The Black Hills that we see today is NOT what early-day visitors encountered. 

 Nineteenth century accounts describe a forest dominated by fire. A forest with more 

 openings, more aspen, more chokecherry and other brush. And pine stands more 

 open than the dense stands that we see today. We see in these old pictures and jour- 

 nals a landscape with more grass and browse and less timber than exists today. 



But I'm here today to tell you why I think multiple use management works for 

 our diverse Black Hills economy. And, the reason it works is exactly because we 

 have a checkerboard of federal law governing the historical development of this 

 region. Our present economic situation absolutely mandates a multiple use resource 

 management approach if the Black Hills area is to prosper! And I'm here to tell you 

 we are going to prosper! 



Today, in addition to the basic, early natural resource industries of mining, graz- 

 ing and logging, we have added tourism and recreation as equally important part- 

 ners in our interlocked resource economy. Mining today, and for many years, has 

 offered some of the best paying jobs in South Dakota. With the current low price of 

 gold, and the depletion of some rich ore deposits, the mining industry is at a cross- 

 roads. There is little we can do about either problem. 



The mining industry has accepted reasonable regulation and taxation. But, we 

 must guard against those who would overzealously regulate mining — as well as the 

 timber industry and the cattle rancher — out of business. Likewise, grazing has been 

 an important industry here. Responsible grazing can complement efficient manage- 

 ment of our forests and grasslands. 



But, as I speak to you today, the timber industry is in a crisis. Both in the short- 

 term and long-term, the supply of logs is uncertain. We have lost at least 80 jobs 

 this year, and I fear we will lose more in the near future. These jobs, too, are some 

 of our highest paying, full-time, permanent jobs. Unlike mining, these jobs are not 

 dependent upon a finite resource like gold ore, but on trees — a renewable resource. 

 You cannot convince me we should be losing jobs in the timber industry, even for 

 the best of intentions. 



As I said earlier, sawmilling began with the earliest settlers and miners. It contin- 

 ues today and will continue to the foreseeable future. But at what level? 



Five billion board feet of logs have been harvested since the Forest Service began 

 keeping records in 1898. 



How much timber remains today in the National Forest? Five billion board feet. 

 The same amount we have harvested, and certainly a lot more than was here 100 

 years ago. Lack of trees to harvest is not the problem. 



The longer-term question is how much timber will be available from the National 

 Forest over the next 10 to 15 years. Not only in South Dakota, but nationally, there 

 are concerted efforts underway to curtail timber harvesting in National Forests. 



I'm particularly concerned about our rural communities in the Black Hills. Recre- 

 ation in many forms — hunting, fishing, hiking, sight-seeing, camping, winter 

 sports — are all important to our livelihood. But, equally important is the backbone 

 of our Black Hills economy, ranching, logging, and mining. These industries provide 

 permanent, steady income. These industries are compatible with each other and, 

 with recreation, often enhancing rather than detracting from recreational opportu- 

 nity. 



We must recognize our present Black Hills Ponderosa Pine forest is in an unnatu- 

 ral condition. It is much thicker than it would be if left to the whims of nature. 

 When settlement occurred, fire suppression began. Ecologists estimate that, in its 

 natural state, each average acre burned once every 15 to 20 years. Think about that. 

 What it means is fires burned about 60,000 acres of the present 1.2 million acre Na- 

 tional Forest each year! Or looking at the entire Black Hills ecosystem, an average 

 of at least 100,000 acres burned annually. 



Quickly jumping to the present, we see that by eliminating a major natural regu- 

 lator of forest growth an unnatural, dense pine forest resulted. I say all this to illus- 

 trate that, while we certainly cannot allow 100,000 acres to burn naturally, we still 

 must regulate forest density for fire safety and other reasons. 



And, the thicker the trees, the less grass under them. Water yield is also very 

 important. The thicker the pines — the less water. So, timber is important — the 

 thicker the trees the slower they grow, and the more likely they are to be attacked 

 and killed by bark beetles or burned in a wildfire. 



Virtually every benefit we derive from our forest requires management. I believe 

 the best and most cost-effective management is a responsible combination of com- 

 mercial logging, precommercial thinning and prescribed burning when, and where, 

 it can be safely accomplished. 



For all these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to continue to aggressively 

 manage its lands in the Black Hills by maintaining a strong timber program. 



