« PreviousContinue »
so it's not apparent. This means mines can operate just so the public can't see them.
I further quarrel with several of the “special provisions" contained in section 6(c). Paragraph I says in part, "In addition such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases subject to such conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable.” This means that man may meddle with fire, insects, and disease, which, if done, would unquestionably disturb the balance of nature. Again, a pure wilderness is not guaranteed. The next paragraph (2) allows for prospecting, mining, establishment of reservoirs and other water conservation works, construction of roads and maintenance necessary to them, and grazing of livestock. Does this sound like wilderness? Section 6, paragraph 4, authorizes "commercial services" within the wilderness system.
These special provisions are no guarantee whatsover that a strictly wilderness type reserve will be maintained. The Secretary of Agriculture will continue to be subject to the pressures of special commercial interest groups in the name of "interests of the people.” In my opinion this bill does not effectively and truly preserve any area within the United States as a pure wilderness so long as it provides for discretion on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture or the President of the United States, both of whom are only human. I think this country needs regions set aside in this untouched category.
Both the Park Service and the Forest Service have done marvelous jobs with the financing made available to them in the opening of large regions of our country to outdoor living, but the present and proposed legal structure and administrative organization of these departments still leaves open the possibility that what are intended to be preserved now as natural areas can be opened to commercial activities if the pressure gets great enough, particularly for mining. It is with this in mind that I would strongly urge that efforts be made to delete from the national wilderness bill the following:
1. Section 2b, item (1), beginning with "* * * generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.''
2. The paragraph under "Special provisions” mentioned above; namely,
section 6c, paragraphs (1), (2), (4). I further recommend that a provision be added superseding all previous mining laws with the effect of excluding all prospecting and mining within these designated areas. Lastly, there should be a provision for the purchase of any existing mining claims either by the Federal Government or by private contributions and gifts to the wilderness system. Very sincerely yours,
DONALD MCKINLEY, M.D.
CALIFORNIA WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION,
San Francisco, February 15, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : Our association desires to register our strong opposition to the wilderness system bill (S. 174), hearings for which are set for February 27–28, 1961.
Our association at its 100th annual convention held in San Francisco, August 11-12, 1960, passed the following resolution:
“Resolved. There is already sufficient wilderness legislation, therefore no new legislation is necessary, or would be in order. If Congress does pass any such legislation it must contain the safeguards in the O'Mahoney-Allott substitute bill." The objectionable features of S. 174 among others are:
The need for such legislation has not been shown.
Any action should await the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, due about February 1, 1962.
A huge wilderness system is contemplated—taking lands from several Federal agencies.
National forest multiple-use policy is doing a good job rights and use of all considered.
Our association will be further represented at the hearing by the National Wool Growers Association of which we are members. Best wishes. Sincerely,
W. P. WING, Secretary.
NATIONAL TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
Urbana, Iowa, February 6, 1961. Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C.
Mr. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: We have carefully studied S. 174, a bill to establish a national wilderness preservation system for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes.
In my capacity as conservation director of the National Trappers Association, I have received many letters from trappers in all parts of our land relating experiences similar to my own.
Here in the Midwest, I have seen bulldozers and chain saws at work clearing thousands of acres for the purpose of growing more farm surpluses. In a very short period the land will not produce crops because the topsoil has eroded and then it will not produce trees. As a result of this, the land will not support wildlife. It will not retain moisture, thus the streams are filled with silt and have less water except in floods that would not be as severe if the land had been left natural.
We as humans consider ourselves as having superior intelligence to all other mammals yet, not even all wild animals combined would do such damage to the very land on which they are dependent for survival. Our mental institutions are full because of civilization and too little recreation. Some will say that this is exaggeration but it is a fact that many people are afraid to admit publicly.
S. 174 appears to take care of previous objections to such a system and we therefore urge that it be given high priority and favorable consideration. Thank you,
ALFRED L. COOK, Conservation Director.
SANDIA MOUNTAIN CHAPTER,
Albuquerque, N. Mex., February 24, 1961.
