The argument for the preservation of our beautiful primeval areas was stated very well by former National Parks Director Newton B. Drury when he said: "Surely we are not so poor that we need to destroy them or so rich that we can afford to lose them."

STATEMENT OF JOHN K. HIGGINS, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON STATE HI-LAKERS

The enclosed statement from our club is like a small cry in the dark, but we feel if enough of us join together, our sound could become a loud and persistent clamor for attention.

This morning I opened my Sunday paper like a few million other Americans and the first restful thing to my eyes was the cover on the magazine section-a water color of water and unspoiled forest, and beach-another small cry?

Senator, two words that I have seen mean more to us than all the wealth that thousands of areas of stumps could produce. "Tourist economy."

Every family has its camping outfit, because they find it is less costly and healthier to vacation in the open, but you simply can't enjoy camping behind a billboard or on the side of a mountain covered with stumps. What they want is a serene and scenic place to pitch their station-wagon gear or park their small trailer and car. Actually this is just a preliminary or base camp while they hike up our now beautiful forested slopes and fish the streams running through them. This is nature's own Disneyland for free. We have to hand it to the railroads, they realize what a bonanza the Pacific Northwest is-they are building more and more scenic passenger observation cars. Every advertisement depicts this choice piece of landscape.

Senator, one of our club officials will be present at the March 30 meeting with all the support of our organization to help us have a successful and a good sunny spring day on that day.

I have been authorized by the members of our organization to briefly outline to you our reasons for endorsing this legislation.

First of all, we are sportsmen in this organization bent not on a pure conservation of all our forests, mountains, and scenic areas, but rather a concentrated meeting of economical values divided from recreational values.

The areas that this bill has set out for a wilderness preservation system divides the two particularly well.

It is our heritage to seek, explore, and wander and to feel a oneness with nature and a special pleasure of being out of sight, sound, and most important, scent of our hurrying everyday life.

If all of those who wish to rent and tear our present wilderness areas for commercial purposes would stop and take a good look at those of us who are in favor of this enactment, he would be looking at the face of the average American-the fellow sitting next to him at a downtown signal light, the couple in the seats next to him at a football or baseball game. These are our members. I would like to say at this time that approximately 20 percent of our members derive their livelihood from lumber, logging, and timber producing industries, yet they want this bill to pass because they have seen what can happen when a wilderness area is penetrated.

We, here in the State of Washington, have a saying to the enactment of this bill: "The strong, the healthy, and the spirited will see that this bill becomes a reality, for it takes this type to see nature's virginity as it is meant to be seen." If this bill is defeated, the blame must be placed on our own doorstep. Why? For not placing enough provisions in our pack to carry us to the very top.

STATEMENT OF THE NEWS ANALYST GROUP, R. E. HERMAN, CHAIRMAN

The News Analysis Group, with headquarters in Everett, Wash., wish to offer their testimony in behalf of the pending wilderness bill, as we understand a public hearing on same is to be held in Seattle, Wash., on March 30. Unfortunately we shall be unable to have a personal representative present at the hearing. Therefore we request consideration for this letter, as our urgent recommendation for passage of the bill in question.

It should be apparent to every thoughtful and reasonably observant American citizen the inconsequential policy of indiscriminate destruction of our wilderness areas results in appalling impoverishment of the Nation. Immediate benefit

to certain interests being bought at the cost of the rightful heritage of future generations.

Nor is this all: Even today we are beginning to suffer the inevitable consequences of ruthless exploitation. Extinction and near extinction of interesting and valuable wildlife; wasteful soil erosion; scenic beauties; healthful recreational facilities.

The proposed areas for wilderness conservation are not excessive. On the contrary, we believe more, rather than less, acreage should be reserved. It is a shortsighted economy which risks all for the sake of a dubious momentary gain.

We urge passage of the wilderness legislation under discussion.

