Mr. WRIGHT. That is right, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad to be here.

Senator METCALF. We are delighted to have

you here.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. WRIGHT, PAST PRESIDENT,

AMERICAN NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. WRIGHT. I am not in a class with some of these former witnesses having been before this committee on this legislation for 15 or 16 times.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is William B. Wright of Deeth, Nev., past president of the American National Cattlemen's Association. I am making this statement on behalf of the association which is composed of an affiliation of 34 State cattle associations, more than 100 breed, regional, and local cattle associations, and thousands of individual cattlemen throughout the Nation. The position of the American National Cattlemen's Association concerning wilderness legislation which you are considering in S. 4 is that such legislation is unnecessary because the present administrators of wilderness areas under law have consistently maintained and properly managed over many years the land under their jurisdiction. In the case of the national forests, the wilderness, wild, canoe, and primitive areas comprises almost 14 million acres, more than 7 percent of the total Federal forest lands. I believe Ed Cliff testified this morning approximately 8 percent of national forest lands.

Our position in this respect, we believe, was strengthened by the passage in 1960 of the Multiple-Use Act which "directs that the national forests be managed under principles of multiple use." It also says that "the establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are consistent with the purpose and provisions of this act," which virtually assures continuation of the wilderness system we already have.

We want to add here that we are fully aware of the great pressures which are being brought to bear to enact wilderness legislation. In recognition of this, we believe it is imperative that your committee be apprised of a number of points that should be considered.

We should like to suggest that it be specifically spelled out in any legislation concerning wilderness that the present administrators continue to administer the areas under this jurisdiction. Their continued supervision would make unnecessary any additional Government expense in that field.

I might inject here as a personal aside, that I do not think this item of expense is a minor matter in our present fiscal position.

S. 4 contains a provision that

grazing of livestock where well established *** shall be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions and regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary * * *.

We appreciate the intent of this provision. However, we believe that the provision is not precisely worded. The word "well" would be subject to various definitions, and the words "restriction and regulation" seem redundant.

It is our belief that amended S. 4, introduced by Senator Gordon Allott and others, more precisely sets forth this general intent in these words:

* * * grazing of livestock and other multiple uses already established shall be permitted to continue subject only to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior, respectively, finds, after public hearing, to be necessary ***

Concerning this provision in the proposed amendment we would suggest the substitution of the word "regulation" for "restriction”, since we believe "regulation" is the more inclusive term.

S. 4 provides that

any recommendation of the President made in accordance with the provisions of this section shall take effect *** only * * * if * * * neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives shall have approved a resolution declaring **。 itself opposed to such recommendation *

We believe it is imperative that Congress give affirmative approval of any wilderness areas that might be established under wilderness legislation. In S. 4 Congress by its very inaction would create additional wilderness areas or change the boundaries of the areas included in the system. This actually amounts to the exercise of Congress of only a veto power instead of the power it has to initiate and pass laws, and I might add there the constitutional requirement of Congress.

The amendment to S. 4 as proposed by Senator Allott states our position in this regard with these positive words:

*

*** when designated wilderness by act of Congress ** S. 4 provides that recommendations of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to the President with respect to any area's retention in or incorporation into wilderness

include with such recommendations the independent views of the Governor of the State in which such area is located * * *.

Since any such transfers would have an effect on communities and counties as well as on States, we believe provision should be made for local review in the form of hearings, as well as review by the Governor. Such review would give Congress the benefit of the advice and knowledge of those who are near the land and know its problems. For example, I come from Nevada, a State whose land is almost 90 percent, 87 percent, to be specific, in Federal ownership. It would be difficult indeed for an outsider to realize all the various problems, and how we have tried to solve them, that confront a State that is practically all Government owned.

We believe it is wrong to blanket into the wilderness system the primitive areas along with wilderness, wild and canoe areas, such as is proposed in S. 4. Primitive areas are still unclassified and under study. We feel that such lands, which total 8 million acres, do not rightfully belong in the wilderness status, at least not until such time as they are specifically classified.

The impact of the pressure for passage of wilderness legislation by various groups, who broadly label themselves as conservationists, has had the unfortunate effect on the public of inferring that others such as stockmen are not conservationists. This must be denied. Stockmen of necessity must conserve the natural renewable resource they

employ in their work-the process in their work would, perhaps, be a better expression-since their very livelihood depends upon wise use of the resources nature provides.

I want to thank your committee for the opportunity of expressing these views and respectfully urge that you give favorable consideration to the suggestions made.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright.

The Senator from Colorado.

Senator ALLOTT. Just one or two brief questions or comments, Mr. Wright.

Referring to your first suggestion, I have looked at the bill since you made that statement, and I do not know, maybe we had better take a better look at the bill, but I do think that the bill contemplates that the respective administrators would retain jurisdiction of the lands now under their control even after they were admitted to the wilderness system.

This would be my impression, but I assure you that we will take a look at it. I think the bill is adequate in that respect.

Senator METCALF. Would the Senator yield?

Senator ALLOTT. Yes.

Senator METCALF. That, too, is my impression. For instance, if grazing were established in the area it would be administered under the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act by the Bureau of Land Management, and so forth. That is as I conceive the bill, and I agree with the Senator from Colorado that you have raised a point we want to make sure that that will take place.

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. Well, this was a suggestion we put in here.

Senator METCALF. It has been very helpful by your making that suggestion.

Senator ALLOTT. I have just glanced through the bill, but we will go into this. I think it is all right, but we will take a look at it.

I am concerned, as you are, because I do not know what the term, "where the grazing of livestock is well established"-I do not know what "well established" means, and I do not think that despite the testimony of some people last year that they know either. I do not know what "well established" means. I know what "established"

means.

