Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator JACKSON. Women are always charming.

Mr. HARRIS. Politics, perhaps. Well now, all of us are wearing ties, all those men in suits, and so on, and this is a complete unessential. This room is designed with all these knicknacks that cost a great deal of money because the human senses will not endure this plain and unadorned.

Senator JACKSON. But one of the provisions in the bill as criteria includes esthetics. You are not against esthetics.

Mr. HARRIS. I don't quite understand. The provision-it is already there, this emotion so described

Senator JACKSON. But I thought maybe some of the ornaments here might appeal to the esthetic sense of people, I don't know.

Mr. HARRIS. Well, that is why they are here.

Senator MAGNUSON. It depends on whether you are the defendant or the plaintiff.

Mr. HARRIS. Well, in closing, I would like to say that I believe that this is a small area; it is all that is left and there will be no more of it when we are done. And we have had descriptions, scientific and in relation to biotics, many reasons, but for simple human reasons this small area in which a few of these people I hope have no money invested in or contracts drawn up for yet, really are dependent on. Thank you.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Harris; appreciate having your statement.

John Barnard, Seattle.

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BARNARD, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. BARNARD. Mr. Chairman, my name is John R. Barnard, of Seattle, and not to be confused with the man from Denver. I must say at the outset, too, that I am on the opposite side of the fence from him.

I am here as an individual, not to speak for an organization. I do, however, belong to the Mountaineers.

As to my interest in the wilderness bill, when I was young I lived in the Chicago area and had to be content with the Cook County Forest Preserves, which consisted largely of oak trees, acorns and squirrels, crisscrossed by bridal trails filled with squealing girls on horseback.

Later I had the good fortune of being able to work as a lookout fireman for two long summers for the Forest Service in the heart of the Selway Bitterroot wilderness area in northern Idaho, 25 miles from the end of the road. This experience to me was really living. I went from the pathetic to the heavenly and you can see where I may well be biased in favor of the wilderness bill.

Senator, even thought I admit being biased, at the same time I know there are two sides to every question. Frankly, however, I am having a difficult time obtaining any substance from the arguments presented by the opponents of the wilderness bill. The opponents of the bill seem to have difficulty in dealing with the facts. I have studied the bill myself and I am sure it does not deny commercial opportunities and does not extend single use recreational activities to any greater degree than now denied or extended in the administration of our public lands. Wilderness areas now exist by reason of administrative directive within the executive branch of our Federal Government. As I

understand the wilderness bill, it identifies wilderness areas as a matter of congressional policy. As Senator Jackson pointed out yesterday, I, too, have noted how many of the opponents of the bill testifying in this hearing first endorse the principles of wilderness preservation, then proceed to ignore them.

I have here an editorial from the Seattle Times, Sunday August 3, 1958, and the lead on this editorial reads: "More, Not Fewer, Campsites," and those words, I am sure you will admit, say a great deal. Now, I do not find anything in the wilderness bill which would cause a reduction in the number of campsites now available to the public as this editorial would lead us to believe.

Some opponents to the wilderness bill are claiming wilderness areas will be accessible to only wealthy people who can afford to rent pack trains. This is not true. Our wilderness areas in the State of Washington are enjoyed by people from all economic brackets, people desiring to visit and travel in a natural area which is still as God made it. Certainly there is more than enough area available for recreational development outside the wilderness so all who enjoy camping can do In fact, there are thousands of square miles of forested area outside the proposed wilderness areas.

So.

The opponents of the bill have placed much credence in the practices and opinions of the professionals in land management, so I submit these two next points. I recall a visit of Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Seaton, to Seattle in the fall of 1958. I was present at a news conference given by Mr. Seaton at which he was asked for his views on the wilderness bill. Mr. Seaton stated the wilderness bill was acceptable to the Department of the Interior as it had been amended and improved. Note this: On the following day the account of the news conference in the Seattle Times said nothing about Mr. Seaton's remarks regarding the wilderness bill. Possibly had Mr. Seaton expressed opposition to the wilderness bill, his words would have been newsworthy.

