Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY Ms. Plaza. Thank you, Senator. My name is Pauline Plaza. I'm a regional representative for the National Audubon Society, a nation al conservation organization with 500,000 members nationwide and 1,200 members in Idaho. We appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about further designation of wilderness in the State. Establishment of a national forest in Idaho 90 years ago had both local and national significance, and we think that designation of wilderness today also has both local and national significance and 631 international significance, since no other country has a national wilderness preservation system. This time our chapters are working with Idaho conservationists on areas, acreages, and boundaries of areas to be designated. Our final comprehensive proposal will be out in October, but at this time we endorse at least the endangered wilderness core and about two dozen other areas. The final acreages, as I say, will be out in the fall. These areas protect watershed conditions, water quality in fisher ies, maintain wildlife habitat, and protect the scientific and educa tional values for which wilderness is so important. I think from this statement it's obvious that wilderness is multiple use as multi ple use is defined in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. In particular, wilderness leaves natural processes free to act. Phenomena such as insects, viral disease create habitat diversity that supports a full complement of wildlife, including such species as elk, moose, black bear, mountain lion, grizzly, wolf, lynx, gos hawk, golden eagle, and a three-toed woodpecker. According to the 1980 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-related activities, 50 percent of Idahoans hunt or fish. They spend an average of $450 per year on this activity. Big game hun ters alone spent $234 per year to pursue species such as elk or moose, whose habitat is best managed as wilderness. This is a substantial wildlife-based economy and it's not even considering the nonconsumptive users who observe, photograph, or otherwise use this wildlife. The lands also returned dollars to the counties as payments in their taxes, so they're not lost as revenue producers. Timber we see as an apparent conflict with wilderness, not a real conflict because on most sites, particularly in southeastern Idaho, timber production can't pay for itself. In short term it forms a sub sidy to the timber industry; in the long term it's a drain on the National Treasury. It increases the national debt; it provides a neg ative return on taxpayers' investment. Costs of sale preparation, road construction, and also future management practices, such as commercial thinning, are usually — are far larger than the receipts received. The Forest Service's own testimony, their own data that I have looked up in forest planning records and other studies, such as Gloria Helfand’s study of the Bighorn-Weitas, indicate this fact very clearly. These kinds of areas with high wildlife and watershed values are much more suited to wilderness management than timber management that would damage the other amended re sources. Finally, we oppose language in a future bill that would bar lands not now designated as wilderness from reconsideration for wilder ness in future planning cycles. This robs the Forest Service of a valuable management tool and also deprives future generations of this choice. Thank you very much.