without leaving too many unhappy hunting grounds behind them. And they had clear consciences, I think, when they did go on.

Of course, the history of the settlers was a different story. To them the forests, the soils, the minerals, the wildlife, and the wilderness were as dispensible as Schick razor blades are to us. But all

of these yielded to their respective manifest destinies as surely as the Indians yielded, with, by some rare providence, a few minor exceptions.

The wilderness that now remains to us totals only about 2 percent of the 100 percent of only a couple hundred years ago. Yet there are at least 100 times as many people who need it as there were then. And the trend threatens to continue at an even faster rate, so that the off-balance proportion will become even more extreme.

Now the Indian accepted the wilderness philosophy as naturally as he breathed. And we know that kids understand it as easily. Anyone who has led a group of kids through an area of wilderness will vouch for this. The experience helps to shape their lives. Even so, some adults find the wilderness concept quite beyond their grasp. I don't think these few should deter us, however, from passing a measure as farsighted and far reaching as the wilderness bill. It is already almost too late. If we are to insure ourselves and those who come after us the kind of environment necessary for real progress, we must start now to insure that environment. Certainly we should insure it for a most valuable resource which is use. Certainly the select few commercial use advocates have not explained as yet what they will do for minerals, for timber, and so forth, once these areas are gone from our last virgin lands, or what these resources are, when they are gone, or what anyone will do then for wilderness.

After hearing some of the arguments with regard to this bill, I would like to touch upon some of them. For one thing, the wilderness bill is a definitive measure. It would not add a single acre to present areas, even though we have heard the phrases such as "large scale withdrawals," "areas which would be taken out or which would be set up," "unsound additional areas and land which would be taken out of development by the bill." The opposition has been attempting to claim that there are groups. It is said in addition that there are 17 percent of Federal lands in this State that would be locked up by this bill, but it is not mentioned that 17 percent of 35 percent, the percent of Federal land is only 5 percent of the entire State. And this 5 percent is already locked up.

We have to remember the fact that in the West we do have a large share of wilderness and the easterners will certainly be coming this way for that experience pretty soon.

In closing, I would like to mention this business of car use and the mass population and all that kind of thing. I think if it were possible to experience wilderness via a car at 70 miles an hour through the car window, it would be just as possible to experience it, and much cheaper and much easier, at the corner theater via the miracle of cinemiracle. It is not the case, however. I don't think we need to build a road to the top of every mountain and log every valley, and so forth, for those who want the privilege of wilderness via foot travel when they can do it, and also later on via the car, at the expense

of anyone who comes after who will not have that first privilege that they enjoyed.

Senator JACKSON. What are you majoring in in college?

Mr. BAYNE. Well, education.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you very much. Cecil Clark, president of the Washington State Reclamation Association.

STATEMENT OF CECIL C. CLARK, REPRESENTING THE WASHINGTON STATE RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. CLARK. Senator Jackson and Senator Moss, my friend Mr. Cowan made some comment about people who are not very bright, and I think I am one of them because if I had been I would have gotten my name in a long time ago. I'm far from home and in a hurry to get there. When I checked this morning I was three or four down on the second page and I thought I was going to get away early, but here I am.

I will not read this because I think I can make it quicker from a few notes.

Senator JACKSON. Without objection the statement will be included in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE WASHINGTON STATE RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION My name is Cecil C. Clark. I live at Wapato, Wash., and I am president of the Washington State Reclamation Association and a fruit grower. I am a member of the House of Representatives of the Washington State Legislature from the 15th district.

The Washington State Reclamation Association at its last annual meeting in October of 1958 adopted the following resolution:

"Whereas the future of the State of Washington is dependent upon the full development of its natural resources; and

"Whereas these resources include the public lands which constitute more than one-fifth of the State's total area, including important watersheds on which irrigation districts depend for continued increasing water supply; and

"Whereas the economic and recreational use of these watersheds complement each other and are essential to the State's future welfare; and

"Whereas wilderness bills such as S. 4028 would prohibit effective control and utilization of these watersheds and retard the economic development of the State of Washington: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the Washington State Reclamation Association oppose expansion of wilderness areas as provided in bills now under consideration."

In examining this latest proposal for the establishment of a national wilderness preservation system as contained in S. 1123 we fail to find any significant changes which would make this legislation any more acceptable to the Washington State Reclamation Association than S. 4028 referred to in the resolution adopted last October by this association. Therefore, the members of this Statewide association have authorized me to express complete opposition to this latest effort to further lock up the natural resources of this great State and many others.

