There is a far simpler way. On the lower end of the Department of Agriculture totem pole are a few old time county agents and soil conservationists. These Chaps have been communicating with land owners of this area since the 1940's.

They are MEN, vigorous, kindly, knowledgable men who are respected. They are teachers and communicators, the best our government has for reaching rural mountain people.

Dig these old hands out from under the self-serving hierarchy of their bureaucracy. Give them the mission of saving the Buffalo by the simple advantageous means of easements and restrictive covenants from land owners of the Buffalo River basin. They can do it, simply, efficiently and quickly.

If you love the river do all in your power to spare the landowners the sight and smell of the tiptoeing, lisping fags who, in the name of the U.S. Government, have so thoroughly riled the entire Buffalo river community against any sort of program whatsoever. Keep these types out and shut down the various effete do-good societies whose members have recently learned a new wordECOLOGY. This word they flaunt at every opportunity while having only a vague idea of its real meaning.

I plead that you table this half baked, hopeless, tax-gobbling measure, HR 8382, and begin at once to work out a sensible solution along the lines I've indicated. Please!

STATEMENT of Mr. and MRS. JAMES S. VAUGHAN, JASPER, ARK.

We are opposed to the establishment of a National Park on the Buffalo River, now or at any time, because: The US Government now owns more than 52% of Newton County, Most of the best farm land in our county is along the Buffalo Rivers. National Parks usually consists of land not farmed nor where folks live. In the Election, November 1968 Newton County voted 97% against the National Park on the Buffalo River which denotes that the majority opposes it. Should the Bill pass we would be swamped with Hippies, drug-addicts, outlaws, Negroes and all kinds of people, litter and pollution.

You should visit some of the National Parks Out West and see the results. A National Park would be the death of Newton County, we would not have enough taxes to operate our schools etc.

Could October 28 (the date of the hearing) mean anything to-day? The Statue Of Liberty was dedicated October 28th 1886.

We will loose some of our citizens if the Bill passes, several parties are awaiting the decision, to build new homes here.

We do not think Homes and lands should be taken from our Pioneer families to satisfy some Sport Clubs etc. We welcome tourists to our beautiful Ozarks but want to keep our county clean and beautiful.

STATEMENT OF LUCILE HANNON, PRUITT, ARK.

Little, if no Congressional Record has ever been made on the actual cause for the numerous bills introduced primarily by J. William Fulbright and John Paul Hammerschmidt to nationalize the Big Buffalo River in Arkansas in 1967, 1969, and 1971. In 1931, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers surveyed the Big Buffalo River with a view of damming it and "taming the wild country" as the conservationists and the recreationists, wildlife organizations, and those state and federal employees introducing state and national river legislation falsely labeled the Big Buffalo. Many reports, studies, surveys, etc. were made by the Engineers and other governmental departments, more especially in 1932, 1937, and 1938, but they were all in vain. Then, finally Congress appropriated some money for the construction of the Gilbert Dam: legislation upon which had been introduced by Congressman Jim Trimble; John Paul Hammerschmidt's predecessor. Mr. Trimble worked long and hard for many years to get the Gilbert Dam for the people who wanted it and needed it so badly ofr economic reasons. Finally, the bill passed the Senate and House, and twice, President Dwight D. Eisenhower vetoed the legislation. From the time President Eisenhower last vetoed the Gilbert Dam legislation until the year 1961, the landowners, more especially those in Searcy County, the majority of which wanted the Gilbert Dam, almost gave up hope for an "economic shot in the arm". Then, in May of 1961, James Tudor,

published of the Marshall Mountain wave a weekly newspaper met with Gibson L. Walsh, an abstractor, and started what became the Buffalo River Improvement Assn. Its purpose was to exert pressure to get the dams built at Lone Rock and Gilbert, the latter of which would have been only 14 miles from the little town of Marshall. Then, in 1962, some of the landowners opposed the Gilbert Dam, giving no specific reasons, except that they did not want to come under any state or federal government control. This association was known as the Buffalo River Landowners Assn., comprised of Newton County landowners.

Over 7,000 signatures to a petition headed by the Buffalo River Landowners Assn. opposing any government controlled aid, was obtained by Newton County landowners and interested residents from all four counties in which the Buffalo River runs. These signatures were sent to Washington, more especially to oppose legislation by J. William Fulbright to make the Buffalo River a national river. Legislation of any nature is always an effective part of a cause, whether it be true, or false.

Now, we regress to the actual cause for the numerous national river bills introduced by Fulbright and Hammerschmidt and their colleagues for the past nine or ten years, as first mentioned in paragraph two of this letter.

