EUREKA, CALIF., April 18, 1967. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, We support H.R. 7742. HUMBOLDT FISHERMEN'S MARKETING ASSOCIATION. SACRAMENTO, CALIF., April 18, 1967. Hon HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: As members of the California Legislature representing Santa Cruz and San Benito counties, we urge your favorable action on the matter pending concerning San Felipe Division, Central Valleys project. Respectfully, DONALD L. GRUNSKY, Senator, 17th Senatorial District. Assemblyman, 31st Assembly District. EUREKA, CALIF., April 13, 1967 HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, The board of directors of the Rotary Club of Eureka, Calif., have asked that you be notified they are unanimously in support of the Redwood National Park and Seashore Plan (H.R. 7742) by Congressman Don H. Clausen. Senator ALAN BIBLE, R. CHALMERS CRICHTON, Secretary, Rotary Club of Eureka. EUREKA, CALIF., April 6, 1967 Chairman, Park and Recreation Subcommittee, DEAR SENATOR BIBLE: The proposal to establish a Redwood National Park is a matter of utmost personal concern to the residents of Humboldt and Del Norte counties. This committee has been formed by citizens of the Redwood Empire, and we believe it represents a consensus of opinion in this area. The committee believes that the National Redwood Park and Seashore Plan, as introduced by Congressman Don Clausen, best represents the interests of this region, out of the several bills that have been introduced in Congress. The uncertainty and unrest caused by the Redwoods National Park controversy has already hurt our economy. We ask your support for the Redwood National Park and Seashore bill, H.R. 7742. REDWOODS TO THE SEA CITIZENS COMMITTEE, FORTUNA, CALIF., Apirl 18, 1967. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: City Council, City of Fortuna, on April 17, endorsed Redwood National Park and Seashore Plan of Congressman Donald H. Clausen. RAY STEWART, Mayor. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., March 21, 1967. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: I have just finished reading Representative Don H. Clausen's proposal for a "Redwoods to the Sea, National Park and Seashore." Although I'll admit that this was a brilliant move, on the part of the logging companies, it only serves to detract from the real issue at stake, and that issue is concerned primarily with preserving a meaningful expanse of "Primeval Redwood Forest." At this late date, only one such area can be said to contain such an expanse, and that area is contained in the valley of Redwood Creek, which remains "relatively intact." By sheer chance, it seems, that this precise area was chosen by fate to contain the world's tallest trees, "the supreme forest of our planet." That this valley is worth protecting, is beyond question, for here, several species of trees reach world-record heights, and the final measurements are far from complete. This incomparable valley contains innumerable stands, which have never been measured. And far back, in the deep shadow of nearly inaccessible canyons, are Redwoods that may grow to 385 feet, or even higher. Incredible as this may seem, one such specimen is believed to have been sighted, and even more incredible is the fact that this unbelievable forest is disappearing before our very eyes, as we flounder in hopeless dissent. Conservationists know what must be done, if we are to preserve this unique and priceless treasure for our people, and for posterity-unfortunately, the timbermen also know what must be done, if they are to continue to rake in the huge profits upon which they seem to have become so dependent. They have made use of every trick in the field of advertising to cover up the destructive nature of their work, and now that the appalling truth of this ever-increasing destruction has come to light, they claim that the cries of the conservationists are "uncalled for," "false accusations" and "unjust harassments." And then, they profess concern for those individuals whose livelihoods depend upon the forest products industries, but are they really concerned? Do they think of these same people who, in 15 or 20 years, will have no more great forests to cut, and of their children, whose only inheritance will be the vast expanse of giant stumps? But, by then of course, it won't matter because the profit-makers will have sold out and departed, leaving in their wake a denuded wasteland, a deluded local populace, and a very disillusioned and disappointed nation, some of whom already suspect the whole "sustained yield theory" of being a hoax . . . and indeed it is, at the present rate of cutting. To return to the Seashore Proposal of Clausen, or rather, the lucrative interests which this proposal seeks to protect, I find it incredible that these "generous tree-farmers" would suggest, for our appeasement, "miles of lovely seacoast." most of which is already preserved within the borders of two state parks. (Del-Norte coast and Prairie Creek). They would "allow" us to have these state parks which we fought to save, years ago . . . and this strikes me as being outrageous and brazenly absurd! These relentless men have taken 90% of the great trees, and still their greed remains insatiable! They would gladly cut the last 10%, and then the undersized regrowth too, if we were foolish enough to let them do so. They laugh, and call us "The Virgin Savers," but those of us, who have seen these virgin forests, and their massive stands of 500 to 2,000 year old giants, know full well how long it will take to replace them. (Even a hundred-year-old second growth specimen is but a matchstick along side of these giants. To compare a new crop of redwoods to a virgin stand is like comparing a gully to the Grand Canyon. In conclusion I ask, on behalf of countless nature lovers, wilderness lovers and conservationists across the continent; "Who will listen to us, and count our votes . . . and contemplate the uncast ballots of untold generations to come?" All possible answers to this crucial question lie in your hands, and you are the only real hope we have, in these last critical hours. Please consider carefully, the incomparable treasures offered in the area of Redwood Creek-most startling of all wild rivers, by virtue of its famed "Emerald Mile"-and the unmeasured giants towering along its tumbling tributaries "where man may catch a final, fleeting glimpse of God's original creation, before it slips from his grasp, and fades from sight forever." Most sincerely, ROBERT THAYER. ORICK, CALIF., April 11, 1967. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Interior Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Please put me on record as being against the Clausen bill, H.R. 7742. I have lived for twenty years in Orick, in northwestern Humboldt County, and I oppose Clausen's plan for the following reasons: (1) To get acreage cover up a lot of land-he is converting state parks over into national parks. We have good state parks. He is confusing the issue about the redwood trees and he is confounding the issue. (2) To get acreage, he is taking property indiscriminately along the coast. He is encroaching on personal and private property of many, many homeowners (like us) and farmers. This private property has no redwoods. Much of it is not suited for any kind of park. And I live here and I know what I am saying. By the above two means Clausen is getting his 50,000 acres and not saving the redwoods. (3) The three timber companies here in Humboldt County are ramming a noisy, vociferous, expensive campaign for the Clausen plan by mail, radio, TV, posters, and persons. The great majority of us who live here in northwestern Humboldt County are against the Clausen plan but we have no well-heeled companies to promote our side. (4) If we must have a national park I am for the Redwood National Park Plan I, the 90,000-acre Redwood Creek plan and really save the redwoods. Yours truly, Mrs. ELMER HUFFORD. CRESCENT CITY, CALIF., April 10, 1967. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Interior Committee, DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: I would like to go on record as supporting the Clausen "Redwoods to the Sea" Redwood Park Proposal that your committee will be considering very shortly. I feel that Mr. Clausen's is the most sensible plan presented and most realistically protects the redwood groves and yet does not destroy the economic self-sufficiency of the North Coast area. I trust that your committee is composed of wise men who will not be swayed by blind emotional appeal as presented in several other unrealistic redwood park proposals. Our nation is built on the rights and liberties of the free enterprise system and your responsibilities as servants of the people is not to destroy this personal right. I fervently pray that your decision will be a wise one as the people of the North Coast area will be so greatly affected by it. Sincerely, Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, ALVIN E. WILLIAMS. LARKSPUR, CALIF., April 15, 1967. Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR: As a resident of Marin County, a county of the redwood region, I submit this letter and ask that it be entered into the record. Redwood Creek Valley in Humboldt County is our opportunity still briefly present to create the Redwood National Park of a stature equal to the magnificence of Sequoia sempervirems. This valley of incredible beauty and potential for human well-being extends from above the Emerald Mile to below the Tallest Trees, its Sequoias reaching to the ridgetops. Not for very many centuries could there ever be another forest like this, the finest significant redwood forest valley in existence, and the last. Forest walls meet the clear river, the crest well above a football field if it were placed vertically and superimposed. Redwood columns hold the moisture and vital soil, they help control the river-flow with their living watershed and protect the town of Orick below. The tallest groves are jewels set in their matrix of forest slopes and this surrounding forest is parkland in its own right. The cathedral groves require their slopes of forest for the original parkland setting and for protection. From the river flats of the very tallest trees to the magnificent slope-type redwoods and associated trees, this valley is unmatched. The west flank suffers from logging wounds in places, yet the eastern slope is almost intact. Only this watershed can provide aesthetic, scientific, and recreational values so great. It is the valley basin itself that is such vital parkland. It is not simply the bottomland cathedral groves that qualify Redwood Creek Valley as the only adequate and significant Redwood National Park site left. A mighty forest still rises on Redwood Creek, a last adequate stand of redwood verdure unmatched for beauty, height, extent, diversity, and cathedral sublimity. We are fortunate it is an American forest and it is up to us to decide now what becomes of it. We can protect this Sequoia mantle, or we let it be destroyed. While it yet stands, it is our concern. We have little time. Redwood Creek Valley deserves to be our proud Redwood National Park before it too becomes a dismal battleground of ragged stumps and tractor-torn earth bisected by a muddy watercourse. Sincerely, WALTER RIVERS. EUREKA, CALIF., April 14, 1967. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Senate Interior Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: As a private citizen, resident of Humboldt County for more than 30 years and closely connected with the activities in this area since 1904, I am convinced of the need for establishment here, at the earliest possible moment, of a large Redwood National Park, taking in the acreage urged by the Sierra Club and endorsed by the Citizens for a National Redwood Park. As the eldest child of a family which has been in business here for over 50 years (Harvey M. Harper Co. Ford Dealership-since 1912) and as a former newspaper woman here, also as a result of almost eight years of intensive private research into the political economic situation of Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte counties I urge establishment of the park for these reasons: 1. As a conservationist, I am completely convinced that the natural resources of this world are not inexhaustible; evidence produced daily by great scientists all over the world should hardly make it necessary to belabor this point. Further, I feel keenly our moral obligation to those who came after us; while I think we should give credit for the shortest expression ever voiced of the philosophy of the "get-rich-quick boys" to Mr. Don Cave erstwhile chief spokesman for the apparently now defunct timber industry backed so-called "sensible plan," I cannot go along with that thinking. As a child is only a gift for parents to enjoy for a few short years, so the earth is not the property of any one generation to destroy, but a sacred trust to pass on to the next generation. It is our duty to pass it on as unspoiled as is possible from an economic standpoint. 2. As aware as the timber industry that money is essential in our society I point out that under the domination of the timber industry and their allies we have merely repeated here the documented history of every timbered state in the Union. We have had a "boom and bust" economy throughout our more than one hundred years, the "busts" being longer than the "booms". It is inconceivable that any intelligent public official of integrity and courage could fail to see that we are the classic example of an area dominated by one industry with that industry removing the main natural resource while damaging other resources. Here, the timber industry and its political henchmen, controlling the news-media and threatening and harassing public officials and private citizens who dare speak out against this exploitation, has even succeeded in bounding Humboldt County for millions to pay for water chiefly to supply two pulp mills spewing their noxious odors over our main centers of population. Since pulp mills are more and more automated, therefore do not employ many people, and since they do bring lowered real estate values and are most definitely cutting down on the income of many of our many motels, restaurants, hotels and other businesses, it is becoming a little doubtful as to the great economic benefit this short-sighted planning has brought us. It should be of interest to your committee that many of the proponents of the Clausen plan were, and are, among those who helped, and are helping, to promote the myth that forest practice and reforestation here leave nothing to be desired for now and the future. Even casual research, and this researcher has gone into the question deeply, makes it clear that the industry will never again wait for the trees to reach any great age. 3. This is the real picture of our political and economic situation right now: A. Politically the stench of corruption, inevitable in a somewhat isolated area long dominated by one industry cold-shouldering any others interested in coming here, all but exceeds the pulp mill odor. And it should be noted that the majority of local, state and national legislators have done little or nothing to expose this. This writer sat at a California State Forestry Board meeting in Sacramento this year and heard Larry Kiml of the State Chamber of Commerce and John Callaghan of the California Forest Protective Association, and lobbyist for the timber industry (don't be mis-led by the name of the organization) enthusiastically gave a glowing report of how they had raised some $25,000——“and that was pretty good we thought coming so close to the holidays last December and with so little notice-and then, besides that we managed to arrange for free jet service for the party and to get some of the important executives of user groups there and we're sure the Aspinall party went away convinced that we didn't need to set aside any more land for public use." They further explained that "of course the timber industry picked up the tab for the big dinner at the Ahwanee and then there was an equally fine banquet for them at Palm Springs." (Any courageous public official is welcome to more details on this interesting trip of a national legislator to survey the situation in California-of course, to us in Humboldt it is just a repeat on a larger scale of the way our local timber group joins with our Ingomar Club to direct the thinking of legislators-and the private citizen cannot avoid the thought of how colossal such lobbying must be when it reaches Washington, D.C.) Naturally this was not reported in the press. State Forestry Board meetings in Sacramento are rather vaguely reported by such press as does attend although California is the second timber producing state in the Union. Naturally, also the report was as enthusiastically received by the majority of the State Forestry Board. as it was enthusiastically given. B. Economically our situation is tragic-and not about to improve without courageous legislative action. With the national average unemployment rate at 3.6% we are enjoying an unemployment rate of 15.7, with some concern in informed circles that this unemployment rate is continuing to rise. California's Forest Practice Act, and we had none until 1945 despite the fact that lumbering began in California before the discovery of gold in 1849, is a farce, as evidenced by recent hearings and as borne out by the bills just introduced, in the hope of improvement, by Assemblyman Charles Warren. As for the tax situation when it comes to timber in the state of California, it is interesting to note how few public officials, in California, at least, seem willing to read, or talk about, the well documented and revealing report on the timber taxes provided in the recent PetrisKnox report. In conclusion, I remind you that it has been the practice of park opponents when discussing the setting aside of lands for public use to inquire "How much is enough?" With this question, many, as Professor Eugene L. Bryan, from whom your committee has heard and whose letter has been widely circulated in the public press by the timber interests, go on to make it quite clear that they consider it communistic to set aside any land for public use. It seems to me that, at this point, it is time, and it is the duty of citizens and public officials to ask such timber behemoths as Georgia Pacific, Weyerhaeuser, Arcata Redwood, Simpson, etc. "How much profit is enough?” And, most certainly we should make clear that we are not so naive that we are not completely aware that behind this bitter and prolonged battle is the deliberate intention to balloon the cost to the Nation's tax-payers while continuing to cut. I respectfully request that this statement will be included in the hearing record. I also enclose material which may be of interest to some members of your committee. Hopefully, RU-FLO HARPER LEE. [Enclosure] In the summer of 1964 when California State Assemblyman Edwin L. Z'Berg held hearings in Arcata, Calif., on problems in connection with Natural Resources and particularly the matter of the California State Division of Highways plan to put a freeway through Prairie Creek State Park ruining beautiful Fern Canyon, Mr. Cave, a native of Humboldter, speaking for the timber-oriented and controlled Eureka Chamber of Commerce had this to say, among other things: |