The Meaning of the Wilderness Bill

The bill to create a national wilderness preservation system was introduced in the Congress in the summer of 1956. It wasn't until the summer of 1957, however, that the average person living in Ely, Minnesota, at the edge of the canoe country, heard of it. Many people were upset that their own Sen. Hubert Humphrey would sponsor such a bill without first consulting or even informing them. It was a particularly bad time for such a surprise; the Chandler South Mine had announced that it was closing, leaving this mining city with two working mines where once half a dozen had thrived. Residents were worried that the wilderness bill would weaken their economy even more, by striking at their healthiest industry, tourism. But no community leaders had seen the bill or knew its details.

The undercurrent of worry exploded into anger and wild charges at a banquet in Ely on July 10, 1957. A local lawyer told the group that he had written to Humphrey asking for information about the bill but had received no response. A banker then stood to say he had written to Rep. John Blatnik and to the state's other senator, Edward Thye, but had received only evasive replies. Soon the banquet hall was buzzing with rumors that the bill would condemn local resorts, ban outboard motors, and even expand the current wilderness—known then as the "Roadless Areas" and now as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness—to include lakes and woods and homes right on the edge of town. The rumors spread quickly, and the weekly Ely Miner voiced outrage in its next issue. Publisher Fred Childers called Humphrey a "Brutus or Judas," and asked residents to write the senator in protest. "Again we wonder if the senator will listen to the voice of his constituents," Childers wrote, "or is he subject to pressure groups operating under the cloak of conservation." Childers charged that the bill would turn Ely into a ghost town and said, "The curtailment of our three basic industries—mining, lumbering and tourist business—without hope of replacement leaves no other alternative....Who wants to take the risk of investment with the hard work it entails in a town that offers NO POTENTIAL for a reasonable return?"

On August 8, 1957, the Miner reported that the U.S. Department of the Interior refused to approve a hundred-year mining lease requested by International Nickel Company on eight thousand acres of land at the edge of the wilderness. Test drilling had shown a potentially large deposit of low-grade copper and nickel sulfides, and for several years residents had been excited about the possible development of a new mine. The Miner blamed the negative decision on the wilderness bill and on conservationist pressure to stall development until passage of the wilderness bill outlawed it.

In reality, the decision was unrelated to the wilderness bill, but the timing made things much harder for Sen. Humphrey, and, of course, for Sigurd and Elizabeth Olson (shown at left in February 1957). People stopped talking and turned away whenever Sigurd or Elizabeth entered a gathering. Ely Chamber of Commerce secretary Stan Pechaver expressed the breach in a letter to Humphrey: "Sig Olson (of Ely, we're sorry to say), is not a member of any organization active in local affairs....He does not speak for any of our organizations." Even the Olsons' First Presbyterian Church turned a cold shoulder. The minister supported Sigurd and asked Elizabeth if he could post a quote from Olson's writings, but he said the congregation's governing board would not let Olson's name be attached to the quote. Elizabeth refused to accept the restriction. "Anything that happens up here I get blamed for," Sigurd wrote to a friend.

Sigurd had a brief reprieve in late July and early August, when he and the Voyageurs paddled for 400 miles along northern Saskatchewan (click here for an article on that trip, with photos), but when he arrived back in Ely the story about the copper-nickel permit denial had just been published and a new round of acrimony had begun. "Welcome back from the wilds of Canada, my friend," Humphrey wrote. "I am sure that the temperature around Ely has been somewhat warmer than you found in the Canadian wilds!" The senator added a handwritten postscript: "I need your help!"

Sigurd told Humphrey on August 14 that fighting "the hysterical outcries" would not be easy. "The statement that people could lose their homes in Ely should the bill go through is actually believed by many people," he wrote. "It will take time to repair the damage that has been done. Eventually the truth will prevail."

To that end, Sigurd arranged to speak on "The Meaning of the Wilderness Bill" before the Lutheran Men's Club of Ely, on August 20, 1957. Below is the text of his speech. He told Humphrey the next day, "I believe as a result of this talk and the attendant publicity that we have won some friends and that more people understand what it is all about." But he didn't convince the Ely Miiner. On September 5 the paper published an article about the wilderness bill that accused Sigurd of "openly and vigorously advocating the prohibition of the use of outboard motors" and claimed that he had "made the boast and prediction that he will effectuate such a ban to follow the airplane ban effectuated by Presidential Order." As the text of the speech below shows, this clearly distorted the truth, and Olson responded on September 10, calling the accusation that he was working to eliminate outboard motors "an absolute falsehood." "The bill states specifically," he continued, "that present regulations and established uses will not be changed in this area. In its application to this region the Superior National Forest is specifically exempted. Canoeists and resort people may use outboards as they always have."

