properly by Congress until such time as the report of the Review Commission is in the hands of the Congress.

Senator JACKSON. Wel, then, would you favor maintaining the wilderness system as it is until the Rockefeller commission reports? Mr. LAZARA. Well, that is more difficult to answer because the wilderness system, or the designation primitive areas, and so forth, as applied by the Forest Service, was in itself in most cases a temporary situation set up by the Forest Service, because 30 years ago they didn't know what was on the land. They didn't know what the best use of that land was, so in effect they put this land in the icebox until they had time to examine it.

Now, we are at the point where decisions must be made as to whether that land is to be permanent wilderness area or otherwise. Senator JACKSON. Well, the bill, this proposed bill, gives them 20 years to review it.

Mr. LAZARA. I do not question that. Although that is a long span of time, I think that span of time could well be used. I merely would not feel it desirable in my own opinion to tie the hands of the Department of Agriculture and its land managers in this management until after even the report of the Recreation Resources Review Commission is in.

Senator JACKSON. How would their hands be tied if they have 20 years in which to tie them?

Mr. LAZARA. No; I misunderstood your question then, sir. I thought that you meant that no action could be taken to segregate lands or desegregate it until the report

Senator JACKSON. That's your proposal, I believe. I mean you suggest that no action be taken until the so-called Rockefeller commission reports, but what I was getting at, whether or not you felt that in the meantime the status quo should be mainained by statute. Mr. LAZARA. Well, I don't think there would be any harm-my own opinion is, I believe that it would be desirable to maintain the status quo. Now, I am not speaking for the Forestry Conference.

Senator JACKSON. I understand. Nothing that has occurred outside of your formal statement will be considered necessarily the views. of the conference. Mr. Stong?

Mr. STONG. You have opposed the Wilderness Council, but would you likewise oppose user groups in relation to the forests, or the grazing lands, on the same basis that they would be a special influence?

Mr. LAZARA. I would. I might say, if I might digress a moment, I differ a bit with one bit of comment expressed earlier today as to, for example, the use of the Seattle watershed. I believe that that land could support far more people and give us just as pure water as it does at the present time. That is simply my philosophy of life. Senator JACKSON. Thank you very much. The next witness, Mr. Robert Bibb, of Arlington.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. BIBB, REPRESENTING VARIOUS BUSINESS INTERESTS OF ARLINGTON, WASH.

Mr. BIBB. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert Bibb, from Arlington, Wash., and I am speaking at the attorney for a group of small mills, loggers, businessmen, and residents of the town who have asked me to

express their views in opposition to the proposed Glacier Peak Wilderness Area.

Rather than reading my entire statement, which I have handed the committee, I will hit the salient points.

Senator JACKSON. Without objection, the statement will be included at this point in its entirety. Go ahead.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. BIBB ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS INTERESTS OF THE ARLINGTON, WASH., AREA

A substantial number of unorganized residents and businessmen in the area of the town of Arlington, Wash., have requested me, as a local attorney, to present their views in opposition to the creation of the proposed Glacier Peak Wilderness Area.

Arlington is a small town located approximately 45 miles west of the proposed boundaries of the wilderness area. Logging and lumber products are the primary industries of the town, and all of the local logging and mill concerns would be classified as very small businesses, employing less than 100. Being small businesses, most are required to rely, in substantial part, on national forest timber rather than their own holdings for logs. The volume of Forest Service sales directly affects the market price of standing timber, the smaller the volume the higher the price. Any reduction in the potential timber on which the Forest Service bases its sustained yield for the districts in which the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area lies will tend to raise the market price of timber and place the small loggers and mills at a competitive disadvantage with the large enterprises which own much of their own timber. Thus, the economic interests of the persons for whom I speak will tend to be adversely affected by the wilderness area proposal, and this adverse effect will accentuate the already depressing influences on small businesses prevalent everywhere.

Not only will we in Arlington be adversely affected, but so will the Federal Treasury and local governments. The timber proposed to be locked up is a depreciating asset. Much of this timber is mature, and in future years will depreciate, rather than appreciate. Some timber is now, and more in the future will be, infested with disease, and subject to blow down and fires.

To deliberately turn our backs on this timber as a national asset will be an expensive luxury, one that requires a high degree of justification in view of the precarious financial condition our Federal and local Governments and small businesses perpetually face.

