lands. Over 30 years in forestry and related fields includes experience as a professional forester (employed by the U.S. Forest Service, private industry, and the U.S. National Park Service) and, as previously noted (since 1946), às a forestry instructor.

In considering enactment of legislation relative to the establishment of a national wilderness preservation system (S. 1123) it is important that certain facts be clearly recognized. These are as follows:

1. Numerous opinions expressed by various individuals on all sides of this question indicate that there is little basic disagreement over the need for wilderness recreation or the advisability of reserving lands for such purposes. Difficulties over this question revolve largely about how such objectives might best be accomplished.

2. Only those areas now designated as wilderness (or wild) areas, and already recognized as chiefly valuable for such use would be immediately affected by passage of this bill. Areas which presumably might be added at a later date would be included only after careful study, only after lapse of sufficient time to make such studies, and only after all aspects of each particular case had been adequately aired at public hearings. In short, there would be ample safeguards to prevent this form of land use from becoming out of balance with other needs. 3. The proposed wilderness legislation does not modify the existing nature of administrative responsibility of areas involved. In particular it does not interfere with purposes as stated in the establishment of such Federal areas as national parks and national monuments, or national forests. However, agencies administering lands which concievably might be included as segments of the proposed wilderness system will be charged with the responsibility of administering such specifically designated areas so that their wilderness character will be maintained.

Both the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. National Park Service are already committed to such a program and have made great strides in that direction. The proposed wilderness legislation cannot be construed as a criticism of the fine efforts of those exemplary government bureaus; it simply aims at stabilizing and giving legal congressional sanction to this form of land use. As everyone knows, national parks are established only by congressional action and cannot be modified except by Congress. National monuments are largely established by Presidential proclamation and can be so modified and wilderness and wild areas within the national forests are established, and modified, by administrative order (by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service). 4. Special provisions are made in the wilderness bill for certain activities when not in conflict with specific purposes of the land area in question. These include grazing of domestic livestock, prospecting, forest insect and disease control, and the like.

Although the writer is not in complete agreement with the inclusion of certain of these special provisions on wilderness lands, the reasons for their inclusion are recognized; further, if legislation of this type is to be passed certain concessions must necessarily be made.

5. From a strict forestry point of view there is little, if any, conflict with other forms of forest land management. The vast proportion of forest lands included in existing wilderness areas is of poor quality, ill adapted to sustained, economic timber production. In large measure the same can be said of forested areas which might logically be proposed for wilderness status. Even if some of these timbered areas which are, or which may be, included are loggable their relative low quality is such that their maintenance in a wilderness condition would be of advantage to forestry and to foresters in a variety of ways. In particular, reservation of such forest lands for wilderness use would intensify the growing forest research program, and intensify the industry's search for better methods of forest management, harvest, and utilization on the more extensive areas of high quality and consequently more productive forest lands

rarely, if ever, are in conflict with wilderness use. By this means the fession of forestry would be raised in public esteem, and the professional -Tester would benefit by greater public recognition, broader professional opportunities, and improved social and economic status. Maintenance of necessary future sustained timber supply would also be fostered by concentrating forestry efforts and activities on the more productive lands.

6. In regard to the establishment of a National Wilderness Council which some people fear would exercise authority over land administrating agencies, the wilderness bill specifically states that the Council "shall have no administrative

jurisdiction over any unit of the wilderness system nor any agency that does have such jurisdiction." This Council is designed to function primarily in an advisory capacity and to serve as a clearinghouse and repository for information relative to the wilderness system.

7. Wilderness recreation is a legitimate form of outdoor activity interesting to a constantly increasing number of people for which adequate provision should be made. Good planning, based upon careful study of all land values involved, should result in satisfying all legitimate public needs relative to our existing wild lands. Such needs, in addition to wilderness, include a variety of other recreational benefits adapted to more intensive recreational use (roads, campgrounds, picnic areas, and so forth) as well as various industrial uses.

