Editing 78-03-A3 (section)

= Redwoods =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
No one can quarrel with the idea of preserving the Cathedral like groves of
Coast redwood trees which are found only in California. And, likewise, it's
hard to be against a national park when one thinks of the exceptional beauty
spots preserved now in parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite. Why then do I
think the idea of a National Redwood park doesn't make sense? I think I have
an answer.

The Los Angeles Times, in an editorial, recently referred to the long struggle
that --QUOTE--" led first to the creation of the original 58,000-acre park to
the preserve." --UNQUOTE-- I believe the people of the United States who are
being asked -- make that told -- to put up millions and millions of dollars for the
added acreage plus $40 million or more on a job training program for the lumber
jacks and others who will be thrown out of work should know there isn't a
58,000-acre National Redwood park.

Back in 1968 when diehard preservationists were going all out for a national
park the federal government learned that virtually all of the superlative
redwoods, the cathedral-like groves were already preserved in a number of state
parks totaling 282 square miles. That is more than 180,000 acres. The only
way there could even be a pretense of a national park would be to include one
of our existing California state parks. The Federal government bought 28,000
acres (not 58,000) and 16,000 of those acres were either non-t mber or cut-over
land. Only 320 acres consisted of the superlative trees, plus 10,000 acres of
old growth redwoods similar to the kind used for lumber.

When I left the California Governor's office in early 1975 nothing had been
done to incorporate the state park into the national holding. The promise of
more than one and a half million visitors a year as a boost to the local
community turned out to be about 35,000. Nor had the Bureau of Land management
opened the 40,000 acres of commercial-type forest to timber cut ting which had
been promised to avoid hardship in the lumber industry.

The state park that was supposed to make the National purchase look like a
park has almost six times as many acres of superlative trees and twice as many
old growth forest. It only has one-fourth the open or cut-over land as the
federals bought. I'm sure this is known to Senator Cranston and Congresssman
Phil Burton of California who honchoed this measure through Congress. But, I
wonder if it is to all those others who voted "aye"?

The 48,000 acres approved for purchase are not the ancient giant trees that
we have already preserved in those state parks. This purchase is for a so
called buffer zone and is a run of the mill mix of redwoods and fir trees. I
have no doubt the push will continue to acquire more thousands of acres of timber
land to act as a buffer zone for the buffer zone.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>02/20/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-266]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>