STATEMENT OF JAMES B. CRAIG, EDITOR, AMERICAN FORESTS, FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. CRAIG. The American Forestry Association has indicated its deep interest in and appreciation of wilderness values on many

occasions.

Furthermore, the association has urged that public use of the national forests for purposes of recreation, including wilderness enjoyment, be recognized in appropriate legislation as a beneficial and proper use of such lands.

This concept continues to be a basic element of association policy. At the same time, the association finds it impossible to condone the efforts of special-interest groups to restrict the administrative authority of the Secretary of Agriculture and to create a public spokesman in the form of a wilderness council to further their own selfish objectives. The American Forestry Association is opposed to S. 4028 and related proposals to create a national wilderness preservation system because:

1. Basically, these proposals are an attack upon the authority vested in the Secretary of Agriculture in the act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 35), as amended by the act of February 1, 1905 (33 Stat. 628; 16 U. S. C. 551):

The Secretary of Agriculture shall make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations upon the public forest and national forests which may have been set aside or which may be hereafter set aside under the provisions of section 471 of this title, and which may be continued; and he may make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects of such national forests thereon from destruction * * *

S. 4028 would require that changes in the boundary of any wilderness would be made

only if *** there has not been passed by Congress a concurrent resolution opposing such proposed addition, modification, or elimination—

thus taking away the authority previously granted to the Secretary of Agriculture.

The implication in S. 4028 is that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Forest Service have not discharged their duties satisfactorily. This implication has not been supported by proof of any kind. Actually, the Forest Service has administered its wild, primitive, and wilderness areas in excellent fashion.

Not only did the Forest Service conceive and initiate the idea of wilderness areas, but, through the years, it also has added substantially to the gross acreage in this type of recreational use.

2. Proposals for a national wilderness preservation system dedicate substantial portions of the public lands to a single-purpose use by a special interest. This is contrary to the basic policy contained in Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson's letter of February 1, 1905, to the Chief Forester, if I may quote here:

In the administration of the forest reserves it must be clearly borne in mind that all land is to be devoted to its most productive use for the permanent good of the whole people and not for the temporary benefit of individuals or companies.

3. This legislation is unnecessary. Not only is the Forest Service administering its wilderness areas in excellent fashion, but the President already has authority under the act of June 4, 1897, to modify proclamations:

** to remove any doubt which may exist pertaining to the authority of the President thereunto-in regard to national forests-the President of the United States is hereby authorized and empowered to revoke, modify, or suspend any and all such Executive orders and proclamations, or any part thereof, from time to time as he shall deem best for the public interests. ***

4. It is premature and unrealistic to push blindly for special consideration of any type of recreational use of forest land prior to completion of the factfinding survey just provided for through enactment of Public Law 85-470 for creation of a National Recreation Resource Review Commission.

This has the support of the American Forestry Association. 5. The proviso in section 2 (d) of S. 4028 for inclusion of

such areas of tribal land on Indian reservations as the Secretary of the Interior may designate as appropriate for inclusion after consultation with the several tribes

is a violation of the basic rights of private landowners.

6. The American Forestry Association is opposed, firmly and determinedly, to creation of a Wilderness Council "to gather and disseminate information" at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Chairman, I might add one more thing. We were impressed this morning by some of the suggestions for further hearings on this subject, particularly in the Western States. If I might say so, we were very impressed by the series of hearings that you conducted yourself in reference to the Klamath Indian situation which we think did a great deal to solidify public opinion on that very controversial problem.

Thank you very much.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Craig. I want you to know that you and I agree thoroughly about the importance and value of hearings in the field, particularly on a question which is important to the people living in a certain region or locality.

I appreciate your comments with respect to the hearings I held on the Klamath issue in which your own magazine and your own organization have been so very helpful.

I want to ask just one question. Did you hear some of the suggestions made for amendment in the bill by the two departments, particularly by Mr. Crafts of the United States Forest Service?

Mr. CRAIG. I did.

Senator NEUBERGER. Do you think it might be possible that we could reach some amendment such as those proposed by the Forest Service which would make S. 4028 satisfactory to the American Forestry Association?

Mr. CRAIG. That is a good question, Senator Neuberger, and one we have discussed. Yes, sir, I think it is possible. I think that the basic objection of the association is to the Wilderness Council as such. I think they think that it is a very dangerous proposition from the standpoint of setting a precedent.

As you know, our association goes back to 1875. Over a period of time it has very determinedly fought a single-use proposal, some

times quite fiercely and sometimes not so fiercely, but we are pretty much against that sort of thing.

How, in good conscience, we ask ourselves, can we support a singleuse proposal of this sort and then come forward again sometime in the immediate future if some other single-use proposal comes along.

I think that is one of the basic questions involved.

But as far as the recognition of wilderness, we believe in wilderness 100 percent. I think our programs should lead most people to believe that we are very sincere in that.

However, we do feel that there should be very careful consideration given to some of these proposals, while at the same time I think that wilderness should be recognized by the Congress.

Senator NEUBERGER. I appreciate your comments, Mr. Craig, and I will be very indebted if you and your associates study the proposals made by the two departments for amendment in S. 4028.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes, sir.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you so much for coming today.

I promised that our next witness will be Miss Sally Butler, legislation consultant for the General Federation of Women's Clubs. We have kept you waiting a long time.

Miss BUTLER. That is all right. We are very interested and my statement is very brief.

