no difference in our cooperative role with the states. You know, 

 unless Congress gives us an edict saying something to the contrary, 

 the 187 million acres of National Forest lands are going to be continued 

 to .6e hunted under existing state laws. The distribution change of the 

 hunting pressure seems like a very realistice thing to assume will 

 happen. As energy gets dogone tight, my guess is there's going to be 

 a heck of a lot of people piled up closer to home than ever before, and 

 all these people that have done all their hunting through windshields 

 for a lot of years--and boy there are a lot of them--are probably going 

 to join a group of so-called endangered species, because as the energy 

 crunch comes that shouldn't happen. I can remember in Utah working 

 on checking stations and talking to people when they came in off a 

 day's hunt just thoroughly bushed and they'd only driven 540 miles 

 that day hunting deer. Now that may cut down on hunting pressure 

 but it could also increase the hunter success. I think we've seen that 

 in areas that have been closed to vehicles, the hunter success actually 

 goes up. This should also make an increase in the outfitter and guide 

 service. I would think that there are going to be more people taking 

 advantage of that and the quality of hunting than perhaps they've had 

 in the masses of hunting. 



The other energy issue is the impact of acquiring it. In other 

 words, there's a real impact on wildlife just going after some of these 

 energy sources. This could get to be pretty serious in some specific 

 areas. For example there's a heck of a lot of deer winter range that I 

 know of that's growing over the top of oil shale in Colorado. I'm sure 

 you've probably got some examples right here in Montana of the same 

 thing, and that could be the issue that you want to talk to when you 

 talk to this front range area. But this could certainly be an impact on 

 wildlife. I'll tell you one thing that could help this considerably, and I 

 just learned about this a short time ago--the Wildlife Management 

 Institute, now under the leadership of Dan Poole, is attempting to try 

 to get an amendment to the Reclamation Act that would at least allow 

 some of uncle's money that's collected from minerals, to go back into 

 the rehabilitation of those lands and wildlife habitat and the other 

 areas. I think about the last figure I saw was about $200 million a 

 year right now and we have't even really got into this business yet, so 

 there's a heck of a chunk of money. So I would think that anybody 

 interested in this area should get support. They're going to need it to 

 get the change, but they're sure as heck working on it. Ten years 

 ago I presented a paper to the Western Association of Fish and Wildlie 

 agencies entitled "Wildlife Management in 2020." And when it came time 

 to discuss the future of hunting, it was approached by first analyzing 

 the characteristics that made up the average mister and miss hunter. 

 And this was a person having less than the best education, failing in 

 the low to moderate income group, predominately male and most of them 

 left their younguns at home when they went hunting. Next I looked at 

 some changes in society that may effect this interest group. Rural 

 populations were losing badly to urbanization. Education was on the 

 rise in both quanitity and quality. The average income was going up 

 and women's equality was at an all-time high. The psychologists were 



