I personally own a 640-acre parcel just inside the wilderness area. I bought the parcel because it has real potential timber, Christmas trees, grazing and water development as well as recreation. I am not interested in selling this property to the Federal Government, but would rather retain the right to develop it myself. I can't see how. the Federal Government can rightfully force me to give up this right when the property would be used only by a handful of people.

In conclusion, I submit that S. 174 is not a conservation measure as some call it. The wilderness system set up by S. 174 would be a gross waste of natural resources. If multiple use really is the official policy of Congress in handling natural resources, development of recreation facilities should take its place hand in hand with development of other resources.

Such a policy would allow setting aside areas of outstanding scenic beauty for the use and enjoyment of all the American public and much smaller areas for the enjoyment of the few who want and need areas "where earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man."

It would not be in keeping with multiple use to set up, through S. 174, a 60-million-acre reserve, as big as the States of Washington and Indiana combined, for the exclusive use of a privileged few at the expense of all.

Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Mr. Crane, is your 640 acres improved?

Mr. CRANE. No; it is not.

Mrs. Prost. What approach do you have in getting to it?

Mr. CRANE. I have no approach at the present time because I am powerless to do anything.

Mrs. Prost. Is there a landing strip nearby?

Mr. CRANE. No.

Mrs. ProST. So you are within the wilderness area and this is considered an inholding?

Mr. CRANE. Yes.

Mrs. Prost. How far is it from there to the outside edge of the wilderness area?

Mr. CRANE. It is on the edge of the wilderness area.

Mrs. Prost. So in some of these areas where there are inholdings, if the Federal Government should not desire to purchase them, they could, perhaps be excluded. Would this remove your objection to the wilderness bill, providing such inholdings as yours on the edge of the wilderness area where there are no roads are excluded? Mr. CRANE. No; it would not remove all of my objections.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you very much.

Are there further questions?

If not, our next witness is Mr. Grant B. Potter, general manager of Sequoia Forest Industries, Inc.

And will Mr. Edwin Smith please come forward?

You may proceed, Mr. Potter.

STATEMENT OF GRANT B. POTTER, GENERAL MANAGER, SEQUOIA FOREST INDUSTRIES, INC., DINUBA, CALIF.

Mr. POTTER. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am Grant B. Potter, and I am general manager of Sequoia Forest Industries, Inc., at Dinuba, in the San Joaquin Valley.

I have been designated by the California Forest Practice Committee, of which I am a member, to present its views on S. 174, the wilderness system bill.

The committee is one of long standing, made up of forest industry men from all areas of the California pine country. It is part of the forest conservation function of the Western Pine Association, trade group of the 12-State pine region's lumber industry. While the committee limits its work to California forest resource matters, it serves in harmony with similar committees in the other pine States, whose forest affairs and problems are in most respects similar to California's. Therefore, we base our position on S. 174, first, on the bill's potential impact on the future of California and its many forest-borne communities; and in a broader sense, on regional and national aspects.

From long experience in forest resources matters the committee is convinced the economic point of view is inescapable in considering S. 174 yet it is by no means dominant to the exclusion of others.

Economic and social benefits accruing from forest management and forest-based industry are the very foundation for existence of hundreds of western communities, including many in California. Products manufactured from forest crops are intrinsically important, too, at home and elsewhere. As an example, consider the Dinuba operation, with which I am most familiar. With raw material supplied largely from the national forest, we employ about 200 men while producing each year enough lumber to build at least 2,500 houses, plus thousands of tons of byproducts such as pulp chips, baled shavings, wood flour, sawdust and ground bark.

In developing a sort of byproducts partnership with San Joaquin Valley agriculture we have achieved nearly 100-percent utilization of the log. Mature Government timber which we buy at auction and harvest the way the Government wants it done, makes all this possible while at the same time opening up new areas with roads for other forest uses, including recreation.

The Dinuba mill is but one of some 225 forest industry plants in the California pine region. These mills afford direct employment to about 25,000 men. In the entire western pine region the lumber industry counts about 140 million man-hours of employment annually, which means 70,000 men full time. The average hourly wage rate in 1960 was $2.4312.