RESOLUTION OF THE MARYLAND STATE SOCIETY, DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

PRESERVATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS

Whereas the remaining wilderness areas of the United States are of infinite value to this country as historic relics of the original land, as scientific laboratories for the study of nature, and as a means of perpetuating wildlife threatened with extinction, and

Whereas, areas now designated as wilderness can, under certain conditions, be opened up for various uses detrimental to the above mentioned functions: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Maryland State Society (Daughters of the American Revolution) urge passage of legislation which would prohibit the areas now labeled "wilderness" from being transferred to any other classification and which would keep them as true wilderness areas in perpetuity.

LETTER OF LEO A. PAYNE, SPOKANE, WASH.

Senator JAMES E. MURRAY,
Washington, D.C.

10821 EAST FOURTH AVENUE, Spokane, Wash., March 10, 1959.

DEAR SENATOR: I understand that you will hold another conference on wilderness, in Seattle, on March 30. I would like to enter this letter as my testimony in favor of the wilderness bill. And especially in regard to the proposal of the North Cascades Council for creation of the Glacier Peak wilderness area.

Most proposed wilderness areas are in locations with comparatively little in the way of timber and grazing value in comparison to the recreational value. There is very little land left of value as wilderness. And what there is I would like to see left in its wild state.

Opponents claim that only the rich or athletic people can use this kind of place, but this claim is false, as shown by the following examples.

I am 70 years old and not an athlete. Yet, in 1958, I went with a few friends into northwest Montana. We camped along the Yakk River for 8 days and hiked to the top of the highest mountains. Travel distance from Spokane, 165 miles each way. Cost for food and travel, $20.25 each. In 1957, I went into the Wallowa wilderness area with the same friends for 9 days, 500 miles round trip by car, to the campground in the edge of the wilderness. Total cost, food and travel, $25.50 each.

In 1956, into the North Cascades for 8 days, 400 miles round trip, total cost $25.

In 1955, to the Lolo wilderness in Idaho, 500 miles round trip, 8 days, total cost $26. We had a 9-year-old boy with us on this trip.

Yours truly,

LEO A. PAYNE.

STATEMENT OF Ross W. ENSLEY, FOREST CONSULTANT, SEATTLE, WASH., FOR

SENATE BILL 1123

I wish to have the following statement made a part of the testimony with regard to Senate bill 1123 or the so-called wilderness bill. Attached are my 35

copies of my statement. I cannot be present at the hearing March 30 in Seattle but request that this statement be presented to the committee.

There has been a lot of publicity and public concern voiced in recent months about wilderness areas, both on a local and national level. Wilderness areas are a special type of recreation area, catering to a small privileged class of national forest users, who by law, are given vast areas of our public land within which to practice and enjoy their particular form of recreation. This is a type of congressional protection that no other national forest user or recreationist can enjoy. There are no areas of our public forests set aside just exclusively for a timber operator, a sportsman's club, a fisherman, a hunter, or for any of the different classes of users other than wilderness users. Yet this small minority group of wilderness users are so strong and well organized that they have this bill and others before Congress today which, if passed, will lock up almost 50 million acres of our public land for wilderness use only. This bill, S. 1123, will form a national wilderness preservation system managed by a six-man council. As I understand the bill, the United States Forest Service would have very little to do with the management of this vast acreage. But this condition is in line with wilderness; because in wilderness areas we have no forest management to speak of. Economic, practical forest management would not be allowed, and the development and use of these areas for the majority of recreationists would be ignored, and actually outlawed.

