« PreviousContinue »
the ability to produce enough of his kind to use up any resources you name, whether it is timber, or water, or minerals.
It is just a matter of how many years you project our present expansion in use. One of our main pleas, and perhaps we give it to the point of monotony, is that we pretend we have reached the ultimate use and can no longer extend the annual increase that we pretend we do this just a little before the last 1 percent or the last 2 percent
Maybe that last 2 percent will serve far better as wilderness, as unspoiled country, as the last bit of the example of the world as the good Lord made it than it will serve us for the small amount in percentage points that it might add to our economy.
I am encouraged in what we do. As I state in my statement here, the Sierra Club, which is one of the older organizations in the country, founded in 1892, has been growing quite well. We have 17,000 members now all over the country, and half those members—half of them–8,500 have joined since we first testified on the wilderness bill in 1957.
That is an annual rate of growth that would probably please even economists.
One of my little points I make here is that we are hopeful that if the conservationist growth–I might interpolate that I think this growth has come from our clear and rather loud espousal of wilderness preservation-if the conservationist growth can continue to exceed the overall economic growth rate, then our growing economy can grow around and not over our last islands of wilderness.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify and our thanks to the committee for extraordinary patience.
It has been a long hard day.
The CHAIRMAN, I will have to say, Mr. Brower, that I particularly appreciate the fact that in your statement you pay tribute again to Aldo Leopold, who deserves that because of his great wilderness leadership.
Thank you for putting that in.
A number of statements have been submitted to the committee on S. 174. There are also several hundred letters and telegrams.
Without objection the staff will go through them and include in the record those that should appear.
There will be included the telegram submitted by Senator Dworshak earlier and the letter from Governor McNichols of Colorado offered by Senators Carroll and Allott.
(Thereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the hearing was concluded.)
(The following statements and communications were received before, during, and after the hearings. They were ordered printed in the hearing records.)
BOISE, IDAHO, February 22, 1961. Hon. HENRY C. DWORSHAK, U.S. Senator, Senate Building, Washington, D.O.:
We regret that we will not be able to be present at the hearing on the wilderness bill, S. 174. If we could be present we would appear against the bill as you know we produce defense materials that are only obtainable in foreign countries. Through our many years of continuous search for these materials we find they are available in areas as outlined in the wilderness bill. Therefore, we feel that for the betterment of the Nation and defense of our country the bill should be defeated and we hope you will act accordingly.
PORTER BROS. CORP.,
R. P. PORTER.
Denver, Colo., February 24, 1961.
DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I have reviewed S. 174 which you have sponsored to establish a national wilderness preservation system, and we find this proposed legislation less objectionable to the interests of Colorado than was S. 1123, introduced in the 86th Congress. I should like to suggest that some provisions of the amendments (in the nature of a substitute) to S. 1123 be included in S. 174.
By enactment of S. 174, the Congress will establish the principal portion of the wilderness system, namely, the wilderness, wild and canoe areas now in the national forests. The Congress, by specific legislation, should authorize the inclusion of those primitive areas, or portions thereof, that are found to be suitable for identification as a part of the wilderness system, rather than by Presidential designation and congressional approval. Section 3(h) provides for congressional authorization by law of any additions to any area or elimination of areas from the wilderness system which are not provided for in this act. I sincerely believe it far preferable to have all new wilderness areas and additions to or eliminations from the wilderness system, authorized by the Congress.
The provisions of S. 174 are good in requiring the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior to study and report on areas considered suitable for inclusion in the wilderness system. In addition, however, I sincerely believe that no wild or primitive areas should be designated within the boundaries of any sovereign State or States without the prior and express review and approval of the Governor or Governors of the State or States involved.
Similarly, recommendations contained in the report should be submitted for comment to the interested Federal agencies not within the jurisdiction or responsibility of either the Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture. Such agencies would include, but not be restricted to, the Federal Power Commission, Rural Electrification Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and the Interstate Commerce Commission. These Federal agencies would make a determination of any projected conflict of use or restriction upon their proposed projects or programs. Following such review by both the States and interested Federal agencies, then the Congress would have a complete set of reports with full recommendations on which to base their appropriate action.
Provisions for public hearings, as provided in the bill, are inadequate. Before any wild or primitive areas, or portions thereof, are recommended for inclusion in the wilderness system, the findings of public hearings on such proposals should be incorporated in the report of the Secretary or the independent Federal agency having jurisdiction. Public hearings should also be held before any recommendations are made by any modification of the boundaries of an existing wilderness area. The records of these hearings also should be submitted to the Governor or Governors of the State or States involved for their guidance.