STATEMENT OF MISS SALLY BUTLER, LEGISLATION CONSULTANT, GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Miss BUTLER. I am Sally Butler, legislation consultant for the General Federation of Women's Clubs.

The support of the general federation for the conservation of the natural resources of the United States is well known. Our organization has consistently supported every measure which we felt was for the benefit of our people as a whole. This of course has included national parks, wildlife, water supply, soil conservation, national forests, and public grazing lands.

We opposed the proposed bill S. 1176 on the grounds that setting up a national wilderness council was unnecessary, if and when proper legislation was passed which would require the existing governmental agencies to carry out the duties suggested for such a council.

We did so because we have confidence in the governmental agencies that have for years done an outstanding job in the field of conservation. We believe these agencies could do all the things suggested in the proposed new bill, S. 4028, if required to do so—with less expense to the taxpayer.

We have no objection to an advisory council. But it has seemed to be the trend to set up more and more Government bureaus, departments, divisions, etc., all of which cost the taxpayers more money. We realize the proposed S. 4028 requests a very minor sum as Government expenditures go, but to the individual any additional taxes are important. These little sums soon grow into sizable amounts which increase the tax burden.

The General Federation of Women's Clubs would prefer to see the purposes of the bill, S. 4028, carried out in an efficient way by the present governmental agencies.

30973-58———7

However, we shall not oppose S. 4028. The General Federation does urge Congress to be certain that if S. 4028 becomes a law, the people get value received for the additional cost and are not denied or deprived of their inherent rights to use and enjoy the wilderness areas.

The General Federation of Women's Clubs withdraws its opposition as designated in our statement of June 20, 1957, but in so doing we urge you to give our objections to setting up a national wilderness council serious consideration. We do not want to do anything which might jeopardize the wilderness areas which are the heritage, not only of the people today, but of generations to come.

We did oppose the original bill and we have changed our minds since many of the things have been remedied. We think that Mr. Humphrey and his associates who worked on the bill have done a magnificent job.

Of course, the General Federation does have resolutions on many things on which we worked. The question on which they were concerned mostly at this point is the question of setting up a council because it is an additional expense.

We have a new president as of June and she talked to me about this last night, since the statement was written. It just seems the taxpayer gets one thing after another.

While this is very little and there is not much required for this, each little bit added together makes more for the folks back home. That is whom we deal with, the housewife, who has to make that dollar stretch.

So we have that consideration. But, frankly, the General Federation is interested in wilderness, is interested in conservation is interested in the things that the bill sets up.

So we have decided to go along with the bill and do what we can to get it enacted with the hopes that maybe something can be considered on the things that we wish could be remedied.

Senaor NEUBERGER. Miss Butler, thank you very much.

I would like to ask if you are speaking for my friend, Mrs. Leona Weatherford?

Miss BUTLER. She belongs to the organization, of course, and is thoroughly interested in wilderness.

Senator NEUBERGER. I know that.

Miss BUTLER. She wants it regardless. She has helped us to accept certain other things. Yes, Leona Weatherford is one of the ardent workers in our federation for the conservation program.

Senator NEUBERGER. That is right. I know she will be pleased to learn that you and I mentioned her today.

We thank you very much for submitting this statement. I hope you will thank Miss Gifford, your new president, for making it possible for you to come here.

Miss BUTLER. You are very

kind.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you, Miss Butler.

Our next witness is Mr. A. Z. Nelson of the National Lumber Manufacturers Association.

STATEMENT OF A. Z. NELSON, DIRECTOR, FORESTRY, ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS DIVISION, NATIONAL LUMBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is A. Z. Nelson and I am here representing the National Lumber Manufacturers Association which maintains its headquarters in Washington, D. C. The NLMA is a federation of 16 regional associations whose members are engaged in lumber manufacturing, many of whom own and manage timberlands.

In June 1957, we presented a statement to this committee at the time of hearings on S. 1176, a bill similar to S. 4028. Much of what we then said concerning S. 1176 is equally applicable to the bill now under consideration. Since we do not now wish to repeat the details of that statement, it is suggested that if the committee feels it might be helpful, it be included in the hearing record.

The interest of the National Lumber Manufacturers Association in the legislation being considered stems from the fact the lumber industry is the principal revenue-producing customer of the national forests and of much of the timberland administered by the Department of the Interior. Any legislation that would directly or indirectly affect our legitimate use of Government timber resources is naturally of concern to us. We believe that S. 4028, if enacted, would affect such

use in the future.

We would like to make clear at the outset that the NLMA fully recognizes that there are many important uses and services of Federal timberlands in addition to timber production.

We have encouraged and supported as a matter of policy these other uses, recognizing that these lands are the property of all the people and the monopoly of none. The association has a long history of support for and participation in the forest conservation movement in the United States. It has been in the forefront in the establishment and promotion of the tree farm and keep green programs.

Recently the forest industries made a survey of the recreational use of industry lands. The survey covered 74 percent of the commercial timberlands owned by industry. The survey found that 92 percent of the lands covered in the survey are open to hunters in season and 96 percent are open to fishing.

The committee may be interested in having a brief release I have with me covering this survey included in the record.

We have stated to this committee that

certain carefully delimited areas of outstanding wilderness attraction within the public lands owned by the United States should receive primary use management for wilderness purposes.

At the same time we expressed the view that the establishment and tenure of such areas should continue to be discretionary, flexible, and dependent upon circumstances and conditions prevailing in each locality and should continue under existing statutory and administrative authority.