a national Buffalo River-such as the following recent headlines before and after the Washington hearings on October 28th and 29th: "Majority Favors Buffalo Bill", "Favorable Report Expected", "Four To Voice Opposition to Buffalo Park Proposal", "Three Arkansasans Oppose Bills". The number of landowners opposing this national river is always small as against the many proponents. What about the 2372 Newton Countians who voted against this national Buffalo River Bill in 1968 on the general election ballot? What about only 215 voting for the national river on this same ballot? Could the news media have spoken the truth and said: "2372 Newton Countians Voice Opposition to Buffalo Park Proposal? No, because if they had, the Arkansas Power & Light Co. and the Hammerschmidt Lumber Co. would have taken their advertising out of this local paper.

We must face the truth that our governmental employees will continue to legislate falsely so long as they receive subsidies from selfish industrialists, individuals, and others, some even perhaps more than the salaries we pay them to represent the people under a Democratic form of government-so long as this is prevalent, nationalism, socialism, and communism have a perfect entre to take us over, and quick! We are our own selfish destruction when we go to the polls and continue to elect and re-elect governmental employees because our ancestors have voted "the straight Republican and/or Democratic ticket for seven generations", because "grandpa got a bridge across his lands, and we are indebted to this politician", and for other various and sundry false reasons. We can't put the blame on anyone else but ourselves, when we condone such false reasons.

Mr. Chairman, I highly oppose the remark you made when our Newton County Clerk, Oxford Hamilton, stated true facts when he said: "The proposed National Park would convert a scenic, peaceful river valley into a mecca for criminals and other undesirable segments of society, evidenced by well-known reports about the rapid increase in crime in the already existing national parks". To this, you replied, Mr. Chairman: "If I thought we were creating a mecca for criminals I'd resign from the sub-committee". You didn't have to think, Mr. Chairman, you know this to be the facts, evidenced by documental statistics at your very own fingertips in the Government Printing Office, that, since 1966 through 1969, crime has risen nationally 53%, and in the national park, 126%. It would be expedient for you to have your assistant obtain this documentary evidence for you, and maybe we would accept your apology, and you wouldn't have to resign. And Mr. Johnson added an unnecessary false remark when he reiterated, "I doubt very much if we are creating new sanctuaries for criminals”. You might ease his doubt by giving him a copy of these documented statistics when your assistant has laid them on your desk.

From an article in a recent Tulsa World paper titled "Ecology Kick Overdone", John McGuire, associate chief of the Forest Service, advised a conference sponsored by the Sierra Club, the nation's most militant conservationist group, that "restriction of public use of camping and forestry areas "is just around the corner". The editor commented, "beautiful and relaxing places toward which ecologists have directed their most vigorous displeasure may become the areas they are barred from visiting at any time". He further stated: "Will the largest "off-limits" signs be posted at the very places the nature-lovers would most enjoy visiting because they are free from less sensitive souls?". The editor ended with: "It may seem a big price to pay-but better than turning over these wilderness retreats to the beer-can tossing set". Perhaps when this does happen, and it surely will, as "off-limits" signs are now being placed on at least one-half of our national parks, because they are unable to man them, and to control the crime, then these conservationists, recreationists, and wildlife enthusiasts will regret having been subsidized with expensive gifts and monies in order to have a channel through which to spread their false fevers for more national rivers. parks, etc. But this is the way it is when you accept gifts and promise to do selfish favors for a few, and fail to follow through on the cause for your organization, and the cause for truly representing the people of this nation.

I would recommend that instead of continuing to falsely grab land for selfish industrialists, governmental employees, and the various conservation, recreation, and wildlife associations, that the Interior Department contribute the $16 million dollars they propose to use in acquiring this land on the Big Buffalo, (and it would be close to $160 million dollars), to the Buffalo River landowners; let them develop, repair, remodel, conserve, preserve, etc., these lands upon which six to seven generations of Ozark natives have been born and reared. This allocation could be dispensed under the administration of the Interior Depart

72-466-72-14

ment, but give it to these people without any strings. And take the one million dollars a year that you claim it would cost to operate the national Buffalo River (it's not costing anything now) and use it to train and maintain law enforcing officers to reduce the 126% crime increase back to at least the 53% national figure. I think the people of this nation would be happier with this arrangement, because no one wants to see the Ozark Native Culture completely eradicated, which is what would happen if a national river were made of the Buffalo River in Arkansas. Because the only main stream of Ozark Native Culture left can be found on the Buffalo River and its tributaries. We are fighting very hard to help the black culture, the Indian culture, the Chinese culture, and sundry other cultures-why not remember the poor Ozark Native Culture?

