bers of votes count more than the consideration of the efforts of a few. We believe our industry essential to the economy of our country. It can grow no more and it should not be further limited. New State or Federal agencies interested in the use of the out-of-doors can only add to confusion in the administration of public lands now handled by many existing agencies. We have always shown an honest desire to cooperate with State and Federal agencies.

We do not need more laws. We need a better understanding of those we have. Our many Federal agencies are tumbling over each other to administer our Federal lands. Less agencies could do betterand we cattlemen are ready and willing to continue a friendly and cooperative effort to always better the management of our great mountainous and prairie lands.

We are critical of the commercialization of our national parks as we see them. This is where I would like to discuss this with Senator Murray. I think he and I would agree on this.

Would it not have been better to never have let an automobile in Yellowstone Park? When only horse-drawn coaches carried the visitors to the wonders of this great playground the American people witnessed a truly wilderness area. Undoubtedly, public pressure and those who wished to "sell" nature's wonders insisted on good highways and comfortable hotels for the millions of our tourists now touring Yellowstone Park.

What is to prevent the same pressure from exploiting wilderness areas that might be set aside under a law such as this bill provides? We cattlemen oppose this national wilderness preservation system bill.

That is all I wish to present.

Mr. STONG. You and the advocates of the wilderness bill might have something in common on the proposal to restrict transport to horses. Do you have something to add, Mr. Dressler?

Mr. DRESSLER. I am just here with Mr. Milburn to substantiate what he said. I don't have a prepared statement, but I will say that some of the previous speakers, like Mr. Essling, brought out some points that very well fit the cattle industry inasmuch as we own land, privately owned.

We have privately owned lands that are in wilderness areas and that are presently being administered by the Forest Service, and which lands serve as part of an operation or as a basis for the cattle industry. We have concern over the idea of a new administration, a new law that would put in a new bureau to administer apparently what would appear to us to be a separate and a special-use group. It looks to me like it would be an overlapping of duty. I think that the bureaus that presently administer these lands are adequate.

There are areas that lend themselves in the United States, mountainous areas in the West, the Rocky Mountains, the Sierras, and up and down the coastline from Canada to Mexico, lend themselves based on their natural offering. I think it deserves a lot of consideration, and we should explore those possibilities. In doing so be careful not to destroy what has been built up when we tend to increase and build one thing-not to step on one that is already there and destroy it. I want to say also that Mr. Mosebrook brought out several things that we would have to go along with.

These previous men have done quite a job. I am just a rancher from out in the State of Nevada, first vice president of the American National Cattlemen's Association, and I feel that the cattlemen have to take the position of opposing this bill.

Mr. STONG. Do you have any questions?

Mr. Wood. I would like to ask Mr. Milburn a question. The argument has been advanced to Senator Anderson that many of these areas, or a great deal of the high mountain areas, to be included in wilderness are becoming less and less profitable for operation or grazing by livestock and that for that reason they can be better put to use for wilderness area. Is it true that the livestock people are withdrawing from these mountainous areas because of the economy, or is it because of stricter regulations in the administration of the areas?

Mr. MILBURN. Very likely both, although there are some areas of the country in which there are no livestock because practically no grass grows there, or livestock has never been admitted there. It is probably out of the question to economically graze livestock in some of the higher areas, in real rough, rugged areas.

As we all believe, as we stockmen believe, we have to have and should have these recreation areas. We are just trying to defend our part in the areas that now exist, where we have grazing rights, not to eliminate the cattlemen, not to injure the forest lumber business, and not to destroy the watershed. As an observer of the logging industry, I really am alarmed at the method of logging nowadays as applied over the country as compared to other years. That's not to criticize the logging industry, but I understand it is the pressure of the Government. It is certainly far from soil-conservation methods, the methods that they use in removing all sticks of timber. Perhaps it is the use of larger machinery or something. We, naturally, who have grown up in the West and lived in the West are just as concerned about the preservation of our natural resources, anyway, and nobody gets any more pleasure out of entertaining the public than we do.

