[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    REMARKS IN DEFENSE OF MULTIPLE USE BY COMMISSIONER LOUISE LISTON

                                 ______


                            HON. BILL ORTON

                                of utah

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 24, 1994

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, there are many of us from the West who feel 
that we confront problems which are poorly understood by those from 
other regions. The extremely high percentage of public land within the 
boundaries of our States and counties present additional challenges to 
our State and local governments which others do not have to face. In my 
own State, for example, almost 70 percent of the land is federally 
controlled and for several of the rural counties in my district, that 
figure is well over 90 percent.
  One of the biggest challenges this situation presents to local 
officials is trying to encourage economic stability and growth in the 
face of Federal land management policies which often seem to be 
producing the opposite results. Local leaders too often find themselves 
fighting for the very survival of their communities in an arena where 
the Federal Government is perceived to be a major part of the problem 
rather than part of the solution.
  In this, as in other crisis situations, some people rise to the 
challenges confronting them and demonstrate the highest levels of 
leadership. Certainly, that has been the case with Louise Liston, a 
commissioner from Garfield County in my district. Commissioner Liston 
is nationally recognized as one of the most thoughtful and eloquent 
advocates of a balanced approach to natural resources and land use 
policies. She also is one of the staunchest defenders of preserving the 
unique culture of the rural West, a goal to which I wholeheartedly 
subscribe as well.
  I am personally convinced that our Western cultural heritage is one 
of the few wellsprings we can tap to restore and revitalize a national 
character which now, at times, seems to be faltering.
  Recently, Commissioner Liston delivered a speech which highlights 
several critical aspects of the dilemma we face in the West. She 
suggests that the principles of multiple use management which have 
served us so well for decades should continue to be the basis for 
Federal land and resource management decisions. I was very impressed by 
the logic, eloquence and insight contained in her speech and I commend 
it to the attention of my colleagues.

 The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act: the Answer to the Public Lands 
                                Dilemma

       I am a rancher's wife, retired school teacher, county 
     commissioner in Southern Utah and Chair of the National 
     Association of Counties Public Lands Steering Committee. I 
     live in Escalante where my grandfather and great-grandfather 
     ran sheep and cattle on the Escalante Desert to the south and 
     on the mountains to the west and north. My husband's great-
     grandfather was the first man to bring cattle into the valley 
     back in the late 1800's. We both come from a proud pioneer 
     heritage, and for over forty years have struggled to maintain 
     a livelihood for ourselves and five children in Southern 
     Utah. We love it there, as did our ancestors, who also 
     struggled, but against different odds. They also battled the 
     elements, and isolation, but today added to those are 
     government restrictions and regulations, wilderness 
     designation and endangered species.
       In the past we have shared our red sandstone canyons, high 
     plateaus, deserts, and mountains with everyone. Isn't it 
     interesting that these areas have survived for eons of time 
     and have become even more rugged and spectacular with its 
     passing, and all without the help of present day nature 
     lovers and suitcase saviors who seem to be such experts in 
     preserving the land. We don't deny their weekend love affairs 
     with the land are very passionate and intense, but that love 
     seems so superficial when compared to our love of the land 
     which is a harmony that stems from sacrifice and struggle, 
     from respect and caring for the very source of our 
     livelihoods.
       Ours is a deep and abiding love that has grown from 
     achieving a balance over the years between our immediate 
     needs and those of future generations. That balance is 
     evident when we look at recent BLM and Forest Service 
     management studies. They show that the nation's public lands 
     are in better condition today than at any time in this 
     century. I attribute much of that success to the Multiple-Use 
     Sustained-Yield Act passed in June of 1960. It is one of the 
     greatest tools from the past that still holds the best hope 
     for the future.
       Of all the environmental laws on record in the United 
     States, none had a stronger endorsement than this one. After 
     Senator Hubert Humphrey introduced the bill and sat down, no 
     one rose to oppose him. No one. Not one person. In fact 
     speaker after speaker, 17 in all, stood up to agree with him. 
     It has since been seldom litigated and has not been amended 
     once since its enactment. To me that is more than enough 
     proof of its success and more especially, its importance to 
     us, 33 years later.
       Up until recent years, established management practice on 
     our public lands has always been one of multiple use. That 
     meant that timber harvesting, oil exploration, mining, 
     grazing and recreation were guaranteed a place in present and 
     future policy.
       I think everyone here would agree that it often requires a 
     very delicate balancing between wise use of our natural 
     resources and protection of our critical environments. But I 
     strongly believe that's something we can effectively resolve 
     in sensible, realistic, down-to-earth practices based on 
     substantiated evidence rather than unsubstantiated emotional 
     rhetoric.
       It seems that more and more the emphasis in multiple-use 
     management is shifting to protection and away from commodity 
     uses. In simple terms, that means that jobs in timber, oil, 
     mining, and cattle industries are being lost. The direct and 
     indirect impacts of that shift is endangering the existence 
     of communities that are dependent upon those natural 
     resources for their survival. A list of ten ``endangered 
     communities'' was once again released by the National 
     Association of Counties in early November. Those communities, 
     by the way, even though there were only ten listed, represent 
     hundreds of other resource-dependent communities that are 
     suffering from the same imbalance of decisions by the federal 
     government on how public lands are used.
       Because of location, present lack of funds to improve 
     infrastructure, limited opportunities to diversify, and 
     inability to attract stable, well paying jobs, most rural 
     communities cannot have a healthy economy without relying 
     upon the use of the federal lands. We can diversify to some 
     extent, but may find in doing so that we actually adversely 
     affect the condition of our nation's ecosystems and cause 
     unforeseen financial burdens on the budget. Even more serious 
     consequences may occur when local custom and culture are 
     systematically destroyed by land management decisions and 
     environmental scare tactics. When community morales are low, 
     with people living in fear of losing jobs and having their 
     schools close, we experience a dramatic increase in spouse 
     and child abuse and escalating occurrences of alcohol and 
     drug abuse.
       Right now many of our young people living in rural areas 
     feel their constitutional rights to life, liberty and the 
     pursuit of happiness are being violated more and more by 
     federal restrictions, regulations, and designations that are 
     perceived as destroying their ability to find jobs, build 
     homes, and plan for a marriage and reasonably secure future. 
     Talk about an endangered species! We are actually 
     jeopardizing the future of those young people by locking up 
     potential development of our natural resources with no 
     promise of a healthy, sustainable economy for them to enjoy.
       I personally feel that when we pit economic values such as 
     person's job or income or way of life against environmental 
     values, we achieve very little. And I guess that's why I 
     strongly support the multiple-use practice, because instead 
     of pitting environmental and economic interests at odds with 
     each other, multiple-use endorses a we-can-do-both attitude. 
     There is enough land out there for all of us. It is possible 
     to protect and maintain our natural resources while making 
     beneficial use of them at the same time. In fact, much of the 
     land is already protected by various state and federal 
     laws, and thousands of acres will always be protected by 
     its very nature. That's something easterners will never 
     under- stand unless they've ``walked the land.''
       More and more the long-term impacts resulting from 
     environmental fanaticism in our nation are having a 
     devastating effect on the economy, our schools and roads, our 
     towns and people, the historic uses of our public lands, and 
     our traditional values so vital to a healthy democratic 
     society.
       Greedy preservationists will never be satisfied in their 
     quest for more and more land, for wilderness, for cattle 
     grazing to be stopped, for mining to be done away with, for 
     ridiculous listings of endangered species, for wetlands to be 
     set aside, for industry and growth to be curbed, because it 
     will mean the end of their cause, and more importantly, the 
     end of their jobs.
       Instead of being solely concerned about the impacts on the 
     land, we should also be concerned about the impacts on 
     families, communities and schools. What we don't stop to 
     realize is that our public lands control the economic 
     activity of the nation. Stopping the use and development of 
     our natural resources on those lands jeopardizes not only our 
     personal freedoms, but the national economy and security as 
     well. And yet, piece by piece, I see the multiple-use concept 
     being eroded away, and in its place single-use concepts are 
     gaining strength. Massive centralization of power and 
     dominion over our public lands by the federal government is 
     not the answer. Our public lands were meant to be used to 
     build a greater and mightier nation, not as tools to tear it 
     down. Wise use of those lands means preserving the natural 
     resources for the public and not from the public. If we act 
     through the emotionalism of preservation rhetoric, it comes 
     down to wise use versus no use. And no use means no jobs, no 
     grazing, no roads, no tax base, and no money for the needed 
     services rural America demands and deserves.
       The multiple-use sustained-yield approach to managing our 
     natural resources has proven in the past to be effective. Its 
     can-do-both philosophy is something we cannot simply abandon 
     as we face the environmental changes that await us. Only by 
     achieving a desired balance can we hope to preserve both the 
     land and the people.
       What most Americans at this point do not realize is, that 
     the most valuable natural resource is the human resource.
       Thank you,

                          ____________________