While it is doubtful if any legislation will completely satisfy all points of view, properly prepared legislation can be expected to develop a reasonable compromise. The wilderness bill (S. 1123) clearly states its objectives and is such a reasonable compromise.

8. Wilderness is a fragile quality; once destroyed it can never be completely regained. We still have an opportunity to establish and maintain lands of this type. If too long a time elapses before such action is taken it is likely that we may find it impossible to accomplish this objective.

STATEMENT OF THE WESTERN LUMBER MANUFACTURERS, INC.

We have reviewed S. 1123, the national wilderness preservation bill, and find that in our opinion the numerous changes do not make it desirable legislation. Almost all of my testimony to your committee November 10, 1958, in San Francisco in opposition to S. 4028 will also apply to S. 1123. It will not be repeated here. We would appreciate the inclusion of this letter as part of the record of the hearings on S. 1123.

Stated purposes.

There may be some value in thoughtfully considering the public purposes listed in the bill: Recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historical use, and enjoyment by the people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.

Recreation? Wilderness provides a form of recreation not attainable in areas that have been influenced by man, according to proponents of the bill. This is a questionable point that is primarily of academic rather than practical concern. No matter how desirable wilderness-type recreation may be, population pressures are not going to permit us to have any areas unmodified by man.

We have 12 million acres of wild, wilderness and primitive areas in California national forests as well as 2 million acres of mountain land in national and State parks. Unless a patrolled fence is placed around them, they cannot be expected to continue as wilderness within 1 day's travel of 15 to 20 million mobile people. As many as 800 people are found in one meadow of the San Jacinto primitive area in one afternoon. Other areas get heavy use. To prevent destruction of these areas through overuse, there must be permanent facilities established to manage and serve the users. At the same time, other types of use can be designed to maximize the natural recreational potential of these areas. More wholesome recreation can be provided to more people through planned development of such areas than would result through their isolation as "wilderness."

Scenic? We must recognize that nature is not static. Any scene is going to change, and this change will be accelerated by man's essential activities in areas adjacent to "wilderness." We should also recognize that man can exercise some beneficial influence on the changes that will occur. S. 1123 would prevent the full use of such skills.

Many people have expressed the opinion that the recreational forests of southern California (The Angeles, Los Padres, Cleveland, and San Bernardino National Forests) are more attractive and safer for human use where they have been lightly logged to remove trees subject to windfall or insect attack because of low vigor. Certainly, such areas pose much less threat of fire or insect damage to adjacent forests.

Scientific? The value or potential value of "wilderness" for scientific use has not been demonstrated. Although we have had wilderness areas formally labeled as such for many years, there is little evidence of their use for scientific study. If such use were to develop, it would probably require various permanent facilities, which would be prohibited under the bill.

Educational? The value of such areas for education is also difficult to discern. Although I have spent extended periods in such areas, I see no special opportunities to impart knowledge through wilderness as opposed to such opportunities in other areas devoted to other uses. Again, as in the developed national parks, much greater educational opportunities are afforded where there are permanent facilities, such as museums and nature trails, established.

Conservation? The value of such areas for "conservation" depends on the definition of the term. If it means "wise use" as defined by many people, by the inclusion of this term the sponsors are saying that the enactment of the bill will bring wise use to a large area of public land, which presumably does not have it now. By our opposition, we indicate our opinion that this judgment is unsound. The enactment of S. 1123 will not result in wise use of the public's natural resources.

Historical? The value of such areas for "historical use and enjoyment" would appear to be very slight. These areas are "wilderness" because they were bypassed. Most of them are not typical of the areas of early settlement or of the routes of travel. Other areas were more attractive to early users for various reasons. Because of this, present "wilderness" is not valuable for the recording or explaining of past events.

Unimpaired? We must also recognize that the proposed law would not result in these areas being left "unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness." As mentioned above, these areas are changing and will continue to change. These changes will grow in importance as these areas get increasingly more use. Even without use by man, his protection of adjacent forests from fire, insects, and disease, his management of game, etc., will all have their effects in such areas. If we wish to do so, we can arrest or modify the natural changes to achieve a desired effect. To do so, the managers of such areas must have more freedom of action than the proposed law would permit.

The objective of S. 1123 cannot be obtained under the proposed legislation. For this and other reasons previously given, it is our considered opinion that such legislation should not be enacted.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION

We were pleased to learn that your committee scheduled further hearings in the West on the legislation to set up a national wilderness preservation system. Since our immediate past president, Don Clyde, appeared at the Salt Lake hearing last fall and presented our opposition testimony to this legislation, we did not ask for time to present an additional statement at either the Seattle or Phoenix hearings because we did not want to overburden your committee. However, we would like to inform your committee that the National Wool Growers Association is still opposed to the proposal to establish a national wilderness preservation system. The changes made in the new wilderness bill, S. 1123, have in no way removed our opposition, and we still object to this proposed legislation for the following reasons:

1. It is a threat to the economy and tax structure of the 11 Western States, where land is the basic resource.

2. It is a threat to the future food needs of our growing population.

3. The wilderness status and beauty of western areas can be maintained with properly managed, conservative multiple use of the important and renewable resources of these areas under the administration of existing Government agencies.

4. The proposed National Wilderness Preservation Council would duplicate work of existing land agencies. This would be an added and unnecessary cost of government.

5. This is special privilege legislation and contrary to the title, not for the benefit of the whole people. The areas proposed, roadless and without modern facilities, would be made inaccessible to the whole people and would be reserved for the enjoyment of less than 1 percent of our population.

6. We already have adequate wilderness areas protected through departmental regulations and through legislation now in existence covering wildlife refuges, national parks and monuments, and even wildernes areas within our national forests.

In addition to the above-named objections, we feel that such legislation is premature and should not be considered until after a report is rendered by the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in 1961.

We will appreciate your having this letter inserted in the record of your committee's hearings on this wilderness legislation.

STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHERN OREGON CONSERVATION & TREE FARM ASSOCIATION

The Southern Oregon Conservation & Tree Farm Association, established in 1947, consists of 65 member companies in Jackson and Josephine Counties in southwest Oregon. These members are in the business of logging and production of forest products, with an annual output of over 750 million board feet, log scale, or more than 90 percent of total production for this area. Their payroll for 5,975 employees in 1957 was $28,709,628. This represents 84.6 percent of the persons employed in the manufacturing industries, and the payroll is 85.1 percent of the total for the same group. The total value of products produced was $97,891,705 in 1956. This association, through its two radio-communications systems of some 150 two-way mobile units, is proud of its past public service record. Its cooperative fire agreement among its members, close coordination with public forest fire protection agencies, its radios placed in the disaster car, ambulance, and recreation areas constitutes an invaluable asset to the local communities during emergencies of all sorts.

The forest products industry in this area depends heavily on Governmentowned timber for its raw material. The Federal Government owns 1,303,545 acres of the total 2,220,470 acres or 58.7 percent of the commercial forest lands in Jackson and Josephine Counties. On these Federal lands are 19,294,786,000 board feet of the total 25,021,309,000 board feet of timber, or 77.2 percent.

After careful study by the Southern Oregon Conservation & Tree Farm Association its board of directors do here and now wish to register vigorous opposition to the terms and conditions of Senate bill 1123, known as the wilderness bill, and further wish to have their views entered in the record accordingly. Following are reasons for our position:

1. The national forests were originally established with the multiple-use concept in mind to serve the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run. They have established numerous natural, primitive, and wilderness areas as a need for them has been recognized. We feel that under the present policies of the Forest Service that sufficient establishment of additional wilderness areas will be made when and as the need arises, and further that an additional governmental body to do this is unnecessary and unwarranted. In the U.S. Forest Service we have the best qualified men in the business who will, under present regulations, determine the need and methods to fulfill this need. Why set up another costly bureau that is unnecessary?

2. 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 is not doing a competent job of administering the vast system of wilderness which each has set aside.

