Senator JACKSON. Without objection, your statement will be included at this point, and if you can summarize it, it will be very fine. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF DONALD E. PATRICK

My statement will merely reiterate the obvious necessity and clearly defined policy of the national wilderness preservation system bill.

Opponents to the bill continually hammer such phrases at us as "poorly defined limitations," "locking up of vast areas,” “selfish desires of a minority of individuals," etc. I feel that this manner of reasoning on the part of the opposition is about as well founded as a statement made by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce long ago in 1897, which appears in the book "Fifteen Cities," by George Leighton. I quote: "These reservations are of no benefit to any legitimate object or policy, and are of incalculable damage to present inhabitants of the State. If they are allowed to stand, not only will the mining be discontinued but the great railroad trunk lines of the central West which are now heading to Puget Sound will be prevented from coming here." Gentlemen, the reservations of which they spoke are still standing, and to my knowledge, we still have train service here.

Initially, the wilderness bill clearly establishes its purpose as not one of recreation only, or for the enjoyment of a minority of individuals, but it establishes a scientific, educational, scenic, conservational, and historical area as well, for the health, welfare, knowledge, and happiness of all of the citizens of the present and future generations. Does the majority of the people desire this type of educational enjoyment? Senator James Murray stated that in letters received by the committee, "individual letters run more than 20 to 1 in favor of the bill."

S. 1123 defines wilderness and establishes definite policies including: (1) the "multiple use" and "sustained yield" policy already developed by the U.S. Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture for the national forests; (2) the areas which will make up the wilderness preservation system, which, unlike the opposition would like you to believe, involves only 8 percent of the 181 million acres in the national forests; (3) provides specifically the policy for the addition or elimination of wilderness areas after establishment of the wilderness preservation system; (4) it renders impossible for a bureau chief or Cabinet officer to abolish a wilderness area without the proper congressional approval; and (5) it gives us, the general public, a voice in the disposition of the wilderness areas. We of Washington want these areas involved by this bill, specifically Mount Rainier, Olympic, Goat Rock, and Mount Adams Wilderness Areas, to remain just that, and we are especially terrified at the possibility of reducing this fabulous virgin land to the stubble so commonly seen in the Northwest after allowing "selective logging" to be carried out.

Mr. PATRICK. Actually, I feel fortunate that I followed the chamber of commerce element, because as they talked I recalled this statement made by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, which appears in "Fifteen Cities," by George Leighton:

These reservations are of no benefit

they are talking of the reservations that were established in 1897

These reservations are of no benefit to any legitimate object or policy, and are of incalculable damage to present inhabitants of the State. If they are allowed to stand, not only will the mining be discontinued, but the great railroad trunklines of the central West which are now heading to Puget Sound will be prevented from coming here.

Gentlemen, the reservations of which they spoke are still standing, and to my knowledge we still have train service here.

The bill establishes and clearly defines wilderness and establishes a definite policy, including the multiple-use and sustained-yield policy already developed by the U.S. Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture for the national forests; the areas which will make up the wilderness preservation system, which, unlike the opposition would like you to believe, involves only 6 to 8 percent of the 181 million acres

in the national forests. It provides specifically the policy for the addition or elimination of wilderness areas after establishment of the wilderness preservation system. It renders impossible for a bureau chief or Cabinet officer to abolish a wilderness area without the proper congressional approval, and it gives us, the general public, a voice in the disposition of the wilderness areas.

We of Washington want these areas involved by this bill, specifically Mount Rainier, Olympic, Goat Rock, and Mount Adams Wilderness Areas, to remain just that; and we are especially terrified at the possibility of reducing this fabulous virgin land to the stubble so commonly seen in the Northwest after allowing "selective logging" to be carried out.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Patrick; appreciate your very fine statement. We will proceed out of order again. Mr. C. S. Cowan, Seattle.

Mr. COWAN. Senator Jackson, Mr. Chairman, may I take the place of the man ahead of me, Mr. Larson, who is ill, and merely present his paper? I won't speak to it.

Senator JACKSON. Yes. Do you want to include it in the record? Mr. COWAN. Yes. He so desires.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Larson's statement will be included in the record following your remarks.

STATEMENT OF C. S. COWAN, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. CowAN. My name is Charles S. Cowan; I am probably the first unbiased witness you have heard today.

Senator JACKSON. Well, this is going to be rather disappointing. Mr. CowAN. I am sure it would be. I am a forester of some 50 years' experience, with over 30 years of professional experience in the State of Washington. I am a fellow of the Society of American Foresters, and a registered professional engineer. I am now retired. I am appearing in opposition to Senate bill 1123.

