| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Metcalf and the Wilderness Act of 1964, Part 1 (redirected from Metcalf and the Wilderness Act of 1964)

Page history last edited by Jeff Malcomson 8 years, 5 months ago

National conservation leaders and Senator Lee Metcalf meet during the week of August 6-12, 1961, to discuss legislative strategy regarding the proposed national wilderness preservation system bill. Pictured in Senator Metcalf’s office around his desk are: (left to right, standing) Alden J. Erskin, president of the Izaak Walton League; Phil Schneider, president of the International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners; Tom Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation; Carl W. Buchheister, president of National Audubon Society; (left to right, seated) C.R. Gutermuth, chairman of the Natural Resources Council of America; Senator Metcalf; and Ira N. Gabrielson, president of the Wildlife Management Institute, August 8, 1961.  Lot 31 B16/2.06

 


 

 

Metcalf and the Wilderness Act of 1964

 

By Matthew M. Peek

Montana Historical Society Metcalf CLIR Project Photograph Archivist

September 2014

 

Introduction

 

The narrative that is often told of the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act explores how conservation groups and key politicians nation-wide united to support the conservation of America’s natural resources and wildness areas. While true, the story of the Wilderness Act’s origin and development has up to now largely left unexplored the whole of one of its greatest proponents: Senator Lee Metcalf of Montana. Serving as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1953-1960 and the U.S. Senate from 1961-January 1978, Senator Metcalf has often been identified as helping pass the Wilderness Act. However, few people can tell you what Metcalf actual did to preserve wilderness areas prior to 1964.

 

Lee Metcalf was a boy from the Bitterroot Valley of southwestern Montana, known for its beautiful Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests. Metcalf grew up appreciating the pristine nature of the forests and wild areas, while working on his family’s Stevensville-area farm in the summer surrounded by forests and mountains. He grew to appreciate the beauty of nature, and the importance of wild life, living in close proximity to what later became the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Metcalf once said about his youth that “In the oldest irrigated area of Montana [Ravalli County] I learned about water shortages in the summer for irrigation and I observed huge forest fires and clear cut timber land that made savage scars, but by and large I accepted this as normal and a way of life.”[1] As an adult, Metcalf would keep framed photos of grizzly bears and mountains in his congressional offices and his houses. Despite his appreciation for the wilderness and animals, he did not like to fish when he was younger, he did not like to hunt, he did not like to camp, and he later in life was physically unable to travel into wilderness areas or deep forests.

 

Metcalf also understood the other side of wilderness and forested areas as a source for valuable natural resources. His grandfather had founded in 1910 the Valley Lumber Company in Corvallis, Montana, taking advantage of the rich forests surrounding the town. As a law student at the University of Montana [then Montana State University] in the 1930s, Metcalf would come to know many individuals who went on to work for the U.S. Forest Service nationally and at their Missoula regional office. It was during his studies in law in Missoula—and with exposure to the conservation and forest projects of the Civilian Conservation Core in western Montana during the Great Depression—that he came into greater understanding of issues related to conservation, preservation of natural resources, and providing public recreation areas in natural areas.

 

Metcalf's Role with Conservation before the Wilderness Bill, 1953-1956

 

In January 1953, Lee Metcalf was sworn in as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 83rd U.S. Congress from the First Congressional District (Western) Montana. A distinguished Montana politician and judge, Metcalf worked quickly to make an impact in Congress for the people of his state. Just after President Eisenhower was sworn into office in 1953, Montana’s Second Congressional District U.S. Rep. Wesley D’Ewart introduced the Uniform Federal Grazing Land Act (H.R. 4023 and S. 1491), designed to provide uniformity of grazing privileges public and national forest lands under the federal “multiple land use” policy. At the time, grazing privileges were under separate agencies and were subject to different regulations depending on who managed the land. The bill would have allowed for cattle ranchers to graze their herds on national forest lands—including into wilderness areas—which would ultimately destroy the landscape and habitats for wildlife. The stockman associations argued that the bill would allow for grazing permits that would not interfere with recreational use of lands. However, the bill “would place grazing regulations on national forests under advisory boards made up of grazing permittees.”[2] The grazing bill would weaken the authority of the Agriculture Department and the Forest Service to prevent overgrazing of forest areas and ground erosion.

 

The Montana Stockgrowers Association was one of the strongest proponents for the bill in the country. Game protection, conservation, and wildlife groups across the U.S. testified against the bill. The powerful stockgrowers’ interests, who had earlier secured cuts to the budget of the Bureau of Land Management in retaliation for the Bureau’s recommended grazing fees increase, continued to push for the bill—decrying the issues raised by conservationists.[3] It was this bill that prompted a shift by those advocating conservation of wilderness and forest areas, from the philosophy of conservation of resources and land to preservation of the resources and land. Rep. Metcalf became involved with the hearings conducted on the bill due to the impact the bill would have on Montana, as well as due to the Montana Stockgrowers Association’s involvement with the legislation. His testimony, advocacy, and conversations with his fellow congressman helped to kill the Uniform Federal Grazing Land Act; it also raised another issue with a federal grazing act that Metcalf would address.

 

In early 1954, the original Uniform Grazing Land Act (H.R. 4023 and S. 1491) was replaced by a new bill (S 2548 and HR 6787) that only applied to grazing permits and responsibilities on national forest lands:

 

The new bill (S 2548 and HR 6787) isn't masked as a bill to affect uniformity in grazing laws as was the old one. It applies only to national forest lands. But it would accomplish" the principal objectives of the old bill by giving the grazing permittee a vested interest in national forest lands, and effect a major change in federal policy by placing the responsibility for improvement of the lands on the lessee instead of the owner—the people of the United States.[4]

 

The U.S. Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee held hearings on the bill, S.2548, on January 21 and 22, 1954. Rep. Lee Metcalf testified before the committee on January 22nd, presenting one of his earliest and best overall view of issues related to conservation, public lands, and the use of public resources:

 

It is absolutely impossibly to divorce one use of the public lands from other uses,” he [Metcalf] said. ‘One stockman out of a hundred who overgrazes the ranges affects the wildlife on that land, permits erosion, damages the reproduction of timber and reduces the recreational values not only of the land overgrazed but also the surrounding area. Erosion started in this way may silt a storage reservoir many miles downstream.

