have members in all the States and more than 300 local branches and affiliates. Our national headquarters are in New York City. I wish to reaffirm our enthusiastic support for the wilderness bill, and specifically for S. 4. In previous hearings on wilderness legislation, I explained in detail why enactment of this bill is important to the purposes of wildlife conservation. I shall not repeat this testimony. I do wish to emphasize that the need has not diminished, but has become more urgent, since 2 years ago when the Senate acted on S. 174. It is now more certain than ever that we shall not keep such highly valuable but endangered species as the whooping crane, the California condor, the cougar, and the grizzly bear among our living wildlife unless we protect and preserve some substantial areas of wilderness habitat, as is proposed in S. 4. The last national convention of our 57-year-old organization was held November 10-13, 1962, in Corpus Christi, Tex. The attendance there was the largest in the history of the society, with more than 1,200 delegates and members present. This was more than twice the number present at our 1961 convention, which also was, to that time, the largest on record. At the Corpus Christi convention, at which State and local societies from 44 States were represented, the wilderness bill was proclaimed with enthusiasm to be the No. 1 conservation need and the No. 1 conservation goal for 1963. We urge a favorable report and passage by the Senate. [From the Audubon Leader's Conservation Guide, Jan. 1, 1963] THE FACTS ABOUT THE WILDERNESS BILL Opponents of wilderness legislation have spread misleading and false information about the bill that has been under consideration by Congress. Another of their tactics has been to tell the public and legislators that the bill is "very complicated" and "difficult to understand." It is really a simple measure. Conservationists should not be misled, and should set the truth before the public. The reason the bill can be made to sound complicated is that many people have not learned to make clear distinctions between the different categories of Federal lands, such as national forests, national parks, wildlife refuges, and public domain. As passed by the U.S. Senate in 1961 and as advocated by conservationists, the wilderness bill would affect only parts of three categories of Federal lands: (1) the national forests, which are administered by the U.S. Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture; (2) the national parks and monuments, which are administered by the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior; and (3) the national wildlife refuges (some are called national game ranges) which are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior. The so-called public domain lands, which are also sometimes referred to as the "national land reserve," would in no way be affected. Public domain lands, totaling about 475 million acres, include all the Federal grazing districts which have been set up under the Taylor Grazing Act. They are administered by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior. The national forest areas. Most of the unspoiled, unlogged, roadless areas now protected by Forest Service policy were called primitive areas when first set aside by executive action (not by act of Congress). Somewhat leisurely, through the years, the Forest Service has been reviewing these areas and reclassifying them as wild (if less than 100,000 acres) or wilderness (if larger than 100,000 acres). As of now, 45 areas totaling 6,108,762 acres have been given the designations intended to be permanent, wilderness or wild. There is also one special area of 1,034,852 acres, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota, which has the same status under the bill as the existing wilderness The bill would simplify the terminology by calling them all wilderness areas. areas. There remain 38 primitive areas totaling 7,819,309 acres that have yet to be studied in detail and reclassified. Among these are many of the finest and most scenic expanses of true wilderness left in the United States. Under the wilderness bill, the Forest Service would have 10 years to complete the review and reclassification of the primitive areas-some would be reduced in size in the process, some might be enlarged slightly, some might be eliminated altogether→ but in the meantime all would have the protection of the Wilderness Act. All of these areas, in the aggregate, constitute only about 8 percent of the 180 million acres in the national forests. The other 92 percent, some 166 million acres, would remain open as now for logging, roadbuilding, prospecting, and mining, and other commercial and development activities. The 166 million acres would not be affected by the wilderness bill. Since the wilderness and wild areas and the one canoe area already have been carefully studied and their boundaries studiously fixed, all these would be put into the permanent Wilderness System by passage of the wilderness bill. As the primitive areas are reviewed during a 10-year period, they would be reclassified permanently as wilderness subject to approval in each case by Congress. The bill guarantees there will be public hearings in the review process. The national park areas.-For purposes of the wilderness bill, there is no difference between areas called national parks, national monuments, and national seashores (all under the National Park Service). In 27 of the national parks and 20 national monuments, there are large, back-country tracts of unspoiled wilderness. Examples are the scenic, roadless expanses in Yellowstone National Park and Dinosaur National Monument. These 27 parks and 20 monuments contain about 22 million acres, not all of which would be suitable to go to the Wilderness System. Two national seashores-Cape Hatteras in North Carolina and the new Padre Island area in Texas-also contain wilderness that deserve the protection of the bill. It has been the policy of the National Park Service to keep such areas unspoiled. The wilderness bill would strengthen the hand of the Park Service in resisting the recurring pressures for roads, resort hotels, reservoirs, and other projects that continually arise as threats to the national park system. After careful study and designation by the Park Service of the places where roads and visitor facilities are necessary to accommodate the millions who visit the national parks, the appropriate areas of true wilderness would be brought into the permanent wilderness system under a procedure like that prescribed for the primitive areas. Each such designation would be subject to review and possible rejection by Congress. The national wildlife areas.