In my opinion the setting aside of any natural area for any one use is wrong. There are certain areas which are set aside by nature itself which will always remain to a certain extent inviolate and as they were created by nature itself; but, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, let me point out that the people of the United States have spent their money and effort in establishing colleges of forestry throughout the United States, which schools have been teaching a system of land management which is presently unsurpassed.

The graduates of these schools are, in effect, the trained land managers of the Nation. It is my opinion that the bulk of thought expressed by these professionally trained men is contrary to the idea of setting aside any area for any one specific use, which Senate bill 1123 aims to do. I think the bill itself, in section B, realizes the inconsistency of its own purpose.

I have been associated with conservation organizations and movements for over 30 years. I have met in this time a great many people who say they are conservationists and who honestly so believe, but I say to you, gentlemen, that sincerity is not a substitute for knowledge.

For instance, today we had one witness who is a friend of mine, on the opposite side, of course, but I have friends there, one witness

doubted the statements of foresters that fire had played a very large part in the establishment of Douglas-fir. And he cited Captain Vancouver, whom he stated, and I believe it is true because I read the history quite recently, had sailed Puget Sound for 3 weeks in 1792, which, I submit to you, is not sufficient to give him knowledge of the full cycle of Douglas-fir, which we generally evaluate at around 450, 500 years. Three weeks isn't enough to give him full knowledge of it. Now, Douglas-fir forests show every evidence of forest fires, and generally even age stands clearly show that the trees germinate at the same time. In addition, the charred remains of the original forest not apparent to the untrained eye are found everywhere. That is merely picking up one of the chance statements that are made by people who are sincerely interested and ignorant.

It is my opinion that the purposes of Senate bill 1123 can be better effectuated by leaving such matters as setting aside of any land area for any one purpose to the land managers, professionally trained and professionally qualified. Such men are already in Government service, and available, in both the Departments of Agriculture and Interior.

Thank you.

Senator JACKSON. We appreciate having your statement.

(The statement presented by the witness follows:)

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. LARSON, MANAGER, WASHINGTON FOREST PROTECTION

ASSOCIATION

I am William H. Larson, manager of the Washington Forest Protection Association, which maintains its office at 6623 Stuart Building in Seattle, Wash. This association was organized in 1908 and maintains a strong position in forest protecton in western Washington through its responsibilities toward its 3% million acres of membership land. Because of this experience, we feel qualified to speak on the wilderness proposals before this session of Congress.

Senate bill 1123 contains the same flaws that were found in Senate bill 4028, which was the subject of a public hearing in Bend, Oreg., last November. My testimony at that hearing concerned itself with the forest protection deficiencies of that legislative proposal and it is applicable to Senate bill 1123.

The wisdom of circumscribing the authority of the responsible land administering agency in matters concerned with the technique of management and protection of forest areas is open to serious question. These agencies are staffed with professional foresters with unquestioned integrity and technical ability to manage these areas for all of the products which they contain, including wilderness recreation. These men are professional conservationists, not amateurs.

This proposal, while seeking to restrict the use to which these areas are to be devoted, also restricts the techniques or professional tools available to the foresters to protect the forests for wilderness or for any other use.

This legislation encourages maximum exposure of the forests to the risk of man during their most vulnerable periods, with a planned exclusion of the major means of transportation for fire suppression forces. Only temporary roads will be permitted and the forest manager is allowed no discretion in the matter. This is a restriction of a tool of forest protection. Some forest areas require protection roads which are permanently maintained for use. Temporary roads which are abandoned when some temporary need is fulfilled are inadequate. It must be remembered that at certain times, speed of attack on a fire with adequate force is of paramount importance. Lumber comes from a dry kiln at an average of 10 to 12 percent moisture content. Last summer we repeatedly measured forest fuel moisture contents as low as 3 percent in western Washington.

Other restrictions on the responsible administering agency are found in section 3(b). It states that there will be no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats, or landing of aircraft, nor any other mechanical transport or delivery of persons or supplies, nor any temporary road, nor any structure

or installation in excess of the minimum required for the administration of the area for the purpose of this act. Who determines what is the minimum required for the administration and protection of the area, and what will be the standards used? Will it be determined by the professional forester or by wilderness pressure groups, including the publicly financed Wilderness Preservation Council? There should be no doubt on this, yet the bill does not clarify such responsibility and authority.

No forest is static. The forces of Nature are constantly destroying and rebuilding it. Sometimes the destructive agents create a threat to remaining values in the area. Principally these are snag areas caused by fire or insect attack.

Lest this threat be discounted, please remember that the balsam woolly aphid was discovered killing silver fir in 1954. By the end of 1957 it had covered 938 square miles of Oregon and Washington. As yet there is no practical means of combating the insect and it is still spreading. This year it was discovered on Mount Rainier National Park. This is but an example; other insects may arise at any time.

