Page images


South Salt Lake, Utah, February 21, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office

Building, Washington, D.O. DEAR SIR: We, as business people and as residents in an area affected by the provisions of S. 174, are deeply troubled over the restrictions its passage would impose.

While we agree with the basic idea of preserving the natural beauty of the West, we cannot in full accord, see wisdom in any move that would limit the viewing of this beauty to the intrepid few. It should ever be remembered that relatively few of our tourists, or for that matter our local people, have the facilities, the survival knowledge or the stamina required to explore areas remote from avenues of regular travel.

We believe that in the prudent application of a multiple-use policy the natural wonders of the West and the development of its resources can both be achieved.

All the wealth of the West has not yet been uncovered, nor can the extent of its treasure be yet determined. While we ponder this point, it would be well to note that had the provisions of S. 174 been in effect a few short years ago, there would be no Aneth oilfields or uranium mines in our own San Juan County. These fields and mines are vital to America's economy and security.

We earnestly request that you and your committee defer any positive recommendation on this legislation until the report of the President's National Recreation Resources Review Commission is available and that this letter be read into official record of the hearing on February 27–28, 1961. Yours truly,

S. A. ANDERSEN, Executive Seoretary.


Culdesac, Idaho, February 20, 1961. Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington,

D.C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : The Mining and Resources Association, Inc., propose the following request regarding the pending wilderness bill, S. 174, Senate hearing, February 27 and 28, 1961.

We feel that a reconnaissance geology survey should be made of all natural resources before entering into this proposed legislation.

With this thought in mind, our association directed a letter to Dr. E. F. Cook, director of the Idaho Bureau of Mines. The answer to our request is contained in the enclosed copy. Please note, Dr. Cook requests a sum of $15,000 to cover the costs of a survey and also believes that the survey could be expedited with very little lost time as he states, “qualified people are available.”

We have requested that the Idaho State Legislature grant $15,000 to make this study. Our request is now under consideration.

In view of the size of this proposed withdrawal, and the scant information regarding the mineral therein that has been submitted to your committee, we wholeheartedly support the opinion as expressed in Dr. Cook's letter.

We hereby respectfully request that the proposed Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area be postponed until a proper mineral survey can be conducted. Respectfully yours,


FEBRUARY 16, 1961. Mr. ERNEST BUTLER, President, Mining and Resources Association, Culdesac, Idaho

DEAR MR. BUTLER: It will not be possible for this Bureau to undertake a mineral resource investigation of the Selway-Bitterroot area within the next 2 years unless we get the funds to do so from some source other than our regular appropriation. The appropriation that we have requested for the 1961-63 biennium will be fully committed to existing projects.

On the other hand, a mineral resource survey of the Selway-Bitterroot area should be made before such investigation is rendered impossible by inclusion of

that area within a national wilderness system. A minimum survey to de-
termine the mineral resource potential of that area would take 4 months in the
field and 2 or 3 months of laboratory work; it would cost about $15,000. We
could do the job next summer if we had the money, by hiring qualified people
that I know would be available.
Sincerely yours,

E. F. COOK, Director.

MISSOULA, MONT., February 24, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.:

Our association supports S. 174, the wilderness bill, and urges your favorable consideration for its passage.

Don ALDRICH, President, Western Montana Fish & Game Association.

SALT LAKE CITY, February 22, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.O.:

At convention the 35 affiliated clubs of this federation voted unanimously to endorse the wilderness bill. Respectfully request you consider this when bill is up for hearing.

JACK ALLSHOUSE, President, Utah Wild Life Federation.


Phoenix, Ariz., February 14, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : It is my understanding that your committee will consider the revised wilderness bill on February 27 and 28. I have followed the progress of this bill through the past several years with considerable interest and lately with some despair since it has been so long delayed. During this period of time the bill has been amended time and time again to try to meet the objections of commercial users of public lands. I believe that many of these amendments should not have been made and that the bill has been emasculated. Nevertheless, it is still my hope that the Congress will pass the wilderness bill as amended and save a little of America for our children's children. Sincerely yours,


BOSTON, MASS., February 17, 1961. Senator ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I wish to urge sincerely the passage of the so-called wilderness bill for which I believe hearings are scheduled February 27 and 28.

