Page images
PDF
EPUB

STATEMENT OF BETHANY K. DUMAS, BATON ROUGE, LA.

I want to urge the Subcommittee to work hard to establish a Buffalo National River as an immediate goal. Pressure from industry and other sources is such that there is great danger that what has in past decades been sporadic and still reversible damage to the area concerned may in the near future be wide-spread and irreversible damage to an area containing the last major free-flowing stream in the Arkansas Ozarks, and one of the most scenic in the entire southeastern United States.

The overall wilderness value of the Buffalo River is exceptional. Its destruction in the limited interests of either industry or something like the Gilbert Dam Proposal would be a permanent and unnecessary loss to this country, a loss we cannot afford.

It is erroneous to think that the best way to conserve our natural resources is to figure out how to get the largest dollar return from developing them. We can always "make money"-we cannot in future years replace the natural resources we in this country have been squandering thoughtlessly for years.

Do what is best for yourselves, your fellow Americans, and future generations of Americans-help conserve what remains of beauty and value in this country. Establish a Buffalo National River immediately. If you do not, we shall all be the losers, and you will be responsible for the loss.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. SCRUGGS, CRITTENDEN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
WEST MEMPHIS, ARK.

As an Arkansan and one interested in conservation of our rapidly diminishing National Resources, I am very much in support of H.R. 8382, the House Bill calling for the creation of a Buffalo National River in Arkansas. Many times I have enjoyed the pleasure and a great uplift of my personal feelings as I have floated this river with Boy Scouts and with my own family. As a person interested in the great out of doors, canoeing and the beauties of nature, it seems that we have so few places to retreat to in this demanding life that we now live. I am greatly distressed over the efforts to commercialize every effort that is made to establish an area in its natural setting. I am under the impression that currently efforts are being made to commercially develop the old abandoned mining town of Rush, on the lower part of the river. This is an area of an interesting past and one in which the imagination can run wild as tales are told about the existing ruins of that area.

I hope that the Bill will enable this area to retain its interesting tales of the past without trying to recreate them through the establishment of a civilized attempted recreation of this ghost village. We hope that we will see the possible establishment of clean simple campgrounds along the way that canoeists may find useful in their camping experience.

Whatever is done, we hope that this river will not fall prey to the commercialized efforts such as exist in almost all other areas that a person may turn to. I hope that my support of the efforts to create this as a National River will be included in the hearing record. I also hope that my expression might be considered as that of the voices of many Boy Scouts who have floated the river by canoe, where many have seen adventure in the majestic splendors of the cliffs and valleys that few people have access to. These are indeed moments of adventure. This is further evidenced by the great number of people who travel to the Buffalo River State Park to enjoy parts of that great river.

I strongly urge that all speed be taken to safeguard this valuable asset of Arkansas.

STATEMENT OF H. RAYMOND GREGG, FORT SMITH, ARK.

During thirty-two years as a Ranger, Naturalist, Park Superintendent, and Park Planner with the National Park Service, I had opportunity to become thoroughly familiar with the criteria and quality of features included within and proposed for addition to the National Park System, and in travels throughout the United States, I have become familiar with almost every outstanding scenic, scientific, and historic area in the Nation. Against this background, I have no hesitancy in rating the Buffalo River and its environs as proposed for preservation as a National River as fully worthy of addition to the National Park System.

The National Park Service study reports, and development plans adequately present the unique scenic, biological, geological, and historical-archeological resources represented in this magnificent watershed. Those of us who have intensively traveled the area are almost unanimously enthusiastic in endorsement of this legislation; and, most thoughtful citizens of Arkansas who have the least familiarity with the region have given the proposal their support. Thus, your favorable action, and enactment of a measure compatible with S. 855, will earn the gratitude of generations to come who may still enjoy the beauties and wonders of this area.

Thanks for consideration of this request, and, hopefully, for the expeditious approval of H.R. 8382, or concurrence of the House in S. 855, which had unanimous approval of the Senate.

EDITOR'S NOTE.-Numerous communications (including letters and petitions) expressing general support for and opposition to H.R. 8382 and related bills, were received by the Subcommittee and have been included in the official files on the legislation. Because they are general in nature, they all are not reproduced in this record; however, a few typical letters are included.

(Ten typical letters against the bill follow :)

MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N. DAK.,

November 1, 1971.

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and In-
sular Affairs Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington,
D.C.

DEAR MR. TAYLOR: I wish that my husband were able to write this letter to you but he will not be returning from South East Asia until next week. So I will attempt to express our joint views on the proposed Buffalo River National Park. We are strongly opposed to the creation of a National Park on the Buffalo. We are landowners in the area and wish to retain this land and perhaps build our home on it after we retire, which is less than a year from now. I feel that appropriating the land from the farm people now utilizing it would be a gross error in judgement and the end result would only add more people to the ever increasing tax burden of the unemployed and welfare rolls. The people living on the land would not receive enough money for their land to maintain their livelihood elsewhere and they would be even more unhappy in any type of urban development.