We are just here to protect our interest in what is left of the West and what we call recreational areas. We are concerned about too many of them gradually encroaching on what we now are permitted to graze on, and the ultimate elimination of livestock from those areas.

Mr. Wood. You do not object to the designation of high, inaccessible areas, then, being included in these areas?

Mr. MILBURN. No, sir. I think we would be capable of enjoying them with them.

Mr. WOOD. That is all I have.

Mr. DRESSLER. I would like to add to that, if I would be permitted. I think that the Forest Service is, in many instances, adequately doing that. I think it is only a matter, rather than passing a new law and putting in a new bureau which has to be paid for, that these duties be extended and they be asked to do other things, rather than to create another bureau, which only means a conflict effort, and, in many instances, overlapping duty. As I have traveled over the country, I don't believe that it is practical for the people that live way in the far east to all get out to a wilderness area.

I think there are wilderness areas in these Eastern States that need to be explored and looked at and, probably, checked and made available closer. A lot of people don't have the opportunity because they

don't have the time. If some of these areas were explored, shaped up, and put into use where they could serve in that capacity, it would serve the people in a greater multitude and serve more of the people.

Mr. STONG. Thank you very much. I know Senator Murray is disappointed that he could not be here when a witness from Montana was appearing, but his attendance at another committee was necessary. Mr. MILBURN. Thank you.

Mr. STONG. The next witness is Mr. Joseph Penfold, of the Izaak Walton League of America.

STATEMENT OF J. W. PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Stong, I am J. W. Penfold, conservation director of the Izaak Walton League.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this further opportunity to comment on the wilderness bill, which we consider important conservation legislation. We wish to commend highly the sponsors of the bill, both those in Congress and those outside, for their continuing efforts to improve and clarify the measure so as to meet valid objections.

The position of the Izaak Walton League, with respect to S. 4028, was established at its recent national convention in Colorado Springs by adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas the protection and perpetuation of wilderness was one of the major conservation principles upon which the Izaak Walton League was founded; and Whereas the league from its earliest days has steadfastly supported programs at National, State, and local levels for the protection and perpetuation of wilderness; and

Whereas the wilderness system developed within our national forests, national parks, wildlife refuges, Indian reservations, and public-domain lands has demonstrated its great public value in land-management programs of the Federal Government; and

Whereas the pressures being multiplied on wilderness by population expansion, swiftly growing urbanization, industrialization, and increasingly intensive development of all resources may mean detriment and loss unless wilderness preservation is recognized as an important component of sound land-management policy: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., in its 36th annual convention assembled this 15th day of May 1958 in Colorado Springs, Colo., That the league reaffirms its traditional policy of support of wilderness preservation and respectfully urges the Congress to take such legislative actions as will establish wilderness preservation as national policy in the management of the Federal public lands for the total welfare of present and future generations and commends to the Congress, the wilderness-preservation principles embodied in revisions of S. 1176.

The resolution, Mr. Chairman, refers to S. 1176, in its revised form, which since has been reintroduced as a clean bill, S. 4028.

The bill would accomplish what we in the Izaak Walton League believe to be of basic importance-granting formal recognition and approval by Congress of wilderness preservation as an essential component of public policy in the administration of the total Federal land-management program.

The bill would grant formal congressional approval and sanction to wilderness policies and programs long since in operation, in most instances, and which have been adopted by the departments, primarily by administrative action, because of demonstrated public need. This, too, seems to us to be of basic importance.

Beyond this, the bill seeks to provide a basic set of ground rules which can be uniformly applied by (1) the executive departments in carrying out the public policy, and, (2) by Congress in appraising the manner in which the congressional mandate is being carried out.

The proposed ground rules also provide, and properly, for an orderly procedure whereby additions to, modifications of, and eliminations from designated wilderness may be made and which emphasize the prime responsibility of the executive departments to carry out the public policy, at the same time keeping Congress itself currently informed.

It might be important for the league, at this point, to express its opinion on the relationship between the wilderness bill and the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Act, which recently became law and is now in the initial processes of implementation.