This productive industry has every reason to look ahead to steady operations and further growth, providing the resource from which it draws its raw material-the commercial forest-is not decimated by unwise land withdrawals. Obviously, since Government controls 73 percent of the region's commercial forest-in California the figure is 60 percent public land policies have the power of health or ruin over most of our industry and communities. There is not a single lumber manufacturing operation in the whole pine region, as far as we know that is not wholly or partly dependent on Government timber sales to stay in business.

Now, while we can see no jobs in wilderness, we do believe wilderness can be expanded and perpetuated without undermining the bread-andbutter pursuits of forest-borne communities.

Commercial forest lands are best suited to the endless production of forest crops, and these can be wisely harvested, regrown, and harvested again. This need not interfere with the wilderness program. We favor reserving of well-chosen, appropriate wilderness areas, while always keeping in mind it should not be so much a question of how much wilderness we can wrangle, but how much we can afford. The California Forest Practice Committee is convinced timber management fits in nicely with recreational and esthetic concepts of land use. Timber management poses no threat to soundly selected wilderness areas. Wilderness is safe and certain of adequacy under existing programs. Unnecessary and unsuitable withdrawals such as S. 174 proposes not only strike at western livelihood, but tend to pose a threat to wilderness itself by reason of excesses in withdrawals for this special purpose.

For these general reasons, and on specific points which follow, the California Forest Practice Committee opposes S. 174 while reaffirming its support of the wilderness idea.

The committee views the primitive area features of the bill as very bad. In the Nation as a whole-largely in the Western States—S. 174 would at the outset lock up as a part of the huge wilderenss system some 8 million acres of unclassified primitive areas in the national forests. These lands are known to include large areas of commercial forest most valuable for multiple use and not of proved wilderness caliber.

Congress would not be called on to scan and act individually on these withdrawals, no matter how large, in the manner the national park proposals are acted on. Our committee would like to see Congress scrutinize with a critical eyes and on an individual basis every single plan for special, limited use of public lands. And the burden of proof as to wilderness quality of lands involved should be on those wanting to set aside. Under S. 174 the burden of proof is cleverly reversed.

In California, under the systematic land classification program that the U.S. Forest Service put into effect some 30 years ago, the national forests have dedicated 446,000 acres to strictly wilderness purposes, and at this time 1,094,000 acres more are frozen in "primitive" status pending completion of surveys and studies on which to base classification decisions. Thus, California has 1,558,000 acres of national forest lands earmarked under S. 174 to be placed in the wilderness system at the outset. Of this, 286,000 acres are commercial forest.

In addition, California's 4,026,000 acres of national parks and 194,000 acres of natural wildlife refuges would increase to 5,778,000 acres the total of California lands subject to S. 174. This is nearly 6 percent of California's land area.

Thus our State has a very large and real interest in S. 174. In blanketing-in of primitive areas, California's stake is larger than that of any other State except Idaho. As a transplanted former resident of Idaho, I feel a deep concern over the fact that California and Idaho together stand to contribute more than half of the 8 million acres that would be taken into the wilderness system from presently unclassified national forest lands.

Our committee regards recreation and timber harvesting as compatible. We see evidence every day that forest management increases recreational opportunity. We cannot understand how S. 174 can be considered a recreation bill. How can vast, permanently roadless areas inaccessible to family recreation be viewed as helpful to the expansion of outdoor life? Instead it seems more likely that the withdrawals would intensify growing recreational problems by making less lands available for such use.

We should like to call to the attention of the committee the unexplained difference of treatment by S. 174 as between national forest lands and roadless national park lands. We believe that with S. 174, Congress would vote itself into a subsidiary role in policymaking for these lands. To this we are utterly opposed. Congress should keep intact its constitutional authority over public lands.

Most of all, our concern over this bill centers on its harsh indifference to the interests and hopes of the many western communities dependent on productive use of national forests.

