STATEMENT OF P. C. GAFFNEY, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOUTHWEST PINE ASSOCIATION

Mr. GAFFNEY. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murray, Senator Goldwater, I represent the Southwest Pine Association, a nonprofit corporation composed of lumber mills operating in Arizona and New Mexico and manufacturing most of the lumber produced in these two States. I am also authorized to say that the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union in Arizona and New Mexico, while not affiliated with our association, is in agreement with the views expressed in this statement.

Our association is not opposed to wilderness areas. We think that a portion of the public lands should be retained in a state of wilderness for the scenic, educational and recreational values that such areas provide. At the same time, we think that the size and the number of the wilderness areas should not be determined without considering the number of Americans who will make use of them. If Congress sets aside large land areas and millions of dollars worth of surface values for the benefit of a certain small group, it is inviting the other groups that have an interest in public lands and forests to forget about multiple-use management and strike out on their own, with "each man for himself."

We think that the control of wilderness areas should remain in the hands of the experienced land managers in the public agencies because legislative procedures are too slow and cumbersome to permit the adjustments required by changing local conditions.

An expansion of the wilderness system in the Southwest could lead to a waste of resources through fires that are hard to fight in wilderness areas, and to interference with the region's needs for water, a high-priority item.

And finally, we think that the passage of wilderness legislation, including the creation of a Wilderness Council, should be postponed until the receipt of the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which will deal not only with the needs of the wilderness proponents but with those of all of the other nonindustrial groups that have an interest in public forests and lands.

On Forest Service lands, in Arizona there are two wilderness, four primitive and three wild areas, accounting for 710,673 acres. In New Mexico, there are two wilderness, two primitive and two wild areas, occupying 968,293 acres, or a total of 1,678,966 acres for wilderness purposes in the two States. The total national forest area in the two States is almost 20 million acres, and of this, the commercial forest acreage is about 5 million. This commercial forest land holds nearly 23 billion feet of timber.

In 1958, an estimated 10,300 people spent 14,000 man-days in the Arizona wilderness areas, and 12,600 people spent 23,600 man-days in the New Mexico areas. Some of these visitors went into the wilderness areas more than once, so the number of persons is actually smaller than stated. Even if as many as 22,900 people used the wilderness areas, that still is only a little over 1 percent of the population of the two States; and the Nation already has reserved more than 1,600,000 acres of forested and other lands for their use. To look at it another way: The people of the United States have dedicated 73 acres so that each person who made use of the wilderness areas could stay in the

areas for about 11/2 days in the entire year of 1958 (these figures refer only to Forest Service wilderness areas, and do not include the wilderness areas of the Indians). Is the Congress justified in passing a law that will encourage the setting aside of even more than the present 1,600,000-plus acres and even more billions of feet of timber for the use of this small part of the population?

One of the main reasons that more people do not use the wilderness areas is the virtual prohibition against roadbuilding in these areas and the exclusion of motor vehicles. For all practical purposes, motor vehicles are excluded from present wilderness areas and would also be prohibited in areas set up in the future. This raises the question of why we should encourage the creation of more wilderness areas when the ones we already have are not being used to any extent and are not likely to be.

The policy of managing the public forests "for the greatest good of the greatest number, in the long run" has been followed by the public agencies, and the practice of managing the forests for multiple use has gained wider and wider acceptance. The Forest Service has been respectful of the interest in the forests of the Sunday picnicker, the hunter, the fisherman, the hiker, the scientist, the camper, the miner, the lumberman, the livestock raiser, the water conservationist, and others with legitimate need for the forests. Is it fair, then, that the interests of a small group should take precedence over all others?

Looking at wilderness legislation from a Southwest regional standpoint, we respectfully point out that in this region the forests suffer more lightning-caused fires than in any other section of the country. If more wilderness areas are established-areas in which there will be no roads for the movement of heavy mechanical equipment to fight fires-we may expect more of our natural resources to be wasted by fire.

