Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

DAN: One of the most controversial pieces of legislation, at least for our area, is the Boundary Waters Canoe Area bill. The BWCA bill is a compromise. It is perhaps closest to a bill authored by Senator Wendell Anderson. He was assisted by Ely attorney Ron Walz, also assisted by Charles Dayton. Mr. Walz represented a number of Northeastern Minnesota residents who oppose further restrictions on the BWCA. Mr. Dayton represented the views of a number of people who oppose mining, logging and motorized vehicles in the area.

Today on Midday, we'll hear from four people, including two members of congress, who have played key roles in the BWCA controversy. With us in Saint Paul is Congressman Bruce Vento of the fourth district, who worked for passage of the compromise legislation. And also with us is Congressman James Oberstar, who wanted to postpone BWCA legislation.

Joining us in Duluth is Ed Zabinski of the Boundary Waters Conservation Alliance and Steve Payne of Duluth from the Wilderness Society. The legislation briefly allows the use of motors in some areas of the BWCA, but the use will be further restricted in the near future. Mining and logging will be forbidden in the area. Snowmobile use will be allowed for a few years. Also with us today in Duluth is MPR's Alan Searle, who has been following the course of the BWCA legislation. Alan?

ALAN SEARLE: Thank you, Dan. As you mentioned here in the studios in Duluth, Steve Payne of the Wilderness Society and Ed Zabinski of the Boundary Waters Conservation Alliance. I want to thank both of you gentlemen, for joining us here today.

I guess, first of all, since there are some time constraints on the two congressmen who have joined us, if we could ask a couple of questions of Congressman Jim Oberstar and of Congressman Bruce Vento. If either of you gentlemen would like to field a general question telling us of the last days in Washington, what were some of the political compromises and philosophical compromises that had to be made?

DAN: We'll put that first to Congressman Vento's in our Saint Paul studios, Alan.

BRUCE VENTO: Well, there were no political compromises made the last few days on the legislation that we're considering. I think in other legislation, that did occur because of the press at the time. And I think it's precisely that time frame that permits and really forces decisions upon us and provides for effective and efficient use of our time.

This issue, like many others, had been studied over a long period of the 95th session, and the conclusion of those issues at the end of the session is a regularly occurring event. We were faced with serious problems in terms of getting this considered before the House because of the nature of other business that was there, the tax legislation, the energy legislation, many comprehensive proposals that were considered some 200 in number.

DAN: Congressman Vento, before we give Alan a chance to put another question to you, I wanted to jump in at that point. What were some of the behind the scenes activities that led up to this compromise BWCA legislation? We know, for example, that Attorney Dayton was involved with it, as was Mr. Walz from Ely. How active was the compromising, the negotiating at the end there?

BRUCE VENTO: Well, of course, this agreement between Walz and Dayton occurred previously, and before action was taken in the Senate. So that agreement had been made. And, of course, action finally took place Monday with some small changes in the Senate language. Our staffs had been working with Senator Anderson's staff, so the final product. We had had the opportunity to work on it to raise questions about it, to resolve issues between the two bodies.

DAN: I want to ask you, Congressman Vento, and then I want to turn it back to Alan, in his guests in Duluth, whether or not you think there will be a great number of jobs lost as a result of this compromise legislation in the BWCA. And if not a great number, do you have any idea how many jobs will be lost?

BRUCE VENTO: I don't think that there'll be any jobs lost. The provisions of this bill respond to the concerns about job loss that were raised early on. In fact, the Superior National Forest under this legislation, with the intensified forestry management, will indeed produce more softwood and more products, which will produce jobs in that area.

The money is the key question here. Those resources have been available and have not been managed properly. The money in this bill will provide the opportunity to do that. What we're really talking about in this instance, in terms of the resorts, in terms of local use, motorized use, we're talking about changing the nature of those businesses to some extent. All the resorts that are on lakes, which are contiguous with the BWCA, continue to have the opportunity to use motors.

DAN: I know Mr. Zabinski and Mr. Payne will certainly have something to say about your observations on that point of job loss. And I know you're pressed for time too. I want to put another question to you about the political manifestation of your support of the BWCA Legislation. What have your constituents been telling you now that you're back in Minnesota? Granted, you're a Southern Minnesota congressman, more or less, have you been getting a lot of criticism for your position?

