It is my considered opinion that the wilderness bill in its present form constitutes a necessary and reasonable means of protecting a vital and irreplaceable resource, of which the country possesses far too little even at this time, and that it does so without injury to any person or group whose interests may legitimately be asserted. I urge your favorable consideration of the bill. Very sincerely yours, WATSON SMITH. LETTER OF MRS. HENRY G. BURGER, TUCSON, ARIZ. TUCSON, ARIZ., March 26, 1959. MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Since I am unable to attend the hearing on the wilderness bill I am writing to ask you to exert all the influence possible for the passage of this bill. It seems to me that the preservation of our natural parks for posterity is of prime importance, especially when there is no necessity for turning them over to industry. I will add my voice to the many I am sure you already have. Mrs. H. G. BURGER. STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHERN UTAH WILDLIFE FEDERATION Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman of Committee, Phoenix, Ariz. MILFORD, UTAH, March 29, 1959. HONORABLE SENATOR: I am Wesley S. Bolton, president of the Southern Utah Wildlife Federation and first vice president of the Utah Wildlife Federation. I represent the organized wildlife interests of Beaver, Iron, Kane, Washington, and Garfield Counties. We wish to wholeheartedly support the wilderness bill. It is legislation which is long past due, and we here in Utah are particularly conscious of the loss of much of our natural wonders and beauties due to the constant pressures of various groups whose sole interest in the natural wonders of the State is the making of a fast buck today regardless of its effects on our citizens of tomorrow. Many thousands of us do not necessarily consider it progress just because it jangles a cash register. The loss of a mountain watershed or a range from overuse is a serious thing and must be stopped. The present managing agencies are restrained in many ways from properly managing these various public lands, and it appears that legislation to protect what we have left is the only answer which the rapacious exploiters can understand. One of the greatest arguments for the bill is the constant reiteration of halftruths and whole lies which the opposition is using constantly in an effort to misinform the public. Their statements as to what the bill will and will not do are clear indications that they either have not read the bill or are unprincipled enough to not care by what methods they discredit it. We must protect a small part of our country that our children and grandchildren may know the beauties of an unspoiled forest and an unpolluted stream. Very respectfully, W. S. BOLTON, President. STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA GARDEN CLUBS, INC. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, VISALIA, CALIF., March 30, 1959. Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, MY DEAR SENATOR: California Garden Clubs, Inc., with more than 16,000 members has consistently backed legislation for the preservation of certain areas designated as wilderness, and at the second quarterly meeting of the board of directors held on November 7, 1958, reaffirmed its stand by resolution. Because there are constant attempts to use these areas for commercial purposes, we feel that they should be classified as one form of multiple use and set aside as sanctuaries and living museums for scientific studies and the education and enjoyment of future generations. In the long-range picture of our natural resources, whether they be oil or mineral, timber or forage, their use in these comparatively small areas will halt for only a tiny fraction of time the use of low and lower grade ores, the use of second-growth timber, and will change forever the ecology of the regions so used. The resources exploited in the wilderness areas of our public lands are, in a sense, being stolen from those yet unborn. We do not think we have the right to use our heritage and theirs selfishly. It is for these reasons that we sincerely urge you and the members of the committee to recommend the passage of Senate bill 1123 at this session of the Congress. Very truly yours, JOSEPHINE I. READ, State Chairman of Conservation. RESOLUTION FOR WILDERNESS BILL No. 4028 Whereas the preservation of wilderness areas in this country is valuable in watershed protection, scientific research, and recreation; and Whereas pressures are increasing to open the few remaining wilderness areas to commercial uses; and Whereas much study has been given to the original wilderness bill by the agencies involved: Therefore be it Resolved, That we of California Garden Clubs, Inc., reaffirm our stand urging the enactment of the wilderness bill, now revised and known as S. 4028. Passed at the second quarterly board meeting of California Garden Clubs, Inc., on November 7, 1958, at Oakland, Calif. CAMP VERDE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION The Camp Verde Improvement Association, an incorporated body under the laws of Arizona, in regular meeting, voted unanimously that: Whereas the established multiple-use policy of Federal land administration embodying the principle of "the greatest good to the greatest number" has proven successful and sound; and Whereas the proposed legislation favors limited usage of these lands; and Whereas abundant evidence is available to show that the growth of the Southwest, including the Yavapai County, Ariz., will continue to accelerate as our national population increases; and Whereas abundant evidence is available to show that public interest in a variety of historical, recreational, and other outdoor activities is manifest in ever-increasing proportions of our great State of Arizona; and Whereas once an area is classified as a wilderness area, it would be very difficult to get it unclassified for economic development