We believe we have all the basic Federal laws needed for management of the western Federal lands in the best interests of the surrounding communities and the Nation at large. To impose a specialuse system for some of our Federal lands, as proposed by S. 1123, is unwise public policy. If enacted, it will lift the lid off a political Pandora's box which will trigger movements for other single-purpose land dedication for forestry, mineral development, mass recreation, grazing, and water production, all to the detriment of the sound multiple-use land policy under which the Government is now managing most of its western lands. This will decrease our ability to get the most out of these lands for most of our citizens over the longest period. This doesn't mean that wilderness should not be one of our important land uses. We think it should be. But it is unsound land management policy to establish any permanent wilderness until adequate land use studies have shown that such reservation can be made without undermining the needs of our growing population for more jobs and commodities.

S. 1123 will deprive people of jobs, weaken our country's economy, impair our national defense, limit all kinds of outdoor recreation, and disrupt the tax base for local government.

The Industrial Forestry Association, therefore, opposes S. 1123 and recommends that the measure not be enacted.

Thank you.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you for your fine statement, Mr. Hagenstein; we appreciate it. I know you have spent a long time on this. Mary Beth Miller. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MARY BETH MILLER, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mrs. MILLER. My name is Mary Beth Miller. I am a housewife; Seattle is my home. Like most Seattleites, I have a vital interest in the protection of our mountains and forests. For this reason, I feel that passage of S. 1123, the National Wilderness Preservation Act, is very important.

Actually, I do not feel that S. 1123 is enough. We need to set aside more land as wilderness for logging and commercialization of private and public lands in our State is progressing fast. It is too bad that the opponents of the wilderness bill are not correct and this bill actually would set up, as they say, a new 50-million-acre empire of wilderness. With the terrible overcrowding and overcommercialization of parts of our national parks, we could certainly use it.

We desperately need a national park or Forest Service wilderness area established in the Glacier Peak-North Cascade region, including the valleys, which the Forest Service proposes to clear-cut. Without the valleys left in their original state, the beauty of this region would be destroyed. But the wilderness bill will not do this. It only gives the present restricted areas the protection they are supposed to have now, and which has turned out to have so many loopholes that they can be violated if enough pressure is brought to bear by commercial interests.

If they have not spoken already, you will soon hear individuals and representatives of self-styled, multiple-use groups saying that these wilderness areas should not be set aside for the single purpose of

recreation by the few rich enough or hardy enough to go into the wilderness fastnesses. They have said it before and I know they will say it again.

These people do not know what they are talking about. I don't believe that they would know what areas would be protected by the bill. I have looked it up. In our State these areas include Olympic National Park, Mount Rainier National Park, two small so-called wild areas near Mount Adams and Goat Rocks, and three small areas in Indian reservations "upon the recommendation of or with the consent of the tribes concerned." If the Forest Service sees fit to include part or all the North Cascade Primitive Area 20 years from now, that would also be included, but as I read S. 1123, I understand that the Forest Service's decision is not subject to review. If this is correct, it should be changed. I also think that the Forest Service should not be allowed 10 years, much less 20, for this reclassification.

What these self-styled, multiple-use spokesmen actually mean by multiple use is that maybe the land can be used for something else after all the timber and even the small bushes have been logged off. It really bothers them to think that under wilderness use all kinds of true multiple-use management can go on, so they just ignore it and say it doesn't happen. I have found specifically in the bill the following: recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historic use, grazing, use of aircraft or motorboats where now in use, insect and disease control, prospecting, mining, reservoir construction, and there is nothing in the bill to alter present hunting, fishing, and many other uses.

I have been quoted figures, which I assume to be authentic, by the Mountaineers of Seattle, indicating that the National Park Service has found that 171,325 daytime visitors used the trail system of Olympic National Park in 1958, and in addition, 44,419 people made pack trips of more than 1 day. This would bring the total to 215,744 hikers. It is true that few people get into the fastnesses of the most remote parts of the North Cascade Primitive Area, but this is not true of most of the areas protected by this bill. These 215,744 people using the park trails last year are not the rich and hardy few. They are the typical neighbors of yours and mine. The people opposing the bill cannot deny this. Twenty-nine thousand would-be campers were turned away from Kalalock Beach in the Olympic National Park alone last year because of lack of facilities. If all the forested slopes were logged except a little strip around the campground, it would solve this problem, but is this the way we Washingtonians really want it solved? One other point I would like to bring out. Here is the demand for more access roads into our wilderness areas, while the problem of litterbugs and vandalism costs the national parks and Forest Service quite a sum of money as it is to clean up and make repairs for maintenance of these areas.

