Page images

made after an impartial consideration of all the resources present, all uses and all users.

Such a study is now underway by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission which was created by the Congress (act of June 28, 1958), to review the Nation's present outdoor recreation resources and opportunities, to forecast those that will be required by the year 1976 and the year 2000, and to report its findings and recommendations to the President and the Congress.

One of the studies which the Commission has already contracted for with the Wildland Research Center at the University of California is that of wilderness. As stated in the Commission's outline of its study program, released June 1960, “The study will permit the Cominission to put the problem of wilderness recreation into proper perspective in the development of overall outdoor recreation policy and program proposals.'

The enactment of wilderness preservation system legislation at this time, prior to completion of the thorough studies and reports which the Congress itself deemed essential in dealing with the overall recreation problems and opportunities, is definitely premature and a complete waste of public funds.

The pulpwood industry has no way of knowing what the findings and recommendations of the ORRRC will be, but does believe that results of such a study should be given careful consideration before the Congress takes any permanent action.

The inconsistencies existing in provisions of S. 174 strengthen our opinions on this point. The bill is inconsistent in that it would permit the continuation of many activities presently being carried on in the areas involved, and at the same time require the administering agency to preserve the wilderness character of the areas in the system under its jurisdiction. From this it appears that many of the areas to be automatically blanketed into the system should not be classified as wilderness at all.

The pulpwood industry is opposed to legislation establishing a national wilderness perservation system, and therefore is opposed to S. 174, on the grounds that:

1. A wilderness preservation system is unnecessary since they are wilderness areas already established under existing congressional authority with adequate provision for designation of additional areas which meet wilderness requirements, and that existing areas are being administered effectively under regulations of the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior.

2. Such a system would unnecessarily freeze large areas of land and resourecs for single-purpose use for a very few people without regard to quality or the minimum size required to meet the objectives.

3. The establishment of a wilderness system or passage of any general wilderness legislation prior to the completion of the overall inventory of outdoor recreation resources and needs, which is now in process under legislation enacted by Congress, is premature. The CHAIRMAN. This New York wilderness area to which you

refer on page 5, these 2 million acres in the Adirondacks would require a constitutional amendment to open up, would they not?

Mr. HAMMERLE. That is correct. They cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. That was done in 1894.
Mr. HAMMERLE. Around there.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any idea why it was done?

Mr. HAMMERLE. It was a little before my time, but it is my understanding that it was done

The CHAIRMAN. They were being gutted by timber cutting, were they not?

Mr. HAMMERLE. In some of the areas, I believe that is it.

The CHAIRMAN. And conservationists got together with business interests including the timber interests and tried to protect what little remained.

Today New York produces about 300 million board feet of timber. They were producing several times that prior to the time this amendment went into effect.

So there was good sound reason for its adoption, the fact that it was necessary to do this by constitutional amendment so that a new legislature would not wipe it out. It might be some warning to us now to try to get something done by law so that some Secretary of Agriculture might not wipe these out?

Mr. HAMMERLE. It is possible, but here are the recreation people who are now trying to get that New York area changed and opened up.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Robert Moses does not speak for all the recreation people in New York. The New York Times carried an editorial on the matter we might put in the record here.

(The matter referred to follows:)

[From the New York Times, Feb. 23, 1961)


The New York Forest Preserve, covering some 2,400,000 acres in the Adirondacks and the Catskills, is without question one of the finest publicly owned scenic and recreational areas in the eastern part of the United States. It is still that way 76 years after its establishment by act of the legislature because in 1896 the voters of this State wrote into the constitution a provision that the lands of the forest preserve must be kept “forever wild.”

That is why in large parts of the Adirondacks and in smaller parts of the Catskills there still remain some of the most unspoiled, untouched natural beauty in the Northeast. It is why the forest préserve has in fact been preserved for the use and enjoyment of future generations. Will this generation be the one to throw away that heritage and invite into the forest preserve the commercial interests, the highway builders, the professional mass recreationists, the people who would make the publicly protected lands of the preserve indistinguishable from the privately owned properties with which it is surrounded and interspersed ?

