It would seem to me that this is a very arbitrary, undemocratic, and inexcusable approach to a matter which is extremely vital to our very existence on the Point Reyes Peninsula, and I will ask you at this time, as Congressman from our district, to please cause the National Park Service to reverse their stand in order that the P.G. & E. Co. may bring power to our present location. Very sincerely yours, BOLEMA CLUB, INC. POINT REYES STATION, CALIF., March 23, 1961. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HONORABLE REPRESENTATIVES: This letter comes to you as a personal plea to consider carefully and judge wisely before making a final commitment regarding the bill to make Point Reyes into a national seashore park. The proponents of this bill have stated their case, presenting what we feel to be a distortion of the true picture. We who have lived in and know this area well regard many of the proponents' ideas as unsound and untenable. Our personal observations and involvement in the life of this Point Reyes region allow us to see clearly the pitfalls into which an unwise decision may lead. The factors affecting our opposed position are many and varied. Yet these factors, if left unstated, could lead to a tragic mistake, in which you may play a vital part. The purpose of this letter then is to state these factors frankly, in hopes that those of you who intend to leave no stone unturned may be enlightened. The factors affecting our opposed position regarding this bill are the following: 1. It is a proven and established fact that much of the Government-owned land in California, including sea coast areas, is as yet totally undeveloped. We feel that this land should be used to advantage and for good purpose before more, seemingly extra, land is acquired. In our eyes, this is waste and totally inexplicable. 2. The Point Reyes region is ideally located and situated for the dairy industry. Agriculture is the economic backbone of our country, and the dairy industry provides perhaps the most important food in our diet. If dairies are forced to move or completely discontinue operation, the outcome may result in an eventual serious setback in the Nation's economy. The economic need for this land is vital; its recreational value is minor in comparison. 3. The climate of this region is a great factor affecting our position. The climate in this area is very unpredictable, and fog prevails a great amount of the time. This climate is ideal for agricultural pursuits, especially dairying, as the result of this fog is green grass. This unpredictable weather, however, reduces the recreational value of the land considerably. 4. It has been stated by the proponents of this bill that the prime purpose of the Point Reyes seashore plan is to preserve the wild and natural state of the area. To us, this seems completely paradoxical. It is we who have lived in the region who have preserved the natural beauty of this land. Through endless effort on our part, this region is virtually untouched and in its virgin state. It seems to us that this purpose stated by the proponents would produce exactly the opposite results-the natural beauty spoiled forever by mobs of nature enthusiasts. 5. The ever-present dangers of this area are totally unrealized by people not closely involved with the land. if an unsound decision is made. dangerous cliffs and a treacherous surf. may result from these natural dangers? is grim. We foresee much trouble in this respect 6. We are the third generation of our family to pour into this land the sweat of our toil. We love this land for the life it has given us; and although we may be monetarily repaid should this bill pass, we can never be repaid for the years, months, days, and hours of work that have been put into the making of our home. Is this all to be taken from us with an unfortunate decision that you make? Don't be misled by the propaganda which has reached the point of the ridiculous-films taken on exceptional and rarely lovely days; surfboard riding in a treacherous undertow; swimming on unsafe beaches. Are these distorted pictures to sway you, or will you consider the above statements of fact? Gentlemen, before a final decision is reached on this issue, bear it in mind that you are holding in your hands the lives of human beings-not animals. this, the decision is yours. Sincerely, With NUNES & MENDOZA, By MARVIN L. NUNES. POINT REYES, CALIF., March 21, 1961. Re H.R. 2775. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: As owners of land on the Point Reyes Peninsula, we are opposed to giving up our land for recreation. It took long hours and hard work to acquire and is now the only source of our livelihood. Very truly yours, WILLIAM T. HALL. POINT REYES STATION, CALIF., March 20, 1961. In reference to H.R. 2775, Point Reyes Park. GENTLEMEN: I am a dairyman with 1,900 acres of land joining the new proposed national park. I am also the president of the Marin County Soil Conservation District. Our district has gone on record as opposing the park, as there are some 25,000 acres of the best dairylands in the State in the proposed parks. We do not feel that a leaseback to the dairyman would be a satisfactory arrangement. There are some 20,000 acres of wooded land and beaches, which are suitable for a park, and we feel that it could be purchased for such a project. I am therefore recommending that this committee will not approve this bill as written, and seriously look into it before recommending anything. Sincerely yours, WALDO G. GIACOMINI, President, Marin Soil Conservation District. AUGUST 8, 1961. Re H.R. 2775 (Point Reyes National Seashore). Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SIR: As property owners in the affected area we should like to make a statement for the record of the subcommittee hearings respecting the above. We oppose the proposed increase of the Point Reyes Park from some 32,000 acres to in excess of some 50,000 acres. The original nucleus is wooded in large part and relatively protected, and is suitable for public use. The area covered by the proposed increase is not. The argument that unless this increased acreage is taken in to the park it will be subdivided and lost to posterity is fallacious on at least three counts: 1. The increased area is more unsuitable for subdivision than it is for public use. (a) It is almost entirely exposed to the prevailing high winds and is almost entirely bare of trees, thus making it one of the foggiest and most windswept parts of the Pacific coast. (b) It is too remote, apart from its inhospitable climate. Some 30 years ago several hundred acres of similar unprotected terrain at Bolinas Big Mesa was subdivided (this is in the proposed "Bolinas expansion area"). It is 25 miles closer to San Francisco. It is accessible to a beach where swimming is safe. A clubhouse was even put in. To date its development is negligible, the clubhouse is unused, and the area has largely reverted to its wild state. (c) The purported subdivision in the proposed addition to the park, about which they has been so much talk, has only one house. It is still uninhabited and unfinished at this writing. In our opinion there will be no substantial development here, for climatic and geographic reasons. 2. The increased acreage is already one of the richest milk-producing areas on the west coast. Destroying this production would be wasteful of what amounts to a national resource without offering the public anything in exchange that it could use. Apparently there is no way of preserving the dairy industry and still turning this acreage into a park. 3. Taking the increased acreage would be wasteful of the taxpayers' money because of the existing productivity of the land. A substantial number of the da ries are owner-operated. In any case it is uneconomic to attempt to pick up dairy operations and relocate them. The cost of this land would therefore be out of all proportion to any public benefit from the dollars spent. For these reason, we respectfully urge the subcommittee to recommend that the bill be restored to its original and workable scope and that the acreage to be embraced not exceed 32,000. Respectfully submitted. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MURRAY RICHARDS, POINT REYES STATION, CALIF., March 19, 1961. DEAR SIRS: I, Margaret McClure, own the Pierce Ranch, which is situated on the end of Fornalis Point. My entire ranch will be included in the park. The ranch is 7 miles long and narrow. If any part of the ranch or beaches are taken it will spoil the ranch for my sons John and David who rent from me and operate a cattle ranch. I am 88 years of age and you must realize that it will be a hardship for me to be deprived of my home at my age, which I make with my son John and his wife. At my age I should be permitted to continue to own and live on my ranch, which I and my family have worked so hard to purchase. My sons are too old to start over in a new place, having spent most of their lives on Point Reyes. Both sons were born on the point. Several years ago I gave to the county a parking lot and a 40-foot right-of-way to the ocean beach for the use of the public. I feel that this is enough and for this reason I should not be forced to sell my ranch to the park. Many people will quote from the park bill that you and your sons can stay on your ranch as long as you live or until your youngest son is 30. My youngest son is 52 years of age. For these personal reasons I object to the park and hope that you will turn it down. MARGARET MCCLURE. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, POINT REYES STATION, CALIF., March 19, 1961. DEAR SIRS: We are opposed to the park because it will deprive us of our business and home. We have made this our home since 1930 and we are too old to have our business ruined and to start over in a new place. My son and I operate a dairy ranch, on the ranch which my wife and I own. To sell the ranch to the park will ruin our business. There is no ranch in the area for sale large enough which we could buy or rent to operate a dairy ranch when we could sell our milk to the Challange Creamery with whom we have a milk contract. In the past years my son and I have built up one of the finest herds in the State. How can any one ask us to sacrifice years of hard work to sell our ranch to the national park for a public playground? Respectfully, JAMES MCCLURE. POINT REYES STATION, CALIF., March 19, 1961. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIRS: We are opposed to the park because it will deprive us of our business and homes. We have made this our home since 1932. We are too old to have our business ruined and to start over in a new place. Where would we find a ranch to buy or rent to run cattle in this area or one as large? We run between 500 and 600 head of cattle. We rent the ranch from our mother. She makes her home with John and his wife. The Pierce Ranch (as it is known) is 7 miles long and narrow. Taking any part of the ranch will ruin it for us as a cattle ranch. We have always lived on Point Reyes or in the area. born on neighboring ranches. We do not want to move. In fact we were both Our mother gave a parking lot and a 40-foot right-of-way some years ago to the county, for public use, so that the public would have access to the entire ocean beach on the ranch. We feel that this is enough and for this reason we should not be forced to sell to the park. Why should a private citizen be forced to sacrifice their business and homes for the public to use as a playground? We have worked hard to help our parents purchase this ranch. In fact we have given our whole lives to its development. We believe in national parks but why not buy property that is for sale and not force people to sell their ranches, when they are not for sale? Respectfully, DAVID H. MCCLURE. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DEAR SIRS: I am writing in regard to bill No. H.R. 2775 proposed by Congressman Clem Miller to establish the Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County, and that I am opposed to it. My reasons for opposing it, mainly, is that the ranch has been in the family for some 70 years, and I believe that it is impossible to replace a 1,300-acre dairy ranch in Marin County, where I have a market milk quota, which cannot be transferred out of the Marin County section. The bill mentions a leaseback to certain portions of the land for dairy purposes and to keep the pastoral scene. I think that this would be an impossible situation, as I have tried it some years back. I let the public come in to the ocean beach, they brought their dogs with them, the dogs would run the cattle home into the corral and the people would also want to come to see the cows milked. With strangers around the milking barn, the cows would not produce properly. It is impossible to operate a dairy ranch under those conditions. I think that the 53,000-acre seashore park is a very large piece of land to be taken off the tax roll in Marin County, and it is going to take many millions of dollars to purchase that large a portion, as land in this county is very valuable. Sincerely, Re H.R. 2775. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JAMES V. KEHOE, Inverness, Marin County, Calif. LAGUNA RANCH, Point Reyes Station, Calif., March 20, 1961. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, GENTLEMEN: It is my feeling that much has been said in favor of the Point Reyes Seashore Recreational Area, but little of the facts that make this area undesirable as a park. People who live in an area are more able to appraise local conditions than casual visitors. From my own experience as a resident and rancher in this area for the past 15 years I feel that such a park is undesirable for the following reasons: (1) The principal beaches involved in this park are not just dangerous but extremely hazardous. The tragic drownings are many. Mostly where there is public access. We who live here are extremely careful in our use of the beaches. (2) The ranching area (so-called leaseback area) is unworkable from the present owners' viewpoint. The ranches will be cut up into much smaller areas so that they cannot be operated economically. At the first hearing on this park before the Marin County Board of Supervisors, a statement was made by one of the dairymen involved that "Cows and people do not mix." This is true. (3) Presumably the principal use of this park will be during the vacation months of June, July, and August. (This is a fact in the existing parks in this area.) Then the weather conditions are important. I therefore refer you to U.S. Coast Pilot 7 Pacific Coast (California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii), eighth (1959) edition, U.S. Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey, chapter 3 (California, Oregon, Washington, p. 103), commencing on line 9 to line 19: "Between Blunts Reef and San Francisco are two of the most foggy spots on the Pacific coast: Point Arena and Point Reyes. Point Reyes is often spoken of as being the actual center of heaviest and most frequent fogs on the Pacific coast; this is true when an average over a long period of record is considered. Owing to the persistency of the fog cover, through which it is said the sun's rays sometimes fail to penetrate for 3 or even 4 weeks at a time, Point Reyes has close to the lowest midsummer temperature of any observing station in the United States." Appendix, on page 349, the following: Hours of operation of fog signals (U.S. Coast Guard), 8 calendar years 1950–57, Point Reyes (Calif.) Light Station George Davidson in the Pacific Coast Pilot of 1889 states on page 232: “In July and August 1859, there was a period of 39 days of continuous fog recorded at Point Reyes, and during the first 10 days of that period the sun was invisible and after that only visible now and then overhead through the fog." These are conditions that make a park in this area something I sincerely doubt will attract the millions of visitors that are expected by the proponents of this park. (4) The Marin Board of Supervisors, at the first meeting at which this matter was discussed, recommended that an impartial survey be made. I have yet to see one. I therefore suggest that further field surveys and hearings be held to ascertain the true conditions and desirability of a Point Reyes Seashore Recreational Area. Sincerely, R. D. MARSHALL. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Dr. Gustafson, do you propose to proceed with organizing the proponents? Mr. GUSTAFSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a series of statements and introduce the members. |