CROCKER, BURBANK & Co., ASSOCIATION, Hon. GRACIE PFOST, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PFOST: I have been hearing and reading a great deal about the wilderness bill (S. 174), as I am on NAM's Committee on Conservation. The intent is very good. However, the bill is too vague and because of that it could be a menace. I hope you kill it or send it back for revision. ALVAH CROCKER, President. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I am writing you to urge you to further in every way possible to you the successful passage through the House, Senate bill 704. I am now in my 80's, born in Seattle in 1877, and have lived most of my life in the West and have stood by witnessing the reckless plundering of the natural resources of our northwest lands-slashing the timber, denuding the watersheds, with the consequent erosion and waste, polluting the streams, and generally destroying the balances that old Mother Nature has established throughout the eons of unrecorded time, and not for purposes of procuring food and shelter under pioneer conditions but for progress, for profit, development, etc., which over the years has grown without bounds until it now threatens our system of free enterprise, and now threatens us with free exploitation instead. If our people cannot be educated to appreciate our natural endowments, as seems to be the case, there should be restrictions and supervision by Government authority to preserve what remains of our untouched areas for the benefit of all our people. My age only prevents me from attending your regional meeting, but I request that my plea for the passage of the bill for the setting up of a wilderness preservation system be included as part of the records of the hearing November 6. Sincerely, MARY E. CRONEN. CUSTER COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Representative GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. PFOST: I would like to take this means of registering my opposition to the wilderness bill (S. 174) both as an individual and as the manager and spokesman for the local chamber of commerce. The prime reason for our opposition to the bill is the removal of the control of these areas from congressional control to the control of the executive branch. Furthermore, the forests are being well managed under the Forest Service at the present time and I can see no reason whatsoever in setting aside these wilderness areas: they are a menace to us economically and a fire hazard to the rest of the forests. Therefore, the Custer County Chamber of Commerce along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce most definitely opposes this bill. Regards, R. E. JOHNSON, Manager. STATEMENT CONCERNING SENATE WILDERNESS ACT (S. 174) We realize that the pressures of modern life have a great impact upon the geography of our land. We are living at a greatly accelerated pace. These forces must be counterbalanced now by stabilizing forces of an opposite character if we are to preserve our heritage for posterity. I am asking your support for the Senate Wilderness Act (S. 174) in order that future generations may reap the benefits provided only by the solitude of areas in our land preserved in accordance with nature's laws. SACRAMENTO, CALIF., October 27, 1961. ELMER A. DANIELS. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, NORTH SACRAMENTO, CALIF., November 7, 1961. Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. PFOST: Having been a most interested listener all during the wilderness bill hearing here in Sacramento yesterday, I wish to add my name to the number of those testifying in favor. As a member of the National Parks Association, the Wilderness Society, and of Audubon, also the local Save the American River Association, and also as one whose deepest concern and interest is for and in nature and the preservation of all wilderness areas, not only for myself but for my eight grandchildren and their children to come, and for all those who need the inspiration and healing that only wilderness can bring. I earnestly plead for the passage of this bill (S. 174). Since before this was passed by the Senate it was modified, it is to be hoped that rather than further weakening, it can be strengthened, or at least kept as is. It was a real privilege to meet you yesterday and to observe your most intelligent, diplomatic, and gracious presiding over the hearing. Most sincerely, Representative GRACIE PFOST, VEDA FERO DAYTON SAN DIEGO, CALIF., October 29, 1961. DEAR MRS. PrOST: Please add this letter as testimony in the current series of hearings by your Subcommittee on Public Lands on the wilderness bill (S. 174). As a leader of teenage members of an Explorer Post which specializes in a program of mountaineering, and as a personal enthusiast for the outdoors, I find each year that the available areas for outdoor recreation are dwindling in size and what is left is becoming more and more commercialized. For America to continue being strong, we must build up the spiritual values and physical fitness of our youth. The wilderness areas provide one of the best training and proving grounds for men today. We must preserve adequate space for today's, tomorrow's, and the following generations to build, grow, and prove themselves. I urge you and your committee to report the bill promptly and favorably to the forthcoming session of Congress. I urge you to vote in favor of this bill and to urge your associates to vote likewise. Sincerely yours, DON M. DECK. DINUBA, CALIF., November 15, 1961. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY HONORABLE MRS. PFOST: For the official field hearing record on S. 174 I would like to voice my disapproval of this legislation. Please do not let this bill pass. It is not in the best interests of us taxpayers and voters. Sincerely yours, BERT H. DENNIS. THE DESERT PROTECTIVE COUNCIL, INC., COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, GENTLEMEN: In connection with the field hearings on the wilderness bill by your committee in the West during the next 2 weeks this organization wishes to express its strong support of the bill. We are trying to find a representative to emphasize this support by attending and testifying at the November 6 hearing in Sacramento. Whether or not we send this representative, we request that this letter be made a part of the hearings records. We feel that passage of the wilderness bill is needed as the most outstanding contribution to the cause of conservation in a decade-in fact, in a generation. In it the present generation is proud to forgo a certain amount of economic value for the sake of saving for future generations the recreational, educational, scientific, esthetic and spiritual values that only wilderness can provide. At the same time those economic values will always be available for future national needs. After many years of careful consideration and innumerable modifications to meet the needs of many conflicting interests we feel that the bill S. 174 as passed by the Senate should be approved by your committee and the House in substantially its present form. Selfish mining, grazing, and lumbering interests must not be allowed to misrepresent and secure crippling changes in the bill during its consideration by the House. We urge that your committee favorably report the wilderness bill out of committee at an early date. Respectfully, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, ROBERT G. BEAR, Acting Executive Director. DESOMOUNT CLUB, Los Angeles, Calif., October 23, 1961. Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Lion's Park, Montrose, Colo. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ASPINALL: Desomount Club members stand stanchly behind you in your support of the wilderness bill. Our wilderness must have the protection this bill affords so that only by an act of Congress can its boundaries be changed. It must never again be allowed to be used as a political plum as it has in the past. Our exploding population needs all areas we have left. It is a good bill. It must be enacted as is. Further amendments would only weaken it and delay action. Delay would be fatal. Respectfully yours, P.S.-Please enter this letter in the record. Mrs. EVELYN GAYMAN, Conservation Representative. Subject: Hearings on wilderness bill. PITTSBURGH, PA., November 3, 1961. Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR CONGRESSWOMAN: In connection with the wilderness bill S. 174, I would like to express my opinion that regardless of the apparent objective of the bill to conserve our natural resources, I am opposed to this bill in its present form. This opposition results from my understanding that it presently delegates traditional power of Congress to the executive branch in disposition of Federal territory. It has been reported that many letters in favor of the present wilderness bill have been received, which, of course, makes one curious as to whether or not the supporters of the objectives of a bill understand that its method further changes constitutional checks and balances from Congress to the executive branch. It is possible that the citizen supporters do not understand this feature and, of course, it is possible that my understanding is incorrect. I am sure that it is of deep interest to you as chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands as to the reaction of individuals not only to the purpose of the bill, but its apparent method of accomplishing this purpose. Yours very truly, Representative GRACIE PFOST, R. H. DEVINE. SAN JOSE, CALIF., October 31, 1961. Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Nampa, Idaho. DEAR MRS. ProST: We hope to attend the November 6 meeting in Sacramento on the wilderness bill. However, if we are unable to attend, we wish the committee to be informed that we urge passage of the bill by the next session of Congress. DEAR MADAM: I wish to state my opposition to S. 174 and would like my letter included in the record. My opposition is based upon the fact that the bill would outlaw roadbuilding and use of automobiles thereby keeping my family and others from enjoying the use of these lands, allowing only a favored few the pleasures of these areas. As my entire family is enthusiastic with all phases of the outdoors such as hunting, fishing, camping and I also earn a living and support of my family from the forest industry of Oregon, I am most concerned about this wilderness bill. I am also concerned about the power of the executive department to declare large areas as wilderness without the need for public hearings and congressional approval. Sincerely, PAUL R. DOE. Representative GRACIE PFOST, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF., November 7, 1961. Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, DEAR MADAM: As a graduate forester concerned with the management of forest and other wild lands, I wish to voice my resolute opposition to S. 174, the wilderness bill now under consideration by your committee. This legislation is positively not in the best interests of the people of this country in many respects. Such a waste of vitally needed natural resources is in absolute conflict with true conservation. I ask you to oppose passage of this illogical legislation which is advocated by selfish pressure groups. Very truly yours, MAX H. DONER. Subject: Wilderness bill S. 174. Representative GRACIE PFOST, GAMBLE BROS., INC., Louisville, Ky., November 10, 1961. Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PFOST: I, like so many others in the forest products industries am greatly concerned with the present trend of establishing wilderness areas. Public lands should be used and held for the benefit of the entire citizenry of our country. To accomplish this means that wild lands, especially those producing timber, should serve a multiple purpose in that they provide for the continuing supply of timber resources so essential to our country, prevent soil erosion, provide cover for wildlife, and provide recreational areas for the people. Timber is a living resource. Timber is a crop, and like any other crop should be harvested for the benefit of the people when it is ripe. To take public lands and leave them as wild lands in inaccessible areas is one thing, but to take public lands where they are in accessible areas and classify them as wild lands, or wilderness areas, is, in my opinion, absolute misuse of public domain. Wilderness areas created for the benefit of a very, very small minority of the population is inexcusable. Enlightened industry, in cooperation with State and Federal agencies, has made remarkable progress in improving the timber resources of our country, and has developed them to a point where it can now be said that, as a country, we are on a sustained yield basis, with growth and drain in balance. This, in itself, is a tremendous accomplishment within our generation. Continued transfer of lands from the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service for the creation of wilderness areas for selfish interests is not for the good of this country. I have been active in State forestry affairs for many years. I have served on advisory committees of the Central and Lake States regions of the U.S. Forest Service; I am a member of the National Forestry Research Advisory Committee, and I have recently been appointed by President Kennedy to the National Agricultural Advisory Commission. I urge you, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands, not to be influenced by emotionalism on the part of garden clubs and professional conservationists by recognizing that true conservation is only achieved through proper utilization, and that these public lands belong under the domain of the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service, where true multiple use, including recreation for the benefit of the people, can be best achieved. Very sincerely yours, C. D. DOSKER, President. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, GENTLEMEN: The U.S. Forest Service says, "Wilderness is irreplaceable and must not all be lost. Inherent in its primeval character are recreational, scientific, educational, and historical values of great benefit to the Nation and its people." The wilderness bill, S. 174, now before your committee, has been so revised and amended that it is a minimum bill if succeeding generations are to have the experience of being in primitive areas where flora, fauna, and scenic beauty are entirely natural and unmodified by man and which are removed from the pressures of great throngs of people seeking merely outdoor recreation. The chief opponents are, of course, commercial individuals and groups for whom multiple use has become a convenient slogan. If Crater Lake were now being proposed as a national park or wilderness area these groups would again oppose it under the multiple-use theory. I urge you to support S. 174 and report it favorably to the House. ELIZABETH C. DUCEY. Ross, CALIF., November 6, 1961. Hon. GRACIE PFOST Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MADAM: We earnestly urge your committee to favorably report the wilderness bill (S. 174) in the form recently passed by the Senate. The pressure of population will soon destroy these precious areas unless you act effectively now. Future generations of this land cannot afford such a loss. Please pass the wilderness bill. Please include this in the record. Yours sincerely, BERTRAM K. DUNGHEE. |