in which commercial enterprises, roads, motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, aircraft, structures and installations all would be prohibited. The proposals raise important public policy issues in terms of outdoor recreational opportunities, future economic development of the Nation and particularly the West and Alaska, and the extent and proper management of land owned by the Federal Government.

The Conservation and Management of Natural Resources Committee of the National Association of Manufacturers has devoted much attention and study to the subject of recreational areas, national parks and monuments, and wilderness areas. On October 9, 1959, the committee recommended a statement of policy on this subject to the association's 180-member board of directors. On December 1, 1959, the board unanimously adopted a policy statement which has been continuously reviewed and amended as required to read as follows:

"RECREATIONAL AREAS, NATIONAL PARKS AND MONUMENTS, WILDERNESS AREAS "Recreational use of Federal lands has become increasingly important, and Federal land management agencies should make long-range plans for recreational use of their lands.

"National parks should include areas essentially in their primeval natural condition and in scenic quality and beauty so outstandingly superior to average examples of their several types as to make them of national importance and to make imperative their preservation intact and in their entirety for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of all people for all time. National monuments should be areas, usually smaller than national parks, that are of national importance as superlative examples of native flora or fauna, geologic phenomena, or archeologic or historic interest. The area of each park or monument should be a comprehensive unit, of no greater size than necessary to embrace and preserve those superior national values and provide proper space for necessary facilities appurtenant thereto.

"Industry recognizes that some limited areas of Government-owned land remaining in their primitive state have higher value as wilderness areas than for other purposes. However, designation of such areas of Government land as wilderness areas should be determined by sound land management principles and practices, and any statutory designation of such areas should be only by affirmative act of the Congress. There is no necessity to establish a wilderness preservation system which would arbitrarily lock up vast areas into a wilderness classification. Further, the creation of a costly and unnecessary new Government agency would conflict with present programs and would establish the precedent of creating an agency within the government framework devoted to advocating the viewpoint of a a special use interest."

In our association's basic policy position on "Conservation and Management of Natural Resources," it is stated:

"Publicly owned lands containing agricultural and industrial resources, water supplies, recreational features, esthetic scenery and other multi-purpose uses, should be managed to encourage all uses to the fullest extent possible."

Further, in our policy position on "Timber Resources," we advocate that: "Multiple use management practices should be followed so as to achieve the additional goals of watershed improvement, sustained yield of wildlife, and recreational opportunities."

I would like to emphasize that in all these basic policies, our association fully recognizes and appreciates the esthetic and recreational values to be derived from expeditions into wilderness areas. Many of the employees of our member companies are outdoor recreation enthusiasts, including pack-riders, hunters, fishermen, swimmers, boaters, water-skiers, and snow-skiers. However, we believe that wilderness areas should be kept in proper proportion and perspective, and that legislation in regard to them should be based on sound governmental, economic and natural resource principles. Therefore, we wish to urge but one point for the consideration of the distinguished subcommittee:

Any statutory designation of wilderness areas should be only by affirmative act of the Congress.

There are presently many millions of acres of Federal land being administered so as to preserve their primitive characteristics. The proponents of wilderness legislation say that such legislation is necessary to give statutory protection to the continued preservation of these areas in their primitive condition. Our assocation submits that the appropriate way to give statutory protection to the preservation of Government land in a primitive condition is to have the Congress

legislate the boundaries of such areas upon the recommendations of the appropriate committees of the Congress following public hearings. If the executive department is then dissatisfied with the bill or bills passed by the Congress, it will be within the power of the President under the Constitution to veto such bill or bills. Clearly, this would be proper governmental procedure in contrast to the proposals to have the legislative boundary-fixing function exercised by the executive branch and to have the veto function exercised by the Congress. Although the Reorganization Act restricts the Congress to a veto in the case of reorganization plans, we believe that the factors to be weighed in the designation of wilderness areas are of a more substantive nature than questions as to how the executive branch should be organized to carry out missions authorized by the Congress in affirmative legislation. We submit that statutory designations of specific areas to be zoned as wilderness and restricted in their development for economic and recreational purposes are matters of such major significance that they deserve to be, in the first instance, subjects of public hearings before committees of the Congress and other procedures under the historic prerogatives of the legislative branch of our Government. The committees, of course, would not be deprived of the views of the executive departments and agencies since such views would be submitted in the usual course as the committees legislatively formulated appropriate wilderness designations.

