This book review examines David Knibb\u27s Backyard Wilderness

Bjorkman, John C.

English

Seattle University School of Law: Digital Commons

BOOK REVIEWBACKYARD WILDERNESS. By David Knibb. The Mountain-eers, Seattle. 1982 Pp. 233. $17.50.In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act' "to ensure forthe American people of present and future generations the bene-fits of an enduring resource of wilderness."'2 Twelve years later,Congress enacted the Alpine Lakes Area Management Act S toprotect and manage a wilderness area of approximately 920,000acres in the Cascade Mountains of Washington State. BackyardWilderness is the story, from an insider's point of view, of theorganizing and lobbying effort that succeeded in creating theAlpine Lakes Wilderness. As a citizen lobbyist, author-lawyerDavid Knibb participated in this legislative process from 1968with the inception of the Alpine Lakes as a battle independentof its stepfather, the North Cascades National Park, through thedrafting of a bill and finally its passage through Congress in1976. Knibb is thus eminently qualified to give a personal his-tory of this piece of major land use legislation.Carved by glaciers thousands of years ago,4 the AlpineLakes Wilderness is "an environment of timbered valleys risingto rugged, snowcovered mountains, dotted with over seven hun-dred lakes, displaying unusual diversity of natural vegetation,and providing habitat for a variety of wildlife." 5 While BackyardWilderness recounts the legislative conflict that created the pro-tection for this unique alpine area, Knibb points out that the"story does not concentrate on the area but on that effort1. Wilderness Act, Pub. L. No. 88-577, 78 Stat. 896 (1964) (codified as amended at16 U.S.C. §§ 1131-36 (1976 & Supp. I 1977, Supp. II 1978, Supp. III 1979, Supp. IV 1980,Supp. V 1981)).2. 16 U.S.C. § 1131(a) (1976). That section goes on to define "wilderness" as an"area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where manhimself is a visitor who does not remain." Id. at § 1131(c) (1976).3. Alpine Lakes Area Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-357, 90 Stat. 905(codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1132 (1976)).4. For an excellent concise history of the area's geology and exploration by Ameri-cans, native and otherwise, see generally F. BECKY, CASCADE ALPINE GUIDE: CLIMBINGAND HIGH RouTES, COLUMBIA RivER To STEVENS PASS (1973).5. Alpine Lakes Area Management Act of 1976, § 2(a), 16 U.S.C. § 1132 (1976).372 University of Puget Sound Law Reviewitself."' The thrust of Knibb's book, then, is the ebb and flow ofthe legislative fight, the battles won and skirmishes lost, all cul-minating in the passage of the legislation in Congress. As a cau-tion to the novice lobbyist, or as a reminder to the experienced,Backyard Wilderness effectively describes each of the triumphsand defeats, the defiant stands, and necessary compromisesrequired to create the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.Knibb began his lobbying odyssey as a member of theAlpine Lakes Protection Society (ALPS), a citizen's groupformed to promote Alpine Lakes legislation. ALPS' initial hur-dle was the checkerboard land ownership pattern in the areaslated to become the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. In the 19th cen-tury, Congress, in order to encourage the opening of the West,granted the railroads alternating sections of land along tracksthe railroad companies laid.7 The heritage of this "give-away"was a jumble of federally and privately owned land in the Cas-cade Mountains. From the first, ALPS recognized that any com-prehensive piece of legislation would necessarily have to dealwith the Cascade's legacy of private ownership. ALPS' proposal,therefore, was to create a wilderness core area protected underthe 1964 Act, with a surrounding periphery constituting aNational Recreation Area subject to land use controls andemphasizing recreation.8 ALPS' solution to the ownership ques-tion was essential to its success because no wilderness couldexist with alternating sections of clear-cuts.Finding a means around the problem of ownership interestswas not ALPS' only difficulty. Proponents of any major land useeffort, like the one involving the Alpine Lakes, always fear losingthe war even before the battle is joined. In this case, Knibbdescribes ALPS' effort to prevent conversion of the wildernessthat was continually threatened because of Forest Service policy.The Forest Service granted access across the federal property toprivate owners who wished to log their land.' In order to ensurethat access roads were built to its standards, the Forest Service6. D. KNIBB, BACKYARD WILDERNESS 7 (1982).7. See, e.g., Act of July 27, 1866, ch. 278, § 3, 14 Stat. 292, 294.8. D. KNIBB, supra note 6, at 29. The Wilderness core area is federally owned. Anyprivate areas to be included could either be acquired by purchase or by trade. Theperiphery is part federally owned and part privately owned. The land use controls wouldprevent undesired use of the private periphery land thus creating a uniform use for theentire Wilderness area.9. Id. at 36-37.