First, I am impressed by one aspect that seems general in much of the current discussions about the wilderness bill. On one side, even the most extreme opponents of the bill acknowledge the need for wilderness-type recreation and the preservation of certain single-use areas. Their concern, however, is with the nature and degree of the program to be adopted, and with the legal and political operation of that program. On the other side, so many proponents of the bill say in effect— in all the vast area involved, multiple use is totally wrong. Only single use for all those millions of acres is totally right. Why each side cannot realize that the other side cannot possibly be always and totally wrong, and that its own side cannot possibly be always and totally right? Then there could be legislation to bring a great and lasting good-not just for both sides now, but for generations to come. It is with the hope that such legislation will someday be adopted that I now list two basic reasons for my opposition to the wilderness bill in its present form. First, the bill calls for a method of operation that directly violates a basic principle of our form of government. Under that method, Congress would surrender its right and duty of positive enactmentaccepting instead only the negative possibility of disapproving an executive recommendation. Perhaps to States of great population and impressive political influence, that method of negative enactment offers safeguard enough. But those are not the States in which this wilderness bill, by its very nature, would have the greatest pact. Instead, because the bill involves vast and undeveloped areas, its greatest impact would fall upon the economy and growth pattern of States with large Federal ownership, small population, and thus small in political influence on a national level. Consider then the implication of this bill to the people of such States-to us here in Idaho-or in Alaska-or in at least 8 of the 11 Western States in which the bill would have a major effect. Envision some future day, some future situation, in which the exclusion of some area from wilderness classification becomes of vital importance-not to all 50 States, but to just one of those States of small population and minor influence. Envision the amount of time, personnel, finances, and research necessary to document the validity and importance of the matter. Envision the political influence required to bring that matter to Executive attention, in hopes of changing the Executive decision. Then if that fails, envision the political implications and obstacles involved in prevailing upon Congress to cast a negative vote against the Executive recommendation. What chance of success do you think such a State-small in population, small in influence-would have in obtaining such national action. on a matter of importance only to the small State itself? Remember when supporters of the bill face the fact that use of isolated wilderness areas would be limited to perhaps 2 percent of the Nation's people, they are in effect pleading this vast plan involving millions and millions of acres is necessary to protect the right of that small minority. May we, then, in our several States of small population and minor influence, plead for more modest protection of our much larger minority? The second basic point of my opposition to the wilderness bill in its present form is that it actually attempts to legislate against change and progress. It says in effect : We hereby repeal the basic law of nature that nothing remains the same. From this day forward, in all these millions upon millions of acres, there shall be no change, no improvement, no development, no progress. At what point in the history of a world, a nation, or an area, can a group issue such a dictate? What if earlier groups had decided that theirs was the time? What if the ban had been imposed as the first colonists prepared to invade what was then an entire continent of wilderness? What if the law had halted the pioneers, as they started their westward march to what is now our home? At each point in history, exactly the same arguments could have been used to support such action that are now being used to support this exaggerated bill. Yet now at this point of time-between all the past history and all the unpredictable future a group says to the whole: "This is where change must stop. This is where progress must end. This is the time and place in which the status quo of 'now' becomes the permanent pattern for all time.” Mankind has never reached that point before. I cannot believe that we have reached it now. Establish a plan to insure wilderness-type recreation, yes. Make certain that generations to come will know the beauty of original nature, yes. But do it within the framework of our American form of Government. Do it within reasonable limits, with logic, and with an honest concern for the present and future rights of all concerned. Thank you. Mrs. Prost. Thank you. [Applause.] We have 10 statements for inclusion in the record at this point. One "statement" is a petition with something like 35-or-so names on it. Without objection, they will be placed in the record. Hearing none, it is so ordered. (The material referred to follows:) PORT