Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

that stem from crowdedness in the cities, I consider it increasingly important that we preserve as much of our virgin frontier country as we can. People need some means of "secape" for a few days or weeks of each year. More and more they are seeking this escape in the out-of-doors.

In line with these thoughts, I urge you to consider carefully establishment of the Lincoln-Scapegoat Wilderness, in accordance with Senate bill 1121. I would like this testimony to be made a part of the permanent hearing record on this bill. Sincerely yours,

ROBERT K. GERLOFF.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN LABORATORY,

Senator QUENTIN BURDICK,
Chairman, Lincoln-Scapegoat Back Country Hearing,

Great Falls, Mont.

Hamilton, Mont.

DEAR SENATOR BURDICK: I am presently a resident of Montana working for the National Institutes of Health. As a former resident of Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver and San Diego, I am especially conscious of the population pressure and the need for preservation of wilderness areas in their natural state. I believe that such a preservation can be effected for the longest time under the National Wilderness System and urge you to include into this system the 240,500 acres described in S. 1121.

I wish to have this testimony made part of the permanent hearing record. Sincerely yours,

Hon. QUENTIN BURDICK,

JOHN E. COE, M.D.

HAMILTON, MONT., June 7, 1968.

Chairman, Lincoln-Scapegoat Back Country Hearing,
Great Falls, Mont.

DEAR SENATOR BURDICK: I am Joe Strnisha. I own and operate a farm in the beautiful Bitter Root Valley, just five miles south east of Hamilton on Skalkaho hi-way No. 38. I came to Hamilton with my parents in the year of 1912 and made this my home ever since. I am proud to say that I had the Honor of serving our Ravalli County in the State Legislature in 1957 and again in 1959 sessions at Helena, Montana.

I understand that on June the 11th there will be a congressional hearing held in Great Falls on Senate bill 1121 introduced by Senators Mansfield and Metcalf, which will authorize for wilderness classification 240,500 acres of National Forest land comprising the Lincoln Back Country and parts of Lewis and Clark and Lolo National Forests.

I sincerely regret that I will not be able to attend the hearing regarding the Lincoln-Scapegoat Back Country Wilderness area. However, I do feel that I must express my views on this most important piece of legislation, I am a firm believer in conservation; I believe we must not only live for the present, but we must look to the future, and preserve some of the beauty of nature and the valuable natural resources and recreational values for posterity. Let us be good stewards of all that God has given us.

I am an ardent hunter and fisherman, I love the beauty of our mountains and streams. I just don't think this generation should reap all that is good and leave a wreckage of devastation behind for our future generations. All one has to do is to go hunting, fishing, hiking, or just take a ride in your car and go to the mountains, there you will see hundreds of miles of useless roads, gouged out hillsides and otherwise marred, timberless bald hills, dealt by the hand of man who it would seem cares for nothing other than the monetary gain involved there-in. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask you to urge your committee to report most favorably for the passage of the Lincoln-Scapegoat Back Country Wilderness area, Senate bill 1121, to the Congress of the United States of America for this real important and much needed piece of legislation. Thank you

Sincerely yours,

JOE STRNISHA.

LINCOLN, MONT., September 22, 1968.

Senator QUENTIN BURDICK,
Chairman, Lincoln-Scapegoat Wilderness Hearing,

Great Falls, Mont.

THE HONORABLE SENATOR BURDICK: I am writing this statement in support of legislation that will place the Lincoln Back Country-Scapegoat Mountain area into the Bob Marshall Wilderness System and request that the following be read into the Congressional Record.

I am a lifetime resident of Lincoln, as my family before me. My grandparents came here in the 1800's. This I believe gives me a look at the past and present developments of the Lincoln area.

I am presently engaged in cattle ranching and commercial flying at Lincoln. I am quite familiar with the Lincoln Back-Country area having camped and hiked in it for many years. I also fly over the area often and have a chance to view it from a different realm than most. Therefore, I believe it would fit perfectly into the Bob Marshall Wilderness System.

