Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, WAUWATOSA, Wis., February 25, 1961. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: We of the Milwaukee Audubon Society wish to express our support of your wilderness bill. Each year the danger to the survival of wilderness, and even more important, the philosophy which will tolerate a hands-off policy regarding wild land, becomes greater. Everywhere we must fight the pragmatic, utility only idea-I call it the "Soviet mentality," a philosophy that refuses to concede that there are intangibles. The cause of wilderness preservation is one that transcends the ages. It is a cause that can and should unite all men of good will. For in the wilderness bill is the argument, stated or not, that man needs some living space, some privacy, some breathing space, before the individuality of every man is crushed by too much togetherness. The honest lands of the wild remind us of what we had; of what we were. To the hedonistic socialists and other materialists who speak of better tomorrows, our wilderness areas are reminders of better yesterdays-we must never let young Americans forget it. Wilderness to those of us who cherish it, is a place to get away from a world sick of its own sicknesses-a place we can go, as did Robert Marshall and Henry Thoreau, to recharge the batteries of hope. The out-of-doors is full of truth. It is full of realism. It is full of things our daily world (drugged dead by the opinion shapers) no longer seems to recognize. A wild animal that is careless pays dearly. So does a man. This is as it should be. This is a lesson. offered by the wilderness alone. Nowhere else can it be offered in such a valid setting. For over a decade there have been deep stirrings in the scientific communityprofound and eloquent misgivings, too numerous to quote, that show that all is not well when man loses the natural and comfortable fixtures of his habitat. To conclude this support of bill 174 (the wilderness bill) I request that this letter be made a part of the official proceedings and be included in the record. Sincerely, DAVID TILLOTSON, President, Milwaukee Audubon Society. ARIZONA GAME PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, Phoenix, Ariz., February 27, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, SENATOR ANDERSON AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Repetition is the source of both emphasis and futility. Nonetheless, in hopeful search for the former of the two I will reaffirm my earnest support for the mutation currently before the committee the latest reissue of the wilderness bill. I know I am joined by thousands of other like-minded citizens in my belief that the natural resource defined as wilderness should be enduringly preserved by act of Congress. I realize that legislation must be refined in the interest of accuracy of intent, particulars of jurisdiction, mechanics of implementation and enforcement, and as a safeguard against harmful oversight, but gentlemen, remove enough of the base metal from any high-grade ore and you end up eventually with slaga sterile refuse. I for one request that you insist that such a fate doesn't settle on the wilderness bill and what's left of America's remnant wilderness. The wilderness bill has been refined enough. Now pass it. Now is the time (overdue as it is); now is the time for the Congress to pass this bill. Even the untrained, unfamiliar eye can take a steady look at the resource this bill concerns and assay its immense worth. As the great worth of wilderness is easily seen, it is likewise a worth just as easily destroyed. Wilderness is a delicately fragile circumstance. Alteration is its nemesis. Progress-development, improvement, exploitation-any category of change allowed in the midst of wilderness and it is no longer wilderness. This is a fact. If this resource is to be preserved, it must be declared off limits-off limits that is to those champions of progress who would in any way change it and simultaneously destroy it. I believe this necessity for the preservation of wilderness is a duty incumbent on the conscience of the committee and the Congress. Pass this bill. Put it out where the representatives of the people can prove whether or not they listen to the loudly stated wishes of their constituents on the sub ject of wilderness preservation. I remind you, in due respect, that a citizen is a constituent and a corporation or a business is a lobby. I am a conservationist, not a hoarder. I endorse scientifically predicated multiple-use conservation practices in the management and disposition of this Nation's natural resources. I do not believe, however, that multiple use necessarily need draw the uniform, arbitrary conclusion these several uses must of necessity always overlap each other. I do not agree that the implementation of multiple uses must always insist on two or more of these uses being superimposed one on another. I do not believe that coincidental uses in a particular locale always represents the best conservation practice, or reflects the public interest to best advantage. Many exponents of so-called multiple use seem to believe that if it is possible to impose numerous uses on a particular locale it is always obligatory to do so. I do not. I believe that multiple use means several separate and distinct recognized divisions of resource uses. I believe that these uses may or may not be conservationally compatible. I consider wilderness to be a circumstance which in itself constitutes a basic natural resource. I believe that the proper use of the wilderness resourceplainly and simply stated-is the right to enter a wilderness circumstance for any such purpose as might seem appropriate so long as the user is prescribed from any action which might effect any material alteration of the wilderness circumstance or its component elements. I believe that the use of wilderness as I have described it is just one of the several multiple uses, and deserves equal consideration and equal status. I believe that wilderness should be perpetuated. I believe the right to use wilderness should be preserved. Realizing that wilderness is wilderness only so long as it is unaltered, I believe that two or more of the multiple uses would be conservationally uncompatible if allowed in a locale recognized as wilderness. Wilderness-if it is to remain wilderness-cannot be in itself a multiple-use unit. If it is to remain wilderness, it must be a single-use unit. Singular use of this particular resource is, however, consistent with multiple-use conservation in its broadest sense as it is the means of perpetuating the wilderness resource and its use. I personally accept the following description of multiple-use conservation: "The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest possible period." And I also accept the following definition of the overall subject of conservation: "Wise use." To conclude, I do believe it would be wise to preserve a large portion of America's remaining wilderness so the people may always put it to use. Sincerely yours, STANLEY T. CALHOUN, Vice President, Arizona Sportsmasters-AGPA. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. PAINESVILLE, OHIO, February 28, 1961. DEAR SIR: Your efforts in drafting and presenting the new wilderness bill, S. 174 are much appreciated by the many people in this area who are aware of the need to do something now to insure some wilderness areas in this country for our generation and those to come. I speak for myself and for the 800 members of Cleveland Audubon Society when I wish you the success of an early adoption of this bill by both Houses of Congress. DEAR SENATOR: I read about the wilderness bill S. 174 in the paper and the coming hearings in this matter. I am highly in favor of this bill and hope that Congress will pass it during this session. The way our cities are growing and taking over the surrounding countryside spreading out in an increasing tempo into areas that were a generation ago unspoiled retreats of nature, makes one wonder how long this can continue before the last tree is cut down and the last brook despoiled. Nothing is safe from this trend, especially with commercial interests reaching out long before into distant areas building roads, cutting and destroying all woods, leaving everything in shambles. One only needs to go into a few of the Cascade areas to see the scenes of desolation that this system has left. If we do not do all we can right now, it will be impossible to save this last retreat of nature from final destruction. I hope this bill will get passed. It has the support of all men who have the welfare of future generations in mind. Sincerely yours, HANS W. SMITH. TACOMA, WASH., February 22, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: The present and future interests and welfare of our country will be served by adoption of wilderness bill (S. 174) and by the perpetuation of large wilderness areas, intact, and in their natural state. Their aesthetic, educational, health, recreational, and tourist values are good and sufficient reasons for setting aside large wilderness areas. But many people fail to consider the more prosaic, down-to-earth, but also vital, benefits accruing from wilderness areas holding back snow and ground water for our summer's supply for homes, irrigation, and power; their preventing erosion from rapidly denuding our mountain slopes of soil, to finally leave the mountains bare skeletons of rock; and, by avoiding the rapid runoff, preventing the washing out of highways and the disastrous flooding of rich valley lands. For these reasons alone, it would probably be wise to set aside all our mountain tops above, say, 3,000 feet for wilderness areas. Then they would remain useful, and beautiful, forever. Sincerely, R. B. KIZER. Senator ANDERSON, FULLERTON, CALIF., February 28, 1961. Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Please accept my congratulations on your interest in the wilderness bill S. 174. Our family has a deep appreciation of our wilderness area. They certainly should be kept available for generations of Americans to come. Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We wish to strongly object to bill S. 174. Need for this legislation has not been demonstrated, and any action on a wilderness bill should await the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission. CHIEF CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, ELLENSBURG, WASH., February 28, 1961. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We urge that you withhold action on all wilderness legislation until report of Recreation Resources Review Commission has been studied. DAVE FOSTER, Secretary, Washington Cattlemen's Association. SACRAMENTO, CALIF., February 28, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senate, Chairman, Senate Interior Committee, Washington, D.C.: We urge no action be taken on S. 174 until Outdoor Recreational Committee survey completed and studied. S. 174 serves a special group and should be tabled until positive that lands considered will not be more valuable to more people under different type management. J. T. RUSTON, General Manager, Winton Lumber Co., Martell, Calif. RICHLAND, WASH., February 28, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Strongly urge favorable action on wilderness bill S. 174 as necessary step toward insuring true long-range multple use of one of our most valuable natural resources. U. L. UPSON, Federations of Western Outdoor Clubs, Founder Intermountain Alpine Club. PHILADELPHIA, PA., February 28, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Deeply interested in wilderness bill, urge passage this session Congress. ABBIE H. EVANS. HOUSTON, TEX., February 28, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: For the committee record, wilderness bill hearing S. 174, February 27, 1961. The Outdoor Nature Club of Houston with an active membership exceeding 400 from various parts of southeast Texas endorses S. 174 the wilderness bill as presently written. Looking ahead to public need in the years to come conservationists everywhere have encouraged passage of this vital legislation that sets up wilderness preservation as a national objective. We urge your committee to pass this bill without further delays or amendments. I. K. SHEFFIELD, President. PUYALLUP, WASH., February 28, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: As a professional forester I oppose passage of S. 174 at this time. ROBERT P. MATTHEWS. HOUSTON, TEX., February 28, 1961. Hon. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, We urge that bill S. 174 which proposes to preserve wilderness areas for future generations and which is before your committee be passed. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Mr. and Mrs. J. R. CRAVENS. OLYMPIA, WASH., February 28, 1961. Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The Olympia Audubon Society wishes to go on record as approving S. 174, the wilderness bill. MARGARET MCKINNEY, President. TACOMA, WASH., February 28, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: S. 174 (wilderness bill) passed now would be ill advised. Urge committee take no action. Nation's timber resources (including recreational areas) are in good hands. Passage of wilderness bill would be severe blow to national prestige of U.S. Forest Service. Respectfully, RAY A. E. JOHNSON, Professional Forester. EVERETT, WASH., February 28, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C.: As a professional forester I wish to register my objection to the passage of Senate bill 174, and urge your committee to await final report of ORRRC to give Members of Congress an opportunity to acquaint themselves regarding the wilderness question. Request this wire be made part of your hearing. K. WALIN. AUBURN, CALIF., February 27, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, DEAR SENATOR: The Minerals Association of Northern California (formerly California Hydraulic Mining Asosciation) endorses the testimony of the spokesmen for the American Mining Congress in its opposition to the passage of Senate bill 174. The association continues to support the principle of multiple use of the public domain which is not a part of the national park system. Respectfully, FLOYD T. WILMOTH, Secretary. |