of management. Our present and future economic development is greatly dependent upon the proper utilization of the resources of these lands. If we are to develop our economic potential to its maximum and maintain our proper place among the other States of the Union, we must be assured of scientific management of these tremendous national assets in such a manner that they will produce a sustained yield of products and services, including, of course, that of recreation. We have no quarrel with those who believe sincerely in the need for preservation of certain areas in the primitive state for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. We share that belief. But we point out that existing regulations are so definitive as to remove any doubt as to the determination of the legislative and administrative branches of our Government to establish and maintain sufficient wilderness and wild areas to guarantee the availability of this type of recreational facility for all time. Under present law the Secretary of Agriculture, upon recommendation of the Chief of the Forest Service, may designate tracts of not less than 100,000 acres as "wilderness areas." In addition, the Chief of the Forest Service may designate tracts of less than 100,000 acres, but not less than 5,000 acres, as "wild areas," to be administered in the same manner as "wilderness areas," with the same restrictions upon their use. Is there need, then, to intrude into the national park system, which was established for certain specific purposes, and into the wildlife refuges and ranges, and into the Indian reservations, or into any other lands owned or controlled by the Federal Government in order to create more single-use areas for the limited number of persons of this or future generations who find this type of recreation appealing?

It has been estimated that probably not more than one-tenth of 1 percent of our population is dedicated or hardy enough to take advantage of this type of recreation. Yet the proposed act contemplates establishment of approximately 50 million acres of wilderness area-about 90 percent of which would be in the Western States-with no limit on future additions to, or expansion of, those acreages except whatever limits might be imposed by Congress. And, in the proposed legislation even congressional authority is limited by provision that proposed additions shall automatically take effect upon the expiration of the first period of 120 calendar days of continuous session of Congress following the date on which the proposal is submitted, if during this period Congress does not pass a concurrent resolution in opposition. Thus Congress need not express approval; it need only to fail to express disapproval-and an arbitrary bureaucratic decision, which might affect billions of dollars' worth of national assetsand the economies of communities, or of States, or regions—becomes final. Congress has established an Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, and has charged it with the responsibility for surveying our outdoor recreational resources and opportunities, including wilderness. areas. By 1961 this Commission is to report to Congress on its estimate of what our requirements will be in the future. Certainly this report should indicate whether or not any additional legislation in this highly controversial field is truly in the best interests of the Nation's economy. Pending completion of the Commission's report, the Western States Council and the Seattle Chamber of Commerce join in urging that neither the proposed legislation, S. 1123 nor any similar legislation, receive the approval of Congress.

Senator JACKSON. The Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce. Is anyone here from the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce? Their statement will be included in the record. I understand Mr. Stong has that, so we will go on to the next one.

Walter C. McCarthy. He is from the College of Pharmacy, University of Washington. Carwin A. Woolley, Portland, for the Pacific Logging Congress.

STATEMENT OF CARWIN A. WOOLLEY, REPRESENTING THE PACIFIC LOGGING CONGRESS

Mr. WOOLLEY. I will present this statement for the record, Senator. Senator JACKSON. Mr. Woolley, without objection, your statement will be included in full at this point and you may summarize it in your own way.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE PACIFIC LOGGING CONGRESS, CARWIN A. WOOLLEY, SECRETARY

The Pacific Logging Congress, which this year is celebrating its golden anniversary is sincerely grateful for this opportunity to express the views of western logging industry, in regard to the proposed wilderness bill, S. 1123. We would like to make it abundantly clear that we are wholly in accord with the principle that preservation of wilderness is a proper and desirable function of multiple use of public lands. We also believe that S. 1123, or any legislation which tends to give special recognition, privileges, and powers of influence to any single use of public lands is contrary to the multiple-use concept and should not be enacted.

We do not believe that there is need for the enactment of S. 1123 or any similar legislation.

The proponents of this bill have failed to prove that our public officials charged with the administration of public lands, excluding the national parks and other lands reserved for special purposes, are not doing a good job of managing these lands on a multiple-use basis including the preservation of wilderness. They have also failed to prove that the officials of the National Park Service are not primarily concerned with the principle of wilderness preservation or that their long-range plans for the development of the national parks do not include major provisions for wilderness. Why, then, is this bill necessary?

We do not believe that Indian lands or wildlife refuges and game ranges should be included in wilderness legislation. Indian lands are privately owned lands held in trust for the legal owners by the Federal Government, and these people should not be subjected to governmental coercion as to the use of their property. Wildlife refuges and game ranges are lands already set aside for one specific use which is not compatible with wilderness.

We believe that public lands should not be set aside for any single-purpose use until a detailed analysis has been made by professional natural resource managers and a long-term management plan made for the area in which the proposed special use is harmoniously correlated with the economic and recreational requirements of the adjacent communities and of the Nation. The negative determination of future wilderness area boundaries, as set forth in S. 1123, is in direct and violent contradiction to every known precept of sound resource management.

