of the children. It’s always before 9 a.m. Then we go forth into the 

traditional hunting and gathering activities of our clan. I believe your people call this 

“garage sale-ing.”

I have been very proud to serve with the Native American Fish and Wildlife 

Society (NAFWS). I have also been privileged to work with many native tribes 

throughout the state of Alaska and the Lower 48 states. Often the larger discussion 

contains key elements of traditional environmental knowledge and wisdom (TEK). 

During the time I have watched the discussion of TEK go forward, I have seen 

some very subtle changes in the interactions between, and the thinking of, tribal 

communities and agencies. I’ve been to many, many meetings. Two themes have 

emerged. Agencies grapple with this: “How do we ‘use’ TEK? How do we gather it? 

How does it fit with our plans and our missions?” Tribal communities struggle with 

having their knowledge ‘respected’ and taken at its full value by the agencies. I have 

come to believe that a lot of the conflict is due to an inherent dichotomy in worldviews. 

There’s a structural difference at a deeper level than the conversational level, beyond 

what happens at the tables where we have all sat. 

I wish you to consider what I am beginning to think of as “colonization of 

knowledge.” My Webster’s dictionary defines colonization, in part, as “ A relationship 
49

with another nation where one achieves economic gain from the resources of another.”

How does this fit with TEK? Currently, in Alaska, researchers, scientists, students, and 

ethno- anythings — botanists, linguists, musicologists — work with, and derive a large 

part of their work from, the intellectual properties of Native peoples. It’s very easy when 

you’re doing research to slip into “colonization” thought: to look at TEK as a “product” or 

a “tool.” When a researcher asks: “How can I extract this information from the 

community?” (s)he is looking at TEK as a resource to be extracted from the community. 

Gold is extracted. Fish are taken. Plants are gathered. Knowledge can also be gleaned 

from a community. In so doing, it is what I think of as “colonization of knowledge.”

It is colonization of knowledge when elders are interviewed and the full 

importance of their wisdom or its importance for their communities is not recognized or 

acknowledged. Here I would like to introduce to you a Tlingit belief: “At ‘oow.” As Nora 

& Richard Dawenhaur say in For Healing Our Spirit, “This concept underlies all 

dimensions of Tlingit social structure, oral literature, iconography and ceremonial life. At 

‘oow means literally “an owned or purchased thing.” It may be land, a place such as 

Glacier Bay, a heavenly body, an artistic design, an image from oral literature, such as 

Raven cycle episodes. It may be a story about an ancestor. Through time and correct 

use at ‘oow is acquired: a special gravity, a spiritual value and a meaning that 

transcends the object. It cannot be seen but it can be sensed. It is known by the 

people who have the responsibility and privilege of carrying it.”

Cultural knowledge is “at ‘oow.” Different nations may phrase this differently but 

it is the spiritual heritage of Native peoples. Its use should be very carefully considered, 

however it is used. Last summer I was working on some reports when my phone rang. 

A woman from California was calling the NAFWS to see if we had a group of Native 

Americans who would help her gather herbs and tell them what they were for. We had 

an interesting conversation and, as we talked, things unfolded. She works for a very 

large organization that is looking at doing some sizeable extractions, which I found 

frightening at two levels. First, they were looking at the bulk plant for teas and 

traditional methods. The other part that was scary was that they were making their 

decisions based on a series of elder interviews. They had set a way of extracting, to 

spin down the plants through a series of bioassays and see what “lights up.” I thanked 

that individual deeply, because she gave me and others an idea of what is happening. 

There is an example of an effort to extract knowledge in its largest form. We can 

all agree that this is not a good thing. When something so valuable is taken, there has 

to be an equal exchange. This concept of full equality is something that people will 

really have to grapple with. I’ve talked with people who are coming up to do their Ph.D. 

thesis about this, and we’ve had some really long pauses in those conversations. 

Consider: If you’re going to write a Ph.D. thesis and it’s going to really make your career 

— it’s going to be cited in your literature and probably get you a nice job some place —

what will you give back to that tribe, to those people who gave you that information? It 

calls for integrity in the exchange. It calls for a higher level of awareness, for all of us in 

that exchange because it’s so easy to slip into this pattern because people are so kind, 

so helpful. 

I have some ideas on how to achieve this equality of exchange. A researcher 

should: 
50

1) Give service to the tribe prior to commencing work. It should be a nice long period. 

The people, who are doing the research, they have gifts. They are well educated. They 

can help tune-up the computers, write proposals, do some bookkeeping. They should 

come in and get to work, at the service of the tribe, not at their own service. 

2) Train young people during the exchange. The researcher can train and mentor 

young people; provide from their skill set. A cultural anthropologist could teach young 

people how to conduct interviews to help document tribal history. If someone comes 

with mapping skills, they can teach young people how to do ethno-mapping. Building 

capacity and working with the best resources that our nations have, which are the 

young people, is my second recommendation. 

3) Assist and serve far into the future, as long as that paper is on their resume they 

should be giving time to that community. The community might need a really large 

economic development grant, or do important cultural preservation work. So it’s a real 

commitment to take on this relationship. That’s what it comes to — a relationship —

what is being given when traditional knowledge is being shared is beyond price. 

For the tribes, I have seen tremendous benefits from tribes that are documenting 

their own knowledge: 

1) One tribe documented key and sensitive habitat areas — spawning, rearing, key 

migration corridors — and areas that had changed over time due to local development. 

Their elders won’t always be with them, but the maps that they made will be. They’ll be 

able to protect key habitat areas based on their knowledge: the young people in the 

tribe can do that. 

2) TEK can help a tribe, when they do their own documentation, to reach their selfdetermined goal. There are some wonderful examples in Alaska of how to do that. I 

respect those who have done, and who are doing, it. The young people bring so much 

to this. 
51

Social, Ethical and Spiritual Aspects of NTFPs Panel 

Victoria Hykes-Steere

Biography - Victoria is of Inupiaq heritage, born in Kotzebue but from Unalakleet. Victoria holds a Juris 

Doctorate from the University of Iowa College of Law and an LL.M. in International Environmental Law 

from University of Washington School of Law. She has an undergraduate degree in Economics from 

Colby College in Waterville, Maine. Recently, Victoria traveled to New Zealand to talk with the Maori 

people about indigenous knowledge of plants and forests being communal property that belongs to no 

one generation. 

“It wasn’t what I wanted or dreamed 

To stand alone facing rooms full of strangers. 

Grandmother, you sent me out to learn to fight a new way, 

In a language full of thoughts and values very different than our own; 

I am forever your daughter 

Trained to dream to believe to hope 

A warrior born for this time 

When words, regulations, laws and agency rulemaking 

Threaten to destroy all that is sacred to a real human being.”

One of the things that is so fascinating to be like me, a half-breed, is you’re

always aware of the consequences of your blood. I loved my father. He’s a good man. 

But ever since I was a child, I was painfully aware that his world was ripping apart mine. 

It was attacking the foundation of our very being. It was destroying our soul. 

People used to tell me when I was a child that I had an old soul. I never quite 

figured out what they meant. The elders loved me. They told me stories. They told me 

things that I’ve never repeated because it doesn’t belong to me. It belonged to them. 

But I will forever be their child. And I will love them. And I will remember them. And as 

long as I remember they live. And we won’t die. 

It is very difficult for people of another worldview to comprehend the impact they 

have on other human beings. It is very easy to forget that, when we bleed, our blood is 

red just like everyone else’s. My first language was Qawiaraqmiut. The worldview in 

that language is totally incomprehensible to others because that whole language is 

based on a knowledge of a place, of an area that was our homeland, forever. Our 

memories are tied to the People of the Sand. That’s what we are called: the “People of 

the Sand” because wherever we lived, no matter how far inland we went, we literally 

carried gravel, well the stones, not the sand, but the stones actually, and lined our 

villages with them. The women carried them, by the way; it wasn’t the men. 

So, that is part of who I am: the understanding of that place. When I see it my 

whole being breathes. It’s a different feeling. I know I belong. And since they knew 

they would send me away, they would tell me to look out and weave pictures in my mind 

that would have to last me forever. Because, see, I was never meant to stay. And they 

told me that when I was very young — I was three — that I would have to go to college 

and then to university. That I had to learn how white men thought better than they 

understood themselves or we would die. 
52

What you would call your great-grandmother told me that. In our way, she was 

my grandmother, and I will always be her daughter. She was, and still is, the most 

important person in my life. I have children that I love very immensely, but all I can 

hope to do is to turn them half as well as she turned us, because she taught us to 

dream. And that everything is possible as long as we believed. 

She was utterly fearless and very, very competitive. One of the first things she 

taught me was about plants in the springtime. But what she taught me isn’t mine. It 

doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to centuries and centuries of people who used the 

same plants — mustards, sura [tender new leaf buds of diamond-leafed willow, Salix 

pulchra L.] — all those things. They’re part of who we are. They’re part of our 

understanding of the world. How we frame the world is very different than the western 

view. There aren’t categories. There are no inanimate objects. Everything is alive. 

Everything has a soul. 

So I love rocks. And one day my grandfather told me that maybe the rocks I took 

home so diligently were really meant to stay where I found them. I had a huge internal 

conflict, so I began to make everyone laugh every time I found a rock. I would sit, look 

at it, and I would have this little conversation; about how it really wouldn’t mind coming 

into my house and living with all my other rocks, where it would have many, many 

friends, all waiting very happily for it to come home with me. And sometimes it worked 

and sometimes I got the feeling that that rock wanted to move and I would keep it. 

That’s a totally different way of knowing. It’s a totally different way of 

understanding who you are. I am no more important than a seal, a fly or a mosquito, 

and by the way I hate mosquitoes. But they’re there. And they belong there just like we 

do. 

So when we come across people who are seeking our knowledge, even though 

it’s not ours, it belongs to all of us, it’s very difficult for them to say ‘no.’ And when they 

share, which is very important in our societies, it’s a giving, it’s a good thing. But they 

don’t always understand the consequences of that giving. They don’t understand 

copyrights. They don’t understand that someone can claim that information for 

themselves — ownership. And a lot has been just handed away and it has made 

fortunes for people. 

When Michelle (Davis) got that phone call, she asked me to write a plant paper 

so I did. But the funny thing about doing things like that is it doesn’t capture the real 

problem. It doesn’t capture our souls. It doesn’t capture the amount of pain we go 

through when we’re continuously being dehumanized and devalued, our worldview, our 

interactions with ourselves and each other. And when I say ‘each other’ I also mean the 

animals and the plants. My grandfather sent me to the trees, to listen to them. He sent 

me to the ocean, to listen to them. And he sent me to listen to the wind. And all this is 

a totally different form of learning. It’s not taught in your schools and it’s not invalid. 

There is knowledge there. It isn’t yours and it’s not inaccessible to you just because 

you come from a different worldview. It just takes a different frame of reference to find. 

And I hope those of you who are in the agencies will take the time to learn. 
53

Marla R. Emery, Research Geographer, USDA Forest Service, 

Northeastern Research Station 

Biography - Marla has been studying the role of NTFP in the lives and livelihoods of the people who 

gather them since 1995. In Michigan’s Upper Peninsula she conducted the first comprehensive study of 

U.S. NTFP. She is currently looking at the impact of land use and land ownership change on NTFP use 

in New England. Publications include papers and book chapters on the social values of NTFP, their role 

in household economies, local ecological knowledge and stewardship practices of gatherers, and the 

history of NTFP use in northeastern North America. 

Wild Plants and All Our Other Relations: The Ethics of Using, Developing, and 

Managing Nontimber Forest Products 

Human beings have probably been using NTFPs for as long as people and 

forests have existed in the same places. But something is changing. Today, more 

people are interested in NTFPs than have been for several decades, at least. Also, 

different kinds of people are interested for different types of reasons. I would like to 

contribute to the discussion of the future of NTFPs by sharing what I have learned from 

the dozens of people who have been kind enough to invite me into their kitchens and 

take me out into the woods of the northeastern United States and tell me about what 

they gather and what it means in their lives. Their lessons have much to teach us about 

the relationships that have made NTFPs work in the past and can help guide our 

actions in the future. 

In the case of NTFPs, I believe that there are two kinds of important 

relationships: the relationships between people and plants and the relationships 

between people and people. The importance of relationships between people and 

plants is clear from the fact that many cultures, disciplines, spiritual and intellectual 

traditions have developed rules to guide those relationships. In more than six years of 

research, I have been struck by the similarities between the harvesting rules observed 

by conscientious gatherers, conservation-oriented field guides, and esteemed scientists 

like Nancy Turner. All clearly have similar intents – to promote a relationship between 

the gatherer, the act of gathering, and the plant materials being gathered that ensures 

the survival of both. 

One of the things we often overlook when we talk about conservation of NTFP 

species or their potential as economic development opportunities are the relationships 

between people, the social relationships, that are at the heart of the way NTFPs are 

harvested and used. Yet the relationships between people, the rules that we set up to 

govern those relationships, and the way that we organize the economics of gathering 

have direct and profound impacts on both the social and ecological results of NTFP use. 

For that reason, I’m going to talk at greater length about four types of social 

relationships surrounding NTFPs. 

1) Preserving and Transferring Knowledge - Knowledge is shared through social 

interactions. There is a respectable body of scientific knowledge about NTFPs that we 

share through the written word in books, papers, and on the Internet. By far the 

greatest store of knowledge about NTFPs exists in people who gather and use them. 

The most common way of sharing NTFP knowledge is through older people teaching 
54

younger members of their families and communities. This hands-on method also 

imparts information on how to survive in a particular place and helps to ensure cultural 

as well as physical survival. 

2) Terms of Access to NTFPs - Another key set of social relationships are the 

arrangements we make to allow or prohibit people from obtaining and using NTFPs. 

These may be informal or traditional agreements, formal laws or statutes. Permit 

systems are formal ways that access to NTFPs is controlled on public lands. Permits 

can affect access to NTFPs in at least three ways. a) The price of a permit may put an 

income filter on who can legally gather an NTFP. b) The place(s) where gathering is 

allowed influences who has access to NTFPs. c) Any season that is established 

obviously affects when people may have legal access. 

3) Conditions of Labor - Traditionally, gathering has been a flexible activity that fits in 

with other work and responsibilities. Within the boundaries of plant seasons, people 

decide when they go out, for how long, how they work, and when they stop. However, 

we can create social relationships that reduce or eliminate this control. For example, if 

permit or lease prices are set too high for the people who actually do the gathering, they 

will be bought by others who are then in a position to make those kinds of decisions 

about the way the work gets done. If their interests are different from a gatherer’s, they 

are likely to make different decisions about things like what weather people work in, how 

long they work, the tools and techniques that get used, and how much gets harvested. 

People for whom the flexibility is important -- women with small children, the elderly, 

people with disabilities -- are likely to be left out of such arrangements. 

4) Distribution of Benefits - Throughout the world and throughout history, cultures have 

developed systems for distributing the benefits of various NTFPs. In the central 

Himalayas, the fallen leaves and thin green branches of trees in community forests 

were traditionally reserved for widows. Nancy Turner’s research in the Pacific 

Northwest shows that although families and tribal groups had their own NTFP patches 

and territories, they often shared with others who were suffering from a shortage. For 

the last century or so, in the United States NTFPs have been a resource for those who 

have been left behind by the market economy and/or are struggling to maintain special 

cultural practices. Changes in the terms of access and conditions of labor will likely lead 

to changes in the distribution of benefits from NTFPs. 

Clearly, today, in the United States the kinds of relationships we cultivate with 

plants and between people will determine the social and ecological affects of NTFP 

usage, development, and management. The lessons from my own research and that of 

others, but most importantly the experience of gatherers, suggests an ethical compass 

for charting our future actions. In terms of NTFPs, an ethical relationship is one that 

consciously promotes the survival and even the thriving of both people and plants, 

especially the most vulnerable. Of course, this isn’t an easy proposition and there will 

be times that the welfare of people and plants or the welfare of different groups of 

people will appear to be in conflict. We will still have to make hard decisions and 

engage in some vigorous negotiations with each other. But as we do so, we can check 

with this compass to be sure we that are tending in the right direction. 
55

Linda Christian, Forester, USDA Forest Service, PNW Research 

Station, Alaska Wood Utilization Research and Development Center 

Biography - A forester and certified permaculturist, Linda first became interested in plants and the forest 

as a child growing up in the redwood and oak-laurel forests of California. Her Norwegian grandmother 

taught her first lessons on land ethics and respect for all things growing. Linda has spent her 26 years in 

forestry roaming old growth forests, the last 19 years in Southeast Alaska. Her interest in the spiritual 

values of the forest came from this experience and from extensive reading on the subject, especially the 

writings of Jane Goodall. 

Today I want to talk about – the forest itself as a Nontimber Forest Product – the 

spiritual value that an intact forest has to its community. I would like to quote Jane 

Goodall, a Cambridge educated woman that spent years in the forest of Gombe 

National Park in Africa, “I have been privileged to know the peace of the forest. The 

forest – any forest — is, for me, the most spiritual place.”

My own experience has been similar. My mother used to tease me that I went to 

the woods to pout. As a child, I realized the renewal that could be found in the local oak 

forest. While working as a forester, I was in the woods for days at a time, alone. This is 

when the true value of the forest came into my own consciousness. There was 

something comforting about being with the trees. One day I realized I was standing a 

long time, taking in the beauty of my surroundings. Time stood still and I felt a joy, a 

connection, I had never felt before. I later found out that this feeling is called a “peak 

experience,” and in the sociological literature, this is an accepted behavior or 

experience in a wilderness setting. Again I would like to quote Jane Goodall, describing 

her own peak experience: “ Lost in awe at the beauty around me, I must have slipped 

into a state of heightened awareness. It is hard — impossible, really — to put into 

words the moment of truth that suddenly came upon me then. Even the mystics are 

unable to describe their brief flashes of spiritual ecstasy.”

I would like to bring up a movement that is occurring in traditional western 

religious circles. I do this because some feel this is nature worship and therefore 

pagan. There is a group called the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. 

It is the nation’s largest interfaith coalition. Member groups include Protestants, Jews, 

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and evangelical Christians. This group is acknowledging 

the spiritual value of the forest and as a result they call themselves ecofaith activists. 

Their Executive Director, Paul Gorman, has been quoted, “This isn’t just another issue 

for us, it goes to the heart of what it means to be a faithful Jew, Christian or Muslim.”

Again Jane Goodall, “I realized that the spiritual power that I felt so strongly in the wild 

and beautiful world of the forest was one and the same with that which I had known in 

my childhood, when I used to spend long hours in ancient cathedrals.”

Another concept in sociological literature is called the sense of place. Forests 

near towns have a value to the town; be it a place to pick mushrooms, picnic or a 

wonderful vista. These forests represent something important to the towns’ people. So 

having talked about the traditional western religious and sociological views I would like 

to point out some people do have other ideas about the value of the forest in nonwestern ways. These include collecting the essences of the forest to be sold as 

formulas. There is a product sold here in Alaska, made in Homer, called Soul Support, 

which besides flowers, includes environmental essences. I do not know this particular 
56

formula, if it includes forest essences, but wanted to point out that a formula could. I 

have participated in creating essences, and they all came from the forests around Sitka. 

This process is just taking the essences or energy field, vibration, whatever term 

resonates with you and through ritual transfers to a mother water. These essences 

themselves are a nontimber forest product and are sold throughout the world. 

Another concept I would like to share is some feel trees themselves have spirits 

and a cosmic role. There is a story of a place in the Australia outback. A group of 

indigenous people would come everyday to a newly built store and set for a while in a 

circle. The storeowner asked why they did that and they said an ancient tree stood 

there before the store and they came to still feel the energy and to gather as they 

always had in that spot. Some feel the spirit of the tree can give guidance – give a 

small gift to the tree, say some tobacco, mentally ask a question – sit with the tree and 

the answer will come. Others just find the forest peaceful and soothing and ask nothing 

from the trees, but relaxation. I walk in the forests of Sitka after work for all these 

reasons and do ask guidance from a few favorite trees. 

The cosmic roll of trees in the big picture of the universe is more complex, but in 

simple terms they act as transformers of healing cleansing energy between the universe 

and mother earth. Whatever your individual belief, most agree there is something 

special about the forest – and just the act of being in the forest – can be a Special 

Forest Product. 

Andrea Carmen, Executive Director, International Indian Treaty 

Council 

Biography - Andrea was a founding member of the Indigenous Initiative for Peace, and has worked 

extensively with indigenous peoples throughout North, Central and South America on human rights and 

environmental justice issues. She has worked extensively with the United Nations toward redress of 

human rights and treaty violations, the development of mechanisms for wider participation by indigenous 

peoples, and strong international standards. Andrea lives in Palmer. 