I have owned a modern trailer park on the Big Buffalo River at the Highway 7 Bridge at Pruitt for 14 years, and I have established facts which might be of interest to the people of this nation. For the past five years, I have asked my tourist trade: "Why do you come to the Ozarks", and 95% of them, even those from out of the country reply: "We come to see and fraternize with the Ozark Natives". Does this not speak for itself? Now, the proponents of a national park on the Buffalo River have falsely syndicated the idea that tourism would be increased if we ran the Ozark Natives off the Buffalo River and its tributaries for the 'outside's pleasure". How could it increase tourism, when 95% of the people say their main reason for coming to the Ozarks is to see the Ozark Natives? Where would they find them? There's none but a very few left around the big lake areas in Northwest Arkansas. I think we need to concentrate on preserving the Ozark American Heritage along with the American Heritage at the same time.

It is my hope that since we will have increased voting power in the youth this next general election, and since the four counties in which the Buffalo River lies, have learned their lesson that they can't oppose a national Buffalo River and turn around and vote for those who legislate it-that we can finally defeat this false legislation; the effect of selfish industrialism, and that the result will be a true one—a return to serving the voice and needs of the people of this nation! A return to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and a return to governing ourselves as a free people, with the proper representation in governmental employees at all levels.

Further, it would appear to me as an animal of the higher class, having the quality of intelligence, that the governmental employees falsely legislating this national Buffalo River Bill, the conservationists, recreationists, and wildlife associations, favor the preservation of the lower animals above the human beings. If we run the higher class human animals off the Buffalo River for a national park, what will be left but the lower animals, hippies and law breakers? We have always treated the outsider canoe floaters, bird watchers, hunters and fishermen with respect, and they can continue to receive this same respect and hospiality— from us-much more than they would receive should the Buffalo River be made into a national or a state river.

Many of us landowners and prepaid lifetime leaseholders, such as I, have expended thousands of dollars, manhours, energies and strategy to help the Ozark Native people on this Buffalo River, without too much concern for ourselvesbut simply to fight wrong principle, and to eventually see justice done to a minority group of people loved this nation over-the Ozark Native people. In conclusion, I wish to voice opposition to the following conditions of the Hammerschmidt-Fulbright national park bills:

1. The acquisition by eminent domain of a landowner's home and ample acreage for garden and pasturelands for domestic animals. Title should be left entirely in his name, as in the National Forests.

2. Obtaining lands more than the river bed and 100' easements on either side, rather than five miles on each side.

3. A fixed date of determining permanent residents, and improvements of properties.

4. The confiscation of any rental or income-bearing properties.

5. The acceptance of monies or gifts from industrialists, organizations, or individuals for the purpose of introducing legislation of any nature.

6. Introducing any legislation which would affect financially or otherwise, more than 2% of the citizens in the particular area being nationalized.

7. The general practice of legislators "swapping favors in voting power" rather than voting for the general welfare and desires of the people whom they represent.

8. Falsely syndicated national surveys, subsidized by federal monies, giving erroneous information regarding the Buffalo River.

9. Continuous accusations that the landowners are polluting the river and surrounding area, when floaters and outsiders dump their own beer cans and wine and whiskey bottles in my garbage cans, run them over, and leave the garbage for the dogs and for me to pick up.

In final summation, I oppose a national river on the Big Buffalo River now, or at any time in the future for the above true reasons.

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. LANE, PRUITT, Ark.

I have been asked to express the views of myself and some of my neighbors on the Buffalo National River Bill. This is fitting as we, who live on the river, are the ones most affected by the bill.

Proponents of the bill will say that our interest is selfish. This is most certainly true for this is our home and our livelihood depends on the cattle on these hills. So, our interest is the proud selfishness of the land owner who loves the land and who has devoted his time, his labor and his money to the development of that land.

