Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Mr. Sanyal. Because of what's been said earlier today, I'm going to part from written testimony and try to make a couple points that haven't been made. I'm currently an unemployed natural resource planner. I just returned from 15 months in New York State; and it's great to be back. One of the first things we did when we got back was hike around the Mallard-Larkins. And like the gentleman on my right we did run into a lot of elk and wildlife. And it was nice to know it still existed in Idaho. Without exception, the people we met in New York and in the east—people that had visited Idaho and the west did so because of the wilderness areas that Idaho has. They came here not to go to the wilderness but because the wilderness is something that attracted them. They spent money in nonwilderness areas. They spent money doing recreation related to wilderness. And they left having had a good time. It has been a pleasure to live in the east. But it's also been very frustrating to try to explain to easterners the concept of public land and the concept of wilderness. The issue that we are facing today is not one of whether we have too much wilderness or too little timber or too little money or too much money or money in the wrong places. Its a question of preservation, and not just the preservation of natural resources but the preservation of flexibility to manage these lands for the future. And if you look at the history of the signs of land management, professional forestry goes back 75, 80 years. Wilderness management goes back to early sixties. Recreation management to the forties or fifties. Now, we've made great changes since then. And I think—I like to believe that we're going to make even greater changes in signs of forest economy and signs of resource management. And I think roadless status of some kind, be it designated wilderness or some other kind of legislative protection for these roadless areas will allow us the flexibility of future demands. Thank you.