Page images
PDF
EPUB

and under different laws, into one system with still another set of objectives and regulations under still another law.

The single purpose for which these lands would be set aside under this bill would seem to call for separate administration under still another agency of the Federal Government. We fear that this may foreshadow the creation of an all-embracing wilderness agency:

4. Since over 3 million acres of Idaho land in the several national forests is already in primitive area status, this bill, if enacted, would place this considerable portion of Idaho in the national wilderness system without inventory of the resources involved and without further evaluation as to its desirability or eligibility as wilderness-type

area.

It is true that the bill contains machinery to remove some of these acres from wilderness classification, but it is negative machinery calling for a congressional concurrent resolution opposing any action of the executive department involved in the particular inclusion, exclusion, or expansion of the system.

Any inventory of the resources involved would be next to impossible due to inaccessibility.

We foresee that the status quo in this case would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to modify.

When the primitive areas were authorized under Department of Agriculture regulation L-20 in 1929, they were set up with somewhat indeterminate boundaries on the premise that the lands should be examined as to their adaptability and acceptability as wilderness.

It was a well-known fact that much land included within these boundaries had a greater use potential for other purposes. The legal machinery to examine and classify as to their use for wilderness or for other uses presently exists and is being used by the Forest Service. :

In connection with that, I should like to direct your attention to the administrative studies that have been made of the Sawtooth primitive area, of the Glacier Peak primitive area, and the imminent hearings which will be held beginning March 7 in Missoula and March 9 in Lewiston and March 14 in Grangeville on the Selway primitive

The CHAIRMAN. What happened?

Mr. ROBERTS. The area has been recommended for wilderness. What the present designation is, I am unable to find out. It is referred to as wilderness.

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned another one, Glacier?

Mr. ROBERTS. The Glacier Peak Area has been classified as wilderness by executive order.

The CHAIRMAN. You say you do not want the bill, but you see these pieces gradually going into wilderness by determination of the Secretary

Mr. ROBERTS. That is right. After definite study. The part I am objecting to here is the present inclusion of all these primitive areas as wilderness.

May I continue ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. No. 5. Inclusion in single limited use set-asides of lands upon which resource industry operation is possible is grossly unfair to local economies and local governments.

area.

In public land States such as Idaho60 percent publicly owned, including State ownership

and in counties such as mine Valley89 percent publicly owned; 30 percent in the Idaho primitive areathis consideration becomes tremendously important.

Our mills depend on public stumpage and our livestock industry depends on the high ranges in Federal ownership for its existence. One of our major industries, real and potential, in my county and in the State of Idaho, is the tourist trade and the accommodation of mass recreationists. These industries depend on multiple use management of the public lands upon which the resources essential to their remaining in business exist.

The 25 percent, in lieu of tax contribution to local government of the National Forest income gives a substantial lift to the tax revenues of the counties in which this income is collected. To set significant areas of these lands apart for single, limited use when more diversified use is possible and where resource values exist is, naturally, not in the best interest of our economy.

6. One of Idaho's greatest resources is the production and harvest of fish and game. It is a well-known fact that scientific game management depends on an orderly harvest. This can only be accomplished by hunters' use of the area, and accessibility to it is the only way to get them to use it heavily enough to get the desired result in management. For this reason we feel that wilderness areas should be restricted in size to areas of true wilderness and that there should be fairly ready access to the boundaries of these areas.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your understanding that in the wildlife area there can be no hunting?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, that is not my contention here. My contention is that due to the difficulty of getting into these areas the hunting is necessarily cut down. That is my point.

That is my point. The use is necessarily limited.

To conclude, in the light of the above, we oppose the enactment of S. 174 and suggest that wilderness system legislation is not needed at this time. We do not oppose wilderness use for certain areas of public land and as the only use for certain of these lands.

We humbly suggest, however, that all lands under consideration for wilderness designation be completely inventoried to determine what their optimum use may be. This inventory should include recreation, hunting and fishing, minerals, natural gas and oil, grazing, and forest products.

We further suggest that each wilderness designation should be considered on its own and should be authorized by direct action of Congress and with the approval of the legislature of the State in which the area is located.

Now to go a little further on that legislature business, I would be open to suggestions on some other method of approval by the local economy.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?
Thank you very much.
Mr. Hammerle is our next witness.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. HAMMERLE, FORESTER, AMERICAN

PULPWOOD ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N.Y. Mr. HAMMERLE. I am William C. Hammerle, forester for the American Pulpwood Association, with headquarters at 220 East 42d Street, New York, N.Y. This association is composed of pulpwood producers, dealers, consumers, and others directly or indirectly concerned with the growing and harvesting of pulpwood—the principal raw material used in the manufacture of paper and paper products.

I would first of all point out to you gentlemen that the industry is not opposed, and never has been, to the idea or concept of wilderness areas where such status represents the primary value of the areas and the natural features they include.

We are opposed to creating a wilderness preservation system which would lock up large areas for all time for the benefit of a select few without regard to the full economic development of many badly needed resources, including areas needed to meet the less exacting, less rigorous, and less costly recreational demands of the great mass of our population who will not and cannot use wilderness areas. Such legislation is single purpose and special privilege and can simply be categorized as class legislation which completely disregards the needs of the many for the benefit of the select few.

The pulpwood industry has testified in opposition to legislation establisħing a national wilderness preservation system in hearings before previous Senate Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs, at Washington, D.C., on June 19–20, 1957, and on July 23, 1958. Also western members of the American Pulpwood Association testified at the hearing on November 10, 1958, held at San Francisco, Calif.

