able to land. That is a major concern and perhaps you can enlighten me, with the Udall bill, what happens?

Mr. PATTERSON. Well, without getting highly specific, yes, your concern is a good one I think, wilderness is one of the lowest intensity uses of the land and therefore it is highly restricted and would in fact prohibit any permanent kinds of structures or roads, et cetera, or invasion of the territory by humans. It does provide a couple of things, one is for preexisting uses exemption and it does provide that this is an overlay that goes on top of whatever the proposed usage might be, for example whether it'd be for park usage or whatever, so that would provide some relief. If there's been no usage it would be a pristine wilderness state. I understand it is an enormous State with relatively a low population, 400,000 or thereabouts, and it just becomes, you know, another extension of how the West was won, in the sense that before it was California with the gold rush and now Alaska, and yet even in California which has more people than any other State, there are a lot of open space areas, maybe not enough in some sense. Maybe in Alaska there's too much but I guess my questions do revolve around, how much in quantity is enough. I would suggest that maybe based on its current population and projected population on which we've heard some testimony and the amount in the Udall bill H.R. 39, the quantity of how much might not be too much but, again, it all depends on where it is; I agree with you.

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, we know what we're talking about, I mean, you know, we live here and I think it should be closer to 25 million and you're saying 146 million.

Mr. PATTERSON. I think in your testimony you indicate there's certain, well it was related very much to commercial enterprise in terms of what Alaska is supported by, tourism being one of them. Some of these are competing with one another and with the oil and gas development. Of course, that's again a concern of the committee because I would think that we would be trying to meet both of those needs. For example, everyone seems to conclude that if you put something in a particular State wilderness or whatever that that would absolutely prohibit exploration for say, oil and gas, suppose it would not? I mean, there are all kinds of variations. I guess the projection that I'm putting out is that locking up the land is a nice buzz word but it doesn't mean a whole lot because you can have various states of wilderness and it doesn't have to all be pristine wilderness.

Thank you. No further questions.

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you. Mr. Gutting do you have any questions? Mr. GUTTING. Yes I do. We've heard a great deal of testimony about the agricultural potential, particularly in the Yukon Flats area where there is a proposed refuge area. Do you have, or does the bank have, any views on what the economic potential for farming is in this area?

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, the bank thinks there is tremendous potential based primarily on the world use for food. We have proof that Alaska does have the ability to grow certain crops, some in the Delta area, we have some potential in Nenana. The major problem is getting the land so you can put it into agricultural use. I am not familiar with the potential in the Yukon Flats.

Mr. GUTTING. You emphasized the need to get the land. Much of the agricultural development that has occurred in the lower 48 has occurred through private ownership of land

Mr. STEPHENS. Right.

Mr. GUTTING. Is private ownership of land an essential part of agricultural development, or could the development occur through a leasing program? Would you be willing to lend money and support farming based on a leasing program as opposed to an ownership?

Mr. STEPHENS. OK, you asked two questions. I assume the leasing would be compatible but I think it's more important (indiscernible) for agricultural development.

Mr. FORSYTHE. Excuse me. Wouldn't it be rather difficult for agricultural interests, without equity in the land, to get the credit for building these operations? Under the leasing program you really have flimsy equity in terms of building.

Mr. STEPHENS. The land has equity (indiscernible).

Mr. FORSYTHE. Well, the point is, can you really do it without the land equity involved?

Mr. STEPHENS. Well I think that would depend on the individual situation.

Mr. FORSYTHE. Thank you.

Mr. LEGGETT. OK, I think we are at the point now for lunch. I want to thank you Mr. Stephens for your help to the subcommittee. David Cline of the Audubon Society will be our first witness after lunch. We will stand in recess.

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m. the committee adjourned for lunch, to reconvene at 1:35.]

Mr. LEGGETT. All right the hearing will come back to order and this afternoon we have a number of witnesses we want to hear. David Cline is the first witness of the Audubon Society, next we have Robert Weeden, Alaska Conservation, Mr. Nelson, The Ghemm Co., Miss Morris, Mr. Wildman, Mr. Crabb, Mr. Matz, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Severns, Miss Tuten, Miss Hansen, and Mr. Norris. So we will proceed with David Cline. Your statement will appear in the record as though fully read. You may emphasize portions as you see fit.

