any of the thousands of other service establishments. And this goes for public officials, too, because county, State, and Federal taxes all originate in the land. It's a fact that farmers, miners, loggers, sawmill bands, construction workers, sheepherders, and cowboys are the ones whose activities start the dollars rolling toward our cash registers.

All of these basic economy producers are so engaged to satisfy the needs and wants of everyone. Take away any part of them in any community and the economy suffers.

This is particularly true in the West, with the exception of our few big urban centers where people seem to make their living by trading goods and services with one another, but if the thousands of small communities close to the land were not funneling their products and payrolls into the cities, the latter would not exist.

Fortunately for the wage earners of the West, every single member of this committee is a westerner and all 11 Western States are represented. I don't know how often this has been true of your committee, but it may be an act of divine providence rather than a fortunate coincidence to prevent hasty enactment of legislation like S. 4028 without giving the people of the West an opportunity to understand it and be heard on its proposals.

To give you an example of some of the expressions of opinion on the previous bills to create a national wilderness preservation system, let me cite from the Portland Oregonian for November 23, 1957, when the Association of Oregon Counties, made up of the county judges and commissioners from all the State's 36 counties, was reported to have received a report from its public lands committee which declared, "that the single-use concept of Senate bill 1176, the so-called wilderness bill, 'is contrary to the public interest' and asked for its defeat." This is the kind of grassroots opinion which the hearings held by this committee and its counterpart in the House in the last session of Congress didn't get into the record because hearings were held only in Washington, D. C.

Another example of western sentiment on this legislation is evident in the resolution approved by the Washington State Association of Soil Conservation District's meeting at Seattle, Wash., in December

1956.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the Senator from Washington is not here to hear this, because it directly concerns him.

The resolution read as follows:

Whereas the economic development of our States and Nation depends on the maximum ability of national forest lands to produce fiber, water, minerals, game and fish habitat, and recreation for all of the people; and

Whereas the establishment of excessive acreages of limited use, without ade quate consideration of all natural resource values, could have serious effects on local economies and overall public benefits: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, by the Washington State Association of Soil Conservation Districts, That before any national forest area is dedicated to a single-purpose use a thorough analysis and land-management plan be made for the area to assure that the long-term benefits of all natural resources are adequately protected; be it further

Resolved, That the Washington State Association of Soil Conservation Districts opposes singling out portions of national forest areas for limited use through any proposed act of Congress.

These examples which reflect western thinking, by the people whose livelihood is directly affected by the proposals contained in S. 4028,

indicate the necessity of taking this legislation to the West for full public hearings in every State so that their economy may be adequately represented in the record from which you gentlemen must decide what course of action to take.

I am sorry Senator Murray is not here, because I will make a personal reference to something he wrote.

Further argument for the necessity of holding hearings in the West on S. 4028, if you will pardon a personal reference to the chairman, is his statement to the members of this committee in the committee print, entitled "Full Development of Public Resources," dated June 16, 1958. He very kindly sent me a copy of this with his letter to conservationists under date of June 30, 1958. In his letter of transmittal to the members of this committee the chairman said:

The policies that are pursued in the development of these lands and resources in large measure guide the economic destiny of the West.

He was, of course, referring to the Federal lands.

Quoting further from his letter of transmittal to the members of this committee, Mr. Chairman, he said:

The authority placed in our committee for matters affecting public lands requires that we keep informed, and that we keep the public informed, on matters which affect these lands. The growing need to develop our public-lands resources requires more adequate information.

We need to acquaint the people of our Nation with the tremendous value of the Federal assets belonging to them so amounts budgeted to protecting resources, and amounts of investment made to expand use of the public lands can be related to the value of the assets with which we are dealing and potential revenues and benefits.

We wholly endorse his statement of the need to acquaint the people of our Nation with the tremendous value of the Federal lands belonging to them and what needs to be made in the way of investment to protect and expand the use of their resources. We hope that, as part of his program of acquainting the people of our Nation, he won't forget the people of the West who depend upon the good judgment of this committee in all matters to do with the protection, management, and use of the Federal lands.