Where States, for the benefit of their counties, have been receiving revenues from existing wilderness, wild and primitive areas in the national forests, the continuance of these revenues should be guaranteed. The loss of such revenues could be of serious consequence to many mountainous counties that have limited sources of revenue.
To the special uses which the President may authorize, per section 6(c)(2), I recommended the following uses be added : the construction of powerlines, communication lines, and pipelines for the transmission of fuels.
The bill implies that hunting and fishing will be permitted in wilderness areas. For the proper management of wildlife and fish resources, I urge that specific authorization for hunting and fishing be provided in those areas where such recreational activities are now permitted.
Should your committee desire further expansion or clarification of the recommendations I have set forth, I trust you will not hesitate to call on me. Sincerely,
STEVE MCNICHOLS, Governor.
COUNCIL OF CONSERVATIONISTS, INC.,
Short Hills, N.J., February 24, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : The struggle of the past few years to preserve a reasonable amount of unspoiled wilderness has produced a certain amount of confusion among the many thousands of people across the country who are interested in this matter. We have seen a variety of wilderness bills, or at least a variety of versions of a wilderness bill. Each version has had its proponents and opponents; and while each version may have seemed to differ only slightly, we know that such alterations may make all -the difference in the practicability of establishing a workable wilderness preservation project.
Now we are in a position where those who opposed one version may or may not realize that subsequent versions have eliminated any cause for concern on their part, with the result that today a multitude of people may oppose your wilderness bill without even having read it; they will only recall that "the wilderness bill" gores their ox. Your bill, S. 174, is the end product of all our experience. It will produce the maximum in protection with a minimum of damage to the interests of most of those who have opposed earlier versions. Our hope now is to see that its potential supporters throughout the Nation understand your bill, and that the old opposition is not continued by default.
It is important to establish in the public mind two points:
(1) Your bill, S. 174, is a new bill developed in cooperation with conservationists, and in consultation with others whose interests are concerned in area preservation, taking into consideration virtually all of the legitimate complaints lodged against earlier bills.
(2) This bill has the approval of all the major conservation groups who have been leading the fight for wilderness preservation—and several organizations that, for one reason or another, were unenthusiastic about earlier versions.
It is the intention of the Council of Conservationists to give the widest possible distribution of information about S. 174, and thus help reduce some of the confusion that may remain in the minds of people throughout the countrypeople whose wholehearted support is necessary if your bill is to be enacted by Congress and make wilderness an American tradition. In this we shall seek cooperation, as we have in the past, from the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, the Trustees for Conservation, and all other interested groups.
We are encouraged to note that already leaders of national conservation organizations have commended S. 174. For example, Donald B. Stough, execu
tive director of the Nature Conservancy, speaking for that group, says: wilderness bill now pending in the Senate should be enacted for scientific reasons, as well as for other purposes, as Senator Anderson emphasized when he introduced it. In addition to their many contributions to sound living and spiritual strength for man, wilderness areas also preserve plant and animal species which once lost can never be recovered for human study. I have just read an article which lists more than 100 scientific discoveries from intensive study of plant communities."
Howard Zahniser, executive secretary of the Wilderness Society and editor of the Living Wilderness, says: "Senator Anderson's wilderness bill and his leadership for seeing this measure through the Senate give us an outstanding conservation opportunity that we should be prompt to realize.' We should spare no efforts to give Senator Anderson our support and help see the bill enacted,"
C. R. Gutermuth, vice president of the Wildlife Management Institute, reminds us that: “Legislative accomplishment results from public support. This holds true in 1961 for the proposal to establish a national wilderness system. Attainment of this outstanding goal in the 87th Congress, which is being championed by Senator Clinton P. Anderson, chairman of the key Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, depends largely on vigorous backing from the Nation's conservationists."
Joseph W. Penfold, of the Izaak Walton League, points out that his group has already appealed to its membership to support S. 174. A recent communication to members says: "The Anderson bill, S. 174, adequately meets the wilderness policies and objectives of the league as established over past decades in national convention, and should receive the solid support of league membership coast to coast."
Some time ago, Carl W. Buchheister, president of the National Audubon Society, wrote you a letter in which he said : “As we interpret your bill, Senator Anderson, it would accomplish the objective of wilderness preservation for public use, through the following steps and provisions :
"1. It would establish as the policy of Congress 'to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefit of an enduring resource of wilderness.'
