24 



So I think that we find that we have an agency we should give 

 an authority to move. We should have public input as much as pos- 

 sible in putting together forestry plans. But when we have made 

 our decision the direction we are going, we should not have groups 

 for their own self-interest able to micromanage those items, item 

 by item, and costs the public the great amount of money that it is 

 doing. 



I would recommend, Madam Chairman, possibly four things; that 

 we should limit appeals to those who have participated in the deci- 

 sionmaking process; that we limit appeals to forest-specific issues 

 for bid appeals filed to address national issues or which apply more 

 to laws such as the NFMA than the forest plans or projects that 

 are before us at the specific time; end frivolous appeals and litiga- 

 tion by requiring the appellants to post bond and have something 

 similar to Rule 11 in the Federal Court where you pay if you lose. 



If you bring a frivolous action and you lose, then you are respon- 

 sible for paying the cost; and require the Forest Service to make 

 a full and detailed cost accounting of the taxpayers' dollars spent 

 on appeals and litigation and disclose this information to Congress 

 and the public on an annual basis. If the people see what these 

 frivolous appeals are costing us in tax dollars, then I think the 

 public will become as outraged as many of us who are familiar with 

 this process. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you. 



Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you very much, and please pardon all the 

 shuffling of chairs up here. Do you have time just for a question 

 or two? 



Mr. Taylor. Sure. 



Mrs. CUBIN. This really isn't related to the appeals process, but 

 I am from a State, as you know, where timbering is a very impor- 

 tant industry. And in our State, I was told they are going to be 

 doing some controlled burning. 



And I don't know any — it is like you said, forestry is a science 

 in itself, and we all have ideas about how the forest should look 

 and how it should be maintained. But I don't know about that. Tell 

 me, what are the advantages of a controlled burn over harvesting 

 or a clear-cut or anything? Why would that be a good manage- 

 ment 



Mr. Taylor. Burning may be used for a variety of purposes, and 

 I will speculate as to why they are doing it now in the West. For 

 the 10,000 years before Europeans settled this continent, Indians 

 managed the forest, and they did it with burning. 



They did it with a variety of techniques that they saw vv^as bene- 

 ficial to both provide any fiber that they needed, and theirs was 

 minimal, but also to promote game and other living resources they 

 needed from the forest. To say that there was no management of 

 the forest has overlooked what the Native Americans did in this 

 country for 10,000 years. Burning was one of the processes used. 



What has created the gigantic fires of recent years, and we have 

 lost — we send firefighters from the East to the Western States, and 

 I, frankly, have lost in my home district one fighter the year before 

 last, and, of course, we lost close to 50, I think, in total lives fight- 

 ing the fires. 



As the fuel builds up, as there is no salvage in a forest of timber 

 that dies — windblown, diseased, whatever — it breaks down and 