Thank you for inviting me and for being here today. I especially thank the Native 

peoples of this land, if there are any representatives of any of the Athabascan peoples 

who are here. Let’s remember this was somebody’s fish camp; this was somebody’s

forest at some time. 

When we talk about “hidden forest values,” I want us all to take just a moment, 

close our eyes, and be conscious of something that you do all the time. Inhale and 

exhale: pay attention to that for a moment. Recognize the contribution of the forests and 

the plant nations to our moment-to-moment survival. Recognize the relationship that we 

have with them, and the profound value that they contribute to us apart from any 

discussion of economic development or any other aspect of that relationship. I ask that, 

when we talk about our responsibilities to the forests and to the plant nations and to 

those who’ve been given a sacred responsibility to protect them, that we remember this 

obligation that comes from the simple act of breathing that we do. 

When we talk about indigenous spirituality; the words that we place on things 

may sometimes be a barrier to our understanding. Spirituality in an Indian point of view 

is, ultimately and basically, very, very practical. When the International Indian Treaty 
57

Council was formed in June 1974 at a gathering of about 5,000 indigenous traditional 

representatives from throughout this continent, one of the mandates that the elders 

gave to the newly formed organization was to seek an international voice. Of all the 

nations gathering around the table at the United Nations, only the indigenous nations of 

this hemisphere were not represented. We needed to go to seek a voice about our 

treaty rights’ violations, our human rights’ violations, our land rights and loss of culture 

and language. We also had something basic and fundamental to contribute to the 

discussions on what are human rights and what is survival of us as the human nations 

together, the family of nations. 

But the language of human rights was a stumbling block to our contribution of the 

depth of our understanding. I have been all over this world to talk to Native peoples. 

I’ve asked time and time again, everywhere, do you have a word in your language that 

can translate as the English word “rights?’ And I’ve never found an indigenous people 

that had that world. In our language, I’m a Yakima Indian, we have a phrase that 

means “our people’s responsibility to the Creator.” Native peoples talk about 

responsibilities, rather than rights; yet the language of the international arena is the 

language of human rights. Again, it separates the rights of humans from the rights of 

the created world. 

This takes a very practical turn when you look at developments that have been 

important environmentally but not so beneficial to indigenous peoples, such as one of 

the main products of the Earth Summit. The “United Nations’ Convention on Biological 

Diversity” recognizes a collective commitment of the countries and member states to 

preserve the rapidly diminishing diversity of biology. This is what we call the ‘sacred 

web of life’ or the ‘sacred natural world.‘ There is recognition in this document of the 

knowledge and the relationships of indigenous peoples to ecosystems where there’s a 

lot of what’s seen as collective benefit, such as forests. The Forest Principles are a key 

part of the Agenda 21. 

But there’s nothing in the Convention on Biological Diversity recognizing the 

rights of indigenous peoples or their responsibilities to protect the relationship with the 

plant peoples of this world. There’s mention in Article 8.J. of “an equitable sharing of 

benefits with the indigenous knowledge holders” when these biological ‘resources’ are 

developed. But there’s nothing in the Convention on Biological Diversity which says 

that indigenous peoples have a right to prior informed consent; that anybody needs to 

ask them first, “What can we develop here on your traditional lands? What’s sacred and 

should never be under any kind of discussion on economic development for economic 

benefit?”

There’s nothing in international law whatsoever that protects or guarantees the 

right of the traditional people who have the sacred responsibility under their law to 

protect these relatives for themselves and for future generations. There’s nothing that 

gives them the right of prior, informed consent. And that’s one of our big struggles 

under international indigenous unity; working with bodies such as the World Trade 

Organization. I have some documents I can leave and maybe copies can be made: The 

“Indigenous People’s Seattle Declaration” that was made by the indigenous delegates 

who attended the meeting of the World Trade Organization that ended with such an 

uproar. It took the attention, in some ways, from some of the positions that were taken 

there that need to be looked at; that talked about the harm to indigenous peoples of 
58

what’s called the ‘trade-related intellectual property regimes’ of the World Trade 

Organization. They have no guarantee, whatsoever, of any kind of rights that can be 

asserted by indigenous peoples who are traditional knowledge holders. This excerpt 

from Article 1 of the United Nations’ “Declaration of the Right to Development” states 

that “peoples cannot fully realize the right to development without the exercise of selfdetermination and full sovereignty over their wealth and natural resources.” This is a 

piece that gets left out a lot of times when we’re talking about maintaining respectful 

relationships; this aspect of recognition of sovereignty and the rights of indigenous 

peoples to traditional knowledge. 

For hundreds of years our traditional knowledge was discounted as superstitious 

or some kind of mumble jumble. And suddenly, in the last few years, the knowledge of 

indigenous peoples around the world, not just here in Alaska, is being sought, without 

recognition of this issue of prior informed consent and sovereignty rights over 

resources. I could list medicinal plants, forest products of Native peoples from 

throughout this hemisphere that have been patented by outside forces. To remedy this, 

over 300 different organizations, nations and indigenous peoples from around the world 

have signed the “No Patenting of Life Declaration.” It says that until the human, cultural, 

spiritual and land rights issues of indigenous peoples can be resolved, no patenting— of 

any life form, or derivative, including seeds, genetic pieces or products, or medicines 

created by plant knowledge — should be allowed. There needs to be a real negotiation 

that starts with the principle of prior informed consent that respects the spiritual and 

ethical relationships of indigenous peoples. 

The breakout session for the Social, Ethical & Spiritual Aspects Panel was combined

with the breakout session for the Traditional Uses Panel at the request of the breakout

session participants. The report of the combined breakout session is provided on

page 15. 
59

Topic: Secrets to Success—Small Business Startup 

	



	






	






	







	 
 !



	
60

Secrets to Success—Small Business Startup Lead Speaker 

Tim Brigham, Consultant 

Biography - Since graduating with a MA in Geography in 1994, Tim 

has been involved in a number of projects focused on economic 

development strategies for rural areas, both in British Columbia and 

internationally. Tim’s primary interest is in consulting and training on 

business development in the area of nontimber forest products. He is 

the chief author of both the ten-day course entitled “Goods from the 

Woods: Developing your Nontimber Forest Products Business” and of 

the accompanying handbook. He is currently working on other training 

and business development initiatives in the area of nontimber forest 

products in British Columbia, Manitoba, and the Russian Far East. 

Among his many contributions, Tim is currently involved with Nikolai 

Shmatkov in the NTFP component of the joint Russian-Canadian 

project "Building Partnerships for Forest Conservation and Figure 36 – Tim Brigham

Management in Russia.” He is a Business Mentor for British Columbia’s North Island Nontimber Forest 

Products (NTFP) Demonstration Project. Tim is widely sought in Canada and internationally by 

government and private concerns as a speaker and consultant in the NTFP industry.

The Nontimber Forest Products Industry: 

Some Secrets to Success

The NTFP industry is often treated as a single industry when obviously it’s not. 

The industry is made up of a number of separate industries spanning a broad range of 

product areas – foods, medicines, decorative plants, etc. – so what holds true in part of 

the industry may not hold absolutely true for others. However, there are a number of 

common threads running through the industry that do allow for some generalizing on the 

‘secrets to success’ for NTFP businesses. 

Finding Your Niche - The first step to finding your niche is determining where you can 

and want to fit into the industry. There are many different ways to participate in the 

industry – such as a harvester, processor, buyer/exporter, etc. Many people play 

multiple roles. Finding your niche in the industry involves assessing the opportunities 

open to you. Most successful people in the industry also focus their efforts on a few 

products, at least to start with. 

Before you go too far with developing an idea, it’s worthwhile asking yourself a few 

questions about the product you’re considering. Ask yourself: 

• In what way do you want to be involved in this industry & why do you want to do it? 

• Raw material supply. Where will you get raw material from and what’s the access 

and cost like? Is the quality of the material you can obtain adequate to satisfy your 

buyers? 
61

• What processing/handling is necessary? What are the costs involved in your 

processing and handling? 

• What markets are available to you? What are the transportation costs? What were 

prices like in the past and what is the over-all trend for prices? 

• How much capital do you need to get started? What regulations do you need to 

be aware of in your business? 

The likely result of going through this process and asking yourself a lot of questions 

is – a lot more questions. Thoroughly research whatever you’re looking at getting into 

before you start harvesting a bunch of product or sinking cash into a venture. 

Researching Your Products - Developing good research abilities is really essential to 

the success of your business. Unfortunately, as some of you may have already 

discovered, good information on your part of the industry isn’t necessarily available. 

You’re going to want to know where to find product and which products have the 

most potential for development. You may have a product in tremendous abundance, but 

it may not be worthwhile to produce because of marketing problems or costs, 

inadequate quality, etc. As early as possible you want to find out where different plants 

grow, when you can find them, and what the customers are looking for. It is important 

to get the scientific name down. Common names vary from place to place, so using the 

scientific name is usually the best way to get solid information on a plant and its 

products. 

So how do you go about finding out what you need to know? The information you 

need is not necessarily something you’ll be able to find in the library. Going to a 

conference is often a phenomenal opportunity for learning. Good, well-written 

handbooks for plants and mushrooms are essential. The Internet can be a good 

source, but not everything on the Net can be trusted. The Forest Service or other 

government agencies have almost certainly done some work of help to you. It may not 

necessarily be specific to NTFPs at all, but if there is information on plant associations, 

or descriptions of which plants grow in which forest type, this can be very valuable 

information. Government employees are also obviously the right people to speak with 

about regulatory questions. And if you’re exporting, embassy employees can provide 

key information on international markets. Buyers are often happy to give you a few 

pointers, especially as they’re usually looking for someone to provide product. 

Harvesters can obviously be excellent sources of information with only one problem –

they may not tell you anything. The best way to learn is often with the ‘learning by 

doing’ approach; you don’t have to know everything to start small by selling to local 

buyers. One of the keys to success is having a passion for the business and an interest 

in learning as much as you can. 

Developing Relationships (Buyers & Other Stakeholders) - Some of the most successful 

NTFP entrepreneurs I’ve met have worked very hard at developing relationships that 

are beneficial to their business. These are relationships with their buyers, land 

managers and owners, and other suppliers/harvesters. 

The first important lesson is: BE DEPENDABLE WITH BUYERS! You must 

provide what your buyers want, when they want it. Figure out what you’re capable of 
62

and don’t promise what you can’t do. Consider taking the time to develop positive 

relationships with land managers. If you don’t annoy or anger them, they can be very 

helpful, and a great source of information about the local area. The relationship with 

communities is vital. If you’re trying to get an enterprise going without community 

support, you can pretty much forget about it succeeding. 

Don’t waste a lot of time worrying about someone stealing your good idea; run 

with it and take others along for the ride. As long as you concentrate on quality, you’re

less likely to lose business to lower cost, lower quality competitors. 

Responsible Harvesting - The industry depends on responsible harvesting; anybody 

getting into this business should realize there are going to be questions about many of 

the products you might be harvesting. This is also not a new concern, but one that has 

followed the industry for at least a century. 

Demonstrating your ability to behave in a responsible way in the woods can only 

help your business AND the industry. Don’t harvest where you shouldn’t, try and 

minimize the ecological and visual impacts of what you’re doing, and practice as close 

to no trace camping as you possibly can. The industry already has some credibility 

problems and doesn’t need more. Demonstrating an awareness of sustainability may 

also provide benefits in the marketplace. If you plan to pursue certain markets –

probably the most lucrative ones – there are going to be questions about harvesting 

impacts. 

Creative Marketing - The effective marketing of your service or product is obviously key 

to the success of your venture. If you’re getting into this industry it’s important to be 

aware of the nature of the markets for NTFPs. 

One of the keys to success is to stay on top of your market research. In a 

dynamic industry like this, things are changing all the time. Change means some 

products will diminish in importance, while new opportunities open for those who stay on 

top of the changing marketplace. Consider developing a marketing plan. A well-done 

marketing plan will provide you with a tremendous amount of information. In marketing, 

focus on what is special about your product. Play on the ‘wild’ aspect. If we don’t want 

to be undercut in the marketplace we have to find ways to stand apart; a product 

harvested from the wild is one way to stand apart. 

Value-added Possibilities - Value-added is one of the keys to building a long-term, 

viable industry. Value-added is any way that involves increasing the price for that 

product. The more ‘traditional’ view of what value-added means is a raw material – like 

berries – being turned into a different product – like jam – through processing. A much 

broader view of ‘value-added’ may not involve changing the physical aspects of your 

product, but, for example, changing your marketing approach to gain a better price for 

your product. It might also involve ‘transformation’ of your product through freezing, 

drying, dyeing, making wreaths, wild berry fruit leather, wild mushroom seasoning, etc. 

The most value you can add to a product is by marketing the experience 

surrounding the plant and its use. Instead of selling rustic willow furniture, sell the 

educational experience of making willow furniture (and sell the materials along with it). 

When done properly, the opportunities for eco/cultural tourism in First Nations 
63

communities are enormous. So when you’re thinking about adding value to NTFPs, 

take a broad view. But also take a critical view; for example, it doesn’t always make 

sense to try to add value through costly investments in processing. 

NTFPs in Community Development - Success in this industry is enhanced by support 

from agencies at various levels of government. As a start, agencies can support the 

development of the industry by speaking about NTFPs as a legitimate opportunity. 

Talking about the economic value of the industry is an important way to get various 

people who can influence policy interested, and some funding secured for research and 

extension in this area. 

Spread the word on programs that can provide capital through loans or grants –

such as micro-credit programs. The industry doesn’t have a tremendous amount of 

credibility with funding agencies and bankers which can create problems for new 

entrepreneurs trying to access capital. 

If the development of an industry association is deemed important and 

appropriate by industry members, provide some resources and support to get one off 

the ground. It’s often difficult to sustain these associations on volunteer effort alone. 

Create the opportunity for some training or consulting to be done. Follow-up with 

medium to long-term support to maximize the number of entrepreneurs that can be 

successful. Make use of existing programs if they seem appropriate, but INSIST that a 

local educator or [cooperative] extension person be involved in adapting or redeveloping the course for use in your region. You need to leave a legacy of trainers, 

and [cooperative] extension people who can take that course and continue to develop it 

for the benefit of local people. 

NTFPs do provide a legitimate economic development opportunity that should be 

considered with all the other opportunities out there. NTFPs are not going to solve all 

the problems of remote, economically distressed communities. If we have unrealistic 

expectations, we set ourselves up to be disappointed. We need to find a balance 

between the lack of knowledge of the industry and of the real opportunities it provides, 

and those unrealistic expectations that in most cases the industry will fail to meet. 

In conclusion, I’d like to remind people to start small and take the time to learn 

the business and as much as you can about the ecology of the forests you’ll be working 

in. Nobody (I’ve found) creates a business in this industry overnight; don’t try to do too 

much, too fast. 
64

Secrets to Success—Small Business Startup Panel 

Stan Steadman, SEGO Enterprises 

Biography - Stan has been involved in community planning and development since 1972 as a planning 

director, regional economic development director, professor, and business owner. He established SEGO 

Consultants to train and assist entrepreneurs. In 1999 he co-sponsored the Kenai Peninsula Small 

Agriculture & Non-Traditional Natural Resources Project, including “Harvesting Our Own” workshops, to 

identify product development opportunities. Stan and several of his students then started a retail store, 

AK Krafters, featuring NTFP such as furniture and herbal products. 

I am grateful to have been raised in a family that was creative. My parents are 

musicians and my brothers are artists. My talent is to recognize creative talent. As an 

economic development and business planner, I am glad to be part of a profession 

where creativity is demanded. If you are not creative then you’re not going to get very 

far in that profession. I have the good fortune to be surrounded by creative people. 

What I like to do is see what can be done by focusing on human and natural 

resources in the community. The process begins with a good idea. A lot of people are 

still at the point where they are searching for a good idea or taking an idea and 

expanding it to make it a good idea to bring to the marketplace. That was the idea 

behind the Kenai Peninsula Small Agriculture and Non-traditional Natural Resources 

Project. At a series of meetings, people came together to try and work with the human 

resources that they have along with the natural resources available to stimulate some 

new opportunities in the community. I believe that we are just at the tip of the iceberg for 

what we are doing compared with what we can be doing. At these meetings, the group 

came up with a lot of ideas that some people have had the opportunity to respond to 

and work with. 

I teach classes in entrepreneurship. Many of his students are people that may 

have been laid off from work, people going through a divorce, and elderly people -all 

looking for an economic opportunity. They’re looking for low tech, small business 

opportunities. I help them develop their ideas so they know where to go with them. I 

then help them test their ideas with friends and neighbors. 

The next element is the feasibility analysis, which is a key part of the 

development process. To go further down the process with a bad idea isn’t going to 

help anyone. If the idea is not feasible then it needs to be reworked until it is feasible. 

One caution is that even if the idea is good, the environment must be right for the idea 

to work. I use a formal feasibility process that can be adapted to meet the needs of 

people involved with these projects. FastTrac Entrepreneurial Training Program is a 

process that trains people in feasibility. I make sure that the people I am working with 

have a viable project. After an analysis done, people can take their idea to the Small 

Business Development Center and other people in community for support with the 

continuation of the effort. 

Another key to business success can be participation in a Business Opportunity 

Network. A Business Opportunity Network allows individuals with good ideas to work 

with others as part of a network in order to accomplish things which they would not have 

done on their own. One example is the oyster growers that organized into the 

Kachemak Bay Shellfish Growers Cooperative and were able to work together to create 
65

an industry. There was not enough local market for the oysters and no one oyster farm 

was large enough to go outside the local market. The cooperative did a feasibility study 

and developed a business plan for the industry. The cooperative was able to show the 

community that the industry was viable and was able to receive several grants. From 

this money came a nursery system and a marketing system which benefits the whole 

industry. 

Marlene Cameron, President, Cameron Birch Syrup & Confections, 

Inc. 

Biography - Marlene’s successful business makes pure Alaskan birch syrup and more than a dozen 

other candies, confections, and condiments made with birch syrup. An enthusiastic supporter of the 

rapidly growing birch syrup industry, Marlene was an organizer of the Alaska Birch Syrup Makers' 

Association. She became involved in the Nontimber Forest Products industry in 1999, after speaking at 

an NTFP conference in Canada. Since then, Marlene has spoken at several NTFP conferences and has 

consulted with individuals, schools and indigenous groups in Alaska and Canada considering starting 

birch syrup operations.

Secrets to Success 

There are no generic “secrets to success” or formulas for success that will work 

for everyone. There are, however, steps to success. By climbing the steps to each new 

level of your business rather than taking the elevator, you won’t bypass some vital steps 

along the way and you won’t get sidetracked. Although you might do what I often did—

trip while trying to run up those steps too quickly. I have managed to do just about 

everything that is humanly possible to do wrong in a business. At some point in our 

lives, we’ve all asked ourselves what our purpose in life is. Well, I finally decided what 

mine is: I was put on earth to serve as a warning to others! 

In 1989, I tapped six birch trees and boiled down the sap in the back yard. I had 

heard of the old timers in Alaska who did this, so I thought I’d give it a try. What we 

ended up with looked—and tasted—like Alaskan crude oil! Even so, I thought we might 

have a new product here. Up to this point, I had been teaching English at the university, 

and my business acumen was limited to a simple mantra: if tourists will buy moose 

nugget earrings, they’ll buy anything. In 1990, I sold my birch syrup to a gift shop in 

Anchorage—my first venture into commercial business. 

With remarkable optimism, I took my idea and my birch syrup to the Small 

Business Development Center. With a smile, the staff listened to my idea, tasted the 

birch syrup, and suggested I go home. However, the staff stuck with me. They tried to 

drill into me the importance of a business plan and financial spreadsheets. They might 

as well have been talking to the wall. It just didn’t sink in. To this day, I still don’t have a 

business plan, and I’ll be the first to say that’s the first step to success that should never

be skipped. The staff was running out of ideas for me, so in desperation they 

mentioned the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation (ASTF) as a grant source. 

I wrote a grant proposal to the ASTF for the research and development of a birch 

syrup industry in Alaska. Much to my surprise, I received the grant for a three-year 

project to determine whether or not birch syrup could become a viable industry. As it 
66

turned out, there were two other birch syrup operations in different parts of the state that 

started at the same time I did. The ASTF grant moved the formation of the industry 

forward and we have shown that, yes, birch syrup is not only a viable industry but also 

one of Alaska’s fastest-growing new industries. With the establishment of a strong 

Alaska Birch Syrupmakers’ Association and the increasing number of syrupmakers, the 

birch syrup industry is making a significant place for itself in Alaska’s small business 

community. 