 

In weighing proposed legislation, the dude rancher should not ask, ‘Will this benefit me?’ but should ask, ‘Will this bring about the maximum beneficial use of the land?’ The lumberman should ask if he would want to give the same privileges he is asking for to the ranchers and sportsmen. The grazing interests, who want more security and court review, should test their legislation by asking themselves if their demands are consistent with the practice in other administrative hearings and judicial review.

 

The democratic way, the American way, is for the various users to sit with friends and neighbors on local advisory boards and determine what is the most beneficial use and do the things that are necessary to protect their interests and the interests of the people of the community in which they live and work.

 

This is no time to reverse the established tradition of conservation. We should carry these policies forward. In the light of industrial development and expansion we should continue to be alert to protect our water, to maintain the spiritual values of the primitive wilderness, to follow the leadership of enlightened local community leaders who know the problems and are familiar with local conditions.

 

A balanced constructive legislative program is needed. Such a program will only come about after discussion and deliberation. The grazing questions cannot be solved by one piece of special interest legislation, the mining problems by another. These questions are complex and inter-related. Sportsmen, conservationists and lumbermen must also be consulted in a thoughtful program of land use for the greatest benefit of all.[5]

 

The grazing legislation was defeated in Congress, with Lee Metcalf being the major reason for its failure. One Arizona newspaper notes Metcalf’s value to the effort:

 

Metcalf may be remembered by some Arizonans as the freshman representative who helped wage a successful fight in the 83rd Congress against a grazing bill pertaining to national forest lands. Having since been assigned to the Interior committee, Metcalf as a sophomore congressman has emerged as one of the foremost spokesmen for protection of the ‘multiple use’ principle in administration of western public lands.[6]

 

By winning the fight against this bill, Metcalf assisted conservationists in protecting national forests and public lands from excessive depletion of natural resources and wildlife habitats. His efforts endeared him as one of the men conservationists pinpointed to help with the creation of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

 

During congressional hearings on the Uniform Grazing bill, conservationists testifying before committees noted that the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 needed to be brought up to date with newer conservation and land management concepts. The act’s purpose was stopping injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; providing for their orderly use, improvement, and development; and stabilizing the livestock industry dependent upon the public range.[7] Listening to their suggestions, Metcalf introduced in July 1953 a bill to amend the Taylor Grazing Act , particularly a measure that allowed one user group—cattle ranchers—to dominate the administration of Western U.S. public lands despite the lands being set aside for multiple user groups. The bill would have created multiple-use advisory boards appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, but it stalled in the House Subcommittee on Public Lands through 1955. Still, the Metcalf bill was a sign to conservationists that they had found one of their political champions.

 

On April 16, 1953, Rep. Harris Ellsworth (R-OR), who served the most-densely timbered area of the continental United States of any other U.S. congressman, introduced what became called the “Ellsworth Timber Exchange Bill” to the U.S. Congress. The bill “would have the government transfer title to federal forest land to private timber owners who have a sustained yield cutting and processing operation interfered with by government condemnation of some of their private holdings for a federal project, such as a dam or a power line.”[8] Rep. Metcalf was the greatest opponent to the bill, saying that the bill would result in “trading trees for stumps,” providing the private sector with nice, forested public lands in exchange for cutover private lands.[9] Ellsworth could not understand why trading private lands for prime public lands was such a problem, as the government had a responsibility to ensure private enterprise and communities would have access to a sustained yield if the government acquired the lands for public uses. What was worse was that the Interior Department endorsed the bill, while the U.S. Forest Service protested the measure.

 

Lee Metcalf commented regarding the bill’s concepts:

 

This is contrary to the ordinary purposes. When land is taken for a highway or a street you are compensated in cash and cannot pick out a piece of government owned land and demand an exchange. But this was even worse, because under the terms of the bill as introduced the person whose land was taken could pick it over. I successfully led a fight to kill that bill . . . [10]

 

He did indeed. His effort to kill the bill led to his nomination to receive the 1954 National Award for Distinguished Service to Conservation by five national conservation organizations. The award—a plaque—was presented to Metcalf at a special banquet on July 15, 1954, by the Izaak Walton League of America, the National Parks Association, the National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wilderness Society.[11] The famed Executive Secretary of The Wilderness Society Howard Zahniser presented the plaque to Metcalf, cementing a legislative partnership on conservation issues sparked between the two in 1953.

 

These experiences caused Metcalf to change his viewpoints on conservation issues. He once said that “As I attended hearings on conservation problems and appeared as a spokesman for the conservation interests I learned how priceless and unique was that heritage that I accepted as a matter of course in my boyhood.”[12]

 

Metcalf’s work to protect national parks and national forests brought him into contact with the leading conservations of the 20th century. Howard Zahniser, the man most responsible for the creation and writing of the Wilderness Act, began corresponding and meeting with Metcalf sometime in 1953. Arthur Carhart, one of the earliest and leading conservationists in American history, wrote back and forth with Metcalf regarding issues with the Echo Park Dam in Colorado; Carhart exhibited a great deal of respect for Metcalf’s awareness of conservation issues. J.W. Penfold, the Western Representative of the Izaak Walton League of America, and Metcalf wrote to and spoke with each other regularly from 1953 to 1964, regarding planning efforts for various pieces of conservation legislation and the Wilderness Act. Metcalf also closely worked with Charles H. Callison, Conservation Director for the National Wildlife Federation. The two-year period of 1953-1954 proved to launch the freshman congressman onto the national political stage by the age of 43.

 

1953 was a crucial year for conservationists. On July 31, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave a special message to Congress on development of water resources in the western United States. In it, he indicated that the federal government would support the Colorado River Storage Project, as well as the Glacier View Dam near Glacier National Park in Montana.[13] The Colorado River Storage Project on the Upper Colorado River Basin in Utah, Arizona, and Colorado had been officially recommended in a December 1950 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation report, and the project included the creation of Echo Park Dam in Dinosaur National Monument in northwestern Colorado.[14]

 

In the past, it had been a matter of federal practice to not authorize developmental projects in national parks and monuments. Echo Park Dam would create on the Utah-Colorado border the “Echo Park Reservoir [which] would occupy all of the Yampa and Green River channels within the Dinosaur National Monument upstream from the dam site. The original 80 acres of the monument, the area which includes the fossil deposits and the monument headquarters, would not be affected by the reservoir or any of the construction features.”[15] Proponents stated the Echo Park Dam would only flood a small, inaccessible portion of Dinosaur National Monument. Conservationists opposed the idea of using national park lands for federal projects. For six years—1950 to 1956—the Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, and a coalition of environmental groups, led by the Council of Conservationists, fought to defeat the Echo Park proposal.

