I would like to say one word here to the gentleman on the left here who talked about the man driving thousands of miles to the wilderness area and then not able to go in. People who come that far for wilderness areas bring their own equipment and nowadays it is very lightweight. It is quite easy to pack in the back of a car, or even a suitcase.

I guess I am one of the unorganized people meant by speakers here today. Actually, I am just a citizen who welcomes this opportunity to be heard in support of the wilderness bill, S. 1123.

I just want to say what wilderness means to me. Born in Connecticut, I enjoy the native tiny weed sour grass as a sweet-sour joy to eat. You can imagine my surprise when walking in the John Muir Woods in Marin County in California to see a comparative giant sour grass. I did try one, only one sprig; the same flavor, but even more interesting is the formation of fog-borne dust which was deposited thereon in their untouched state. These little plants were a beautiful dream of any housekeeper.

1 was intrigued by the California redwoods which have held themselves from injury and fire over centuries. To cut such a tree is a crime.

I have enjoyed Yellowstone Park with its natural astonishment. It is an example of an automobile accessible preserved area. I worked one summer in Glacier National Park at Lake McDonald. This massive area reserved for recreation is only partially accessible by roads, but it was at Sperry Glacier and Lincoln Peak overlooking a chain of glacial valley lakes on descending level and in the unique ponderosa pine parks that I first felt the joy of feeling that this was mine as a citizen, and the mountain goats and inhabitants.

These were some of the hills that beckoned a frontiersman to reserve some of these areas for all westerners and western bound as a necessity. Now, a confirmed westerner, there are only two classes of people in the United States: westerners and western bound.

I have, of course, visited Mount Rainier National Park and had only a nibble at Olympic National Park.

Now I come to the things I want to do in the future. This summer a trip to the eastern side of the Goat Rocks area, the enchanted forest in Olympic National Park. I saw a picture once by Gerald Grace, widely known Seattle artist. He pictured a forest scene with a greenyellow light filtering down over everything. I want to see if it is like that. I want it to remain enchanted, for me when I get there and for all others, for all U.S. time.

I would like S. 1123 enacted so a council can protect the wilderness coast from LaPush to Lake Ozette, publicized by the outdoor group of mountaineers and Supreme Court Justice Douglas last summer. This is a unique area and the sole rain forest beach area accessible now as it was to the Indians and first explorers who came by ship to our coast.

At present it takes an act of Congress to make any decision on boundaries of parks. This is good. We recently weathered a fight to relocate Olympic National Park. A swap was proposed that would have removed a large portion of this park. Even an established national park is not safe as a heritage to the future under the present system.

39871-59-12

I wish to include as part of the record this copy of the Mountaineer's Bulletin, which shows what can happen to a so-called preserved area under the present system. The National Park Service can allocate even glaciated areas to modern, thorough mechanized exploitation. This bulletin speaks for itself.

Mr. STONG. Do you want to include the article, "Forest Service Plans To Cut the Heart Out of the Glacier Park Area"?

Miss DOLE. That is the article, and the map on the front page. Senator JACKSON. I don't know that we can get the map in the hearing, but we will include the article, if you don't mind.

Miss DOLE. Yes, include the article. I think the Park Service record would have the figures available.

Senator JACKSON. Yes. We will just include the article. (The document referred to follows:)

[From the Mountaineer, March 1959]

FOREST SERVICE PLANS TO CUT THE HEART OUT OF THE GLACIER PEAK AREA

Just as this issue of the Bulletin went to press, the Forest Service announced, from Washington, its final decision on the fate of the Glacier Peak area. Not all the details have been received yet, and this map has been drawn hastily from the preliminary announcement, so it may not be correct in every detail.

However, the announcement is so shocking to Mountaineers that we wished to get all available information to you as soon as possible.

The Forest Service now proposes a Glacier Peak wilderness area of a sort, totaling 422,925 acres. It would bear only a vague resemblance to the present Glacier Peak limited area, and even less to the areas originally suggested by the Forest Service and the Mountaineers. The limited area would be cut in two by a broad corridor up the valley of the Suiattle River to Suiattle Pass, which would be opened for logging and other development. Similar corridors would be cut up the the valleys of the Chiwawa, Whitechuck, and White Rivers and Agnes and Railroad Creeks. The two halves would be connected by a narrow strip which would consist mostly of Chiwawa Mountain. The corridor on the Whitechuck would extend to Kennedy Hot Springs. The Cady Creek headwaters would be excluded completely, as would other parts of the limited area. Added to the limited area would be a short strip of the lower Napeequa Valley, the Chiwawa Mountain area, and one sizable area north of Holden and west of Stehekin. The area would not extend as far north as Cascade Pass, much less to include Eldorado, Sahale, Boston, and Snowfield Peaks and Mount Logan as recommended by the Mountaineers.

