Page images

realize the true beauty of a wilderness area can be had only in its present state of being—without roads, etc. It offers as a source of recreation a quiet peace of mind, its unspoiled beauty, hunting and fishing, and untold rivers and streams all void of roads. We who are fortunate enough to live near these areas want to keep them as wilderness areas.

We would further like to keep them as wilderness areas that future generations may see the beauty of America as our forefathers did when they discovered America. Let us remember that once our wilderness areas are gone they are gone forever and none of us want this.

In view of the above statements, district No. 1, Idaho Wildlife Federation, finds it a pleasure to endorse S. 174. We favor this bill and would like to see it become law that all of us might benefit from it in the future. Sincerely yours,

BILL DUFF, President.


Austin, Tex., February 26, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: The Texas Ornithological Society urges that you report favorably S. 174 to establish a national wilderness system. This society wishes to present the following points in favor of such action :

1. Certain species of native plants and animals must have wilderness conditions in order to survive.

2. Wilderness areas are as much a part of our American heritage as the various documents carefully preserved in national archives. The remnants of wilderness should receive careful preservation also.

3. A growing segment of the population is interested in the study of natural areas and their flora and fauna. These people travel to see areas of wilderness type not to find new swimming pools, fancy lodges, or even paved roads. society, as part of this group, urges that you preserve something for us and those who come after us to see. Respectfully submitted.

MARGARET LOUISE HILL, Chairman, Conservation Committee.


We approve:

1. Creation of more public parks which include areas left in their natural condition.

2. Protection of all wildlife in accordance with the findings and recommendations of professional wildlife biologists.

3. Addition to the list of protected species those which can be shown to be beneficial to the area in which they live.

4. More effective enforcement of Federal and State wildlife protection laws and regulations through (1) more law enforcement officers and (2) more vigorous arrest, prosecution, and penalty of violators.

5. Increased enforcement of those laws forbidding the pulling of wildflowers on public lands.

6. Preservation of all possible native vegetation through more careful planning of the utilization of both urban and rural lands.

7. Open, well-advertised meetings of all State and local boards which control public parks, historical monuments, wildlife regulation and protection, soil conservation, and water regulation.

8. The preservation of all geologically unique and pedagogically useful rock outcrops and other geological sites.

We oppose:

9. Removal of park restrictions from any publicly owned land without a welladvertised public hearing.

10. Removal of any animal from a list of those protected.

11. The destruction of wildflowers on public rights-of-way by mowing or burning before they have completed their growing season and perpetuated their kind by seeding; or the scraping of such area at any time.

12. Granting grazing permits or mineral rights in any public land areas without a well-advertised public hearing.

13. The placing on a local and uncontested calendar by the legislature of any bill which in any way affects any natural resource of the State, especially the wildlife of any part thereof.

As conservation chairman of the Pathfinders' Club, one of the oldest members of the Texas Federation of Women's Clubs, I am authorized to request that the name of that organization, also, be added to the list of those urging passage of S. 174 for these same reasons. Respectfully,


Chairman, Conservation Committee, Pathfinders' Club, Texas Federation of Women's Clubs.

WILLOUGHBY, OHIO, February 27, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.O.:

Three hundred members of Burroughs Nature Club in northeastern Ohio deeply concerned for conservation of wilderness areas. Strongly urge passage of S. 174.

HUGH PALLISTER, Vice President, Burroughs Nature Club.


Eugene, Oreg., February 26, 1961. Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate

Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Our group, formed this week, tentatively named Mount Diamond Association, urgently requests Congress not at this time enact wilderness preservation system as proposed by S. 174. Bill would prevent future reclassification of Diamond Peak Wild Area lying south of Willamette Highway 58, 6 miles from Odell Lake in Klamath County, Deschutes National Forest. Diamond Mountain Association on March 2, sponsoring meeting in Eugene to explore feasibility of requesting Secretary of Agriculture to restudy Diamond area for reclassification to permit year-round use meeting all recreational needs including skiing. Diamond Wild Area created in 1957 by Secretary without comprehensive study of nationally significant recreational values. Reclassification was achieved primarily be. cause Three Sisters Wilderness Area to north was reduced in acreage to permit future logging. Many wilderness enthusiasts prior to and since reclassification stated Diamond not true wilderness-type area. We believe it urgent and of utmost importance to study Diamond in light of current and future needs of all our citizens. Diamond at 8,750 elevation offers one of Nation's greatest year-round recreational development potentials. Support of our association goal is gathering significant support.


