NORTH CASCADES CONSERVATION COUNCIL
Volume VI January I962 Number 1 "To secure the support of the people and the government in the protection and preservation of scenic, scientific, wildlife, wilderness and outdoor recreational resources values in the North Cascades. ..." Resolutions PoR A U)iLD Pad }^3J< ' WSi OF THE NORTH CASCADES CONSERVATION COUNCIL DO FffiRE HIGHLY' AND WILDLY RESOLVE THAT IN 1962 WE SHALL CONTINUE TO SEEK: (1) Passage, at long last, of the Wilderness Bill: (2) A North Cascades National Park, and adjacent to it on the east, a North Cas cades National Recreation Area. (3) A North Cascades Wilderness Area, essentially the same as the present North Cascades Primitive Area; (k) Boundary adjustments of the present Glacier Peak Wilderness Area to gain protection for such valleys as the Whitechuck, Sulfur and Downey. (5) Wilderness protection for certain portions of the area between the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area and the North" Cascades Primitive Area deserving . consideration for ultimate inclusion in the North Cascades National Park; (6) An Alpine Lakes Wilderness and Recreation Area;
(7) A Cougar Lakes Wilderness Area. (8) A stop logging order on controversial Forest Service lands until such time as all citizens have had a fair chance to present theirp7iews. Out at the. Mouth:, of 3afegs. -2 N3C member^Margaret Miller, a junior high school science'teacher in Bellevue, Washing- ton, recently combined a study of wilderness in two of her classes with a practical experience in the legislative process. She encouraged her students to write letters to the House hearings on the Wilderness Bill at McCall, Idaho. Fifty highly original, uncorrected and uncensored letters were the result.• As Mrs. Miller advised Congress- woman Gracie Pfost in her letter of transmittal, the spelling was admittedly atrocious and some of the children were a little shaky (like many of their elders) on how a wilderness area differed from a campground in a National Park. One major thought ran through the letters—that we of the older generation are making a decision that will vitally affect their generation and all generations to come.—Here "are a few excerpts, from letters by kids who are not"soft Americans," from young people who thrill to the challenge of exploring such vestiges of wilderness as their elders v/ill leave them.
"I would like to express my sincere hope that the Wilderness Bill will be passed. I fell that we should save as much of our scenic and wonderful wilderness as possible. How else are we going to study nature, untouched by human hands? '..here v/ill we go to get away from the bustling cities and see the beauty of our mountains and forests? Mining and lumbering can not destroy the natural beauty of cur wilder ness in your generation tut they can in mine. My generation and future generations are the ones that will feel the results of your decision most strongly. Sincerely, Karen Welier, eighth grade, 13 years old"
"... .Nov; if v/e were to tear up these beautiful lands by mining or scrape off all its . trees no one would go to see it. It would not be only for the hiker and camper. It would be for the scientist also. Can't the lumbermen lumber some place else? Or can't the miners mine some place else? I think we should save these lands for us, our children and our grandchildren. Sincerely, John Potter, 13 8th grade" "... .Every year thousands of peoole go to the v/oods and mountains tp hunt, fish and take in the quiet beauty of the v/ild outdoors. What v/ill become of this wild country if one man is able to let it be torn apart by simply placing his sig nature upon an order? I want the pleasure of seeing the delights in my children's eyes when they see the real outdoors that my parents have shown me. Sincerely, Phil Tov/n, 8th grade science"
". . . . I do v/ish we could preserve some areas in Washington to be primitive. These primitive areas put a sence of challenge in you. Thats what makes it fun. I do hope this letter helps in putting the Wilderness Bill through. Sincerely yours, Steve Schmitz, 8th grade"
". . . .1 feel that these areas should never be ruined. They are far to magnificent to destroy. Have you'ever seen an area after logging or mining has commenced. I can tell you from experience that it looks repulsive. I will try to become an attorney when I get older. After that, if I have the opportunity I will go into politics. Bel_ive/me^ if I were in the House, I would definitely vote for this bill. Very cordially yours, Shawn Vyman"
(continued on page 7) NORTH CASCADES CCNSERVATICN COUNCIL"" Founded 1957 iW President: Patrick D. Goldsworthy /Membership Chairmanu^ jJJonna Osseward 3215 N.E. 103rd ZT~ / 1273O 9th N.U. Seattle 55, Wash. Dues: i / Seattle \77, Wash. Regular"7~$2" - Soouse $.R0 Contributing, $5 - Life, $25 THE WILD CASCADES Editors:, Haryey [and Betty Manning Associate Editor: Phillip^H. Zalasky 7 /• 2U33 IdlVCampo Drive II Issaauahu Wash. / / Everett. Y/ash. \ ^yContributing Editors: **Ice, Rock and Air: Edward LaChapelle / ~*T( J~\ • 12004 - 84th N.E. I / \Af Kirkland, Wash/ **Citfizens' Committees: **Cougar Lakes Wilderness Area: Yvonne Prater Carmelita Lowiy\»»^Eileen Ryan Route 1 U55U Clayton Ave. 401 I Mercer #
Moreover, the Bill is scheduled for early consideration by the House of Repre sentatives, and the word from caoitol cloakrooms is that it has a good chance to pass the House, to become public law in I962. It has a good chance, but it's a long way from a cinch.