I also wish to express to you my ope that mission 66 of the National Park Service will not be permitted to further damage even small segments of our national parks as seems likely from an article in the current Atlantic Monthly. Sincerely yours,




Edenton, N.C., February 20, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: I should like to go on record as representing the sentiments of the entire membership of the Edenton Chamber of Commerce as opposing any action on S. 174 until the President's National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has furnished your committee their report and recommendation.

The present agencies of Government now managing their appropriate areas of our public lands have well provided comprehensive protection of wilderness values and we feel these agencies should be entrusted to continue under their authorized laws and policies until the above-mentioned President's Review Commission recommends any change. We feel it would be a serious mistake to impose restricted-use management policies before a thorough investigation by qualified personnel. Respectfully yours,

BRUCE T. JONES, Jr., President.

DES MOINES, Iowa, February 23, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senate Building, Washington, D.C.:

American Camping Association representing thousands of youth leaders and millions of campers strongly endorses the wilderness bill (S. 174).

We urge that the remaining wilderness in America be protected and preserve as an invaluable part of the American heritage which should be enjoyed by present and future generations. If we do not now protect this unique natural resource it will be lost. Once lost it cannot be restored. Favorable action on this bill is of vital importance to us and to those we represent. May we respectfully refer you to the letter of February 19, 1961, from Reynold E. Carlson, director of conservation in camping project, American Camping Association, and request this be made a part of the hearing.

STANLEY J. MICHAELS, President, American Camping Association.


Seattle, Wash., February 17, 1961. CHAIRMAN, Senate Interior Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: In response to notification that your committee will hold hearings on S. 174 on February 27 and 28, 1961, we wish to have our position in opposition to enactment of this legislation placed in the record.

We oppose S. 174 in the belief that wilderness system legislation should not be considered until Congress and the people have received and studied the findings and recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.

We believe the authors and supporters of S. 174 sincerely want to include in a permanent wilderness system only those areas which can be classified as primarily suitable to that purpose.

To do otherwise would impair the full and rightful development of natural resources in the spirit of "greatest good for the greatest number."

Until we know the facts about recreation needs of all kinds in this country, an assignment the Rockefeller Commission was set up to serve, we will not be in a position to factually appraise wilderness needs.

This report will be available shortly. No proposed wilderness areas are in danger of being altered, invaded, or damaged in this period. Delay for the good reason of learning all the facts will not be unfair to any group. Sincerely,

DAVE JAMES, Director of Public Relations.


Ann Arbor, Mich., February 20, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, The Capitol, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : It is not going to be possible for me to come to Washington about the hearing of your bill 174, commonly called the wilderness bill. I am terribly sorry for I would truly like to be there.

Please make it a matter of the record of the hearing, if you can, that I am one of

ardent supporters. Being a founder in our State of the natural areas movement, now progressing very rapidly, I feel all of our country should be likewise making such progress on a broad front. Wishing you the best of success, I am Sincerely,

Miss E. GENEVIEVE GILLETTE, President, Michigan Parks Association, Natural Areas Council.


Ely, Minn., February 13, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : Thank you for the copies of Senate bill S. 147 received last week. We are happy to note that some of the objectionable features of previous bills have been excluded. Your bill recognizes the need for full utilization of such a large recreational area as the Superior National Forest canoe country area.

Our main objection to prior bills was to the "nonutilization" restrictions, whereby all private property owners were to be forced out of the wilderness area, and only canoeists were to be permitted access to and usage of the area. Since this group represents less than 1 percent of the touring public, we felt it was discriminatory and, quite possibly, unconstitutional.

While endorsing your bill as one much more acceptable than previous bills, we wish to point out two especially objectionable features, one by inclusion in S. 174 and one by exclusion therefrom.

We object to section 3(f), wbich provides that changes to the law can be made by the failure of Congress to take action in opposition to proposed changes in the law. I am sure you are well aware of the difficulties involved in getting both Houses of Congress to concurrently resolve to oppose any legislation. This proviso, incidentally, could be as detrimental to the interests of the proponents of a wilderness area as to those interests of its opponents.

