Page images
PDF
EPUB

If enacted, S. 174 would give a degree of congressional protection to wilderness use of Federal lands not now enjoyed by any other use. This would set a dangerous precedent as encouragement for other special use interests to seek similar congressional protection. It would be only reasonable to expect that other user groups would seek congressional protection for their interests. Thus, the multiple use policy would be completely destroyed.

This proposed Legislation is extremely objectionable to the people of the West whose livelihood depends on the wise management of the natural resources of the West-wise management under the multipleuse concept, which benefits the greatest number of people rather than a limited few.

In the 11 Western States, where 53 percent or 400 million of the 750 million acres of the total land area is federally owned, our very economy is dependent upon the uses made of these Federal lands. To limit. to single-purpose use large areas capable of providing multiple-use benefits, on a continuing basis under wise conservation management, is to limit the economy of the West.

The records show that only 0.3 percent of our population visit and use wilderness areas while around 30 percent visit and use national forest areas under multiple-use management; that only 1 percent of the people visiting and using national forests visit and use wilderness areas. This amounted to only about 530,000 people in 1956, according to U.S. Forest Service records. Now we are talking about setting aside as much as 400-million-plus acres of wilderness area for use by such a small number of people. This is not in the best interest of the taxpaying public and the economy of the Western States.

The use of wilderness areas will, in our opinion, always be limited to a relatively small number of our population. Young families with small children will not hike or pack for miles into such areas. Older persons have not the stamina for such rugged outdoor activity. Working men and women do not often have the money to provide the expensive packing and camping facilities needed nor can they take the time to travel to and then pack back into deep wilderness areas. Thus, the use will always be limited to a relatively few.

The establishment of extensive roadless areas, such as proposed in S. 174, would create complex fire, insect, and disease control problems which would have serious effects, not only on the wilderness as such, but also on areas outside of the wilderness areas.

According to a map prepared by the Council of Conservationists, 588 Fifth Avenue, New York City, showing the areas by States that would eventually become part of the wilderness system, California would have more area than any other State. There would be some 27 such areas involving millions of acres.

It is reported that Ely, Minn., a city of 7,000 population, has suffered a loss of tourist and recreational income in excess of $250,000 annually since the elimination of access roads into the adjacent wilderness area and the banning of flying over and landing in the area. Eighty percent of the former recreational users of the area now go elsewhere. If this should happen to the cities of California near the wilderness areas that would be created, the economy of our State would suffer irreparable damage.

Conditions change from time to time. What today may be the highest use of an area may not be tomorrow. We cannot escape the

States to place at least 1 percent of our great heritage of wilderness in the bank as a nest egg for the future.

Despite statements to the contrary, ample provisions are provided in S. 174 for the withdrawing from the bank of these resources if perchance the survival of our country should ever actually depend on them.

The attached article, "The Ultimate Limit of Our Resources," by Prof. James Bonner, of the California Institute of Technology, points out that eventually civilization on this planet will be reduced to the utilization of the bare rocks, the seas, and the air over them for everyday existence. He also points out that, if we are wise enough to maintain that even as much as 2 percent of our area as wilderness to the end, we would only postpone "a moment in time" that day when we would be reduced to using the rocks, the seas, and the air for our very existence. We agree with Professor Bonner. We believe that your committee will do likewise.

We urgently request your committee to support wilderness legislation as embodied in Senate bill S. 174, as it was passed by the Senate.

We request that this statement and the attached article be made a part of the record.

ARTHUR B. JOHNSON,
MARY E. JOHNSON,

NEAL A. JOHNSON,
PRISCILLA G. JOHNSON.

THE DESERT PROTECTIVE COUNCIL, INC.,
Claremont, Calif., November 2, 1961.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Sacramento, Calif., and Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: It is a matter of concern to many of our voters that the United States, for all its interest in the preservation of national parks and similar areas, lags behind some other countries. In course of a recent trip through some of the Pacific countries, Mrs. Taylor and I discovered that little New Zealand has set aside more than 5 percent of her territory in national parks. Even overcrowded Japan, with a population of 100 million people in an area no larger than California, has more than twice as high a percentage of her surface area preserved for posterity than do we in the United States.