BRUCE VENTO: Well, it's mixed. We have people that are concerned. I think that most of them are satisfied that this is a fair compromise that's been put forth. I think that as I've been able to explain it to them, some people are emotional about it in my district and other areas of the state. We hope that-- and I would plead for them to look at the specifics of the legislation.

We spent almost two years working on this. It is not something that was brought about where one side won all of the arguments with the other side. But I think that that's really what I had started out to do in the beginning, is to try to bring some resolution, something that's been in courts, something that has been the subject of administrative rulings, which have been controversial since 1964 and really since the turn of the century.

DAN: We'll be hearing more from you and Congressman Oberstar, who will be joining us in just a few minutes. Alan, I'll turn it back to you and your guests in Northern Minnesota, who, no doubt, have reaction to what Mr. Vento has been saying.

ALAN SEARLE: Yes, Dan, I think Ed Zabinski wants to make a comment about Congressman Vento's suggestion that the bill will not affect the Ely area, the Grand Marais area economies very much. Ed?

ED ZABINSKI: Well, I think at this point, it's difficult to say exactly how many jobs will be lost in terms of specific numbers. However, I think we probably should recognize that there will be an obvious impact on resorts and their change of business. Well, they may be able to adapt, some of them will adapt. But others, because of the nature of their business and the nature of their clientele, will not be able to adapt to the change in use patterns of these lakes.

Well, they made sure that the lakes contiguous, as Mr. Vento called it to the-- on the BWCA will be motorized. There are certain resorts who send their people to lakes outside of the BWCA and also inside the BWCA. And these resorts will be affected as well. Not all these places were taken care of by this bill.

DAN: Alan, I'm curious about Mr. Zabinski's comments. Congressman Vento, there are some special provisions, are there not, for resort owners and their guests in the BWCA?

BRUCE VENTO: Well, yes, there are. There are provisions, for instance, for guests not to have permits as long as they're staying on the peripheral lakes. There are provisions for transition to a type of business, which is non-motorized related. There is a provisions finally for a variety of different assistance for resorters that just can't find their means to start.

You have to remember that in this area-- the use of this area has increased dramatically. It's the most extensively used wilderness in the wilderness system, over a million visitor days a year. If someone drives a car up there, they're going to stop in Ely, they're going to stop other places, whether they're going for motorized or non-motorized use.

If we don't preserve this resource, the unique qualities of this resource, the interest in people to participate and utilize it will be diminished markedly. So really, the greatest benefactors of this will be those that depend upon recreational use in that area for their livelihood, and of course, to the local residents who value the wilderness qualities of this area.

DAN: And I suspect that Mr. Zabinski is waiting to comment on that. Ed, do you think that these special concessions, the provisions will do anything to serve the future business of the resort area, the resort owners in the area, or is it not going to be enough?

ED ZABINSKI: I don't think it will be enough. And in terms of saying that we don't preserve this resource, the local people won't receive the benefits they do now. I think the resource has been preserved for the last 14 years. People have used this area with motors over the last 20 or 30 years. There is still treasured as a national resource, and it has been used with motors.

This area is unique not only because it's different in terms of the geography and topography, but it's unique, too, in the way it's been able to be used, and yet preserved in its wilderness state. I think the fact that you erase motors on another 8,000 lakes, I don't think that's preserving the area any more than it's been preserved over the last 14 years, since the 1964 Wilderness Act has been in effect.

DAN: Ed, well, the point I want to follow-up on, and that is, will the special concessions, as you say, you think they will not be enough to help the resort owners. What about the use of lakes just around the BWCA area that are not affected by restrictions on motor boating? Are there a fair number of resort owners who won't be able to benefit from that?

ED ZABINSKI: Well, yeah, there are few lakes in the peripheral-- periphery of the BWCA, of course, but a lot of these lakes are already developed with private cabins and a few resorts. And the amount of use on these lakes as well as the lakes inside the BWCA can reach a certain limit. And beyond that, the carrying capacity will be overloaded.