In the ORRR Act, Congress adopted, as a matter of public policy, its determination that future generations of Americans shall be assured of having had preserved and available to them the quantity and quality of outdoor recreation resource opportunities which they will require.

Congress, in authorizing the 3-year study, took the important step which should furnish the evaluated data and understanding upon which we each, at our own level, can develop specific action programs to fulfill the public policy Congress has adopted.

Congress has instructed the Commission to make its inventory, evaluation, and recommendations on a truly comprehensive basis. Congress did not, however, grant to the Committee, itself, authority to modify or establish public policy. Congress rightfully retained that to itself.

Similarly, the wilderness bill would formally establish public policy without, I might add, making any determination as to how much or how little designated wilderness there shall be in the future. With wilderness preservation adopted as public policy by Congress, the ORRR Commission will have a far more firm base from which to launch its studies of wilderness as part of, and as related to, the total outdoor recreation resource, as well as in its relationship to the rest of outdoor America, present and future. Similarly, the Commission would have a far more firm base for its inventory, evaluations, and recommendations, if the Coordination Act amendment bill, the duck-stamp bills, S. 3051 and S. 3185, and other similar basic conservation legislation is enacted, strengthening both national policy and programs.

The Commission, at the conclusion of its study and included in its summary report to Congress and the President, may recommend that more or less area be designated for wilderness and related purposes. Commission studies may show that wilderness is less a system of areas to which a single definition can be applied than it is a series of differing areas with differing values and potentials and to which differing definitions must necessarily be applied.

The basic wilderness policy would, however, be the solid core for each.

Such future growth and constructive change of policy, as most likely will be suggested by the Commission's studies, with regard to wilderness, just as to all other facets of the outdoor recreation resource, remains the prerogative of Congress.

The wilderness bill protects the status quo and the administrative programs already in operation. It properly leaves authority with the executive departments commensurate with the responsibilities they are charged with. It does not set in motion new programs of action which might compromise free review and evaluation by the ORRR Commission.

Hence, we in the league see no conflict between the principles of the wilderness bill and the ORRR Act. We find them compatible. Surely the adoption by Congress of the principles of wilderness preservation will assist the Commission positively in securing the evaluated data which Congress, and the rest of us, will require to do an adequate and constructive job of planning for America's outdoor future, including its wilderness aspect.

That concludes my statement.

Mr. STONG. Mr. Penfold, thank you very much.

Mr. Wood, have you any questions?

Mr. Wood. I would like to ask Mr. Penfold a question or two.

You had a great deal to do with this Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, and you worked with us on that. Do you think the studies will be hampered in any way by a failure to enact this wilderness legislation?

Mr. PENFOLD. I think that in all areas of study where there isn't already established on a national basis some kind of policy, a base from which to operate, that their studies will be hampered.

I mentioned the coordination act amendment as a very good example. If that legislation goes through, Congress then will have accepted a new policy and a broader policy toward recreation development in connection with water development programs.

If that is then national policy, the Commission can look at the situation as it is today, they can look at it in terms of a specific new policy, they can look at the future in terms of that, too. If they have to spend a lot of time groping around for "Well, now, what is policy?” And certainly wilderness is a very, very difficult thing to put your finger on, I think that their operations will be hampered. Or put it the other way around. I would rather put it the positive way. If Congress does adopt essentially this wilderness bill, the Commission will be off to a head start in making the kind of evaluation they want. Mr. WOOD. In other words, you think that would eliminate some of the work the Commission might have to do in trying to recommend a policy?

Mr. PENFOLD. I don't think there is any question about it, Mr. Wood. As you have seen today, there have been a long, long list of witnesses, and it could be 10 times as long, and each of them will have a somewhat different idea of what wilderness policy is as it exists today.

Consequently, the Commission in turn would have to go again to all of these people and hundreds of thousands more, and itself try to arrive at some basis of some definition of what wilderness is and then try to evaluate it, plus, minus, or in any direction.

Mr. Wood. The policies that have been followed, for instance, by the Forest Service, do you think they would be adequate for the Commission to work with? Of course, I realize that is not a policy set by Congress.

Mr. PENFOLD. It is not a policy set by Congress.