Your letters of past years were by no means wasted. Those letters have brought the Wilderness Bill right up to the verge of realization, where it's trembling now.
ORE ''QBE PUSH CAN DO IT. One more flurry of letters to your congressman. Now. To get you in a letterwriting mood, we're devoting this entire issue to the first order of business: seeing to it that 1962 is remembered as the year when wilderness— out of which and by which America was shaped—at long last was legislatively recog nized as important not only to the past, but to the future, of America.
QwWABDI
-3- MORE FORt stay -AM.. Mote kJiLDERNE3_^ Excerpts from the testimony of Henry J. Krai, representing the North Cascades Conservation Council, at the Wilderness Bill.hearings held by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, licCall, Idaho, October 30, T96I. . . .(l) Neither the. forest economy of the nation or the Northwest, nor that of the state of Washington, will be jeopardized by the Wilderness Bill. 7. (2) We know of no industry about which so much misinformation has been spread as lumbering. Infant, the forest industry appears to suffer a split personality.. When it is telling the public what a good job of intensive forestry it is doing, - optimism flows enthusiastically; without a gasp for breath it flips to a posture of pessimism when the subject comes up of land withdrawals for recreation. (3) There is no timber famine in America. There never has been nor is there likely to be in the forseeable future. The economic difficulties faced by the industry are caused by oversuoply of manufactured timber .products, economic condi tions, competition of other materials, overexpansion of the industries, and other factors having no relationship whatsoever with availability of raw materials. Recent timber inventories in the Pacific Northwest indicate increased volumes not previously known to exist.' There is no need to glut the wood market with wood from . i our Wilderness Areas, present and potential. We can afford both forest recreation areas (such as wilderness areas and national parks) and intensive integrated forestry. Cn this we base our justification for urging passage of S. I7U. (U) lore forestry and more wilderness are compatible. (5) The indirect benefits of outdoor recreation areas can do much to stimulate the economic growth of the Pacific Northwest. (6) There is no economic justification for opposition to the Wilderness Bill. (7) -'e agree with the well known forester, Arthur Carhart, that the official of any timber company who proposes legging in national parks, monuments and dedicated wilderness areas is out to make a fast and easy dollar at the expense of the future of his children and of his country.
'/hy Is the V/ilderness Bill Necessary?
