Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Mr. West. I also appreciate the opportunity to speak here today, and I must comment on a misconception. I came here, well, con cerning grazing rights, I was not under the impression that they were allowed in wilderness areas. Therefore, I have to pose a rhe torical question in that if grazing is permitted in wilderness areas and the environmental impact that exists will continue from graz ing, then I wonder what the effect of the wilderness area really is. Undeveloped areas exist due to a lack of demand for their re sources. The demand for resources is therefore an economic issue, and wilderness area development affects this demand. We all pay for the natural resources provided by our forests. When we harvest lumber, mine for minerals, graze livestock, and cut firewood, we all benefit through reduced costs in consumer goods. Similarly, when we use our forests for recreation, we benefit from these activities. Unfortunately, none of these benefits come cheap. The presence of man in forests is believed to take a toll on the ecology that may affect the forest and its wildlife in the future. The type of activity will often determine the degree of impact, but as long as man is present, some type of impact will exist. Economic conflicts exist in forest development just as in the mar ketplace. Any commercial development may cost scenic beauty, and recreational opportunities can impede industrial activity. As long as a demand for a resource exists, there will be conflict. With in creased availability of forest resources there will be a reduction in concentrated demand and conflicts. Segregation of resource is not the answer. If we hold a particular area open for intense lumber harvest, the environmental impact of that area will be great, due to concentrated one-type usage. One area cannot efficiently supply all market areas and therefore will increase consumer costs. Segregation of one resources development will also disrupt the development of other resources in that area and cause concentrated development of those resources in other areas. Wilderness areas are examples of poor economic plannng. Wil areas segregate resource development and create concen trated usage in other areas. They also have environmental impacts associated with their type of resource development. Transportation through the area is slow, causing longer duration of human impact on wildlife and ecology. Other costs exist due to trying to find sub stitute resource development areas. There are also lost opportunity costs associated with wilderness areas; there will be no grazing permits, no mineral rights leased, no income of any type. The limited recreational activities allowed in wilderness areas are rarely able to support themselves. Off-road vehicle funds help maintain and develop trail systems. Snowmobile stamps help maintain groomed trails and parking areas. These in dividuals or groups who promote wilderness areas neither have the resources nor the desire to support their own activities, financially or with volunteer labor. Trail and road maintenance is a necessary derness 697 part of ORV, four-wheel drive, grazing, and lumbering activities. We all will benefit from these voluntary efforts. Not all of Idaho's forests are being utilized or developed for any particular use. The wilderness area laws, which restrict freedom, have contributed only party to the amount of undeveloped areas. The other undeveloped land remains undeveloped due to lack of demand. These undeveloped areas cost us nothing because the eco nomic opportunities and recreational opportunities are still there and there is no forced segregation. As a result, there is also no con centrated or one-type usage. Usage will be diverse and dispersed, having the least environmental impact and the least cost. It would seem that wilderness areas have the greatest cost and the fewest benefits. The concept of wilderness areas maintaining land in its natural state, even at great costs, is a pleasent thought, but the attempt is futile because the presence and impact of man is unavoidable. To examine any benefits that may exist due to wilderness areas we must examine those who do benefit. Who are they? They can't be people who supply the rest of us with goods and services, be cause wilderness areas don't allow this. They aren't strict environ mentalists, because they promote activities that do allow man's presence in the forest. Multiple use supporters are often environ mentalists in that they are equally concerned with the environ ment. Multiple use supporters are often involved in environmental cleanup efforts such as trash cleanup, erosion control, and erosion cleanup. Wilderness area promoters are also not supporters of rec reational opportunities because wilderness areas outlaw many forms of recreational activities. The supporters of wilderness areas are members of a small fac tion who strive to eliminate competition for forest resources that they wish to exploit in their own unique way. This exploitation will however be at the expense of everyone else s rights, privileges, and economic well-being. Thank you.