14

fighting what may well be their ultimate battle to exist
in the world according to their own concept of what their
lives should be. They are making what is probably their
final effort to achieve the freedom to be themselves.'

Farley Mowat wrote the above passage in 1974, in a Forward to the New Edition of PEOPLE OF THE DEER, a book first published in 1951. The people he wrote of were not the people of Old Crow; they were a group of inland Eskimos called the Ihalmiut, who once lived in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Farley Mowat's book is a painful tragic story of a people victimized by misguided governmental policies, by greed, ignorance, and indifference. His book is an epitaph, a chronicle of how when the Ihalmiut ceased to be a 'people of the deer,' they ceased to exist. In drawing a comparison between the Ihalmiut and the Vuntut Gwitchin of Old Crow, there are distinct differences and one distinct similarThe Ihalmiut lived in igloos, and theirs was a primitive existence. The people of Old Crow live in log cabins. They have telephones, stoves, hot and cold running water; they have TV sets and VCRs, and there's a place in the village where you can rent videos. The people drive pickup trucks, 3-wheeled All Purpose Vehicles, and snowmobiles in the winter. The village has an arcade, a Co-op store, a community hall--the village has street lights.

ity.

The biggest difference, though, between the two peoples is that while one is gone, the other is still very much with us.

The one distinct similarity between the two peoples is that the Vuntut Gwitchin are also a 'people of the deer. '

Senator BUMPERS. I have looked over your testimony, and I am really reluctant to cut you off because one of your complaints is Congressman come up there and shake hands and leave.

And I understand that, but your statement is a beautiful about those people. And I'll tell you in just a moment about a visit we had in Kaktovik last summer.

Our next witness is Mr. Hayden.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. HAYDEN, DEFIANCE, MO

Mr. HAYDEN. Yes. I want to express my appreciation to this committee for being given the opportunity to express my viewpoint today on the proposal before you to open up the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing.

I was living in Alaska in 1980 when the Alaskan National Interests Lands Conservation Act was passed. And I feel this legislation showed a great deal of foresight on the part of Congress. Unfortunately, the coastal plain or 1002 area was not designated a wilderness at that time.

I firmly believe that the coastal plain, which has evolved uninterrupted over millions of years, should not be developed, but rather should be declared a wilderness. And I would like to share some of the factors or things I've read that have most influenced my opinion.

First, of that 1100 miles of our arctic coastline that occurs in this country, only 125 miles of it is protected. The majority of that 125 mile segment is the 1002 area. And this is an area which Department of Interior biologists have described as the most biologically productive part of the entire refuge. And it is this critical area which we are being asked to sacrifice today.

Secondly, I'm concerned about the direct impacts of oil and gas development on the coastal plain. Such things as oil spills and hazardous waste from drilling operations containing substances such as lead, magnesium, chromium and arsenic being spilled onto and deposited into the tundra-these activities hardly seem to be compatible with the purposes of a wildlife refuge.

Third, the Secretary of Interior's recommendations were based on what he called a 19 percent probability of finding economically recoverable oil. To me it seems like a fairly low chance of success to sacrifice this area for. But should his mean volume of 3.2 billion barrels be discovered at the $33 price per barrel which is expected, this would mean in the long-term life of the field less than 1 percent of our current annual energy budget that is in excess of $400 billion per year. And in my mind this is not that great of a payoff either.

Fourth, I have to wonder if this proposal is part of some overall energy policy. And if so, what is the role of energy conservation in that policy? Could we not achieve greater results more effectively in less time through the implementation of energy conservation measures? I sincerely hope that the majority of this committee will feel it is not worth sacrificing this most important part of the Arctic Refuge for a short-term and questionable payoff. I urge you to proclaim the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

a wilderness. We owe the future of this wild place in the Arctic preserved in its natural state for all time.

And I would like to add one more thing. I feel I represent probably the majority of Americans in that I have never been to the coastal plain, and I may never get there. But it just makes good sense to me that an area that is the critical breeding grounds for almost every form of wildlife on the refuge is not separate and not a small part of an 18 million acre refuge, but is the critical core of that refuge and should be included in it as a wilderness. And in my own heart I don't have to be there to find the comfort that I would receive to know that it is preserved for all time. And I hope that this committee will see things the way I do.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayden follows:]

I want to express my appreciation to this committee for giving me the opportunity to present my opinion on the proposal before you to open the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing. I was living in Alaska in 1980 when the Alaska National Interest Lands Act passed. I feel this legislation showed great foresight on the part of congress, unfortunately the coastal plain was not designated a wilderness at that time. I firmly believe that the coastal plain, which has evolved uninterupted over millions of years should not be developed but rather should be declaired a wilderness. The factors that most influenced my opinion are:

First, of our 1100 miles of Arctic coastline all but 125 miles is currently available to oil and gas leasing. The majority of the protected 125 mile segment is the coastal plain of the ANWR, an area which Dept. of Interior biologists describe as the most biologically productive part of the entire refuge, yet it is this crucial portion which we are being asked to sacrifice. Second, I am very concerned about the direct impacts of oil and gas developement on the coastal plain. Oil spills and hazardous wastes from drilling operations adding lead, manganese, chromium and arsenic through direct spills and injection into the tundra, hardly seem to be compatible with the purposes of a wildlife refuge.

Third, The Secretary of Interior based his recommendation on a 19% probability of finding 3.2B barrels of oil at a market price of $33.00 per barrel. To me that appears to be a low chance of success, but should the mean volume be discovered it would amount to less than 1% of our current annual energy budget of some 400+ Billion dollars over the 30 year field life.

Fourth, I have to wonder if this proposal is part of some overall energy policy, and if so, what is the role of energy conservation in that policy? Could we not achieve greater results, more cost effectively and faster through the implementation of energy conservation measures than by developing new oil fields in the arctic.

I feel that I represent the majority of Americans in that I have never visited ANWR, yet it is very important to me that this place not be developed. I do not have to see it to appreciate its importance. The coastal plain is not a separate part of ANWR, but a very key element which supports the rest of the refuge because it is the breeding grounds for the majority of the wildlife species on the refuge. This is the place where they have and raise their young and store energy for their migrations south, be it shorebirds, waterfowl, or caribou. You cannot make the division between coastal plain, forest and mountains for they are all interrelated and all must be preserved in order to save this last great arctic ecosystem.

I sincerely hope that the majority of this committee will feel that it is not worth sacrificing this most important part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a short term and questionable pay off. I urge you to proclaim the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a wilderness. We owe the future this wild place in the arctic preserved in its natural state for all time.