passed. These problems, of course, would be in addition to those with which the Commission must deal in any case the problems with which the Commission is more precisely designed to deal.

FACILITATING THE COMMISSION'S WORK

Both the conduct of the Commission's review and the carrying out of its recommendations will be facilitated by enactment of the wilderness bill, for the bill provides a policy, a program, and a clearinghouse that can aid the work of the Commission.

The wilderness bill will not disturb any existing balances as to recreation resources. By providing a policy for the existing areas of wilderness that are already being handled as a part of other and consistent programs, however, and providing for their continued administration by their present administrators, it will provide improved means for the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission to use, both in its conduct of the study and in its preparation of recommendations.

The National Wilderness Preservation Council to be established by the wilderness bill will be a central repository of files and information pertaining to wilderness. The Council can thus aid the Commission, and can provide a permanent repository for the information which the Commission may gather on wilderness. The Council, of course, will not be an administrative agency, nor will it be an advisory group that will have to be consulted. It will be a possible cooperator, if the Commission so desires.

Finally, the wilderness bill provides procedures for making additions, modifications, or eliminations. It thus provides a mechanism of value to the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission both in formulating recommendations it may have regarding any adjustments in areas of wilderness and in seeing how these recommendations can be put into effect.

Whatever the outdoor recreation review findings may be, they can more effectively and more efficiently be considered and carried out with the wilderness bill enacted and its programs and policies established. The wilderness bill provides mechanism and procedure for such purposes.

We should, therefore, pass the wilderness bill as a means of promoting the success of the outdoor recreation resources review.

NEED FOR WILDERNESS LEGISLATION

It is most important, however, to realize that, by establishing the outdoor recreation review and its Commission, we have not met the need that is provided for in the wilderness bill.

That need, in its broadest form, is for a national policy and program through which some areas of wilderness can be preserved. Related needs are for definitions, for guidelines as to proper uses of areas of wilderness being preserved, provisions regarding the economic uses existing within such areas, and procedures for handling in an orderly way any needed adjustments in the areas of wilderness, including the establishment of additional areas or the elimination of areas that might in the future be needed for other purposes. Over a period of more than a decade, the wilderness bill and the program it will establish and implement have been worked out to meet these needs.

It is especially fortunate that we have an opportunity to enact this bill and establish its program in an atmosphere without the bitter controversy that occurs when serious emergency threats bring to a focus the hazards that wilderness faces in our culture. Were we facing the many threats to which our remaining wilderness is subject, we might have a keener sense of the need for protective legislation, but we could not work it out on such a sound basis as we now can when the representatives of potentially conflicting interests can deal in a cooperative, constructive way with the problem.

BEFORE THE HORSE IS OUT

Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, when he introduced the wilderness bill on February 11, 1957, said:

Those of us in the Congress who are vitally interested in conservation are worried, and—

Senator Humphrey added

I think with good cause.

He went on to explain :

We see the pressure that is coming, and, as elected representatives, it is our clear duty to do something before the horse is out of the barn. There seems to

be a crisis every day in the world in which we live, and the only way we are going to change this is by looking ahead and taking timely action.

Senator Humphrey said:

That is what, in this wilderness bill, I propose we do. Instead of waiting until the crisis has engulfed us, I propose that we make secure the preservation of those areas that do now, in fact, constitute our national wilderness system * * *. Doing that now means providing security for what we already have, perpetuating the multiple-purpose programs we now have on these areas, and making sure that multiple purpose on these lands always includes wilderness preservation. In the language of the wilderness bill itself, the Congress, in adopting this measure—

recognizes that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, is destined to occupy and modify all areas within the United States, its Territories, and possessions except those that are designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition.

At the same time

the preservation of such designated areas of wilderness is recognized as a desirable policy of the Government of the United States of America for the health, welfare, knowledge, and happiness of its citizens of present and future generations.

Thus, the need for a policy and program is recognized, and the wilderness bill proceeds to meet this need, in a way that respects other needs, also.

REVIEWING IS NOT PROTECTING

The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission's undertaking is to conduct an inventory of all our outdoor recreation resources. Then, as the law says

the Commission *** in the light of the data so compiled *** shall determine the amount, kind, quality, and location of such outdoor recreation resources and opportunities as will be required by the year 1976 and the year 2000.

