Page images
PDF
EPUB

I urge your rejection of S. 174 in the course of its consideration in the House of Representatives and request that this statement of our position be included in the official hearing record. Thank you, Madam Chairman. [Applause.]

(The supplementary statement referred to follows:)

IDAPINE MILLS, INC., GRANGEVILLE, IDAHO

Idapine Mills, Inc., of Grangeville, Idaho, after grave and careful study and consideration, finds the presently formulated Wilderness Preservation System Act a most alarming proposal. Our concern and alarm is predicated on the following conclusions:

We are a small, independent lumber manufacturer situated at Grangeville, Idaho. We employ approximately 235 residents of Idaho County. We are 1 of approximately 12 lumber producers in this area who have invested private funds in the construction of capital and fixed plants and facilities to harvest the allowable cuts of the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests. In many instances, our business, and others, and all their employees and adjacent economic communities, are totally dependent upon the U.S. Forest Service for a continued opportunity to compete and discharge their responsibilities to their employees, communities, and investors. These companies are truthfully captive in every sense of the word. The policies, directives, action, and inaction, of the U.S. Forest Service is as they were on the board of directors of each company.

Twenty or more years ago, when the present primitive areas were roughly defined as they now exist, it was primarily happenstance and complete lack of knowledge and survey of the areas in question that resulted in their primitive classification at that time. During this entire period of time, to date, no planned, intelligent survey on a whole, or serious, methodical study has been attempted to intelligently classify the broad Selway-Bitterroot and Idaho primitive areas to their proper reclassified status as:

(1) Suitable pure wilderness.

(2) Reserved accessible recreation areas.
(3) Commercial forest lands.

Because of the vast commercial forest areas now included within the primitive classification, the long-range economic level of this area is subject to great restriction. There is no reason to assume that the enactment of this proposed act would, though it provides for study and reclassification of the present primitive areas, result in an objective and professional reclassification of these lands. To the contrary, the acreage limitation proposed in the act could well become, not maximum acres, but minimum acres to be expanded from.

The proponents of this act use all the emotional and selfish motivations possible, yet apparently harbor no concern whatsoever for the welfare of the minority group of citizens that can be gravely displaced by a sword of Damocles forever poised at their economic throat. The vast treasure of renewable timber contained within our national forests and public lands must be intelligently and professionally harvested. It must be fully utilized and properly managed to insure the healthy survival of the lumber industry, the cattle industry, and the mining industry of our area. The withdrawal of portions of this great resource from planned management is a direct blow at that area's economy, directly proportioned to its volume. This is fundamental, whether the loss is by fire, insect, wind, overmaturity, or deliberate abandonment.

The concept of wilderness as originally conceived, even 100 years ago by Mr. Henry Thoreau, and later naturalists, such as Mr. Alde Leopold of the U.S. Forest Service, is, and has always been, in conflict with economic reality. No philosophy of management can be so selfishly self-centered as the radical element of the present wilderness group proposes, and give fair and intelligent, equal consideration to all facets of this very important national decision. It does not follow per se that economic considerations within the present wilderness discussions are evil, or economic exploitation is the consuming passion of any and all the interested economic users of public lands.

We recognize the need and desirability to establish proper sanctuaries where man may journey to refresh his spirit and body. We recognize the need to establish proper areas before further inevitable settlement and mechanization displace forever and all time such areas.

We are also mindful of the fact that such areas are, as a matter of public record and practical fact, available to only a very limited percentage of our

population. It is the very primitive area that is visited and enjoyed by in excess of 10,000 people, and it is generally much less. The attrition of uncontrolled fires in these areas yearly destroys thousands of acres of their beauty, because of complete inaccessibility to modern fire equipment. We cannot rationalize the loss as an act of nature to be regretted, but accepted, when at our disposal are modern tools to effectively reduce this decimation. This is not an intelligent manner in which the care for the heritage we have under our guidance. Nor is the lack of our prudence in caring for these areas, evidenced by black fire scars, a fitting heritage to bequeath to our next generation.

Accessibility to and in these areas, in limited and controlled sections, is essential to their use and protection. It is of equal importance to the broad spectrum of our people that reasonable access to these areas be made available if they are in fact to be enjoyed and available to all.

Exploitation at any level, by any group-economic, esthetic, or naturalist, is equally to be combatted. It is clear that the present wilderness society practices exploitation for its own selfish interests, with a great deal more finesse than that ever evident at other levels. The esthetic hog is consumed by a passion so intent that he shows no concern for his less fortunate fellow man, no sense of reasonableness, devoid of all concern as to the nature of a true wilderness preserve, consumed entirely with his egotistical desire to encompass public land within his domain. This surely cannot be an acceptable position.

