ARIZONA WILDERNESS AREAS INCLUDE 7,134,292 ACRES, LESS THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE STATE

9. Pine Mountain primitive area (national forest)

10. Mazatzal wild area (national forest).

11. Sierra Ancha wild area (national forest).

12. Superstition wild area (national forest). 13. Mount Thomas roadless area (Indian).

14. Mount Baldy primitive area (national forest).

15. Blue Range primitive area (national forest).

16. Black River roadless area (Indian).

17. Kofa game range-.

18. Cabeza Prieta game refuge--.

19. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. 20. Galiuro wild area (national forest)

21. Saguaro National Monument_

22. Chiricahua wild area (national forest). 23. Chiricahua National Monument_

Total

Senator MURRAY. We will take a recess for 5 minutes.

(A short recess was taken.)

Senator GOLDWATER. The meeting will come to order. Who is the next witness?

Mr. STONG. Mr. Devens Gust of Phoenix, with the Arizona State Parks Association.

STATEMENT OF DEVENS GUST, PHOENIX, ARIZ.

Mr. GUST. Senator Goldwater, I am not appearing here for the State parks association since its president, Mr. Odd Halseth, has been able to appear and will speak for the association. I do, however, want to speak as a private individual, one of the members of the public, which has been talked about today. I would also like to say, however, that I must confess that I represent certain special interests, and those are the interests of my children, my grandchildren, and their children, and I am not saying that because I think it is clever. I am saying it because I think it is true and because I think that the interests of those who are to come after us must be considered in a determination on this bill.

Now, there has been a great deal said about the use of these areas. In America in the last 150 or 200 years we have used up about 98 percent of our wilderness areas. In the West we have been out here developing this land for approximately 100 years and during that time, as I say, about 98 percent of our wilderness areas are gone. When wilderness is gone, it is gone for good. It doesn't come back. I believe that our children and their children should be given the opportunity to decide whether these areas are more valuable for wilderness use or whether they are more valuable for economic use, and that is what I believe this bill will accomplish; that it will leave that choice to them.

Now, there are a lot of arguments which have been made here. today, and there is one particularly that I would like to discuss because it is something I feel I know something about, and that is this argument that these wilderness areas are devoted only to the hardy few who have the money to get out and use them.

Now, I would like to give an example of my own experience. Take for example, 2 or 3 years ago, my family and I made a trip through the wilderness of Wyoming. We put our bed rolls and food on our backs and hiked through a part of the Bridger Wilderness Area.

Now, to my mind, we were an average American family. We have two boys, one 9 and one 11, and both carried their own packs. In my case, I am a middle-aged man. I spend my time behind a desk. I am as flabby, I guess, as any other American businessman. The fourth member was my wife who is about 5 feet high and weighs 100. If we are an example of the hardy race, then there we are. How about the wealth? We were in Wyoming on a camping trip. When we went into the wilderness area, the only cost was the cost of our food, so I can testify from personal experience that these areas are for the ordinary people such as myself.

I would like to say one other thing on the economic use of these areas and that is this: Have we, in America, reached the point where the

remaining 2 percent of our areas have become so vital to the economic life of this country, are we such a poor Nation that this remaining 2 percent has to be used? I don't believe that it does, and I believe that the purpose of the bill is to see that it is preserved.

One more statement I would like to make for the benefit of Senator Goldwater, because we know Senator Goldwater, and he has made it plain to us how he feels on many matters, and that is one thing we appreciate about him and I know he has a love of Arizona. I know that he is also against bureaucracy. He would like to cut down on Government control and like to have these lands eventually be a part of the State and I can only say in answer to that, I am in entire agreement with that; that I feel that this bill is the best way to accomplish that. For one thing, it will preserve these lands, so if they are ever turned over to the State, they will be turned over to the State in the best condition, and secondly and most important, this bill gets us out of the hands of the bureaus, gets the life and death decision of the wilderness decisions out of the bureaus, and in the hands of Congress and in the hands of the people.

Senator GOLDWATER. I want to make myself clear. The idea of preserving these areas is not an idea that I am against. My personal feeling is that they are already more than adequately protected. Let's just take a look at Arizona, which by the way, is being asked for more than any other State in the Union with the exception of Alaska. Let's take these areas on this map that has been published by the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources. Start with No. 1, I have a trading post there. There is only one road into that area, and I doubt if even the Federal Government can afford to put a road in there. The opening of Glen Canyon will help, but we average at our trading post, 500 visitors a year, and there has never been any great encroachment on there. There have been less than 25 people on the top of Navajo Mountain. Get down into area 2, it is wilderness area. Get over into area 4, the Grand Canyon National Park, the western end of the Grand Canyon is still as inaccessible as it was in 1919. In fact, the trail over to Supai is practically impassable. Area 5, that is Grand Canyon, fewer than 200 people visit the national monument, and I doubt that if there is anybody in this room regardless of what we represent except myself that has ever been over the road from Tuweep and up the mountain.

Area 6, there is one road through there, and what happens when they build Bridge Canyon. The law will prevent any road, and this lake will be below the canyon wall.

Area 17, there has been one road to the Kofa Mountains and it is still there, and very few people visit there.

Area 18, which is a game preserve, it is also protected by the defense because it is the largest target range in the United States. There were more people that traveled that country 200 years ago than today.

Area 19 still is not defiled. You can get off the road and walk 100 feet and be in complete wilderness, and that is the situation in Arizona.

I won't argue Superstition Mountain, I agree with you people about that. I don't think it should be defiled, but there are great areas in this State that people don't go into, and I will close up with one statement as to my hesitancy in backing this.