 

The debate over Echo Park sparked off again in 1955, at the start of the first session of the 84th U.S. Congress. Rep. Lee Metcalf had been named to the U.S. House Interior Committee in January 1955, mirroring the service of his fellow Montana congressman U.S. Senator James E. Murray, who served on the Senate Interior Committee. Murray had long been a champion of dam and water resource management projects, and Metcalf was able to tap into his experience as a young congressman. Both men had known each other since at least 1936, when Metcalf was a leader of the Young Democrats in Ravalli County, Montana.

 

The U.S. House and Senate Interior Committee held hearings from 1953 to early 1955 regarding the Upper Colorado River Project. Before the House Reclamation Subcommittee in January 1954, Senator Wallace F. Barrett (R-UT) complained that western states had provided large amounts of public lands revenue to reclamation funds, and these states should reserve the right to develop their own  lands for their own needs after supply all of these funds:

 

'There is no good reason why we should be forced to accede to the wishes of other people,' he [Barrett] declared. 'Now these dinosaur bones[in the national monument] are not so precious anyway. . .'[16] 

 

Barrett and Sen. Arthur V. Watkins (R-UT) argued you cannot restrict projects needed by states “If we are going to adopt a policy of making all deep canyons with scenic beauty national parks.”[17]

 

A group of U.S. congressmen flew over the site of the proposed Upper Colorado project in the first part of April 1955, including Metcalf. During that trip, Rep. Gracie Pfost (D-ID), a constant champion for dam projects in Idaho, stated to journalists that she supported all aspects of the Upper Colorado project—including Echo Park Dam. She made this statement in advance of House Interior Committee hearings; and she would become a source of opposition to conservationists in relation to the dam. Senator Richard L. Neuberger (D-OR) stated on the same trip he would object to the project as long as Echo Park Dam was included. Neuberger would become a champion for conservationists in relation to dam projects and the wilderness bill later on in the 1950s.[18]

 

As for Metcalf, he had supported water resource management and dam projects in general. He viewed management of the western U.S.’s vital water supplies as a paramount obligation of the federal government, both for irrigation and for storage of large bodies of water. However, he did not approve of the Echo Park Dam, and his view on dam projects changed as he grew more experienced in Washington, D.C., with the Interior Department’s attitudes towards natural areas. Even with his changing attitudes becoming more sympathetic with conservationists, as soon as President Eisenhower indicated his support for Glacier View Dam on the west side of Glacier National Park in July 1953, Metcalf had introduced a bill to create Glacier View Dam—in opposition to conservationists.[19] Echo Park Dam was different from Glacier View, as Metcalf iterated to Sen. Arthur V. Watkins, the influential member of the Senate Interior Committee from Utah:

 

I believe that Echo Park Dam will never be needed, because there are alternative sites which will fit into the project and take care of upstream storage without invading a national monument.[20] 

 

Echo Park Dam was defeated in the House Interior Committee on June 9, 1955, by an initial vote that would "strike the disputed Echo Park Dam out of the Upper Colorado River Project bill. It then voted to set up a commission to make a study of the Echo Park and alternate dam sites. The three to five member commission would make recommendations to the President and Congress by Dec. 31, 1958."[21] The Echo Park Dam measure was defeated, but few people know that Lee Metcalf was an influential man behind the House Reclamation Subcommittee’s vote against the dam in the Upper Colorado River Project.

 

After the reclamation subcommittee had removed Echo Park Dam from the overall project bill, Metcalf, a member of the House Interior Committee who weighed in on Echo Park Dam, wrote to Sen. Watkins on July 25, 1955:

 

I opposed Echo Park Dam from the beginning. When authorization for the Echo Park project was stricken from H.R. 3383, and I had assurances from the men who would be on the conference committee that they would let the bill die rather permit the restoration of Echo Park to the bill, I voted to report the remainder of the Upper Colorado bill. I did so because I feel that the Colorado River Storage Project is necessary and is feasible without Echo Park Dam.[22]

 

Metcalf played an integral behind-the-scenes role in halting Echo Park Dam, using his growing influence as an outspoken liberal House Democrat to ensure that his fellow House and Senate Interior Committee fellows would remove the Echo Park Dam measure from the Upper Colorado project. In a letter to conservationist J.W. Penfold, Western Representative of the Izaak Walton League of America, on July 27, 1955, Metcalf noted his role in more detail:

 

I am satisfied with the Upper Colorado bill as it now stands with Echo Park out. Ranking members of the committee, who will serve on the conference committee, have assured me they will stand firm and will lose the bill rather than let Echo Park be reinstated. I feel this is a great victory for conservationists and for people who resist the invasion of our national parks.[23]

 

When the Echo Park Dam controversy was finished, Howard Zahniser published a special Winter-Spring issue in 1956 of The Wilderness Society’s magazine The Living Wilderness entitled “Echo Park Controversy Resolved.” In it, Zahniser recounts a story of a correspondence with Senator Clinton P. Anderson, chairman of the Senate Interior Committee’s Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, in January 1956, which resulted in the securing of assurances in the House and Senate that the Echo Park Dam project would not progress. After this correspondence, Zahniser and the Council on Conservationists presented special letters of appreciation to the congressmen most responsible for stopping Echo Park Dam. But, only five letters contained unique statements for their recipient congressman regarding their role in the dam fight. Of those five congressman, Rep. Lee Metcalf was one of only two U.S. House members to receive the special statements in their letter. His letter read: “And, Mr. Metcalf, we want to assure you of our special appreciation for the contribution you made in the first session of this Congress in securing the elimination of the Echo Park dam. It was an outstanding contribution for which we are deeply grateful.”[24]

 

Metcalf received this honor from conservationists as much for his opinions as his action. He stated to Charles Callison of the National Wildlife Federation on April 26, 1955:

 

But these multiple purpose projects must include planning to protect our wildlife resources and in some instances, as in the case of Echo Park, the public interest require that the scenic wonders be preserved even at the cost of not having any dam built. In those instances it is our duty to speak out.[25]

 