The Arkansas Power & Light Co. with Home Offices in Little Rock, Ark., a monopolistic industry, furnishing electric power to a greater portion of Arkansas, and all of Northwest Arkansas, in which the Buffalo River and its tributaries lie, did not at the time money was allocated by Congress for the Gilbert Dam, and still does not want any electric power competition. The Arkansas Power & Light Company sub-contracts most of its power to the REA's in which all of the Buffalo River, Little Buffalo River and tributaries thereof are situated. They add their profit to this sub-contract power and the REA sub-contractors add their profits, which therefore makes the REA electric power much higher than the power obtained directly from the Arkansas Power & Light Co. This latter statement is a fact, for I have, for the past 10 years conducted my tax consultant work in Harrison, Ark., using the same house trailer office as used on REA power in Newton County, with no additional power consumption, and the sub-contract REA power bills have been almost double the contract power obtained direct from the Arkansas Power & Light Co. in the Harrison, Ark.

area.

Here lies your false cause for the effective false legislation introduced by Fulbright-Hammerschmidt to nationalize the Big Buffalo River, for the Arkansas Power & Light Co. evidently felt that the Big Buffalo River couldn't have a dam and a national river at the same time, which is also a false thought, if they had it, and I'm sure they did.

Therefore, we have been accusing our state and federal governmental employees, the various conservation and recreation societies as being the cause for this false legislation for a national Buffalo River, when in reality, they have always been, and are still the false effect! But one is as bad as the other, for they will both register a false result.

If one could make a factual survey of the monies contributed by the Arkansas Power & Light Co. to these state and federal governmental employees, the various conservation, recreation and wildlife associations, no doubt charged off to "campaign contributions and donations", then we estimate that each legislator and association has, and continues to receive handsome contributions to continue such effective false legislation, and such effective falsely syndicated information that "we need to save the Big Buffalo River from the polluters, bulldozers, builders, and destroyers of wildlife, etc."

Each moment, our United States is becoming nationalized in some way, either by selfish industrialists, who subsidize our state, federal, county and city employees to institute false legislation, and we are all growing weary of fighting for our true American Heritage, namely, under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution: "Persons and houses to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures", and "just compensation for private property taken for public use." For ten years, our lands and homes have become devalued because of this continuous false legislation for a national Buffalo River, and we have and still fear to even repair what buildings we own, and to conserve and improve what lands we own. But this is the way these "eminent domain land grabs" go, more especially when it is being grabbed for pleasure of the "outsider', forgetting the heritage rights of the landowner. We have noted with continued accrescence over the past ten years, the complete disregard for the people's needs; the landowner's majority vote in special and general elections, verbally at hearings and otherwise, by the political-industrial-news media coalition who proposes

a national Buffalo River-such as the following recent headlines before and after the Washington hearings on October 28th and 29th: "Majority Favors Buffalo Bill", "Favorable Report Expected", "Four To Voice Opposition to Buffalo Park Proposal", "Three Arkansasans Oppose Bills". The number of landowners opposing this national river is always small as against the many proponents. What about the 2372 Newton Countians who voted against this national Buffalo River Bill in 1968 on the general election ballot? What about only 215 Voting for the national river on this same ballot? Could the news media have spoken the truth and said: "2372 Newton Countians Voice Opposition to Buffalo Park Proposal? No, because if they had, the Arkansas Power & Light Co. and the Hammerschmidt Lumber Co. would have taken their advertising out of this local paper.

We must face the truth that our governmental employees will continue to legislate falsely so long as they receive subsidies from selfish industrialists, individuals, and others, some even perhaps more than the salaries we pay them to represent the people under a Democratic form of government--so long as this is prevalent, nationalism, socialism, and communism have a perfect entre to take us over, and quick! We are our own selfish destruction when we go to the polls and continue to elect and re-elect governmental employees because our ancestors have voted "the straight Republican and/or Democratic ticket for seven generations", because "grandpa got a bridge across his lands, and we are indebted to this politician", and for other various and sundry false reasons. We can't put the blame on anyone else but ourselves, when we condone such false reasons.

