Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Mr. Echohawk. Thank you, Senator. My testimony would be split into two segments. First I would like to comment on behalf of the Shoshone Bannock Indian Tribes, as you know I served as their legal counsel, and I would like to make some comment in my ca pacity as a State representative. To begin with, on behalf of the Shoshone Bannock Indian Tribe, I represent approximately 3,100 citizens in Idaho, and their concern has to do with their off-reservation treaty rights which may be af fected by the designation of wilderness areas within the State. Pre viously they laid claim to approximately 20 million acres of land, a vast majority of those lands being located within what is now the State of Idaho pursuant to the 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty. The Indi ans relinquished the claim to those lands in exchange for the prom ise of the United States to protect them on the reservation that would be the size of approximately 1.8 million acres. As a part of that bargain, the United States recognized the right of the Indian people on Fort Hall Indian Reservation to go off reservation to ex ercise rights, pursuant to the treaty, to hunt and fish on unoccu pied land of the United States. The Indian people have also been recognized as having rights to timber access, to timber, and to get food gathering for subsistence needs; they are also concerned be cause many of the areas now under consideration have a religious significance to them. They, I believe, would just as soon as see all of the lands now under consideration be protected to the fullest extent possible, being designated as wilderness; although, at the same time realiz ing that that is in reality not going to come about, they would like the Idaho delegation to consider their rights that are protected pur suant to Federal law under the treaty. And one of the observations that they would like to make is that in the previous legislative action that has been taken with regard to public lands, very little, if any, consideration is ever given to the protection in the continu ation of those treaty rights, and they would like to offer to the Sen ator's staff and the services of their legal counsel and staff people to coordinate to make sure that their rights are protected. Many times, I think, their main concern is on the sale of public lands, any disposition of the public lands, their treaty rights do not neces sarily carry forward. Although that is not what we're talking about here, we would like the opportunity to sit down with the staff of the Senator and take a look at whatever legislation is proposed to see that there is maybe some protective language built in there so 573 that the Indian tribes do not further have their treaty rights di minished. I just would like to mention very briefly that the main areas that they are concerned about would be the White Clouds area, the Lost River range, and the Lemhi range, for the reason that those areas are areas that are very important for their salmon fishing re source. In previous years the tribes had abundant fishing opportu nity for the anadromous fish; in the last 5 or 6 years their rights to salmon fishing have been severely restricted. Also in the eastern part of the State, the Garns Mountain, Palisades, and Bear Creek areas are particularly of concern to them because of the big game and wildlife considerations. In my capacity as a State representative I would simply like to mention that I feel that the people in my legislative districts are very much concerned about public lands issues. Most of their con cern has been with regard to the asset management program, the possible sale of Federal lands. And I know that this hearing is not meant to address that particular issue, I appreciate the Senator's availability of the meeting tomorrow and I understand will address that subject, but on the wilderness designation, what I'm concerned about is the people in my district. I don't know if they really un derstand the various classifications that are being talked about, so I'll speak in very general terms. I think that what they want to see is the basic character of the lands remain as they are now; whether that comes through a wilderness designation or not, I don't think they want to see a great deal of development take place in those forest lands without some pressing economic need. I know that many of the areas that are under consideration right now are actu ally, as far as timber sales go, maybe subsidized by the Govern ment. If the lands are to be developed, I believe that they should be developed on their own merit for economic reasons. And I think that one of the other considerations that we, as citi zens of Idaho, all have is that we have a State that has a lot of these wilderness areas. I think they ought to be protected; I think it's important to the tourism industry. And I would urge the Sena tor to give very careful consideration, be very cautious. Although we say that it's been under study for 20 years, I would hope that we will not make any snap decisions. And in some of the areas that may be questionable, I would like to see a cautious approach taken. I think it's better that we be — if we're going to error in any way, to do that on the safe side in protecting those lands for further consid eration at a later time. Thank you.