« PreviousContinue »
ing flatly the proponent's oft stated allegation that their intent is to lock up "only 2 percent of the Nation's land.”. The areas proposed for inclusion should be examined on a local basis, State by State, because that is where we live, work, pay our taxes, educate our children, and enjoy our recreation.
To show the importance of land to the basic economy of the West, a few data on the value of western agriculture, mining, and forestry, are pertinent. Agriculture produces annually $6.3 billion. Minerals, including oil and gas, another $3.8 billion. Forestry is a $3.3 billion annual crop. Certainly without the products of the field, mine, and forest there would be no western economy and the consumers of the more populous States would be less well fed, housed, clothed, and transported.
In the interest of saving the committee's time I would like to file for the hearing record two of my talks before the American Mining Congress which discuss the proposed wilderness system and its implications upon the future of our country. The first, “The Proposed Wilderness Preservation System," was delivered at Denver, Colo., on September 16, 1959. The second, "Implications of Wilderness Legislation-or Man Against Himself," was given at Las Vagas, Nev., on October 11, 1960. They sum up what we believe to be the most cogent arguments in opposition to the enactment of a bill authorizing a blanket wilderness system.
(The talks referred to are in the committee's files.) Mr. HAGENSTEIN. Another logical argument in opposition to S. 174 is that its consideration now is most premature, because of the comprehensive study of wilderness being made for the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission by the Wildland Research Center of the University of California. It is our understanding that this study will be reported to the commission by the last of May.
I will still read this, Senator, because it was prepared previously and despite the fact you admonished the previous witness on this very thing and undoubtedly will admonish me
Mr. CHAIRMAN. I do not admonish. I simply point out that if you are going to wait for the wilderness study to come in, you may be disappointed because as late as last October they were not sure what they were supposed to do. We could not agree on the definition of wilderness. We had in Jackson Hole people going around and looking at facets of the recreation problem. We had task forces. There are some of us who have spent quite a bit of time with the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, who are not certain now that its final findings will indicate clearly exactly where the recreation needs are going to be because it is somewhat speculative. You let one person make the assumptions. He comes out with one set of answers. Someone else will make them and they come out with something else.
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. It may show what a nebulous field it is and perhaps make it extremely difficult to legislate in a hurry on it.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that these hearings, plus the ones we are having now, indicate that we have done it at a gallop.
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. I must concede, Senator, that there have been some exhaustive hearings held in the past, and I attended every single one of them as you may know, and I appreciate very much the fine job you did in conducting the one in Albuquerque in November 1958 because it was one of the most colorful we had.
The CHAIRMAN. There has been some work on it. Mr. HAGENSTEIN. I certainly will agree with that; on both sides of the fence.
The CHAIRMAN. That I will agree to.
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. How you gentlemen can justify spending Federal money for a study of wilderness and then legislate on the subject before the report is in your hands to guide you, is beyond us.
Therefore, the Industrial Forestry Association, believing that S. 174 is harmful to the future well-being of the citizens of the United States, recommends that it not be enacted.
Now I would like one last personal observation, Mr. Chairman, purely apart from my employment, and this is made as a professional forester and taxpaying citizen of the United States. I regard the drive of the proponents of this legislation to create a blanket wilderness system as a direct attack upon my profession. There has been much scurrilous literature circulated accusing foresters, along with the professional land managers in the fields of mining, water, grazing and general public recreation, of wanting to dam every last creek, harvest every single tree, build roads to every scenic eminence, graze every blade of grass, and so on until no part of our country is left undisturbed. Nothing could be further from the truth, because my profession started the conservation movement in the United States. We have been trained in our many fine professional schools to regard the stewardship of land as a sacred trust for all time.
I am proud to report that the average member of our profession discharges that obligation with high honor and distinction. Our concern is that the people of the United States will have now and forever a continuing supply of wood, water, forage, and all other products of the land consistent with maintaining an appealing landscape with recreational opportunities for everyone. Anybody who claims the contrary is grossly ignorant of the kind of men we foresters are.
Of course, you know what we are, Senator. You were a very distinguished Secretary of Agriculture and had a lot of experience over a long period of years with numerous men in my profession.
Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I grant you that you have some very fine people, and all I ran onto are very fine people.
I do not think that changes the fact, however, that the Congress may have a responsibility for trying to protect recreational values of this country in the same fashion that you desire to protect the timber resource of this country.
In my home State we have 9 million national forest acres, of which only 1 million are in some sort of wilderness-type area. Outside the wilderness there are 2,954,000 commercial forest acres suitable for timber cutting, with an allowable cut of 124,018,000 board feet. Last year 86 million board feet of that 124 million board feet they were allowed were cut. So they are not completely harvesting all the timber that is there, and they are not needing to move into the wilderness areas in order to get more.
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. Of course it is a local problem, Senator, and that is what a blanket system overlooks. You do not get right down where the situation affects local communities. I mean without complete, a lot more complete, studies of these lands than have been made to date, are we in a position to dedicate now, for all time, even though there is a provision made in the legislation for taking areas out, and really say tsThis is the area that should be devoted to single use from now on”? That is the question that I really raise.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not real sure that all the wilderness areas are going into single use from now on. Mr. HAGENSTEIN. Did
not the previous testimony of the gentleman from the Federal Power Commission this morning
The CHAIRMAN. We had various other testimony. I am surprised that
you think that setting up a provision that they have to decide what is going to happen to this very large quantity of primitive area in 15 years means it is all going to be blanketed into wilderness area. In the first place, you feel there are three groups that cannot be trusted.
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. No.
The CHAIRMAN. The first is the Secretary of Agriculture. The second is the President. And the third is the Congress. You have recommended yourself highly in here. Have a little faith with the rest of the country.
