other methods, to make available such needed resources by excluding them from the wilderness system. In California, for instance, we have about 250,000 acres of merchantable timber which are presently within some of these potential preserved areas that might be considered when the final boundaries are set up for exclusion. We call that to your attention. Provisions in the bill to allow for the continued investigations of water and mineral development possibilities are also desirable. The President may authorize mining and the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water conservation works, transmission lines, and other facilities determined to be needed in the public interest. Necessary commercial services also may be performed under Presidential authorization. We think these provisions are desirable. We feel that the bill as it stands provides ample review authority by Congress regarding each specific area to be included as wilderness areas. This safeguard we feel insures that all interests will receive full consideration before any area is incorporated into the wilderness system. While the basic purpose of the forest, park, and wildlife areas to be included will not change, inclusion in the wilderness system will insure preservation of their wilderness character and will constitute high public purpose by preserving the natural resources and natural habitat of wildlife. For these reasons the Resources Agency of California supports the principles of S. 174 and urges its adoption by Congress. Thank you very much. Mrs. Prost. Thank you very much, Mr. Warne. [Applause.] Mrs. Prost. Are there questions of Mr. Warne? You have presented a very fine statement, Mr. Warne. We certainly appreciate your taking time from a busy schedule to give the committee members the benefit of the position of the State of California on this proposal. Mr. WARNE. We are very pleased to see the subcommittee come out here and to hear all of our people and to give our own Congressman, Mr. Johnson, an opportunity to sit with you today and review this question with you. We think it is a very important thing and we in California are privileged to have some very fine areas that are deserving of consideration in this measure. Mrs. Prost. Mr. Warne, let me assure you the reason this committee is here today is because of the Honorable Harold Johnson who insisted it was necessary that the committee come and hear the pros and cons of the effect of this legislation on the State of California. Mr. Johnson is a member of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and of our Subcommittee on Public Lands. Let me assure you that he is making a very fine record and that he is representing the people of the State of California very ably. Mr. WARNE. I am sure the committee knows Mr. Johnson's district, when he served right here in our own State Capitol and now serving in Washington, includes much of the finest mountain area we have in the whole of the United States, not just in California. Mrs. ProST. Thank you, Mr. Warne. Mr. WARNE. Thank you very much. Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness is Mrs. Gennie Schumacher on bela of herself. Will Mr. Ralph Nissen of the California Farm Bureau Federati please come forward? You may proceed, Mrs. Schumacher. STATEMENT OF MRS. GENNY SCHUMACHER, MONO COUNTY, CALT Mrs. SCHUMACHER. Madam Chairman, my name is Genny S macher. I am from Mono County, Mr. Johnson's district, in easter California. I am the author and editor of outdoor and travel box I spend 5 months of the year in the mountains in the Sierra Nea das, much of it in campground, some of it in the wild back countr in our national forests and national parks. One of the questions people ask me constantly is, "Where can go that is not so crowded?" The only answer I can give to them is away from the roads and in the wilderness. Let us look at this in perspective. If I had a large map of t United States and could show all of the lands in the proposed wilder ness system, you would see but little islands scattered througho the Western States. Perhaps your committee has such a map. If may I refresh your memories with copies of the maps from the Senate hearing record. Look at these maps. This is all the wilderness now left in Amer ca. Is it really so much as some people have said this morning, cot... pared with the total land of our country? It is about 2 percent. Do the intelligent, farsighted leaders of our important mining, o cattle, and timber industries really believe that their companies or or American economy will suffer if they are restricted from ming 2. grazing, and lumbering on every single acre of public lands? If thes cannot survive and operate at a profit without using the wilderness lands, too, in addition to the 98 percent they already use, are not they and our country in a very bad fix? Does anybody believe we are in such a fix? Are not most of our problems problems of oversupply and not scareity? A couple more figures: With passage of the wilderness bill 94 per cent of the public domain would still be open to prospecting and mar ing, only 6 percent would be restricted. The total commercial fores lands in the United States are 490 million acres, 41 million acres t Forest Service wilderness-type areas. This is nine-tenths of 1 percent of all of the commercial land in the United States. Recreation: According to the Senate hearing record, 2 to 3 millor people use the wilderness every year. Is this so few! Or are they the many! Thank you. (COMMITTEE NO. The following subsequently was received by the committee:) STATEMENT OF MRS. GENNY SCHUMACHER, AUTHOR AND EDITOR OF TRAVEL ARTICLES AND VACATION GUIDEBOOKS A lumberman, Mr. Joe Hughes, presented the very best testimony this morn.ng for the need and urgency of the wilderness bill. Questioned by Chairman Pfost Mr. Hughes stated candidly that of course lumbermen