60 



Mr. Boyd. Right. And so in the same way that they thought that 

 they could remove some trees around the groves and leave the oth- 

 ers, I think that mentality is still continuing, to some extent, when 

 they say that we'll preserve the groves, but not the other forests 

 surrounding it. 



I think that you are going to have to look at how much of that 

 forest surrounding the groves you are going to preserve. And this 

 bill is the right vehicle for that. 



And that's where I think you can all work together and find a 

 way to amend this bill, so that you will preserve the groves and 

 maintain enough of the ecosystem, as I think that falls in line with 

 the science that we began talking about with Jack Ward Thomas. 



Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you very much. 



Mr. CONDIT [assuming chair]. Mr. Pombo. 



Mr. POMBO. I can't disagree with what you are saying now, but 

 I think that if you go back and read the bill that you will find that 

 what you are advocating is impossible under the conditions that 

 are outlined in the bill. 



When you require the 440-some thousand acres to return to its 

 natural state, it precludes any other use, and specifically in the 

 bill, it precludes any other use that could possibly happen in that 

 entire perimeter. 



Mr. Boyd. Well, Congressman — I don't mean to cut you off. 



Mr. Pombo. No, go ahead. 



Mr. Boyd. Congressman Pombo, if that's the case, where if it 

 cuts off any other use such as hunting and fishing and recreational 

 uses, then I'm opposed to it. I'm opposed to it, plain and simple. 

 Because if I understand it 



Mr. Pombo. I'm glad to have that on the record. 



Mr. Boyd. Fine. Because my understanding of this bill is that is 

 it going to shift some of the emphasis away from just kind of a my- 

 opic view of timber development, and have more of an emphasis on 

 recreation. And this is really to the benefit. 



I've been up to Camp Nelson, and I've been to the various rec- 

 reational areas, and they are underutilized. There could be a lot 

 more people brought in, even from your district, people that want 

 to go to destinations, to go to the Sequoias, that perhaps in the 

 summer months, you can't even get into Sequoia National Park, a 

 lot of the time. 



So they would be able to go to the Sequoia National Forest, and 

 that would be more developed for recreational areas. I don't under- 

 stand this bill to preclude that at all. If it did somehow, I would 

 be opposed to it. 



Mr. Pombo. A lot of times, we try to sell this kind of legislation 

 to the public by promising increased recreational opportunities. 



If you go back and read the bill and understand what it says, the 

 Secretary is authorized to regulate and control times and means of 

 access and use of the preserve. It specifically calls for the perma- 

 nent road closures of existing roads. It specifically outlines primi- 

 tive recreation opportunities within the preserve. It, in effect, lim- 

 its the amount of recreational activity that can occur inside of the 

 preserve. 



When you limit access by limiting the number of roads that can 

 go inside, when you limit access by specifically sa5dng that non- 



