STATEMENT OF H. C. BRADLEY, M.D., BERKELEY, CALIF. Dr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harold Bradley. I am a retired professor. Berkeley is my home. Officially I represent only Mrs. Bradley and myself at this hearing in support of the wilderness bill, S. 174. In an unofficial way I believe I do represent a large number of our citizens who feel as I do about wilderness, but who for various reasons do not appear here today to express their feelings and who may not even get around to writing. I grew up in the little town of Berkeley as it was in the 1880's and 1890's when genuine wilderness lay only a few blocks from my homean open invitation to spend an hour after school roaming through some part of it. Weekend knapsack trips, promoted by my father, took me as far east as Mount Diablo and as far west as Mount Tamalpais and the Bolinas region. These were frequent and highly prized adventures. Later my radius increased to the Berkshires and Adirondack Mountains, into Canada, and included most of the mountains and forest and desert wilderness areas of the country. Suffice it to say that I have been a wilderness user and lover through a fairly long life of work and play-in which play has been synonymous with the recreation which I found in the wilderness-and to which I still turn eagerly and often for the delightful refreshment of spirit and the invigoration which I find there. It is in the hope that opportunities for such enjoyment as I have had will be perpetuated for future citizens that I appear before you today. The wilderness bill has developed some very determined opposition from a small but vocal minority of our people. It is motivated by the desire for economic advantage and is predicated on the assumption that there are no values which cannot be expressed in terms of the dollar. I do not question the sincerity of their beliefs. They are well organized, skilled in the techniques of applying pressure, well supplied with the means to further their purpose-which is to defeat this bill and so leave our remaining wilderness areas unprotected and subject to easy exploitation. They have resorted frequently to misleading or even entirely false statements in their efforts to defeat a wilderness bill. One of these statements is that wilderness can only be enjoyed by the young and physically rugged individuals. Another is that it is available only to the wealthy. I appear here as a living refutation of both these assertions. As a youth in high school and college, I was ambitious to make a place on an athletic team-on any athletic teamand I tried for most of them without success. But I could walkand walking did take me where I liked to go which usually was into wilderness. As for money during those early years, I had practically none. My father was a professor in the little University of California of those days-and mowing lawns was no more profitable for a boy then than it is today. So I made my own sleeping bag with my mother's help and I made my knapsack. A frying pan and a couple of nesting cans comprised the cooking kit. With a little dry staple food from the pantry shelf I could head off into a happy wilderness expedition that might last 2 days or 2 weeks. Some of my young friends today start their wilderness experience under very similar meager conditions. Wilderness experience does not require rugged strength nor a prosperous bank account. It requires love and imagination and a willingness to live the simple life without some of the comforts we are accustomed to. My own family of boys met wilderness on the same limited terms. All of them are still devoted wilderness travelers and are bringing up their growing families in exactly the same way. As we advance into the senior citizen's bracket, the type of wilderness experience naturally changes to fit one's needs and abilities. My wife and I save up for a boat trip down Glen Canyon, for example, where the boatman supplies the equipment, the food, and the necessary skills at a price of about $18 a day. Ten delightful rest ful days in one of the world's most beautiful wilderness canyons is well worth saving for. We have made it four times and we expect to go once more, and for the last time, not because we are tired of the exquisite scenery or the absence of the comforts of home, but because Glen Canyon Dam will soon be complete and this great wilderness will no longer be there: an example of how our wilderness is disappearing when unprotected. Another misstatement by the opposition is that this bill locks up an area from future exploitation and throws the key away. On the contrary, it places the key in the hands of Congress where it has always belonged, instead of in the hands of the appointive officers of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. If the real need for the tangible resources of a given protected area ever should arise and it appears clearly in the public interest, Congress, elected to represent the owners' wishes, can quickly use the key to reopen the door for exploitation. A wilderness bill has been under close study for about 5 years. The original bill has been changed and