We feel that to close large areas of our watersheds from any development of any kind would retard power and reclamation development. Furthermore, it would not be to the best interests of the best use of our water facilities and would conflict with State laws as to best water use. We further believe that to close off these areas to naught but foot or horseback traffic is a very selfish approach to our recreational programs. That means that only a comparatively few persons, those who are physically rugged enough to stand hiking or those wealthy enough to hire pack strings, would ever have the use of these nublic lands which should be available to all persons.

A considerable part of these areas now proposed to be transformed into wilderness areas have ripe or overripe timber which should be harvested to keep it from further economic deterioration. After that there might be development restrictions but not to hamstring the economic progress of this State. Smaller, much smaller, areas should be preserved as they are. Our national parks are doing a good job of preserving virgin areas and with reasonable wilderness areas so that rugged nature lovers can well be accommodated.

The Washington State Reclamation Association further believes that to have large sections of mountain forests without access roads would constitute a serious forest fire hazard. There are other natural resources besides timber to be considered and they include water, minerals, gas, oil, and the use of these areas for recreational purposes. To forego the development of these areas for their economic benefits to the surrounding regions and to set these areas aside for the benefit of that restricted minority whose life pattern and inclination require availability of vast areas of uninhabited and untended primeval doma in for their pleasure suggests a degree of selfishness which should not be tolerated by any thoughtful person.

The Washington State Reclamation Association respectfully requests the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to reject S. 1123 and any other wilderness bills which limit the use of our mountainous areas to a handful of citizens at the expense and pleasure of the majority.

Mr. CLARK. My name is Cecil Clark; I live in Wapato, Wash.; president of the Washington State Reclamation Association, and a fruit grower, a member of the House of Representatives of the Washington State Legislature from that district.

I would like to say that I have spent a great deal of time in the woods ever since I was a boy. I was born in this country, made many trips with a pack on my back and many a trip with horses, but I have gotten most of my pleasure from the woods, places where I could drive with a car, because the others are pretty inaccessible, hard work, and it is expensive to hire horses.

Now, getting back to what the reclamation association believes, you will find in the document I left with you a resolution made last October by the association, which is opposed to this type of legislation.

Again I would like to say, I would like to endorse everything that— I believe the man's name was Coleman, from the Idaho State Reclamation—and so I won't have to go over that ground.

I would like to say that our association feels that anything that will tighten or finalize or extend this wilderness idea should not be made without a great deal more study as to what the impact will be, not only upon our industry, but upon our recreation facilities and activities and, of course, as reclamation people, upon the future of our reclamation in this area. We feel that if you are going to have to depend any more on presidential edict and on actions of Congress than we now do, it will just be impossible to extend our reclamation if any of these wilderness areas should be involved. It is just a restriction, and cumbersome, and I think with this overlaying agency which you call a council, it would give very little chance of ever getting a President or Congress to act favorably upon these things, because as has been pointed out several times here, that would be a very high powered propaganda agency and about the only purpose they would have would be to see that these areas that were protected are extended.

I would like to point out one thing more to you. We, as farmers, through the Bureau of Reclamation, and where we have to pay all the bill, either have or will, provided a great many recreational

facilities and dams in this State and I dare say that more people get more recreation from these facilities than they do from wilderness

areas.

I might say, I have been in the wilderness areas many times so I know how few people get there.

We feel that this legislation should not be made at this time; that there should be much more study, as I said at the beginning, on the impact of our reclamation of the future, upon the business of this State, which as explained this morning is largely production from our natural resources, and I think one of the things that should be studied very carefully would be to see how many of these million tourists that come here every year ever get more than a mile away from their cars. I thank you.

Senator JACKSON. Are there any areas in the State that would be affected by this bill as far as reclamation is concerned? Mr. CLARK. Well, not at the moment.

Senator JACKSON. I mean that are covered here.

Mr. CLARK. Well, no telling where we will need to build dams in the future as we get down, as the man from Idaho said, to where we are going to have to scout out every acre to feed our people, and we feel that with these restrictions, presidential edicts, congressional, under the thumb of this council, we would never get one.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark; appreciate having your statement. Victor Josendal. Before you proceed, Mr. Josendal, are there any witnesses that can't go over until tomorrow? (Discussion off the record.)

