years. At the end of that time, the lumber industry would be right back where they are today, only they would have postponed their ailment for approximately 10 years and during that time curtailed further development of what conservation programs they may have already started.

(4) I have yet to see a second-growth or thinned-out area still suitable as a national park or recreation area.

(5) Governor Langlie stated once before, on the same issue, that the forests have been getting along for hundreds of years before man came here and will continue to do so if left alone.

Germany as a nation did not come into existence until 1873, but by the 1880's they had achieved great success in their reforestation and conservation program, and continued to progress in this field until the advent of World War II. Denmark for years had produced Douglas-fir trees with three times the yield that our American forests produce today, and their soil never has been as good as ours. By the way, the Douglas-fir was obtained from this country originally.

If further graphic examples are needed, look at China. It has been proven that 2,500 years ago, 80 percent of its barren hills were covered by thriving forests and they provided adequate flood control and water tables at the time. Italy is another example. Most buildings are made of stone, which means, for all practical purposes, their houses are overbuilt and their use is less flexible to changing living conditions. Italy's land at one time had ample timber resources and a thriving shipbuilding industry serving the Mediterranean Sea area. Now with their forests expended, their economy is that much less flexible. Teddy Roosevelt was instrumental in getting protection for our wilderness areas. This wilderness bill will reinforce the policies that were originally laid down by Teddy Roosevelt.

"It is accordingly declared to be the policy of Congress (1) to secure the dedication of an adequate system of areas of wilderness to serve the recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical needs of the people; and (2) to provide for the protection of these areas and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. Pursuant to this policy the Congress gives sanction to the continued preservation as wilderness of those areas federally owned or controlled that are within national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, or other public lands, and that have so far retained under their Federal administration the principal attributes of their primeval character. It is pursuant to this policy and sanction that the national wilderness preservation system is established.

"The units of this system designated for inclusion by this act, and those that may later be designated in accordance with its provisions, shall be so protected and administered as to preserve their wilderness character" (wilderness bill from p. 2, line 19, to p. 3, line 12).

These lines sum up the whole bill in a nutshell.

Executive Vice President W. D. Hagenstein of the Industrial Forestry Association, Portland, Oreg., quoted, "Wilderness areas are generally remote and hence accessible to relatively few.

"(a) Young families with small children can't very well walk 15 to 20 miles into a wilderness if they want to take the youngsters along.

"(b) Older people on the average haven't the stamina to invade these areas very far.

"(c) Workingmen don't often have the time or money to explore these areas whose vastness requires either considerable time by foot or an expensive pack trip which few can afford.

"(d) These areas also provide a real worry to the Federal forest managers who must protect them against fire, and in some instances, have been up against it when serious insect epidemics have broken out."

In answer to the statements, I will break them down into letters (a) through (d) and answer by corresponding numbers of (1) through (4), or as many as I need.

(1) Answer to (a): Any young family who tries to hike into a forest 15 or 20 miles the first time with or without kids, should have their heads examined. That would be like skiing off of a skijump the first time you had skis on or trying to set a swimming record when you could hardly dogpaddle.

(2) Answer to (b): Of course, older persons don't have the stamina-how many hunters every year die of heart attacks during hunting season because they sit in an office all the rest of the year and don't take care of themselves physically.

(3) Answer to (c): I would like to know what Mr. Hagenstein means by "workingmen." Doctors work harder with their hands and minds than gravediggers do with their backs. The average man with the 40-hour week has more time than the doctor. It is just a matter of using time most efficiently, and here people are hollering for a 30-hour week. And where do they already spend most of their leisure time? Improving their minds to make a better living. No. That takes too much effort. It is spent making mountains out of molehills in routine household tasks, such as watching TV on sunny days and gaining unnecessary weight. As far as the pack trip is concerned, sure, if you put as much planning into it as going down to the corner tavern to buy a beer, of course it is going to cost money, but if you split the cost between several persons, put in a month of work planning the trip, there is no reason whatsoever why a pack trip shouldn't be very successful and comparatively inexpensive, about $10 a day for everything. But, a so-called workingman also has to be a thinking one and do some careful advance planning for the trip.

(4) Answer to (d): It has definitely been proven that 90 percent of all forest fires are man caused, and with reasonable caution and commonsense can be entirely eliminated. There is adequate literature available telling how to build and extinguish campfires. As for the insect epidemics, it is the same old story of man upsetting the balance of nature by killing off predatory animals, thus winding up with too many deer who eventually starve to death. More domestic trees and animals are subject to diseases than are the wild ones.

