Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

BREAKS ASSOCIATION, INC. Mr. Robertson. Good morning, Senator. As a businessman I am appreciative of your leadership and support for the President's programs to move this country back to economic well-being. The excesses of past programs and policies now face us with the potential for staggering billion-dollar Federal deficits. This whole issue of forest and wilderness is timely given your need to address Federal agency funding whose programs comprise these deficits. The reason that vast roadless areas remain in Idaho is economic. It is the result of geography and climate. In order to make a profit, the timber industry in central Idaho has had to contend with poor access, steep slopes, highly erodible soils, slow regeneration, and in many areas the thin distribution of commercial saw timber. They have also seen that the poor economic health of Idaho's timber industry is caused not by a shortage of timber from national forests, but the same economic factors which have affected America's other basic industries, such as, steel, autos, and coal. Economic conditions have forced timber companies to reexamine their competitive position in a changing marketplace. Given the constraints of high labor costs, harvest costs, obsolete equipment, long distances to market, low productivity of forest land, and low return on investment, is there any reason why Idaho timber companies should not be expanding their operations in the Southeastern United States? Where does that leave the timber industry right now in central Idaho? Current Forest Service practices of offsetting marginal timber sales with road credits will continue to keep some people employed for the near term. Welfare of any form only alleviates the problem. It cannot cure it. Subsidized timber harvests kept people employed at the Riggins sawmill. But when disaster strikes, the economic realities come to bear and the mill cannot be rebuilt at today's costs and investors' need for a competitive return on investment. So where are we? First, we need to get the real facts on roadbuilding and future maintenance costs, sale administration costs, harvest costs, regeneration costs, dollar losses to fish and wildlife habitat, and put the return to the Treasury on past sales in the Clearwater and Nez Perce Forests. Second, we need to review and strengthen if necessary the in progress joint State/Federal economic study of the value of biggame herds and anadromous fisheries in Idaho. Third, through the Idaho Tourism Board, we need to plan and conduct a study to measure the economic impact that tourism and recreation brings to the Idaho back country and the potential where we could competitively market this resource. Fourth, based on these findings, objectively and unemotionally we need to evaluate these roadless areas with a determination for the highest economic return given the potential for profitable timber sales, mining, outfitting, and guiding, and other recreation. 461 Fifth, this is not a political numbers game of so many acres of wilderness. We must accept that so many acres such as Jersey Jack and Mallard Creek are not suitable for profitable timber operations, nor does the area seem to fit the criteria for wilderness. A national recreation area seems to be more appropriate.