STATEMENT OF DAVID CLINE, ALASKA REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

Mr. CLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee I did prepare a statement but I will not attempt to read the entire statement, but there are quite a number of points that I am concerned about that I'd really like to raise with you.

Mr. LEGGETT. Seventeen pages.

Mr. CLINE. Seventeen pages, right. My name is Dave Cline and I am the Alaska representative of the National Audubon Society, a broad-based conservation organization of 370,000 members nationally. Here in Alaska we have about 1,400 members and two chapters. I think it important to point out that approximately 40 percent of our national members do hunt and fish. I'm not sure what the percentage is in Alaska but I think that it may be a bit higher.

I am a 6-year Alaskan resident and spent most of that time employed as a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

stationed in Anchorage. Some of my work and early years of my experience involved doing wilderness reviews and developing proposals for new refuges in Alaska pursuant to section 17D2 of the Native Claims Settlement Act. Also I'm presently a member of the Alaska Conservation Society and currently on the State D2 steering council. As one of the oldest and largest conservation organizations in the country, the Audubon has, for a long time, been involved with the (indiscernible). The National Audubon Society as a working member of the Alaska coalition strongly supports H.R. 39 as the best legislative vehicle by which an Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act should evolve from the Congress. This is in full realization that the bill will, in fact, be modified and strengthened. We view the other bills under review by this committee, including the Dingell bill, the Murphy bill, and H.R. 5605 which would designate Admiralty Island as a national preserve, as extremely valuable in that they identify key wildlife resource areas of national interest in Alaska. H.R. 39, however, narrows things down to more realistic boundaries and acreages and represents a first major compromise position on the part of conservationists.

We are also pleased to see that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has revised its refuge proposals to more accurately conform to key wildlife resource values identified by its most knowledgeable and respected field staff in 1971. This is encouraging in that it reflects more farsighted, responsible, and professional leadership in the Interior Department than had been in the case previously.

As one of the oldest and largest conservation organizations in the country, Audubon has a continuing special interest in the wise and effective management of the national wildlife refuge system. Since the days when the society worked with the Theodore Roosevelt administration to establish the first national wildlife refuge on Pelican Island in Florida in 1903, we have continued to support the establishment and wise management of refuges. In addition to long-term involvement with the national wildlife refuges, Audubon has developed its own wildlife sanctuary program.

We view the national wildlife refuge system as the best conservation system for protecting nationally significant wildlife and habitat values. Within its statutory and regulatory framework there is a great deal of flexibility for managing refuges, to provide maximum opportunity for human interactions with wildlife, and to meet, at the same time, the broader challenge of conservation of international wildlife resources, which I think will become of increasing importance here in Alaska and on the national wildlife refuge system and as other nations do more and more to get involved in the program (indiscernible) in proposing a wildlife refuge or part in the northern Yukon adjacent to the Arctic Wildlife Range. Many conservationists, of course, have worked toward that for a long time.

Refuge designation, then, is the best Federal land classification mechanism for assuring promotion of long-term wildlife values and interests in Alaska on Federal lands here because, one, it provides protection and management of habitat which is critical, of course, to the long-term survival of all wildlife. Two, quality hunting and fishing opportunities; three, opportunity for a great variety of nonconsumptive interactions with wildlife in a wilderness setting.

No. 4, opportunity for protection of subsistence dependent lifestyles, and five, opportunity for cooperative management of wildlife between State and Federal governments.

The two specific things that I'd like to discuss today with you then would be specifically subsistence, which is a difficult question and I'm not here as an expert but I do have quite a bit of knowledge based on contacts with the Native communities, holding meetings in various villages in the proposed wildlife refuges that we're talking about. And the second specific point would be on cooperative management.

First of all, subsistence, which you've heard a lot about already, I feel few issues elicit more interest and emotional debate in Alaska than sport hunting and subsistence. The Audubon Society recognizes both activities as legitimate uses of most Alaskan national wildlife refuges when scientifically managed according to sound ecological principles and in a socially sensitive manner.