The Congress has historically exercised the legislative responsibility of fixing boundary lines of public land areas to be set aside for restricted purposes. For example, the Congress has many times specifically delineated and described in detail the boundary lines of areas to be established as national parks. Instances of this sound legislative practice are as follows:

Yellowstone National Park, Mont. and Wyo. Act of March 1, 1872. Section 1 described the boundaries. The boundaries were subsequently revised by the act of March 1, 1929, and by the act of April 19, 1930.

Sequoia National Park, Calif. Act of September 25, 1890. Section 1 described the townships included. The act of July 3, 1926, revised the boundaries. Section 1 of that act contains detailed legal description of the boundaries. Mount Rainier National Park, Wash. Act of March 2, 1899. Section 1 of that act contains description of boundary lines. Crater Lake National Park, Oreg. Act of May 22, 1902. Section 1 of the act described the boundaries in terms of parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude, specifying a total area of 249 square miles. Wind Cave National Park, S. Dak. that act describes the boundary lines. of March 4, 1931, and August 9, 1946. Mesa Verde National Park, Colo. Act of June 29, 1906. Section 1 of that act describes the boundaries.

Act of January 9, 1903. Section 1 of
The boundary lines were revised by acts

Glacier National Park, Mont. Act of May 11, 1910. Section 1 contains detailed metes and bounds description of boundary lines.

Rocky Mountain National Park, Colo. Act of January 26, 1915. Section 1 contained metes and bounds description. The boundary lines were subsequently revised by the acts of February 14, 1917, and June 9, 1926.

Hawaii National Park. Act of August 1, 1916. Section 1 contains detailed description of boundary lines. The boundaries were revised by the acts of February 12, 1927, and June 20, 1938.

Lasson Volcanic National Park, Calif. Act of August 9, 1916. Section 1 describes the boundaries.

Mount McKinley National Park, Alaska. Act of February 26, 1917. Section 1 describes the metes and bounds. The boundary lines were changed by the act of March 19, 1932.

Grand Canyon National Park, Ariz. Act of February 26, 1919. Section 1 describes the metes and bounds, which were subsequently revised by the act of February 25, 1927.

Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah. Act of June 7, 1924. the boundary lines by metes and bounds.

Olympic National Park, Wash. Act of June 29, 1938.

tailed description of boundaries.

Section 1 describes

Section 1 contains de

Section 1 of that

Kings Canyon National Park, Calif. Act of March 4, 1940. act contains detailed metes and bounds description of boundary lines. Petrified Forest National Park, Ariz. Act of March 28, 1958. Section 2 of that act specifies the townships and sections to be included in the park. Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial Park, N. Dak. Act of April 25, 1947. Section 1 contains detailed boundary line description.

Inasmuch as the use of wilderness areas will be even more restricted than the use of national parks, even stronger reasons exist to have the boundary lines of these wilderness areas spelled out in affirmative legislation.

One evidence of the major significance of such designations to the long-range public interest was reflected in a letter dated August 27, 1959, from Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney to the late James E. Murray, then chairman of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Senator O'Mahoney's letter stated in part:

"When one considers the events of the last few years, one knows that we are entering a new age and that nobody can determine what will be discovered in the way of natural resources in the near future in this vast area. I think we should hesitate to lock this up, or any part thereof, upon the plea of preserving a wilderness, and upon the judgment of nonelected officials in an executive bureau, because we know that the future holds tremendous discoveries. There are, for example, deserts in the public land States which have become the American source of uranium; 20 years ago nobody would have imagined that uranium was to be found in this area or, indeed, would be of any value." Senator O'Mahoney was in favor of a requirement that the Congress, prior to designating an area as a wilderness area, receive a report from the U.S. Geological Survey stating that a geological reconnaissance of the area revealed that it is not prospectively valuable for minerals or other deposits which may be useful for the national defense or the needs of a progressive economy. We also note that Mr. E. F. Cook, director of the Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, last year advocated an amendment "providing that no area be included within the system until a comprehensive mine resource survey by qualified Federal or State agency has been made." We submit that the American people are entitled to the affirmative judgment of the Congress, taking into consideration such natural resource surveys, as to whether a particular area should be statutorily restricted in its use.

