81 



That is what the majority of America is looking for. They are look- 

 ing for an opportunity to see this. 



In fact, it is odd for me to sit opposite environmentalists on this 

 panel, because I work for Hume. We do environmental education, 

 outdoor recreation, and we teach this type of thing. One of the 

 things we can do is, we can get out there and see vast areas, be- 

 cause of the type of management the Forest Service uses. They 

 practice multiple use. 



It has been said today, they make mistakes. Yes, me, too. I 

 mean, mistakes are there. And it seems like we need to address the 

 mistakes that have been made, and most of those have been in the 

 past. I think we are looking at an administration that would like 

 to correct those mistakes. 



At this point with those type of things, we begin to see that there 

 is a situation with the trees; a question of whether they are threat- 

 ened or whether they are not; whether it is fire or whether it is 

 disease; whether it is too much logging, or sustained yield. 



And I think there needs to be a lot more homework before we 

 make a decision about this kind of a bill. We need to go back and 

 fmd out, what is the truth behind all of this. There has been a lot 

 of things said today; a lot of numbers I will never remember. 



And at that point, if these trees are threatened, then I am going 

 to stand up, like many others, and say, "Come on, let's stop this. 

 This needs to be stopped." 



But I don't believe these trees are being cut down. And the situa- 

 tions where we even have the isolated trees are in very few groves, 

 and that again is past management. It is not done that way now. 

 And that is the situation that needs to be addressed. 



If these trees are threatened, all right, let's do something about 

 it. But they are not threatened. And in this case, what we have is 

 road closures, we have the limiting of development. We are limiting 

 activities. We are returning everj^hing to a natural state. Those 

 kind of things come up again and again in the bill — the fact of re- 

 turning to a natural state. 



Those people who have camps — ^which is kids, it is diabetics, who 

 do not get an opportunity to get into the woods, especially in na- 

 tional parks, wilderness, and preserve areas of parks — ^you do not 

 get an opportunity to use it. In a national forest you can, and we 

 appreciate the fact that we have that opportunity. 



We also take objection to the nine member panel. If recreation 

 is 6 to 10 times more important, why isn't there somebody rep- 

 resenting recreation on that panel? There is no one there. There 

 are eight scientists, and the ninth member is actually someone 

 from a common field that is concerned with the environment. That 

 sounds like an environmentalist to me. 



I am an environmentalist, but I am also a recreationalist. I 

 would like to be considered to be part of that kind of panel. Have 

 recreation have a big voice on that, including those who use it in 

 a lot of different ways, and including those who manage it through 

 resources like timber, like grazing, those kind of people as well. 



And in conclusion, I would say that we are also threatened by 

 fire. The scientists go through the situations there. They talk about 

 fire. 



