The Turning Point: Correspondence with Howard Zahniser and Sen.Hubert Humphrey about Positive Effect of Wilderness Bill Changes, September 27-October 4, 1957

In the spring of 1957, conservationists for and against the creation of a national wilderness preservation system began a new round of debate in Congress. The summer and fall of 1957 became very difficult for Sigurd in his hometown, where most residents strongly opposed the idea, fearing it would destroy the local economy and take away their freedom to use the wilderness they loved in the ways they had used it for decades. In September 1957 Sigurd proposed changes to the July 22 draft of the wilderness bill that would make clear that the bill was not eliminating outboard motors or proposing an expansion of the size of the canoe country wilderness. (At the time, this wilderness, known today as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, was called the Superior Roadless Areas.) . To see those changes, read Working on the Wilderness Bill.

The correspondence below between Sigurd, Howard Zahniser of the Wilderness Society, Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey and Humphrey assistant Howard Haugerud show that the proposed new language in the bill was essential to a successful public meeting in Ely that became the turning point of the campaign in northern Minnesota. For more complete background, and to see these changes in the context of other events during the first crucial period in the wilderness bill campaign, read Sigurd Olson and the Wilderness Act: 1956 and 1957.

Ely, Minnesota
Sept 27, 1957

Dear Zahnie:

The meeting with the heads of Ely organizations went off extremely well. I had an opportunity to explain the bill quite thoroughly and covered the major points as follows:

1. Motor boats - I read your proposed language ie explaining that the following was being considered not to change the intent of the original bill but to clarify - "and nothing in this act shall preclude the continuance within these Roadless Areas of any already established use of motor boats."

2. Extension of Roadless Areas - "Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as providing for the addition to these roadless Areas of any privately owned lands or waters outside their present exterior boundaries."

The only thing that worries me about this language is whether or not it will freeze the present boundaries and make it impossible to add important areas in the future. Of course as you mentioned over the phone if new areas were considered, it would take another act of Congress inasmuch as present acquisition funds apply only to the present Roadless Areas. However, better have this checked legally.

3. Mining - I explained the conservationists concern over any copper-nickel development and what might happen to the Kawishiwi watershed including Fall Lake, Basswood and Crooked-La Croix, not to mention the blight of a possible refining operation in the future, also that there were many other factors that had a bearing on Int. Nickel going in- new finds, a glutted nickel stockpile- possible government subsidy in order to finance a low grade deposit.

As to the new language, while it made an impression ie - "mining and reservoir construction is prohibited unless the President, upon his determination that such use in the specific area will better serve the interests of the US than will its denial, shall authorize such use in accordance with such restrictions as the President deems desirable," did not seem important inasmuch as this understanding is a general one and invocable for any area in case of national emergency. It is exactly the thought of the QS Committee ie:

"If mineral deposits of major value are found the public welfare must be the deciding factor in their use and development. If it cannot be demonstrated that their commercial use is of greater public value than the wilderness that will be destroyed such use should be prohibited. Should mining developments be warranted than everything possible should be done to screen operations and to minimize the destruction of recreational value."

4. National Wilderness Preservation Council

Even though I gave them the proposed language for the new bill that the Council will have only advisory powers and no jurisdictional powers whatsoever, the feeling was still one of suspicion and distrust. While I see the value of such a Council, I still wonder if this section could not be deleted for the time being. Actually inasmuch as the heads of the bureaus are members, nothing would prevent them from meeting with conservationists frequently to discuss wilderness problems and the working out of the Act itself. Sometime in the future a Council or Committee could be set up to further the purposes of the act if it was deemed necessary.

General Conclusions

We must make it crystal clear that we have not been forced into these so-called concessions, that the new proposed language merely clarifies what was already in the bill but doesn't change the meaning an iota. This information should be gotten to the Ely people and all those concerned. As I stated earlier, this furor could have been prevented if the language was clarified originally to the point where half a dozen interpretations were not possible.

The organizations have been asked to study the old draft and submit their findings to Senator Humphrey and also be prepared to ask questions when he comes to Ely. They are all looking forward to his visit and judging by the tenor of the meeting last night, it should be possible to win friends.

Frankly, I was much encouraged after the meeting and felt that we have come a long way from the hysterical days of July and August. I suggested to Willard Domich, the young attorney who started the conflagration that he ask you for copies of the old bill and also of the revisions in the letter to Senator Murray of July 22nd.

Much has been made of the fact that the Ely people were not kept informed and that is a fault of mine and ours generally. In the future let's try to remedy this not only in this area but in others where similar situations might develop. Local groups like to feel they are part of the big picture, would like to have a hand in the development of ideas, resent bitterly coming in the back door. Time and again mention was made of the need of local opinion to influence national policies that might affect them. Hard to do I know, but let's give it serious thought.

Several encouraging things happened last night. Domich suggested to the group itself that if they needed information to ask me, also Fred Childers the antagonistic editor of the Ely Miner came around and suggested that he and I sit down and have a long talk. Domich and Childers repeated time and again that they are for conservation that they felt the need of a constructive program etc etc and should not be always against something. Of course I don't take any of this too seriously after fighting these battles in this community for some 35 years, but it just might be that the idea of wilderness preservation and the great value of the wilderness canoe country is beginning to penetrate. Jake Pete owner of the houseboats on Basswood Lake asked me privately after the meeting if I really thought it was for the economic welfare of Ely to protect the wilderness. I may be wrong in my hunch, but I feel today that we are over the hump and that with some additional clearing of ideas and the all important visit of Senator Humphrey we will be in a stronger position than before.