Acting Cochairmen of Mount Diamond Association..


Seattle, Wash., February 28, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.O.

DEAR SIR: This association has consistently opposed creation of a national wilderness preservation system. S. 174, now before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, is the latest of a series of bills to create such a system and we oppose that bill also.

We have numerous reasons for believing that this type of legislation is unwise, and have expressed them in the hearings on similar bills preceding this. I will enumerate only three of them.

In the U.S. Forest Service we have hired a technical staff to manage and protect these areas for all their values, and the last Congress gave them their instructions in the multiple-use bill. We believe that S. 174 unduly hampers the administering agencies in protection of the values on these and neighboring areas. One of the obvious examples is cited. While noting that the Secretary of Agriculture may control fire, insect, and disease attacks, the bill would deny any commercial activity. From bitter experience with natural disasters we know that the only prevention tool to safeguard the area in some insect and fire situations is the removal of damaged trees from the distress area. The costs involved make this prohibitive without some financial return on the salvage wood. It then becomes a commercial activity, which is prohibited.

This bill establishes one class of recreationist as the exclusive user of vast areas of our public lands, even though he number some 1 percent of the recreationists on the national forests. If this special system is set up for this minority, we should establish preservation systems for the majority class of recrea. tionist also. We should also establish exclusive preservation systems for the grazer, the miner, the logging operator, and anyone else with an interest in use of these public lands. Obviously this would finish wrecking the multiple-use concept on the national forests.

Recreation is but one segment of the many uses of these lands and wilderness recreation is but a small minority segment of that. We believe that the Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission should determine the proper balance of recreational uses. We also believe that no congressional action should be taken until release of that study.

We again urge you to oppose this national wilderness preservation system legislation. We believe that forest protection and land use allocation should be handled by the administering agencies within the multiple-use directive enacted by Congress. We alşo believe that they have demonstrated the ability to do the job. Yours very truly,



Jacksonville, Fla., March 1, 1961. Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: I understand that final hearings on Senate bill 174 were held February 27 and 28. I believe this legislation should be delayed pending the receipt of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission report on wilderness, which I understand should be available March 1962. As you know, this committee was appointed to study the whole matter of outdoor recreation.

I have written and discussed with you many times, Federal legislation that has to do with conservation needs of all kinds, principally forestry; and you know from my 32 years of public service that I am not anti-Federal in any sense of the word. However, in this case, I believe that Congress should have the benefit of the committee's report, which would place this whole matter of wilderness in its proper perspective, before legislation is enacted.

Basically, I am opposed to single purpose use land management. It seems to me that with the rapidly expanding population and the steady decrease in available forest land that the Nation can ill-afford to set aside large areas of land, for single purpose use, that could serve a number of purposes, including wilderness and other outdoor recreation. I also believe the withdrawal of large areas of commercial national forest land for parks or wilderness would have an adverse effect on the wood-using industries. This affects the West primarily, but the Southeast is affected indirectly. In the West, industry is largely dependent upon public holdings for a raw material supply to supplement their own.

There are, of course, many millions of acres now in wilderness areas that are under the jurisdiction of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. These areas are certainly in safe hands and changes in the overall Federal structure concerning these lands could be delayed until Congress has had a better opportunity to view the situation in its entirety.

I have no quarrel with the wilderness people nor with the outdoor recreationists of any category. The forest industries are making their lands available to the public for recreation of all kinds, as has been brought out by the survey and report of the American Forest Products Industries.

I would appreciate it very much if you could give this matter due consideration at the time it comes to your attention. My best personal wishes. Very sincerely yours,

FRANK A. ALBERT, Manager, Lands and Forests.


Seattle, Wash., February 24, 1961. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: I have just counted 2,213 pages in 4 volumes of wilderness bill testimony before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs; since June of 1957, 1,149 letters, wires, and statements were received by the committee at the Bend, San Francisco, Salt Lake, and Albuquerque hearings in overwhelming numbers in favor of the wilderness bill. Over 400 communications were received at Seattle during the hearings held there. We feel that the record is clearly a mandate to get S. 174 out of committee and secure its passage in the Congress.

This legislation, after 4 years of revising and amending, has been approved by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. Further amending would be crippling.

