Third, and most important, the vast majority of Idaho citizens were not able to attend this hearing. I think you heard their sentiments expressed through representatives of our sportsmen's groups. I'm confident this will be verified in the weeks and months to come as you hear from these ordinary citizens by mail and in person in your visits throughout Idaho. May I repeat again: American industry has available to it today 98 percent of our land. If it cannot prosper on 98 percent, the other 2 percent wouldn't be adequate for survival either. Moreover, I am firm in my conviction that this generation does not have the moral right to deprive future generations of this tiny remaining 2 percent of our land intact and in its natural state. This is a part of the inheritance of the future that we have to use as temporary custodians. It is our solemn obligation to posterity to turn it over intact to the next generation. Respectfully submitted. Representative GRACIE PFOST, ART MANLEY, President. PARROTT FURNACE & SHEET METAL, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, October 29, 1961. Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PFOST: I am owner-manager of a heating and sheet metal business and also a small electrical business and since this is our busiest season I cannot spare the time to attend the hearing in McCall on the wilderness bill. However, I do think we need legislation of this type and I therefore request that this brief statement be made a part of the hearing record. It is seldom that I have the time to visit any of our Idaho primitive areas but I feel nevertheless that it is of utmost importance to our entire country to set aside and protect in its natural state each of the comparatively small areas still remaining that is suitable for this purpose. In years to come the tourist value of these lands alone can be tremendously important to us in Idaho, far offsetting in my opinion, any possible loss in timber, mining, or any other business. Moreover, such losses are highly improbable in view of the fact that the lands in question have not been available for timber harvest and mining and such purposes for many years. To me it seems clear that we have an obligation to the future to save this little bit of the past as nearly in its natural state as possible. I therefore urge approval of S. 174, the wilderness bill. Respectfully submitted. ELMER A. PARROTT. Representative GRACIE PFOST, COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO, October 27, 1916. Chairman, House Subcommittee on Public Lands, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PFOST: Will you please enter the following statement in the hearing record at McCall on the wilderness bill as I am not able to take time off from my job to present it in person. So far I have traveled only in small parts of our Idaho primitive areas-more or less on the fringes. But I like what I've seen and it seems to me to be something quite rare and extremely valuable in this day of smog and crowds. I believe it will someday be our greatest asset. Moreover, I can see no harm that could come to any person or business through passage of S. 174, the wilderness bill. Therefore, I strongly urge your committee to approve this bill and also ask your active support for it. This letter is to inform you that I am in favor of the wilderness bill, S. 174, as passed by the Senate September 6, 1961. The people of Idaho and the entire United States will benefit by perpetual outdoor recreation and conservation of water resources and wildlife. Because my livelihood depends on the lumber industry, this question has been given my most serious consideration, the reforestation program of the forest service is ample to cope with the national lumber requirements of the distant future. And this is being accomplished without the use of the designated wilderness areas. Please make a record of the fact that I am in favor of the above-designated wilderness bill. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, FRED W. MUELLER, Jr. COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO, October 29, 1961. Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands: I am regretfully not present in person today and am making this statement through the proxy of one who also voices my views. I am one of a rather small group who, nearly 7 years ago in Berkeley, Calif., requested one of those present to draw up a wilderness bill so that the legislators of our land could enact into the law of the land a definite and protective policy to govern the administrative procedures relating to the last remnants of wilderness. Then and now the administration of wilderness is not a national policy but simply a policy of an administrative bureau of the Government and it can, therefore, change with changing policies of that bureau. I have seen the first wilderness bill presented, investigated, revised, again presented, investigated, revised, again presented, investigated and revised until I am frankly not too sure how many forms it has taken. Each time I have urged legislators and investigating bodies like this one to expedite action to have the bill become the law of the land. Now I have seen the bill, Senate bill 174, passed but in some respects effectively emasculated. For years I have seen in the press across the land, gargantuan misstatements and misrepresentations to hoodwink the public into opposing the bill. I have seen industrial representatives misuse truth and exert unfair influence to defeat the wilderness legislation. I am indeed fatigued in the art of persuasion, but I am honest in my opinions and I seek for my countrymen that which is in their best interest. The preservation of our remaining wilderness areas is imperative if we are to have any of these vestiges remain. The passage of Senate bill 174 by the House of Representatives is imperative and it is equally urgent that the nullifying amendments passed in the Senate should be defeated. Respectfully submitted. H. FRANK EVANS. COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO, October 