In the meantime, I wasn’t through making mistakes—most of them costly. Partly 

because I had no business plan to follow and partly because I tend to jump into things 

without looking first, I tried a lot of things that ended up not working out. For several 

years I had a very nice, full color catalog. Although it was well received, it drained the 

business financially year after year. It’s hard to let go of an idea you’re in love with. 

Along the way I’ve had products and packaging that have fallen flat on their faces—

usually leaving a hole in the bank account at the same time. Seems that in order to find 

out what works, I have to first find out what doesn’t work. That’s how it’s supposed to 

be done. So, before you do anything with your business, check with me first. I’ve 

already done it wrong. 

Well, back to the subject—Secrets to Success. So what is success anyway? 

Each of us defines success differently. Is it fame? The post office delivers mail to me 

whether or not the address is correct. Is it fortune? My rent checks don’t bounce. No, 

success for me is defined by the relationships I have developed along the way. My own 

sense of success comes from meeting and knowing all the terrific people in the past ten 

years that I never would have if I had stayed in the classroom. May Jefford, the gift 

shop owner who first bought my syrup. Jim Vik, who works for the Food and Drug 

Administration and who has been wonderfully supportive with suggestions and 

encouragement. Diane Simkins, who makes soaps and lip balms—and now some with 

birch oil. Dulce and Jeff, the other two “original” birch syrup producers. Crazy Jay, who 

makes birch wine. John Zasada, who introduced me to Nontimber Forest Products. 

That’s how I define success in my business. 

Dick Baldwin, Seeds of Alaska 

Biography - Dick Arrived in Alaska in 1941 and founded Seeds of Alaska in 1948. A family business, 

Seeds of Alaska grows plants for seed production, as well as collects wild seeds. Markets are primarily 

retail with some bulk orders to the Alaska Department of Transportation. Specializing in plants native to 

Alaska, they sell seed in Alaska, Canada, Iceland, and northern states of the Lower 48. Seeds of Alaska 

also provides contract work for reestablishing plant communities through hydro seeding. They are now 

developing stocks in wetland plants. 

If any plant materials are needed for soil reclamation anywhere in Alaska, they 

can be found nearby. Local plants are better than plants from anywhere else in the 

world, because they’re acclimated to the climate. Things brought in from elsewhere 

won’t work as well as plants collected locally since plants that grow here are not the 

same as the plants that grow elsewhere. Fireweed which grows in California is different 

from the fireweed that grows in Alaska. Plants that grow in Dutch Harbor, which is very 

wet, will not grow as well in Kenai which is much drier. 
67

 Another reason for not bringing in outside plant material is the possibility of 

bringing in invasive weeds. If you bring in an exotic plant, it may alter natural plants 

and the ‘spirit of the forest.’ Plants here having been growing together for many years 

and are compatible. Bringing in exotics will disrupt their community. 

Seeds of Alaska was started when there wasn’t any market for local seeds. 

Currently we don’t grow enough locally and have to bring in plants. Now, if we don’t sell 

more, we’ll start losing market shares real fast. 

Rod Hilts, Manager, Chesloknu Foods 

Biography - Rod has an MA in elementary education and has had a diverse career in Alaska as a 

teacher, restaurant owner, and commercial fisherman. Rod has worked for nine years in his current 

position as General Manager for Chesloknu Foods. Chesloknu Foods was created by Seldovia Village 

Tribe in the Fall of 1993 to provide local jobs using a local, traditional resource. Chesloknu Foods 

produces wild berry jams, jellies, and syrups under the brand name Alaska Tribal Cache. 

Seldovia Village Tribe 

Creating a Rural Value-added Company Using a Traditional Resource 

Talking about products is actually talking about economic development. In 

Alaska, rural manufacturing is rather rare, especially beyond the end of the road, which 

is where the Seldovia Village Tribe finds itself. Seldovia Village Tribe created a small 

jam/jelly/syrup producing company, Chesloknu Foods, in 1993. The goal was to provide 

local jobs using their traditional renewable resources. The motive was not only for profit 

but rather to create jobs in an economically depressed area. 

The area around Seldovia has an interesting history. Between 1875 and 1880, 

the spruce bark beetle killed off all the trees in the area, so the oldest trees there are 

now around 120 years old. In the 1970’s, an eight hundred-acre area was clear-cut. In 

1980 St. Augustine erupted and deposited a half-inch of fertilizer across the land. The 

clear-cut area was phenomenal for berry picking from 1985 through 1993, with several 

varieties of wild berries. It had become the primary area for heavy subsistence harvest 

not only for Seldovia’s residents, but also for visitors from as far away as Anchorage 

(200 miles). In addition, at least two commercial jam/jelly makers annually sent 

commercial pickers, via the state ferry, to pick for their production needs. Since 1994 

local residents have done the commercial picking and then only for Chesloknu Foods. 

The guiding principle for the tribe has been to preserve the subsistence/personal 

use picking, while also securing the needed berries for Chesloknu Foods. Today the 

company has grown to be a major provider of wholesale jams, jellies, and syrups to gift 

stores throughout Alaska. 

About 1997 the company noticed that the berry patches were not producing as 

well as in the past. Careful observations and wide reaching research indicated that the 

crowding of the berry bushes as the forest regenerated itself was causing the decline in 

natural production. Chesloknu Foods devised a plan and secured grant funding to 

enhance the wild berry growth in the harvest area. When looking at sustainability, 

changeability and how the forest is going to change over the long-term must be 

considered. 
68

The Natural Wild Berry Enhancement Project showed that selective clearing of 

competing growth using several specific methods could insure the continued dual use of 

the area. The three-year effort began during the summer of 2001 on 10-12 acres. 

Initial findings suggest that the removal of competing growth does result in better berry 

production. 
69

Appendix I 

Current Contact Information for Conference Speakers, 

Panelists, and Organizers 

Richard Baldwin 

Owner 

Seeds of Alaska P.O. Box 3127 

Kenai, AK 99611 

Phone: (907) 260-1980 

Rita Blumenstein, 

Tribal Doctor 

Southcentral Foundation 

Traditional Healing Program 

4320 Diplomacy Dr. 

Suite 200, Room 14 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Phone: (907) 729-2505 

Fax: (907) 729-2525 

rblumenstein@anmc.org 

Tim Brigham 

Consultant 

3878 Cowichan Lake Rd. 

Duncan, BC V9L 6K1 

Phone: (250) 748-3882 

Fax: (250) 748-3582 

tbrigham@islandnet.com 

Marlene Cameron 

Owner 

Cameron Birch Syrup & 

Confections, Inc. 

PO Box 872090 

Wasilla, AK 99687-2090 

Phone: (907) 373-6275 

Fax: (907) 373-6274 

akntfp@birchsyrup.com 

Andrea Carmen 

Executive Director 

International Indian Treaty 

Council 

456 N. Alaska St. 

Palmer, AK 99645 

Phone: (907) 745-4482 

Fax: (907) 745-4484 

Linda Christian 

IDT Leader 

(Formerly a Forester at USDA

Forest Service Alaska Wood 

Utilization Research and 

Development Center)

Wrangell Ranger District P.O. Box 51 

Wrangell, AK 99929 

Phone: (907) 874-7555 

lchristian@fs.fed.us 

Robi Craig 

Tribal Anthropologist 

Sitka Tribe of Alaska 456 Katlian Way 

Sitka, AK 99835 

Phone: (907) 747-3207 

Fax: (907) 747-4915 
70

Helen Dangel Sitka Tribe of Alaska 456 Katlian Way 

Sitka, AK 99835 

Phone: (907) 747-3207 

Fax: (907) 747-4915 

hdangel@ptialaska.net 

Michelle Davis 

Tribal Coordinator 

(Formerly the Alaska Regional 

Coordinator for Native 

American Fish & Wildlife 

Society)

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Phone: (907) 271-6324 

davis.michellev@epa.gov 

Jan Dawe 

Executive Director 

Alaska Boreal Forest Council P.O. Box 84530 

Fairbanks, AK 99708 

Phone: (907) 457-8453 

Fax: (907) 457-5185 

jan.abfc@ak.net 

David Duffy 

CEO 

Ninilchik Native Association, 

Inc. 

701 W 41st Suite 201 

Anchorage, Alaska 99503 

Phone: (907) 562-8654 

Marla Emery 

Research Geographer 

USDA Forest Service 

Northeastern Research Station 

Aiken Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory 

705 Spear Street 

P.O. Box 968 

Burlington, VT 

05402-0968 

Phone: (802) 951-6771 

Ext. 1020 

memery@fs.fed.us 

Jim Freed 

State Specialist, 

Special Forest Products 

Washington State University 

Cooperative Extension 

Natural Resource Sciences 

c/o Washington State DNR 

PO Box 47037 

Olympia, WA 98504-7037 

Phone: (360) 902-1314 

Dolly Garza University of Alaska 

Marine Advisory Program 

2030 Sea Level Dr., 

Suite 352 

Ketchikan, AK 99901 

Phone: (907) 247-4978 

Fax: (907) 247-4976 

ffdag@uaf.edu

Bob Gorman 

Forest Products Specialist 

University of Alaska 

Anchorage 

Cooperative Extension 

2221 E. Northern Lights 

Blvd., Suite 118 

Anchorage, AK 99508-4143 

Phone: (907) 786-6323 

Fax: (907) 786-6312 

ffrfg@uaf.edu 
71

Rod Hilts 

General Manager 

Chesloknu Foods 

Alaska Tribal Cache Brand 

Seldovia Village Tribe 

PO Drawer L 

Seldovia, Alaska 99663 

Phone: (907) 234-7859 

Fax: (907) 234-7637 

rhilts@tribalnet.org 

www.alaskatribalcache.com 

Victoria Hykes-Steere vsteere@alaska.net 

Irene Jimmy 

Commissioner 

Kayaani Commission 

Sitka Tribe of Alaska 

456 Katlian Way 

Sitka, AK 99835 

Phone: (907) 747-3207 

Fax: (907) 747-4915 

Jessie Johnnie 

Commissioner 

Kayaani Commission 

Sitka Tribe of Alaska 

456 Katlian Way 

Sitka, AK 99835 

Phone: (907) 747-3207 

Fax: (907) 747-4915 

Glenn Juday 

Professor of Forest Ecology 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Forest Science Department 

P.O. Box 757200 

Fairbanks, AK 99775 

Phone:(907) 474-6717 

g.juday@uaf.edu 

Dave Kelley 

Permitting Program 

Manager 

Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Mining, 

Land and Water 

Southcentral Region Land 

Office 

Phone: (907) 269-8560 

Fax: (907) 269-8913 

dave_kelley@dnr.state.ak.us 

Gary Laursen 

Senior Research Scientist 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Institute for Arctic Biology 

P.O. Box 756100 

305A Bunnell 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-6100 

Phone: (907) 474-6295 

ffgal@uaf.edu 

Elstun Lauesen, Consultant n-Link Corporation 1450 114th Avenue S.E., 

Suite I-230 

Bellevue, Washington 98004 

Phone: (425) 222-7002 

Fax: (425) 222-7222 

elauesen@n-link.net 

Roger McRoberts 

Land Management Agent 

Mat-Su Borough Phone: (907) 745-9607 
72

Mitch Michaud 

Forester 

USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 

Alaska Technical Staff 

P.O. Box 800 

Kenai, Alaska 99611 

Phone: (907) 283-8732 

Fax: (907) 283-9667 

mitch.michaud@ak.usda.gov 

Gina Mohammed 

Research Director 

P & M Technologies 66 Millwood Street 

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario 

P6A 6S7 Canada 

Phone: (705) 946-2882 

mohammed@onlink.net 

Rachel Morse Alaska Soil and Water 

Conservation District 

510 L Street, Suite 280 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Phone: (907) 271-2424 

Fax: (907) 271-3951 

rmorse@alaskaswcds.org 

Joey Pavia 

Forest Products 

Technologist 

(co-op ed.)

Alaska Wood Utilization 

Research Development Center 

204 Siginaka Way 

Sitka, Alaska 99835 

Phone: (907) 747-4309 

Fax: (907) 747-4307 

paviak@onid.orst.edu 

Rhoda Portis 

Coordinator 

USDA NRCS, Mat-Su RC&D 1700 E. Bogart Rd. Ste 203 

Wasilla, AK 99654 

Phone: (907) 373-1062 

Fax: (907) 373-7192 

rportis@ak.usda.gov 

Cal Richert 

Forester 

Central Council Tlingit & Haida 

Indian Tribes of Alaska 

320 West Willoughby Ave 

#300

Juneau, AK 99801 

Phone: (907) 463-7185 

Fax: (907) 586-8970 

Teri Rofkar Raven Art 820 Charles St. 

Sitka, AK 99835 

Phone: (907) 747-3641 

ravenart@gci.net 

Bob Sam

Repatriation Specialist 

Sitka Tribe of Alaska 456 Katlian Way 

Sitka, AK 99835 

Phone: (907) 747-3207 

Fax: (907) 747-4915 

Nikolai Shmatkov IUCN- The World 

Conservation Union Office for 

CIS (the Countries of the 

former Soviet Union) 

Shmatkov@iucn-cis.org 
73

Steve Simmons 

Forester 

Chickaloon Village Traditional 

Council 

Phone: (907) 745-0742 

Fax: (907) 745-7154 

Cvforest@chickaloon.org 

Ruth St. Amour 

Small Business 

Development Specialist 

Alaska Department of 

Community and Economic 

Development, Division of 

Community and Business 

Development 

550 W. 7th Avenue, # 1770 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Phone: (907) 269-4527 

Ruth_st.amour@dced.state.a

k.us 

Stan Steadman SEGO Enterprises Peninsula Mall, Suite 40B 

44332 Sterling HWY 

Soldotna, AK 99669 

Phone: (907) 260-2663 

Lee Stephan 

CEO 

Eklutna Village Corporation 26339 East Village Rd. 

Chugiak, AK 99567 

ehp@alaska.net 

Lori Trummer 

Plant Pathologist, Southcentral and Interior Alaska 

USDA Forest Service 

State and Private Forestry 

3301 C Street, Suite 202 

Anchorage, AK 99503-3998 

Phone: (907) 743-9460 

Fax: (907) 743-9479 

ltrummer@fs.fed.us 

Nan Vance 

Supervisory Plant 

Physiologist; Team leader, 

Biology and Culture of 

Forest Plants Team 

USDA Forest Service 

PNW Research Station 

3200 SW Jefferson Way 

Corvallis, Oregon 97331 

Phone: (541) 750-7302 

Fax: (541) 750-7329 

Nvance@fs.fed.us 

nan.vance@orst.edu 

Alan Vandiver 

District Ranger 

(Formerly Cooperative 

Forestry Specialist, USDA 

Forest Service State & Private 

Forestry)

USDA Forest Service 

Happy Camp Ranger District 

63822 Highway 96 

P.O. Box 377 

Happy Camp, CA 96039 

Phone: (530) 493-1712 

Fax: (530) 493-1796 

avandiver@fs.fed.us 

Jean Wall 

Director 

Alaska Small Business 

Development Center 

430 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 110 

Anchorage, Alaska 99501 

Phone: (907) 274-7232 

Fax: (907) 274-9524 

Bob Wheeler 

Forest Specialist 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Alaska Cooperative Extension 

P.O. Box 756180 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-6180 

Phone: (907) 474-6356 

ffraw@aurora.alaska.edu 
74

Phyllis Woolwine 

(Formerly the Special Forest 

Products Coordinator, USDA 

Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest) 

John Zasada 

Project Leader, Northern 

Silviculture Project 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory 

North Central Research 

Station 

1831 Highway 169 East 

Grand Rapids, MN 55744 

Phone: (218) 326-7109 

jzasada@fs.fed.us 
75

Appendix II – Conference Agenda 

November 8, 2001 

Morning Moderator: Mitch Michaud, USDA NRCS 

Afternoon Moderator: Bob Gorman, UAF Extension Service 

Opening Marlene Cameron, Owner,

Cameron Birch Syrup & 

Confections, Inc.

Welcome Lee Stephan, CEO, Eklutna 

Village Corporation 

KEYNOTE SPEAKER

Gina Mohammed, P & M Technologies 8:30 a.m.

TOPIC: TRADITIONAL USES

Lead Speaker: Dolly Garza 9:15 a.m. 

Traditional Uses Panel: 10:15 a.m. 

Alaska Natives from different parts of Alaska share their traditional use perspectives. 

TOPIC: BIOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY

Lead Speaker: Nan Vance 11:15 a.m. 

Biological Sustainability Panel: 1:00 p.m. 

Biologists share their expertise on sustainability of NTFP resources. 

TOPIC: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

Lead Speaker: Jim Freed 2:00 p.m. 

Economic Opportunities Panel: 3:00 p.m.

Specialists share knowledge and support for economic opportunities in Alaska. 

TOPIC: LANDHOLDERS’ POLICIES AND ACCESS TO NTFP RESOURCES

Landholders’ Panel: 4:00 p.m. 

A panel of public and private landholders share information about policy and access 

to NTFP resources on the lands that they manage. 

Trade Fair/Poster Session Open to the Public: 5:00 - 9:00 p.m. 

Ice-cream Social: 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
76

November 9, 2001 

Morning Moderator: Linda Christian, USDA Forest Service

Afternoon Moderator: Mitch Michaud, USDA, NRCS 

TOPIC: SOCIAL, ETHICAL AND SPIRITUAL ASPECTS OF NTFP

Lead Speaker: Michelle Davis 8:00 a.m. 

Social, Ethical, Spiritual Aspects Panel: 8:30 a.m. 

Native and non-native panelists share perspectives on non-commodity values of 

NTFP. 

TOPIC: SECRETS TO SUCCESS - SMALL BUSINESS STARTUP

Lead Speaker: Tim Brigham 10:00 a.m. 

Secrets to Success Panel: 10:30 a.m. 

NTFP business owners share their success stories. 

BREAKOUT WORKGROUPS 1:00 p.m. 

Lead Facilitator: Ruth St Amour 

Topics: 

• Traditional Uses and Values 

• Biological Sustainability 

• Ethical, Social, and Spiritual Aspects 

• Land Management 

• Business Opportunities 

CLOSING STATEMENTS 4:20 p.m.

Trade Fair and Poster Session Open to the Public: 5:00-9:00 p.m. 

NTFP Banquet: Traditional Foods and Storytelling: 7:00 p.m. 

Enjoy an evening of traditional foods, Alaska Native storytelling, and good 

company on this last evening of the conference. This event will be held at the 

Spenard Community Recreation Center. Transportation will be provided from the 

Millennium Hotel. The address for those who will drive independently is: 

Spenard Community Recreation 

2020 West 48th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99517-3171 
77

Appendix III – List of Figures and Tables 

 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 Gina Mohammed (p. 3) 

Figure 2 Dolly Garza (p. 5) 

Figure 3 Irene Jimmy (p. 5) 

Figure 4 Jesse Johnnie (p. 5) 

Figure 5 Steve Simmons (p. 5) 

Figure 6 Teri Rofkar (p. 5) 

Figure 7 Rita Blumenstein (p. 5) 

Figure 8 Dolly Garza (p. 6) 

Figure 9 Nan Vance (p. 16) 

Figure 10 Glenn Juday (p. 16) 

Figure 11 Dolly Garza (p. 16) 

Figure 12 Gary Laursen (p. 16) 

Figure 13 John Zasada (p. 16) 

Figure 14 Nan Vance (p. 17) 

Figure 15 Jim Freed (p. 28) 

Figure 16 Jean Wall (p. 28) 

Figure 17 Elstun Lauesen (p. 28) 

Figure 18 Nikolai Shmatkov (p. 28) 

Figure 19 Jim Freed (p. 29) 

Figure 20 Phyllis Woolwine (p. 38) 

Figure 21 Dave Kelley (p. 38) 

Figure 22 Roger McRoberts (p. 38) 

Figure 23 David Duffy (p. 38) 

Figure 24 Bob Sam (p. 38) 

Figure 25 Michelle Davis (p. 48) 

Figure 26 Victoria Hykes-Steere (p. 48) 

Figure 27 Andrea Carmen (p. 48) 

Figure 28 Linda Christian (p. 48) 

Figure 29 Marla Emery (p. 48) 

Figure 30 Michelle Davis (p. 49) 

Figure 31 Tim Brigham (p. 60) 

Figure 32 Stan Steadman (p. 60) 

Figure 33 Marlene Cameron (p. 60) 

Figure 34 Dick Baldwin (p. 60) 

Figure 35 Rod Hilts (p. 60) 

Figure 36 Tim Brigham (p. 61) 

List of Tables 

Table 1 Combined Breakout Session: Traditional Uses and Social, Ethical and 

Spiritual Aspects of NTFPs (p. 14) 

Table 2 Breakout Session: Biological Sustainability (p. 27) 

Table 3 Breakout Session: Economic Opportunities (p. 36) 

Table 4 Breakout Session: Economic Opportunities (Continued) (p. 37) 

Table 5 Breakout Session: Landholders Policy and Access to NTFP Resources 

(p. 47)
78

	



How to be involved in the Alaska NTFP workgroup: 

Join the list serve as a way to find out about meeting dates and times. Participation on 

the workgroup is welcomed. Most meetings are via teleconference. Funding may be 

available for participation in workgroup activities. 

