Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Senator McClure and Congressman Craig. My name is Tom Robinson. I am regional director of The Wilder 85,000 members with approxi ness Society, a national group mately 400 members in Idaho. I would also like to add that I have a master's degree in forestry with emphasis on economics. I first would like to start off by dispelling the multiple use myth that wilderness is not multiple use. Wilderness is multiple use as determined by the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1980. Wilderness allows for four of the five multiple uses. That includes recreation, watershed, wildlife, and range. In fact, national forests were established with watersheds in mind, protection of watersheds. I would like to say that we do not oppose logging where the value of timber will support access in management costs, providing other resources can be protected. I would urge in this debate that you take a close look at the nature of each area. Basically what is its best use and that this analysis should include economic considerations. I feel that this issue is as much of an economic issue, this RARE II issue, as it is an environmental and wilderness preservation issue. I would also like to say that just as conservationists should not claim every last acre should be protected in Idaho, industry should not use job scare tactics for every acre being considered. Studies have shown that the health of timber-dependent commu nities and the industries are more based on demand and not the availability of timber. In fact, our economic policy came in Wash ington just as it did a study on the California bill showing that in fact jobs will not be lost unless the market conditions are incred ibly harsh. I want to make one last point and that is concerning your re marks on hard release. As I understand it, national hard release language as it has been introduced in the past would require an act of Congress before lands could be considered for wilderness again. It would not be automatically part of the forest planning cycle. That's the difference that I see, unless you have a correction on that, and I would also just quickly add that basically if land had not been developed, land had not been recommended for wilder 85 ness, or should not be developed in 20 years, there's probably a very good reason why they weren't developed and that's probably because they are incredibly costly to access and they would require massive subsidies for road building. Thank you.