At present, the national parks are protected by the act of 1916 and other miscel laneous laws. In some respects, however, they are still unable to protect some of cur finest national parks from the unwise pressure exerted by local commercial groups, and there is nothing in the present law that now protects national park tack-country wilder ness as wilderness. Wilderness areas of our national forests have no protection at all by law, but merely that of administrative regulations which can be altered as easily and as quickly as they were set up. re believe that the Forest Service has done a good job in initiating and protecting these areas. However, even the best administrators are human and subject to pressures, and there have been lapses. Moreover, changes in the person of the Secretary of Agriculture will occur at frequent intervals in the future, as the political balance of our nation swings to and fro. The whim of one man could drastically alter any of these areas. This undemocratic situation needs-replacement by a fair legal basis. It is obvious that those who have a commercial interest in using wilderness lands are opposed to the bill, while the rest of the interested and informed public are overVvhelmingly in favor of it. The persistence of these selfish commercial interests in the face of proof that legitimate commerical activities will not be harmed is the most impressive demonstration of a real need forftthe protection this legislation will afford. . . -5 , 7 r 1 1 _/
(—From the Oregon Labor Press, 8 December 196l--aryoff^icial( publication of AFL-CIO unions of Oregon) ; V . pr\x} "WILDERNESS BILL GAINS IWA SUPPORT" £j2L__J "* "The International Woodworkers of America—whose members earn their living in the lumber industry—has come out strongly in favor of the Wilderness Bill. .... The union's farsighted and unselfish point of view was set forth recently in a letter to the House Committee on Agriculture. In his letter, President A. P. Hartung urged that areas in the northern Cascade mountains of \ ashington be set aside for recrea tional purposes only. . . "Hartung said: 'While it is true that there is some valuable timber. . . this timber is not only valuable as lumber but in our opinion is much more valuable for recreational playgrounds for the fast-increasing population of cur nation.' •?The Woodworker's president said opposition to setting aside these areas for recreational purposes comes 'as a general rule' from 'selfish' interests who seek to make a profit now and 'forget the future.'"
(—From The Lumber Letter, December 1H, I96I; published by the • National Lumber Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.) —Clipped by Kike McCloskey, Northwest Conservation Representative of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs. "Dear Lumberman: t "In the Fulp, Sulphite and Faper Till "Worker's Journal published in December, the union came out clearly opposed to the Senate-passed Wilderness Bill. In a. careful study of the economic effects, the union found that the. proposed creation of the Northern Cascade National "ark in Washington (**N0TE #l) would remove an additional 318,788 acres (**NCTE #2) of operable forest land from productivity, which would eliminate 6,650 jobs in the woods, 529,375,000.00 in annual salaries, and the liveli hood of 22,500 persons (**N0TE #3).'. ."
Editor's Note #1: Please observe this typical, neat use of the "confusion gambit": an opening statement about the Wilderness Bill, abruptly followed by analysis of the North Cascade Park. —There is, after all, a difference between "wilderness" and "national parks", as we know to our frequent sorrow.) We're not sure whether this is a conscious, eynical attempt to confuse the reader by muddling separate issues into a single stew, or whether The Lumber Letter is the product of a confused, muddled-stew- mind. • • • Editor's Note #2: It's interesting that the opponents of a North Cascades National Park have the size settled right down.to the acre, while—the sponsor of the proposed Park, the North Cascades Cbnservaucn Oourril f "els rrroper boundaries cannot be drown with out extensive study of the area, taking into consideration the needs and views of all affected segments of the public. No proponent of the Park has done more than designate the general area within which some land has park values. Ifeiny opponents are suddenly getting very fancy and flip with acreages, dollars and jobs-. —In all justice and charity, we cannot call such opponents honest men.
Editor's Note #3: Nothing is easier to manufacture than statistics. We of N3C would be chagrined to see the livelihood of "22,500 persons" endangered. As is clear from our past public statements, we are deeply concerned that there be a very minimum of economic dislocation occasioned by any of our proposals. We could only wish every member of the National Lumber Nanufacturer's Association shoved equal concern. "" The Lo66ttffs £e$f T/?/tNd: The ftes&tVAfiotiist
Excerpts from the testimony of John Osseward. at the '-ilderness Bill Hearings held by the House Committee on Interior and insular Affairs, McCall, Idaho, October JO, 1961.