The wilderness bill, termed by some "the most important conservation measure now before Congress," would help provide for the preservation of only 2 percent of our land, and would not interfere with the legitimate interests of any group.

The members of the Desert Protective Council, which is active especially in California and the Southwestern States, are solidly for the wilderness bill. We trust that your committee may see its way clear to recommend the enactment of the bill by the House, and to work for its early approval.

Sincerely yours,

WALTER P. TAYLOR, President.

P.S.-We request that the above statement be made a part of the record. Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness will be Lewis F. Clark, Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs.

You may proceed, Mr. Clark.

STATEMENT OF LEWIS F. CLARK, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF WESTERN OUTDOOR CLUBS, ALAMEDA, CALIF.

Mr. CLARK. Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Lewis F. Clark, a resident of Alameda, Calif. My vocation is engineer with the Pacific Telephone Co. in San Francisco. My avocation is study and protection of the wilderness. I appear here as president of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs.

My statement is made on behalf of the federation.

The Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs has 30,000 members who turn to the wilderness lands of this country for recreation and spirit

ual refreshment. We are pleased that the Senate has passed a Wilderness Preservation Act, S. 174, and we urge the House of Representatives to pass this measure also.

The federation consists of 36 member clubs. Their headquarters are in California, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. The members reside in these and other Western States including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico. They represent a wide cross section of the population. Many are of modest means. They have learned that the wilderness areas offer rich resources for physical and spiritual recreation at low cost. They are people from many communities, with widely varying backgrounds and interests, yet with a common understanding and appreciation of what our parks and wildlands can provide for the camper, the hiker, the fisherman, the hunter, the naturalist, the mountaineer, the photographer, the skier, the trail rider, or anyone else who seeks outdoor activities in a natural setting.

The members of the federation are representative of many other people who are not affiliated with such organizations; their numbers demonstrate that wilderness is for the many-not, as some would have us believe, "for the few, the wealthy, and the hardy."

The federation strongly supports the principle of this wilderness legislation for the following reasons:

We all recognize that wilderness demand is increasing; population is increasing; the wilderness share for each of us is decreasing: The truth of the self-evident proposition is emphasized by the increasing visitation to our national parks, national forest wilderness areas, State parks, and other recreation areas. The wilderness share for each is decreasing not only because there are more people living in our country but also because more of these people are seeking the benefits of these natural resources in their natural state.

The currently available wilderness lands are threatened by impairment or gradual nibbling away: Evidence presented before your subcommittee shows that there are strong pressures to void the very endorsement of the principle of wilderness preservation; to delay its establishment until the commodity interests can "get theirs," to hamper and hinder the expression of the will of the majority of the people who, we believe, want this type of wilderness protection.

Present protection procedures are inadequate: It is true that the Congress has established numerous national parks whose wilderness sections would be included in the areas covered by the proposed law. It is true that the U.S. Forest Service has established various primitive, wild, and wilderness areas within the national forests, much of which would be covered by the proposed law. These forest areas comprise now a splendid body of reserves, and the Forest Service officials are to be highly commended for the establishment and protection of these areas. But this is not enough. The protection of these areas and their very existence are subject to the whim of administrators. They could be disestablished, as they were established, by administrative order. The time has come when protection of these areas in their natural state is so much in the public interest that Congress should formally recognize their worth and provide means for their preservation without impairment.

The Wilderness Act protects mining interests: Mindful of the importance of the mining industry and of the Nation's developing needs

to the Emigrant Basin in September of this year. The only streams that he found were still flowing and carrying fish life were those on which these streamflow maintenance dams had been built. He feels that without the dams stream fishing would have almost disappeared in the area this year. Unobtrusive, they blend with the terrain and protect the resource which attracts most of the wilderness travelers. They benefit downstream users by adding storage capacity to the major reservoirs at lower elevations.

I can say from personal knowledge that the Emigrant Basin has changed little over the years under the capable protection given it by officials of the Stanislaus National Forest headquartered in my home. community.

This primitive area is now under active consideration for reclassification as a wild area under regulation U-2 and a proposal will probably be submitted to the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service sometime early this spring.

