Return to Top Level Document
"STATEMENT OF TODD INDEHAR, PRESIDENT,
CONSERVATIONISTS WITH COMMON SENSE"
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. INDEHAR. Thank you.
Distinguished Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am president of Conservationists with Common Sense, a grassroots, all-volunteer organization based in Minnesota. We are dedicated to preserving public access to public lands, especially with Boundary Water Wilderness. We have been involved since 1989, including two court actions, appeals, and four congressional hearings relating to wilderness.
I will be blunt today. Forest Service wilderness policy is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Reinvention didn't fix it. New ideas must be tried, and they must be tried soon. Local people and wilderness users must be involved in any new plan. They alone bear the brunt of these policies, yet they have no voice in the decisionmaking process. They have been ignored, but they have much to share.
Today I will describe several examples of what is happening to American citizens at the hands of the arrogant and unaccountable Forest Service and suggest several reforms for you to consider. My first example involves Forest Service's 1992 draft BWCAW management plan in which they tried to ban Scouts from the wilderness, youth groups of all types, families and others.
During the public task force process, which we participated in, preservationists argued that Girl Scouts singing around a campfire interfered with wilderness solitude, and the group of five canoes on a lake was, quote, ''visual pollution,'' unquote. The youth groups, on the other hand, spent months trying to explain why they needed a group size of 10 to keep kids in the woods. Forest Service wanted to cut it to six. The task force did reach a consensus to keep it to 10, but in a stunning display of arrogance, it consciously moved to eradicate the youth groups from the Boundary Waters.
It angers me to this day they deliberately chose to do that, and that is how I personally got involved in the issues because it personally impacted my family and their ability to recreate. Only after months of appeals, $100,000 and a lot of bad press was the Forest Service allowed to let the kids back in.
Another outrageous example took place on Memorial Day, 1995, when 62-year-old Dr. Ed Pavek, he was a Korean War vet, were flying an American flag over their boundary water camp site. Two uniformed officers approached and told him to take the flag down because, quote, ''it didn't go with the wilderness concept,'' unquote. The Forest Service then lied. They tried to cover it up. They came up with several different versions of the story and tried to discredit Dr. Pavek, and since then Dr. Pavek informs me he has been unable to obtain a permit to go to the Boundary Waters. Whether that is a coincidence or on purpose, we don't know.
Also, it is denying public access to the Boundary Waters due to quota cuts and a dysfunctional system. The Duluth office, which created the system, has done nothing to fix it for years. Forest Service personnel are admitting forest permits that are being reserved and not used. Campsites are empty, but people cannot get a permit. Something doesn't add up.
The Wilderness Act states wilderness is to be used for quote, ''the enjoyment of the American people,'' unquote. American people are being denied this use because of an inefficient government agency. It is clear the Forest Service needs this Congress's help to fix this problem.
In short, the Forest Service has been inefficient, unaccountable, dishonest, nonresponsive to local and regional concerns, and too easily influenced by Washington-based special interest groups. They are becoming more centralized, while many institutions in America and around the world are becoming less so. One-size-fits-all policy isn't working in the Boundary Waters.
Here is what we recommend. First, we recommend that Congress should immediately initiate studies of existing non-Federal managements structures that could be used as alternatives to Federal management of wilderness. Congress should immediately initiate pilot projects to test a wide spectrum of decentralized and private conservation management structures for wilderness areas.
In conclusion, there are serious problems with this Government's management of the Boundary Water Wilderness and other wildernesses, too. People and wilderness are suffering. Decentralization and privatization need to be tried. Of course, some people will argue that private and local interests can't be trusted, that they would rape and destroy the wilderness. I have heard that many times.
This is arrogant, illogical and fear-based. This disregards the public attitude toward the environment, especially wilderness. It also ignores the successful conservation record of local and State governments and the spectacular record of private initiatives, such as those of the Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society and others.
The voices of status quo and fear must be rejected. This Congress must show leadership, creativity, compassion, and vision to save our wilderness areas. Better management of the land means better government for the people. Better government is smaller, less intrusive and closer to the people, which, in the end, means more freedom and liberty for everyone. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Indehar, for that testimony.