We feel that the general public is sufficiently conservation minded now that the government does not have to confiscate (I realize there is a difference but somehow confiscate seems to be more fitting) personal property to conserve the natural beauty of our land for the generations yet to be born.

I sincerely hope that this letter may add some weight in favor of the people of Arkansas retaining their land.

Yours truly,

Mrs. KENNETH L. WALTER.

JASPER, ARK., October 28, 1971.

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are not natives of this area, nor do we own land bordering the river, but we are landowners residing within the boundary set by the Buffalo National River Bill.

Before moving here nearly three years go, we lived in an urban area. Even there, we had traffic noise, crime, litter, and most of the water was unsafe to drink.

For many years we had traveled through the area to admire the beautiful scenery. We finally decided to move here. We loved this place at first sight. It is quiet and peaceful, and only a stone's throw from the Buffalo River.

We have done our best to help with conservation. With considerable personal expenses, (no Government financial help), we dammed our spring, and have stocked the resulting lake with fish. We have many bird feeders in our yard,

which we keep filled with bird feed the year around. We enjoy watching the many varieties of birds that take advantage of our hospitality.

We are in favor of conserving the Buffalo River, as are all the landowners and nearly all of the residents in the County. In fact, this county had a referendum on the general election ballot in 1968, wherein the voters had an opportunity to vote yes or no, as to whether they favored a National Park on the Buffalo River. The result was, that 97% of the voters voted against the National Park.

We feel that establishment of a Natioal Park would not be conserving the river. We do not believe that we are selfish in wanting this river to remain beautiful and peaceful. It is not "off limits" for the tourists who visit the area, the best part of the year. Many of them take float trips on the river (when the water level is not too low), many swim and fish in it too. They are welcome, and are not denied access or use of the river, and surrounding area.

If the River is made into a Park, it will be a resort area instead of a wild life recreation area that it now is. Building of roads to the Park, (many beautiful trees must be cut down). Later, litter will be scattered along the roads, more litter at the camp sites, and even in the river. A big increase in an undesirable element of society, as there has been in existing National Parks, eventually the destruction of all the natural beauty.

We earnestly solicit your "Do Not Pass" on the bill in question. And please enter this letter in the permanent hearing records. Respectfully submitted.

Mrs. GLEN ROSE.

HARRISON PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL, Harrison, Ark., October 28, 1971.

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. TAYLOR: When deciding on the proposed Buffalo River National Parks, I hope that you and your committee are concerned enough to recognize the deceit and deception presented by those who propose and are in support of this bill.

When your committee recently floated the river, why weren't you directed to its head waters and in the upper half of the river rather than being misled by the lower half of the river?

The upper half was unfloatable since late June and in many areas it now flows underground.

There are many reasons for the defeat of this proposed park and I am sure that you are now aware of most of them. But let's be honest and look at the river as it is year in and year out. How can land be taken by force for a park and primarily for the floating of its river, when it is unfloatable 9 to 10 months out of the year?

Sincerely,

HERB VAN DEVEN.

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

SAN DIEGO, CALIF., November 1, 1971.

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. TAYLOR: I have been informed that The House Subcommittee on
National Parks and Recreation has announced that hearings will be held on the
proposed Buffalo River National Park.

I am opposed to the Buffalo River National Park, not only as a landowner, but more importantly, because I think it is both un-American and unethical to have special interest groups force their wills on the people. The rights of the landowners should be considered honestly and democratically.

The people on the Buffalo River have requested the Pastoral River plan as a compromise. I support this plan because, under this proposal, the Forest Service will not condemn an individual's land but will negotiate with the landowner concerned for the property which it wishes to obtain. This certainly is a more just process than the Buffalo River National Park plan intends.

I request that my letter be made a part of the House hearings when such hearings occur.

Thank you very much for your consideration of a citizen's concern for the rights of others.

Very truly yours,

Mrs. GLENN GOODE.

JASPER, ARK., November 2, 1971.

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation.

DEAR MR. TAYLOR: I am Waymon Villines, Postmaster at Jasper, Arkansas, a member of the Newton County Farm Bureau legislative committee, Chairman of the Buffalo River Conservation & Recreation Council and a farmer and landowner on the Buffalo River.

I am opposed to the passage of a bill creating a Buffalo River National Park because it would create problems in Newton County we cannot control. I have lived on the Buffalo River most all my life and it is much the same now as it was forty years ago, except it is being better preserved now as the people have discontinued row cropping in favor of pasture grass and hay meadows. Even now the fall and winter grass have turned the farmland a rich green color. We would like to keep it that way.

I would like to call your attention to an article in the March issue of the Readers Digest by Paul Friggens, also an article in the September issue of Life Magazine written by a former park ranger, Edward Abbey. Both speak of the problems in our National Parks today. In a Washington (AP) news article May 1971 Park Service Director George P. Hartog, Jr. was quoted as listing thirteen parks as problem parks. We do not want those problems on the Buffalo River.