Recently the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has been formed to study the outdoor recreation resources of the public lands of the United States. This Commission formed through Senate bill 846 (85th Cong., 2d sess.), has been appropriated $21⁄2 million to make this comprehensive study. It is the opinion of many national forest users that no congressional action be taken on any wilderness legislation until this newly formed Review Commission's findings are made public. Many recreationists and other national forest users are concerned that these wilderness and primitive areas needed for mass recreation use, will be reserved before the Review Commission has had an opportunity to make its recommendations for the use of our public lands. These huge areas are public lands and should be managed for the benefit of the greatest number of people possible, and not for a select few wilderness advocates. Let us not waste $22 million of the taxpayers' money which has been set aside to study this problem. Before any action is taken on this or other wilderness bills, let's at least give the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission time to make their study public. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

TELEGRAM OF E. K. BARNES, PRESIDENT, NORTH WEST MINING ASSOCIATION SPOKANE, WASH., March 30, 1959.

Senator HENRY M. JACKSON,

Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
U.S. Courthouse, Seattle, Wash.:

Re hearing Senate bill 1123. Please record the Northwest Mining Association as opposing those aspects of Senate bill 1123, which, if enacted into law, would close large areas in this region to mining, we do not believe that either the State of Washington or the Nation's long-term interests are best served by such largescale withdrawals of the public domain from mineral exploration.

E. K. BARNES,

President, Northwest Mining Association.

RESOLUTION OF SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANACORTES,

WASH.

Whereas the U.S. Forest Service has proposed the establishment of the Glacier Peak wilderness area; and

Whereas the establishment of the proposed Glacier Peak wilderness area would deprive the Federal Government and the State and local governments as well of considerable annual revenue; and

Whereas in an area such as the Northwest with 50 percent of the economy depending on timber and timber products and with an ever-increasing population, the importance of multiple use of this area cannot be overemphasized; and

39871-59—19

Whereas government on all levels is costing our citizens a tremendous toll in taxes to provide and maintain necessities, including the increased need for schools and roads; and

Whereas the establishment of the proposed Glacier Peak wilderness area will serve and benefit a very small number of scenery-loving people since no roads will be allowed in the area; and

Whereas the construction of roads and campsites will provide all motorists with access to the State's most beautiful scenery, and will further provide protection of timber against fire, disease, and insect damage; and

Whereas there are ample areas in the State with such rugged terrain that they will forever remain wilderness areas: Therefore be it

Resolved, That Soroptomist International of Anacortes, Skagit County, Wash., does hereby vigorously oppose the establishment of the proposed Glacier Peak wilderness area; and be it further

Resolved, That the proposed Glacier Peak wilderness area be left as a limited wilderness area with the commercial forests excluded to be administered in keeping with the multiple use policy of the U.S. Forest Service.

Dated and approved this 24th day of March 1959.

TELEGRAM OF EDWARD E. FERRIS, PRESIDENT, CHELAN (WASH.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CHELAN, WASH., March 26, 1959.

Senator JAMES E. MURRAY,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Please place on record our opposition to S. 1123 as it could seriously affect the economy of this community.

EDWARD E. FERRIS, President, Chelan Chamber of Commerce.

STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, LOUIS A. ROZZONI, PRESIDENT

The California Farm Bureau Federation desires to submit this letter and the attached statement for the consideration of your committee relative to hearings scheduled on Senate bill 1123, the wilderness bill.

The policy of our organization, which is developed by the membership through the official delegates from each County Farm Bureau in California, strongly opposes any such wilderness legislation which would arbitrarily limit the use of large areas of land without due regard to sound multiple-use management and the economic needs of our country. Such an arbitrary limitation of use would not be consistent with recognized fire control, game management, predator, and diseasecontrol knowledge that our specialists in these fields now have. A quote of our policy resolution in this regard is found on page 1 of the attached statement.

The policies of the Forest Service have been sound to date and many wilderness and primitive areas have been established. Why throw over a proven program for a program that is not proven and that has much opposition.

We feel that it would be a serious mistake for Congress to enact such legislation in that a very dangerous precedent would be set for other special use interests to seek similar legislation and our whole multiple-use management concept would be destroyed. As our population increases more and more combinations of multiple-use will need to be used on our public lands if the maximum benefit is to accrue to all the people.

