The Wilderness Preservation Act, whose sole purpose is, as the bill states, to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness, has widespread nonpartisan support in the Congress. The bill states that "the Congress recognizes that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and mechanization, is destined to occupy and modify all areas within the United States, its Territories, and possessions, except those that are designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition. * * * The preservation of such designated areas of wilderness is recognized as a desirable policy of the Government of the United States of America for health, welfare, knowledge and happiness of its citizens of present and future generations, particularly for those uses of such areas that facilitate recreation and the preservation or restoration of health.”

Many organizations-National, regional, State, and local-support the Humphrey wilderness bill. These include such organizations as the National Wildlife Federation, Citizens' Committee on Natural Resources, National Parks Association, National Council of State Garden Clubs, the Wildlife Management Institute, Federation of Western Garden Clubs, American Nature Association, the Izaak Walton League of America, National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, Defenders of the Fur Bearers, the American White Water Affiliation, American Society of Mammalogists, Garden Club of America, the Wilderness Society, the Council of Conservationists, American Planning and Civic Association, Trustees for Conservation, the Minnesota Conservation Federation, the United Northern Sportsmen, Friends of the Wilderness, and many others too numerous to mention.

In closing, may we say that the few wilderness areas that are left are a monument to what our country was and are almost beyond evaluation to the future of our expanding civilization. Can we not show some responsibility to our decendants and preserve some regions such as these where the unique healing experience of a completely unspoiled wilderness may be felt? It is tremendously important that we act now if the small portions of wilderness that are left be preserved for the enjoyment and education of the youth of tomorrow.

Mr. BEN STONG,

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION,

Takoma Park, Washington, D. C., August 5, 1958.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR BEN: Enclosed is the wilderness article from the Conservation News that I would like to have included in the record following my brief statement on S. 4028.

I hope this is not too late for placement in the record.

Sincerely,

STEWART M. BRANDBORG, Assistant Conservation Director.

[Conservation News, December 1, 1957]

OIL VERSUS WILDLIFE-KENAI IS THE TEST

In the free and easy days of the McKay administration in the Department of Interior, when a so-called stop order was winked at and oil leases handed out by the dozens to what appeared to be favored clients, we warned of the dangers involved in letting down the bars on wildlife refuges. An oil well could be drilled here and there, it was argued, and, if the operators were cooperative and careful to avoid blowouts and pollution, little or no damage to wildlife would result. But it was apparent to us, as it should have been to the Secretary, that if a little invasion were permitted the pressures for additional development might well pile up and become overwhelming.

Mr. McKay contended that because the law permitted him to issue leases on public lands he was duty bound to do so on wildlife areas as elsewhere. The fallacy of this argument was obvious. (See Conservation News for March 1, 1956, The Secretary Could Have Said "No.")

When Fred A. Seaton succeeded to the Interior helm, it quickly became apparent he could and would say "No" when necessary to protect wildlife resources. As evidence of his good faith and his determination to protect the dedicated wildlife lands, he has drawn up reasonable but genuinely protective regulations to replace the freehanded policy of former Secretary McKay.

One of the last block of oil leases on wildlife land processed under McKay was issued to the Richfield Oil Corp. on the Kenai Moose Range in Alaska. Moreover, the Kenai leases were blessed by the Bonner committee in deference to the wishes of their colleague, Delegate E. L. Bartlett of Alaska. Proving again that when it comes to conservation of resources on the public lands, even a watch-dog congressional committee is no substitute for a Secretary of the Interior with the courage to say no.

Richfield struck oil on the Kenai. It struck oil good. A well reported to have penetrated 200 feet of oil sands and flowing 900 barrels per day of 33 gravity plus 122,000 cubic feet of gas. Oil-boom fever is running high at Anchorage and throughout Alaska.

So Kenai is the test. It can make or break the Secretary's proposed new regulations, designed to protect wildlife values on Federal wildlife lands.

Conceding that additional development on the Kenai peninsula is now inevitable, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service will now try to hold the road building, methods of exploration, and drilling operations within the bounds that will protect the great herds of moose, the rare trumpeter swans, and other valuable wildlife that use and depend on the area. It was for the protection of these unique wildlife resources that the Kenai refuge was established and dedicated by Presidential order in 1941.

