Mr. STEIN. I think you'd find that a very (indiscernible) thing to do.

I just want to touch on some of the problems we have with D-2 lands. First of all if you look at all of these overlays and at Mr. Dingell's bill here (indiscernible) approximately 95 percent of the oil and gas potential in the State of Alaska (indiscernible) will be paying $15 a barrel for oil because we don't even know what our own resource in our own State (indiscernible) or another. I don't think it's a wise move at this time, about 95 percent of the soils, 75 percent of the minerals, 60 percent of (indiscernible) potential and approximately 50 percent of rangelands. I think the main approach is, ah, I don't think we know what we have available or what's located on these lands. We're just starting to scratch the surface (indiscernible) and I don't think we even know yet because once this act of Congress takes place, the old saying, you know, it takes an act of Congress to get something done. At this point we are very favorable toward the bill which Stevens submitted in the Senate (indiscernible). Some of the things that kind of alarm us when we read statements like the ones in Dingell's bill where it says that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire privately owned land within the parameter of the refuge areas, ah, words like that just, you know

Mr. LEGGETT. That's condemnation to get their value and sometimes we do that and sometimes we don't. But, don't be too much concerned with the hac verba of the Dingell bill, it's been an interesting conversation piece.

Mr. STEIN. Well if he'd spend as much time writing bills in his State as he has Alaska they might be a lot better off.

Mr. LEGGETT. Well, Mr. Dingell is a very able legislator.

Mr. STEIN. And, lets see, another thing that concerns us that I want to touch on is (indiscernible) land available for private ownership. Right now two-tenths of 1 percent approximately is in private ownership in the State of Alaska, which is rather a small percentage. I think the closest to it is the State of Nevada with about 14-percent private ownership.

We realize (indiscernible) environmental part has to be looked into but we certainly feel there is a balance and I think we can have growth, ah, we can move forward and have good development and still be very aware of ecology and problems that exist that many of the environmentalists have.

I'll skip over the percentages (indiscernible) what part would be in the national parks under the Udall bill.

I would tell you just in summation, our overall position right now is, lets not be too hasty. Lets find out what we really have. I believe 100 percent in Senator Stevens' bill (indiscernible) and I would ask that you look into that very seriously before we rush off and do something we might regret at a future time.

Thank you.

Mr. LEGGETT. Very good. Thank you very much. Your views are helpful. How many people do you represent in your borough?

Mr. STEIN. In the borough? It would be rather large, perhaps 70,000. Mr LEGGETT. And how many borough commissioners are there? Mr. STEIN. Eleven.

Mr. LEGGETT. Very good. Well, you're certainly underpaid for your responsibilities.

Mr. STEIN. I'm inclined to agree with that.

Mr. LEGGETT. Well you could reciprocate and say the same thing for us. [Laughter.]

Mr. Forsythe?

Mr. FORSYTHE. Thank you, we appreciate your coming.

Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Akaka?

Mr. AKAKA. I also want to thank you for coming and giving your testimony. No questions.

Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Patterson has been kidnapped, apparently. All right, does the staff have any questions-if not, thank you very much. [No questions by staff members.]

Let's see, our last witness is Mr. Arturo Frizzera. Let me see, is there anybody here who wants to testify who is not on our list? [Two individuals raised their hands.]

All right, if you'll give your names to our clerk here and you may go ahead, Mr. Frizzera.

STATEMENT OF ARTURA FRIZZERA

Mr. FRIZZERA. Thank you. My name is Arturo Frizzera, my residence is Gilmore Trail and my mailing address is P.O. Box 81306, College, Alaska 99708.

I don't have written testimony but I will mail it to you at a future date.

Mr. LEGGETT. OK, we'll augment your testimony. Who do you represent?

Mr. FRIZZERA. I represent myself as an individual.

Mr. LEGGETT. What's your business?

Mr. FRIZZERA. Ah, my business is I'm a graphic artist.

Mr. LEGGETT. Very good.

Mr. FRIZZERA. I'd like to say this (indiscernible) of the Wildlife Refuge System. I think Congress should continue with its work to complete the D-2 legislation.

Prior to coming to Alaska I spent 8 years working in Europe and Africa and during that time I had the opportunity to see many of the national forests and refuge systems, both in Africa and in Europe. There is nothing on the face of the earth which can come close to the systems that we have available here in Alaska. We are, I would say, the last place on the face of the earth with this potential.

