of a National Wilderness Preservation System as embodied in bill S. 174. It is to be hoped that no weakening amendments are added to this bill. Kindly insure that this letter is added to the record of hearings on this legislation. For many years my family and I have enjoyed vacationing and camping along the Pacific coast and fully realize the value and importance of this bill to us and to future generations. Very sincerely yours, RICHARD C. BROWN. Mrs. GRACIE PFOST, MARATHON DIVISION OF AMERICAN CAN Co.. House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MADAM: I understand that you have been holding hearings on wilderness bill S. 174 throughout the West. I would like to take this occasion to add one more protest to this bill in its present form. I have been a professional forester for the last 40 years. In my earlier years I spent many months on timber cruising trips in the back country when for months at a time we saw no one except members of our own party. I am therefore, very sympathetic toward the idea of maintaining wilderness. I cannot, however, see the necessity nor the justification of blocking up tremendous areas to be withdrawn from all economic use, including general outdoor recreational use, for the very limited number of persons who may be physically and financially able to enjoy true wilderness. The general run of recreationists, including the writer, like to enjoy these areas, but want easy access to them by means of improved roads. I've always been a strong supporter of the Park Service, but do have to take strong exception to their viewpoint that the cutting of timber ruins an area forever. A young healthy forest is a thing of beauty to anyone. A stagnant overmature forest is a thing of beauty only to those who can overlook the dead, dying and down trees going to waste, and the hotbed of insect and disease epidemics being fostered therein. Take a look at the Smoky Mountain National Park in the Southeast which was largely cutover before becoming a park, and contrast that with Yellowstone, Mount Rainier, and many of the other parks in the West which were covered with mature timber at the time they were set aside. Admittedly, fresh logging slash is unsightly. However you cannot have an omelet without cracking eggs, and it takes only a comparatively few years before that logging slash has disappeared from sight and is replaced by a very sightly stand of young timber. We, therefore, cannot go along with the idea of single use in our parks and wilderness areas, and at the same time insist on multiple use of all private lands. Furthermore, we are convinced that this country cannot in the future afford the luxury of letting the products of all of these unnecessarily go to waste. Very truly yours, BRUCE G. BUELL, Chief Forester. THE KNOX Co., Re natural resources bill, S. 174. Washington, D.C. Los Angeles, Calif., November 14, 1961. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PFOST: A permanent and almost unlimited withdrawal of public lands from the possibility of public use seems a big gamble to me. Would it not be better to handle these so-called wilderness lands in a fashion somewhat similar to the handling of Indian reservations, thus permitting, through the action of Congress, the disposal of Federal lands when that seems desirable. As it stands, I think that S. 174 has many perils, in addition to vaguely and inadequately defining wilderness. Cordially yours, WARREN W. BURGESS, Chairman. DISTRICT COURT OF OREGON, Subject: The wilderness system bill (S. 174). Hon. GRACIE PFOST, COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH, Portland, Oreg., November 8, 1961. Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MADAM: First as a citizen, secondly as a taxpayer, and thirdly as a person who gets much enjoyment and recreation from the outdoors, I want to unequivocally record my objection to passage of the above referred to bills, and also request that this objection be noted in the record. To offset any conclusion of arbitrariness in these remarks, let me add that I have studied and considered information and arguments from both the proponents and the opponents of the measure with what I consider reasonableness. I wish your committee well and am confident that you will place high the economy of this part of our great country and the public interest of all of us. Very truly yours, RICHARD J. BURKE. BERKELEY, CALIF. Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, Interior Committee Chairman, Sacramento, Calif. DEAR MR. ASPINALL: I regret very much that I cannot be present at the hearings on the wilderness bill at which you are presiding. I do want to offer my testimony to the paramount importance of this measure, and the urgency of its passage by the House in the coming session. Those who oppose the bill, which has been amended to meet all reasonable objections see our great scenic resources as "expendable" in the interest of commercial exploitation, or else can themselves imagine no satisfaction to be gained from a firsthand experience of nature away from motorboats. automobiles, and man activities. No one wishes to deny them their freedom of choice but unless the wilderness areas are preserved now there will be no freedom of choice in the future for those who would go to nature for rest and refreshment and also for the challenge and stimulus to be experience in "roughing it" in the wilds. Is not this a necessary element in educational opportunities that should be offered to the young people of this and succeeding generations if the "softness" which is being lamented today is to be counteracted? Sincerely yours, MARY C. BURNETT. LOS ALTOS, CALIF., October 25, 1961. DEAR SIR: I would like to inform you of my support regarding the wilderness bill, S. 174, and urge you not to vote for any amendments to the bill which may endanger its chances of passing the House. Please include this letter in the official records of the hearing. DAVID BURNHAM. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., November 7, 1961. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: Am writing this letter in support of the wilderness bill, S. 174. As you know, the bill passed the Senate 78 to 8. We here in the West know the importance of saving what little wilderness is left so the study and research can be carried on and the subject left to posterity. The need for timber and minerals is not a factor in view of the small amount of land in our wilderness preserves. Will you please see that this letter is made a part of the record? Very cordially yours, SIDNEY S. BYMEL. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF FORESTRY, Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. ASPINALL: For the information and use of your committee, I am enclosing five copies of a resolution passed by the California State Board of Forestry at their October 31 meeting in Fresno, Calif., relating to S. 174, the wilderness bill. Sincerely yours, E. H. RAYMOND, State Forester, Secretary, State Board of Forestry. RESOLUTION PASSED BY STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY, OCTOBER 31, 1961, FRESNO Whereas section 505 of the Public Resources Code, State of California, states in part "The board is charged with responsibility to represent the State's interest in Federal land matters pertaining to forestry and to maintain an adequate forest policy; and Whereas the California State Board of Forestry on the 24th day of October, 1958, did adopt, after careful consideration, a resolution opposing enactment of proposed wilderness legislation then before the Congress of the United States; and Whereas the California State Board of Forestry did on April 24, 1959, further resolve that said board continue to oppose the passage of then proposed wilderness bills; and Whereas this board has given further careful consideration to wilderness legislation now before the Congress in S. 174: Therefore be it Resolved, That the California State Board of Forestry does hereby reaffirm its position in opposition to the wilderness bill, known as S. 174, and to any similar legislation which does not embody such important principles as the following: 1. That creation of wilderness areas be only by affirmative approval of Congress following the complete investigation and recommendations by appropriate Federal agencies and the affected State and local agencies: 2. That preference should be given to national defense and all uses pertaining thereto; the essential needs of products including power, transportation, food and fiber, minerals and timber; recreational needs for all the people and such other specialized recreation needs for the few; 3. Wherever public lands are capable of providing a variety of uses, such areas must be kept available for all these uses since thhe western economy cannot afford legislation restricting the uses of large areas of potentially productive lands; and be it further Resolved, That the State forester, secretary of this board, be and he is hereby directed, to transmit copies of this resolution to the California delegation in Congress and to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and to other interested persons and groups. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, DE ANZA DISTRICT (23D DISTRICT), CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, Indio, Calif., November 4, 1961. Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. PFOST: De Anza District, California Federation of Women's Clubs, wishes to respectfully express its support of the Wilderness Act, which is now before your committee. The 25 clubs which comprise De Anza 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. Sincerely, VIOLA E. WEBER Mrs. H. M. Weber, Chairman, Conservation of Forest, Water, and Soil. CALIFORNIA FOREST PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, Hon. GRACIE PFOST, DEAR MRS. PrOST: The California Forest Protective Association comprising approximately 90 percent of the private timber ownership acreage in the State of California, is deeply concerned with the so-called wilderness bill, S. 174, establishing a wilderness system. This association does not oppose the establishment of wilderness areas of sufficient size and properly located for the preservation of unique and irreplaceable natural areas to be enjoyed by those who can, and do, use such areas for scientific and recreational purposes. Our greatest concern is the establishment of large areas in preserved wilderness far beyond the needs of this particular single-use group with a loss to the economic stability of our Nation through the locking up of timber resources which, if not given an orderly harvest and management, will succumb to the ravages of age and attacks of insects, disease, and fire. We further disapprove of congressional abdication of Congress' present right of determination which, in S. 174, permits the establishment of such wilderness areas through Executive order and which is only restrained through congressional disapproval. The set-asides of