committee in Washington, D.C., where the hearing was conducted by a subcommittee handled by Senator Anderson. I would urge the members of this committee to study the constructive remarks made by the supporters of this bill and the statements of the opponents which were wholely destructive in character and which in effect opposed wilderness use on public lands, without a single constructive suggestion.

As I understand it, multiple use means that use or management of the forest lands which achieves the maximum benefits for all the various users of such lands. I further understand and assume that such management for multiple use requires application of this principle to the national forests as a whole rather than attempting to apply multiple use to each and every foot of ground that exists. If this is a reasonable definition of multiple use, then by all means, the wilderness bill is necessary so that wilderness use can have value or recognition, whatsoever, in the multiple use of national forests.

I have been quite impressed with the viewpoint expressed by Senator Anderson when he compares a wilderness area to a museum. He quotes Dr. Luna B. Leopold, Chief of the Water Resource Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, who said: "We take for granted that there is some social gain in the erection and maintenance of a museum of fine arts, a museum of natural history, or even a historical museum. Sooner or later, we ought to be mature enough to extend this concept to another kind of museum, one which you might call the museum of land types, consisting of samples as uninfluenced as possible by man." I think we must take for granted that he also includes the fish and wildlife that inhabit such a living museum.

The wilderness areas of Montana are a vital segment of our tourist trade. Should Montana ever lose its wilderness areas, the adverse effects to Montana, economically, would be disastrous.

I sincerely believe the opponents of the wilderness bill are opposed to wilderness use of public lands. They profess stanch support for the multiple use of public lands; however, I earnestly submit that the only multiple use they will ever support on public lands are to those lands which do not in any way contribute to the type of resource which their industry is dependent on. I further submit that they probably are speaking for a segment of the industry they represent, but that segment is either misinformed or does not know the purpose of the wording of Senator Anderson's bill. I do know that the opponents who have appeared here today do not speak for many of the members they claim they represent. Without qualification, I know that I speak for every conservationist, not only in the State of Montana but everywhere else, when I ask that this committee support Senator Anderson's bill.

In considering Senator Anderson's bill, I fail to see how it will, in any way, adversely affect the economy of any of the members of my federation, regardless of what vocation, business, or industry their livelihood is dependent on. For instance, this bill does not in any way affect the present establishment of the working circle or the annual sustained yield cut, as established by the National Forest Service for logging. The reason for this is that wilderness areas have never been used in establishing such working circles or sustained yield cuts. The provisions in the bill, itself, under section 6, paragraph (c) and more particularly the subparagraphs (1) through (7), thereof, clearly permit existing users to continue to do so, and go further than that, and permit the President to authorize prospecting, including exploration for oil and gas, as well as the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs and other facilities needed in the public interest. Also, the Secretary may permit grazing of livestock, where this has been done prior to the passage of Senator Anderson's bill. I do not know what more could be expected in giving reasonable protection to grazing and mining interests than this.

I request favorable consideration of Senator Anderson's bill for the following

reasons:

(1) To protect and preserve the last reservoir of natural resources for the use of future generations.

(2) To establish and protect the economy derived through wilderness recreation and education.

(3) To afford greater opportunity to those living adjacent to wilderness, in having the right to speak relative to any boundary changes of such wilderness area.

(4) To prevent exploitation of what few resources that would otherwise be the passage of the bill.

I believe that if we look back to the hearings on the establishment of the national forests and the national parks that the same opponents of the wilderness bill made the same objections then that they are making now, and they must concede that they were wrong then; and in the future they will concede they are wrong now.

In closing, I would like to invite the committee's attention to the fact that once a wilderness area has been invaded and exploited and as a result destroyed, it is gone forever. A wilderness area is as fragile as the most priceless piece of porcelain or china. Should that porcelain or china be broken, it can never be replaced nor restored to its original condition. The same thing applies to a wilderness area. Restoration of a destroyed area would be impossible because of the tremendous cost it would entail.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you.

Our next witness is Mrs. Jack Yearout, representing Washington State Federation of Women's Clubs.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JACK YEAROUT, WASHINGTON STATE FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Mrs. YEAROUT. The lady of the many papers. It was announced in our weekly paper I was coming over here and would bring any testimony anyone wanted to send and these are some of those statements and I would like to include them. The only thing generally interesting in them--you may think it rigged, but I assure you it was not-is that they all favor the bill and all the people were most surprised to find they were rich because most of them are blue-collar workers who go into the wilderness because they cannot afford some of the other recreational opportunities in our country.

