My name is Tom Bouchard and I am a recent newcomer to this area, having arrived from the Midwest 18 months ago to attend graduate school. Because I have spent most of my life in another part of the country, I probably view the North Cascades controversy in a different perspective than many of the residents of Washington State.

For 22 years, I lived in a suburb of Chicago. Those of you who have ever been through that part of the country know that the area is not well endowed with scenic resources. The scenic attractiveness that was once there is being swallowed by unplanned urban growth, buried by a cloud of atmospheric pollutants, and infected with water pollution. The modest esthetic values that the natural environment once offered are quickly becoming a memory.

However, in the North Cascades, an area well endowed with a quality environment, there is an opportunity to preserve some of the most superb and diverse scenery in the world. At present the multiple-use policy obediently followed by the Forest Service tends to emphasize logging, forsaking many scenic and wilderness areas that do not fit neatly into the concept. Some of the beautiful approach valleys of the area are unfortunately subject to such a fate. Under present conditions many superb wilderness areas are in danger from logging and other economic intrusions. Only a national park of the type proposed in H.R. 12139 can provide the protection this area deserves, providing a variety of recreational opportunities and protecting the approach river valleys and the ecological integrity of the wilderness

areas.

It is time that we expand our perception of resource problems to include the existence of values which are noneconomic, but nevertheless real. Too often economic values play the dominant role turning the land over to the bulldozers and chain saws. The existence of esthetic values of a resource may be incompatible with the development of economic values but they should not have to compete with economic values by assigning a dollar sign to scenery. We should decide whether we want the park and not have to disguise its values with economic rationalizations. We should decide now while the North Cascades are relatively unspoiled. We should decide now before myopic economic interests begin to destroy the area erasing the more fragile esthetic values.

We have an opportunity to protect a truly superlative area, to preserve those values which have disappeared from many parts of our country. It is an opportunity that we must not neglect.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much. Next witness is Edward Gulbran.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD GULBRAN

Mr. GULBRAN. I won't state what I said in my statement, but I would like to state I grew up in the east, I've lived here in Seattle for 12 years and I've hiked, driven, and camped along the North Cascades and I appreciate the territory. I like House bill 12139 because I think it protects it the best other than any proposals I have seen. I am familiar with some of them, but not in great detail. But I think I know what they're all about. I think it protects it best because its wilderness areas are presently defined under the policy, it doesn't really protect it. I

think in a national park it could protect the wilderness areas, as so many people have stated. I think the present proposal in 12139 also represents a variety of interests, as recreational values, as people have mentioned. There are possibly places for tramways, so it represents a park in which people of all physical abilities and of all interests could enjoy.

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, people seem to be a part of the future as well as today, and a number of them in the future. I think people will put great pressure on space, not only in the Northwest here, but throughout the country and all the way from the inner city to wilderness there will be pressure on space. I am a volunteer worker with the model cities program, and I see this in the city and I also see the need for unmodified space or wilderness space outside where we can enjoy something different than where we usually live. I think there's probably a lot of modified space in the countryside which is enjoyable, but this represents something that we don't have anywhere else. I think it's a valuable asset for people throughout the country. I'm also concerned about the long-range effect on possible modifications to even the climate as well as the plant and animal life. I've traveled in other parts of the world and seen these effects in the Mediterranean areas where hundreds of years of modification to the land has changed the climate drastically, and I think you'd agree with me, we don't want Washington cactus to compete with Arizona cactus.

Mr. UDALL. I will accept that.

Mr. GULBRAN. As I stated before I am in support of the proposed park with the amendments.

Mr. UDALL. We don't want your cactus. We just want all of your

water.

Mr. McClure?

Mr. MCCLURE. I don't wish to be argumentative with the witness at any time. I think it's well that we bring out the concept of the wilderness park in some of these proposals, but the careful reading of the bill itself does not indicate that this is its concept as stated in the bill. Now, it could be developed in that concept and this, I understand, is your intention?

Mr. GULBRAN. My intention is to provide for all interests. I think that we need a wilderness core or else there won't be too much to come and see. If we modify all of its as park land with facilities, it doesn't make it much different from what we have around us even in agricultural land. We have nice scenery and roadside parks and things like that, but I think we need an untouched core with approaches on the outskirts.

Mr. MCCLURE. I appreciate the expression you made, but I do want to bring out the fact that the concept of the park itself is not spelled out in 12139.

Mr. GULBRAN. I realize that. I was just expressing my wishes.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much. Mr. Newhall requests permission to testify after lunch and we will proceed with Mr. Ĥuckle. We have eight statements of people who request their statements to be put in the record, and without objection they will be put in the record as though they had testified.

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. MYRON S. HUCKLE, AIR FORCE (RETIRED)

Colonel HUCKLE. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to talk to the committee. My name is Myron S. Huckle, lieutenant colonel, Air Force, retired, working as a consulting engineer. I thought I might bring a slightly different viewpoint here.