Another reason for delaying action on S. 4028 is the recent creation of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which I am glad to learn, Senator, you have been appointed to by the Vice President as a member, which is charged with examining the outdoor recreational needs of the country and making specific recommendations as to how they are to be met.

Consideration of the present proposal in light of the study which will shortly be underway by the Recreation Review Commission is certainly premature.

I would now like to cite a few facts pertinent in the consideration of S. 4028. In the West our No. 1 landowner is Uncle Sam. The Government owns more than 400 million acres, or 53 percent of our total area. This means that Federal land policies in a big measure control our economy. How important that makes full consideration of westerners' views on any proposal to modify the management of Federal lands is abundantly clear. Without western hearings, how can our views be adequately transmitted to you gentlemen whose actions on the pending bill may determine the future of westerners yet unborn.

(Bell rings.)

Senator NEUBERGER. That means the rollcall has started on Senator Capehart's amendment, and I will have to leave. I wish to state for the record, however, that I would appreciate your doing one thing, if you would, with your associates in the Industrial Forestry Association, and that is this:

If you would take the amendments to S. 4028 which have been proposed here earlier today, and I think you were in the hearing room, by the Forest Service, speaking for the Agriculture Department, and by the Secretary of the Interior, and consider them and analyze them and review them. Then perhaps let me know in writing for the hearing record if the bulk of these amendments were adopted in substance if your organization perhaps could then encourage the passage of S. 4028.

Could you do that, Mr. Hagenstein?

Mr. HAGENSTEIN. I certainly will, sir.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much for coming today, Mr. Hagenstein. Say hello to your dear wife. Forgive me for rushing off. Mr. Stong, will you proceed with the hearings during my absence to go to the floor for the rollcall?

Mr. STONG. Yes, sir.

Please proceed.

Mr. HAGENSTEIN. Our increasing population, predicted to be 100 million more in 40 years, means increasing pressure on the land. Every acre must contribute all it can to our needs for food, wood, water, wildlife, and recreation.

Practical land management emphasizes highest use for each acre but it doesn't exclude other uses. There is no question but that in some areas there are paramount uses such as the growing of food crops on agricultural soils, the extraction of ores from mineral deposits, the management of certain areas exclusively for water and other areas exclusively for recreation because of their scenic wonders and historic values.

But most of our land in the West is capable of contributing two or more of these uses simultaneously. For example, a forest, which can be managed for a never-ending crop of wood, provides a permanent crop of water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial use, a continuing habitat for fish and game, in many areas can be used for grazing livestock, and always has many opportunities for picnicking, hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, and noise-free solitude for those who want to get away from it all.

In the West we have 140 million acres of national forests managed under the principle of multiple use. We have 132 million acres of national parks, monuments, and recreation areas, 6.8 million acres of wildlife refuges, and 725,000 acres of State parks.

All of these areas are dedicated to recreation in its many forms. Many of them are so developed with roads, campgrounds, trails, and shelters that they are available for all of our citizens for most every outdoor pursuit.

Some of the areas in the national forests are dedicated to exclusive use of wilderness recreationists. Called wilderness, wild, primitive, and limited areas, they are roadless and generally include vast areas of forests, waters, and open lands above timberline. They are generally remote and hence accessible to relatively few. Young families

with small children can't very well walk 15 or 20 miles into a wilderness, if they want to take the youngsters along. Older people on the average haven't the stamina to invade these areas very far.

There is an old saying in our business that you don't get old in our business, but that the same hills get higher and steeper.

Working men and women don't often have the time or money to explore these areas whose vastness requires either considerable time by foot or an expensive pack trip which few can afford. These areas also provide a real worry to the Federal forest managers who must protect them against fire and, in some instances, have been up against it when serious insect epidemics have broken out. Not only is it difficult to control fire and insects in these inaccessible areas, but there is a serious question as to the advisability of investing great sums in protection of forests managed under multiple use in Federal or other ownership adjacent to wilderness areas and running the risk of having fires or insect epidemics spill out of the wilderness into the managed

areas.

