Page images
PDF
EPUB

correct things later. So I agree with you that there has been a precedent set in this matter, but I can assure you, Mrs. Owings, we are trying to make sure that is a one time only precedent and in the future people will be heard in the way I'm trying to make sure you are being heard today.

Mrs. OWINGS. Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity of having you hear us.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Peter Wiles here, or has Mr. Hall come in? Go to Mr. Stanton Leno, Ronald Boucher, Arnold Vileins, Tom Yager, Ken Weston.

Mr. WESTON. Ken Weston is here but I'm waiting for Mr. Yager to get here.

Senator LEAHY. That is all right. We are way beyond the time, Ken, you were supposed to testify. Ed Ford? Ted Walker or John Moore? Al Barrows?

The AUDIENCE. John Moore was here last night.

Senator LEAHY. I think that we will take a break for a few minutes. For one thing the people who have been here, as I mentioned before have been showing great models of brevity and we will take a break for about 15 minutes.

[Recess, 8:30 a.m.-resume, 8:45 a.m.]

Senator LEAHY. Is Mr. Keith Hall here?

The AUDIENCE: Mr. Hall said he'd be here as soon as possible. He is superintendent of schools and he's got a matter that came up. Senator LEAHY. Mr. Peter Wiles.

The AUDIENCE: He testified yesterday.

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Leno here? Mr. Boucher, Mr. Ronald Boucher? Who are the people who are here who have been listed as prepared to testify? What is your name?

Mr. TERRILL. Rice Terrill.

Senator LEAHY. You were scheduled for 9 o'clock. Would you state your full name and address for the reporter, sir?

Mr. TERRILL. Rice, R-i-c-e, M. Terrill, Middlebury and Lincoln.
Senator LEAHY. Mr. Terrill, go ahead.

STATEMENT OF RICE TERRILL, BRISTOL, VT.

Mr. TERRILL. Senator Leahy, we appreciate you spending your weekend listening to the anguished voices of little people who cannot afford expensive litigation who without notification of what was going on had their land or a part thereof taken by Public Law 93-622, 93d Congress. I believe every American should be interested in the socalled Wilderness Act or Acts and the Congress empowered, the Secretary of Agriculture to take private land without the owners' consent. The taking of the land and the restrictions imposed on the owners thereof, in my own opinion, amounts to confiscation by the Federal Government without due process of law as guaranteed by the fifth amendment. It will, therefore, increase our taxes which are now heavy. We appeal to you and your committee in the Senate for your assistance toward the amending and deleting from the Wilderness Act the provisions which empowered the Secretary of Agriculture to take private property without the owners' consent.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Terrill. Is there anybody in the room who would wish to testify now rather than later?

STATEMENT OF FRANK BANNER, MIDDLEBURY, VT.

Mr. BANNER. My name is Frank Banner, B-a-n-n-e-r. Since last night I listened to a couple of people talk from the Sierra Club and the National Resource Council. I thought I'd try to say a little bit. I'm a service employee and professional forester. I have a few comments to make against the Wilderness Act. An entire opposite viewpoint from the Wilderness Act as I understand it. I have been listening to the landowners being directly affected, but I think the taxpayers also have been indirectly affected by this act. I wrote an article in the Addison paper quite a while ago that I'd like to start off and read. It's dated April 3, 1975, and its title says. the "Wilderness Area Plan Criticized." After reading the recent developments regarding the approved Bristol Cliffs and Lye Brook Wilderness Areas in the Green Mountain National Forest makes me certain that a knowledgeable public should become involved in decisions regarding land uses by public agencies.

I was amazed to read that one woman in Bristol who feared that her home and property would be included in the wilderness tract. I am sure the Forest Service would not contemplate such an action, but it does show the lack of information adjacent landowners have about the area.

This is new and I never realized that all these restrictions have been put upon the landowners from the beginning. I don't believe the people of Vermont need to wait two or three generations to know what develops in wilderness areas. There have been studies made by specialists to demonstrate what happens to idle land left to the ways of

nature.

Natural ways are harsh and only the strongest survive. Natural catastrophes occur to reestablish stands which go through the succession of species until climax species take over which usually means beech or hemlock in the Northeast of no value to sustain wildlife. There are some factual observations described in American Forests Magazine, pages 44 and 45, July 1972, written by Fred Simmons. He is a professional forester. He takes the entirely opposite view of establishing wilderness areas in the East. Maybe wilderness areas in the West where you have to take a pack train to reach and visit are well. But here in the east where valuable northern hardwood stands occur it's a crime to see all this waste.

