I, for one, do not want to see my country become a land in which every tree, every acre, and every mountain, is nothing but a source of profit. There must be something left to live for and to be proud of. With regard to timber, the exploitation of remaining wilderness areas, many of them have no timber resources. In some it is so marginal that it could not be brought out at a profit, and our efforts to bolster up and increase our timber resources might well be directed more in the direction of relieving the timber industry of its unfavorable tax structure which is interfering with reforestation. Thank you. (Dr. Hawkins complete statement follows:) Representative WAYNE ASPINALL, PALO ALTO, CALIF., November 6, 1961. Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SIR: The wilderness bill (S. 174) passed by the Senate in the first session of this Congress is under consideration now by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. As a private citizen, and not in representation of any organization, I respectfully urge that the committee report favorably on this bill, that it be brought to the floor of the House at a very early date in the 2d session of the 87th Congress, and that it not be amended in any way which would remove or reduce designated areas in the wilderness preservation system or result in changing their wilderness character. I think that it is particularly important that the action on this legislation be prompt. I have studied this bill thoroughly and have followed its legislative history and the hearings in the Senate committee over a period of years. It would be hard to point to any piece of legislation which has been more completely studied from every point of view, or as ably; it would be hard to show a better example of a bill in which there has been such reasonable consideration of the conflicting interests by the proponents of this legislation. I feel that every reasonable compromise has already been made toward resolving genuine conflicts and that no more remains to be done in this direction. In fact, if anything, it is a weaker bill in respect to attaining its purpose than it should be in the long range national interest. In respect to one of the areas which would be a wilderness area under this bill, the Cloud Peak area in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming, I have made a personal study for many years; I know that the proposed boundaries of that area have been drawn with the greatest care and consideration of the economic interests involved and the proposed wilderness designation is the best possible use of that area. It should be emphasized that around the outside of many wilderness areas are grazing areas, ranching lands, timberlands, etc., the long-range usefulness and economic value of which depends on their being an undeveloped and uninhabited wilderness area within. In keeping these areas as wilderness we, at the same time, preserve and protect their function as watershed. Insofar as certain opponents claim the possible potential need to use such areas for lumbering, for reclamation projects, dams, etc., a point of diminishing returns has been reached about such developments, and efforts to increase our timber resources may be better directed toward changes of tax structure that will favor reforestation of cutover lands and more prudent use of commercial stands of timber. It appears to me, from acquaintance with the local situation existing in regard to some areas, as for example the Cloud Peak area, that to permit the building of roads into the proposed areas, or dams within them, would actually operate to the benefit of a very few individuals at the expense of what is a national interest of all the people in having these areas remain as they are. Furthermore, the economic benefit that these individuals might derive would be marginal at best. To allow the exploitation or spoilation of the proposed areas by certain selfish individuals seems to me a tortured way to construe the idea of free enterprise. It is one of the functions of our Federal Government to define "policy" where the national interest and that of some individuals or group are in real or supposed conflict, and this is an example. The fact we have had wilderness areas in this country in the past has been an important thing in the shaping of the national character and morale. You can't measure that in terms of economic statistics, yet it truly is a part of said the increased mobility, population, and leisure time, cou a growing desire of Americans to relax with their fames of natural beauty is expected to produce a continued heavy national parks and related areas; that the attendance in. parks totaled over 72 million people in 1960, almost 3.7 m. 1 than the 1959 record, and that by far the greatest increase withe campers. The same thing that drove the Tule elk out of its native t driving man out of his. Wilderness is imperative to our plant and animal species from actual extinction. It It.. tive for the enrichment, inspiration, knowledge, and enjoy. American people. Let's keep the magnificent living museums of our Ni outdoor laboratories for science, the living natural la the future-a leading columnist wrote recently in the Times: We speak rather sadly of extinct creatures such as anks, ui. tigers, and pigmy horses, but we don't do much to keep creatures from following the path to oblivion into the Great Bet just taken of California's unique Tule elk, found nowhere shows the herd has been reduced to 296 after have number. Let us not delay or multiple use away our wilder » remembered for our hindsight or folly. Let us pris bill, without crippling amendments, in the House an sible moment; if changed, add strength to that histor one of the truest patriotic captions of late is the one wi bless America. Let us save some of it." Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Are there questions? If not, next on the list today is Dr. Ralph H Calif. Dr. Hawkins. STATEMENT OF RALPH HAWKINS, M.D., PA1· Dr. HAWKINS. My name is Dr. Ralph Haw Calif. I am a surgeon by profession and pre the California University Medical School. I a private citizen, representing no organization. I might add that I have stockholdings in co panies and livestock interests, and that the c speak for these industries do not seem to real. do not back up all of the objections that they one of tens of thousands of other Califor to stand here in my place and advocate the 1 As I read through S. 174, I am impressed considerations of the provisions that have! and providing for all legitimate conflicting I think that many of the objections the reads the provisions of this act carefull But I think the bill is weaker than is de is amended, it should be amended in the d the pure ores we are e at a later date when er is never eaten. He bill of a philosophy of that we get this on the › do, and serve notice to important part to play. ATURE CONSERVANCY, IN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER, seramento, November 6, 1961. nsular Affairs, Wilderness Bill Santa Monica, Calif., vice chairhe Nature Conservancy, At its 21, 1961, a unanimous resolution ; to speak in favor of speedy pasit any further diluting, negating, greater majority than the Senate's ire world that we understand and e. its formative years. Many thought 1 San Francisco. It is certainly too of the next session of the Congress, enough is enough. The constructive remains. As Henry Ford said, "Get iter." rply divided. The proponents underlerness and believe it supersedes all y grazing, timber, power, and mining ong as it does not interfere with their ng it, but their midas touch is so overruction they leave about them. all there ever shall be. He also created ad power to appreciate and use or abuse in has been wise, he has been rewarded. shed by flood, fire, and famine. en for granted. By wanton destruction nd it is fast disappearing at an acceleratwilderness, it was yours for the asking, ere is not enough for those of this generaat those generations to follow if we don't o be saved? rande by God The wilderness bill is not, are to blame for its shortcomings Time vement but we must act now to preserve sus bill but rather a cornerstone upon which Is the guide to our future actions in the natural resources. Its purpose is to estab is an important part of our natural reabundantly endowed, one which is fast foresight of our forefathers and ourselves, fastly resolve to preserve for ourselves and Its principles are as lofty as any of the letion, but in its formative years insidious rk so that some of its necessary spelling out those freedoms which we make large appropriations to protect. The establishment of a policy of preservation of the wilderness areas by the Congress becomes a necessity because of the way in which increasing population pressures have been building up. The time to do it is now. To leave the matter to chance, to allow the areas to become used for other purposes or "developed" truly will not pay. It will not pay economically (those areas would not be wilderness today if they were not submarginal from the standpoint of economic profit): it will not pay politically, morally, or historically. There are already in the bill very adequate provisions about what shall be done from the standpoint of policy when these areas by any chance become involved in matters of defense, fire control, conservation of water supply, etc. There should be no miscalculating the wishes of the many tens of thousands of our citizens, like myself, about wanting this bill to become law. It is one of the things for which the present administration has a mandate from the people. Yours respectfully, Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Dr. Hawkins. RALPH HAWKINS, M.D. Next we have Mr. John Tyler, Santa Monica, Calif. STATEMENT OF JOHN TYLER, SANTA MONICA, CALIF., VICE CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY Mr. TYLER. I am John Tyler, representing the Southern California Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. I am not going to refer to my prepared speech at all, but try to bring out a few points that have come up in the meeting. For example, no offers have been made here to strengthen the bill, but just pure opposition. They have a little tiny reason of their own, and they want to wipe out the entire bill to protect their own individual interests. The people that want to wipe it all out are primarily commercial interests who have their own problems and they have