Sigurd's comments clearly were intended to apply to the wilderness bill before Congress, not as a promise that Congress would never in the future consider different legislation that might curtail outboard motors in the canoe country. It is a measure of the hostility Olson's name generated in Ely that this letter would still be cited nearly forty years later (and more than a decade after his death) as evidence that he had lied. By the 1990s, much of the outboard motor use had been prohibited, but the changes were the result of an act of Congress passed in 1978, twenty-one years after Sigurd wrote his letter to the Miner. By that time widespread public opinion had demanded the change.

Here, then, is Sigurd's attempt to explain the wilderness bill to a hostile audience in his hometown.

The Wilderness Preservation Bill sponsored by Senator Hubert Humphrey and many other congressmen from across the nation is a bi-partisan measure that has come in for a great deal of attention during the past month. It is my purpose to attempt to clear up some of the misunderstandings that have arisen in the hope that fears will be allayed and public support for this sound concept of land use be fostered.

This bill has been the concern of conservationists from all over the nation for a number of years. Written and sponsored by the Wilderness Society of Washington, D.C. with the help and advice of other conservation organizations, it represents the thinking and conviction of thousands of people. Senator Humphrey is to be commended for his vision and his sponsorship of a measure all proponents believe will mean much to the present and future happiness of our people.

Introduced for the first time in Congress two years ago, it has been widely circulated and discussed and many articles and editorials have appeared in newspapers and magazines from coast to coast. It is true no public field hearings have been held as yet, only committee hearings in Washington for the bureaus concerned as well as for both opponents and proponents. Before the next Congress convenes a new bill will be drafted incorporating the criticisms and suggestions that have been made to date and I know expressions from this region will receive serious consideration. No doubt next year field hearings will be held in all areas affected and I am confident that as a result Ely will see in this measure a guarantee to its future welfare and prosperity.

The reason for this bill is to give the wilderness regions of this country congressional sanction and approval, a status they have never enjoyed. Until now they have existed solely through bureau sufferance, established by departmental regulations and policy. To date the Departments of Interior and Agriculture have done a splendid job in preserving them, but it is possible that a change of administration could eliminate them by a stroke of the pen. If the bill is passed, Congress would say in effect: "We believe in the wilderness reservations that our departments have created. We feel they are important to the welfare and happiness of our people, so important that before any changes are made, full opportunity must be given to weigh the values concerned so that no hasty and irrevocable decisions destroy them."

The natural resources within such areas will not be wasted or frozen. they will be a reserve for the future and like a saving's account will be withdrawn or used with extreme care and only when such withdrawals are proven more important than the wilderness values involved. It will be no interference with the concept of multiple use in 90 percent of the national forests, and in the wilderness and roadless areas—which are a small percentage of the gross acreage—through congressional sanction they will fulfill their highest public use as the wilderness they were created to preserve.

The preservation of wilderness areas is a spiritual and cultural necessity and the gravest scrutiny should be given to any program of development which might destroy them. With our expanding population, growing at the rate of three million people annually, a predicted total by 1975 of 200 million, with the concurrent expansion of our vast industrial complex, the pressures on these last reserves of primitive America will become so great that additional safeguards must be set up to save them. Without congressional approval and support they may be lost within the next few decades.

All of the wilderness reservations in the United States total only 55 million acres out of the 2 billion gross acreage of the continent, less than 3 percent of the total. As far as the national forests are concerned, only 14 million acres have been set aside, less than 1 percent of the total. The claim therefore that the entire country is being reverted to wilderness status is therefore without foundation.

We are concerned only with this very small percentage of our lands, an acreage which in the light of the growing recreational needs of our people is highly important. In the case of the Superior National Forest, this bill is concerned with the Roadless Area of 1,038,000 acres out of a total for the forest of almost 4 million. This quarter of the forest has been designated as a Roadless Area because of its uniqueness and high recreational value. First set aside as a primitive area in 1926, it has been the concern of the Forest Service and conservation groups ever since. Keep clearly in mind that three quarters of the Superior National Forest does not come under the intent or the provisions of this bill, merely the now famous wilderness canoe country south of the border.

