Sound Po lit ics SouWildernessn, RecdreatioPn, ano d Mlotoris itn theics Boundary Waters, 1945–1964

Mark Harvey

During the midtwentieth century, Benton MacKaye, executive director Olaus Murie and his preservationists looked with growing concern at the wife Margaret, executive secretary and Living Wilderness boundary waters of northeast and northwest editor , University of Wisconsin ecolo - Ontario. Led by the Friends of the Wilderness in Minne - gist , and Forest Service hydrologist Ber- sota and the Wilderness Society in the nation’s capital, nard Frank. 1 preservationists identified the boundary waters as a pre - MacKaye’s invitation to the council had identified the mier wilderness and sought to enhance protection of its boundary waters in richly symbolic terms: magnificent wild lands and waterways. Minnesota’s con - servation leaders, Ernest C. Oberholtzer and Sigurd F. Here is the place of places to emulate, in reverse, the Olson among them, played key roles in this effort along pioneering spirit of Joliet and Marquette. They came to with Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. Their work laid the quell the wilderness for the sake of civilization. We come foundation for the federal of 1964, but it to restore the wilderness for the sake of civilization. . . . also revived the protracted struggles about motorized re c - Here is the central strategic point from which to reation in the boundary waters, revealing a deep and per - relaunch our gentle campaign to put back the wilderness sistent fault line among Minnesota’s outdoor enthusiasts. on the map of North America. 2 The boundary waters had been at the center of numer- ous disputes since the 1920s but did not emerge into the Putting wilderness back on the continent’s map national spotlight of wilderness protection until World promised to be a daunting task, particularly when the War II ended. In June 1947 the governing council of the expanding postwar economy heightened demands for national Wilderness Society gathered at Ober holtzer’s minerals, timber, and other natural resources. To the Mallard Island home on Rainy Lake. A central figure in preservationists gathered at Rainy Lake, the obstacles numerous boundary-waters disputes, Oberholtzer was seemed great, yet they also felt encouraged by previous hosting more than a dozen of America’s vaunted wilder - efforts to safeguard the vast area of lakes and islands. The ness leaders, including Wilderness Society president Federal Shipstead-Nolan Act of 1930, capping a fierce controversy sparked by efforts of timber entrepreneur Edward W. Backus to dam several lakes for hydroelectric Mark Harvey is associate professor of history at North power and log timber along the shorelines, had “prohib - Dakota State University in Fargo. His scholarly work has focused on the environmental history of the American West. ited logging within 400 feet of lakeshores and barred The author of A Symbol of Wilderness: and the further alteration of natural water levels.” In 1933 the American Conservation Movement (2000), he is now com- state of Minnesota bolstered this measure with the “Little pleting a biography of Howard Zahniser, former executive Shipstead-Nolan Act” to “preserve shore lines, rapids, secretary of the Wilderness Society. waterfalls, beaches, and other natural features in an un -

130 Sound Po lit ics

Vacationers paddle their wood-and-canvas canoe to shore on one of northern Minnesota’s boundary lakes, 1940

Fall 2002 131 modified state of nature” on state- ever more popular, northern Minne - owned lands in the Shipstead-Nolan sota communities close to the Supe - area. Then, in 1938 and 1939, the rior National Forest increasingly U.S. Forest Service established Supe - turned to tourism. Towns such as Ely rior, Little Indian Sioux, and Caribou and Grand Marais, where logging and Roadless Areas within the three- mining had steadily declined, wel - million-acre Superior National Forest comed tourism as a vital and growing in northeastern Minnesota’s Arrow - source of income. Catering to boating head country. While logging and and fishing enthusiasts had been a motorboats were allowed in these part of northern Minnesota’s economy areas, public roads were banned. since the late nineteenth century, but Two years later, the Forest Service the post-World War II years proved to created a “no-cut” zone covering be a boom period. 362,000 acres. Meanwhile, conser- Rapid growth in numbers of visi - vationists, led by Oberholtzer, had tors, coupled with improvements in established the Quetico-Superior outboard motors, spawned new lake - Council, and President Franklin D. Renowned conservationist side resorts in the boundary waters Roosevelt created the Quetico- , 1940 offering canoe and motorboat services. Superior committee in 1934. Both Motorboat usage increased apace; bodies worked to secure a treaty Basswood Lake, with more than a between the and sportsmen, resort owners, business dozen resorts and private camps, was Canada to coordinate protection of people, and wilderness activists that especially popular, and Crooked and this vast wilderness region. 3 continues to this day. In addition, Knife Lakes each had two by the early While the Wilderness Society the conflict shaped key legal provi - 1950s. Resorts catered to those who council and Minnesota activists took sions in the Wilderness Act of 1964, preferred motors and those who did satisfaction in these steps, the post - a landmark in the nation’s environ - not, yet by one estimate, about 25 war years presented new threats to mental history as well as a touch - percent of canoeists used square-stern the boundary waters. Earlier dis - stone for subsequent battles over the models designed to accommodate putes had often centered on pro - boundary waters. 4 small motors. 6 posed dams, roads, and logging in The proliferation of motorboats the roadless areas. Now, a growing A catalyst for this conflict was accompanied during the war number of conflicts emerged over lay in the tremendous increase in years by airplanes flying into private the use of motors by those entering outdoor recreation in Minnesota resorts deep inside the roadless areas. the region. Activists fought to keep after World War II. According to Hydroplanes proved attractive to the boundary waters free of motors, environmental historian Samuel many resort owners who found a which, they maintained, spoiled the Hays, the sweeping economic and growing base of customers desiring wilderness experience; opponents cultural changes fueled by wartime quick access to the dozens of remote contended that rising demand for economic expansion spawned a lakes along the international border access called for greater use of mo - growing interest in outdoor activi - that held bigger and more plentiful torboats and airplanes. From the ties. Propelled by rising incomes, fish. The lure of “virgin fishing” thus middle 1940s into the 1960s this increased education levels, rapid increased the use of planes and debate proved significant regionally growth of the middle class, and spawned new resorts on private lands and nationally. In Minnesota, the greater leisure time, Americans within the roadless areas, including controversy over motorized recre - flocked to parks, forests, and beaches. 5 one established in 1942 near Curtain ation defined the debate among With travel and outdoor recreation Falls at the outlet of Crooked Lake

