Return to Top Level Document

"Wilderness Roundtable Discussion"
IMPLEMENTATION OF WILDERNESS ACT OVERSIGHT HEARING

---

EXPLORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1964 WILDERNESS ACT BY THE FOREST SERVICE, THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE APRIL 15, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC

---

  Mr.POMBO. Mr. Wallop, I know that throughout your career, your previous career, you saw a number of pieces of wilderness legislation that came through this body and across--and one of the things that has always come across to me in my brief time here is that what we always do is we say that we are going to set aside this land and that there is going to be an economic loss because we are doing that. We are no longer going to extract natural resources out of those areas, so we admit that there is going to be an economic loss. But the way that they make up for that is they always say we are going to increase the recreational opportunities that exist.

  And we have heard people testify previously that they decrease the number of recreational opportunities that exist. How does that happen in the real world--I mean, after we pass the legislation that says we are going to increase that, at the same time we are decreasing recreational opportunities?

  Senator WALLOP. Well, I have no doubt of the passion of people who like wilderness. I myself do. Grew up in it long before it was designated wilderness. I used to avail myself of it, camp in it and run in it.

  But one of the things that happens is there is a limited number of people who are physically able to access wilderness. It takes a good deal of wealth. It takes a good deal of wealth in order to be able to procure the appropriate equipment, transportation to the boundaries, the guides, if you will, to go in it. And the ordinary citizen, the ordinary Joe fisherman, picnicker, overnight camper, family recreationist can avail himself of the boundaries of wilderness, providing he can get to them, but the rest of it is his, and it has become crowded.

  Mr. POMBO. That is one of the things that strikes me about it, is Mr. Nugent talks about the wilderness experience and being able to go in and hunt and fish and experience that, but the law itself restricts access into that wilderness area. And if we are trying to preserve these areas, what exactly are we preserving them for? Is it not so that we can enjoy them?

  Senator WALLOP. Its application is truly laughable. You wonder where Gilbert and Sullivan are when you need them.

  Mrs. Chenoweth's tale of how they sent the helicopter into the Frank Church Wilderness to rescue a wolf but didn't even bother to go look for Mr. Unser when he was lost--and now we are spending $100,000 of Forest Service money--and they are always complaining that they are short funded--to hire helicopters to look for a snow machine in the hopes of finding a transgression. I mean, you know, sick wolves can require the intrusion into the wilderness area by machinery, but not the life of a human? Something is really goofy about that kind of application.

  I think what we are seeing is an instance of the Forest Service believing that somehow or another the only unnatural event on the face of this earth is man.

  Mr. POMBO. Unfortunately. Mr. Unser, in light of what Chairman Chenoweth talked about, were they actively looking for you while you were lost in this area, whether it was in the wilderness area or not? Were they actively searching for you?

  Mr. UNSER. No, sir, there were rescue people that were looking. Forest Service didn't partake in any rescue deals whatsoever. They do own snowmobiles that are equally as good as mine or----

  Mr. POMBO. That was not very good. But they ran, though.

  Mr. UNSER. I know that to be true, because I know the people that work on them and--et cetera. And they could have known a whole lot more about everything in the whole ordeal, but they didn't partake.

  And it was 16 days later, which indicates that it is true what I say, that they did receive pressure from some source like the Sierra Club. Because why did they wait 16 days later into another year and all of a sudden decide, wow, it is time to give Bobby Unser a ticket, after the newspapers and all the television stations, more than 100 million people saw all the news of my ordeal.

  So after that is when they decided we must give this man a ticket. And it just became very obvious that it is a message from the Sierra Club, don't screw with our wilderness. Sad to say, but that is the way everybody pretty much sees it.

  Mr. POMBO. So it is your opinion that they were going to make an example of you?

  Mr. UNSER. They said they were going to, sir. In other words, they told me if I hadn't been Bobby Unser, a celebrity, that it wouldn't have happened. It would have just passed over. Out of their own mouths.

  Mr. POMBO. They told you that?

  Mr. UNSER. Yes, sir.

  Mr. POMBO. I think I would agree with Mr. Vento on that one. That is kind of stupid. Everybody did see and read about the case and about what happened to you. It just seems like that would generate an immense amount of negative publicity for the Forest Service and serve the point of pointing out just how absurd some of these rules and regulations really are.

  Mr. UNSER. You know, Mr. Congressman, when they issued the ticket, we had long talks about this. I told these two officers, I said, first place, you did not see me do anything wrong. How do you give somebody a ticket just based on the fact that you want him to have one? They have to see you do something in order to give you a misdemeanor, according to law. They did not see that. I did not do anything wrong.

