STATEMENT OF MRS. BETTY C. CARL, CHAIRMAN, PIONEER CAMPING COMMITTEE, CAMP FIRE GIRLS, SACRAMENTO, CALIF. Mrs. CARL. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I am Mrs. Betty C. Carl, chairman of the Pioneer Camping Committee, Camp Fire Girls, Sacramento, Calif. For the past 4 years the Sacramento Council of Camp Fire Girls has offered a camping program for properly qualified junior and senior high school girls. This program was developed because of an increasing interest in camping, an awareness of the unique opportunities available in the nearby High Sierra, and the necessity for teaching people how to use but not use up our natural resources. One of the primary objectives is to teach girls how to enjoy staying in a primitive area, "take nothing but pictures; leaving nothing but footprints." As the pressures and tensions on people in their daily living increase, we feel there is a real need for girls to learn how to relax and enjoy nature, not only for the present, but in the future, when as wives and mothers they will have the responsibility for the well-being of their husbands and families. We have been scheduling four trips each summer. Two of the trips each year have been located at a U.S. Forest Service camp reached by road, but within hiking distance of Desolation Valley Wilderness Area. The other two trips take place within the wilderness area itself. It has become increasingly evident, even in this relatively short period, that we could not be sure of available space for the girls. This year the roadside camp was already in use for both of our trips and a substitute location had to be found. Last year one of the backcountry trips found 75 Boy Scouts at their lake campsites. This was a welcome surprise for the boys and the girls, but presented more problems for our hard-working mothers who are counselors for these trips. One of this year's back-country trips also found a campsite already occupied and the previously designated substitute site was necessary. As a result, we have negotiated a lease on some property which is located near a dirt road and which will be used as a base for the pioneer camping trips. One of the requirements we felt was necessary in choosing the property was its being adjacent to the wilderness area. Only in this way could we be reasonably sure of having trails for the girls to hike on. So many fine areas have been lumbered off within the last several years with the consequent demolition of trails and ground cover which has provided material for nature study. We hope that by passage of this wilderness bill we can be assured that there will continue to be trails for hiking, untouched plants and cover for animals and birds in order that girls can learn more about the world around them. We would like to see some provision for an adequate number of campsites, not only at the ends of roads where trails lead into the wilderness areas, but within areas themselves. For this reason we are sorry to see the limitation added to the bill requiring that the area be limited to the present site after adjusting the boundaries. Just outside the northern boundary of the Desolation Valley Wilderness Area are located two small lakes which we had anticipated would We believe that the proper perspective is not being used in setting aside the areas that are being proposed to be included in wilderness areas. Alaska has a vastly different problem than that of New York and the other Eastern States. Restrictions of land use in such huge areas as are being proposed would effectively deter the logical and sound development of Alaska. Alaska has been singled out to bear the greatest burden of these land mass withdrawals. The Mount McKinley Park area of 1,939,999 acres; the Glacier Bay National Monument area of 2,274,000 acres; the Katmai National Park with 2,697,590 acres; approximately 19 million acres already withdrawn for wildlife refuges; 20 million plus acres in national forest areas. The vast area that has already been withdrawn under these various categories has and will for generations to come, automatically provide all of the real wilderness area that Alaska and the Nation can conceivably utilize. Some semblance of commonsense must and should apply. Alaska is a new State and is beset by many problems because of that status. She has not had a chance to review her assets and make claim to land authorized by the Federal Government in the enabling legislation. She needs all the boost from industry and particularly the mining industry, that she can get. What she does not need is more restrictions to further hamper the development of her natural resources. The Land Use Commission as cited in the bill is an attempt to partially alleviate this problem. However, the amendment establishing this Commission does not go far enough. It should have provided that no permanent withdrawals of any kind should be made in Alaska for a 10-year period and then only on specific recommendation of the Land Use Commission and concurred in by the Governor of the State of Alaska. There is no great hurry to set aside these huge masses of land area. Alaska has been granted statehood. Grant her the privilege of rowing her own boat of statehood without immediately scuttling her by further restricting her land use to one specific purpose. Alaskans themselves certainly do not need restricted wilderness areas. Such areas would presumably be for the main benefit of the wealthy few from the East and South who can afford safaris into remote areas. This smacks of colonialism at its worst. Let us adhere to the principles of justice that have served our democracy so well. To remain innocent until proved guilty without a doubt. Let the land areas remain in a