We urge that all lands now within the boundaries of unsurveyed and unclassified primitive areas be surveyed, classified, and studied by professional foresters and conservationists; that the classification of these areas give due and careful consideration to all groups, all economic interests, and special emphasis, if you will, to those areas of predominantly wilderness value. This must be a necessary first consideration to the enactment and establishment of a wilderness area, as visualized by our many competent and dedicated conservationists. It is an absolute necessity to the preservation of our economic growth in the north Idaho cattle, mining, and lumber industry. The inclusion, for inclusion's sake only, of areas not predominantly of wilderness value, within such wilderness boundaries, could only detract from these areas at a great sacrifice to all other legitimate interests.

To establish the rights of the cattlemen, the mining industry, and the lumbermen to participate in the classification of these public lands, under the multipleuse principle, is not a desire to use, for economic use only, every square inch of this land, but rather a desire to see a practical and wise decision reached on this question.

Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is Mr. Floyd McFadden, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union Local 2623, Council, Idaho.

He is substituting for Mr. Samuel Wilson.

You may proceed, Mr. McFadden.

STATEMENT OF FLOYD MCFADDEN, LUMBER & SAWMILL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 2623, COUNCIL, IDAHO

Mr. MCFADDEN. Madam Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is Floyd McFadden and I represent Local Union 2623 of the Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union, Council, Idaho.

As a representative of this union, I would like to express our opposition to the wilderness bill, S. 174.

We feel this bill reduces the job opportunities in logging and sawmilling by reducing the available timber supply. Even though we are presently employed, we certainly do not feel the wilderness bill as it stands now would be any form of security for the future.

We also feel the wilderness bill will limit our hunting, fishing, and other recreational opportunities we and our families presently enjoy. With an expanding population we feel there is need for more area to be opened up for the general public's use, and by putting more acreage into the wilderness area we feel this could not be accomplished.

It is also our feeling there is enough area already set aside as wilderness areas to accommodate those people who presently are capable of utilizing them, and for all those who may want to utilize those areas in the future.

Therefore we of Union Local 2623, Council, Idaho, think the wilderness bill should be defeated.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you very much.

[Applause.]

Mrs. ProST. Our next witness is Mr. Leo Gallagher, Mountaineers Club of Seattle, Wash.

You may proceed, Mr. Gallagher.

STATEMENT OF LEO GALLAGHER, REPRESENTING THE
MOUNTAINEERS CLUB, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Chairman, and Congressman Olsen, I am Leo Gallagher. I am a mattress manufacturer. I am representing the Mountaineers Club of Seattle, Wash., and when I asked Representative Olsen for time to present the Mountaineers' statement, I also requested a few minutes to make a personal statement relative to youth and how they are affected. I would like to follow with that.

The Mountaineers Club, with headquarters in Seattle and branches in Tacoma and Everett, is the third largest outdoor club in the Nation. We have enthusiastically supported the wilderness bill at all stages of its evolution. Many changes have been made in this legislation since first proposed. Although some of these changes have weakened the objectives of the bill, we believe it is an acceptable compromise of earlier legislation.

The bill will establish a national policy of wilderness preservation and a program to make it effective. It will give statutory protection to that remaining unspoiled country already included as wilderness or wild areas in our national forests, national parks, and wildlife refuges.

Today, dedicated national forest areas can be changed or deleted from wilderness classification at the discretion of one public administrator, the Secretary of Agriculture. The wilderness bill will set up an orderly procedure for additions, changes, or deletions in the wilderness preservation system, with review by the Congress. This is appropriate. Congress should have the decisive voice in stating and carrying out a policy regarding the use of public lands for the benefit of all the people.

Opponents of designated wilderness areas and the wilderness preservation system proclaim that we want to lock up vast areas for a single use. This is not true. This land will be reserved for four of five uses subscribed to under the multiple-use principles of the United States.

We are not advocating that vast areas be withdrawn from commercial use; only that those areas now designated as "wilderness," "wild," or "primitive" be protected under the wilderness preservation system.

The Mountaineers have presented statements or testified through representatives at several of the exhaustive hearings already held on the earlier version of the wilderness bill, both in Washington and in

the Western States. These hearings conclusively showed how strongly this measure is supported by the people of the Northwest, the area most affected by the provisions of the wilderness bill.

We strongly recommend the passage of the wilderness bill, S. 174, during the coming session of Congress. It is needed now and without further amendments.

Now I would like to make my personal statement. As I mentioned, I am Leo Gallagher and I live in Tacoma. I am a mattress manufacturer and I have, during my lifetime, been associated with youth activities. I would like to make a little comparison here to show you how changing times change conditions.

In 1912, in my last year in high school, I was a whistle punk in a logging camp 20 miles from Tacoma. Today, 49 years later, they are logging at the boundaries of Mt. Rainier National Park, 15 miles away. There are only a few patches of timber left between Tacoma and Mt. Rainier National Park. There were 22 sawmills on the waterfront of Tacoma in those days. We were the lumber capital of America. There are four left today.

