Mr. GRAY. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. We have Mr. Sam L. Wolf.

Mr. Cliff Williams will be next.

Mr. Wolf is a member of the Range Improvement Committee of the California Wool Growers Association.

We also have Mr. Suskind.

Mr. WOLF. I have been directed by Mr. Williams and Mr. Suskind to speak for the group of us to save time.

Mr. JOHNSON. Fine.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF SAM L. WOLF, MEMBER OF THE RANGE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE, CALIFORNIA WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Sam L. Wolf of Richfield, Calif., member of the Range Improvement Committee, California Wool Growers Association. I will cover one basic reason why this association is opposed to S. 174 in its present form.

While in complete sympathy with the concept of preserving the primitive aspects of certain public lands, we who oppose enactment of S. 174 are convinced that this measure would benefit only a very small fraction of the people of this country; namely, those who can afford the time and money to spend 1 or 2 weeks with a pack string out in the wilderness.

I continually ask myself the question: "Why is additional wilderness legislation necessary?"

There is already in effect adequate legislation to establish new wilderness areas, administer established areas, and regulate the many independent uses through applied use of the multiple-use concept.

Several million acres of primitive land have only recently been classified as wilderness-in fact, around 7 million acres, which is a rather sizable plot. Proponents of the bill say they wish to preserve these wilderness areas for the people. How many people have the physical and financial resources to pack into these practically inaccessible areas? Only a handful at best.

The vast majority of the people who are looking for recreation would much rather drive to it on a nice road where they can set up their camp a short distance from the road-if they even intend on camping.

Additional legislation would only confuse the issue and tie up that which eventually may have to be undone with a considerable expenditure of time and effort.

We would like to emphasize one or two other points.

One is that, as Mr. Gray stated a few moments ago, we do not like to see the power of control of the wilderness areas be taken from the Congress.

Secondly, the language of the bill to us does not guarantee that grazing rights will continue without overriding restrictions. In other words, we feel that there could be restrictions put in this that would force us, as sheepmen, to discontinue our grazing rights on the Forest Service lands.

Another aspect which might be considered, which has not been brought out yet, is the predator control aspect of the wilderness areas.

Will the State, Federal, and county agents be able to go into these wilderness areas and trap these predators? They are a very serious threat to the livestock industry, not only the sheep, but the cattle. These are questions we are not sure of.

Thank you.

(The accompanying statement of Mr. Cliff Williams follows:)

STATEMENT OF CLIFF WILLIAMS

I am Cliff Williams, of Corning, Tehama County, Calif., president of the Northern California Wood Growers Association, one of the 21 branches of the statewide California Wool Growers Association. This State association represents over 2,000 sheepmen and is the recognized voice of the sheep industry of California. The State produces 20 million pounds of wool annually and an estimated 1,300,000 lambs.

There are several reasons why we are opposed to wilderness legislation. One of the more important issues in my estimation is the fact that if S. 174 is passed as presently written, it will no longer give me direct congressional representation in Federal territory reclassification matters.

Congressional approval of any land to be included within the wilderness system should be mandatory. We hope Congress will not abdicate to the executive branch its traditional authority of disposing of and making all needful rules and regulations with respect to Federal territory.

The "congressional veto" that S. 174 proposes is clearly a violation of those provisions set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

The bill would divest from both the House and Senate Interior Committees and Congress itself any meaningful role in creating wilderness areas. Their releasing of such authority to the executive branch would represent extremely bad legislative policy. Orderly procedure would require that separate public hearings be set up so that individuals and firms affected would have the opportunity to voice their opinions as to the soundness of any proposed land reclassification. S. 174 does not presently allow this.

As a sheepman I personally want to see the power left with Congress because I then have direct representation to keep me posted on developments.

I sincerely hope that if the House should deem it advisable to pass wilderness legislation they also retain the power to vote on the areas that go into the wilderness system.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are there questions?

The gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. RIVERS. Is it your contention, Mr. Wolf, there will be no game management or control in the wilderness areas?

Mr. WOLF. That is what I do not know. I am not sure of that. That is something that we feel is absolutely necessary. In other words, if there is a wilderness area here and you run your sheep and your cattle here and cannot go into that wilderness area, you cannot control the predators.

Mr. RIVERS. You could not, but I think the agency might have a game management control and figure out some way of harvesting the crop within the wilderness.

Mr. WOLF. That is something we were not sure of.

Mr. RIVERS. You want to see that happen?

Mr. WOLF. Definitely, yes.

Mr. RIVERS. That is all.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you for your statement.

We will next hear from Rev. Don M. Chase, St. Andrews Methodist Church of Sacramento.

STATEMENT OF REV. DON M. CHASE, ST. ANDREWS METHODIST CHURCH, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Reverend CHASE. Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking as pastor of the church exactly, but as one who has worked for several years in the summer program of the Methodist Church in California, and speaking from the point of view of the camping program of the California-Nevada Conference of the Methodist Church.

It is the belief of the church, of the section of it of which I am here the spokesman, that camping in the wilderness makes possible some living values for the youth of our communities which are not attainable so well in any other way than in wilderness camping.

We believe that living close to nature, on the earth, where man has built and created nothing at all, and adapting to the realities of earth and stone and sky and water and sun and darkness, warmth and cold, carries us back into communion with God, and at one also with our forefathers whose lives and efforts and suffering built a heritage for us.

It is a sad fact that a great proportion of our youth and young adults have never lighted a fire, gathered fuel, seen bread baked over an open fire; have no experience of a rainstorm from which they could not retreat to a warm building and a change of clothing; have no experience of a sunrise or sunset giving a beautiful glow to a mountain crag; have no knowledge of a deer grazing at dusk in a meadow.