Passage of the wilderness bill is only a defensive measure, but it will help. I thank you.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, and I appreciate your reference to the local problem. I think it is very helpful to get back to the local subject matter once in a while.

Mr. William M. Ellwood, Seattle. Just state your name for the record.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. ELLWOOD, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. ELLWOOD. My name is William Ellwood; I am associated with the Pankratz Lumber Co.

Honorable Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate: The question is, Who are these people that desire to set aside 50 million acres of public land that they may ride horseback over trails that must be built with public funds? What this plan in effect will really do will prevent the harvest of mature and windfall trees that are essential in the lumber industry.

The more lumber we produce from our own forests, the less lumber will be imported and the less unemployment we will have. There is a danger of forest fires increasing with tobacco-smoking travelers traveling through the woods. What cigarette smoker will dismount to put out his or her cigarette stub? Without good roads to bring in firefighting equipment, how will a fire be put out? How will these soft city travelers escape death from fire? If the fire starts below, they can't escape by going up and over the smoke-covered mountain; they can't go down the trail; it would have to be continuous. In case they get hurt seriously, they would mostly have to be tied to a packhorse.

Anytime a horse meets a bear in the turn of the road, he will turn back quick enough to throw the rider. And I am talking from experience of nearly 72 years. That is another story, but it would be an interesting one some time. Cougars also are not pleasant to meet. They are plentiful in Oregon.

What working people can afford to ride saddle horses? The oldtimers didn't reforest the logged-off land, so we have to; and the new reforested land could grow big and beautiful. All that these pleasure-seeking people need to do is to go to Alaska. They have an undisputed wilderness there with all its wildlife. We have a young and new generation to build houses and factories for. We need to harvest and husband our wilderness so it will produce timber.

The water used by our big cities comes out of these same mountains that these people from other States want to travel horses over. What people wouldn't raise a rebellion against such pollution of their precious drinking water? We already have in this State two railroads that don't help our sanitary conditions. Let these eastern people turn their own States into a wilderness such as Alaska, where there really is a wilderness. They could start an initiative referendum if they want to permit the people of this State to run their own business; otherwise we could think of them as not being fair.

Pure drinking water is most important. Confidence in our Senators is very important. Let the issue come before the public of each State on the ballots.

Thank you.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Ellwood. We appreciate your statement. Sidney Gross, Seattle. Mr. Gross is not here. Arthur M. Roberts, Portland, Oreg., president of the Western Forestry & Conservation Association. The Chair is trying to go right down through the list as it appears over here, so if anyone feels I am overlooking their name, why, speak up.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR M. ROBERTS, REPRESENTING THE WESTERN FORESTRY & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I should like to file the report of the North Idaho Forestry Association. I don't wish to speak to it.

Senator JACKSON. Fine. It will be included in the record following your remarks.

Mr. ROBERTS. In addition to this, I have this report in two parts. We have a list of specific objections and I have a statement here which I should like to read from. This is the list of objections. Senator JACKSON. Your objections will be entered at this point in the record.

(The document referred to follows:)

OBJECTIONS OF THE WESTERN FORESTRY & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Western Forestry & Conservation Association opposes enactment of S. 1123 and similar bills for the following specific reasons:

(1) The need for this legislation has not been shown. It has not been demonstrated that the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service are doing an incompetent job of administering the vast systems of wilderness which each has deliberately set aside.

(2) The bill would create an unnecessary governmental body at public expense which would overlap and duplicate the functions of existing Federal land agencies. This so-called Wilderness Preservation Council would be prejudiced by composition and duties toward expansion of wilderness zoning into present multiple-use areas of national forests. By stirring up a veto-empowered Congress, this Council could frustrate the routine reclassifications of existing primitive areas on national forests (some 84 million acres), which would eliminate, after study, portions not primarily of wilderness character.

(3) Under the bill Congress would specifically sanction the continued preservation as wilderness of any areas of Federal lands so far undeveloped with roads. This foreshadows considerable expansion of existing wilderness areas and interference with orderly development of resource management.