To join the list serve, follow these steps: 

• If you are already a member of a Yahoo group: 

1. Send an e-mail message to akntfp-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and put the 

word subscribe in the subject. 

2. Your e-mail address will be automatically added to the list serve. 

• If you are not a member of a Yahoo group: 

1. Go to http://groups.yahoo.com. 

2. Enter your information to sign up for a Yahoo ID, 

3. Follow the instructions on how to join a group. 

4. The group for NTFP in Alaska is called akntfp.

If you have any questions, please contact the Alaska NTFP Workgroup Chair: 

Rachel Morse 

Alaska Soil and Water Conservation District 

510 L Street, Suite 280 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Phone: 907/271-2424 ext. 108 

Fax: 907/271-4099 

E-mail: rmorse@alaskaswcds.org 

Goals for 2002-2003 

1. Publish and distribute conference proceedings from Hidden Forest Values: an NTFP 

Conference and Tour.

2. Promote the awareness of important NTFP issues through presentations and 

displays at important Alaskan venues. 

3. Develop the workgroup into a functioning entity. 

4. Increase the dialogue between federal and state landholders and NTFP users during 

policy development. 

5. Plan and execute another statewide NTFP conference in early 2004. 
79

Workgroup History 

Several weeks after the conference, the original NTFP conference planning committee 

met. Based on results from the conference break out session, the workgroup 

established a list of short-term objectives and associated tasks. The group established 

committees to complete identified tasks and a workgroup chair position to coordinate 

directly with committee chairs and to promote cohesion between committees. To date 

the active committees include the following: Landholders, Traditional Use Issues, and 

Workgroup Coordination. An ad hoc proceedings committee will oversee the production 

of the conference proceedings and disband when the proceedings have been 

distributed. Other committee will be formed as workgroup activities expand. 

Vision 

Economic opportunities from a viable industry 

Protection of the resource by effective management and applied research 

Respect for traditional and spiritual values through education and awareness 

Mission 

The Alaska Nontimber Forest Products Workgroup will help balance the use and 

protection of nontimber forest products in Alaska by: 

• Providing a forum for discussions of policies, ethics and programs concerning 

nontimber forest products. 

• Supporting the development of best management practices for products 

harvested in Alaska. 

• Identifying research needs regarding economic, social and biological aspects 

of NTFPs in Alaska. 

Values 

We believe that nontimber forest products provide important economic, cultural and 

ecological resources for Alaskans. We believe that a variety of uses for nontimber 

forest products can coexist. We believe that Alaskans have a right to work with local, 

state and federal governments that hold our lands in commons and that government 

landholders have an obligation to work with Alaskans regarding the management of 

nontimber forest products. We believe that the strength of the Workgroup lies in our 

diversity of experiences, viewpoints, knowledge and needs; and that our success will 

stem from our commonality of purpose—sustainable nontimber forest products for 

Alaskans. 

Operating Principles 

Workgroup meetings will be conducted with consideration for the value of people’s time. 

No meeting will be held without a clear purpose. Participation on workgroup committees 

is open to all Alaskans who have a strong interest in Alaska nontimber forest products 

and will dedicate time and effort to committee work. Native Alaskans, who have used 
80

forest products since time immemorial, and Alaskan entrepreneurs, who have 

discovered new applications for specialty products, have knowledge unique to their 

experiences. This knowledge will be respected and valued. 
81

Appendix V – Presentations and Posters 

THE HIDDEN FACE OF THE FOREST: 

NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS AND VALUES1

.

Gina H. Mohammed, Ph.D. 

Research Director, P&M Technologies 

INTRODUCTION 

 
!

!"!#!# 	

#$"$##

 
%$! 	$"

"$#""

#$ 

We must approach this face with respect. With respect, there flows a full range of 

offerings. And yes, there is a place for enterprise, just as there is a place for all of the 

rest. 

Many of us in North America have become enamored with non-timber prospects in the 

last decade or so. Not that non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are really a new 

phenomenon. But several forces have shaped our growing interest in this subject. 

Forces such as: 

• Commitment to sustainable development and certification; 

• Concern about biodiversity in our forests; 

• Greater attention to the needs and importance of native peoples; 

• More emphasis on community forestry; 

• Determination to break free of the uncertainties of the timber industry. 

In this presentation, I will review some of what I have found about the NTFP sector in 

Canada, focusing on botanical NTFPs. We will also look at issues facing the north, 

including its native peoples, and some of the efforts underway in Canada that begin to 

address these. As Alaska moves ahead in developing its own NTFP sector, our 

discussion of potential pitfalls and recommendations will, hopefully, be of use. 

NTFPs IN CANADA 



1 Presentation for Hidden Forest Values, Alaskan Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) Conference, 8-11 

November 2001, Anchorage, Alaska. 
82

Non-timber forest products are botanical forest products other than timber. There are 

about 50 kinds of NTFPs, and these may be sorted into broad categories of Foods, 

Materials & Manufacturing Products, Landscaping Products, Health Products, 

Aesthetics Products, and Environmental Products (Mohammed 1999). Hundreds of 

individual items are housed within these broad classifications. These products may be 

used commercially or non-commercially, and include cultivated products. 

In Canada, the non-timber sector is a multi-dimensional one, incorporating products 

(primary and value-added), values, cooperatives, R&D, ecotourism, and cultivation. 

Maple Products 

Our biggest NTFP is maple syrup, taken mainly from the sugar maple tree. Canada 

accounts for 86% of the world production of maple syrup while the United States 

accounts for the remainder. There are about 9,500 farms commercially producing 

maple syrup in Canada. The province of Quebec handles about 93.3% of Canadian 

production. In 2000, farm cash receipts were estimated at $151.4 million∗

. It is 

estimated that maple production could double in certain regions of the country if more 

woodlands were to be transferred to maple production. Many producers have 

developed extensive markets for maple products such as maple syrup, maple sugar, 

maple taffy, maple spread, and moulded soft maple sugar (soft sugar candy). Maple 

products are considered as high value products and are subject to stiff competition from 

other sweeteners. The industry is exploring the possibility of promoting the nutritional 

value and “pure and natural” virtues of the maple products (Agriculture Canada, 

http://www.agr.ca). 

Christmas Trees 

Christmas trees in 1999 produced farm cash receipts of $71 million. About one-half of 

production is exported, 98% of which goes to the United States. Our popular varieties 

are balsam fir, fraser fir, scotch pine, and white spruce. 

Arts & Crafts, Florals and Greenery 

Flowers, foliage, branches, cones, and wood from the forest comprise a vast industry of 

creative products and supplies. In general, value-added craft products such as wreaths, 

baskets, and potpourris are the most profitable. Giftware retail sales is a large market, 

for example, in the U.S., it was valued at US $21 billion in 1998, and is projected to 

reach US $28 billion by 2003 (Kalorama Information 1998). 

Even plants considered nuisance weeds can become valuable decorative items. For 

example, in the Pacific Northwest, the salal plant – historically a notorious weed on 

forest sites – now enjoys a new popularity as a result of its decorative, long-lived foliage 

(de Geus 1995). Unfortunately, along with the growing demand, some serious issues 

have arisen regarding competition for harvest of these products, sometimes resulting in 

violent confrontations among pickers on sites in the Pacific Northwest (Daily Southtown 

1998). 



∗ Canadian Dollars, unless otherwise indicated. 
83

Native arts and crafts from northern Canada are very popular. Carvings, traditional 

needlework, quill crafts, and basketry are a few examples. These are all especially 

popular among certain buyers, notably in the United States and Germany. At present, 

demand exceeds supply, but the industry is challenged by the lack of skilled native 

artisans, especially among the youth. 

Wild Blueberries 

In 1999/2000, Canada exported more than 30 tonnes of wild blueberries, worth $100 

million. This represented an increase of 47 and 55% over the previous year. 

Appreciation of the health benefits of wild blueberries has helped to increase the 

demand (Mohammed 2001). Canadian wild blueberry production is concentrated in 

eastern Canada. More value-added products are appearing on the market, e.g., from 

companies such as Natural Newfoundland Nutraceuticals, which produces power juices, 

blueberry tablets, and other value-added products; Wabauskang Wildfruits Company in 

Ontario which markets wild blueberry products from Ontario’s north woods; and the 

Kagiwiosa Manomin in Ontario, an Ojibway-owned and operated cooperative that 

markets wild berry bars and preserves. 

An interesting novelty product is offered by Roman Catholic monks of the SaguenayLac-St-Jean region of Quebec. They produce chocolate-dipped blueberry clusters. 

They sell 25,000 boxes each year, retailing for about $150,000. Although they cannot 

meet the growing demand, they will not increase production as the current level of 

production is sufficient to meet the financial needs of their monastery (Sault Star 2001). 

Honey 

Over 300 unique kinds of honey are produced in North America, including that from 

forest species such as basswood, alder, poplar, maple, and wild blueberries. Canadian 

honey is a high quality product, sold at premium prices. However, Canada produces 

only about 7% of the world’s honey supply, after the top producers of China (40%), 

United States, Argentina, Germany, and Mexico. Honey has value, not only as a 

sweetener, but as a health product in that it contains trace enzymes, minerals, vitamins, 

and amino acids (http://honeycouncil.ca). 

Wild Mushrooms 

There are many edible wild mushrooms in Canada, and at least 56 species are 

considered tasty. These include morels, chanterelles, and boletes. But the pine 

mushroom (or matsutake, Tricoloma spp.) is probably the most valuable in North 

America, though it is lower quality than the Asian form (Tedder et al. 2000). In B.C., 

pine mushrooms have an annual value of $45-55 million (Wills and Lipsey 1999). 

One of our local companies on Ontario is Tom’s Wild Mushrooms, a family-owned 

business, which is trying to increase Canadian tastes for wild mushrooms 

(http://www.magma.ca/~tstein/). Canada is unlike other countries, e.g., in Europe, 

Japan, and the U.S., where the demand for wild mushrooms is worth about US $1 

billion annually. 
84

In addition to wild collections, mushroom cultivation is also underway for certain 

species, such as the shiitake. These can be cultivated into hardwood logs. The fungal 

mycelium works its way through the whole log and eventually mushrooms sprout. The 

logs can be held outside or, to prolong the growing season, inside in controlled 

environments. This is one good route that addresses concerns about site degradation 

and depletion of wild stocks. 

An interesting aspect is the medicinal actions of many mushrooms (Wills and Lipsey 

1999). Medicinal aspects include: certain polysaccharides that stimulate the immune 

system; terpenes and steroids that reduce blood pressure and blood lipids, as well as 

serving as antibiotics and anti-viral agents; stimulation of production of white blood cells, 

antibodies and interferon; inhibition of HIV infection; and improved survival rates from 

Hodgkin’s disease, and pancreatic cancer. These aspects, while extensively 

researched in Asian countries and the Russian Far East, are relatively unknown in 

North America. Also, North American First Nations do not have a significant history of 

usage. The annual world market for nutraceutical and medicinal mushrooms has been 

estimated at US $1.3 billion. 

Health Products 

• Weeds

Weeds can be particularly good sources of new health products. For example, fireweed 

(Epilobium angustifolium) is a notorious weed that establishes on cleared sites. But this 

weed which we have typically considered to be a nuisance is a valuable source of 

medicinals. Some of its extracts have even been patented. There is a company called 

Fytokem in Saskatchewan that develops commercial health products from fireweed 

(Hetherington and Steck 1997). Many other weeds have medicinal benefits, such as 

the thistle – in this case, for the liver. In Ontario, I’ve determined that about 60 of our 

forest weed species have scientifically-validated medicinal applications, and many are 

patented. 

Other screening shows natural inhibition of tuberculosis by certain plant extracts e.g., of 

alder Alnus rubra from First Nations ethnobotanical evidence. (Note: TB incidence in 

Europe and N.America is rising.) (Wills and Lipsey 1999) 

• Ginseng

North American ginseng had an export value of $61 million in 1998. The split for 

provincial production is roughly 2/3 from Ontario and 1/3 from British Columbia. Canada 

is the largest producer of North American ginseng, producing about 60% of world 

production. (The U.S. produces 30%.) The various types of ginseng grown are: 

• Wild ginseng – grown naturally with no influence from man; 

• Wild simulated ginseng – seeds scattered in areas suitable for ginseng 

growth; 

• Woods-grown ginseng – trees used for shade, and beds may be formed; 
85

• Cultivated ginseng – all plant needs are supplied by man, and comprises the 

majority of North American production; 

• Organic ginseng – residue free, no chemicals. 

$"

!&#'	#


()' 	 
  ( * 	#

#$"!$!$$

!)+,#"

-#"./000* 

Wildcrafting of ginseng has been so active over the past 100 years that finding wild 

ginseng from any southern Ontario hardwood forest is now almost impossible (Leuty 

2000). 

• Wood Waste

Wood waste is proving to be a novel source of health products. Dietary phytosterols are 

now available from pine and fir wood pulp waste, which are then incorporated into foods 

such as margarine or health supplements. A B.C. company, Forbes MediTech, has 

licensed technologies for extraction of pine phytosterols, that have been shown to 

reduce human blood cholesterol levels (Wills and Lipsey 1999). 

• Other

Taxol, from the Pacific yew, is an established drug for the treatment of certain cancers, 

and is worth US $1.6 billion annually in sales. Now, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc. is 

reformulating the anti-tumor drug paclitaxel for new uses e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, 

multiple sclerosis, and neovascular diseases of the eye. Anti-inflammatory properties of 

paclitaxel had not been previously recognized (Wills and Lipsey 1999). Phytogen Life 

Sciences currently manufactures high quality paclitaxel, a derivative of the bark of the 

Pacific yew. 

Ecotourism

Ecotourism is a growing element of the non-timber sector. In British Columbia, for 

example, ecotourism contributed more than $165 million in direct revenues to the 

economy in 1997. Ecotourism ventures consist of activities such as guided nature 

walks, mushroom festivals, educational tours, craft workshops, and botanical gardens. 

In Maritime Canada, the MicMacs conduct guided walks and other services related to 

understanding traditional uses of plants by the MicMac. In Saskatchewan, a member of 

the Cowessess First Nation established an ecotourism business providing cultural 

learning experiences and educational opportunities 

(www.cableregina.com/users/lungar). There are also native botanical gardens in 

Canada that serve as a tourist attractions, and are also involved in research and 
86

education. An example is the Mi’gMag Aboriginal Heritage Garden in New Brunswick 

(Eel River Bar First Nation) (http://www.aboriginalgardens.com). 

In Wills and Lipsey’s (1999) study for British Columbia, they suggested that properly 

developed ecotourism destinations and activities hold the greatest promise of all the 

non-timber forest products and services, to bring significant revenues into local First 

Nations communities. Information-intensive activities are the most rapidly growing part 

of ecotourism worldwide and are not well-developed in B.C. “Ecotravellers” are 

interested in nature, wildlife, traditional cultures, archaeology and conservation. A 

growing trend is that of ecotourists paying for the privilege of offering their labour in 

maintaining or enhancing natural features, e.g., in tree planting (Wills and Lipsey 1999). 

Cooperatives 

NTFPs are sometimes marketed through cooperatives. Examples in Canada are the 

Kagiwiosa Manomin in Ontario, an Ojibway-owned and operated cooperative that 

markets wild berry bars, preserves, and traditionally harvested organic wild rice 

(http://www.canadianwildrice.com); and the Mitigaawaaki Forestry Marketing Co-Op in 

Ontario, that helps to identify markets for less desirable species such as poplar and 

white birch (www.onlink.net/~coopwood). Mitigaawaaki also is involved with maple 

syrup production, wild mushroom training, and birch bark harvesting and crafting. It is 

also working on an idea for a youth camp for recreational, cultural and NTFP business 

and harvesting opportunities in the context of a summer camp experience. In 2001, 

Mitigaawaaki has received financial support from FedNor to develop a strategic plan for 

both timber and non-timber products and development of a woodyard and multi-use 

forestry complex to serve as an incubator for NTFP businesses (Gow-Meawasige 

2001). 

The benefits of cooperatives have been reviewed by Gow-Meawasige (2001). They 

include: 

• Links government with communities for financial and information purposes; 

• Financial advantage and strength in numbers; 

• One window approach to doing business; 

• Provides marketing expertise to smaller harvesters; 

• More aligned to First Nations traditional values; 

• Gives more time to business owners to concentrate on product development; 

• Certification facilitated and cheaper as a group; 

• Equipment and resource sharing; 

• Contribute to policy development at community level. 

Cooperatives are becoming involved in research as well. For example, the Upper 

Lakes Environmental Research Network (ULERN) in Ontario is an amalgamation of 

government and private sector scientists that work on a variety of issues. ULERN is 

also spearheading the establishment of the Kogaediwin Botanical Garden, which will 

house native plants and serve as a tourist attraction and a venue for research, 

commercial product development, and education (http://www.ulern.on.ca). 
87

POTENTIAL PITFALLS 

Separation of non-timber products and values 

Non-timber values are often considered separately from NTFPs, and that is a mistake. 

We tend to focus on NTFPs yet be constrained by non-timber values. Whether certain 

NTFPs will be acceptable to the users of a particular forest will depend on what is 

important to those people about that forest. Whether it’s native groups or the 

community, our concept of what we should do with a resource is shaped by the specific 

values we place on that resource for our sustenance, enjoyment, health, and cultural 

priorities. 

This idea can be illustrated simply using a pitcher of water. The water – the product –

needs the pitcher to provide structure and context for its use. Water spilled freely may 

be easily wasted and rendered useless – it may even do harm depending on where it is 

spilled – but guided and poured from the vessel it can fill many different cups – many 

diverse outlets. So, NTFPs without the context of values can end up as merely spilled 

and wasted effort. With proper context, it can serve diverse purposes. 

That value system may say, in some instance, that a community is not willing to 

commodify the forest, or entertain the possibility of mass pharmaceutical production 

from wild sources, or disturb native sacred sites. The unique personality of the affected 

community will set that context. 

Northern Issues 

Northern issues are multi-dimensional and include: 

• Geographical isolation; 

• Prevalence of undervalued boreal species; 

• Struggling economies in many regions; 

• Exodus of youth; 

• Over-reliance on primary products from resource-based business; 

• Adverse weather; 

• Concentration of native groups and associated issues with treaty rights, land 

tenure, and land management. More than 80% of Canada’s Aboriginal 

population lie within Canada’s productive forest zones. 

Native Concerns

The special concerns of native groups are complex and varied. They include issues 

involving treaty rights, sacred grounds/plants, intellectual property, sustenance versus 

commercial development, profit distribution, economic opportunities, sustainability, and 

knowledgeable and wise use of plants. 

A special report was done looking at economic and social potential of NTFPs in the 

Queen Charlotte Islands/Haida Gwaii (Tedder et al. 2000). The QCI is an archipelago 

made up of 150 islands that cover an area of about 1 million ha, and a population of 

about 5,808 people. It is located off the mid-coast of British Columbia below the Alaska 
88

Panhandle, and is the traditional home of the Haida First Nations. Traditional industries 

of the area are logging, tourism, and fishing. 

Some of the main concerns of the Haida regarding development of NTFPs and related 

businesses are: 

• Attraction of NTFP harvesters to the area before resource management tools are 

in place; 

• Resolution of land claims before development occurs; 

• Recognition of Haida rights before allocation of tenure rights to NTFPs; 

• Sustainability studies and approval of personnel by Haida; 

• Full participation of the Haida in commercial enterprise; 

• Protection of traditional, subsistence, sacred, and traditional harvest sites; 

• Understanding the concept of not using NTFPs for commercial purposes. 

(A study by Turner and Cocksedge (2001) found that over 500 plant species in 

northwestern North America are important to aboriginals, and most of these are forest 

species. Of these, 135 are used as traditional foods.) 

Community-level issues of the QCI included: 

• Lack of baseline ecological, economic and social information needed to make 

informed decisions on management of the harvest; 

• “Problem of the commons” – a resource available to everyone and under high 

demand can be subject to abuse, neglect, misuse and underinvestment; 

• Islanders’ lack of enthusiasm for becoming a world class tourist destination. 

How is Canada Handling Northern & Native Issues 

In trying to help address the issues of the North, Canadian actions have focused on 

improving opportunities for natives, improving economic prospects for entrepreneurs in 

general, mainly through funding, incentive programs, and business marketing 

assistance. Actual management of forests is a very hot issue, and quite a few legal 

cases are underway for recognition of treaty rights and consequent management 

powers in northern forests. 