status quo until proven, without a doubt, that they would serve the most good for the most people in a wilderness area, then let them be classified as such. To place areas in the wilderness area classification and then attempt to have them removed would represent an almost impossible burden of proof. The restrictions in the bill would make it doubtful if the potential of these areas would ever be discovered or developed. We are opposed to this legislation because we have so much natural wilderness and remote areas we need roads and access to them instead of further restriction. I need not tell your colleague, Mr. Rivers, as to what kind of a country we have in Alaska. It is tremendous. We want everyone to see it, not to be kept out of it. Alaska badly needs all the development she can get. She needs people in her hinterlands where today there are perhaps 1 for every 50 square miles instead of the lower States norm of 50.5 people for we propose to call this committee's attention to the motives and the shortsightedness of the groups who are opposing the wilderness bill. The opposition to the wilderness bill comes, as we are well aware, from lumbermen, stock and sheep men, and the commercial interests which regularly front for these exploiters of our natural resources. That the motives for their opposition is commercial is obvious. That it is shortsighted as well may not be so obvious. But before any weight be given to their protests or arguments, the record should be examined. Their responsibility for the millions of acres of forest and watershed lands which have been reduced to near zero productivity must be recognized. These lands add no wealth to our economy and pay very little in taxes. I do not have figures for other States of the Union, but in California approximately 16 million acres of once forested land now produce no wealth, and another 8 million acres produce perhaps $1 per acre per annum as grazing land. Only 16 million acres of California's original 40 million acres of virgin forest are today producing forest products. This situation is repeated in greater or lesser degree in other Western States. The future of the lumber industry, and other industries which utilize forest products, depends upon the scientific reforestation of these nonproductive, cutover and burned-over lands. Our expanding population and our economy cannot afford the loss of productivity and the impaired watersheds which these wasted lands represent. We have not, to this date, developed successful, large-scale, economically practical techniques for reforestation. We have much to learn. Time is against us and the problem is critical. If these now wasted lands are to be rehabilitated as forests, productive grazing lands, and watersheds, the scientific foresters, the biologists, the ecologists, and the others who will accomplish this rehabilitation will need these wilderness areas as laboratory tools in learning how to do the job. It is quite possible that, without virgin lands for study and for experimental controls, progress in the reforestation and rehabilitation of wasted lands may be slow or impossible. The forests and the watersheds belong to the whole people and are of vital concern to the whole people. If the lumbermen, the stock raisers, the miners, and others who are opposing this wilderness bill are allowed to exploit these wilderness areas for the relatively small amounts of timber, grasslands, and minerals which they contain, they may only deprive the whole people, themselves included, of the much larger benefits which will accrue from the reforestation of 24 million wasted acres in California and similar areas in other States. This will bear repeating. These relatively untouched wilderness areas are vital to progress and to the welfare of the people of the United States. They are needed for both scientific and esthetic purposes. They are needed as inspiration to new generations, upon whom will fall the heavy burdens of revitalizing and restoring the landscape and resources which our generation and earlier generations have destroyed in our greed, ignorance, and wantonness. Madam Chairman, I have been asked to present a letter from the president of the California Roadside Council, Inc., which I would like to have included in the record. Mrs. Prost. Without objection, the statement will be included in the record. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. CALIFORNIA ROADSIDE COUNCIL, MADAME CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMAN: The California Roadside Council, a nonprofit organization numbering approximately 1,000 members, some 200 of which are member organizations, such as planning commissions, improvement clubs, etc., supports the principles on which the wilderness bill, S. 174, is based. Our interest in the problem of roadside conditions causes us to be basically concerned with the preservation of the natural landscape where such preservation is clearly in the public interest. The enjoyment of unspoiled natural surroundings is a benefit which should be available to every generation. It has a bearing on a people's full mental and physical health and balanced development. The steady receding of the wild areas in which this special benefit can be enjoyed is exemplified by the following fact, which we have on good authority. During World War II a military survey showed that in all the United States there were only three points where a circle 10 miles in diameter would not intersect at least one road. Today we learn that only two such points remain, these being in the areas of the Salmon River and of Tioga Pass. Now is the time to plan for wilderness preservation by techniques which will have reasonable flexibility but which will, at the same time, insure careful consideration before changes in the status of our public lands are made. It seems to us that the wilderness bill would accomplish these objectives, and would therefore be in the public interest, now and in the future. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM PENN MOTT, Jr., President, California Roadside Council, Inc. Mrs. PrOST. Are there questions? The gentleman from Alaska is recognized. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Marsh, in speaking of all of these lands in the condition of not producing anything else, could that go back to the time before the perpetual yield method of forest management? Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir. Mr. RIVERS. In lands now being managed by the Forest Service in California, are they not using that method? Mr. MARSH. Yes; but it applies only to a small part of your total forest area. Mr. RIVERS. The rest of this forest area is privately owned? Mr. MARSH. Most of it is privately owned. Mrs. PrOST. Are there further questions? Thank you, Mr. Marsh. Mr. MARSH. Thank you. Mrs. ProST. Our next witness is Mr. William B. Pond, Sacramento, Calif. I understand Mr. Pond is not here. You may proceed, Mr. Frenkel. STATEMENT OF ROBERT FRENKEL, BERKELEY, CALIF. Mr. FRENKEL. I am Robert Frenkel of Berkeley, Calif., a graduate student at the University of California in geography. I represent myself and 14 other individuals, most of whom are geographers. Rather than summarize my statement, which primarily deals with the scientific aspects of wilderness, I would like to give one specific example illustrating the acute need for the wilderness legislation now being considered. This example is particularly important for Californians as it deals with water. The U.S. Geological Survey wants to establish a series of benchmark gaging stations. These stations will measure streamflow in watersheds which are unaltered. In other words, they will provide a standard by which one may evaluate runoff data obtained from watersheds which have been logged or otherwise modified. A wilderness watershed is therefore a yardstick. It is known that most hydrological factors determined from small pilot studies do not necessarily pertain to large watersheds. Furthermore, hydrological data must be gathered over many, many years. I point to these two facts because: (1) Wilderness provides just such an extensive unaltered watershed; and (2) the wilderness bill will provide the long-term assurance that a standard watershed will remain unaltered. Under present administration, the administering agencies are under continual pressure to alter their management policies. The wilderness bill S. 174 will strengthen the hand of the administrator in carrying out his long-term responsibilities. I and the 14 cosignees of this statement therefore urge favorable action on the wilderness bill, unamended. Thank you for hearing my views. Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mr. Frenkel. (The supplemental statement submitted by Mr. Frenkel follows:) STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. FRENKEL, BERKELEY, CALIF., ET AL. We are making an appeal for favorable action in the House on the wilderness bill, unamended, which passed the Senate by a vote of 78 to 8 and was endorsed by the President in his resources address last winter. Most of us are geographers and are professionally concerned with our land. It is obvious that our landscape is constantly changing under man's impact: rural lands are being absorbed by cities; forests are dwindling; natural watersheds are often destroyed, too often clogged with their own silt. These changes come about through man's use of land; yet it is proper for us to realize that proper management of land also involves restraint of use. Wilderness areas are designated, managed, and used by man although they are not created by man in the same sense as an urban environment. The existence of wilderness represents man's restraint in a time when all land is cast into the pattern of man's needs. Strong support for an administrative preservation system is demanded by many of man's needs. A wilderness area supplies a datum or control: a standard by which we measure the extent of human modification of the habitable world. The usefulness of this standard would be acknowledged by the hydrologist who is faced with a need for more water. He proposes a timber-management program to maximize retrievable water yet minimize silting. This program must be evaluated against some sort of standard such as the extensive and unaltered watersheds found in wilderness preserves. The forester must relate the productivity of our current sustained yield timber practices to timber productivity in a standard area, equivalent yet unlogged. In both these instances the use of wilderness may be likened to a yardstick. Marston Bates in a recent essay says: "A general principle is gradually emerging from ecological study to the effect that the more complex the biological community, the more stable."1 This idea is not a new one but in fact is implicit in the writings of Charles Darwin. Man, with his penchant for organization, attempts to oversimplify natural processes in his study of them and in his subsequent actions. For example, one could point to the complex relation between predator and browsing game in the southwest ranges. Predator control permitted eruptive population fluctuations of western red tail deer on the Kaibab Plateau in Arizona, resulting in drastic overgrazing of the limited winter range and subsequent high deer mortality. What need does wilderness satisfy here? 1 Marston Bates, "The Forest and the Sea," New York; Mentor Books, 1961, p. 201. |