So what we're asking here, in effect, is to tell the people, well, don't use the BWCA, use the lakes outside the BWCA. When in effect, the lakes outside the BWCA are already probably used as much as probably can be in terms of the peripheral areas. Now, another argument we've made, too, is that the lakes in the BWCA are unique. And therefore, everyone wants to use them, not because they're in the BWCA, but because they are unique in terms of the way they can be used.

And I think that the argument doesn't hold when you say that there are hundreds of thousands of lakes outside this area that could be used by motors that we don't-- the point is not that we want to use motors on these lakes just for the sake of using motors. It's more that we'd like to use these lakes. And one way to use these lakes is with motors and to enjoy the wilderness character of the area.

DAN: Congressman Vento was just showing some expression of perplexion on his face, Ed, as you were making your comments. I think he wants to respond to you.

BRUCE VENTO: Well, I think we got two important thing here. I think that Ed has admitted that there is a limit carrying capacity that a lake can absorb in terms of motorized or for that matter, non-motorized use. That's a fundamental issue that's been recognized, I think, by both of us.

Secondly, there's two and a half times the water surface outside the BWCA and the immediate five area County that are affected that as opposed to inside. And if you go beyond this, of course, to the state, you have 14,000 lakes that are available. And many of them, of course, have-- very few have motor restrictions.

So the point is here that we did preserve options for the resorts in this area. They do have various benefits that flow from this legislation. I think it's a very reasonable proposal. And the basic issue that is pointed out is true. The '64 Wilderness Act had one paragraph in that addressed this what has become a very complex problem. It's flowed from court decisions, it has flowed from administrative rulings. And there really had to be a resolution of this issue.

We spent two years. We got a bill that is many pages in length that I have before me here, and it goes into a great deal of detail and trying to propose how we can treat this area special. It's still treated special, but it's much more definitive, it's much more precise in terms of outlining how we can attain and preserve this area. It's still permitting local options.

This is still the only wilderness area in the United states, practically, for instance, where we even have a snowmobile at all in it, or for that matter, have motorized use. So I think that we've won really a great victory in Minnesota for local residents in that area as compared to other wildernesses. And indeed, we should because this area has been used specially.

DAN: That was Congressman Bruce Vento from Minnesota's fourth district, a supporter of compromise BWCA legislation that is sitting on President Carter's desk right now. You're listening to midday on Minnesota Public Radio. 24 minutes after 12 noon.

We had hoped to have Representative James Oberstar join us by telephone from Minnesota's eighth district. Unfortunately, he hasn't been able to get through to us yet. And we'll let you know as soon as he gets in contact with us, because I think it would be interesting to hear from Congressman Oberstar why he was interested in postponing work on BWCA legislation.

And Alan Searle in Duluth with his guests, Ed Zabinski from the Boundary Waters Conservation Alliance, and Steve Payne, who has been sitting by rather quietly in our Duluth studios. Alan, I'll turn it back to you.

ALAN SEARLE: OK, Dan. I was just going to ask Steve, who has been sitting quietly by jotting down a few notes, if you have some comments on the discussion that Ed and Congressman Vento have had in the last few minutes about the motorboat routes and about the area of the Boundary Waters area itself.

STEVE PAYNE: Well, I think that it's important to recognize that since '64, Forest Service Statistics identify the fact that use of the area is dramatically increasing with emphasis by recreationists on utilizing canoes. And this is in the area of 72% of all use. This legislation has attempted to recognize the fact that there is a change in our society that is desiring areas to be set aside for protection, so that citizens from across the country can enjoy a primitive recreational experience.

The compromise legislation has made dramatic inroads compared to the original Fraser bill, which the Environmental Conservation Organization supported. It made a major attempt to alleviate impacts that may occur upon some resorts, and this is reflected by the fact that the legislation has passed by the Congress established indefinite motor use on lakes, which represent approximately 64% of the total motor use. This is the Bays of Basswood, for example, Fall Lake chain, Moose Lake chain.

ALAN SEARLE: Steve, I have one question for you now. When you say 64% of the available motorboat use, are you talking about numbers of lakes, or are you talking about the area of water surface?

STEVE PAYNE: That figure is the numbers of motors that utilize the area with respect to water surface area. The legislation is passed. When it is enacted, it will encompass 33% of the water surface area, will allow motor boats to utilize lakes within the wilderness. Following all phase outs, which would end by the year 2000, it will encompass around 23%, I believe, of the water surface area.