-The areas designated national wildlife refuges and those called national game ranges would be subject to a process similar to the one set out for national parks. The Fish and Wildlife Service, acting through the Secretary of the Interior, would decided which parts of which refuges or game ranges should be preserved and protected as wilderness. The process of decisionmaking could go on over a 10-year period. In each instance, either House of Congress could pass a resolution keeping that particular area out of the wilderness system. A preliminary study has indicated that of nearly 300 wildlife refuges and ranges, there are 23, containing a total of 24,841,860 acres, that protect significant areas of wilderness. Most of the wildlife refuges are too small or too artificial to qualify as wilderness. Those established for waterfowl, for example, usually contain marshlands created or enlarged by diking, and are subject to artificial manipulation of water levels and vegetation. They serve their purpose admirably, but they are not wilderness. HOW THE BILL WILL PROTECT 1. It would set guidelines for administrators, Congressmen, and citizens by spelling out policy: "It is accordingly declared to be the policy of the Congress of the United States to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness." And by defining wilderness: "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's works substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) is of sufficient size as to make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value." 2. It would prohibit certain uses: "Except as specifically provided for in this act and subject to any existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise within the wilderness system, no permanent road, nor shall there be any use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats, or landing of aircraft nor any other mechanical transport or delivery of persons or supplies, nor any temporary road, nor any structure or installation, in excess of the minimum required for the administration of the area for the purposes of this act, including such measures as may be required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within such areas." 3. It would spell out prudent exceptions: The bill would authorize the administering Secretary (Agriculture or Interior) to take "such measures *** as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the appropriate Secretary deems desirable." "Such measures" could include the use of motorized equipment if necessary. The use of aircraft or motorboats, and the grazing of livestock, where already "well established" within a wilderness area, could continue subject to regulation. "Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness system to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other purposes of the system as established in this act." This means hunting guide services, pack-trip outfitting, and similar services, in keeping with wilderness purposes, could be provided on a commercial basis. Hunting could continue, subject to game conservation laws, in any of the wilderness areas where hunting is now permitted, as in the national forest areas. State jurisdiction with respect to hunting and fishing licenses and the management of fish and nonmigratory game would be protected. The President of the United States would be authorized by the Wilderness Act to permit prospecting and mining (including exploration for, and production of, oil and gas), and the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water conservation works, transmission lines, and other facilities in the public interest, including roads for such mining or water development, in any national forest wilderness area (but not in national parks or wildlife refuges). The President would make a determination on the basis that "such use * ** will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial." OTHER KEYS TO THE LOCKS Boundary changes in any area could be initiated anytime by the Secretary having jurisdiction. He would be required to publicize the proposed change and hold a public hearing, after which, if he still wished to do so, the Secretary would transmit the proposed change through the President to Congress. If neither House of Congress passed a resolution in opposition to the proposed change, it would go into effect. Congress itself would keep the master key. Under its constitutional authority over Federal lands, Congress could abolish or change any wilderness area—in a national forest, national park, or national wildlife refuge-simply by passing an act to that effect. The great safeguard is that Congress does not act except as a body responsible to the people who elect its Members, and in accordance with the legislative processes that include full publicity and public hearings. THINGS THE BILL WOULD NOT DO It would not, as opponents have falsely asserted, close down any mine, stop any logging operation, cancel any grazing permit, or abrogate any valid mining claim. Any existing mines could continue to operate. No logging or lumbering is now going on in any of the areas that would be affected. There are vast timber reserves as yet unharvested in the 92 percent of the national forests that would be unaffected. It would not put anyone out of work. On the contrary, it would boost the recreation and tourist business in States that could advertise wilderness attractions. It would not create any "new" areas of wilderness. Wilderness cannot be created. Once gone, it is gone for good. It would not affect State water laws or private water rights. It would not prohibit hunting in the national forests, nor permit hunting in the national parks. WHAT'S AHEAD? The wilderness bill, it will be recalled, was passed by the Senate, 78 to 8, in the last Congress but did not reach the floor of the House. In the new (88th) Congress that convenes this January, it must again be reported by the Interior Committees of both House and Senate and be passed by both bodies, and then signed by the President, to become law. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: As lovers of the out of doors in its natural state and workers with young people, we heartily support the wilderness bill (S. 4). We feel that it is essential for certain areas of our country to remain undisturbed so that people may escape to these areas from all of the distractions of our teeming metropolises. As people who are living in southern California, however, we are greatly concerned over the fact that an amendment to this bill might exclude the San Gorgonio wilderness and thereby permit the development of industrial and ski establishments. Since San Gorgonio is the one area in this part of the State which is still in its wilderness state, we urge that it be allowed to remain so. Thank you for anything you can do to preserve San Gorgonio as a wilderness area. E. S. REILE, Youth Director. THE GARDEN CLUB OF AMERICA, GENTLEMEN : By now we hope that the members of this committee know that women all over the country who study conservation support the wilderness bill, S. 4. We hope that our grandchildren and generations to come will be able to know that a section of our inheritance has been preserved for them. We urge, once again, the early passage of this bill. Mrs. ROGER EDDY, Vice Chairman, Conservation Committee. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, February 20, 1963. Hon. FRANK E. Moss, Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR Moss: This letter is written in my capacity as an active member of several conservation groups and, more importantly, as an actively avid hunter and fisherman. I am writing to you to express my views on the wilderness bill, S. 4, now under consideration by the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the Senate. During the past 30 years I have visited and fished in many of the primitive areas in this country. Occasionaly I have run across both dead and active mining and other extractive operations, and I must say that I cannot agree that these detract from the usefulness and enjoyment of these areas by sportsmen, hikers, and most others. Actually, some of these operations lend an enchantment and a degree of interest to primitive area visits and also provide some element of emergency shelter. The abuse of primitive and similar areas seems to come from the inconsiderate sportsmen or campers who mess up remote campsites with garbage, beer cans, or other litter, and ordinarily not from the well-run business which uses national forest land. For my part, I can see no logic in denying the use of our resources to individuals and companies who have the courage and means to try to develop them, and most of my sportsmen friends are emphatically opposed to any legislation which will so restrict national land that it cannot be used considerately by mining, lumbering, and related interests. Actually, such use of the land makes it easier for us sportsmen to enjoy these areas. Moreover, a continuation of the present practice of allowing multiple use of Federal lands provide some income to our Government and avoids increasing the tax burden which the wilderness bill will most certainly cause. I would appreciate it if the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee will make this protest against the wilderness bill a matter of record. Very truly yours, STANLEY D. MICHAELSON. Hon. FRANK E. Moss, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MCGILL, NEV., February 21, 1963. DEAR SENATOR Moss: This has reference to S. 4, the Wilderness Act, which is scheduled for hearings on February 28, 1963. As a citizen who has lived in the West all his life I wish to express strong opposition to this legislation. Our public lands are not being ruined and despoiled as some of the "uplift” societies would have the public think. As a westerner you are fully aware of the deterrent effect on our economy if such legislation is enacted. It is sincerely hoped that you will vigorously oppose passage of S. 4. It is requested that this letter be made a part of the record. Respectfully yours, RALPH W. CROSSER. PHILADELPHIA CONSERVATIONISTS, INC., CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, DEAR SIR: I understand that hearings on the wilderness bill (S. 4) are scheduled for February 28. I regret that I will be out of the country on that date and hence will not be able to represent Philadelphia Conservationists, Inc., in person at the hearings as I had hoped. However, on behalf of our organization I submit the following statement which I respectfully request be made a part of the record of the hearings. The wilderness bill has been before Congress and before the public for 5 years. It has had the most extensive hearings and expert revisions and appropriate modification which could be afforded to any bill. It has solid public support. It is opposed only by the special interests. It was passed overwhelmingly (78 to 8) by the Senate in the last Congress. It was blocked in committee in the House by the parliamentary (a much too charitable word) tactics of a committee minority and not by a committee vote. The bill is as perfect as long consideration, extensive hearings, and hard work can make it. There is no need for continued hearings. Such hearings may be requested by opposing minority and special interests not for the purpose of constructive discussion but purely as a delaying tactic. Hearings should not be held for such a purpose nor should the valuable time of our Senators and Congressmen be so exploited nor should taxpayers' funds be so expended. On behalf of our organization of over 750 members I respectfully urge that the wilderness bill be promptly and favoribly reported to the Senate floor without further hearings in accordance with the popular will. It is of the utmost importance that the Senate act quickly on this bill and send it to the House in order that its proponents in that body may have adequate time to overcome the delaying tactics which are sure to be again employed by the few but powerful members of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Sincerely yours, ALLSTON JENKINS, President. |