Of these federally owned lands in Arizona approximately 10 million acres or over 30 percent of the total are reserved for special use for national parks, historic sites, recreation, wildlife, wilderness-type areas, military and airfields, power, reclamation, and flood control. We in Arizona want no further inroads upon our public lands with exclusion of mining, grazing, mass recreation, timbering, or other uses vital to our present and future economy and welfare. We object to the bill's proposals to set aside lands of which 94 percent are located in the 11 Western States and Alaska, for a single wilderness purpose of much less importance to the Nation than the benefits to all States of multiple productive use of these lands.

In 1959, prior to the April 1959 hearing at Phoenix, Ariz., on legislation to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System, the legislature of the State of Arizona in a joint memorial prayed:

That the Congress of the United States consider carefully the impact of the proposed legislation relating to a national wilderness system since it appears to the legislature of the State of Arizona that enactment of such a measure will unduly restrict the use of the wilderness areas and retard the economic development of this State. Moreover, the U.S. Government now controls vast areas of land within this State and any approach to this problem should be in the direction of relinquishing control rather than subjecting additional areas of land within this State to Federal control or cumbersome regulations.

The setting aside of areas of virgin wilderness for posterity, has emotional appeal-especially to those in States which have no such publicly owned areas but we cannot afford to act in accordance with the provisions of S. 174.

Nor do we need to. Our wilderness needs have been taken care of generously under existing laws. The Forest Service has said that there is no appreciable wilderness attrition. Therefore, there is no immediate or near future need for this bill, and as future needs develop they can be met under present laws as has been done in the past.

No legislation providing for the setting aside of large areas of land to be limited to a single use or to be excluded from any productive use, should be passed without requirement of thorough investigation of all resources in the lands involved. Investigation of mineral resources admittedly would be difficult but it would be necessary if important resources were to be saved. Where would we be if large sections of the limited areas of uranium bearing lands had been set aside in roadless areas, inaccessible by airplane or other mechanical means, 30 years ago when uranium was comparatively worthless? Resultant delay in discovery of this essential mineral could have been disastrous.

The need for maximum utilization of lands will continue to increase. The need for minerals will also increase and new ones will be added to the list of those vital to our security and welfare. The search for them must only be restricted because of clear need. We cannot simply choose to find them outside of wild areas. They may not be there, and we must find them.

Miners of Arizona and other Western States are greatly troubled by the steady withdrawal of public lands for single purpose uses, and many others share their belief that no area of over 5,000 acres should be set aside without being delimited and specifically approved by Congress.

Because of the fact that this bill does not require congressional approval of such areas, and for the above stated and other good reasons, Arizona mining is opposed to S. 174.

Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Knight.

At this point the copy of the telegram to the chairman from Mr. Charles F. Willis, State secretary, Arizona Small Mine Operators Association, Phoenix, Ariz., will be made a part of the record.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

(The telegram follows:)

Hon. W. N. ASPINALL,

PHOENIX, ARIZ., November 3, 1961.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
Sacramento, Calif.:

Please incorporate into the record of the hearings on S. 174 being held by your committee in Sacramento, Calif., on November 6, 1961, this expression of opposition to the enactment of that bill. We protest against the enactment of this or any other so-called wilderness legislation at least until such time as a report and recommendations are received from the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission.

There is no evidence at this time that any wilderness legislation is needed as there is ample authority under present laws for the creating of areas with similar intent and purpose. One does not have to look back very far to the time when most of the land areas of our Western States were in the wilderness classification, but it was the exploration and development of these lands which built these States and created the resources so necessary to our national security.

The present world situation is such that we must do nothing to threaten the self-sufficiency of basic resources of the country in the event of conflict. One cannot conceive of anyone advocating a threat to our national security in order that a relatively few hunters and fishermen may have large areas of lands set aside for their future pleasure and recreation. Experience has shown that lands already set aside have attracted but few visitors.

On behalf of the 3,000 members of the Arizona Small Mine Operators Association we protest against any destruction or limitation of the foundations upon which our western public land States have grown and prospered.