or as a recreation area for any others than hikers and those who care to pack in; and Whereas the provision for the establishment of a bureaucratic commission would duplicate the functions of the present Forest Service and National Park Service, increasing costs and complicating administrative procedure: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Camp Verde Improvement Association, That: 1. In view of all available evidence, U.S. Senate bill 1123 fails to consider "the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens," and 2. Enactment of U.S. Senate bill 1123 to establish a national wilderness preservation system is vigorously opposed as unnecessary and contrary to the proven national policy of multiple-use of resources. Adopted this 25th day of March 1958. STATEMENT OF THE QUEMADO (N. MEX.) SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT Hon. JAMES MURRAY, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. QUEMADO, N. MEX., March 5, 1959. DEAR SIR: The general impression has been given through various newspaper and magazine articles that all conservation groups are in agreement with the bill to create wilderness areas in the West. The board of supervisors of this soil conservation district plus 90 percent or more of the landowners and operators within said district are very much op posed to this bill. We represent the practical conservationists of the country— not the bird watchers or the millionaire sportsmen. We believe that conservation means proper use of the land within its capabilities to produce not nonuse. We as New Mexico ranchers have spent thousands of dollars building stockwater tanks and drill wells which not only furnish water for livestock but for all forms of native wildlife as well. We have built roads and trails on our ranches, which makes the country accessible to hunters, fishermen, and even bird watchers. Our schools and local businesses are dependent upon revenue from livestock, lumbering, and recreational pursuits. There is no basis for developing land, business, and communities and then turning everything back to nature as some of the sponsors of this wilderness bill would like to see done. We believe that adequate provision for wilderness areas are already available through existing legislation. We believe in the development of the natural resources of the West for the benefit of all the people of the country-not a select few who can afford costly trips miles from civilization at the expense of the people who have to work for a living. Very truly yours, FRANK WILLIAMS, Chairman. TIJERAS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION The Board of Supervisors of the Tijeras Soil Conservation District, Albuquerque, N. Mex., in regular meeting on this 20th day of January 1959, with a quorum present, have unanimously adopted a resolution opposing Senate bill S. 4028. Whereas a bill known as S. 4028 and the National Wilderness Preservation Act, has been proposed and is now under consideration by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs; and Whereas the provisions of this bill as proposed are detrimental to the economy of the Western States and school systems, and Whereas the financial structure of the State of New Mexico will be greatly affected because of loss of revenues from oil, gas, lumber, mining, and grazing fees from Federal controlled lands; and Whereas the financing of local school systems would be impaired without the revenue derived from lumber and grazing fees; and Whereas many families now dependent upon the use of these Federal lands will be thrown into the unemployment ranks and onto the relief rolls; and Whereas the Federal lands under the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior are now amply protected: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors of the Tijeras Soil Conservation District find the proposed legislation in S. 4028 completely detrimental to the economy, welfare, and livelihood of our people. AMERICAN HEREFORD ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION Whereas in the judgment of this board of directors the preservation of vast areas of trackless wilderness is extravagantly wasteful of the natural resources of this Nation in that (a) the utilization of the natural products of such areas on a planned basis is prohibited without compensating advantages; and (b) the preservation of the wilderness status actually prevents the utilization of such areas for recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, or historical use and enjoyment by the public, except for a negligible few: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by this board of directors, That Senate bill 4028, 85th Congress, 2d session, establishing a national wilderness preservation system is contrary to the best interests of the people of the United States and, therefore, should not be adopted by the 85th Congress. LETTER OF MR. AND MRS. SAM B. SMITH, GLENWOOD, N. MEX. CHAIRMAN, INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, GLENWOOD, N. MEX., April 1, 1959. DEAR SIR: We wish to express our reasons for opposing wilderness bill S. 1123. Primarily we feel that nothing can be gained by obtaining this vast area, as the existing wilderness areas are so inaccessible that few people are now able to enjoy them. Living adjacent to the Gila wilderness we encounter very few people in this area and those on the highway which leads into the edge of the real wilderness. This bill states that these areas would not lose their present multiple use, yet it goes on to say that no commercial enterprises would be allowed on wilderness or primitive areas. This would curtail any commercial grazing, from which we derive our livelihood, this leaves only recreation as a use. This land, which our parents and grandparents have settled and brought from a primitive area to make into productive lands could never be put back into primitive state, for man has left his mark of