The oil companies want to lace the Moose Range with a network of bulldozer trails to do seismographic exploration. Wildlife authorities have pointed out the same thing can be done, perhaps at greater cost but with far less damage to the wildlife, by using helicopters.

In an effort to win public support for its plans, the Richfield Oil Corp. has flown a plane load of outdoor writers and sportsmen leaders from California to Alaska in an effort to convince them the methods they propose will not harm the Moose Range.

Because of the Kenai strike, the Fish and Wildlife Service is under terrific pressure. And Secretary Seaton's proposed new regulations are under fire. A public hearing will be held in the Interior Building auditorium December 9 and unless strong public support is forthcoming, the regulations are likely to be weakened and doomed at birth.

Kenai will prove whether the combined strength of all conservationists in America can counteract the get-rich-quick fever that accompanies a new oil strike. It will test whether or not the Department of Interior can stand firm in defense of wildlife lands, or must yield to the commercial pressures at a time when there is no national need for additional oil production. Pumping is now being restricted by Government rationing at existing wells in developed petroleum fields of Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere throughout the Nation. The purpose of such rationing is to conserve the resource and stabilize prices. If oil production were unrestricted even in presently developed fields, gasoline prices might come down.

Known oil and gas deposits are locked up now in naval petroleum reserves as insurance against future needs in time of national crisis. Oil in wildlife refuges will be just as good, and just as available, in future national crises. And there are tremendous expanses of other public lands in Alaska now wide open to oil exploration and development.

Kenai has now become one more issue of conservation by crisis where the preservation of our American heritage is pitted against the "fast buck" desires of 1 or 2 oil companies and local business interests for expansion and profit. If Kenai is breached, it can easily be rationalized that oil drilling in other refuges is justifiable. Secretary Seaton has issued a Magna Charta for sanctity of wildlife refuges. Those interested in wildlife conservation had better take time out to back him up.-ERNEST SWIFT.

ARCTIC WILDLIFE RANGE TEMPORARILY ESTABLISHED

Conservationists in the States and Alaska were cheered by Secretary of Interior Seaton's announcement November 20 that he had approved temporary withdrawal of 9 million acres in remote northeastern Alaska as an "Arctic wildlife range." Establishment of such an area has been advocated by the Alaska Sportsmen's Council and by local conservation groups in the Territory, as well as by several national conservation organizations.

The new wildlife area, in the Brooks Mountain range, is bounded on the east by the Canadian line and on the north by the Arctic Ocean. Upon final establishment it will become the largest area dedicated to wildlife purposes in this

Nation and one of the largest in the world, not excluding the great wildlife parks of southeastern Africa.

The Secretary said the Fish and Wildlife Service, at his direction, had filed an application in the Fairbanks land office November 19 as the initial step in segregation of these lands from entry under the public land laws, and pending final determination of the precise boundaries. The request asks that the withdrawal preclude all forms of public land appropriation, except that mineral leasing would be permitted after next September 1 under Departmental regulations affecting wildlife ranges, as would mining operations.

Hunting and fishing and fur trapping will be permitted in accordance with Department regulations and Alaska game laws.

The Secretary stated that in its request the Fish and Wildlife Service stressed the area's unique values in wildlife, wilderness values, and scenery. Grizzly and polar bears, Dall sheep, wolverine, and great caribou herds are among its wildlife resources. Countless lakes, ponds, and marshes are nesting grounds for large numbers of waterfowl and other migratory birds that spend about half the year in the United States. Nearly 100 bird species are known to use the area. Numerous small mammals also abound.

Mount Michelson and Mount Chamberlain, each more than 9,000 feet in altitude, are arresting scenic aspects. Despite the remote Arctic location, the area has become quite accessible by air and in summer season offers excellent wilderness recreation for explorers, hunters, fishermen, mountain climbers, and others. At the same time Secretary Seaton announced his intent, and the initial steps, to open another 20 million acres in northern Alaska to private mineral leasing and mining development. These are lands (lying west of the Arctic wildlife range) which have been closed to miners and oil operators since 1943 under Public Land Order 82.

This action would leave unaffected the 23-million acre Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4, which area was included under the 1943 public land order.

