Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. HUGHES. Yes; it is.

Mrs. Prost. Are there further questions or observations?

Thank you very much.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you.

Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness is Gretchen Fitzpatrick, vice president, Carmichael Garden Club, Carmichael, Calif.

You may proceed, Mrs. Fitzpatrick.

STATEMENT OF GRETCHEN FITZPATRICK, VICE PRESIDENT, CARMICHAEL GARDEN CLUB, CARMICHAEL, CALIF.

Mrs. FITZPATRICK. Madam Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the Carmichael Garden Club.

The Carmichael Garden Club, with a membership of 40, wishes to go on record as favoring prompt action on the Wilderness Act, S. 174. We strongly feel there are no valid reasons for opposing or delaying and there is overwhelming urgency to insure that wilderness areas already so designated are kept inviolate for the present and future generations.

Thank you.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mrs. J. B. Atkisson, State chairman of conservation, California Federation of Women's Clubs. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MRS. J. B. ATKISSON, CONSERVATION CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Mrs. ATKISSON. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, the California Federation of Women's Clubs is an organization of 64,660 women in 613 clubs located throughout the State of California. We have a deep concern for preserving the natural heritage God gave us. Our urban and mechanized society is spreading itself with increasing speed and destructiveness across the land. Intolerable pressures are exerted on our natural resources. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the State of California. In the past decade we have witnessed people and industry constantly encroaching on our superb natural areas. As the pressures of civilization continue to increase, wild areas not specifically set aside by law have little chance for survival.

Occasionally we need escape from the overwhelming aspects of civilization. Surely a nation as great and as prosperous as ours can afford to set aside some of the few remaining areas of wilderness where the intangible values of contact with nature may be preserved intact and unmodified by human activity.

Our action in supporting this wilderness legislation is based on a reverence for the esthetic values of nature, a recognition of the need for undisturbed natural areas permitting the fundamental study of ecology, and a concern for the spiritual welfare of this and future generations.

We note that the text of the bill makes provision for necessary, established, or essential economic development. We feel that here has been achieved a compromise which permits reasonable consideration of once-conflicting interests. We have faith in the integrity of

our administrators that these provisions will be justly administered. With the threat of nuclear destruction ever present in the human mind, the sublime majesty and peace of the landscape as God created it becomes more essential to harassed mankind.

It is imperative that an adequate system of wilderness be established by law. Legislative protection is the American way. Should we fail to preserve these wilderness areas, our generation will be derelict in its duty.

Thank you.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mrs. Atkisson.

Are there questions of Mrs. Atkisson?

Thank you very much.

The time is arriving for a luncheon recess.

Before we adjourn, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Congressman Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chairman, on behalf of the people from our State here, as a member of this committee, I want to thank you and my colleagues on this committee and the staff for coming here to California and giving us the opportunity for our people to present their views in behalf of the wilderness legislation that is pending before the Congress.

Coming from an area that has a good deal of wilderness, wild, and primitive areas in existence now, and know of the interest of the people of the State of California in behalf of this legislation, I think it only proper that this meeting was held in Sacramento, giving the people of our State the opportunity to come here and testify without making a trip to Washington to testify at some of the later hearings on this legislation that will take place, I am sure.

I think that each person here appreciates the opportunity to come here and hear the views of the many interests involved in this legislation. This legislation will come before the Congress next session, it will be properly heard and debated by the committee, and just what the bill will read like that comes out of the committee is more than I can say at this time.

With that, I think you can reconvene here at probably 1:45 and get started on the afternoon agenda. We have a good many more people to be heard.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you very much for these kind words, Mr. Johnson. It is our pleasure to be here and to have the benefit of the testimony of the good people of California.

The subcommittee stands in recess until 1:45.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 1:45 p.m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mrs. ProST. The Subcommittee on Public Lands will now come to order for the further consideration of the wilderness legislation.

Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Ray Crane, of Corning, Calif. He represents the Crane Mills.

Our next witness immediately following Mr. Crane will be Mr. Grant B. Potter, general manager of the Sequoia Forest Industries, Inc., of Dinuba, Calif.

You may proceed, Mr. Crane.

STATEMENT OF RAY CRANE, CRANE MILLS, CORNING, CALIF.

Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, by way of introduction, my name is Ray Crane. I am general manager of Crane Mills, a small business concern engaged in logging and lumber manufacturing in Tehama County, Calif. We employ about 200 people and provide a direct payroll of just over $1 million annually to the communities of Paskenta and Corning, Calif. We also operate a 40,000-acre tree farm which borders on the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness Area.

I have eight basic objections to S. 174 and will list them for you and enlarge on each as follows:

(1) The bill would automatically throw into the wilderness system 8 million acres of primitive areas-about 22 million acres of which is commercial forest land.

Acting on any wilderness bill before the 1962 report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission is available would be completely premature and a waste of the $2.5 million that has been set aside for this study.

It seems almost as if proponents of S. 174 are in a hurry because they fear what this report might reveal. If the 22 million acres of commercial forest land mentioned above contained even a modest 10,000 board feet per acre, they would provide raw material for 50 logging and sawmill operations our size for just under 17 years or, putting it another way, direct employment for 10,000 people for almost 17 years. And this is just one of the resources that S. 174 would lock up. I submit that we are not ready for this big a leap before we know exactly what will be needed for recreational facilities for a privileged few.

(2) The bill does not provide for adequate review, now or in the future, of existing wilderness areas.