[Vol. 6:371would propose a cost-sharing agreement for the road construc-tion. But because the Forest Service would sell the timber on itsland to finance its share of the road construction, the size of theclear-cut would double. This arrangement meant that with eachpassing year less and less wilderness 0 remained to be protected,even if Congress passed any legislation. Facing a continual ero-sion of the status quo, ALPS' early objective was finding con-gressional friends to sponsor an Alpine Lakes bill.Enlisting the right sponsor for a bill is a crucial step in alobbyist's attempt to pass legislation. Without such insider's gui-dance, Congress would never seriously consider any conserva-tionist's bill. ALPS found its champion in Congressman LloydMeeds from Washington. Although Meeds sometimes seemed towaver in his support for a bill, he nevertheless proved an invalu-able link between Congress and ALPS. Though in the end theWashington State delegation introduced four proposals (laternarrowed to three) "by request,"11 Meeds remained a positiveforce behind the Alpine Lakes issue.Getting legislation introduced merely initiates the battle forits passage and the Alpine Lakes bill soon proved to be noexception to this rule. Bills before Congress go through numer-ous compromises because of conflicting societal interests. Forexample, on the one side, the timber industry opposed theAlpine Lakes Wilderness bill because it threatened to lock upvast tracts of valuable timber in Wilderness classification. Onthe opposite side, the conservation groups desired to preserve asmall part of a dwindling, irreplaceable resource. Other inter-ested groups included off-road vehicle clubs and rock houndswho wanted carefully drafted language for the perimeter thatwould not foreclose their use of the land. And each group had itsfriends in Congress.The struggles on Capitol Hill are the truly fascinating partof Backyard Wilderness. ALPS, at Meeds' suggestion, soughtsupport for the ALPS bill from the entire Washington State del-10. The effects of clear-cutting will manifest themselves from three to six genera-tions after the act. Id. Thus, one easily sees why ALPS fought these "brushfires" ofconversion with such intensity.11. "By request" means that the Congresswoman introducing the bill is not in fact asponsor but is merely introducing the bill as a favor to the folks back home. The factthat the four proposals were introduced by request did not matter here since the AlpineLakes was a live issue and there was little chance that the bill would die from inatten-tion. Id. at 72.1983] Book Review 373374 University of Puget Sound Law Reviewegation of two Senators and seven Congressmen and Congress-women. But keeping all of their divergent views in line, even ona compromise bill, was no easy task. Congressman Mike McCor-mack from eastern Washington, the timber industry's man inCongress, proved to be the biggest obstacle to getting a unifiedvoice from the Washington delegation. McCormack insisted thatthe Alpine Lakes proposal would create a near catastrophic jobloss in the timber industry in eastern Washington even thoughthe facts clearly indicated otherwise.12 As a result of McCor-mack's stance, the attempt to unify the delegation was eventu-ally abandoned. Despite this setback the bill progressed to asubcommittee "mark-up"1 but did not emerge unscathed.Compromise characterized the subcommittee's bill. Whenreturned to the full committee, the bill included more wildernessarea than ALPS had originally proposed. Gone, however, werethe land use controls in a perimeter constituting a National Rec-reation Area. Although a "buffer" zone had been created,14 therewere no controls over private land. Approved by the full com-mittee in substantially this form, the bill went to the floor of theHouse. In a characteristically anticlimactic vote, the Housepassed the bill sending it to the Senate for a similar vote orches-trated by Washington's Senator Henry M. Jackson. 6 PresidentFord signed the bill on July 12, 1976, and six years of hard workcame to an end.As a frequent visitor to the Alpine Lakes before and afterits designation as a Wilderness area, and as a witness to the sub-committee field hearings in Seattle, I took a particular interestin Backyard Wilderness as a chronicle of the legislative effortrequired to save a unique wilderness area. Knibb's account ofthis effort, however, is potentially appealing regardless ofwhether one has ever traversed the Alpine Lakes wilderness. Areadable story of one lobbying effort, Backyard Wilderness willbe enjoyed by anyone with an interest in government. It illus-trates that a citizen effort to affect the law under which we all12. Id. at 136-37.13. "Mark-up" is the "kitchen work" of Congress. In mark-up, a bill is rewritten toensure its procedural integrity and constitutionality, and to hammer out any final com-promises. Id. at 168.14. Id. at 163.15. Id. at 206-18.[Vol. 6:3711983] Book Review 375live can successfully preserve a priceless and irreplaceableresource for future generations.John C. Bjorkman

Book Review: Backyard Wilderness

https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1148&context=sulr

Book Review: Backyard Wilderness

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Seattle University School of Law: Digital Commons