Former Senator Malcolm Wallop on Wilderness

Former Senator Malcolm Wallop on Wilderness Return to Top Level Document

"Former Senator Malcolm Wallop on Wilderness"
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

STATEMENT OF FORMER SENATOR MALCOLM WALLOP, CHAIRMAN, FRONTIERS OF FREEDOM INSTITUTE, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

  Senator WALLOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Chairman Chenoweth. My name is Malcolm Wallop, retired Senator from Wyoming, and now Chairman of Frontiers of Freedom Institute, an organization dedicated to defending constitutional liberty. I might add, because of the new rules of the House, that we not accept Federal grants, I am here today to introduce Mrs. Kathy Stupak-Thrall to the committee and to supplement and reinforce her testimony.

  My qualifications are, as a rancher at the foot of the Big Horn National Forest, I have had a lifetime of personal experience with the Forest Service, and as a Member of the Senate, I served on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for 16 years, where I could view the whole range of Forest Service and other agencies' conduct and behavior. I was in the Senate when the Michigan Wilderness Act of 1987 was considered and enacted.

  A number of problems in managing wilderness areas have arisen since passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964. In my view, the false doctrine of nonmanagement, which amounts to little more than neglect, will ultimately produce in many designated wilderness areas a great deal of environmental degradation. But other sorts of problems, involving people and their rights and interests have arisen, as well, and it is to speak about one of these I am here today.

  Members of the committee have no doubt heard, as I heard in my years on the Energy Committee, many stories of outrageous treatment of landowners and Federal land users by the land managing agencies. The case of Kathy Stupak-Thrall, the Gajewskis and 1,100 private property owners on the shores of Crooked Lake in Michigan's Upper Peninsula is perhaps not the most outrageous, but it brings into sharp relief several of the worst aspects of the Federal agencies' attitudes and approaches to wilderness management.

  Let me begin with the Wilderness Act itself. The Congress made it clear in the 1964 act, from the first paragraph on, that only federally owned lands will be designated as wilderness areas; further prohibitions against roads and commercial enterprises are qualified by the clause, quote, ''subject to existing private rights.''

  The Forest Service itself elaborated on these points in its January of 1979 final environmental statement, quote, ''first, non-Federal lands included within boundaries of an area classified as wilderness are not themselves classified.'' And, secondly, quote, ''Wilderness designation in itself imposes no restrictions on use of the private land within or adjacent to wilderness.'' Mr. Chairman, that is the Act.

  These principles were applied in the final management plan adopted by the Ottawa National Forest just before enactment of the Michigan Wilderness Act. The alternative that was eventually adopted stated, quote, ''The management areas identified on this map and the management direction defined in the forest plan apply to national forest lands only. They do not apply to any lands in State, county, private, or other ownership.''

  The 1986 final environmental impact statement responded to comments about how management of the Sylvania recreation area as a primitive area would affect motor boat and other usage on several lakes, including Crooked Lake, by dismissing all such concerns. It said, quote, ''Motor boat usage on Crooked, Big Bateau and Devil's Head Lakes would continue unless Congress specifically prohibits such use in the legislation, designating Sylvania as wilderness. The Forest Service cannot regulate use of motors on lakes; it can only regulate transportation of motors over national systems land. If there is private land on the lake shore, motor boats can continue to access the lakes through the land,'' closed quote.

  Now this statement, Mr. Chairman, simply recognizes Michigan State law, which holds that all riparian owners along a body of water have rights in common to use that body of water. Thus, in the case of Crooked Lake, most of the shoreline is part of the Ottawa National Forest, but thirteen private landowners also own parcels along the lake and that means Crooked Lake itself is not part of the Ottawa National Forest. Instead, Ottawa National Forest is one of several riparian owners that possesses rights in common to use the lake.

  When Congress considered the Michigan Wilderness Act, I recalled that this situation was a matter of concern, and the bill, as enacted, specifically addressed it. Section 5, titled Administration of Wilderness Areas begins with the qualification, quote, ''subject to valid existing rights.'' Section 7 states, quote, ''Congress does not intend that designation of wilderness areas in the State of Michigan lead to the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around each wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within the wilderness shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundaries of the wilderness.''

  To my mind these additional protections were useful but should not have been necessary. The language of the Wilderness Act itself and Michigan State law should have been sufficient to demarcate the limits of Forest Service authority. But beginning in 1990, officials of the Ottawa Forest started to restrict customary use on Crooked Lake by the landowners on the grounds that they were inconsistent with wilderness status. I first learned of their attempts to outlaw motor fishing boats and sailboats that had been traditionally used on Crooked Lake when Mrs. Stupak-Thrall and Mrs. Gajewski visited Energy and Natural Resources staff in 1991.

  I will conclude, but there is one thing that I am saying, that there is an outlandish deference being paid by the Federal judiciary to Federal agency regulations, and it is an enormous problem which only Congress can confront at some point.

  I am here today to suggest a more modest task. In this case, the Forest Service has prohibited customary uses on Crooked Lake by other riparian owners against the explicit intent of Congress. Congress should spell out its intent one more time, but most importantly, the Congress should get the Ottawa National Forest employees to explain to it why they refuse to follow Michigan law, Congress's explicit intent and the intent and language of the Wilderness Act itself clearly written. Until the people who are Forest Service employees are held accountable, the reckless disregard of rights of the American public will continue. Thank you.

  Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

  Mr. HANSEN. I am saddened. I have looked forward to this hearing for quite a while, but leadership has an Ethics Task Force going on, and they are going to start voting in 5 minutes, and they are waiting for me. I am going to turn the gavel over to the gentlewoman from Idaho, and I hope I can get back. This has been a fascinating hearing, and I am looking forward to hearing from other witnesses.

  With that, Chairman Chenoweth, you take the gavel, and I want to thank all the witnesses who have been here, and those who will testify today. It has been a fascinating hearing for many of us working on legislation at this time.

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. [Presiding.] Thank you, Chairman Hansen. We will certainly miss you, but I know the heavy responsibilities that you have chairing that Ethics Committee. So with regret, we let you go today.

  Senator Wallop, do you, in your long and distinguished career in the Senate, do you remember any time when either the House or the Senate gave over to the Sierra Club the right to drive public policy on the Forest Service lands?

  Senator WALLOP. No, Madam Chairman. I clearly do not. I find it outrageous. I find it outrageous that they have that kind of reach and that the Forest Service itself responds to those kinds of demands or any agency of government responds to those kinds of demands, whether they come from the Sierra Club or the Mountain States Legal Foundation. The business of government is to follow the law and not prescriptions of private and special interests.

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator.