Page images

you our view.

are, that we are fully appreciative of the long effort and time the committee has put in this thing; that notwithstanding the purpose under our system to discuss these things openly and frankly, we are giving

The CHAIRMAN. We do not mind that at all. I just question whether it comes under the heading of openness and frankness to say this bill is little different from the original. I think it is quite different, but I might be prejudiced, too.

Mr. HAGENSTEIN. I am afraid we have a slight difference of opinion there, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Quite obviously.
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. Would you like me to continue, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Surely.

Mr. HAGENSTEIN. One argument often made by proponents of this legislation is that a wilderness preservation system will provide areas for the scientific study of the ecology of plants and wild animals.

I might interject here one witness previously referred to that today.

There is no question but what this is true. But how much unmanaged land do we need to let Nature's constant struggle for survival of the fittest occur to see what happens and to learn which species endure ?

Without being facetious at all, may I most respectfully suggest that in our scientific studies of ecology we not overlook the importance of human ecology. Because so much clamor for this legislation comes from urban areas where the people have apparently been led to believe that they create wealth by exchanging goods and services with one another, or to put it another way

The CHAIRMAN. Taking in one another's washing,
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. Taking in one another's washing, right, sir.

I would like to suggest that we set Manhatten Island aside as a human ecology laboratory; for 1 week embargo all importation thereto of food, water, wood, solid and liquid fuels, animal fibers, and all iron and steel and nonferrous metals; and then see what happens. You'd find very quickly, I believe, that people would migrate to survive. If a blanket wilderness system is established you are going to cause similar dislocation of population from many western areas which have been developing a stable land-based economy during the past hundred years, much of it on Federal lands.

Incidently, with your kind permission, Mr. Chairman, because of its importance in consideration of this legislation, I would like to introduce and have made a part of the record the clipping which I have from the New York Times for February 15, 1961, which quotes State chairman of the State council of parks, Robert Moses, as pointing out that in the constitutional provision which reserves some 2,400,000 acres in the State of New York from any development whatsoever in the socalled Adirondacks and Catskills preserves, that hundreds of thousands of vacationists are deprived of perfectly innocent use of forest reserves for camping vacations, hiking, and other outdoor enjoyment, and so on.

With your permission I would like to make this clipping a part of the record.

Senator DWORSHAK (presiding). Without objection, so ordered.

(The information referred to follows:)

[From the New York Times, Feb. 15, 1961]



(By Douglas Dales) ALBANY, February 14.-Robert Moses, chairman of the State council of parks, has urged Governor Rockefeller to support a revision of the State constitution that would open up the forest preserve for controlled recreational use.

In a letter to the Governor, Mr. Moses declared :

“It is senseless for us to buy additional recreation land in outlying sections, especially for camping, when we have so much already owned by the State in the forest preserve counties but locked up against even limited use.'

Mr. Moses proposed that the legislature approve this year three alternative amendments and select one for second passage in 1963 after full debate. A change in the constitution must be approved by two successively elected legislatures and by a popular referendum before it can become effective.


The State forest preserve consists of 2,172,000 acres in the Adirondacks and 232,000 acres in the Catskills. Article XIV of the constitution provides that the preserve “shall be forever kept as wild forest lands.” It bars any sale or lease of the lands and the sale, removal, or destruction of timber on them.

As a result of this prohibition, it is impossible, without a constitutional change, to build roads in the preserve or to create recreational facilities that would require the removal of a tree.

One amendment suggested by Mr. Moses would repeal article XIV, substituting a new article that would keep the “forever wild” wording but add:

“Nothing herein contained shall prevent the State from constructing, completing and maintaining any highway authorized by the legislative, nor from constructing, maintaining and operating ski trails, campsites and facilities to provide scenic enjoyment, vacation shelter, and recreation for the public."


The other alternatives suggested would retain the present amendment but add one of these provisos :

1. "Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the State from furnishing, maintaining and operating in the forest preserve, campsites and recreational facilities with such access, buildings, conveniences, and appurtenances as are necessary to provide scenic enjoyment, vacation shelter, and recreation for the public."

2. “Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the State from building and maintaining in the forest preserve, at campsites located not more than 142 miles from existing highways, enclosed buildings to provide healthful recreation for the public without artificial, mechanical amusement devices."

In outlining the problem to the Governor, Mr. Moses said:

“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.

"Hundreds of thousands of such vacationists are today deprived of the perfectly innocent use of the forest preserve for camping vacations, hiking, and other outdoor enjoyment, because they cannot sleep in the open or in lean-tos, and cannot live in completely wild forest land."

