space age. Prospecting has been almost wholly without benefit of geochemistry, geophysics, core drilling, and advanced geologic guidance.

Currently prospecting and exploration is at an alltime low. The logistics of exploration are weighted against mineral discovery by the limitations on mechanized transport, power equipment, use of explosives, and the inability of a prospector to acquire title or exploit a deposit even though found. Future breakthroughs in metallurgy—

this is still the U.S. Bureau of Mines—

will create demand not now recognized; nor can we predict what elements may be in future demand. Similarly, advances in exploration and exploration techniques, and increasing demand will make commercial resources out of mineralized formations that would now be considered worthless, were they known.

I might add to that that new techniques in the beneficiation of low grade ores also is increasingly making economically minable deposits that would not have been considered some years ago.

This study reports also states that the Bureau of Mines in reviewing mineral potential of 30 national forest wilderness and primitive areas, indicates that discovery potential for metalliferous minerals is high in 18 areas, and medium or low in the other 12.

On pages 110 and 111 of this report is a tabulation of how the Bureau of Mines considers the mineral potentiality of the 30 wilderness and primitive areas reported on. I notice that in connection with the Anaconda under "discovery potential" as to metals they rank it medium, as to nonmetals, medium, and as to mineral fuels low. But as to various others in these areas listed, they rank them all high, a great number of them as to both metals and nonmetals.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Boyd's testimony this morning-he submitted a statement from the committee of public lands of the Mining and Metallurgy Society of America and he enumerated mineral potentials of the various States on pages 33 and 34, and left out Montana, decided that there wouldn't be any special mineral production from the areas in Montana that would go into wilderness. And so I can't argue with you about the potentialities of some of these areas. I think you are quite right about Anaconda and the Bitterroot areas. The point I was trying to make when we were discussing it before was that no one knows where minerals will be found and what minerals are going to be the essential minerals in the space age in which we live. But it doesn't seem to me that that is a valid argument against setting aside for future benefits some of these unique areas that we can use for special wilderness or national parks or fish, game, and wildlife refuges at the present time, and we have provided a key to unlock these places if and when they are needed, just as we have provided a key to unlock Glacier and Yellowstone and Gethsemane National Parks.

If and when something in the public interest is discovered that is necessary to win a war or take care of a depression or to move forward in our exploration in space we can go to the President, and I have complete confidence in the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from New Mexico who flank me, that they could go to the President and get these things unlocked, if it were demonstrated that we needed them.

Mr. CANNON. Well, Senator, you and I proceed from the same premise but arrive at different conclusions. Because of the premise which you stated, this is the reason that we feel that at a time when

Soviet Russia is exploring for and discovering new rare-earth minerals and continuing extensive research in their uses, and at a time when our own research has indicated that these rare-earth metals will have greatly expanded use in the space, missile, and nuclear age we are just entering, we should not foreclose the fullest opportunities for discovering of additional sources of already known rare-earth minerals and the possible discovery of presently unknown rare-earth minerals.

Therefore, we urge that under appropriate regulation the existing mining and mineral leasing laws be permitted to continue to apply to wilderness areas and that continuing mineral resource surveys and inventories be made of these and adjacent lands.

We feel that under the present provisions of S. 4, there is insufficient incentive and opportunity for prospecting, particularly using these modern prospecting methods that we refer to, to discover that there is a justification for unlocking some of these areas, that we are not going to have the opportunity to make some of these discoveries and so that the remedy of going to that extremely busy man, the President of the United States, may never be called on because we won't know what might really be there that might help us out a great deal.

In concluding, we would like to state that regardless of the subject matter of the proposed legislation, we would be disturbed by the rigid and inflexible method of legislative procedure which would be established by section 3 (f).

We believe that under section 3(f), a wilderness area recommendation would be presented to the Congress on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis. The Congress could reject the recommendation or it could approve the recommendation. There is no opportunity provided to the Congress to modify the boundaries proposed in the recommendation, to delete or add some portion of land, or to make some special use provisions if a proper case were made in regard to a particular area. The recommendation either would go into effect or not go into effect. In our opinion, we do not believe that this fulfills the true definition of legislating.

I want to express our great appreciation for this privileged opportunity to present our views.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Cannon, I want to express my gratification for your appearance here and your splendid testimony. I interrupted you at times, but I feel that we are not too far apart in our ideas. Thank you so much for your appearance. You have been helpful to us.

The next witness will be another old friend of the committee, Mr. John Taylor, from the American Farm Bureau, who will appear again on this bill, as he has appeared in the past.

STATEMENT OF JOHN I. TAYLOR, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE

DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. TAYLOR. Very briefly, Senator.

Senator METCALF. We are delighted to have you here, Mr. Taylor. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the American Farm Bureau Federation appreciates the opportunity to

appear before this committee to present its views on wilderness legislation-S. 4.

We note the request of the committee that only new material be presented at this hearing, and we shall comply with that request. Our testimony presented on February 27, 1961, may be referred to for our basic policies and recommendations. This policy on wilderness has not changed since our last testimony.

We are appreciative also for the amendments we suggested which were made by the committee on S. 174.

The new material which we wish to present briefly is as follows: First. In the March 1961 issue of the Journal of Forestry, there appeared the results of a survey by Mr. Gordon L. Bultena and Mr. Marvin J. Taves entitled "Changing Wilderness Images and Forestry Policy." It is an objective study of what people desire with respect to the use of land for recreational purposes. It shows that the great majority of people want campsites or campgrounds, first aid stations; garbage disposal places; toilets, picnic tables; wells for drinking water; places to buy groceries, and many others. Very few persons will ever be able to enjoy the beauties and solitudes of the areas proposed in this bill.

Second. There has been a similar study made recently in California. The results have not as yet been made public. Our information is that it will show even more vividly that the public generally is not looking for "locked up" areas-but areas which can be used and enjoyed. We suggest the committee carefully examine this survey, if and when released, to obtain any new thoughts or ideas it might bring forth.

Third. Recently, the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service set aside 1,239,840 acres as the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. We shall not discuss whether or not the classifications are right or wrong-nor shall we criticize the Secretary of the agency for taking the action. We do contend, however, that the final decision and designation is a responsibility of the Congress. It would have been an easy matter for the recommendations of the Secretary, after investigation and hearings, to have been presented to the Congress for approval— and we believe this should be the pattern.

Under present delegation of authority this kind of manipulation and many others can be applied by one agency of Government or another. These included withdrawals and transfers of public lands.

Fourth. In the September 1962 issue of Sports Afield is an article by Erle Stanley Gardner in which he says, "*** it isn't the fastness and solitude (of the desert and mountains) which are being invaded, but our liberties as citizens." He further says, "that the public domain should be administered so that it gives the greatest good to the greatest number ***" We suggest the study of this article to the committee. It may give a new slant on a vexing and emotional problem which we and many others are trying to assess with candor and commonsense. Lastly, in view of this new material, we respectfully urge the passage of S. 4 provided the recommendations for its improvement, attached hereto, are adopted.

We believe these suggestions will vitally improve the bill and restore to the Congress its constitutional role in the handling of part of the public domain.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to express our views.

On the next page is the suggested amendments, to which I would like to add the following language at the bottom:

Or, Mr. Chairman, we will support an amendment or amendments which will accomplish the same result: namely, to provide that any proposed wilderness areas be added to the wilderness system only by affirmative Act of Congress.

Thank you very much.

(The proposed amendments referred to follow :)

On page 4

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 4

(a) Line 1, strike the word "primitive,”.

(b) Between lines 1 and 2, add a new subtitle, "National Forest Primitivė Areas".

(c) On line 2, strike “Provided, That" and begin paragraph as follows: "(2) The areas classified", etc.

On page 6, line 4, change “(2)” to “(3)”.