I have observed how the Forest Service has developed and managed the area surrounding Lincoln and if the same system were used in the Lincoln BackCountry, I am certain it would only ravish it of its natural resources and prevent it from being used as a wilderness area. As for the future development of campgrounds, scenic roads, motocycle trails, and snowmobile trails, I am certain that the balance of the area of western Montana excluding that area in the wilderness system, would be more than able to be developed and take care of the people's need for multipurpose recreation for many years to come.

I have heard the argument that wilderness areas are used mostly by the well-to-do. I know this not to be true from my own experience as well as from facts found in studies made pertaining to income, vacation time, occupations, and family situations. The following are some of these facts and their source.

1. The income distribution between easy access campers (i.e., pickup campers, trailer houses, etc.) wilderness visitors show no statistically significant difference. Wilderness campers are not disproportionately more wealthy than roadside campers. From The Social Characteristics of Participants in Three Styles of Family Camping, by William R. Burch, Jr. and Wiley D. Wenger, Jr., U.S. Forest Service Research Paper PNW-48, 1967, р. 19.

2. Evidence indicates that persons with less than one week of vacation time are overrepresented among wilderness campers and persons with three weeks of vacation time are underrepresented. Those with one month or more vacation are as likely to be roadside campers as they are wilderness campers. From the above source, p. 19.

3. A study of users at various wilderness areas in Montana revealed that the business-professional-technical categories of occupation (where one expects the greatest affluence and most leisure time) made up only about 43 percent of the total visitor. The remaining 57 percent was composed of teachers, students, craftsmen, laborers, and military personnel. Taken from The Wilderness User in Three Montana Areas by L. C. Merriam, Jr. and R. B. Ammons, published by the School of Forestry, University of Minnesota. Data from p. 25.

4. In the study cited in Note 3, those persons interviewed who had the lowest family income (under $5,000) visited wilderness areas at rate ranging from two to four times that of their rate of visits to auto campgrounds. (Taken from the study cited in Note 3, p. 24.)

5. A study by a sociologist suggests that wilderness visits, rather than being controlled by available income or time, is related to certain periods in a family's life. Wilderness users are generally those just beginning their families or whose children have grown up and left home. No forest-related recreation activity represents a majority "vote" of the American people; all forest recreation groups are minorities, though cumulatively, they comprise a sizable majority. Taken from "Wilderness-The Life Cycle and Forest Recreational Choice," William R. Burch, Jr., Journal of Forestry, Vol. 64, No. 9. Sept. 1966, pp. 606-610,

In view of the above statements and other conclusions I don't believe roads or any development other than wilderness would be suitable for the Lincoln Backcountry Area. I am opposed to any designation other than wilderness.

Yours truly,

C. E. GRANTIER, Jr.

MISSOULA, MONT., September 9, 1968.

Hon. LEE METCALF,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR SENATOR METCALF: This statement is in reference to S. 1121 regarding Lincoln Back Country in Montana. I strongly urge that the Lincoln-Scapegoat area be included in Wilderness classification.

Others will surely point out the scientific and economic advantages of halting the exploitation of this beautiful land.

My plea is a more personal one. For several years now my sons, their friends and I have spent much time in this great country. Once destroyed it can never be restored. Such country as this is in short supply now. How desperately it will be needed in just a few years! Short term economic interests devour the people's birthright!

How we hope that next year as we stand high in the clouds of Scapegoat, there will be on threat of dozer and chain-saw.

Sincerely,

WM. J. NORMAN, M.D.

SEPTEMBER 20, 1968.

Members of the Public Lands Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate and all interested parties.

GENTLEMEN: I am strongly opposed to the enactment of the Senate Bill 1121 which would provide for the wilderness classification of 204,500 acres of U.S. Forest land in Montana for the following reasons:

First, the bill would provide for single use of a great natural resource to the economic detriment of the business enterprises and individuals living in the surrounding area.

Second, the area, I believe, is well managed by the Department of AgricultureU.S. Forest Service, who, I believe, have managed the use of our natural resource to the fullest extent, thereby providing recreation, water, wildlife, wood, minerals and grazing use each in the proper perspective.

In elaboration of my objections, the effect upon the national economy is well documented. However, I would like to express my views on the effect of the enactment of this bill on the economy of the immediate area.