We fully recognize the improvements that have been made in drafting S. 174 as compared with previous bills. However, the improvements have not removed the basic objections of our industry to the establishment of a national wilderness preservation system.

In our opinion the proposal is not only unnecessary but implies a criticism of the administration of wilderness areas by the respective agencies in the Departments of Agriculture and Interior.

The first wilderness areas were established by the Forest Service in 1924. Since then the Forest Service has steadily added to the original acreage classified as wilderness until there are now approximately 15 million acres of wilderness area in the national forests.

In addition, they have designated other areas as wild—so classified because of their smaller size—and still others as primitive. The latter are so classed pending study and determination as to suitability as wilderness.

It is from these areas that the Forest Service has quite regularly increased the wilderness acreage of the national forests. We believe that evaluation of national forest lands should be continuously made and local hearings called in the areas affected to assure that wilderness values are, and in the future will remain, the dominant use for the areas.

To the best of our knowledge, no legal questions have been raised regarding the use of Federal lands for wilderness which necessitates legislation to establish a wilderness system. In fact, wilderness was enacted into law as a use of national forest lands in the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (Public Law 86-517) which gave adequate recognition and authorization for the administration of wilderness areas in the national forests.

National parks and monuments comprise those areas which are of such superlative scenic, natural, and historic values that they are of national importance to all our people. They are managed on the principle that they shall be handed over to future generations unimpaired.

Actually, the organic National Park Service Act of 1916 offers nearly as much flexibility in managing recreation resources as the multiple-use principles of forest service administration of the national forests. The National Park Service has devoted considerable attention to preserving the natural character and wilderness aspects of the national parks while at the same time providing for their enjoyment by our people.

National wildlife refuges and game ranges, administered under regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, were established to meet a very specific need and purpose. By their very nature, they are basically wilderness areas and have been administered as such.

The administration of these wilderness areas under regulations of the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, and under various acts of Congress, has provided a degree of flexibility and continuity of purpose to assure us confidence in the continuing management of wilderness areas by these executive agencies without the necessity of establishing them into a wilderness preservation system.

We would also point out that lumping together into a new, huge system the lands administered for different purposes by three Federal agencies in two executive departments could lead eventually to placing all under one new agency specialized in wilderness. This would only mean an additional, unnecessary Government agency with increased appropriations, the loss of efficient administration and procedures which have been built over the year, and interminable conflicts between the various administering agencies.

All of us concerned with our forest resources have become increasingly conscious of the growing needs of our people for healthful recreation and the tremendous importance of our forest lands in meeting these needs.

The pulpwood industry, like the forest products industry as a whole, is steadily expanding its contribution to these needs by providing industry lands for recreational use including hunting and fishing, picnic and campsites, and community recreation areas.

These help to provide the areas and facilities for mass recreational use—where the real needs exist. Wilderness as it exists today, or as envisioned in a wilderness system, cannot and will not meet these needs and by its very conception is not intended to do so. Wilderness has its place in our overall recreational requirements for present and future generations but it must be seriously questioned if locking up areas variously estimated as 50 million or more acres is either advisable or necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. Where does that figure come from?

Mr. HAMMERLE. Well, we have heard up to 55 million acres here today. I have seen it in various articles and reports in the past in connection with the wilderness bills that have been introduced.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not write this here today. Where did you get this?

Mr. HAMMERLE. Out of past statements that were made.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you just accept it?

Mr. HAMMERLE. No, I said variously estimated as 50 million acres or more. I didn't say that this bill was going to set up exactly 50 million acres.

In fact, I am not too sure exactly what acreage is going to be covered by this bill.

The National Park Service in its publication, “Preservation of Natural and Wilderness Values in the National Parks” (March 1957) states:

Comparatively few park visitors experience true wilderness. By contrast, millions profit from those quantities of wilderness which are available to them in the near vicinity of park roads and developed areas.

I would also cite the situation in the State of New York which is planning to spend $75 million for the acquisition and development of parks to meet its recreation problems. Yet, in the State forest preserve there are 2,172,000 acres in the Adirondacks and 232,000 acres in the Catskills.

This is true wilderness in that article XIV of the Constitution provides that the preserve "shall be forever kept as wild forest lands." On February 14 of this year, Mr. Robert Moses, chairman of the State council of parks, urged Governor Rockefeller to support a revision of the State constitution that opens up the forest preserve for controlled recreational use. In his letter to the Governor, Mr. Moses stated :

We cannot afford to restrict the use of the forest preserve to extremists who insist on keeping it a complete wilderness, accessible and available only to those who have the experience, toughness and leisure to enjoy it without the elementary conveniences and facilities required by the average vacationist and his family.

These citations lead to the thought that it is not vast areas of wilderness that are needed to preserve their benefits for present and future generations, but rather the quality of the areas and their relative accessibility for enjoyment and use of our citizens.

S. 174 would blanket into a wilderness system all areas within the national forests classified as wilderness, wild, primitive, or canoe; each portion of each park, monument, or other unit in the national park system embracing a continuous area of 5,000 acres or more without roads; and such portions of the wildlife refuges and game ranges as the Secretary of the Interior may recommend within 10 years following the effective date of the act.

Obviously this automatic inclusion as wilderness circumscribes any real determination as to the real suitability of all this yast area as wilderness, and whether or not it is predominantly valuable for that purpose.

Possible exceptions are the present wilderness areas in the national forests.

Due regard is not provided for the use of other resources such as timber, minerals, water, and opportunities for mass recreation urgently needed by our expanding population. To protect the economic sources of livelihood of the local communities and their people, it is only right that decisions as to the predominant use of each area should only be

« PreviousContinue »