132 Minnesota History and another on Friday Bay on the that motor noise spoiled the solitude same lake in 1943. Other new resorts that made the boundary waters a cropped up on Lac La Croix, Lake distinctive place to gain peace and Saganaga, and Kekekabic Lake. In serenity away from the sights and the summer of 1945, 11 private planes sounds of “civilization.” They con - flew out of Ely “carrying passengers tended that, besides being noisy in- and supplies to the various interior trusions, airplanes violated the prin - resorts and even transporting lumber ciple that the roadless areas were to and other materials for new construc - be managed for public enjoyment. tion.” This relatively small number of Individuals like Sigurd Olson, often flights increased, with 69 planes ac - accused of being elitist for their in - Motorboats mingle with nonmotorized 7 cessing the roadless areas in 1948. terest in preserving wilderness, be - craft on the water at End of the Trail Wilderness lovers generally lieved that resort owners who flew Lodge, Saganaga Lake, in Superior scorned the airplanes. They believed customers to private lands deep in National Forest’s roadless area, 1960

Fall 2002 133 Men fishing from a seaplane, a north-woods scene captured on a large-format color postcard, 1945

the boundary waters were the pri - effort, no individual proved as im - 1964 bill establishing the national mary beneficiaries of the roadless portant in that campaign as Olson. wilderness system. Like Oberholtzer, areas. As Olson put it, the resorts “are After teaching school and serving as Olson had explored vast reaches of beautifully situated for they are pro - a school administrator in Ely, Olson the boundary waters by canoe and tected and completely surrounded by became a full-time conservationist in was dedicated to protecting the federal lands. They are immune from 1948 when he joined the Izaak Wal - roadless areas from commodity in - competition. It is as though the gov - ton League and served as its chief terests and motorized recreation. ernment had given them the exclu - spokesman for protecting the bound - Olson’s distinctive contribution sive right of monopoly to the wilder - ary waters. He later joined the coun - proved to be his many essays for ness canoe country around them.” 8 cil of the Wilderness Society and sporting and conservation publica - While the attempt to bring quiet played a crucial role in lobbying to tions such as Nature Magazine, Liv - to the boundary waters was a shared include the boundary waters in the ing Wilderness, and National Parks Magazine, that eloquently presented the values of the wild. 9 Writer and conservationist Sigurd Olson, about 1960 Olson believed that the boundary waters were among the last great parcels of primitive America. In a 1947 letter he wrote that the bound - ary waters “is the playground of the middle west, the only area of its kind between the Adirondacks and the Rocky Mountains, the only area where there is any extensive stretch of wild and undeveloped country.” Al - though portions had been logged, much of the region appeared rela - tively unchanged since the heyday of the fur trade when Northwest Company canoe brigades criss- crossed the region. Fascinated with that era, Olson thrilled in following the same routes and portages as Alexander Mackenzie, Sieur de la