Though, Metcalf did “not believe that Congress should ever pass regulations which would prevent the development of power or construction of reclamation and flood control dams either in or out of the national parks if the public interest warranted such construction” [26]. Conservationists respected his balanced views on such issues. Because of his stance and behind-the-scenes method of working, powerful national figures began to hear about the conservationist congressman Lee Metcalf from their friends. Influential New York-based book publisher Alfred A. Knopf sent a personal letter to Metcalf on April 25, 1955, stating:

 

I have heard a great deal about you in recent weeks from friends who are working with me to try to head off Reclamation’s invasion of Dinosaur National Monument and I do not want more time to pass without my writing to say how very much indeed I appreciate your strenuous and continuing efforts on behalf of our good cause.[27]

 

Among all of these signs of respect of Lee Metcalf’s work supporting conservationists was a June 10, 1955, letter to Metcalf from famous pioneering conservationist and U.S. Forest Service official Arthur Carhart. Carhart noted that “I know that all good conservation people are deeply appreciative of your support in all quarters of the best uses of our resources.”[28] Carhart had researched and written an article in 1955 on wildlife refuges, which he “hope[d] . . . gives such support to your H.R. 5306 [Metcalf wildlife refuge bill] and Senator Humphrey’s bills, that they will pass.”[29] Carhart was extremely appreciative of Metcalf’s quick responses to Carhart’s letters and requests for information, as compared against the response Carhart received from Metcalf’s colleague and senior Montana congressman Sen. James E. Murray.

 

In the same letter, Carhart notes that his letters written to Murray, asking for the removal of Echo Park Dam from the Upper Colorado project bill, gained a reply in the shape of a form letter. Carhart was a little surprised no one in Murray’s office recognized his name, and wrote again—this time receiving the exact same form letter from Murray’s office staff. Carhart respected Murray—a senior member of the Senate Interior Committee—but Murray had voted to keep Echo Park Dam in the Upper Colorado bill, which surprised Carhart slightly. Murray’s office response to Carhart also stunned him, but such responses were becoming the norm from Murray beginning in the mid 1950s.

 

In May 1955, Sen. James E. Murray was 79 years old and by the late 1950s his age was gradually and noticeably effecting his ability to serve daily as a U.S. Senator. In the mid 1950s, Murray’s office staff was performing the majority of his daily operations, led by Murray’s son and aide Charles Murray. Charlie Murray (as he was known) was often accused by Murray’s fellow Montanan congressmen and Montana newspapers as being the de facto Montana Senator, managing most of Senator Murray’s office activities. Because of this situation, conservationists were apparently not getting heard by or responses from Senator Murray. Lee Metcalf filled this void for the conservationists, as he was able to meet with Senator Murray regularly and make a greater impact on him than letters from conservationists. Metcalf’s role in this regard was significant, since many of the strongest conservation groups were either from Montana or had strong interest in conservation matters in Montana. Metcalf stood up as the Montana congressman most approached by conservationists for support of conservation programs and legislation in the 1950s.

 

The greatest mark of this recognition of Metcalf’s role in conservation and the Echo Park Dam struggle by conservationists came from Howard Zahniser. Zahniser and Metcalf had been talking about an amendment to the Upper Colorado River Project bill that would make it a requirement for such projects not to be planned or allowed in any way that would alter a unit of a National Park. In a July 7, 1955, letter to Rep. Metcalf, Zahniser supplied Metcalf with an alternative wording for such an amendment on the Echo Park Dam matter, noting in a handwritten note to Metcalf off to the side, “We can call this the Metcalf Proviso."[30] Metcalf hated having things named after him. Still, Zahniser’s recognition of Lee Metcalf’s role in the conservation movement by this suggestion is tremendously important (It is also a piece of history of the development of the modern conservation movement that never before has been documented).

 

The success of the battle to save Echo Park was galvanizing—historians mark the Echo Park debate as the birth of the modern environmental movement in the United States, and the spark that set off the drive for the passage of the Wilderness Act. Lee Metcalf was recognized as one of the first true environmentalists in American history due to his involvement in the Echo Park Dam struggle.

 

From 1956-1960, the push for not just a national wilderness bill, but also wildlife refuge protection, water resource management and protection, and studies of the effects of chemicals on nature and man came into the fold of conservationists’ understanding of modern wildlife and wilderness preservation. Lee Metcalf was at the forefront of this movement, involved in almost all new legislation addressing encroachments on natural resources and areas as a modern America developed following WWII. Metcalf eventually viewed the Wilderness Act as necessitating a system of wildlife and natural resource conservation. For him, this included preserving animal habitats; limiting state and federal projects’ impact on streams and wildlife; ensuring the Forest Service and private companies were re-planting trees and logging forests in a scientific, intelligent manner; limiting the effects of man-made chemicals on negatively-impacting natural resources and life forms; and ultimately creating a system of access at different levels, for different people, to natural areas. Despite not being the major recognizable proponent for the Wilderness Act in the late 1950s and 1960s, Metcalf worked on legislation and other issues that affected natural resources and wildlife, seen by him as part of the same ecosystem.

 

A single administrative decision by the Department of the Interior in November 1955 sent chills down the backs of conservationists, when the department agreed to give away a number of wildlife refuges to certain interests and state departments. This maneuver would open the refuges up to logging, mining, and other intrusive issues. One California newspaper detailed the story as news of the event was breaking:

 

Several months ago, the Wildlife Management Institute reported that from information it had received, the Department of the Interior was about to embark on a distribution of federal wildlife refuges to various interests and included in its prediction of its pending ‘giveaway’ a number of important areas, including the famed Lenore Lake Wildlife Refuge in the state of Washington. This week comes news that confirms the accuracy of the institute’s prediction and strikes deeper terror into the hearts and minds of those who fear for the preservation of our national monuments and parks and wildlife and other resources under the present direction of the Department of the Interior.

 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has lost most of its career men due to political pressure, has just handed over the Lenore Refuge to the state of Washington’s department of game management, and the general opinion is that within a matter of months, this preserve will be thrown open to hunting and concessions and will abandon its capabilities as a wildlife refuge.