would like to cut trees 12 have tuational forest primitive and wilderness areas. Questioned further, he said at although they are not now permitted to do so, they hope that they will be. *** læer lumber industry spokesmen, questioned similarly by Mrs. Pfost, were or subtie and evaded her pointed questions. But in his few sentences Mr. Paes unwittingly revealed the basic reason behind the lumber industry's fierce sition to the Wilderness Act. Passage of the act will allow public hearings prašnic opinion to play a greater part than they now do when commercial ests attempt to have boundaries changed to accommodate themselves substantial minority of Americans use the wilderness every year, 2 to 3 ven people * "Wilderness" as here used includes national parks, national nålife refuges, and national forest wilderness-type areas (Wilderness, wild, ste primitive). wording to Mr. Edward Crafts, Assistant Chief of the Forest Service, în 1960 * re were about 1.900.000 man days use in wilderness type areas? For round ax aferu, jet w may 2 million man days use on national forest lands alone. Many more millions care about wilderness. Perhaps they "use the wildermm only every other year, or once in 5 years. Perhaps they will only look into from a roadside Perhaps they will never set foot in it, but will enjoy it rogh pictures and movies taken by others But through their letters and 1 rough their organizations they are signifying that they care very much not that there be wilderness, but also that it have the strongest protection posve against those who think as Mr. Hughes, and all others who would change wilderness character. How many millions care about wilderness? Perhaps your committee can determine this Among the 22 National and 58 State and other organizations === rting the wilderness bill are these very large groups National Wildlife Pesteration, National Council of State Garden Clubs, General Federation of 44 ozljeni s Clubs, AFL CIO, Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, Audubon som tøfy, Wilderness Society Izaak Walton League An inforinal tally at a luncheon on November 6, attended by representatives who were attending the Sacramento hearing for conservation and outdoor groups, -howed that the 40 people there represented organizations with a total memhership of 150,000* If we add the organized sportsmen of California, who supamort the bill also, we have several times that number. The millions who care about wilderness ask that wilderness be preserved on a very stuali proportion of our lands 2 percent * Under the Wilderness Act, tot 1 acre will be added to the wilderness type lands already administered by the National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service. 1× 2 percent too much? Will restrictions on 2 percent of our land damage significantly the prosperity of certain industries, as our opponents claim? Considering the exploding population and the increasing use of wilderness, 2 pervent seems little enough wilderness, Furthermore, most of the wilderness Landis are not suited to commercial uses. Very little of them contain additional niendows which could be grazed, or commercial timberlands. Much of it is above timberline, a land of ice and snow 9 months of the year. Reserving 2 percent of our land as scenic gems will not interfere significantly with the activities of miners, cattlemen, Wooigrowers, or lumbermen–The oppomation of these interests is selfish and unreasonable. * Ropit 615 July 27 1961 Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, p. 6 Hearings Before the Committee on Interior and Insujar Air× US Senate 7th 1×f sex h 8 174 Feb 27-28-1961 W 21 *ead enda Federation »f Women » Clubs 6% 000 Nouthern California Chapter of Nature Calfornis Audubon Mocieties 7 500 Nati dal 1° •** Ann པ དང གན པ མ ་ སླ 500 Tompos Conservation Club 1000 Montainers 4500 American App Tachian Mutin (1h 6500 Aneric in 15 titute of Landscape *x! ཛོ-wཛྫཱaརིbkwelw} · - *w ཀཽL И CMG te tin Cata? **** Ore. n Cascades C-1,sers gewitter for Preservation of T je EA 500 Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs 0 000 Narest wilderness wid canoe primitive Total 22 000 660 14,500 000 15 000 000 51 500,000 enlarged and wome primitive areas are now being reclassified none are being vd the sximum wilderness possible is 50 m. Hob acres Total d area of our 50 ** le 2 1 bilion acres (8 Rept 635, July 27 1961 pp 6 7, 16) 42 pt 3 Passage of the Wilderness Act will in no way interfere with grazing. The bill states specifically in section 6(c)(2) (B) that "the grazing of livestock. where well established prior to the effective date of this act ** shall be permitted to continue ** The bill neither increases nor decreases the authority the administrators now have to regulate grazing. Passage of the Wilderness Act will restrict mining on a maximum of 6 percent of the public domain, a maximum of 35 million acres out of a total of 656 million." All of this land has been open to prospecting for a century. Yet. "in the whole of the wilderness system covered by the bill *** only six mines are in operation, and these mines will continue, for the restrictions imposed by the bill within the wilderness system are made expressly subject to existing rights." If, as our mining friends imply, the wilderness areas are loaded with valuable ore, why are there only six mines operating? Why are they not in them now. mining and prospecting? I have been married to an oil geologist long enough to know that oil companies know the formations of just about every square mile of the United States that is likely to contain important petroleum deposits. If there were good possibilities of finding oil and gas close to home in our wilderness lands, why then are our large companies not in them now (as they are in only one State, Alaska) coring and wildcatting-instead of devoting their energies to costly explorations offshore