Mr. Chairman, I highly oppose the remark you made when our Newton County Clerk, Oxford Hamilton, stated true facts when he said: "The proposed National Park would convert a scenic, peaceful river valley into a mecca for criminals and other undesirable segments of society, evidenced by well-known reports about the rapid increase in crime in the already existing national parks". To this, you replied, Mr. Chairman: "If I thought we were creating a mecca for criminals I'd resign from the sub-committee". You didn't have to think, Mr. Chairman, you know this to be the facts, evidenced by documental statistics at your very own fingertips in the Government Printing Office, that, since 1966 through 1969, crime has risen nationally 53%, and in the national park, 126%. It would be expedient for you to have your assistant obtain this documentary evidence for you, and maybe we would accept your apology, and you wouldn't have to resign. And Mr. Johnson added an unnecessary false remark when he reiterated, “I doubt very much if we are creating new sanctuaries for criminals”. You might ease his doubt by giving him a copy of these documented statistics when your assistant has laid them on your desk.

From an article in a recent Tulsa World paper titled "Ecology Kick Overdone”, John McGuire. associate chief of the Forest Service, advised a conference sponsored by the Sierra Club, the nation's most militant conservationist group, that "restriction of public use of camping and forestry areas "is just around the corner". The editor commented, "beautiful and relaxing places toward which ecologists have directed their most vigorous displeasure may become the areas ther are barred from visiting at any time". He further stated: "Will the largest "off-limits" signs be posted at the very places the nature-lovers would most enjoy visiting because they are free from less sensitive souls?". The editor ended with: "It may seem a big price to pay-but better than turning over these wilderness retreats to the beer-can tossing set". Perhaps when this does happen. and it surely will, as "off-limits" signs are now being placed on at least one-half of our national parks, because they are unable to man them, and to control the crime, then these conservationists, recreationists, and wildlife enthusiasts will regret having been subsidized with expensive gifts and monies in order to have a channel through which to spread their false fevers for more national rivers. parks, etc. But this is the way it is when you accept gifts and promise to do selfish favors for a few, and fail to follow through on the cause for your organization, and the cause for truly representing the people of this nation.

I would recommend that instead of continuing to falsely grab land for selfish industrialists, governmental employees, and the various conservation, recreation, and wildlife associations, that the Interior Department contribute the $16 million dollars they propose to use in acquiring this land on the Big Buffalo, (and it would be close to $160 million dollars), to the Buffalo River landowners: let them develop, repair, remodel, conserve, preserve, etc., these lands upon which six to seven generations of Ozark natives have been born and reared. This allocation could be dispensed under the administration of the Interior Depart

72-466-72-14

ment, but give it to these people without any strings. And take the one million dollars a year that you claim it would cost to operate the national Buffalo River (it's not costing anything now) and use it to train and maintain law enforcing officers to reduce the 126% crime increase back to at least the 53% national figure. I think the people of this nation would be happier with this arrangement, because no one wants to see the Ozark Native Culture completely eradicated, which is what would happen if a national river were made of the Buffalo River in Arkansas. Because the only main stream of Ozark Native Culture left can be found on the Buffalo River and its tributaries. We are fighting very hard to help the black culture, the Indian culture, the Chinese culture, and sundry other cultures-why not remember the poor Ozark Native Culture?

I have owned a modern trailer park on the Big Buffalo River at the Highway 7 Bridge at Pruitt for 14 years, and I have established facts which might be of interest to the people of this nation. For the past five years, I have asked my tourist trade: "Why do you come to the Ozarks", and 95% of them, even those from out of the country reply: "We come to see and fraternize with the Ozark Natives". Does this not speak for itself? Now, the proponents of a national park on the Buffalo River have falsely syndicated the idea that tourism would be increased if we ran the Ozark Natives off the Buffalo River and its tributaries for the outside's pleasure". How could it increase tourism, when 95% of the people say their main reason for coming to the Ozarks is to see the Ozark Natives? Where would they find them? There's none but a very few left around the big lake areas in Northwest Arkansas. I think we need to concentrate on preserving the Ozark American Heritage along with the American Heritage at the same time.

It is my hope that since we will have increased voting power in the youth this next general election, and since the four counties in which the Buffalo River lies, have learned their lesson that they can't oppose a national Buffalo River and turn around and vote for those who legislate it-that we can finally defeat this false legislation; the effect of selfish industrialism, and that the result will be a true one-a return to serving the voice and needs of the people of this nation! A return to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and a return to governing ourselves as a free people, with the proper representation in governmental employees at all levels.

Further, it would appear to me as an animal of the higher class, having the quality of intelligence, that the governmental employees falsely legislating this national Buffalo River Bill, the conservationists, recreationists, and wildlife associations, favor the preservation of the lower animals above the human beings. If we run the higher class human animals off the Buffalo River for a national park, what will be left but the lower animals, hippies and law breakers? We have always treated the outsider canoe floaters, bird watchers, hunters and fishermen with respect, and they can continue to receive this same respect and hospiality— from us-much more than they would receive should the Buffalo River be made into a national or a state river.