Programs / Associations / Initiatives 

• First Nation Forestry Program (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca) 

This is a federal program that is designed to support innovative First Nations forestry 

initiatives. It helps natives to obtain job experience, develop business skills, 

participate in forest decision-making, increase education on forest management, and 

manage native-controlled lands. Since 1996, it has supported about 1,000 projects 

with $25 million in funding. 

• Aboriginal Business Canada (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca) 
89

There are more than 20,000 Aboriginal businesses in Canada, including many forest-based 

enterprises such as sawmills, logging companies, ecotourism activities, and non-timber product 

ventures. Sixty percent of Aboriginals are under 30 years of age. This agency helps to set 

strategic directions for growth of small businesses. It funds natives directly for up to 60% of the 

cost of eligible capital and marketing costs, to a maximum of $75,000. Targets for funding are 

projects emphasizing Aboriginal youth, tourism, trade and market expansion, innovation, and 

communications. 

• National Aboriginal Forestry Association

(http://www.aybc.org/resource/content/nafa.htm) 

This is a national organization created by Aboriginals. Its primary focus is to promote increased 

participation of Aboriginal people in the forest sector by working to remove attitudinal, policy, 

and legislative barriers that may restrict native involvement in forest management and related 

commercial opportunities. NAFA maintains the profile of native concerns through a variety of 

methods, from lobbying of government to sponsoring of conferences. A NAFA Conference is 

scheduled for Nov 4-7, 2001: Aboriginal Forestry: Facing the Issues, Nanaimo, British 

Columbia. 

• Canadian Model Forest Network

(http://www.modelforest.net) 

This is a network of at least 10 forests across Canada, organized and administered 

by the Canadian Forest Service. Each model forest is intended to serve as a 

“demonstration of partners representing a diversity of forest values, working together 

to achieve sustainable forest management”. A model forest serves as a large 

laboratory that investigates new technologies, including research and development. 

NTFPs are among the types of products of interest. 

Under the auspices of the Model Forest Network, the federal government has 

established an Enhanced Aboriginal Involvement Strategic Initiative. This Initiative 

seeks to enhance First Nation, non-status Indian & Metis communities’ participation 

in expanding their knowledge and tools of forest management. Aboriginals are also 

responsible for managing one of the model forests. 

• Forest Companies / Programs & Joint ventures

Canadian forest companies are recognizing the need to cooperate with First Nations 

on forest management, and are formalizing programs and joint ventures to achieve 

that objective. A couple of examples are Tembec’s Forever GreenR Environmental 

Management Program, and a joint venture between MacMillan Bloedel (now 

Weyerhaeuser Co.) and the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations with the Clayoquot Sound 

Interim Measures Extension Agreement (IMEA). The IMEA is an agreement between 

the First Nations and the British Columbia provincial government to provide for joint 

management until completion of treaty negotiations. 

The Tembec program is part of the company’s ISO 14001-certification initiative. It is 

focused on identification and protection of sites of special significance to First 
90

Nations, incorporation of traditional knowledge and values into forest planning, and 

improving commercial relationships, employment, training, and awareness. 

In addition to formal agreements, forest companies are becoming more amenable to 

coordinating their activities with both Aboriginal and other community members who 

are interested in extracting NTFPs. Dialogue between the companies and 

communities, including First Nations, is now underway in Ontario and other 

provinces. 

• Federal programs for business entrepreneurs and institutions

There are many other programs that offer funding and tax incentives to Canadian 

entrepreneurs for R & D, and new product marketing and business aid. These 

include: 

• FedNor (http://fednor.ic.gc.ca) – federally led program for northern Ontario, 

support for SMEs: Telecommunications, Infrastructure, Innovation, Trade, 

Community Partnerships; special initiatives for Youth, Women, Aboriginals, 

Francophones. General Innovation Related Projects are funded for 50% of 

eligible costs to max. contribution of $500,000; 

• EcoAction 2000 (http://www.cciw.ca/ecoaction) – federal cost sharing program 

for projects to rehabilitate the environment; 

• Industrial Research Assistance Program (http://www.nrc.ca/irap/) – federal 

cost sharing of projects for small/medium companies to pursue novel product 

ideas; 

• Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (http://www.nserc.ca) –

federal funding of joint projects between university and industry; 

• Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Credit Program

(http://www.rc.gc.ca) – 35% tax credit for SR and ED costs for new product 

development; 

• Technology Partnerships Canada (http://tpc.ic.gc.ca) – cost-shared projects for 

near market technological development projects in environmental technologies, 

enabling technologies; 

• Canada Foundation for Innovation (http://www.innovation.ca) – cost-shared 

improvements to research infrastructure at institutions; 

• CANMET Energy Technology (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/es/etb/cetc) – federal 

cost-sharing with industry to develop new energy technologies e.g., bioenergy. 

Other Potential Pitfalls 

• Low profitability

Wildcrafters rarely receive a fair price for the materials they collect. For example, in 

B.C., wildcrafters are paid one-half to one-quarter of wholesale value (Wills & Lipsey 

1999). 

In a world-wide study, it was found that women may benefit the least from NTFP 

activities which tend to be associated with low technology, highly labour-intensive 
91

work, isolation, and risk of displacement by men or machines (Newmann and Hirsch 

2000). That study showed that it is often the most disadvantaged sections of society 

that suffer most – the poor and landless, indigenous peoples, and rural women. For 

native tribes selling NTFPs, middlemen tend to take too much of the profits, so tribes 

get only 10-40% of the sale price of items. Yet studies from all tropical regions show 

that it is often the poorest households in rural communities that are most directly 

dependent on NTFPs because it requires little capital investment, there is 

geographic proximity to forests, and there is an absence of alternative income 

sources. In Brazil, for example, agroforestry methods increase profitability per 

household to roughly 10 times that for direct NTFP extraction; on a per hectare 

basis, this jumps to 144 times (Newmann and Hirsch 2000). 

• Loss of sustainability and genetic diversity

While NTFPs may be an alternative to forest removals and consequent loss in 

biodiversity, 66 percent of field studies show negative impacts from commercial 

harvesting of NTFPs because of resource depletion and loss in biodiversity 

(Neumann and Hirsch 2000). This commonly results from the use of unsustainable 

practices during harvesting. For example, in South Africa, a relatively recent surge 

in basket weaving has increased demand for fibres and dyes, placing pressure on 

the 30 species used for fibres and another 22 species used for the dyes. Whole tree 

removals are common. 

It has been shown that ecologically damaging extraction techniques are more likely 

to be used when the labour force is non-local, migratory, and unregulated (Neumann 

and Hirsch 2000). Also, species that reproduce rapidly and have more than one 

means of propagation are best able to withstand increased harvesting without 

significant ecological consequences. 

• Health and safety

Primary concerns with health products include product safety, toxicity, and efficacy. 

The subject of natural health products has historically been a grey area in Canada 

as far as regulations are concerned. Herbal medicines have been classified either 

as foods, in which case one cannot make health claims, or drugs, which must go 

through costly testing. However, recent changes to the regulatory framework will 

probably serve to expedite the introduction of natural health products to the market, 

in response to increasing public demand for these items (Mohammed 1999). 

In comparison, in Germany, the Herbal Medicines & German Medicines Act of 1978 

regulates health care products. Government conducts extensive research to 

investigate and support claims for plant medicines (Wills and Lipsey 1999). Also, 

Germany has a history of herbal usage long incorporated into conventional practice. 

About 80% of German doctors regularly prescribe herbs. 

• Conflicts among multiple users

Conflicts among the various users of the forest have been common in Canada, 

where most forested lands are owned by the government, but managed through 
92

long-term agreements with private or community companies or stakeholders. 

Management plans for forests have often conflicted with native priorities for lands 

deemed to be part of treaty parcels. This is an ongoing issue, but one that is being 

addressed in pockets across the country where cooperative management 

agreements are in place. Specifically, for NTFP development, the issues include a 

need to coordinate NTFP extractions with timber harvesting, provide access to sites, 

minimize site damage, and emphasize non-destructive extractions. Within 

communities, there is also much heterogeneity and NTFP-related interests may be 

dissimilar, conflicting along gender, class or ethnic lines (Neumann and Hirsch 

2000). 

• Science – its role, its limits 

Science can help. But science also has its limits. How can it help? There is a vast 

shortage of basic ecological knowledge at both the levels of individual species and 

forest ecosystem. We need to know how amenable wild NTFP species are to 

scientific forest management. We need tools to quantify natural production rates for 

NTFPs. We need to know growth rates, harvesting regimes, and other biological 

characteristics of NTFPs. We need systems to monitor NTFP harvesting and 

ecological impacts. We need silvicultural prescriptions for NTFP management, and 

ways to integrate timber and non-timber extractions. All of this needs to be done in 

field-based studies, which are complex and long-term by nature. Some answers 

may come from forest and environmental historians who have studied how society 

before the 1950s managed to integrate timber and NTFP collection. Or from 

ethnobotanical research on forest management practices in tribal societies. Much of 

that work is fragmented and scattered and needs to be collected and organized to 

distill important information on local management (Neumann and Hirsch 2000). 

On the social and economic levels, we need to understand many aspects – what 

makes a marketing cooperative work or not work; how do land and resource tenure 

affect NTFP prospects; what are the potential points of conflict between scientific 

and customary forest management; and how should joint management institutions 

be structured to benefit both state and community. 

By its very nature, science is an orderly, stepwise endeavour, with clearly defined 

hypotheses and rigorous statistical analysis. It is a linear process orchestrated to 

prove or disprove. Unfortunately, conventional science is ill-suited to certain kinds of 

exploration. It does not handle issues with many factors or interactions among 

factors, despite the claims of modern quantitative methods. The Scientific Method 

takes a unified whole and breaks it apart in order to study manageable pieces; but 

there is no guarantee that once fragmented, the whole can be accurately 

reconstructed at the end. 

Science can shed only a dull light, if any, upon elements involving human 

experience, wisdom, common sense, or faith. Scientists often dismiss these things 

as unscientific, rather than acknowledge the constraints of their tools. We must 

recognize that while science and research can provide some answers to the 
93

biological, social, and economic questions, these answers may necessarily be 

restricted in dimension. A prerequisite question to pose before embarking on any 

scientific investigation on NTFPs is, “What will constrain the capacity of this 

investigation to provide the necessary answers?” or put another way, “What will this 

work really tell us that will help 

us to move forward?”
94

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Emphasize Ecotourism 

An ecotourism context for the NTFP sector is especially relevant to Alaska for the 

following reasons: 

• It meshes nicely with one of Alaska’s three big industries: tourism; 

• It complements the conventional forest products sector; 

• It can incorporate NTFP values and their communication to visitors; 

• It does not emphasize wild plant harvest and potential sustainability risks; 

• It provides an outstanding vehicle for cooperation among government, native 

peoples, business, and researchers; 

• It can focus on unique local history and practices; 

• It can help preserve traditional knowledge; 

• It does not require transportation of a product from a remote area; 

• It can enlist practical help from visitors to meet local non-timber needs. 

The various directions that ecotourism ventures can take are manifold, and include: 

informed tours, nature walks, craft classes, botanical gardens, and mushroom festivals 

as mentioned earlier. Other prospects might include herbal tea tastings, herb fairs, 

medicinal gardens, forest cookery workshops, seminars on forest garden cultivation, 

tours of NTFP businesses, short-term participation in NTFP ecological field research 

projects, forest photography, and demonstration/model forests. Synergistic marketing 

with existing tourism avenues can capitalize on existing markets and advertising routes. 

There is valuable infrastructure already available in Alaska to develop educational 

aspects of a non-timber ecotourism sector, resident in institutions such as the 

Georgeson Botanical Garden (University of Alaska), the University of Alaska Museum 

Herbarium, the Alaska Botanical Garden in Anchorage, the Alaska Native Heritage 

Center, and the Alaska Boreal Forest Council. 

In the short term, ecotourism ventures offer considerable promise. In neighboring 

British Columbia, it has been promoted as one of the most promising commercial nontimber opportunities for rapid development, along with NTFP products such as salal and 

florals, berries, “willow” furniture, and crafts (Tedder et al. 2000). 

Use weed species or waste from forest operations

Collection of weeds that would otherwise be burned or chemically controlled as part of 

forestry operations could provide biomass for other products. (Some biomass and 

debris should remain on site for ecological benefits such as maintaining wildlife habitat 

and soil nutrient balance.) Collection of weeds and other products such as birch bark, 

boughs, etc., can be coordinated with normal forest operations. 

Birch is a fine example of a species that is considered to be a weed in many regions, 

but yet has many impressive uses in the non-timber arena. In Minnesota, a relatively 

new venture called NaturTek, spawned by government, university, and industry is taking 
95

birch bark products to market. That market has been valued at US $100 billion 

annually. One pharmaceutical derivative from birch bark sells for about US $500/mg 

(NaturTek, pers. commun.). I understand that Alaska native groups are involved in 

project planning with the University of Alaska to pursue opportunities involving birch 

bark extractives. The suite of birch sap products now available by Alaskan producers 

testifies to the potential of this versatile species to provide unique economic benefits. 

Other traditionally undervalued species are also proving beneficial. In Ontario, a 

University of Guelph study is showing the utility of poplar in land reclamation. Its highly 

absorbent roots prevent rainfall from reaching solid waste reservoirs below and thus 

prevent contamination of water sources. It is anticipated that land reclamation may be a 

significant market area for use of this species (CRESTalk, summer 2001, a publication 

of CRESTech, Toronto, Ontario, www.crestech.ca). In Alaska, this type of technology 

may prove useful in treating defunct mine sites. 

Waste materials such as emptied seed cones, pulp waste materials, and various 

byproducts of wood processing can serve as valuable sources of new products. 

Collection costs are low because the material is already being harvested for other 

purposes. 

Develop value-added products 

Value added products command a higher price than primary products. Developers can 

earn more with less plant material, thereby lessening the risk of excessive harvest and 

endangerment of wild stock. They offer niche markets and are well-suited to small 

entrepreneurial ventures. There is more buffering against the vagaries of bulk markets, 

and less competition from highly successful bulk suppliers. 

An Alaskan business example is Alaska Wild Berry Products, which produces products 

such as Fireweed honey mustard, jellies, fireweed popcorn, and other products from 

highbush cranberry, wild red currant, wild blueberry, wild raspberry, wild strawberry, wild 

salmonberry, and wild lingonberry. In the arts and crafts sector, specialty products such 

as those from diamond willow (with its intriguing wood colours) in Alaska capture the 

interests of buyers. 

Adding value to a product does not have to be complicated. In B.C., salal dipped in 

glycerin to preserve it or in pre-assembled pot pourri mixes by craft stores can help to 

increase sale price and offset any transportation cost disadvantage for remote areas 

(Tedder et al. 2000). 

Cultivate NTFP species 

Cultivation in the field, forest, greenhouse, or even laboratory (using tissue culture and 

mass micropropagation methods) will be an important facet of sustainable NTFP 

production. Cultivation reduces the pressures on wild stocks, extends the production 

season (a special advantage in northern climates), helps to produce more consistent 

quality, and provides for a more predictable flow of products. Organically produced 

plants are particularly in demand, and this can only be achieved on practical scales in a 
96

cultivation regime. Alaska’s long growing day in summer yields impressive agricultural 

produce – and can also be capitalized upon for growing of specialty herbals, unique 

landscape products, florals and greenery, and other NTFPs. 

Quality control and certification of products is now a high priority for manufacturers of 

herbal products, and is central to concerns about health and safety of new products. 

Standardized extracts are becoming the norm, and herb suppliers are having to prove 

the content of their materials. For example, Frontier Co. in the U.S., a very large buyer, 

demands a certificate of analysis to be submitted with samples. With cultivated 

products, there may be a greater likelihood for achieving consistency and predictability 

of phytochemical contents. 

Cultivation by means such as forest gardens should be encouraged. The First Peoples 

of northwestern North America were not simply “gatherers”, but tended forest gardens 

using various methods such as selective harvesting, propagation, habitat enhancement, 

monitoring, pruning, cultural controls, and root aeration (Turner and Cocksedge 2001). 

For the latter, digging sticks used for gathering root vegetables served to till and aerate 

the soil. 

Form cooperative ventures 

	
	









	


























	$
#

#$!"

 #"

##!$

!#$#"


$!$$#$#

),1/002* 	"

!###$

$
#$####

$!)$3/000* 

3"$$$!


#$4###

#"###

$!$!#

)1## /002* 
#1$#

-)1 *"$$$
97

"$#$""$

## 

Cooperatives, in addition to all of the benefits cited earlier in the presentation, can also 

assist with introduction of e-commerce ventures. E-Commerce is the exchange of 

information, goods, services or money facilitated by the Internet or other electronic 

networks with customers or with other businesses. E-commerce between businesses in 

Canada is expected to increase more than 10-fold between now and 2004, growing 

from $800 million to an estimated $10.7 billion (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 

http://www.agr.ca). 

Cooperative ventures can facilitate R&D, bringing together different groups to share 

knowledge and conduct studies. Interest in applying traditional ecological knowledge to 

modern-day forest management and business development is being pursued in the 

context of projects such as that for assessment of NTFPs in northwestern Ontario by a 

cooperative of harvesters and researchers from the Iskatewizaagegan #39 Independent 

First Nation and the University of Manitoba (Davidson-Hunt and Ruta 2001). 

Focus on rural and community-based opportunities 

Development of niche products with a local character can be a profitable venture for 

many communities. A good example is the range of manomin and wild berry products 

being created by Ontario’s Wabigoon Lake First Nation (Kagiwiosa), where traditional 

knowledge is being applied to produce interesting new specialty foods. Such products 

are novel and may be more successful in the marketplace. 

Another advantage to the community focus is the lower likelihood that a product may be 

overharvested, because of the more personal commitment of locals to their forest. This 

is not always the case if local harvesters are supplying distant buyers with burgeoning 

demands. 

Conduct appropriate Research and Development 

-1#$$


!$#$

"$$"##

$5# 

-61"##!

"####

###"


#$!$$ 
#

##"

$!#

"#""$$"
98

$$ 

In addition to the questions and needs raised earlier for R&D attention, an important 

subject is that of emerging products. These include children’s herbals, phytoestrogens, 

and biocides (non-toxic insecticides), anti-phytovirals (medicines for plants), native 

landscape plants, and biofuels (Mohammed 1999, Wills and Lipsey 1999). Quality 

control and product safety for health-related products will be an ongoing priority. 

Is science equipped to address the challenges? It is limited by conventional 

approaches of the Scientific Method. Science needs a certain reshaping to be useful to 

the broader NTFP industry, and will need to be evaluated for efficacy of its methods to 

provide useful answers. In particular, approaches that provide for better study of 

multiple attribute issues will need to be worked out, and these may include greater 

reliance on traditional ecological knowledge. 

Much information already exists and needs to be gathered, organized, and transferred. 

Scientists and government have an important responsibility in this regard. Educational 

and training aids, informational workshop and conferences, and information-sharing 

associations can all play a part. Developments that provide examples of this kind of 

activity include: 

• NTFP website for information exchange from Virginia Tech University 

(http://www.sfp.forprod.vt.edu) 

• U.S. NTFP product database website (Institute for Culture and Ecology), 

organized by species and state (http://www.ifcae.org/cgibin/ntfp/) 

• A manual for growers of medicinal and aromatic plants, for interior B.C., by A. 

Gunner (1998) 

• Conferences such as Phytotherapy Canada 2000, organized by the Ontario 

Herbalists Association (http://www.herbalists.on.ca/events/) 

CONCLUSIONS 

Developing a viable non-timber forest sector is tantamount to redefining forestry in 

North America. We are still very much enmeshed in the conventional way of things to 

sustain primarily timber and other standard wood products. But the desire is growing 

among all those with an interest in the forest to bring a viable NTFP industry into 

fruition. That will require a long-term commitment because so much is to be learned 

about managing for NTFP products. Importantly, NTFPs must be developed within the 

context of non-timber values to have any lasting importance. Getting there will demand 

the cooperation of diverse individuals and groups. But it will be worth the effort. 
99

REFERENCES 

Daily Southtown. 1998. Washington, February 25. 

Davidson-Hunt, I. And T. Ruta. 2001. Scientific and traditional ecological knowledge for 

the rapid assessment of non-timber forest products in northwestern Ontario. Third 

North American Forest Ecology Workshop, Duluth, Minnesota, 24-27 June 2001. 

Deal, R., M. Wipfli, T. Hanley, T.de Santo, A. Johnson, P. Hennon, M. Schultz, R. 