Under this legislation additions or deletions of this area would come under the survey of Congress and of the departments involved. Adequate opportunity for hearings would be given all concerned. The statement that under this measure the government could acquire homes in the city of Ely or resorts outside the Roadless Areas has no validity. The bill is concerned with the wilderness as established and the government is not interested in the slightest in developed areas of towns or adjacently improved regions. Judging by the difficulty and enormous governmental expense in purchasing the private properties within the boundaries of the Roadless Areas, the endless negotiations with owners, the fact that during the past thirty years the private lands within them have been reduced from approximately 120,000 acres to 30,000, with completion still far in the future, there is nothing to worry about. The Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife...[note: there is a line of missing text here, where Sigurd apparently typed beyond the end of the page]...problem to acquire inholdings without thinking about enlargement. Furthermore congressional appropriation committees would never sanction such additions. The fact that there have been no substantial additions or deletions since 1939 should be a source of reassurance.

One issue which has been given a great deal of attention is the clause referring to motor boats and mechanical transport. This language was inserted to combat uses in other areas where private concessions are held for operations in national parks. Because the wilderness character of the areas concerned was threatened by such use, it was deemed wise to eliminate such practices. The language reads as follows:

"Such practices should be recognized as non-conforming uses of the areas of wilderness involved and shall be terminated when ever this can be effected with equity to or in agreement with those making such use."

There are no motor boat concessions in the Superior Roadless Areas and the bill states specifically that such uses may be continued where established under the regulations of the U.S. Forest Service as they are now. There is nothing in the bill which bars motor boats or the use of outboards on boats or canoes. I feel personally that it would not be too much to consider setting aside some of the interior lakes for canoe use, allowing the use as now of motors on the larger waters adjacent to the resort areas. I am confident that such an arrangement would meet with the approval of the many thousands who come here to enjoy the solitude and quiet of canoe travel.

I am cognizant and respectful of the concern for the economic welfare of Ely and feel that when the intent of the Wilderness Bill is fully understood this concern will be met satisfactorily. If the famous wilderness canoe country of this area—which is possibly better known because of its uniqueness and beauty than any other in the United States—is preserved, Ely is bound to benefit, its economy remain stabilized and prosperous not only now but in the future.

As I understand it, granting of a lease to International Nickel involves many complex factors on both sides of the border, among them recent rich finds of ore in Canada, the relatively low grade of the Kawishiwi deposit, present and future supplies as well as the need of a government subsidy should the development go in. While the bill does prohibit mining within the wilderness regions of the system, it has no effect on over 90 percent of all national forest lands. The new mining law of 1956, welcomed by the U.S. Forest Service and supported by all major conservation groups, gave some degree of protection to national forests inasmuch as prospectors no longer have exclusive timber and surface rights.

As to the Roadless Areas of the Superior National Forest, the conservation groups of the nation want to be assured that after 35 years of trying to save the wilderness canoe country, it will not become another Sudbury, Ontario where for many miles around all life and vegetation has been destroyed through a similar [copper-nickel] development. They want to be sure that the waters of the Kawishiwi, Fall Lake, Basswood, Crooked and Lac la Croix will not become polluted by the poisonous discharges from copper-nickel refineries and that the forests and the many resorts between that development and the border will still be serving the recreational needs of the middle west for a long time to come.

Perhaps studies have now been made of which we are not aware. Perhaps International Nickel can now guarantee that no catastrophe of this nature will happen to the Ely area. Before any such development is undertaken we must all be sure that the great social values of this region will not be sacrificed for a temporary mining operation. I am confident that every citizen of the area, whether for or against the present bill, will feel the same.

It is true that the present prospecting has been confined largely to lands just outside the borders of the Roadless Areas, but it must also be remembered that this area, while outside the borders, is within the borders of the Shipstead-Nolan Act of 1931, which protected the shorelines and where for the first time Congress recognized the high recreational values of the entire area, also that should any development occur it may affect the Roadless Areas themselves.

In short, let us weigh carefully the conflicting values involved that could destroy this heritage that belongs not only to us, but to the people of the United States. Let us ponder the wise action of Canada in withdrawing from prospecting or mining not only the Quetico, but all of the Provincial Parks in Ontario in the belief that the social values of such lands are more important than the economic. Let us consider thoughtfully the effect on our homes and on the countryside all of us cherish and love.

In conclusion, I merely want to say that the purpose of the Wilderness Preservation Bill is to make sure that future generations may enjoy what has been given to us in trust. Natural areas in the days to come will contribute immeasurably to the mental health and spiritual well-being of all the people for all time. Dr. William Menninger, one of the world's greatest psychiatrists, said recently: "The greatest threat to America's future is mental ill health. In view of that I am deeply interested and concerned about the preservation of our wilderness system and all that it implies."

Let us hold to the slogan that Ely has made famous—"Where the Wilderness Begins"—and in the years to come be a haven for all those who seek beauty and tranquility. Along that road lies Ely's best hope for happiness and prosperity."