The answer must clearly be "No"; yet the growing frequency and intensity of attack on the forest preserve should alert the citizens of this State to the danger of their losing it in its present form. Two separate problems are involved. One is the pressure to open the preserve to commercial exploitation, especially lumbering. The other is the pressure to open the preserve to greater massrecreational developments. This is the kind of invasion that Robert Moses, chairman of the State council of parks, would invite by the dibly bad forest pre serve amendments he is proposing.

Mr. Moses suggests, as one alternative, opening up the forest preserve to any highway construction approved by the legislature, which is the same as signing a death warrant for the preserve. In more moderate mood, he suggests mere construction of "campsites and recreational facilities," or "enclosed buildings" for recreational purposes as far as 142 miles from existing highways. Such sweeping proposals could be as destructive as they are unnecessary. There are plenty of "enclosed buildings” within easy access of forest preserve lands; private and commercial properties are already scattered throughout the entire area. We do not say that there must be no change in the forest preserve whatsoever. We do say that each road, each campsite, each ski development, each intrusion on natural beauty and tranquillity must be carefully scrutinized at leisure and in detail before irrevocable decisions are made. We think construction of the northway through the preserve was a mistake, but at least it was fully debated and the issues partially understood before it was voted. We think the proposed private ski development on forest preserve land at Hunter Mountain in the Catskills would be outrageous, and we hope it will be defeated.

But the essential thing, as former Conservation Commissioner Lithgow Osborne has pointed out, is to move with extreme caution-which is not the way in which the Moses amendments to the constitution would move against the forest preserve.

Mr. HAMMERLE. No, but he is one of the outstanding park recreational authorities.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; he is. He is a fine person but a controversial character.

Mr. HAMMERLE. Very much so.

The CHAIRMAN. In any event, I believe Governor Rockefeller did not do anything about his recommendation, did he?

Mr. HAMMERLE. I haven't seen anything on that yet.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?
Thank you very much, Mr. Hammerle.
Mr. HAMMERLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. C. R. Gutermuth, one of our persistent workers in the field of conservation has been here 2 days to testify. Now he has had to go to another hearing. Without objection, his statement will be included in the record at this point.

(The statement is as follows:)



Mr. Chairman, I am C. R. Gutermuth, vice president of the Wildlife Management Institute, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Institute is one of the older conservation organizations, and its program has been devoted to the restoration and improved management of natural resources in the public interest since 1911.

Conservationists are delighted that the distinguished chairman of this committee and so many of his colleagues in the Senate have assumed leadership once again in seeking agreement on the widely supported proposal to establish a national wilderness system. Public endorsement of the wilderness system concept never has been broader or more vigorous than at present. This citizen support has endured and flourished during the several years that the philosophy of wilderness preservation has undergone scrutiny at congressional hearings in Washington and in the field. Over the years, the bill has undergone continuing study and revision in order to incorporate the many helpful suggestions that have been received and to make absolutely clear that the establishment of a national wilderness system will not interfere with or impede the rights and prerogatives of others on Federal, State, and local levels.

Those who continue to claim an inability to understand the scope and objectives of the wilderness bill simply have failed to read the proposal and the extensive printed record that has been compiled. A number of newspaper clippings have crossed my desk in recent weeks in which a few individuals are reported as stating that enactment of the wilderness bill would be a disastrous blow to local and regional economies,

Those statements invariably have been by officials of local chamber of com- , merce organizations, and I must say, that it is inconceivable how some people can continue to be so uninformed for such a long time, Mr. Chairman. It looks as though the spokesmen for some of those groups are deliberately misrepresenting the facts in an effort to block this legislation. Of one thing I am sure, the wilderness bill has been misrepresented more and has been the subject of more misunderstanding than any other natural resources bill that I have known in my experience in Washington. People who have designs on breaking down the national forest, national park, and wildlife refuge systems obviously do not want to have any additional impediments created that might obstruct their efforts.

Actually, this wilderness bill has only one objective-to make readily available to all Americans for recreation, natural history study, watershed, and other social, cultural, and healthful benefits and purposes, a reasonable number of true wilderness areas that already are established within the national forests, parks, and wildlife refuges. The sole requirement is that each area so designated would continue to be administered in such a way as to preserve existing wilderness character.

