concentrate on wrecking that last five is subversive of human rights and is un-American activity against the Nation's beauty.

In all the hearings on the wilderness bill-and people sometimes ask which will end first, the hearings or the wilderness-in all the wilderness conferences, in all the various debates, I have never heard an intelligent man argue that he is against wilderness. The importance of wilderness can be presumed. The width of public support for it has grown and there is no longer any question of the public temper. Almost everyone knows that we must save wilderness.

But those few whose personal profit is at stake identify themselves and reveal a lip-service love by asking, "How much wilderness do the wilderness lovers want?"

Let's restate the question.

How little wilderness do the wilderness exploiters want America to have? Into how small an unspoiled area would they crowd all the people, in our surely more populous future, who want to see some of the world as God made it? Into how small a zoo would they jam the endangered species of wilderness wildlife-"our only companions in what would otherwise be a lonely voyage among dead atoms and dying stars"? How many acres would they leave for the evolutionary force, for the organic diversity that is essential to the very chain of life, vital to our survival? Into what small look-alike cages would they put man himself, how tight would they close his circuit, with only feedback to sustain him and an overrising howl to drive him mad?

We dare not kill any more wilderness. The wilderness bill is the first step to keep alive what has already been set aside. We hope that in due course the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission will report its awareness of the meaning of wilderness to the quality of America and that it will advocate, support, and assure the setting aside of more wilderness. As we watch the selfish rapacious march on Point Reyes, we wonder if there are even 2 years left in which to save enough of anything, anywhere.

The important thing today is to stop the compromise, shilly-shally, and hesitation that selfish interests press upon us and to get on with the job. Every week of delay brings another short-term profit to a few and forecloses forever on something irreplaceable in the national

estate.

We urge this committee to act with the speed the occasion demands. There is much more critical conservation work to be done. Let us have this tremendously important first step behind us.

Can we not set a deadline: That a good strong wilderness bill, such as President Kennedy has asked for, be signed into law on the day we celebrate Lincoln's birthday? Let the public's wilderness be emancipated from the private few on the day that remembers the man who did so much for human rights.

Justice William O. Douglas told a San Francisco audience last April:

We need to expand our conception of man's liberty, enlarge his individual rights, and give them priority over science.

Those human rights include the right to put one's face in clear, pure water, to discover the wonders of sphagnum moss, and to hear the song of whippoorwills at dawn in a forest where the wilderness bowl is unbroken.

77350 62-pt. 3-11

If we don't act, if the political pressure is made so unbearable that our representatives dare not act now, at long last, and if we the public do not counteract that pressure in spite of all the busy little things that fill our days, then wilderness will go and we will deserve the loss. But our children don't.

Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Brower.

Our next witness is Philip W. Faulconer of Berkeley; then Dr. Bradley; then Mrs. Howard.

You may proceed, Mr. Faulconer.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP W. FAULCONER, BERKELEY, CALIF.

Mr. FAULCONER. Mr. Chairman, and respected members of the committee, I appreciate a chance to express my views as a private citizen. I am Philip W. Faulconer, a registered architect, native Californian, and fifelong outdoorsman.

This hearing is being conducted in a building surrounded by areas of grass and trees. Such parks occupy appreciable areas in the city. Should not this land be providing much-needed housing, parking areas, and so forth? A much smaller percentage of our public land is set aside as undeveloped area, accessible primarily for recreation. Should not these areas be opened to commercial activities?

I would emphasize here two reasons for not developing such remaining open lands.

First, precisely because of the vast growth in population, with its increase in noise, dirt, and crowding. We must assure that certain areas are kept for rest and recreation in natural surroundings. City parks are costly to create and maintain, yet few would advocate their abolition.

In the wild areas all that is needed is protection from the irreversible changes which result from man-made developments. If and when all existing commercial areas have been developed to maximum productivity such areas would still be available, as needed for develop

ment.

