

190 



Having lived in the forest for decades we have not seen any loss in 

 recreational values, only an increase. Employment will definitely decline 

 because of this bill, due to lost timber employment and the restrictions 

 applied to recreational activities in the area. If the recreational value of 

 the Forest is 6 times greater than timber extraction, why is the nine- 

 member panel noticably missing anyone representing public and 

 recreational interests? We hold that past and present management has 

 enhanced recreational opportunities, not diminished them. 



Sec 2 (16) 



"Private property values within and around the area affected 

 by provisions of this act, which are now adversely impacted by 

 logging and associated activities, will be enhanced by the 

 cessation of such activities, and opportunities for new businesses 

 compatible with forest and ecosystem preservation will appear." 



First of all, nearly every property owner within the Preserve is opposing 

 this bill for the soul reason that the imposition of the restrictions within this 

 bill would, in fact, diminish property values. Fire danger and the threat of 

 loss of property and loss of life is greatly increased do to this bill. 



Finally, new business ventures are cleariy forbidden in this bill, making it 

 very difficult for new businesses to appear. 



CONCLUSIONS 



The bill states clearly at least six different times that the purpose is to 

 restore the forest to a natural state, it is to that means that the Secretary is 

 directed when he and the nine-member board is to determine the final direction 

 of the preserve. 

 With such a goal, 



We do not see this bill to be consistent with the stated purposes of 



Congress when it established National Forests. 

 We do not see this bill to be consistent with the use of the forest by the 



average citizen of the United States. 

 We do not see this bill to be consistent with the preservation of the giant 



sequoia or the ancient forest. 

 We do not see this bill to be consistent with the education and 



appreciation of the forests and its treasures. 

 We do not see this bill to be consistent with protection or respect of 



citizen's rights and property. 

 We do not see this bill to be consistent with the expressed concerns of 

 the President of the United States when he asked that the 

 direction of local areas be placed back into the hands of the local 

 people. 

 We do not see this bill to be consistent with proper management of the 

 biodiversity of an entire ecosystem, rather a further division of a 

 complex ecological system. 



15 