and in faraway lands such as the Middle East and now Africa? Should a national emergency make even our marginal, poor-grade deposits essential to our survival, or should now unimportant minerals become significant for national defense, the Wilderness Act gives the President full authority to permit prospecting and mining in wilderness. Passage of the wilderness act will not damage the lumber industry. National forest wilderness-type lands (wilderness, wild, canoe, primitive) containing commercial timber amount to only nine-tenths of 1 percent of all the commercial forest lands in the United States. Who are the selfish, who are the unselfish? Those who ask that 6 percent of our public domain be kept unscarred wilderness? Or those of the mining industry who are not satisfied with 94 percent, but want 100 percent? Who are the reasonable, who the unreasonable? Those who ask that ninetenths of 1 percent of our commercial timberlands be kept unblemished virgin forest? Or those of the lumber industry who are not satisfied with 99.1 percent, but would have 100 percent? Who is speaking for the long-range public good? The opponents of the wilderness act, the vested commercial interests, who fear that passage of the act will limit their dollar-making activities? Or the proponents who-with passage of the act-will gain not a penny, but will have only the satisfaction of having helped protect some wild beauty that is irreplaceable and priceless? Who hope to preserve 2 percent of the land not for profit but for people—for their use, their pleasure, their souls and spirits. I urge prompt passage of the wilderness act, for I believe its passage will build a strong door for wilderness. A door allowing people in, but a strong door keeping out all that would destroy what 2 million people come for—scarce, untouched, unscarred, beautiful virgin wilderness. A door keeping out bulldozers and chainsaws, both marvelous inventions I am grateful to have operating on 98 percent of our land-marvels that should be kept out of the 2 percent. our few sanctuaries of wilderness. Wilderness is for the many; profits for the few. Total public domain (this figure excludes national parks, where mining has 656 Maximum public domain which would be restricted to mining by passage of the Wilderness Act: 14.500.000 acres in national forest wilderness-type areas, 24,000,000 acres in refuges and game ranges, or a total of 38,000,000 acres, maximum. (Figures obtained by telephone from the Government agencies involved.) Congressional Record. Sept. 6. 1961, p. 17204. 7 Total commercial forest lands in the United States, 490.000.000 acres: commercial forest lands within national forest wilderness-type lands, 4.500.000 acres ("Hearings Before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Ú.8. Senate, 87th Cong., 1st sess, on S. 174," Feb. 27-28, 1961, Washington, D.C.. p. 233. Mrs. ProST. Are there any questions? Mr. RIVERS. I note the maps and figures do not include the State of Alaska. Mrs. SCHUMACHER. I am sorry, sir. Mr. JOHNSON (presiding). And I want to assure you the maps will be made a part of the file. They will not go into the record, but will be made a part of the file of this hearing. Mrs. SCHUMACHER. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. We will now hear from Ralph A. Nissen of the California Farm Bureau Federation, Williams, Calif. STATEMENT OF RALPH A. NISSEN, CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, WILLIAMS, CALIF. Mr. NISSEN. Congressman Johnson, and members of the committee, I am Ralph A. Nissen, a farmer from Sacramento Valley, Calif. Í am chairman of the Public Use Committee of the California Farm Bureau Federation, and here to represent the president of our federation. The California Farm Bureau Federation is a general farm organization comprising 53 county farm bureaus having a total membership of 62,000 families. The federation's headquarters are at 2855 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, Calif. At the last annual meeting of our federation, our house of delegates adopted the following resolution: We recognize and support the wise and proper use of any resources available on the public lands in California, which areas comprise nearly half of the land in the State. The citizens of California, as well as the agricultural and industrial economy of the State, are becoming more and more dependent upon these lands for multiple use and the water necessary to insure our future well-being. In view of movements by certain groups presently underway to limit the use of these areas, to the detriment of other segments of the population dependent on the areas, by means of legislative proposals to create a "National Wilderness Preservation System, we urge the Congress of the United States to retain the existing authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the use of all national forests, including wilderness areas. This may sound strange to you people, hearing farmers saying this, but we would like to reemphasize that we are practical people and we certainly want to see our tax dollars spent wisely and the source of them protected. We are opposed to the enactment by Congress of special wilderness legislation which would establish extensive wilderness areas on national forests, Bureau of Land Management, and other public lands. Most of our land in the West, and most of the areas which would be included in wilderness areas under S. 174 and similar bills, is capable of providing multiple-use benefits simultaneously under sound conservation management. To limit the potential of such areas is to deny maximum benefits to the taxpaying public, which financially supports such lands and programs. Such legislation strikes at the heart of the multiple-use policy of Federal land administration, and as so soundly practiced by the U.S. Forest Service through national forest administration. |