Having been one of the charter members of the Northwest Forest Pest Action Council and, currently, as chairman of the Western Forest Pest Committee which covers the 11 Western States, I know firsthand of the tremendous problems which confront us in saving timber from death over millions of acres from such pests as the spruce budworm. We have been spraying to control it for a decade in the Pacific Northwest and, in the last few years, Idaho and Montana have had to do a lot of it also.

I am sure, Mr. Stong, you are very familiar with that. Those of you from Colorado and Montana are well aware of the problem of the Englemann spruce beetle and all of you know of the pine beetles which have been taking their destructive toll for many years in every Western State.

In many parts of the West today there is more timber being destroyed each year by insects than all that consumed by fire or used by man.

I know from my boyhood experiences in fighting fire in Idaho that we often walked for 20 hours or more from the end of a road to the fire line. Because we were so exhausted after that long a hike with bedroll and tools to pack, we were of little use until we'd had a long rest. And by the time we were able to combat the flames, the fires were no longer small, so we often couldn't control them until either a major change occurred in the weather or the fire consumed all the fuel.

One of the fires I was on, almost 25 years ago, completely destroyed more than 200,000 acres of a national forest which no longer exists, the Selway. Had these areas been accessible, we probably could have minimized the damage and saved great quantities of timber, soil, wildlife, and just plain outdoors for recreation.

I am sure that all of you, flying as you do frequently over your States, know what I am talking about when I suggest that inaccessible areas are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to protect against the natural ravages of lightning-caused fires and the great hordes of insect pests which abound in nature.

No one is opposed to setting aside areas for wilderness solitude. The only question is, can we do it without adversely affecting the multiple

30973-58-8

use area adjacent or losing resources necessary for the maintenance of our western economy?

Naturally, most of the areas now set aside as wilderness and those proposed are in the West because that's where the Federal lands are. This also limits their use mostly to people in the West because the average citizen from far away neither has the time nor money to explore them by foot or pack train.

May I conclude by again urging that you listen to the many voices in the West, not just those from the "wilderness," but to everyone who wants to be heard on this and every proposal which will influence Federal land management. The only way you can do this is to take this committee into the West and hold hearings on S. 4028 in every single State whose jobs and payrolls it will affect.

Mr. STONG. I have no questions. Thank you very much for being here, sir.

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, sir.

Mr. STONG. The next witnesses are Mr. G. R. Milburn and Fred Dressler, of the American National Cattlemen's Association.

STATEMENT OF G. R. MILBURN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, DENVER, COLO., ACCOMPANIED BY FRED DRESSLER, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. MILBURN. My name is G. R. Jack Milburn. I live on a ranch, of which I am part owner and manager, near Grass Range, Mont. At present I am the president of the American National Cattlemen's Association, whose headquarters are at Denver, Colo.

In behalf of the American National Cattlemen's Association, which represents 29 State cattle associations, totaling some 200,000 members, I wish to oppose the national wilderness preservation system bill, S. 4028. The cattle producers of the country appreciate the value of a reasonable number of wildlife and wilderness areas in the United States, but we are concerned over the possibility of ever increasing numbers of such areas in the future.

We who live as close to the out-of-doors as anyone, are also concerned over the ever-increasing encroachment by the general public, because of roads and the automobile, and the airplane, on the few unexploited spaces still remaining in our country.

We do not believe these great resources of the range and timberlands were created for only the enjoyment of the general public. Our Nation was built by the development of our timberlands, our mineral deposits, and our grasslands by those who were rugged enough to do so. Ever-increasing pleasure areas will only lead to the elimination or further development of these resources and the possible destruction of timber and grass by carelessly set fires, the abuse of wildlife, and the destruction of watersheds.

We stockmen are numerically small and our position before lawmakers is not as strong as it should be. It seems nowadays that num