Next point: On July 23, 1958, an Associated Press dispatch datelined Washington, D.Č., indicated doubts in the minds of some Senators of this committee regarding wilderness bill S. 4028. I contacted the Senators at that time, and Senator Watkins sent me a copy of his statement of July 23 to this committee. I am struck by one sentence in the statement, which reads as follows:

I believe that assurance may be given this committee that objections from the Forest Service have been largely eliminated by this latest draft of this bill.

Senator Moss would know better than I whether the fact that Senator Watkins is no longer with the committee had anything to do with this opposition to the bill.

Because of my intense interest in this matter, I have used every opportunity available to discuss protection of our wilderness with my friends and associates. As you may expect, Senator Magnuson, I find some are not aware of this question. On the other hand, a surprising number are interested, and for the most part are strongly in favor of protecting the remaining small wilderness areas from commercial exploration.

Among the people with whom I have discussed the wilderness bill is an official of one of the largest timber companies. He stated to me

that he saw no reason for arguing over the wilderness bill. He pointed out that timber lands now being logged are on a sustained yield basis and the supply of forest products exceeds the demand.

Mr. Chairman, the witnesses testifying at this hearing in opposition to the bill seem to have one interest in common. They look upon the public lands as a source of revenue through commercial operations such as logging, mining, and grazing. We heard Mr. Kreager testify that the forest products industry estimated natural resources now contained in Olympic National Park could mean 10,000 jobs to southwestern Washington. We also heard witnesses from Port Angelesindicate their opposition to the wilderness bill because the availability of natural resources meant jobs to their area. To me this testimony means that in the Olympic National Park area there are people who would like to get their hands on those trees in the national park regardless of what the devastation of the park would mean to the tourist trade. Surely, this is a case of being unable to see the forest for the trees.

Because the wilderness bill is really so innocuous, I am concerned that the motives of the opposition may be to start a trend in the opposite direction. They may feel that with the failure of the wilderness bill to pass the Congress they will then be able to make greater inroads with respect to the natural areas now protected by other

means.

Mr. Chairman, commerce is essential, but do all forest areas have to be marred by slashings left from logging operations? Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Boyko.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL B. BOYKO

Mr. Boyko. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen of the audience: My name is Michael B. Boyko; I was born and raised in the asphalt jungle of New York City. I also have resided in the asphalt jungle of Los Angeles. Did you notice I said "resided"? In such places you don't live.

Although I am a member of the Washington Alpine Club and the Seattle Mountaineers, I speak to you today as a private citizen. I hold no position as president, director or university professor. I have no degree, not even an honorary one.

I attended most of the session yesterday and have heard many highclass words, terms, and phrases. Many speakers holding various titles represented the opposition. I am in neither category. In fact, my 2 cents will seem inflated.

I define a wilderness as a place where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. I was of the understanding that this hearing was regarding a wilderness bill.

Senator JACKSON. You are not suggesting that section is derogatory. Mr. BOYKо. Only when it is brought out associated with this wilderness bill. The main theme seems to be the money angle. Money cannot buy these areas in the future. The time is now. That is why we should not wait for the report of the Outdoor Recreation Committee. The areas we ask for should be set aside for our children, now and for the future. Our national parks already are crowded and without

this legislation even these areas may be eliminated. It is a shame the citizens are not unanimous in asking for this legislation. We should be proud to set aside these proposed areas. Some States do not have decent areas to set aside.

We, the citizens, through taxes, spend millions of dollars on prevention of crime, drug addiction, and alcoholism. I am sure these ills would be remedied a great deal if our children and their children would grow up in a wilderness environment, namely boating, camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, and climbing. Our increased population needs these areas for their recreation.

In the last 2 years I personally have increased my outdoor activities because the outdoors is there. This is something God provided; let's protect our God-given heritage.

