Wildlife preservation and related areas under Federal jurisdiction in Alaska National parks and monuments: Mount McKinley National Park. Total___ Wildlife refuges and administrative areas: Pribilof Islands Reservation in Tongass National Forest_ Simeonof National Wildlife Refuge_ St. Lazaria National Wildlife Refuge. Semidi National Wildlife Refuge.. Hazen Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Four fishery research stations_ Total_-_ Total national parks and wildlife preservation areas. Senator BARTLETT. I take it, Senator Gruening, the committee may fairly conclude you are opposed to the bill? Senator GRUENING. Yes, sir, I am. Senator BARTLETT. Do you have any information as to why this particular area was selected for a proposed wilderness area? Senator GRUENING. No, I have no firsthand information. I have had various reports and rumors, but I do not think that this is proper for me to transmit them because they might be unfounded, but I imagine in questioning the officials of the Department of Interior, you could probably get the exact facts as to why this area was selected. Senator BARTLETT. You are widely traveled, Senator Gruening, in Alaska. Have you been to or over this particular area? Senator GRUENING. Yes, sir; indeed I have on several occasions. Senator BARTLETT. What could you inform the committee as to its physical characteristics? Senator GRUENING. Well, it is a very varied area. It is mountainous; it has many lakes in it, it has many streams in it; it has some timber at low altitude; it is an area which would probably be not open to those who would use it for more than 2 or 3 months of the year, because it is very far north, and would be snow covered for the greater part of the year. It is north of the Arctic Circle. It would be very difficult to get at. The only way visitors could get there would be by planes and, of course, no fields would probably be allowed there. They would have to use pontoon planes and alight on the lakes which would be unfrozen for only 2 or 3 months of the year, In the winter they could travel on planes equipped with skis, but they would have some difficulty in finding level areas in many parts of this wilderness. Senator BARTLETT. The northern boundary of this proposed withdrawal is right on the Arctic Ocean? Senator GRUENING. Right on the Arctic Ocean. As in the Kenai National Moose Range, it is apparently considered necessary to give wildlife considerable areas of shore front. Senator BARTLETT. Did you observe any game from the air? Senator GRUENING. Yes, sir, I did. I observed bear, and I observed caribou. Senator BARTLETT. Could you inform the committee as to whether this is considered one of the principal habitats of wildlife? Senator GRUENING. No, it is not one of the principal habitats. I would say there are many areas in Alaska in which game is far more abundant and in greater variety. Senator BARTLETT. One more question only, Senator Gruening. The area, as we know from the map, and from the description in the bill, and in the Secretary's report, lies at the extreme northeastern section of Alaska, very remote, of course. In your judgment, if this is not needed as a wilderness area, legislatively or otherwise, would there be considerable time before there would be any "violation," if that is a proper word, which it probably is not, of this tract of land? In other words, what I am aiming at is this, do you think there could be very considerable migration there for settlement or for hunting or for other purposes within the foreseeable future? Senator GRUENING. I think there will be no migration because there are much better hunting areas that are far more accessible. I think it should be pointed out that this is not to be a refuge. This is to be a game range. Now under the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Service, that is an area in which game can be hunted, and it can be protected just as well now, by the regulations of the agency that controls fishing and hunting, as it could if it were set aside as a reservation. At the appropriate time of the year, during the hunting season, hunters will go in there. If it is a range as is proposed, they will take game in the allowed bag limits in the seasons specified by the regulations, and there will be nothing particularly gained, that I can see, by setting this area aside. I hope that in the course of this testimony some of the witnesses in favor of this proposal will testify as to what the specific advantages will be of setting this aside because, if there are such, I know they have escaped me and I would like to be informed what they are. Senator BARTLETT. You are not prepared to tell the committee and you could not tell the committee why this particular area was chosen, why it was designated as to this particular size, or why it is desired this wilderness area be created? Senator GRUENING. I suspect it was done to please some of the conservationist groups who are not happy over the fact that the Secretary of the Interior permitted oil exploration on the Kenai Peninsula, and I think it was generally assumed this was kind of a quid pro quo. They did not get quite what they wanted on Kenai, so this was given to them in exchange. Now I think that is a fairly reasonable assumption; but, if it is not correct, I will be happy to have the record so show. Senator BARTLETT. One further question, and I will have concluded. Do you have any information pro or con as to attitudes within Alaska concerning this proposed withdrawal? Senator GRUENING. I think that there are very few who are in favor of it. I think that even the most active conservationists would realize that nothing very much will be gained by taking this very remote area and setting it aside officially. I want to say this much, if I may be allowed