Senator JACKSON. It covers a lot of it. Well, I don't know what procedures, because I don't have this information, Mr. Zalesky, I don't know what the specific procedures are today of the Forest Service in setting these things up. I know what is in this bill, but what I don't know is what the procedures are of the Forest Service. We can inquire about it. I don't think they are far apart, frankly.

Mr. ZALESKY. They are not; they are very close here, the U-1 regulations and the U-2 regulations on this, and they would do nothing that is contrary to the bill except, as you say, with this judicious review of the Congress.

Mr. GLASCOCK. I was just going to say that the Forest Service has given the strongest opposition to the inclusion of a wilderness council and to some of the lack of flexibility in forest protection measures, which Senator Neuberger, on the floor of Congress this year, has said that he believes that their objections should be given careful study, and I certainly agree with that.

And one final thing I would like to thank you, Senator, for your most objective attitude in pursuance of this hearing. I am convinced that you are honestly attempting to resolve a difficult problem.

Senator JACKSON. Well, thank you very much. I was just about to compliment the witnesses here, the proponents and the opponents and those that are inbetween, and the gentleman from Camano Island that provided us humor at a difficult time, for the fine way in which they presented it, and I hope and trust that all those who wanted to be heard have had that opportunity. As previously indicated, you will have is 2 weeks satisfactory?-that should be to submit statements. Without objection then, you will have 2 weeks to submit any additional statements or comments you wish to make.

And I do want to thank each and all for their patience in waiting these 2 days and making their statements, and the fine way in which the testimony has been offered. Thank you.

At the request of the National Congress of American Indians, a resolution on the wilderness bill passed by that group at their convention in Missoula, Mont., September 19, 1958, will be included in the record.

RESOLUTION 37

Be it resolved, That the NCAI request the forthcoming 86th Congress to require the consent of the Indian tribe or band affected prior to passage of legislation establishing any wilderness area within any Indian reservation.

Senator JACKSON. Let the record include the statement of A. Lars Nelson, master of the Washington State Grange.

(The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF A. LARS NELSON, MASTER OF THE WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE

Mr. Chairman, I am A. Lars Nelson, master of the Washington State Grange, which has a membership of nearly 50,000 people in this State.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I want to thank Senator Murray, Senator Jackson, Senator Magnuson, and all of you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and express our viewpoint on the subject of wilderness areas as they affect our State and S. 1123.

I have had rather close interest in wilderness areas gained from serving as a representative of agriculture from our State on the region 6 National Forest Advisory Board, comprising Oregon and Washington. I am not speaking for the Advisory Board or the Forest Service. The views are my own and that of our organization. It has been our responsibility as a board to examine by foot,

Jeep, horseback, and by boat some of the areas being discussed in this series of hearings. We have also as a part of our function looked at and discussed boundaries, uses, and impact of such reserves on the functions and management of the forests to provide a sustained yield of timber, fire protection, insect control, mining, grazing, wildlife habitat, recreation for the few and the many, tourist industry, pure water supply for irrigation, domestic use, industrial, hydroelectric power, navigation, flood control, propagation of anadromous and other fishlife, and recreation including boating, hunting, and fishing. As a result of this experience and firsthand observation, I am convinced of the need for leaving these areas free from formalized boundaries prescribed by edict or by legislative enactment. Flexibility in management must be maintained regardless of the responsible agency so that use may be adjusted and areas included at one time may later be excluded as facts rather than emotions or desires may dictate. Access must be adequately maintained so that many may enjoy these vast natural areas whether they be families or a growing State or tourists coming to see our scenic grandeur and unequaled climate and living conditions. One can find all the beauties of Switzerland plus added features in this northwest corner of our Nation.

In view of the impact of parks and wilderness areas on the economy of a State, region, or Nation, I feel we should take a sharp look. To lock up for a few, vast stands of mature merchantable timber is a waste of a basic resource. A bolt of lightning, a careless visitor, can blot out for either use or vision that which we try to preserve for the monopoly of a few. A basic question seems to repeatedly come forward. It is to whom do our public resources actually belong, the many or the few? I do not subscribe to the protestation of certain nature groups that it takes a special cut of man or woman to truly appreciate the magnificence of nature. Teddy Roosevelt at the incidence of the Forest Service stated that our land and water resources must not be monopolized by the few, but must be developed and managed for the benefit of all the people.

Some perspective on land utilization in our Nation is important if we are to view the proposed legislation in its true light. There are 1,904 million acres of land in this country. The vast acreage is divided as follows: Cropland, 409 million acres; nonforested pasture and grazing lands, 606 million acres; deserts, cities, and other special uses, 189 million acres. It is estimated that we have 3.2 acres of cropland per capita which will be reduced, because of use depletion and increase in population, to 1.5 acres by the year 2000. There are 161 million acres in our national forest reserves managed by our Forest Service as 147 national forests under the multiple-use concept.