any public lands should be a positive and continuing action of the Congress. We further oppose the legislation as in S. 174 because it would set aside large areas now in Federal ownership under the administration of the U.S. Forest Service as primitive areas without the proper determination of the suitability and feasibility of establishing such areas as wilderness. Sound resource management requires administrative flexibility, therefore, permanent withdrawals from our lands for restricted use should only be done through positive congressional action and then only when the Congress has been sufficiently convinced by proper appraisal that such lands should be set aside as such. We firmly believe that the present laws establishing national forests, parks, game refuges, and ranges are sufficient to provide the desired wilderness areas which will be continually protected by already established administrative regulations and laws. May we emphasize that we believe that until a proper appraisal is made of all Federal lands proposed to be incorporated into a wilderness system, Congress should not set aside and establish such a system which will impair the economic stability of our Nation in unwarranted preservation of large areas into irrevocable wilderness for the benefit of a very small percentage of the recreational users of our Nation. We, therefore, urge you and your colleagues, should you deem it necessary to enact any wilderness legislation, to fully protect the best interests of the majority of the citizens. Respectfully yours, W. R. SCHOFIELD, Secretary-Manager. CALIFORNIA GARDEN CLUBS, INC., Indio, Calif., October 16, 1961. Subject: Support for S. 174, the wilderness bill. Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Committee on Interior and DEAR MRS. PFOST: We ask that the support of this organization of 18,000 members in the State of California be entered in the record of the hearings relating to S. 174, known as the wilderness bill. The United States of America may even sooner than the year 1975 find that lumbering, grazing, mining, roadbuilding, etc., are not substitutes for water. Observation of the great expanse of America from the air reveals rivers that run yellow bearing the golden soil of the country to the sea. Over many square miles in any direction is visible the "scorched earth fencerow" type of agriculture and the absence of the forest cover that in years past made clear streams, productive springs, deep-rooted vegetation, and an adequate water table. Just so long as the U.S. Forest Service. is dominated by an increasing pressure from commercial forestry interests will the wilderness and wild areas that have been so designated by this agency, mean exactly nothing, insofar as wilderness for the people is concerned. We prevail upon your committee to recommend passage of this greatly needed and desirable legislation. Sincerely, HENRY M. WEBER, M.D., CALIFORNIA GARDEN CLUBS, INC., Re wilderness bill, S. 174. Mr. WAYNE ASPINALL, BAY BRIDGES DISTRICT, Orinda, Calif., October 27, 1961. Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SIR: At the meeting in San Francisco, October 24, 1961, of the bay bridges district, a motion was made and passed to support, unconditionally, the wilderness bill, as passed by the Senate, and now under consideration by your: committee. This organization, a section of the California Garden Clubs, Inc., consists of 41 garden clubs in Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties. We would like this expression of support to be made a part of the record of the hearing to be held in Sacramento, November 6, 1961. Yours sincerely, Mrs. CATHERINE H. CAMPBELL, Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Conservation Chairman. CALIFORNIA-PACIFIC UTILITIES CO., Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. PFOST: I am concerned about the damage to our area's economy by the passage of S. 174, wilderness system bill. It is my understanding there are nearly 3 million acres of commercial forest land in the tract of primitive areas in the western pine region which will be withdrawn for inclusion in the proposed wilderness system. I am opposed to this bill because of the loss of mature timber which cannot be harvested under the provisions of the bill. Your opposition to wilderness system bill, S. 174, will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Hon. GRACIE PFOST, A. B. OLSON, District Manager. La Grande, Oreg., November 14, 1961. Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MADAM: I wish in this letter to go on record as being unalterably opposed to the wilderness system bill (S. 174) that is now being considered by your committee. In my opinion this type of legislation does not result in true conservation of natural resources, as it contemplates the freezing of millions of dollars in raw materials that are capable of harvest and processing on an orderly basis without appreciably disturbing the recreational values and natural beauty of the area. Furthermore, these marketable products are vitally needed to maintain the economy of the regions affected. The complete closure of millions of acres will result in benefit to an extremely small percentage of the people and surely will close the door for the recreation of the vast majority who can only use these areas when roads and other facilities are available. Such vital decisions cannot appropriately be left to administrative decision. Any permanent setting aside of public lands for restricted use should be by |