Page images
PDF
EPUB

a very good example. Within a very short time, in the course of 2 or 3 years, the coral reefs off the coast of Florida and the Mediterranean were being picked completely of coral. There is hardly a place that you can go to look at the coral any more, unless you took an extensive trip farther out.

Congressman RIVERS. You spoke of transportation perhaps being one of the things that would lead to people getting into that area. Would there be roads built in this arctic wildlife range?

Mr. CCOLEY. As I understand it, there would be roads built for mining or that would be compatible with any other purpose.

Congressman RIVERS. I am thinking about accommodating this massive movement of people that need outdoor recreation.

Mr. COOLEY. When I spoke of the massive movement of people, or the growing, massive demand for outdoor recreation, I didn't mean to insinuate that they would all be going to that 9 million acre tract. However, people would be coming to Alaska. In our planning for economic development and recreation, we are going to have to plan for all types of facilities; not only those for the people who want to drive into them and throw up their tent, next to their neighbor, 2 feet away, but for the person who wants to get out and to enjoy the wilderness.

Congressman RIVERS. You mean by foot and horseback?

Mr. COOLEY. By foot, and horseback, and plane.

Congressman RIVERS. Well, do you suppose the Secretary will allow anybody to land there with a plane?

Mr. COOLEY. I would certainly change my opinion and be opposed if I thought that the Secretary was going to try to keep people out so that they could not even get in to enjoy the wilderness aspects of it. Congressman RIVERS. The thought was expressed by another witness that this could attain the concept of a wilderness area.

I should say, let us say that this program could attain the aspects, or could attain the characteristics, let us say, of a wilderness program, more than a utilization or recreational area; and I know that the power granted the Secretary here is so broad that it could be to keep this all untouched and untrampled, you might say. If this is going to serve a very limited number of people who just want to get out there with practically no facilities, or roads to walk and ride on, I can't see that you are going to take care of very many of this vastly increased number of people that are seeking outdoor recreation.

Mr. COOLEY. That is very true, but it seems to me like it is the same kind of thing as Mount McKinley. There are not too many people who actually go up on top of the mountain, but we wouldn't necessarily want to see it removed. It has a value even though people at times can't even see it-the fact that it is there, and that they can see it if they wait. This mountain draws people to Alaska. Though they may not spend their 2 weeks or a month, or whatever it is, trampling around in the wilderness, the fact that they may be able to get a peek at it, or that it is even there is a significant factor drawing in people to Alaska.

Congressman RIVERS. I'd rather see a tramway up to the top of Mount McKinley so more thousands of people could enjoy that terrific panorama that could be enjoyed from the top of Mount McKinley. I

43642-60-pt. 25

am afraid that under your approach here, leaving everything practically untouched, that nobody could get much benefit out of it.

Mr. COOLEY. I am sorry, but I certainly didn't want to leave that impression. I feel that, as I mentioned in my statement, that there are all kinds of recreational needs.

Congressman RIVERS. And my point was that if this is a limited group of people, you wouldn't need such a vast area for such a limited group. Take half of it apart and let them have some roads in there so that the general populace and not the exclusive esthetes could get a trip up into the wilderness. That is the point that I am making. I have no further questions, Senator Bartlett.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Cooley.

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you.

Senator BARTLETT. You made a very good witness, and you'd have made even a more formidable one if you were still wearing your beard. [Laughter.]

I would like to recall Mr. Holdsworth.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, in order to save time, I would merely read one short paragraph of a letter dated August 21, 1959, addressed to Governor Egan and signed by Secretary Seaton.

*** I had hoped for your support.

He has been speaking of this legislation.

*** Failing to receive it, I must, nonetheless, inform you that I feel that it is my duty to pursue every proper means to establish the range through legislation. If it fails, then my only alternative (as I said on November 20, 1957, when announcing our intention to both establish the Arctic Wildlife Range and modify public land order 82 to permit access to the Gubik structure and 20 million acres of public lands for mineral leasings) is to "reconsider the opening of this area to mining activity."

