interests, cattle grazing, and some lumber concerns are against this bill, purely through selfish reasons. There are many areas for them to make use of, without destroying any remaining wilderness areas. It is our heritage and duty as Americans to preserve the scenic wonders, monuments, reservations, and pure wilderness areas from further depredation. Without adequate protection, these areas would slowly fall prey to the selfish interests of business concerns, whereas the American people will suffer the loss. There is no reason for this, since there are already tremendous land areas open to mining, lumber practices, and so forth. The wilderness areas covered in the bill all have their own specific values as natural areas and definitely should not be exploited in any way. If our wild areas are broken into, in any way, little by little, they will disappear from the face of the earth. Once these areas are gone, their natural and spiritual values will be gone forever. These areas should remain as they always have been, without artificial attractions or commercial enterprises. Conservation of our wild areas and our natural resources, is of the utmost importance. There must be no loopholes in these conservation programs, no openings for the greedy to exploit. Man is just beginning to learn the importance of his environment. He has learned through his mistakes in the past, the importance of conserving the life and land about him, in order that he himself may survive. In the past, man has upset the balance of nature and has lived to regret it. We all know too well the story of the Dust Bowl that was created through poor land management. To quote John Steinbeck: "All the day the dust sifted down from the sky, and the next day it sifted down. An even blanket covered the earth. It settled on the corn, piled up on the tops of fence posts, piled up on the wires; it settled on roofs, blanketed the weeds and trees." The people starved themselves and their offspring due to selfish depredation of the soil. How we lost many birds and great fur-bearing animals through senseless killing and slaughter, and how through proper control, certain fur-bearing animals, such as seals, have added greatly to our country's income and economy. At one time America was the cornucopia, the horn of plenty. It was thought that its resources would never be depleted, but after much was lost, we discovered that this wasn't true. That our resources could and would be lost if not adequately protected and conserved. It is only just that the remaining areas of wilderness, and so forth should be fully protected. As reminders of our past, our heritage, they should be preserved. In this hectic age, one can find relaxation in the pure delights of nature, unspoiled by man. He may find lost spiritual values and pure beauty in the wilderness. To lose these wilderness areas gradually by the depredation of business would be a sin. For when a country loses the spirit of nature, it loses its soul. Without a soul a country has nothing. It decays and eventually dies out. It is not for man to wantonly destroy and selfishly upset the balance of nature, as he sees fit. For he is part of nature, another living thing, and in destroying nature he destroys himself. In order for man to survive and to live with a clear conscience, he must see to it that the life around him also survives. It is man's moral obligation to preserve these wilderness areas. After all, they are but a token of our land area. Many people feel that without the peace and solitude of nature, without its beauty, its wonders, and its awe-inspiring values, life would be a worthless vacuum. One would live his days as a mole, walking upon the earth, blinded by his own selfishness. It is our duty to future generations, to conserve these areas as they are and as they always have been. I would like to quote William Beebe as saying, "The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived, though its first material expression be destroyed; a vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer; but when the last individual of a race of living things breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before such a one can be again." I request that this letter be included in the record of the hearing on the wilderness bill. For although it is but the voice of one person, I firmly believe it is what we all believe, in the depth of our hearts. I thank you. Very truly yours, RAYMOND K. LONG, Jr. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, PHOENIX, ARIZ., February 17, 1961. U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I have noticed in the press that you and a group of other Senators have introduced S. 174, a wilderness bill, in the Senate and that the committee of which you are chairman will hold hearings on it the latter part of this month. I have read the bill. In addition, I have studied similar bills which have previously been introduced in both Houses of Congress, and attended a hearing here in Phoenix which was held a couple of years ago on this matter. My conclusion is, and has been, that this legislation would not be for the benefit of the country as a whole. All of my life, I have been devoted to the outdoors and have enjoyed many happy hours on a fishing stream. I have even, on a few occasions, ventured into areas which were inaccessible except by horseback or on foot. I am very well aware of the pleasures to be derived from these excursions. However, as I read your bill, it seems to me that these pleasures will be available only to those few persons who have the time, vigor, and resources to make trips other than by automobile or other similar transportation into the areas. While the express purpose seems to be to preserve vast areas of the public domain "for the use and enjoyment of the American people," I cannot conclude otherwise than that your bill would, in effect, make these areas inaccessible to all but a very small group of the American people. Personally, I favor a policy which looks toward the multiple use of our public domain. To me, it seems perfectly feasible that the forest lands, water, minerals, and other natural resources of our Nation can be developed and used for the general welfare and benefit of all the people, and at the same time the use of such land can be made available as recreational areas for all the people. Your bill would not accomplish this. I hope that you and the members of your committee will give most serious consideration to the use of the public domain, not only for the benefit of a few outdoor enthusiasts, but for the common good of all persons, by permitting the exploitation and development of natural resources side by side with the use of the public domain for recreational and other purposes. Very truly yours, ROBINETTE & LADENDORFF, By: G. H. LADENDORFF. AUDUBON NATURALIST SOCIETY Re S. 174, national wilderness preservation. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: As senior vice president for conservation of the the Audubon Naturalist Society, I wish to tell you that our members overwhelmingly endorse this bill. We also wish to express our admiration for the clear and cogent statement which you made in presenting the bill; as quoted in the Congressional Record for January 6, 1961. Your statement might well be a creed for all citizens seeking to preserve our natural resources and to promote our physical and spiritual well-being. You and your cosponsors are performing a great public service. NEILL PHILLIPS. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, February 17, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I am writing in opposition to S. 174 because I believe this bill provides for a system of "locking up" lands, resources, and opportunities in a way which will probably prove to be harmful to the develop ment and best interests of people in the Western States, and in the long run, to people throughout the country. It is my opinion that present laws provide for the administration of public lands for the benefit of all potential users. I see no cultural, economic, esthetic, political, or sociological advantage in limiting vast areas of public lands to a single purpose or use, particularly when the limitations likely to be associated with that designation can well result in actual deterioration of those lands as a result of lack of access, wildlife imbalance, flooding, fires, infection by pests, or other causes. I am associated with a company which has participated in the development of the uranium industry in Utah. From the standpoint of national defense, it would have been foolhardy to preclude the development of the Big Indian Mining District near Moab, Utah, yet this might be the typical kind of desolate, superficially nonproductive area which might be set aside and made unavailable or uneconomic for mineral prospecting. The construction of the Uranium Reduction Co. mill at Moab on lands which were in part owned by the Federal Government, might have been prevented by future developments under the proposed bill. To me, it is a thrilling sight to come upon this modern plant situated on the edge of the desert along the Colorado River at the foot of a long dry canyon on the outskirts of Moab. I see nothing incongruous or harmful to the basic scenic beauty of this region in the location of this mill. I recently had occasion to visit the Thiokol chemical plant north and west of Brigham City in an area which is remote, wild, sparsely inhabited, possibly unattractive to many people; nevertheless, here is a facility which is significant to Utah and to the whole country because of its importance to the missile program. To preclude or circumscribe developments of this kind by arbitrary one use designation is unsound legislation in my opinion. I believe in the principle of multiple use and development of public lands, and therefore urge your opposition to S. 174. Sincerely yours, JOHN W. Losse, Jr. INSPIRATION CONSOLIDATED COPPER Co., Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: It has been called to my attention that you and a group of other Senators have introduced S. 174, a wilderness bill, and that the Committee, of which you are chairman, will hold hearings on it the latter part of this month. Since I appeared at the public hearing on April 2, 1959, in Phoenix, Ariz., as a representative of this company and opposed to this legislation, I have been asked to again express our opposition. We believe that the mining companies in their search for new deposits of minerals or ores should have access to what remains of the public domain. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find new mineral deposits and we believe that this wilderness bill would be an added hazard. Mining companies do not destroy the wilderness, but leave it as they find it if there are no mineral deposits which can be developed. Wilderness areas are enjoyed by a very small portion of the public. Most of the people never venture far beyond the places they can reach with their cars. It would appear that there are sufficient wilderness areas in the national parks as they exist at present. Sincerely, E. F. REED, Chief Geologist. MOAB, UTAH, February 17, 1961. Re S. 174, wilderness bill. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR; I hope you will give serious consideration to rejection of this bill. The commercial demonstration of land value is being sacrificed for the benefit of one use-recreation. How can our Nation remain strong under such conditions? Almost anyone will acknowledge that the strength of our country basically depends on raw material development, so why hamper our future by withdrawal of more lands from further development? I think that the eager wilderness or wildlife people are proposing what will be a stranglehold on full land use and will retard our growth and reduce our strength. Please don't take time to answer this plea. Yours truly, PHILIP LINDSTROM. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. WYOMING STOCK GROWERS ASSOCIATION, MY DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: We are informed that there will be a hearing on the wilderness bill, S. 174, on February 27 and 28. The Wyoming Stock Growers Association has been on record as opposing any wilderness bill under such time as the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission is received, which we understand will be about February 1, 1962. Until such time as this report is received, we feel that no wilderness system legislation should be passed. Any consideration you can give our request will certainly be appreciated. ROBERT D. HANESWORTH, Secretary. PUBLISHERS' PAPER CO., Oregon City, Oreg., February 22, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: This letter is being forwarded to you as a statement on Senate bill 174 (a wilderness system bill). Publishers' Paper Co. manufactures some 145,000 tons annually of pulp and paper, the majority of this production being in sulfite newsprint paper. Approximately one-fourth of the timber supply of the company is obtained from U.S. Government lands. The company owns timberlands which will eventually be capable of sustaining the majority of the wood fiber needs of current mill production. We object to set-aside programs for the use of one specific group whether they be timber operators, recreationists, wilderness advocates, watershed promotors, grazing interests, game interests, or others; rather, we would advocate multiple use of Government lands to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. The legislation for a wilderness system advocates a single use of Government property without due consideration of maximum utilization of a natural resource of the country. Some years ago, the legislative bodies realized a need for wilderness, and, accordingly, authorized and established a Commission to review outdoor recreation with a request for a report of recommendation. To date, this report has not been received and yet legislation is being proposed without the benefit of such a review of the study by that Commission. It would appear that legislators should have the advantage of the study of this Commission. Currently, the Forest Service and the Park Service have some recreational facilities including wilderness areas in their programs and rather than set up additional agencies to handle the same program, the thoroughness of the programs of the agencies now set up should be evaluated before changes are made. We urgently request that a wilderness system not be enacted until the report of this Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission is completed and then only with due consideration for the multiple use of Government lands. Very truly yours, HENRY E. BALDRIDGE. THE EVANGELICAL UNITED BRETHREN CHURCH, SENATOR CLINTON P. ANDERSON, February 21, 1961. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: This letter is written to urge the passing of bill S. 174. Certainly we must be thinking about the preservation of wilderness areas unless we want to deprive our children and children's children of the wonders which it has been our privilege to enjoy. Therefore, I wish that this statement be made a part of the hearing record on the wilderness bill. Respectfully yours, HOWARD L. ORIANS. KENNECOTT COPPER CORP., Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. CHINO MINES DIVISION, Hurley, N. Mex., February 21, 1961. SIR: I understand that a public hearing will be held by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on the new proposed "wilderness legislation," as evidenced by S. 174. I am again writing to emphasize the need and desirability of such amendments to S. 174 that will prohibit freezing natural mineral reserves by the establishment of wilderness areas. Basically and fundamentally all public domain should be placed to the highest possible use, and minerals and nonmetallics necessary to our national welfare, economic progress, and the welfare of States and local communities should remain available. This, of course, calls for the application of the basic principles of multiple use. It is my contention that no area should be set aside as a wilderness area until it has been surveyed by interested Government agencies which would indicate that the area could be placed in no higher use than that of preservation for posterity. Machinery should be provided whereby areas once designated as wilderness areas could be, upon a proper showing by regular procedure, opened for such industry as would provide employment and taxes to both State and National levels. Furthermore, due to the inherent difficulty of establishing. the mineral value of our land resources in wilderness areas, prospecting, exploration, and mineral development activities (including gas and oil) should be excluded from the operation of the proposed law. In my opinion, the bill as introduced is not designated for the general welfare of the Nation, but is designed basically to meet the demands of a very small minority. I trust that you will be able to find your way clear to consider these proposals. Very truly yours, E. A. SLOVER, General Manager. Re S. 174, wilderness bill. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. CLEVELAND, OHIO, February 21, 1961. DEAR SENATOR: Good luck with this bill. I have a copy and have read it carefully. It may be a bit broader and contain fewer restrictions on the uses of wilderness areas than one could have hoped, but as you say, it is the culmination of your years of experience with previous bills; it is designed to meet the objections which caused those bills to die in committee and still attain the goal of a good wilderness bill, namely to preserve wilderness. So here's hoping. This is written both as a private citizen and as president of the local Izaak Walton League. I intend to inform other parties and outdoors groups in Cleveland of the merits of this bill. Congratulations on your excellent authorship and best wishes for the success of your efforts. Very truly yours, J. E. BUSH. |