Finally, the Commission is directed to

recommend what policies should best be adopted and what programs be initiated, at each level of government and by private organizations and other citizen groups and interests, to meet such future requirements.

Important as these undertakings are-and they are of major importance they do not provide for the actual preservation of areas of wilderness. The recommendations of the Recreation Resources Com mission may call for less wilderness than is being preserved or, more likely, for more. Such recommendations, as pointed out earlier, can be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the wilderness bill, but the Recreation Commission will not have the authority to establish any areas or any policy.

DELAY-NEEDLESS, WASTEFUL, RISKY

It is through the wilderness bill that we now have the opportunity to establish a wilderness-preservation policy and program. To postpone this is to experience needless and confusing delay-wasteful deday-and, also, to run the risks of seeing areas of wilderness destroyed or diminished in ways that can be avoided, once we have a clear policy.

The Outdoor Recreation Commission is to present its recommendations by September of 1961-3 years hence. Before such recommendations can become effective, they must be incorporated in legislation, and the proposed legislation must go through all the stages through which the wilderness bill has already passed and those yet ahead. It would be optimistic to expect enactment of such a measure (or measures) by 1962, and reasonable to recognize that enactment might well be postponed till 1964. Thus, 4 to 6 years of delay are involved if action on the wilderness bill should be postponed for the completion of the out÷ door recreation resources review programs.

We should, certainly, go ahead with the already well-developed wilderness-preservation legislation, confident that the benefits of the recreation review can be applied to the program which the wilderness bill will establish.

APPENDED FOR THE RECORD

I am appending to this statement certain items for the record that will contribute further to an understanding of the need and urgency for enactment of this bill. The items include:

Saving the Wild, an editorial from the Washington Post, February 2, 1958.

Our American Wilderness, an article by Benita Tall in Science News Letter for February 8, 1958.

Our Wilderness System, with Facts About the National Wilderness System, a statement by Howard Zahniser, published by the National Wildlife Federation.

Westerners Should Study Wilderness Plan, an editorial from the Salt Lake Tribune, May 7, 1958.

New Kind of Tonic, a column entitled "Outdoor Empire," by Cal Queal, in the Denver Post, May 25, 1958.

Wilderness Must Be There, an editorial from the Christian Science Monitor, June 14, 1958.

Land Forever Wild, an editorial from the Washington Post, July 6, 1958.

Safeguarding the Wilderness, an article by John B. Oakes in the New York Times, July 13, 1958.

Wilderness Bill, an editorial from the New York Times, July 20,

1958.

Newspaper Formerly Opposing Wilderness Bill Voices Support for Revised Measure, a press release from the Wilderness Society.

Our Great Outdoors-What Are We Doing About It?, volume VII, No. 3 of Vital Issues, November 1957.

Letter (mimeographed) dated April 23, 1958, addressed to Hon. James B. Murray by Howard Zahniser, Washington representative, Trustees for Conservation.

(The items referred to are as follows:)

[The Washington Post, February 2, 1958]

SAVING THE WILD

Less than 100 years ago, much of this country was unsettled wilderness and Congress passed the Homestead Act to help extend man's dominion. Today, the problem is reversed; the need is to contain civilization, not extend it. That is why conservationists are asking Congress to pass the wilderness bill, which would keep some corners of the United States forever wild. Few bills seem more deserving of support than this proposal to "establish on public lands of the United States a national wilderness preservation system for the permanent good of the whole people."

Without safeguards, it is possible that within a few short decades no refuge. from civilization could be found anywhere in the United States. All the arts,

of man cannot recreate a virgin forest; once gone, wilderness is lost forever. Yet, strangely, the more men feel the pressures of a desperate civilization, the greater grows the hunger for a respite in the wilderness. It would be a national tragedy if no wholly unspoiled area existed (in the words of the bill) "where man himself is a member of the natural community, a wanderer who visits but does not remain and whose travels leave only trails."

The wilderness bill has received thoughtful Senate hearings, and several modifications have been made to meet administration objections. The proposal seems modest and workable. No new bureau would be created, and present land-agency jurisdictions would be maintained. But certain areas-amounting to only 8 percent of total acreage of the national forests-would be set aside in perpetuity as unimproved and unscarred wilderness. The bill would further establish a National Wilderness Preservation Council, an advisory group designed to foster use and enjoyment of the protected areas. Introduced in the Senate by Senator Hubert Humphrey, the bill enjoys wide bipartisan backing; it should be warmly approved.

