NO HELP TO SPECIAL INTERESTS Legislation that might be proposed by any public-interest group or any of the "special interests" to which the American Forestry Association refers, if patterned after the wilderness bill, could hardly help any would-be exploiters "hew out their coveted portions of the public lands," as the forestry association seems to fear. Enactment of the wilderness bill will discourage rather than invite any such legislation. Nor is the National Wilderness Preservation Council to be established by the wilderness bill "a publicity group to propagandize the public at taxpayer expense." The best assurance as to this is a reading of the bill, of course. Briefly, however, it can be pointed out that the Council will comprise 5 bureau heads who will be administering different kinds of lands for various purposes but in such a way as to preserve their wilderness character and along with these land administrators will be the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and 3 citizens to be appointed by the President. The Council is to be a central repository of files, a nonexclusive clearinghouse for exchange of information, a maker and sponsor of surveys, and a central source of information. It provides a focus for the multiple kinds of interest that include wilderness. AN INSTRUMENT OF COOPERATION The American Forestry Association's letter should not be allowed to convey the impression that the wilderness bill has had a disruptive or divisive influence among conservation organizations. Quite the contrary, it has been the instrument of uniting them with regard to an aspect of conservation on which there had not previously been developed the unity of sentiment that there now is. In its February 1958 issue of American Forests, the American Forestry Association, through its editor, took credit because in opposing the wilderness bill it had, and I quote, "opposed every single other conservation organization in the country." Nor has there been violent controversy with other than conservation organizations, with trade associations, public agencies, or industries. On the contrary, the proponents of the wilderness bill have had-and have the good will of the representatives of these groups, and the criticisms received have been constructive for the most part, and helpful. These criticisms, as well as those earlier made by the American Forestry Association, have also been heeded by sponsors of the bill in its revision and clarification. While we can hardly hope to have complete agreement on such a program as this, it does seem that we have minimized controversy and have in the wilderness bill an instrument of cooperation. The United States Chamber of Commerce in a March attack on the wilderness bill included misunderstandings or misinterpretations similar to these present ones, and these were answered by Sigurd F. Olson, president of the National Parks Association, in a letter to Senator Hubert H. Humphrey which was published in the Congressional Record for April 3 on pages 5540 and 5541. Mr. Olson listed a dozen mistakes in the chamber of commerce attack and provided a dozen corrections. Because these are so pertinent in the present circumstances and because Mr. Olson's letter is so clear and forceful, I am enclosing a copy of it also. It seems to me that neither the United States Chamber of Commerce nor the American Forestry Association needs to go to these extremes to champion lumber or other economic interests in opposition to this proposed measure. We who are advocating it and have helped develop it are ourselves doing our best to see that it damages no other interests. There is indeed not a single area included in the proposed protection of this measure that is now available for logging. Commercial interests are not threatened by this legislation, but rather are respected in a program that seeks to preserve some 2.2 percent of our land in its natural condition as part of an overall policy that provides for our economic and other recreational needs, too. We should like to emphasize as strongly as we can that the wilderness bill is a measure designed to fit into our other national policies. A prime objective is compatibility. Sincerely yours, HOWARD ZAHNISER, Washington Representative. The chairman asked me this morning to include in the record statements which had arrived in today's mail, in addition to the statements that were listed this morning. So that the authors of some of these will be reassured that their statements have arrived and will be in the record, I will mention a few of them. They include: A letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States; a letter from the Conservation Forum of New York State; a statement of Daniel A. Poole, from the Wildlife Management Institute; a letter from Robert M. Paul, of the Sport Fishing Institute; a statement of Charles Stoddard, for the Citizens Natural Resources Association. Mr. Stoddard was on the list of witnesses but had to leave and left the statement with us. A letter from the Upper Colorado River Commission submitted by Ival V. Goslin, engineer-secretary, and transmitted to the committee by Senator Gordon Allott; a letter from Junian D. Conover, executive vice president of the American Mining Congress; a letter to Senator Murray from Lorin J. Broadbent, submitting resolutions of the governing bodies of several Indian tribes opposing or requesting amendment to the Indian provisions of the bill; a letter to Senator Jackson from the Chemithon Corp.; another letter to Senator Jackson from H. C. Bradley, president of the Sierra Club; a letter to Senator Jackson from the Washington Cattlemen's Association; and a considerable number of additional telegrams and brief messages addressed to Senator Murray or to the committee. (The above-mentioned communications appear in the appendix to the record, which begins on p. 152.) Mr. STONG. I believe that concludes the hearing, unless there is someone else who wants to be heard. If not, the committee will recess subject to the call of the chairman. (Whereupon, at 4: 20 p. m., the hearing was recessed subject to the call of the chairman.) 30973-58-11 APPENDIX (The chairman ordered the following communications and statements printed in the record :) THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: We are informed that there is to be a hearing before your committee on the wilderness preservation bill, S. 4028, on July 23, 1958. I am sure many of us who previously testified in favor of this legislation cannot be present for this hearing. However, I have recently been asked by many people in the West who are sincerely in favor of this bill what its status is at present. I believe I can speak for many proponents when I say that here we as a Nation can reveal a high-purpose motivation in the development of a worthy culture by enactment of such legislation, which, in its revised form to meet minor objections, is certainly harmless to commercial interests. Here is another opportunity for our Congress, and we surely hope that your committee can give this bill favorable action. Sincerely yours, OLAUS J. MURIE, Director. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK, Refer to S. 4028, the wilderness bill. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Surely we will receive the blessings of our posterity for the wisdom of setting aside forested lands in a wilderness condition as outlined in the above bill. I wholeheartedly support this measure and trust that it will speedily become the law of the land. Your interest in support of this measure is truly appreciated. ROBERT W. MCINTOSH, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Extension Specialist, Tourist and Resort Service. DENVER, COLO., July 20, 1958. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: On last Thursday, July 17, the Colorado Chamber of Commerce issued a wild blast against the passage of the "wilderness bill." Among the objections listed in news stories that the chamber declared were reasons for their opposition, were such absurd mistatements as these: Passage of the bill would be disadvantageous to industrialization of Western States. (May I ask if industrialization is all of the destiny of these Western States? Are there to be no sanctuaries of quietude in our mountains? Most emphatically, this shotgun statement does not indicate why this would result in the interference with industrialization. The bill as now worded does not.) 152 The program is "contrary-to multiple use." So is the inundation of great acreage by irrigation reservoirs. Or alloting area to highways, airfields, Boy Scout camps. This reveals perfectly the far reaching of the chamber to trump up objections. The chamber does not know what it's blowing off about. That same far reaching applies to their sudden and tearful outcry that the bill does not recognize rights of individual Indians. Finally, there is the contention that present operation is sufficient to protect wilderness values. May I suggest that the continued shrinkage of true wilderness areas is the best flat answer to that plea. I apologize for the demonstrated ignorance and onesided outlook of the State chamber of commerce. In taking the stand they have indicated clearly that it is the outcry of some special interests of some sort, who oppose the wilderness program. Let me say emphatically, that unless we have protection of the recreational values we have left in the West, with wilderness areas as the apex of returns to visitors in the way of re-creation of spirit and Americanism— unless we protect these values against exploitation we will scuttle our tourist business. And if you want the evaluation of this in Colorado, it stands next to agriculture in the underwriting of commerce here. Emphatically, there is need of wilderness areas for future America. Please don't give weight to such opposition as the Colorado Chamber of Commerce has trumped up. Very truly yours, ARTHUR H. CARHART. SHOSHONE AND ARAPAHOE TRIBES, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, WIND RIVER AGENCY, Fort Washakie, Wyo., July 2, 1958. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The attention of the Joint Business Council of the Shoshone and Arapahoe Tribes of the Wind River Reservation, Wyo., was called to bills pending to establish a national wilderness system. There now appears to be underway a serious move (1) to eliminate consent and substitute mere "consultation" by the Secretary of the Interior; (2) to name no specific wilderness areas to be included, but to leave it open to the Secretary of the Interior to pick out "any areas of tribal land on Indian reservations as the Secretary of the Interior may designate as appropriate for inclusion"; and (3) to hold out as bait to induce the tribe concerned to ask for "termination," that termination shall remove the lands from the wilderness system. The Shoshone and Arapahoe Tribes of the Wind River Indian Reservation of Wyoming protest to such provisions and wish to have your support in such a stand. Sincerely yours, LORAINE M. FAULKNER, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, FEDERATION OF WESTERN OUTDOOR CLUBS, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. I refer to the wilderness bill, S. 4028, recently introduced into Congress by Senator Neuberger. This bill marks the final step of 10 years of work in conservation work. Its impact upon generations to come cannot be too strongly realized, but I am sure that you and your committeemen have that foresight. As one who has walked and traveled in wilderness, desert, mountains, and portaged down rivers by canoe and other means, I am deeply concerned with the all-too-rapid disappearance of too much of what once was the natural scene in this our land. Now is the time to save some of it for future generations. I ask that you and your committee see that S. 4028 comes out on the passing end before Congress adjourns. Thank you in advance for your work in its behalf. LUELLA K. SAWYER, Editor. WALNUT CREEK, CALIF., July 2, 1958. Hon. JAMES MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Please take favorable action in your Interior Committee on the new wilderness bill. I want to be able to hike in wilderness areas 40 years from now, and so do and will a lot of other people. Yours, DAVID PRATT. SAN MATEO, CALIF., July 3, 1958. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MURRAY: I am writing to urge your committee to support the wilderness bill as most recently revised, S. 4028. I am sure you are personally aware of the implications of the bill and feel, with me and many others who have taken the pains to look into the future, that it is as vital to the well-being of Americans, especially those who will follow us, as housing facilities, food, schooling, and all the rest of the more obvious necessities. In my opinion the more subtle necessities such as wilderness preservation need what would at first appear undue consideration simply because their values are more subtle and tend incorrectly to be thought of as luxuries rather than necessities. It is also unnecessary, I am sure, to emphasize that those wildernesses which may be saved by the bill could not be recreated once lost. For these and many other reasons I wish to join the host of thinking and I hope unselfish persons who feel that the interests of the Nation as a whole, not the interests of 1 or 2 segments of the population, would best be served by passage of the bill and passage preferably before adjournment of the present Congress. Sincerely, JOSEPH G. HALL. DULUTH, MINN., July 22, 1958. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. CO.: Special committee recently appointed by Minnesota Arrowhead Association to study wilderness bill S. 4028 proposed by Senator H. H. Humphrey. Strongly suggest a hearing be held in this area to give those of our people for or against said bill an opportunity to be heard. Letter en route. MINNESOTA ARROWHEAD ASSOCIATION. MINNESOTA ARROWHEAD ASSOCIATION, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Relative to our recent telegram received by you, we should like to reiterate our request for a hearing to be held in this area on S. 4028. For your information, the Minnesota Arrowhead Association has been serving this area for more than 34 years. The MAA represents approximately 300 resorts, hotels, motels; 1,000 business members; 50 Arrowhead chambers of commerce and civic organizations; and an associate membership of more than 12,000 perOur newly appointed wilderness committee is greatly interested in finding further information through study and offering an opportunity to persons for or against this legislation to be heard. sons. |