WSP00814 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ment in the United States should be prohibited. If this is not good policy, the legislation should be amended or defeated. Secondly, Section 2 provides for the inclusion, with. the consent of the Indian tribes involved, of Indian lands which are in a natural state. The action cannot be taken without the consent of the Indians, and, upon the request of the Indians, can be re'classi- fied into other types of use. This can presently be done by the Indians, since it is their land. There is absolutely no need for legislation to permit them to do what they can already do with their own land. The issue is whether or not there should be a provision 'Ih legislation which is totally useless, serves no purpose, and to which the owners of the lands involved are opposed. -If not,.,;aH.pefer- ence to Indian lands should be stricken from the legislation. National parks were established for specific purposes. These were areas which were developed to give the masses an opportunity to see and enjoy certain areas of unique beauty and interest in the Western United States. The National Park System includes many millions of acres, and is enjoyed every year by many millions of persons. It is adequately administered under existing laws, and the maintenance of wilderness conditions in selected portions of the parks is adequately provided for by the delegation of authority in existing legislation to do so. As is the case with Indian lands, should we adopt legislation which serves no purpose whatsoever? Secondly, should we impose a Wilderness System ona Park System, where the two serve different purposes? One serves the purpose of providing mass recreational advantages to a large number of persons, including areas set aside for the few who must have wilderness. The 1 atter provides only for use by those who want only wilderness conditions. Is there any justification for the imposition of one system on another? If not, all reference to national park areas should be eliminated from the legislation, as recommended by the Department of Interior. In the case of wildlife refuges and ranges; these areas are areas that have been set aside for the express purpose of providing grounds for the propagation of wildlife. In many areas, development by mechanical means has been necessary in order to make the areas most suitable for such purpose. As pointed out by the Department of Interior, the existence of wilderness restrict ions on these areas would, in some cases, eventually require that the areas return to their natural condition, in which case they would not be useful as wildlife refuges and ranges. If wildlife refuges and ranges serve a valid purpose, and if they are, as they are, being adequately 16