One of the principal problems requiring negotiation is the fact that the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. built Relief Reservoir near Kennedy Meadows in 1909, many years before the primitive area was established. The reservoir and the dam lie within the primitive area's present boundary. The company also owns some 1,000 acres above the reservoir. A land exchange and boundary adjustment is being negotiated which, in my opinion, will result in benefits to the administrators and recreationists. It is necessary that the company have access to the dam for periodic repair work. The boundary adjustment will take this fact into consideration. The company is willing to exchange the inholdings for land outside the proposed boundary.

I would like to point out to the committee that the development of streamflow maintenance dams and the type of negotiated boundary adjustments which I referred to previously will be seriously hampered, if not made practically impossible, under the terms of S. 174.

The bill would make it necessary to obtain authorization from the President for dams of this sort under subdivision (c) (2) of section 6. This authority, under present regulations, is vested in local Forest Service officials who have personal knowledge of the terrain. Moving this decision-making function 3,000 miles to Washington and requiring that it be performed by the Nation's busiest executive I fear will mean the end of streamflow maintenance projects within classified lands. The other uses which require the President's authorization under the same section, I believe, will suffer the same fate.

The Emigrant Basin Primitive Area contains mining claims. While most of them are not being worked presently, there is a possibility that these mineral values may be urgently needed during national emergencies when the Nation requires large supplies of tungsten. It is interesting to note that tungsten was also mined in Yosemite National Park during World War II. These activities will be outlawed under the terms of S. 174.

The U.S. Forest Service estimates that 11,300 visits were made to the Emigrant Basin Primitive Area in 1960. The average length of each visit was about 2 days. This is the only primitive area in the Stanislaus National Forest which the same year recorded a total of 1,047,000 visits. Visits to the primitive area represented a little over 1 percent of the total usage. Total visits in California national for

Governor Brown himself just last week set the tone for this support of the principles of the Wilderness Act which we are expressing, in a letter to a newspaperman, Dick Hyland. I wish to quote a portion of that letter as it appears in the November 3 issue of the newspaper Western Outdoor News.

Governor Brown stated:

As Governor of California, I am deeply aware of the interests of our multitude of citizens who look upon the beauties of our mountains and streams as resources worthy of our best attention today and preservation for our children and our children's children.

I hope I have been useful in promoting programs in my administration that will safeguard and preserve these things for all time

Governor Brown concluded.

Recognition by the wilderness bill of the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness for the American people of present and future generations is of particular significance in California. As the subcommittee is well aware, California possesses some of the finest wilderness country in the Nation and also sustains some of the heaviest public outdoor recreational activity.

While the wilderness bill will provide reasonable protection for wilderness lands where continued recreational opportunities will be assured, it is most significant to those of us charged with developing and utilizing natural resources of high economic and social value, such as water, minerals, and timber that much of the planning that led to the wording of the bill as it was passed by the Senate, was directed toward protecting and stabilizing the vital industries that depend upon utilization of these resources.

This is as it should be.

To give the committee some perspective as to the effects of the wilderness bill upon California, I would like to put a few figures in the record.

There are approximately 100 million acres of land in California. Adoption of the bill before you would mean that within the next 14 years, 5,778,434 acres, or less than 6 percent of California, might be designated as within the wilderness system. Of this acreage, it is significant that at the present time, between 75 and 80 percent of this land is already permanently withdrawn from resources exploitation with 463,658 acres presently designated as national forest wilderness areas and 4,026,457 acres contained in existing national parks.

The additional lands which would be affected specifically under the wilderness bill would be 1,094,164 acres of national forest primitive areas and 194,155 acres of national wildlife refuge and game areas which are not now permanently withdrawn from resources exploitation.

From these figures then we see that approximately 1.2 percent of California's land areas would be given new status under the wilderness bill for the benefit of all the people.

We believe that there is adequate provision within the bill for congressional review and specific affirmative action necessary before additional lands could be included in the wilderness system.

We are not interested in "locking up" forever water, minerals or timber which someday may be needed in the national interest. We believe, however, that the bill provides suitable means and authority for the various secretaries to employ such actions as land exchanges, or

« PreviousContinue »