 

The institute points out in a recent bulletin that this action was taken Nov. 25, and the Department of the Interior did not notify Rep. H.C. Bonner, chairman of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee until Dec. 2, in spite of a promise to notify the committee at least 30 days in advance of any move to dispose of any part of the national wildlife refuge system.[31]

 

This act by the Interior Department challenged the statements by opponents of a wilderness bill that there are already federal agencies managing responsibly the lands entrusted to them through various federal legislation on wilderness areas and wildlife refuges. Conservationists went to arms over the matter. To make it worse, this incident with the Interior Department occurred prior to the start of the second session of the 85th Congress, making it difficult for the responsible House and Senate committees to investigate or stop the Interior Department’s new policy before the new congressional session.

 

Rep. Lee Metcalf introduced a wildlife refuge bill to stop the disposal of federal wildlife refuges in January 1956. Metcalf had been preparing the bill for the House Merchant Marine Committee to hold hearings on. The bill would require “the approval of Congress of the disposal or relinquishment of federal wildlife refuge lands.”[32] Metcalf’s close colleague in the Senate, Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN), introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate in early 1956, to match Metcalf’s bill. Hearings in the House on Metcalf’s bill began in February 1956:

 

Hearings are about to begin before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee on the bill submitted by Rep. Lee Metcalf of Montana that would offer greater protection to our wildlife refuges . . . . Up to the time of the present leadership of the Department of the Interior, the present laws were deemed sufficient to protect these important areas but the alacrity with which Secretary McKay and his associates have been passing out permits to drill for oil and cut timber and mine for minerals in formerly restricted areas has brought alarm to those who are aware of the dubious merits of these permits.

 

Rep. Herbert C. Bonner, chairman of the committee before which the Metcalf bill is appearing, is regarded as favorably disposed toward it, because Mr. Bonner’s suspicions have been aroused by the manner in which the Department of the Interior granted permission to an oil company to invade a Louisiana wildlife refuge. This deal was described in these columns in some detail a few weeks ago. The tone of the matter is not encouraging.

 

The Metcalf bill in the House and a companion bill in the Senate introduced by Sen. Hubert Humphrey, of Minnesota would make it a policy of Congress to maintain and preserve the national wildlife refuges and would require prior congressional approval before any part or, all of a wildlife refuge could be disposed of or relinquished by the secretary of the interior.

 

The part about the protection of wildlife refuges being a congressional policy is important, because it must be realized that Congress is now the last defense line of the national parks, forests, refuges, monuments and other similar areas. The Echo Park controversy revealed this, and disclosed how thoroughly the Department of the Interior has planned to decimate the national parks and monuments and thwart the expressed intent of Congress and the letter of the law.[33]

 

After the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee conducted their hearings from February-March 1956 (in which Metcalf testified), the committee issued a report highly critical of the Interior Department’s administration of public lands. Instead of reporting Metcalf’s wildlife bill out to a vote on the House floor, the committee reached an agreement with the Interior Department about oversight of wildlife refuges, as Metcalf noted in a letter to a concerned citizen:

 

Within the past few weeks the conservation forces have won a major battle in defense of wildlife. In a unanimous report sharply critical of the present administration of the Department of the Interior, the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee pointed out the necessity for some legislative check on the Department’s authority to make disposals, such as oil leases, which might lessen the value of wildlife refuges for conservation purposes. The Committee has reached an agreement with the Department of the Interior under which each proposed relinquishment of any interest in a national wildlife refuge would be submitted to the committee for approval or disapproval.

 

I hope this action will mark a turning point in the continuing struggle to protect American wildlife against exploitation.[34]

 

February 1956 marked another expansion of Rep. Metcalf’s role in conservation and the development of the modern environmentalist movement. Metcalf had received a constituent letter from Ed C. Jones of Livingston, Montana, which related news about fish dying in the Yellowstone River associated with the U.S. Forest Service spraying of DDT to kill spruce budworms. Metcalf reacted strongly to the news. He sent to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Marion B. Folsom a copy of Jones’ letter, along with an inquiry about what was going on related to this incident. Secretary Folsom provided Metcalf with the following account of the situation:

 

The staff of the Public Health Service has looked into this matter and reports that last July [1955] the U.S. Forest Service sprayed a large area in the Yellowstone Basin with DDT dissolved in fuel oil as a part of the spruce budworm control program. About three months later fish began to die in the Yellowstone River and investigations by the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and Montana State Fish and Game Commission showed that the aquatic organisms on which the fish feed had been killed, possibly by the spray. Examination of the fish indicated they had died from starvation.[35]

 

The Yellowstone River incident was covered by newspapers across the United States, and fear over the effects of DDT began following this event. After receiving Folsom’s response, Lee Metcalf wrote and introduced the first ever federal legislation for studying the effects of pesticides and insecticides used to kill insects, weeds, and plant diseases, on wildlife and fish. Metcalf introduced the bill, H.R. 11839, on June 19, 1956, in the U.S. House of Representatives, though it did not go very far for a couple of years.

 

In 1958, Metcalf had to reintroduce the pesticides study bill as H.R. 783. From 1956 to 1958, the Montana Department of Fish and Game, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service, was conducting a study on the effects of DDT on fish and aquatic organisms. Montana Fish and Game kept Rep. Metcalf updated regularly on their research, and sent their final report to Metcalf on January 24, 1958. Sent by A.A. O’Claire, Montana State Fish and Game Director, he wrote to Metcalf that:

 

We feel these studies are yielding valuable information on the effects of DDT on aquatic life; however, they barely scratch the surface of the need. As pointed out in the report, each year wildlife biologists are confronted with a bewildering array of new chemicals whose field affects are largely unknown. For example, the Forest Service has found that DDT control of spruce budworm has resulted in serious infestations of spruce mites in certain areas. The mite populations apparently erupt when their natural predators and parasites are killed off as well as the spruce budworm, a competitor for food. As a result spruce mites, which eat old needles as well as new, may be doing more damage to trees than the spruce budworm which eats only the tender leaves in the buds.[36]

 

It took until 1958 for Metcalf’s bill to receive serious attention through hearings conducted by the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce’s Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee in March 1958, as well as House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee’s Fisheries and Wildlife Subcommittee in June 1958. By this time, Metcalf had become an extremely influential U.S. Representative, and his bills and legislative programs carried greater weight in Congress.