CHARLES F. WILLIS,

State Secretary, Arizona Small Mine Operators Association. Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Louis D. Gordon, executive secretary of the Nevada Mining Association, Inc.

Mr. John Dozier will be next, a member of the Madera County Chamber of Commerce.

You may proceed, Mr. Gordon.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS D. GORDON, PHOENIX, ARIZ., REPRESENTING THE NEVADA MINING ASSOCIATION, INC.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, on behalf of Nevada Mining Association, I am filing this statement in opposition to enactment of the wilderness bill (S. 174).

The Nevada Mining Association consists of 29 regular members representing active mining companies in the State of Nevada; 57 affiliate members representing purveyors of machinery, equipment, and supplies to the mining industry; and 277 associate members, representing mining engineers, geologists, mining attorneys, stockholders in mining companies, and others interested in the mining industry.

I might say, were it not for the condition of the lead and zinc industry, the discontinuance of the tungsten industry and the state of

the gold industry, our membership would be two or three times as great.

The proposed wilderness system comprises about 65 million acres. Practically all areas planned to be withdrawn are in the Western States. It is proposed that these vast areas be withdrawn for the exclusive use of those seeking recreation.

It is submitted that those seeking such recreation must have physical stamina and an understanding of what is necessary for survival in remote, isolated, and primitive areas; as the bill prohibits permanent roads, the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, landing of aircraft, or any other mechanical transport for delivery of persons or supplies, any temporary road, any structure, or any installation in excess of the minimum required for the administration of the areas for the purposes of the act.

It would limit the use of wilderness areas to pedestrians or to those who can ride horses and are familiar with, in case of prolonged visits, the use of packhorses, their care, proper utilization, and equipment. It is admitted that in the case of wealthy visitors "bearers" could be employed to transport the necessary supplies and equipment. Consequently, the use of wilderness areas is limited to those sufficiently fortunate to have the physical fitness or financial resources necessary to make possible their visits to such regions.

The bill is, in effect, class legislation as it would segregate millions of acres of public land for the use and questionable enjoyment of a small minority of our citizens.

It is admitted that recreational areas are both necessary and desirable but it is claimed upon what is believed to be reliable authority that 95 percent of the use of our national parks is on 5 percent of the land along established roads. What then would be the use for purposes of recreation of lands with no roads?

For the benefit of the honorable gentleman from Alaska, the Federal Government owns approximately 80 percent of the land area of the State of Nevada, and we are second to Alaska in federally owned land.

To date, land withdrawals by the Federal Government for various purposes in Nevada is probably larger in amount than that of any of the Western States, and included in such withdrawn areas are lands having some actual and a great potential mineral value.

The increase in the population in the State of Nevada in the past 10 years poses a serious problem for the residents and taxpayers of our State, making necessary the full utilization of our natural resources, profitable employment for our citizens, and revenue necessary to care for the additional cost of State government, the tremendous increase in school population, and the necessity for new and better school facilities.

It is submitted that prospecting and mining in proposed wilderness areas will in no wise detract from their desirability for recreational purposes and that the necessary roads and communication facilities, should mines be found and developed, would be a decided asset for purposes of accessibility and could result in saving to lives of many who know nothing of what is required to exist in primitive regions. In addition, it is submitted that the States wherein such lands are located should have a voice in designating any proposed withdraw

als as it is the well-being and economy of such States that will be affected.

The mineral production of our State to date is on the order of some $212 billion and had the wilderness bill been in effect at the time Nevada became a State, we would have no mines at the present time, as practically all of our mines are in areas which could very well be considered "wilderness."

As far as the mining industry is concerned, we pay in wages alone as much as $40 million a year.

The Nevada Mining Association favors multiple use of our public lands, for the benefit of all of our citizens, and not the use of such lands by a privileged minority.

If your honorable committee decides to recommend some type of wilderness legislation, we urge the adopting of the following amend

ment:

Nothing in this act shall affect the application of the mining laws to any land included in the wilderness system.

It seems reasonable and necessary, in view of the present international situation, that our natural resources be utilized to the greatest possible extent; that our basic industries be preserved; and I submit that this can be accomplished and, at the same time, provide for reasonable and necessary recreational facilities.

