53 



we won on, and there is every reason to expect that there is going 

 to be protracted Utigation that is going to keep going at great tax- 

 payer expense. 



When I was there before Judge Wanger, there were six lawyers 

 for the defense, from the Forest Service and from the U.S. Attor- 

 ney's Office, all at taxpayer expense. But there is a solution here 

 that is better than litigation, which is going to just keep going on, 

 and that is to begin this transition from the timber focus, this kind 

 of myopic timber focus, to having a focus on recreation, which is 

 called for in the bill. 



One of the most important things I saw in Jack Ward Thomas' 

 testimony is he puts right in here an emphasis on the truth, to 

 seek out, demand, and listen to the truth, however disappointing 

 or disconcerting that may be in the short term, and he is exactly 

 right. It is the same thing I tell the jury, and it is the same thing 

 I told Judge Wanger. 



The truth is that when Mr. Thomas and Mr. Lehman sit here 

 and tell the committee that there are going to be fewer recreation 

 opportunities under this bill, that is inaccurate. The bill provides 

 for hunting, it provides for fishing, it provides for a lot more oppor- 

 tunity for there to be recreation, and that is where the money lies. 

 The below-cost timber sales are costing taxpayers. 



In those same districts, in Mr. Doole^s district, we have expand- 

 ing areas where the population is growing. People need a place to 

 go, and Sequoia National Forest is a good place 



Mr. DOOLEY. If I could just ask you to clarify, the hunting and 

 fishing £ind the recreation opportunities will only be available if the 

 board, the appointed board, agrees that they are consistent with 

 the oversill principles. Is that not correct? And so as far as making 

 a statement that there will be expanded activities, that is not cor- 

 rect unless you have some information about who is going to be on 

 this board that is going to make those determinations and agree- 

 ments. Is that not correct? 



Mr. Boyd. My understanding of this bill is that those opportuni- 

 ties are going to be provided, and if you have a concern about them 

 not being provided 



Mr. Rose. Wait a minute, he asked you a question. 



Mr. Boyd. He did. 



Mr. Rose. Did you answer it? I don't believe you did. Will there 

 be these opportunities unless the board provides them? 



Mr. Boyd. I don't know whether there will be if the board does 

 not provide them. 



Mr. Rose. All right. 



Mr. Boyd. But I would suggest that 



Mr. Rose. So then you do not know whether there will be these 

 added recreation benefits? 



Mr. Boyd. I do know that the bill will provide for all of these — 

 hunting, fishing, and other things — and that they will be enhanced 

 because the streams will be 



Mr. Rose. Provides for them if the board says that they are con- 

 sistent with the management practices in the plan. 



Mr. Boyd. And that is a legitimate concern, and perhaps there 

 should be some language in the bill added to it to specify that these 