• I remember a time not long ago when the wood products industries complained that the Forest Service was competing with private industry by supplying logs to the Fuget Sound market. • This is a far cry from the situation ttoday. . . During the last 50 years many of the finest privately controlled forests of cur region have been devastated—in spite of loud warnings by the public and by the Dean of the School of Forestry at the University of Uashington. It will take many years for some of these areas to realize their growth potential...... Forest Resource Report No, Ik, issued by the Forest Service in 1958, states on page *kk that in the states of Oregon and Washington alone there were 2.5 million acres of non-stocked or poorly stocked timber areas requiring planting. * * * . . . Ue must not overlook the fact that the commerical-type timber lands within the wilderness-type areas now under consideration in the '/ilderness Bill are NOT a significant portion of our nation's resources for the future years. Only U.7 million acres of the lU. million in the USFS wilderness system are involved in this bill ^s commercial-type timber lands. These U.7 million acres are less than 1 percent of the U88 million acres of commercial forest lands in the nation. By far the greater portion of the lU million acres now dedicated to wilderness preservation in the national forests are high alpine country of meadows, rock, and snow—some 9.3 million acres...... Wilderness is not found solely in the alpine regions, but includes some of the low elevation forests, deserts, grasslands, and ocean shores. The lowland forests are not only desirable as wilderness in their own right, but they enhance the beauty of the alpine regions just as lawns and gardens enhance a home. . . * * * * . . . One of the most striking oddities of land administering agencies today is the short time range of their projected plans into the future. It seems as though the year 2000, a mere 39 years from new, is as far as their telescopes can focus. It is important that seme of cur cobwebbed ideas concerning future resource needs for a rapidly growing industrial civilization be viewed in greater depth. .' . * * * ... Of timber cut in the nation, 25 percent is not utilized because of mill waste and logging residues—some 3 billion cubic feet wasted each year. . . Insects, disease and fire annually consume, kk billion board feet in growth loss and mortality. This is almost the total amount of all timber cut in our 50 states in a year. The total annual cut of the nation is U8 billion board feet. Approximately one-third of every log chemically treated to produce pulp is for the most part wasted in lignin. . . This is what is happening today, not 50 years ago during the most sordid era of timber devastation. . . V/e must commit all the U88 million acres of commerical forests in the nation, outside the wilderness, both private and public, to modern forestry practices. If this is net done soon we can look forward to governmental compulsion.
CrjyirtrMee/ o>j J%>f& 7 Table. Comparison of So-Called "'.Wilderness '.Waste with -7 .:••• -. Forest-Industry Wanton Dereliction of Duty.
No. of Times Greater than No. of Times Greater than .the 4.7 million acres, of. the 14 million acres of commercial type forest forested, alpine, rock land to be included in and snov; of U.S.F. S. to Wilderness System by be included in '.Wilder ThS.'F.S. ness System
Cne-fourth of nation's forest latfd'is poorly stocked or non- stocked 72 million acres are less 15 times greater 5 times greater than 40 % stocked 42 million acres are non- 9 times greater 3 times greater stocked 114 million acres are non-e 24 times greater 8 times greater stocked or poorly stocked
52 million acres need replant 11 times greater 3.7 times greater ing. (10 percent of all .-com mercial forest lands.) Only 4C0,000 acres were replanted in 1952. (At this rate it would take 100 years to do the job.)
