« PreviousContinue »
I thank you.
Your contention, Mr. Moore, is that on page 11, paragraph 6(b), that even if you should concede that this guarantees you your present rights to prospect and create a mine, that there is nothing in the bill which would guarantee your rights to develop that mine and do the necessary things which would be necessary as a logical result of discovering nickel.
Mr. MOORE. That is right. We might get a surprise. But we think the attitude of the departments in charge of these affairs is that once they get a change to kick us out, they will be glad to do it. They have been fair with us so far, but once they get a foothold that we have no right there, we are quite fearful that this language is not strong enough.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF W. S. VICKERMAN, CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC RELATIONS
COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON STATE SPORTSMEN'S COUNCIL Mr. VICKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, and fellow members, I am W. S. Vickerman. I am here representing the Washington States Sportsmen's Council.
I live in Moses Lake, Wash.
The Washington Sportsmen Council is the State organization for conservation in the State of Washington.
I have a letter to Senator Jackson containing our statement that I ask be put in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it is so ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. If you have something additional to supply for the record, we will be glad to have it. (The formal statement of Mr. Vickerman follows:)
FEBRUARY 27, 1961. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR JACKSON : It would be much appreciated if the following statement could be included in the present hearings on the wilderness bill.
The Washington State Sportsmen's Council is a statewide sportsmen's organization composed of over 150 member clubs whose delegates meet quarterly to consider the business before the council. It is recognized as the spokesman through its elected officers of hunters, fishermen, and recreationists and their interests in the State.
For almost 30 years the council has recognized the conservation policies of the U.S. Forest Service and last year in the 86th Congress gave its support to the multiple-use bill which is now accorded the protection of law. Of equal need in the belief of the council is the protection by law of another policy originating in the Forest Service, that of wilderness protection. Without it and with commercial pressure exerted to the utmost it is entirely possible that these irreplaceable sites and others that should be so designated as wilderness areas could be wiped out by the stroke of a pen.
It would seem that in this instance the issue is clear-to either commit every acre of public land to access road building or commercial use and ultimate violation of any wilderness character now existing or to set aside by law a small portion of these public lands to leave for our posterity to enjoy and treasure.
As for the commercial opponents of this concept of wilderness protection, it is well to remind them that this is publicly owned land. Therefore if it has been established-and I believe it has—that the owners of this land favor the protection of these wilderness areas, they must certainly have the right to do so by law, through the elected Congress. The position of the commercial users that somehow by long use they have acquired a vested right in the public lands and the authority to dictate how and by whom the land may be used is an assumption wholely unwarranted.
True wilderness areas are shrinking before the inroads of civilization and commerce and time is running out if we are to protect and leave a little of this unspoiled beauty for future generations to enjoy. Sincerely your,
W. S. VICKERMAN,
Chairman, Public Relations Committee. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Michael Nadel.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NADEL, NEW YORK CONSERVATION
Mr. NADEL. My name is Michael Nadel. I have been requested by the New York State Conservation Council through its president, Mr. William Roden of Diamond Point, N.Y., to present a statement in behalf of that organization endorsing the legislative proposal for a national wilderness preservation system.
(The statement referred to follows:)
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NADEL FOR THE NEW YORK CONSERVATION COUNCIL
My name is Michael Nadel. I have been requested by the New York State Conservation Council, through its president, Mr. William Roden of Diamond Point, N.Y., to present a statement in behalf of that organization endorsing the legislative proposal for a national wilderness preservation system.
The New York State Conservation Council, founded, as I seem to recall about 30 years ago, is a statewide organization of sportsmen-conservationists. Structurally, it is composed of representatives from each of the State's county federations of clubs; the county federations in turn are composed of representatives from clubs in the rural communities of the State, the cities, towns, and villages. It is, in fact, the root-representative of the organized sportsmen-conservationists of the State.
It is a pleasant duty to present this endorsement, which reflects the official position of the council arrived at in its conventions. For several years before I came to Washington to join the staff of The Wilderness Society as assistant executive secretary, I was a vice president of the New York State Conservation Council and the editor of its quarterly bulletin. I was closely associated with the sportsmen-conservationists of the State as a member, for four consecutive annual terms, of the State Conservation Commissioner's Advisory Committee on Fish and Game, as a trustee of the Friends of the Forest Preserve, and in other associations as an officer or editor.