to go back to some of my earlier thoughts. I do not feel that because Alaska is a remote area and sparsely settled that should prevent us or inhibit us from taking whatever measures may be necessary now to safeguard our resources that need safeguarding for the future, but there are of course areas right here in the United States very much nearer the great centers of population where the issue of wilderness areas and wildlife preservation and recreation areas and unspoiled scenery is very much more pressing and where great difficulties are being encountered, and yet there does not seem to be nearly the same enthusiasm or support for setting them aside as there is in Alaska where they are not needed. I am thinking in particular of the effort of some of us to save the dunes on the Indiana lakeshore front, where there is a tremendous pressure to turn this over to industry and destroy these dunes, and not nearly the kind of support that we would like to see from the conservation agencies. If they would direct their energies there, I feel they would be serving a very noble cause. Senator BARTLETT. Senator Gruening, I might mention the proponents of the bill might say that failure to act within the earlier 48 States in a timely fashion, leads, indeed, to the need in Alaska now before it is too late. Do you have a comment to make on that? Senator GRUENING. I think you will find that we have already set aside in Alaska vast areas in which game is absolutely protected, not merely saved for management as in game ranges, but is absolutely sacrosanct and inviolate, true refuges, areas which compare very favorably in extent, habitat, and wildlife population, with areas set aside in the 48 States, exceed all others in extent, and in fact, compare very favorably with the total area set aside for those purposes in the 48 States. So that I feel we have blazed a trail in Alaska in the matter of protection, and I think we ought to be very proud of that. I have no criticism of that whatsoever. On the contrary I think that is a fine thing, I approve of it highly, but I also feel that there comes a point when some of these additional withdrawals now proposed do not fall in the category of wise prevention and wise conservation, and this is one of them. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Senator Gruening, for your educational testimony. The next witness will be Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Ross L. Leffler. We are happy to have you here, Secretary Leffler. STATEMENT OF HON. ROSS L. LEFFLER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. JOHN L. BUCKLEY, THEODORE STEVENS, AND LANSING A. PARKER, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Mr. LEFFLER. I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to read, if I have your permission. Senator BARTLETT. We are happy to have you do so, Mr. Secretary. Mr. LEFFLER. My statement is in connection with Senate bill 1899. To establish the Arctic Wildlife Range in Alaska. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish a wildlife range in northeastern Alaska in the area bounded on the north by the Arctic Ocean, on the east by the Canadian border, on the west by the Canning River, and extending southward to include a portion of the south slope of the Brooks Range. Only a portion of this area has been surveyed, but it is estimated that the total area is approximately 8,800,000 acres. Among the purposes of this wildlife range is the retention of its ecological integrity; alienation of surface rights is incompatible with this need. Under legislation now in effect, the Secretary of the Interior has authority to set aside areas such as this, and to either prohibit mineral exploration and development entirely, or to permit mineral development under the present mining and leasing laws. These laws, for the metallic minerals, provide for patents to the land surface as well as to the subsurface minerals. This bill is necessary in order to allow multiple use of this area; but to preserve title to the surface in the public, and to prevent needless destruction of the surface, it provides that all mineral deposits in the range of the classes and kinds subject to location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and subject to leasing under the mineral leasing laws of the United States, shall be, exclusive of the land containing them, subject to disposal under such laws. Whenever a patent is issued for such mineral deposits, it will not convey any interest in the surface of the land containing such minerals other than the right of occupation and the use of so much of the surface of the land as may be required for purposes reasonably incident to the mining or removal of such minerals. The bill also provides that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to permit the hunting and the taking of game and fur animals, birds, and fish in the wildlife range or parts thereof. And that would be under the direction of the State of Alaska. The wildlife range lies within the area in which the President is authorized by the Alaska Statehood Act to establish special national defense withdrawals. A section of the bill provides that administration and management of the wildlife range shall not affect the conduct of any present or future national defense activities without the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. The enormous development of the outdoor recreation industry and the growing willingness of vacationers to spend their ever-increasing vacation time on long trips to scenic wild areas indicate that in the future Alaska's outdoor recreation resources may contribute more revenue than any other industry. The wildlife and the wilderness frontiers of Alaska are the basic resources upon which much of the recreation industry is dependent. |