Outdoor recreational activity is of necessity geared to the economic conditions prevailing at a given time. The administration of Federal lands should be sufficiently flexible so as to allow for changing economic conditions and needs. The present administration by the Forest Service is flexible enough to meet such changing needs. We should not freeze the administration of such lands so that needed and desirable changes would be most difficult to accomplish. For the reasons set forth in this statement and since it has not been shown that present wilderness areas, as now administered by the responsible Federal agencies, are inadequate, the California Farm Bureau Federation believes presently administered programs to be sound and adequate and opposes the enactment of S. 1123 or similar legislation. RESOLUTION OF THE WESTERN WASHINGTON FARM FORESTRY ASSOCIATION Whereas there is now being considered by the Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs of the U.S. Senate a bill entitled "The National Wilderness Preservation Act," which gives legal existence to and additions to the national system of wilderness and wild areas and creates a council with extensive powers over such creation and existence; and Whereas passage of such legislation would violate the principle of flexibility in the wisest use of our national resources as dictated by the necessity of proper growth and development; and Whereas both the utilization of such resources and their use in recreational activity can best be served by a flexible policy rather than a rigid restriction on the use of these resources: We, therefore, Resolve, That the Western Washington Farm Forestry Association oppose. enactment of the National Wilderness Preservation Act in its present form and urge continuance of the present policy of administration of such areas; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the U.S. legislators from the State of Washington. TELEGRAM OF THE BREWSTER (WASH.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Senator JAMES MURRAY, BREWSTER, WASH., March 25. Chairman, Senate Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs, Brewster, as well as balance of State of Washington, dependent on lumber industry. We feel that passage of Senate bill 1123 would create economic chaos in lumber industry and create depressed economy locally. Please note our protest. BREWSTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. STATEMENT OF DR. AND MRS. PATRICK D. GOLDSWORTHY Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we wish to express our appreciation for being extended this opportunity to personally present our views on the wilderness bill. The location of one of the hearings in Seattle has afforded many Washington proponents of this legislation a chance to finally appear before your committee, for which they are truly grateful. Wilderness conservationists are almost exclusively those who must donate their personal time and funds and find it impossible or a personal sacrifice to travel distances such as required for attendance at the Bend hearing. As a private citizen and resident of the State of Washington we find ourselves getting more and more exasperated each time we read about those who believe they have an economic stake in our natural resources condemning those of us who wish to preserve some natural virgin scenery. We are condemned for unselfishly dedicating our time in attempting to lock up valuable economic resources so that future generations may have the enjoyment of seeing wilderness. I would be the first to admit we wish to see such features as the overmature rotting Rain Forest of Olympic National Park, samples of the virgin forests of the northern Cascades and the last 10 percent of our Pacific Coast which is roadless locked up. But I would further remark that we would also be the first to give the key to anyone who asked for it and deserved it by promising not to molest or damage our priceless natural heritage. We wish now to place wilderness in one of the frames of reference used to define public art galleries, sports arenas, or zoos and Central Park in New York or Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. Each of these we could do without. But do any of us want to? Everyone knows that New Yorkers don't attempt. to economically justify the existence of their Central Park. They know that as real estate it is priceless. But more important, they realize that they can and wish to afford the luxury of keeping this dedicated area. Our wilderness areas are no different. Their resources are not essential to our economy or their acreage necessary to relieve our population pressures at the present time. The wilderness proposed for inclusion under the National Wilderness Preservation Act is a luxury that this country can still afford to possess. It is a very fragile and vulnerable luxury however. It has been and will continue to be under the attack of those who believe roads should go everywhere and that the hiker and horseback rider can travel on highway shoulders. Wilderness will always continue to be coveted by those who could utilize the commodity resources therein. The wilderness bill is the first piece of legislation in the history of the United States which will place the people's representatives, our Congressmen, between what precious little is still left of America as our pioneers knew it and those who would have man develop and dominate everywhere. This legislation will make it possible to discredit the Northwestern timber interests' antiquated philosophy of greed and plenty more effectively. These concepts which have been stated and practiced for so long were typified by Gov. Milo Moore of Washington who in 1910 publicly stated that: "Westerners resented efforts of wealthy eastern theorists such as Gifford Pinchot to plan for long range utilization of natural resources. The resources of the West belong to the generation which exploits them not to the future." Modern timber economy can no longer be allowed to think and operate under the aura of Washington's ruthless timber barons such as Bellingham's famous Blowdell Donovan. The wilderness that will be protected by S. 1123 is evaluated from many quarters. One of my colleagues from Switzerland has remarked to me that in his home country there is no mountain fastness left except the vertical rock and ice where roads, tramways, farmers, cattle, barns, sheep, and resorts have not penetrated. There is no wilderness. He