We who are striving for wilderness preservation have often been told that we are, at best, engaged in a rearguard delaying action; that we cannot hope to see areas of wilderness last forever, that the best we can do is to slow down the progress of mechanization, roadbuilding, and development, and preserve as long as possible the benefits of an inevitably disappearing resource. Yet it seems to me that we can now see before us a further vision, a hope for the preservation of wilderness in perpetuity. We realize only too well that civilization is indeed destined to occupy for its own purposes, as Robert Marshall said, "every niche on the whole earth." It is indeed in this very prospect that we see the opportunity to establish an enduring program. We see in it a recognition of the fact that in the absence of positive action there would eventually be no wilderness left, and that we must act deliberately. It is this realization, accompanied by a determination so to act, which gives us our far vision, our high hope, for thus we see wilderness preservation becoming an aspect of our culture. Civilization's "ambition," in other words, can encompass wilderness protection and, so sublimated, can make preservation a prevailing purpose. American conservationists today are the vanguard of what can well become a program in perpetuity. The tenseness of our responsibility and opportunity is in our necessity to fashion wisely a policy and program that will successfully keep the wilderness "forever wild." We could miss this opportunity. We could fail. We could be forced to retreat. We could become the rearguard of an inevitably disappearing resource. But we are not that now. It may seem presumptuous for men and women who live only 40, 50, 60, 70, or 80 years, to dare to undertake a program for perpetuity, but that surely is our challenge. The wilderness that has come to us from the eternity of the past we have the boldness to project into the eternity of the future. As champions of this forward movement we should realize that we are indeed working to fashion the kind of policy and program that will insure now, before it is too late, the preservation of wilderness forever. Furthermore, it must at all times be recognized that we work for wilderness preservation not primarily for the right of a minority to have the kind of fun it prefers, but, rather, to insure for everyone the perpetuation of areas where human enjoyment and the other benefits of wilderness can be realized, to preserve for all the freedom of choosing to know the primeval if they so wish. Wilderness areas as places to visit do not constitute a resource which belongs only to the people who happen to be using them at any given time. Wilderness is not for a minority; it is for everyone. Preserving wilderness perpetuates the choice that Americans have always had: the choice of going to a wilderness if they so wish. This should be perpetuated, and more people should know the wilderness experience. Young people especially should know the wilderness, if only for a once-in-a-lifetime experience. If they do not wish to return,or if later they come to a time when they are no longer able to endure or enjoy the experience, they should see that the wilderness is preserved for their children-and theirs, and theirs, on and on. In this respect, our wilderness areas are like art galleries. None of us feels, for example, that the National Gallery of Art is for just the few people, or even the crowds, who are there at any particular time. We maintain it for everybody. Sooner or later everyone who is concerned can visit it, and for many of them it is a once-and-forever experience. That also is true of our wilderness areas. Wilderness, in another way, is for many more than the number visiting these areas at any one time. So long as wilderness areas exist in reality, they also have valid meaning to many who know them only through photographs or writings, or through some other medium communicating to them the experiences of those who have visited wilderness. In many ways wilderness is for many people. But we did not come to appreciate the value of areas of wilderness early enough in our experience to preserve very many large areas in the East. There were a few who saw these values, and especially in New York State they were effective. The largest park that we have in the United States, the Adirondack Park, half of it comprising about 2.5 million acres, is in State ownership there, and by the constitution of the State is to be preserved as wild forest land. And we do have a few other stretches. But, for the most part, we lost our chance here. I grew up in western Pennsylvania, Penn's woodland; but the only areas there that are virgin, primitive, are a few small areas that some sentimental lumberman preserved as such, as relics of their boyhood; and so we missed many opportunities that still exist for us nationally, in the extensive areas that you gentlemen enjoy out West and represent here. W. B. Greeley, writing in Sunset magazine for December 1927, when he was Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, expressed this very well when he said: These mountain wildernesses may not be used by numbers of people in anywise commensurate with those who will throng the highways, but their individual service will be immeasurably greater. And as time goes on and interest in outdoor America widens and deepens, their use will surely increase. It is not a matter of providing for one type of recreation to the exclusion of the other. We need both, and we can have both. We must at all times remember, also, that our achievement for wilderness preservation will never be complete or secure until cooperators in all fields of conservation have worked together so effectively that the wise management of all our resources is insured. Then we shall have provided outside our parks and wildernesses for adequate production of the commodities we need. Outside our dedicated wildernesses we shall have made adequate provision for recreational developments that would threaten the wilderness. We shall then have demonstrated that it is possible to preserve a system of wilderness areas without depriving ourselves of essential commodities or of adequate opportunities for outdoors recreation with conveniences. Such a wilderness preservation program can be expected to endure in perpetuity, consistent with our civilization and with the total needs and wishes of our people. This, then, is the case that I see for wilderness legislation providing the charter for such a policy and program as have been outlined in this statement. It would give permanence to programs that already have proved desirable. It would damage no other interest or program. It would involve no new land-management agencies, but, rather, would fit into existing programs. It would include provisions for change, locking no door without also providing a key. It would preserve the wilderness character of lands that can serve a variety of consistent purposes, safeguarding these areas for the permanent good of the whole people not for any special interest or single use, and not for the selfish interest of any individuals or group. A cooperative constructive program based on a long period of responsible study, it offers Americans now the opportunity for enactment in the best possible circumstances, for the establishment of an enduring program supported by all elements of the public concerned with natural resources and the outdoors. So our proposal is to use certain lands that still are wilderness, in a way to continue the use for which Congress has set them aside so far; and yet to require also a continuing respect in connection with those uses for the wilderness character of the lands. I have been lengthier, perhaps, than I contemplated. Mr. BARING. No; I do not think you have. Mr. ZAHNISER. But I appreciate the privilege of placing these general considerations before you. There is a tendency at the end of a period of discussion of legislation, such as this, to forget some of the basic principles with which we started, and become concerned with the details of working them out. But I think it is important to keep these broad objectives in mind. Mr. BARING. I do not think you are at all, Mr. Zahniser. I think you have made a very fair and comprehensive statement. I come from a State where multiple use strictly is in order. You have been with us during the field hearings and I think you know from the testimony received from over 500 witnesses what we were up against. I think you have been most fair in your statement that we have had some areas of wilderness and some areas for other economies. We cannot lock all areas up as wilderness. I think you have been very fair in your presentation. Mr. ZAHNISER. The outline maps show perhaps roughly, but nevertheless to scale, the amount of land that is involved in the proposed preservation of areas of wilderness. The maps are arranged alphabetically. These States are the Western States, which contain great expanses of public land that we still have. (Maps, tables, and attachments follow:) GROSS POSSIBLE ACREAGE IN NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM UNDER THE SAYLOR-QUIE-COHELAN BILLS, AND IN THE SENATE'S WILDERNESS ACT, S. 4, BY REGION, STATE, AND AREA Acreage shown for park and refuge areas and for primitive areas is gross acreage. This includes present park portions for roads and accommodations, other park and refuge areas that will not be included in the wilderness system, and portions of primitive areas that may be eliminated on the review provided for in the Saylor-Quie-Cohelan bills, and in the Senate's Wilderness Act, S. 4. Of the possible total of some 60 million acres shown here, Chairman Clinton P. Anderson of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs predicted that between 35 and 45 million acres would comprise the wilderness system. 28-413-64-pt. 411 |