We believe that Congress should not permit itself to be a party to the practice of enacting legislation by failure to take positive action. This certainly would not be in accord with the democratic processes established by our Constitution. By permitting proposals made by the executive branch to become law through failure by Congress to oppose such proposals, Congress would be permitting the executive branch of our Government to usurp the powers, duties, and rights of the legislative branch.

Enactment of legislation by omission of action is not only an evasion of a Congressman's responsibilities but a denial of his privilege to be heard and to vote on all legislation.

The second objection is to section 4, which does not specify how the properties may be acquired. We do not object to acquisition by gift or negotiation, provided no undue pressure is applied against the property owner. We do feel, bowever, that the bill should specifically exclude acquisition by condemnation. We ask that section 4 be so amended as to specifically state that no properties shall be acquired by condemnation.

We further request that section 6(c)(5) by specific reference also exclude the use of any part of any appropriation, either authorized or proposed, for acquisition by condemnation of any property within the present or future boundaries of the boundary waters canoe area.

While we are in accord with the provisions of section 6(c)(4) we would prefer that the wording be changed from “may be performed” to “shall be permitted to be performed" or "shall be authorized and permitted.” May I ask whether we are correct in interpreting this section to mean that such facilities and services shall be maintained and performed within the boundary waters canoe

area as are necessary to properly house and service those who seek recreation within the boundaries of this area ? If so, does this refer to privately owned facilities?

May we suggest that section 3(b) (1) include a statement as to what constitutes the four classifications, i.e., wilderness, wild, primitive, and canoe, in addition to what intended uses are to be made of each area?

Section 3(e) should be clarified as to what shall be considered "sufficient demand" for a hearing, or that particular clause be eliminated completely. We also feel that, in addition to the required public notice, the local governing body also should be given 90-day notification, in writing,

In closing, I would like to emphasize again that we are in favor of a wilderness area, but not if its use is to be restricted to a favored few. We are appreciative of your recognition, in bill S. 174, of the need for and advisability of multiple-use of the boundary waters canoe area. Composed of some 142 million acres, this area is large enough for both groups, a fact seemingly ignored in the past by proponents of a wilderness area. Portions of our area are especially suited to canoeing; about half of it is not. Because of these facts, we always have been and always will be opposed to blanket legislation which will not provide for specific and practical utilization. Sincerely yours,



Exeter, N.H., February 16, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : At the meeting this February of the council and board of directors of the American Alpine Club, the wilderness bill, S. 174, was discussed ; and I was asked to convey to you the strong approval of the American Alpine Club for this bill, because of the protection it will give to mountain areas and the approaches thereof. The members of the American Alpine Club, a national organization, are concerned about the climbing areas of the future. S. 174 especially appeals to us because it makes provision for the very high mountain country and its approaches, areas with which we are deeply concerned. Respectfully,

ROBERT H. BATES, President.

PORTLAND, OREG., February 1961. Hon. MAURINE B. NEUBERGER, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: I am writing this from the position of a conservationist in the extreme. I take this position deliberately because I do not think that questions of the pros and cons of the establishment of wilderness areas can be approached or solved by logical or bargaining means. Wilderness is an emotional experience. Its truth consists of the sense of awe and peace associated with being in an area of this earth's crust totally uninfluenced by man's bungling efforts to "improve" things.

I think it is time that some courageous but unpopular people begin screaming loudly and long for the establishment of natural sanctuaries from which man's quest for gold is completely excluded and in which man can mingle with nature only in the most primitive ways possible, that is on his own two feet and taking with him for his use only that which he can carry on his back,

From this position I have reviewed the Wilderness Act (S. 174), which on the whole is an excellent start in the right direction. I find, however, there are several inclusions and some omissions which to me are essential. The statement of policy, section 2(a), is an excellent statement, but the remainder of the act is not completely consistent with the statement. The policy says, for example, that certain areas of our land shall be under protection for the "preservation of their wilderness character.” The very next paragraph, section 2(b), reads in part "* * * (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of man's works substantially unnoticeable.” [Italic is mine.] This is too loose. This means meddling can take place just

« PreviousContinue »