Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

SAWTOOTH PRESERVATION COUNCIL Mr. Brown. Good morning, Senator, I'm going to summarize my testimony. I believe there are three issues that form the core of these discus sions of the future of Idaho's wilderness. The first one is a critical one; an unprovided defensive need for any rapid legislation is, do those lands which have always been wilderness somehow threaten someone because they are wilderness? If they are not, then the need for any hasty legislation certainly should be questioned. On that question, and it's been touched upon by most speakers, would just mention the fact, that since it has not been fact even though it's been included in someone's ideas and perhaps unwise ly, it does not necessarily mean that it threatens anyone. These lands have been isolated back in the— the word perpetuity has been used, certainly hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of I years. The other question again mentioned by other speakers is that of the sales in Idaho are now deficit sales; that means they are subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. If we need to have deficit sales out of timber as we take timber out of the U.S. National Forests, there can be some question whether we need to open more of it up. If we did that, we could only increase both the fiscal and environ mental damage by doing such things. So I don't believe there's a justification for any hasty legislation. most 611 On the question if legislation is passed — and I recognize some times that things move forward with some inertia. If legislation is passed, I'll append to the list of areas which I think should be con sidered. If legislation is enacted rapidly, I suggest that all 5.6 mil lion acres of roadless area now existing in Idaho should be classed as an appended list of those. On the question of hard release, I consider that principle as em bodying the Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1982, section 2118, to be quite a dangerous ill-conceivance. I realize we don't have legisla tion throughout Idaho yet, and I hope that if legislation is proposed for Idaho, that it be first-classed, rather than through radical no tions. The question on hard release is, it would preclude proper Forest Service management of lands. It would prohibit the Forest Service from an orderly and reasoned land management planning process. It would prohibit implementation of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act. It would mandate second-class status to wilderness because under existing Federal laws that we now have, we now have the requirements that the Forest Service con sider all possible uses, all of the multiple uses in which wilderness, watershed management, and wildlife management are included. If we somehow preclude a hard release principle in any language, wil derness somehow will be denied the ordinary consideration the Forest Service must give in a careful planning process. I believe the protection of Idaho's wilderness lands deserves care ful thinking. Any legislation which mandates radical change must be opposed. Idaho's public lands deserve first-class protection; any thing else would be unacceptable. Thank you.