It is fitting that the thoughtful people of New York should find in the legisla. tive proposal before you some reminiscence of their own struggle to preserve a great forest heritage within their State. Much of the force of the movement for the preservation of wilderness came from this State. In 1885, 6 years before the Federal law creating the national forests, the State legislature authorized the creation of a State forest preserve, to halt ruinous, commercial exploitation of the State's forest lands.
In disregard of the clear public purpose of the act creating the State forest preserve, commercial-minded interests exploited loopholes through which to chisel at the forests. Public indignation at length found expression in the constitutional convention of 1894, when the forest preserve was brought under the protection of the State constitution with the approval of the voters.
The memorable words of the constitution provide that
“The lands of the State, now owned or hereafter acquired constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold, or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public, or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.”
The people of the State have repeatedly, through the democratic process, voted down amendments sought by special interests or thoughless groups that would corrupt this constitutional protection.
The great constitutional lawyer, Louis Marshall, said in addressing the State constitutional convention of 1915 :
"If I were asked to state what the most important action of the convention of 1894 was, I should say, without the slightest hesitation, that it was the adoption of section 7 of article VI (now sec. 1 of art. XIV) of the constitution, which preserved in their wild state the Adirondack and Catskill Forests."
The protected wilderness in the Adirondacks alone consists of approximately 212 million acres. This is a State-owned preserve, and thus does not come within the scope of the national wilderness bill, which pertains of course to certain areas respected as wilderness within federally managed lands.
There is nevertheless a union of vision between the "forever wild” concept of the New York State Forest Preserve and the inviolate Federal wilderness. In each we see inspiration which sustains the instinct for freedom which breeds courage for country, and courage for life.
It does not, and cannot, interfere with the necessary commodity operations and interests which prevail outside, in the communities surrounding the oasis of the “forever wild” forest preserve, the oases of wilderness on Federal lands.
The late Robert Marshall, son of that Louis Marshall whom I quoted a few moments ago, found in the Adirondacks the inspiration for his profound wilderness ethic. He wrote the classic interpretation, “The Problem of the Wilderness." He contributed to the establishment and regulation of wilderness areas within the national forests, as a ranking staff member of the U.S. Forest Service. He became a principal founder of the Wilderness Society, which in the felicitous phrase of its executive secretary and editor, Howard Zahniser, "in the fullness of time became the American people's public evidence of a distinctive purpose.”
The New York State Conservation Council thus has a sense of what is at stake in the proposal for a national policy of wilderness preservation. The council joins with citizens across the country in a prayer that the legislation before you, carefully evolved through long consideration, shall not be aborted.
The New York State Conservation Council respectfully urges this committee to act favorably on this wilderness bill.
Mr. NADEL. Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to put in the record at this point an article which appeared on pages 107 through 119 of the Utah Law Review, spring 1960, vol. 7, No. 1, entitled, “The National Wilderness Preservation Bill: A Question of Values,” by Richard V. Brandt. It is a balanced and analytical summary of the history of the wilderness bill, with many helpful references of value to the legislator and the student.
THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION BILL: A QUESTION OF VALUES ?
On May 24, 1955, Mr. Howard Zahniser delivered an address at the National Citizen's Planning Conference on Parks and Open Spaces for the American People, in Washington, D.C.? It might be justly maintained that this presentation was the motivating factor behind one of the most spirited efforts in recent years to make a significant policy change in the administration of the public lands of the Nation. The central theme of Mr. Zahniser's speech was that commercial interests were rapidly destroying the vast reaches of untouched wilderness areas and that immediate and drastic measures were necessary if
1 Acknowledgment is gratefully extended to the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation for its grant in support of this note.
* This address was inserted in the Congressional Record for June 1, 1955, and appears in 101 Congressional Record A3809 (1955).
the remote areas were not to go the way of the American bison. The present note will consider the legislative history and declared purpose of the bill presently before Congress to establish a national wilderness preservation system. Also, an attempt will be made to set forth and evaluate the positions taken by advocates and opponents of the bill, particularly as to its effect on the multiple-use aspect of public lands administration.
