RAVALLI COUNTY FISH & WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION, Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs, Hamilton, Mont., February 23, 1961. DEAR MR. ANDERSON: The Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association as well as individual members of this organization have over the years repeatedly endorsed enactment of a wilderness bill. We have so advised members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee as well as all members of Montana's congressional delegation. We hope that this is the last appeal that the Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association is required to make to secure a favorable report from your committee on this urgent and important legislation. DEAR SENATOR: As a branch of the National Audubon Society we do heartily endorse the wilderness bill, S. 174, and request that we be made a part of the hearing record on this bill, February 27-28. Very best wishes. Sincerely, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, GENEVIEVE W. GORE Mrs. M. Louis Gore, Corresponding Secretary. MINNESOTA DIVISION, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATON ANDERSON: The Minnesota division of the Izaak Walton League was pleased to hear that you are sponsoring the revised wilderness bill, S. 174. Inasmuch as we in Minnesota are vitally interested in our Boundary Waters Canoe Area on the Superior National Forest, and since we strongly support the principles embodied in your bill, we urge that everything possible be done to obtain immediate passage of this important legislation. Time is running out, and the need for preserving wilderness areas is becoming daily more urgent. The present bill has been adequately revised to take care of legitimate objections and there is no need for further delay. We would like to have this statement made a part of the legislative record. ADOLPH T. ANDERSON, Chairman, Wilderness Committee. HANOVER GARDEN CLUB, Hanover, N.H., February 24, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON. Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: By unanimous vote the 100-member Hanover Garden Club has asked me to express its concern for the preservation of our country's wilderness areas and to urge enactment of bill S. 174. Will you please include this letter in the record of the hearing of this bill on February 27 and 28? Sincerely, CAROLYN C. TENNEY, Conservation Committee Chairman. DIBOILL, TEX., February 27, 1961. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, GENTLEMEN: A copy of a statement by Louis S. Clapper, chief, division of conservation education, National Wildlife Federation, delivered before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the 87th Congress on February 27–28 of this year has come to my attention. I am opposed to the extension of the wilderness preservation system to include lands not actually under this system at the present time. Whereas I feel that a reasonable amount of wilderness area should be maintained, I know that a very few can participate in the pleasures provided. To my notion the wilderness area set aside is the most selfish action that can be taken by a few as contrasted with the enjoyment by millions of the large forested areas that are being operated presently under multiple use. I am a vice president of Sportsmen's Clubs of Texas and I would like to make it known that Mr. Clapper does not speak for the "2 million individual sportsmen-conservationists." Yours truly, ARTHUR TEMPLE. EUGENE, OREG., March 4, 1961. Senator ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, The Oregon Farm Bureau Federation urges that Senate bill S. 174 be not further considered until the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission report has been received and studied. This organization is not opposed to wilderness but opposes this bill as lacking economic justification or the urgency to require its enactment before completion of that study. Note that support for the bill has been preponderantly to the emotional concept of wilderness with little regard for economic effects. Almost without exception professional conservationists and State and local agencies with economic responsibilities have opposed previous drafts and no substantial change appears in this bill. At this time of concern over economic distress, serious consideration should be given to the advice of those skilled in the field of conservation and those with responsibility for providing employment in the utilization of the national resources. GERALD W. DETERING, President, Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, Salem, Oreg. BELAIR, MD., March 2, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Washington, D.C.: Unfortunately was not aware wilderness bill S. 174 was to come to committee in February. Am so very much in favor of it, starting letter campaign to Maryland Representatives urging them to get it on the floor and back it. Also getting friends in five other States to do likewise. Living Wilderness magazine doing excellent job. Good luck. Sincerely, JEAN HOLFELDT. SIMMS, MONT., February 26, 1961. Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Please give wilderness bill S. 174 all your support. RAY WAGNER, Manager, Hamilton Ranch. SIMMS, MONT., February 26, 1961. Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Please give wilderness bill S. 174 all your support. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, A. D. MCGILLIS, Rancher, Choteau, Mont. RIVERSIDE, CALIF., February 26, 1961. Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Re wilderness bill S. 174. This bill has been prompted by the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, and other conservation groups. Our natural recreational areas have been de spoiled especially during the last 30 years for the temporary benefit of a few. Here is a chance to preserve for a while some remaining recreational areas. I urge you and your colleagues to push for passage of this bill during hearing yourcommittee is about to hold. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, DAVID L. SHATTO. SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF., February 26, 1961. New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We of the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society have petitioned our representatives again and again for strong wilderness bill. For posterity's sake, let us not modify or delay it further. Mrs. ANN E. WISSLER, President. DENVER, COLO, February 27, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Please accept the following testimony for the record. I am for the wilderness bill. All around me I see the scars and activities of mankind. They are of a commercial interest for monetary values. If unchecked every acre of our public lands will be exploited. The present and future generations of Americansshould have a place of rest and solitude from our everyday hectic lives. We must have wilderness preservation to protect the watersheds, wildlife, forest, unspoiled: natural and scenic areas that are presently left in these United States. CHARLES H. NELSON, EUGENE, OREG., February 27, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Oregon Logging Conference membership in excess of 1,700 in meeting on Febru-ary 24, 1961, at Eugene, Oreg., passed unanimously the following resolution: "RESOLUTION No. 5, WILDERNESS BILL "The Oregon Logging