It appears to me that future generations of Vermonters are in for a treat to witness the destructive forces of nature and to sacrifice a natural resource which develops wildlife. The objective to establish the national forests "to serve the greatest good of the greatest number over the long run is being overlooked in the establishment of the Bristol Cliffs and Lye Brook Wilderness Areas."

This is the article I wrote. To me this whole wilderness concept, I think is something that should have taken more and more thought. The objective, as I understand it, is solitude and a return to nature and tranquility. I think these objectives are stated as prime reasons for establishing wilderness areas. To me, anybody that seeks this type of

recreation, I think should take a hike up to the Abbey Pond Trail for 3 miles. I'm sure he'd see all the wilderness he'd care to see. Because up there are coy dogs, bears, and snakes and anything else you might want to find. In my mind, to see valuable northern hardwoods left idle to just drop and rot away is an awful waste.

Senator LEAHY. Do you feel that there should have been full public hearings prior to the act being

Mr. BANNER. Yes.

Senator LEAHY. Put in, hearings of the nature we are having now? Mr. BANNER. Yes; and there have been wilderness areas in the past. I think there are studies about people talking about them. I think, that more facts could have been established and brought out. As a matter of fact, in this article, in the American Forest Magazine, the author writes about some of the areas left idle. The local natives, today, describe the areas as nothing but graveyards of rotting stands. The author actually discusses wilderness with them. This, like I say, is an entirely different viewpoint from everybody else, I kind of feel like a radical up here.

Senator LEAHY. We appreciate having your viewpoint and your viewpoint will be part of the permanent record.

Mr. BANNER. One thing that bothers me is that so many acres are being set aside in New Hampshire and all over the East and Northeast. With northern hardwoods left to waste who is going to someday be making the nice maple and yellow birch furniture we have. The Japs will take over because now I notice they are making toothpicks that we are buying. What is going to happen in future years to our furniture industry? That is all I have.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Somebody else who wishes to testify to the hearing? Mr. Weston?

STATEMENT OF KENNETH WESTON AND THOMAS YEAGER, REPRESENTING THE A. JOHNSON CO., BRISTOL, VT.

Mr. WESTON. My name is Kenneth Weston and Mr. Tom Yeager and myself are here representing The A. Johnson Co. Mr. Andrew Johnson who is the manager and partner of The A. Johnson Co., could not be here this weekend due to personal commitments, and he asked us to represent him and his family. Senator, I have a letter from Mr. Johnson to you. May I read exerpts from that? And we also have a statement for The A. Johnson Co., which we will turn over to you.

This is a letter from Mr. Andrew Johnson to Senator Leahy from which I will read some of the pertinent things that I think he is saying in here. First of all, I'd like to say for both Tom and myself and for Mr. Johnson that any statement we might make in regards to the Forest Service is not personal in nature and primarily I think represents the feelings of the community and the landowners toward the organization, not toward the individuals that are involved.

Mr. Johnson says in his letter the wilderness area surely has been a fouled up situation and thankful that little of our national legislation is as poorly formulated as was this bill. This particular area should never have been designated a wilderness area. There is no way a stroke of the pen can make this into wilderness as civilization has surrounded the site and from any spot in the area one can usually hear, and often

see, the signs of man's occupation. With so many spots in the Green Mountain National Forest that are suited for wilderness areas, one cannot understand why this site was chosen.

Even less understandable have been the actions, and attitudes of the Forest Service. Evasions, distortions, apparent deliberate misrepresentations to the media and Congress have been standard. The rules and regulations delivered to the landowners have been heedless both of their rights and feelings. As a group, the landowners are not wealthy and to suddenly deprive them of a considerable portion of the value of their land and dwellings is inexcusable, especially when they were told in a public meeting that the lines were placed as they were simply to make it easier to define the boundaries of the wilderness area rather than for environmental reasons.

It goes on to say, and this brings us to another complaint. We resent the implication that Government will necessarily take better care of the lands than will private parties. Some of the ski areas on Federal lands surely do not point toward a good stewardship. I have been an outspoken a believer in land use planning and control as anyone in the area. I was a member of the commission that developed Vermont's Environmental Act. I have carried forward the company practice of making our property completely open to the public at all times. We have had a professional forester managing our property for years. My wife, a member of the firm, is a well-known proponent of saving the environment. In short, we may well be just as concerned and qualified as the Forest Service.

