concept of wildland management, and that the proposed Wilderness Council will become a superlobby of a special interest user group. The term "multiple use" has become a catchword and a slogan with little meaning when applied to specific areas. All lands-private and public-have combinations of uses but most are managed for a central highest use. Other uses are auxiliary and must be considered only where they are compatible with the highest use. Some forest lands, in fact the great majority, are best suited to the production of commercial timber crops. Insofar as they are needed for recreation, wildlife, and watershed purposes these uses must be recognized. On the few remaining natural wilderness areas in the United States, their highest economic and social use is to stand forever as the remnant of the once vast frontier so important to American history-and to remind posterity of this important impact on our national life. To remain as wilderness areas they must be so managed as to exclude commodity uses-for to permit them would be to permit ruination. They will continue to yield water, wildlife, and recreation as wilderness areas. And they need legal safeguards which cannot be set aside with the stroke of a pen by some future misguided administrator. With respect to the ghost of special interest pressure groups being raised over the Wilderness Council, we simply ask what possible profit can anyone or any group dedicated to the preservation of wilderness obtain? If there were some opportunities for passing out wilderness concessions this objection might have some validity, but there are none. Furthermore, the bill restricts the Council's functions to those of education and advice but it is given no administrative power. It will serve simply as a clearinghouse of information. Opposition to the wilderness concept by those who profess to be its friends has become patently clear. Their fear is that some day they may not be able to open up these lands to commodity exploitation and so do not want the door locked now. The issue is that simple either we assure coming generations that they will have the opportunity to experience the thrill of the wilderness by passing this bill now, or we fail to measure up to the responsibility of our generation by failing to pass the wilderness bill. Thank you. STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS The National Association of Manufacturers, representing over 21,000 member companies throughout the United States, wishes to go on record in opposition to S. 4028, a bill to establish a national wilderness preservation system, for the following reasons: 1. Although there is general recognition of the desirability of preserving the wilderness values of certain areas, this proposal to dedicate over 50 million acres to a national wilderness preservation system unduly links these large areas to a limited phase of the recreational use of public lands. Despite the fact that the bill declares a policy of administering the national forests with the general objectives of multiple use and sustained yield, it is obvious that the preservation of wilderness is made the paramount consideration in administering all public lands within the system. This is inconsistent with a balanced program of multiple-use management and amounts to establishing a single use for tremendously large areas of land. The extent of wilderness use to the exclusion of other uses should not be fixed by broad and sweeping congressional enactment; the relationship of such uses should be determined by sound land management that seeks the greatest and highest use of each individual area. 2. The proposed legislation would create a new Federal agency, a National Wilderness Preservation Council, where no need exists for creating still another Federal body. This could only lead to administrative complications and conflicts with present programs of the Forest Service, National Park Service, and other Federal agencies administering public lands. The Congress should not lightly create a new Federal organization when existing agencies and departments are fully capable of achieving the desirable objectives of land management. Also, a precedent would be created for other groups with special use interests to ask for the establishment within the governmental framework of an agency devoted to advocating their viewpoints and supported by Federal-tax money. Although these lands are federally owned or controlled, the citizens of each State wherein they are located have a vital interest in the utilization of such lands. The citizens of these States should have a greater voice in their future disposition and should not be deprived of such a voice by having them arbitrarily and uniformly categorized by Federal action. Future economic development of great regions of the United States could be seriously retarded by such action. The large bulk of this land lies in the Western States and in our newest and largest State of Alaska, which has not yet elected its United States Senators. The future economies of these States will not expand to their maximum potential unless there is a full utilization of natural resources from public lands. The proposal also ignores, and possibly would frustrate, the deveopment of plans to permit the fullest utilization of Government-owned natural resources to meet national emergencies. 