National Parks were once a means of preservation. That is no longer true. There are too many people with too much freetime that are using the parks during the summer months for free rent. I live near the Lost Valley State Park on the Buffalo River near Ponca. The tiny park, though still free of litter, is being destroyed by too much traffic, the trails are worn deep, the moss is gone from the rocks, the plants have been trampled under foot, there is nothing to indicate that a park has helped to preserve the Lost Valley in any way.

I believe the money spent to establish the Buffalo National River could be more wisely used to improve the deplorable conditions of our existing National Parks.

To those who would have you believe that the land speculators will take over the river, let me say that the land that I own has been in the Villines family since 1846 and if left alone we plan to keep it in the family. The best protection the river has is private ownership, take that away and you will destroy the river, the peoples incentive to build for the future and their faith in their government. I respectfully request that this letter be entered into the official records. Sincerely,

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

WAYMON G. VILLINES.

NAIL, ARK., October 30, 1971.

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation. DEAR SIR: I have lived in Newton Co. near the head of the Buffalo River all my life. I hope to spend my remaining days here.

I definitely do not want to see the government in control of the land along the Buffalo. The people along the river have worked against all hardships to tame the land, and to be able to make a decent living by the sweat of their brow as it says for man to do.

The people that have pride and want to work to make an honest living are being stepped on like ants. The people that will not work are the ones that are gaining the greatest rewards, and crushing the life out of the hard working, God fearing men.

Our country is going as a free nation as fast as mortal man can make it go. We working people can not continue forever to support the dead heads that depend on the government to take care of them.

The men who started all this know nothing of the true conditions. They only want to make a big name for themselves before the big shots in Washington. They have no idea what it will mean to the common man that has worked hard all his life to build a decent life for himself and his family.

They seem to think that the people of Newton and adjoining counties are like wild animals, non-educated, just to be driven from one shelter to another.

I have taught school for 28 years. I supported my family and sent myself to college. I reecived my B.S. degree without any help from the government. I feel that we, as a free people, (yet) have a right to keep what we have attained. BEATRICE SPRADLEY. OCTOBER 24, 1971.

Rep. Roy A. TAYLOR,
Chairman of Subcommittee, Interior and Insular Affairs, Longworth Office
Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. TAYLOR: As a resident of Newton County, Arkansas, "land of unspoiled beauty" I am one of the 97% of the county residents who voted against the Buffalo River being made into a National River. It is a beautiful stream and we want every one to be able to enjoy it. However, we want it SAVED AS IT IS. How can it be saved with all the money the government plans to spend on bulldozing, blacktopping, buildings, camp grounds making it another national park for hippies, yippies, sanitation problems, crimes and over crowded conditions? The crime rate in the nation increased 53% from 1966 through 1969. In National parks the crime rate increased 126%. The parks are poorly policed and are not kept clean. Why should the government take more land for a park until it demonstrates efficient supervision of existing parks?

As an alternative could (or would) you consider making the Buffalo a Pastoral River with ownership remaining in the present owners (at least for their life time) and with the National Forest Service supervising land, buildings, and trees. Easements to the river could be made on the river farms. Then people could see and talk with the natives and see how they have lived for generation after generation on these farms. This would be something different.

There is a lot of unimproved land along the river that people are willing to sell. That way several parks could be made on the river.

Save the Buffalo by making it a Pastoral River and leaving it as God made it except for parts of it where parks could be made. PLEASE DON'T TAKE EVERY BIT OF IT because by spending the millions of dollars to CHANGE it. the Buffalo will be ruined and gone forever as it is now. Can you possibly understand this, Please try.

Sincerely yours,

Mrs. MARIE CORMANY DEASON.

JASPER, ARK., November 2, 1971.

Hon. ROY A. TAYLOR,

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. TAYLOR: We are landowners whose home and farm is situated within the proposed boundaries of the Buffalo National River. We feel our side should be heard. We take great pride in our land and work very hard to take care of it. The Buffalo River is already being enjoyed by all who wish to float and explore it. The farms dotted along the river are a part of the pastoral picture folks come to see as they drive along our country roads. If you were on the river below our dairy farm you would be completely unaware of the pasture land because none of it is even visible from the river. We employ the best conservation practices possible, we do not pollute the river, we welcome tourists, and we do not object to fishing and hunting on our land. What more could anyone ask from us?

In our opinion, Federal ownership is not the answer to the protection of the Buffalo River. In this time of more population and seemingly less land, how can forcing present landowners off of such a vast amount of acreage be justified? The constitutional rights of the landowner should not be ignored. The use of condemenation where necessary for national security and transportation is one thing; but using condemnation for recreational purposes and depriving private enterprise in favor of government ownership seems unconstitutional.

The National Parks throughout our Nation are now in trouble-natural beauty is being destroyed, too much litter. too much access, not enough finances to maintain the parks and the crime rate in the parks is overwhelming. There must be a better way. We think there is. Allow the people who own this land to continue ownership and caring for their land. just as you wish to continue ownership of your land. No one has the same feeling for this land that the landowner bas. No one, not even the Federal Government can care for this land as the private landowner can.

The land value along the river has been grossly underestimated. The amount of money proposed to be set aside for the purchase of this land will no where near

« PreviousContinue »