85 



I fail to see any wisdom in designating additional wilderness 

 areas prior to the release of the revised plan. The public has 

 been and will be given the opportunity to have their voices heard 

 and participate in the planning process. It is fundamentally 

 wrong for us to circumvent the very process we mandated. One 

 point I find particularly troublesome is the fact that if we 

 choose to ignore the best available information from the 

 professionals in Alaska, we set a clear precedent to ignore the 

 entire planning process on forests in the lower 48 states. In 

 short, I would sincerely like the opportunity to weigh and 

 evaluate the findings of our Forest Service professionals before 

 taking such Draconian action. 



By waiting, Congress will still have the opportunity to ignore 

 the findings in the revised plan, but at least it will have some 

 understanding of the consequences of its action. In addition, we 

 will at least maintain some of our credibility by utilizing the 

 time, effort, and almost $7 million that we have thus far 

 expended on the revision of TLMP . 



Mr. Chairman, we have not designated lands as wilderness willy- 

 nilly. While the Wilderness review by federal agencies has 

 spurred the process in most states, and parenthetically brought 

 effective management under final plans to a standstill throughout 

 the West, that process has had public involvement long before 

 legislation every reached the Congress. Agency hearings and 