Another reason why designations of wilderness areas involve important public policy considerations arises out of the extent of Federal landownership. As of June 30, 1960, the General Services Administration reported that the Federal Government owned 771 million acres of land in the United States, or 33.9 percent of the total land area in the Nation. On that date, the Federal Government owned 99.7 percent of Alaska, 86.9 percent of Nevada, 69.1 percent of Utah, 64.8 percent of Idaho, 51.1 percent of Oregon, 48.4 percent of Wyoming, 44.9 percent of California, 44.7 percent of Arizona, 36 percent of Colorado, 34.9 percent of New Mexico, 29.7 percent of Montana, and 29.5 percent of Washington. Of the 771 million acres owned by the Federal Government, some 725 million of these acres are in the 11 Western States and Alaska, representing some 65 percent of the total area of these 12 States.

It is evident that, if the proper encouragement were given so that the major portion of these vast areas was acquired by income-producing, taxpaying ownerships, this would be a monumental contribution to the economic growth of this country. We believe that practical means should be developed for the sale, lease or exchange of Federal lands for private use. Any specific area of Federal land statutorily dedicated to wilderness purposes will be almost irrevocably committed to Federal ownership on a nontaxpaying, non-income-producing basis. There might be some income from user fees although none of the bills make any provision for such user fees. In any event, we believe that the serious problems involved in the excessive ownership of land by the Federal Government compel the conclusion that the Congress should make affirmative, specific decisions as to what areas are to be preserved as wilderness areas. Perhaps that decision might be that some limited area per State would be sufficient for the special purpose of wilderness areas.

The first instance we will cite in which pending wilderness bills would not measure up to the appropriate legislative responsibilities of the Congress pertains to the national forest areas which have been classified by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as wilderness, wild, or canoe areas. The bills would blanket these areas into the statutory wilderness system more or less by rubberstamp ratification by the Congress of the administrative decisions of the Forest Service without any independent legislative examination of the merits of the decision applying to each area. Names and locations of the areas are not stated in the bills, nor is there any delineation of their boundaries. Wihle we have great respect for the professional and technical competence of the Forest Service, the pending bills must necessarily proceed on an assumption of

infallibility on the part of the Forest Service. We are informed on page 7 of the report on S. 174 by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that these three classifications cited comprise a total area of 6,773,080 acres. If the Congress were to give positive study and attention to the individual areas, it might conclude that some of them, or some parts of them, should not be statutorily classified and kept as wilderness areas, particularly the 2.3 million acres containing commercial-type timberlands. Many persons might believe that such a tremendous total acreage-including 14 individual areas averaging 350,000 acres in size and 30 other individual areas averaging about 60,000 acres in sizeis more than enough to maintain in a primitive and undeveloped condition.

However, in addition to these 6.7 million acres, the pending bills would also blanket into the statutory wilderness system an additional 7,890,973 acres of national forest land, subject to later exclusion over a period of years. This vast land mass consists of 39 individual areas averaging 200,000 acres each in size. These areas have not actually been classified as wild or wilderness areas by the Forest Service and they, too, contain some 2.3 million acres of commercial-type timberlands. Nevertheless, it would be possible under pending bills for them to become statutory wilderness areas through mere failure of the Congress to take negative action.

The need to have 6.7 million acres of the national forests blanketed in automatically by the pending bills and an additional 7.8 million acres of the national forests similarly blanketed in, subject to later exclusion, is highly questionable in light of the fact, as stated by the report on S. 174 by the Senate Interior Committee, that "There is now approximately 22 million acres in 27 parks, 20 national monuments, and 1 seashore recreational area regarded as suitable for consideration as part of the wilderness system." In addition, the report says that "Out of more than 275 federally owned wildlife refuges and game ranges, there are approximately a score, comprising totally between 22 million and 23 million acres, which contain large areas of primeval land suitable for saving as wilderness." Surely, with all these millions of acres within the National Park System and Federal refuges and ranges available for preservation as wilderness, there is no necessity to automatically blanket in all of 14.6 million acres of land within the national forests which were established for the purpose of continuing timber and water supply. Surely, the Congress should exercise some affirmative judgment as to how many millions of acres should be statutorily classified and kept as wilderness areas.