Woodsmith, R. Edwards, M. Bryant, and W. Smith. 2001. Managing young upland 

forests in southeast Alaska for wood products, wildlife, aquatic resources, and fisheries. 

Third North American Forest Ecology Workshop, 24-27 June 2001, Duluth, Minnesota. 

De Geus, P.M.J. 1995. Botanical forest products in British Columbia: An overview. B.C. 

Min. For., Integrated Resour. Pol. Br., Victoria. 

Gow-Meawasige, S. 2001. NTFP business development and the Cooperatives. NonTimber Forest Products Workshop, Michipicoten First Nation, Wawa, Ontario, 8-9 May 

2001. 

Gunnar, A. 1998. Technical feasibility study for medicinal and aromatic plants which can 

be grown in the interior of British Columbia. AG Consulting. A Report to the Science 

Council of British Columbia. 

Hetherington, M. and W. Steck. 1997. Natural chemicals from northern prairie plants. 

Ag-West Biotech Inc., Saskatoon, SK. 

Kalorama Information. 1998. The U.S. giftware market. Bethesda, MD. 

http://www.findexonline.com 

Leuty, T. 2000. Producing non-timber forest products. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, 

Food and Rural Affairs, 

http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/facts/info_non_timber_products.htm. 

Maher, K. and J. Dawe. 2001. History of use, current trends, and future directions in 

utilizing the birch sap resource of Alaska. Third North American Forest Ecology 

Workshop, Duluth, Minnesota, 24-27 June 2001. 

Mohammed, G. 2001. Berries blue are good for you. Alive – Canadian Journal of 

Health and Nutrition 226: 24-25. 

Mohammed, G.H. 1999. Non-timber forest products in Ontario: An overview. Ontario 

Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Forest Research Information 

Paper. No. 145. 
100

Neumann, R. and E. Hirsch. 2000. Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: 

Review and analysis of research. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry 

Research (http://www.cifor.cgiar.org). 

Sault Star. 2001. Quebec monks make chocolates to help keep their monastery alive. 

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, August 18. 

Tedder, S., D. Mitchell, and R. Farran. 2000. Seeing the forest beneath the trees: The 

social and economic potential of non-timber forest products and services in the Queen 

Charlotte Islands / Haida Gwaii. Mitchell Consulting and the B.C. Ministry of Forests. 

Turner, N.J. and W. Cocksedge. 2001. Aboriginal use of non-timber forest products in 

Northwestern North America: Applications and issues. In: M. Emery and McLain, R.J. 

(eds.) Non-Timber Forest Products: Medicinal herbs, fungi, edible fruits and nuts, and 

other natural products from the forest. Binghamton, NY: Haworth. 

Wills, R.M. and R.G. Lipsey. 1999. Economic strategy to develop non-timber forest 

products and services in British Columbia. Final report. Forest Renewal BC Project No. 

PA97538-ORE. Victoria. 
101

Photo Excerpts From: 

BIOLOGICAL AND CONSERVATION CONSIDERATION IN THE USE OF WILD 

PLANTS FOR NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS 



Research Plant Physiologist, USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR 

Devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus) is an important species to Alaska Natives. The 

roots are harvested for medicinal uses. 

It is now sold in the commercial market place. 

Sparrow’s egg ladyslipper (Cypripedium passerinum) is an orchid found only in 

the boreal forests of Canada and Alaska. Collection and loss of habitat threaten 

the slipper orchids worldwide.
102

EXAMPLES OF BIRCH BARK PRODUCTS 

Submitted by: 

John Zasada 

Northern Silviculture Project Leader, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest 

Service, Grand Rapids, MN 

All pictures are of NTFP products made by John Zasada.
103

SUSTAINABILITY OF CRYPTOGAMS IN HIGH LATITUDE ALASKAN FORESTS: 

UNREGULATED BOTANICAL FOREST PRODUCTS 

Gary A. Laursen, Ph.D. 

Senior Research Professor of Mycology, University of Alaska Fairbanks 

INTRODUCTION 

The first seen, very evident, and most recognizable group of organisms present 

in forests at high latitudes is composed of dripping, attached, hanging, covering, and 

encrusting plant and plant-like organisms called cryptogams. High latitude Boreal and 

Coastal Rain Forests contain many of the same cryptogamic elements, if not the same 

species, in the fungi, lichenicolous fungi, lichenized fungi [lichens], mosses, liverworts, 

club mosses, horsetails, and the ferns they harbor. 

The presence of cryptogamic organisms holds significant promise for potential 

development of renewable and sustainable harvest practices. This group of organisms 

is highly sought after for their aesthetic values, by the floral industry, nature groups, and 

organizational outings, undergraduate student course work, graduate student research 

projects, supplying local farmer’s markets with edibles, mycophagy, specimen support 

for biological supply houses, and in the development of cottage industries. 

Presently, for Alaskan forests, there exists no policy, program, or protocol 

pertinent to the sustainability of these vastly important species groups. We know so little 

about their species richness, relative abundance, frequency of occurrence, reproductive 

biology, roles played, and contributions made to dynamic balance, and regeneration 

time. Natural perturbation effects such as fire and unnatural disturbances such as over 

harvesting, lack of biodiversity assessments, understanding genetic plasticity, and 

habitat preferences shown, must be studied for greater understanding. We have too 

little information on species inventories, identification of “endangered” species, and what 

may define them as being endangered. Greater understanding and sharing of 

indigenous with western European ‘ways of knowing’ will further enhance our 

perceptions of relative importance. 

CRYPTOGAMIC ORGANISMS 

Non-vascular cryptogams constitute the more primitive plant-like forms; the fungi, 

lichenicolous fungi, lichenized fungi [lichens], and the more advance, yet still primitive, 

plants in the mosses and liverworts. We know that fungi are used for food (mycophagy), 

medicinal (pharmacological), and shamanistic ritual (Toxicology), as well as for their 

simple aesthetic and scientific values. Lichenicolous fungi are a very new realm for 

science in Alaska and offer significant opportunity for creative inquiry and scientific 

investigation, if not for new species determinations too. The lichens are used by so 

many organisms as a food source, for natural dyes for woolens, and for scientific 

purposes. Mosses have been used as wound dressing, diaper absorbents, repair 

dressing for sledge runners, foods to a lesser extent, but certainly for scientific 

investigation. Relatively little is known about Alaskan liverworts. 
104

The vascular cryptogams, all plants, constitute the club mosses, horsetails, and 

ferns. Six species of club mosses are used for a variety of purposes as further 

discussed by Nauertz and Zasada (2001). Horsetails are used in organo-gardening, as 

‘scouring’ pads, and animal roughage due to their silica content. Ferns are used 

aesthetically, in the florist industry, and their tender fiddleheads are prized as a food 

source by some. All play significant symbiotic roles in natural settings within high 

latitude forests and, in may cases, may be indicator species for subtle or dramatic 

environmental change. 

THE BOTANICAL FOREST 

All of us are challenged to become, if not already, vigilant stewards of our lands. 

There are a number of points necessary to any future discussion when considering not 

only the cryptogams, but all ‘botanicals’. These five points are: 

1. Demonstrating the potentially useable cryptogams defined here as 

mushrooms, lichen, mosses, parasites of mosses, lichen, and 

mushrooms, slime molds, fern, horsetails, and cubmosses. 

2. Pointing to potential uses of cryptogams could lead us 

3. Conceptualizing that will ultimately drive the harvesting of cryptogams 

4. Knowing how to sustainably and ecologically remove organisms 

5. Providing recommendations to initiate our dialogue. 

First, the organisms. 

ALASKAN CRYPTOGAMS WITH COTTAGE INDUSTRY POTENTIAL 

FUNGI: SEASONAL

Ascomycetes, the ‘sac’ fungi (cup fungi to many) READINESS

True Morels

Morchella angusticeps Spr. 

 M. deliciosus Spr.

M. esculenta Spr.

 False Morels

Gyromytra (Helvella) gigas Spr.

True Truffles

Geopora cooperi f. cooperi Sum. 

Basidiomycetes, the ‘club’ fungi (the mushrooms to most) 

 

HYMENOMYCETES

Polypores

Ganoderma applanatum Sum.

Laetiporus conifericola Sum.

 Boletes

Boletus edulis Sum./Fall.

 B. edulis var. varipes 
105

B. mirabolus Sum.

 B. subtomentosus Sum.

Leccinum scabrum Sum. 

L. testaceoscabrum Sum. 

Suillus brevipes Sum./Fall. 

 S. cavipes Sum./Fall. 

Tooth fungi

Dentinum repandum Sum. 

Chanterelles

Cantharellus cibarius var. roseocanus Sum. 

(cf. C. subalbidus)

Agarics

Armellaria cf. Mellea Sum. 

Pleurocybella porrigens Sum. 

Pleurotus sapidus Sum. 

Rozites caperata Sum./Fall. 

Agaricus arvensis Sum./Fall. 

Coprinus commatus Sum. 

C. atramentarius Sum. 

 The GASTEROMYCETES

Epigeous Puffballs

Calbovista subsculpta Sum. 

Hypogeous False Truffles

Macwanites americanus Sum./Fall. 

Hypogeous True Truffles

See the Ascomycetes above 

LICHENS:

 Foliose

Peltigera apthosa Spr./Sum./Fall 

 Fruiticose

Cladina rangiferina Spr./Sum./Fall 

MOSSES AND LIVERWORTS:

 Mosses

Polytrichum stictum Sum./Fall 

Sphagnum magellanicum Spr./Sum./Fall 

S. fallax Spr./Sum./Fall 

 Liverworts

Herbertus aduncus l Spr./Sum./Fall 

(cf. Porella navicularis)

PTERIDOPHYTES:

 Club mosses
106

Lycopodium annotinum Sum./Fall. 

Horsetails

Equisetum arvense Sum./Fall. 

 Ferns

Polystichum minutum Sum./Fall. 

Second, potential uses of mushrooms. 

1. Aesthetics 

2. Cottage industry development (floral, supplying ‘farmer’s’ markets, tourism. 

3. Outings and nature center activities 

4. Research for assessments, management, agency-mission oriented, 

undergraduate and graduate. 

5. Eligibility by individuals, local and distant table marketing 

6. Biological supply for educational purposes 

Third, the conceptualization of what drives harvesting 

1. Forest management policies and practices 

2. Sustainability programming and protocol development for assemblages 

of vastly different species. 

3. Species richness 

4. Relative abundance 

5. Frequency of occurrence (cool/warm, wet/dry) 

6. Organismal reproductive biology 

7. Overharvesting effects on renewability 

8. Biological and spiritual roles played and contributions made to dynamic 

forest equilibria (natural balances) 

9. Regeneration time 

10. Effecting natural perturbations 

Fourth, what is really needed for fungal sustainability considerations? 

2. Inventories of species and species complexes 

3. Biological diversity in changing landscapes 

4. Literature development 

5. Identification of funding sources 

6. Understanding genetic plasticity/variability 

7. Habitat preferences/selection 

8. Identification of endangered species 

9. Sharing Western European with Indigenous/Aboriginal knowledge 

10. What exactly goes into cottage industry development using 

cryptogams 

11. Cultivation potential 

12. Religious/shaman/spiritual significance 

13. Dialogue on the following: 

regulation (+/-) 

certification 

state vs. federal vs. tribal vs. regional corporation lands 
107

education and training programs 

feedback for managers 

persistent and varying limitations 

use impacts 

symbioses 

clearing house for data basing 

SYMBIOTIC ASSOCIATIONS DEMONSTRATED BY CRYPTOGAMS 

Symbiotic relationships in and amongst the cryptogams exist in lichenicolous 

fungi and lichens (parasites), commensal saprophytes (decomposers), mycorrhizae of 

all trees and vascular cryptogams, and to some extent even in the mosses (mutual), 

and in the lichens (mutual). Parasitic relationships demonstrate harming of the host 

species. In commensals, only one partner traditionally benefits while the other is 

‘unharmed’. In mutual relationships, both partners benefit from the relationship. These 

relationships further emphasize the delicate and dynamic nature shown in the balance 

demonstrated by all organisms within the ‘system’. And, it is the system we are most 

concerned for from the standpoint of its general health and well being relative to the 

cryptogams living within. 

REGULATION 

Formal regulations presently do not pertain to non-commercial cryptogam use or 

removal from Alaskan forests, nor should this necessarily be a major goal for forest 

managers either. The topic of permits “varies from landholder to landholder, and how 

the resources are used”. “On Forest Service land, as well as most other federal 

landholders in the state, gathering for personal or subsistence use doesn't require a 

permit, but commercial use does require one for the gathering and removal of 

cryptogams. Harvesting is not yet a problem here in Alaska, but it can be. Do we certify 

such harvesting? Are training programs needed and to be developed in conjunction with 

balanced management practices? Who should best do this sort of instructional training? 

And, what limits if any should be placed on these sorts of harvesting activities? This 

topic is perhaps better left to be resolved in detail by the Landholders panel. 

These questions are best addressed sooner than later, but must be addressed in 

the context of how cryptogams are presently being utilized. Cooperators (public, private, 

state, federal, managers, and scientists) need to have a conduit for providing input of 

pertinent bits of information so the decision processes are based on all aspects of 

renewable and sustainable harvest protocols. At the forefront of our thinking should be 

how we, as only one species, best fit into the dynamic balance of the natural forest 

system. We should be cognizant of fragile equilibria demonstrated by dynamic forest 

systems. Ecological and symbiotic relationships demonstrated by “users” should be 

unraveled to further our understanding and appreciation for these relatively complex 

forest systems. Monitoring practices equal to all should be collectively detailed. They 

should be employed and perhaps facilitated through a single ‘clearing house’ for 

gathering, condensing, and reporting to user populations that information needed so 

that we don’t alter the very systems we are attempting to protect and harvest. Funding 
108

should be identified and implemented in support of species inventories so that 

managers and assessors have at their disposal the latest and most relevant information 

available. 

LIMITING FACTORS AND CONCERNS 

Problems arise in that there are too few professionals of cryptogamic study or 

translators of indigenous knowledge. Too little research is presently funded or focused 

on cryptogamic populations. And when there are efforts, all too often they are 

conducted by international investigators because local pools of knowledge are too 

limiting to meet needs. Literature is scanty and affords inconsistent recognition of 

“edible” species or errors in identification such that ‘trial and error’ consumption puts 

users at risk. Variances are all too frequent in fruiting responses, as affected differently 

by warm-dry summers, warm-wet summers, cool- dry summers, and cool-wet summers; 

hence, the need by cryptogamists to repeatedly visit, collect, and study the same or 

similar sites successively and over multiple years. 

For Alaskan cryptogams, the following specifics should be addressed if not 

formally, then informally so that any NTFP user is ‘aware’ of the dynamic nature in their 

existence, persistence, and renewable sustainability. 

COTTAGE INDUSTRIES 

At this point in time only a few cottage mushroom ‘farming/growing’ attempts 

have be made in Alaska. Part of the problem is that there are tremendous up front 

expenses without guarantees of success in growing, maintaining an even production, or 

marketing the products. A few folks ‘forage’ for the economic gain to be gleaned by 

collecting birch polypore/bracket fungi for drying and grinding for added value to pipe 

smoking tobacco, or drying and ashing for added value to chewing tobacco. Others 

simply know of a few easily recognizable edible species found in spring, summer, and 

fall that are not easily confused with lesser well known species that may be harbingers 

of life threatening toxins or gastrointestinal upsetting contaminants. 

FOREST MANAGEMENT 

No ‘Holy Grail’ for the growth of any of these organisms in Alaska exists. Anyone 

attempting to culture them, out of necessity ‘reinvents the wheel’. Many of the fruit 

bodies of deliciously edible fungi are also mycorrhizal formers and have never been 

successfully cultivated. Some will grow in culture vegetatively, but will not ‘fruit’.

Norvell (1995) used the term “adaptive management” whereby research is 

inextricably linked to standard management practices; thus, management practice and 

/or plans become the experiments needed. 

CYCLES 

Cycles in the forest vary from year to year. Some represent almost insignificant 

change while others represent major shifts in dynamic equilibria. Even during ‘normal’

cycles, there are ‘mast years’ and mean or lean years. For any one group of organisms, 

users may be able to ‘exploit’ any given site only every third, fifth, seventh, or tenth 
109

year; part of the difficulty in performing inventories of fungi unlike inventories of vascular 

plants that are present essentially each and every year, unless over harvested. 

Life spans of many of these organisms are simply unknown. And, the debate 

about what an “organism” is in the fungal world continues to rage on. We can easily 

demonstrate fungal mycelia in the wild, but from it we can tell neither the species to 

which it belongs nor it relative age. 

TAXONOMY 

There are simply too few folks working in this regard throughout all of Alaska and 

its five huge ecotones; Arctic, Subarctic Interior, NW and SW Arctic, South Central, 

Maritime tundra, and SE coastal cold temperate Rain Forests. Much work is needed, 

and particularly in the realm of genetic interpretation, before we can even begin to 

unravel the complexities of taxonomic determinations and the naming of species. For it 

isn’t until we know species that, in many cases, can we even begin to ascertain edibility. 

HABITAT DISTURBANCE 

Partial or complete disturbance has been shown to partially or completely reduce 

and/or annihilate associations deemed necessary for cryptogams in old growth or late 

second growth forest. Mild perturbation seems actually to stimulate spore germination, 

hyphal and mycelial growth, and even fruit body production of some species. 

Ectomycorrhizal mycelia do disappear however, with the cutting of mycorrhizal host 

species, those that often times are the economically important species. In some cases, 

there may be greater potential for economic gain by harvesting the NTFP than to cut 

and market the forest itself. In some cases, total destruction, as in the case of severe 

and/or hot forest fires, may actually be the single most needed precursor to massive 

one-time fruitings of economically ‘fruitful’ growth/fruiting responses like that for black 

morels. 

POLLUTION 

It has been shown that several different types of pollution, be they greenhouse or 

industrial gasses, heavy metals, aeolian sediments, aeromatic hydrocarbons, 

aerobiologicals (contaminating propagules), or ‘overuse’, may be deleterious to many 

species over the short or long term. 

OVERHARVESTING AND DEVELOPMENT 

Simply, not enough biological information to assist our full understanding of 

harmful effects exists for Alaskan systems, common sense not withstanding. For 

cottage industry development, success is predicated on careful management and longterm persistence! 

Development of these NTFPs are often stimulated in response to economic 

calamity resulting from political see-sawing, industrial production reductions, down 

sizing or closures, or catastrophic events (fire, tsunami, global/climate changes). Often 

we merely need to determine the value system to be implemented and/or the valuation 

we place on the product. Remember that the greater economic reward may actually 

reside in the NTFP, a concept currently misunderstood by many. Record keeping, 

paperwork and/or computerized accountability are paramount to any taxed-based 
110

system of economic development. Tax-free harvesting is presently the norm for 

cryptogam harvests, if not the driving force presently for many NTFP. And, we must 

consider the user and the intrinsic value of the ‘products’ gleaned or gathered from our 

balanced forest ecosystems. Are they to be ‘distributed’ wholesale, retail, or for their 

spiritual values? 

These are questions we need to consider before jumping out of the gate for the 

rush toward Alaska’s pristine forests. 

CONCLUSIONS: Take-home Messages On Cryptogams 

1. Cottage Added Value ‘Industry’ (CAVI) should depend more on ‘nomadic/itinerant’

collecting of annually renewed resources rather than attempts to ‘culture’ due to: 

a. The high costs in materials and finances for initial set ups and 

maintenance; 

b. The uncertainties of fruiting responses in any one area/region during 

any given year, a function of soil moisture, temperature, substrate 

inoculation, and having a thorough understanding of the reproductive 

biology and roles played by species taken; 

c. Any cottage industry is a long-term commitment to the missions of 

finding, collecting, preserving, packaging, and marketing with no 

assurance of large sum income. 

4. Low-intensity, long-term monitoring and inventory development to assess species 

and species availability are mandatory as their presence and abundance is 

intrinsically linked to environmental parameters and having this knowledge is 

paramount to the success of any CAVI utilizing cryptogams. 

5. Market and management driven funding is needed to correlate cryptogam 

productivity, habitat preference, disturbance sensitivity, and environmental health to: 

6. Develop long-term monitoring, 

7. Successfully build meaningful inventories, 

8. Ascertain adequate monitoring procedures, 

9. Understand the reproductive biology, symbioses and host interactions, population 

dynamics, genetic plasticity, fruiting responses, 

10. Integrate scientific findings with indigenous knowledge to maximize the harvest and 

creative uses of NTFP products. 

