said the increased mobility, population, and leisure time, coupled with a growing desire of Americans to relax with their families in areas of natural beauty is expected to produce a continued heavy use of our national parks and related areas; that the attendance in our national parks totaled over 72 million people in 1960, almost 3.7 million more than the 1959 record, and that by far the greatest increase was among the campers. The same thing that drove the Tule elk out of its native habitat is driving man out of his. Wilderness is imperative to save some of our plant and animal species from actual extinction. It is also imperative for the enrichment, inspiration, knowledge, and enjoyment of the American people. Let's keep the magnificent living museums of our Nation's past, the outdoor laboratories for science, the living natural history books for the future a leading columnist wrote recently in the Los Angeles Times: We speak rather sadly of extinct creatures such as auks, dinosaurs, sabertooth tigers, and pigmy horses, but we don't do much to keep some of our present-day creatures from following the path to oblivion into the Great Beyond. A census just taken of California's unique Tule elk, found nowhere else in the world, shows the herd has been reduced to 296 after have numbered 327 last December. Let us not delay or multiple use away our wilderness and be sadly remembered for our hindsight or folly. Let us pass the wilderness bill, without crippling amendments, in the House at the earliest possible moment; if changed, add strength to that historic bill. Perhaps one of the truest patriotic captions of late is the one which reads: "God bless America. Let us save some of it." If not, next on the list today is Dr. Ralph Hawkins of Palo Alto. Calif. Dr. Hawkins. STATEMENT OF RALPH HAWKINS, M.D., PALO ALTO, CALIF. Dr. HAWKINS. My name is Dr. Ralph Hawkins from Palo Alto, Calif. I am a surgeon by profession and professor of anatomy at the California University Medical School. I appear here today as a private citizen, representing no organization. I might add that I have stockholdings in commercial timber companies and livestock interests, and that the opponents who seem to speak for these industries do not seem to realize that their constituents do not back up all of the objections that they make. It might be any one of tens of thousands of other Californians who would be glad to stand here in my place and advocate the passage of this bill. As I read through S. 174, I am impressed with the fairness and the considerations of the provisions that have been made for protecting and providing for all legitimate conflicting interests. I think that many of the objections the opponents express, if one reads the provisions of this act carefully, are without foundation. But I think the bill is weaker than is desirable and that, if the bill is amended, it should be amended in the direction of strengthening it. I, for one, do not want to see my country become a land in which every tree, every acre, and every mountain, is nothing but a source of profit. There must be something left to live for and to be proud of. With regard to timber, the exploitation of remaining wilderness areas, many of them have no timber resources. In some it is so marginal that it could not be brought out at a profit, and our efforts to bolster up and increase our timber resources might well be directed more in the direction of relieving the timber industry of its unfavorable tax structure which is interfering with reforestation. Thank you. (Dr. Hawkins complete statement follows:) Representative WAYNE ASPIN ALL, PALO ALTO, CALIF., November 6, 1961. Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SIR: The wilderness bill (S. 174) passed by the Senate in the first session of this Congress is under consideration now by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. As a private citizen, and not in representation of any organization, I respectfully urge that the committee report favorably on this bill, that it be brought to the floor of the House at a very early date in the 2d session of the 87th Congress, and that it not be amended in any way which would remove or reduce designated areas in the wilderness preservation system or result in changing their wilderness character. I think that it is particularly important that the action on this legislation be prompt. I have studied this bill thoroughly and have followed its legislative history and the hearings in the Senate committee over a period of years. It would be hard to point to any piece of legislation which has been more completely studied from every point of view, or as ably; it would be hard to show a better example of a bill in which there has been such reasonable consideration of the conflicting interests by the proponents of this legislation. I feel that every reasonable compromise has already been made toward resolving genuine conflicts and that no more remains to be done in this direction. In fact, if anything, it is a weaker bill in respect to attaining its purpose than it should be in the long range national interest. In respect to one of the areas which would be a wilderness area under this bill, the Cloud Peak area in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming, I have made a personal study for many years; I know that the proposed boundaries of that area have been drawn with the greatest care and consideration of the economic interests involved and the proposed wilderness designation is the best possible use of that area. It should be emphasized that around the outside of many wilderness areas are grazing areas, ranching lands, timberlands, etc., the long-range usefulness and economic value of which depends on their being an undeveloped and uninhabited wilderness area within. In keeping these areas as wilderness we, at the same time, preserve and protect their function as watershed. Insofar as certain opponents claim the possible potential need to use such areas for lumbering, for reclamation projects, dams, etc., a point of diminishing returns has been reached about such developments, and efforts to increase our timber resources may be better directed toward changes of tax structure that will favor reforestation of cutover lands and more prudent use of commercial stands of timber. It appears to