amended scores of times. Now it would appear to have met all reasonable objections while still providing protection for a small group of wild areas all within the public domain. The Senate adopted the bill with a vote of 78 to 8. This is about as close to a unanimous endorsement of a controversial measure as can ever be expected. It is fair to assume that such a 90-percent favorable reaction represents quite well the basic wishes of the public. The 10-percent opposition may also represent fairly the minority groups who prefer to have no areas of wilderness preserved for future generations to enjoy, for it has grown perfectly clear that any unprotected wild areas today will soon be exploited and destroyed as wilderness. I think your committee must be very much interested in the interest of the public. You are representing the public and I want to point out the following, that is, the 5-year battle to save Dinosaur National Monument from those who would have liked to see it dammed and thereby destroyed as a wilderness area and a national park unit. It is perfectly clear that the public opposition to the change was overwhelming. The great upper Colorado project, which the public did not oppose, stood rooted to the runway because it carried a provision to violate the Dinosaur Monument. When that objectionable feature was finally removed, the major project got underway at once. Here again it is my guess that about 90 percent of the public was opposed to violation of the monument while perhaps 10 percent was acquiescent or actively in favor. I believe some such ratio prevails today on the wilderness bill-though the issue has been confused purposefully by such misrepresentations as I have mentioned. What the public really thinks of our wilderness areas in national parks or national forests can be judged by the mounting figures on public visitation and use during the last 10 years. While these figures are subject to minor fluctuations depending on many factors, there is no concealing the increased interest of the public in getting into reserved and beautiful wild country for recreation. I believe it is the best indication we have as to what the general public feels it wants and needs. The wilderness bill represents a major statesmanlike effort to anticipate and meet this growing demand. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Mrs. Lisa Howard, of Sacramento, representing the county of San Diego Fish and Game Commission. Then we will hear from Mrs. Weber. STATEMENT OF MRS. LISA HOWARD, SACRAMENTO, CALIF. Mrs. HOWARD. My name is Lisa Howard, and I live here in Sacramento. But I wish to present this statement on behalf of Dr. David G. Jessop, chairman of the San Diego County Fish & Game Commission, who is unable to attend in person. He does support the bill? May I quote him? The San Diego County Fish & Game Commission would like to be placed on record as favoring S. 174, the wilderness bill. We favor the principles of this bill because we have seen our own county interlaced with roads, built up with resorts and sandwich stands and made completely accessible to anyone who has energy enough to drive his car. We would like to have retained somewhere in the United States an area or areas where, if a person wants to expend the energy, he can get away from the sound of portable radios and the squeal of brakes. We sincerely hope you will further the principles involved in this bill. I agree with him heartily. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mrs. Howard. Mrs. HOWARD. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. We next have Mrs. H. M. Weber, representing the California Federation of Women's Clubs. STATEMENT OF MRS. H. M. WEBER, REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS Mrs. WEBER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Mrs. H. M. Weber, chairman of the Conservation of Forest, Water & Soil, DeAnza District, California Federation of Women's Clubs. DeAnza District, California Federal of Women's Clubs wishes respectfully to express its support of the wilderness bill, which is now before your committee. The 25 clubs which comprise DeAnza District are geographically located in the arid and semiarid regions of California. Our concern with water supply is, therefore, a paramount consideration. Few informed scientists will question the close relationship between forests of trees or other plant growth with an adequate rainfall, conservation of ground waters and prevention of soil erosion. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mrs. Weber. Our next witness will be Mr. Gilmore, followed by Mr. John DeWitt, and then Don Kelley, Are any of those gentlemen in the house? I presume Mr. Gilmore is not with us. You may proceed, Mr. De Witt. STATEMENT OF JOHN B. DeWITT, SACRAMENTO, CALIF. Mr. DEWITT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John B. DeWitt. I am a resident of Sacramento, Calif. I come as an individual to express my personal convictions. Unfortunately today the unborn people of the United States are not in this room to reply to the statements made by the vested interests. These statements can be summarized in one sentence. These cattlemen, lumbermen, mining men, have one thing in common: They want to deny future generations of Americans their birthright to a few wilderness acres, less than 2 percent of the total land areas of the United States. The right to enjoy a few acres of our American wilderness heritage would be denied all future generations because of a few people who put their own personal financial self-interest first and the general public interest second in their code of ethics. The cattlemen, lumbermen, and mining men are men of integrity but they lack foresight. This morning Mr. Hughes, a lumberman, gave the best case for the lumbermen. He said the lumbermen would like to get into the timber now in the present wilderness areas. These exploiters today voice the same argument made against the administrations of President Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson when the exploiters attempted to prevent the establishment of the national parks and national forests. If future generations wish, they can exploit and develop the wilderness, but let us not prevent them from making that decision. Let us enact this wilderness legislation. The people of America's future will thank us for giving them that freedom of choice. The wilderness legislation before this committee gives the Congress of the United States the opportunity to vote for the people of America yet unborn. If we are so rich that we can afford to lose the last wilderness in the United States with its beauty and inspiration, then we are poor in moral and spiritual character. For we have sacrificed the last beauty spots in America to the god of the dollar sign, a truly false god. If we are so poor that we must exploit the last few wilderness areas for commodity resources, then America is reaching the bottom of its barrel and the sound economic future of America could well be in serious jeopardy. The wilderness areas are symbols of America's great wealth. If they should be exploited, it will mark the beginning of the end for America as a world power and could well mark the beginning of the end for democratic institutions. Population pressure is now crushing democracy in many areas of the world. Totalitarian government can come to America if we listen to those who put their own financial self-interest before the general public interest. We owe it to our children to give them a few beauty spots in a wild, wilderness condition. Therefore, I would like to add my voice in strong support of legislation along the lines of S. 174, the wilderness bill. This legislation should not be amended to wreck the bill's purposes. The economic future of America is equally as important as the present. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present a statement here from Dr. Robert K. Cutter, president of the Cutter Laboratories. Cutter Laboratories is a large manufacturer in Berkeley of pharmaceuticals and biologicals. I wish to present this statement since he cannot appear here today. Mr. JOHNSON. Without objection, the statement of Dr. Cutter will be made a part of the record. (The statement follows:) Congresswoman GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, CUTTER LABORATORIES, Berkeley, Calif., November 3, 1961. DEAR MADAM: I write with reference to the wilderness bill hearing in Sacramento on November 6. I am unable to attend in person. Please enter into your hearing record my support of this bill. I feel that the only way wilderness areas may be protected from encroachment due to political and economic pressure is for speedy passage of the wilderness bill. Respectfully, ROBERT K. CUTTER, M.D., President. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. De Witt. STATEMENT OF DON GREAME KELLEY, SAN ANSELMO, CALIF. Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Chairman, for the last 14 years I have been a science editor. You have heard from the Nature Conservancy who holds a 3,000-acre tract known as the northern (?) tract. Before I left home I was pleased to read that the Bureau of Land Management has just announced the setting aside of 3,600 acres surrounding this preserve in the same watershed for scientific purposes. It is on the scientific interest of the wilderness I would like to speak. One of the arguments commonly used by opponents of the wilderness bill is to the effect that wilderness areas are desired mainly by a very few nature lovers, bird watchers, or rugged outdoorsmen who are so antisocial as to care nothing at all for the needs and desires of others the vast majority of others who can be perfectly happy in their outdoor recreational pursuits without resort to simon-pure wilderness at all. The fact of the matter is, that among the leading advocates of wilderness preserves, both large and small, are a very considerable number of our scientists, and their practical reasons for urging the preservation of what wilderness we have left, in as nearly natural state as possible, have to do with the ultimate good of all of As one of these leading scientists stated recently in an editorialand I am quoting here Dr. Robert C. Miller, director of the California us. |