ALAN SEARLE: OK.

DAN: Ed and Steve and Alan, I wanted to base a question on Steve's remarks and put it to Congressman Vento. This issue of preservation, conservation of unique lands in Minnesota is certainly, I think, related to the debate nationwide about conservation of other parcels of land.

For example, Congressman Vento, before Congress this last session was the Alaska Lands bill, some California parcels of land. Did you find that when you brought up the issue of the BWCA that it was considered quite separately and that the issues really didn't relate to other land conservation issues in other parts of the country, or did you find that members of Congress were considering this in a bag of parcels of land that must be preserved?

BRUCE VENTO: No, it was considered special because of the fact that it had been designated wilderness, because of the administrative and court rulings that had surrounded it. It's the largest wilderness East of the Rocky Mountains. And as a consequence, it's used very much. There's high interest. We had interest from people all over the United States who are writing to us concerning this particular legislation.

DAN: How did the mail run on that?

BRUCE VENTO: Well, of course, not surprisingly, it ran very much in favor of wilderness protection. But I think that you have to balance that off against-- people can look at that and say, we want it kept that way because we want to use it for the five or six months during the season. But there are other people that do live there.

And we tried to be considerate of that. That's why we involved, for instance, Congressman Oberstar, from the beginning in our hearings. He was present at all of our committee meetings. He had the opportunity to participate freely. Of course, he's not a member of the committee. And it's true the votes on the committee tended to agree with the philosophy and attitudes that he did not agree with.

But nevertheless, we found that for whatever reasons, even after having hearings in Minnesota here in Saint Paul and in Ely, after we provided additional hearings in Washington in 1977, that really that much work put into it, we had to come forth or I felt we should come forth with a product, that we ought to have some resolution of what admittedly is a very, very sticky issue. But it's become very emotional.

And I think that-- it's unfortunate. I guess, that's part of the political process. But I can recall instances during the discussion when we had people that were completely outside the area on Lake Vermilion and other lakes that touched it, that were writing to us. And they had the wrong impression. There were many misunderstandings that existed.

And now, of course, all of those attitudes and feelings developed on the basis of misunderstandings or misinformation. And I think that that's really part of the reason that there is still a persists, an adverse feeling about any type of legislation in that area. It's unfortunate that happened, but we have to base our decisions in Congress on the facts. And I, of course, would not, I don't think, be able to develop the type of sensitive proposal next year or in future years that I was able to develop in this instance.

I had their attention. I was on the committee. I'm afraid that if it hadn't been for the action that we took this year, that the BWCA would very easily have been rolled into one of these large omnibus land bills and would not have received the attention. And as a consequence, the type of policy and management policy would have been consistent with wilderness on the National level and would really have been an anathema to the people in that area.

DAN: I know, Congressman Vento, that we have heard Ed Zabinski and other members of the Conservation Alliance talk about the loss of jobs related to timber in the BWCA. And I want to put a question to Ed based on that issue.

Ed, we have heard reports that some of the loggers have already lost work in the BWCA. And I want to get from you some idea of what is involved here. How many people do you maintain will lose jobs in the logging industry as a result of further restrictions?

ED ZABINSKI: Well, I'm not sure exactly about exact numbers. I know the kinds of logging company, as an example near Ely, has already laid off 20 individuals. That is only one of several logging operations on the periphery of the BWCA. I know there are currently four companies who have agreed to a moratorium with Congressman Oberstar on logging operations in the BWCA.

That kind of leads me into one other point I'd like to make with Mr. Vento and see how he'd like to respond to it. But that is the fact that there wasn't the urgent need for legislation that that's been argued here. I think that if we sit down and look at this dispassionately, I think we realize that there is no immediate resource damage. It's only a now or even in two years down the pike.

The logging thing has been put, as I said, on ice because of the moratorium. There would be no snowmobiling in the BWCA this winter. The motor use, which would exist in any bill, has never been proven to be environmentally degrading to the area. And therefore, the need for this, this immediate push for legislation, kind of baffled us.