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. We do have, Senator. There is no question of that.
The CHAIRMAN. You regarded a drive of the proponents of this legislation to create a blanket wilderness system as a direct attack upon your profession. Is that not your statement?
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. I believe it, Senator, or I would not have said it. Our profession has worked hard for a long, long time in the Forest Service and out to promote wilderness areas in the country, but with the caution, Senator, that they should not be established until we really know what is on the lands so we know whether or not we can safely prohibit the practice of forestry by creating a wilderness.
The CHAIRMAN. You name me an industrial forester in New Mexico doing anything in New Mexico, and I will name you five Forest Service officials for every one you name me.
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. There are not too many industrial foresters in the State of New Mexico because most of the forest lands are federally owned or in Indian reservations, as you are very well aware. will find a lot of support among industrial foresters for wilderness, including myself. I use wilderness areas and enjoy them. I think there is a real place for them in our economy, and the industry does, too, Senator. The fight is not about the wilderness; it is about the bill. It is about a blanket system.
The CHAIRMAN. You favor the bill if it took out blanketing in the primitive areas?
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. I did not say that.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not think you did. It is not blanketing in at all. It is just the idea. All right.
STATEMENT OF J. W. PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, IZAAK
WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement. It is fairly brief, but I will brief it still more in the interest of time.
The CHAIRMAN. You go ahead. Read it all.
Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am J. W. Penfold, conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America, a nationwide citizen organization devoted to the protection, conservation, and wise use of the Nation's natural resource wealth-its soil, woods, waters, wildlife, and the opportunities which these resources provide for wholesome and invigorating outdoor recreation.
It is probably unnecessary, I believe, for us to repeat before this committee the league's attitude toward conservation of wilderness. The league is in its 40th year of support for, and action in behalf of, wilderness. During these decades we have had the privilege many times to appear before this committee and its companion committee in the House of Representatives. Our attitudes and opinions are certainly well known by all. But, the growing fact of urgency gives this hearing and the committee's consideration of the present measure special significance.
The Chairman, in introducing S. 174, expressed the thought succinctly when he spoke of:
a deep sense of urgency in our realization that we must act promptly or run the risk of losing much of our opportunity. It seems to me that we should now proceed to act.
We concur in those remarks.
During wilderness discussions of the past few years, some sincere people have appeared to look at wilderness preservation efforts in our national parks and national forests as some new program to be superimposed on existing programs, and therefore suspect. Obviously, this is not the case with respect to the national parks. The very first, Yellowstone, was established by Congress in 1872, for wilderness purposes, to preserve and protect the natural wonders for the enjoyment of people and retain them in their natural condition. Time after time during the 90 years since, Congress has seen fit to express the same purposes and policies in the establishment of additional national parks and in establishment of the National Park System itself.
National forest wilderness has a shorter, but no less colorful history. The first wilderness area, the Gila, was set aside in 1924, which event culminated years of thought, study, analysis, and imagination on the part of many far-thinking people, among them the great Aldo Leopold. They had the vision to recognize, because of growing populations, the expanding economy, the constantly accelerating demand for the materials which forest lands provide or can produce, that positive steps would have to be taken, or the Nation would lose through carelessness, and by default, the opportunity to preserve unmarred by man some few significant areas for their wilderness values. There followed designation of other areas under the “primitive" designation. In the late 1930's a tighter and more effective designation of "wilderness" and "wild" with the appropriate regulations were established by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Though interrupted by the war, a program of restudy of original primitive areas has been carried on by the Forest Service, and one by one areas have been designated as wilderness or wild. The process continues. After restudy and reappraisal of each area, its resource and use potentials, appropriate adjustment of boundaries, the wilderness or wild designation is applied.
It can be seen from this, that wilderness is no new and exotic program. It has been part of the warp and woof of national forests since their beginnings and a conscious, practical operating program for the past 37 years.
The legislation also provides means whereby lands within wildlife refuges, which the Secretary believes have important wilderness qualities, and in some instances this is essential to the protection of the species involved, may be placed in the wilderness system.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, the Izaak Walton League looks at S. 174 as an opportunity for the people of the United States, acting through their representatives, to express
positive approval for this dedicated resource work in both our great Departments of Agriculture and Interior, to determine that it should be carried forward and to provide the additional tools and impetus now needed, through expression of policy by Congress itself.
The Chairman has called S. 174 a streamlined revision based on our committee's experience during the past two Congresses and on a comprehensive study of the requirements of such legislation and the best ways for meeting them with due regard for all interests involved,
The Izaak Walton League believes that the chairman was successful in meeting these objectives.
The legislation would affect no timber which is now available for commercial logging. It would eliminate no lands now available for the grazing of livestock. While preventing unrestricted prospecting, mining and water development, the President may at any time authorize such activities within a wilderness area when he determines that to be in the best public interest.
S. 174 provides procedures whereby subsequent modification of boundaries must be approved by the President and be subject to rejection by the Congress. It provides that no new area can be added to the wilderness system except by positive action of the Congress. The legislation establishes no new agency, no new functions, involtes no new expenditures.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe this legislation is in the best interest of the public and if enacted will perpetuate the values of wilderness for all purposes, and, most importantly in our judgment, including the opportunity for people to enrich their lives and their understanding by participation in wilderness experience.
The Izaak Walton League respectfully urges your early and favorable action on the legislation, and is appreciative of the privilege to appear before this committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?
Senator DWORSHAK. I might just point out that Mr. Penfold is also a member of the Outdoor Resources Review Commission and has been very faithful in attending the meetings.
The CHAIRMAN. He has done better than you and I have.