What is this justification? It appears that it is the understandable desire of a certain relatively small number of persons to enjoy the rugged nature of the area without the slightest intrusion of civilization. But, this is indeed a luxury, for how many of us are in a position to take advantage of the opportunity even if the Government made it available? The residents of Arlington are outdoors oriented to as high a degree as any community in the Nation. Almost every man and boy and a substantial number of the women and girls fish and hunt. Skiing and mountain climbing are popular, as are the water sports. Yet very few in our own community, close as it is, have the time to get into the heart of the Glacier Peak area, spend any amount of time, and get back. Perhaps the main reason is that taking a week or so off for a trip ordinarily is a family affair. Rare indeed is the family in which all of the members are constitutionally capable of a prolonged trip in the rugged Glacier Peak region on foot, or even on horseback, assuming horses are procurable, which is often not the case except at considerable expense.

It is submitted that for every person who would visit the Glacier Peak district because it was a wilderness area, there are at least 100 who would not visit it for the same reason. But, those few who insist on a wilderness area will not be without a place to go. Only a few miles to the north is the vast 800,000acre North Cascade wilderness area, approximately 100 miles to the southeast is the 80,000-acre Goat Rocks wild area. In Washington and Oregon there are over 1,200,000 acres of already dedicated wilderness areas and over 460,000 acres of dedicated wild areas.

We do not advocate building a road to the top of every peak and ridge. An inspection of the rugged terrain makes it obvious that such would be as impracticable as it would be undesirable. We do foresee that roads into the water

sheds of the Glacier Peak district will make it available to the vast majority of us who have 1 to 3 days to spend in fishing, climbing, skiing, camping, etc. We are not just speaking for the people who are too lazy to get out of their cars. There are millions; elderly people, small children, persons with physical infirmities, and persons in sedentary occupations who should not attempt a wilderness area trip without months of physical training, who could enjoy the region' up to their physical capabilities, given access by road and Forest Service campgrounds. It is earnestly believed that the existence of some roads and facilities in the region will have the end result of providing more physical, spiritual, and aesthetic stimulation and satisfaction by far, than will result without such improvements.

To those who argue that logging in the area will ruin much of its beauty we say this. The Forest Service, in its program of timber sales, can and undoubtedly will minimize this danger. Further, nature has and will continue to take its toll by way of fire, blowdowns, slides, and disease, creating its own unsightly conditions. Proper reforestation, as carried on by the Forest Service can make such nature-blighted areas, as well as the logged-off ones new forests in a generation.

The people of Arlington for whom I speak love and are proud of the Glacier Peak region, at their back door. They do not want to see the entire area denuded of trees and a popcorn stand on every mountaintop. But they do want to see its timber, recreational features, and other resources subject to a sensible multiple-use program, rather than have these values completely wasted for the benefit of the few with the time, money, and physical strength to utilize it as a dedicated wilderness area.

(The foregoing statement is subscribed to by 100 of Arlington, Wash., and vicinity.)

Mr. BIBB. Thank you. When I refer to small business, I am reminded of one of the congressional definitions of small business as being any business employing less than 500 persons. In the circles that I represent, a small business is one man with a chain saw. Actually, I would say the average payroll of the mills and loggers in the Arlington area would be about 20 men apiece.

Now, these are small businesses, and as such are plagued with the eternal problem in the logging industry of supply of logs, and that is notwithstanding the testimony that we have heard before to the effect that we have an oversupply of timber. Actually, I think that any small mill will assure the committee that there are times when it is very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain sufficient logs to operate their mills.

The price of logs also is a matter which is completely out of the hands of the small logger and adversely affects his ability to compete with the larger timber companies. One of the factors directly affecting both the cost and the supply of logs in the Arlington area, which is 45 miles, approximately, from the proposed boundaries of the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area, is the number of thousand board feet that the Forest Service sells each year in the Ranger district in that neighborhood.

Now, it is true that for many years the Forest Service has not, in any particular district in that area, cut up to its own sustained yield estimate. However, each year the districts are getting closer to their sustained yield figures for annual cut. We believe that in the future the Forest Service will, through improved operations, be cutting close to their sustained yield figures and, of course, those figures are based upon the timber situated in the areas in which they intend to cut. Glacier Peak wilderness area is one such area which has been withdrawn from their plans for cutting and their sustained yield figures for the district in which the Glacier Peak area lies have not con

89871-59

sidered the sustained yield of that area. In the future, maybe 10, 15 years from now, the sustained yield cut for those districts will be, if this bill does not go through, presumably that will be available if the Secretary of Agriculture sees fit to remove that withdrawal or part of it, it will be available for sustained yield cutting.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Bibb, right at that point, though, of course I believe they have set hearings for this fall; as far as Glacier Peak is concerned, the Secretary, regardless of this bill, can approve that as a wilderness area, isn't that correct?

Mr. BIBB. That is correct.

Senator JACKSON. So that independent of this proposal

Mr. BIBв. That is right. It is our position, however, that this proposal would make any such designation more irrevocable.