Most of the communities in the surrounding area have populations of from 1,000 to 2,000 people. The loss of employment of 120 family heads would reduce the economic stability of the area by some 10% on the average. In a time when Montana generally is showing an annual increase in earning capacity of from 5% to 12% the communities affected would be drained of this capacity by some 10%. This situation coupled with the cost-price squeeze and the 4% annual cost of living increase could take the profit out of many of the existing business enterprises, causing further unemployment and additional local tax burdens on the remaining family units.

The communities affected are very dependent on just two major industries that of logging and ranching. For many of the logging and ranching operations the curtailment of capacity to earn, through curtailed cutting and grazing rights respectively, could mean the difference between operating at a reasonable profit and ultimate liquidation. Logging is caught in the same cost-price squeeze as all other industry and to survive must depend on increased capacity. It is also a well known economic fact that the smaller ranch unit must increase capacity if it is to survive. Since the smaller ranch units for the most part are under capitalized they must depend upon Federal grazing rights and State grazing rights to provide them the means necessary to increase their capacity. The bill in question would curtail capacity to earn for both of these industries at a time when increased capacity is most important.

We in the area in question are not naive enough to think that a wilderness classification of the area would bring in a great influx of tourism to offset the loss of existing earning capacity by the substitution of one industry for a good portion of our existing industries. In fact we have completed several feasibility studies of the area and although they point to the fact that tourism is the only industry we can expect to develop in the near future this industry will be slow in maturing. By continued multiple use of the area I feel we could expect to sustain our present economy while experiencing some small measure of growth through development of tourism. Thereby providing the greatest use for the greatest number of people.

I therefore strongly feel that the Department of Agriculture-U.S. Forest Service should be allowed to continue its fine program of multiple use of the area in question and that Senate Bill 1121 should not be enacted.

Very truly yours,

DONALD R. POWELL, Cashier-Director, First National Bank of White Sulphur Springs, and President, Meagher County Corp.

GREAT FALLS, MONT., March 16, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR METCALF: I am writing in regard to your proposal to include the Lincoln Back Country-Scapegoat in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. I feel this will benefit a minority of the people of Montana. I don't feel we should shape our state for the benefit of the out of State Sportsman. I feel the packers have commercialized on this area for years and seem to feel they own it now. The average Montanan can't afford to own horses and pasture and feed it for a ride in the wilderness. My family and I ride trail bikes and snowmobiles along with a lot of our friends and this country gives us lots of pleasure. I feel this proposal is directly aimed at us and many in our likeness. I hope you will study both sides of this situation more carefully.

Sincerely,

VIC L. EHNES.

Hon. QUENTIN BURDICK,

Senate Public Lands Subcommittee,

SPOKANE, WASH., September 18, 1968.

Great Falls City Council Civic Center, Great Falls, Mont.

DEAR SENATOR BURDICK: I have been reading the publicity concerning the Blackfoot-Sun River Divide area in Montana. I am much concerned about two bills in the Congress which will authorize wilderness classification to approximately 240,500 acres of present National Forest Land in that area. The bills are S. 1121, Metcalf, 2-28-67 and H.R. 7148, Battin, 3-14-67. I understand you will conduct a hearing at Great Falls, Montana, on September 25, 1968, looking into the advisability of the proposed change in classification of these lands.

As a resident of Missoula, Montana, for over 20 years I served all that time in the U.S. Forest Service as assistant to the Regional Forester and as Acting Regional Forester for about two years during the period of the second world war. I am familiar with all the area under consideration. After considerable thought and study of the pros and cons, I question the advisability of tying up in wilderness classification, over 240,000 acres of National Forest land which can be managed to such great public benefit under the common sense plan of multiple use as practiced by the Forest Service. I know this area and agree strongly with the present management. I think the area should be left in its present classification as a means of bringing forth the maximum public benefit from these public lands. In that area there is a great need for the broader aspects of the multiple use plan of management.

While I am now a resident of Spokane, Washington, I feel that this is a matter of broad national concern, not confined to the citizens of Montana, alone. I have written my thoughts to Senator Henry M. Jackson, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, since I understand the Great Falls hearing is held under authority of that Committee.

