Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, I am Steve Walker representing Riley Creek Lumber Co. of LaClede. During the course of these hearings you have heard from forest industry executives who have urged you to lift the amount of productive forest land set aside as wilderness in your Idaho forest management bill. They have argued that limited wilderness designations are necessary to maintain Forest Service timber sales programs, and, thus, a healthy woods products industry. We do not disagree. However, we think there is an even more compelling reason why additional wilderness designations be kept to a minimum. The national forests are a living, dying, dynamic resource which is best managed by the full professionals of the Forest Service. A drainage by disease can be logged today and provide semi-primitive recreational opportunities within a decade. An area that is clearcut in 1983 can in 10 to 20 years be managed to support a large herd of elk. People who view the national forests as static and unchanging are out of touch with ecological realities. We believe your forest management bill should establish a statutory framework which will provide Forest Service managers with the flexibility to meet changing public demands for forest products and services. To accomplish that objective, the wilderness designations on the Panhandle Forest should be limited to areas where wilderness will always be the best use of the land. Other areas where timber can be harvested and the land then managed for other multiple uses should not be set aside as wilderness. Long Canyon is a good example of an area that should not become wilderness. Mr. Chairman, we hope your bill will also end the roadless area battle in northern Idaho, limit the wilderness designations to the area and boundaries in the proposal made by the Idaho Forest Industry Council, overturn the California v. Block decision as shown in my statement, and end any need for additional wilderness studies.