me, from acquaintance with the local situation existing in regard to some areas, as for example the Cloud Peak area, that to permit the building of roads into the proposed areas, or dams within them, would actually operate to the benefit of a very few individuals at the expense of what is a national interest of all the people in having these areas remain as they are. Furthermore, the economic benefit that these individuals might derive would be marginal at best. To allow the exploitation or spoilation of the proposed areas by certain selfish individuals seems to me a tortured way to construe the idea of free enterprise. It is one of the functions of our Federal Government to define "policy" where the national interest and that of some individuals or group are in real or supposed conflict, and this is an example. The fact we have had wilderness areas in this country in the past has been an important thing in the shaping of the national character and morale. You can't measure that in terms of economic statistics, yet it truly is a part of those freedoms which we make large appropriations to protect. The establishment of a policy of preservation of the wilderness areas by the Congress becomes a necessity because of the way in which increasing population pressures have been building up. The time to do it is now. To leave the matter to chance, to allow the areas to become used for other purposes or "developed" truly will not pay. It will not pay economically (those areas would not be wilderness today if they were not submarginal from the standpoint of economic profit); it will not pay politically, morally, or historically. There are already in the bill very adequate provisions about what shall be done from the standpoint of policy when these areas by any chance become involved in matters of defense, fire control, conservation of water supply, etc. There should be no miscalculating the wishes of the many tens of thousands of our citizens, like myself, about wanting this bill to become law. It is one of the things for which the present administration has a mandate from the people. Yours respectfully, Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Dr. Hawkins. RALPH HAWKINS, M.D. Next we have Mr. John Tyler, Santa Monica, Calif. STATEMENT OF JOHN TYLER, SANTA MONICA, CALIF., VICE CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY Mr. TYLER. I am John Tyler, representing the Southern California Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. I am not going to refer to my prepared speech at all, but try to bring out a few points that have come up in the meeting. For example, no offers have been made here to strengthen the bill, but just pure opposition. They have a little tiny reason of their own, and they want to wipe out the entire bill to protect their own individual interests. The people that want to wipe it all out are primarily commercial interests who have their own problems and they have definite rights for their interests. But let's look at the record of what they have done. They have taken 98 percent of these United States. And what have they done with it? They have spoiled most of it; and, now that they have used it all up, they want to take the little bit that is left and say, "We want to share this with you under a multiple-use basis." Their idea of multiple use is to tear it up so it is no longer wilderness. This is not multiple use so far as we can see. We feel, in some cases, there is a single use of an individual parcel but a multiple use of an overall program. So we are saying, single use for less than 2 percent, and multiple use is single use for mining, for lumbering, and these other things elsewhere, which make a concrete multiple-use prospect, but you cannot take every individual acre and put every kind of use to it. This is impossible, and wilderness cannot be made tiny. It must have size. Therefore, we have to bear that in mind. Are we losing anything in our tying up our natural resources, minerals? Certainly not. Eventually, if we do not control it, what is going to happen? We are going to use it. Where do we go from there? We are 98 percent through it now. Then we are going to have to use lower grade ores. Let's start today using them. When an emergency comes, we may want the pure ores we are going to tie up, as they say, which will be available at a later date when necessary. The seed corn of the impoverished farmer is never eaten. He waits for a new crop to come up later. This is not an ominous bill. It is merely a bill of a philosophy of life for this Nation, and we should see to it that we get this on the record as being what this Nation wants to do, and serve notice to this world that we believe wilderness has an important part to play. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Tyler. (Mr. Tyler's complete statement follows:) THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER, Sacramento, November 6, 1961. Representative WAYNE N. ASPIN ALL, HONORABLE CHAIRMAN: I am John Tyler of Santa Monica, Calif., vice chairman of the Southern California Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. At its annual meeting of the members on October 21, 1961, a unanimous resolution was passed to send a delegate to this hearing to speak in favor of speedy passage of the wilderness bill (S. 174) without any further diluting, negating, or crippling amendments or changes, and by a greater majority than the Senate's overwhelming 78 to 8 vote to show the entire world that we understand and appreciate the need for wilderness everywhere. The wilderness bill has been a long time in its formative years. Many thought too long back in 1958 when I spoke for it in San Francisco. It is certainly too long if it continues past the opening weeks of the next session of the Congress. Few good things are done quickly, but enough is enough. The constructive work is done, only the destructive work remains. As Henry Ford said, "Get the first one built, improvement can come later." The proponents and opponents are sharply divided. The proponents understand and appreciate the need for wilderness and believe it supersedes all private interests. The opponents, mainly grazing, timber, power, and mining interests, seem to appreciate it only so long as it does not interfere with their private interests. They are in it, enjoying