We wish to thank the Public Lands Committee for taking time to come out here to hear our views firsthand on this vital matter. Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you. Are there questions of Mr. Potter?

We are very happy to have your testimony this afternoon. As a former constituent of mine, let me say we would welcome you back to the great State of Idaho sometime.

Mr. POTTER. Thank you.

Mrs. PFOST. Our next witness is Mr. Edwin F. Smith. While Mr. Smith is coming to the stand will Mr. F. T. Wilmoth, of the Minerals Association of Northern California, please come to the front row. You may proceed, Mr. Smith.

STATEMENT OF EDWIN F. SMITH, PLACERVILLE, CALIF.

Mr. SMITн. Madam Chairman and honorable board, my name is Edwin F. Smith. My address is 117 Canal Street, Placerville, El Dorado County, Calif. I was born in Ione, Amador County, Calif., in 1890; my parents, also being natives of California, were engaged in the business of mining clays for the production of pottery and brick. They also ran a country store, raised cattle for the production of beef, and dairyed to a limited degree.

My grandparents were gold miners and wagonmakers. Therefore, my civil background had to do with lands and their natural resources. My official experience has been in the management of public lands, as I secured a position with the U.S. Forest Service as a forest fire guard on July 15, 1909, on the Tahoe National Forest, was appointed to assistant forest ranger of the Lassen National Forest on June 1, 1911, and forest ranger March 1, 1915, continuing in that position until July 25, 1917, when I joined the Army.

I served in the Army with the 10th and 20th Engineers-Forestryfrom July 25, 1917, until March 20, 1919, harvesting timber in France for the Armed Forces.

I returned to the Forest Service as a ranger on the Tahoe National Forest on March 20, 1919, appointed deputy supervisor of the Eldorado National Forest on January 1, 1920, and forest supervisor on January 16, 1920, and remained in that position until my retirement

on June 30, 1950, with a service of my Government of some 39 years, 7 months, and 5 days, all pretty much in the use of lands and their natural resources.

Since my retirement from Government service I have been employed as a forest consultant by a lumber manufacturing company.

I wish it understood that conclusions reached in this presentation are my own, based on my experiences and in no way influenced by my association with Government agencies or private industry, and are given with the idea of help in managing and protecting public lands for all the industrial economy of the State of California, and particularly the area wherein I reside.

As I understand it, the committee is interested in securing public opinion on the proposed legislation which has to do with the so-called wilderness bill, which in turn attempts to set aside certain portions of public lands within the national forests for a specific and continuing use for one class of persons and one class of use. This is indeed a departure from the long-practiced method of permitting the present managers the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management-of meeting their obligations.

Since my experience has been with the U.S. Forest Service my remarks must deal with the management of the public lands under their jurisdiction.

The Congress created the Forest Service as a bureau of the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of managing the forests, lands, water, and other related resources connected thereto, and have the power still to direct such administrators when and if they fail in such administration.

To my knowledge the Forest Service has met the challenge of the Congress through the Secretary of Agriculture, and have over the years of their administration, as the trends indicated, planned and directed the uses of these lands with the aid of the professional and trained personnel within their organization, with the end result of preparing ahead of time for the impact of other uses not contemplated at the time of the creation of the Bureau by the Congress.

During the many years I was privileged to be an administrator of public lands, the changes in the uses of such lands as well as their contribution to the wealth of and needs of industry were many and varied as

Use of the forage for the grazing of domestic stock and during war periods the cropping of timber;

The production of minerals other than gold for use in war materials;

The heavy use of the area for recreation of all types from skiing to outdoor camping; and

The development and storage of the waters for domestic, power, agriculture, and industrial uses; besides the constant upsurge in the cropping of the fish and game that are a byproduct of the habitat of the forests and streams.

These upsurges and demands were met by the classification of the lands and the direction of their uses although they were of a multiple

nature.

I was the forest supervisor when the so-called wild or primitive area known as Desolation Valley was instituted in the year 1931, and had to do with the setting of the boundaries of such.