I think, when you alluded to the fact that emotion-- this issue has become very emotional. I think that the emotions, in this instance, have not served to clarify the issue. I think they've only clouded the issue. And I think what Congressman Oberstar and certainly what the alliance has maintained all along is that this issue would be better resolved without the emotion, without the controversy. It'd be better resolved in an atmosphere where we could sit down very coolly and calmly and take studies, do studies with which accurately reflect all of the impacts of the legislation.

DAN: Why not wait longer, Congressman Vento?

BRUCE VENTO: Well, for one thing, this area has been studied more extensively than any other wilderness in the United States. The second aspect with regards to the loss of jobs and timber industry and the voluntary moratorium, they're fine, just as long as you have people have a hammer over your head, and they can try to extract from you, perhaps what they want or show their displeasure by not responding.

Now, I can't say. I deeply appreciate Congressman Oberstar's efforts. I think he was instrumental in obtaining the moratorium. I think he should be given great credit for it. It did permit us the working room, but I think that people want-- in that area, the logging companies have a right to have a resolution of the issues, so they know where they're at.

I think Norman Kines has a right to have a resolution of the issue. And he's in the saw timber industry, and the amount of timber in the BWCA available for what he wanted is very limited. So I think that he has suffered. And under this bill, he will receive the type of compensation that is justified.

So the thing is, as I said before, we've worked on this for almost two years. It's been studied more extensively than any other wilderness proposal. We lament. This is exactly what Senator Anderson did. He tried to put two people together in a room that had different views, one representing the conservationists, one representing the local users and concerns, Mr. Walz, and he arrived at that type of solution. But the fact of the matter is, of course, that wasn't greeted with great, great acceptance in that area.

We've put the effort in, we put the time in, and it just gets to the point where you have to take-- you do have to take an action if you're going to move forward. We tried to-- this proposal has been before Congress for almost four years. It started out with Jim Oberstar's introduction of legislation in the 94th Congress and a subsequent introduction of legislation by Congressman Fraser, which obviously they had different viewpoints.

I ended up on the interior committee. I tried to point some compromise between them, which I felt was reasonable, which I could sell to the members of the Committee on which I served. And if I had had the cooperation and an attitude of compromise at that time, perhaps we would have been able to do in the House side what Senator Anderson attained on the Senate side. I'm sorry, we weren't, but I commend him for his efforts and his courage in standing up and trying to solve this issue.

ALAN SEARLE: Congressman Vento, this is Alan Searle in Duluth. Ed Zabinski would like to ask you a question relating to your last statement.

ED ZABINSKI: Yeah, Mr. Vento, I was just wondering if you could respond to the fact that our claim that there would be no resource damage to the BWCA this winter. And as you stated and as I repeated, this issue has been clouded with emotion, which we contend has not helped to clarify the issues. It's only served to polarize individuals from Northern part of the state and Metropolitan area.

And don't you think that this issue would be better resolved in a more calmer atmosphere where people could sit down and logically reason this thing out and come up with a solution that was acceptable to people, instead of moving this thing through for the sake of political expedience, which I don't think has really helped?

BRUCE VENTO: Ed, if in all deference, I don't think that anyone moved it through for political expedience. The congressmen of that area had been participated in the process from the beginning. It was not something that was passed. A lot of times a proposal like this can come through on a bill and an amendment without the local congressman even knowing anything about it. It was treated exclusively. It was given all the opportunity to participate.

Obviously, the philosophy of the committee and the whole House in Congress and the House side and the Senate side differed from what local residents agreed with. But I think that we had to take action this year. I think it was imperative that we take action this year. I think that if I brought this issue back before my House colleagues next year, that they would have tarred and feathered me.

And I think that the point here is that I appreciate the good faith efforts of people in that area in terms of going along with the moratorium and the other things that have been done. I think they're to be commended for it. I hope that when this cools down, they'll look at this proposal. And I'm committed to make-- I feel very strongly about the provisions in the bill that provide for help to the local people in that area in terms of monetary help, in terms of training, in terms of retooling and moving in.

If those are real problems, I think that this bill does address them. You've got money in the bill for the timber. You're actually have more jobs as a consequence of the dollars in here in the softwood development in and around that region. So this bill will produce jobs. It'll preserve the resource, which, as I said, is fundamental to the vitality of the resort industry in that area.