has loved our country and felt it a great privilege to hike and camp in our national forests and national parks during his stay here. 1 As a Californian until 6 years ago I had always heard of the imagination stimulating wilderness of Olympic National Park with its famous Rain Forest. The unlimited prospects for such easily accessible outdoor recreation both on the Olympic Penninsula and in the Cascades was a deciding factor in my selection of a position at the University of Washington. I wonder how many others have visited or settled in Washington for the same reason? Eastern Washingtonians were heard to remark last year upon seeing "Wilderness Alps of Stehekin," a movie produced by the Sierra Club in California, "we never knew before what superbly wonderful country we had right in our own backyard in the wilderness at the head of Lake Chelan.” The wilderness bill should be welcomed with open arms by the U.S. Forest Service and the Park Service. These are the two agencies which will face the problem of how to reserve some of our country in its natural state. Officials with foresight in these services will recognize the strength and authority with which they can administer a wilderness program backed by congressional legislation. They need no longer pay lip service to the logger and the roadbuilder in their attempts to preserve areas of natural wilderness. Let us hope that the passage of S. 1123 will cause the Forest Service to reconsider the inadequacies of their wilderness classification program as so drastically illustrated in their proposal for a Glacier Peak wilderness area. If all places are made available to all people the result is a leveling of all scenic qualities to mediocrity. The quality of a wilderness is by definition inherent in the presence at any one time of only a few people, not the masses. We do not wish to deny anyone access to all beautiful places, since most places of scenic attraction have roads leading to them now. It would be a tragedy, how ever, to allow the sedentary public to deny to everyone for all time the rewarding experience of traveling in the little land we have left that has remained untouched by man's hands. In closing we wish to extend the appreciation of all Washington's wilderness conservationists for the initial support and cosponsorship given the wilderness bill by the two Senators from this State. May we express the sincere hope that following the demonstration in Seattle of support of this piece of legislation by many of the Senator's constituents including organized labor unions of the forest products industries, that both Mr. Jackson and Mr. Magnuson will reaffirm their belief in the need for wilderness and choose to cosponsor S. 1123. STATEMENT OF THE LONGVIEW (WASH.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The board of directors of the Longview Chamber of Commerce went on record at its last regular meeting reiterating its stand against the Senate bill regarding wilderness areas, for the reasons outlined in our letter of November 18, 1958, to Hon. James E. Murray, U.S. Senator, as follows: "Timber is the basic raw material necessary for the economy of this city and surrounding areas. Closure of sections of land would take away this badly needed resource from us and others in the Pacific Northwest." We will appreciate having this letter presented at the hearing conducted by the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee on March 30. STATEMENT OF THE SKYLINE SPORTS MEN'S ASSOCIATION We note that a revised wilderness bill-or rather two bills-are now coming before Congress. Both of these bills-S. 1123, of which you are a coauthor, and H.R. 1929, by Lee Metcalf-are acceptable. We sincerely hope that this session of Congress will pass one of the two bills. Our membership now numbers 2,500, and all of us join in urging the members of your committee, and the Members of Congress as a whole in seeing that this fine bill is passed; that portions of our fast-disappearing wilderness are preserved for our Nation's future generations. We plead against turning these lands over to the so-called multiple-use programs, which in the past we have seen give the private interests a foothold that has spread to destroy the natural beauty of the land and crowd the wildlife into extinction. As citizens of Montana, we are extremely proud of the leadership of the Montana delegation in this field and respectfully hope that the members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Members of Congress as a whole will join with them in safeguarding public lands or at least some portions of them from the greedy grasp of private interests. STATEMENT OF THE PORT TOWNSEND (WASH.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce will be unable to have a representative at the public hearing Monday morning on the wilderness preservation bill. We do wish to be on record, however, as an opponent to such legislation and present the following in support of our opposition to the proposed bill. We believe that such legislation, if passed, would seriously affect our business climate in a number of ways. We believe that the claims that a wilderness system is needed are not supported by the facts in the case. We are well satisfied with the present multiple-use administrative program and believe its continuance is best suited for the common good of our community, State, and Nation. Such legislation as that proposed would remove technical management of large areas of public lands from flexible administration by the existing agencies. It would permit the elimination of existing uses as rapidly as possible and would not allow adequate protection of our forests against fire, insects, and diseases. It would impede and in many places actually prevent good fish and game management. It would exclude from extensive regions a great majority of recreationists and sportsmen, and severely reduce potential income from tourists by prohibit ing easy access and eliminating all service facilities, thus turning these groups away from wilderness areas. It could seriously affect the economy of many nearby communities which depend upon the resources normally available but which would be set aside in a wilderness classification. Among these are water, minerals, gas and oil, timber, grazing, and recreational opportunities. Thank you for this opportunity to present our opinions. STATEMENT OF MRS. FRANK POZARICH, CONSERVATION CHAIRMAN, WASHINGTON STATE