wilderness bill-though the issue has been confused purposefully by such misrepresentations as I have mentioned. What the public really thinks of our wilderness areas in national parks or national forests can be judged by the mounting figures on public visitation and use during the last 10 years. While these figures are subject to minor fluctuations depending on many factors, there is no concealing the increased interest of the public in getting into reserved and beautiful wild country for recreation. I believe it is the best indication we have as to what the general public feels it wants and needs. The wilderness bill represents a major statesmanlike effort to anticipate and meet this growing demand. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Mrs. Lisa Howard, of Sacramento, representing the county of San Diego Fish and Game Commission. Then we will hear from Mrs. Weber. STATEMENT OF MRS. LISA HOWARD, SACRAMENTO, CALIF. Mrs. HOWARD. My name is Lisa Howard, and I live here in Sacramento. But I wish to present this statement on behalf of Dr. David G. Jessop, chairman of the San Diego County Fish & Game Commission, who is unable to attend in person. He does support the bill? May I quote him? The San Diego County Fish & Game Commission would like to be placed on record as favoring S. 174, the wilderness bill. We favor the principles of this bill because we have seen our own county interlaced with roads, built up with resorts and sandwich stands and made completely accessible to anyone who has energy enough to drive his car. We would like to have retained somewhere in the United States an area or areas where, if a person wants to expend the energy, he can get away from the sound of portable radios and the squeal of brakes. We sincerely hope you will further the principles involved in this bill. I agree with him heartily. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mrs. Howard. Mrs. HOWARD. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. We next have Mrs. H. M. Weber, representing the California Federation of Women's Clubs. STATEMENT OF MRS. H. M. WEBER, REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS Mrs. WEBER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Mrs. H. M. Weber, chairman of the Conservation of Forest, Water & Soil, DeAnza District, California Federation of Women's Clubs. De Anza District, California Federal of Women's Clubs wishes respectfully to express its support of the wilderness bill, which is now before your committee. The 25 clubs which comprise DeAnza District are geographically located in the arid and semiarid regions of California. Our concern with water supply is, therefore, a paramount consideration. Few informed scientists will question the close relationship between forests of trees or other plant growth with an adequate rainfall, conservation of ground waters and prevention of soil erosion. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mrs. Weber. Our next witness will be Mr. Gilmore, followed by Mr. John DeWitt, and then Don Kelley. Are any of those gentlemen in the house? I presume Mr. Gilmore is not with us. STATEMENT OF JOHN B. DeWITT, SACRAMENTO, CALIF. Mr. DEWITT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John B. DeWitt. I am a resident of Sacramento, Calif. I come as an individual to express my personal convictions. Unfortunately today the unborn people of the United States are not in this room to reply to the statements made by the vested interests. These statements can be summarized in one sentence. These cattlemen, lumbermen, mining men, have one thing in common: They want to deny future generations of Americans their birthright to a few wilderness acres, less than 2 percent of the total land areas of the United States. The right to enjoy a few acres of our American wilderness heritage would be denied all future generations because of a few people who put their own personal financial self-interest first and the general public interest second in their code of ethics. The cattlemen, lumbermen, and mining men are men of integrity but they lack foresight. This morning Mr. Hughes, a lumberman, gave the best case for the lumbermen. He said the lumbermen would like to get into the timber now in the present wilderness areas. These exploiters today voice the same argument made against the administrations of President Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson when the exploiters attempted to prevent the establishment of the national parks and national forests. If future generations wish, they can exploit and develop the wilderness, but let us not prevent them from making that decision. Let us enact this wilderness legislation. The people of America's future will thank us for giving them that freedom of choice. The wilderness legislation before this committee gives the Congress of the United States the opportunity to vote for the people of America yet unborn. If we are so rich that we can afford to lose the last wilderness in the United States with its beauty and inspiration, then we are poor in moral and spiritual character. For we have sacrificed the last beauty spots in America to the god of the dollar sign, a truly false god. If we are so poor that we must