S. 174 provides a procedure whereby all interests can be heard in the future on questions concerning boundary adjustments and deletions or additions to areas encompassed within the national wilderness system. The requirement for public hearings and a period of review would lessen the danger that any administrator may decide on a course of action before having access to all the facts that should be considered. Moreover, an administrator who can make a change by issuing an administrative decree is subject to continual pressure. Then again, enactment of S. 174 would provide a desirable shield from direct attempts to influence the administrator's decisions.

Conservationists concur with your statement when you introduced S. 174, Mr. Chairman, that its enactment would strengthen and supplement the investigations and conclusions of the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.

We are hopeful that this committee will give prompt and favorable consideration to S. 174. Creation of a national system of wilderness is one of the great conservation' opportunities for the 87th Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barker.

I am very, very glad to welcome a citizen of my own State who has a very distinguished record in this whole field.


Mr. BARKER. I am very glad to be here and have the privilege of testifying before this illustrious committee. I have here before I embark on my statement a number of additional statements I would like to file for the record. The first one is a statement prepared by Don Clauser, president of the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Association. Then, Mr. Chairman, I have here several statements supporting the statement that I and the wildlife association make. They are from 27 individuals in New Mexico.

Most of these letters, Mr. Chairman, are addressed to you, but were sent to me because they learned through the newspapers that I was coming to testify, and asked that they be submitted.

I would like to submit these 27 letters—they are very short-for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, they may be included.

Mr. BARKER. I have also 15 conservation associations in New Mexico that have submitted supporting letters to the statement that Mr. Clauser and myself will make. I would like to submit those for the record. I will not take time to read them.

I have letters from nine different individual organizations in New Mexico other than the conservation clubs, they are the New Mexico Mountain Club and what they call the Jeep Herders Club, not sheep but Jeep Herders Club of New Mexico. They don't want roads back there even for the jeeps.


CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, INC. I am Don Clauser, president of the New Mexico Wildlife and Conservation Association, founded in 1914 for the purpose of giving voice to all sportsmen and conservationists, in matters related to the preservation and management of all our natural resources. For this reason I feel that it is not only my priyilege but my duty to those who elected me to this office, to present this statement.

No one can deny that Senate bill 174, known as the wilderness bill, is any.. thing but fair to all interested groups. This bill is the result of many hearings held in all parts of our country. There has been a great deal of so-called give and take by both sides. Long hours of study and review of all testimonies received at the many hearings, have gone into the preparation of this bill. It is the result of more than 5 years of work by many individuals and committees in Congress. We feel the wilderness bill in its present form should be inacted into law now.

Gentlemen, time is running out. If something is not done soon, we can forget the entire aspect of wilderness. What wilderness areas that still remain intact are almost entirely within the boundaries of the national forests and parks. The actual amount of land in question is about 8 percent of our national forests and parks. This is the last 8 percent of true wilderness remaining in the country. If we are to save any of this great heritage for posterity, you must act now.

In review I would like to point out that practically all testimony at previous hearings objecting to a wilderness bill was offered by individuals or organizations who either directly or indirectly would in someway receive financial benefits from the exploitation of our remaining wilderness. While on the other hand those favoring the bill had nothing more to gain than the satisfaction of having helped preserve by law the last remnants of wilderness that once covered this great land.

May I point out that this bill does not change the status of these areas. It only provides, by law, protection which the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture are now giving them. We cannot entrust so great a heritage as wilderness to individuals, subject to outside pressures and ideals. We need their protection by law.

In closing I would like to impress on all present, just one fact and please think about it both now and in future deliberations on this important matter. Any man in this room can destroy wilderness, but once destroyed, there is nothing all of us can do to replace what we have destroyed. Only God through His process of nature can replace it. This takes many hundreds, yes thousands, of years; not even our children will live to see even the beginning of this restoration.

My charge to you is to protect what we have remaining, before man in his greed destroys the last of our wilderness.

CLAYTON, N. Mex., February 27, 1961. ELLIOTT S. BARKER, Care of Statler Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C.:

Our board of directors unanimously adopted a resolution supporting Senate bill 174. Do everything possible to assure its passage.


OTIS WETSEL, President.


Farmington, N. Mex., February 22, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: The San Juan Wildlife Federation has gone on record as being in full support of the wilderness preservation bill, S. 174. In the interest

« PreviousContinue »