Page images

would continue to establish regulations for the management and protection of resident species of fish and wildlife.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would continue to manage national wildlife refuges and ranges for their present purposes and this applies to lands which would be incorporated into the wilderness system. In a similar manner, areas within the national park system would continue to serve the same purposes as they now do, without change in the present administrative jurisdiction and practices of the National Park Service. National parks and monuments would continue to function as wildlife sactuaries, meeting those recreational needs which they have satisfied historically.

It may be emphasized, Mr. Chairman, that areas of wilderness given protection under provisions of S. 174 are of special interest to sportsmen and members of the public who are outdoor minded. Even though trips into wilderness are enjoyed only on occasion by the average sportsman or outdoor enthusiast, he usually is willing to invest much time and effort for the opportunity of making a trip into primitive country via foot, horseback, or canoe. Hunters and fishermen in ever-increasing numbers are seeking recreation in areas of wilderness. We believe an important segment of the public wants these lands preserved for their use and enjoyment and for future generations.

We also believe there is great value in having areas which are untouched available for scientific study and educational work.

In summary, the National Wildlife Federation believes wilderness areas have always been a part of the American scene, a valued part of the Nation's heritage. The comparatively few areas still remaining are worth preserving, especially to satisfy the increasing demands of a growing population. This can be accomplished best through orderly procedures, including congressional review. We, therefore, express the hope that favorable consideration can be given to S. 174.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation and opportunity of expressing these views.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there questions?
Thank you very much, Mr. Clapper.
Mr. William Zauche.


REPRESENTING THE MOUNTAINEERS Mr. ZAUCHE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is William Zauche, of Seattle, Wash., representing the Mountaineers, the third largest outdoor club in the Nation, with a growing membership now over 4,200. I appreciate the courtesy of your committee in allowing me to appear in the hearing today in order that I may make a return to Seattle tonight.

I submit the following statement in behalf of the Mountaineers, in support of S. 174.

The Mountaineers have enthusiastically and wholeheartedly supported the wilderness bill at all stages of its evolution. We do regret the loss of some of its strong features in order to meet the objections of some commercially oriented groups.

In spite of these changes, it appears that no form of increased security for our national parks and

national forest wild and wilderness areas will be acceptable to them. It is evident that they would like to maintain the present administrative flexibility, which would make it easier for future exploitation of the Nation's already wildernessdedicated areas.

The commercially oriented groups apparently support the concept of multiple use except where that concept requires the exclusion of logging, or mining, or roads, or whatever might affect their personal gain.

This should serve to emphasize the urgent necessity of enacting this wilderness bill for those particular kinds of multiple uses wilderness offers. These include not only a place for physical recreation-and certainly much is being said these days about improving the physical fitness of our people—and spiritual recreation, but some very practica] aspects, also.

One of the oldest known devices for protecting watersheds is found in unmarred terrain. To some, manipulation of watersheds as a means of improving water flow may seem expedient at the moment, but the assurance of undamaged, continuously perpetual watersheds can always be functioning in the non-man-damaged wilderness.

The bill, S. 174, cites some of the other benefits provided by wilderness, not the least of which is a reservoir for ecological research, or even unknown kinds of research, to enhance men's knowledge of nature's secrets, which are not apparent today and may not be for years to come.

Wilderness can also be considered the best natural history museum we can will to the future. It is the habitat for undomesticated plants and animals, soil and rock, lakes and rivers, where one can marvel at the arrangements done by Nature rather than having to depend on manmade displays, welcome as they are in such places as the California Academy of Science or the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

These few examples should point out the fallacy of the term “single use” being applied to wilderness. Actually, we believe logging and mining are greater single use phases than wilderness.

The Mountaineers have presented statements or testified through representatives at several of the exhaustive hearings already held on the earlier versions of the wilderness bill, both in Washington and in various western cities.

We believe these hearings conclusively show how strongly the people of the Northwest support

this measure. I believe the record will show 119 statements and letters are on file in favor of the wilderness bill, plus 413 sending supporting statements which were not in the record, during the hearings in the Northwest, as contrasted to the 77 opposing the bill from the Northwest.

We regret the elimination of a Wilderness Council from the bill's original provisions. We feel this would have been a central source of records and information on all the Nation's wilderness. We recognize the desire to delete consideration of Indian lands. We believe that some of the minor modifications to the earlier bill can result in less protection of the wilderness in National Park and Forest Service dedicated areas than is desirable and will be desired in the years

ahead. However, we strongly recommend the adoption of S. 174 in its present form. America needs the wilderness bill, and we in the Northwest, where there is so much wild beauty that can be lost, need it particularly. It is needed now, and without further weakening.

We ask immediate passage of the wilderness bill, S. 174, so that future decisions on the elimination or addition to dedicated wilderness can be made by the people through its Congress, rather than at the discretion of one or two men.

That is all, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for coming.
Mr. ZAUCHE. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. A. B. Hood and Mr. W. D. Hagenstein. Do you have a separate statement, Mr. Hagenstein?

Mr. HAGENSTEIN. Yes; I do. I was out of the United States when you called the hearings, and the National Lumber Manufacturers Association asked for time for me. We are actually appearing independently, if we may. STATEMENT OF A. B. HOOD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL LUMBER


Mr. Hoop. Mr. Chairman, my name is A. B. Hood. I am vice president and general manager of the Ralph L. Smith Lumber Co. of Anderson, Calif., and I am president of the National Lumber Manufacturers Association with headquarters in Washington. Members of the association I represent account for a major part of the lumber production of the United States and a substantial part of the commercial timberland ownerships. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on this important bill.

