Page images
PDF
EPUB

patent under the mining laws of the United States shall be, exclusive of the land containing them, subject to disposal under such laws ***."

Here again, though, we have a regulation (36 CFR 1.61, as lately amended) saying that aircraft cannot land as mentioned above in (a) except: “(3) Glacier Bay National Monument, Alaska. The entire water area of the monument, except Adams Inlet and any of the lakes of the monument: Provided, however, landings and takeoffs shall not be made on beaches or tidal flats or within one nautical mile of any tidewater glacier in the monument. If authorized by the superintendent, helicopters may land at selected sites where deemed essential in the conduct of prospecting and mining activities." Though a bit more lenient than the McKinley regulation, this one will still be instantly recognized as severely restrictive of an effective prospecting program. Roads, timber cutting, etc., are restricted the same as in Mount McKinley, and the regulations containing these further restrictions are found under 43 CFR 69.11. One prospecting party in the monument was informed last summer that if they did not start reporting their every move, and shape up in other ways, they would be forbidden to prospect there. I, personally, was told by the superintendent that if it ever looks as if an open-pit operation might be started, "* ** we will get a law passed to prevent it."

Because of all the above, we have learned that though the passers of a law to withdraw an area may have the intent that the area be open to mineral entry, it just does not remain that way. The bureaucratic urge to keep an area under its jurisdiction closed to all but its own functions is too strong.

Considering the above, we urge that S. 1899 be amended to guarantee mining and prospecting without restrictions as to methods and access, in case the bill does pass. This amendment could probably be most simply made by adding to the end of section 3(a) after the word "Defense": "And provided further, That mining and prospecting shall be permitted without restrictions as to methods and access," or words to that effect which you might consider to be a better choice.

Sincerely,

JAMES A. WILLIAMS, Director, Division of Mines and Minerals.

ARCTIC WILDLIFE RANGE-ALASKA

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1959

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Present: Hon. E. L. Bartlett, Alaska.

Anchorage, Alaska.

Senator BARTLETT. The committee will be in order.

I should like to introduce to the group in the audience those who are here with me, and so I will start from my far left:

Mr. Abe Romick, commissioner for the Department of Commerce, for the State of Alaska.

Here in the background is Dr. John Buckley, Fish and Wildlife Service, now in Washington, and formerly of the University of Alaska.

Here at the same table is Mr. Harry Huse, who handles fish and wildlife affairs with the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.

Recording our testimony, and very efficiently, is Mr. William Miller, of Seattle.

On my immediate left is Frank Barton, transportation counsel for the Senate committee.

And on my immediate right is Mr. Harold Baynton, chief counsel for that same committee.

Tomorrow, this committee-this committee being the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, or at least one member of it with an adequate number of staff members, hopes to be joined by at least one, and perhaps more members of the House committee. We expect to have with us Representative Morgan Moulder, of Missouri. This committee opened hearings, earlier in the week, at Ketchikan, on Senate bill 1899, having to do with the State of Alaska, and having an order of some importance in the economic future of the 49th State. This bill relates to the proposed establishment of the Arctic Wildlife Range.

I would suggest that there is little point to be gained in testifying on subjects outside of the jurisdiction of the committee, because in the first place, the committee cannot do much about those matters; and in the second place, we are of the opinion that we are going to have to proceed in a very orderly manner, even perhaps to the point of limiting the time that the chairman may speak, to conclude these hearings by Monday afternoon. We understand that there are many witnesses to be heard, and we want them to have every opportunity to be heard.

I think, if I am not overruled by those with me, that on Monday morning, we had better start at 9 o'clock, as it is going to be a pretty full day.

The Chairman notes the presence in the meeting hall of the mayor of Anchorage, Mayor George Byer. I wonder, Mr. Mayor, if we may hear from you?

Come on up here, George, so that your remarks will be recorded. We want this down in the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE BYER, MAYOR OF
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

Mayor BYER. Thank you, Senator Bartlett, and ladies and gentlemen, now, I think that this is a very worthy day for Anchorage, and, of course, for Alaska. We are grateful to these honorable and respected men who are giving their time so that you may be heard; and we again extend our appreciation to you all.

Thank you.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I can only say, in our behalf, that we are delighted to be here, and especially glad to be here in the capacity that is meaningful to the economy

of this and other sections of Alaska.

We are prepared-the committee is ready to hear witnesses on S. 1899, authorizing the establishment of an Arctic Wildlife Range in the State of Alaska.

The first witness will be the representative from the Izaak Walton League, Dan L. Rudisill, the president of the Anchorage chapter. STATEMENT OF DAN L. RUDISILL, PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE CHAPTER, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

Mr. RUDISILL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Dan L. Rudisill, of the Anchorage Chapter, Izaak Walton League of America. It is a great privilege to appear before you in behalf of the members of my organization and fellow-Alaskans in support of S. 1899-the Arctic Wildlife Range.

We have received considerable correspondence on this matter, including copies of the hearings held in Washington. After intensive study of this material, we are reaffirming and reoffering our views as residents of the State of Alaska of the United States of America.