4. Legislation in this area could proceed upon a sounder factual basis subsequent to the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which the Congress has established to make an inventory of outdoor recreation resources and opportunities, to predict what our needs of this type will be in the year 1975 and in the year 2000, and to recommend what policies and what programs should be adopted to meet such future requirements. Other land use studies have been made and will be made in the next few years. The subject matter involves extremely long-range considerations and there is absolutely no need for hasty action. It is not a businesslike procedure to attempt to determine the extent and location of wilderness use until more knowledge is available to form the basis for sound decisions. In the meantime, existing Federal agencies and departments are fully capable of properly safeguarding all legitimate interests in public lands. STATEMENT OF RUSSELL B. BROWN, GENERAL COUNSEL, INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), a national organization representing independent producers of crude petroleum and natural gas located in every oil-producing area of the Nation, respectfully records its opposition to S. 4028 now pending before your committee. Needless to say, IPAA is vitally interested in all legislative proposals which affect the development of mineral resources underlying the public domain. Our Federal and Public Lands Committee has for several years concerned itself with similar proposals and at our annual membership meeting held in Dallas, Tex., on October 29, 1956, the following report of this committee was adopted by the IPAA membership. "While we are not opposed to recreational facilities in the public domain yet this bill (S. 4013) goes far beyond anything else ever suggested. It is contrary to the policy of government of recent years aimed at the encouragement of multiple use of the public lands. It is recommended by your committee that the association oppose such legislation." Last October and again in April of this year the association reiterated its opposition to proposals designed to establish a national wilderness preservation system which would prohibit full and proper multiple use of the public domain. Although we understand that S. 4028 has been amended to meet some of the opposition recorded against predecessor bills in this area, it does not clearly authorize exploration for and development of petroleum resources on lands designated as a part of the wilderness system. It is our sincere belief that this Nation can ill afford to lock up its natural resources contained in large areas of the public domain. In the past, Congress has made it clear that development of the natural resources underlying the public domain must be encouraged. As recently as last year, your committee stated in its Report No. 857, 85th Congress, 1st session : "Recent years, particularly since the end of World War II, have seen a sharp upturn in demands-both from public and private sources-for fuller utilization and development of all of the resources of the public domain : Mineral resources; timber and other material resources; grazing resources; fish and wildlife resources; water resources; scenic, wilderness, recreation, and related values, as well as the land itself as a space or 'elbowroom' resource. "To meet these demands for expanded multiple resource use of the public lands, the committee has initiated in the past few years, and Congress has enacted, several landmark pieces of legislation. "During the past several years, there has developed an increasing concern, particularly throughout our public land States, over the continued expansion of single-purpose or limited-purpose reservations through withdrawal of publicland areas." We agree with these statements contained in your committee report and submit that the pending bill to establish a national wilderness preservation system would be in direct contradiction to the wise congressional policy that calls for fuller utilization and development of all the resources of the public domain. Today it is abundantly clear, in view of our national security needs and the growth of our economy, it is not in the national interest that the public domain should be used only for one purpose to the exclusion of orderly and proper multiple-use development. IPAA is also opposed to that portion of the bill which would establish a National Wilderness Preservation Council for the reason that we believe that it would simply be a duplication of work already now in the hands of competent and existing administrative agencies. As stated earlier, IPAA is not opposed to orderly development of recreational facilities in the public domain. In fact, we believe that it is in the public interest to make proper use of the public domain for expansion and development of recreational facilities. It is our belief that this can be done in harmony with wise and efficient development of the natural resources in the public domain. However, to completely lock up such areas from recreation and other proper use of the public domain is not in the public interest. Therefore, we ask your committee to disapprove the pending bill, S. 4028, and similar proposals. STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. POOLE, EDITOR, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE Mr. Chairman, I am Daniel A. Poole, editor of the Outdoor News Bulletin, a conservation news service of the Wildlife Management Institute. The institute is one of the older national conservation organizations and its program has been devoted to the improved management of natural resources in the public interest since 1911. As the members of this committee know, the Institute supported the initial draft of the wilderness bill at the hearings last year. Conservationists believe that enactment of S. 4028 would assist administrators of the Federal land management agencies in preserving the essential integrity of established wilderness areas. Enactment of a law requiring public hearings on matters relating to wilderness boundary changes and a period of review following each hearing would lessen the danger that an administrator may decide on a course of action before having all the facts that should be considered. Moreover, an administrator who can make a change by issuing an administrative decree is subject to continual pressure, and