als—as it is the well-being and economy of such States that will be affected.

The mineral production of our State to date is on the order of some $22 billion and had the wilderness bill been in effect at the time Nevada became a State, we would have no mines at the present time, as practically all of our mines are in areas which could very well be considered "wilderness."

As far as the mining industry is concerned, we pay in wages alone as much as $40 million a year.

The Nevada Mining Association favors multiple use of our public lands, for the benefit of all of our citizens, and not the use of such lands by a privileged minority.

If your honorable committee decides to recommend some type of wilderness legislation, we urge the adopting of the following amend

ment:

Nothing in this act shall affect the application of the mining laws to any land included in the wilderness system.

It seems reasonable and necessary, in view of the present international situation, that our natural resources be utilized to the greatest possible extent; that our basic industries be preserved; and I submit that this can be accomplished and, at the same time, provide for reasonable and necessary recreational facilities.

As far as the position of the State of Nevada on the wilderness bill is concerned, I am citing Senate Joint Resolution No. 6 of the Nevada Legislature which was passed by both houses at the 1961 session of the legislature and signed by the Governor:

Whereas the economy of the State of Nevada is based upon its agriculture, mining, sheep and cattle industries, and the use of its waters for irrigation and related purposes; and

Whereas more than 86 percent of the land area of the State of Nevada is federally owned; and

Whereas the designation as wilderness or primitive areas of any of such federally owned lands would restrict the full utilization of natural resources and deny to the natural resources industries of the State of Nevada the right to develop wisely the natural resources contained in such areas within the State, and would also deny ready access to these areas to millions of American citizens, all to the detriment of such industries and to the people of the State of Nevada; and

Whereas one of the great potential industries of the State of Nevada is its tourist trade and wildlife attractions: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of Nevada, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of Nevada respectfully memoralizes the Congress of the United States to prevent the designation of any lands in Nevada as primitive or wilderness areas and the creation of lock-up areas for a singlepurpose use which would deny to the natural resources industries the right to develop wisely the natural resources of such areas and would be to the detriment of such industries and to the people of the State of Nevada; and be it further

Resolved, That all agencies administering Federal lands do so with the view of developing the full multiple use of the lands to further the general welfare and the economy of the State of Nevada; and be it further

Resolved, That certified copies of this resolution be prepared and transmitted forthwith by the legislative counsel to the Vice President of the United States. Speaker of the House of Representatives, each member of Nevada's congressional delegation, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture.

In addition, at the conference of 11 western Governors held in Salt Lake City, Utah, May 14-17, 1961, the following resolution was

unanimously adopted-I cannot understand the alleged position of Governor Brown, but I understand this resolution was passed unanimously as to public lands:

As to public lands: (1) since the mineralized area of economic potential in public lands makes up but a small fraction of 1 percent of the total area, it is not to the advantage of the Western States or of the Nation as a whole that these mineralized areas be withdrawn for all time or locked up in wilderness systems or other Federal reserves; furthermore, under no circumstances should there be any permanent withdrawals of any Federal lands without the concurrence of the Governor of the State in which the lands are located; and (2) an adequate study be made to determine if the true intent of the principle of multiple use of public lands is being properly carried out in all areas by the agencies of the Government.

Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.

We will now hear from Mr. John C. Dozier, a member of the Madera County Chamber of Commerce.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. DOZIER, PROFESSIONAL FORESTER, REPRESENTING THE MADERA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. DOZIER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am John C. Dozier, a professional forester, representing the Madera County Chamber of Commerce. Madera County owes its name to the Spanish word for wood or timber. The city of Madera had its origin as a shipping point for lumber about 1874. Now, 87 years later, Madera County is producing over 50 million board-feet of lumber per year on a sustained yield basis.

We feel that the lumber industry, vital to the economy of our county, is being threatened by the wilderness bill as the timber upon which the industry is based is located on Federal land, administered by the Forest Service.

The principle of multiple use is being practiced on the area from which the timber is being taken. Timber access roads, designed by the Forest Service and built by the lumber companies, serve not only the lumber industry but thousands of recreationists as well. These roads also aid in the development of hydroelectric projects by giving access to damsites and powerhouses.

