Page images


The objective of multiple use of the public lands is strongly supported by the mining industry. The industry believes that wilderness-type recreation uses can continue to be adequately provided through powers now vested by the Congress in the several agencies having jurisdiction over public land use.

Over the past few years, the Congress has passed many measures strengthening and implementing the principle of multiple use of our Western State public lands.

Examples are:

Public Law 585, 83d Congress, making compatible the leasing act and the mining laws.

Public Law 167, 84th Congress, providing for the multiple use of the surface resources of mining claims.

Public Law 470, 85th Congress, established a National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission to study recreational and other land uses. This Commission was instructed in the act that it "shall recognize that lands, waters, forest, rangelands, wetlands, -wildlife and such other natural resources that serve economic purposes also serve to varying degrees and for varying uses outdoor recreation purposes, and that sound planning of resource utilization for the full future welfare of the Nation must include coordination and integration of all such multiple uses."

The Commission was further instructed to report to the Congress by September 1961. Considering the time and money spent in the public interest, the Commission's report should be available for study before S. 174, or similar legislation, is considered.

Public Law 359, 84th Congress, opened power site withdrawals to locations under the mining laws.

Public Law 337, 85th Congress, prohibited military withdrawals from the public lands in excess of 5,000-acre tracts, without congressional approval.

The National Forest Act is a multiple-use law, and that law now permits. establishment of recreational areas in which commercial activities are controlled by regulations of the responsible Government agency.

Some 14 million acres are now designated as wilderness-type areas in the national forests under powers granted the Secretary of Agriculture in regulation 20 relating to primitive areas and regulation U-1 relating to wilderness areas. In actions taken in 1931 under regulation 20, Utah has 240,717 acres of primitive area in its national forests, or about 1 acre of primitive area for each 200 acres of Utah's total acreage. National parks, wildlife refuges, and game ranges can and are being established wherever deemed necessary with control of activities therein vested in administering agencies.'

Actually, resource development often opens otherwise inaccessible areas for recreational use. Use by all who can drive and visit, in contrast to the exclusive wilderness system proposed which only those of relative wealth could visit and enjoy.


As national forest land is subject to multiple use through provisions of the Congress, we urge that the Congress retain control of basic provisions for the use of national forest lands.

(1) Under S. 174, all present "wilderness, wild, primitive, or canoe" areas would become part of the wilderness system ; subject to review as to suitability by the Secretary of Agriculture within the subsequent 15 years. The land is thus locked up as to mining and to any other form of commercial enterprise during such review.

(2) Suitability of such lands for final inclusion in the proposed wilderness system is to be reported to the President, and the President may then delete lands from that recommendation or may add any “adjacent" lands which are considered to be "predominantly of wilderness value.”

(3) The recommendations of the President on inclusion in the wilderness system shall stand unless vetoed by a “concurrent resolution" of the Congress.

[ocr errors]

wild, primitive, or canoe" areas would be incorporated in the wilderness system proposed by S. 174, with neither Congress or the people of the several areas who are economically affected having any effective voice.

Congress would have'a' voice only in the "Addition or elimination (of lands) not provided for in this Act” as specified in section 3(h).

(4) There is provision in the bill, section 6 (2) (a), for Presidential authorization "within a specific area" and under "such regulations as he may deem desirable," of prospecting, mining, reservoirs, water-conservation works, etc., in wilderness system lands. But only on the President's “determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial.”

Inclusion of the present 14 million acres of “wilderness, wild, primitive, and canoe" areas of the national forests in the wilderness system without effective congressional consideration, coupled with the unlikelihood of obtaining Presidential authorization for commercial activity, serves to drastically eliminate multiple use from these, and other, selected wilderness system lands. Although our concern with, and our objection to, such provisions relate specifically to mining, we are not unaware of the threatened damage to all other natural resource industries and to the general economy of the West.

We urge the committee to disapprove S. 174 in its present form. If present authorities and jurisdictions for establishment and operation of wilderness-type lands are not in its judgment considered adequate, the committee is urged to provide for continued congressional responsibility in any further proposals.

PHOENIX, ARIZ., February 27, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior Committee, Washington, D.C.:

Will you kindly incorporate into the record of the hearings on S. 174 being held by your committee on February 27 and 28. this expression of opposition to the enactment of that bill. We protest against the enactment of this or any other so-called wilderness legislation at least until such time as a report and recommendations are received from the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission. There is no evidence at this time that any wilderness legislation is needed as there is ample authority under present laws for the creating of areas with similar intent and purpose. One does not have to look back very far to the time whe most of the land areas of our Western States were in the wilderness cl fication but it was the exploration and development of these lands which built these States and created the resources so necessary to our national security. The present world situation is such that we must do nothing to threaten the selfsufficiency of basic resources of the country in the event of conflict. One cannot conceive of anyone advocating a threat to our national security in order that a relatively few hunters and fishermen may have large areas of lands set aside for their pleasure and recreation. Experience has shown that lands already set aside have attracted but few visitors. On behalf of the 3,000 members of the Arizona Small Mine Operators Association we protest against any destruction or limitation of the foundations upon which our western public land States have grown and prospered.

