21 



Mr. DOOLEY. Also, at this time, I would like to enter into the 

 record a statement in opposition to this legislation. 



[The prepared statement of the Tulare County Board of Super- 

 visors appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 



Mr. DoOLEY. I would also like to make a few comments in line 

 with some of the testimony of the panelists and some of the ques- 

 tions. 



Everyone is committed to moving forward in the most desirable 

 fashion, and I find some of the testimony rather intriguing. I guess 

 the concern is that the approach that is being offered before us 

 today is actually going to place greater limitations on the ability to 

 manage this ecosystem, that it is actually in fact going to put these 

 natural resources more greatly at risk. 



The greatest risk to the Sequoia redwood trees today is not by 

 cutting, because there are proscriptions by both the National For- 

 est Service and by the President that they will not be cut. They are 

 at greatest risk primarily because of fire hazsird and the growth of 

 the white woods that occurs in these areas that poses the natural 

 disaster which is going to lead to the demise of more redwood trees 

 than a lumberman's saw will ever create. 



I guess the other thing that is most disturbing to a lot of us that 

 represent this region — and I represented about 75 percent of this 

 region before redistricting about a year ago, and our family has 

 property in this area, and I have spent all my life up there during 

 the summers and different times of the year — is that the concern 

 that a lot of us have is that there is agreement that perhaps some 

 of the management techniques of the past few years were not the 

 best proposals out there, not because of intentional mistakes but 

 because of the evolving science that Mr. Thomas talked about. 



I think that is why a lot of us had great faith when this medi- 

 ated settlement agreement was engaged in, when we had the envi- 

 ronmental community, the timber industry, and the National For- 

 est Service coming together to try to develop a prescription for 

 management of the forest. 



I guess a lot of us are almost insulted and are very concerned 

 that some of the same parties that were a part of that process are 

 now actively advocating that this legislation be adopted. What that 

 sets as a precedent is, how can we expect the group of people that 

 are involved in the Quincy Library Group or some of the other 

 groups that are trying to locally develop some mediated agreements 

 in management, what is the message that we are sending them by 

 considering this legislation? 



We are basically, by considering this legislation, telling all the 

 parties that are involved that there is no benefit to sitting down 

 and talking and trying to work out some solutions to these prob- 

 lems. 



I think that is probably what is of greater concern than any 

 other about this issue, because I came to Congress thinking that 

 I had the ability to help broker and facilitate some of the com- 

 promises between the environmental community and some of the 

 resource users, and to me, this is clearly a breach of good faith, and 

 it is something which I think is setting a terrible precedent that 

 can allow some mutually agreed-upon solution in dealing with our 

 resources across the Western United States. 