27, 1961. GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PFOST: I request that the following statement be made a part of the hearing record on the wilderness bill by your subcommittee. I am a resident of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and have lived in Idaho most of my life. I am a cabinetmaker by trade. My income is not sufficient to provide for extensive vacations but I do manage a few fishing and hunting trips into our primitive areas almost every year. In fact, this is one of the main reasons why I and many others live here rather than some other place where wages are higher and jobs are more plentiful. I think it's important to our future in Idaho to keep as much as we can of our wilderness areas. Therefore, I am grateful to Senator Church for his courageous stand in our behalf and I hope the House will back his stand and approve this bill. Respectfully yours, CONRAD KNUTSON. COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO, Subject: Testimony in favor of wilderness bill, S. 174, as was considered in the Senate on September 5 and 6, 1961. CONGRESSWOMAN GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Public Lands: My name is Cecil F. McCracken. carpenter and a building contractor. I live in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. I am a I am in favor of the wilderness bill for the following reasons: (1) The Wilderness Act will preserve or set aside areas that may be enjoyed as a wild, primitive, or wilderness area. These areas are not enjoyed or visited by only the rich, but by many low- and middle-income families and persons. (2) A study of these proposed areas shows that their value is suitable for wilderness areas. (3) The areas shall be realized in such a way that these particular lands will remain wilderness. (4) The act does not create any new administrative agencies or transfer the jurisdiction of the areas concerned. (5) The act sets up a 10-year program for the selection and designation of the areas to be included in this system. It also specifies the areas that may be considered. (6) The act does not damage any lumber enterprises, as no area now subject to timber cutting is included. (7) It does not interfere with livestock grazing, as any areas now being grazed will be allowed to continue as such. (8) It does not close the area to miners. The national forest areas now open to mining that are included will be subject to prospecting and may be opened to mining if the President determines it to be in the public interest. (9) The act does not lock up any resources in its areas. If and when the time comes and the resources are needed, provisions are included in the act to release these resources. Now we know that there is some commercial timber, some grazing areas, and probably some mining areas in the areas contemplated for wilderness areas. These same areas are also suitable for recreational purposes. I am for preserving some of our land for recreational use as well as for commercial exploita tion. Commercial interests now have about 98 percent of our land. The wilderness areas would constitute about 2 percent of our total land. If the commercial interests cannot survive on 98 percent of our economic resources and land, I am sure that the other 2 percent of our land won't make or break them. After all, this land belongs to the people of the United States of America and no one should be allowed to exploit every resource and take the cream of the crop as so many commercial interests have. The Wilderness Act in my estimation is a very good and important conservation act or measure which will be for the good of all. I urge that the Wilderness Act, S. 174, be brought to the floor of the House for a vote as soon as Congress convenes after January 10, 1962. No amendments weakening the bill should be added. Mrs. Chairman, I submit this testimony to be included in the records of this hearing. Thank you very much, CECIL F. MCCRACKEN. COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO, Representative GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, McCall, Idaho. DEAR MRS. PrOST: Because of the distance and time involved, I am unable to attend the hearing at McCall concerning the wilderness bill. However, I am very much interested and concerned and, therefore, am sending this statement and ask that it be made a part of the hearing record. I have made my living all of my life by farming, with some outside work from time to time to stretch the farm income. For many years now I have lived on a small farm about halfway between Coeur d'Alene and Worley, Idaho. I don't get out much for recreation except to our regular grange meetings and elk and deer hunting trips in the fall. A lot of what I've seen on these hunting trips I don't like. In some areas in the Clarkia-Bovill district, for example, modern logging methods have literally devastated the land, with streams choked with logging debris and silt. Neither the U.S. Forest Service Service nor the State seems to have any control over this situation. It seems to me that present logging practices are causing permanent damage to the land and are extremely wasteful. And I see very little concern on the part of lumber companies with reforestation to replace what they take away. Therefore I am strongly in favor of keeping as much of our remaining primitive lands intact as possible. The wilderness bill seems to be a step in this direction, and I, therefore, urge your support for it. Respectfully yours, Representative GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, Nampa, Idaho. GEORGE E. ALLMAN. THOMAS INSURANCE AGENCY, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, October 25, 1961. DEAR MRS. PFOST: I request this letter be included in the hearing on the wilderness bill at McCall, Idaho, October 30 and 31. Please place me on record as favoring S. 174, the wilderness bill. Economics: The lands affected are too remote and rugged for farming or lumbering. There are no mines. The value, therefore, lies in recreational and conservational