(4) The bill would give preferential treatment to one national forest use not afforded any other, hamper free and effective application of administrative judgment in determining Federal land use, and strike at the very heart of the multiple-use concept of forest land management. It is special-interest legislation which will open the door for other special-interest demands on our Federal forests.

(5) The bill would require the Secretary of the Interior within 10 years to decide for all time what additional areas in the national parks will be needed for development with roads for family recreation (only 10 percent of the 24 million acres is now so developed)—an impossible task.

(6) The bill provides for inclusion of certain Indian lands in the combined wilderness system. These are private lands under Federal trusteeship and there is no justification for their inclusion.

(7) The bill provides for inclusion of national wildlife refuges and ranges in the wilderness system. These are not recreation areas but areas for the management of wildlife where roads are needed for protection against fire and prescribed harvesting to keep wildlife populations in balance with their supplies of food.

(8) The bill would hamper forest protection in and adjacent to national forest wilderness areas by requiring the U.S. Forest Service to get authorization from the Secretary of Agriculture for insect and disease control measures in such areas, and by prohibiting, by law, the permanent protection roads necessary for effective forest fire control-roads which are now kept out by administrative decision only, but which are needed for protection purposes.

(9) The bill puts undue emphasis on one minor, though important, phase of outdoor recreation which accounts for less than 1 percent of the total recreational use of forests, while the big job in this field is providing facilities to handle the tremendous demand for family recreation in the forests.

(10) The public policies enunciated in this bill would work particular handicaps in the West which already has the lion's share of all dedicated wilderness reservations. The development of natural resources in the West, to support the estimated 40 percent of the Nation's population the West will have by the year 2000, has only begun.

(11) The bill is poorly written, complicated, vague, confusing, providing for many different things on many different lands. The bill contains a large number of conflicting provisions. It sets a strict definition of wilderness and then proceeds to compromise it by permitting several incompatible exceptions. It speaks of managing wilderness areas so as to protect watersheds, soil, beneficial forest and timber growth, and vegetative cover then rules out the administrative flexibility necessary to do this. It says that the national forests shall be administered for multiple use but then concentrates on promoting a single It says its purpose is to secure an adequate system of wilderness but fails to state what is an adequate system. It sets no limits for wilderness acreage, nor does it provide any means for determination of these limits.

use.

(12) The bill implies a dissatisfaction with the competence of the professional forester and the career land administrator. It would set the precedent of making Federal land-use decisions by a balance of political pressures rather than by the discretion of experienced career administrators as at present.

(13) The bill fails to provide for approval of States where natural resources are withdrawn or to remunerate annually such States and counties for the losses of revenues and economic development thus incurred. In providing for the acquisition of private lands within units of wilderness reservations, the bill makes likely a further reduction in local tax base.

(14) The bill represents or implies that the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use and enjoyment by the people are best served by the maintenance of areas as roadless wilderness. This is most often not the case.

(15) Consideration of wilderness legislation is premature, pending the report of the President's National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in 1961, which will be based on the most comprehensive survey ever made of this Nation's recreational resources, potential, habits, and needs, including wilderness needs.

(16) S. 1123 fails to overcome the substantial objections to previous wilderness bills despite numerous small changes.

Senator JACKSON. You may proceed, Mr. Roberts.

Mr. ROBERTS. My name is Arthur M. Roberts; I am chief fire warden of the Southern Idaho Timber Protective Association and, in addition to that, I am mayor of McCall, Idaho, in a county which is 89 percent federally owned and so eligible to be in primitive or wilderness areas. I am also president of the Western Forestry and Conservation Association, a 50-year-old organization with a distinguished record of promoting cooperation among all forestry agencies, public and private, in securing the forestry future of the West. It is pursuant to this very purpose that we respectfully address the members of this committee today.

The policy of the association on wilderness areas and legislation as expressed by the membership of the 49th Western Forestry Conference in San Francisco on December 12, 1958, is as follows;

FOREST PROTECTION IN WILDERNESS AREAS

Western Forestry and Conservation Association recognizes that fire, insects, diseases, and windthrow are constant threats to forests in existing wilderness areas. The association notes the everpresent danger of spread of fires and epidemics of insects and diseases from existing wilderness areas to adjoining managed forest lands. The association therefore recommends that adequate protection facilities and practical measures for control of fire and epidemics be provided for in these existing roadless wilderness areas.

Now, we have another resolution on wilderness legislation, and this has been brought up many times, that consideration of such legisla