Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Mr. Voxman. Bill Voxman from Moscow, Idaho, representing only myself. And I hope that the views will be shared by others as well. In these deliberations I believe it essential that the wilderness question be viewed from the proper perspective. It seems to me that the basic question to be resolved is not how much wilderness is to be gained, but rather how much wilderness we can afford to lose. As you know, most of the roadless areas currently being studied for wilderness classification are presently, in fact, wilderness areas, though they lack formal classification as such. Any plan re718 suiting from these hearings can only diminish the amount of wilderness we now enjoy in Idaho. The real question then is, to what extent should these areas be decreased. I suspect that even many of those who feel that no more wilderness is desirable base this view on their satisfaction with the status quo and do not fully realize that many of the areas which they now perceive as wilderness will no longer be so. I am certainly not in favor of locking up even a major portion of our forests from development. Indeed, as a State employee, my job and salary are largely dependent on the economy of the State, which in turn is obviously influenced by the health of the timber industry. Clearly, an appropriate balance between the needs of the timber industry and the advantages to be derived from wilderness areas must be achieved. In trying to determine this balance it is essential that we do not lose sight of Idaho's unique situation. Our lakes, streams, and forests are among the most magnificent to be found in the United States. But these resources are finite, a concept with which most Americans have difficulty. And the number of people who wish to take advantage of them is steadily increasing. It is easy enough to create people, but it is impossible to create a new Mud Lake, a new Kelly Creek, new giant cedar groves, and new untouched game habitat. Thus, the best we can do for ourselves and succeeding generations is to protect this State's unique heritage, even if this means, and I doubt that it does, a more modest living standard for some of us. What may seem to be adequate now may not appear to be so in the future. I make no pretext of being an economist, but I would not be surprised that any short-term loss of revenue to the timber industry resulting from the classification of additional areas as wilderness would be more than offset over the long run by increased economic gains in sectors tied to tourism and recreation. Consequently, if we are far-sighted and careful, we can, in some sense, be in the enviable position of having our cake—our natural heritage—and eating it, too—economic gains derived from this heritage. I certainly am not familiar with all of the regions that are being considered for wilderness classification. The two with which I am most familiar are the Mallard-Larkins and the Kelly Creek regions. Regions that have already been clearly discussed. I would second what the previous speaker has just said as far as the Minnesaka and Canyon Creek drainaged of the Mallard-Larkins area as well as the Little North Fork. In regard to Kelly and Cayuse Creeks, we should do whatever we can to protect the rather remarkable area that that is now. Specifically, I would suggest that somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 acres be designated as wilderness in the Mallard-Larkins area; this should include the Minnesaka and Canyon creek drainages as well as the canyon of the Little North Fork. In regard to the region emcompassing Kelly and Cayuse Creeks, I would suggest that some 50,000 acres be added to the RARE II recommendation for the Great Burn Wilderness Area. These additional acres would serve primarily to protect Kelly and Cayuse Creeks from any damage to the remarkable and nationally recognized quality of these streams. This area is also a prime habitat for 719 such endangered species as the wolf and grizzly. I might mention that just 2 weeks ago friends of mine from Iowa, of all places, came to visit me primarily for the purpose of being able to fish Kelly and Cayuse Creeks—these friends spent no little amount of money while here in Idaho. In spite of my lack of economic expertise, I would still venture to suggest that the economic benefits gained by protecting Kelly and Cayuse Creeks will exceed any short-term gains from logging these areas, especially in light of the relatively low timber values in this region. In areas that are deemed suitable for development I would urge that increased emphasis be given to finding innovative ways of road construction and logging so as to minimize environmental damage, and so that these areas can indeed serve a multiple-use function. Any costs resulting from the utilization of careful logging practices are certainly justified by the varied benefits from having done so. Finally, I realize, Senator, that you are very much in favor of deciding the wilderness issue now, once and for all. Would it be possible for you to reconsider this objective? Through the years I have observed that you have the rather rare, but admirable, capacity of being able to listen to others and subsequently change your views, and I hope that this might be the case in this instance. I feel uneasy that final decisions made now might not be in our longterm interests, especially since at this time it is almost impossible to determine what these long-term interests are. Times change, ideas change, circumstances change. Therefore, would it not be more prudent to attempt to arrive at a sound decision now on what to do with enough of the lands in question so as to reasonably lessen the incertainties of the timber industry, and yet leave to the process of time and further consideration decisions on areas for which either data is incomplete or for which we cannot now fairly determine what the future should be. Surely we should leave some of the flexibility and options that we currently have to those that follow us. Many of the trees have been and will be present for hundreds of years; this should give some slight perspective on the timeframe we might use to decide their fate.