Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Ms. Schwalm. My name is Kathy Schwalm and I represent Out doors Unlimited, Inc., Sawtelle Chapter, and I appreciate the op portunity to testify at this hearing. We are a group of outdoors men and women in eastern Idaho who depend on the Federal lands for our livelihood; we use Federal lands for recreational purposes, we have lived in and loved all of Idaho lands in many cases for generations. I do not want to reiterate all the facts and figures that the forest products industry and the livestock industries and the mining in dustries have given you. They are true and we agree with them. We are an organization that has proposed the multiple use of public lands since the first wilderness activist began proposing the lockup of millions of acres of valuable resources. We believe there are many other management tools available to the Federal land managers and that wilderness should be left for the really special areas. Most of the people that we represent are working folk; therefore, they are not on my mailing list. They are very busy working and so they are not much for joining, going, or signing up. So I have a hard time saying numbers, but there's a lot of us. We believe that proposing every 5,000 10,000 or 15,000 acre piece of unroaded real estate for wilderness is badly warping Congress original intent of the Wilderness Act. I personally have spend a great deal of time in the Sawtooth Mountains and wilderness areas. I can see why that area would be so designated. But Lionshead and Mount Borah, they are just one big nice mountain. Pretty, yes, in their own way, but so are a lot of others. They are not threatened by any big development like log ging, raining, or oil. The Centenials are fun, they're wide open, roaded for years, and they're great for grazing. But wilderness? No. I realize that grazing is allowed in wilderness areas, however it be comes so difficult that it doesn't make it worth it for the grazers. And if it were, why are the sheep and cattlemen not in favor of more wilderness? 667 It disturbs me that so many think that only great, good quality recreation can take place in wilderness areas. My personal, best ex periences have been in nondesignated areas. I personally am a horseback rider but I'm going to fight for the trail bike rider's right to recreate in forest areas and outdoor places, because next will be the horse and next will be the human. Threatening an area with the production of a resource such as timber, minerals, or oil is not a good reason to turn an unroaded area into automatic wilderness. The forest lands, that is, Palisades, Mallard-Larkin, were set aside for just that purpose, for the future needs of a growing country- Who decides when that future becomes present? We all assumed it was to be a free market system, not a big government who would decide. The biggest problem in my experience with the designation of wilderness is that it does not really preserve anything. The five designated campgrounds get so overused it's pitiful, and there become so many rules that it's almost impossible to have a real oldfashioned outdoor experience. If you really want to preserve our mountain areas, we recommend that some other available manage ment tools, such as natural unroaded areas, closures during parts of the year, and multiple-use principles, be used more extensively. Wilderness, if it truly is wilderness, will preserve itself by its very nature. We have many other concerns about the wilderness issue in gen eral.