The language of S. 1123 is vague as to the true intent of the sponsors in regard to future expansion of the proposed wilderness system. Section 1, paragraph (c), states, in part, "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." We believe that this phraseology is deliberately employed to provide a powerful propaganda device to be used by overzealous wilderness enthusiasts to imply that it is the intent of Congress that all presently undeveloped Federal lands should be preserved as wilderness regardless of their most beneficial use.

We believe that the recreational, scenic, and educational values of wilderness, claimed to be for all the people by the proponents of S. 1123, are limited to the very few who possess the physical stamina, financial independence, or leisure time to enjoy them. Recreational use of wilderness is denied to the ever-increasing millions of family and weekend recreationists who want and need easily accessible forest areas for their enjoyment.

Except for the satisfaction of utter solitude, wilderness areas produce no benefits that cannot be obtained through judicious application of known multiple use management techniques. Therefore, wilderness areas should be carefully selected and spread out so as not to interfere unduly with multiple use and at the same time to satisfy that small minority who apparently cannot enjoy the wonders of Nature unless completely isolated from human influence. We particularly oppose the provisions of S. 1123 that would establish a National Wilderness Preservation Council.

The proponents of the bill assure us that the proposed Council would have no administrative functions; but section 4, paragraph (c), provides, in part, that the Council "may make, sponsor, and encourage the coordination of surveys of wilderness needs and conditions and gather and disseminate information, in

39871-59-13

cluding maps, for the information of the public regarding use and preservation of the areas of wilderness within the wilderness system, including information and maps regarding State and other non-Federal areas." The making, sponsorship, and coordination of surveys, and the dissemination of information is an administrative function. It is unthinkable that these powers should be granted to a purely advisory Council whose only qualification for appointive members is that they be "known to be informed regarding and interested in the preservation of wilderness."

Section 4, paragraph (c), further provides that "The Council is directed to consult with, advise, and invoke the aid of appropriate officers of the U.S. Government and to assist in obtaining cooperation in wilderness preservation and use among Federal and State agencies and private agencies and organizations concerned therewith." This almost unlimited power to propagandize the public through public auspices and to influence Congress in favor of one specialized use, would place the nominal administrators of public lands in an intolerable situation in attempting to manage these lands for the best interest of all the people.

It should be particularly noted that in all the public hearings and recorded testimony on the predecessors of S. 1123 (namely, S. 1176 and S. 4028), more objections have been voiced against the establishment of this proposed National Wilderness Preservation Council than any other provision of the above-named bills. Yet this section has remained virtually unchanged in each succeeding draft of proposed wilderness legislation. The conclusion is inescapable that the reason for the persistent inclusion of this proposed new governmental body is that it is intended to exert considerable influence in the acquisition of large, new acreages of land for preservation as wilderness and, perhaps, to eventually take over the administration of all these lands.

We believe that enactment of any wilderness legislation, prior to the report and recommendations of the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, would be particularly ill-advised and premature. This commission is charged with the obligation "to inventory and evaluate the outdoor recreation resources and opportunities of the Nation and to determine the types and location of such resources and opportunities which will be required by present and future generations." It is additionally charged "to make comprehensive information and recommendations leading to these goals available."

The only justifiable reason for enactment of wilderness legislation, prior to the release of the comprehensive information that will unquestionably be accumulated by this commission, would be an immediate threat to presently proposed or established wilderness areas. No such threat has been proved by any of the proponents of S. 1123.

In conclusion, therefore, we most earnestly request that S. 1123 be given an unfavorable report by your committee, and that no further legislation pertain ing to wilderness preservation be considered until after the report of the Out. door Recreation Resources Review Commission has been made public.

Mr. WOOLLEY. Thank you. I will attempt to cut it as short as possible.

My name is Carwin A. Woolley, I am a forester by profession, and I am employed as secretary by the Pacific Logging Congress, which this year is commemorating its 50th year of service to the forest industry. I am appearing to speak for the Pacific Logging Congress in opposition to the proposed wilderness bill, S. 1123. The more detailed presentation has been entered in the record.

First, let me make it abundantly clear that we are wholly in accord with the principle that preservation of wilderness is a proper and desirable function of multiple use of public lands. We also believe that S. 1123, or any legislation which tends to give special recognition, privileges, and powers of influence to any single use of public lands is contrary to the multiple-use concept and should not be enacted. It does maintain that wilderness is only one of the many desirable uses and should be applied only to those areas particularly adapted to wilderness use.