The area in question is a wildlife range, not a "wilderness" area and the connotations of the latter term should neither be applied nor implied. The restrictions of this range are the restrictions of commonsense, as the animals of the area cannot thrive close to civilization. The great majority of us have seen first hand the problems faced in the south 48, where some States are now having to purchase land for recreational purposes; where others have spent large sums to rebuild their game population; where some game animals, once plentiful, are now extinct. We do not wish that to happen here.

You, gentlemen, are well familiar with all the pros and cons of this controversy, so I shall not speak of the ecology and wildlife of the area other than to say you have been truthfully informed as to its excellence and value.

From a financial standpoint, we feel this area will be a bonanza in years to come from the tourist trade alone, if it is allowed to remain

"back country." Progress moves swiftly, therefore it should be established "back country" before tomorrow is yesterday.

Gentlemen, we submit to you our belief in the sound legislation of S. 1899; that in order the time of plenty may be preserved and Alaska may not suffer the 7 year's famine known to some of her sister States, that this Arctic Wildlife Range be created and established. Thus we may have conservation of the species for the sake of the species and the sake of every man, woman, and child of Alaska and the United States.

Senator BARTLETT. That concludes your statement?
Mr. RUDISILL. Yes, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. We are very glad to hear from you. How many members does the Izaak Walton League have in Anchorage? Mr. RUDISILL. Approximately about 110, I believe it is.

Senator BARTLETT. Do you know how many in the State of Alaska? Mr. RUDISILL. No, sir; not offhand, but I would say probably 200; there are several chapters, and some of them are not very active. Senator BARTLETT. Do you know of any members of your local group who have been to this area in question?

Mr. RUDISILL. I believe there are some, but I don't know who they

are.

it?

Senator BARTLETT. Have you heard them describe it, or talk about

Mr. RUDISILL. The best description I have heard of it was from Mr. Olaus Murie.

Senator BARTLETT. Yes; Mr. M-u-r-i-e.

Mr. RUDISILL. He was up here and gave us a lecture on it, and he showed us pictures.

Senator BARTLETT. He has been there; he was there with his wife; and I think Supreme Court Justice Douglas and his wife joined them.

Mr. RUDISILL. Yes, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. Do you think that the reserve proposed is of reasonable size?

Mr. RUDISILL. Yes, sir; I think so.

Senator BARTLETT. Would you favor a reserve of that size, oh, we will say, 100 miles from Anchorage?

no.

Mr. RUDISILL. Well, I don't believe 100 miles from Anchorage, This is just me speaking, that is not

Senator BARTLETT. I understand.

Which animals are in this range which cannot thrive in civilization?

Mr. RUDISILL. Well, the caribou, I believe, would be the main one; or I think the grizzly-there are a few grizzlies and polar bear up there, too. In fact, according to-I don't know too much about it myself-but according to my information, practically all of the game animals of Alaska are represented there, excepting the deer.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, do you know if this 9-million-acre tract is especially well populated by game?

Mr. RUDISILL. I believe so, sir; I don't know, for sure.

Senator BARTLETT. Do you know if any biologic studies have been made of the game by the Department of the Interior or by others over a continuing period of time?

Mr. RUDISILL. No, sir; I don't.

Senator BARTLETT. Did you read the hearings in Washington; the record of the hearings that were held in Washington?

Mr. RUDISILL. Yes; I did read those. I didn't get a chance to read them closely, but I read them.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, that is understandable, but I did want to call your attention, and I thought I should, to the statements or the statement made that actually the Department of the Interior has not had any scientific people on the ground, in this area, for any considerable periods of time. I think that the record will show that not a single Government official has been there all winter. The trips have been very brief. I am wondering just how it is that we can have all the knowledge about the desirability and even need to set this area aside for a wildlife range when, on the record, no studies, or very inadequate studies, have been made. Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. RUDISILL. Well, the only comment I have on it is what we have read from people that have been there, although they haven't been there, as you say, all winter, making a study; but there have been quite a few parties, I believe, that have gone in there and studied animals, and what do you call it—the flora and fauna of the regionSenator BARTLETT. I don't-I have trouble handling this word "ecology."

Mr. RUDISILL. I don't know what it means, either.

Senator BARTLETT. Why, do you know how many people live in the 9-million-acre tract?

Mr. RUDISILL. No, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. Do you know how the boundaries came to be defined in the manner they now are?

Mr. RUDISILL. I believe that I have heard, but I am not sure what they were.

Senator BARTLETT. Are you concerned, at all, that the State of Alaska would have to put up an additional $275,000 in road funds, if the public domain area in this tract becomes a wildlife range?

Mr. RUDISILL. I have heard that, but then, again, I have heard that the return of public domain of the Gubik Oilfields in that area is going to be determined, whether this wildlife area is established, or not; and in that case, why we get more land back than we lose this

way.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, some witnesses in Washington alluded to this; they were not Government officials, and what I, for one, had difficulty understanding, was why the return of the one could properly be related to the withdrawal of the other. If there is no further requirement for any land in Public Land Order 82, why should it not be promptly restored to the public domain, regardless of action taken, or action not taken, on the Arctic Wildlife Range?

Mr. RUDISILL. I don't know why it should not be, but I don't know whether it would be or not.

Senator BARTLETT. I don't either, but as you say, we have heard reports to this effect. Do you believe that within the foreseeable future, any considerable number of Alaskans will have opportunity to go to Northeastern Alaska, to this wildlife range, if it is established?

« PreviousContinue »