The California Farm Bureau Federation is a general farm organization comprising 53 county farm bureaus having a total membership of 65,000 farm and ranch families of California. The federation's headquarters are at 2223 Fulton

'Street, Berkeley, Calif.

At the last annual meeting of our federation, our house of delegates adopted the following resolution:

We recognize and support the wise and proper use of the many resources availabel on the public lands in California, which areas comprise nearly half the land in the State.

The citizens of California, as well as the agricultural and industrial economy of the State are becoming more and more dependent upon these lands for multiple use and the water necessary to insure our future well-being.

In view of movements by certain groups presently underway to limit the use of these areas, to the detriment of other segments of the population dependent on the areas, by means of legislative proposals to create a national wilderness preservation system, we urge the Congress of the United States to retain the existing authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the use of all national forests, including wilderness areas.

We are opposed to the establishment of extensive wilderness areas on National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and other public lands.

Most of our land in the West, and most of the areas which would be included in wilderness areas under S. 1123 and similar bills, is capable of providing multipleuse benefits simultaneously under sound conservation managament. To limit the potential of such areas is to deny maximum benefits to the taxpaying public, which financially supports such lands and programs.

Such legislation strikes at the heart of the multiple-use policy of Federal land administration, as is so soundly practiced by the U.S. Forest Service through national forest administration. If enacted, it would give a degree of congressional protection to wilderness use of Federal lands not now enjoyed by any other This would set a dangerous precedent as encouragement for other specialuse interests to seek similar congressional protection. It would be only reasonable to expect that other user groups would seek congressional protection for their interests. Thus, the multiple-use policy would be completely destroyed.

use.

This proposed legislation is extremely objectionable to the people of the West whose livelihood depends on the wise management of the natural resources of the West-wise management, under the multiple-use concept, which benefits the greatest number of people rather than a limited few.

In the 11 Western States, where 53 percent, or 400 million of the 750 million acres of the total land area is federally owned, our very economy is dependent upon the uses made of these Federal lands. To limit to single-purpose use large areas capable of providing multiple-use benefits, on a continuing basis under wise conservation management, is to limit the economy of the West.

The records show that only 0.3 percent of our population visit and use wilderness areas, while around 30 percent visit and use national forest areas under multiple-use management; that only 1 percent of the people visiting and using national forests visit and use wilderness areas. This amounted to only about 530,000 people in 1956, according to U.S. Forest Service records. Now we are talking about setting aside over 50 million acres of wilderness area for use by such a small number of people.

The California Farm Bureau Federation does not believe this to be in the best interest of the taxpaying public and the economy of the Western States.

The use of wilderness areas will, in our opinion, always be limited to a relatively small number of our population. Young families with small children will not hike or pack for miles into such areas. Older people have not the stamina for such rugged outdoor activity. Workingmen and women do not often have the money to provide the expensive packing and camping facilities needed nor can they take the time to travel to and then pack back into deep wilderness areas. Thus, the use will always be limited to a relative few.

The establishment of extensive roadless areas, such as proposed in S. 1123, would create insoluble fire, insect, and disease control problems which would have serious effects, not only on the wilderness areas as such but also on areas outside of the wilderness areas.

According to a map prepared by the Council of Conservationists, 588 Fifth Avenue, New York City, showing the areas by States that would eventually become part of the wilderness system, California would have more areas than any other State. There would be some 27 such areas involving millions of acres. It is reported that Ely, Minn., a city of 7,000 population, has suffered a loss of tourist and recreational income in excess of $850,000 annually since the elimination of access roads into the adjacent wilderness area and the banning of flying over and landing in the area. Eighty percent of the former recreational users of the area now go elsewhere. If this should happen to the cities of California near the wilderness areas that would be created, the economy of our State would suffer irreparable damage.

Conditions change from time to time. What today may be the highest use of an area may not be tomorrow. We cannot escape the need for gearing all natural resource management to the general economic conditions of our Nation.