3. This association is in favor of having sufficient and wisely chosen wilderness areas, but it is not in favor of adding millions of acres to areas slightly used by less than 1 percent of the national forest recreationists who constitute only a portion of the general public. This legislation does not foster the "greatest good for the greatest number in the long run," as directed by the Agriculture Secretary, James Wilson, in 1905.

4. The establishment of vast wilderness areas precludes the developments of roads for fire protection purposes, insect and disease control, and proper administration of highly valuable resources which could be decimated in short time by these natural causes. In areas where lightning fires are common, and much of the proposed areas are, this presents a real problem. Through our radio systems and fire protection organization (voluntary), which has been active over the past 12 years, we have been instrumental in holding the losses due to fire to a minimum. Without roads this would have been impossible. Vast brush fields are living examples of uncontrolled natural devastation in areas then without roads.

5. This bill threatens the development of the national forests in southwest Oregon as there are still extensive areas in the primitive state. This could reduce the allowable cut of their timber crop which in turn would reduce the income to the counties by a reduction of national forest receipts, 25 percent of which reverts to the counties in lieu of taxes. It further threatens the economy of

39871-59--20

southwest Oregon by withdrawing large areas from development under multipleuse policies, especially when it is realized that 58.7 percent of the total commercial forest land is under Federal Government ownership and control. addition it would reduce basic payrolls of the counties.

In

6. The shortsighted public policies in this bill would invoke a discouraging handicap upon the West which already has a large portion of the Nation's dedicated wilderness reservations. The development of the West's natural resources is vital in its preparation to support an estimated 40 percent of the Nation's population by the year 2000.

7. This bill fails to provide for approval of States and counties where natural resources are withdrawn or to remunerate annually such States and counties for losses of revenues and economic development thus incurred. I quote from a letter admittedly written by Gifford Pinchot for the signature of Agriculture Secretary James Wilson to Pinchot as Chief of the Forest Service at the time the national forests were transferred from the Department of the Interior to Agriculture on February 1, 1905. It reads in part:

"In the management of each reserve, local questions will be decided upon local grounds; the dominant industry will be considered first, but with as little restriction to minor industries as may be possible; sudden changes in industrial conditions will be avoided by gradual adjustments after due notice; and where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided upon from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run." 8. This association firmly believes that consideration of wilderness legislation at this time is premature, pending the report of the President's Natural 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.

The language setting forth the purposes of the national forests in the act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 35; 16 U.S.C. 475) is as follows:

"No public forest reservation shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of waterflows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States."

How can inaccessible wilderness in which water development, the practice of forestry and adequate forest protection are precluded fulfill the basic purposes of the national forest? By no stretch of the imagination is this proposed legislation compatible with the true intent of the above-quoted act.

LETTER OF T. R. AND LILLIAN C. SHELDON, EVERETT, WASH.

Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,

EVERETT, WASH., April 3, 1959.

U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: We are the owners of a small parcel of forest property and beach property on Hood Canal at Potlatch, Wash. We have read the proposed legislation S. 1123. We strongly oppose this legislation for the following reasons: As owners of property, we attempt to protect this property from trespass by others. The State of Washington is carrying out a campaign of considerable magnitude to invite visitors to this State to further develop the tourist industry. A large portion of this tourist group believes that a tour of the Olympic Highway loop would be of interest but are disappointed in the lack of recreational facilities. They, therefore, knowingly and unknowingly use private property for a chance to get out of the car, off the highway, and into the woods or water.

The State of Washington can ill afford under its financial condition to spend large sums of money in the development of additional tourist attractions.

In establishing by law the prohibitions against development of reserved land, S. 1123, affecting Federal lands, prohibits forever the responsible agencies from building additional roads whereby these visitors could enjoy roadside recreation. S. 1123 is, therefore, not in the best interest of the individual property owner in the State of Washington nor the community of the State of Washington.

It is impossible to establish and maintain gates on private property as the public demands access even to small areas such as ours. Consequently, during periods of nonfire hazard, we open our gates even though public roads make access to our property. No point on our property is more than 1 mile from