 

Still, the bill stalled in the House subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Frank W. Boykin (D-AL). As a businessman before coming to Congress, Boykin had made his fortune through being the president of the Washington Lumber and Turpentine Company, as well as investing in timber and natural resources-related endeavors. Boykin was blamed by C.R. Gutermuth, Vice-President of the Wildlife Management Institute, in a March 19, 1958, letter for delaying Metcalf’s bill in the subcommittee. He told a Virginia-based fisheries commission director “I would kiss you if you could get him [Boykin] to get that House bill going.”[37] Before the House Fisheries Subcommittee, Metcalf stated:

 

Despite the enormous good wrought by chemical controls, they are a mixed blessing. Being poisons, they can be harmful to birds, mammals and fish. Considerable damage to valuable fish and wildlife resources has occurred unnecessarily because chemicals were applied without sufficient knowledge of accepted procedures or without full regard to the consequences.[38]

 

In 1958, Metcalf’s chemical pesticides research bill, officially called the Pesticide Research Act (PL 85-582), was passed by Congress.[39] It was a major victory for conservationists, and led to Lee Metcalf later in the 1970s being called the first true environmentalist in America. Thank you and congratulation letters came in from state fish and game departments and national conservation groups. Charles H. Callison, the Conservation Director for the National Wildlife Federation in 1958, wrote to Metcalf:

 

It is time to say congratulations upon the enactment of your bill authorizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct an expanded program of research into the effects of chemical pesticides and in quest of safer ways to use such materials. We shall list this measure among the most important enactments of the 85th Congress which has achieved an outstanding conservation legislation record.

 

And, once again we wish to thank you for your continued diligence and watchfulness in behalf of the public interest in our nation’s natural resources. You are without doubt the best of the line-backers for the conservation team in Congress.

 

I am sending copies of this letter to the officers of the Montana Wildlife Federation who may not realize how much we depend on you here in Washington [emphasis added].[40]

 

Lee Metcalf also introduced an outdoor recreation bill in 1956 (H.R. 1823) in the newly Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress that would provide funding for recreation management and the maintenance of facilities in the national forests. Metcalf’s bill was not the first recreation bill—in 1956 alone, thirteen versions of the bill were introduced. Rep. Boyd Tackett (D-AR) introduced the first version of the recreation bill in 1949, but it failed. Rep. Howard Baker (R-TN) was a little more successful, submitting two versions of a recreation bill in 1953 and 1954. These were defeated as well.[41]

 

Baker again introduced a recreation bill in 1956; however, Metcalf’s bill—almost identical to Baker’s bill—received the greatest attention due to Metcalf’s stature with conservation groups and the support of his fellow Democrats. The bill would have used 10% of the national forest receipts to apply to increasing recreation facilities in national forests; national forest receipt funds had been used to for timber-based uses and forest road construction, but none had been set aside for recreation. The U.S. Forest Service was begging for increased funding to deal with the rapidly increasing numbers of travelers and forest visitors in the 1950s, largely due to increased national road construction and a population boom following WWII. The U.S. Congress had not addressed the growing need of recreationists, and Metcalf hoped his version of the bill would pass.[42] Metcalf stated about the need for his bill:

 

‘Time after time sincere efforts have been made to get appropriations sufficient to meet [recreation and wildlife] needs. The needs have never been met.’ . . . He [Metcalf] hoped enactment of his bill would ‘end this meager hand-to-mouth existence of our forest recreation facilities.’[43]

 

Metcalf’s bill would be killed by the new Congress in 1957, thanks to a political maneuver by the Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra T. Benson. Benson, who did not want earmarked funds used for recreation, announced in 1956 that the Agriculture Department authorized the U.S. Forest Service to conduct a study of recreational uses and needs for Forest Service lands, with the end result being the proposal of a five-year recreation development strategy. The Agriculture Department claimed at a hearing on Metcalf’s recreation bill that there was no need for the recreation bill until the study was complete. However, the Forest Service already had the statistics on recreational needs and maintenance costs in 1956. They attempted to stall Metcalf’s bill, which did stall and died in committee.[44]

 

Wilderness Bill Is Introduced, 1956-1957

 

May and June of 1956 was the turning point in the national conservation movement. On behalf of the Council of Conservationists, Howard Zahniser of The Wilderness Society had spoken with several congressmen in 1955 about sponsoring his draft of the “National Wilderness Preservation System” bill, following the fiasco with Echo Park Dam. One of these congressmen was Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN). Humphrey had established himself nationally for his support of social causes, and had introduced several bills by 1957 related to preservation of natural resources and conservation. Zahniser asked Humphrey to sponsor and introduce the wilderness bill in the U.S. Senate. Humphrey was initially unsure of whether to sponsor the bill or not, until he wrote at the end of March 1956 to Sigurd F. Olson, respected conservationist who knew Zahniser:

 

I was glad to get your letter asking my opinion of the bill you plan on introducing to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System. I have worked closely with Howard Zahniser and others for some time on this measure and feel that in view of the mounting pressures of population, commercialization, and industrial expansion, that the only way to assure future generations that there will be any wilderness left for them to enjoy is to give such areas congressional sanction now.

 

I feel strongly that this is the last chance to preserve the wilderness on this continent for we are on the verge of an era where the pressures to destroy or change it will become greater than anything we have ever experienced. All of us concerned are appreciative of your great interest and you can be assured of our support.[45]

 

Afterward receiving this response from Olson, Humphrey set himself to introducing the wilderness bill in 1956. Zahniser had carefully planned the strategy of the bill with the sponsoring congressmen:

 

On June 6 [1956], Zahniser went to the Senate and House office buildings and met with staff members of Senators Humphrey and Neuberger and Congressman Saylor. All agreed that introducing the bill so late in the eighty-fourth Congress gave it little chance of being enacted, but would bring it to the attention of Congress and spark comments that could be utilized to amend the bill.[46]

 

On June 7, 1956, Hubert H. Humphrey introduced the Wilderness Bill in the U.S. Senate. It was the first version of a national wilderness bill every introduced in Congress.[47] The bill was co-sponsored by nine Senators. The narrative of the Wilderness Act usually attributes two congressman with introducing the first versions of the Wilderness Act: Humphrey and famed wilderness supporter Rep. John P. Saylor (R-PA). Saylor, one of the earliest supporters of wilderness preservation in Congress and a high-ranking member of the House Interior Committee, introduced his House version of the Wilderness Bill as a companion bill to Humphrey’s Senate bill on June 11, 1956. However, Lee Metcalf was also submitted one of the earliest four earliest versions of the Wilderness Bill.