  But, more importantly, I told them, I said, this is liable to get out to the press; and I said, you guys will lose the war. You cannot possibly win this. It is an unjustified thing.

  And then I looked at the ticket, and I saw on there--and he is telling me such a minor ticket that it is and why don't I just pay it and don't worry about it. And I looked at the ticket, and it said I must appear. Not a question of paying somebody $75 to keep them happy, but that I must appear.

  That is going to publicly ridicule me and that way I would admit that I was guilty. Not just giving them money because they wanted it. I could not do something like that. It is not my way.

  I got in my airplane the next day and went to Phoenix the next day to do my job. While I was on the plane, they were in Denver, the Forest Service having a press conference, saying that they were going to charge Mr. Unser; and we are going to try to fine him $5,000 and 6 months in jail for having a motor vehicle in the wilderness. They got caught with that. How did the machine get there and is it there? Nobody knows.

  Mr. POMBO. They have never found it?

  Mr. UNSER. Well, I don't know if they have. They claim that they have not. So it is kind of like after the fact.

  And then I am in Phoenix, and everybody is calling me. And it was not me that went to the press, it was the Forest Service that went to the press. So they started the war that Mr. Pendley is handling now.

  Mr. POMBO. Unfortunately, my time has expired. Maybe we will have opportunity for another round of questions. Thank you.

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Doolittle.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Unser, I find your story very compelling. Essentially, you were lost. You apparently have lost your new $7,000 snowmobile. Was the other machine yours as well?

  Mr. UNSER. Yes, sir.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Did they find that one?

  Mr. UNSER. The rescue people brought that one out, sir.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. You lost your $7,000 machine. You nearly lost your life. It must have been shocking indeed to find your government, that your President thinks is your friend, to have them issuing you a citation for essentially innocent activity. Were you shocked when that happened?

  Mr. UNSER. I was more than shocked. That is a good way to put it. I was in shock. In other words, not just shocked the way it sounds, I was literally in shock. I mean--and when the lady handed me the ticket, I just told her--I said, I will not sign a ticket. I am under the assumption--I have had speeding tickets for sure all of my life. I am under the assumption that I must sign the ticket. I said, if it is jail, I said to them, let's go to jail right now. I will not sign something that I didn't do.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is the spirit of the American Revolution. I commend you for fighting it.

  May I just inquire, what do you and your----

  Mr. UNSER. The ticket, sir, was written before they ever established where we were.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I think that is clear. What do you estimate this legal defense will end up costing you when you go to trial in June?

  Mr. UNSER. Many----

  Mr. PENDLEY. May I?

  Mr. UNSER. This is my attorney. Can he respond?

  Mr. PENDLEY. Legal Foundation is a private public interest law firm representing Mr. Unser for the reason that I think is clear, based on the testimony.

  If the Forest Service can engage in this kind of conduct with regard to Mr. Unser, there is nobody out there who is capable of responding. And they will do it to anyone and everyone, and there are certain, very important legal issues involved here.

  Is, for example, the presence in the wilderness, without an intent to be present in the wilderness, is that a violation? Here, as Mr. Unser has testified, there is no demarcation of where the boundary is. If one is inside by accident or in the case of emergency or blizzard, is that a violation? It shouldn't be a violation.

  Every crime that we have in this country, practically, requires an intent to commit the crime, and if there is no intent, then there is no commitment of the crime, and----

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me just ask, is this an unresolved issue? I mean, it comes as news to me that you can be held strictly liable for presence in the wilderness, without reference to intent.

  Mr. PENDLEY. That apparently is the Forest Service right now; that is correct.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. But that has not actually been tested?

  Mr. PENDLEY. That has yet to be resolved.

  Sir, the reason I bring that up is because it is an important national legal issue, and that is why Mountain States has agreed to represent Mr. Unser for free.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Unser--it is free to Mr. Unser, but it is obviously costing the foundation. I am trying to get a sense of what does a citizen who has the finger of Big Brother pointing at him in the prosecution, what is that likely to cost?

  Mr. UNSER. I have an attorney in Albuquerque, also, that represents me in this; and so far, we have spent in excess of $30,000 of his time, which is costing me.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. So that is $30,000 of his time, presumably that much or more out of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, and by the time you go to trial, you will have easily a $100,000 bill in legal fees; is that safe to say?

  Mr. UNSER. More than that, sir.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. This gives contemporary illustration to something our first President said, George Washington, ''The government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force by fire, as a troublesome servant and a fearful master.''

  You, sir, had the courage and the willingness to basically fight City Hall, so to speak, only in this case it is the Forest Service. We will all benefit from that service you are performing, but I think--it comes as news to me, certainly, I suspect the members of the committee, that the Forest Service has taken out these kinds of positions.