Water is a critical commodity in this section of the Nation. The crying need for water in the arid Southwest may require the opening up of forests for the production and conservation of water, and here the interest of the wilderness cannot be paramount.

The Southwest Pine Association respectfully urges a delay in wilderness legislation until the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has been received and acted upon by Congress.

Thank you.

Mr. STONG. The next witness will be J. B. Edens for the Southwest Lumber Mills, Western Pine Association, and Association of Lumber Manufacturers.

STATEMENT OF J. B. EDENS, VICE PRESIDENT, WESTERN PINE ASSOCIATION

Mr. EDENS. My name is J. B. Edens, and I am before you today representing the Western Pine Association, of which I am vice president. My statement today supplements a statement presented to you in Seattle by Mr. J. D. Bronson, Western Pine Association president.

Basically, we believe enactment of this legislation is unnecessary, unwise, and dangerous.

It is unnecessary because a great wilderness system has been established without it, and there is no threat whatever to this wilderness system.

It is unwise because it would rush us into decisions on land setasides before we know how much land we need for wilderness purposes and how much we can afford to take out of multiple use.

It is dangerous because it would set precedent for specialized, single use of substantial land areas which could invite pressures for setasides for other types of single use of public lands.

Let me go into some detail on these three fundamental points. More than 30 years ago, land management specialists in the Federal service saw the need for wilderness type of management on some public lands as part of the multiple-use concept of public land management. They set up extensive areas for this purpose, and we have them today in their intended form. There is no threat to them. They could not be safer, or more adequate, than they are in the care of land management career men who planned them in the first place and have put them into the public land management plan as a permanent part of the American scene.

In addition, there are millions of acres of other wildlands throughout our country that could be considered true wilderness even though access is provided with roads. I venture to say that outdoor enthusiasts, if suddenly placed in the depths of one of our managed national forests or free farms, would indeed describe them as wilderness.

The wisdom of wilderness legislation such as that now being considered is doubtful because we cannot afford to take too much good land out of multiple use. Certainly we will need to guard zealously and manage well our commercial forest land if we are to continue to provide an abundance of lumber, paper, and other products for our mushrooming population. We believe we can do this and set aside representative areas of virgin forest in the wilderness regions too, but to achieve such a desirable balance of land use and productivity, we will have to plan resource use wisely. Good planning can be helped along by the report on recreational needs to be prepared by a recently established National Study Commission. We should await this report before making wilderness decisions because wilderness is part of the overall land use policy program that is gradually taking shape.

On the subject of dangerous precedent involved in the proposed legislation, I should like to point out that the principle of multiple use of public lands in the best interest of all the people can be undermined if we create a special council to preside over this type of singleuse reserves, and also, by legislation like this, set the precedent of one use under law. As we understand the proposal, a special council would be established to oversee wilderness matters, disseminate information and report to the Congress. In my opinion, agencies long established and with much experience in these matters are doing well in administering wilderness functions, including information. Too, they are answerable to the Congress. We see the proposed council as a duplication of activity and are fearful that it might exert special, single-use influence on lawmaking bodies. If it did so, the way would be cleared for other groups interested in other uses to

ask similar legislation furthering their interests. It would be much better, it seems to me, to keep hands off the well-functioning program that we already have, continuing to entrust land-use functions and policies to career men in the Government Service who are specialists in these matters.

For these reasons I respectfully urge your committee to report unfavorably on Senate bill 1123.

Thank you.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you.

Mr. STONG. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dave Hosack, president of the Globe Chamber of Commerce, is our next scheduled witness. However, I am informed that he is unable to be here at this time and has asked that a resolution of the Globe Chamber of Commerce be included in the record.