Senator BARTLETT. That is not positive proof, however, that the Secretary will move unilaterally if the Congress does not act.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH. I have here another letter from the U.S. Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, dated October 12, 1959, signed by Joe Josephson, legislative assistant.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, I would indicate a slight correction there. Mr. Josephson is my legislative assistant, and I would say that in some manner or other, probably from the committee staff, he obtained some of the stationery of the committee, so this must not be construed as a letter from the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH. On the request of our division of mines and minerals, Mr. Josephson replied as follows (reading No. 12):

Following receipt here of your letter of October 2 to Mr. Bartlett, I called Mr. Ted Stevens, who is assistant to the Secretary and legislative counsel. I told Mr. Stevens that the September 25 issue of the Outdoor News Bulletin said: "Interior Secretary Seaton has stated that he will withdraw and reserve the arctic range if Congress fails to act." I asked Mr. Stevens if this quotation was an accurate statement of the Secretary's position. He answered that it was an accurate statement and indicated that it reflected comments made by the Secretary on several occasions. While he did not give me the exact quotation to which the item in the Outdoor News Bulletin referred, he said that the Secretary wrote to Governor Egan informing the Governor that if Congress fails to act, the Secretary would have to "reconsider" his position regarding the withdrawal and reservation of the arctic range. It was very clear that Mr. Stevens wanted to leave no doubt in my mind that the Outdoor News Bulletin item is accurate and that it reflects statements made by the Secretary on several occasions.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH. If the committee wishes, I could leave copies of this letter.

Senator BARTLETT. It would be appreciated, Mr. Holdsworth. Thank you very much.

Dr. Buckley, representing the Department of the Interior, is in the hearing room now. I should like to ask Dr. Buckley if he should care to comment on this particular point.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN L. BUCKLEY, DEPARTMENT OF

INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. BUCKLEY. I can answer it very briefly.

My name is Dr. John L. Buckley, Department of the Interior, address: Laurel, Md.; the Department address, Washington, D.C.

I would not care to comment on this other than the statements which have already been made: the statement which was read into the record by Mr. Holdsworth concerning both of these letters, the one from Secretary Seaton to Governor Egan, and the letter from your assistant to Mr. Holdsworth.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Dr. Buckley.

JUNEAU GARDEN CLUB, Juneau, Alaska, October 16, 1959.

Senator E. L. BARTLETT,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR BARTLETT: The Juneau Garden Club favors the establishment of the Arctic Wildlife Range under provision of Senate bill 1899 which will permit mining, oil leasing, hunting, fishing, and wilderness type of recreation, We think that in the future the range will be an unusual tourist attraction. The small loss to the State in highway funds shall be more than offset by the added recreational value and possible oil or mineral leasing. Anyway, if the State doesn't have to build roads in the area, Alaska should not get credit for the acreage in the highway aid formula.

America is fast losing its wild land, and the Garden Club believes that we should keep some wild land uncluttered by man's dirty marks on the landscape where natural plant and animal life can be seen by the coming generation.

The Juneau Garden Club has voted to favor the Arctic Wildlife Range and requests that this message be made part of the record of hearings on Senate bill 1899.

Very truly yours,

VERYL GUNDERSON, Corresponding Secretary.

Senator BARTLETT. Is there any other witness in the audience who cares to be heard on this bill?

If not, the committee will stand in recess for a period of 10 minutes, and then will tackle the proposition of continuation of exemptions for certain charter vessels in the southeastern Alaska trade. (After recess.)

Senator BARTLETT. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Brooks desires to make a short supplementary statement, relating to S. 1899. Mr. Brooks.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to point out that Alaska is not unprepared in the matter of accepting responsibility over its fish and game resources.

The territorial government created the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 1949. It was staffed by professional men, and functioned in the role of research, for quite a number of years.

In 1957, the legislature created the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, so in effect, we have a 10-year history of a research in working in an advisory capacity.

At present, the State has 53 university-trained scientists on its permanent staff. In addition, we have another 50 or more temporary or administrative people employed. After the 1st of January, this staff will be increased, further.

So, it is my opinion that the fears of people, so often expressed, that Alaska is unprepared, perhaps unable, to accept this great responsibility, are unfounded. For, actually we have prepared, and we are ready with a competent group of people here to do the job. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.

ARCTIC ALASKA TOURS, Seattle, Wash., December 21, 1959.

Hon. E. L. BARTLETT,
U.S. Senate,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR BOB: Upon my return from extensive trip throughout the South and into the Caribbean, I learned of a recent hearing conducted by you and Senator Gruening in Alaska concerning the proposed Arctic Wildlife Range. Speaking for the tourist industry and my part in that activity, I'd like to express my interest in seeing Alaska's wildlife protected in anyway possible.

I am convinced that Alaska's tourists are attracted to the north country in good part because of their hope and desire that they will see wildlife in some form. I know that the flights over the arctic caribou herds have always been a thrill to the visitor. A trip into McKinley National Park without a sight of game is a sad disappointment. As our roads develop and civilization expands, wildlife will be forced to move farther away from the accessible areas.