The opposition has stated that many of the proponents wish passage of S. 1123 on the emotional aspect. This is entirely true with me. Having served in World War II and the Korean conflict, I have seen death and destruction. This might have brought on a cemetery type of peace and quiet. The permanent solution for peace and quiet that appeals to me is the proposed wilderness bill, S. 1123.

It has also been said we have numerous colleges, schools of higher learning for the teaching of land management which is unsurpassed, that this would be bypassed by the wilderness bill. It was not mentioned that big business and its subsidiaries with its various spoils and pollution forced the appropriate agencies to resort to the teaching of proper land management.

They have said that the wilderness area would require proper land management. I ask you why? God did all right for a few million years. To me it is the same old cry: Little people versus big business.

In conclusion, I wish to remind you that this area was once the Oregon Territory and its founding father was the White Headed Eagle, Dr. John McLaughlin. I wonder if he is turning over in his grave as to the selfish interest and monetary value of the opposition.

Several times sex was brought out. I think this is derogatory in which the opposition devised to slander wholesome, clean outdoor recreation.

I wish to thank you for this opportunity of expressing my desire for the passage of this bill. Thank you.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Stong has an announcement.

Mr. STONG. Mr. Chairman, there are filed with the committee approximately 25 statements which have not been heard, and with the permission of the chair, they will be included in the record for publication.

Senator JACKSON. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. STONG. There have also been received over 400 letters in regard to the wilderness bill, which will be reviewed by the staff and representative statements of each side will be put in the record.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who desires to be heard prior to the summation? If not, we can have the statements included.

[ocr errors]

Mr. W. D. HAGENSTEIN. I would like to make one request. At the beginning of the hearings in Bend on the previous bill, S. 4028, last year, Senator Neuberger, who was officiating as chairman of the com

mittee, introduced the author of this bill. He has been with us the last couple days, Howard Zahniser, the executive secretary of the Wilderness Society. I think these people would like to know he has been with us.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Zahniser, you don't desire to make a statement?

Mr. HOWARD ZAHNISER. No, sir, but merely to remark that the authorship of this bill is a very wide, as the Senator knows, piece of collaboration; there is no author in the sense of receiving any honor or recognition.

Senator JACKSON. If anyone else who desires to be heard wishes to submit a statement, the statement may be submitted.

Mrs. Benson, we will include your statement in the record at this point. Is that all right?

Mrs. NAOMI BENSON. Yes. I don't expect to testify. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF NAOMI A. BENSON

Will you please consider this as a part of the hearing favorable to the wilderness bill.

I appreciate the strong testimony given by the lad 15 years old, the clear and forceful expressions of the lady of the Audubon Society, the words of Dr. Halliday.

When I consider what Everett was 50 years ago when I came to Everett and now when we have no city beach because the commercial clubs dominate the thinking or lack of thinking in Everett.

By all means let us do something for the people, the rank and file who have no beach.

Senator JACKSON. Now we come to the summation. I suggest, if there is no objection, that we flip a coin as to who will make the presentation first. Is that all right with both sides? I understand Mr. Glascock will make the statement for those opposed to the pending bill and Mr. Zalesky for the proponents. Is there any objection to flipping a coin on this?

All right, Mr. Glascock.

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF H. R. GLASCOCK, JR.

Mr. GLASCOCK. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question I think that is on the minds of a lot of people. That is, how long will the record of this hearing be left open for additional statements?

Mr. STONG. At least 2 weeks.

Senator JACKSON. Any objection to that? I think it is only fair that they have a reasonable period of time. Suppose we limit the statements to 15 minutes. I will not ask questions until you have completed your statements so there will be no interference with the 15 minutes on each side, if that is fair enough. If we need more time we will even have a little rebuttal, or surrebuttal. We will have to cut it off at some point, but we will make every effort to see that all of the information is brought out that is necessary and pertinent to the

summation.

Mr. GLASCOCK. Senator Jackson and members of the committee, it would be difficult indeed to summarize the opposition to S. 1123, which

« PreviousContinue »