 

On June 13, 1956, Rep. Metcalf introduced in the U.S. Congress H.R. 11751, National Preservation System Act, and the bill was referred to the House Interior Committee. Metcalf’s version of the Wilderness Bill was one of the first three or four versions of the bill introduced in Congress.[48] The U.S. congressmen most associated in the 1950s with the Wilderness Bill were Senators Humphrey and Richard L. Neuberger (D-OR), and Representatives Metcalf and Saylor. However, when the new 85th Congress begin in January 1957, a number of different Wilderness Bills were introduced in the House of Representatives: four bills introduced on January 3, 1957, by Barratt O’Hara (D-IL), John F. Baldwin, Jr. (R-CA), Henry S. Reuss (D-WI), and John P. Saylor (R-PA); one bill introduced on January 5, 1957, by Lee Metcalf (D-MT); George P. Miller (D-CA). Metcalf’s version of the bill was H.R. 1960. In the Senate, Humphrey reintroduced his bill, S. 1176, on February 11, 1957, as the first bi-partisan Wilderness Bill. Eleven senators co-sponsored the act in the Senate, including Montana’s Sen. James E. Murray.[49] Metcalf’s impact on the wilderness bill was getting lost in the abundance of versions of the wilderness bill, and the strong leadership of his friend Humphrey.

 

The Senate Interior Committee held the first hearings on the National Wilderness Preservation System Act on June 19-20, 1957. Sen. James E. Murray was the chairman of the committee as it held statements from those for and against the Wilderness Bill. Both the House and Senate Interior subcommittees responsible for oversight of various areas outlined for preservation in the Wilderness Bill began their hearings as well. Murray told a Senate Interior subcommittee in June 1957, “‘Some of our finest wilderness areas, which should be preserved for recreation are being invaded for less important commercial uses. There is a real need to set aside some of our fine wilderness areas, to be preserved in their natural state, for present and future generations to enjoy.’”[50]

 

At this point in looking at Metcalf’s role in the Wilderness Act, it is important before we proceed to examine briefly why there was a need for the Wilderness Act and what it actual would accomplish that is different from law already on the books by 1957. Senator Humphrey gave the best explanation of the need for the national wilderness bill:

 

At present . . . there are no laws of Congress which protect these areas of wilderness as wilderness. Even in the national parks and monuments the pressures for roads and non-wilderness recreational and tourist developments threaten in many places to destroy the primeval back-country wilderness. In the national forests, the wilderness, wild, primitive, and roadless areas have been set up administratively and could be abolished or greatly reduced by a future Secretary of Agriculture. Wilderness within the national wildlife refuges is in a precarious position because the refuges themselves lack adequate legal protection against pressures for commercial or exploitative encroachments.

 

In fact, none of our Federal wilderness has the protection which Congress could give by providing for wilderness preservation as a national policy applied to a definite system of areas.[51]

 

The Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Park Service all had suffered in the 1940s and 1950s from career administrators, who made decisions regarding wilderness and natural resources falling under their jurisdiction without long-term conservation or securing of natural resources for the future. Often, a regional administrator for any of these agencies would make a decision resulting in the over-logging of a particular forested area, or of the creation of a poorly-designed mining road on public lands that damaged streams and wildlife areas. These administrators were taught in land management and forestry schools across the United States about the management of forests and land, rather than the preservation of it.

 

The U.S. Congress held little authority over managing or stopping land sales, contracts with timber companies, or road construction—apart from oversight of the administration of the different federal departments, and controlling the budgetary needs of these agencies. The national forests were opened to mining and logging companies who would exceed their contracts or permits, and local citizens in these areas began in the 1950s complaining to their federal congressmen. Poor clear-cutting and tree seedling replanting led to unseemly areas of forests which spoiled views and put off tourists.[52] In Montana in the 1950s, tourism was becoming one of the state’s biggest sources of economic income, as industry and mining were waning in the state. Protecting the purity of land, forests, wildlife areas, and scenic views came to affect the amount of tourists and recreationists in Montana. The limited recreational facilities in national forests and parks also put a number of people off, limiting these areas financial impact for the state. Lee Metcalf and his colleagues James E. Murray and Mike Mansfield saw this need, and all supported the implementation of the Wilderness Bill.

 

Go to Metcalf and the Wilderness Act of 1964, Part 2

 

Sources

 

1. Metcalf, Lee. Unidentified radio speech on conservation [McKay conservation 3371 #1] [1960]. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 633, Folder 6, pp. 1.

 

2. “Uniform Grazing,” Yuma Daily Sun (Yuma, Arizona), Vol. 49, No. 112, Tuesday. May 12, 1953.

 

3. Steen, Harold K. The U.S. Forest Service, A History (Centennial Edition). Fourth printing. (Durham, North Carolina: Forest History Society, 1976): pp. 275.  

 

4. Avery, Ben. “Conservationists Scent ‘Put-Up Job’ In New Grazing Bill,” The Arizona Republic, Sunday, September 6, 1953.

 

5. Metcalf, Lee. Excerpt of testimony presented at U.S. Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee hearing on S. 2548, January 22, 1954. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 636, Folder 14.

 

6. Poole, Jerry. “Arizona in Washington: New Grazing Bill To Affect Arizona.” The Arizona Republic, Monday, May 9, 1955, pp. 6.

 

7. “The Taylor Grazing Act”, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Wyoming—Casper Field Office. Viewed on August 20, 2014, at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Casper/range/taylor.1.html.

 

8. Smith, A. Robert. “Timber Exchange Bill Faces Opposition on Floor of House.” Walla Walla Union-Bulletin (Walla Walla, Washington), Sunday, February 7, 1954.

 

9. Morrison, John, and Catherine Morrison. Mavericks: The Lives and Battles of Montana's Political Legends, (Helena, MT: Montana Historical Society Press, 2003): pp. 275.

 

10. Metcalf. Unidentified radio speech on conservation [1960]. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 633, Folder 6, pp. 1. 

 

11. “Groups to Honor Montana Lawmaker,” Billings Gazette (Billings, Montana), Friday, July 9, 1954, pp. 5.

 

12. Metcalf. Unidentified radio speech on conservation [1960]. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 633, Folder 6, pp. 1.

 

13. “President Sends Congress Water Resources Message: Re-Examination of Program Pledged.” Reno Evening Gazette, Saturday, August 1, 1953, pp. 3.