enactment of S. 4028 would provide a desirable shield from direct attempts to influence him. Conservationists are pleased that changes have been made in the wilderness proposal to overcome objections that were voiced to some parts of the earlier draft. The sponsors of S. 4028 have spared no effort in seeking out and conferring with those principal groups and organizations that raised sincere points of criticism to the earlier version. Those meetings stimulated frank and objective discussion of the wilderness proposal, developed suggested alternative language that has been incorporated into S. 4028, and promoted wider understanding of its provisions. The Institute has taken part in the effort to clarify the provisions of the wilderness bill during these past months. In supporting S. 4028, the Institute recognizes its compatibility with the recently enacted legislation which created the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. While the wilderness proposal and the NORRRC have distinct and separate missions, both will benefit to some degree by the application of the other. Once operative, the National Wilderness Preservation Council would assist the NORRRC by obtaining required information about the wilderness recreational needs of our citizens for inclusion in the Commission's comprehensive report on the total outdoor recreation needs of the American people. GRAND RAPIDS, MINN., July 24, 1958. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman of Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, The Itasca Women's Chapter, Izaak Walton League, earnestly seeks your support of S. 4028. ANN HEDMAN, President. MIDLAND CO-OP CREDIT UNION, Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Washington, D. O. Senate Office Building, We hope DEAR SIR: The officers of our organization and the writer, also, are for the wilderness bill, S. 4028, as we want to preserve our wilderness areas. this bill receives your favorable approval. Yours truly, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, F. J. LINNELL, Treasurer. MIDLAND COOPERATIVES, INC., Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: We urge your very serious consideration and support of Senate bill 4028. We believe Forest Service should be given congressional approval to administer our natural resources in the broadest possible public-welfare usage. As an individual and a representative of countless dedicated cooperative conservationists of the Midwest, we urgently request your influence to be used in this significant and worthwhile piece of legislation. GLENN W. THOMPSON, Public Relations Director. 3 REMMINGTON LANE, Houston, Tex., July 23, 1958. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Senate Interior Committee, Washington, D. C.: Urge your acceptance of revised wilderness bill, S. 4028. Prompt enactment of this bill strongly desired by conservation-minded people. Save the wilderness now for the benefit of future generations. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Mr. and Mrs. RORICK CRAVENS. IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE, Grand Rapids, Minn., July 23, 1958. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: The Grand Rapids, Minn., chapter of the Izaak Walton League would like you to know that our group (ninety some members) is solidly behind the revised wilderness bill (S. 4028). You may hear opposition from certain affected Minnesota counties, but we wish to point out that there is strong support for the bill in much of northern Minnesota. Anything that can be done to expedite passage will be appreciated. Time is running out in our efforts to assure wilderness-type recreation for the future. This bill should make administration of such areas more consistent. M. L. HEINZELMAN, Secretary, Grand Rapids, Minn., Chapter. Senator JAMES MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Urge speedy enactment wilderness bill S. 4028. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Interior Committee, 4 BUCKLEY ROAD, Worcester, Mass., July 23, 1958. Mr. and Mrs. FRED H. FOSTER. 4020 47TH AVENUE SOUTH, Seattle, Wash., July 21, 1958. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: I wish to urge your committee to take favorable action on S. 4028, the revised wilderness bill. The new bill is an improvement on the old and is necessary to preserve our wilderness. Such preservation is very important because of our population growth, and increased development of our land areas. We must leave a few areas of undeveloped wilderness. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Interior Committee, VICTOR JOSENVAL. 1422 MONTECITO DRIVE, Los Angeles, Calif., July 21, 1958. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Revised wilderness bill, S. 4028, should be enacted because wilderness exists only where man leaves the land alone, but developers and bulldozers are not waiting or hesitating. Bill would not grab any new area, but simply help keep the little already set aside. Objections to previous version now eliminated. Mr. and Mrs. NATHAN C. CLARK. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, KALISPELL, MONT., July 19, 1958. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I am in wholehearted support of the revised wilderness bill, S. 4028. Montana and other States have much at stake in their famous wilderness areas, and they will surely disappear with the encroachments and inconsiderations of civilization, unless there is a national policy established by Congress to preserve them. In the preservation of our famed wilderness areas lies the best assurance of maintaining quality recreation for the people of this Nation, preserving wilderness-loving wildlife, and keeping America beautiful. I urge your committee to speed the passage of this very worthwhile legislation. Please place this statement in the record of your committee hearing, July 23, 1958. |