Cut of the Mouths' of Babes- continued . . 11. . . When a mining company moves in they clear all the trees, the things that make the wilderness scenic, and cut deep.holes in the ground. When they leave without trees the land will erode away. This will cut gullies and leave a mass of terrain. If the bill is passed none of this will happen. The land will be as beautiful as it is now. . ,.; Respectfully yours, . , '.' , .' ...".. Jack Ginsberg Age 13 8th Grade" "...... Just as an example how would an open pit copper mine look in the middle "of the North Cascades. Or how would it look if all the lumber was logged. The streams- would be muddy instead of a clear blue. There would be an inch of dust over every thing. The fish and wildlife would get sick and die or go around half dead. All the camping spots that we go to would be wreacked. How would this look. If yea don't know I'll tell you. It would look sick just plain sick. Richard Erhard, Age 13 8th Grade" "Lear Mrs. Pfost: When our great country was first settled there was limitless wilderness. At the time of our forefathers there was so much of this wilderness that nobody though of putting any of it aside. Eut slowly and surely progress has taken over and wildernesses have disappeared. I think it is time something was done about it. The Wilderness Bill has, as you already know, passed the Senate by a large percentage for it. I think it should pass the House by the same high percentage., If we want future generation to enjoy the wilderness we have today, we need it protected. The people, who are against the bill are mostly comerical lumbers and miners who just want it €0 make money. So please vote for it and try to persuade your fellow House members likewise. Sincerely, Steven Lee, 13 years old" (—From The Republican Call, October, I96I, droned by N3C member Dr. Elizabeth White)
"Wilderness Areas Hurts Development of our Resources" (**Note #l) "Salem, Oreg.—Experts (**Note #2) on soil and forest conservation living in this state report that certain U.S. Senators, particularly Sen. Wayne Morse arid Sen. Mau- rine Heuberger, have rushed the idea of Wilderness areas to the point that prevents the proper use of natural resources. "A leading authority (#2), such as W.D. Hagenstein, Portland, Executive Vice President of the Industrial Forestry Association of Oregon, and highranking forestry engineer severly condemns Senate Bill I7U, generally called the Wilderness Bill, as promoting preservation system under which productive land uses would be prohitibed. "Hagenstein is known for the plain, emphatic expression of his views based on long practical experience. On the particular bill mentioned he sums up his well- informed (#2) convictions in these words: "'Too much wilderness preservation as bad actually becomes a crome against the people. Highest and best use in a democracy must prevail. Wilderness preser vation is all right up to a point, tut must be reasonable and not be allowed to destroy our economy.' ., ... ..;-.-,• "Further objection is found by well-informed (#2) conservation'authorities•'•(•#2) for the reason that in Oregon 6l.2 percent is federally owned and would be hard hit by a ruinous wilderness law, because once the millions of acres are put in the wilderness system, it is doubtful they would ever come cut. They would remain dormant practically forever for tax-yielding development of forest products mineral resources, livestock grazing and similar uses." (**Note #3)
Editor's Note #1: The errors of typography, spelling, grammar, logic and reason in this article are transcribed faithfully from The Republican Call. Note #2: These judgments ("Expert"— "Authority"— "Highranking"— "Well informed") are errors made not solely by The Republican Call; they are shared by the feudal - ' • nonforesters now reigning over the various huge "fiefs of thieves" embezzled and stolen from the public domain within the memory of men still living. Note #3: Fortunately, the errors of commission and ommission in this article a re not uniformly typical of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, they exist also in the Democratic Party. Wilderness is not a party issue. Wilderness is a human issue.