I fished for many years a stream up in Idaho. It used to be primitive. Now, they cut trails into it. The last time I was up there, there were more empty beer cans and whisky bottles than there were trout. If these people, who want to take our lands for wilderness, where I think they are already protected, and I say this partly facetiously, they want to do it, I think we should incorporate some kind of a test. A lot of people don't know which end of the bed roll to get into. They don't know how to bury garbage, and I for one, would rather keep it under the control until they learn.

That is my feeling, Devens. [Applause.]

Mr. GUST. May I say one additional thing?
Senator GOLDWATER. Certainly.

Mr. GUST. I have seen that map you speak of, and you will note that practically all of the area involved is either on Indian reservation which may or may not be a part of this; a part of it the national park system which is already not open to commercial use and according to my calculations, omitting the Kofa Range, you have about 700,000 acres of land that we are really talking about. I think there are about 700,000 acres outside of these areas that probably will not be a part. Four of these areas will be subject to additional study. I think my figure of 700,000 is about the same as Mr. Gaffney's and of that, practically all of that 700,000 will be subject to study, so that these areas will be much smaller than it appears now.

Senator GOLDWATER. We agree on what we want to get at, but we disagree on how we are getting at it. I've got a one-man campaign going about people who drive cars across our desert. I have had to block it off where people willy-nilly drive across our desert. If our own people in the State will do it, what about the other people. You drive a car across the desert, that road is there forever, so we've got a lot of responsibility.

Mr. STONG. Mr. Chairman, Elmer C. Coker has filed a statement on behalf of Robert Gray, Jack Gray, Henry Gray and Robert Louis Gray.

Senator MURRAY. It will be printed in the record at this point. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF ELMER C. COKER ON BEHALF OF ROBERT GRAY, ET AL., RE SENATE BILL 1123, ESTABLISHING A WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM

Mr. Chairman, this protest and opposition to Senate bill 1123 is made on behalf of Robert Gray, Jack Gray, Henry Gray, and Robert Louis Gray who have, in effect, a lifetime permit from the National Park Service to graze their cattle and conduct their livestock operations within the Organ Pipe National Monument.

The Organ Pipe National Monument was established by Executive order dated April 13, 1937, and the monument consists of 330,690 acres or 516 sections of land. The Gray family have held grazing permits from the Park Service since 1938.

The Gray family moved into the area in 1919 and purchased homestead and range rights in order to set up their cattle operations. They have developed extensive watering facilities and other range improvements in the area which represents an investment of many thousands of dollars. They also hold State of Arizona lands under grazing lease within the area. They have continuously resided in the area since 1919 and have been most cooperative with the National Park Service in the conduct of their livestock operations.

The establishment of a wilderness area in the Organ Pipe National Monument would, in effect, wipe out the Gray Family's entire investment because their watering facilities are so situate and so well located that it would be impossible

to designate any area of any sizable acreage as a wilderness area without causing serious injury to their operations and their investment. Furthermore, establishment of a wilderness area in the Organ Pipe National Monument would create and establish a very serious hazard to the general public inasmuch as the area, generally speaking, is very rough and of a typical desert nature and with the exception of the waters controlled or which have been developed by the Gray family no water is available. This hazard, of course, would require additional cost to the Government inasmuch as the National Park Service and other governmental agencies would have to provide rescue facilities for those who would wander into the wilderness area.

I believe that we all know that the production of beef has been, is and will be a vital part of our national defense system. To close this area solely for a wilderness area would not be in the public interests.

I should like to recommend that before Senate bill 1123 is passed, that it should be amended to provide for the protection and recognition of grazing permits, licenses or leases issued by any governmental agency for grazing purposes and for the protection of the investment of the livestockmen who have expended large sums of money by the construction of range improvements and particularly the development of watering facilities in order to properly conduct their livestock operations.

Your esteemed colleague and my very good friend, Hon. Carl Hayden, has at all times been actively concerned with the plight of the Gray family, and I am 'sure that he would concur in their objections to the proposed bill.

In conclusion I should like to adopt by reference the objections to the bill submitted by the Honorable Obed M. Lassen, State land commissioner, and the Arizona Automobile Association, as well as other objections which have been or will be submitted to you. I trust that your committee will render an unfavorable report on the proposed bill.

Mr. STONG. Mr. Cecil Miller, Phoenix National Farm Loan Association, is our next witness.

STATEMENT OF CECIL MILLER, PRESIDENT, PHOENIX NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION

Mr. MILLER. Senator Murray, Senator Goldwater, I would like to file this statement on behalf of the National Farm Loan Association and then comment briefly.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE PHOENIX NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION, PHOENIX, ARIZ, RE WILDERNESS BILL, S. 1123

The Phoenix National Farm Loan Association is chartered by the Farm Credit Administration to make long-term loans on farms and ranches in Arizona. Arizona has an expanding and exploding population. The Federal Government owns and controls in excess of 70 percent of the land area within the State of Arizona. The economic progress of the State of Arizona is dependent on an orderly development of all of its resources. The farming areas depend upon the range areas for the growing of livestock to consume the feed and grain grown on the farms. This livestock industry is carried on primarily through the use of State and federally owned lands. Any law which might curtail or restrict this livestock industry, such as S. 1123, we believe would have an adverse effect on agriculture and the livestock industry and the overall economy of the State, therefore we feel it necessary to register our opposition to this proposed legislation.

It is our understanding that the Federal agencies that administer the use of federally owned lands have authority to designate wild life, primitive, and wilderness areas. Experience has shown us that under the multiple-use theory sufficient recreational, parks, and natural areas have been set aside as population growth has required. We see no reason that this will not continue to be the case. We are firm believers in the multiple-use theory, as our economy has grown and prospered under that policy and we vigorously oppose any change in the policy. We believe S. 1123 would impair the impartial applica tion of this policy.