industries. In the future these lands may give us an important oil industry. If S. 174 is enacted into law and a large portion of our State placed under this system, our general economy would suffer. We would also lose the future potential of new wealth from the public

lands of our State.

A wilderness system will stifle our free enterprise system now enjoyed under our Republic. Since the Constitution of the United States was written and adopted, we in the United States of America have operated under the free enterprise system. Our Constitution provides for the protection of life, liberty, and property. Without property in private ownership, we cannot enjoy the protection of liberty and the protection of property as is provided by the Constitu

tion.

Since the 17th century, the United States of America has become one of the most powerful and richest nations in the world. This has been accomplished primarily and entirely as a result of the free enterprise system. In order to have a rich, powerful, and progressive nation, we must continue to have the production of new wealth from our

resources.

To date, the only source of basically new wealth that means anything to our economy is from the minerals mostly under the ground and agricultural production. To set aside vast areas of public domain and, at the same time, place these areas in a deep freeze, will hamper and restrict the exploration and development of natural resources necessary to our economy.

In the past, and even at the present time, some national writers have and are giving the general public the impression that livestock men are despoilers of the land. Because of this, a desire has been created by many conservation-minded people to preserve large areas of public domain from destruction. The livestock people have not been destructive of the range; on the contrary, livestock men, as a whole, have been conservationists and are conservation minded.

No one realizes better than the people who are engaged in the livestock industry that true conservation must be practiced if a livestock entity is to be continued and preserved. The livestock industry has created each and every year new wealth which has helped to build a strong economy, and has become part of the tax structure. The livestock men, who are among the greatest lovers of the outdoors, have recognized that nature has provided renewable resources for the use and welfare of the general public.

Those who propose the National Wilderness Preservation System have the concept that this system will preserve the beauty of the national wilderness, and that recreation for the general public will be provided.

History has shown that where large areas of public domain are closed to livestock grazing and timbering, everything of value from the standpoint of beauty and recreation will be destroyed. For example, many of the forest areas and wilderness areas that have been closed to grazing and timbering develop such a growth of dry grass and timber that when nature strikes with a bolt of lightning, the whole area becomes a massive conflagration. Then valuable resources such as grass, wildlife, as well as timber, which makes up part of the valuable watershed, are completely destroyed.

Dedicated proponents of the wilderness preservation system expound the theory that somewhere in our land people must have the opportunity of getting back to nature, away from it all, and be able to view and see areas untrammeled by man. Man was put upon this earth to live, progress, develop, and use the resources wisely. Therefore, is there anything wrong with this animal we call man trammeling all of the area of the United States?

Of all living things on earth, man is supposed to be the most intelligent and most favored. We have been unable to understand how the wilderness legislation itself does anything for the overall cause of recreation for the general public. In order to get into wilderness areas, it would appear that the individual must hike or ride horses. The number of people living in this century who can take time to hike and who have the money and resources and time to hire horses and so forth, are extremely limited.

Therefore, it would appear as if this type of beauty would be limited to an exceptionally small minority who either have wealth and time on their hands, or others who are not engaged in making a living.

Should a National Wilderness Preservation System be established in which roadbuilding is not allowed, the building of trails is not allowed, the establishment of airports is not permitted, and waterways are closed to motorboats, and so forth, it would be almost impossible to fight forest fires.

Our opposition to a National Wilderness Preservation System does not mean that we are opposed to all forms of land being in public ownership. We have many lands now administered by the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Park Service, the Indian Service, and the Reclamation Service, where a good job is being done under the multiple-use concept.

We do feel, however, that other than small areas which are clearly in the public interest to remain in public ownership, that the majority of these lands should be gradually put to a higher use, and placed in private ownership. The development of this Nation's resources can be accomplished only by the majority of our public lands being placed eventually in private ownership. The public domain, with the exception of a few small areas, should be converted to private ownership as soon as possible.

Forest Service statistics show that over a 12-month period approximately 700,000 people visited the forest with automobiles, drove over the roads, enjoyed the scenery, and communed with nature. There was also approximately 6,000 who went on foot and camped. Something less than one individual out of a thousand who visited the forest areas had any desire to wander on foot and camp out in a wild and primitive state. Anyone who wants to go on foot into the mountains, into the forest, or into inaccessible areas on the public domain can do so today. It does not seem expedient or logical to pass wilderness legislation to give the public the privilege of doing what they already can do. The only important result would be the creating of a much larger tax burden for the general public.

Before wilderness legislation is considered or passed by Congress without first knowing the results of a closer related study which Congress authorized previously, all facts and information contained in the study should first be analyzed.

We understand this study will be available within a year. The viewpoint of the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission, when available, should be studied carefully. We feel that proposed wilderness legislation leaves administration of large areas of the public lands to the decisions of administrators who are not answerable directly to the people. This contains a dangerous precedent in that it amounts to an abandonment of congressional authority insofar as public lands are concerned.

I want to thank the chairman and members of the House subcommittee and the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee for arranging to hold these hearings in order that proponents of a National Wilderness Preservation System and those opposed may have the opportunity of stating their respective positions.

Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Swallow.

Our next witness is Frank P. Knight, director of the Arizona Department of Mineral Resources, Phoenix.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF FRANK P. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES, PHOENIX, ARIZ.

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank P. Knight. I am director of the Arizona Department of Mineral Resources.

The Arizona Department of Mineral Resources and the Arizona Small Mine Operators Association, with over 3,100 members, oppose the wilderness bill, S. 174, now before your committee because it would allow the permanent commitment of 58,135,178 acres of federally owned land to single purpose use without adequate determination of either the need or the advisability of so doing.