134 Minnesota History Vérendrye, Pierre Esprit Radisson, the work required to survive there, ness proponents soon realized that and Sieur de Groseilliers. He was with the toil and energy required to additional money would be required captivated with their journals and he hoist a heavy pack, brave the ele - to complete the land purchases. 13 adored the names that they left: Lac ments, and accept nature’s demands La Croix, Deau Riviere, Saganaga, on body and mind. He believed that and Kahnipiminanikok. “When I people ferried into the boundary entered the fastnesses of the Quetico- waters by air missed a crucial aspect Superior I would become a part of all of this encounter. Once, after being that,” he wrote. “It would be like lift - jolted by the droning engine of a ing the curtain on another world. No float plane, Olson acknowledged longer would I belong to the twenti - that those on board would likely eth century. I would be a voyageur of enjoy their outing but had been the seventeenth, a man from Trois “robbed . . . of their sense of achieve - Riviere or Montreal. I would see the ment. Real understanding of wilder - country through his eyes.” 10 For Ol- ness was reserved for those who son, to enter the wilderness meant worked for it. It was impossible to taking a journey into the past. drop into a remote area by plane and Olson maintained that wilder - get the full meaning of exclusion.” 12 ness outings brought physical and These beliefs sustained Olson’s emotional restoration to tired, determination to keep airplanes from Minnesota Senator Edward J. Thye, 1955 stressed urbanites beset with noise intruding into the boundary waters. and crowds. In his years as a canoe Yet the amount of private lands guide he had met numerous individ - within the national forest and road - While the League’s efforts and uals who experienced spiritual and less areas made finding a solution the Thye-Blatnik land purchases physical renewal after a few days of difficult. During the war, the Izaak took effect, fly-ins to resorts contin - paddling and fellowship around a Walton League had estab lished a ued, prompting the search for a campfire. fund to purchase private lands and more immediate solution. By 1948 add them to the national forest. After Olson, Oberholtzer, Ely canoe out - Far from the towns and all they the war, the League and its allies fitter William M. Rom Sr., and a denote, engrossed in their return stepped up this effort by pushing for new organization called Friends of to the old habits of wilderness federal legislation for land purchases. the Wilderness had joined with living, men begin to wonder if the In 1947 the Minnesota legislature several Forest Service officials to speed and pressure they have left adopted a resolution favoring one secure a presidential order desig - are not a little senseless. Here such bill promoted by Minnesota nating an air-space reserve over the where matters of food, shelter, Congressman John Blatnik and Sen - boundary waters. As preservationist rest and new horizons are all im - ator Edward J. Thye. After working Miron L. Heinselman succinctly put portant, they begin to question the out the complex and highly sensitive it, this effort proved “bitter, drawn worthwhileness of their old objec - issues involving fair reimbursement out, and legally complex.” But it tives. Now they have long days to local counties for a reduced tax worked. On December 17, 1949, with nothing to clutter their minds base, Congress passed the Thye- President Harry S. Truman signed but the simple problems of wilder - Blatnik Act in 1948, authorizing the the order prohibiting flights below ness living, and at last they have secretary of agriculture to acquire 4,000 feet as of January 1, 1951. time to think. 11 private lands within the boundary Flights into private resorts would be Olson also associated the plea - waters wilderness. The act provided permitted for one year beyond that sures of the boundary waters with an initial fund of $500,000; wilder - date “provided that air travel was a

Fall 2002 135 customary means of ingress to and September 1952, federal district recreational economy. Lovers of egress from such lands prior to the court judge Gunnar Nordbye in silence rejoiced. To them, the ban date of this order.” 14 Duluth upheld the air ban. When capped years of controversy and Creation of the air-space reserve other violations followed, federal furnished a layer of federal protec - was a major triumph for wilderness marshals seized planes. Several more tion supplementing the safeguards lovers, but it did not put the issue to years of wrangling elapsed before a of the Shipstead-Nolan and Thye- rest. Pilots and fly-in resort owners federal district judge ruled in May Blatnik Acts. Resort owners and protested the ban as an intrusion 1956 that the only legal access to tourist businesses in Ely and other into Minnesota affairs and a burden private resorts was by canoe, boat, communities, however, considered on their livelihoods. As the ban took or portage. 15 the air ban unfair and burdensome. full effect in 1952, one pilot, Elwyn As the finality of the air-space For those who had relied on planes West, challenged it by flying to the reserve settled on northeast Min - and continued to utilize motorboats, Curtain Falls resort and to another nesota in the middle 1950s, the cul - noise was not a troubling problem. at Friday Bay on Crooked Lake. In tural and political divide over mo - They argued that the sounds were tors in the wilderness deepened. temporary; when the planes or mo - While effectively prohibiting flights, torboats arrived at the cherished Forest Service employees portaging in the ban had also crystallized public fishing spot, motors were shut off. Superior National Forest, about 1920 debate over sound in Minnesota’s To resort owners, of course, main -