In regards to Wilderness Act, S. 174, introduced by yourself, I wish to submit the following statement to be included in the record of testimony.
In the present age of nuclear power and space exploration we should digress and consider also what we can do to sustain the natural resources which we inherited from our predecessors. These heritages cannot be replaced once debased and abused by the inadequate protection the laws provide at the present time.
I am sure with the legislative action which S. 174 provides we will be able to keep safe the vast areas which nature provided.
We the members of the Sandia Mountain Chapter, Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., do fully endorse S. 174, as a worthwhile and outstanding piece of legislation.
We will do all in our power to maintain and enrich the areas so declared in our vast Southwest territory. Sincerely yours,
MATHIAS J. MADLENER, Jr., President.
ALASKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY,
College, Alaska, February 18, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : The Alaska Conservation Society wishes to give its complete support to the wilderness bill (S. 174). We hope that the measure will be given immediate and favorable consideration.
In Alaska, where much of the land is under control of various Federal agencies and where large areas are still in their wilderness state, it is especially important that some system be initiated immediately to guarantee that some of these areas will remain as wilderness in the future. We feel that the wilderness bill will adequately serve this purpose. Sincerely yours,
LESLIE A. VIERECK, President.
TUCSON, ARIZ., February 19, 1961. Re wilderness bill, S. 174. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: So that all of the American people may continue to enjoy national economic growth and a secure position of national strength, both based to a significant extent on a strong domestic mineral position, subject bill must be rejected as impractical.
The ståted objectives of this bill are almost exactly the same as that of our national park system. These can and should be accomplished within the framework of that system, leaving the Congress, the most direct voice of the people, in control of expansion or adjustments of the national park system. The Congress should not grant a "blank check” against our public lands to an army of public servants. Devoted as this army may be to their tasks, it cannot sense the interests of all the people as can the Congress.
Our domestic strength on the mineral raw material front is largely based on the right to freely prospect the public lands. Mineral reserves are being increased annually by multimillions of dollars. Modern prospecting involves large exploration staffs competing in the highly confidential game of new geologic concepts. Provisions in the wilderness bill to allow the prospector to request opening of withdrawn lands to prospecting are highly impractical. The process would undoubtedly involve revealing of areas of interest on the part of the prospector or exploration organization, and thus the process would simply kill exploration incentive within the withdrawn areas. In effect then, potential mineral hunting ground is withdrawn forever. Experience has shown, incidentally, that it is dangerous for any geologist to attempt to define what is mineral hunting ground. Geologic concepts and the geologic exploration art (a specialty) are changing too fast to allow such definition on an intelligent basis. Very truly yours,
THOMAS W. MITCHAM. NEW PARK MINING Co.,
Keetley, Utah, February 20, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: We are of the firm conviction that the S. 174 wilderness bill, if passed in the Congress, would certainly hamper and prevent economic growth in the West.
We strongly support full and multiuse of public lands for maximum development of the resources and recreational facilities of such lands. However, we continue to oppose the granting of broad powers as proposed in the S. 174 bill to establish another system to appropriate extensive areas of public lands for single purpose use. It is quite apparent that there now exists ade quate powers in the present Government agencies to administer public lands for all use, including recreation.
The natural resources of the West and the Nation are our only true source of new wealth, and as population increases demand for resources increase. The East certainly has a stake in the resources of the West as a source of raw materials and an outlet for its factory products, such as operating machinery and equipment used in development and conservation of these resources.
The political atmosphere in foreign countries today demonstrates the near end of cheap exploitation of the foreigners' natural resources. Now is the time to fully develop and protect, through means of use and conservation, our own resources and not let these vast acreages go to waste as a playground of so-called recreation,
Trusting in your honorable western American heritage, experience, and judgment not to add any additional acreage to the some 14 million acres of national forest land now in such wilderness type areas. Very truly yours,
GALE A. HANSEN, General Superintendent, Mines.
MILWAUKEE, WIS. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : Thank you for the wilderness bill, S. 174. It is so much later than we think. I am convinced we "fiddle while Rome burns.” We are destroying everything just as fast as we can in America for the dollar sign. Even the health of our people is being destroyed with food additives and poison sprays. Our national parks are gradually being eaten away by hotels, parking stations, trailer camps, concessions, and even boating. I think Russia grows strong while we grow weaker.