We do not believe that there is need for the enactment of S. 1123 or any similar legislation. We believe the proponents of this bill have failed to prove that our public officials charged with the administration of public lands, excluding the national parks and other lands reserved for special purposes, are not doing a good job of managing these lands on a multiple-use basis, including the preservation of wilderness. They have also failed to prove that the officials of the National Park Service are not primarily concerned with the principle of wilderness preservation or that their long-range plans for the development of the national parks do not include major provisions for wilderness. Why, then, is this bill necessary?

We do not believe that Indian lands or wildlife refuges and game ranges should be included in wilderness legislation.

Senator MAGNUSON. Well, Mr. Woolley, right there I think the record ought to show, Senator Jackson, that on wildlife refuges we have a separate program administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the acquisition of lands. There has been no attempt to go into public lands, but there is for future acquisition. As a matter of fact, I authored a bill which Senator Jackson is very familiar with and supported to raise, for instance, the duck stamp from $2 to $3 on the basis that all of the money would be used for the acquisition of further wildlife bottom lands and marshlands. Everybody agreed to it, because in the past only a portion of the fund, of the $2 duck stamp, as duck hunters well know, went for the acquisition of lands. Now it is the full amount, so that will mean the acquisition of approximately $6 million a year or more, and some of these lands are cheap lands, to buy for the next 37 years on a definite program, which will bring in many millions of acres into the wildlife refuges, but that is, as you point out, a separate program.

Mr. WOOLLEY. It should be a separate program.

Senator MAGNUSON. It is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service wholly. Now, I don't know whether this bill would include

Mr. WOOLLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator MAGNUSON. That in or not. I think that is a point to be made. I just wanted to show that, Mr. Chairman, for the record.

Senator JACKSON. Yes. Well, I think, Senator Magnuson, what the bill really refers to are the wild, primitive areas in public domain that are a part of the refuge system. I am sure there is no thought of including land that will be acquired in the future. I mean most of the ducklands

Senator MAGNUSON. This is only to acquire private lands.

Mr. WOOLLEY. The bill provides that any land brought into the refuge system shall be considered for its wilderness value, too.

Senator JACKSON. Yes. They have 5 years in which the Secretary has 5 years in which to act on that-but I think that we can agree that the private lands that are being acquired, that Senator Magnuson referred to, with the additional money from the duck stamps, I should like to express the doubt whether the thought would even be given to including such areas for the most part as wild and primitive. I think they pertain primarily to marshlands and other lands that would not have any wild and primitive value. Now, I may be wrong.

Mr. WOOLLEY. The point is, Senator, the game ranges and refuges are managed lands for the production or protection of wildlife and they do not fit into the wilderness concept.

Senator MAGNUSON. Well, sometimes they are not wilderness at all. They are just swamplands.

Senator JACKSON. I am not an expert in this field, but isn't it true that we have certain areas now that are indeed wild and primitive that are also used as game refuges?

Mr. WOOLLEY. I believe there are some such cases.

Senator JACKSON. And I mean the experts would agree that are wild and primitive.

Mr. WOOLLEY. The process of merely protecting a certain species of animal can be done on any primitive or any area regardless of its classification merely by putting a closed season on it.

Senator JACKSON. Well, I understand, but I am sure you would agree that there are areas that all people agreed that are wild and primitive that are also being used as game refuges.

Mr. WOOLLEY. I do not know that they are so classified as such. Senator JACKSON. Well

Mr. WOOLLEY. But in any case the protection of the animals can be preserved, if merely protection is concerned, that can be done merely by regulation of the hunting and so forth. If they are to be managed for the best interests of the wildlife, it cannot be done in the wilderness

areas.

Senator MAGNUSON. Well, the definition of wilderness is somewhat bandied around but this is to be done in places where you can get into them and get at them to help them propagate and to rehabilitate, say, a duck run or whatever it may be, but it becomes an area that will be used for the purpose, for instance there was a lady here yesterday that represented the Audubon Society. Well now, they don't go out and hunt ducks, but they are going to buy a lot of duck stamps for the purpose of having these areas for the wildlife and they become semiwilderness areas in that respect.

Mr. WOOLLEY. If they are semiwilderness they are not wilderness. We do not believe that public lands should be set aside for any single purpose use until a positive determination has been made by qualified resource managers that such special use will best serve the interests of all the people.

The negative determination of areas to be reserved for wilderness as embodied in S. 1123 is in direct and violent contradiction to every known precept of good resource management, and I might add that that is one of the points to which the Forest Service objected most strongly, too, in the predecessor of this bill.

We believe that certain portions of S. 1123 imply approval of future further expansion of the proposed wilderness system far beyond the lands specifically mentioned. We believe that the enjoyment of utter solitude is the only benefit of vast wilderness areas that cannot be better obtained for all the people from lands properly administered on a multiple use basis.

We particularly oppose the provisions of S. 1123 that would inflict a taxpayers supported special interest lobby operating under congressional sanction upon the citizens of our country. We refer, of course, to the proposed National Wilderness Preservation Council.