INDIAN LAND USE, UNITED STATES EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA, 1952 ' Individual (allotted) lands may be disposed of by Secretary of the Interior under authority given him by Congress. Tribal lands may be disposed of only by the Congress. Sources: (1) Health Services for American Indians USPHS, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1957; (2) Reports of Commissioner of Indian Affairs to House Appropriations Subcommittee, 1956, 1957. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, RAVALLI COUNTY FISH & WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION, Hamilton, Mont., July 21, 1958. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association has gone on record in support of the wilderness bill as proposed by Senator Humphrey and others. It is the feeling of this organization that this bill is vital and necessary for the preservation of our fast-dwindling areas that are still in a primitive or pristine condition. By losing these areas, we shall have lost the kind of country that helped in no small way to mold the American character, the pioneering spirit, and the resourcefulness that have helped us to become the most powerful nation on earth. America was once all wilderness. Today, not more than 2 percent of our land can be so classified. Even this remaining 2 percent shall someday be gone, if we do not take steps now to preserve it. The passage of the wilderness bill into law is the logical step to take. The bill has been carefully drawn in a spirit of fairmindedness. It does not lock up the wilderness, except from those who would inadvisedly exploit and abuse our last acres of virgin country. America needs wilderness. The wilderness offers us the highest quality of outdoor recreation. Each year sees more of our people turning to the outdoors for their recreation. Our national parks and our national-forest_campgrounds are becoming more crowded every year. It is obvious that we need more, rather than less, public recreational opportunities. Passage of the wilderness bill will assure us, as well as our future generations (toward whom we have a grave responsibility for land preservation) of always having available the means to get away for a time from the sights, sounds, and smells of civilization. America will be a much poorer land if this is not always the case. Sincerely, TOM FORD, President. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, WASHINGTON CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: Because most of the area with which the wilderness bill (S. 4028) is concerned is in the West, and because the bill advocates the restriction of certain Federal lands to special use by a minority rather than the multiple-use doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number, we ask that you initiate and/or support an effort to schedule hearings in the Western States on this measure before any decisive action is taken by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Anything you may do to get hearings scheduled in the West will be appreciated by stockmen who are dependent upon the lands in question for all or a part of their livelihood. HONORABLE SIR: The Conservation Forum of New York State favors the wilderness bill, with full protection for wilderness areas, S. 4028. Yours truly, Mrs. J. KIMBALL EVANS, Corresponding Secretary. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, PACIFIC LOGGING CONGRESS, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The officers and management committee of the Pacific Logging Congress have instructed me to transmit to you the strong protest of our association against enactment of S. 4028, or any act embodying the intent of S. 4028 or S. 1176, until after the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has had an opportunity to study and report on the needs of the Nation for wilderness areas. The forest industry supported enactment of the legislation setting up the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission with the understanding that the purpose of this Commission is to make a thorough analysis of the recreational resources and recreational needs of the Nation, including wilderness areas, and to submit a report of their findings by 1961. Until this Commission has completed its study, and reported its findings and recommendations, it seems most unwise for Congress to act on legislation which presupposes what these recreational needs are. I have been further instructed to advise you that the Pacific Logging Congress most strongly urges that the citizens of the Western States be afforded the opportunity to express their views on S. 4028, through the medium of public hearings in the West, before any final congressional action is taken. Approximately 90 percent of the lands that would be affected by enactment of S. 4028 lie in the 11 Western States. Our association strongly feels that the people who live and work in these States should be given the consideration of an opportunity to participate in public hearings on this bill without the prohibitive personal expense and loss of time required for representation before hearings held in Washington, D. C. Enclosed herewith is a copy of resolutions approved by our organization at its last membership meeting, November 1, 1957. Your attention is directed to resolution No. XV, which opposes S. 1176, and No. XVI, which requests public hearings in the State of Washington on the proposed establishment of a Glacier Peak wilderness area. S. 4028 still embodies the same basic provisions that were unacceptable in S. 1176, namely: 1. It would permanently set aside, without adequate study as to need or advisability, approximately 55 million acres of Federal lands for exclusive use of a few people, and without taking into account the most beneficial ultimate use of these lands. 