There will be a public hearing on this proposal in Bellingham on October 13 and in Wenatchee on October 16, and you will be kept informed. Remember, however, that even Congress itself cannot review the decision of the Forest Service after this hearing. Start letting both the Forest Service and your Senators and Congressmen know your indignation now.

If you want to take an active part in the fight to save the heart of the area from this threatened fate, call Pat Goldsworthy of the North Cascade Conservation Council (LA 3-2029) or come to the next meeting of the conservation committee at the clubroom at 8 p.m., March 16.

Miss DOLE. Yes. Now, to the future. First of all, Alaska, our gorgeous new sister State. Immediate steps must be taken to set aside special areas either typical of northern land or unique on the continent.

I would like to look to the future nationwide; indeed, hemispherewide. For many years people of the Eastern United States have driven or been driven to recreation in Canada. This is beginning on a large scale here in the West, but the organized economic exploitation of Canadian vastness is on the verge of proceeding on a geometric rate of acceleration. Such plans have been published and financially un

derwritten. The same is happening to Mexico, with its program of grazing, lumbering, and mining.

We can no longer look beyond our boundaries to wilderness. We must preserve what we have here, and now.

The council provisions of S. 1123 will not only satisfy our need for wilderness, but the provision for mining, grazing, and other uses in the national interest are equitable.

I would like to close as I commenced. Although a 5-year member of the Mountaineers, I do my camping and personal exploring in a private party, even more private than the Mountaineers. In fact, I use and preserve copies of this bulletin as a handy catalog of wild places to go. I carefully refrain from selecting the weekend scheduled by the Mountaineers. It is some more private then.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. E. F. Heacox, Tacoma, manager, timberland department, Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., will be the last witness this evening.

STATEMENT OF E. F. HEACOX, MANAGER, TIMBERLAND
DEPARTMENT, WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO.

Mr. HEACOX. I am E. F. Heacox, manager of the timberland department of Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.

I am not speaking in opposition to wilderness areas which we believe are an important element in the outdoor recreational program of our country. And I don't mean to say that just by way of giving lip service to that; I really mean it.

I do wish to express as emphatically as I can opposition to the enactment of Senate bill 1123 or similar legislation, particularly at this time. This proposed legislation represents a fundamental departure from the present method of management of the recreational values on public lands.

Under Public Law 85-470, Congress established the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which has been commented on many times today, to inventory present outdoor recreational facilities, to determine the demand for such facilities in the years 1976 and 2000, and to recommend a program to meet this demand. For Congress to establish this Commission and then, just as the study is getting underway, enact legislation having a far-reaching effect on the fundamental pattern of the management of recreational values on Federal land is illogical and inopportune. This is truly putting the cart before the horse.

I should like to make it clear that, pending the report of the Commission, we do not suggest curtailing the normal development of outdoor recreation facilities now being carried on by the Federal landmanaging agencies or such programs as Mission 66 or Operation Outdoors.

The proponents of wilderness legislation imply that we are in a now-or-never situation; that immediate action is required to preserve the last vestiges of typical wild land areas throughout the country. The facts do not support this position.

Based on the record of the U.S. Forest Service and the other Federal land-managing agencies, there is every reason to believe that the present status of wild and primitive areas will remain substantially

unchanged until the Commission submits its study and recommendations in September 1961. There is no need for precipitous action. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the wilderness needs of the American people can be provided on a more intelligent basis by first giving full consideration to the report of the National Outdoor Recreational Review Commission, and only then taking appropriate action.

We respectfully recommend that the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs follow this logical course before any decision involving a drastically new approach to the establishment and management of wild and primitive areas is made.

I would just like to add to that that I think here today we have heard many conflicting and contradicting statements. We have heard accusations about half-truths and misleading statements on both sides, most of which I am sure are unintentional. The reason we hear those statements is because they are based on half knowledge, and the reason that people have half knowledge is because this is an extremely complex subject. And all of this reinforces my belief in the necessity for further study by Congress, particularly in view of the fact that the study is now underway.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you; we appreciate having your statement.