That the present dispute is but another chapter in the long history of the public lands is apparent, and perhaps a better understanding can be had of the instant disagreement if it is viewed in the context of past events. It is common knowledge that the U.S. Government is, and always has been, the largest proprietor of land in the Nation. This position is a result of numerous large-scale acquisitions, beginning with the State cessions of the late 1700's, and ending with the purchase of Alaska in 1867.8 These acquisitions, which approximated 134 billion acres of land,' have proven sufficient to maintain the status of the Federal Government as a landholder despite a policy of disposal which began soon after the first acquisitions and extended far beyond the era of large-scale acquisition.s In spite of grants to States and railroads, military bounties, and private land claims, entries under numerous acts and miscellaneous disposals—all of which transferred over 1 billion acres to private ownership &—there still remain over 700 million acres subject to Federal control.10
The history of this Federal land ownership and management has been one of mirroring the goals and ideals of the Nation." Thus, the era of acquisition was largely attributable to a nationalistic desire to expand the borders of the young nation from coast to coast.12 The era of disposal was a function, based on the premise that occupied land is easier to retain 18 of furthering the expanse of the Nation. The third era, that of reservation, resulted from the slow realization that the vast areas of the continent were not in fact inexhaustible and that a more restrictive policy was required.14 A recognition of the need for management in both the reserved areas and those remaining in the original public domain was concomitant with reservation, but was limited to custodial activities until an intensive management program based on a desire to attain the greatest good for the greatest number was initiated in the early 1930's.15
Ownership of the land itself has not been the only consideration present in the policy decisions involving public lands. Such provisions as the early reservations of lead mines, leasing arrangements, the mining laws of 1866 and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 have played an important role in the public land policies of the United States.16
3 Other examples of contemporaneous problems in the area are: the Echo Park dispute discussed in 101 Congressional Record 6952 (1955) (remarks of Representative Saylor); 80-called giveaway charges against the administration as to oil and gas areas (for a defense to such charges see 102 Congressional Record 3541, 3546 (1956) (remarks of Senator Goldwater); the much-discussed public power dispute centered on Hells Canyon, whose conservation aspects are considered in 102 Congressional Record 3548 (1956) (remarks of Senator Neuberger); the closely related “Three Sisters" decision commented on in 103 Congressional Record 1907 (1957) (remarks of Senator Morse) ; and S. 1899 (providing for the establishment of an arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska) commented on in 105 Congressional Record 10192 (daily edition, June 18, 1959) (remarks of Senator Gruening).
4 See číawson & Held, “The Federal Lands: Their Use and Management,” 15 (1957). 5 For a discussion of the history of the State cessions, which occurred from 1781 to 1802, and placed 237 million acres in the original public domain, see id. at p. 18.
6 The Alaska purchase amounted to 375 million acres. See id. at pp. 16-22 for a consideration of this and other acquisitions.
7 See id, at p. 21. See also Hibbard, “A. History of Public Land Policies,” 31 (1924).
8 See Clawson & Held, op. cit., supra, note 4, at p. 17 for a graphic illustration of the phasing of the major eras in Federal landownership and land management.
o See id. at pp. 22–27 for a history of the era of disposal under each of the respective headings. See generally Hibbard, op. cit., supra, note 7, for the motivating factors leading to the various disposals.
10 See 105 Congressional Record 3768 (daily edition, Mar. 16, 1959), containing tables showing lands owned by Federal Government on June 30, 1957, totaling 771,226,000 acres.
11 Clawson & (eld, op. cit., supra, note 4, at p. 15. 12 Id. at p. 17.
13 Id. at p. 22. Of course, the factors alluded to in note 9, supra, played an important role in the disposition of the lands.
14 Id. at p. 27. Although Yellowstone Park was set aside in 1872, it was not actively managed, and it was not until 1891 when the forest reserves were established that a system of Federal land reservation came into being. Ibid.
15 Clawson & Held describe the custodial era as being extensive in the economic sense, while they accept Webster's definition of "intensive" as follows : "Designating * * * a method of cultivating land designed to increase the productivity of a given area by the expenditure of more capital and labor upon it." Id. āt pp. 34-35. It is likely that both parties to the instant dispute could turn these distinctions to their own advantage.