civilization for hundreds of years to come. In this legislation we see that those who did not have the courage of our forefathers to conquer these frontiers, now wish to move us out of our ranches and homes for a playground for the future generations. There are many more reasons why wilderness areas are detrimental to America. Among those are curtailed watershed, great fire hazard in timbered inaccessible areas, loss of revenue from the grazing and logging industries, and added taxation on private lands, to mention only a few. We sincerely urge you to consider these reasons before any action is taken for passage of this bill. Very truly yours, Mr. and Mrs. SAM B. SMITH. LETTER OF MR. AND MRS. JIM HENRY, BUCKHORN, N. MEX. CHAIRMAN, INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, BUCKHORN, N. Mex., April 2, 1959. DEAR SIR: We wish to oppose S. 1123, wilderness preservation bill for the following reasons: The bill states that it is primarily interested in preserving a wilderness area for the future generations for scientific and recreation reasons. We feel that raising beef for the future generations is much more important than establishing a vast playground. Fees from grazing, and income from lumber industries pays one-third of the cost of operating schools and road maintenance in our county. If this area is put into a wilderness system, this burden will be placed on the private tax assessment, which is now paying two-third of this cost. We feel that people will not agree to this added taxation. Living adjacent to the Gila wilderness we are able to see that few people are able to enjoy this area because of inaccessiblity. Our forest land is open to the general public, as it cannot be posted, yet we never encounter anyone in this area who is there for scientific reasons. Please give the people like us, who will be so severely affected by this legislation, some consideration in curtailing the passage of any wilderness legislation. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. JIM HENRY. LETTER OF MR. AND MRS. ELSWORTH TIPTON, GLENWOOD, N. MEX. CHAIRMAN, INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, DEAR SIR: We would like to go on record as opposing the wilderness bill S. 1123. We feel that this bill has been unfairly presented, for it is so written that the general public does not realize so many people would be affected adversely in their mode of obtaining a livelihood. We feel that this bill has been unfairly presented, for it is so written that the on Federal land. This is not free grazing, as we pay yearly grazing fees for this privilege. Contrary to general belief commercial grazing would be affected. The existing Gila wilderness disputes this, as no grazing is allowed in this area. Roadless, primitive areas would serve only the few who could afford to hire a pack outfit to go back into this area, and very few families could enjoy this area as it is too inaccessible, yet this is one of the reasons for establishing a primitive or wilderness area. We think there is much more to be lost than gained in the passage of this bill. Please consider these reasons for opposition concerning passage of any wilderness legislation. Very truly yours, Mr. and Mrs. ELSWORTH TIPTON. LETTER OF MR. AND MRS. EPHRAIM SPURGEON, GLENWOOD, N. MEX. GLENWOOD, N. MEX., April 1, 1959. CHAIRMAN, INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, DEAR SIR: We would like to go on record as opposing the wilderness bill. We oppose this legislation for many reasons, but wish to give the reasons that the passage of this bill would affect us as cattle ranchers. We have spent a lifetime, and our parents before us, establishing a ranch on the Gila National Forest. We graze this forest land through permit from the Forest Service and pay yearly grazing fees for this privilege. We, like many ranchers in this area are solely dependent on the income from this ranch. If this becomes a wilderness area, we will be forced on the overburdened labor market as it would be impossible to live on any standard on the private land with which we hold our forest permit. S. 1123 also states on page 12, line 5, that if it is deemed necessary that private land may be acquired by the wilderness system. It is generally understood by the public that this bill is only to establish the present wilderness boundaries, if so, why is this legislation necessary? We live near the Gila Wilderness Area and these boundaries, according to the Department of Agriculture, were established in 1933. We respectfully urge that you will not pass any wilderness legislation that will detrimentally affect our way of life. Very truly yours, Mr. and Mrs. EPHRAIM SPURGEON. NATIONAL PARKS ASSOCIATION, Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The National Parks Association has written you to express its approval of the revision of the wilderness bill. With your permission, we should like to submit as a supplementary statement for the record, the text of an article we prepared for the technical meeting of the International Union for the Protection of Nature, held at Salzburg, Germany, in 1953, which relates to the question of the extent and value of the areas reserved as national parks and for similar purposes in the United States. This paper is a partial answer to the question "What is the value of national parks?" considered not only from their intangible benefits, but also from the aspect of the economic return realized by the national economy from their existence. It is thus pertinent to consideration of S. 4028. It is to be noted that this paper presents statistics as of 1953. Some of the details have changed since then, especially with regard to the increase of National Park Service appropriations from $33 million to $70 million a year; but the figures presented are valid and respond to the question without requiring revision. We hope this information will be of value to your committee. Yours sincerely, FRED M. PACKARD, |