2. It declares it to be a policy of Congress to "secure the dedication of an adequate system of areas of wilderness," but does not define the meaning of "adequate." 3. It violates the intent of the act, recently signed into law by the President, which sets up an Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission that is charged with the responsibility of setting up an orderly plan for the development of our recreational resources. 4. It provides for the establishment of a cumbersome and unnecessary Advisory Council between our highly skilled, career forest managers, and the United States Congress. In closing we wish to reiterate that we strongly opposed enactment of S. 1176, and that S. 4028 still retains the objectional features of S. 1176. Also, may we again emphasize our most sincere request for public hearings in the West, before final action is taken on S. 4028. Very truly yours, CARWIN A. WOOLLEY, Secretary. RESOLUTIONS OF THE 48TH PACIFIC LOGGING CONGRESS CONCERNING WILDERNESS AREAS RESOLUTION XV-WILDERNESS AREAS Whereas the economy of the Western States depends on multiple use of Federal lands; and Whereas proposed legislation in Congress would set aside some 55 million acres of Federal lands for exclusive use for wilderness recreation; and Whereas the resources of these lands have never been inventoried adequately for their possible contributions to the western economy: Be it therefore Resolved by the Pacific Logging Congress at its 48th session in Seattle, That it urge western Congressmen and Senators to oppose S. 1176 which would establish the unsound policy of permanently excluding from multiple use 55 million acres of public lands essential to the livelihood of thousands of American citizens without consideration for the most beneficial ultimate use of these lands. RESOLUTION XVI-GLACIER PEAK Whereas the United States Forest Service has proposed to establish a Glacier Peak wilderness area in the State of Washington to be devoted to exclusive use of recreationists; and Whereas the forest industries of Washington furnish the principal unsubsidized source of jobs and payrolls; and Whereas the establishment of such wilderness area as presently proposed would adversely affect job opportunities needed by our growing population: Be it therefore Resolved, That the Secretary of Agriculture be requested to hold a public hearing in the State of Washington to give its citizens full opportunity to be heard on the proposed Glacier Peak wilderness area; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each Representative in Congress and both Senators from the State of Washington. SHELTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC., Shelton, Wash., July 21, 1958. Washington, D. C. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, DEAR SENATOR: The position of the Shelton Chamber of Commerce is that a hearing should be held in the West to allow the people out here to become more acquainted with the new wilderness preservation bill, S. 4028. Best regards from your many Shelton friends. Sincerely, P. B. MURPHY, Secretary. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, WESTERN OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: We understand that your committee has scheduled a hearing for July 23 on S. 4028, one of the so-called national wilderness preservation bills, and that the committee's records will be kept open until July 28 for the purpose of filing statements regarding this bill. I should like, therefore, to express briefly the opposition of Western Oil and Gas Association to this proposed legislation-a position which we have previously taken regarding the predecessors to the present bill. The area served by the Western Oil and Gas Association comprises the five Western States of California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Arizona, together with Alaska. The association's membership consists of some 150 companies and other operators, who account for approximately 85 percent of the oil production in this area. At the outset, let me state emphatically that we are not in any sense opposed to the principle of preserving the scenic and esthetic values of the public domain wherever this best serves the public interest, but rather only to the extent to which his bill, and others like it, would permit these lands to be closed to the development of vital natural resources. We are opposed in principle to legislation which would permit to any significant degree the withdrawal of public lands from the oil and gas exploration and development contemplated by the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920 and its various amendments. The Congress has never abandoned or repudiated the expressed purposes of that act and, in fact, has frequently reiterated them, as for instance in