DAN: And we'll return to a couple of more comments from Ed Zabinski on the issue of loss of timber jobs and state programs designed to offset some of those loss of jobs in just a moment.

You are listening to a discussion of Boundary Waters Canoe Area legislation as part of Midday on Minnesota Public Radio. We're coming up on 22 Minutes now before 1:00. Congressman Vento has engagements elsewhere in the Twin Cities area, and he's expected to be at those other engagements soon. So any time you have to depart, you do that. And we appreciate your presence for this program.

Ed, I did want to ask you about the state programs, the executive order by Governor Perpich or the administrative order, rather, indicating that the Department of Natural Resources should much more actively make access available to loggers into new timber areas just outside the BWCA. I stated it a little clumsily. What I mean to say is that the state is going to spend some additional money building roads to allow loggers into new timber areas and to also reforest more aggressively. Do you think that will offset any job loss?

ED ZABINSKI: Yes, I think it probably will. But at the same time, we realize that these intensified management practices begin now. You won't see the results of these efforts for the next 20 or 30 years. And I think there's, excuse me, a lag time that has to be made up somewhere. And it's not at all clear where this substitute timber will be manufactured from or where it will be found.

I know the state has done a study on the timber availability in the 18 County area that Governor Perpich indicated this that could be found in. And from what I've heard, preliminary indications show that the amount and species and volume of timber is not there in the immediate area in terms of finding substitute timber for people on the periphery of the BWCA.

DAN: Congressman Vento?

BRUCE VENTO: Well, the closest paper softwood industry is 50, 60 miles away from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. It's very far away. When you're talking about saw timber, of course, you're talking about a specific problem, as with Norman Kines. But I think that what we're talking about when the real issue boils down to is availability of softwood.

The state did a study. We cooperated with the Forest Service. And we found that for at least the next 20 years, there's adequate supplies of softwood based on what the existing use has been. As a matter of fact, not even all of the softwood that has been available over the past five years has been utilized or even gone out to contract. And there's a variety of reasons for that. It might be in too small of parcels. It might be diseased wood.

I realize that, but on the other hand, I think that the softwood is there. There's some undesirable species of softwood. But by and large, there are assurances in this bill that there will be cooperation with the state. The money is there. The commitment is there on the part of the Forest Service. And we certainly intend to work closely with the United States Forest Service to make certain that they live up to those commitments.

DAN: Steve Payne of the Wilderness Society in our Duluth studios, is this a victory for the people who wanted the BWCA to be preserved as a wilderness, this compromise legislation?

STEVE PAYNE: I think that it's a significant gain. It certainly wasn't as much as we desire to achieve. I think that we felt it was a victory to have accomplished this legislation this year, because we disagree with the Conservation Alliance and that we felt it was very important for this legislation to be dismissed by the Congress this year acted upon.

We do not believe that by delaying, it would have created an air of calm and reasoning to come before upon the people of the area. In fact, if anything, it would have just prolonged the agony. As Mr. Vento quite adequately pointed out, the process has gone on for two years now. And through every step, all parties have been engaged in offering the input throughout the process.

DAN: That was Steve Payne of Duluth, who is a member of the Wilderness Society. Ed Zabinski, I'd like put a final question to you as we try to wrap this up. Are you going to challenge the BWCA legislation in any way, either in the courts or in the political process?

ED ZABINSKI: Well, I think that we are certainly investigating that possibility in terms of a class action suit or something of that nature. And yet-- I know I talked with Foreign Service officials in Washington last week, and they indicated that there was some question from their attorneys, Forest Service attorneys, about the possibilities of a question of legislative taking-- arising with this new mining protection area. I know there are gray areas in this legislation that have to be investigated. And I think as soon as we make a thorough study of the entire bill, we'll be better able to assess how quickly we would like to move on this.

DAN: And that was Ed Zabinski, a member of the Boundary Waters Conservation Alliance. Alan Searle in Duluth, thanks for your participation in this discussion. And also thanks to fourth district Congressman Bruce Vento. Unfortunately, Congressman James Oberstar was unable to join us, and perhaps we'll be hearing more from Congressman Oberstar in future days on the BWCA issue. I'm sure it won't go away for a long time to come. Thanks to all of you once again.