It appears, then, that withdrawing permanently some 50 million acres in all categories throughout the Nation is difficult to do without impeding economic development involving water resources, recreational use, and job opportunity in forest supported and related industries. Federal lands comprise a major portion of our State. Out of 42,967,020 acres of land area in Washington State, 35 percent, or approximately 15,038,450 is controlled by the Federal Government in national forests, national parks, Indian reservations, military and naval reserves, game refuges, power and reclamation, atomic energy, and miscellaneous properties.

A virtual no-use boundary is to be thrown around 17 percent of the Federal land in our State. It is certainly evident that jobs in mining, forestry, water development, grazing, and mass recreation would tend to be reduced by passage of the act. From a perusal of provisions of the act, it is evident that use of Federal lands by tourists, campers, skiers, fishermen, hunters, and family picnics may be further limited.

It is our feeling that wilderness areas constitute a valuable use of public domain. We believe that many areas, because of their location, their sheerness, their physical characteristics, will remain wilderness areas regardless of laws or regulations. Before crystallization of fixed boundaries takes place, if ever, much more study needs to be devoted to the implications of such set-asides for single-purpose use by individual groups and appropriate agencies of Government and the Congress.

In conclusion, the position of the Washington State Grange is in agreement with the following statement from page 122 of the 1958 Journal of Proceedings of the Washington State Grange, "Master's address":

"From time to time, particularly remote, inaccessible areas, or areas of extremely rough terrain of scenic beauty are required to be set aside from public lands for wilderness areas. Some 80 such areas have been designated for this type of management throughout the national forests of the United States.

There are 163 wilderness-designated areas embracing 55 million acres. There are 48 wilderness areas proposed in national park areas, 20 in national wildlife refuges, and 15 wildernesses within the reservations that belong to our Indians. Conservation and mountaineer groups would like to see these areas set aside and preserved for present and future generations of nature lovers. Extreme care must be exercised in crystallizing boundaries and setting these areas aside, that necessary and valuable stands of timber are not wastefully excluded from utilization under Forest Service management and sustained-yield practices."

In summary, the position of the Washington State Grange is in accord with that of the National Grange, page 165, columns 1 and 2, of the 1958 National Grange Proceedings, entitled "Wilderness."

"The National Grange has always supported the designation of certain areas of the country because of their remoteness, representative characteristic, or primeval beauty as primitive areas under the flexible and effective management of appropriate agencies. This position, however, does not include nor support the setting aside or the drawing of fixed boundaries which may impede, hamper, or destroy the economy of a State or region.

"Experience with certain park reserves has indicated the inflexibility of the park administration in refusal to exclude traditional agricultural areas representing free enterprise, tax-paying farm units. We would, therefore, oppose measures which would seek to establish permanent boundaries and we would instead leave these natural primitive areas under the capable and well-estab lished management program of such agencies as the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior.

"Present proposed wilderness legislation would prevent harvesting of mature timber resources on a sustained-yield basis, the mining of valuable minerals, and the flooding of land by reservoirs for irrigation, municipal water supplies, recreation, and flood-control purposes. It would also prevent establishment of necessary State highways to facilitate such development as well as the transportation of farm produce to markets and farm supplies to inland farm areas. "We therefore oppose any measure which would establish wilderness areas in contravention of the principles referred to above."

As further evidence of our position, we are attaching a resolution adopted by the Washington State Grange delegate body at our convention in Seattle in June 1958. We are at this time definitely opposed to the enactment of S. 1123. Again thank you for the privilege and opportunity of appearing before your committee and expressing the views of our organization.

RESOLUTION OF THE WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE

PROPOSED WILDERNESS AREA-STEHEKIN RIVER WATERSHED

Whereas it has been proposed that a wilderness area be established in the North Cascade Mountains, to include large areas of the Stehekin River watershed; and

Whereas a great mass of information has been given to the public by both the proponents and the opponents of the plan; and

Whereas some of this information is exaggerated, or erroneous, and not substantiated by the true facts; and

Whereas according to Forest Service Information, there is a considerable doubt that a major portion of the timber to be enclosed in the proposed area is of desirable merchantable species; and

Whereas according to Forest Service information, there is doubt that sale of such timber would reimburse the Forest Service for roads built into the area; and

Whereas we do not believe it to be economically sound to set aside large areas of valuable timber for purely recreational purposes; and

Whereas we do not favor the promiscuous cutting of species of little or no commercial value; and

Whereas we believe our Forest Service to be well qualified to administer our forest areas to the best advantage: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That we urge a reappraisal of the boundaries of the proposed wil. derness area, with the thought of excluding any areas of appreciable size containing valuable stands of desirable timber species.

Senator JACKSON. There will also be included in the record other statements and messages which have been filed for the hearing with the staff.

(The statements follow:)

STATEMENT OF THE ANIMALS' CRUSADERS, INC., R. E. HERMAN, PRESIDENT

Regarding the forthcoming public hearings on the wilderness bill: We regret that it is impossible to attend the hearing in person, hence we proffer our written statement:

The theme of our arguments is chosen from the writings of Dr. Laurence M. Gould, president of Carlton College, Northfield, Minn. He says in part: "If America is to grow great, we must stop gagging at the word 'spiritual.' Our task is to rediscover and reassert our faith in the spiritual, nonutilitarian values on which American life has really rested from the beginning."