the important amendments made by the act of August 8, 1946, "in order to promote the development of oil and gas on the public domain." The obvious need for continuing to promote that development has grown with the succeeding years and their national and international developments in the field of our domestic economy and our national defense, which are geared to and depend so vitally upon petroleum and its automotive and aviation fuels and other products. The most carefully calculated estimates of our domestic requirements of oil during the immediate period of the next 10 years, without taking into account possible defense emergencies, tell us that merely to meet our domestic demand and maintain our reserves at the necessary level during the next 10 years we must find within our own borders 12 barrels of new oil for each barrel we produce. Surely, this is not a situation in which we can justify closing our public lands to the search for new oil, and if we cannot justify it, we should not create the power to do it. Furthermore, this is by no means necessary for the proper protection of scenic, esthetic, recreational, and wildlife values. Oil and gas exploration and development activities are not of a necessarily despoiling nature and the industry has time and again demonstrated its readiness and ability to conduct its operations in a manner fully compatible with the necessary protection to other land values. For these reasons we feel that legislation of the type of S. 4028, or any legislation which gives substantial land withdrawal powers, should be designed so as to expressly preserve, on a practicable multiple-use basis, the utilization of the oil and gas and other natural resource values of the land which are vital to the Nation's welfare. We would regard these objectives as sufficiently important to call for a thorough and representative study of all aspects of the problem in advance of legislation, such as is provided for by the recently enacted S. 846, the Outdoors Recreation Resources Review Act, approved June 28, 1958 (Public Law 85-470). We respectfully request that this letter, another copy of which is enclosed, be made a part of the hearing record on S. 4028. If further hearings are contemplated on the present bill, or similar legislation, we would appreciate the opportunity to be heard more fully in the matter. Sincerely yours, S. F. BOWLBY, President. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Interior Committee, Washington, D. O. SANTA PAULA, CALIF., July 22, 1958. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I wish to urge you to do all you can to support the wilderness bill and to pass it out of committee and through Congress before adjournment. We, as a people, make many wise decisions, but yield too easily to temptation and alter them at the slightest whim. The wilderness bill is designed to prevent us from yielding to these temptations and preserve the established wilderness areas in status quo. Once we lose the wilderness, we cannot regain it—at least not without considerable trouble and expense-but we do need wilderness for inspiration, for health, for scientific study, and for recreation. We need to conserve all the wilderness we can while we are still able to do so. Again, please give the wilderness bill your wholehearted support. Let us hope that the wilderness bill will become law before the end of the present session of Congress. Sincerely, DONALD S. TEAGUE, Jr. MOUNTAIN STATES ASSOCIATION, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I have been requested as president of the Mountain States Association to request your very serious consideration of the wildernesspreservation bill, S. 4028, which has been introduced by Senator Humphrey. This matter was given serious consideration at our 1957 meeting in Phoenix, Ariz., and our 1958 meeting in Albuquerque. Each of the members present expressed grave thoughts on the overall bill, and we would like to request that you vote against this bill at this time. We can appreciate needs for restrictive measures of our public lands, but we fear that the bill, as written, will have more adverse effects than it will have benefits. The bill is extremely broad and would seem to have been proposed by individuals not familiar with the vast areas in our Rocky Mountain empire. Representatives of the chambers of commerce in the Rocky Mountain empire would welcome the opportunity to discuss this bill with you after Congress adjourns, but in the meantime we believe it to be in the best interest of the American public that this bill be defeated in the Senate. Respectfully, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, CHARLES L. THOMSON, President. AUDUBON ARTISTS, INC., New York, N. Y., July 22, 1958. Chairman, Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Washington, D. O. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: In reference to bill S. 1176, the Board of the Audubon Artists, a national art organization of 400 outstanding artists, authorized me as president to state that they were in favor of passage of this bill provided that some professional artists are represented on the Commission. Also, they felt that the Audubon Artists should be represented. Urge enactment and passage of this very necessary wilderness bill, S. 4028. Mrs. ADA LATWEN. |