purposes-hunting, fishing, and enjoying outdoors in its virgin state. Natural resources: The undisturbed flora will guarantee an abundance of clean, pollution-free water. It will guarantee a regulated runoff of snowpack. It will provide the cover vitally necessary for wildlife (much of which has been driven back to its last refuge). We only need to consider the annual damage caused by flooding streams to appreciate the value of an undisturbed watershed. Are we not grateful Yellowstone Park was preserved as such 90 years ago? What value will wilderness areas be as such, 90 years hence. We now stand at the crossroads to (a) destroy and lose forever our last wild frontiers, or (b) preserve it and let the future generations decide whether it is worth continuing or not. ROBERT G. THOMAS. VAN'S CREAMERY, INC., Mrs. GRACIE PFOST, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, October 27, 1961. Chairman, House Subcommittee on Public Lands, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PFOST: I request that the following statement be made a part of the hearing record on S. 174 by the House Subcommittee on Public Lands. I am manager and part owner of an independent creamery in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; am currently serving on the executive board of the Coeur d'Alene Chamber of Commerce; and have served on a number of community organizations and civic projects. I am, of course, not speaking for the chamber: I mention this connection simply to express my conviction that many business people, like myself, look with favor on this legislation. Although our business limits the time I can devote to outdoor recreation, I nevertheless manage to get into some of our Idaho primitive areas for fishing each summer and occasional hunting trips in the fall. I think these areas will draw thousands of tourists in years to come and stimulate our economy as a result. I do not see how preservation of these primitive areas in their present state under a wilderness system will hurt our timber company friends in any way as they seem to have plenty of timber for many years to come. Nor do I see where any mining company or anyone else will be harmed. If events in the future prove this observation to be wrong, corrective legislation is always possible. However, once these areas are opened up to roads, logging, etc., it will never be possible to restore them to their original primitive condition. ] therefore solicit your support of this legislation (S. 174). Respectfully submitted. ROYAL SHIELDS. HAGEN-LUNCEFORD, Representative GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, October 29, 1961. THE HONORABLE MRS. PFOST: I am very much interested in the wilderness bill and would like to be able to testify in favor of it in person but have just returned from a 10-day hunting trip into some of our rugged Idaho back country and simply cannot take more time off at this time. Therefore, I ask that you include this written statement in the hearing record on the wilderness bill. I am a lifelong resident of Idaho, own my home in Coeur d'Alene, and am a partner in a plumbing and heating and building supply business in Coeur d'Alene. In our business we handle many wood products supplied by the lumbering industry. Contrary to many irresponsible claims I don't think this legislation poses any threat to this industry-or to the mines or anyone else. Rather, I think we have a responsibility to preserve intact some real wilderness area in its natural state. There seems to be plenty of land still available for many years to come for logging, mining, etc., without sacrificing our primitive and wilderness areas. I therefore strongly endorse the wilderness bill, S. 174. Respectfully submitted. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, Committee on Public Lands, MARTIN J. HAGEN. COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO, October 28, 1961. DEAR CHAIRMAN PFOST: I am unable to attend your hearings at McCall, Idaho, concerning the merits of the wilderness bill. I would, however, like to express my appreciation for your efforts in conducting these hearings in the interest of the public. I have lived in Idaho most of my life and enjoyed the mountains, primitive areas, hunting opportunities, and beauty that few, if any, other States have to offer. I did move out of State for 3 years but took the first opportunity to return. My family wasn't able to enjoy these facilities without traveling some distance and at an expense we couldn't very often afford. We in Idaho are seeking ways to attract tourists, realizing this is an important source of revenue. We are promoting the idea that people should stop in Idaho on their way to the World's Fair in Seattle. I am for promoting the free natural recreational resources God gave us to enjoy as long as we have the wisdom to preserve it. It is true there is some timber in the wilderness area. We haven't had to resort to this source of lumber to date. The lumber industry tells us we are finally growing timber as fast as it is being consumed. Why is it necessary to open this area for them to deplete? We are told by the Forest Service that the establishment of a wilderness area will not jeopardize the grazing rights of the ranchers in the area. I sincerely feel we must make every effort to preserve the wilderness area not only for ourselves but for future generations and our forefathers who established this great democracy. I feel we are not losing this area but rather making an investment for those who are finding more leisure time. The wilderness bill will also put the control of the area into the hands of Congress where it belongs. I, like millions of others, have become discouraged in driving to our lakes, streams, and other recreational areas only to find "keep off," "no trespassing," and "no hunting" signs to bar our enjoyment. I can also appreciate the landowner's position. Why not preserve this 2 percent of our land where we are all landowners and can enjoy the pleasures it has to offer? Sincerely yours, ROBERT B. GARRETT. |