Presumably as a result of the recent hearings, provision is made in this bill for the Secretary of Agriculture to combat insect attacks, but there is no known method of combating some of them, and no provision is made for hazard abatement following insect attacks or fire. This abatement involves removing the deadwood. Since the expense is prohibitive otherwise, the forester's only recourse is to salvage logging to pay at least part of the bill. Even with the specter of uncontrollable fire, Senate bill 1123 denies the wilderness manager the use of the techniques of hazard abatement.

As outlined above, this legislation does far more than restrict the use of the area. It is a restrictive measure on those responsible for administration and protection of the areas. Such restriction deprives the professional administrator of a part of the tools of his profession. This poses a threat to the areas concerned as well as to neighboring public and private lands, because natural forces respect no artificial boundaries.

The Washington Forest Protection Association does not oppose wilderness recreation, but it does oppose this restriction of forest protection and scientific forest management on large segments of our forest lands. The responsible administering agencies and their professional personnel need freedom of action in the application of modern forestry techniques in order to preserve the public forests for wilderness recreation as well as for other uses under multiple-use management. For these reasons, this legislative proposal is not in the best interest of either land management or wilderness preservation.

Senator JACKSON. Dr. Scheffer, of Bellevue. Is Dr. Scheffer here? We appreciate your patience in waiting.

STATEMENT OF DR. VICTOR B. SCHEFFER

Dr. SCHEFFER. I am Victor B. Scheffer, biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service, although I speak as an individual with a concern for the wilderness bill.

In a modern seismograph we find a so-called dampening device, a governor. It allows ordinary movements of the earth to be recorded through a needle, while in times of strain and agitation it keeps the needle from jumping the track. So, also, we need in America today many devices to protect from violence the richness, the beauty, the depth, the challenge, the adventure, the freedom, and cleanliness of our way of life. I think of the wilderness bill as a device that will help us to hang on to an American treasure, a kind of treasure that most of the peoples of the Old World have lost forever.

Well, you may say, let's forget the philosophy and the ideals and get down to practical matters. If I make only one point clear, I hope it is this: In a truly growing, maturing society, the ideals of today are the realities of tomorrow.

The wilderness bill is an attempt, through legislation, to hold the line against dilution of wilderness values in a total of less than 22 percent of our public lands. Wilderness areas are large, clean, quiet, natural areas devoted to multiple, nondestructive use. They are important for three reasons:

First, they provide recreation in terms of a healthier body and a saner, happier outlook on life. Recreation becomes a real need-I might say a vital need-in the midst of population tensions like those we are now beginning to suffer. Among my scientific colleagues there is a growing suspicion that the behavior of man, the animal, may become as erratic in a peak population as does the behavior of the little brown lemming of Scandinavia which, squeaking and pushing its neighbors, rushes into the sea.

Second, they afford places for scientific study of soil, water, weather, plants, and animals in a complex that has emerged through centuries of time and that can never, under any circumstances, be duplicated by man. There is real excitement today when someone discovers, in a place inaccessible to livestock, a few acres where original vegetation can be seen and studied in its natural state.

There is one such place in southern Idaho in the midst of a lava bed where stock have not been able to walk across this rough rock, and the botanists have been quite excited to study the plantlife there.

Third, the wilderness areas are great outdoor classrooms. Here, in each new visitor, some of the fire of Darwin, and Thoreau, and Teddy Roosevelt is rekindled. I feel sure that the value of wilderness areas will grow in our educational system as we work out ways of bringing larger, though still carefully disciplined, groups of students into our national parks, forests, plains, and wildlife refuges.

As will be repeated many times in this hearing, the wilderness bill does not call for enlargement of existing areas. These areas will, in effect, dwindle in relation to increasing populations. It does not call for a new bureau, but for a council of members drawn from within existing conservation groups. It does not propose to freeze or lock up wild lands. It is designed to protect these lands from hasty action which would lead to destructive use, to erect a hurdle, rather than a fence, around them. I should like to emphasize this point. In other words, this bill is a hurdle rather than a fence around our existing wilderness areas.

May I close with a question by Romain Gary?

Are we no longer capable of respecting nature, or defending a living beauty that has no earning power, no utility, no object except to let itself be seen from time to time? *** It's absolutely essential that men should manage to preserve something other than what helps to make soles for shoes or sewing machines, that he should leave a margin, a sanctuary where some of life's beauty can take refuge and where he himself can feel safe from his own cleverness and folly.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Dr. Scheffer, for your statement. Richard Bayne, Seattle.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD BAYNE, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. BAYNE. I am Richard Bayne and I am from Seattle and I go to the University of Washington.

We recall that the American Indians had a fairly advanced concept of land use. They were able to pass on to the happy hunting grounds