definite rights for their interests. But let's look at the record of what they have done. They have taken 98 percent of these United States. And what have they done with it? They have spoiled most of it; and, now that they have used it all up, they want to take the little bit that is left and say, "We want to share this with you under a multiple-use basis." Their idea of multiple use is to tear it up so it is no longer wilderness. This is not multiple use so far as we can see. We feel, in some cases, there is a single use of an individual parcel but a multiple use of an overall program. So we are saying, single use for less than 2 percent, and multiple use is single use for mining, for lumbering, and these other things elsewhere, which make a concrete multiple-use prospect, but you cannot take every individual acre and put every kind of use to it. This is impossible, and wilderness cannot be made tiny. It must have size. Therefore, we have to bear that in mind. Are we losing anything in our tying up our natural resources, minerals? Certainly not. Eventually, if we do not control it, what is going to happen? We are going to use it. Where do we go from there? We are 98 percent through it now. Then we are going to have to use lower grade ores. Let's start today using them. When an emergency comes, we may want the pure ores we are going to tie up, as they say, which will be available at a later date when necessary. The seed corn of the impoverished farmer is never eaten. He waits for a new crop to come up later. This is not an ominous bill. It is merely a bill of a philosophy of life for this Nation, and we should see to it that we get this on the record as being what this Nation wants to do, and serve notice to this world that we believe wilderness has an important part to play. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Tyler. (Mr. Tyler's complete statement follows:) THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER, Sacramento, November 6, 1961. Representative WAYNE N. ASPINALL, HONORABLE CHAIRMAN: I am John Tyler of Santa Monica, Calif., vice chairman of the Southern California Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. At its annual meeting of the members on October 21, 1961, a unanimous resolution was passed to send a delegate to this hearing to speak in favor of speedy passage of the wilderness bill (S. 174) without any further diluting, negating, or crippling amendments or changes, and by a greater majority than the Senate's overwhelming 78 to 8 vote to show the entire world that we understand and appreciate the need for wilderness everywhere. The wilderness bill has been a long time in its formative years. Many thought too long back in 1958 when I spoke for it in San Francisco. It is certainly too long if it continues past the opening weeks of the next session of the Congress. Few good things are done quickly, but enough is enough. The constructive work is done, only the destructive work remains. As Henry Ford said, "Get the first one built, improvement can come later." The proponents and opponents are sharply divided. The proponents understand and appreciate the need for wilderness and believe it supersedes all private interests. The opponents, mainly grazing, timber, power, and mining interests, seem to appreciate it only so long as it does not interfere with their private interests. They are in it, enjoying it, but their midas touch is so overpowering that they cannot see the destruction they leave about them. The Lord God created the wilderness, all there ever shall be. He also created man and endowed him with a brain and power to appreciate and use or abuseand destroy the wilderness. Where man has been wise, he has been rewarded. Where he has abused, he has been punished by flood, fire, and famine. For a long time wilderness was taken for granted. By wanton destruction we have only 2 percent of ours left, and it is fast disappearing at an accelerating pace. Once there was plenty of wilderness, it was yours for the asking, you challenged it to survive. Now there is not enough for those of this generation who want or need it. What about those generations to follow if we don't save it now-while there is still some to be saved? The wilderness is perfect, it was made by God. The wilderness bill is not, it was made by man. Both sides are to blame for its shortcomings. Time will bring understanding and improvement but we must act now to preserve while there is still something to save. The wilderness bill is not an omnibus bill but rather a cornerstone upon which to build. Like our Constitution, it is the guide to our future actions in the preservation and utilization of our natural resources. Its purpose is to establish the principle that the wilderness is an important part of our natural resources with which we were so abundantly endowed, one which is fast disappearing because of lack of foresight of our forefathers and ourselves, which we now recognize and steadfastly resolve to preserve for ourselves and the future generations to follow. Its principles are as lofty as any of the mountain peaks within its jurisdiction, but in its formative years insidious destructive forces have been at work so that some of its necessary spelling out |