We have a statement from Mr. J. C. Gregory, general manager of the Automobile Club of Washington, which will be included in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF J. C. GREGORY, GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF

WASHINGTON

The Automobile Club of Washington is not opposed to the principle of preserving the scenic and esthetic values of the public domain wherever this best serves the public interest, but as a motoring organization we are opposed to this proposed legislation for a number of reasons.

We believe this legislation is premature in view of the fact that Congress has already established the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission which has been charged with the task of determining the amount, kind, quality, and location of such outdoor recreation resources as will be required through the year 2000, and to recommend what policies and programs should be initiated to meet these requirements.

Since this Commission is required to report its findings to the Congress and the President by September 1, 1961, it seems to us that this legislation is not only premature and unwarranted at this time but in effect would put Congress in conflict with itself. It seems logical that Congress should have the results of this study before taking any action to allocate any additional areas for inclusion in the wilderness system.

In the 11 Western States the Federal Government owns or manages more than 400 million acres, or over 53 percent of the total land area. The policies that are pursued in the development of these lands and resources in large measure guide the economic destiny of the West. In the State of Washington the Federal Government owns or manages nearly 141⁄2 million acres, or over 33 percent of the total land area.

No one knows exactly what areas would be automatically blanketed into the proposed wilderness system, but indications are that it could run as high as 16.9 percent of the federally owned land in Washington.

Leaving out all other economic aspects of this legislation, I would like to point out the adverse effect this "locking up" of such large areas would have on this State's tourist and recreation business.

Tourism has become big business in the West, and this is especially true in Washington.. Not all of these tourists come from out of the State, since numerous surveys have shown that over half of such tourist expenditures come from our own residents seeking outdoor pleasures on weekends and vacations. We are all tourists of a sort.

By the virtue of this fact, all outdoor recreation hinges on accessibility. Young families with small children can't very well walk 15 or 20 miles into a wilderness if they want to take the children along. Older people on the average haven't the strength or endurance to invade these areas very far. The average working man or woman doesn't often have the time or money to explore these areas whose vastness requires considerable time on foot or an expensive pack trip which few can afford.

As proof of the above statement, I cite the statement made by Dr. McArdle, Chief of the Forest Service, before this committee at the hearing on S. 1176. He stated:

"Man's recreational use of the national forests has increased about two and a half times in the last decade. In 1956 there were about 53 million recreational visits to all national forest lands, and in 1968 it is estimated that this figure will increase to 82 million." Dr. McArdle continued: "In contrast, less than 1 percent of the 53 million recreational visits were to wilderness-type areas in 1956. The plain fact is that the lack of roads in wilderness areas makes them unavailable to the family car for a day or a weekend of picnicking, camping, hunting, and fishing. These areas occupy some of the most scenic parts of the country, and the great mass of recreational users are precluded by the lack of roads."

I should also point out that at the present time most of the areas set aside as wilderness, and those proposed, are in the West because most of the Federal lands are in this area. This fact of location limits their use largely to people in the West because the average citizen from the East has neither the time nor the money to explore them by foot or pack train.

The Automobile Club is also unalterably opposed to the National Wilderness Preservation Council which would be established by S. 1123. First, because it has not been established that the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service are doing an incompetent job of administering the vast areas under their jurisdiction. Secondly, this new Council would be superimposed between the Federal land-administering agencies and the Congress to "invoke the aid of appropriate officers of the U.S. Government and assist in obtaining cooperation in wilderness preservation and use among Federal and State agencies and private agencies and organizations concerned therewith."

This would set up a virtual lobby group in the Federal Government to promote a single use of Federal lands.

If the statements that have been made to the effect that the Council would have no administrative functions are correct, then there is no real need for it, and its existence would only result in unnecessary and unwarranted expense. In opposing S. 1123, the Automobile Club of Washington fully recognizes the legitimate place of wilderness areas in the planning for recreational use of the Federal lands. We believe, however, that such legislation is not only unnecessary but very unwise at this time. We again urge that this entire question be held in abeyance until the Congress has the report of the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.

Senator JACKSON. As I indicated earlier, we want to give each side an opportunity to summarize. Mr. Glascock, I believe, of the Western Forestry & Conservation Association, Portland, is going to sum up for those opposed to the bill, and I believe the proponents will have someone by tomorrow. We want to have an agreement on this. We will work out the time and maybe flip a coin as to who will start off first. We will try to be as fair as we can about it.

We will resume tomorrow at 9:30, and will complete our testimony at that time. Now, be sure your names are on this list or submitted to Mr. Stong.

(Thereupon the hearing recessed at 5:45 p.m., March 30, 1959.)