ANGELES, Wash. DEAR SIRS: I would like to go on record that I support the wilderness bill and not the special interests who oppose it. These special interests (mining, logging, grazing, etc.) do not represent the great majority of the people. CLAY RENNIE. STATEMENT OF NEZ PERCE INDIAN TRIBE OF IDAHO BY ANGUS A. WILSON, CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE As chairman of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, I am directed to present this statement on behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho in favor of the wilderness bill (S. 174) passed by the Senate in the 1st session of the 87th Congress, now before the House of Representatives. Two of the great areas sought to be preserved in all their pristine glory-the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area and the Idaho Primitive Area-were the homeland of our Nez Perce ancestors. The preamble to the treaty with the Nez Perces, 1855, contains these words: "Nez Perce Tribe of Indians occupying lands lying partly in Oregon and partly in Washington Territories, between the Cascades and Bitter Root Mountains" (Kappler Indian Treaties, vol. II, p, 702). The U.S. Government has twice shriveled the Nez Perce Reservation (treaty with the Nez Perce Indians, June 9, 1963 (14 Stat. 647) and agreement with the Nez Perce Indians, May 1, 1893 (28 Stat. 331)) since our ancestors ceded their aboriginal lands to the white man under the Stevens Treaty of June 11, 1855. We have seen the encroachment of modern man on God's handiwork in these ceded areas. There has been wise utilization of our natural resources on many fronts. The white man has used his ingenuity to unlock nature's vast storehouses and provide us many of our present day blessings. On the other hand, we have cringed to see the wanton desecration of our great out of doors destroyed beyond man's poor power to reconstruct or re-create. Unless the few unspoiled primitive areas in this country are preserved by this generation for the generations yet unborn, an exploding population which will be demanding places to live, lands to till, forests and minerals and rivers to exploit and harness for industries-and not to overlook places in which to recreat-will never know the America that once was, the America of our ancesters who greeted the Pilgrims, but whose successors in their conquering of the native red men, the first Americans, have written some of the sorriest pages on the escutcheon of American history. These Indian conquests were resisted by Indian braves to preserve their homes and protect their loved ones. They loved the great out of doors, the native homes. The great God above had given them the warm sunshine and radiant light, the herbs and roots and grasses and wild game and fish for food, and the verdant forests and clean, clear, pure water. The present generation of Nez Perces are proud of our heritage and tribal traditions. Oure forefathers extended a friendly hand to the white explorers, protected them in their plight at the hands of hostile Northwest tribes. The Nez Perce war of 1877 was not a war in the sense of hostility to the white man, but the honorable efforts of bands of Nez Perces, commencing with Chief Joseph and his band in the beautiful Wallowa Valley, down through the Whitebird Band and the Looking Glass Band, to protect the home land they dearly loved. The white man today hails Wallowa land, Chief Joseph's homeland, as the Switzerland of America. Today it teems with modern motels, villas, is a vacationer's paradise. The present day tourist gains a new appreciation for the sad hearts of the Nez Perce people who resisted to the bitter end the military might of the white man which overpowered those brave bands of Nez Perces and forced their honorable retreat through the heart of the two primitive areas I have heretofore referred to, and finally conquered them in Montana after a long siege wherein the tactics of the Nez Perces are still studied at West Point Military Academy as examples of superior military strategy. The Nez Perce tribesmen of today would be recreant sons of noble ancestors if we did not stand up and be counted on the side of preserving the last great vestiges of primitive America. We want our children and our children's children to see the heritage our forefathers preserved for us as best they could through treaties which created reservations. The generation of Americans of today may well heed the wise counsel of Old Joseph, one of the signers of the Nez Perce Treaty of 1855, chief of the Wallowa Band of Nez Perces and father of young Chief Joseph. At the long council in the Walla Walla Valley in June 1855, preceding the signing of the treaties by the several tribes in this region, Old Joseph gave this admonition to his people as they were solemning considering the ceding away of their lands and rivers: "These are my children [looking around]. It is not us, it is those of our children who come after us. *** Think for year after year for a far way ahead. * * *” The Nez Perce Tribe, favors the wilderness bill as an important measure to help preserve intact the few remaining splotches of primitive America, not for the special benefit of any groups, but for all the people to enjoy in