136 Minnesota History taining easy access to their lands was before reclassifying primitive areas bill. He began by inserting Zahniser’s the most crucial issue. 16 into “wilderness” and “wild” areas. 17 speech into the Congressional Record, This standoff provided the back - Reclassification, however, by no signaling his intent to help launch the drop for an equally contentious dis - means guaranteed permanent pro - wilderness-bill campaign. Then, on pute in the late 1950s over a bill to tection. Wild and wilderness areas June 7, 1956, he introduced the bill in protect wilderness nationwide. Ironi- remained subject to Forest Service the Senate, joined by several cospon - cally, the status of the boundary regulations, leaving them vulnerable sors. 19 Humphrey proved to be the waters had little to do with this new - to shifting demands for timber, min - single most important proponent in est campaign by American preserva - erals, and grazing as well as state Congress during the early years of this tionists. As Olson, Oberholtzer, and and national politics. Following lengthy legislative effort. Friends of the Wilderness knew, no World War II, increased timber The bill proposed to codify wil - other wilderness area in the nation sales, fueled by a growing housing derness by federal statute, to recog - enjoyed such privileged legal status. and construction industry, caused nize by law that wilderness was “an With shorelines and parts of the the Forest Service to reduce the size area where the earth and its commu - roadless areas closed to logging and of several primitive and roadless nity of life are untrammeled by man, insulated from airplane use, the areas in order to open more acreage where man himself is a member of boundary waters was the nation’s to multiple uses. Seeing such reduc - the natural community, a wanderer best-protected wilderness. tions, the Wilderness Society and its who visits but does not remain and grassroots supporters concluded that whose travels leave only trails.” The Wilderness areas had been only a new federal law would protect legislation sought to prohibit log - designated inside many national wilderness permanently. 18 In 1956 ging, mining, and motorized vehicles forests since the 1920s. Foresters the Wilderness Society determinedly in wilderness areas, although the Aldo Leopold and Arthur Carhart launched a campaign for a national first drafts of the bill were ambigu - were among the leading advocates; wilderness preservation system. ous on the final point. 20 As the con - at Carhart’s urging, the Forest Ser - Leading the Society’s effort in the troversy unfolded, the use of motor - vice in 1926 had established the first nation’s capital was Howard Zah - boats quickly became the most regulations protecting the primitive niser, executive secretary and editor contentious issue. character of the Superior National of Living Wilderness. Zahniser had Along with Senator Humphrey, Forest. In 1929 the Forest Service worked with Oberholtzer and Olson Olson, and Oberholtzer, Minnesota established “primitive areas” across for more than a decade and had him - supporters of the bill included Friends the United States where logging and self canoed the boundary waters on of the Wilderness, led by William road construction would be mini - two occasions. His speech in 1955 in Magie of Duluth. “Wilderness,” Magie mized though not prohibited. In Washington, D. C., “The Need for wrote in 1957, “is needed to preserve 1939 more stringent regulations Wilderness Areas,” caught the atten - the core of America’s strength; it is banned logging and motorized vehi - tion of Minnesota Senator Hubert our last remaining link to our sturdy cles in primitive areas while also Humphrey, who understood the pioneer past and it can be our salva - setting into motion Forest Service grow ing desire to preserve the bound - tion in the harried necessary environ - reviews of these areas that continued ary waters wilderness within his ment of our present.” Friends of the into the 1940s and 1950s. These home state. Humphrey felt con fident Wilderness emphasized the growing reviews involved public hearings and that national interest in wil derness value of wilderness recreation to close study of primitive areas in was growing. With a strong base of northern Minnesota’s economy; it order to evaluate their boundaries support in the Twin Cities and from stressed that the boundary waters and the demands for logging, min - some resort businesses in the bound - promised to become a dominant re - ing, and recreation. The Forest Ser - ary waters, Humphrey sought a lead - cre ational area for many who cher - vice then altered some boundaries ing role in promoting the wilderness ished the quiet and remote waters

Fall 2002 137 Senator Hubert H. Humphrey addressing the Hibbing Chamber of Commerce in 1956, as controversy swirled around the proposed wilderness bill; poster with Francis Lee Jaques drawing, about 1960, in support of the still- unpassed legislation.

138 Minnesota History “where the beaver slaps his tail at the landscape around Sudbury, On - Party stronghold. Many working- night, and the lonesome call of the tario, and noted that the wilderness class residents of its lumber, mining, loon is heard day and night.” Friends bill would prevent such a calamity on and resort towns were among the big - also emphasized that communities lands surrounding the boundary gest gainers from America’s middle- like Ely and Winton could no longer waters. Yet the mining industry con - class prosperity in the postwar years. rely for economic security on timber tinued to express its concerns. One They were also a backbone of the harvesting and sawmills and argued executive felt certain that “the canoe- DFL. While Humphrey felt secure that tourism offered long-term eco - ist and boyscouts are more of a detri - in relying on the Twin Cities for nomic security. 21 ment in their slovenly woods habits support of the wilderness bill, he Local support for the bill was than any serious minded prospector understood that he risked losing quickly overshadowed by a strong ever was.” 23 political capital in northern Minne - wave of opposition, primarily from A particularly outspoken oppo - sota. But Humphrey did not waver. northeast Minnesota. The forest in - nent of Humphrey’s bill was Fred C. He believed that Ely and other com - dustry disliked the legislation, aware Childers, editor of the Ely Miner, munities had relied on corporate that it meant reductions in harvesting whose criticisms of the restrictions timber and mining firms for too levels and curtailed business. The on motorboat usage helped turn long, and that these industries had American Forestry Association (AFA) that issue into the focal point of the earned substantial profits from the objected that the bill violated the grow ing controversy. In a sharply area and shown little regard for its time-honored multiple-use principle worded editorial, Childers quoted long-term economic well-being. governing the national forests. Wil - long passages from the bill to em - Humphrey remained confident that der ness, argued the AFA, was a “sin - phasize its prohibitions on mining, repeated cries from timber and min - gle and exclusive use” and could not logging, and airplane and motorboat ing firms that the wilderness bill be reconciled with logging, mining, use. “We wonder,” the article contin - would “lock up” valuable resources or grazing. The AFA also objected ued, “how sincere the senator is in would not be universally accepted. because the bill would take control serving his constituents or when he Olson, for his part, reminded Hum- of wilderness designation away from loudly proclaims in his campaign on phrey that Ely “has always been a Forest Service officials—whom the Labor Day about being a friend of hot bed of dissension as far as wil - AFA considered to have the scientific the people and the working man.” derness preservation is concerned.” 25 and economic expertise to make such Such language revealed the editor’s Humphrey also sensed that judgments—and place it into the conviction that working-class sports - Childers’s editorial was meant to hands of uninformed, easily pressured men were among the biggest recre - settle old scores. The senator told a members of Congress. 22 ational users of the boundary waters member of his staff, “This fellow The mining industry, having ex - and would not tolerate laws pro - Childers is a reactionary editor in perienced rocky times since the Great hibiting motorboats. That message Ely. He hates my guts, and he has Depression, also objected. Iron min - was reinforced by the Ely Chamber been after me for years. He feels he ing had been a major sector in Ely’s of Commerce, which complained to has a good issue now, so I want to economy, but since the 1930s several Humphrey that “through the years, take him on—head on.” Humphrey mines had closed, unemployment we have seen this area regulated step responded to Childers with a long had increased, and property values by step [and the bill] is about the letter charging that his editorial “is had dropped. Many residents of Ely final step in tying up a program by the same kind of propaganda that and other communities found it troub - certain conservationists who don’t comes from the large mining compa - ling that the wilderness bill proposed care about Ely.” 24 nies and the timber interests.” He to prohibit all prospecting. To coun - Childers hit a nerve with Hum - added that the bill “does not in any teract their opposition, Sigurd Olson phrey because northern Minnesota way jeopardize, threaten, or remove remarked that mining had devastated was a Democratic-Farmer-Labor any rights that any person now has

