« PreviousContinue »
Wild, wilderness, primitive, and canoe areas
50. O 200.0
Absaroka Primitive Area
2.0 38.0 831.4
20.5 69.0 21.6 18.0 33.9 628.0
See footnotes at end of table, p. 215.
Wild, wilderness, primitive, and canoe areas Continued
Mount Adams Wild Area..
Mount Baker, We- Glacier Peak Wilderness Area. Lokanogan, Mount Baker. North Cascade Primitive Area..
Cloud Peak Primitive Area
70 506 202 563
8.0 43. 4 153.7
19.0 161.3 56. 6 57.7
8. 9 212.5
1 Blue Range Primitive Area lies in both Arizona and New Mexico. 92 Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area lies in both Idaho and Montana
The CHAIRMAN. I think it would show that there are about ninetenths of 1 percent of the total commercial forest lands in these wildernesses.
Senator METCALF. Less than 1 percent of the total commercial forest lands would be in wilderness areas.
The CHAIRMAN. Now are we harvesting all the timber we need now?
Mr. PASEK. There is no scarcity of timber being harvested at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. And we could harvest a whole lot more if we wanted to, could we not, on the existing land?
Mr. PASEK. I am sure we could. Some people think we are running short, but I do not think the last inventory shows that we are running short.
The CHAIRMAN. We have plenty we could cut that we do not cut. I pointed out yesterday that in my home state we cut two-thirds of what we could have cut easily. We also have a resolution which we passed last year to accelerate reforestation. We have had hearings on accelerating reforestation in the past.
There are some 52 million acres of all types of commercial forest lands in the Nation needing reforestation. Why would it not be better to reforest those acres than to try to cut acres out of the wilderness areas. They are commercial areas now.
Mr. Pasek. This is quite another and complicated subject which has to do with ability to buy and price and so forth.
The CHAIRMAN. Since you testified on this, do you know of individuals in the timber business that now would like to go into these primitive areas and cut timber, but cannot do it?
Mr. PASEK. I do know that the area, and I am not advocating a change at this time, but I do know the area in northern Minnesota, and the economic condition of that area has been greatly decreased. It is, in the minds of some people, a depressed area and it devolves directly because of this particular canoe area which has been mentioned here before, today, and
Senator METCALF. In what area?
The CHAIRMAN. The Minnesota canoe area. It seems to me, they came down to ask us to pass that bill.
Senator METCALF. In the State of Minnesota last year, they had an allowable cut, according to these Forest Service figures, of 224 million board feet. They only cut 140 million board feet and without going into any of this wilderness area they could cut 84 million more board feet each year. We would be delighted to have them do so, and clear up some of this unemployment.
Mr. PASEK. Mr. Senator, I am not a forester. Nor am I from Minnesota. I will make one or two statements which I believe to be correct.
First of all, it has to do with what you can afford to pay.
Senator METCALF. These wilderness areas are in the most remote areas. They are in the highest country; they are in areas where the timber is perhaps not as good or accessible as some of the other areas that you failed to cut.
So would not normally the cost of production there be higher than in other areas.
Mr. PASEK. As I stated before, Mr. Senator, the subject of cutting timber from national forests, commercial forest lands, is a very complicated matter.
Mr. Crafts, in the room here, knows a lot more about it. There are lots of economic problems to be solved, such as, is the extra 80 million feet, or whatever it is that you mentioned, enough to sustain another operation which is probably what would be required? There are many such questions that need to be set down and the valuation of the lands to all of those before you can categorically say whether or not you could or could not do this.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other questions?
Senator ALLOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like just to make the inquiry : Has anything been put in the record, yesterday, with respect to the status of the final report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. The report was scheduled to come in by September of 1961. Mr. Rockefeller asked the introduction of legislation be postponed until January of 1962 on the theory that Congress would be in adjournment in September and any legislative proposals might as well come in in January as in September.
The final report is to be filed in January 1962 with the life of the Commission ending in September 1962.
Mr. Champ, of Logan, Utah.
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK CHAMP, LOGAN, UTAH; ACCOMPANIED
BY HOWARD BENNETT, OF THE APPALACHIAN HARDWOOD MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, CINCINNATI, OHIO; PAUL JESSUP, OF KENNECOTT COPPER CO., NEW YORK; AND RICHARD W. SMITH, REPRESENTING THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. CHAMP. Mr. Chairman, I am Frederick P. Champ of Logan, Utah, representing the Chamber of Commerce of the United States
I am a member of the chamber's natural resources committee, a former vice president and director, and a banker doing business in several intermountain States.
With me are three associates in the national chamber. On my far right is Mr. Paul Jessup, secretary of the Kennecott Copper Co., New York City:
On my immediate right is Mr. Howard Bennett, secretary-manager of the Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers Association, Cincinnati, Ohio.
And on my left, Richard W. Smith, manager of the Natural Resources Department of the National Chamber of Commerce.
We appreciate the opportunity to be here to present the position of the national chamber toward Senate bill S. 174, a bill to establish a national wilderness preservation system.
In the interest of time, I will, with your permission, şir, give a summary of the full statement which I would appreciate having made a part of the record.
The CHAIRMAN. We will take the summary down. The full statement will follow it as if read.
Mr. CHAMP. The wise use of the resources of our Nation is of genuine concern to us. We believe in the preservation of existing wilderness areas which represent outstandingly beautiful camps of our primitive natural environment.
We believe that legislation such as S. 174 is neither necessary nor desirable. We urge the committee to take no action on S. 174. The wilderness, wild untouched lands, contains many resources: water, minerals, gas and oil, forage, game and fish, and forest products. Each is as essential or more essential to the well-being and growth of our Nation as is the inviolate preservation of wilderness conditions. * Wilderness should therefore take its competitive place in the management of our lands and resources.
Special legislation establishing separate wilderness management makes it almost impossible for the Nation to use its resources wisely on the basis of need and the greatest good to the greatest number.
Therefore, in our opinion, wilderness system legislation will not best serve the Nation. It will only impose unrealistic restrictions on the management of extensive areas of Federal lands resulting in failure to provide the optimum beneficial use of resources, including recreational use.
Such legislation is not necessary or desirable because, first, we have an adequate supply of wilderness presently established and adequately protected and served by congressional and administrative policy, by law, and by the Federal agencies entrusted with their administration.
Second, the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has been directed to specifically study wilderness and will present facts and recommendations including national needs and desires for wilderness areas when it reports this September 1961 or later.
Establishment of any kind of overall congressional policy concerning wilderness will therefore be premature.
Third, S. 174 would include in a system about 8 million acres of national forest primitive areas whose resources are not yet accurately inventoried. This is not wise resource management, in our opinion.
As an example of the effect of wilderness withdrawals on local communities, I would like to cite two brief examples.
First, testimony before your committee on July 23, 1958, by William Ellison, representing local governmental units and community groups in the three counties encompassing the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, in Minnesota is pertainent. He showed just one city, Ely, with 7,000 people, has suffered a loss of tourist revenue in excess of $850,000 annually since the elimination of access roads and imposition of a ban on airplane travel over the area.
Mr. Ellison said that studies showed 80 percent of the former recreational users go elsewhere. Just this month figures were released predicting an increase in the use of the border canoe wilderness with expectation that 16,000 persons would make canoe trips during the summer of 1961, just 16,000 persons on nearly 1 million acres of land and water in one season.