It is a sad fact that with the exploding population our earth and our generation is experiencing, it will be only a few years until the only wilderness areas left will be those which today are set apart to be kept in a state of virgin wilderness.

That you may know that we mean what we are saying, let me add that the Methodist Church has a number of camps-or camping groups, perhaps we should say who go into the wilderness to an entirely undeveloped area, with the aid of a packer, but each boy or girl or counselor carrying his own pack, and live for a week or 10 days with no facilities at all except those which we create for ourselves, and then we go away leaving only fire-blackened stones to mark that place, the wilderness unpolluted and unaltered. Of course, we never go to such a place without encountering other groups with similar interests, Boys Scouts and so forth, going or coming, making the most of the heritage of the wilderness.

And so we plead that the Congress of the United States take a statesmanlike action to prevent the search for financial wealth from depriving us forever of that other far more important wealth of the spirit, actual first hand acquaintance with nature as God has made it, experience of living with nature, far from automobiles and roads and radios.

Dollars are necessary, and we have no criticism of those who seek to expand business and industrial opportunities; but even more necessary is a quality of life to which the wilderness areas have an important contribution to make, and which, without the wilderness areas, will not be so well made and preserved.

We realize, of course, that there are already wilderness areas. But increasing pressures of population, by the time these western areas have twice or three times the population we now have, will mean that,

like Yosemite today, a city's population will have moved into the mountain with somebody camping under every tree, and the wilderness will be no more.

Unless the wilderness areas are set aside in vastly greater extent than is now the case, that will be the situation. The future is in your hands, and failure now will cheat the unborn generations of a heritage which can never be regenerated. To take a small and minimum view of the necessities of the case is to sell America's future short.

We plead for your support of the considerable expansion of the wilderness areas.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Are there questions?

Thank you.

Reverend CHASE. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. We will next hear from George N. Swallow, of the State Grazing Board of Nevada.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE N. SWALLOW, POST OFFICE BOX 457, ELY, NEV., REPRESENTING THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE STATE GRAZING BOARD OF NEVADA

Mr. SWALLOW. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Public Lands, my name is George N. Swallow. I represent the Central Committee of the Nevada State Grazing Board, State of Nevada. This organization is made up of all livestock men in the State of Nevada who operate on Bureau of Land Management lands.

I wish to make the further statement that I do not officially represent the State Grazing Advisory Board and the National Advisory Board Council, all set up under Federal law and rules and regulations of the Federal Government.

I appear in protest to S. 174.

The proposed wilderness legislation states that the purpose isto establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes.

We want to point out that the establishment of a National Wilderness Preservation System is not for the permanent good of the people.

A policy statement contained in S. 174 as passed by the Senate states that the Congress recognizes—

that an increasing population accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, is destined to occupy and modify all areas within the United States except those that are designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition. It is accordingly declared to be the policy of the Congress of the United States to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.

The definition of wilderness as stated in S. 174 as passed by the Senate of the United States is as follows:

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence,

77350-62-pt. 3- -9

STATEMENT OF REV. DON M. CHASE, ST. ANDREWS METHODIS. CHURCH, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Reverend CHASE. Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking as pastor the church exactly, but as one who has worked for several ye in the summer program of the Methodist Church in California, a speaking from the point of view of the camping program of r California-Nevada Conference of the Methodist Church.

It is the belief of the church, of the section of it of which I s here the spokesman, that camping in the wilderness makes possi some living values for the youth of our communities which are 14 attainable so well in any other way than in wilderness camping.

We believe that living close to nature, on the earth, where man built and created nothing at all, and adapting to the realities earth and stone and sky and water and sun and darkness, warn and cold, carries us back into communion with God, and at one a ❤ with our forefathers whose lives and efforts and suffering bui heritage for us.

It is a sad fact that a great proportion of our youth and young ad..” have never lighted a fire, gathered fuel, seen bread baked over an or fire; have no experience of a rainstorm from which they could retreat to a warm building and a change of clothing; have no es perience of a sunrise or sunset giving a beautiful glow to a mount erag; have no knowledge of a deer grazing at dusk in a meadow.

It is a sad fact that with the exploding population our earth a”. our generation is experiencing, it will be only a few years until t only wilderness areas left will be those which today are set apart: be kept in a state of virgin wilderness.

That you may know that we mean what we are saying, let me s that the Methodist Church has a number of camps--or camp_ groups, perhaps we should say who go into the wilderness to a entirely undeveloped area, with the aid of a packer, but each boy girl or counselor carrying his own pack, and live for a week or days with no facilities at all except those which we create for or selves, and then we go away leaving only fire-blackened stones to Ha's that place, the wilderness unpolluted and unaltered. Of course, s never go to such a place without encountering other groups wsimilar interests, Boys Scouts and so forth, going or coming, mas "2 the most of the heritage of the wilderness.

And so we plead that the Congress of the United States take 1 statesmanlike action to prevent the search for financial wealth f depriving us forever of that other far more important wealth of -spirit, actual firsthand acquaintance with nature as God has made experience of living with nature, far from automobiles and roads a radios.

Dollars are necessary, and we have no criticism of those who seek t expand business and industrial opportunities; but even more TH sary is a quality of life to which the wilderness areas have an imp tant contribution to make, and which, without the wilderness areas, will not be so well made and preserved.

We realize, of course, that there are already wilderness areas, increasing pressures of population, by the time these western an have twice or three times the population we now have, will mear, r