Secondly, on this question of so-called minority and majority activities. All of us belong to various minorities, young or old, hikers or nonhikers, clubmen or nonclubmen, swimmers or nonswimmers. For instance, why should public money be spent to build a swimming pool on public land when not everyone likes to swim and many are not physically able to? As a nation or community, we must recognize there are all types of human needs and preferences. Those who live in the city use the products of the miner, the logmen, the stockmen, and go to the country for their recreation. Conversely, those who choose to live and work in the country need, and depend on, the products and the services of the cities.

This interdependence on each other and on natural resources is natural and inevitable. Mankind must find a balance and harmonious relationship on the earth. The wild areas have their place in this scheme, and I urge my Government to enact all suitable protective legislation.

Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Faulconer.

Our next witness is Dr. H. C. Bradley. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF H. C. BRADLEY, M.D., BERKELEY, CALIF.

Dr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harold Bradley. I am a retired professor. Berkeley is my home. Officially I represent only Mrs. Bradley and myself at this hearing in support of the wilderness bill, S. 174. In an unofficial way I believe I do represent a large number of our citizens who feel as I do about wilderness, but who for various reasons do not appear here today to express their feelings and who may not even get around to writing.

I grew up in the little town of Berkeley as it was in the 1880's and 1890's when genuine wilderness lay only a few blocks from my homean open invitation to spend an hour after school roaming through some part of it. Weekend knapsack trips, promoted by my father, took me as far east as Mount Diablo and as far west as Mount Tamalpais and the Bolinas region. These were frequent and highly prized adventures. Later my radius increased to the Berkshires and Adirondack Mountains, into Canada, and included most of the mountains. and forest and desert wilderness areas of the country. Suffice it to say that I have been a wilderness user and lover through a fairly long life of work and play-in which play has been synonymous with the recreation which I found in the wilderness-and to which I still turn eagerly and often for the delightful refreshment of spirit and the invigoration which I find there. It is in the hope that opportunities for such enjoyment as I have had will be perpetuated for future citizens that I appear before you today.

The wilderness bill has developed some very determined opposition from a small but vocal minority of our people. It is motivated by the desire for economic advantage and is predicated on the assumption that there are no values which cannot be expressed in terms of the dollar. I do not question the sincerity of their beliefs. They are well organized, skilled in the techniques of applying pressure, well supplied with the means to further their purpose-which is to defeat this bill and so leave our remaining wilderness areas unprotected and subject to easy exploitation. They have resorted frequently to misleading or even entirely false statements in their efforts to defeat a wilderness bill.

One of these statements is that wilderness can only be enjoyed by the young and physically rugged individuals. Another is that it is available only to the wealthy. I appear here as a living refutation of both these assertions. As a youth in high school and college, I was ambitious to make a place on an athletic team-on any athletic teamand I tried for most of them without success. But I could walkand walking did take me where I liked to go which usually was into wilderness. As for money during those early years, I had practically none. My father was a professor in the little University of California of those days-and mowing lawns was no more profitable for a boy then than it is today. So I made my own sleeping bag with my mother's help and I made my knapsack. A frying pan and a couple of nesting cans comprised the cooking kit. With a little dry staple food from the pantry shelf I could head off into a happy wilderness expedition that might last 2 days or 2 weeks. Some of my young friends today start their wilderness experience under very

similar meager conditions. Wilderness experience does not require rugged strength nor a prosperous bank account. It requires love and imagination and a willingness to live the simple life without some of the comforts we are accustomed to. My own family of boys met wilderness on the same limited terms. All of them are still devoted wilderness travelers and are bringing up their growing families in exactly the same way.

As we advance into the senior citizen's bracket, the type of wilderness experience naturally changes to fit one's needs and abilities. My wife and I save up for a boat trip down Glen Canyon, for example, where the boatman supplies the equipment, the food, and the necessary skills at a price of about $18 a day. Ten delightful restful days in one of the world's most beautiful wilderness canyons is well worth saving for. We have made it four times and we expect to go once more, and for the last time, not because we are tired of the exquisite scenery or the absence of the comforts of home, but because Glen Canyon Dam will soon be complete and this great wilderness will no longer be there: an example of how our wilderness is disappearing when unprotected.