I look at the whole D-2 legislation as important not only nationally and that the balance that can be achieved through refuge systems as in the H.R. bill, it's very important nationally and internationally. It's the only thing left, ah, basically on the face of the earth. It will be, I think, a balance with development.

There are two things that I think would be helpful for the committee, if you don't already know about them, and one of them is a subsistence report, a community study which is available through the Park Service Office in Anchorage, a Traditional Eskimo Life in the 20th century, done by the National Park Service for the Department of Interior. There is also a film which won the American Film Festival in the documentary educational category called "It Amounts to the People of (indiscernible)" and this was done by the Alaska Native (indiscernible.) There aren't very many prints available but I will try to get one to you.

Mr. LEGGETT. Very good, if you could see that this subcommittee is loaned a copy we'd appreciate it very much.

Mr. FRIZZERA. OK, I'll do that. There's one thing that I think might be gone over and that's the difference between subsistence and (indiscernible) costs. I am a hunter and I try to get my caribou every year but I think there's a difference between (indiscernible). That's all I have. Thank you very much for your time.

Mr. LEGGETT. Do my colleagues have any questions? [No questions by members.]

Very good. Thank you very much. Now, our last two witnesses are Larry and Miriam Paquin. Let's see, you both have some prepared remarks. They'll be received for the record and you can read them or expand on them.

STATEMENT OF LAURENCE M. PAQUIN

Mr. PAQUIN. I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify before you. We were scheduled, or signed up, to speak before you earlier but, well apparently this was lost and sometimes I feel like a voice crying in the wilderness because what I'm going to say is from a bush experience and I think 95 percent of the testimony you've heard is from the urban people and I'd like to speak from a bush perspective, of one who has lived with the Natives and close to the land.

I am a teacher who has lived in the Alaskan bush for the last 5 years, 1 with the Eskimos at Wainwright on the Northwest Arctic coast near Pet 4 and the next 4 with the Athabascan Indians in the subsistence economy village of Shageluk which borders the proposed Innoko Wildlife Refuge. From my experiences in the bush, I have come to support H.R. 39 as a means to offer protection to some of Alaska's unique land and wildlife.

The proposed Innoko Wildlife Refuge is a 2.5 million acres of muskeg with islands of small spruce surrounded by vegetation more common to tundra than forested regions. Thousands of small lakes, ideal for waterfowl production nestle in this transition area between tundra and boreal forests of interior valleys. In the vast Innoko Flats region, formed by the intersection of the Innoko and historic Iditarod Rivers, 300,000 ducks, 50,000 geese and 40 percent of the Alaskan harvested beaver come from this area. A caribou herd of 3,000 animals wanders near the Beaver Mountains to southeast. Moose feed in the flats and sometimes wander down in deep snow to subsistence dwellers who hunt nearby and sometimes in the proposed area. This region, in the lower middle Yukon area, between the Yukon and the Kuskokwim Rivers is a very important migratory waterfowl site and habitat for

moose.

In the past 4 years, particularly with the money and population pressure from the pipeline, changes have come to this prime hunting area as word of its potential spreads to an increasingly mobile and hunter oriented outsiders, as people living outside the bush are called. Airplanes and their hunters have added pressure to subsistence hunting areas, both within and out of the proposed refuge area to such an extent that villagers who traditionally have had a subsistence lifestyle wonder if their ways can continue. Most of the villagers where I lived had no airplanes and could not hope to compete for moose with

23-868-78 -39

the aerial hunters. Local game advisory boards were established but even they could not hope to police such a vast area without airplanes themselves. Despite competent and occasional protection from fish and game officials, the proposed Innoko Flats Refuge area and the adjoining subsistence hunting areas were just too vast to adequately protect from the increasingly mobile city hunter who had no traditional ties to the land.

Last fall, while traveling by boat to the proposed Innoko Wildlife Refuge, before the fall moose season had begun, within the proposed refuge area, I spotted a set of moose horns from a fresh moose kill with beer cans on the horns, as if in defiance of hunting restrictions. Farther into the refuge I saw an airplane diving on ducks and geese that were banding together on a lake for their exhausting migration south. I am sure these are the exceptions to aerial hunting but the very fact that it is difficult to police and is being practiced and can be very efficient as compared to ground hunting, even as practiced within existing laws, protection is needed, not only for the migratory waterfowl, the vulnerable game, but for the subsistence hunter.