Sponsors of this bill will tell you that we are misusing the land. Unfortunately, in some instances, this has been true in the past and there may be instances of misuse in the future though the damage is slight and self healing. Damage to land is not confined to private ownership however. It is prevalent in corporate and despite arguments to the contrary, government ownership. To those who cite government ownership as a cure all for abuse I would like to cite the damage to the Washita Wild Life Refuge by the artillery at Fort Sill; the poisoning of the air and land by the Dugway Proving Ground: the Radioactive tailing from the atomic power plant at Grand Junction, Colorado; and the damage to our existing National Parks caused by litter, tourists and traffic.

We have neither the money nor the research facilities to catalog the abuses to the National Park system. However some of them have been cataloged for us by Life Magazine in the 3 Sep issue. Page nine of the magazine tells of the Park Service having to remove litter from Mt Whitney by helicopter. Pictures on page eleven and fifteen show some of the problems of unlimited access to an area by the pleasure seeking public. The article on page forty, "The Park That Caught the Urban Blight" is an example of what would probably happen to the Buffalo if it were a National Park for we are very near heavy Urban centers.

The tourists are already here. They descend on us every Summer like locusts in their campers with their Hondas strapped to the bumpers and boats on top. You find their litter along the roads and at every place where there is room to park their vehicles. Their only restraint is the private ownership of the land. If the purpose of the bill is to save the Buffalo, we are in full agreement with the idea but disagree that the answer is a National Park. Motorcycles and off the road vehicles would be up and down the hills causing more erosion and damage than the farmers have ever caused. A visitor to my farm last Summer, who is a sports car enthusiast, has already laid out a sport car rally. From Pruitt to Erbie, to Comption, to Ponca, then Jasper and back to Dogpatch. This would come were this a National Park.

If the purpose of the bill is to provide a playground for the bored, disaffected urban population, let us state this in the bill and not try to disguise it as an effort to save the river. But, if the purpose is to save the river from neon signs. curio shops, camp grounds, motels and trailer parks let us try to find some other method such as zoning or land use laws.

We too would like to see the Buffalo saved for we also have children but let us check the alternatives before we create another park "That has Caught the Urban Blight".

STATEMENT OF LESTER C. HOWICK, FAYETTEVILLE, ARK.

It is my firm conviction that the establishment of a Buffalo National River is in the best interests of present and future generations both near to and far from this section of northern Arkansas. This beautiful, free-flowing stream is located in the center of a complex of impoundments. While only marginal benefits would acrue from its conversion to one more artificial lake, its retention in its

native state would preserve an attractive and interesting natural feature of the area. This preservation of the stream in its natural state would not only be in the best interests of conservation, but its establishment as a national river would also be of significant financial impact upon the surrounding area. The uniqueness of this feature to this area would promote wide interest in visits to it with consequent added employment opportunities and monetary flow.

Because both the preservation of a lovely, natural area and the financial condition of the surrounding area would be benefited by this action, I urge your prompt and favorable recommendation for the establishment of a Buffalo National River.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD S. COLE, PRESIDENT, TWIN LAKES MARINE, INC., MOUNTAIN HOME, ARK.

I want to add my voice to the support of H.R. 8382 providing for the creation of the Buffalo National River in Arkansas.

As a resident of North Arkansas I feel that the preservation of the Buffalo River as a natural free-flowing stream is important to insure that generations of Americans unborn will be able to appreciate the natural beauty that exists in our nation today. My family and I have made numbers of float trips by canoe from Ponca, Arkansas, almost every mile of the river to its mouth near Buffalo City, Arkansas. We feel that any attempt to dam this beautiful river or to exploit it commercially would destroy part of our heritage as Americans.

Our U.S. Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt and others in our congressional delegation have seen first hand what the Buffalo is and what it represents to Arkansas and the United States as a natural, un-spoiled resource which can be enjoyed for generations to come if we can take action to preserve the beauty that exists here.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM AND SANDRA BATES, SPRINGFIELD, Mo.

As residents of the Buffalo River area we are much interested in the river's future. We have both floated this beautiful stream and have enjoyed the senic beauty of the region in which it flows. As members of the Ozark Society we have studied the proposed plans which have been suggested by the National Park Service as well as those plans which would dam the river as suggested by the Army Corps of Engineers.

In this regard, we can think of no other river in the Ozarks which can match the Buffalo in scenic beauty and natural state. It is rare, in this age of development, to find a wild and natural area such as this, left as God created it. It would seem that in a time when man has lost touch with so many things natural, that his leaders would have the foresight to keep natural areas to which he can retreat and enjoy the earth as it was made; free of his adulterations.

We believe that the bill suggesting National River status for the Buffalo River would effectively accomplish this.

We have now created impoundments on so many of our once beautiful streams that we must seriously question the value of further recreational development. At this point the Buffalo remains as the one major free-flowing stream unimpeded in its progress through the Boston Mountains and unspoiled by massive development. We suggest that if maintained in a natural state, we will have a development of which we, as inhabitants of this Ozark region, can be especially proud. We will have saved forever this scenic American River in the state in which we found it and in which our forefathers used it. We will have left it living and forever free in the great American tradition which sometimes seems to be vanishing so quickly with our rivers.

The effort of your subcommittee in hearing our position are deeply appreciated. May we offer our undying support of (H.R. 8382) and the plans to protect the Buffalo River as a free flowing stream.

STATEMENT OF MISS SUZANNE CHALFANT LIGHTON, FAYETTEVILLE, ARK.

For about 60 years I have lived in this area, which is near Buffalo River, and so feel I have every reason to urge that the Buffalo be maintained or established as a National River.

I am deeply familiar with the picture of the country here and believe that setting the Buffalo River up as a National River is of the greatest importance and most fitting to the picture of this part of the country.

I also fee! that this action should be taken soon, to prevent the damage that is being done to the River's borders unless this care of it is done. We have a lot of dams in this part of the country, all of which are fine, but I truly believe we don't need another dam on the Buffalo ... I think another dam would destroy a beautiful natural river and that a dam would not add as much in the way of tourist attraction as a Natural (or National) River designation would do.

STATEMENT OF VERNE HUSER, HALFWAY, OREG.

My name is Verne Huser. I am a professional river guide both on the Snake River in Jackson Hole, Wyoming (Barker-Ewing Float Trips in Grand Teton National Park) and on the Snake River in Hells Canyon (Wilderness Encounters). I would like for my letter to be made a part of the Buffalo River hearing record.

While I have never floated the Buffalo, I have seen it, and a number of my float trip passengers on the Snake River have told me of canoeing it. As a floater and as a wilderness enthusiast, I support legislation for the establishment of a Buffalo National River. I would also like to suggest the formulation of a citizens' advisory committee such as those provided by legislation creating other protected areas (for example, the Ozark National Scenic Riverways).

In addition, I would support wilderness designation for those parts of the Buffalo River drainage worthy of such designation. Free-flowing rivers, wild and scenic as the Buffalo, are scarce in these United States, and with an ever greater demand for water-oriented public recreation, we must constantly safeguard the wild world from excessive exploitation and development, from man's machines that too readily erode the quality of such sacred areas as the Buffalo River.

STATEMENT OF SUSANNAH WOODCOCK, FAYETTEVILLE, ARK.

As a student of the University of Arkansas and a native of the state, I am very concerned about the future of the free-flowing Buffalo River. In the past few weeks, I have tried to find out exactly why there is an opposition to making the Buffalo a national river, and I find myself unconvinced that there is a reasonable major opposition. Unlike so many of the problems of our nation, the Buffalo River situation seems to be relatively simple. Some wish it to remain natural and others wish it to be developed.

Although I have not investigated the matter in every way possible, I have done some research and I have been told that those who wish to see the river developed have as their reasons flood control and generation of hydroelectric power. At the same time, I have found no one who knows of any proof that either of these reasons are valid.

In contrast, I have found support in the National Park Service along with the White River Basin Plan Committee, who both recommend that the Buffalo be left in its natural state.

I don't deny that I am in favor of a Buffalo National River mainly because I have floated this river twice and found it to be two of the best experiences I think I shall ever have. I would hope that we can preserve it so that others who love the woods, the mountains, and all nature as I do can have the same experience. And yet if I could have found some real evidence that the development of the river would do more for Arkansas economically or would fill a need either of electric power or of flood protection to the surrounding areas, then my feelings might be different.

But with the knowledge I now have, I hope the Buffalo River can be protected. Very simply, the river and the surrounding countryside are beautiful, and I, along with so many others, do not want to see it changed.

If you agree with my position. I hope that you can do all that is possible toward the preservation of our Buffalo River. Thank you.