I'd like to add my voice to those others who are petitioning for setting aside of adequate areas for the preservation of our wildlife. With this in mind, I would appreciate it if you could include my letter in the testimony which was heard in Fairbanks.

Very sincerely yours,

Chuck

CHARLES B. WEST, President. Senator BARTLETT. Since there are no further witnesses the committee will be in recess, and will convene again at Anchorage, on Saturday morning.

(Whereupon, at 6 p.m., October 22, 1959, the committee recessed to reconvene Saturday morning, at Anchorage, Alaska.)

(The following letters were subsequently received for the record:)

STATE OF ALASKA,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Juneau, Alaska, October 30, 1959.

Hon. E. L. "Bob" BARTLETT,

Senator from Alaska,

Juneau, Alaska.

DEAR BOB: Enclosed is a copy of the recent release put out by Commissioner C. L. Anderson, of Alaska's Department of Fish and Game. I am forwarding this to you in order that you may present it to the subcommittee in the hearings on the Arctic Wildlife Range. This point of view should be reassuring to those conservation groups which seemed so perturbed over the fact that the Arctic Wildlife Range might not be established.

One final thought is the fact that a very substantial portion of our poulation is composed of Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians. It is a fact that it is common knowledge that these people are extremely conservation conscious, and will have a like effect on the attitude of Alaska's administration of its fish and wildlife. In fact, there are seven legislators in the house of representatives who are Aleuts, Eskimos, or Indians. It can be seen that their point of view, and es

pecially their point of view on conservation, would have ample opportunity for presentation to the State administration of Alaska, and to the public in Alaska. Yours truly,

JAMES E. FISHER.

GLEN ELLYN, ILL., November 23, 1959.

Re S. 1899.

Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: As a member of a conservation and humane organization, I am very definitely in favor of establishing an Arctic Wildlife Range in Alaska.

Will be following the outcome of this with much interest.
Very truly yours,

HELEN L. GAVIN.

STATE OF ALASKA,

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
Juneau, December 22, 1959.

Re proposed Arctic Wildlife Range and interference with mining in State parks and monuments.

Hon. E. L. "BOB" BARTLETT,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR BOB: Chuck Herbert and I realized too late that certain matters pertaining to what will happen to mining in the proposed Arctic Wildlife Range were not brought out in your recent hearings. With your permission, I am placing these facts here for your reference and for inclusion in the record if it is not too late. The point to be made here is that although S. 1899 provides for prospecting and mining in the proposed withdrawal, it will not, in actual practice, work out that way; but will instead be restricted because of later regulations that will be promulgated. We know that this will happen, if the bill passes, because of what has happened in Mount McKinley National Park and Glacier Bay National Monument, which areas were created respectively by a law and an executive order which contained provisions to allow for mining and prospecting to continue. It has not worked out that way.

First, we quote from a portion of the law which created Mount McKinley National Park (16 U.S.C. 350a): “* * * Provided, That no resident of the United States who is qualified under the mining laws of the United States applicable to Alaska shall be denied entrance to the park for the purpose of prospecting or mining."

Yet, in spite of the above law, regulations such as the following (36 CFR 1.61, as lately amended) have been promulgated which effectively do deny persons the right to prospect and mine in the park: "(a) No person shall land aircraft on land or water or any federally owned area within any national park or monument,, other than at one of the following designated landing areas: (1) Mount McKinley National Park, Alaska, McKinley Park Station Airport, located in sections 3 and 4 township 14 south, range 7 west, and sections 33 and 34 township 13 south, range 7 west, Fairbanks meridian." On the basis of this regulation a prospecting party was, in fact, denied entrance to the park last summer because a helicopter was one of its necessary prospecting tools. We need not dwell on the importance and necessity of helicopters and other aircraft in modern prospecting and mining.

There are further restrictive regulations such as the one prohibiting the building of roads to service a mining property unless a permit is obtained, and we know that these permits are not always obtainable. Also, the park superintendent shall designate which timber may be cut on a mining claim, and how many cuttings or debris shall be disposed of by the prospector or miner.

Then, concerning Glacier Bay National Monument, in addition to the Executive order mentioned above leaving it open for mining, we have chapter 700 of the 74th Congress (49 Stat. 1817) saying as follows: "*** in the area within the Glacier Bay National Monument in Alaska, or as it may hereafter be extended, all mineral deposits of the classes and kinds now subject to location, entry, and

« PreviousContinue »