30 



Mr. Vento. I think that, you know, those are decisions with re- 

 gards to the national forest acreage my colleague knows, but they 

 aren't necessarily — some of the more productive areas and appro- 

 priate areas have been — remain to be managed for harvest and for 

 other purposes. It fills the multipurpose goal, as you know. 



And, in terms of what is wilderness, what is being studied, what 

 is — I don't know how you include — what numbers you include or 

 what areas are excluded, but they are, obviously, changing science 

 in terms of how we go about harvesting and where we have restric- 

 tions and limitations on it. But I can only agree we ought to have 

 a program. 



Part of the problem, I think, that you have, and you can see this 

 in some of the areas that are marginal simply don't bring about the 

 sale prices — bid prices to provide for the costs of construction of 

 roads, remediation of watershed and so forth. 



They simply don't — and so to disturb those areas, we actually — 

 we have done that repeatedly in the past where we are sort of left 

 with a hangover from that. And if there is any blame to be made, 

 it, obviously, is the fact that we didn't have enough knowledge I 

 guess at that time. 



I would suggest — I think there was some information that should 

 have been pretty evident, but it is amazing to me how quickly the 

 information has evolved as to what we need to do. But we have got 

 a big backlog of areas that need to be dealt with. We have got a 

 lot of problems. 



And, part of the appeal process, and I think even the Endangered 

 Species Act, have been sort of the — we put too much weight on 

 those because we haven't dealt with this in a different context. And 

 part of that, I think, has to do with legislative objectives except 

 that you — well, you say that they are too sensitive to the environ- 

 ment. They are run by various interest groups. 



I look at it from a different standpoint in terms of what was 

 mandated and what actually happened. And while there are a lot 

 of laws out there and good intentions, very often they weren't fol- 

 lowed. And when they were applied, it was actually at a crisis type 

 of intervention, and that doesn't work very well for — it doesn't 

 work very well for the Forest Service. 



What I think the Forest Service needs and what the industry 

 and the people need is some certainty and predictability, or we are 

 not going to get that on the basis of the sort of winner-take-all type 

 of policies that have been the hallmark of what is going on here. 

 My time has expired, but I would be happy to 



Mrs. CUBIN. Would you like to respond? 



Mr. Taylor. Well, we could debate. I am here for questions after 

 my statement, and the gentleman didn't give me too many. But he 

 and I have debated this question for six years or more now. I would 

 love to bring him in out of the suburbs into the real world of the 

 forests, and I would be glad to host him if he would come. And I 

 can do that without ethics violation because one member to the 

 other and have you come down to some of the experimental sta- 

 tions and look at silviculture. 



Mr. Vento. Yes. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness. I have 

 gone hand in hand with the Forest Service personnel, and I would 