Thanking you for your kind consideration, I remain,
Very sincerely,

CLYDE S. WEBB.

Senator QUENTIN BURDICK,
Senate Public Lands Committee,
Great Falls City Council Civic Center,

Great Falls, Mont.

POLLOCK, IDAHO, September 19, 1968.

DEAR SENATOR: In regards to your letter about making 240,500 acres into wilderness I'm fully against this project. It seems they already have plenty in wilderness now. I would like to see bills H.R. 7148 and S. 1121 defeated and the area be left as it is.

Sincerely yours,

LOY O. HOLLENBEAK.

ST. MARIES, IDAHO,
September 19, 1968.

Senator QUENTIN BURDICK,
Chairman, Senate Public Lands Subcommittee,

Great Falls, Mont.

DEAR SENATOR BURDICK: I do not feel that it would be in the public interest to enact the Bills now before the Congress, S. 1121 and H.R. 7140.

I am well acquainted with part of the area and have a good general knowledge of the whole. I agree that there are some grand and beautiful vistas; these are not confined to this area alone. There are also great areas of valuable merchantable timber and vast areas of equally valuable grazing land. This nation is surely going to run out of both, sooner than we think. The area has been well cared for by the U.S. Forest Service down through the years, and I am sure that under the Multiple Use Act it will continue to receive the same careful management for all compatible uses. Further it will have improved access so that it will be more easily available to more people.

If the area is given Wilderness status the multiple use concept will be immediately defeated; in effect it will be locked up for the single use of recreation, limited to the use of those who are physically or financially able to make their way into it. Actually this land belongs to all the people. It should not be placed in the position that it cannot be enjoyed by all, if they so desire.

The Wilderness Act places restrictions on the use of mechanical equipment that severely inhibits the best, and most economical management. It precludes the use of mechanical equipment for fire suppression, and places impossible obstacles to the salvage of timber from disasters such as fire, insects, or hurricane.

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES H. SCRIBNER.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN LABORATORY,
Hamilton, Mont., June 6, 1968.

Senator QUENTIN BURDICK,
Chairman, Lincoln-Scapegoat Back Country Hearing,

Great Falls, Mont.

DEAR SENATOR BURDICK: I am a commissioned officer in the Public Health Service at the Rocky Mountain Laboratory. My family moved to Montana in 1924 when I was 9 years old and I have lived here ever since except for a 10-year period, 1938-1948, when I was occupied by securing advanced scientific training and World War II. I have therefore hunted and fished and otherwise enjoyed the outdoors recreational aspects of Montana for about 44 years.

During this period of time I have witnessed the vastly increased utilization of the recreational resources and the timber, water and grazing resources as well. Western Montana has important water and timber resources which are important to the national as well as the local economy. However the single greatest resource, in my opinion, is simply space-space which is not cluttered up with highways and noise and fumes, space which contains some of the more beautiful scenery in this country, space which still contains clear, cold unspoiled streams and rivers and lakes which are full of trout for the taking, and woodlands and grasslands plentifully supplied with game for the hunter. In this time of rapidly increasing population pressure, the value of this kind of space for recreational purposes is steadily becoming greater.

Much of this high-quality space, and including the proposed Lincoln-Scapegoat Wilderness, is well suited to wilderness classification. Such action not only preserves the area as a needed high-quality recreational area but also as a vital watershed area. In most such areas, and specifically in the Lincoln-Scapegoat area under consideration, the timber and grazing values involved are relatively low. If steps are not taken now to preserve the unique and increasingly important recreational aspects of such areas, they will inevitably be utilized in piecemeal fashion for such other less important resources as they may contain. In my opinion the failure now to include such wilderness areas in the present wilderness system will represent a serious misuse of our finite natural resources and an irrevocable use of a high-quality resource for short-term and low priority purposes. The future economic viability of western Montana as well as the mental health of our nation are much better served, in my opinion, by the preservation of unique recreational areas rather than by exploitation of their current limited values of timber and grazing.

« ForrigeFortsett »