Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Mr. Anderson. Yes; I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I don't know how long I'm supposed to take, by the way. Four minutes, thank you. As I understand it, we're here today to decide what to do with extra lands as far as wilderness designation in Idaho. This issue has gone on far too 717 long, and I'd like to see it — and I'm speaking as just a personal tax payer here, no side to take here. But I would really like to see this issue settled once and for all. Most importantly, I'd like to see it settled for the average citizen, and not for a special interest group on either side of the issue. In a country with a growing population, setting aside land for a small minority of people does not make sense. On one side of the issue are the environmental groups who want to lock up everything. These groups say that we must lock up land for our children and their children's children so that each genera tion will be able to enjoy the mountains, lakes, and forests. As a parent I want this too, this is a fine goal. On the other side of the issue are the commercial interests that need the land to produce lumber, minerals, and to provide grazing. As a consumer, I don't want to have to pay more for these products than necessary. So the only logical alternative to this issue of wilderness designation is multiple use of the land. We presently have a Government agency well equipped to care for our public lands, the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service has done a fine job of providing access to all land user groups, and let's give them due credit for that now and ask, why should it be any different in the future? True, some groups in the Forest Service may have prejudices which affect their decisions for or against a particular form of recreation or com merce, but as a whole the system works well. Environmental impact statements provide a very effective way of curtailing any misuses which do occur. I'd like to give an example of probably how much the wilderness people use if we were to set aside a lot of this land. Our national parks in Yellowstone, if you drive along the highway there, you will see thousands and thousands of people enjoying the sites. You take a daylong hike, say 1 to 3 miles, one way, you may still see dozens of people enjoying themselves. But if you take a hike of a longer distance, say 8 to 10 miles, which is more typical a length that is required for wilderness use, the number of people drop to a handful. By the way, this is a very popular park and millions of people and visitors who have come each year have not destroyed it yet. Further, if we are to believe environmental groups, animals cannot exist side by side with man, for example, along Yellowstone Park's paved highway, where elk and buffalo are common sights there. Wise use of our lands through multiple use is the only fair and reasonable way to use our public forests. High quality backcountry can be maintained for all recreational users, while at the same time providing access to public lands for commercial users. Wilder ness advocates who want to limit access and use of public lands are every bit as selfish as a careless industrial user who damages the land for an extra buck. I would like to urge the use of multiple use and please keep our lands open for the people.