SEATTLE, WASH., November 16, 1961. We would like to have our support included in the record for the wilderness bill. Mr. and Mrs. LEROY E. ANNIS. BOISE, IDAHO. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PFOST: I strongly favor passage of the wilderness bill. One of the main objections to the bill seems to be the idea that the wilderness area must be "developed" to provide additional income for Idaho. These people seem to be overlooking the fact that a substantial amount of money is being brought into the State now, by hunters, fishermen, campers, and outdoor people of all kinds. The publicity value to the State of such an attraction should not be overlooked, either. The minerals that may be in the area now will not disappear, actually, they will increase in value, as minerals grow scarcer elsewhere. If a real need for minerals arises they will always be available. The timber, too, will be available if the need for it arises. At present our problems in the timber products industries seem to be overproduction rather than scarcity. I appreciate this chance to express my opinion. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, ARTHUR H. ARP. FEATHERVILLE, IDAHO, November 8, 1961. New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. PFOST: I am very much opposed to the present wilderness bill and think that it will hurt the people of Idaho economically. I run a small general store at Featherville, Idaho. My principal customers are fishermen, lumbermen, hunters, and tourists. Until our area was recently opened up by roads built to haul out timber we had very few hunters, fishermen, and tourists in the area as it was not accessible to except a few hardy pioneers. If areas such as ours are locked up without roads most of the people of Idaho will have no opportunity to enjoy the outdoors with their families. Sincerely yours, CHARLES E. BAKER. KELLOGG, IDAHO. DEAR MRS. PrOST: I am writing to protest against the S. 174 bill. I hope you have more sense than some of the people I have talked to. This bill would close off our hunting because we could not afford to pay, to go, we would be without while some big shot has his. Please for all of us little hunters do not vote for this bill. Mr. and Mrs. RAY BELIVEAU. LEWISTON, IDAHO, November 6, 1961. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Washington, D.C. DEAR GRACIE: It has been and is my pleasure to be numbered among your Idaho constituents since coming to Idaho in 1951 and I would like to express my opposition on S. 174 wilderness legislation. I am a practicing professional forester vitally interested in the wise use and management of our natural resources. S. 174 restricts over 3 million acres or 9 percent of the area of the State of Idaho to wilderness use. We cannot afford to be legislated out of our assets to this extent. S. 174 takes the management of over 3 million acres of natural resources out of the hands of professionally trained people. We cannot afford this. Wilderness use is a legitimate use of lands best suited to meet wilderness needs. However, areas set aside for this single use should be situated so that family groups can benefit. The areas should be much, much smaller, more numerous, and should be bordered by access roads and camping grounds. I would like to suggest something on the order of 25,000 acres in size, the areas chosen by trained people and representing various examples of our natural beauty. Please include this letter in the record of hearings on S. 174. JOHN H. BIELEJEO. GOLDENDALE, WASH., November 14, 1961. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, GENTLEMEN: Wilderness system bill (S. 174) which forbids further use, other than for recreation, of such a vast acreage of commercial forest land within the primitive areas, construction of roads adequate for its protection from fire and disease, and the selective cutting necessary to prevent waste in such an area can make no contribution to our future economy, and can only be interpreted by future generations as an example of thoughtless waste. Would like my opinion included in the record of field hearings on this bill. Yours very truly, Congresswoman GRACIE PFOST: C. E. BLANCHARD. Please put me down on record as in favor of the wilderness bill S. 174. I could not find a ride to the meeting at McCall. My husband wants to be put on record too, as in favor of the bill. MARGARET BLOOM and BILL BLOOM. WALLACE, IDAHO, November 2, 1961. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Representative, State of Idaho, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR GRACIE: I certainly do not feel I am taking any liberties in writing you. as a friend as I feel and know you are a friend, I will never forget our chance meeting. In front of the National Guard and Reserve Armory in Wallace, when I stopped and not knowing who approached you and Jack for campaign literature. Though short I will never forget our pleasant exchange. Kipling once said something about, "If you can walk with Kings nor lose the common touch." My wife also in her meeting with you in Morrows store feels the same. I, as chairman of Local 5114 United Steel Workers L. & E. Committee which is now on strike against the same selfish interests opposing the wilderness bill-I speak for the overwhelming majority of our membership saying that we do support the wilderness bill. Being a labor union and on strike we did not have the money to send a delegate to the hearings at McCall but please count us in. I am enclosing a letter to editor of mine which appeared in this morning's Spokesman Review which I think expresses our view better than any further correspondence. Sincerely, SELFISH INTERESTS W. R. BONDURANT. As one who has followed the wilderness bill reasonably close I must agree that there are some facets that I am in disagreement with, and I certainly do believe that perhaps a fairer bill could have been drawn. But it gives me a large pain in the neck to hear the cries of havoc and to see the crocodile tears of those who have a purely selfish interest. It reminds me of those great words, "Let him, without sin, cast the first stone." Instead of cooperating and working intelligently in solving a situation that does need a solution, they start beating the drums and trying to arouse the lunatic fringe. The mining companies in Idaho are 50 years behind the rest of industry. Unless they wake up and put their efforts into doing something constructive instead of being destructive then they will find the world has truly passed them by. Let me again say I am not wholly in accord with the wilderness bill. I certainly believe that Senator Church has come up with something better than any of the opposition has offered, and to him I give my wholehearted support. WALLACE, IDAHO. LEWISTON, IDAHO, November 7, 1961. DEAR MADAM: We are in favor of the wilderness bill and the incorporation of amendments that will strengthen it. Sincerely yours, Mrs. JULIUS BOESEN. KELLOGG, IDAHO, November 13, 1961. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Chairwoman, House Subcommittee on Public Lands, New House Office Building. DEAR MRS. PrOST: Mail from my home in Kellogg tells me that there is still time to register my views on proposed wilderness legislation. I am opposed to the present form of the legislation and would like to present two suggestions for consideration and entering into the record. In its present form the proposed wilderness bill would lock up, for the future as well as the present, all of the potential resources in State-sized regions of our Western States. Idaho would be particularly hard hit; the void created would have the same useful effect as if a 500-piece orchestra put on a perfectly brilliant performance in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Much beauty and grandeur would be available there, if any but a privileged few could avail themselves of it (without access, less expensive and time consuming than pack trips, very few can enjoy the proposed wilderness areas.) In the interest of sharing and dividing our surface area, with its resource potential and its scenic and sporting value, more equitably with other States; we should also share the loss of our potential with them. I propose the following, to amend the legislation, if passed in its present form: 1. Each State shall forfeit a proportional part of its surface area. 2. Parcels shall be selected, as in the proposed legislation, by the President, as advised by his Cabinet Secretaries, without congressional approval. 3. Management of the appropriated parcels should also be controlled and supervised as in the wilderness bill. The proceeds of the management of all of the parcels would be divided equally among all of the States since each has contributed its proportionate share. Richer industrial parcels would compensate for lost potential resources in those States contributing the scenic beauty of true wilderness. 4. Access regulations of the proposed legisaltion shall remain as stated. (In this way, none but the wealthy can enter the preserve.) Defeat of presently proposed legislation, but with a substitute bill to provide wilderness as well as development potential within the same regions will serve more people much better. Such a bill should provide for 1. A regional study of the proposed areas to determine resource potential and to determine the use most beneficial to the greatest numbers. 2. Congressional approval, based upon the results of comprehensive research potential studies of each and every parcel, so designated. 3. Relatively easy access, for the purpose of both tourist access and pest and fire control to within 10 miles of the center of each designated parcel. Ten miles of windfalls is wilderness enough for the most fanatic, and a test for the most rugged. I am interested in wildlife and scenery, but to be enjoyed, access must be gained to areas where they can be found. Resource as well as wildlife needs to be harvested when mature in order to maintain healthy balance. These things can all be accomplished within the same, or similar, areas and more accessible limited areas can and should be preserved for wilderness. To work, however, the program needs considerably more study than the proposed bill apparently had. The vacuum that it will create in its present form will deprive many while benefiting very few. Reconsideration at a later date is most desirable. Sincerely yours, E. O. BRACKEN. Representative GRACIE PFOST NOVEMBER 2, 1961. Subcommittee on Public Lands, Nampa, Idaho. DEAR MADAM: As interested conservationists we wish to request prompt, favorable action in regard to the wilderness bill (S. 174). Please consider this letter as our statement supporting action by the House of the wilderness bill. Yours very truly, BRUCE NEIL BYE. KAREN BYE. KELLOGG, IDAHO, November 13, 1961. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Chairwoman, House Subcommittee on Public Lands, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. PFOST: Mail from my home in Kellogg tells me that there is still time to register my views on proposed wilderness legislation. I am opposed to the present form of the legislation and would like to present two suggestions for consideration and entry into the record. In its present form the proposed wilderness bill would lock up, for the future as well as the present, all of the potential resources in State-sized regions of our Western States, Idaho would be particularly hard hit; the void created would have the same useful effect as if a 500-piece orchestra put on a perfectly brilliant performance in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Much beauty and grandure would be available there, if any but a privileged few could avail themselves of it. (Without access, less expensive and time consuming than pack trips, very few can enjoy the proposed wilderness areas.) In the interest of sharing and dividing our surface area, with its resource potential and its scenic and sporting values, more equitably with other States; we should also share the loss of our potential with them. I propose the following, to amend the legislation, if passed in its present form: 1. Each State shall forfeit a proportional part of its surface area. 2. Parcels shall be selected, as in the proposed legislation, by the President as advised by his Cabinet Secretaries, without congressional approval. 3. Management of the appropriated parcels should also be controlled and supervised as in the wilderness bill. The proceeds of the management of all of the parcels would be divided equally among all States since each has contributed its proportionate share. Richer industrial parcels would compensate for lost potential resources in those States contributing the scenic beauty of true wilderness. 4. Access regulations of the proposed legislation shall remain as stated. In this way, none but the wealthy can enter the preserve. Defeat of presently proposed legislation, but with a substitute bill to provide wilderness, as well as development potential within the same regions will serve more people much better. Such a bill should provide for 1. A regional study of the proposed areas to determine resource potential and to determine the use most beneficial to the greatest numbers. 2. Congressional approval, based upon the results of comprehensive research potential studies of each and every parcel so designated. 3. Relatively easy access, for the purpose of both tourist access and pest and fire controls to within 10 miles of the center of each designated parcel. Ten miles of windfalls is wilderness enough for the most fanatic, and a test for the most rugged. I am interested in wildlife and scenery, but to be enjoyed, access must be gained to areas where they can be found. Resources as well as wildlife need to be harvested when mature in order to maintain healthy balance. These things can all be accomplished within the same, or similar, areas and more accessible limited areas can and should be preserved for wilderness. To work, however, the program needs considerably more study than the proposed bill apparently had. The vacuum that it will create in its present form will deprive many while benefiting very few. Reconsideration at a later date is most desirable. Sincerely yours, LEWISTON, IDAHO, November 2, 1961. Representative GRACIE PFOST, House Office Building, Washington, D.Č. DEAR MRS. PFOST: I would like to say a few words of thanks for the impartial manner in which you handled the McCall hearing on the wilderness bill, and for the many points you raised for clarification during the hearing. Opponents of the measure have done about everything to confuse the public. Your efforts at clearing up this muddle are much appreciated. I am enclosing a brief statement on the bill which I would like to submit for the record. Very truly yours, MORTON R. BRIGHAM. STATEMENT BY MORTON R. BRIGHAM ON S. 174, THE WILDERNESS BILL I have been a resident of Idaho for 45 years. My address is 3519 13th Street, Lewiston, Idaho. For much of my life I have traveled in our back country as a Forest Service employee, fisherman, and hunter. During the period from 1934 until the present, I have seen many thousands of acres of some of the finest country in the United States torn up by bulldozers. The St. Joe River Valley, the Little North Fork of the Clearwater, the main North Fork, the Lochsa, and certain areas of the South Fork of the Clearwater are some of these. Further north the Coeur d'Alene River has been ruined by mining operations. I have witnessed the beginning of widespread use of the helicopter, the jeep. and the tote gote. There is perhaps no economical means to eliminate the destruction caused by logging operations. It does not follow, however, that every acre should be logged. Political pressure being what it is, however, the last of our fine back country will be invaded by machinery eventually unless Congress passes a law to the contrary. The wilderness bill as passed by the Senate is the best bill that we have been able to come up with after several years of effort, and I urge its enactment. The Forest Service has plans to eventually classify some areas as wild or wilderness that do not now have any such classification. One of these I am familiar with. It is located near Larkins Peak on the divide between the North Fork and Little North Fork of the Clearwater. It has over a dozen lakes and a great abundance of wildlife, including bears, elk, deer, forest grouse, mountain goats, and marten. I can see nothing in the bill that would allow the Forest Service to make any recommendations on such an area. I think a provision should be written into the bill instructing review of such areas in a manner similar to the one outlined for primitive areas. If you could see the Larkins Peak country I believe you would agree with this position. RICHLAND, WASH., November 10, 1961. Representative GRACIE PFOST, Subcommittee Chairman, New House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MADAM: The Richland Women's Club as a federated club wishes to go on record strongly supporting the wilderness bill S. 174. Truly yours, Mrs. CHARLES BUCHOLZ, Conservation Chairman. HAYDEN LAKE, IDAHO, October 30, 1961. Representative GRACIE PFOST, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PFOST: I would like to hereby voice my disapproval of the wilderness measure. I am 100 percent against it. It is most unconstitutional to ask the thinking people of Idaho to accept this. It might be of interest to you and your group to know that in a recent poll' Senator Frank Church 1 The Dan Smoot report, vol. 7, No. 44 (Broadcast 326). Oct. 30, 1961, Dallas, Tex. |