STATEMENT OF HON HELEN CHENOWETH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM IDAHO; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

  The Wilderness Act of 1964 is one of our principal environmental laws. Quoting from the Act, the purpose of the Wilderness Act is ''to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.''

  Wilderness was created to allow American citizens the ability to enjoy nature in its purest sense. It has been created to ensure that future generations have the same opportunity to enjoy the beauty of the land that we do today. However, several incidents have been brought to the committee's attention that bring into question whether our land management agencies are implementing the Wilderness Act properly.

  Today, we will have the opportunity to hear testimony from a number of citizens that have been harassed by our land management agencies in wilderness areas. Many of you are familiar with the case of the 14-year-old Boy Scout who was separated from his troop in the Pecos Wilderness area in New Mexico. After a helicopter located the boy, the Forest Service refused to permit the helicopter to land to bring him to safety.

  And yet, in my State of Idaho, some ranch hands notified the rangers on the Boise National Forest that a gray wolf had been injured about 4 miles inside the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. The recovery biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that a helicopter would be needed to transport the wolf to safety. Permission was sought from and granted without question by the Forest Service to allow the helicopter to land and transport the wolf.

  I do not question the seriousness of the injury of the wolf, but I do question the wisdom of an agency that allows for a helicopter to enter a wilderness area for a wolf, but refuses on the other hand to allow a helicopter to land to bring a young man to safety. As we will hear today, the implementation of the Wilderness Act by our Federal land management agencies is fraught with many similar stories.

  What happened to common sense? What happened to compassion in our Federal land management agencies? Has the Wilderness Act gone wild? I say that the Act has not, but from the documentation that we have received, the Federal agencies' implementation warrants much attention and continued oversight. It is my intention to introduce legislation that will guarantee that our Federal agencies will act--will not have the ability to harass American citizens that are simply enjoying the beauty of our wilderness areas.

  Wilderness controversies are not confined to the West. I am particularly interested in hearing the testimony of Kathy Stupak-Thrall of Michigan to learn how the Forest Service interprets the legal term ''valid existing rights'' and the rights of the State of Michigan to control water within its borders.

  I believe that as the public begins to understand the inflexible nature of how our Federal agencies implement the Wilderness Act, and as the public begins to learn of the horror stories, some of which we will hear today, we will be able to inject some common sense into the wilderness debate.

  I want to be clear, I support the goals of the Wilderness Act. Preserving pristine areas for our children is a laudable purpose, but when the Act has been administered in such a way that human life and limb are at risk, I have to question whether we have gone too far. When property is taken without compensation, I have to ask whether that is the intent of the 1964 Act; and when a large segment of our population is unable to access wilderness, I am forced to wonder just why we are blocking off these beautiful lands to so many of our citizens.

  I am hopeful that this hearing will help answer some of these questions. That being said, I am pleased to be conducting these hearings with Chairman Hansen and want to welcome our witnesses.