CHARLES F. WILLIS, State Secretary, Arizona Small Mine Operators Association.



This statement represents the official position of the National Wool Growers Association with regard to wilderness legislation. Our organization is composed of 17 affiliated State woolgrower associations located in the area where approximately 70 percent of the Nation's sheep, lambs, and wool are produced. In addition we have individual members in States outside this area. The National Wool Growers Association has been recognized as the spokesman for the sheep producers of the Nation for the past 96 years.

We oppose S. 174 for the following reasons:

1. The present multiple-use program on our public domain is a unifying principle in land management that meets the interests of all people of the Nation and permits development of all resources-soil and water, recreation, fish and wildlife, minerals, timber, and forage. In contrast, wilderness legislation is designed to set up vast areas of land for extremely limited use to the exclusion of all others.

2. Locking up the future development and use of these vital resources on the lands within the proposed wilderness system would have serious economic implications. From the standpoint of our industry, on the vast acreages which would bé included in the wilderness system under this bill there is no assurance that grazing by domestic livestock would be permitted to continue. The Nation is going to need more, not less, food and fiber in the years ahead. Furthermore, the economy of many communities in our Western States is dependent on the livestock industry and use of the grazing resources on our public lands.

3. We maintain that many of the people residing in cities who sign petitions and write to Congress in behalf of wilderness legislation do not understand that such legislation would actually bar them from even some of their present opportunities for outdoor recreation. Prohibiting construction of permanent roads and barring use of automobiles in these areas would certainly not increase the recreational opportunities of the average American family relying on its car to get to these areas. In spite of the statement of policy in S. 174, this legislation would not establish a wilderness preservation system for the use and enjoyment of the American people but for only an extremely small segment of our population having ample leisure and money and also the ability to ride horseback or to canoe into these wilderness areas.

4. Finally, we feel action on wilderness legislation is premature. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, now studying and making an inventory of the Nation's recreational resources, should certainly complete its report to the President before any wilderness legislation is considered. Then if a need can be proven for setting up a wilderness preservation system in addition to wilderness areas already established and contemplated in future years under existing statutes, certainly in the interests of all people and all of our public lands resources, any such legislation must contain safeguards as set forth in the amendments to S. 174 offered by Senator Allott.


S. 174 provides for establishment of wilderness areas within national forests, parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, and game ranges. The procedure for imparting wilderness status to an area is essentially administrative, although Congress may frustrate an administrative effort to create wilderness if it acts by concurrent resolution in time.

While this wilderness bill is a less arrogant proposal than its predecessors, it still represents the point of view that large areas of the West should be subject to withdrawal from productive use at the caprice of some administrative official. The likelihood that Congress can be moved to oppose a particular withdrawal (practical politics being what it is) is somewhat remote.

If the authority granted by the bill were fully exercised, all of the West's undeveloped regions could be consigned to wilderness status purely on the basis of their being as yet untrammeled. It is only necessary that such regions first be declared to be game ranges or refuges. It would appear, from the language of section 3(d), that land, however barren, would be susceptible to inclusion within nationalforests, if it were only untrammeled.

We in Utah are only beginning to see the development of our vast mineral and recreational resources. We believe that development can benefit the entire Nation. Where there is real benefit to be derived from preserving the face of nature, we are confident that Congress can be prevailed upon to act. We believe it is unnecessary for Congress to make it easy for stagnation to be enforced upon Utah's public lands in order to provide wilderness for people who have taken and are taking revenue from their own public lands.


Denver, Colo., February 23, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: The American National Cattlemen's Association is made up of individual cattlemen members in almost every State, statewide

66737-61 24

[ocr errors]

cattlemen's organizations in 30 States, and more than 100 regional, local, and cattle breed associations.

The position of our association concerning wilderness legislation has been that this legislation is unnecessary because the present administrators of such areas have consistently maintained and properly managed over many years the wilderness areas under their jurisdiction, which in the case of the national forests alone amounts to some 14 million acres, more than 7 percent of the total Federal forest lands.

This position, we believe, has been strengthened by the passage in the last Congress of the multiple-use law which "directs that the national forests be managed under principles of multiple use.” The act says that “the establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are consistent with the purpose and provisions of this Act,” which virtually assures continuation of the wilderness system we already have.

We also urge that no action be taken on any wilderness legislation until the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission is made, which we understand is scheduled for September of this year.