Conference at its 23d annual session resolves to reaffirm its previous position against a blanket wilderness system, and specifically S. 174, as being outright detrimental to the economy of the Pacific Northwest. Such legislation is not desirous before the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Wilderness is part of the Forest Service Multiple Use Act of 1960. The Forest Service is continuing to review the old 'set aside' primitive areas. A change in classification of 71⁄2 million acres of primitive area to wilderness area is a definite departure from the accepted forest management practice of multiple use." OREGON LOGGING CONFERENCE, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: BOISE, IDAHO, February 27, 1961. For many years various special-interest groups have strived to define the remote and primitive areas of our country as wilderness areas. Although most of these groups have never traveled the regions of their proposals, they adopt the idealistic concept and resent any use of man in such areas except by foot, horseback, or canoe, contrary to the popular primitive area concept of encouraging the people to use and enjoy as much as possible. With a minimum of development the wilderness sponsors would reserve such areas for only those who have the time, finances, and physical capabilities to traverse mountain regions 'by foot, horse, or oar. Idaho areas have continued to be remote and primitive, with conservation practices in behalf of our resources administered by utilitarian adaption of aircraft small landing fields strategically located for forest firefighting, managing big game and fish, control of insects, game harvest, etc., have not detracted from a primitive concept. Please accept this wire as a plea for your unfavorable consideration of S. 174 before your committee this date. CHET MOULTON, Director, Idaho Department of Aeronautics. . LONG BEACH, CALIF., February 27, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Let us get the wilderness bill into action before too late. ELIZABETH BYRKIT, President, Agassiz Nature Club. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, MILWAUKEE, Wis., February 27, 1961. Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: In reference to Senate bill 174, known as the wilderness, our organization emphatically endorses this bill and asks that it be favorably recommended for passage by your committee. We ask that your committee extend every effort to hasten endorsement so that the House of Representatives may pass this bill as soon as possible. Wilderness is, we believe, a part of our American way of life-that part of us which remains to prove before the whole world that we are not an entirely materialistic people. As Galen Pike expressed it, "Wilderness is like religion. No man would care to live or do business in a community without churches. Though he might never attend a church or donate a single cent to its maintenance he would benefit by its moral and spiritual effect upon the town: so too does wilderness cast its effect upon the Nation." We believe in this way Mr. Pike expressed the feelings of all of us. Wilderness is an infinite part of American spiritual life. We sincerely urge passage of S. 174. CITIZENS NATURAL RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, OREG., February 26, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Mazamas, Portland 67-year-old mountaineering club of 1,100 members, urges adoption of wilderness bill, S. 174, now. Congressional recognition needed to insure preservation of irreplaceable national heritage. NEIL BALDWIN, President of Mazamas. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, IDAHO COUNTY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Milwaukee, Wis. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: We have just learned that you have scheduled hearings on February 27 and 28 on your wilderness bill S. 174. I am writing on behalf of the Milwaukee County Conservation Alliance Inc. This alliance represents 47 member organizations of sportsmen's clubs, civic clubs, and professional organizations. We represent over 60,000 members in these 47 clubs. We wish to extend to you our sincere thanks for introducing Senate bill 174 and for the prompt manner in which you have scheduled hearings on the bill. We feel the bill is a vital step toward the preservation of wilderness on a reasonable basis in the United States. We would like very much to be present at the hearings so that we could express our feelings to your entire committee, but this is impossible. We would like the committee to know, however, that we strongly support the bill. We would be appreciative if you would make this letter a part of the hearing record. Very truly yours, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, JAMES W. HOLE, Chairman on Legislation. THE CONSERVATION LEAGUE, SIR: We wish to extend our sincere thanks to you and the cosponsers of S. 174 for introducing a new wilderness bill, carrying forward the efforts of your predecessor, the previous chairman of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Senator James E. Murray, and the many other advocates of wilderness legislation to bring this concept to fruition. It is hoped the revised bill and the early hearings of your committee on February 27 and 28 may give further prospect and impetus for favorable congressional action in the 87th Congress. In following the many changes that have reshaped the original bill S. 1176 of the 85th Congress into its present form, it is not our belief that all changes were merely compromises, retreats, and losses. Rather the development of the proposed legislation represents a refinement of goal and objective by democratic process. We believe many conservationists have learned much in the continuing refinement of the proposal; probably most noteworthy-that others have values-at times, perhaps conflicting but nonetheless values, rights and needs, just as important and fundamental as those we in conservation espouse. It is also hoped in return, the opponents of wilderness legislation have found many citizens across our Nation deeply interested and concerned about values other than those of a mere material or monetary character. Few great nations have had the same opportunity of giving reflective consideration to setting aside portions of their land as wilderness areas before they were cut, developed, or populated. Had they this opportunity now, it is certain they would, as it is hoped our Nation in this special privilege shall do. We are a new Nation, a young Nation and wilderness with its meaning is not that remote in our history, but that it has special meaning to us; and its meaning, its spirit should not be lost where its concept and value remain a vital force in the national image. There is little question we shall need to lock up some of our natural resources, but we citizens of New York City have locked up some of the most valuable real estate in the world in Central Park. We are grateful for this and many of us would no longer remain in the city's bounds were it not so. If the citizens of our city can afford Central Park, we believe our Nation can afford wilderness areas. Those who cry out against locking up some national resources must realize that while some may be, other natural resources, such as watershed and watercover resource values will be protected. Game and wildlife habitat shall also be |