Paid expense accounts will guarantee a strong industrial opposition in attendance at the hearings in Washington, D.C., Tuesday. Most of the popular support will be unable to attend because of jobs we must do and the lack of funds which would be required.

I want to remind you again that the 50 million acres of wilderness now contemplated in the bill is already dedicated as wilderness preserves in our national parks, national forests and wildlife refuges, within which timber cutting is not now permitted. This bill is not withdrawing additional millions of acres of land. It s already withdrawn.

There are other and better alternatives available to provide natural resources for our economic base suggested from the statistics contained in the “Timber Resources for America's Future,” which indicate that on the private and public forest lands of the United States : 114 million acres, one-fourth of our forest lands, are poorly stocked or nonstocked; one-quarter of the national timber cut is not utilized ; insects, disease, and fire annually consume, some 44 billion board feet of growth (by comparison, this amounts to nearly the annual total saw timber cut in all the States including Southeast Alaska, some 49 billion board feet) ; 52 million acres urgently need replanting.

This report published by the U.S. Forest Service in 1958 says, “The degree of forestry intensification needed is much larger and far greater than the general public or most experts are believed to have visualized.”

The full potential growth on our forest lands certainly has not been realized. Though progress has been accomplished, there is much more to be done. We believe, as we have stated for many years, that there is room for a flourishing industry and the public benefits that will accrue from a wilderness preservation system in our country. Yours very truly,


BALTIMORE, MD., March 2, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

National Council of State Garden Clubs, Inc., regrets nonattendance at recent hearings on S. 174 to establish a national wilderness preservation system. We had no knowledge of the date. Kindly list our organization of approximately half a million members as staunch supporters of the bill.

Mrs. GIDEON N. STIEFF, Chairman of Legislation, National Council.

CALDWELL, IDAHO, February 25, 1961. Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: The wilderness bill which is now being considered is, I feel, another example of the continuous fight of the past 100 years for a thoughtful and balanced use of resources. Its passage seems as logical as the concern for population pressure, water supply, and soil conservation. A wilderness system is definitely something to maintain in a truly comprehensive multiple use plan.

Senator Anderson, it seems certain, that there is much deep feeling (but not always vocal) and concern in Idaho for the passage and signing of the wilderness bill. Certainly this small percent of our public land can be made to yield some money if exploited commercially, but the point of the wilderness bill is more closely allied to that of the national parks and wildlife refuges—the spiritual and recreational use.

Those of us, here, in Idaho, who favor the wilderness bill, feel that its passage will be another example of the stewardship so wonderfully championed by Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and the host of workers who have fought not for the America of the moment but for the America that our children will live in and love. Sincerely,

LYLE M. STANFORD, Chair, Biology, College of Idaho.


Philadelphia, Pa., February 27, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: The Comstock Society wishes to record its unanimous endorsement of the Wilderness Act, bill S. 174.

It is our belief that the passage of bill s. 174 is of paramount importance to safeguard and preserve wilderness areas. In these times of continually expanding population and the relocation of industries to the suburbs, bill S. 174 is vitally needed to conserve those wilderness areas that remain. Sincerely yours,

ROBERT G. HUDSON, Chairman, Emergency Conservation Committee.


Houston, Tex., February 25, 1961. Subject: Endorsement of S. 174. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.

GENTLEMEN: America is indeed fortunate that the Wilderness Act, S. 174, is receiving the direct support of so many Members of the U.S. Senate as cosponsors. It is evident that the urgency of setting up a wilderness system in permanent form for the benefit of future generations has permeated the Congress and all America. We are happy indeed to support S. 174 and urge the Senate and Congress to approve this bill as presently written without further amendments or delays.

If there is regret it is only that of having waited so many years to have the bill progress to its present culminate state and to have seen so many compromises made to satisfy rapacious private interests. Be that as it may, let us all close ranks in support of S. 174 and have this bill become law as soon as possible.

We particularly wish to commend the efforts of the late Senator Richard Neuberger, of Oregon and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, of Minnesota for their outstanding work in previous congressional sessions in bringing about an awareness to the need for such legislation. We feel sure history will give them their just reward.

The Texas Conservation Council is an organization of key people throughout the State interested in conserving our natural resources. Members of the board of directors of our organization include leaders and directors from many Texas conservation groups including garden clubs and womens organizations, State and local sportsmens clubs, nature clubs, Audubon societies and other civic groups,

« PreviousContinue »