It is earnestly hoped that this wilderness bill is sucessfully passed and that the Olympic National Park can take its rightful place along with Yosemite, Yellowstone, and our other great national parks. We need to educate the visiting public to appreciate the unhurried greatness and craftsmanship of Mother Nature, and the many indirect benefits that wilderness areas furnish manmade superficial civilization.

We need wild areas as a comparison of man's progress, his grace, gentleness, creativeness, and harshness, and, for that matter, where he has slipped backward in his philosophy of and on life in general.

Humans need a place where they can experience and exercise their vision, meditation, and planning without economic limitations or being judged as a person by how well he keeps up with the Joneses or pays the mortgage-where a person can acquire and add to his native ability and show he has what it takes to show leadership in planning a trip and laying out plans and working with persons as a member of a team unhampered by redtape, but propelled by determination to see a trip through rain or shine.

Wilderness areas will serve as outlets for man's leadership abilities that he can't always express on his job of earning a living.

Wilderness is a symbol. Hope for those who can't always be on the sport pages or prominent in civic affairs. Wilderness is something to cherish and look forward to during the hours of civilized toil of making a living.

A man may never have run in a track event or race in any sports, but if he fights on behalf of this wilderness bill, he will have participated in the biggest race of all time-to protect the race of mankind.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Burr Singleton, of Manson.

STATEMENT OF BURR SINGLETON, LAKE CHELAN, WASH.

Mr. SINGLETON. Thanks, gentlemen, for the privilege of permitting me to air my views and frustrations.

My name is Burr Singleton of Lake Chelan, and I represent Singleton alone.

Senator JACKSON. Would you like to have your entire statement in the record and just hit the highlights? Why don't you do that? Is that all right? You may be seated.

Mr. SINGLETON. I'd rather stand up.

Senator JACKSON. Anyway that is helpful to you.

Mr. SINGLETON. This petitioner is duly appreciative of the of addressing this hearing on the revised wilderness bill, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the T

For consideration by this committee are submitted, most respectfully, the following observations and conclusions:

S. 1123, the revised wilderness bill, is urgently needed, and needed immediately. But with these amendments; a clause under "Provided" of section 2, subhead (a), should read: "Determinations regarding national forest areas classified as primitive shall not be made within 2, nor later than 20 years after the date of passage of this act." This change should be made for the following reasons:

(1) It is fairly obvious that the Forest Service, while giving lip service to multiple use and sustained yield, is in fact committed to logging as the dominant use.

(2) Whereas the dominant use should be water resource. The need for water is doubling every 30 years. The bottom of the barrel is now being dipped. The Province of British Columbia can and may divert into the Fraser part of the flow of the Columbia. The increasing population of California may in time have sufficient political leverage to divert more. Before authorizing cutting of the sustaining forest cover in the watersheds of the public domains, the Forest Service should avail itself of the study of the reports of the President's Water Resource Policy Commission.

(3) Logging of dedicated wilderness, wild, and primitive areas, should not be permitted pending the scheduled report, in 1961, by the Outdoors Recreation Resources Review Commission.

(4) It should be kept in mind that logging and grazing, on one hand, are incompatible to the uses of water resource and recreation, on the other.

As to the relative importance of these uses to the Nation, Sanderson states: "In 1948 the Federal receipts from water use was $255 million; from recreation, $20 million; logging, $19 million; grazing, $2 million." Since 1948 the values of water and recreation have greatly increased. Logging and grazing have diminished.

The adverse attitude of the Forest Service toward uses other than logging is evidenced by the nearly complete exclusion of the forest cover from the projected Glacier Park Wilderness Area in its most scenic streams.

Pertinent to the consideration of the need of S. 1123 is this summary by the President's Water Resource Policy Commission:

We have destroyed forests, leaving barren mountainsides, from which rainwater and melting snow pour unchecked; we have overplowed and overgrazed our lands; we have dangerously increased soil erosion, allowing precious soil to be carried to the sea, muddying our streams, filling our reservoirs and increasing the damage from floods.

If these wastes continue unchecked, they will impoverish us and our chil dren. In conservation, as in use, water is the key resource.

Recreational use is compatible and complementary to water resource use. Logging and grazing are adverse to both. Grazing by sheep leaves the soil impervious to runoff infiltration.

Your petitioner has had 50 years' familiarity with the projected Glacier Peak Wilderness Area. Here forests cover precipitous mountainsides that approach 45°. The Forest Service intends to clear-cut, burning all remaining plant cover, and the accumulated humus of centuries, that the virgin soil may be exposed for restocking. This folly will leave the mountain open to erosion, to avalanche, to fire, to windthrow of adjacent standing cover, causing early run

offs and frequent floods. Streams will silt; pollution of air and water ensue. Silting of the reservoirs back of the dams on the Columbia will follow, resulting in impaired power potential.