exploit the last few wilderness areas for commodity resources, then America is reaching the bottom of its barrel and the sound economic future of America could well be in serious jeopardy. The wilderness areas are symbols of America's great wealth. If they should be exploited, it will mark the beginning of the end for America as a world power and could well mark the beginning of the end for democratic institutions. Population pressure is now crushing democracy in many areas of the world. Totalitarian government can come to America if we listen to those who put their own financial self-interest before the general public interest. We owe it to our children to give them a few beauty spots in a wild, wilderness condition. Therefore, I would like to add my voice in strong support of legislation along the lines of S. 174, the wilderness bill. This legislation should not be amended to wreck the bill's purposes. The economic future of America is equally as important as the present. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present a statement here from Dr. Robert K. Cutter, president of the Cutter Laboratories. Cutter Laboratories is a large manufacturer in Berkeley of pharmaceuticals and biologicals. I wish to present this statement since he cannot appear here today. Mr. JOHNSON. Without objection, the statement of Dr. Cutter will be made a part of the record. (The statement follows:) Congresswoman GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, CUTTER LABORATORIES, Berkeley, Calif., November 3, 1961. DEAR MADAM: I write with reference to the wilderness bill hearing in Sacramento on November 6. I am unable to attend in person. Please enter into your hearing record my support of this bill. I feel that the only way wilderness areas may be protected from encroachment due to political and economic pressure is for speedy passage of the wilderness bill. Respectfully, ROBERT K. CUTTER, M.D., President. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. De Witt. Our next witness is Mr. Kelley of San Anselmo. STATEMENT OF DON GREAME KELLEY, SAN ANSELMO, CALIF. Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Chairman, for the last 14 years I have been a science editor. You have heard from the Nature Conservancy who holds a 3,000-acre tract known as the northern (?) tract. Before I left home I was pleased to read that the Bureau of Land Management has just announced the setting aside of 3,600 acres surrounding this preserve in the same watershed for scientific purposes. It is on the scientific interest of the wilderness I would like to speak. One of the arguments commonly used by opponents of the wilderness bill is to the effect that wilderness areas are desired mainly by a very few nature lovers, bird watchers, or rugged outdoorsmen who are so antisocial as to care nothing at all for the needs and desires of others the vast majority of others who can be perfectly happy in their outdoor recreational pursuits without resort to simon-pure wilderness at all. The fact of the matter is, that among the leading advocates of wilderness preserves, both large and small, are a very considerable number of our scientists, and their practical reasons for urging the preservation of what wilderness we have left, in as nearly natural state as possible, have to do with the ultimate good of all of us. As one of these leading scientists stated recently in an editorial— and I am quoting here Dr. Robert C. Miller, director of the California Academy of Sciences, writing in the academy's magazine, Pacific Dis covery, for March-April 1959: Biologists in particular have the problem of dealing with unforeseen consequence of changes man has brought about in the natural order. They are asked to restore fish to our streams, and to save vanishing species of birds and animals. On the other hand they are asked to control species that have become too abundant through reduction of their natural enemies, e.g., killing of predators. It cannot be to strongly emphasized that the only way the biologist can make sound recommendations is through the study of these species in their natural environment. Wilderness is not to be confused with wasteland. It is not sufficient to have large areas of mountain and desert set aside as wilderness because they are of little use for anything else. We need wilderness areas of coniferous and of hardwood forests, and of ocean shore, and of meadow and prairie. In particular we need to save the very few remaining pieces of arable land untouched by the plow. Even small samples are better than none. Wilderness areas, with limited access, are clearly of the highest importance to science as standards of reference-natural laboratories to which biologists of today and of the future can repair to answer the recurring question: "What was the natural order? What was the situation before man changed it?" A national organization of private citizens devoted to the preservation of just such sample biological areas as scientists need for the ultimate good of all mankind is the Nature Conservancy, and it is managed at the high policy and financial level by more than a score of topflight businessmen, including bankers and manufacturers, and nationally recognized scientists. In matters of national concern, the views and counsel of these people, individually or as a group, would be respected. I invite your attention, then, to the wording of a prospectus issued by this body which has been instrumental in winning to its cause more than 3,000 others, all over the country, a membership which is rapidly growing as more and more people are educated to the need for preserving sample wild areas. This brochure, entitled "Living Museums," says, in part: Natural areas constitute an irreplaceable resource, as important to mankind as the earth's products. They are the living museums that exemplify the past for the benefit of the future. Once they have been destroyed, they are gone forever. The more civilization crowds forward, the fewer natural areas there will be, and the more precious they will become. If there are to be any natural areas left for the future, they must be set aside today. Natural areas are requisite to our way of life ***. They furnish the only true background against which to measure the changes that civilization has wrought in our environment. They often help us to understand and tolerate such changes. As living museums of an earlier day, they provide unsurpassed opportunities for studies in the natural sciences *** They will demonstrate the true character of our land, its vegetation, and its wildlife. They will provide a living picture of the country as seen by the pioneers-remnants of the wilderness that nurtured our civilization. They will show the amazing variety and profusion of the natural resources that made America a land of opportunity. In basic scientific research, they are field laboratories. The myriad plants and animals that live within them provide the raw materials for biological studies. They are living storehouses of scientific treasure. In land-use investigations, they serve as check areas or experimental controls which help to determine the effects of farming, forestry, or grazing on similar lands. In preserving life, they are the last sanctuaries for many plants and animals facing extinction. Saving them will enable these rare species to live and propagate in their natural habitats. In personal values, they will forever be an inspiration to all who behold them. They will provide opportunity for reflection and spiritual enrichment, for escape from crowds and confusion, and for simple enjoyment of the beauties of the natural world. For all these reasons, the Nature Conservancy declares, "natural areas are essential.” Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Kelley. Our next witness is Dorothy B. Sanders, senior State conservation chairman of the California State Society Children of the American Revolution. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF DOROTHY B. SANDERS, NEVADA CITY, CALIF., REPRESENTING CALIFORNIA STATE SOCIETY CHILDREN OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Mrs. SANDERS. I am Dorothy Sanders, of Nevada City, Calif. I represent the Children of the American Revolution and also the Daughters of the American Revolution. I would like to submit first the statement from the Los Gatos chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. They are urging the passage of the wilderness bill. Mr. JOHNSON. It will be made a part of the record following your statement. Mrs. SANDERS. I am senior State conservation chairman for the Children of the American Revolution, a State society. With conservation being a prime objective of our organization, the California State Society Children of the American Revolution urges the passage of wilderness bill, S. 174, by Congress. It feels it is crucial that we act now to protect and preserve our heritage of scenic, historic, and cultural treasures for the use and enjoyment of the greater, and largely urbanized population of the future, before they are irretrievably lost to other uses. We strongly endorse a policy preserving federally owned wild areas in their original, primeval state. This organization cares enough to feel a deep sense of obligation to preserve the remaining areas of wilderness, whose disappearance is constantly threatened, for our children and their children. It was this wilderness which was originally met and conquered by our forefathers. Thank you. (The statement of the Daughters of the American Revolution. follows:) SARASOTA, CALIF., November 2, 1961. COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, GENTLEMEN: In keeping with the objectives of our organization, the Los Gatos Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution urges the passage of wilderness bill S. 174 by Congress, which preserves our heritage of historic, educational, spiritual, recreational, scenic, and scientific values, and our wildlife for the use and enjoyment of all the people, living and unborn, before they are exploited and irretrievably lost. We endorse the preservation in their natural state of our remaining areas of wilderness which alone possess irreplaceable value. Sincerely yours, EVA L. CUNNINGHAM, Mrs. Charles N. Cunningham, Regent, Los Gatos Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mrs. Sanders. Our next witness will be Mrs. Hasse Bunnelle of Berkeley. You may proceed, Mrs. Bunnelle. |