The bill would provide a minimum of 90 days notice prior to the elimination of such areas. Should the demand arise there would be a public hearing, they were to act within 120 days, disapprove the action. It would stop and then Congress could provide abolishment of such an area, or for that matter, the creation of such an area, at the whim or fancy of an individual. The public would always be informed. The wilderness bill would not automatically take in areas within the national forests or parks without the express consent of those agencies. A period of 10 years is given them to decide whether or not they would want the areas within their boundaries meeting the description of the wilderness concept to be included in the program. Simply the wilderness bill establishes wilderness preservation as a policy of Congress and applies this policy where such preservation fits in with other programs. It makes it impossible for a bureau chief or Cabinet officer to abolish, reduce in size or add to it, by merely affixing his signature to an executive order. If anyone is opposed to such a measure it is simply because they do not want you-the public-to know what is being done with your lands. If you are interested in the management of the public lands you should not delay in writing your Congressmen and let them know that you favor the wilderness preservation concept as outlined in the wilderness bill that is presently before them. Addresses are Senator Carl Hayden, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.; Senator Barry Goldwater, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.; Congressman John J. Rhodes, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.; Congressman Stewart Udall, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. LETTER OF RENEE S. CUSHMAN AND ROBERT R. MCKINNEY INTERIOR AND INSULAR COMMITTEE, PHOENIX, ARIZ., April 1, 1959. DEAR SIRS: The undersigned wishes to make the strongest possible protest against passage of S. 1123, called the "National Wilderness Preservation Act." Protest is made, not against the alleged purpose of this bill insofar as it is designed to preserve some areas of the United States in a state of wilderness "for the health, welfare, knowledge and happiness of its citizens of present and future generations," but: Protest is made against the form of the bill, which resembles a Russian ukase more than it does a piece of United States legislation. Protest is made because the act gives unlimited dictatorial power to Government officials over whose appointment the voters and taxpayers of the United States can exert no influence whatever. It gives these appointed officials, that is, the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior, unlimited authority to dispose of millions of acres of the United States, thus causing irreparable damage to one part of the citizenry under the guise of providing pleasure and enjoyment to another group of citizens. Protest is made because no legal redress is provided for those citizens whose rights or privileges are being trammeled. A "hearing" after a 90-day period can hardly be construed as sufficient legal protection for those whose means of livelihood may be limited or wiped out by the arbitrary acts of a Washington bureaucrat. Who is entitled to be heard at such a hearing, and what, if any, bearing are these hearings to have on the dictatorial powers of two Secretaries? Protest is further made against the loose and confusing wording regarding the "rights-if any" which the present users of national forest lands at present enjoy. Grazing, for instance, is to be continued "where already well established, subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture may deem desirable." In other words, the Secretary may impose restrictions which would make grazing economically impossible, while yet authorizing it on paper. The mere prohibiting of maintaining even temporary roads or trails or existing waters (as envisaged in the bill), will suffice to suppress grazing for all practical purposes. Protest is finally made because there is no provision to adequately compensate present users of national lands for the damages that they may suffer as the result of the passage of this ukase, which in numerous cases may amount to virtual expropriation. Yours truly, RENEE S. CUSHMAN LETTER OF FRED FRITZ, CLIFTON, ARIZ. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, CLIFTON, ARIZ., April 2, 1959. Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee, DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: This letter is to voice my opposition to Senate bill 1123, and, all so-called wilderness bills-unless they definitely include multipleuse of all the areas for lumbering, mining, hunting and fishing and livestock raising; and the full development of all other natural resources with the U.S. Forest Service administering the lands. My father, Fred Fritz, Sr., came into the Blue River country in 1885, and his were the first cattle brought into that country. I still own the same ranch that my father established in those early days. My family and myself have spent large sums of money throughout the years for water development and other necessary range improvements to bring about proper utilization of the most essential natural resources of this area-grass and browse. Therefore, I reemphasize my opposition to Senate bill 1123. DEAR SIR: Eppinger is on record as opposing any wilderness legislation. The following are a few of the reasons I would like to present as to my opposition to this legislation: (1) It would be detrimental to the economy of Gila County and the State of Arizona. (2) It would upset the multiple-use principle applying to Federal lands, which I feel is the most equitable and feasible approach to the problem. (3) It would increase the tax burden, not only locally, but nationally. (4) I feel that experience with existing wilderness areas serves to prove that only a limited number of people are able to take advantage of these areas. (5) I feel that the aims of the wilderness legislation, as now proposed, is taken care of by existing Federal laws. My first objection is that it would set up a new governmental bureau to be supported by the already overburdened taxpayer. Next, it would rob the country of many valuable foods, fibers, and minerals. It would ruin proposed wilderness areas for recreational purposes with the exception of a small, selected, wealthy, special-privileged group. It would destroy organized game management, thus vastly increasing availability of game for the hunter and fishing streams for the angler. I sincerely hope that the Congress of the United States has enough foresight to dispose of this tool of the small special-interest group that is trying to take the reins of our Nation. Very truly yours, EDWARD K. STACY. LETTER OF JESSE F. STACY, CLIFTON, ARIZ. CLIFTON, ARIZ., March 30, 1959. CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION ON WILDERNESS LEGISLATION, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to take this opportunity to present my views on the proposed wilderness legislation. First, if for no other reason I would oppose setting up a huge wilderness system in that it would require the establishment of another Government bureau meaning a hike in taxes, more control and one step nearer socialism. Next, we might take into consideration the economic part of the picture. In addition to the extra millions of dollars needed to administer such a system, countless other millions would be lost in revenue now going into our Treasury from various enterprises such as timber, mining, ranching, hunting and fishing just to name a few. In conclusion, just what percentage of our population would ever see and enjoy this wilderness? I believe a great percentage of us would have to reach middle age in life and get our children through school before taking such a vacation. Then comes the question: What percentage of this middle age group would hike some 10 or 20 miles to view this wilderness? We have our national parks, several of them quite large with areas that could suffice for this proposed wilderness. Under the circumstances I urge you to use your every influence in opposing any such legislation. Very truly yours, JESSE F. STACY. LETTER OF LUFKIN HUNT, ET AL., PINE, ARIZ. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, PINE, ARIZ., March 30, 1959. Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee, DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: We the undersigned cattle permittees on the Tonto National Forest, Pine and Strawberry Valley area, are opposed to the S. 1123, the wilderness bill, because it does not conform to the multiple-use principle and withdraws land and cattle from the tax structure of the State and forest grazing fees. Due to the improvements made by the permittees, this area has had an increase of forage and wildlife. We feel that if this can be continued, other groups will benefit from our efforts here. We have one large wilderness area here now which only benefits a very confined and select group of people. Again we are definitely opposed to S. 1123, the wilderness bill. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: This letter to you concerns the wilderness bill, S. 1123. I am against throwing any more land into wilderness areas. With our population growing like it is, it seems to me that no more land should be put into wilderness. No part of Arizona is inaccessible any more because roads have been or can be built into every section of our State. In my opinion, it would be far better to open these areas up so young men could go in and establish homes than to turn them back into wilderness. If these lands are taken out of production, the revenue derived from them will have to be raised from other sources for it seems that Government spending does not come down, but continues to rise. We need the resources such as minerals, timber and livestock which these lands are producing and will continue to produce, if used for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I can see nothing in favor of this bill. ARTHUR WRIGHT. STATEMENT OF THE GREENLEE COUNTY CATTLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION, CLIFTON, ARIZ. CLIFTON, ARIZ., March 28, 1959. CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION, Wilderness Legislation Hearings, Phoenix, Ariz. DEAR SIR: The Greenlee County (Ariz.) Cattle Growers Association is on record as opposing any wilderness legislation. The following are a few of the reasons we would like to present as to our opposition to this legislation: (1) It would be detrimental to the economy of Greenlee County and the State of Arizona. (2) It would upset the multiple-use principle applying to Federal lands, which we feel is the most equitable and feasible approach to the problem. (3) It would increase the tax burden, not only locally, but nationally. (4) We feel that experience with existing wilderness areas serves to prove that only a limited number of people are able to take advantage of these areas. (5) We feel that the aims of the wilderness legislation, as now proposed, is taken care of by existing Federal laws. Very truly yours, GLENWOOD, N. MEX., March 24, 1995. JAMES STACY, President. LETTER OF JOHN MCKEEN, GLENWOOD, N. MEX. GLENWOOD N. MEX., March 24, 1959. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Subcommittee, U.S. Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I am writing this letter to you to voice my opposition to Senate bill 1123 and all so-called wilderness bills unless they specifically include multiple use of all the areas for lumbering, mining, livestock raising, and the development of all other natural resources, with the U.S. Forest Service administering the lands. Our family has held a permit to graze cattle and horses on the national forest lands here for 53 years, and my father, Hugh McKeen, grazed cattle here for 24 years before the forests were put under administration. He spent thousands of dollars protecting and improving the ranges, and we, his sons, have spent considerable amounts down through the years in further range improvement. Very truly yours, JOHN MCKEEN. STATEMENT OF THE CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST ADVISORY BOARD Hon. BARRY GOLDWATER, U.S. Senator from Arizona, Washington, D.C. CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, SIR: The Coronado National Forest Advisory Board in regular meeting the 20th day of March 1959 are on record by duly passed motion as opposed to U.S. Senate bill 1123, otherwise known as the wilderness bill. We feel that from an economic standpoint it is not advisable and that the multiple-use system suʊnd he maintained as it is more beneficial to more of our people. Sincercly and respectfully yours, J. E. BROWNING, Chairman. NEVADA STATE CATTLE ASSOCIATION-RESOLUTION III Whereas the so-called wilderness bill clearly represents an attempt by its sponsors to develop legislation under which certain large tracts of Federal lands such as national forests and BLM lands would be set aside in perpetuity for the single exclusive use of but one of the multiple-use groups interested and having a material stake in the use, each year, of these lands thus breaching, for the first time, the longstanding and widely supported national policy underly ing our present Federal statutes which leaves, unhampered, in the hands of the Federal administrative officials in charge, the authority to determine from time to time what uses had best be made of these lands in the public interest according to the circumstances confronting our country as a whole and the particular regions directly concerned at the time: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the members of the Nevada State Cattle Association assembled in annual convention at Elko, Nev., this 31st day of October 1958, That we urge the members of our congressional delegation, our Governor, and our State legislature to oppose this type of legislation; and be it further Resolved, That copies hereof be sent the members of our congressional delegation and our Governor and, when it next convenes, to the chairman of the senate and assembly, public lands committees of our State legislature, with a special request of Senator Alan Bible, as a member of the Senate committee holding hearings on this legislation, that he have this resolution made a part of the hearings record. LETTER OF THE GILA COUNTY CATTLE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GLOBE, ARIZ., March 27, 1959. DEAR SIR: The Gila County Cattle Growers' Association wishes to express their opposition to wilderness bill (S. 1123). Sincerely yours, JOHN PEERS, Secretary, Gila County Cattle Growers' Association. LETTER OF ALVIN B. AND LILLIAN I. PEARSON, DANIEL, WYO. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY and Hon. JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DANIEL, WYo., May 9, 1959. DEAR SIR: We are stockmen, and we are for the wilderness bill. We believe it will benefit the majority of the people now, and for all time. should not be spoiled with roads and modern modes of living. Such beauty |