11. Use mission oriented data gleaned from research to; 

a. Assess cost effectiveness, renewable and sustainable harvesting, 

b. Provide forest managers with ammunition to engage in proactive, 

cause and effect assertions rather than reactive, after-the-fact knee 

jerk responses to ‘crises’,

c. Develop a meaningful and non-burdening permitting system cordial to 

the process, and encouraging to its participants. 
111

CYCLES IN THE FOREST: MAMMALS, MYCOPHAGY, AND MYCORRHIZAE

Supplemental Material From:

Gary A. Laursen, University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Rodney D. Seppelt, Australian Antarctic Division, Tasmania, AU 

Maggie Hallam, University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Abstract 

Interior Alaskan forest cycles involve symbiotic white spruce, Picea glauca

(Moench) Voss var. albertiana (S. Brown) Sarg., as host to numerous epigeous 

mycorrhizal fungi and 12 hypogeous ectomycorrhizal ascomycetes (4 sp.) and 

basidiomycetes (8 sp.), parasitic spruce broom rust fungi, Chrysomyxa arcotostaphyli

Diet., and small mycophagous mammals, principally the Northern Flying (Glaucomys 

sabrinus) and Red (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) squirrels, and the Tundra Redback vole 

(Clethrionomys rutilus). 

White spruce live in mutualistic symbiosis with mycorrhizal fungi. Fungal mycelia 

engulf root tips. Mycelia are much finer than either roots or root hairs and the spruce 

benefit by this increased absorptive surface area for the uptake of labile nutrients and 

water from nutrient poor soils. Spruce also gain physical protection for its root tips 

engulfed by the mycelium. This “gloved casing” provides a barrier from other 

microorganisms seeking to invade roots. Mycorrhizal fungi also produce antimicrobial 

compounds that deter competition from other fungi and microbes. In turn, the fruitbodies 

of epi- and hypogeous mycorrhizal fungi benefit from a supply of sugars and amino 

acids from its host. Spruce may even be growing in more northern boreal forest 

locations where they would not otherwise persist without the advantages of mycorrhizal 

symbioses. Concomitantly, mycorrhizal fungi would most likely not be present without 

the spruce. 

Parasitic fungi, specifically Spruce Broom Rust (Chrysomyxa arcotostaphyli),

occur abundantly in boreal forests of interior and Southeast Alaska. It is here the range 

of spruce and kinnikinnick or mealberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi [L.] Spreng. var. uvaursi) coincide. Germinating rust spores on spruce result in perennial systemic infections. 

Fungus produced auxins cause prolific branching of the spruce. The resulting limb mass 

is called a ‘Witches’ Broom. Other regions of the spruce continue to grow normally. 

Fruiting of the rust fungus occurs on the broom’s needles causing the tell-tail orange 

‘rust’ coloration. In the fall, needles are shed and the broom appears as a mass of dead 

twigs. Northern Flying and Red squirrels take advantage of these dense branching 

clumps. Squirrels “hollow out” brooms, raise their young, and then cache limb-dried 

epigeous and hypogeous mycorrhizal fungal fruitbodies for their winter food supply. 

Trees ultimately die from repeated attack by parasitic rust and wood rotting fungi, 

insects, and from mechanical damage. Heart and root rot fungi begin the process 

toward eventual felling of dead trees onto the forest floor. Here, they continues to play a 

critical role in mammal mycophagy and mycorrhizal cycles by providing “travel conduits”

over the forest floor on raised walkways leaving spore-rich feces as forage. Some 

spores even require this “right of passage” through a rodent’s gut as a necessary 

precursor to germination; thus, completing the forest cycle. 
112

This complex biological system is dynamically balanced within the physical 

environment where any changes will be reflected in organismal biology. Increases in 

microbial activity can exacerbate and only increase concerns for altering rich carbon 

sinks and the further release of greenhouse gases (CO2). The need exists for more 

integrated research to fully understand and appreciate the balances in nature for high 

latitude ecosystems. 

Information Contact: ffgal@mail.uaf.edu
113

FUNGI AND THE WEB OF LIFE 

Slideshow Presented at the Conference Trade Fair by:

	




Masters Student University of Alaska Fairbanks 






Senior Research Professor of Mycology, University of Alaska Fairbanks 
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123

IN THE ROOTS OF THE FOREST 

Supplemental Material From:

B. Luke Bruner 

Ecological communities consist of organisms linked together in complex 

networks by their feeding relationships. Energy, as it cycles through the system, is 

manifested in many subsequent forms. The essential properties of these living 

systems arise from the interactions and relationships between those organisms and 

their environment. By understanding how these communities are organized so as to 

maximize their ecological sustainability, we ourselves can build and nurture a more 

sustainable society. A sustainable society is one that satisfies its needs without 

diminishing the prospects of future generations.

The challenge is to maintain the integrity of the habitat while drawing on it for 

sustenance. Like the loose violin string that is only brought to freedom by tying its ends, 

we must treat the forest with care and restraint. The paradoxical concept of liberty, one 

limited only by the freedom of others, mandates sustainable resource use. 


##%

Those that have never been touched, 

And those in which man has gained harmony. 

-Paul B. Sears 

Respect often comes from a better understanding, a perception of the complex 

interrelationships between the diverse elements of the forest. The authors of The Nature 

of Southeast Alaska (O’Clair 1992) have come to believe this as well. “The study of 

natural history is the first step in repaying our debt to the earth. We believe that to take 

our natural inheritance for granted is tantamount to ensuring its destruction. From 

teaching, we’ve learned that appreciation awakens a sense of stewardship.”

But ask now the beast, and they shall teach thee; 

and the fowls of the air, and they shall teach thee; 

or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee. 

-Job 12:7-8

As the population in Southeast Alaska increases beyond the historic carrying 

capacity we must seek creative and novel ways to support ourselves from the land 

without destroying the very source of the wealth. As in any healthy relationship, there 

must be elements of giving as well as taking. While ignoring the long-term costs, it is 

easy to feel the false benefits of a boom and bust economy based on the liquidation of 

“resources”. We know from our personal experiences that without a balance of 

exchange, a relationship is bound to fail. The short-term benefits of an uncreative 

relationship with the land have not outweighed the long-term loss of habitat and 

productivity. Often neglected in the presence of false temptation, the virtually free 

services of a balanced ecosystem are the resources we must not take for granted. 

Despite the diversity of life, it is still possible to discern some sort of order and 

organization in nature, and create metaphors for the complexity. The naming and 

classification of organisms provides a universal scientific language and reveals 

evolutionary and ecological relationships. Taxonomic and ecological studies are 

essential to unraveling and elucidating these patterns. Although the accumulated 
124

observations are leading to a vision of infinite yet unified complexity, science does not 

allow for faith. The absence of faith can easily be capitalized upon by demanding 

statistical proof of the importance in maintaining ecologically balanced communities 

before changes in natural resource management policies are made. Unfortunately, 

proof of demise comes only too late. We must then draw upon the larger pool of 

wisdom available to us. 

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. 

We have created a world that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. 

-A. Einstein

The roots of an ecological worldview weave through all cultures and belief 

systems. The established techniques of science are to break a system into small parts, 

necessary for our limited perception and time. But these parts must be pieced back 

together and viewed holistically. All parts are artificial units created for purposes of 

study, but are in reality interwoven into the fabric of life, the whole being greater than 

the sum of its parts. 

The major problems of our time cannot be understood in isolation. They are 

systemic problems, which means that they are interconnected and interdependent. 

Scarcity of resources and environmental degradation combine with rapidly expanding 

populations to lead to the breakdown of local communities. Ultimately these problems 

must be seen as just different facets of one single crisis, which is largely a crisis of 

perception (Capra 1996. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living 

Systems). It derives from the fact that most of us, and especially our large social 

institutions, subscribe to the concepts of an outdated mechanistic worldview that reveals 

few of the nuances necessary to build sustainable communities.

The forest is best viewed as a web of relationships, rather than a simple 

collection of organisms. Culturally unable to perceive ourselves as a complex set of 

relationships or as unique communities able to channel energy towards creative ends, 

we project our own conception of individualism onto the external environment. We must 

reconsider the limits at which the organization of life exists. Our growing ecological 

knowledge, along with traditional spiritual wisdom, is leading to a greater awareness of 

the ultimate interconnectedness and interdependence of the universe. The distinctions 

between organisms are being blurred in favor of a clearer perception of the relationships 

between organisms. In the absence of the host of organisms that support us and create 

a hospitable environment, we ourselves would not survive.

To develop a stronger sense of the web of relationships in Alaskan forests, it is 

useful to put abstract ideas into context by qualitatively describing the physical and 

tangible network that holds the components of the forest ecosystem together. In a very 

real sense, fungi weave the forest ecosystem together. Some of these fungi, along with 

a diverse assortment of soil microorganisms, form a symbiotic or mutually beneficial 

relationship with the rootlets of plants called mycorrhiza (from myco, fungus, and rhiza,

root). Fungal mycelia form a sheath of hyphae around the rootlets of host plants and an 

exchange of nutrients takes place. Mycorrhizal fungi provide many valuable “services”

for the greater community, playing strong roles in nutrient cycling and supporting 

diverse soil communities, while protecting fragile rootlets. The rootlets provide the fungi 

with moisture and organic compounds (such as carbohydrates), while the fungus aids 

the roots in the absorption of phosphorus, inorganic nitrogen, and other minerals, 
125

supporting complex photosynthetic and other biochemical processes. The diversity of 

this fungal-root association provides plants with a range of strategies for efficient 

functioning in an array of plant-soil systems. Almost all plant species belong to genera 

that characteristically form mycorrhizae. The mycorrhizal condition is the rule among 

plants, not the exception. 

Although the majority of mycorrhizal fungi are occasionally seen aboveground as 

mushrooms, many have evolved to fruit underground (false and true truffles). The 

spores of these essential fungi are vectored to new plant hosts as a result of the 

foraging activities of animals; none are so essential as the small mammals that seem to 

have co-evolved with the truffle fungi into this multifaceted mutualism. Truffles are 

dependent upon animals to smell them out, dig them up, consume them, and disperse 

their spores. 

Study of the fungi supports the belief that northern forests are composed of a 

complex range of connections and interactions, rather than simple disconnected 

individual components. A primary goal of this ecological research is to demonstrate 

dynamic relationships that exist in the forest ecosystem, increasing public awareness of 

the importance of maintaining the integrity of the total system, and lending support to 

the shift from the single use concept of resource management to the more globally held 

view that the value of the forest takes myriad forms. 

The elements of respect and sustainable use of the land are based on an 

understanding of the balanced relationships inherent in a natural system. Scientific 

study complements and enhances the traditional spiritual understanding of the cycles of 

death and rebirth, the movement of waters, and the transfer of energy between the 

elements of the system. Both are integral and intertwined. The documentation of the 

ecological processes can lead to a deeper spiritual connection. Even as the simple 

beauty of a flower is enhanced by knowledge of the inherent complexity of its very 

presence, one’s sense of stewardship can be enhanced by a broader ecological 

awareness. 

The traditional spiritual understanding is based on observations accumulated 

over many generations and on an underlying faith based on those observations. The 

web of life is a timeless idea used to convey the interdependence of all phenomena. 

The importance of a legend is not whether it can be proved true but whether it helps you 

find the truth. Perception of the web of life is enhanced through a synthesis of scientific 

ecological studies and traditional ecological wisdom. 

“This we know; 

the Earth does not belong to humanity; 

people belong to the Earth, this we know. 

All things are connected. 

Whatever befalls the Earth 

befalls the children of the Earth. 

We did not weave the web of life, 

we are merely a strand in it. 

Whatever we do to the web, 

we do to ourselves.”

-Chief Seathl 
126

This page was intentionally left blank.
127

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN ALASKA 

Jim Freed 

Professor, Special Forest Products Extension, Washington State University 

There are many opportunities available to anyone wishing to become involved in the 

harvesting, manufacturing and marketing of NTFPs. The one thing all opportunities in 

this area have in common is Hard Work. These opportunities come in all shapes and 

sizes. 

A New Product By A New Company. 



!$ 	#

$###!&

! 

And example would be if you could find a white huckleberry for the fresh fruit markets. 

You will have a product that will stand out on the store display shelf. 

The problem with having a huckleberry different than the other huckleberries is will the 

consumer know how to use it. This will mean you will need to educate the consumer to 

the fact that this is a new berry that can be used with all the existing recipes for 

huckleberries, but will provide them with a different taste and look to their finished 

products. 

In developing markets for new products you will need to insure a consistent supply for 

your buyers. This lack of a track history on meeting the demands of the market place 

and having no reputation as a high quality company will be a major hurdle keeping most 

good new products out of the market place. 

An New Replacement Product by a New Company 

Developing a market for your product when it is not a new product for the market place 

is a very daunting task. The product you are about to produce and market will start out 

with and established competitor. Added to this you will be marketing a product that no 

one know the producer of. Name recognition is a powerful marketing tool. 

To market a product that in its self is not new huckleberry jam for instance you will need 

to market some other way that it has an advantage to your target consumers. 

Other consumer advantages that a new replacement product can have are: 

• Made in Alaska – many companies are building on the desire of people to buy 

local as a way to support their states economy and people. 
128

• New size containers – by providing a different package you can interest 

consumers in your products. A small package for the person living alone or who 

have small food needs due to special diets. A larger package for people who 

need to by bulk for economy of size. 

• Specialty Packaging – a product that is place in a disposable container so that 

hikers, fishermen, bikers, recreational vehicle owner, campers and hunters can 

burn or compost it. Self-heating packaging has the advantage of no cooking 

equipment or fires. 

• Multipurpose packaging – Packing wild herbs in a glass container that has a 

shape of a small mug will enable it to be saved for use as a drinking mug. The 

same mug container can have a removable top that enables the user to have a 

saltshaker when attached. 

• Unique shaped packages – Packaging designed by local artist can become 

collector items as well as providing a useable product. 

• Local products local service – promoting the fact that if the store or buyer wants 

more they can have it fast because it is produce locally. Also if there is a 

problem you can fix it quickly. 

• Product made with small scale traditional methods – marketing the fact that your 

products is not mass produced and in fact uses traditional methods and 

equipment will peek the interest of many consumers. 

Helping an Existing Producer Open New Markets 

What this method of marketing does is give the new producer an established marketing 

program to market their products through. The most common way to enter this market 

is by private label branding. 

Private labeling is where you produce a product that does not have your name on it. 

Hundreds of small companies supply stores with products that have the store name on 

it. Safeway, Kroger Albertson and Wal-Mart are some of the largest buyers of private 

labeled products. 

The major problem in private labeling is the sizes of the orders are usually quite large. 

Where a small new producer may only be able to produce 1,000 units a year of a 

finished product one of these large companies may need 10,000 per month. 

A smaller version of private labeling is to join with an existing company that has a small 

market for fresh fish and would like to provide their customers with additional products 

from your area. By your company producing a products that has this small companies 

label on it they can sell as their own. 

Some companies will join together many products to make one gift pack. A gift pack 

with Alaskan smoked salmon as the centerpiece and all the products needed to make 

the total meal as part of the package is a very successful format to look at. 
129

New Marketing Techniques 

If you look at the many products that come for the forest with the same eyes as farmers 

look at there horticulture crops you will see the many new ways to market your 

products. In fact most non-timber forest products have more in common with 

horticulture commodities than with timber commodities. 

HortiForestry is a new way of looking a production and marketing of products from the 

forest. Some of the markets that area available to hortiforestry products are: 

• Framers direct markets – these markets focus on quality, freshness, natural, wild 

and organic products all of which are what forest fresh products are 

• Consumer direct delivery – the Swan Ice Cream Company exemplifies this kind 

of marketing. The consumer places an order for a product one day and has it 

delivered in the form and amount they need the next day. 

• Wholesale direct delivery – this is where the producer has an established set of 

cliental that is usually small commercial in nature. The producer takes orders by 

phone, fax, e-mail in-person and deliver the desired products directly to the user. 

An example would be a producer who supplies all the fresh wild fruit and 

vegetables to local bakeries, restaurants and small-scale possessors. 

• Recreational harvesting – This is similar to u-pick strawberries and u-cut 

Christmas tree. An owner of forestland will provide opportunities to individuals, 

families or small light commercial consumer to come and pick their own products. 

This method of marketing NTFPs meets the needs of many consumers to 

experience the activity of harvesting. The experience is as important as the 

products. 

• Wild Gathering Guiding – Developing a certified guide service that provides wild 

gathering experiences to individuals, groups and families is a growing market 

worldwide. Especially if the person doing the guiding is a native Alaskan. This 

method of marketing can be linked to an existing fishing, hunting, camping, 

boating, and convention or tourist activity. It will provide additional resources to 

these activities for marketing their programs. 

The opportunities and markets are many. It will take hard work and lots of patience. 

The average new company will need 3 to 5 year to become profitable. If you are in it for 

the long run as an individual or family than you have lots of opportunities to succeeded. 
130

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THE COMMERCIAL UTILIZATION OF 

NON-FOREST RESOURCES OF FOREST LANDS

Elstun Lauesen 

Consultant, The Alaska Resources Commodities Trading & Investment Corporation 

(ARCTIC) 

In 1984, the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. (TCC) undertook an ambitious planning 

effort which took over a year to develop. The result was a Five Year Overall Economic 

Development Plan for the TCC region [1]. The plan outlined over 60 projects and 

milestones to cover the 5-year period from 1985-1990. 

The TCC planning office identified commonalities among those projects which were 

based upon “renewable resources”: they had high subsistence or traditional use, their 

utilization is based upon existing skills, the resource is readily accessible, and the 

resource has some readily achievable commercial value. A large number of those 

resources are what is termed here as ‘non-forest resources’.

It made sense to TCC to consolidate the development of those renewable resources in 

order to more efficiently achieve marketability. The Alaska Resources Commodity 

Trading and Investment Corporation, or ARCTIC, was formed to direct the research and 

development, planning and design, capital formation, marketing, and the product-tomarket QA/QC needed to meet market specifications. ARCTIC was formed as a 

cooperative corporation with each village in the region capitalizing 100 shares of the 

company. Eventually, both grants and loans were secured to finance the needed 

working capital and equipment for ARCTIC. 

ARCTIC’s twin missions were to ensure that the production of commodities was 

‘appropriate’ for the local culture (non-invasive and not competitive with 

subsistence/traditional uses) and to ensure that the distribution of benefits and burdens 

of ownership was ‘equitable and fair’.

CASE STUDY. Claire Burke Corporation, Minnetonka Industries (MI), Minnetonka, 

Minnesota. Commodity: Two tons of white spruce cones for potpourri product. 

ARCTIC hired a consultant, Charles Walsh, owner of the Alaska Tea Company of 

Fairbanks, Alaska to assist in the research and development of botanical products. An 

advertisement in an herb commodities market report led us to contact Minnetonka 

Industries. Minnetonka Industries was searching for an alternative source of ‘tree cones’

to use in their ‘Claire Burke’ line of potpourri which they distribute through Nordstrom’s

stores, among others. Their existing source of cones, the South African Sugar Pine, 

was being excluded due to a boycott of South African products. The consultant secured 

a description of the South African cone and compared the form, size and weight of that 

cone with the Alaskan-grown cone. The size, weight and form of the two types of cone 

were close enough to warrant a contact with MI. After a preliminary discussion with MI, 

we mailed a sample to them of our cones. After receiving them, MI telephoned ARCTIC 
131

and discussed price and shipping specifications. Upon receiving a purchase order for 

tonnages of the product, we produced specifications, a price list FOB Fairbanks, Alaska, 

deadline for receipt of shipments, shipper agreement, warehousing agreement and all of 

the numerous details involved in consolidated shipping deal. We were required to 

deliver the product on a three different dates. We agreed to invoice each shipment 

separately. We agreed on a price of $4.50 per pound FOB Seattle. Many trials and 

errors attended the startup of this project. The first shipment resulted in a net loss, the 

second, a breakeven, and the third a small profit. 

Other Ventures

• Natural Dye. ARCTIC conducted an inventory of dye producing plants with the 

intent to produce an intermediate product for sale to the textile and cosmetic 

industries. We contacted the Cosmetics, Toiletries, and Fragrances Association, 

a trade group as part of our market research. CTFA contacts expressed an 

interest in a “sourcing” agreement with ARCTIC. We explained that we were 

interested in being more than a supplier of raw material. They were currently 

conducting an inventory of their own on a global basis and stated that they would 

be back in contact with us after completion of that effort. This lead was never 

completed. 

