Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF FORESTRY, Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. ASPINALL: For the information and use of your committee. I enclosing five copies of a resolution passed by the California State Board Forestry at their October 31 meeting in Fresno, Calif., relating to 8 1742 wilderness bill. Sincerely yours, E. H. RAYMOND, State Forester, Secretary, State Board of Forestry RESOLUTION PASSED BY STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY, OCTOBER 31, 1961, Faas Whereas section 505 of the Public Resources Code, State of California, stat in part "The board is charged with responsibility to represent the State's inters in Federal land matters pertaining to forestry and to maintain an adequ forest policy; and Whereas the California State Board of Forestry on the 24th day of October 1958, did adopt, after careful consideration, a resolution opposing enactment proposed wilderness legislation then before the Congress of the United States and Whereas the California State Board of Forestry did on April 24, 1959, further resolve that said board continue to oppose the passage of then proposed w: se ness bills; and Whereas this board has given further careful consideration to wilderne legislation now before the Congress in S. 174: Therefore be it Resolved, That the California State Board of Forestry does hereby reaf its position in opposition to the wilderness bill, known as S. 174, and to similar legislation which does not embody such important principles as the following: 1. That creation of wilderness areas be only by affirmative approval of Congress following the complete investigation and recommendations by se propriate Federal agencies and the affected State and local agencies 2. That preference should be given to national defense and all users perm taining thereto; the essential needs of products including power, trans-g tion, food and fiber, minerals and timber; recreational needs for all the people and such other specialized recreation needs for the few; 3. Wherever public lands are capable of providing a variety of uses, «? areas must be kept available for all these uses since thhe western economy cannot afford legislation restricting the uses of large areas of potentia.." productive lands; and be it further Resolved, That the State forester, secretary of this board, be and he is hereby directed, to transmit copies of this resolution to the California delegation : Congress and to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and to other it terested persons and groups, Hon GRACIE PLOST, DE ANZA DISTRICT (23D DISTRICT), CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, Indio, Calif., November 4, 1551 Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Committee on Interior asi Insular Affairs, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS POST: De Anza District, California Federation of Women's CLIM Wishes to respectfully express its support of the Wilderness Act, which is n before your committee. The 25 clubs which comprise De Anza District are geographically located i the arid and semiarid regions of California. Our concern with water way therefore, a paramount consideration. Few informed scientists will quest pet the close relationship between forests of trees or other plant growth with an adequate rainfall, conservation of ground waters, and prevention of soil eruya Sincerely, VIOLA E. WEBER Mrs. H. M. Weber, Chairman, Conservation of Forest, Water, and Sisi CALIFORNIA Forest Protective ASSOCIATION, Hon GRACIE Prost, Dean Mus. Prost: The California Forest Protective Association comprising approximately 90 percent of the private timber ownership acreage in the State of California, is deeply concerned with the so-called wilderness bill, S. 174, establishing a wilderness system. This association does not oppose the establishment of wilderness areas of sufficient size and properly located for the preservaton of unique and irreplaceable natural areas to be enjoyed by those who can, and do, use such areas for scientific and recreational purposes. Our greatest concern is the establishment of large areas in preserved wildernes far beyond the needs of this particular single-use group with a loss to the ervinomie stability of our Nation through the locking up of timber resources which, if not given an orderly harvest and management, will succumb to the ravages of age and attacks of insects, disease, and fire. We further disapprove of congressional abdication of Congress' present right of determination which, in 8. 174, permits the establishment of such wilderness arens through Executive order and which is only restrained through congresmonal disapproval. The set-asides of any public lands should be a positive and continuing action of the Congress. We further oppose the legislation as in S. 174 because it would set aside large areas now in Federal ownership under the administration of the U.S. Forest Service as primitive areas without the proper determination of the suitability and feasibility of establishing such areas as wilderness. Sound resource management requires administrative flexibility, therefore, permanent withdrawals from our lands for restricted use should only be done through positive congressional action and then only when the Congress has been #ufficiently convinced by proper appraisal that such lands should be set aside as such. We firmly believe that the present laws establishing national forests, parks, game refuges, and ranges are sufficient to provide the desired wilderness areas which will be continually protected by already established administrative regulations and laws May we emphasize that we believe that until a proper appraisal is made of all Federal lands proposed to be incorporated into a wilderness system, Congress should not set aside and establish such a system which will impair the economic #ability of our Nation in unwarranted preservation of large areas into irrevocable wilderness for the benefit of a very small percentage of the recreational users of our Nation. We, therefore, urge you and your colleagues, should you deem it necessary to enact any wilderness legislation, to fully protect the best interests of the majority of the citizens Respectfully yours, W. R. SCHOFIFID, Secretary-Manager, CALIFORNIA Garden Clubs, Inc, Indio, Calif, October 16, 1961. Subject: Support for S. 174, the wilderness bill. Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Committee on Interior and insular Affairs, New House Office Building, Washington, DC. DEAR Mas ProST: We ask that the support of this organization of 18 000 members in the State of California be entered in the record of the hearings relating to8 174 known as the wilderness bill. The United States of America may even sooner than the year 1975 find that lubering, grazing, mining, roadbuilding, etc., are not substitutes for water. Observation of the great expanse of America from the air reveals rivers that run yellow bearing the golden soil of the country to the sea. Over many square thes in any direction is visible the "scorched earth fencerow" type of agricul ture and the absence of the forest cover that in years past made clear streams, productive springs, deep rooted vegetation, and an adequate water table. Just so long as the U.S. Forest Service is dominated by an increasing pressure from commercial forestry interests will the wilderness and wild areas that have been so designated by this agency, mean exactly nothing, insofar as wilderness for the people is concerned. We prevail upon your committee to recommend passage of this greatly needed and desirable legislation. Sincerely, HENRY M. WEBER, M.D., CALIFORNIA GARDEN CLUBS, INC., Re wilderness bill, S. 174. Mr. WAYNE ASPINALL, BAY BRIDGES DISTRICT, Orinda, Calif., October 27, 1961. Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SIR: At the meeting in San Francisco, October 24, 1961, of the bay bridges district, a motion was made and passed to support, unconditionally, the wilderness bill, as passed by the Senate, and now under consideration by your committee. This organization, a section of the California Garden Clubs, Inc., consists of 41 garden clubs in Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties. We would like this expression of support to be made a part of the record of the hearing to be held in Sacramento, November 6, 1961. Yours sincerely, Mrs. CATHERINE H. CAMPBELL, Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Conservation Chairman. CALIFORNIA-PACIFIC UTILITIES CO.. Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. PFOST: I am concerned about the damage to our area's economy by the passage of S. 174, wilderness system bill. It is my understanding there are nearly 3 million acres of commercial forest land in the tract of primitive areas in the western pine region which will be withdrawn for inclusion in the proposed wilderness system. I am opposed to this bill because of the loss of mature timber which cannot be harvested under the provisions of the bill. Your opposition to wilderness system bill, S. 174, will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Hon. GRACIE PFOST, A. B. OLSON, District Manager. La Grande, Oreg., November 14, 1961. Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MADAM: I wish in this letter to go on record as being unalterably opposed to the wilderness system bill (S. 174) that is now being considered by your committee. In my opinion this type of legislation does not result in true conservation of natural resources, as it contemplates the freezing of millions of dollars in raw materials that are capable of harvest and processing on an orderly basis without appreciably disturbing the recreational values and natural beauty of the area. Furthermore, these marketable products are vitally needed to maintain the economy of the regions affected. The complete closure of millions of acres will result in benefit to an extremely small percentage of the people and surely will close the door for the recreation of the vast majority who can only use these areas when roads and other facilities are available. Such vital decisions cannot appropriately be left to administrative decision. Any permanent setting aside of public lands for restricted use should be by congressional action, after complete and careful consideration of all factors involved in each instance. Please include my views in the record of your field hearings in this bill. Respectfully, ROBERT R. CAREY. Los GATOS, CALIF., November 1, 1961. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, (Attention: Committee members). HONORABLE SIRS: We are one of the many outdoor families who hope that the wilderness bill will be passed by your committee without further amendments. As we have obtained renewal and refreshment of spirit in our journeys into the mountains we hope those generations of Americans who follow should be assured the same. We shall watch your consideration of this bill with great interest. B. CARPENTER. Mr. and Mrs. K. W. CARPENTER. PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE, SUTTER CREEK, CALIF., November 18, 1961. House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SIRS: I am a resident of Amador County, Calif., and have resided here since 1946 when I became an employee of a lumber company engaged in the management of its tree farms and the production of lumber. I am a graduate forester and my work for the lumber company has been as an industrial forester. My job has been with management and protection of the company-owned tree farms and with the harvesting of forest products. I have also been active in other timberland management matters of concern to both the industry and the public. Several important matters are the development of forest practice rules, improvement of public agency fire protection, development of industry policy for public recreation on private lands, and development of better industry public relations. For almost 2 years I have been president of Keep California Green, Inc., a privately sponsored forest fire prevention education organization. Both my family and I enjoy the mountains where the automobile and business can be left behind. I am familiar with several such areas in California. I feel, therefore, that I am adequately qualified to speak on the wilderness bill that has been approved by the U.S. Senate. I believe we should establish so-called wilderness areas. They must be established objectively, however, and without the emotionalism that is currently apparent, and they can only be established objectively after proper study. The people in charge of the administration of the public lands, in concert with timbermen, cattlemen, miners, and recreationists, should determine the areas suitable for single and multiple use. From this kind of review we will be able to determine those areas suitable for wilderness. Our country is not so rich in land that we can afford to lock up productive land for a single nonproductive use. The present wilderness bill does not provide the safeguards necessary to prevent the loss of productive lands that this Nation must have. Therefore, I urge you to table the bill now under consideration until such time as a proper review can be made of the use of our public lands. Sincerely yours, Representative GRACIE PFOST, Nampa, Idaho. WARREN A. CARLETON. SANTA CLARA, CALIF., October 31, 1961. DEAR MRS. PFOST: We should like very much to attend the hearing on the wilderness bill, but unfortunately, we will be unable to do so. Consequently, we are writing to request that this expression of opinion go into the record of that bearing. It would be possible to write at considerable length as to why we are in favor of the bill, but in order to reduce the bulk of your correspondence we state our sentiments in a quote from Bernard de Voto: "*** It is imperative to maintain portions of the wilderness untouched, so that a tree will rot where it falls, a waterfall will pour its curve without generating electricity, and a trumpeter swan may float on uncontaminated water-and moderns may at least see what their ancestors knew in their nerves and blood." Please use your influence to get the wilderness bill reported promptly and favorably by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and please vote for it, when it reaches the floor of the House. Very sincerely, Hon. GRACIE PFOST, EVELYN H. CASE. MORNING VALLEY, CALIF., October 23, 1961. House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. PFOST: We are informed that the wilderness bill (S. 174) will be under consideration in Sacramento on November 6. We would respectfully urge you to vote favorably on this very important bill. We believe it is important not only to us, but to our children, and to future generations. Thank you for whatever help you can give us. Yours truly, ETHEL B. CHANCE PASADENA, CALIF., October 25, 1961. Representative GRACIE PFOST, DEAR MRS. PFOST: As a resident of California and as a lover of the West and a frequent traveler in our priceless wilderness areas I am writing to ask for your strong support in passage of the wilderness bill. Rarely does our Government have the opportunity to take direct and specific action either to protect and preserve or to destroy forever the natural riches so richly bestowed upon America. The wilderness bill is just such an opportu nity and I (and at least three dozen friends) hereby request your prompt action in helping this bill successfully pass the House. Sincere thanks, GLENN L. CHRISMAN. Re wilderness bill. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, BERKELEY, CALIF., November 18, 1961. Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MADAM CONGRESSWOMAN: Illness prevented me from attending the field hearing on the wilderness bill held at Sacramento, Calif., on November 6, but I am told that letters will be accepted for the record until November 20. I wish to register my support of this bill. I have read it, and know what it does, and what it does not do, for our present few reserves of wilderness. My reason for support is my own experience of many vacation trips into several established wilderness areas over the past 24 years. I have had a good chance to see the immense physical and mental benefit which these trips have given to hundreds of people. Americans are very fortunate. Not many countries can offer friendly, enjoyable wilderness as a recreation resource. Such value is far greater than the few dollars which might be gained by cutting something down, or digging something up, to sell from these areas, and if our country ever really needs the tiny amount of timber or minerals which the present wilderness areas contain, we shall indeed be in a bad way from mismanagement of our resources. I should also like to point out that recreation is not the only reason to preserve wilderness, though it may be the most obvious one. The value as watershed, |