Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Senator Dobler. I'm Norma Dobler, State senator from district 5. And I'm speaking today on behalf of myself. And I'd like to thank you, Senator, for giving the people of our State this opportunity to express our concerns about the disposition of resources which we hold in joint ownership. When making any type of investment decision, I always draw up a cost-benefit statement setting forth the positives and negatives of each alternative in order to obtain that all-important bottom line which indicates long-term cost benefit. Of course, each area must be analyzed individually. And there will be some variations in results. But general items of paramount importance must be discussed. First, let's look at the alternative of the multiple-use classification of wilderness in terms of total income to the State's economy as opposed to its costs. Tourism is Idaho's fastest growing industry, competing with the timber industry for second place in economic importance. Last year 4 million visitors generated more than 1 billion in income in the State and employed 25,000 people. Tourism in Idaho is very closely tied to the availability of a wilderness experience. For instance, avid hunters from out of State pay in excess of $2,000 each to hire a guide and spend a week or so in the back country. Backpackers and fishermen spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for equipment and supplies. Any subsidy the taxpayers put out for wilderness use such as items—such items as trail maintenance and fire suppression is minimal. Fish and wildlife management is generally paid for through licenses and use fees. Wilderness classification offers protection of priceless watersheds. That value for the drainage of the middle fork of the Salmon alone is estimated at $7 million per year and is of equal importance in other areas. These are truly multiple uses with positive, measureable economic values that allow for perpetual natural renewal of our resources. Now let's look at the other alternative—opening up thousands of acres to logging. Most of the area under consideration is fair to poor in potential timber productivity, difficult as to access, and highly subject to erosion from roadbuilding. Logging operations would severely damage recreational opportunities and cause great monetary loss to related industries as well as loss of jobs in those industries. I've seen a recent analysis on the Jersey Jack timber sale in the Nez Perce National Forest, which revealed that it produced a deficit of 4V2 million on this sale alone because of the high costs of the road construction. This is, in reality, a public-supported subsidy to the industry. Timber is rightfully regarded as an important renewable resource. But in some of the areas under consideration, it really is not renewable and must be considered akin to an extractive industry. In many of the areas in question, the growth period is 75 years or even more. Industries dependent upon harvest from these areas must compete with the Pacific coast where the timber resource is renewed in 20 to 25 years and with the Southeast where it is renewed as quickly as 15 years for some varieties. More than one409 third of all the public forest lands in the State are classified as low site. When low-yield sites are brought into production, tax-supported subsidies are required in order to meet the competition. The taxpayers of Idaho, as well as the rest of the Nation, have grown weary of subsidizing industries. When we subsidize the timber industry, we are depleting a resource that takes many years to renew, if indeed it ever can be renewed. And at the same time we are damaging other industries and preventing them from making a profit. Senator, I sincerely trust that you will carefully examine a costbenefit analysis before committing the taxpayers to further subsidizing an industry that does not have immediate need for the product that would be harvested at such great public expense; compute the costs to the taxpayers in terms of road construction, soil erosion, depletion of the watershed, and losses to other industries of importance to the economy; and compare that bottom line to the income that could be derived from harvest of the timber. Such an analysis may signal a green light in some limited areas. But in some places like Kelly Creek, Mallard-Larkin, the Selkirk Crest, and others, the light will undoubtedly indicate stop—or at the very least a big caution. Of course, the timber industry is important. But so are the other concerned industries. And we must consider the greatest gift for all people. I would suggest that a wiser solution for supplying the recognized future need for timber would be to concentrate on better management practices in order to increase the yield on the more productive forest lands. If memory serves me right, two-thirds of the productive forest land in Idaho is in small—in private ownership, mostly in small woodlots. And there are—there have been proposals made to help those people. And if you would help them in order to do a better management job and increase their yield, it would then leave—make it possible for use to preserve for posterity these last wilderness treasures. A decision to commit an area to exploitation is irreversible. Thank you,