Even though we feel that legislation to create a wilderness system is unnecessary and premature, we recognize that there are extreme pressures being placed upon the legislative branch of government for hasty passage of legislation. Cattlemen throughout the country certainly do not object to the concept of wilderness areas and conservation of our natural resources. Cattlemen recognize the absolute necessity of conservation of natural resources since they rely for their very livelihood upon wise use of the resources that Mother Nature has provided. In reality, then, cattlemen throughout the Nation are among those most concerned with conservation.

We believe it should be specifically spelled out in any legislation concerning wilderness that the present administrators should continue to administer the areas under their jurisdiction. These administrators have long had successful experience with the land, and their continued supervision of it would make unnecessary the creation of a new, costly and inexperienced government agency.

Just as important, we feel it is imperative that Congress first give affirmative approval to any wilderness areas that are being considered. In such examples as S. 174, the Congress by its very inaction would create additional wilderness areas or change the boundaries of the wilderness areas included in the system. We think it is essential that Congress be given the authority to consider and create wilderness areas through the legislative process, the democratic way. We think it should be specifically spelled out that the power of Congress will prevail, and that it would be through its affirmative action that such areas would be created.

We believe also that it would be a mistake to blanket into the wilderness system the primitive areas that are presently unclassified and under study. Such lands, which total an area of about 8 million acres, do not rightfully belong in the wilderness status, at least for the time being or until such time as they are specifically defined as such.

Grazing, where established, would be permitted under most wilderness proposals. However, we feel it desirable that the language be positive in nature and that, since grazing is permitted in the present wilderness areas, the language specifically spell out that grazing shall be permitted subject to regulations, rather than the use of the word "restrictions.” Raising livestock, particularly cattle, is an operation that requires planning for a number of years ahead, and therefore it is essential that stability be assured. Respectfully submitted.

C. W. MCMILLAN, Executive Vice President.



Takoma Park, Md. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: The Maryland State Society, Daughters of the American Revolution (membership 2,000) by unanimous voté at State conference expressed its concern for the preservation of the wilderness areas still in the public domain and for protection of them from exploitation of any kind.

To this end it urges prompt passage of your wilderness preservation bill, S. 174. The members feel that this bill is in the interests of all the people of the United States, present and to come.

A copy of the original resolution is enclosed. Though passed in 1959, it still is effective as the expression of the society.


Mrs. Elon G. Salisbury, Conservation Chairman, MSSDAR.


Whereas the remaining wilderness areas of the United States are of infinite value to this country as historic relics of the original land, as scientific laboratories for the study of nature, and as a means of perpetuating wildlife threatened with extinction; and

Whereas areas now designated as wilderness can under certain conditions be opened up for various uses detrimental to the above mentioned functions : Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Maryland State Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, urge passage of legislation which would prohibit the areas now labeled “wilderness” from being transferred to any other classification and which would keep them as true wilderness areas in perpetuity.


OUTDOOR CLUBS My name is James F. Henriot and I reside in Washington, D.C. As a member of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs I have been asked to read a statement in support of S. 174 from Dr. William R. Halliday, of Seattle, Wash., vice president of said federation who unexpectedly was prevented from coming here to read his statement personally,

“The Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs is a federation of 35 conservation minded outdoor clubs in the States of Washington, Oregon, California, Utah, and Hawaii with a total membership of about 30,000. We have supported strongly the wilderness bill, S. 174, since its inception as have, we believe, the great majority of the informed citizens of our area. Most of us who live in the Pacific Northwest choose to support the wilderness bill because of the unsurpassed beauty and recreational opportunities of our wilderness areas and our desire to see such areas remain unimpaired.

"As your committee knows, extensive hearings have been held repeatedly on earlier versions of the wilderness bill, both in Washington State and in various western cities. At the Seattle hearing there was little doubt that the local popular sentiment was strongly in favor of the wilderness bill. As a result of suggestions made at these hearings there have been great modifications in the wilderness bill, which were largely designed to attempt to meet the objections of representatives of loggers, miners, cattlemen, sheepmen, and allied commercial interests. Its drafters have leaned far over backward to meet all valid objections. These extensive concessions have not satisfied the opposition to this bill even though the changes have been designed to meet all the legitimate objections they have raised. It would appear that the real purpose of the opposition to the wilderness bill, S. 174, stems from an intention to commercially exploit our present national parks and Forest Service dedicated areas which are the subject of this bill, S. 174.

The wilderness bill, S. 174, has bipartisan support. It has been endorsed by the Democratic administration and is sponsored by statesmen of both parties. In his natural resources message of last week, the President called upon the Congress for enactment of wilderness preservation legislation.

The passage of a wilderness bill is due--and overdue. The opponents of this bill plan great faith in their ability to kill it by amending it and stalling it forever-an ability in which they have shown considerable talent to date. On behalf of the members of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, and of our outdoor loving Northwest in particular, I urge the immediate passage of this wilderness bill, S. 174.

« PreviousContinue »