There are many, many Alaskans that derive their livelihood and inspiration from the use and stewardship of our State's fish and wildlife resources. Yet what I see happening to Alaska wildlife, wildlands, and its indigenous peoples is really little different than what has occurred elsewhere in the continent. Only the scale is greater, the tools more sophisticated, the timeframe much shorter, and the potential impact more severe.

Since the issue of subsistence has serious cultural overtones, I think it now hangs much like a cloud over the entire D2 lands debate. The extent to which we are able to deal realistically and fairly with subsistence will, to a great extent, determine our success in the establishment and more importantly the future management of new national wildlife refuges in the State.

First of all, subsistence may be viewed as direct dependence on the harvest of renewable resources as a primary means of livelihood. Since the actual intent and practice of subsistence varies so greatly in time and place, it does vary tremendously throughout the State and it changes constantly, people shift where they live. Furthermore I don't believe it has to be defined, only explained and understood for its importance to people's survival and not strictly in a physical sense and also for cultural reasons and spiritually and psychologically.

I guess the basic point that I would like to make is that the needs of the so-called subsistence lifestyles can and should be given special treatment on refuges in Alaska. To a great extent this can be accomplished through the exercise of existing authorities, both State and Federal in regulating methods and means of access and harvest. Simply, as a specific example, to close some refuge lands and waters to the landing of aircraft as on the Kenai National Moose Range, may be all that is necessary to protect subsistence interests of rural residents. Both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the department of fish and game have, I think, probabley all of the employees they need to do this.

What is really needed to assure that such actions are taken, however, is a policy statement on subsistence in the emerging D2 legislation that clearly expresses the Congress intent on the matter. I would caution that this policy not be so specific as to unnecessarily narrow management options necessary to assure protection of the resource, or too general or vague as to have nothing progressive

happen in terms of meeting people's needs. Such questions as who should qualify for subsistence provileges, or how the program should be managed and administered, I think would be best left to the managing agencies themselves, specifically, the Fish and Wildlife Service have jurisdiction over refuge lands and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game with jurisdiction over wildlife. Answers to these and other related questions can be dealt with after development of comprehensive management plans for each new refuge and then adoption of regulations with full participation by the concerned agencies and public. And here I want to point out, I think my real concern, a real weak link, I belive, in all of this is the critical need for more meaningful public involvement. I think we have to do everything possible to get public participation and make it more effective and meaningful in whatever we do as far as this issue is concerned.

Throughout the State subsistence living as we see it today is probably very transitory and based on current trends will gradually be replaced by the cash economy. Then again should this alternative either prove undersirable or unattainable, subsistence could continue as a permanent characteristic of the rural Alaskan lifestyle.

Obviously, no one can predict with any assurance what will occur, but the important thing for lawmakers to recognize in terms of the immediate future is that subsistence must be viewed as both a legitimate human need and a public use that can, if properly managed, be accommodated on refuges. Without being paternalistic, which I don't intend to be, I think we should be supportive of subsistence pursuits on certain national wildlife refuge lands for a number of good reasons, I don't think I will read all of them, although I would like to focus on at least No. 5 because I think this is probably one of the most important because subsistence living can be very, very (indiscernible) there are people that come up from the lower 48 States who are living off the wildlife resources. The support of subsistence practices would provide the long-needed opportunity for involvement of rural people in the responsible management of the very resources upon which they and their lifestyles depend. Including Alaska's subsistence-dependent peoples in the responsibilities of sound wildlife management and habitat protection is both timely and necessary if the State's vast but vulenerable wildlife resource is to survive at all. Likewise, Alaska's subsistence-dependent Native people can no longer remain merely receipients of the benefits of the State's wildlife bounty without sharing in the responsibilities for its wise and continuing management.

The next section I would point to on page 8 I went through the reasons why we have to be extremely careful in terms of management of subsistence.

The biological productivity of most Alaskan ecosystems is extremely low and can vary greatly from year to year. Because of severe limitations on productiveness of the land, either the density of those dependent on renewable resources must be kept low, or if densities are high, the per capita harvest lowered and supplemented by imported foods when needed.

Modern technology as represented especially by arms and ammunition, motor powered boats, snowmachines and small aircraft present both the opportunity to harvest resources more efficiently, but also to cause lasting detrimental effects on wildlife and habitat when improperly employed.