Secretary Seaton said his notice of intention to modify PLO 82 so as to permit resource development outside the naval petroleum reserve was signed only after he was assured that the Department of the Navy does not oppose the move, and further assured by the Geological Survey that the petroleum reserve will be adequately protected by a 2-mile strip around its perimeter.

None of the 20 million acres proposed for release are expected to be open to the staking of mining claims until about September 1, 1958, the Secretary said. Much of the area is unsurveyed, and he said no acreage would be available for oil and gas leasing until leasing maps are prepared. He also emphasized that the modification order will not be signed until its terms are published in the Federal Register and a study is made of comments received in a 30-day period following publication.

The Secretary made no announcement regarding the proposed Kuskokwim or Izembek Bay waterfowl management areas in southwestern Alaska. The Fish and Wildlife Service, backed by conservation groups in the States and Alaska, has requested withdrawal of some 2,900 square miles of high-quality waterfowl marshes in the lower Kuskokwim Valley or delta.

Federal biologists have estimated that 20 percent of all the wild ducks and geese using the Pacific flyway are hatched in the Kuskokwim area. The proposed 2,900-square-mile reservation would safeguard the best of the breeding grounds.

The Izembek Bay proposal calls for withdrawal of 320,000 acres of land and 117,117,000 acres of tidewater at the tip of the Alaska Peninsula which extends southwesterly toward the Aleutian Islands. This is a major migration crossroads for Alaskan waterfowl. Here millions of birds congregate each fall to feed on extensive beds of eel grass and other natural foods before continuing their long flights southward. Important numbers of wild ducks and geese also nest at Izembek. PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 9 ON OIL LEASING RULES

Because of objections raised by oil and gas interests, a public hearing will be held December 9 on the new rules proposed by Secretary of the Interior Fred A. Seaton to regulate oil and gas leasing on Federal wildlife lands. Mr. Seaton announced the hearing would start at 9 a. m. in the auditorium of the Interior Building at 18th and C Streets NW., in Washington, D. C.

Ross L. Leffler and Roger Ernst, the assistant secretaries respectively for fish and wildlife and for public land management, will act as joint chairmen of the hearing.

The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register of October 11, 1957 (vol. 22, No. 198, pp. 8088-8089), at which time interested parties were given a 30-day period in which to submit any written comments or suggestions, the Department said.

"In view of the widespread interest shown by the general public and many requests for an extension of the time within which to submit written comments, or be heard orally on the subject, it appears appropriate to hold a public hearing," Secretary Seaton said.

All written comments or suggestions which have been received and any that are submitted prior to the date of the hearing will be considered by the Department, the Secretary's annoucement added. Persons attending the hearing may also submit comments at that time, and individuals wishing to speak at the hearing should notify the Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C., prior to December 9.

The proposed regulations represent a tightening up of policy for the purpose of protecting the wildlife resources for which the national wildlife refuges and game ranges have been established. National conservation organizations and many State and local groups are expected to present oral or written statements in support of the new regulations.

Under the proposed rules, all oil and gas leasing would be forbidden on wildlife refuge lands under the complete jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service except where the Government has determined that the lands are being drained of oil and gas by nearby wells.

If the Geological Survey, another agency of the Department of Interior, determines that the lands are being drained of oil from operations on adjacent lands, the Bureau of Land Management may, upon the concurrence of the Fish and Wildlife Service, invite competitive bidding for leasing and drilling privileges within the refuge boundaries. Leases for such lands would be issued only upon the approval of the Secretary and would contain stipulations to assure that the operations would not damage wildlife resources. There are an estimated 4,418,000 acres of wildlife refuge lands in the continental United States.

On game range lands, the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service would jointly determine which special areas will not be subject to oil and gas leasing. Under the proposed regulations, such special areas within game ranges would be treated the same as lands in established wildlife refuges.

The remaining lands in each game range would be open to oil and gas leasing, subject to final approval in each instance by the Secretary, under such conditions as are determined necessary to insure that leasing and drilling activities will not interfere with the value of the lands for game management purposes. Any areas that are closed to leasing within a game range will be shown on maps available to the public. Game ranges embrace an estimated 4,616,000 acres in the United States.