 

14. United States Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado River Storage Project and Participating Projects: Upper Colorado River Basin. December 1950. Region 4, Salt Lake City. Project Planning Report No. 4-8a.81-2.

 

15. Ibid, pp. 32.

 

16. “Barrett Backing Echo Park Dam: Project Would Flood National Monument,” Billings Gazette, Thursday, January 21, 1954.

 

17. Ibid.

 

18. “Congressional Group Flies Over Site of Upper Colorado Storage Project,” The Daily Herald (Provo, Utah), Friday, April 8, 1955.

 

19. “President Sends . . .,” Reno Evening Gazette, Saturday, August 1, 1953, pp. 3.

 

20. Letter, Rep. Lee Metcalf to Sen. Arthur V. Watkins, July 25, 1955. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 121, Folder 4.

 

21. “Group Opposes Echo Park Dam,” Billings Gazette, Friday, June 10, 1955, pp. 22.

 

22. Metcalf to Watkins, July 25, 1955. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 121, Folder 4.

 

23. Letter, Lee Metcalf to J.W. Penfold, Western Representative of the Izaak Walton League of America, July 27, 1955. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 121, Folder 4.

 

24. “Echo Park Controversy Resolved,” The Living Wilderness (Winter-Spring 1955-1956, No. 55), 31-32. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 121, Folder 4.

 

25. Letter, Lee Metcalf to Charles Callison, Conservation Director of the National Wildlife Federation, April 26, 1955. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 121, Folder 5.

 

26. Letter, Lee Metcalf to John F. Hammett, Chairman of the Camp Fire Club of America, May 14, 1955. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 121, Folder 5.

 

27. Letter, Alfred A. Knopf to Rep. Lee Metcalf, April 25, 1955. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 121, Folder 5.

 

28. Letter, Arthur H. Carhart to Rep. Lee Metcalf, June 10, 1955. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 468, Folder 1.

 

29. Ibid.

 

30. Letter, Howard Zahniser, Executive Secretary of The Wilderness Society, to Rep. Lee Metcalf, July 7, 1955. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 121, Folder 4.

 

31. Editorial, “Wildlife Refuge Giveaway Begins.” Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, California), Saturday, December 31, 1955, editorial page.

 

32. Ibid.  

 

33. Editorial, “Wildlife Refuge Protection Sought.” Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, California), Wednesday, Feb. 1, 1956, editorial page.

 

34. Letter, Rep. Lee Metcalf to Rosamond Platt (Yalesville, Connecticut), April 16, 1955. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 468, Folder 1.

 

35. Letter, Marion B. Folsom, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, to Rep. Lee Metcalf, February 17, 1956. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 479, Folder 9.

 

36. Letter, A.A. O’Claire, Montana State Fish and Game Director, to Rep. Lee Metcalf, January 24, 1958. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 479, Folder 9.

 

37. Derbes, Brett J. “Frank Boykin,” The Encyclopedia of Alabama. Viewed at http://www. encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-3320; Letter, C.R. Gutermuth, Vice-President of Wildlife Management Institute, to I.T. Quinn, Executive Director of Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, March 19, 1958. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 479, Folder 9.

 

38. Statement of Congressman Lee Metcalf of Montana on behalf of H.R. 783 . . . before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee’s Fisheries and Wildlife Subcommittee, June 25, 1958. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 479, Folder 9.

 

39. Marion, Nancy E. Making Environmental Law: The Politics of Protecting the Earth, (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2011): pp. 142.

 

40. Letter, Charles H. Callison, Conservation Director of Nation Wildlife Federation, to Rep. Lee Metcalf, August 12, 1958. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 479, Folder 9.

 

41. Hirt, Paul W. A Conspiracy of Optimism: Management of the National Forests Since World War Two (University of Nebraska Press, 1994): pp. 152, 155.

 

42. Ibid. 

 

43. Metcalf, Lee, “Extension of Remarks,” Congressional Record, 84th Congress, 2nd session, January 5, 1956. Quoted in, with added comments, Paul W. Hirt, A Conspiracy of Optimism, pp. 155-156.

 

44. Hirt, pp.156-157.

 

45. Letter, Sigurd F. Olson to Hubert Humphrey, April 3, 1956. Transcript of letter viewed at http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/research/sigurd_olson/letters/1950s/1956_04_03_humphrey_WildAct.htm.

 

46. Harvey, Mark William Thornton. Wilderness Forever: Howard Zahniser and the Path to the Wilderness Act. Weyerhaeuser Environmental Books series, (University of Washington Press, 2007): pp. 190.  

 

47. Humphrey, Hubert H., “The Wilderness Bill,” The Living Wilderness (Winter-Spring 1956-1957, Vol. 21, No. 59), 15. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 615, Folder 2; “Humphrey Introduces Save Wilderness Bill,” Austin Daily Herald (Austin, Minnesota), Monday, June 11, 1956.

 

48. Metcalf, Lee W. H.R. 11751, A bill to establish on public lands of the United States a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people . . . . June 13, 1956. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1956.

 

49. Humphrey, Hubert H., “The Wilderness Bill,” The Living Wilderness (Winter-Spring 1956-1957, Vol. 21, No. 59), 15. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 615, Folder 2; National Wilderness Preservation Act: Hearing, Eighty-fifth Congress, Second Session, on S. 4028, a Bill to Establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the Permanent Good of the Whole People, and for Other Purposes. United States Congress. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958.

 

50. “Wilderness System Hearings Begin,” Montana Standard (Butte, Montana), Wednesday, June 26, 1957, pp. 2.

 

51. Statement of Hon. Hubert H. Humphrey, United States Senator from the State of Minnesota. National wilderness preservation act : hearings before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Eighty-fifth Congress, first session, on S. 1176, a bill to establish on public lands of the United States a national wilderness preservation system. United States Congress. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957): pp. 26. 

 

52. Letter, Horace H. Koessler, President of Intermountain Lumber Company (Missoula, MT), to Rep. Lee Metcalf, March 24, 1958. [Letter regarding the lumber company’s maintenance of logging roads in national forests]. Montana Historical Society Research Center Archives. MC 172 Lee Metcalf Papers, Box 40, Folder 3.

 

 Montana Historical Society Research Center

 225 North Roberts, P.O. Box 201201, Helena, MT 59620-1201, 406-444-2681, 406-444-2696 (fax).

 mhslibrary@mt.gov

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.