• Ice Cream. ARCTIC established a research and development agreement with 

“Hot Licks Ice Cream” to produce and test various combinations of wild berry 

flavorings to ice creams and sorbets. ARCTIC would be the source of the 

intermediate flavor products used in the production of the Ice Cream. At the 

time, the company was utilizing a 100% Alaskan product, including Big Delta, 

Alaska dairy base to produce it’s creams. Consumer testing resulted in a strong 

interest in lingonberry yogurt and blueberry ice cream. European market inquiries 

and product interest (particularly lingonberry) was promising. Agreements were 

never finalized to (1) consumer test, market and secure German Distribution 

through the Office of International Trade, U.S. Department of Commerce; (2) 

develop a European product labeling, (3) Lufthansa shipping agreement to 

German distributor; (4) complete ISO-compliant design production schedules and 

many, many more details. Our efforts with the company did result in some 

permanent retail flavorings in their wholesale/retail business. 

• Wild Stand Enhancement. Dr. Patricia Holloway studied the uses of a in situ

enhancement technique for valuable indigenous crops, such as berries. ARCTIC 

was especially interested in her research because it had the potential of 

increasing the productivity of a forest stand while maintained the plant diversity of 

the surrounding bioculture. A good stand of blueberries, for example, could be 

enhanced by removing competing plants within the berry stand itself. Thinning of 

woody plants and other larger growths around the plants would occur. 

Fertilization at the patch root would also be completed. We were especially 

interested in the application of Dr. Holloway’s techniques in Villages with supply 

agreements with ARCTIC. 
132

• Forest teas, berries and herbs. Utilizing a publication called the Herb Market 

Report, we identified niche markets for northern forest plants. Chamomile oil 

represented a strong product. Analysis of our indigenous chamomile 

demonstrated high oil content, flavor and color. This product was of interest to 

Mercantum, Ltd (NY); Lingonberry (High Bush Cranberry), Lingonberry flavoring 

was an important ingredient in the production of Latka, a drink popular in 

Germany. We learned of a search for suppliers of an intermediate product 

(Concentrate) for shipment to Germany. We provided samples. This product was 

of interest to Bayerwald, Ltd. (Germany) and Philippe Bergen, Ltd. (Canada). I do 

not know if either company is still in business under those names. Aromatic oils 

extracted from black spruce needles provide the terpines, which are valuable 

industrial feedstock for preservatives & solvents.
133

BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS FOR FOREST CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 

ON KAMCHATKA (THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST) 




	




 

The International Project of IUCN-The World Conservation Union “Building Partnerships for Forest Conservation and 

Management in Russia” is funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and was started in 

October 2000. 

The Project objective is to create the conditions for effective 

partnerships between governmental and social organizations and 

to draw different social groups into the process of decision-making 

for forest conservation and management. The Russia-wide Project 

consists of 3 components: “Assessing the Management 

Effectiveness of Protected Areas”, “Public Involvement in Forest 

Management”, and the regional component “Building Community 

Capacity for Sustainable Non-Timber Forest Products Harvesting, 

Monitoring, and Marketing on Kamchatka and Sakhalin.”

The objective of the non-timber forest products (NTFP) component 

is “to build the capacity of local communities to establish 

ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable NTFP-based 

businesses through a participatory process.”

The major partners of IUCN 

Office for Russia/CIS in the implementation of the NTFP component are the 

Indigenous peoples communities and associations of Kamchatka and 

Sakhalin; NGOs; scientific and educational institutions; other international 

projects and organizations, such as the IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forests 

Program, and the United Nations Development Program; natural resource 

managers; and local and regional authorities. 

The NTFP Component develops opportunities for the integration of Native 

people interests and values, the priorities of protected areas, and sustainable 

NTFP-based small business development. We provide business and legal 

training; consult on small business development, including community-based 

enterprises; and support sustainability and monitoring programmes. 

The NTFP Component was started only a year ago, but it has been already done a lot to meet its objectives. Through 

workshops and active discussions with community members the NTFP products have been selected for further test 

marketing. Emma Wilson, the Project Consultant from the Scotts Polar Institute, the UK, has done a lot of work on 

building partnerships with local communities. The communities did a lot of independent work to select the products 

according to the proposed criteria, which help to assess economic and environmental sustainability of a potential 

product. With the help of Tim Brigham, the NTFP business development consultant from Canada several marketing 

trainings were provided to local communities. Local communities organized Herbal Tea Competition with tasting of 

various traditional and original recipes of herbal teas prepared by community members, including Russians and 

Natives. The Competition turned into a marketing research, participants saw how popular herbal teas are, on the 

basis of the questionnaire distributed, they made some preliminary conclusions on the potential of some specific 

herbal tea recipes for further small sustainable business development. Aboriginal community leaders believe that this 

competition was a very positive experience, and it should be turned into a regular Herbal Tea Festival. 

Finally, local communities for test marketing in Russia and abroad produced some samples of herbals teas, dried 

berries, and the original hand-made packaging for these products. The test marketing this fall demonstrated clearly 

high interest to this product of Canadian and Alaska businesspeople that were interested in further business 

partnership with Kamchatka producers for marketing these products in North America. 

The workshop in the village of Anavgai, 

the Bystrinski District of Kamchatka 

Kamchatka herbal teas and 

wild berries jams 
134

One of the basic principles of the project has been a participatory approach to project development and 

implementation. This allows for more pragmatic decisions based on local experience, but also gives the community a 

stake in the project. Although community economic development is the primary goal, the participatory approach led to 

cultural benefits being given more attention in the project. The revival and sharing of Indigenous knowledge –

especially for younger people – has been identified by participants as a key concern, and will be a focus of 

educational materials developed in the project. Currently our local partners are developing publications on the role of 

NTFPs in material and spiritual culture of the Aboriginal nations of Kamchatka. They are looking for partners to 

develop these publications further. 





Itcha Volcano, the highest 

volcano of the Bystrinski Nature 

Park, the World Heritage site 

since 1996 
135

WILD PLANTS AND ALL OUR OTHER RELATIONS: 

THE ETHICS OF USING, DEVELOPING, AND MANAGING NONTIMBER FOREST 

PRODUCTS


	


Research Geographer, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station 

This is a very important time to talk about the ethics of NTFPs and I am honored to be a 

part of this panel. People have probably been using NTFPs for as long as people and 

forests have existed in the same places. But something is changing. 

More people are interested in NTFPs than have been for several decades, at least. 

Also, different kinds of people are interested for different kinds of reasons. It’s important 

that we talk about what we want the human and ecological results of those changes to 

look like. 

I hope I can contribute to that discussion this morning by sharing with you what I have 

learned from the dozens of people who gather NTFPs who have been kind enough to 

invite me into their kitchens and take me out into the woods of the northeastern United 

States. And from academic colleagues who have worked long years elsewhere in North 

America and abroad. As a scientist, I am going to pick apart the rich lessons they have 

taught me about how NTFPs work and how they have worked in the past. Then at the 

end I’ll try to reassemble them into a kind of ethical compass for the future. 

According to Martin Buber, questions of ethics are actually questions about the nature 

of right relationships: “In the beginning was relation.” In the case of NTFPs, I believe 

that there are two kinds of important relationships -- relationships between people and 

plants and relationships between people and people. Both are equally important and, in 

fact, they are inextricably linked. 

The importance of relationships between people and plants is clear from the fact that 

many cultures, disciplines, spiritual & intellectual traditions have developed rules to 

guide those relationships. The form, emphasis, and tone of these rules or codes varies 

quite a bit from spoken prayers to written prescriptions for calculating how much should 

be harvested and how. The specific details also differ, often depending upon the way a 

plant species reproduces itself and the part to be harvested. But as I present four sets 

of rules or codes from very distinctive sources, I think you will see that their intents are 

similar -- to promote a relationship between the gatherer, the act of gathering, and the 

plant materials being gathered that ensures the survival of both. 

These rules were shared with me by a woman who harvests over 40 different NTFPs, 

mostly for her own use and for family and friends. She is also an artist who uses many 

natural materials in her work. Anny is active in recovering and teaching Native 

American culture and practices in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. One of her 

grandmothers taught her how to gather when she was a little girl. 
136

In 1995 and 1996, I interviewed more than 40 gatherers of all ages and ethnic 

backgrounds in a very rural part of northern Michigan -- the Upper Peninsula. One of 

the questions I asked people was, “Are they any rules that you follow when you gather? 

Are there things you will and will not do?” This list is a compilation of those rules. Not 

everyone followed all of them, all of the time. Some people were certainly more 

thoughtful and careful than others. And as I said before, the specific rules that are 

important depend partly upon what is being gathered. But this list is a clear indication 

that gatherers from all backgrounds recognize the need to relate responsibly to the 

plants and places that they gather. 

This list of rules is from Peterson’ Field Guide to Wild Edible Plants, one of the classic 

field guides for gatherers and would-be gatherers. When I compared these rules with 

the things gatherers told me they do, I was struck by how similar they are. 

Nancy Turner compiled these rules based on confirm whether it was work with a single 

group of elders or decades of work with people in several tribes. They also 

emphasize... 

One of the things we often overlook when we talk about conservation of NTFP species 

or their potential as economic development opportunities are the relationships between 

people, the social relationships, that are at the heart of the way NTFPs are harvested 

and used. But if there is one thing that a half dozen years of studying NTFPs has 

taught me, it is that the relationships between people, the rules that we set up to govern 

those relationships, and the way that we organize the economics of gathering have 

direct and profound impacts on both the social and ecological results of NTFP use. For 

that reason, I’m going to talk at greater length about four types of social relationships 

surrounding NTFPs. 

We may not often think of it that way, but knowledge is shared through social 

interactions. There is a respectable body of scientific knowledge about NTFPs that we 

share through the written word in books, papers, and on the Internet. But in terms of 

human and NTFP history this is a pretty new and incomplete repository of information. 

By far the greatest store of knowledge about NTFPs exists in people who gather and 

use them. This knowledge is so important that people have developed special ways to 

preserve and transfer it. The Midewiwin, the medical society of the Ojibwe tribes, had 

an elaborate system for training initiates. But the most common way of sharing NTFP 

knowledge is through older family members teaching younger members, taking them 

out into the woods and fields and teaching them what they know. On these outings, 

older people share what they know about the plants that they use, the places they grow, 

and how to use and prepare them. But a good deal more is shared, too. Information 

about how to survive in a particular place is passed on. So are important stories and 

cultural practices. There is also a very nice, mutually beneficial balance between the 

knowledge of the older people and the physical strength and energy of the younger. 

This is the stuff of material and cultural survival. 
137

Another key set of social relationships are the arrangements we make to allow of 

prohibit people from being able to get to NTFPs and use them. These arrangements 

can be informal or traditional agreements or they can be formal laws and statutes. 

In Vermont, where I live, only a percentage of forested lands are owned by public 

agencies or industrial interests. The rest are in the hands of mostly small non-industrial 

private forest landowners. Vermont law states that unless private land is posted “No

Trespassing,” people are allowed to come onto it for activities like hiking, hunting, and 

berry picking. However, Vermont tradition dictates that if you are going to do that you 

check with the landowner first. That way you can agree on terms of access that work 

out for both. Like everywhere, lots of new people are arriving in Vermont who don’t

know the area’s traditions. So the Vermont Woodlands Association has recently printed 

up these signs. 

Permit systems are a formal way that access to NTFPs is controlled on public lands. 

Permits can affect access to NTFPs in at least three ways: 1) the price of a permit, 

which can be anywhere from free to definitely not, can put a sort of income filter on who 

can legally gather an NTFP, 2) the place(s) where gathering is allowed, whether they 

are easy or hard to get to, whether they concentrate gatherers in an area or spread 

them out across the landscape, all influence who has access to NTFPs, and 3) any 

season that is established obviously affects when people may have legal access. 

Anyone who has ever harvested an NTFP knows that it is hard work. But there’s also 

something very satisfying about it and one of the things that many gatherers value is 

that, within the boundaries of plant seasons and conditions, they are able to make their 

own decisions about when they go out, for how long, how they work, and when they 

stop. This makes gathering a very flexible activity that fits in with other work and 

responsibilities. It also means a gatherer can work only as long as they need to meet 

their own needs. It also lets them make decisions about harvesting based on their 

judgment of the ecological conditions. Of course, most people gather in groups. So 

those things have to be negotiated within the group. 

However, we can create social relationships that reduce or eliminate this control over 

the terms of labor. For example, if permit or lease prices are set too high for the people 

who actually do the gathering, they will be bought by others who are then in a position 

to make those kinds of decisions about the way the work of gathering gets done. To the 

extent that their interests are different from a gatherer’s -- they want to make a profit 

rather than just meet basic needs, they have made commitments to fill orders -- they are 

likely to make different decisions about things like what weather people work in, how 

long they work, the tools and techniques that get used, and how much gets harvested. 

People for whom the flexibility was important -- women with small children, the elderly, 

people with disabilities -- are likely to be left out of such arrangements. 

Which brings us to the distribution of benefits from NTFPs. Throughout the world and 

throughout history, cultures have developed systems for distributing the benefits of 

various NTFPs. In the central Himalayas, the fallen leaves and thin green branches of 

trees in community forests were traditionally reserved for widows. Nancy Turner’s
138

research shows that although families and tribal groups had their own NTFP patches 

and territories, they often shared with others who were suffering from a shortage. 

For the last century or so, in the United States NTFPs have been a resource for those 

who have been left behind by the market economy and/or are struggling to maintain 

special cultural practices. For example, wild rice has been a staple of diets in the Upper 

Midwest for centuries if not millennia. It was a trade good in the 1700’s and 1800’s and 

it sells for a premium today. In the early 20th Century an anthropologist studying the 

Fox tribe of Wisconsin? reported that a local game warden had forbidden tribal 

members to harvest their traditional food, probably because he wanted to assure better 

foraging and, thus, better hunting for waterfowl. In the 1990’s, I interviewed a man in 

his early 20’s. He did grounds maintenance at a county fair facility in the summer and 

held down the occasional odd job at other times. But he appeared to have a mild 

mental disability. While he could work, he likely couldn’t hold down a steady, 

demanding job. When I met him he was trying to get a bough cutting permit so that he 

could cut and sell enough to pay some bills. Unfortunately, the minimum permit size 

was 2 tons -- way more than he intended to cut -- and he didn’t have the $20 dollars to 

pay for it. 

Clearly, today, in the United States the kinds of relationships we cultivate with plants 

and between people will determine the social and ecological affects of NTFP use, 

development, and management. The lessons from my own research and that of others, 

but most importantly the experience of gatherers, suggests an ethical compass for 

charting our future actions. 

In terms of NTFPs, an ethical relationship is one that consciously promotes the survival 

and even the thriving of both people and plants, especially the most vulnerable. 

Of course, this isn’t an easy proposition and there will be times that the welfare of 

people and plants or the welfare of different groups of people will appear to be in 

conflict. We will still have to make hard decisions and engage in some vigorous 

negotiations with each other. But as we do so, we can check with this compass to be 

sure we are tending in the right direction. 

I’d like to close with the words of a couple of people who have taught me a good deal. 

The first is a researcher whom I have never met, but who has spent many years 

working in the acknowledged Third World. The second is a friend and teacher, an 

Osage woman raised in Wyoming who now lives in Vermont. 

WILD Plants & All My Other Relations 

I have been taught 

 that all beings are my relatives 

 (the plants as well as the animals) and 

 entitled to the same dignities and survival. 

I have been taught that we, 
139

 as participants in the Circle of Life 

 have no choice but to take from it, 

 and in so doing 

 inevitably alter that Circle. 

I have been taught that not only 

for our own survival, but 

 for all the others within the Circle of Life, 

we must maintain a balance and harmony 

 within that Circle, 

 for our Mother, the earth. Nova Kim, 1995 
140

THE NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY: 

KEYS TO SUCCESS WITH ‘GOODS FROM THE WOODS’

Tim Brigham 

Consultant, Duncan, British Colombia 

♦ Find Your Niche 

♦ Develop Relationships 

♦ Practice Responsible Harvesting 

♦ Be Creative in Marketing 

♦ Explore Value-Added Opportunities 

♦ NTFPs in Community Development 

WHAT IS A NTFP?

A Non-Timber Forest Product is: 

any product from the forest made from plants or animals – other than timber, 

pulpwood and firewood.

NTFP CATEGORY EXAMPLES

wild mushrooms chanterelles, morels, pine mushrooms 

florals and greenery birch poles, club moss, bog birch stems 

& branches 

medicinals senega root, rat root, highbush 

cranberry bark 

wild berries blueberries, lingonberries, pincherries 

other wild edibles fiddleheads, hazelnuts, wild mint, 

syrup, sap, honey 

landscaping products transplants, seed, large driftwood 

craft products birch bark, red osier dogwood, cones, 

moss & lichen 

animal products antlers, bone, fur 

other NTFPs smoke woods, essential oils 
141

But Will It Work? 

A (Fairly) Quick & Easy Feasibility Study 

1. Background 

• what 

• why 

2. Raw Material Supply 

• is it out there & can you get your hands on it? 

3. Processing/Handling Needs 

• what is required? 

• do you have the expertise & facilities? 

4. Marketing 

• demand 

• distribution 

• pricing 

5. Final Checks 

• finances 

• regulations 

• skills 

6. Putting it all together: is it worth it? 

• the math 

• yes/no 

• if yes: how to proceed 

The Nature of NTFP Markets 

♦ markets often specialized and limited (niche) 

♦ production and consumption often seasonal 

♦ production can be highly variable 

♦ some products highly perishable 

♦ lack of secure access to sources of supply 

♦ ‘imperfect’ market information 

♦ ‘dynamic’ aspects 
142

ADDING VALUE: Potential Benefits 

• better returns to producers through capturing more of the final value locally; 

• possibly less impact/better use of resources; 

• potential increase in employment at the local level; 

• increased potential for income/employment over a larger part of the year. 

ADDING VALUE: Potential Challenges 

• Are financial and human resources available? 

• Do you have the long-term supply of resources to support an added-value 

strategy? 

• Can you meet the requirements of the market? How easy will it be to break 

in? 

• How long will it take to recoup costs? 

• Can you handle the risks? 

WHERE DO NTFPs FIT IN? 

NTFP INDUSTRY SEGMENT ESTIMATED ANNUAL VALUE 

• wild mushrooms (BC) $25 - 45+ million 

• morel mushrooms (Saskatchewan –

1999)

$1 million 

• floral greenery (BC) $55 - 60 million 

• herbal medicines (wildcrafted – BC) $2 - 3 million 

• The Rest ?

• TOTAL (BC) $82 - 108++ million 

Why Train for NTFP Business Development?

♦ Economic development opportunity 

♦ Improve access to information 

♦ Help address industry problems 

♦ Increase ability to respond to dynamic nature of the industry 

♦ Provide marketing techniques/ideas 
143

Appendix VI – Conference Pictures 







Conference Registration table. Left to right: Maynard 

Nuss, Mark Weatherstone and Erika Reed. 

Each participant received a tote bag with samples 

of Alaskan NTFPs and other information. 

View of Lake Spenard from the Millennium Hotel. Mitch Michaud and Linda Christian prepare for the 

day’s session. 

Rita Blumenstein, tribal doctor, Southcentral 

Foundation Traditional Healing Program. 

Landholders Panel. 
144

The Conference Planning Committee continues its 

work during a break. 

Secrets to Success Panel. 

Traditional Uses Panel. Conference participants network during a session 

break. 

Richard Baldwin, Seeds of Alaska. Bob Gorman, Forest Products Specialist, UA CES; 

member of NTFP Conference Planning Committee. 
145

Participants engage in further discussion after the 

Social, Ethical, and Spiritual Aspects Panel. 

Biological Sustainability Breakout Session. 

Economic Opportunities Breakout Session. Landholders Breakout Session. 

Traditional Uses and Social, Ethical, and Spiritual 

Aspects Breakout Session. 

Conference Banquet. 
146

Banquet helpers. Attendees share Alaskan experiences at the 

banquet. 

Elmer Makua speaks at the banquet. Mitch Michaud presents Linda Christian with an NTFP 

gift from the Conference Planning Committee. 

Mitch Michaud presents Rachel Morse with an NTFP 

gift from the Conference Planning Committee. 

Rita Blumenstein shares a story at the banquet. 
147

The author of Magic House displays her work. Linda Christian. 

John Zasada displays his birch bark goods. Conference participants returned home with an 

assortment of NTFP-related door prizes. 

Marlene Cameron displays her birch syrup 

products. 

Creations from Rusty’s Workshop. 
148

Close up of birch syrup products. 

Alaska Tribal Cache products. 

Alaska Teas. More NTFP door prizes. 

Linda Christian enjoys Talkeetna. 

Talkeetna—the final destination for the Valley Tour.
149

Made in Alaska fair—the first stop on the Valley 

Tour. 

Alan Vandiver’s driving skills at work. 

Birch baskets at Made in Alaska. 

More birch baskets. 

NTFP spoons. 
150

Joey Pavia finally catches some salmon. 

Talkeetna Lodge. 
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the

principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry

research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed

by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to 

a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center

at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300