The Nation's finest scenery faces desecration. For these reasons the immediate passage of the wilderness bill is urged.

The prime resources of our inland empire are (1) a bright sun, (2) pure air, (3) crystal-clear water. The high Cascades and their forest cover have served as air and water conditioners, maintaining both free of pollution. Denuding the slopes and burning the cover will forever end these blessings.

And without justification. Lumber is now surplus, 45,000 woodworkers were without employment the spring of 1958. This number is not far less this spring of 1959. There is timber available to supply full employment outside of dedicated areas, wilderness, wild and primitive. One hundred million board feet of windthrow fell in 1958 in the Randal Forest alone, resulting largely from exposure through clear cutting.

Wisdom dictates that a protective corridor be created, say, 40 miles wide extending from Adams and St. Helens to the British Columbia boundary; including all the headwaters of all the watersheds on both sides of the Cascades, with the uses of logging and grazing forbidden. Those of water resource and recreation encouraged.

This would insure the continuation of the blessings of bright sun, clean air, and pure water for those in the whole of eastern Washington. Give sanctuary, where the Nation's smog-filled lungs could be refreshed. Where throats have surcease from sewerage. Wilderness is for the multitude, not for the few.

The Forest Service has left the appraisal of water needs out of the equation. But this from the bulletin of the Regional Researcher:

There is enough soil precariously perched on our hillsides to fill all the lakes and reservoirs in existence or yet to be built. We manage water largely by managing the land on which it falls, over which it flows, and through which it percolates.

To this end logging and grazing are mismanagement.

Again from the bulletin:

Reservoir life has no value after 80 percent of the storage space is lost.

The power and reservoir potential of the Columbia is thus being threatened. All streams flowing from the Cascades should be kept free from silt and pollution.

Unacceptable before revision, the current Glacier Peak proposal that is now presented by the Forest Service looks like a desiccated hookworm and just as nauseous.

Accompanying this map are these statements under the signature of the regional forester to which this petitioner has taken the liberty to make running comment:

This water resource will not be affected by the proposal.

Untrue.

Harvesting of commercial timber in the valleys will be done in such a way as to protect the scenic and recreational values.

Nonsense'; it's all mountainside and the end will be a debacle.

Full protection has been given to the uses of the area as well as coordinating wilderness values with existing and forthcoming developments.

Scant protection forsooth.

About 3,200 people have visited this area in 1958.

This number must have been drawn from a hat-no count was made. Establishment of the Glacier Peak wilderness area is in harmony with the multiple-use concept of the national forest management.

In harmony with logging and grazing only.

The Chief Forester is credited by the regional forester for responsibility of having determined the boundaries of the currently revised projected Glacier Peak wilderness. One is inclined to assume that this determination was accomplished not by the Chief Forester but by his superior, the Secretary of Agriculture. And is in keeping with the stupid political philosophy that lost irreparably the 5 million acre-feet of water storage in Hells Canyon. Grave and irreparable loss to the Nation is here threatened to its wilderness areas.

This consideration prompts this petitioner to urge again the amendment of subhead (a) of section 2 of S. 1123 to delay the determination of boundaries for 2 years.

To urge also amendment of section 3(c) (1), to forbid the grazing of livestock except for pack animals in the headwaters of watersheds. Senator JACKSON. Mr. Singleton, I want to compliment you on all the trouble you have gone to. You are your own researcher.

Mr. SINGLETON. Thank you.

Senator JACKSON. How long have you been interested in this water resource problem?

Mr. SINGLETON. Two years at least.

Senator JACKSON. Two years?

Mr. SINGLETON. Yes.

Senator JACKSON. Sounds like it is longer than that.

Mr. SINGLETON. I think the loggers were rather stupid not to have accepted the wilderness proposal of 2 years ago. Then the Secretary of Agriculture would have been free to do just as he wants. Now

he can't.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you for your statement.

Mr. L. V. Venable, representing the Port Angeles Chamber of Com

merce.

STATEMENT OF L. V. VENABLE, REPRESENTING THE PORT ANGELES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, FORKS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND THE OLYMPIC DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. VENABLE. Gentlemen, in opposing Senate bill 1123, we state that this bill is not in the public interest under the definition of public interest being the greatest good for the greatest number. We are better qualified to speak on this subject than persons from the Eastern or Midwestern States, or even from the metropolitan areas of the West, because we live in the shadow of a tremendous wilderness. To us it is not just a place we might consider going for weekends or vacations. It is with us every day.

We live by the harvest of trees from State, Federal, and private lands and by their processing into pulp, plywood, paper, and many other products. We also live by the tourist dollar. We study the