Thus, protection and management of the proposed Innoko Wildlife Refuge would be provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in such a way that this prime habitat could be protected, the wildlife managed for not only present populations, but future generations as well, for this is an area some Indians speak reverently of as the plaec where wildlife isn't afraid of people. If such a vulnerable yet fertile place, common to other proposed Alaskan wildlife refuges where one gets the feeling he is in on the very act of creation in an undeveloped, undistrubed wilderness setting, shouldn't protection and perpetuation be paramount? Can't agriculture and development be pursued on less critical areas than prime wildlife habitat? For I believe a test of our Nation's strength is in her restraint as well as development potential. Alaska is unique and the last frontier. It remains to be seen if we have the vision to be worthy of the great land.

That's all I have to say, if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them.

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you very much. We'll hear from your wife now and then ask questions.

STATEMENT OF MIRIAM PAQUIN

Mrs. PAQUIN. I'll also read my testimony. One of Alaska's chief resources is its wildlife. In many areas of the State, wildlife is the chief resource, Preservation of wildlife habitat is essential if this resource is to be maintained. In earlier years, there has been little developmental pressure in Alaska but the past few years have changed that situation. Developmental pressure is strong today and it is increasing. I feel it must be balanced by conservation measures. Preservation of the additional 114 million acres specified in H.R. 39 would provide a good balance to the approximately 200 million acres available for development.

For the past 4 years I have taught elementary schoolchildren in the Ahtapascan Indian village of Shageluk which lies near the boundary of the proposed Innoko Wildlife Refuge. Although I have had no training in ornithology, I have maintained a lifelong interest in birds. Living in Shageluk in the midst of prime waterfowl habitat

or the past 4 years I have acquired a special interest in waterfowl nd specifically, with the importance of three proposed refuges as aterfowl habitat.

My concern for the preservation of waterfowl habitat is partially result of my having grown up in southern Louisiana. This once eemed chiefly an area of swamps and marshland of little or not ommercial value. However, advanced technology, increased popuation and increased developmental pressure made drainage feasible nd economically profitable. Today, housing subdivisions, shopping enters and industrial complexes cover areas that were once wetland abitat. In Alaska our country now has the unique chance of avoiding ome of the mistakes made in the Lower 48 where development was often allowed without giving much thought to the damage which necessarily would accompany it. It is my chief concern that this loes not happen in Alaska and especially to the wetland habitat here. In the proposed Koyukuk-Innoko Refuges, waterfowl is the nost valuable resource. The fall flight averages over 800,000 ducks and over 100,000 geese. Scaup, the most abundant species in the Koyukuk region has a breeding population of approximately 50,000. In the Innoko region the most abundant species is pintail, with a breeding population of 110,000. The breeding population of American wigeon in the combined areas is over 46,000. Besides these three species, there are numerous mallards, greenwinged teals, goldeneyes and scoters.

In addition to the numerous ducks and geese, the Koyukuk region. also supports a nesting population of over 300 trumpeter swans and constitutes the northwest limit of the range of this species. Nesting sites in this region are remote from human intrusion and, therefore, the area is a potentially important one for this scarce species. The second area of concern to me is that of the proposed Yukon Flats region. In the Yukon Flats region, fall populations of ducks exceed 2 million and the total breeding population of ducks in this region is over 1 million. Scaup is the most abundant species with a breeding population of approximately 400,000. In addition to the ducks, 8,000 Canada geese, 5,000 white-fronted geese and 10,000 sandhill cranes nest in this area.

The Yukon Flats region is especially valuable as nesting grounds for the canvasback, whose continental population is precariously low. Ten to 15 percent of the continental population of canvasbacks nest in the Yukon Flats region.

As drought and drainage decrease traditional nesting sites in the Lower 48, there is a northward movement of waterfowl into the Yukon Flats area making this area one of increasing importance to the survival of waterfowl species.

The third area of special concern to me is the Yukon-Delta region. Here there is a breeding population of approximately two million waterfowl. This area produces 80 percent of the whistling swans of the Pacific flyway and nearly all of the Pacific flyway's white-fronted geese. It produces over one half of the continental population of black brant and 80 percent of the emperor geese and cackling geese. Probably there is no area of similar size as critical to so many species.

Although most people acknowledge that Alaska's breeding populations of migratory birds are of great significance on a national and an international level, not many are aware of the extent of the migrations.