You have before you a full statement, but in saving time I will simply make brief remarks.

While we do not think a bill is necessary, we agree that this bill is a substantial improvement and fully appreciate that it represents a lot of constructive work by the chairman.

The lumber industry has long recognized the importance of recreation in the management of our foresť lands. We also know full well that there are many areas (probably more than 25 million acres in the West) which have low economic value but are of great value for wilderness use.

We are not opposed to wilderness; in fact, we favor wilderness. We believe that when Federal lands are to be delineated for exclusive use, such as wilderness, full weight should be given to their most productive use for the permanent good of the whole people, including dependent communities.

One of our objections to this legislation is that it would blanket in all existing primitive areas within the national forests. Primitive is not a classification, but rather a designation of unclassification. Several primitive areas are now under study to determine just what their best use for the American people is, and some 6 million acres are still unclassified.

We think it unwise to legislate either these primitive areas into wilderness or any extensive areas of commercial timberland without Congress taking positive action based on careful investigation. We think the responsibilities for wilderness are now being ably carried by executive agencies of the Government, but if Congress does want to assume the responsibility of wilderness designation, then Congress should also assume the task of hearing and weighing the pros and cons for each area.

Here, in this bill, S. 174, Congress would take the responsibility by nonaction, whereas the usual procedure, like what is done with national parks, would be preferable. Agencies, States, communities, and the users would all have a chance to present their views to those responsible for the decision on every area proposed.

We wonder why a system is proposed. If Congress established a wilderness system, then why not have a national timber production system, a national grazing area system, and other systems for minerals, water, fishing, hunting, camping, and other uses of public lands? We fear this system is a forerunner of a new administrative agency to look after wilderness.

Congress has established and will within 1 year receive the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. This Commission will provide the Nation with a comprehensive study of our outdoor recreational resources, including wilderness. This Commission has contracted a study on wilderness needs to the University of California and a report is due this week.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you had any chance to check and see how they are coming with that?

Mr. Hood. I understand it is a little late.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We had a meeting at Jackson Hole last fall sometime, and could not agree what wilderness was. I thought then that it is hard to study what you are not able to delineate.

Mr. Hood. That shows the difficulty in this thing, and I know some of the men that are involved, and they are certainly people dedicated to the interest of the public.

The CHAIRMAN. No question about it. But if the report is still further delayed, should we still further delay action on legislation ?

Mr. Hood. Yes. Wilderness was put into this world by God Almighty, and there is not very much that any of us can do about it. The beautiful areas through the Sierra and the Cascades are going to be that way, regardless of many other things. So I think that the deliberate process that we are going through, in connection with the Forest Service looking after these primitive areas—I do not agree with them in all ways, but I do believe they are a bunch of dedicated men. They are specialists, who know timberland use. And that is a thing that I think is very important. I do not see any reason to rush this thing, when there is nobody who is going to go out and devastate these wilderness areas.

The CHAIRMAN. When you say that wilderness was created by God and that man cannot do very much about it: I have been some places where man has destroyed quite a good deal of wilderness in one way or another.

Mr. Hood. I suppose a very small part; but there are two sides to it, of course.

In conclusion, the lumber industry is not opposed to the establishment of appropriate areas of public land best suited for the purpose of wilderness areas. However, such areas should be set aside only after careful consideration of the merits of wilderness use in each Before the establishment by law of a wilderness system which would blanket in all existing wilderness and primitive areas, Congress should determine their individual merits for such use.


The CHAIRMAN. It is true that this bill brings them in, but it sets up a review. Do you not think, really, that it would be worthwhile some time to force a review of these primitive areas and have a decision as to whether they are worthy of preservation as wilderness areas or not?

Mr. Hood. Well, under the present situation, they are being considered nearly like wilderness areas. There is a restriction of use, which I think is all right. However, in all of our primitive areas, we do not know yet what is in the ground or what resources we are going to need. I think that we are taking a tremendous jump for our present-day people to say, “This is going to be locked up forever.”

We are stewards of this area for our lifetime. We want to plan well. But I do not think that we are smart enough to answer all the questions for the future and lock them up and only be able to get into them with a tremendous encumbering method of getting them taken out.

Inaction would be much worse for us than positive action; and if necessary, crowd along the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to get these jobs done. But I would like to have positive action, rather than negative action.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Senator CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest a procedure in between.

I am sorry that I had to leave during part of your testimony. But I think I followed what it was that you may have recommended, based upon the chairman's question and your response.

I take it that you are recommending that the Congress take positive action in its normal course, as it would do, for example, if it were creating a national park.

Mr. Hoop. Right.

Senator CHURCH. To put new land into the wilderness system, or to put primitive areas into the wilderness system. Is that correct

Mr. Hood. That is correct.

Senator CHURCH. Something like the Farm Bureau has recommended heretofore.

Well, now, under the procedures set up by the bill, first of all we have to understand that when the Congress takes positive action, either House can veto, can it not?

Mr. Hood. That is right.

Senator CHURCH. Because it takes both Houses concurring in order to positively enact legislation.

Mr. Hood. Right.

Senator CHURCH. So either House, in the normal course, has the right of veto. But under the procedures set up by this bill, either House does not retain the right of veto, because both Houses have to get together in a concurrent resolution in order to veto a proposal. Is that not correct?

Mr. Hoop. That is right.

Senator CHURCH. Now, if we were to retain the procedures set up in the bill, in order that the President make his recommendations and

« PreviousContinue »