[Science News Letter for February 8, 1958]

OUR AMERICAN WILDERNESS

The continental United States was a vast wilderness until a relatively few years ago. Today we are faced with the problem of preserving our remaining wilderness areas.

By Benita Tall

The United States of America includes a total of some 2,250 million acres. Two hundred years ago most of this land was wilderness, with seemingly boundless stands of pines, hemlocks, oaks, and with waterways and land equally untouched by man.

Today this wilderness has shrunk to approximately 58 million acres, or about 2.2 percent of the total land area. The Nation's remaining wilderness would fit an area the size of Michigan.

This wilderness is in peril; it may shrink still further. Roads, lumber, dams, reservoirs, and the demands for energy and power resources, such as oil and minerals, even recreation, when it involves changing the wilderness, are all very effective shrinking agents. They are also important to our economy and the business of living in the 20th century.

In a very real sense, however, the American wilderness is important. For the immigrant who arrived yesterday and for the fourth-generation American, it is a symbol for the Nation. The wilderness represents a pioneer heritage in which the individual, not machines and things, is valued.

The photograph on the cover of this week's Science News Letter shows just one of the Nation's wilderness areas. If some action is not taken soon, we may lose the opportunity of coming in close contact with these areas, such as the one near Crater Lake that lies in the crater of an ancient volcano in Crater Lake National Park, Oreg.

PROTECTING OUR HERITAGE

"Our pioneer heritage" is a fine phrase. Yet how does it lend support to the claims of wilderness against those of board-feet of lumber and miles of road?

The proposed National Wilderness Preservation Act (S. 1176) and companion bills in the House are designed to do just this: For the first time, if the legislation is passed, there will be a congressional law with the purpose of deliberately designating wilderness areas and protecting and preserving them.

The Wilderness Act is in many ways simply another step in a long history of practices designed for conservation and wildlife preservation. Since Thoreau extolled the virtues of the wilderness, there has been a long procession of Americans whose goal has been the preservation of some remnants of the American scene as it was when man first set foot on this continent.

Through their efforts, and the procession has included Presidents as well as poets, we have our national parks, forests, and national wildlife refuges and ranges. These public lands were set aside, as in the typical case of the nationalpark system, to "provide for the enjoyment" of the land “in such manner and by such means as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." Anyone is free to wander through the national parks. The national forests are administered to yield the "most productive use for the permanent good of the whole people." Many of the parks, forests, and refuges serve more than one purpose. For example, the public can hunt and fish in some forests, or farm refuge lands.

The governmental agencies which administer these lands provide roads and shelter for visitors, food for wildlife, and, in the case of national forests, they help to maintain a continuous supply of our forest resources.

The National Park Service even pays $600,000 a year to pick up park guests' litter. Private and commercial interests are concerned with some of this public land; about 20,000 ranchers pay to graze on national-forest ranges.

The national parks, forests, and refuges are controlled, protected, and supervised lands. More than 200 million acres are represented by these three services. Within these 200 million-plus acres lie most of our 58 million acres of wilderness. In contrast to the parks and forests, the wilderness is land let alone. The novelty of the Wilderness Act is that it would establish a system for the preservation of land untouched by any kind of civilized hand, no matter how well intentioned. It gives us a national policy and insures adequate legal protection against commercial pressures.

Under present conditions, each administrative head of the three services, parks, forests, and fish and wildlife, determines the disposal of land within his jurisdiction. At a time when pressures for control and use of natural resources is growing, a clear-cut distinction between land resources and wilderness is necessary.

LEGAL STATUS FOR WILDERNESS

What the wilderness bill does is give wilderness status by legally excluding roads and other improvements. Accessibility and recreation in the sense of providing ski tows and swimming pools, perfectly all right in their place, are not considered as part of a wilderness. Watershed protection and other scientific, as well as recreational, benefits, are uses that can be harmonized with keeping land in its primitive state.

No change in administration of our public lands is involved in the proposed bill. Neither is it concerned with dictating the use made of national parks, forests, and refuges. Nor does it establish any kind of special-privilege legislation. Anyone