Many of us landowners and prepaid lifetime leaseholders, such as I, have expended thousands of dollars, manhours, energies and strategy to help the Ozark Native people on this Buffalo River, without too much concern for ourselves— but simply to fight wrong principle, and to eventually see justice done to a minority group of people loved this nation over--the Ozark Native people. In conclusion, I wish to voice opposition to the following conditions of the Hammerschmidt-Fulbright national park bills:

1. The acquisition by eminent domain of a landowner's home and ample acreage for garden and pasturelands for domestic animals. Title should be left entirely in his name, as in the National Forests.

2. Obtaining lands more than the river bed and 100' easements on either side, rather than five miles on each side.

3. A fixed date of determining permanent residents, and improvements of properties.

4. The confiscation of any rental or income-bearing properties.

5. The acceptance of monies or gifts from industrialists, organizations, or individuals for the purpose of introducing legislation of any nature.

6. Introducing any legislation which would affect financially or otherwise, more than 2% of the citizens in the particular area being nationalized.

7. The general practice of legislators "swapping favors in voting power" rather than voting for the general welfare and desires of the people whom they represent.

8. Falsely syndicated national surveys, subsidized by federal monies, giving erroneous information regarding the Buffalo River.

9. Continuous accusations that the landowners are polluting the river and surrounding area, when floaters and outsiders dump their own beer cans and wine and whiskey bottles in my garbage cans, run them over, and leave the garbage for the dogs and for me to pick up.

In final summation, I oppose a national river on the Big Buffalo River now, or at any time in the future for the above true reasons.

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. LANE, PRUITT, Ark.

I have been asked to express the views of myself and some of my neighbors on the Buffalo National River Bill. This is fitting as we, who live on the river, are the ones most affected by the bill.

Proponents of the bill will say that our interest is selfish. This is most certainly true for this is our home and our livelihood depends on the cattle on these hills. So, our interest is the proud selfishness of the land owner who loves the land and who has devoted his time, his labor and his money to the development of that land.

Sponsors of this bill will tell you that we are misusing the land. Unfortunately, in some instances, this has been true in the past and there may be instances of misuse in the future though the damage is slight and self healing. Damage to land is not confined to private ownership however. It is prevalent in corporate and despite arguments to the contrary, government ownership. To those who cite government ownership as a cure all for abuse I would like to cite the damage to the Washita Wild Life Refuge by the artillery at Fort Sill; the poisoning of the air and land by the Dugway Proving Ground: the Radioactive tailing from the atomic power plant at Grand Junction, Colorado; and the damage to our existing National Parks caused by litter, tourists and traffic.

We have neither the money nor the research facilities to catalog the abuses to the National Park system. However some of them have been cataloged for us by Life Magazine in the 3 Sep issue. Page nine of the magazine tells of the Park Service having to remove litter from Mt Whitney by helicopter. Pictures on page eleven and fifteen show some of the problems of unlimited access to an area by the pleasure seeking public. The article on page forty, "The Park That Caught the Urban Blight" is an example of what would probably happen to the Buffalo if it were a National Park for we are very near heavy Urban centers.

The tourists are already here. They descend on us every Summer like locusts in their campers with their Hondas strapped to the bumpers and boats on top. You find their litter along the roads and at every place where there is room to park their vehicles. Their only restraint is the private ownership of the land. If the purpose of the bill is to save the Buffalo, we are in full agreement with the idea but disagree that the answer is a National Park. Motorcycles and off the road vehicles would be up and down the hills causing more erosion and damage than the farmers have ever caused. A visitor to my farm last Summer, who is a sports car enthusiast, has already laid out a sport car rally. From Pruitt to Erbie, to Comption, to Ponca, then Jasper and back to Dogpatch. This would come were this a National Park.

If the purpose of the bill is to provide a playground for the bored, disaffected urban population, let us state this in the bill and not try to disguise it as an effort to save the river. But, if the purpose is to save the river from neon signs. curio shops, camp grounds, motels and trailer parks let us try to find some other method such as zoning or land use laws.

We too would like to see the Buffalo saved for we also have children but let us check the alternatives before we create another park "That has Caught the Urban Blight".

STATEMENT OF LESTER C. HOWICK, FAYETTEVILLE, ARK.

It is my firm conviction that the establishment of a Buffalo National River is in the best interests of present and future generations both near to and far from this section of northern Arkansas. This beautiful, free-flowing stream is located in the center of a complex of impoundments. While only marginal benefits would acrue from its conversion to one more artificial lake, its retention in its