Senator JACKSON. It would confirm any action the Secretary might take as a matter of law.

Mr. BIBB. That is true. The other aspect which we believe certainly bears looking into and consideration is this question of the use of the Glacier Peak area for recreation. Now, the persons who have spoken to the committee on behalf of the bill have stated, and I am inclined to agree with them, that certainly it would be to the benefit of our Nation as a whole that more people get out and get the physical and moral and spiritual benefits that can be derived from this area. The very people, however, that are in favor of this bill are not the ones who are holding back from using the area for these purposes.

I have no doubt that regardless of whether this bill goes through or not, or whether or not Glacier Peak becomes a confirmed wilderness area, that the people that are members of the groups that are in favor of this and want to go up there and climb and ski, or do whatever they wish, are going to do so. It is the people who we have a hard time getting them out of their cars that from a nationwide standpoint we must consider the more available this area is to them the more likely they and their famiiles are going to participate in it. Very often nowadays people take vacations as families. As a matter of fact, in many instances it is difficult not to take a vacation as a family. In a family you may have grandparents; you may have the mother and father; you may have infants. If it is going to require that the entire family make a pack trip of up to 5 to 10 days through this wilderness area, it is highly unlikely that they will be going up there. They will be someplace else. But if through the use of logging roads to typical Forest Service camps and facilities, those families can go in there with their automobiles and trailers, the older people, the kids, will be able to play and use the areas in the watersheds, in the rivers, in the areas that are built up by the Forest Service and those that are physically capable can go up further, do the climbing, perhaps even go in for 2 or 3 days and then come out.

We submit, and we are from a country that is outdoor oriented; almost everyone in my town, almost all the boys and men hunt and fish and enjoy getting up in the wilds, and I think that is true of the men that are in the logging industry generally. They are outdoors men almost to the man. They certainly are not against people get ting outdoors and they feel it is a desirable thing, but they feel that it should be encouraged for all the persons and not those only who are enjoying the Cascades wilderness area as it is now constituted.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Bibb, for your statement; appreciate it very much.

Mr. A. E. Harrison, Seattle.

STATEMENT OF A. E. HARRISON

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present this statement to be included as a part of the record and spend perhaps less than my full 5 minutes.

Senator JACKSON. All right, that's very fine. Without objection your statement will be included in full at this point. You may ad lib, or whatever way you want to proceed.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF A. E. HARRISON, SEATTLE, WASH.

The need for a carefully coordinated program for wilderness preservation in this country has been recognized for some time. The fragile nature of wilderness areas, the ease with which they can be destroyed and the irreparable nature of the damage make wilderness regions peculiarly susceptible to piecemeal disintegration. The frequently proposed argument that a little loss here can do no harm is insidious because the accumulation of numerous insignificant losses over a series of years could destroy the small amount of wilderness remaining in this country.

A wilderness bill which would safeguard the wilderness areas already set aside is now under consideration. It is excellent legislation. Considerable

effort has been spent in the last few years to revise the bill in such a way that a satisfactory compromise between conflicting viewpoints has been achieved. It is now in a form acceptable to all groups except those who wish to forestall the permanent reservation of any wilderness area and would prefer to have such areas vulnerable to withdrawal in parcels.

Minor objections to phrasing of the legislation may still exist but these difficulties can be overcome by our normal legislative processes. It is important that these minor problems should not be allowed to be used as an excuse to prevent the adoption of the highly essential wilderness bill in this session of Congress.

Opposition to the bill in the State of Washington has fostered a number of erroneous conceptions about the bill. It does not change any existing allocation of lands available at this time for commercial use. The controversial Glacier Peak wilderness area will not be included until that controversy is resolved. The present economy of this State will not be altered by the bill as claimed by some of its opponents.

There are two philosophies which can be fatal to wilderness areas. One is the shortsighted attitude that the loss of small areas is justified by reasons of local necessity. The other attitude considers wilderness an undesirable state and prefers that every inch of our land should be devoted to management by man. Both of these philosophies would lead eventually to a situation similar to that in central Europe, where all forests have been managed for centuries. We do not need to reach that state in this country. Very little additional area of forest cultivation would be gained, the considerable contribution of wilderness areas as scientific museums and sources of recreational and esthetic inspiration would be lost.

The State of Washington has a unique opportunity to make a contribution to the rest of the country and to the world. The amount of wilderness area in this country is small, most of our land was improved by man years ago. Much of the area that remains in its wilderness state is here in the West. We should be proud that we can preserve it and make it available, instead of seeking its destruction for transitory gain.

Mr. HARRISON. That is what I had in mind, thank you. Words I would have put in my own mouth.

I first want to thank you for the opportunity of being heard. When the announcement was made that the only hearing in this vicinity last