.MY WILDERNESS (—As quoted from My 'Wilderness: East "to Katahdin by William 0. Douglas, reviewed by New York Times) "The official destruction in the sacred precincts of this massive range" (Wind River overgrazing) "would be called vandalism if others had dene it. The damage is so vast, so incredible, so awful that it has a permanent effect... I had long suspected that 'multiple use' was a semantics for making cattlemen, sheepmen, lumbermen, miners the mainteneficiaries. After they gutted and ruined the forests, then the rest of us could use them.—to find campsites among stumps, to look for fish in waters heavy with silt from erosion, to search for game on ridges pounded to dust by sheep." "Man" (he concludes in discussing the 'Wind River area)" is the worst predator of all. Those who would destroy our heritage of the plains and mountains have allies in government. They will succeed—unless the people make conservation a burning issue." • ' •• V ^ or j c ^ THE HABJROCK MEM OF WALL STREET f • I M (—From the Kennecott Copper Corporation, Few York City, 22 September I96II ..,--.: . 1C 0 > J "To our Stockholders: /^ f , , ) "It is a pleasure to transmit the enclosed dividend check;., r 'j(.t/ ) "...While the mining- industry is not opposed'to the concept of wilderness as such, it is opposed to the Wilderness Bill ... for the following reasons: "1. It abolishes mining's existing legal right to locate mining claims ... in national forest areas withdrawn for wilderness purposes. ."*.'(**NOTE #l) "3. Experience has demonstrated the great value of the multiple-use concept... This concept should not be subverted by ... a single-user system...(*NCTE #2)
"h. ...Our future economic development and nirtional/.security^depehd in a large measure upon the discovery and development of new domestic[mineral deposits to replace those currently being exhausteTi.-^**NCTE #3)1?^ \jt\ /^ '.'. .Although the mining industry was unsuccessful in its 'efforts to; have1 S-17*4 amenddd in the Senate'... the industry intends to'renew itsjopposition to the-A current legislation when the Bill comes before the House of Representatives' v \ pa^sa ^L^SSLSO -, p /\/\ |^CX\ "Your help in this endeavor is solicited.'/ Please make yourJviews (known, to \ your Congressman." (**N0TE #h) \*f/f'A ^jllJL) '
EDITOR'S NOTE #1. Sad to say, this is not true. The present Wilderness Bill adds more-restrictions, but not enough. The mining industry, with a sordid history ill-suited for discussion (say) in Voice of. America or Radio Free Europe broadcasts, still lusts for that recent past when its payroll included a whole smoke-filled room of United States Senators. The mining industry in America is based on a frontier system of land theft legalized after the fact, and all too gradually being disestablished. NOTE #2. There are honest, decent idealists in the United States Forest Service who feel a deep sense of hurt because we Birdwatchers say such nasty things about "multiple use." But with-the Dirty Miners, among others, dragging the noble concept through the mud, we have no choice. "Multiple Use" has been appropriated as the slogan of naked greed. NOTE #3. This stirring anneal doubtless snaps mining industry stockholders to attention singing'the Star Spangled Banner.- But let us remember that the Holden Mine closed down not because there was any shortage of ore but because the price of copper dropped and the miners asked for a raise. There's also a lot of ore left at Butte, but v/hen the owners found they could make a better profit shipping ore in from Chili, that was it for the people of Butte. The mining industry hasn't demon strated that it gives a hoot about economic development and national security. The only reason it.retains-the slightest interest in the paltry mineral deposits re maining in the United States (—and most of its exploration is quite properly in such areas as the Canadian Shield' and South America, which have huge untapped deposits) is that foreign nations in some measure protect their citizens against theft of public lands. Only in America does the law of "finders keepers" still prevail. '.:"'. •' .'
NOTE #h, AMEN! U / v /^ *10 limiMS [5ome) tUwi l/JiLdeRjness ~~ 7r^—7Z Editor c-^^Z/7 /IK Yakima Daily Republic ^^^ 21-^Dcto"ber I96I Sirs: J^dv f\ Nature lovers, sportsmen, taxpayers, andbird^watchers\ t0 sav nothing of those who like to hike, climb mountains and look fpr^theUhrill^ of, seeing wild game in their natural habitat: The first inroads^re((being\made to/violate the wild un touched areas in the high Cascades. ($\ / ^—V^v1^^^^-^ *%_/ ^ ""A U^AAA-^ They are going into the area to take out/dovmedHiimbejj^that fell several years ago during storm periods. Saving these logs\for-the valuable footage is fine, but is it necessary to open up the areas with highways? \Tlris' is an invitation to permit more logging, tourists, and hunters. I hunt/every yeaTfj^as does my husband, sons, and friends, but the game must have a placeTtprgo, to grow\and develop; a place of quiet, with the wilderness around and man out of mind. ^—cjT> Washington State prides itself on the marvelous hunting and fishing we have within the confines of our border. The more of the primitive areas we open up to the driving public the smaller the