Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Mr. Hubbard. I'm Deon Hubbard, along with two brothers operate a farm, timber ground, and a plywood veneer mill in Boundary County. I'm an economist by training and an ex-university professor. My proposal is economic in nature. I simply propose to sell these wilderness areas to the wilderness societies. This, in my opinion, would have numerous benefits. One, provide considerable income to the Federal Government. Two, eliminate considerable management costs to the Federal Government. These I estiamte to be about $5,680,000 annually. Three, provide significant property tax income to the local government, which I estimate to be $160,000 annually. This amount is not insignificant to a county that recently rejected a school bond levy, a county where 70 percent of the land is owned by the State and Federal governments, and where 50,000 acres are now set aside for primitive recreation and birds. That leaves a pretty small few of us to support the local government via property taxes. Four, this would give the wilderness societies management antonomy to love and use as they see fit. However, I'm not sure how OSHA would treat the grizzly bears. How would they finance this particular venture? Well, they could solicit funds as they now do for lobbying. Or they could establish user fees which I estimate might be in the neighborhood of $29,000 to $30,000 per user. This whole proposal, you say, is preposterous. But in economic jargon, 'There ain't no free lunch—just economic insanity,' or maybe insane economists. The alternative proposal would have to be that of the wilderness groups which, in effect, say, 'Let us get together and tax them for the pleasure of our special few.' I am in favor of wilderness areas financed and managed by wilderness societies.