18 See Hibbard, op. cit., supra, note 7, at pp. 512-528 for a discussion of these provisions.
One continuing theme has appeared in all questions which have been raised concerning disposal or management of the public land or its fruits. Unlike considerations as to the treatment of land under sole ownership, the Federal Government's position may be likened to a tenancy by the entirety or a trustee arrangement with a diversity of interest as to what the ultimate disposition of a given area shall be. Therefore, partisan politics and social or economic ambition have played an important role in most instances.? That the instant dispute is subject to such influences is apparent from a reading of the testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs and comments appearing in the Congressional Record.18
The note sounded by Mr. Zahniser found ready acceptance in the minds of many, and received the backing of stalwarts such as Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, who on February 29, 1956, formally announced the need of a legislative fiat to preserve a remnant of our heritage.19 He then promised that in the near future he would come forth with a positive measure to effectuate his beliefs. This promise was fulfilled on June 7, 1956, when he introduced Senate bill 4013 for study and discussion.20 The bill stated its basic purpose as follows:
"[T]hat, in order to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness, there is hereby established a national wilderness preservation system * composed
* * * retaining their natural primeval environment and influence [and being managed for purposes consistent with their continued preservation as wilderness] which areas shall serve the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservational, and historical use and enjoyment by the people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness." 21
Wilderness was defined as "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a member of the natural community who visits but does not remain and whose travels leave only trails.” 22
The original study bill was comprised of five sections: the first was definitive and normative; the second designated the areas to comprise the system; the third specified the uses to be included and excluded in the systems : the fourth created a national wilderness preservation council to serve as a clearinghouse for the various interests involved in the system; 20 and the fifth specified a short title “This act shall be known by the short title 'National Wilderness Preservation Act.'” In the turbulent history of the measure before Congress only the first and final sections have remained basically unchanged. Major changes have been the abandonment of naming the specific areas in section 2,2% abandonment of the entire philosophy of section 4,29 a softening of
17 See Hibbard, op. cit., supra, note 7, at pp. 547–570. See also Clawson & Held, op. cit., supra, note 4, at pp. 132–150.
18 See, e.g. 102 Congressional Record 9777-9783 (1956) ; 103 Congressional Record 1899-1907 (1957) ; 105 Congressional Record 2391-2401 (1959).
19 See 102 Congressional Record 3551 (1956) (remarks of Senator Humphrey). 20 See 102 Congressional Record 9772 (1956) (remarks of Senator Humphrey). The text
study bill is set forth on pp. 9775-9777. 21 S. 4013, 84th Cong., 2d sess., sec. 1(a), 102 Congressional Record 9775 (1956). The bracketed portion as added in subsequent revisions, but seems only to be for further clarification and not of a substantive nature.
22 S. 4013, 84th Cong., 2d sess., sec. 1(c), 102 Congressional Record 9775 (1956). 23 S. 4013, 84th Cong., 2d sess., sec. 1, 102 Congressional Record 9775 (1956).
24 S. 4013, 84th Cong., 2d sess., sec. 2, 102 Congressional Record 9775–9776 (1956). This section has 6 subsections dealing respectively with national forest areas, the units of the national park system, national wildlife ranges and refuges, Indian réservations, miscellaneous areas, and the method of adding to, modifying, or eliminating any of the above
25 S. 4013, 84th Cong., 2d sess., sec. 3, 102 Congressional Record 9776 (1956). Subsec. (a) provides that the act shall not interfere with purposes stated in the establishment of the administrative agency, but that these agencies shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the areas for the public purposes compatible therewith. Subsec. (b) preserves vested rights but excludes all other commercial interests "except as contemplated by the purposes of this act.' Subsec. (c) was comprised of special provision such the allowance of roads necessary for access to private property and permitting the continuance of nonconforming uses, subject, however, to restrictions and terminations when possible.
28 S. 4013, 84th Cong., 2d sess., sec. 4, 102 Congressional Record 9776–9777 (1956). 27 S. 4013, 84th Cong., 2d sess., sec. 5, 102 Congressional Record 9777 (1956).
28 The naming of specific areas was replaced in S. 4028 by a provision that the agencies concerned should determine the question. However, as noted in the text accompanying note 95, infra, there is a current move to reestablish the principle of legislatively determining the specific areas.
29 This provision, though included in S. 4028, 85th Cong., 2d sess., sec. 4, 104 Congressional Record 11553 (1958), has been subsequently dropped due to continued charges of bureaucracy. 106 Congressional Record A1451 (daily edition, Feb. 23, 1960).