22 



with Federal leadership on these issues, and that means congres- 

 sional leadership too. In fact, the message to the Pacific Northwest 

 for the past 30 years from Congress has not been to protect and re- 

 store and take care of these things, but, in fact, it has been at best 

 a mixed message and at worse a message, in fact, to go ahead and 

 degrade. 



So we can't just begin out in the schools, given that there is not a 

 whole lot of healthy areas remaining, and we need to move quickly. 

 We need Congress to make a very clear statement through very 

 clear policies about what should be done, and I think the best way 

 Congress can act is through the Federal lands first because that is 

 where you have the most direct contact, and to set a new course. 



The agencies, I think, are going to begin to do better under the 

 new Administration, but they probably are going to need even 

 more encouragement and direction from Congress. I strongly en- 

 courage Congress to legislate new watershed protection and resto- 

 ration policies both on Federal lands and then to legislate a new 

 strategy to bring together landowners and others within full water- 

 sheds to create watershed level restoration strategies. This will not 

 happen without the leadership of Congress. 



Mr. HiGGiNS. I believe that is the case. I think that the reason 

 we have such fractiousness right now and such a strong reaction 

 from private landholders is that we have a lack of leadership. They 

 have just kind of thrown it out and said, "OK. You guys grapple 

 with it." I don't think that is a sound approach. And I think that 

 through taking clear, incisive and decisive action, if you look at the 

 Roper polls and the PAC fish report from the Forest Service, there 

 is public support for maintaining biodiversity. It is the local inter- 

 est groups, whether it is the people around Upper Klamath Lake 

 or whether it is the people on the Shasta River, they have a resist- 

 ant subculture that speaks largely to each other. And by forcing 

 some change from top down, you put this on the table. 



And the wider public supports it even though your local constitu- 

 encies oppose it. I am a grassroots up guy though, and I will be par- 

 ticipating on the Eel River in a Forest, Farms, and Fish — We Need 

 Them All Conference and explaining to the people in the Eel River 

 that they are losing salmon and steelhead. That the option of going 

 to fish after working at the mill or farming in the fields to catch a 

 40 or 50-pound salmon as a meal for two weeks for your family is 

 not going to be part of the fabric. And nobody wants to lose the 

 fish, nobody wants to lose tremendous amounts of soil capital. So if 

 we would switch these arguments and put this on the table, we 

 have got ourselves a very powerful political issue here. 



Mr. Hamburg. Thanks very much. I do have some other ques- 

 tions that I will submit. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. Go ahead. 



Mr. Hamburg. Well, how much time will you give me? 



Mrs. Unsoeld. I will give you another minute or two before we 

 call the other panel. 



Mr. Hamburg. OK. Well, Patrick, just to get to something specif- 

 ic that you mentioned regarding progressive policies in terms of 

 logging practices in the Six Rivers National Forest, and I wondered 

 if you could just elaborate for a minute on what that means or 

 what that meant in Six Rivers and what you think that means in 