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, Senator Allott, I assume you are an attorney, I am not, but we have been told that "well" immediately means something specific to an attorney. It does not to us, and we have had some rather unfortunate experiences under the Bureau of Land Management in language, particularly with regard to "near" and "nearness," particularly with regard to "reasonable" as applicable to fees, and various other general terms.

I think this suggestion is, perhaps, predicated on this rather unfortunate experience that we have had over the past 29 years in getting various interpretations of what was meant in the basic law, and for that reason that suggestion is in there.

Senator ALLOTT. I must say I agree with you completely. I do not know what "well established" means. I do know what "established" means. I do not know at what point grazing becomes "well established."

Mr. WRIGHT. We know when some things are reasonable, but we do not always know the application.

Senator ALLOTT. There is one other matter that you speak of here on the restriction and regulation. I must say I agree with you on the restriction and regulation. Restriction implies in my mind and in the minds of most people, I believe, a capricious-or the right to make a capricious decision upon the basis of whim or at least upon the basis of your ideas and not upon principle, and I think that "regulation" is the word that belongs in here, because it should be by regulation and not by restriction which carries with it the idea or concept of a personal decision, which I do not think should be in here. Mr. WRIGHT. That is the reason we suggest regulation. Senator ALLOTT. Thank you, Mr. Wright, very much. Senator METCALF. The Senator from Colorado.

Senator DOMINICK. No questions.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright.

The next witness is Mr. Day, president of the Idaho Wildlife Federation.

STATEMENT OF ERNEST E. DAY, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. DAY. Mr. Chairman, I am Ernest E. Day, of Boise, Idaho. I am the immediate past president of the Idaho Wildlife Federation and wish to present these remarks as the representative of that group and Mr. Bill Reynolds, its president, who could not be present here today.

It is indeed a privilege to appear before the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee on legislation of such vital nature to our generation and many generations yet to come.

For 4 years the Idaho Wildlife Federation, appreciative of our wilderness heritage and its contribution to our culture, has supported wilderness preservation legislation. At our last State meeting in Moscow, Idaho, December 10, 1962, our organization unanimously reiterated its support for true wilderness preservation legislationsimilar to that of S. 174 as passed by the Senate of the United States in the 87th session of Congress.

This is the centennial year of my State of Idaho-1963 marks the beginning of a second century in the life of my State of Idaho.

Much of the first century of Idaho's development was concerned with first exploring, then settling, and then conquering the then vast wilderness. Quite naturally the wilderness was in many respects the enemy of early Idahoans."

But progress has been rapid. So rapid in fact that many Idahoans now see such an immediate threat to our wilderness that we feel national legislation is essential to endorse and strengthen the U.S. Forest Service's policy of wilderness protection-in Idaho practically all our primitive and wilderness areas are under Forest Service jurisdiction.

We have a new economy and a new set of values and challenges as we enter our second century. The Idaho Wildlife Federation believes that the issue is very basic, and simply stated, it is this: Shall we chew up every last niche and corner of our wilderness with roads, commerce and "progress," or shall we stop just a little short of this while there is still time, and save some of this treasure for ourselves

and our children in just the wonderful way it was left to us by our Creator? How saving such a national asset from destruction could be anything but in the public interest is difficult to imagine.

There are those from my State who would have you believe that all of us in Idaho regard the wilderness bill as strictly "eastern legislation" forced upon us and our economy by a patronizing majority of the population which lies east of the Mississippi River. Gentlemen, I have traveled across this country to tell you that there is a vast segment of our Idaho population who regard this legislation as definitely "western" in its scope and desirability.

In its second century Idaho has many white- and blue-collared workers. We have atomic scientists and laborers, we have many TV repairmen and clerks and our economy and culture is in transition from a purely extractive economy to a more complex and sophisticated economy which recognizes many other values, particularly the value of tourism as an important industry. This industry is already important and it has an ever-increasing potential.

Even from a purely economic point of view, scenery is a nearperfect product. It can be sold over and over all through the year, and you have a complete inventory on your shelf at the end of the year, without replacement cost. To a businessman that is a pretty good product; that is, if it is protected.

Wilderness preservation is an excellent example of multiple use in action. By its nature, multiple use does not dictate that each acre be used for every single use or purpose. That has been stated before today. Multiple use of a forest unit is similar to home. A house is a living unit. It has two or three or more bedrooms, a living room, a dining room, a kitchen, a bathroom or two, and perhaps a family room. Unless it is a very strange family indeed, it does not try to do all things in each room of the house. Wilderness is in some respects a kind of a family room in our multiple-use setup.

Cries of "lock up" are heard. These areas are open to anyone who wants to use them. They must be kept open, as wilderness, rather than to be exploited on what too often turns out to be a one-time use.

It is sometimes stated that wilderness preservation sets aside an area as a rich man's playground. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can take an outfitters "catered" trip, as you know, Senator Metcalf, from your Ravalli County, for as high as $25 or $30 a day, or you can walk for nothing but the cost of groceries and shoe leather. This is the method employed by many. Between the two extremes are a variety of methods for wilderness adventure-but even by the most expensive method, costs do not exceed those for motor travel with first-class accommodations.

An 8-day wilderness hunt on the middle fork of the Salmon River for three of my friends and myself was enjoyed at a total cost of $40 for each of us. This price included a share in buying a war surplus boat for the expedition and we still have the boat for other trips. Wilderness travel is more a matter of desire than of money and those people desiring to use such areas are increasing rapidly.

We in Idaho are fortunate in having enough land resources that we can enjoy both intelligent development and wise use.

We can afford to set aside slightly over 5 percent of our State's area in trust for future generations. And we must be mindful that every