Mr. HAGENSTEIN. To show the importance of the management, protection, and use of Federal lands for the majority of the people of the United States, I attach table 1 which shows the Federal ownership throughout the West. The Federal Government owns more than 1 out of every 2 acres. In some States, if you add the State ownership, the public owns 2 out of every 3 acres.

The Federal lands also contribute importantly to revenues of local government from the portion of receipts from the national forests paid to the counties and the portion of receipts from the mineral resources paid to the States.

And I have tables 1 to 5 in my presentation which, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask be made a part of my statement. I am not going to read from them.

(The tables referred to follow :) TABLE 1.–Federal ownership or management or land in 11 Western States These

01 ISD


M acres M acres

M acres Arizona 72, 688 32, 396

44. 6

51, 779

71. 3 California 100, 314 45, 071


45, 567

45. 4 Colorado. 66, 510 24, 156


1.1 Idaho nemate 52, 972 2934, 050 CT64. 3

24, 902

37.4 409

17834, 4592965. i Montana.

93, 36227, 815 70 29.81, 5571.71 Nevada..

29, 372

31. 5 70, 265 60, 726


1.5 New Mexico

87.9 77, 767 27, 300

5, 815
7. 5 33, 115

42. 6 Oregon. 161, 642 31, 580 1951.21, 208

2.0 32, 788 9.53.2 Utah..

52, 701 Washington

136, 466 di 69.2 R2, 253 4.3 38, 719T73.5 42, 743 12, 666 29.6 1, 813 4. 2 14, 479

33.8 Wyoming62, 404 48.4 1,753

2.8 31, 972

753, 368
362, 445

36, 495

4.8398, 940911 52.9

[ocr errors]

'1 Excludes trust properties, Indian Tribal Lands. Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1960.


Conne 1 $700, 356 5, 800, 895

391, 965 1,907, 148 1, 291, 824

59, 665 1 331, 402 12, 629, 207

189, 378 6, 488, 711

222, 612 30, 013, 163

TABLE 3.-Bureau of Land Management receipts under Mineral Leasing Act, 1959


1 Receipts under the Mineral Leasing Act are distributed 3742 percent to States, 5242 percent to reclamation fund, and 10 percent to U.S. Treasury.

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1960.

TABLE 4.—Projection of population of 11 Western States


[ocr errors]

1 Source: 1960 Census of Population-Final Population Counts, Nov. 15, 1960, Bureau of Census.

2 Source: Current Population Reports-Population Estimates, Aug. 9, 1957. Series P-25, No. 160, Bureau of Census,

TABLE 5.—Proportion of Federal lands in 11 Western States which would be

reserved for single purpose use by 8. 174

[graphic][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

1 Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1960.

2 Sources: U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Includes wilderness, wild, and primitive areas in national forests; national parks and monuments; and Federal wildlife refuges.

TABLE 6.—Value of farm, mine, and forest products of 11 Western States, 1958

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small]

Mr. HAGENSTEIN. The West, with few exceptions, is the most rapid growing part of our Nation. We believe any proposal to create a blanket, single-use land system ignores the problems posed by the steady rise of our western population. More people need more jobs. More people need more food. More people need more water. More people need more wood. More people need more hides. More people need more gas and oil. More people need more minerals. And yet it is proposed to lock up and prohibit development, management, and use of a large area of unsurveyed, unexplored, and virtually unknown Federal lands when all studies indicate we are going to need more of everything. The 1960 census reveals a population in the 11 Western States of more than 27 million. The most recent projections for the year

1970 show an increase of 7.5 million more (table 4). This is an increase of more than 27 percent in the next decade. How can we provide the jobs and essential commodities from these lands if we simit their productiveness?

No one knows specifically what areas would be blanketed into the proposed wilderness system under S. 174 because of the ambiguity, particularly with respect to the national parks and monuments, of exactly what is meant by "continuous area of 5,000 acres or more without roads."

May I interject that whatever is the shape of it, it would have a lot to do with how much land we are actually left without development. Even in the national parks, where without roads the people of the United States who own them cannot get to some of the scenic things and enjoy them. This is a matter we discussed in the hearings in Seattle in 1959 when Senator Jackson was conducting the hearings of the committee on a previous wilderness bill.

However, the bill clearly includes immediately all primitive areas of the national forests, even prior to their reclassification into wilderness or wild areas by the Secretary of Agriculture. From Federal data we have tabulated the proportion of Federal lands in each of the 11 Western States which s. 174 would reserve for single purpose use. This shows a range of 1.7 percent of the Federal lands in Utah to 20.6 percent in Washington. This indicates the importance of reject

« PreviousContinue »