8 



Rather, what this hearing is really about is how our Nation 

 should manage its national forests. Although there remains a de- 

 bate about how best to maintain stands of giant sequoia, we know 

 enough now to say that the methods revolve around uses of me- 

 chanical manipulation and controlled fire. In fact, many scientists 

 tell us that establishing a preserve which excludes mechginical ma- 

 nipulation and seeks to eliminate uses of controlled fire could se- 

 verely hinder the ability of giant sequoia to regenerate and survive. 



Experience with a variety of management styles in the Sequoia- 

 Kings Canyon National Park, in the Sierra and Sequoia National 

 Forests, in the State-managed Mountain Home State Forest, on 

 private lands and other State-managed forest lands, has aptly dem- 

 onstrated this contention. 



Rather than simply deal with issues affecting the giant sequoia, 

 this bill would set aside 442,000 acres adjacent to three national 

 parks and the John Muir Wilderness as a permanent preserve. 

 This would effectively take all the remaining land-based resource 

 in the South and Central Sierras and make it off limits to timber 

 harvesting and other uses such as grazing. 



This is property which was not included in the three national 

 parks in my district, not included in the California Wilderness Act, 

 which passed this Congress and I supported in 1984. This would 

 take all of the rest of the land base, as I have pointed out, and 

 leave virtually nothing for other purposes. 



I am afraid that many of my friends in the environmental com- 

 munity believe we should stop timber harvesting on all national 

 forest lands, and what better place to begin than forest lands that 

 contain the majestic and romantic giant sequoia? 



H.R. 2153 establishes a 442,000-acre zone, only a small portion 

 of which actually contains giant sequoia, inside of which there shall 

 be restrictions on a number of multiple uses. Management of this 

 zone would be driven by an advisory board with certain specific 

 limitations on how best to accomplish that management. 



What this aspect of the bill denies is that some of the best 

 science about how to manage giant sequoias is already being ap- 

 plied to the benefit of giant sequoia stands. Last Congress, the Nat- 

 ural Resources Committee's General Oversight Subcommittee, 

 which I chair, held an oversight hearing on management of giant 

 sequoia in Visalia, a few miles from the trees themselves. Mr. 

 Dooley, a member of this committee, was there. Passions ran high, 

 and that debate was polarized. 



Based on that hearing and subsequent readings and discussions, 

 I came to the conclusion that the giant sequoia are best managed 

 under a flexible management regime. The giant sequoia have not 

 survived these millennia because they lack resilience. The giant se- 

 quoia are extremely hardy species, and we should manage them 

 properly. 



As I mentioned earlier, H.R. 2153 is premised on the belief that 

 our national forests are best placed in preserves. As an avid hiker 

 and outdoorsman, I will admit that this proposition does have some 

 narrow appeal, but it is completely unrealistic. To preserve forested 

 areas, this Nation creates parks and wilderness areas, both of 

 which we have in the vicinity of this area. 



