Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Mr. Clay. Good morning Senators, my name is Scott Clay and I am speaking for myself. I'm speaking also as a homeowner in Idaho Falls, a resident of Idaho, and a staff Navy reactor operator at the Navy reactors facility. I might add, the wilderness areas and proposed areas are used and appreciated by a large number of the Navy people stationed here. I would also like to speak for wilderness. With the idealism char acteristic of most enlistees in this country's Armed Forces, I consid ered it important to do my bit protecting America. Now I must con sider the question: What kind of America do I wish to protect? My idea of America is a country with room to explore, enjoy, and leave unchanged, streams unpolluted due to logging roads, clear streams for trout, and water sources for wildlife of all kinds as well as for the human population. I did not wish to protect an America that plunders its resources for short-term gains. Conservation groups in Idaho have designated 10 endangered core areas, and it is imperative that these be protected, along with much of the remaining acreage. A recommendation should be made only after extensive and thoughtful studies have been completed. Hard release language has no place in any recommendation for wilderness in this State. We as eastern Idahoans must be even more vigilant than resi dents of central and northern Idaho. Our areas are already limited; we have nothing to squander. To give one example, Palisades is a range worth protecting, not just a troublesome stretch of road to cross on the way out of State. On a recent trip to the Gams Moun tain area, I was treated to a more extensive display of wild flowers than I have encountered in years of hiking. Wildlife abounds, and the most striking feature is the absence of man and any sign of his previous visits. This unspoiled beauty is too much to forfeit for doubtful economic gains. We are asked by the timber and mining industries to support a proposal which they say will bring revenues to local communities. Can they promise any appreciable success for any length of time? Their ventures are shaky, doubtful, and perhaps costly to us eco nomically as well as environmentally. Even if they could guarantee success, the environmental tradeoff is serious enough. In many of these marginal ventures, it becomes absurd. Our representatives must listen to Idaho's people, not financial interests, many of -those being out of State interests. The majority of Idaho's people want Idaho left Idaho. Industry must realize that there is no substitute for long-range planning. When the external costs become too great to justify the gain, alternatives must be explored and existing sources more fully utilized. The people of Idaho will not pay for this lack of planning with their heritage. Thank you.