As soon as there is the slightest move toward protection of our glorious heritage of the wilderness, there step in the logger, the cattleman, the engineer, etc., ad nauseam. Then up crops an organization that gives us doubletalk (Citizens' Committee on Natural Resources, what citizens?) which is slanted to confuse the issue, thus getting the poor deluded public to think that they are presenting genuine conservation.

We need purity of purpose: Selflessness, yes, as Dr. Gould says, "Spiritual values." Man cannot live on bread alone, and we mean in this instance that bread stands for all physical comforts, things which ride us, luxuries that tempt us, and the thousands of idle hours spent in being entertained. Thus, the wilderness must be protected and preserved for its own sake. Not for recreation, which word is misunderstood, and overworked; not for vandals and tourists, but because it is part of God's creation, our last little parcel of land left from mankind's depredations and wanton destructiveness.

Some 10 or 15 years ago a wise conservationist said, with reference to the passing of rare wildlife, that this is the 11th hour, there is no time to lose if we want to have some of our birds and wild creatures saved from the cruel hunter. As the wilderness is the home of wildlife, this organization is unalterably opposed to any tampering of the borders of wilderness areas. Opposed to logging therein, opposed to tourist shacks, or any sort of commercial housing. Opposed to roadbuilding and to pollution of waters.

We stand for total and complete protection of wilderness, with no compromise.

While the human race stands gazing into space and wishing to get to the moon (!) right under their silly noses, their God-given heritage of wilderness, incomparable, is being snatched away by greedy commercial interests. What fools these mortals be.

DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: Please enter this letter as part of the record in support of the wilderness bill, S. 1123.

I recently moved to the Pacific Northwest from Wisconsin. Here, there is still a bit of unspoiled country-country in which to escape from the hectic, harried life in which all of us are forced to live. Here in Washington a boy or girl can learn self-reliance and experience the spiritual growth in a manner which only unspoiled nature can provide.

Some persons argue that there is plenty of untouched country still available in the Pacific Northwest. That's true today. But what about tomorrow? Unless we establish a long range definite policy by preserving our remaining wilderness, it will disappear, bit by bit. I'm not writing this for my benefit alone. There is enough left for my lifetime. But what about my children? And their children? Are we going to save anything for them?

Or will their idea of the wilderness be as mine was when I was a boy in the Midwest-an 80-acre, tent-crowded camp surrounded by cornfields and highway? Will they be able to wander freely through the mountains, or will they find someone's backyard or private lake over every hill? Let's preserve the little bit of wilderness that has not yet been exploited.

Sincerely,

DONALD B. BRANNON.

LETTER OF FRED T. DARVILL, JR., M.D., MOUNT VERNON, WASH.
MOUNT VERNON, WASH., March 20, 1959.

Senator HENRY M. JACKSON,

Wilderness Hearing, Federal Court House,
Seattle, Wash.

DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: I request that the following be made part of the record of the hearing on the wilderness bill to be held Monday, March 30, in Seattle: Having been in many of the wilderness areas in the western half of the United States, I feel very certain it is important at this time to preserve these areas for the use of future generations. In view of the anticipated surge in population growth, if such preservation is not accomplished at this time, it is entirely likely within 2 to 4 generations that no wilderness will remain for the enjoyment of our grandchildren.

Locally I am particularly concerned with the preservation of the wilderness areas in the State of Washington, especially the North Cascades wilderness area. I have been extensively through this area and find its beauty truly merits preservation and indeed, national park status. The long-range economic benefits to the northwest portion of Washington of having this area left as wilderness or as a national park would more than compensate for the short term economic losses that would be involved. I think it is most important to take the longrange viewpoint on this matter at this time, since wilderness, once destroyed, can never be returned to its wild state.

Very truly yours,

F. T. DARVILL, M.D.

LETTER OF MRS. E. W. GREENWAY, SEATTLE, WASH.

SEATTLE, WASH., March 20, 1959.

DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: Will you please make this a part of the record that I am in favor of the proposed wilderness bill S. 1123 now in Congress to protect the existing wilderness. We must preserve our heritage.

Yours truly,

MRS. E. W. GREENWAY,

Chairman, Washington State Federation of Garden Clubs.

STATEMENT OF MISS CARMELITA LOWRY, ST. LOUIS, MO.

The proposal to enact legislation to preserve our great scenic primeval areas has aroused a considerable amount of comment, favorable and unfavorable. The present form of the wilderness bill, S. 1123, represents many months of study and careful revision to meet the reasonable objections that were made to the original bill.

The objections that are still being made seem, at least to this American, to fall somewhat short of being reasonable. They boil down to the assumption that our federally owned land belongs not to the people of the United States but solely to the lumber, livestock, and mining interests.

The American people are entitled to legislation that would protect their land and their resources. The need for such protection is made obvious by the nature of many of the objections which are being made to such legislation.

The American people are entitled to the opportunity to enjoy what Thoreau described as "the tonic of the wilderness" but there are those who would measure this "tonic" in board-feet.

The American people are entitled to a living monument, a vision of the original America, but there are those who would substitute a monument to greed.