Mr. UDALL. We welcome it here.

Colonel HUCKLE. I see a lot of professors here; I'm not going to kill the animals twice. I've heard it belabored here. So I'm going to make two suggestions. It's unfortunate that military expenditures develop wonderful things. We now have available in the big helicopter an opportunity to log our forests without changing the fundamental primeval forest. We can take out 5 percent of the mature trees, say over 95 years old, out of our forests every 5 years, take out the snags that cause the fires, and I think the Government could lead by requiring all Government forests to be logged in that manner. I think it would move rapidly to the other owners of timber. That would provide a big buffer around national parks which could be used better than ever before as a recreation area. Too many of our areas are locked off public views, those owned by private concerns and others. If we had this buffer, it would take the pressure off that national park. It would also provide something that is badly needed around the national park, that is a buffer for the fauna. I was disgusted in Alaska to see the great animals wander out of the park and professional hunters to whom you put down $500 and they'll guarantee you a moose. They find a nice animal that has wandered out of the park and herd it down to the hunters. With our parks being so small, the wandering of the animals outside, especially in the winter, is going to almost ruin the fauna. If we had a buffer around all the forest covering the mountain areas, those areas could be opened to hunting when the overpopulation expands into those areas and it will be automatic. Probably the hunting would be kept at all times. I feel that our population explosion must be controlled to the point where the people have a natural environment.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Colonel. You have given us some interesting new suggestions and insights. I had wondered myself about the feasibility of logging with helicopters. We spent 3 days in the redwood country earlier this week, a most interesting experience, and we observed some areas that were under current logging practices, and which had been devastated in order to get the commercial values out of them. You talk about the guides who herd the elk or the moose down to be shot by the hunters, and you remind me of Arizona. We have one of the few remaining herds of buffalo and they draw numbers every now and then and these are like big tame cows, most of them. One fellow in a wheelchair drew a number and they rolled him right up, and he put the rifle in the buffalo's ear and pulled the trigger. It didn't seem to me this was particularly sporting or very exciting hunting.

Mr. McClure?

Mr. MCCLURE. I was tempted to say, Colonel, when you were commenting on logging by helicopter that is well said for an Air Force man where nothing is impossible if the costs are not too great, for anything they wish to undertake. However, I think we have to recog

nize that we may be embarking on new methods and I think we should be very open for suggestions and we certainly appreciate your state

ments.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, sir.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MYRON S. HUCKLE

My name is Myron S. Huckle, Lt. Col., Air Force, Retired, working as a consulting engineer. I may present a slightly different viewpoint. I came here 66 years ago and have just returned to my home from an eight-year sojourn in Oakland, California, as civilian engineer with Army Procurement. Two facts strike me regarding the proposed park. All those with selfish interests, lumbering, hunting, mining, skiing are against a park, and those with altruistic views for it. All those in the small communities and the countryside have enjoyed all the benefit of a national park up to the present. They still look with eagerness to bigness, riches and lots of people. They want no change which might stop their quest for the almighty dollar. Those who are suffering from the explosion of the population, crime and riots see what happens in man's concrete jungles and appreciate the value of nature's environment. I suffered in Oakland; had my car stolen, my car broken into, my front wheels stolen; women could not go out at night. I never locked my home in Seattle before, but now I own a key and my wife doesn't go out at night here either. When I came here in 1902 you could have purchased the whole Cascade Mountains from Lake Washington to Wenatchee for a song, as Seattle City Light bought their Skagit River area. Now, Whatcom County, like Nasser, would prefer to get back the money-maker in the back yard.

If you fail to secure a national park now it will be forever impossible. The big problem is not park or no park, but a matter of human existence. In order to preserve a worthwhile existence the population must be controlled to the point where that population has a national environment. If you permit that natural environment to disappear, there is no future. Strip logging leads to unacceptable floods, lost soil, dig dams to fill up with soil, requiring more taxpayers' money than the timber was worth.

It is now possible to retain all forests in their maximum production stage of say 100 years. A big tree adds a colossal tonnage of wood each year. Every five years, the forest will be harvested by helicopter, taking only the trees over ninetyfive years of age, and also the dead snags, which cause fires from lightning. All the beauty, soil and soul-saving virtues of nature's wonderful forests would be preserved. Helicopter treatment or removable of infected trees would approach the excellence of modern preventive medicine. Federal legislation should require this system in national forests and parks at the earliest possible moment. Less than one percent of commercial valuable accessible virgin forests of Washington remain. Will timber interests get the last remaining drop of blood using the ruinous logger's methods?