The

Leasing on Federal-State cooperative lands and on Alaska wildlife areas would be handled under the same rules as game range lands. The portion or portions in which leasing should be forbidden, except where drainage is present, would be determined by the agencies having jurisdiction over the area. remaining lands in the areas would be open to leasing under such stipulations as are deemed necessary to protect wildlife values. There are approximately 502,000 acres in Federal-State cooperative areas and about 7,885,000 acres within Alaska wildlife areas.

THE WILDERNESS BILL MOVES FORWARD

Few pieces of legislation have stimulated more widespread interest among conservationists and public land users than the bill in Congress to establish a national wilderness preservation system. Any measure affecting a sizable segment of the Federal lands is likely to undergo rather careful scrutiny by many groups, particularly when it begins to gain support among people who are in a position to push it toward enactment. The current wilderness legislation, with widespread public endorsement and bipartisan coast-to-coast sponsorship by some 19 members of the House and Senate, falls squarely into this category. Plenty of people are having something to say about it.

It seems that everyone is for the wilderness idea, just as nearly everyone believes in motherhood, but beyond that point there is some variance of opinion. The groups that are standing together in support of the present bill are made up of outdoor enthusiasts who might best be classified as recreational users of the

Federal forests, park, and wildlife lands that would be included in a national wilderness preservation system.

The philosophy of the wilderness bill is not to expand the present areas or create more of them, but to hold in perpetuity those already designated and now existing within the national forests, national parks, and national wildlife refuges.

As is stated in the bill, it is for "the dedication of an adequate system of areas of wilderness that serve the recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, and conservation needs of the people."

The measure clearly provides for protection and administration of wilderness areas by the same Fedaral agencies that now exercise jurisdiction over them. It provides for the creation of a National Wilderness Preservation Council, composed of the heads of the agencies who are presently charged with the administration of the lands to be included in the system, plus the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and citizen members to be appointed by the President.

Contrary to statements made by some objectors who wish to cloud the issue, this Council would not be an administrative body. It would serve as a focus for the common interest in wilderness that would be shared by the various administrators.

THE OPPOSITION

It was natural, and inherent in our democratic system, that skepticism and opposition would develop even before the introduction of the bill, and for two reasons:

(1) Lack of specific facts gives greater latitude for undocumented speculation and rumor. If the big lie can be spread fast enough and far enough a certain percentage of the people will believe it. Rumor is like breaking open a bag of feathers; it becomes impossible to pick up all of the feathers.

(2) It was also to be expected that lumber, cattle, mining, and reclamation interests would wish to know how this proposal would affect their particular operations. Would it interfere with an existing sustained yield lumber operation? Would grazing be prohibited? Would prospecting and mining be outlawed? To those having hopes of expanding operations the wilderness idea might very logically impinge on such ambitions. Rumors, some false, some honest, coupled with the fear of change and the unknown, and the ambitions of wealth, are parts of the democratic crucible which this or any bill affecting public lands must be subjected to.

The objections of the above-named economic groups are understandable and a certain sympathy can be extended them that cannot be felt for the very few resort and outboard motor groups who have registered opposition. A lumberman if allowed to cut on national forests must pay stumpage, or a cattleman must pay grazing fees; while the resort people and the motorboat people wish to capitalize on public domain to their own economic advantage and pay nothing. Those in opposition in these groups stand out alone as the acme of selfishness and greed in opposing the bill. What they have to sell indirectly to the tourist by way of fishing, scenery, hunting and so forth, belongs to the public. A great deal of the current opposition and misconception has been spread by these commercializers and developers of public domain at the expense of the people.

DEPARTMENTAL OBJECTIONS

It is also difficult to understand why the Departments of Agriculture and Interior, the two agencies which would continue under the wilderness bill to administer those areas in the national forests, national wildlife refuges, and national parks, have any material objections. By their own statements it seems that their administrative prerogatives are being interfered with. One wonders if they are responding to the pressures from commercial interests, or have these bureaus grown to such size that they cannot be approached by ordinary people? At present there is no act of Congress that would prevent a future Secretary of the Interior or bureau chief from constructing roads, buildings, or other installations within a wilderness area of a national park or wildlife refuge.

Present laws offer nothing to help administrators resist the mounting pressures to use more and more of the back country areas for developments that would destroy them as wilderness. With timber, grazing, mining, and waterpower groups relentlessly pushing for more commercial use of the back country, the current legislation seems to offer a great deal in the way of protection for our wilderness resource.