The United States can ill afford the denial of multiple, productive use of such large areas with unknown natural resources without more careful consideration; nor can it afford to allow areas to be locked up for single purpose use without more positive control than is proposed in this bill.

Fortunately, your committee has seen the need for further investigation, and it is hoped that hearings will be held in affected areas of more Western States, including Arizona.

It also is fortunate that your committee soon will have available the report and recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which should be very helpful in determining the need of single-use wilderness areas.

Unfortunately, it is not a simple matter to determine the highest. use of our lands, and therefore, multiple use should be allowed until single wilderness use is clearly indicated. After all, wildlife and cattle are little harmed by nearby mining or timbering or by each other.

Millions of sportsmen and campers in eastern and other regions of the country prefer the accessible woods and lakes they can frequent and love, even though the lands may be in productive use for timber, minerals, livestock, or other needs. Few can afford the time and money for pack trips into the vast roadless areas of wilderness in the United States which are far from most homes.

One reason given for withdrawing these huge areas is the feardeveloped by proponents of the bill into belief of certainty-that posterity will have no wilderness if we do not set it aside now. It is doubtful that it makes any appreciable difference to posterity whether it is done now or 20 years from now. It also is very unlikely that posterity will benefit more by establishment of wilderness-type areas under new laws rather than under those which have provided for the present areas.

I would like to read, in this connection, from the statement of Richard McArdle, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, on S. 174, before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 85th Congress, 1st session, June 19, 1957:

Despite these problems, fire, insects, and disease and so forth, the Department of Agriculture firmly believes that wilderness areas should and will be continued as part of the multiple-use administration of the national forests. Its record of wilderness area administration over three decades supports this statement of policy. Some proponents of the pending bill feel there will be gradual encroachment and attrition in these wilderness areas as the country's population continues to grow and the economic need for the timber and the other resources included in the wilderness areas becomes more acute. Such attrition has not occurred.

This brings to mind the last time I saw a pileated woodpecker in the forests of Maine. Just over a ridge I ran on to an old dodger, thoroughly grown, and with a lovely cover, rough grouse. With the drift of population from the east to west, I wonder if it is in Mr. McArdle's mind that as the easterners came in here and took over the wilderness, they might leave behind areas back east that might make up the deficiency.

It is evident to us that posterity would suffer from the single purpose legislation proposed in S. 174. It is amazing to us that wilderness enthusiasts are so little aware that the minerals upon which our civilization is based and the other important products of the lands necessary to our welfare and security, are of such tremendous importance that we cannot afford chances of even delay in their future availability, let alone their possible permanent loss.

New surface discoveries of major ore deposits are unlikely. Buried ores must be found to yield the metals of the future. These facts make the proposals of S. 174 and the continuous withdrawal of public lands from mineral entry particularly alarming. Fortunately, our dependence upon minerals is evident wherever anyone stops to look, and of course is generally recognized. However, most of the people, including proponents of S. 174, know little about mining and what must be done if we are to have our mineral and other needs supplied. Nor do they understand the impracticality of the bill's provisions for Presidential permits and regulations for prospecting or mining.

It would be impractical, if not impossible, and certainly unattractive, to try to prospect for buried ore deposits under the restrictions of S. 174. It would be bad enough even if the bill allowed motorized equipment and air travel, because even then one would not want to spend the considerable sums necessary without assurance that he alone would have the right to proceed to develop, extract, and sell the ores which he found. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone would undertake the bill's difficult procedure of securing a permit.

Consequently, it is unlikely that anyone would apply for Presidential authorization and regulation for mining. It would be particularly unlikely that anyone would do so who is familiar with long

established regions where mining has been allowed subject to regulations of the administrative body. There never has been any mining because the regulations never have appeared.

Over 6 years have passed since mining agreed to the multiple-use law under which it lost its right to that part of the surface of a new mining location which is not necessary for mining purposes.

Pursuant to other provisions of the same law, many of the old claims have forfeited surface rights not needed for mining. Former abuses were thus corrected and proper mining, grazing, timbering, watershed, and recreational uses now get along pretty well.

If regulation is needed to prevent an inconsiderate party from doing needless unsightly work in scenic areas, mining probably would go along with it. But mining denies the need or advisability of its elimination from the huge areas subject to the single-use provisions of S. 174.

There now are 83 wilderness-type areas established in the national forests of 14 States. Their total is 14,664,053 acres, of which 13,764,325 acres-94 percent-are in the 11 Western States. These lands plus an additional 18,484,900 acres of national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, and game ranges, make a total of 32,249,200 acres in the 11 Western States which are committed by S. 174 to single-purpose use. This is an area larger than the State of New York, and it is 8.9 percent of the total of 362,445,000 acres of federally owned land in these Western States. An additional 25,885,978 acres of national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, and game rangelands in Alaska also are committed by S. 174 to single purpose use.

The Alaskan lands so committed are 7.1 percent of her 362,194,000 acres of federally owned lands, whereas 8 percent of the federally owned lands in the 11 Western States is committed by S. 174. Yet Alaska is given special treatment in the bill. True, 99.1 percent of her total area is federally owned, but federally owned lands in the 11 States range in percentage from 29.6 in Washington to 86.4 in Nevada and there are large areas of federally controlled Indian lands besides. Therefore, the adverse impact of S. 174 upon the economy of many if not all of them would probably equal or exceed that upon Alaska. Federally owned land in Arizona committed by S. 174 to single use totals 3,752,927 acres, or 11.6 percent of the total lands in the State so owned. Arizona land ownership as of June 30, 1960, is as follows: