67 



On the question of county payments, Mr. Rose 



Mr. Rose. Summarize, if you will. Go ahead. 



Mr. Wolf. I think that there ought to be some consideration 

 given to changing the whole system of pa3rment in lieu of taxes. 

 What I suggest is that you try on the Sequoia National Forest/Si- 

 erra Nevada area to do it on a test basis and see how it would 

 work. 



My final point would be that a multiple use is realized by apply- 

 ing a wide range of approaches. Preservation of the giant sequoias 

 is part of the multiple-use doctrine. 



Thanks very much. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf appears at the conclusion 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Rose. Thank you very much. I'm going to have to leave. Mr. 

 Condit is going to have to take the chair for a while, Mr. Dooley 

 is going to come back, and then Mr. Brown may come in between 

 you, but we are going to kind of switch this around a little bit. 



We've asked all the witnesses to hold their testimony to 5 min- 

 utes. 



Are there any questions for this panel? 



Mr. Dooley. Mr. Chair? The same thing here, Mr. Chairman. 

 Mr. McCloskey, I appreciate your comments about the immediate 

 settlement agreement basically being an interim agreement. And I 

 would agree, I think that there is some merit to that. 



But I also think that the meaning of settlement agreement did 

 nothing to preclude the new science that was coming in, the new 

 directives that were being provided through Kaspaw or anything 

 from being implemented as a part of that. 



My concern is, what we have is a process that the Sierra Club 

 was involved in, and in fact was one of the signatories to it, that 

 did reach a mutual set of agreements with some of the timber in- 

 dustry, with the Attorney General that was part of a negotiated 

 settlement. 



Now, what do you think in light of the fact that this legislation 

 is coming in, and is advocating zero timber harvest, which is not 

 based on science, either, which we heard a lot about already? 



What is the likelihood that we can ever try to recreate a situa- 

 tion that can try to bring the despaired parties back together 

 again, if we have said as a precedent, "Yes, we'll set down and we'll 

 tadk to you. Well negotiate a settlement. But 2 years down the 

 road, don't be surprised if we come in and place in a piece of legis- 

 lation or try to gain support for it that will result in zero harvest, 

 which will take you clear out of the business." 



You know, how do we deal with that? 



Mr. McCloskey. Mr. Dooley, I think we do regard mediation as 

 one of a series of approaches which can have a place, from time to 

 time. But we don't regard it as an end in itself. The ends that con- 

 cern us are doing right by the land and doing the right thing. 



Mr. Dooley. So then the agreements that you agreed to as a 

 part of the mediated settlement agreement, or the Sierra Club 

 did — I mean, you are acknowledging that those weren't right by the 

 land when you signed off on them? 