On page 10

(a) Strike lines 5, 6, and 7 and rewrite as follows: "if prior to such adjournment the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have approved a resolution declaring itself in favor of such recommendation".

(b) Line 7, beginning with "Provided,”, strike the rest of paragraph (f). Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. We are grateful for your appearance. Thank you for your suggestions, and we will take into full consideration the suggested amendments that you have submitted.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

Senator METCALF. The next witness is Mr. Robert T. Dennis, who is representing the Izaak Walton League.

Mr. Dennis, we are glad to have you here. I see you have a prepared statement. You go right ahead.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. DENNIS ON BEHALF OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Robert T. Dennis, assistant conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America.

The Izaak Walton League of America is a nationwide organization. of citizens devoted to the wise and proper use and management of America's natural resources base for all the beneficial purposes it must serve. Since its organization 41 years ago the league has been in the forefront of programs and efforts to preserve for present and future generations some areas of America in their natural condition, for their scenic, recreational, cultural and scientific values.

Mr. Chairman, on June 20, 1957, the league appeared before this committee to testify on S. 1176, the wilderness legislation then under consideration. At that time we said:

The Izaak Walton League sees in the presentation before you two principal objectives: the first, to obtain from Congress itself recognition that wilderness preservation is a sound, sensible, and logical aspect of the overall land, water, and resource management pattern *** the second, to seek through Congress itself some means whereby the limited remaining areas of wilderness may better withstand the pressures which would destroy them * ** we endorse these objectives.

Today, the Izaak Walton League reiterates its endorsement of these objectives, as it has done at every level-Chapter, State, and National-on countless occasions at countless hearings since 1957. To

day, we urge speedy enactment of S. 4, just as we urged enactment of S. 174 in the last Congress, and of similar bills in previous Congresses. We commend the sponsors for their leadership and persistence in working toward this sorely needed national policy decision by the Congress.

Details of our position are made clear in the records of past hearings, and need not be repeated here.

It would seem unlikely that anything new could be added to the record which already exists, but there is in fact one important addition. Since 1961, when this committee reported S. 174 favorably and the Senate passed the bill, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has completed its 3-year study and has presented its report and recommendations to the Congress. It might be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that ever since the establishment of ORRRC in 1958, favorite argument of wilderness bill opponents has been "we should wait for the ORRRC report." That report is available now. It is significant. It supports the principles and purposes of the legislation before you today.

ORRRC objectively considered the subject of wilderness in context with all outdoor recreation, and with respect to the total outdoor environment and opportunity which present generations must retain and pass on to the future. ŎRRRC found wilderness to be essential, desirable, and entirely consistent with all other uses of the Nation's land and water resource base, as did Congress itself in the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960.

ORRRC stated that the first of five major aspects of the Federal role in outdoor recreation should be—

Preservation of scenic areas, natural wonders, primitive areas and historic sites of national significance" (p. 6 of “Outdoor Recreation for America”)—

and included in the system it recommended for classifying recreation lands for management purposes:

Class V-Primitive Areas-undisturbed roadless areas characterized by natural, wild conditions, including "wilderness areas" (p. 7).

In ORRRC's survey of the outdoor activities in which Americans engage most frequently, 13 of the 23 listed are found in wilderness in their highest quality-e.g., mountain climbing, canoeing, hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, etc. (p. 34).

ORRRC urged forthrightly:

The natural heritage of our Nation must be preserved. We cannot afford, by either unwise action or neglect, to lose or impair resources of outstanding natural, scenic, scientific, or historic importance. These must be protected from misuse so that they may be passed on to future generations as nearly in their original state as possible.

Indicating its broad perspective and balanced approach, ORRRC continued in the same paragraph to say:

Equally important is preservation of the opportunity for a wide variety of recreation uses that do not require the strict preservation of resources in their natural condition (p. 92).

In the section on primitive areas, ORRRC made the flat recommendation that:

Primitive areas (class V) should be carefully selected and should be managed for the sole and unequivocal purpose of maintaining their primitive char.acteristics (p. 113).