Another misstatement by the opposition is that this bill locks up an area from future exploitation and throws the key away. On the contrary, it places the key in the hands of Congress where it has always belonged, instead of in the hands of the appointive officers of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. If the real need for the tangible resources of a given protected area ever should arise and it appears clearly in the public interest, Congress, elected to represent the owners' wishes, can quickly use the key to reopen the door for exploitation.

A wilderness bill has been under close study for about 5 years. The original bill has been changed and amended scores of times. Now it would appear to have met all reasonable objections while still providing protection for a small group of wild areas all within the public domain. The Senate adopted the bill with a vote of 78 to 8. This is about as close to a unanimous endorsement of a controversial measure as can ever be expected. It is fair to assume that such a 90-percent favorable reaction represents quite well the basic wishes of the public. The 10-percent opposition may also represent fairly the minority groups who prefer to have no areas of wilderness preserved for future generations to enjoy, for it has grown perfectly clear that any unprotected wild areas today will soon be exploited and destroyed as wilderness.

I think your committee must be very much interested in the interest of the public. You are representing the public and I want to point out the following, that is, the 5-year battle to save Dinosaur National Monument from those who would have liked to see it dammed and thereby destroyed as a wilderness area and a national park unit. It is perfectly clear that the public opposition to the change was overwhelming. The great upper Colorado project, which the public did not oppose, stood rooted to the runway because it carried a provision to violate the Dinosaur Monument. When that objectionable feature was finally removed, the major project got underway at once. Here again it is my guess that about 90 percent of the public was opposed to violation of the monument while perhaps 10 percent was acquiescent or actively in favor. I believe some such ratio prevails today on the

wilderness bill-though the issue has been confused purposefully by such misrepresentations as I have mentioned. What the public really thinks of our wilderness areas in national parks or national forests can be judged by the mounting figures on public visitation and use during the last 10 years. While these figures are subject to minor fluctuations depending on many factors, there is no concealing the increased interest of the public in getting into reserved and beautiful wild country for recreation. I believe it is the best indication we have as to what the general public feels it wants and needs.

The wilderness bill represents a major statesmanlike effort to anticipate and meet this growing demand.

Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Mrs. Lisa Howard, of Sacramento, representing the county of San Diego Fish and Game Commission.

Then we will hear from Mrs. Weber.

STATEMENT OF MRS. LISA HOWARD, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Mrs. HOWARD. My name is Lisa Howard, and I live here in Sacramento. But I wish to present this statement on behalf of Dr. David G. Jessop, chairman of the San Diego County Fish & Game Commission, who is unable to attend in person.

He does support the bill? May I quote him?

The San Diego County Fish & Game Commission would like to be placed on record as favoring S. 174, the wilderness bill. We favor the principles of this bill because we have seen our own county interlaced with roads, built up with resorts and sandwich stands and made completely accessible to anyone who has energy enough to drive his car.

We would like to have retained somewhere in the United States an area or areas where, if a person wants to expend the energy, he can get away from the sound of portable radios and the squeal of brakes.

We sincerely hope you will further the principles involved in this bill.

I agree with him heartily.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mrs. Howard.

Mrs. HOWARD. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. We next have Mrs. H. M. Weber, representing the California Federation of Women's Clubs.

STATEMENT OF MRS. H. M. WEBER, REPRESENTING THE

CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Mrs. WEBER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Mrs. H. M. Weber, chairman of the Conservation of Forest, Water & Soil, DeAnza District, California Federation of Women's Clubs. De Anza District, California Federal of Women's Clubs wishes respectfully to express its support of the wilderness bill, which is now before your committee.

The 25 clubs which comprise DeAnza District are geographically located in the arid and semiarid regions of California.

Our concern with water supply is, therefore, a paramount consideration. Few informed scientists will question the close relationship between forests of trees or other plant growth with an adequate rainfall, conservation of ground waters and prevention of soil erosion.