Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to provide you with the views of America Outdoors and America's outfitters and guides. America Outdoors and its affiliate members represent more than 1,400 outfitting businesses operating in 40 States. Members provide diverse recreational experiences to the general public, including whitewater rafting, horse back trips, fishing, canoeing and kayaking. They operate in a number of wilderness areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service.

  In the traditional sense, outfitters have been operating in wilderness since the days of Lewis and Clark. Outfitters in wilderness predate many of the modern forms of wilderness recreation embraced by agency managers and the public. We recognize that wilderness outfitters must be extremely sensitive to the environment and respect the rights of other users to operate successfully in wilderness.

  At the outset, please let me say that in my discussions with outfitters in preparation of this testimony, there were many compliments to agency managers regarding their perspectives and practices. Region I of the Forest Service is identified often by outfitters as a model for wilderness management.

  On the other hand, many outfitters see alarming trends emerging that threaten the viability of quality outfitted services, and I have four concerns I will briefly outline.

  We believe a bias is emerging in many wilderness areas against that segment of the public who wishes to experience wilderness through outfitted services. This is manifested in revisions to managements plans, where party sizes and use levels are being reduced to levels that are not viable for successful outfitter and guide operations. Often these reductions are not the result of resource impacts, because the same activities are not prohibited for self-guided users.

  Number two, in some wilderness areas, management appears to be more dependent on the values of the resource manager than the intent of Congress as established in the 1964 Act. In some areas outfitters praise the cooperation received from managers, and in others areas they are being forced out.

  Number three, in some wilderness areas, use allocated to the outfitted public is no more than 5 to 7 percent of overall use. This use is tightly controlled and supervised; some might say micromanaged. We believe there are a number of wilderness areas where managers spend a disproportionate amount of time and resources managing outfitted use. Despite that low level of use, when cutbacks are called for, these managers often attempt to reduce or eliminate opportunities for the outfitted public.

  Number four, historical and traditional uses that were recognized in wilderness designations should not be sacrificed once the ink is dry. It is important to maintain the web of legitimate activities that are culturally and historically significant that preexisted a wilderness designation. If these areas qualified for wilderness with those activities, then there is no reason they should not continue if that use is managed appropriately.

  In general, I share the view of many that maintaining recreation opportunities for the use of and enjoyment of wilderness areas was clearly a purpose of the Wilderness Act. I also believe this purpose is being supplanted by another agenda in some areas. That agenda is a revision of the purpose of wilderness from that intended by Congress in the Wilderness Act.

  Man has always been a part of wilderness. It is possible to protect and manage wilderness and maintain its natural character without eliminating man and recreation. I believe the survival of the wilderness system will depend on expanding the constituency for wilderness and not on the alienation of those who have long been a part of it.

  I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee and ask my testimony be submitted for the record.

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Brown, that is very interesting testimony.