perpetuity. GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, House Wilderness Bill Hearings, SEATTLE, WASH., October 27, 1961. GENTLEMEN: The undersigned citizens urge the passage of the wilderness bill now before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Preservation of our limited and irreplaceable existing wilderness is essential for watershed protection, recreation, scientific research, and to provide a habitat for many species of wildlife that could not otherwise survive. Timber cutting, stock grazing, road building, and exploitation of mineral resources are not consistent with these objectives and must at all costs be prohibited in the mere 8 percent of our national forests now set aside as wilderness. It would seem that the remaining 92 percent would provide more than adequate space for roadside camping facilities for the motoring public and timber and grazing land for those whose only interest in such undeveloped areas is a commercial one. Passage of this wilderness bill will be a monument to present and future generations. Let us not shirk our responsibility to those who will follow us-support the passage of the wilderness bill. Sincerely, Charles T. Matson, Seattle, Wash.; Theodore T. Luebke, Seattle, WENATCHEE, WASH., October 30, 1961. Representative GRACIE PFOST, House Wilderness Bill Hearing, McCall, Idaho: Urge passage of wilderness bill to give wilderness preservation official status instead of subject to directive of changing administrators. ENID BOLTON. YAKIMA, WASH., October 30, 1961. GRACIE PFOST, McCall, Idaho: House Wilderness Bill Hearing, May we be a part of the printed record as strongly supporting and recommending early passage of the wilderness bill. Dr. and Mrs. M. E. HERR. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Idaho Wilderness Bill, LEWISTON, IDAHO, October 31, 1961. McCall, Idaho. DEAR MRS. PrOST: The little people of Idaho are eager that you support the wilderness bill as presented by Senator Church. Sincerely, E. M. WYGANT, B.M.D. SEATTLE, WASH., October 30, 1961. Chairman, Representative GRACIE PFOST, The House Wilderness Bill Hearing, McCall, Idaho: Request be put on record favoring passage wilderness bill. ANTONI AND OWEN SOBIERALSKI, Mercer Island. BOISE CHAPTER, Hon. GRACIE PFOST, IDAHO OUTDOOR ASSOCIATION, Chairman of the House Public Lands Subcommittee, The Boise Chapter, Idaho Outdoor Association, wishes to take this opportunity to testify in favor of the wilderness bill, S.174. The Idaho Outdoor Association has always been in favor of wilderness preservation. We feel that the multiple-use concept is a wonderful thing, where it can be applied, but after listening to some of the propaganda which has been put out in opposition to the bill, and viewing some of the misuses of the present Sawtooth Wilderness Area, where grazing continues for miles beyond the signs marking the limits for grazing, it would appear that nothing less than the last stick of timber, or the last blade of grass, would suffice for these interests. If we are to maintain some portion of this and other States in their natural condition, for ourselves and the coming generations, it is high time that we were doing it. Our national forests are already being overgrazed to the extent that heavy rainfall in some areas, would cause untold damage from erosion, yet there is an ever-increasing demand for more grazing. Attempts by the Forest Service to reduce these allotments meet with the same resistance as the wilderness bill, and by the same interests. Lumber interests, had they had the same foresight that they seem to display today, could have grown merchantable timber, on the land they have completely logged off, and which was, not too many years ago, wilderness also. All this could have been done since the Forest Service came into being. Mining, unlike lumbering and grazing, only takes place where mineral is present. We doubt that it will ever be a threat to our wilderness area, and most of it has been pretty well prospected already. However, we feel confident that if and when there is mineral found that will be needed, there will be a way to get and use it. We urge the passage of Senate bill 147 that a small portion of what we once had might be retained for the coming generation. Sincerely, JACK BAUER, Committee for Idaho Outdoor Association. BELLEVUE, WASH., October 27, 1961. Hon. Mrs. GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, House Public Lands Subcommittee, DEAR MRS. PrOST: Regretting that it is impossible for me to attend the hearings on the wilderness bill, I request that this letter be made a part of the hearing record. I should like to express myself, not as a member of any organization or group, but as a resident of the western United States, no longer young, who can look back on many happy experiences in the various wilderness areas of our wonderful land. I confess to being one of those birdwatchers so scornfully derided by practical timbermen and members of the chambers of commerce. For this reason, I will not speak here of the tourist dollar versus the saw-log dollar, or of the economic value of watersheds. I wish to say only a few words of what wilderness means to me and of what I think is its importance to the future of our country. |