areas in which our natural resources in the form of wild life and fish will be able to exist. Let us all write to our congressional representatives now, let them know how you wish them to act for you, help them fight the good fight and protect these primitive areas. Sincerely yours, Genevieve M. Wight (Mrs. Stephen A. Wight) EDITOR'S NOTE. This letter, clipped by N3C member Louis TJlrich, is a most welcome reminder that there are Hunters and there are Hunters, just as there are Birdwatchers and Bird watchers. Some of us Birdwatchers are nuts and some Hunters are'hoods. But many of us Birdwatchers are decent, sane people and so are quite a few Hunters, carnivores though they may be. We gun-shy preservationists tend to judge Hunters from these degraded sub-simians who on Opening Lay park their cars on highway shoulders and crouch poised for heroic action beside LOOK CUT FOR DEER signs. That sort of Hunter is eminently dispensable. (And while we're at it, put every goatshooter on the list; they never will be missed) However, let us keep in mind there is nothing the multiple-use hypocrites would like better than to divide Birdwatchers and Hunters, and thus conquer us. Mrs. Wight (whom we of N3C do not know, tut whose support we welcome) refers in her letter to the Copper City Blowdown Scandal perpetrated by Logger Larry, and the damage done to the proposed ^ougar Lakes Wilderness Area. But she speaks eloquently of wilderness in general. --4-And she speaks as a Hunter. U~FAMILY FRIEND"'OF rn.tTOTnTi "Jg^M . jjfe- j._ft___ '
""Dear Congresswoman Pfost:"- Corneclu Tmne. (—From an article in the Yakima Herald, November 1961, by "Farm Editor" Sam Churchill, clipped for our amusement by Chuck Hessey.) "...National forests are not like the. so-called v/ilderness areas set aside in their original state for the pleasure of-a few at the exclusion of the many ...National forests are intended for controlled development and USE. This is the distinguishing feature between them and wilderness areas..." (—Inasmuch as v/e have been.unable to sign up Fpgo or Lil Abner, we hope to make up for the lack by quoting, now and then, the Herald's Mr. Chirrchill.) -12 Voices on. the Id/LdeR noos : : " • ''-' .'. :::. --McC/iL, "IDAHO, 30 OCTOBER I96I These unofficial, nearly complete 'tallies were provided us on December 15 hy Stewart M. Brandborg, Director of Special.Projects of The Wilderness Society. We have 3 comments: (1) At McCall and Montrose, logging communities situated far, far away from any place, the oral testimony was heavily against wilderness. At Sacramento, close to someplace, the oral testimony went the other way. —Does not the choice of hearing location dictate what the oral testimony shall be? 'Of course it does. And it's rather obvious that most "public" hearings on the fate of public lands are held far, far away from the public. (2) The statements submitted by letter at McCall were a landslide — FOR. (3) The number of people involved, for and against, was quite small. —Do you ever get all excited about some public issue, vow to write a letter, and then don't, feeling overwhelmed by the futility of being a single voice among the millions of Americans? —At McCall, a mere 253 Americans registered opinions. Oral Statments Submitted For The Statements Record at Hearing Total For Against For Against For Against McCall 28 .78 . 113 3U 141 112 Montrose 22 33 • ••• — Sacramento U6 25 . — — — — A PtMFo* FA'* QtAj/ Mr. Edward C. Crafts 20 December I96I Asst. Chief, U. S. Forest Service Dear Mr. Crafts: ...I am writing this letter to appeal to the Forest Service's sense of fair play in talking about "single use" of wilderness areas. Ever since the Multiple Use Act was passed last year, there have been constant references to "single use" as apulied to wilderness areas. The commercial interests have bombarded hearings officers with it and many Forest Service employees use the term too. It almost seems as if the main purpose of passing the Multiple Use Act was intended to be the providing of opportunity for wilderness opponents to engage in this debased form of dialectics. ...If the Forest Service wishes to be fair in this matter — and I am assuming that a government bureau of this kind, representing the whole country, does not intend to act in a biased manner — then you should do your best to discourage the use of the term "single use" among your employees as well as among the commercial interests with 'which you are constantly dealing. Surely an ignorant use of this phrase isn't going to profit anyone in the long run. Very sincerely, C. Edward Graves Carmel, California H^^^)tkJ<^RMM^: (Vrn.E 03///J Johrr*n_ • " r^bs ^ yJW H. 09 Chriswell Forest Supervisory Ft. Eaker National Forest