Another reason why the designation of wilderness areas is of such major significance as to warrant affirmative action by the Congress is because such designation involves the weighing of important considerations of public policy. In determining the total amount, the location, the shape and size of wilderness areas, not only should economic considerations be weighed against recreational considerations, but also conflicting recreational objectives should be evaluated. The report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission points this out most clearly. At pages 92 and 93, the report states:

"While some of our citizens seek a completely natural environment for outdoor recreation, a larger number prefer activities in less primitive surroundings. Outdoor recreation for this larger group requires basic facilities-roads, picnic tables, sanitation. * * *

"A third basic goal is accessibility-an opportunity for all Americans to know and enjoy the outdoors. Providing reasonable access to the out-of-doors for large concentrations of population will be one of the central problems of outdoor recreation over the next 40 years. * * *

"A fourth goal, also identified by the Congress, is to attain an effective balance between the recreation needs of the Nation and the many other uses of our natural resources. Careful planning and coordination of effort will not only reduce conflict between recreation and other resource uses but, in many instances, can open up new recreation opportunities without detriment to other uses. То secure the benefits of outdoor recreation for the American public, a national policy should encourage shared responsibility, not only between public and private activity but among all levels of government." At page 3 of the report, it is stated that:

"Driving and walking for pleasure, swimming, and picnicking lead the list of the outdoor activities in which Americans participate, and driving for pleasure is most popular of all."

Obviously, there will be no driving for pleasure in wilderness areas because roads will be prohibited. Opportunities for swimming will be quite restricted

because of the inaccessibility of suitable sites and because of the lack of development of these sites. Picnicking also will be extremely limited because of the lack of any recreational facilities in wilderness areas. Certainly, these factors should be weighed in the decision which this Nation makes as to how many millions of acres it wishes to devote to wilderness areas.

At page 5, the Commission's report suggests a further public policy determination: "Outdoor opportunities are most urgently needed near metropolitan areas. Three-quarters of the people will live in these areas by the turn of the century. They will have the greatest need of outdoor recreation and their need will be the most difficult to satisfy as urban centers have the fewest facilities (per capita) and the sharpest competition for land use."

Thus, the provision of millions of acres far from metropolitan areas for the most primitive form of outdoor recreation will not solve the problem of threequarters of the people who will have the greatest need for outdoor recreation. This consideration should likewise be weighed by the Congress in deciding what lands shall be dedicated to purely wilderness purposes.

Another point is the effectiveness of land for recreation use. at pages 3 and 4, the Commission's report states that:

On this score,

"Across the country, considerable land is now available for outdoor recreation, but it does not effectively meet the need. Over a quarter billion acres are public designated outdoor recreation areas. However, either the location of the land, or restrictive management policies, or both, greatly reduce the effectiveness of the land for recreation use by the bulk of the population. Much of the West and virtually all of Alaska are of little use to most Americans looking for a place in the sun for their families on a weekend when the demand is overwhelming. At regional and State levels, most of the land is where people are not. Few places are near enough to metropolitan centers for a Sunday outing. The problem is not one of total acres but of effective acres."

This clearly raises the question as to how effective wilderness areas are for public recreation purposes. The problem of providing public outdoor recreation is not one of how many millions of acres can be dedicated to wilderness purposes, but of how the Nation can provide sufficient effective acres for public outdoor recreation. Again, this weighty problem deserves to receive affirmative consideration of the Congress in the first instance, rather than to be treated through an incidental, after-the-fact determination of whether to veto a wilderness area designation made by the executive branch.

Another extremely important point made by the Commission's report, at page 4, is that:

"Outdoor recreation is often compatible with other resource uses. Fortunately, recreation need not be the exclusive use of an area, particularly the larger ones. Recreation can be another use in a development primarily managed for a different purpose, and it therefore should be considered in many kinds of planning— urban renewal, highway construction, water resource development, forest and range management, to name only a few."

The strict wilderness concept does not allow the compatibility of other uses. Therefore, this should require a very real consideration for the Congress in determining how many thousands of square miles should be restricted to a wilderness condition.

Another point made by the Commission's report, at page 4, is that:

"Water is a focal point of outdoor recreation. Most people seeking outdoor recreation want water-to sit by, to swim and to fish in, to ski across, to dive under, and to run their boats over. Swimming is now one of the most popular outdoor activities and is likely to be the most popular of all by the turn of the century. Boating and fishing are among the top 10 activities. Camping, picnicking, and hiking, also high on the list, are more attractive near water sites."

As previously indicated, water sites in wilderness areas are inaccessible for all practical purposes by the overwhelming majority of the public. There would be no roads by which families could transport their boats to water on trailers hitched to their automobiles. In most areas, in fact motorboating (which has become extremely popular and provided many jobs in a fast-growing industry) would be completely prohibited. The prohibition on motorboating would automatically prohibit water skiing, which is an increasingly popular form of outdoor recreation. It should also be noted that no ski lodges or ski tows for snow skiing would be permitted in wilderness areas. Camping, picnicking, hiking, fishing, and swimming in wilderness areas-all would be extremely difficult for most people because of inaccessibility and lack of facilities.