Reservoirs created by these projects give added enjoyment to recreationists. A recent example of multiple use, with divergent interests serving each other harmoniously, is the Mammoth Pool project in our area. Access, close to the damsite, was provided over a road built by a lumber company. The dam was constructed and a reservoir formed by the power company. This year, on the first day of fishing season, 1.200 people were counted in the area. Without roads and without the reservoir only a handful of people could have enjoyed this type of recreation. This is but one example of multiple use in our area. There are many more.

Studies made at the University of California have indicated an increase of 70 percent in the number of visits to national forests, within the State, between 1955 and 1965. Meanwhile, the percent of people visiting the wilderness-type areas is expected to increase from 2.4 to 2.9 percent during the same period. This small but articulate minority already has 8 percent of the total net national

forest area within the State set aside for them. I submit that this is more than enough area for a single use when you consider the small number of people involved.

I have here a map of the Sierra National Forest which includes a large portion of Madera County. In this area alone we have Yosemite National Park, the Mount Dana Wild Area, the High Sierra Wilderness Area, and Sequoia National Park. All of these units put together represent a vast area devoted to a single use which only a few may enjoy. In California alone the U.S. Forest Service has nearly 1 million acres of wilderness-type areas. State and National parks include another 2 million acres, most of which is wilderness. Why do we need more?

I submit that this is a tremendous area to put into the deep-freeze of a wilderness area. And this is the only area in here [indicating] then devoted to multiple use. The rest of it substantially would go into the wilderness area.

Speaking as a forester, I know that today we are growing more timber than we are harvesting each year. However, increasing population accompanied by an increase in timber consumption indicate that the demand for timber will exceed the supply within a decade

or two.

Consider, too, that our timber-growing acreage is constantly being depleted by the construction of highways, airports, reservoirs, powerlines, and urban and industrial expansion. This means that we must produce more timber on less land, which we can do under proper management. Studies in eastern Madera County indicate a net annual growth of 280 to 720 board feet per acre on managed forest acreage. On the unmanaged acreage, that is, virgin timber, there is no net annual growth because mortality of the large old trees cancels out growth by the younger trees. These figures indicate what can be done by proper forest management to meet an increasing demand for timber.

Now let us consider Yosemite National Park with almost 9 billion board feet of timber on about 300,000 acres of commercial timber-type land. This land is capable of producing 120 million board feet of lumber annually, without depleting the supply, under proper manage

ment.

Sequoia National Park has 150,000 acres of commercial timber. Under proper management this area could produce 60 million board feet per year. What are these parks producing today? Not one stick of lumber. They are being used for one purpose and one purpose only, where they could serve several and bring in roughly $2 million annually in the form of stumpage payments. I have cited these figures to give you an idea of how we have already deprived ourselves of a valuable resource, which we will one day need, in the interest of recreation. On the other hand, we have two wilderness areas administered by the Forest Service. These areas were carefully selected for their lack of natural resources and their high scenic value. We do not object to this sort of wilderness area at all. We do object to any extension of wilderness area that will include any natural resources that we need now or in the foreseeable future. We recognize that recreation is a valuable resource of the country but feel that it can, and should, be part of a multiple-use program.

At the present time, a comprehensive study is being made of wilderness by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. The report of this Commission is due early next year. Why did the Senate rush their act through before studying this report, formulated by experts trained in the management of wild lands?

I think that the proponents of S. 174 were afraid of what the report might contain. I hope that the House of Representatives will give careful consideration to this report before enacting any wilderness legislation.

Finally, I would like to state that one definition of conservation is "wise use." In Madera County we are following that definition. We are using our resources of timber, water, and grazing along with

recreation.

These are renewable resources which are not being depleted or wasted. We think that this is more intelligent use of the land than putting it into the "deep freeze" of a wilderness area, and we feel that the multiple-use principle satisfies the premise of "the greatest good for the greatest number in the long pull."

Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. DOZIER. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mrs. Charlotte E. Mauk, of Berkeley, Calif.

STATEMENT OF MRS. CHARLOTTE E. MAUK, BERKELEY, CALIF. Mrs. MAUK. Mr. Chairman, I am Charlotte E. Mauk, of Berkeley. Calif., a technical editor at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. University of California. I am speaking as an individual.

It might be said that working for scenic preservation is my avocation. I belong to a score or more of organizations concerned with such matters, but I appear here as a private citizen in support of the wilderness bill, S. 174. The need for such legislation grows more acute as our wilderness disappears.

Wilderness experiences have been an important part of my life. since earliest childhood. I want opportunities for comparable experiences preserved for future generations. Unless we do something now to save what is left of our dwindling wilderness, those opportunities will be permanently lost.

It seems to me that this preservation of opportunity is particularly important in a democracy, and one of the things we are rightly proud of. We don't all play golf, but we all help support public golf courses; we don't all care for opera or for good shows, but we tax ourselves to provide municipal auditoriums; we don't all read-not the same things, at least-but we all help to pay for public libraries. It is appropriate in a democracy that we should also support wilderness reservations.

Speaking of democracy, I wonder if there is anything more democratic than a wilderness outing. When everyone is wearing scuffed boots and dusty clothes and sunburned noses it's pretty hard to see much difference between a banker and a baker. Everyone is warmed by the same sun and shaded by the same trees, refreshed by the same streams, and inspired by the same views-and confronted by the same challenge.

All see the same flowers and hear the same birds and travel past the same geologic formations. What each individual gets out of these experiences depends on his own viewpoint and his own response, but the opportunity is equal.

That opportunity can be preserved only by such protection as the wilderness act can confer. The time has come for us, the American people, to draw firm lines at the boundaries of existing dedicated areas and say, "No. No more commercial uses beyond this line unless Congress decides that the national welfare requires it."

Otherwise, exceptions can be made here and there and somewhere else, because it is always possible to make a plausible case for extracting some dollars, until the only wilderness left is what no one, anywhere, can find any economic use for.

If we were to change this into dollars, or if we set aside only those areas in which nobody can find any economic use, we will have pauperized our spiritual resources.

The dollars would benefit a few people, but the loss of wilderness would affect all citizens. That includes not only the recreationists, but all the people who benefit because wilderness helps to produce water, or because it is a reservoir of native animals and plants, or because it serves as a yardstick for management practices on other lands. The "little fellow" is the one who probably feels the loss the most directly. He doesn't have enough money to spend on vacations. He can't afford to take his family to a resort. He wants the opportunity for adventure beyond the roads. A wilderness vacation is the answer. It doesn't have to be strenuous, and it doesn't have to be exensive.

Let's see what is costs our man if he lives anywhere here in the West. Suppose he and his family team up with another family-say, eight or nine people all together. They drive to a roadhead and hire a packer to take in their equipment and supplies while they walk in to a spot where they can camp for a week or so. They can spend their time exploring or fishing or photographing or climbing or bird watching or just plain lying in the sun, and at the end of the week the packer comes back and takes their things out to the road. At the going rate of $18 per day for the packer and $7 per day for mules (three going in, two to pack out again), the total is $71. That's a little more than a dollar a day per person, and they have had a week of memorable experience.

This is not the only way to enjoy the wilderness inexpensively. There are other possibilities. Backpacking, of course, costs nothingand is not so strenuous as some would make it seem-but it's not for children. There are burros, though, at about $5 or less per day. Four people with two burros-and a lot of patience can travel anywhere the trails go. A little more expensive, but still within reason, is a hiking trip with a fairly large party, on which dunnage is handled by professional packers and meals are prepared by a commissary crew, for something like $10 per person per day. Such trips need not be rugged the trails are open to just about anyone who can put one foot in front of the other for a few hours-I might add that one reason I know a good deal of the wilderness is that for many years it was the only kind of vacation I could afford.

Any one of these outings provides an experience of beauty and adventure that enriches all the rest of a person's life. But every one of them depends on keeping the wilderness wild.