Ranger Bill'Johnson headquarters at the- beautiful Verlpt Ranger Station, where he lives with his'wife and 5 children in the shadow of Ktv Pilchuck. From here he administers the 92,000-acre Monte Cristo Ranger District, smallest.district on the Mt. Baker Rational Forest but the most heavily used and the.most productive. Bill is a native of Portage, Pennsylvania. He holds a degree in forestry from Perm State University and also studied civil engineering, both at Penn State and at Syracuse University. His work was quite varied before joining the Forest Service in • 1952. He'spent'time in'the coal mines of his native state, was a transitman on a surveying crew, cut pulpwood, and even managed a hotel and restaurant. Bill's first assignment with the Forest Service, on the Barlow District of Mt. Hood National . . Forest, was as a logging engineer in charge of timber sale layout and road location. Later-he was promoted to assistant on the Hood River District of the same forest, where he handled all timber management and fire-control activities for his ranger. Bill was promoted to his present position of District Ranger in October 1957- Managemeht of Monte Cristo District resources is a real big job. Annual rainfall' of 137 inches and highly erodable soils, coupled with fast-growing trees and heavy _ recreation use, make Bill's work interesting. Easy access to the superlative moun tain scenery of the Cascades affords the Sunday recreationist every opportunity for outdoor enjoyment. There are 170 camp and picnic units adjacent to the Forest High way along the South Fork of the Stillaguamish River. There are J lakes, each within 2 hours hiking distance of the trail start. Mountain goat, deer and bear are seen from the highway (known as the Mountain Loop). The river affords good rainbow trout fishing with an occasional steelhead. Besides providing recreation access, the highway is the artery for annual removal of 30 million board feet of Western hemlock, Pacific Silver Fir, Western red cedar and Douglas fir sawlogs. The many roads constructed to remove timber are also giving access for many people to back-country lakes and high mountain meadows. Careful', engineering control by Ranger Johnson's men has resulted in very good rock-surfaced roads with a minimum of soil disturbance. Cut-banks and fill slopes are immediately stabilized with mulch, fertilizer and grass seed. Cut-over areas"are. planted with seedling trees, sometimes only two months following logging. Bill and his staff are constantly striving, with the best technical help based on practical experience, to so develop the district's resources under multiple-use management that year by year they will become of increasing value to all people This sentence sums up the real job of a District Forest Ranger. It is an oversimplification of one of the most difficult land-management positions in this country today. Bill fills this position admirably and people in Granite Falls and the city of Everett seek his advice and council. We in the Forest Service are proud of our fine district rangers and proud of Ranger Bill, who is one of the six on Mt. Baker National Forest. SUMMIT MAGAZINE If ycu subscribed to Summit Magazine last year, you read . ' articles by such well known Cascade climbers as Dee Molenaar,'th« Springs, and others;. You also read many articles about climbs,-^ both in cur hills, and in the southern hemisphere. So broaden your horizon—subscribe by sending $h.00 for one year to Summit Magazine, hh Kill Creek Road, Big Bear lake, California. NORTH CASCADES CONSERVATION COUNCIL January 1962 $2 a year THE V/ILD CASCADES - _ . _ . , page*" LET'S FAKE 1962 A REALLY ,rILD YEAR: Resolutions for a Wild New Year. 1 Out of the Mouths of Babes 2 Eirst, read the contents of this First Things First: The Wilderness Bill...3 issue until you "begin to froth at More Forestry and More Wilderness h . the mouth, then write a letter to Wilderness and Jobs 5 The Logger's Best Friend: The Preservationist ycur Congressman. 6 Next, send $1.25 (or any multinle) Hagenstein Rides Again or The Broken Rocord to "7 s Margaret B. Tjaden My Wilderness .8 S2US 16th ME The Dirty Miners 9 Seattle 15, Washington Hunters (Some) WantWilderness 10 —and when you receive from her your A Family Friend of Wilderness 10 set(s) of 17 North Cascade Wilderness Statement in Favor of New Wilderness Bill.11 Cards, gasp at the "beauty of the voices on the Wilderness 12 photos, then mail them to A Plea for Fair Play 12 friends with urgent reminders that Know Your Forest Ranger: Jilliam E, (Bill) Johnson 13 —THIS COULD BE TEE HOME STRETCH FOR THE WILDERNESS BILL North Cascades Conservation Council BU1K RATE 32XE3riV-103rd Seattle 55. Washington Return requested