Laserfiche WebLink
<br />If such is not to be prohibited, or standards established under which <br />it may be permitted, an amendment is indicated. <br /> <br />1..-, ,., ,.., ,. <br />'" ' ,G. Where'persons have established an agricultural economy <br />bas",d on the grazing of liV'estock in areas that may be designated as <br />'filderrisss, should it be at the whim of the administrator that such <br />grazing be permitted to continue? Under the proposed legislation, <br />the grazing where it is now established may be permitted to continue <br />but continuance is not mandatory. IS this fair treatment of those who <br />have made substantial investments on the basis of grazing rights? If <br />it is not, the legislation should be amende~. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />H. Game management experts realize that in any area in <br />the modern West, in view of activities that have taken place in the <br />past for the removal of predators, game resources must be regularly <br />harvested, or the consequence is extensive overgrazing, and starva- <br />tion and stunting of surviving animals. The issue here is whether or <br />not access roads into wilderness areas should be constructed in order <br />that enough hunters will have access to the area to provide for the <br />harvesting of such game. If so, a specific exception will have to be <br />written into the legislation, since such access roads are prohibited. <br /> <br />1. Such exceptions as are permitted now to the restrictions <br />on wilderness areas are, by the legislation, applicable only to national <br />forest areas. These areas constitute a fraction of the total areas. <br />Should the exceptions be applicable to all areas within the Wilderness <br />System, or just to the forest lands? If there is good reason for the' <br />exceptions, it strikes me that they should be applicable to all areas. <br />Yet, the legislation restricts them to about 250/0 of the areas involved. <br />If consistency in this respect is indif::ated, another amendment is <br />needed. <br /> <br />Under basic laws now existing, prospectiqg, mmmg, and <br />oil and gas leasing is permitted in areas of public ownership. These <br />activities produce a good deal of revenue for the United States, pro- <br />vide substantial support for our economy and develop resources essen- <br />tial to the national defense. Is the maintenance of pure wilderness <br />areas more important to the nation i3-nd its people than a continuation <br />of these activities? Under existing law , these activities probably <br />must be permitted. S. 1123 would change this. Should we do so? <br /> <br />K. The legislation contains a disclaimer to any claim of <br />or denial of exemption from state water laws. It is my opinion that <br />such a disclaimer merely strengthens the reservation theory of the <br />Pelton Dam decision in respect to the areas involved. I think a dis- <br />claimer is merely a sop to those of us who do not agree with the re- <br />servation theory, and we should rel:flize that the issue involved in <br />the Wilderness Legislation is whether or not this theory is to be <br /> <br />14 <br />