LEWISTON, IDAHO, February 26, 1963. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: Following is our joint statement on Senate bill 4 which we desire that you present at the wilderness bill hearings to be held February 28, 1963. In announcing the hearings on S. 4, Senator Anderson asked that statements be confined to new matter in regard to the measure. As Idaho residents the past 6 years we have been observers and participants in the debate, on the local level, of wilderness. We feel that perhaps our comments now on the perspective possible, at this mature stage of the debate, may be of interest to the Senate committee. This debate, hot and angry at times, has been good. All of us involved have had our say, vented our feelings, put our cards on the table thanks to the stage set by our democratic credo. We have not said kind things about each other "wood butchers," "esthetic hogs"; as expected-moralistic and judgmental values. Yet, increasingly, the careful observer can discern a thread of broadly accepted ideas favorable to wilderness philosophy. This is an area where these ideas have been sharply criticized because of the threat implied, by the wilderness concept, to the economic survival of a large cross section of local population. This is traditionally due to predominantly one industry characteristic of the area (lumbering). One very recent positive indication of this favorable attitude toward wilderness was the vote in the Idaho Legislature against the wilderness memorial by both of the local State representatives and the State senator. In short, we are now past the name-calling stage-we no longer have to relegate each other to a barbarian limbo; to agree that wilderness is needed, is here to stay and perhaps it is in the best interest of introspective interdependent man, a traditionally outdoor loving country, and also the long-range economic interests of the State of Idaho to preserve our few remaining primitive areas in the permanent wilderness category. Idahoans increasingly recognize their strategic location next to a vast megalopolis extending from Seattle to San Diego-strategic, considering the recreational needs of an exploding population and changing working hours heralding sweeping changes in free time for diversified and creative recreational use. We are privileged to have had the opportunity to participate in the review of this unique and historic legislation. We believe it is now timely to pass out of committee bona fide wilderness legislation, as is the case with S. 4, for legislative action by the full Senate and House. Respectfully, Senator MARGARET C. SMITH, MARIAN A. MAGER. TALMAN RUSSELL MAGER. OLD YORK GARDEN CLUB, York, Maine, February 16, 1963. DEAR SENATOR SMITH: At the hearings on S. 4, the wilderness bill, set for February 28, we will be grateful if you will present this statement from the Old York Garden Club, and if you cannot do so, will you kindly have it presented for us. The Old York Garden Club of over 100 members strongly endorses President Kennedy's statement that “we must protect and preserve our Nation's remaining wilderness areas"; and that of Secretary Udall, that "preservation of wilderness is a tribute to 'America the Beautiful,' a demonstration of faith in her future and an ability to learn from her past. It demonstrates to the world that the United States is an inspired democracy, not exploiting every material resource in every cranny of the land, but wisely living on a sustained interest, not capital." Sincerely yours, CHARLOTTE PARKS, Chairman of Conservation. 84 NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION ACT In re S. 4 hearing. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. RATON, N. MEX., February 17, 1963. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: The Colfax County Game Protective Association of Raton, N. Mex., feels that it is of the utmost importance that the new wilderness bill, S. 4, be passed. We feel that it is fair to all concerned in its present form. We feel very strongly that we owe it to our children and all future generations to preserve wilderness areas for their enjoyment and moral refreshment. There is a terrific need to get away from the fast pace we encounter in our everyday working lives, and more and more people from all age groups are finding that the peaceful solitude of our wilderness areas fills that need. In its present form, the bill has provisions to take care of national emergencies. Grazing, State water rights,prospecting and mining, oil and gas and powerlines all are safeguarded if the President sees that allowing them will better serve the public interest than denial of them. Surely this wish to preserve small parts of our last remaining wilderness areas cannot be termed "selfishness." It is selfishness on the part of special interests that would destroy our very last wilderness areas for their own personal gain. Respectfully, COLFAX COUNTY GAME PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, By Dr. JOHN A. LANGSTON, President. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, 'The Honorable CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: On behalf of the National Rifle Association of America, I would like to express our approval of S. 4, which establishes a National Wilderness Preservation System. Passage of this bill would not only mean that wild, untamed lands would be set aside for those who follow us, but also that much prime habitat for game animals and fur bearers would remain intact and unchanged. The National Rifle Association, a nonprofit organization with membership of over 520,000 sportsmen, supports fully the ideals embodied in this wilderness bill. Sincerely, Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, FRANKLIN L. ORTH, Executive Vice President. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, Washington, D.C., February 21, 1963. Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: The annual convention of the National Wildlife Federation will be in progress at Detroit, Mich., on February 28, 1963, and I shall be unable to appear before your committee as it considers S. 4, to create a National Wilderness Preservation System. I should appreciate it, however, if this letter could be made a part of the hearing record. For identification, the National Wildlife Federation is a private organization which employs educational means in seeking to attain conservation objectives. The federation is composed of 51 independent affiliates, some of which have appeared before this committee in previous years with relation to wilderness preservation. These affiliates, located in all States and the District of Columbia, in turn are constituted of individuals who, when combined with other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 2 million persons. NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION ACT 85 Our organization long has endorsed the policy of wilderness preservation. We believe the principles and instruments set forth in S. 4 essentially are the same as those we have supported in the past. This committee last conducted public hearings in wilderness preservation almost exactly 2 years ago, February 27-28, 1961. In our opinion, developments during this interim period have emphasized the urgency of further protecting wilderness areas by action of the Congress. There is no question but that competition for land, for commercial uses and even for other recreational purposes, is increasing and some of the prime areas of wilderness are in jeopardy. The National Wildlife Federation believes in the wise management of public land resources in accordance with the policy of multiple use. It has been recognized widely that it is impossible to use every area for all purposes. Therefore, just as we believe some Federal lands should be devoted to the major purposes of timber production, or for mining, or grazing, or for so-called mass recreational purposes, we believe certain areas should be set aside as wilderness with protection by specific act of Congress. In summary, Mr. Chairman, we hope this committee-and the Senate itself— soon may see fit to reiterate the overwhelming approval granted the nearly identical measure, S. 174, in the last Congress. Thank you for the opportunity of making these comments. Sincerely, THOMAS L. KIMBALL, Executive Director. STATEMENT OF J. A. BUCHANAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WYOMING NATURAL RESOURCE BOARD Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Wyoming Natural Resource Eoard is an agency created within the executive department of the State for the purpose of developing the natural resources to insure economic growth and stability for the people of Wyoming. Our offices are 215 Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne. The board in the past has endorsed the principle of multiple use, and it is disturbing that legislation such as S. 4 (identical to S. 174 with the exception of one word) through its enactment, might endanger this concept. We are concerned that this bill could lock up our potential mineral and timber resources. It would hamper the livestock industry and water resource development. We believe that the recreational benefits would accommodate only the physically and financially able. While recreation is emphasized as a basic multiple use in this bill, a small percentage of our population would have the opportunity or the desire to use them. In our State of Wyoming, where 30,219,000 acres of land are federally owned, it is imperative that we extend exploration for oil and gas, mineral deposits; increase grazing of cattle and sheep; harvesting of timber and the development of water resources for municipalities and irrigation projects in the lowlands. We believe that these areas are being adequately supervised and protected by existing land-administering agencies. This legislation provides that within 10 years the President may recommend to Congres permanent inclusion in the wilderness system of 54 million acres, such recommendations becoming law if neither the Senate nor House approves a resolution to oppose such elimination of areas. We believe, also, that this bill delegates powers of Congress to the executive branch in disposition of Federal lands. The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the authority of disposition, and this bill merely gives Congress the power of veto over laws written by the President. Our board does not oppose wilderness areas as they are presently constituted in Wyoming. The board is, however, opposed to establishment of new wilderness areas, addition to these areas, or change in status of primitive areas to wilderness areas. We believe that this bill recognizes only a single use rather than multiple use, and we find it impossible to adopt any other position than that our natural resources be developed for the greatest good for the greatest number. KENNECOTT COPPER CORP., NEVADA MINES DIVISION, McGill, Nev., February 20, 1963. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: It is my understanding that the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee has scheduled a hearing on February 28, 1963 relative to S. 4, a new widlerness bill, as introduced by Senator Anderson of New Mexico. I am seriously concerned over the implications in the bill as far as the mining industry in the United States is concerned. Essentially, this opposition stems from the severe restrictions imposed upon the industry, and the adverse potential effect it would have on the economy of our country. It is my contention that the attached amendments should be incorporated in S. 4, as a restriction of mineral entry and location on public lands is a real detriment to the mining industry and ultimately to the United States. Your earnest consideration of these amendments is most respectfully solicited for, as you are aware, we have no certain knowledge of what minerals our Nation may need in the future, nor where these sources of minerals might be developed. Yours very truly, M. J. O'SHAUGHNESSY, General Manager. KENNECOTT COPPER CORP., RAY MINES DIVISION, Hayden, Ariz., February 22, 1963. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: I understand that the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee has scheduled a hearing on new wilderness legislation, S. 4, on February 28, 1963. I respectfully urge you to vote against the measure because I believe that basically and fundamentally all the public domain should be placed to the highest possible use, and minerals and nonmetallics necessary to our national welfare, economic progress, and welfare of the States and local communities should remain available. This obviously calls for the application of the basic principles of multiple use. It is my opinion that the bill, as introduced, is not designed for the general welfare of the Nation but it designed basically to meet the demands of a very small minority. In the interests of the future fullest development of our natural resources, I respectfully urge you to oppose S. 4 or to support reasonable amendments such as those proposed to the House Interior Commitee in the last session of Congress. Such proposed amendments are as follows: I. Strike the word "primitive" in line 1, page 4, section 3(b)(1). II. Strike, beginning with the word "provided," line 2, page 4, down to and including the words "forest land," line 3, page 6, section 3(b)(1). III. Strike (A), line 2, page 15, and strike beginning with the word "prospecting," line 4, page 15, down to and including (B), line 14, page 15, section 6(c) (2). IV. Strike all of section 6(c) (8), beginning with the word "nothing," line 10, page 17, down to and including the word "environment," line 17, page 17, and substitute therefor the following: "(8) Anything in this act to the contrary notwithstanding, lands within the wilderness system shall continue to be open to prospecting and and subject to location and entry in the same manner and to the same extent as under existing mineral laws of the United States and the rules and regulations applying thereto: Provided, That the surface of such lands disturbed in performing prospecting discovery, and location work shall, if economically feasible, be restored as near as practicable when it has served its purpose pursuant to reasonable regulations issued by the appropriate secretary: And provided further, That unpatented and patented mining claims lying within such lands shall not be used for any purpose other than prospecting, mining, or processing operations and uses incident thereto. "In the exercise of any right under such mineral laws, there shall be the right of ingress and egress by any and all means, and the right to establish and use rights-of-way for transmission lines, waterlines, and telephone lines, and rights-of-way for other facilities necessary in prospecting, mining, and processing operations: Provided, however, That such rights shall be subject to regulations by the appropriate Secretary which are consistent with the use of the land for mineral development and exploration, drilling, mining, and processing operations, which regulations shall not be prohibitive." Due to the inherent difficulty of establishing the mineral value of our land resources in wilderness areas, prospecting exploration and mineral development activities, including gas and oil, should permitted in wilderness areas under the proposed law. Sincerely yours, A. P. MORRIS, General Manager. AMERICAN PLANNING & CIVIC ASSOCIATION, Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: On behalf of the officers and board of trustees of the American Planning & Civic Association I wish to strongly urge the enactment of Senate bill S. 4, a bill to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes. Wilderness resources contain basic values and provide undeniable benefits to the American people, which it is believed has been well demonstrated by previous hearings of your committee on wilderness proposals. The establishment of a wilderness system such as outlined in this bill is clearly in the public interest. Sincerely yours, Re S. 4, wilderness bill. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, DONALD B. ALEXANDER, Executive Director. SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., February 25, 1963. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: The Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D.C., a nonprofit scientific and educational fish conservation organization, dedicated to the improvement of sport fishing, and supported by fishermen and industry, supports the objectives of the wilderness bill (S. 4), introduced by you. We understand this to be the same as S. 174 passed by the Senate last year on a 78-to-8 vote. The amount of lands involved, taking into account the overall national perspective, do not appear to be excessive to us. We believe that every effort possible should be made to preserve this small vestige of the primeval in order that future generations of Americans may have an opportunity to know and appreciate this aspect of their heritage in some small degree. We are convinced, too, that consideration must be given to a full variety of outdoor experiences within the framework of meeting the growing demands for outdoor recreation, the needs for which were recently documented by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Demands on "back country" primitive areas by anglers are also increasing, especially by those desiring the unique fishing opportunities offered only in wilderness situations. Such fishing opportunities would disappear almost overnight, if not safeguarded by legislation similar to that proposed in S. 4. There is much current concern regarding increasing water pollution in our streams and lakes. Protection of the headwaters in wilderness areas could help to assure the American people that there will always be some uncontaminated supplies of clean, clear water-above all sources of pollution. Water quality in these watersheds within the wilderness areas could be preserved in its natural state of purity, providing external tangible "yardsticks" for : measuring effectiveness of water pollution control programs. |