STATEMENT OF VICTOR JOSENDAL, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. JOSENDAL. My name is Victor Josendal; I am here speaking in favor of Senate bill 1123 because I have a personal interest in its passage. I enjoy hiking in roadless natural areas, and I know many other people with similar interests. I know that more and more people are going into these areas every year; they are getting a lot of good out of it and it is low cost recreation. Therefore, I think the wilderness bill should be passed to give the protection of law to these wilderness areas.

I started hiking and camping in wilderness areas in the State of Washington in 1946. I have been in many remote parts of our two great national parks. I have also been in wilderness areas. For instance, I have made four 1-week trips into the North Cascade primitive area in 1950, 1955, 1956, and 1958. Now, it is true that you don't see many people there, but you are seeing more of them all the time.

I strongly feel that we do need to zone areas, so to speak, where you can get away from people, where you can have a different type of vacation. I think it is a higher quality type of recreation that we need to allow. It is also low cost, I might say.

Mrs. Jackson mentioned this morning that the workingman doesn't have the time or money to use these wilderness areas. I don't believe that that is at all true. I think it is a long way from the facts. I can cite my own experience on this. In my four 1-week trips into the North Cascade primitive area, I spent very little money. Transportation from Seattle to the wilderness area costs $15 or $20. We only had a horse packer once to carry our packs in; that cost $20 each.

We are not talking about a very large sum of money then. Actually, going into a primitive area is much cheaper than staying home.

I feel we must have some places where a person can go even though not very often. I have only gone there four times, as I say, but it is something that you remember for years. Not many people go there, but when you do you remember it; it does you a lot of good.

So I believe that Senate bill 1123 should be passed to give this protection so that more people can enjoy this low cost form of recreation. Thank you.

(A statement filed by the witness follows:)

STATEMENT OF VICTOR JOSENDAL

I am speaking in favor of Senate bill 1123 because I have a personal interest in its passage. I enjoy hiking in roadless natural areas, and I know many other people with similar interests. I know from my experiences that wilderness areas are providing healthful, low-cost recreation for more and more people every year. Therefore, the wilderness bill should be passed to preserve and protect by law, existing wilderness areas for the good of our present population as well as future generations.

I started hiking and camping in wilderness areas in the State of Washington in 1946. I have been in many remote parts of our two great national parks, Mount Rainier and Mount Olympia. Also, I have made many trips into the North Cascade primitive area and the Mount Adams wilderness area. In 1950, 1955, 1956, and again in 1958 I spent a week's time in the North Cascade primitive area. I have also made many trips of weekend length or longer in the Glacier Peak limited area, which is not included in the wilderness bill but which will be protected by the bill's provisions when it is established as a wilderness area. Wilderness areas are getting more and more use with each passing year. I see more cars parked at the road ends and I see more people out hiking on the trail. I also see more people camping in the shelters and in the mountain meadows. One reason for this increased use of wilderness areas is the rapidly growing population in the United States. When I was in college in 1940, the U.S. population was 132 million. In 1950 it had grown to 150 million. Now, our population has exploded to over 175 million people and is growing at the rate of over 3 million per year. People want and need wilderness recreation. And wilderness areas become more valuable and more in demand as increased population pressure results in additional mechanization, commercialization, and modification of our land areas. Our civilization is capable of destroying much of the wilderness now left. Passage of the wilderness bill will aid in the preservation of a small sample of wilderness for use by people in the future.

Another reason for the increased use of wilderness areas is the fact that people are finding that wilderness travel provides low cost recreation. Opponents of the wilderness bill like to claim that only the wealthy can afford to use wilderness areas. This is a long way from the facts. My four 1-week trips into the North Cascade Primitive Area are the cheapest vacations I have ever taken. Share-the-ride auto transportation costs only $2 and food for a week costs $15 or $20. Only once have we had a horse packer. He charged us $20 each to carry our packs and equipment in. Going into a primitive area is much cheaper than staying at home.

Passage of Senate bill 1123 will help give wilderness areas permanent protection so that increased numbers of people can enjoy a very desirable low cost form of recreation.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Josendal. Elizabeth Ann Dole.

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ANN DOLE

Miss DOLE. I want to thank you gentlemen very much for coming to Seattle. Appreciate very much that the hearing is being held in this city. I am quite glad that this schedule was delayed as I had to leave work to appear.