I am Mrs. Jack Yearout. I am chairman of the division of parks and recreation for the Washington State Federation of Women's Clubs. We have over 9,000 members.

I recently completed a 4-year term as conservation chairman. On October 18, 1958, at the fall board meeting, the Washington State Federation of Women's Clubs gave me authority to testify at a Senate hearing for the wilderness bill, citing our long support for efforts to protect wilderness areas in this country.

Just as I finished my term of office I had another opportunity to test the feeling of our membership in relation to wilderness areas. At the request of the Forest Service I asked our clubs for an expression of opinion on a reclassification proposal which would have excluded deep approach valleys in the Glacier Peak wilderness area.

The results of this survey should be especially interesting to this committee because it represents the feeling of an average group with no particular bias. You know how the lumbermen, the miners, and the reclamation associations are going to testify. You know how the wilderness society, the Sierra Club, and the outdoor federations are going to testify.

But I do not think you realize the willingness of great numbers of untrained and inarticulate, but thoughtful and serious ordinary people to keep our wilderness areas for the future generations.

The women spoke thusly-I received statements from 109 clubs, with 1,478 personal signatures with addresses and many personal letters, urging them not to reduce this wilderness area, 105 persons sent statements urging other action. About half of the 105 felt all areas should be excluded from wilderness status and about half urged us to demand vast new areas in wilderness systems.

The great majority thought we should at least hold what we have. Oddly enough, I have been thanked many times by women who seem to feel I have done them a great personal favor in letting them express their desire for preserving our virgin area.

To me this is one of the reasons we need a Wilderness Act. Those people do not know how to fight for wilderness preservation. They need congressional help; an affirmation and directive by Congress toward the preservation of wilderness values.

There are many reasons outlined today for preserving wilderness areas. They have spiritual, educational, and recreational values for most of us.

But in long association with women in conservation work, I think our urgent reason for the passing of the Wilderness Act is our concern for our children and their descendants down through the long-range look of 100 years-and beyond. There should be a choice left for them. It is possible to withdraw lands from wilderness areas. It is impossible to create a wilderness where we have not given protection in time.

I think the wilderness bill should pass the House of Representatives and I think it should be freed from some of the more crippling amend ments which have weakened it. I especially like that part of the bill which leaves the management of the areas concerned in the capable hands that now manage them.

I think the majority of our citizens are anxious to have wilderness areas preserved. I think that those who oppose wilderness preservation for commercial reasons are very shortsighted; the tourist and recreational value of wilderness areas is already great and will be beyond calculation in the years to come.

This bill withdraws no new areas, it helps us preserve what we have and I think that is the minimum we should demand as a heritage for our children. [Applause.]

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mrs. Yearout.

Without objection the statements referred to by Dallas V. Hake of Wapato, Wash., Mr. and Mrs. Leal Brummer, Mrs. Wallace J. Schoenleber, and Mrs. Frank Pozarech will be placed in the record. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. (The statements referred to follow:)

To Whom It May Concern:

WAPATO, Wash.

I am writing this to express my feelings on the proposed Wilderness Act. I think it should be obvious to any thoughtful person, once land has been logged, mined, or grazed, it is no longer wilderness.

So, what is a wilderness? To me a wilderness is a place to which I can take my wife and children to enjoy clean air and pretty scenery, without the roar of trucks, the blare of civilization, nor the rattle of beer cans.

Nonsense.

Now, who can enjoy a wilderness area? Just the wealthy? Where else can I take my whole family, for as long as I can carry supplies to last, for just the food we eat, and the sweat required to get there?

As I am a postal clerk, you can accept my word that I certainly am not wealthy, and I spend most of my spare time in the wilderness.

I would like to see some guarantee that I, and my children, will be able to enjoy this privilege in the future, and the only guarantee I can see is this Wilderness Act. For my part, it should be even more comprehensive than it is. Thank you,

DALLAS V. HAKE.

OCTOBER 25, 1961.

In re the Wilderness Act, S. 174.

DEAR SIRS : Attached hereto is a resolution by the Yakima Valley District Federation of Women's Clubs favoring the passage of the wilderness bill.

This resolution reflects the opinion of over 2,100 women who are very conservation conscious and aware of wilderness needs.

Therefore, as conservation chairman of this district, I am reaffirming our stand concerning this bill as it approaches hearings in the House of Representatives.

Sincerely submitted.

SHIRLEY SCHOENLEBER
Mrs. Wallace J. Schoenleber,

Conservation Chairman, Yakima Valley District, Federation of Women's
Clubs.

RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM

Whereas we believe that in the conservation of natural resources, wilderness preservation has a place, that wilderness areas have a spiritual, educational, and recreational value, and that continuing pressure by commercial groups is exerted toward logging, mining, or commercializing these areas; and

Whereas federated clubwomen have established precedents toward the preservation of wilderness areas, including the establishment of Federation Forest State Park, and support by resolution the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Yakima Valley District Federation of Women's Clubs endorse and strongly support the wilderness bill, S. 4028, which will make wilderness preservation a part of our public land policy, including definite protection of the wilderness preservation policies of our National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Submitted by:

Mrs. FRANK POZARICH, Conservation Chairman, YVDFWC.

OCTOBER 28, 1961.

Testimony to be included in the Interior Department hearing on the Wilderness Act, S. 174.

We are in favor of the Wilderness Act and hope the House of Representatives will pass this bill at the next session of Congress.

We feel that any protection which can be gained for our wilderness areas should be given.

Just a salesman and wife that like camping out in such areas.

Mr. and Mrs. LEAL BRIMMER.

Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is the Honorable Grundy M. Brown, a representative to the Idaho State Legislature from Canyon County, Nampa, Idaho.

Mr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF HON. GRUNDY M. BROWN, REPRESENTATIVE, IDAHO STATE LEGISLATURE, CANYON COUNTY, NAMPA, IDAHO

Mr. BROWN. Madam Chairman and members of the hearing committee, as a member of the Nampa Chamber of Commerce I appear here before this congressional subcommittee hearing to present a resolution by the board of directors of the Nampa Chamber of Commerce in opposition to the passage of S. 174, known as the wilderness bill. Also as a representative to the State legislature from Canyon County and as a member of the board of directors of the Idaho Motor Transport Association, which is the organized trucking industry of Idaho, and with the authorization of this board of directors, I am appearing in opposition to this bill.

My objection to this bill is based on the fact that it places too much emphasis on a single use of vast areas of public domain.

It excludes entirely too much land from the beneficial use for recreation by the average family.

It eliminates forever the expansion of Idaho's appeal to the tourist. It is a known fact that the tourist travels on the highway and when the highway ends, his tour ends. That is also true of the people who visit for recreational purposes the forests and hill lands.

Further, it closes the door to exploration of this area for mineral deposits that undoubtedly exist within its borders.

It would leave standing important stands of timber that would be of vital importance to our State and Nation, if it were handled on the basis of sustained yield.

Finally, I oppose S. 174 on the grounds that the National Forest Service, under the Department of Agriculture, already has all the legal implements necessary for the protection, preservation, and proper exploitation of all the areas in Idaho or elsewhere that are included in this proposed law.

The passage of S. 174 will completely discard 35 years of experience and study by the National Forest Service of the practical use of these lands for timber, mineral, grazing, and recreational purposes. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Without objection, the resolution of the Nampa Chamber of Commerce will be placed in the record in full together with the letter from the Nampa Chamber of Commerce Highway Committee.

Hearing none, it is so ordered.

(The document referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION BY THE NAMPA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, NAMPA, IDAHO

Whereas it is the belief of the Nampa, Idaho, Chamber of Commerce that all property should be developed to its highest and best use; and

Whereas S. 174, the wilderness bill, contains no legal requirements or provisions that areas found to contain valuable timber, minerals, forage, or other resources be eliminated from Idaho wilderness areas; and

Whereas S. 174 will restrict or eliminate mining exploration, it will discourage efforts of the mining industry to prospect for and develop mineral deposits; and Whereas S. 174 will limit the opportunity for the lumber industry to obtain timber in the wilderness areas; and

Whereas S. 174 does not provide for expansion of grazing in the wilderness areas so vital to the rapidly growing cattle feeding industry of southwestern Idaho; and

Whereas S. 174 does not provide adequate protection for existing grazing rights in the wilderness areas; and

Whereas S. 174 will restrict the use of the wilderness areas for hunting and fishing and other uses by the public; and

Whereas S. 174 will create restrictions and problems for future development of water storage in the wilderness areas for agricultural use; and

Whereas the Idaho wilderness areas are already adequately protected and administered by the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture; and

Whereas S. 174 does not provide for full approval by Congress to retain the right to make public land use decisions, determine boundaries and withdrawals, etc., before administrative action takes effect: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Nampa, Idaho, Chamber of Commerce be strongly opposed to passage of S. 174, the wilderness bill, which will restrict future development of Idaho wilderness areas containing raw material resources, the future development of which is essential to community interests, business and industry, and the local, State, and National economy.