It is not only the Bristol Cliffs landowners who are upset about the continual takeover of private land by the Federal Government. The Indiana Farm Bureau contacted the Vermont Farm Bureau as they are involved in a wilderness area in that State which is taking over considerable private land. While the intentions were undoubtedly good, a line has to be drawn at some point or eventual State land ownership of all property is obvious, and I question if anyone in the Senate feels this is desirable.

In closing, we are in complete accord with the other landowners in the area. Remove all private lands from the area, give the Forest Service priority to buy or exchange whatever is needed and let the free enterprise, democratic form of Government work. Sincerely, Andrew Johnson.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Mr. Weston, I have proposed in this legislation a couple of things, one, to roll back the boundaries to original National Forest line thus excluding all the areas that were added under the Eastern Wilderness Act. I have also supported the concept of maintaining priority moneys in the Forest Service to buy land on a willing-buyer/willing-seller basis of anybody along the lines presently under the Wilderness Act boundaries. I also, in keeping with that, favor a situation whereby if we are successful in our legislation, that is, to roll back the boundaries, that if new land is sold, land adjoining the present Forest Service holdings or National Forest holdings that would become part of the Eastern Wilderness Act area. Are there circumstances under which your firm, The Johnson Lumber Co., would sell its holdings? Maybe that is a fairly general question, but assuming that you were in a willing-buyer/ willing-seller basis? The Johnson Lumber Co.'s holdings are a major

part of what is being considered in this Wilderness Act. Are there circumstances under which you would sell?

Mr. WESTON. This is my opinion, not Mr. Johnson's. I don'tSenator LEAHY. This is a case where you wish Mr. Johnson were here?

Mr. WESTON. Not really because I think I can express his feelings in a rough way. I believe that if the funds were made available to him to replace what he is losing here in his natural resource base with other lands then he would be more than willing to work something out. I don't know if I read this part of his letter, but he has already proposed a change with the Forest Service for other lands but was turned down. One of the statements in the letter from the Forest Service was that it was dangerous, in effect, dangerous to set a precedent in this regard because it involved such a large amount of land. Mr. Johnson states that they do not want to give up any of their timberlands, why should they be different than us? I think that if the funds were made, as I say, made available directly so that he could start casting about for other timberlands to replace this of equal manageability, then he would probably would go along with that, something like that, but I think in the present situation where the landowners are together in this, that he would not do this if it any way hurt the other landowners in the present wilderness area.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

Senator PATRICK LEAHY,
Washington, D.C.

THE A. JOHNSON Co.. Bristol, Vt., September 25, 1975.

DEAR SENATOR: First I must express my amazement that your subcommittee would come to Bristol, and have sessions on Sunday night, to hear out complaints. This is service beyond all belief and does much to take the bitterness out of my complaint.

Secondly I must apologize for not being able to attend the hearings. Our daughter is being married in Chicago this weekend and we shall of course be there.

The wilderness area surely has been a fouled up situation. I'm thankful that little of our national legislation is as poorly formulated as was this bill. This particular area should never have been designated a wilderness area. There is no way a stroke of the pen can make this into wilderness as civilization has surrounded the site and from any spot in the area one can usually hear, and often see, the signs of man's occupation. With so many spots in the Green Mountain National Forest that are suited for wilderness areas, one cannot understand why this site was chosen.

Even less understandable have been the actions and attitudes of the forest service. Evasions, distortions, apparent deliberate misrepresentations to the media and Congress have been standard. The rules and regulations delivered to the landowners have been heedless both of rights and feelings. As a group, the landowners are not wealthy and to suddenly deprive them of a considerable portion of the value of their land and dwellings is inexcusable, especially when they were told in a public meeting that the lines were placed as they were simply to make it easier to define the boundaries of the wilderness area rather than for environmental reasons.

Our company is the principal landowner in the area. We are a small fourth generation company and have been in Bristol forty years, for much of that time we have been trying to acquire timberland enough to make us self sufficient. The Bristol Cliff's lands are those nearest to the mill and probably the most valuable from a timber growing view. We surely do not want to lose them. We would, as the act provides, exchange them for lands of equal value if that were in the public interest, but have been refused an exchange by the forest service. They state they do not want to give up any of their timberland, why should they be different than private landowners?

« PreviousContinue »