Fall 2002 139 Ely, about 1947, a town whose economy increasingly depended on tourism; (below) postcard of “car campers” at the town’s tourist park, about 1935.

140 Minnesota History under present law relating to recre - Tensions at times also seemed allowed and usage was well estab - ation, mining, forestry, land use, to reflect class differences, with some lished, such uses “may be permitted grazing privileges, mineral explora- northern Minnesotans accusing the to continue.” He adopted this word - tion. The bill specifically states that bill’s supporters of being wealthy ing from a 1954 amendment to a present rights and property rights elitists who wished to have the Forest Service regulation, which held are fully protected and honored.” 26 boundary waters as their own play - that the landing of airplanes and use ground. “I’d call that class legisla - of motorized vehicles (including Whether or not this was tion,” wrote Stan Pechaver, secretary boats) would not be permitted “ex - indeed the case shaped much of the of the Ely Chamber of Commerce. cept where such use . . . has already controversy that played out in Min - This barb touched on a host of deeply become well established.” That pol - nesota. For the first two years of the rooted social and cultural percep - icy was already in force in the Supe - legislation’s course, Humphrey and tions and prejudices often entangled rior Roadless Area. Regional For- wilderness proponents found them - in debates about wilderness. Pecha- ester Jay Price had made that clear selves on the defensive, struggling to ver voiced the common perception in in a 1950 memorandum, stating that clarify the bill and dispel misconcep - working-class communities such as motorboats would be allowed “on tions. Many Minnesotans felt that, if Ely that outsiders, typically urban lakes on which there are developed enacted, the legislation would place environmentalists, would try to dic - resorts and which are now reached “undue restrictions” on tourism, tate how the boundary waters were by larger boats by truck or tramway logging, and mining, ban outboard to be enjoyed. His view also bolstered portages.” Given this established motors, and even lead to seizure of another deep-seated conviction that policy for the roadless area, the private homes and resorts. Although wilderness recreationists lacked re - wilderness bill’s phrase that motor - some of these fears were groundless, spect for the livelihoods—indeed the boat usage “may be permitted” was their expression compelled wilder - physical work itself—of timber and ambiguous. Opponents of the bill ness advocates to emphasize how mine workers. How people worked quickly seized on this ambiguity, little the bill would alter existing and how they enjoyed their leisure noting that the word “may” was not management practices. After all, time thus became wellsprings of the same as “shall.” Minnesota resort much of the roadless area was already conflict about how the boundary owners also expressed their worries. closed to logging and mining, and waters should be utilized. In addi - Martin Skala Jr., a canoe outfitter the bill merely sought to place those tion, Pechaver charged, “If regula - and lodge owner on Lac La Croix, regulations into statute law. This tions are carried out, it means only told Humphrey that the bill would explanation generated more opposi - those physically able to paddle and be “very harmful to me and to the tion: was the bill really needed if it pack can enjoy our wilderness.” 28 many others who make their living were merely going to implement Thus, the issue of motorboat usage from the tourist industry in this part policies already in place? 27 became the center of the mounting of the country. . . . The air ban very Sharp reaction against the bill controversy. seriously hurt us but we have man - partly reflected the urban-rural tug aged to survive. . . . This new bill will of war over wilderness fought in Barring motorized vehicles make it almost impossible for us to Min nesota and much of the country from wilderness areas had been the remain in business or even get to our during the 1950s. Small towns such aim of activists since the 1920s when property by outboard motor boats.” as Ely, historically dependent on ex - roads and automobiles first became Meanwhile, the National Boating tractive industries and motorized a threat. Yet Zahniser wrote the first Association called the bill “an exam - recreation, resented the attempts of draft of the wilderness bill in 1956 in ple of the creeping acquisition policy conservationists from the Twin Cities a compromising spirit, saying that in of the rabid conservationist.” 29 and distant Washington, D. C., to national forests where airplanes and The stiff backlash made it clear change the rules. motorboats had been customarily to Humphrey that resort owners

Fall 2002 141 Letter (detail) protesting the wilderness bill from Martin Skala Jr., a resort owner “very seriously hurt” by the air ban but “doing fairly well under the most trying circumstances.”