Senator MURRAY. It will be carried on the record. (The resolution is as follows:)

RESOLUTION OF THE GLOBE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The Board of Directors of the Globe Chamber of Commerce, in regular meeting, agreed that

Whereas the established multiple-use policy of Federal land administration embodying the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number has proven successful and sound; and

Whereas the proposed legislation favors single-purpose, restricted use, thereby limiting availability to only those financially capable; and

Whereas abundant evidence is available to show that the growth of the Southwest, including Gila County, Ariz., will continue to accelerate as our national population increases, and

Whereas abundant evidence is available to show that public interest in a variety of historical, recreational, and other outdoor activities is manifest in ever-increasing proportions in our great State of Arizona, and

Whereas the establishment of one more "council" into the Federal system, with no real authority, will increase costs considerably and further complicate administrative procedure without any necessary function involved: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Globe Chamber of Commerce, That

(1) In view of all available evidence, U.S. Senate bill 4028 fails to consider the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens, which is a basic concept in the philosophy of our great country, and

(2) Enactment of U.S. Senate bill 4028 to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System is vigorously opposed as completely unnecessary and contrary to the proven national policy of multiple use of resources. Adopted this 13th day of November 1958.

DAVE HOSACK, President.
A. W. SPOERI, Secretary.

Mr. STONG. The next witness is Mr. William H. Carr, past president of Arizona Wildlife Federation.

Mr. CARITHERS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carr was unable to attend. Mr. STONG. Will you identify yourself?

STATEMENT OF JOE CARITHERS FOR WILLIAM H. CARR, PAST PRESIDENT, ARIZONA WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. CARITHERS. Joe Carithers. I am appearing here as an individual. Mr. Carr's statement is as follows:

I once knew a man who, when he was young, strenuously objected to a State highway plan to build a road up and over a favorite

mountain of his. He wrote letters to the newspapers objecting to the project. He said that the road would ruin the mountain for hikers like himself who enjoyed wild woodland areas without a trace of manmade construction. The road was built regardless.

Then the man grew older. He became physically unable to climb his mountain. The road provided the only way he could reach the mountaintop to enjoy the wonderful view that had charmed him in his youth.

The man changed some of his ideals about the accessibility of wilderness areas. He no longer wrote letters to the papers when he heard of other roads being built over other mountains.

And then, one day, he reverted to original thoughts about the wilderness. He felt that just because he was not able to climb, he was being very selfish in approving measures which would prevent others healthier, stronger people from enjoying to the full, the wilderness experiences which had been his. He looked about him, saw so many roads that have forever despoiled so many wild areas, so many projects which have pushed the wilderness back and back until it is in extreme danger of disappearing altogether. He said, "This has got to stop. We have gone too far. I am ashamed that I stood by for so long without protesting this senseless, this undemocratic, this un-American invasion. I am ashamed that I ever gave in, consciously or otherwise, to the promoters, to the few who, at the expense of all of us, have exploited our wilderness regions beyond the point of reason, almost beyond the point of no return. There are too many roads now."

Today this man is a strong advocate of the wilderness bill. He realizes that the greater the population increase, the greater will be the need for wilderness regions; needs as yet not fully appreciated by anyone. His commonsense and his patriotism, let alone his desire to help others as well as himself, now mark him as a level-headed, unselfish citizen. He has the grace to admit his former mistakes, and the fortitude to do something about it.

He recognizes the adverse, unrealistic propaganda against the wilderness bill for what it truly is. He is aware of the selfish motives which prompt this propaganda, and also of the currently circulated misinformation, not all of which is deliberate. He is doing all that he possibly can to assure the passage of this vital, essential bill.

I, too, favor the wilderness bill with all my heart and all my soul. I can't climb or hike any more either.

That was the statement of Mr. William H. Carr. I would also like to enter into the record the statement of Dr. Joseph Wood Krutch and the statement of Dr. Olaus J. Murie.

Senator MURRAY. The statements will be carried in the record at this point.

(The statements are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WOOD KRUTCH, TUCSON, ARIZ.

The natural areas which the wilderness bill proposes to establish are logical and necessary corrollaries of that system of national parks which the wisdom of our fathers set up some 40 years ago.

Those parks are now the wonder and the envy of Europe which can boast nothing remotely comparable because no European nation had the foresight to establish anything of the kind while there was yet time. The question now is