it, but their midas touch is so overpowering that they cannot see the destruction they leave about them. The Lord God created the wilderness, all there ever shall be. He also created man and endowed him with a brain and power to appreciate and use or abuse and destroy the wilderness. Where man has been wise, he has been rewarded. Where he has abused, he has been punished by flood, fire, and famine. For a long time wilderness was taken for granted. By wanton destruction we have only 2 percent of ours left, and it is fast disappearing at an accelerating pace. Once there was plenty of wilderness, it was yours for the asking, you challenged it to survive. Now there is not enough for those of this generation who want or need it. What about those generations to follow if we don't save it now-while there is still some to be saved? The wilderness is perfect, it was made by God. The wilderness bill is not, it was made by man. Both sides are to blame for its shortcomings. Time will bring understanding and improvement but we must act now to preserve while there is still something to save. The wilderness bill is not an omnibus bill but rather a cornerstone upon which to build. Like our Constitution, it is the guide to our future actions in the preservation and utilization of our natural resources. Its purpose is to establish the principle that the wilderness is an important part of our natural resources with which we were so abundantly endowed, one which is fast disappearing because of lack of foresight of our forefathers and ourselves, which we now recognize and steadfastly resolve to preserve for ourselves and the future generations to follow. Its principles are as lofty as any of the mountain peaks within its jurisdiction, but in its formative years insidious destructive forces have been at work so that some of its necessary spelling out of scope and intent have been totally twisted about. It would appear almost a dangerous thing if a few extra acres became classified as wilderness that didn't quite rate this high honor. Ninety-eight percent of the total membership potential has been eliminated by the advance of our civilization. What right have we to prejudge what future generations will deem essential for preservation? We can preserve it now, reconsider it at our leisure when we more fully understand how vital it is to our spiritual well-being. These lesser areas may well be the training grounds for our ultimate appreciation of absolute wilderness. Wilderness needs a buffer zone for its protection, and in turn, it will replenish the exhausted buffer areas if allowed to do so. The opponents of the wilderness bill are primarily commercial interests in mining, lumbering, and grazing. Their opposition is understandable. Many companies have acquired rights, or are hoping to acquire rights to much of the resources within the boundaries of the wilderness area. They are operating on the old principle of our forefathers who 150 years ago felt they were limitless and squandered them. Those days have drawn to a close. But just as the impoverished farmer cannot afford to devour the last of his seed corn, so we cannot afford to let our remaining wilderness vanish amid muddy streams and flooded lowlands. over. The opponents express concern lest some valuable mineral resources be locked up, magnificent trees fall to renourish the earth from which they sprang instead of becoming buildings to become slums or paper pulp to litter our highways or fill our rubbish pits. What they really mean is that the lush pickings are about The virgin timber is about all harvested, the richest ores have been refined, the old grazing lands have been destroyed from abuse. Without the wilderness bill it will be true in a few years. But will this be the end of our country, our civilization? Fortunately, no. Lower grade ores will become economical, tree farms will become feasible, parched, eroded lands will become pastures. We will start repairing our senseless damage. But look at the price we will have paid for a few more years of squander-no wilderness. The wilderness bill has been a long time in becoming law. Long enough for those of high principle to become prepared for the new change in our resources picture. To the ticket scalpers no mercy. To the unfortunate dispossessed equitable adjustment and compensation via other legislation. The wilderness bill is as fair as possible to all. A recognizable areaa is removed from exploitation by all equally, without favoritism and all equally are able to appreciate the wilderness it saves. If all the individual rights were equally allowed, no single acre of this country could be saved for the enjoyment of all, and there would be much haggling over each parcel. But these rights are prematurely presumptive. The lands involved are still held in trust for all of us. Only now can the Government act in the interests of the people, soon it may be too late. Some States complain that too much of their State is in Government control and is not sharing the tax burden. There are two sides to the tax ledger. While taxes are imposed against the land, it must also be spent for the peoples on these lands. You don't get ahead fast this way. The people of Los Angeles fell for that city slicker story when they gave millions in Chavez Ravine to the Dodgers in return for the taxes. Lets not do it on a national scale. The tourist business can be big business-develop it, but don't degrade the attractions. For some reason this Government can't make money doing anything. It can't seem to make money off its land or their resources. The next fellow in the chain gets all the profits. It wouldn't be right for the Government to make money for the people. We couldn't retire our war bonds with our war surplus, but we created many millionaires. If we preserve some of these resources now owned by the people, perhaps in time we will be able to use them wisely. Thus the wilderness bill, primarily for the preservation of wilderness can prove to be the greatest benefit to man in a twofold sense, perpetual spiritual value of ever-increasing need, and better utilization of our resources and reclamation of our wanton destruction. Respectfully, JOHN TYLER, Vice chairman. Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Mrs. Fern Hall of the California. Alpine Club. You may proceed. |