West Coast states became the center of the acrimonious debate as mining and logging companies, ranchers, and advocates of water development stridently opposed the wilderness bill, while dude ranchers, outfitters, and hunting and fishing enthusiasts supported it. In Congress the con - troversy swirled around Senators Gordon Allott of Colorado, Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming, and Clin - ton P. Anderson of New Mexico. In 1959 and 1960 Allott and O’Ma - were the most important element of sure resort owners and motorboat honey introduced amendments to the opposition and that they must be users. At an important meeting in the legislation to protect the ranch - appeased. Florence Frederickson, a St. Paul in December 1957, he told ing and mining industries and to resident of Ely and a resort owner, a room packed with owners and ensure that Congress would estab - kept the senator aware of public sen - sports men that while the original bill lish wilderness by “positive legisla - timent. Frederickson wrote to Hum- did not specifically preclude motor - tion” rather than by merely vetoing a phrey that the most damaging word - boat use, his revised draft clearly designation of wilderness by the ing in the bill was that motorboats stated “that nothing in this act shall executive branch. 32 “may be permitted”; if Humphrey preclude the continuance within For his part, Allott deeply resented would substitute “shall” for “may,” these roadless areas of an already Humphrey’s compromise permitting the ambiguity bothering most resort established use of motorboats.” motorboats in the boundary waters. owners would be removed, ensuring Humphrey quipped, “I told the men Allott felt that Humphrey had cleverly their support for the legislation. 30 drawing up the bill to put it in lan - split the political ground in Minnesota Humphrey took her advice. By guage even I could understand.” to avoid offending anyone; he also 1957, after a year of sometimes harsh Humphrey’s loophole permitting resented the prospect that no wilder - criticism of the bill, he realized that motorboat use proved to be a key to ness area in Colorado or the West compromise with motorboat users gaining support for the bill across would be permitted similar motorized would be necessary to achieve sup - Minnesota’s north country. 31 access. “Let eat the port from a majority of Minne so tans. same cake as the rest of us eat,” the By then Sigurd Olson had also con - Controversy over the Colorado senator fumed, as he pro - cluded that a complete ban on mo - wilderness bill now quickly dimin - posed an amendment to eliminate the torboats would not be accepted— ished in Minnesota, and the battle special provision governing the bound- while he also vehemently denied that shifted to the far western states. ary waters. 33 But Allott could not gain he had ever supported a total ban. During the late 1950s and early sufficient support for his amendment, Humphrey soon took steps to reas - 1960s, the Rocky Mountain and so the unique provision allowing mo -

142 Minnesota History torboats within the boundary waters within the area of any already estab - prompted debates reminiscent of remained in the final bill. lished use of motorboats.” While that earlier battles over motorboats and Congress at last enacted the bill loophole capped years of controversy, airplanes. In some respects, the cur - in the summer of 1964, and Presi - it also planted the seeds for a subse - rent debates must be distinguished dent Lyndon B. Johnson signed the quent phase of the debate that peaked from those of 50 years ago; much Wilderness Act into law on Septem - in the 1970s with the Boundary Wa - concern is ex pressed now, for in - ber 3. The law declared that it is “the ters Canoe Area Wilderness Act that stance, about the impact of snow - policy of the Congress to secure for eliminated much motorboat use mobiles on wildlife and on the land - the American people of present and from the BWCA. scape itself. Nonetheless, the older future generations the benefits of an Nor did the Boundary Waters conflicts remain at the core of the enduring resource of wilderness.” Canoe Area Wilderness Act of 1978 discussion today. The place of motor - The words “an enduring resource of put to rest the sometimes passionate ized equipment in Minnesota’s recre - wilderness” were penned by Howard arguments over how much motorized ational economy opened a rift in the Zahniser, whose intense lobbying for access should be allowed in wilder - populace more than a half-century the bill ended on May 5, 1964, when ness or national park areas. In recent ago, and that rift continues to divide he died in his sleep at age 58. While years the popularity of jet skis, snow - lovers of Minnesota’s prime recre - Zahniser did not live to see it en - mobiles, and all-terrain vehicles has ational lands. K acted, the new law fulfilled much of what he, along with Sigurd Olson, Ernest Oberholtzer, and Friends of Poster by the Boundary Waters the Wilderness wanted to achieve. It Conservation Alliance, formed created a national wilderness preser - in 1977 to lobby for broader vation system with an initial 9 mil - access to the area, including lion acres including the Boundary by motorized vehicles Waters Canoe Area, or BWCA, as it was now called. Permanent roads, motorized vehicles, and commercial enterprises were barred along with logging, while grazing and mining prospecting were permitted for sev - eral years. It set into motion a review of remaining primitive areas for future designation as wilderness by Congress. 34 The Wilderness Act stands as a landmark achievement in the protection and management of lands defined as wilderness in the United States. Ironically, the new law also en - sured that the long-standing con - troversy over motorized recreation in Minnesota would continue. Its major provision affecting the bound - ary waters held that “nothing in this Act shall preclude the continuance