“2. It would define wilderness and wilderness areas in understandable language to insure that standards and policy will remain reasonably consistent through the years.
"3. It would provide statutory protection for the parts of national forests now designated (by administrative rule) as 'wilderness,' 'wild,' 'primitive,' or 'canoe,' areas. The areas now designated “primitive' would be subject to review and reclassification as wilderness within 15 years with Congress given another look at each such reclassified area. Sizable natural areas, sans roads and buildings, in the national parks and suitable areas in the national wildlife refuges also would become part of the wilderness system.
“4. It would protect existing private rights in areas included in the wilderness system.
“5. It would set up an orderly procedure for additions, deletions, or changes in the wilderness system or in any particular area with provisions for due notice, public hearings, and review by Congress. Thus it would not 'lock up for all time the material resources of the wilderness areas—the timber, minerals, and water-as opponents have argued. : The President, if a national emergency dictated it, could by specific authorization in your bill open a wilderness area to mining, mineral development, or reservoir construction, if the President deemed such development more important in the national interest than preservation of the area in a wilderness condition. Congress itself could change any area or open it to commercial uses at any time.”
Thomas L. Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation, speaking for his groups, says: "The National Wildlife Federation has endorsed in principle both the multiple-use concept of management for public lands and the proposed establishment of a wilderness preservation system. * It is the belief of the National Wildlife Federation that the optimum use of appropriate areas of unique scenic, esthetic, and educational value is as wilderness, preserved and protected by procedures approved by the Congress.”
Our own group, the Council of Conservationists, is completely satisfied with S. 174, and urges its passage.
Other groups, including the Sierra Club, the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, and hundreds of smaller organizations, we are happy to report, are enthusiastic about S. 174.
Several organizations will testify at the hearings in favor of S. 174. Subsequently, these organizations will permit us to distribute their testimony in support of this bill to hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country who are known to have a special interest in conservation matters. These conservation groups, whose primary interests spread across a wide variety of fields, do not always find a common meeting ground in proposed conservation legislation; nor do they always agree on priorities. In this case, however, it is safe to say that all the groups, no matter where their special interests lie, are in complete agreement that the enactment of a practical wilderness preservation bill at this time is essential, and should have the highest priority.
The continuing loss of open space and recreation areas is accelerating, and this is a tragedy; but when a lost open area happens to be one of our few remaining unspoiled wildernesses, then it is catastrophic. The years can recreate a forest, but a wilderness once gone is gone for good and all. Time has no patience in this matter. We must act now, or soon there will be nothing to act about.
There is little doubt but this is what President Kennedy had in mind only last week when he stated: “To protect our remaining wilderness areas, I urge the Congress to enact a wilderness protection bill along the general lines of S. 174." Yours very truly,
FRED SMITH, Director.
STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS MRS. E, LEE OZBIRN,
The General Federation of Women's Clubs has always worked for the conservation of our natural resources. As early as 1906 the general federation passed a resolution setting out its policy of full support of the "efforts of the Forest Service in development and administration of the timber, range, water, wildlife, recreation, and other resources of the national forests."
The general federation has consistently supported legislation which is designed to "insure permanent preservation of the scenic, scientific, and historical features they contain." Likewise the federation urges that appropriations sufficient for the maintenance and development of national forests be continued.
It appears to be a fact that S. 174 (87th Cong.) is a bill that would further, this policy of preservation of our national resources.
The general federation is in full agreement that there should be established a national wilderness preservation system and urges the enactment of such legislation.
THE NEW MEXICO FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS,
Hobbs, N. Mex., February 16, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I was pleased to read that you have introduced a new wilderness bill and that hearings will be held the latter part of the month. Most important, I think you should know that the New Mexico Federation of Women's Clubs firmly supports you in this legislation and that this support, has been approved by resolutions both in New Mexico and in the General Federation of Women's Clubs conventions.
We urge you to do all you can to see that Senate bill No. 174 is enacted into law without further delay.
The controversy on the wilderness bill has been going on now for several years and we in the women's clubs are glad you have developed a bill which will protect these areas for ourselves and our children. We are especially anxious that the Pecos Wilderness and the Gila Wilderness, as well as the lesser known wilderness areas in New Mexico be kept intact within the national forests so that our vital watersheds will be protected and all national forest resources conserved.
We shall very much appreciate your presenting this letter to the hearings.
Mrs. J. B. DAVIS, President.