Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

TOM STEWARD: Two bills relating to the spirit and content of Oberstar's proposal came before the subcommittee, both aimed at regulating natural resources on state land within the BWCA. Minnesota owns about 10% of the land within the present boundaries. And while it is too early to call the subcommittee votes law, their significance was heightened by Oberstar's proposal.

Bud Philbrook, of Roseville, and Doug Johnson, from Cook in Northeastern Minnesota, sponsored similar bills that would accomplish virtually the same thing. No natural resources within the BWCA could be removed. But Johnson left open the question of timber harvesting and the possible effects of copper-nickel proposals adjacent to the BWCA. And he lost. The committee tabled his bill and sent on Philbrook's.

Afterward, Representative Johnson called the action typical and said that Northern Minnesotans still have little say over their area, while metropolitan legislators jam unwanted bills down their throats. But Johnson said that on first glance, the Oberstar proposal seems reasonable to him and presumably to Northern Minnesotans. Oberstar's proposal would not allow logging, motorboating, or snowmobiling in the wilderness area. But those activities would be permitted within the recreational area.

DOUG JOHNSON: Due to recent court decisions, a lot of logging activity has been halted. And I strongly believe it's hurting a lot of little people in Northeastern Minnesota. And it will allow that recreation industry to continue as well as allow local people the right to use that area. It seems to me that there are certain groups, pressure groups, who are trying to set aside over a million acres up there strictly as a canoe-only area.

And that wasn't the intent, I don't believe, of the Wilderness Act that passed the Congress in 1964. And I think that Congressman Oberstar's bill will put an end to the emotionalism and the strong and hard feelings of the people of Northeastern Minnesota toward certain groups in the metropolitan area, who they feel are trying to run and regulate their lives.

TOM STEWARD: In dealing with people's reaction in the northern part of the state, how do you think they're going to react to the legislature getting more involved in the copper-nickel industry and regulation this soon?

DOUG JOHNSON: I don't think they'll be opposed to that, if it's done in a constructive way. I do feel that in the Philbrook bill, with the word adulteration, that there may be an attempt by certain groups to try to prevent some of the proposed mining outside of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, but which is adjacent.

I think that as far as the feelings of the people, I think it was best demonstrated recently when snowmobiles were restricted or would not be permitted to be used this winter in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. There was a violent reaction because of the further restrictions brought upon the recreational interests of those people.

TOM STEWARD: Representative Doug Johnson. Some of the court decisions he referred to have been supported and handled by Sierra Club attorney Charles Dayton. They were at odds again as Dayton opposed Johnson's present bill before the subcommittee. Dayton joined Johnson, however, in tentatively supporting Oberstar's proposal. That proposal would allow no mining within the new BWCA. Dayton thinks that Oberstar would also support protection of virgin timber stands in both sections of his proposed BWCA.

CHARLES DAYTON: It's not necessarily consistent with our position because our position is that the BWCA should have full wilderness status, with no logging, no mining, no motorboats, and no snowmobiles, period. His proposal achieves that, but only for 626,000 acres. The remaining area in the BWCA, which would now encompass some 400,000 acres presently within the boundaries, would be prevented by his bill from ever becoming, from ever achieving full wilderness status.

So that we're studying the proposal very carefully. We have to take into account what's possible from a political and legal point of view. And so I'm not saying that we're going to oppose the bill. But it certainly doesn't, it certainly doesn't preserve the BWCA in the fashion that we'd like to see it preserved, if we were writing the legislation.

TOM STEWARD: So do you think that it's too early, as this subcommittee was considering today, some legislation on ensuring that the Boundary Waters Canoe Area is not violated in any way from within or without?

CHARLES DAYTON: I think for the legislature of Minnesota to pass a bill which says no mining, no logging inside the entire BWCA would be consistent with Mr Oberstar's proposal in many respects and would be a help to him in getting his legislation through Congress.

TOM STEWARD: How much weight does that actually hold, the legislative, or a law like that in Minnesota as?

CHARLES DAYTON: It would only affect the state-owned lands within the BWCA. And I believe there's a total of about 100,000 acres of state-owned land inside the Boundaries, or 1/10 of the total area. But its effect on Congress as a practical matter, I think, would be great. Because it would demonstrate that the people of Minnesota want this area managed as a wilderness.

TOM STEWARD: Sierra Club attorney Charles Dayton. So at the Capitol today, eighth District Congressman James Oberstar's proposal was agreeably received. The bill won't be acted on by Congress until next session, Oberstar says, so that all parties have time to take a better look at it and talk about it. If the subcommittee meeting was any indication, there will be plenty of that. This is Tom Steward.