May your bill save some of America for those millions that come after us. We are even destroying our wildlife with poison sprays while crop surpluses grow. It doesn't make sense to most of us. Does it to you? We can save America only by saving her natural resources from which our great wealth came and by keeping our citizens strong, healthy, and willing to work. Thank you for your courage and I mean to help the bill along all I can. Sincerely,
DIXIE LARKINS, a Conservationist.
CULDESAC, IDAHO, February 20, 1961. Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : In considering your position as sponsor of wilderness bill, S. 174, I must take the posision of opposing this bill for numerous reasons.
I am familiar with many of the areas which would be affected, much of these areas contain valuable natural resources, which if tied up with a bill of this type, I believe some day it would become a national threat to our economy. I would choose the multiple use concept, rather than tie up forever many millions of acres for single purpose use.
I firmly believe that the natural resources could be harvested and still leave room for the recreationist and enthusiasts to enjoy the same area. Therefore, I feel it is very urgent and necessary to have a thorough examination and reconnaissance geological survey made to determine the possibilities for mining lumbering, grazing, and other natural resources, before it is set aside for wilderness. Studies should be made by State and local groups, both public and private.
Idaho would be economically ruined if this bill goes through. Our State is small and sparsely populated with over half of the land in public domain. There is a great need to use and develop all of our natural resources in the United States, including Idaho, to sustain us economically. The Federal lands can produce vast quantities of needed basic materials for industry.
Cutting ripe timber would encourage now growth, thereby keeping our forests in a productive capacity for future perpetual use. This conservation practice to control timber cutting has improved the forests, reduced disease, insects, and fire hazards, and benefitted recreation.
This act would tie up vast areas of mineral land which is one of Idaho's chief sources of revenue. We should not have to depend on foreign imports for basic materials for industry and defense production.
Grazing would be eliminated; we need food and fiber for the expanding population. This would also be another loss of revenue to our government-local, State, and Federal.
Recreation would be limited to only a few. The areas now accessible would be closed. People financially and physically unable would never have the chance to enjoy the wilderness.
Because we have a great need for a source of raw material, I object to the undefined limits of withdrawal for areas to be added to the wilderness.
There will be no exploitation in forest areas as long as the present successful administration continues. There should be no changes in the multiple-use practice now being managed because it meets all of the demands of our changing times. Sincerely,
GREAT FALLS, MONT., February 19, 1961.. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Office Building Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I wish to register my approval of S. 174, the bill to establish a national wilderness system, and urge that the measure be given prompt and favorable consideration by the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.
You and the cosponsors of S. 174 deserve much praise and commendation. As we in Montana watch the special interests grasping at the wilderness areas and shutting the public out, we understand the urgency of your action, now. Yours very truly,
A. J. (JACK) RICHARDSON.
STATE OF UTAH,
Salt Lake City, February 19, 1961. Mr. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: The Associated Civic Clubs of southern and eastern Utah, representing 18 counties have read S. 174, now in the 87th Congress, which would establish a national wilderness preservation system and we wish to go on record as being strongly against the bill.
Our economy in southern Utah is at a low ebb due to several factors, and during the past decade most of the 18 counties in our club have lost population. We depend to quite a large extent on the Federal lands to help support our economy. If the full multiple use of our forests and public lands is removed it will undoubtedly result in more requests for Federal help. If we may keep the multiple use of our public lands, our grazing, mine development, lumber, and other uses, coupled with the self-reliance and determination of our people, will go a long way in keeping our freedom and making our people self-supporting. Yours truly,
JAMES N. STACEY,
State Senator, District 17, Utah.
CHACO CANYON NATIONAL MONUMENT,
Bloomfield, N. Mex., February 12, 1961. DEAR SIR: Want to express my interest and recommendation for approval of the wilderness bill now under consideration.
Why sympathize with individuals interested in personal gain rather than in the future citizens of our country? As we understand it, lands in question are