First, I am not speaking for myself. At the age of seventy, you do not expect to enjoy national parks very much longer. Secondly, there are eight points I wish to make, back of my reasons, as to why this park should be established at once. One, it is of vital importance to the future health and I believe the actual existence of this nation. Two, the concrete jungle with its spawn of human depravity must be opposed by retaining this opportunity to commune with nature. Three, if this park is not required we should open every federal and state park in the nation to exploitation and ruination. Four, less than one percent of Washington virgin forests remain and termination of all cutting of this virgin timber would not cause a ripple in our economy. Five, forests with trees of up to 200 years of age belong to the people of ten generations, not to a miniscule percentage of one generation. Six, under a dictatorship, whether royal, military or communist, such a park would be established with dispatch. Seven, the question should be, not whether this park should be established but why it should not extend the full length of the Cascades. Eight, the Cascades are a great disappointment as a source of minerals.

Back to point one. History indicates that every civilization which went down the drain made its exit through its cities. No animal, human or otherwise can long exist, when divorced from his natural environment. Human can not long endure who forgets that he must maintain himself first of all as a healthy animal. A natural environment is an irreplaceable necessity for him.

Point two. It is claimed by some of our great minds that this nation has started its disintegration before actually reaching the peak of its powers. Other

98-524-68-pt. 1-40

nations enjoyed several hundred years before final disintegration set in. I came to this country sixty-six years ago. All parts of it rated inclusion in a national park. I never locked my home and never owned a key until last year. Now, the depraved degenerates of the eastern cities are flocking here. They fouled their own nests and have come here to foul ours. Four or five serious crimes occur every day. Their program of denuding the planet has reached far up into our mountain valleys. The barren hills shed the rain, flood the lowlands and wash the lifegiving soil into the sea. Great dams are now in design to stop the floods, but who will lift the soil back into the hills when the dams are full of it? Over half of the world's soil, the richest top soil, has been washed away because of the selfishness and stupidity of man. In recorded history, we can read of the great forests on the hills of the near east, and of China. Chinese floods have drowned over three million people in one year.

Point three: Always there have been great conscientious souls devoted to helping mankind. Some were learned scholars, other statesmen, others renowned musicians or scientists or mathematicians. Some were gifted to understand the eternal spiritual laws of our universe. So parks were established for the benefit of the physical and mental health of man. With the population explosion of man, the automobile and the wage, these parks can no longer adequately serve their purpose. The existing parks are already becoming inadequate for their purpose. Great decisions must be made and quickly. Within another seventy-five years limitations will not be found. Any further proliferation will be limited, says ex-Dean Burchard of M.I.T., by room to proliferate. One square yard per person will be left. Long before that time, I believe mental and physical degeneration will have wiped man off the maps, or will have left only a few to exist off the remnants of this denuded earth. The one great hope is that our statesmen will not initiate a program to limit the population to a number which can live happily in a natural environment. And what is more important, now, act to immediately preserve that necessary environment. Once destroyed it can never be replaced. Never again will the evolution of flower and fauna over billions of years of a slowly cooling planet be possible on this earth. If the natural flora and fauna and beauty of our parks are not essential, let us close these parks, open the areas to exploitation and ruination, and forget about the North Cascades National Park.

Point Four: Over ninety-nine percent of Washington's virgin timber has been stripped off within seventy-five years. The remaining portion of one percent will provide only an infinitesimal profit. Much of the forest growing areas which supplied the ninety-nine percent must provide for the long-time timber needs, not the one percent. Taking the one percent of remaining virgin forest for profit of a few dollars, ruins the opportunity for preservation of a priceless, irreplaceable, natural environment for future generations. Cutting this mountain valley timber, therefore, amounts to pure theft from our children and our chil dren's children.

Point five: Virgin timber in California belongs to citizens of many generations, say up to 2000 years of them. In Washington trees of 100 to 300 years belong to the citizens of about twenty generations. Washington's public forests should be harvested so that 100-year-old forests are permanent. One percent per year can be harvested by helicopter without ruining all the younger flora, without causing floods, without requiring fortunes in dams, without washing the soil into the lakes behind the dams, and finally without ruining nature's irreplaceable environment. Up until now the timber operations might make one million dollars profit while robbing twenty generations of their inherited legacy and requiring future generations of taxpayers to build multibillion dollar dams. Point Six: We might well wonder why so many people, among them some of our great minds, give up on democracy and start believing in Communism. Even now you can work in a war munitions plant and work openly to replace democracy with Communism. There is ample reason. Those in our democracies who never fought and bled for freedom do not appreciate it. They use it to their selfish ends. They turn it into license. Under a Communist or military dictatorship, the task of establishing a national park would be a simple one. Under guise of freedom the taxpayers here must spend millions of dollars and years of effort of officials and laymen in order to permit vested interests to exploit that freedom for their own profits, endeavoring to rob the public.

Point Seven: With facts before us that an environment like the Cascades and Sierras can never be replaced if ruined, the question before us is not whether we add one or more small areas to our park system. The question should be should we not add all of the Cascades and Sierra Ranges to the park system. The sub