As far as the position of the State of Nevada on the wilderness bill is concerned, I am citing Senate Joint Resolution No. 6 of the Nevada Legislature which was passed by both houses at the 1961 session of the legislature and signed by the Governor:

Whereas the economy of the State of Nevada is based upon its agriculture, mining, sheep and cattle industries, and the use of its waters for irrigation and related purposes; and

Whereas more than 86 percent of the land area of the State of Nevada is federally owned; and

Whereas the designation as wilderness or primitive areas of any of such federally owned lands would restrict the full utilization of natural resources and deny to the natural resources industries of the State of Nevada the right to develop wisely the natural resources contained in such areas within the State, and would also deny ready access to these areas to millions of American citizens, all to the detriment of such industries and to the people of the State of Nevada; and

Whereas one of the great potential industries of the State of Nevada is its tourist trade and wildlife attractions: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of Nevada, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of Nevada respectfully memoralizes the Congress of the United States to prevent the designation of any lands in Nevada as primitive or wilderness areas and the creation of lock-up areas for a singlepurpose use which would deny to the natural resources industries the right to develop wisely the natural resources of such areas and would be to the detriment of such industries and to the people of the State of Nevada; and be it further

Resolved, That all agencies administering Federal lands do so with the view of developing the full multiple use of the lands to further the general welfare and the economy of the State of Nevada; and be it further

Resolved, That certified copies of this resolution be prepared and transmitted forthwith by the legislative counsel to the Vice President of the United States, Speaker of the House of Representatives, each member of Nevada's congressional delegation, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture.

In addition, at the conference of 11 western Governors held in Salt Lake City, Utah, May 14-17, 1961, the following resolution was

unanimously adopted-I cannot understand the alleged position of Governor Brown, but I understand this resolution was passed unanimously as to public lands:

As to public lands: (1) since the mineralized area of economic potential in public lands makes up but a small fraction of 1 percent of the total area, it is not to the advantage of the Western States or of the Nation as a whole that these mineralized areas be withdrawn for all time or locked up in wilderness systems or other Federal reserves; furthermore, under no circumstances should there be any permanent withdrawals of any Federal lands without the concurrence of the Governor of the State in which the lands are located; and (2) an adequate study be made to determine if the true intent of the principle of multiple use of public lands is being properly carried out in all areas by the agencies of the Government.

Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.

We will now hear from Mr. John C. Dozier, a member of the Madera County Chamber of Commerce.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. DOZIER, PROFESSIONAL FORESTER, REPRESENTING THE MADERA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. DOZIER, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am John C. Dozier, a professional forester, representing the Madera County Chamber of Commerce. Madera County owes its name to the Spanish word for wood or timber. The city of Madera had its origin as a shipping point for lumber about 1874. Now, 87 years later, Madera County is producing over 50 million board-feet of lumber per year on a sustained yield basis.

We feel that the lumber industry, vital to the economy of our county, is being threatened by the wilderness bill as the timber upon which the industry is based is located on Federal land, administered by the Forest Service.

The principle of multiple use is being practiced on the area from which the timber is being taken. Timber access roads, designed by the Forest Service and built by the lumber companies, serve not only the lumber industry but thousands of recreationists as well. These roads also aid in the development of hydroelectric projects by giving access to damsites and powerhouses.

Reservoirs created by these projects give added enjoyment to recreationists. A recent example of multiple use, with divergent interests serving each other harmoniously, is the Mammoth Pool project in our area. Access, close to the damsite, was provided over a road built by a lumber company. The dam was constructed and a reservoir formed by the power company. This year, on the first day of fishing season, 1.200 people were counted in the area. Without roads and without the reservoir only a handful of people could have enjoyed this type of recreation. This is but one example of multiple use in our area. There are many more.

Studies made at the University of California have indicated an increase of 70 percent in the number of visits to national forests, within the State, between 1955 and 1965. Meanwhile, the percent of people visiting the wilderness-type areas is expected to increase from 2.4 to 2.9 percent during the same period. This small but articulate minority already has 8 percent of the total net national