HOMEMAKERS' COUNCIL, YAKIMA, WASH. Official recognition by the U.S. Congress of our protected areas should not be delayed. We Americans have "conquered a country in record time" and by so doing have laid waste too many of our natural resources. Certain sections of our country have been laid bare. Now we must substitute long-term wise resource exploitation for the short-term method which we have previously practiced. We must also abandon the hope that great unprobed resources in the rest of the world will always be at our command when the need arises. The long-term balance sheet challenges the best we have in intelligence and character. The homemaker, because of budgetary limitations and circumstances within the home, has to plan far beyond a day-to-day basis. If she didn't, many families would be in a state of chaos. We women recognize the spiritual, recreational, and educational values of our wilderness areas as well as the practical need for maintaining them, and thus are particularly interested in S. 1123. The Yakima Valley District Federation of Women's Clubs, with a membership of more than 2,000 women, last fall in their convention unanimously passed a resolution favoring the principles of a wilderness bill giving congressional recognition to our present protected areas and making it necessary to have public hearings before reclassifying any of these areas. They desired their action communicated to the public hearing on the wilderness bill. We are all aware that there always are those who care more for "making a fast buck" than for the ultimate good. As a result, we feel that when there are conflicting interests, the question should be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number of people in the long run. The people look to leadership from our U.S. Congress in planning not only for the immediate needs of the country but also in planning the needs of future generations. The 21st century will come, followed by the 25th and 30th centuries. future really belongs to those who plan for it. The STATEMENT OF THE WASHINGTON STATE FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS The Washington State Federation of Women's Clubs wishes to go on record as favoring the wilderness bill, on which a hearing will be held March 30 in Seattle. The federation has always been an ardent supporter of conservation of our natural resources, and we are most emphatic that substantial parts of our great forests be preserved for future generations. Please record our wishes as favoring the wilderness bill. STATEMENT OF THE OREGON FEDERATION OF GARDEN CLUBS, INC. I wish to go on record as urging the full support of the wilderness bill, S. 1123, and wish this testimony to become a part of the record at the hearing in Seattle on March 30, 1959. It is the policy of the Federated Garden Clubs of the State of Oregon to give full support to the preservation of wilderness by dedicating certain wild and wilderness areas now existing in our present national parks that they may be preserved in their natural state for all time and for all future generations to enjoy as part of the inalienable rights promised in the Constitution of these United States of America. It is important to be alert and act now favorably before it is too late and these important areas are gone for all time. LETTER OF MISS LILLIAN E. SHANNON, PRESIDENT, HOBNAILERS, INC., Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, MARCH 24, 1959. MY DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: At this time I would like to go on record, not only as president of Hobnailers, Inc., but as a private citizen interested in conservation, as being in favor of wilderness preservation and strongly in favor of the wilderness bill, S. 1123. If it were at all possible I would like to attend the hearing in Seattle on March 30. Perhaps a few of our club members will be able to attend and, if so, they will make themselves known as strongly in favor of this bill. Sincerely yours, LILLIAN E. SHANNON, LETTER OF EUGENE W. HIBBARD, PASTOR, MANSON COMMUNITY CHURCH, MANSON, WASH. Hon. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, MARCH 24, 1959. DEAR SIR: I wish to speak or ask a question concerning the wilderness bill on which I understand there is to be a hearing on March 30. I do not have the knowledge or the study of the situation. So my question is, Is the wisest or best move being considered, or will the future of this great wilderness area be jeopardized by the pressure of short-visioned interests wielding axes of personal get-rich schemes? So often pressure groups are heard and there is no one to speak for the good of the people who are not aware of the issues at stake. I ask this question after seeing a map proposed by the Forest Service, February 16, 1959, which looks as if long fingers were thrust into the proposed wilderness area along the few timbered valleys leaving the nontimbered, or inaccessible area. I ask this question in view of our diminishing wilderness land on this continent, with a growing population that will need, for this generation and those to come, a place of refreshment in the out of doors. I ask this question in light of my experience that the east side of the Cascades is dry and trees will not grow rapidly. Last summer I was on Cooper Mountain in an area burned over in 1929. The burned poles still stood, with the new growth not yet head high. Certainly there is land that is more suitable for lumber as a farm crop. I ask this question in light of the fact that now and in the years to come the State of Washington will offer to the tourist industry a great attraction and opportunity. Sincerely yours, E. W. HIBBARD. LETTER OF REXFORD DAUBEN MIRE, PROFESSOR OF BOTANY, STATE COLLEGE OF WASHINGTON, PULLMAN, WASH. COLLEGE OF SCIENCES AND ARTS, Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: The controversy over the wilderness bill, S. 1123, has just come to my attention, and, although I cannot testify in person, I would like the following comments be made part of the record of the hearing scheduled for Seattle on March 30, 1959, We have a moral obligation to future generations to minimize permanent destruction of any feature of the existing landscape. So long as there is no great urgency to exploit, we have no right to squander in a few decades those resources which are the product of thousands of years of natural processes and which may become of much more value in the future as a consequence of changing |