Fall 2002 143 Notes 8. Olson to J. Hammond Brown, Dec. Conservation History 35 (July 1991): 10, 1947, copy in box 36, Sigurd F. Olson 128–37; Michael Frome, Battle For the 1. “News Items of Interest,” Living Papers, MHS. Wilderness, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City: Uni - Wilderness 12 (Autumn 1947): 29. The 9. See the splendid biography by David versity of Utah Press, 1997): 121–26. Wil - most comprehensive histories of the Backes, A Wilderness Within: The Life of derness areas comprised 100,000 acres or boundary waters during the first half of the Sigurd F. Olson (: University of more; wild areas embraced 5,000–100,000 twentieth century are R. Newell Searle, Minnesota Press, 1997). Olson’s writings in- acres. Saving Quetico-Superior: A Land Set Apart clude “We Need Wilderness,” National Parks 18. In 1957, for example, 53,000 acres (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Magazine 20 (Jan.–Mar. 1946): 18–23, were eliminated from the Three Sisters Press, 1977), and Miron L. Heinselman, 28–29; “Why Wilderness?” published origi - Primitive Area in Oregon’s Willamette and The Boundary Waters Wilderness Ecosys - nally in 1938 and reprinted in J. Baird Calli - Deschutes National Forests; “Decision of tem (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota cott and Michael P. Nelson, eds., The Great the Secretary of Agriculture Establishing Press, 1996). On Oberholtzer, see Joe New Wilderness Debate (Athens: Uni versity the Three Sisters Wilderness Area,” copy in Paddock, Keeper of the Wild: The Life of of Georgia Press, 1998), 97–102. See also box 45, Olson papers. A general account is Ernest Oberholtzer (St. Paul: Minnesota Mike Link, ed., The Collected Works of Sig - in Craig W. Allin, The Politics of Wilderness Historical Society Press, 2001). urd F. Olson, The Early Writings: 1921 –1934 Preservation (Westport, CT: Greenwood 2. MacKaye to Council, June 2, 1947, (Stillwater: Voyageur Press, 1988). Press, 1982), 102–08. See also James P. file 14, box 170, MacKaye Family Papers, 10. Olson to Brown; “‘Voyageur’s Re - Gilligan, “Wilderness in a Democracy,” Special Collections, Dartmouth College, turn,’” Nature Magazine 41 (June–July Living Wilderness 20 (Spring–Summer Hanover, NH. 1948): 290. See also Grace Lee Nute, The 1955): 25–29. 3. Kevin Proescholdt, Rip Rapson, and Voyageur’s Highway: Minnesota’s Border 19. Zahniser’s speech appeared origi - Miron L. Heinselman, Troubled Waters: Lake Land (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical nally in the Congressional Record, June 1, The Fight for the Boundary Waters Canoe Society, 1941). 1955, and has been reprinted in Where Area Wilderness (St. Cloud: North Star 11. Olson, “Why Wilderness?” 101. Wilderness Preservation Began: Adiron - Press, 1995), xii; Chester S. Wilson, “Gun 12. Olson, “Wings Over the Wilderness,” dack Writings of Howard Zahniser, ed. Lake Road Project, St. Louis County, in 254. Edward Zahniser (Utica, NY: North Coun - relation to the Roadless Wilderness Areas 13. Heinselman, Wilderness Ecosystem, try Books, 1992): 59–66. of the Superior National Forest,” memo - 276; Searle, Saving Quetico-Superior, 20. An early draft of the bill is found randum, July 21, 1954, in Senatorial Files, 143–64. appended to remarks of Humphrey and Correspondence (Legislative), box 102, 14. Heinselman, Wilderness Ecosystem, Richard L. Neuberger, Congressional Hubert H. Humphrey Papers, Minnesota 278; order quoted in Searle, Saving Quetico- Record, Feb. 11, 1957, 85 th Cong., 1 st sess., Historical Society (MHS), St. Paul; Searle, Superior, 176. Founded in 1949 to coordi - p. 11 (quote). Saving Quetico-Superior, 220; Heinsel - nate the volunteer efforts of individuals 21. Robertson and Magie, “Statement man, Wilderness Ecosystem, 276. For a fine and organizations working to preserve the . . . in support of the National Wilderness discussion of the early Quetico-Superior wilderness character of Superior National Preservation Act,” Aug. 5, 1957; L. H. program, see Searle, Saving Quetico- Forest’s roadless areas, Friends of the Wil - Furcht to Humphrey, Aug. 14, 1957; Superior, 60–142. derness claimed 3,800 members nation - Charles H. Stoddard, letter to the editor, 4. For an analysis of the debate over wide (350 in Ely alone) and 128 supporting Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, Aug. 11, motors in more recent years, the standard organizations; Frank Robertson and Wil - 1957—all in box 146, Humphrey papers. works are Proescholdt et al., Troubled liam Magie, “Statement from Friends of 22. The executive committee of the AFA Waters, and James N. Gladden, The Bound - the Wilderness in Support of the National passed a resolution opposing the Hum - ary Waters Canoe Area: Wilderness Values Wilderness Preservation Act,” Aug. 5, 1957, phrey bill in July 1956. The resolution and and Motorized Recreation (Ames: Iowa Senatorial Files, Correspondence (Bills and AFA Chief Forester Kenneth Pomeroy’s State University Press, 1990). Resolutions), box 146, Humphrey papers; July 16, 1956, letter to Humphrey are in box 5. Samuel P. Hays, Beauty, Health, and Robertson and Magie, “A Statement from 48, American Forestry Association Records, Permanence: Environmental Politics in Friends of the Wilderness in regard to the Forest History Society, Durham, NC. See the United States, 1955 –1985 (New York: recent attack upon it by Lake Superior also Pomeroy’s statement on the bill before Cam bridge University Press, 1987), 2–5, North Shore Association,” Sept. 16, 1957, the House Subcommittee on Public Lands, 13–39. box 44, Olson papers. published in American Forests 63 (July 6. Bill Rom to author, Aug. 12, 2000, 15. Searle, Saving Quetico-Superior, 1957): 7; Lowell Besley to Humphrey, Apr. copy in author’s possession. Rom operated 178–92, ably chronicles the legal battle over 5, 1956, Senatorial Files, Research Files, box a canoe concession in the boundary waters the air ban. See also, “U.S. Restrictions on 649, Humphrey papers. from 1946 to 1975. Forest Flights In Minnesota Area Upheld 23. See editorial, “Will Ely Become A 7. Chester Wilson, “Last Chance to Save by Judge,” New York Times, Oct. 4, 1952. ‘Ghost Town’?” in Ely Miner, and Mesabi Quetico-Superior Wilderness,” in Conser - 16. Martin Skala Jr. to Hubert Hum - Daily News (Virginia, MN), Aug. 22, 1957, vation Volunteer 9 (May–June 1946): 5. phrey, Aug. 14, 1957, box 146, Humphrey clippings in box 44, Olson Papers; Willard Airplane statistics in Galen Pike to I. H. papers, MHS; Gladden, Boundary Waters S. Domich to Humphrey, May 10, 1957, Polk, Exhibit C, Mar. 23, 1949, Superior Canoe Area, 8–9. Senatorial Files, Correspondence (Bills and National Forest Records, Roll 13, MHS. On 17. Searle, Saving Quetico-Superior, Resolutions), box 145, Humphrey papers. the proliferation of resorts, see Sigurd 17–33; David Backes, “Wilderness Visions: 24. Fred C. Childers, “Humphrey Bill Olson, “Wings Over the Wilderness,” Amer - Arthur Carhart’s 1922 Proposal for the Threat to Ely’s Economic Life,” Ely Miner, ican Forests 54 (June 1948): 279. Quetico-Superior Wilderness,” Forest & July 18, 1957, clipping, and Stan Pechaver