I appreciated your call last night just before the meeting. I needed a little moral support.

Kindest regards

CC - Humphrey, Kelly, Hubachek, Magie

Zahniser reponds:

1 October 1957

Mr. Sigurd Olson
Ely, Minnesota

Dear Sig:

The encouragement that you report in your letter of September 27 following the meeting in Ely of those who were critical of the Wilderness Bill is certainly an encouragement for me also, and your promptness in sending the letter is deeply appreciated.

Dave Brower is going to be here this week, and I shall discuss your letter in detail with him. I have already talked over the telephone with Howard Haugerud in Senator Humphrey's office. Then it will not be long before we shall all be together at the Natural Resources Council meeting.

I agree thoroughly with your emphasis that in proposing the language with regard to motor boats and land acquisition and with regard to any other clarification of the bill we should, as you say, "make it crystal clear that we have not been forced into these so-called concessions, that the new proposed language merely clarifies what was already in the bill but does not change the meaning."

It does seem to me, Sig, that this would not be the time to propose any elimination of the wilderness council section from the bill. There are many very great advantages that can be anticipated from the functioning of this council, and none of these advantages, I believe, is subject to criticism that have been made of the council either through misunderstanding or through fearful misinterpretation. It seems to me, therefore, that we should continue our emphasis on the real importance of the council and do everything that we can to eliminate any misleading language and positively make clear its real purposes. Then we should continue, I would suggest, to emphasize the implications of the changes that have already been made. This includes a very important change as far as criticisms are involved that have implied an overriding function of the council; namely, changing the makeup of the council to the point where it now provides that the heads of the Bureaus administering areas of wilderness will actually make up a majority of the council. Out of nine members of the now-proposed council only three will be citizens. This change, like the others that we have been discussing, is a clarifying one and one that helps make sure that the purposes that we have had in mind will actually be served and

not some other. In other words, we never expected that the proposed Wilderness Preservation Council would try to run the Forest Service or the National Park Service or other agencies of government. This latest change in makeup would seem to us to remove the very possibility for such, even though I cannot see how the council could have justified these fears before. You, with your experience with the Quetico-Superior Committee, I am sure, can see the advantages and also the reasonableness of our assurances that the proposed council will not be misused.

But, Sig, I should like to discuss this with you at due length before going any further with it. I write even at this length thus promptly only because of the fact that carbons of your letter have been sent to others, including Senator Humphrey, and I wanted to make sure that these thoughts would be in mind when the possibility of deleting the section regarding the council from the bill might be considered.

We certainly must see what we can do to carry on a more adequate local information program. Of course, in many ways we have carried on a more intensive educational effort with regard to this proposed legislation than I am aware has been carried on with regard to any other such proposal. Many thousands, tens of thousands, copies of the general proposal for a wilderness bill were distributed and many responses received before ever a bill was drafted. Since the introduction of the legislation, hundreds of thousands of copies of information about the bill--each of them including its full text--have been distributed, and many, many comments have been received, and used. So we have excellent broad basis on which to conduct a further educational campaign. I believe that we greatly need now a simply stated, effectively illustrated brochure that could be sent widely, giving information, citing sources of further information, and inviting criticism and comments. We should make special efforts to get these, in fact supplies of such a brochure, into the hands of the people who live in the communities near the areas of wilderness.

Well, I must not stretch this further. It certainly was good that you could be at that meeting and be so effective. More power to you!

Senator Humphrey responds to Sigurd's letter:

October 2, 1957

Mr. Sigurd F. Olson
Box 157
Ely, Minnesota

Dear Sig:

I have the copy of your letter of September 27, which you sent to Mr. H. Zahniser. You are doing a wonderful job in getting across the true provisions of this bill to the people of the Ely area.

I have had several letters from Mr. Domich, and apparently he is preparing a list of objections that the organizations he represents wishes to make against 1176. You are a hundred per cent correct in saying that much of our trouble is a direct result from our lack of ground work in the local area. Keep up your great work Sig, and let me know if there is anything I should be doing.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Hubert H. Humphrey

Senator Humphrey's assistant, Howard Haugerud, also responds to Sigurd's letter:

October 4, 1957

Mr. Sigurd F. Olson
Box 157
Ely, Minnesota

My dear Mr. Olson:

This is just a note to thank you for your efforts in behalf of the wilderness legislation. My father-in-law, Mr. Louis Stafford, has told me of the intense feeling either for or against this bill in the Ely area. It is one thing to fight this battle from twelve hundred miles away and another to spend all of your time on the firing ground and to live with the thing twenty-four hours a day. You are doing a wonderful job, and I know how much Senator Humphrey appreciates your work and values your friendship.

It must have been an excellent meeting, and I have gone over your letter to Mr. Zaniser very carefully. Things look encouraging.

Mary and I saw your son Bob and his wife on a number of occasions while we were in Minneapolis, but though we tried, we were never able to get together. Where are they stationed now?

Best wishes and let us know of any developments.

Sincerely,

Howard Haugerud
Assistant to Senator Humphrey