Editing 76-12-A1 (section)

=== Transcript ===
This may come as a shock to those who think the nation is becoming an environmental wasteland, but we don't need a national park to save the redwoods.
I'll be right back.

Congressman Phil Burton of California has introduced a bill to add 50 or 75,000 acres of redwood forcest land to California's National Redwood Park. He plays on a misconception that somehow the great redwood trees are in danger of being lost forever and only the enlarging of the present national park can save them. That isn't true. Still I'm sure that lacking the truth, many Americans are ready to march forth under the Burton banner.

The big redwood trees of California are unique in all the world and must be considered a national treasure. Standing in one of the cathedral-like groves of trees is a moving experience and one can feel very close to God and very humble.

Why then, am i critical of the Congressman? Well, the answer is we don't need his bill or a national park to preserve the redwoods. Thanks to an organization called "Save the Redwoods League" virtually all the superlative trees, the cathedral-like groves, have been incorporated into state parks already. The League, for decades, has been raising money to buy these groves and give them to the park service and for the most part the lumber companies have been cooperative in not cutting the great trees till the league could make the purchase.

Somewhere near two hundred thousand acres have been preserved with only about four thousand scattered acres of superlative trees still in private hands. The redwood forests are a major part of the economy in northern California, providing thousands of jobs in the lumber industry and an extremely fine wood for home building and furniture. Closely regulated by the state, the industry has achieved or is close to a sustained yield basis, cutting no faster than replacement growth.

Still it has been subjected to constant harassment by some who apparently want every redwood tree left standing. This is unrealistic. The vast redwood forests are not made up of the great thousand-year-old trees one sees on the picture postcards. Redwoods are fast growing, reaching harvest size in about 40 years. Our great grandchildren will see as many redwoods as we see today.

For years there's been a demand for a national redwood park. Finally, Congress gave in but with no real enthusiasm and little understanding of the extent of the magnificent California state parks. As governor at the time, I had to tell the chairman of the Congressional committee that a park was unnecessary from the standpoint of saving the trees. They had already been saved, but possibly a national park would calm the waters and bring stability to the industry. So we have a national park which would have little attraction if it were not between two of California's most beautiful state parks.
Roughly half of the 55,000 acre national park consists of what was already state park land. To illustrate what I said about the lack of need for a national park, the federal government bought roughly 27,000 acres, of which almost sixteen thousand were cut over or open land without trees. By contrast the state park portion is twenty eight thousand acres of which about twenty thousand are superlative and old growth big trees with only about four thousand acres in cut over and non-timber land.

The excuse for enlarging the national park is that a buffer zone of redwoods must be provided to protect the present park boundaries. But if a buffer zone is added to the park, won't that call for another buffer zone to protect the buffer zone and that can go on until you run out of trees.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">