144 Minnesota History to Humphrey, Aug. 3, 1957, both box 146, resource industries; this, in turn, adds to are clearly detailed in Proescholdt et al., Humphrey papers. Childers first expressed the rift between them and the people who Troubled Waters, 7–10. Humphrey quoted fears about a ban on motorboats in a letter typically reside near wilderness areas. See in Minneapolis Tribune, n.d., clipping, box to the editor of the Duluth News-Tribune, “‘Are You an Environmentalist or Do You 146, Humphrey papers. Nov. 14, 1954. Work for a Living?’: Work and Nature,” in 32. O’Mahoney explained the amend - 25. Olson to Humphrey, Sept. 1, 1957, Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing ments in Congressional Record, Feb. 18, box 44, Olson papers. Nature, ed. William Cronon (New York: 1960, 86 th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 106, pt. 4, p. 26. Humphrey to Herb [Waters], mem - W. W. Norton & Co., 1995), 171–85. 2894–98. orandum, July 20, 1957, and Humphrey 29. The initial version of the bill is found 33. Allott quoted in Daily Sentinel to Childers, July 22, 1957—both box 146, along with Humphrey’s remarks in the (Grand Junction, CO), Feb. 27, 1963, clip - Hum phrey papers. Congressional Record, Feb. 11, 1957, 85 th ping in box 139, Wayne Aspinall Papers, 27. Olson to Ted Bergquist, Sept. 17, Cong., 1 st sess., p. 17 (quote). “Wilderness Penrose Library, Special Collections and 1957; Olson to Humphrey, Aug. 14, 1957— Regulation Clarified,” Living Wilderness 19 Archives, University of Denver. both box 44, Olson papers. Einar Karl - (Winter 1954–55): 33; Jay Price, untitled 34. Here and below, Wilderness Act strand, editor of the Duluth News-Tribune, memorandum, May 19, 1950, Superior of 1964, quoted in Heinselman, Wilder- informed Humphrey of this current of pub - National Forest Records, Roll 12, MHS; ness Ecosystem, 280, or see Public Law 88- lic opinion in a letter, Aug. 2, 1957, box 146, Martin Skala Jr. to Humphrey, Aug. 14, 577, 88 th Cong., 4 sess. (Sept. 1964) or Humphrey papers. 1957; Elliott B. Hoffman to Humphrey, July www.fs.fed.us/outernet/htnf/wildact.htm . 28. Pechaver quoted in Mesabi Daily 31, 1957—both box 146, Humphrey papers. James Gladden concluded that the “BWCA News, n.d., clipping, box 44, Olson papers. 30. Florence Frederickson to Humphrey, was designated a wilderness area, but at the In a provocative essay, historian Richard July 30, Aug. 27, 1957, box 146, Humphrey same time legislators allowed uses that the White has examined the myriad ways that papers. Wilderness Act of 1964 declared were in - environmentalists tend to overlook the 31. Backes, A Wilderness Within, 272. compatible with such a designation”; see physical labor of those who rely on natural- Humphrey’s skirmishes and compromise Boundary Waters Canoe Area, 23.

All images are from the MHS Library. The photo on p. 132 is by Bob McClary; p. 134 (bottom) by Eugene D. Becker; and p. 136 by Harry D. Ayer. The letter, p. 142, is from the Hubert H. Humphrey Papers.

Members of a snowmobile caravan on a trip from Crane Lake, Minnesota, to Fort Frances, Canada, 1967

Fall 2002 145 Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles, however, for individual use.

To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us.

www.mnhs.org/mnhistory