I raised three children in the mountains. I have been active with Boy Scouts. I just left a Boy Scout conference at Yakima, Wash., at which I met a junior Scout executive who was in Tacoma. He told me, "Leo, I am sorry I am on the other side of the wilderness bill now. I am in Idaho.”

I said, "How can you, as a Scout executive, say that you have changed your position just because you are in Idaho?"

He said, "Well, it will take lumber and timber areas away from the people of Idaho."

I said, "No, I am sorry. You have not read the bill."

He said, "It will do the same as far as mining is concerned."
I said, "No. You can still prospect and mine."

It is unfortunate that a young man who is going to be leading and training boys and trying to educate explorers in the use of the wilderness is going to be denied his real job of doing that. I say that if we are going to keep our children today from being juvenile delinquents, we are going to have to give them the opportunity to enjoy these areas as I was fortunate in being able to enjoy them, and I hope my three children and my nine grandchildren will have the opportunity to continue to enjoy them as I did.

Unfortunately, I am afraid my grandchildren will be like me, from the time I was a whistle punk until today, when conditions have changed so, unless you people in Congress assume your responsibility and pass this bill.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher.

(The following supplemental statement was subsequently received :)

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF LEO GALLAGHER, TACOMA, WASH.

I wish to urge that the House of Representatives pass just as soon as possible S. 174, commonly called the wilderness bill, without any amendments. My concern for this bill is due to my desire to preserve wilderness areas for my children, grandchildren and other children to enjoy during the generations to come.

I have given my three children, during their younger years of life, an opportunity to visit wilderness areas by taking them with me on trips every summer until the oldest two are now married and they are doing the same with their children. You will never have child delinquency problems with children who have had the opportunity to regularly visit wilderness areas. They just grow up differently.

I have often heard it said trips in the wilderness are only for the wealthy as it is too expensive to hire pack horses and equipment. This is not true for just this past summer my wife and I took a trip into the wilderness of the Yoho National Park of Canada with the Mountaineers and our total cost for 2 weeks, the hiring of a pack train, a cook and helpers for the group, was only $77 for each of us, no more hardly than it would cost to stay home.

On my many trips into the wilderness I have had the opportunity of seeing many others making trips similar to mine. The interesting thing is that the greatest numbers were Boy Scouts and families. In 1960 I crossed the Olympic National Park and we met one large group of Scouts with at least 8 men leaders and about 40 boys. We also passed one group of 15 Explorer Scouts with two adult leaders. This is the very finest experience a boy can have.

We have often heard it said that we will be locking up a great amount of timber but that is not true. It will actually be no different than at present. The only difference will be is that the President and Congress will be passing on any changes in the boundaries instead of the Forest Service. The Forest Service is continually under pressure to release areas for logging, so this bill will take the local pressures off them and give Congress, representing all the people, an opportunity to have a say in what we shall preserve.

Again I urge that you pass S. 174, the wilderness bill, just as soon as possible.
Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is Mr. John Osseward, of Seattle,
Wash., and then Mr. Donald M. Sowa, of Kamiah, Idaho.
You may proceed, Mr. Osseward.

STATEMENT OF JOHN OSSEWARD, PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT,
SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. OSSEWARD. Madam Chairman, I would like at the outset if possible to have for the record the printing of a very short statement by Prof. James Bonner, department of biology, California Institute of Technology, entitled "The Ultimate Limit of Our Resources." Mrs. PrOST. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The material referred to follows:)

THE ULTIMATE LIMIT OF OUR RESOURCES

(By James Bonner)

In this essay I wish to consider the preservation of natural areas in the face of pressure for the exploitation of material resources which these areas may contain. People generally are for nature: Native forests, trailless mountain fastnesses, quiet glades and brooks are valued in our culture, and I dare say, there would be no problem about the preservation of nature in the world today were it not for the fact that we need and demand from our environment, from nature, the resources which feed our people and which supply and power our industrial culture. An area, no matter how beautiful in its native state, is not likely to remain undisturbed if it is underlain with rich deposits of some useful material, and this, in a sense, is proper. An industrial civilization feeds on material resources. If we are to have the benefit of a technological culture we must give up to our technology the raw materials which it requires, and so it seems to me the question of whether or not we can hope to retain natural areas in our country or in our world really revolves around material resources. How great might our requirement for material resources become in the future? From whence will these materials come? Is there any realistic hope that we can preserve unexploited any portion of the earth's surface?

A striking fact, perhaps the most striking fact concerning material resources today, is the rate of increase in their consumption, both in the United States and in the world. The amounts of metals, energy, water and wood, which each of us uses each year, have been increasing steadily, and ever more rapidly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and it seems clear that this process will continue and that the requirements of the world's peoples for material resources will ultimately rise to levels which will dwarf today's demands into insignifi

cance.

« PreviousContinue »