Through the years the values of certain natural resources change, usually upward. In our industry there are several species of timber that are commercially valuable now that were considered a liability as little as 20 years ago. Uranium is one of the minerals I can think of that has taken on considerable value in a relatively short period of time. Water, especially in California, is increasing in value yearly. The needs of our economy also change with the years. Because of this, a periodic review of each and every wilderness area should be provided for in any forthcoming wilderness legislation.

As an example of what I am talking about, let me give you a few facts and figures on the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness Area, which was set up in the late 1930's with little or no apparent opposition.

The U.S. Forest Service reports that this area of 111,091 acres1,776 of which are privately owned-now contains 1,324 million feet of commercial timber-enough to run a plant of our size for over 44 years and provide approximately 17,600,000 man-hours of direct employment or well over 44 million direct payroll dollars.

This is the timber resource only, and I know that the area also contains considerable resources in grazing, water, and possibly minerals. All of this has been put into the deep freeze so that a few hundred people each year can commune with nature. Last year this area had

approximately 1,900 visits, and this, mind you, does not mean 1,900 people. Packers and others make a number of trips into the area each year. In my opinion, if the area were closed to deer hunting, the number of visits would fall off to 800-900 visits annually.

I know from talking to others in our industry that many wilderness and primitive areas provide similar pictures, and this is why I think it essential that thorough review procedures be set up before and after each area is set aside.

(3) The bill largely ignores the thinking, wishes, and desires of State officials, local officials, and residents of the area affected.

S. 174 makes a feeble provision for considering the feelings of the Governor of the State in which a wilderness area is being proposed, but this is not enough. It is proper for the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to propose new areas based on the reports that are given to them, but at this point, the people who will be directly affected should be considered.

The burden of selling each proposal to the Governor, State legislature, county boards of supervisors, industry associations, sportsmen's associations, and so forth, should be on the proposing Secretary, but the initial legislation, the initial legislative proposal that will ultimately result in the formation of a wilderness area should definitely come from an elected representative of that area. Veto powers are not enough of a safeguard for either Congress or the residents of areas who might be adversely affected economically by new wilder

ness areas.

(4) S. 174 would cause an expansion of the wilderness system that would be in direct opposition to the multiple-use concept of handling natural resources adopted by Congress in 1960.

In Public Law 86-517, Congress declared that:

The establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act.

This is a very broad statement, and saying so does not make it so. How can it be that recreation is the only activity that can dominate millions of acres to the point of having these areas set aside for its exclusive use?

I know of no areas in the United States where large areas of public land are set aside exclusively for development of timber, water, grazing, or mineral development. We would love to have such an area near us set aside for timber production only, but are told it would not be in keeping with the multiple-use concept of developing natural

resources.

We don't even exclude public recreation on our own private lands, even though it would be to our financial advantage to do so. Recreation and development of natural resources can go hand in hand—are going hand in hand in all parts of the country.

If an area has recreation potential that stands head and shoulders above all else, it should be set aside for the use of all, not just a minute percentage of the recreation public. I might add here that Government agencies are zealously, even overzealously at times, protecting recreation potential on the lands they administer. There is absolutely no danger that this potential will be destroyed by those of us who purchase raw materials from these lands.

(5) S. 174 would as Senator Thomas J. Dodd ably put it—

reverse the role of Congress from that of writing the laws of this Nation, subject to veto by the President, to that of merely having the veto power over laws written by the President.

The present method of setting up primitive and wilderness areas effectively bypasses Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to sit in complete judgment of what parts of our national forests are to be wilderness areas.

S. 174 does improve on this situation and makes a start toward returning to Congress its constitutional right to dispose of Federal lands, but it doesn't go far enough. Congress has the duty to provide the initial impetus to each wilderness proposal, and this duty is not provided for by the "veto" powers set up by S. 174.

(6) This bill will lock up valuable natural resources, some of which do not lend themselves to "cold storage" but are even today deteriorating and losing value.

Timber is one resource that does not improve with age beyond a certain point. I can stand on the edge of the Yolla Bolly Wilderness Area just as I know I could stand on the edge of many primitive areas and see timber badly in need of thinning and proper management.

I am sure that valuable grazing areas in wilderness and primitive areas are being taken over by brush fields because of no management. Piles of dead trees and jungles of brush may be a thing of beauty to some, but to me they are a waste of valuable resources.

Communists boast that they will outstrip the free world economically within a few years. We have learned not to laugh at their boasts. I submit that we should not handicap the full development of our economy by locking resources up when they can be developed in harmony with other land uses.

(7) The real recreation need in this country is recreation facilities for the masses. S. 174 is special interest legislation which would hamper any program to provide for this basic need.

In the Mendocino National Forest of 1,080,000 acres, recreation for the few is provided by a wilderness area, and recreation for the masses is provided for in the form of picnic grounds, campgrounds, lakes, streams, and so forth. Last year on the forest there were 1,900 visits to the wilderness area and 126,000 visits to the balance of the forest. This is a clear indication of what the public's desire and need is.

As the population and leisure time increases, so will the demand for recreation facilities. S. 174 turns its back on this need for a volume of facilities and sets aside a disproportionate amount of acreage for the "cost free" recreation of a very small segment of the public.

(8) S. 174 would deprive owners of property within wilderness and primitive areas of the right to develop their holdings to their best advantage.

Eighty acres of some of the best timber our company owns lies within a wilderness area. We are presently paying taxes on this land but are powerless to harvest our crops, improve our land or provide for its protection from fire-although we know full well that if serious fire breaks out in this wilderness we, as the closest logging neighbors, will be called upon to drop everything and rush men and equipment into this roadless area to protect forests we can never harvest.

« PreviousContinue »