Our National Government has become top heavy with bureaucracy and S. 1123 would further restrain the use of our natural resources to a select, wealthy group which is contrary to our democratic philosophy of the greatest good for the greatest number. Setting aside vast acreages for the use of those who can afford to use them is reminiscent of the baronial estates in past history of Europe. Due to the natural geographical topography of the State of Arizona, there now exist and will continue to be in the foreseeable future, ample wilderness areas without manmade restrictions. Proponents of this legislation suggest that if S. 1123 proves to be inadequate or unsatisfactory, it can be changed by further legislation. History has proven that this theory is fallacious, as numerous existing laws are inadequate and unsatisfactory but small, well-organized lobbies prevent corrective legislation. There are many other valid reasons why this is bad legislation. We are sure these points are being covered by other foresighted individuals and organizations who are opposing the legislation. We wish to thank you for the opportunity to present our views in opposition to this legislation. Mr. MILLER. Our business is loaning money. We think that it is being adequately and properly taken care of for all the authority that is necessary in the way of public wilderness. I would like to make one personal statement. I have a ranch where this area is affected. It is true that my grandchildren won't see a buffalo, but they will see atom bombs and supersonic planes. Times have changed, and they are going to change. This bill, it occurs to me, restricts development of 11 Western States, and it restricts the development-it restricts job opportunity and it affects a lot of people, athough they don't realize it. It could be their jobs in the future, if we don't develop sufficiently. It is possibly punitive, and I mean by that, I have noticed where Congress has taken occasion to pass on legislation helping some of the areas that are bothered with chronic unemployment. We also note that the shift in population is to the West from the East, and industry shifts likewise. If this bill is designed to hinder the increase in that movement and our development out West, then it becomes punitive. I think that that should be considered for all 11 States. Thank you gentlemen for permitting me to speak. STATEMENT OF A. M. EAST, ENGINEER, GLENWOOD, N. MEX. Mr. EAST. Senator Murray, Senator Goldwater, I am a retired civil engineer. My engineering practice for 25 years was in the field of water supply and hydraulics. At present I am actively operating a small ranch to supplement an inadequate retirement income. I raise commercial Hereford cattle. Our eattle graze about one-half of the time on our private property and the other half of the time on a national forest allotment adjacent to the Gila wilderness. We pay the Forest Service, in advance, each year for the number of cattle that will graze on the forest. In appearing here, I am speaking in behalf of myself, and thousands of others in Catron County, N. Mex., and adjacent counties. At five different meetings held in that many communities, another speaker and myself were selected by these people to appear before you. These people were ranchers, lumber workers and others who are dependent in whole, or in part on the products of the federally owned land in our vicinity for their living. There are many thousands of others throughout the Western States like us. You seldom hear from these people for whom I speak. They are a people preoccupied with making their living, trusting in God, and their elected officials to look out for their interest. These people are accustomed to droughts, grasshopper invasions, hard times, and good times, without looking to others for help. They face these things with a calm attitude, and a feeling that anything that threatens their way of life will disappear in time. They live very close to nature that is sometimes fickle. However, they seldom complain. That is probably the reason you have not heard much from them in the meetings held last fall. If you look closely, you will find many thousands of such people throughout the Western States. Many of our ancestors arrived in these parts before the so-called Founding Fathers arrived on the east coast. Our land titles date back to the Spanish grants. Homesteads were established before the large areas were claimed in the name of the Federal Government, and set aside as national forests. Raising of livestock, lumbering, and mining was a way of life in these parts long before the days of some of the so-called protectors of the great outdoors. The very fact that these industries still thrive speaks well for the conservation practices of these people. These people who live next to the soil should be recognized as the true conservationists. Not the armchair variety who form themselves into organizations and adopt the name of conservationist. "Conservation" seems to be a word anyone can adopt. But true conservation is a practice that only comes from hard work with the work of nature that is to be conserved. Conservation might well be defined by the same definition that is sometimes applied to engineering: "The application of science to the work of nature, for the benefit of mankind." It is respectfully requested that my testimony in opposition to this wilderness legislation be considered as that of the thousands that you would never hear from otherwise. Legislation is everybody's business. It is the business that will affect our tomorrows and our children. There is good legislation that would serve the interest of the majority, and at the same time protects the minority rights. We do not feel that the wilderness bill that is represented here as S. 1123 does either. Geographically speaking, the area I am here to represent is the northern part of Grant County, and all of Catron County, N. Mex. In this area are the Gila wilderness, Gila primitive, Black Range primitive, and the Blue primitive areas. This represents well over 1 million acres of land. Catron County is 65.4 percent Federal land. With present restrictions on grazing and timber operations enforced by the Forest Service, and practiced by the people of these areas, one can hardly distinguish between the areas now being used, and wilderness areas. There are irrigated farms along the valleys that raise feed crops to feed to the livestock that graze in the hills. Each activity is dependent upon the other. There are some small family-sized sawmills, and some larger. Regardless, the people employed by these mills are dependent upon the continued harvesting of mature timber from the forests. The rancher of fiction with enormous wealth simply does not exist. The ranches are all small, one-family ranches. Forest Service figures show that over 93 percent of the 35,000 permits to graze cattle on the national forests average 200 or less cattle. Anyone with a knowledge of ranching will tell you that this size ranch will hardly support a family by present-day standards. This figure will indicate over 100,000 people for whom we speak. Now, to present some of the reasons we oppose this legislation. First, I would like to quote K. A. Valentine, associate animal husbandman, New Mexico State University: Animal influences on the range are no less important than plant influences. Like the plant influences, some are beneficial, others harmful. The very consumption, destruction, and assimilation of plant materials by animals, including the grazing animals, is essential to the welfare of the vegetation, Without this animal influence, in time all materials necessary to plant growth, such as phosphorus, soil nitrogen, and even carbon dioxide of the atmosphere, would become locked up in plant tissue, and the vegetation itself would cease to thrive. It has been observed, too, that moderate grazing induces a thrifty condition in range plants, which is of course desirable. Thus spoke Professor Valentine in a talk on range ecology. Wilderness is only rangeland set aside for wilderness purposes. Another I would quote is Arthur Grahame, Outdoor Life, February 1959, in support of this legislation: Some sportsmen are lukewarm in their support of this bill because they think that the ruggedness and often the cost of travel and living in the wilderness areas, limit their use to a few hunters and fishermen. Supporters agree that this, fortunately, is the case, and point out that if such areas were used by many persons they would soon lose their wilderness character. Testimony of Steve Reynolds, State engineer of New Mexico, at your hearing last fall, as well as studies by other engineers, including myself, definitely show that less water yield can be expected from wilderness areas than from other watersheds. We are not opposed to recreation for the people of the rest of the Nation. We realize that man has made his life so complicated in the hustle and bustle of chasing the dollar, that he should have some place to go and recuperate. Outdoor excursions strengthen family ties, and provide relaxation so necessary in these days of rush, and by-the-clock living. May we call to the attention of the ardent supporters of this legislation that all the things they point to as their reason for wanting this legislation are already theirs if they care to make use of them. The public lands are open the year round now. Why not go into these wilderness areas and see for themselves if passing laws would make them more accessible, or serve the purpose of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. Will passing laws by the Congress cause more people to use them, than do so now? Will it make the wilderness more desirable? One stated purpose is the use of these areas by future generations. Do we anticipate a more rugged people in the future generations that can take advantage of these inaccessible areas where the present generation is seldom found because of the rugged terrain? The enabling provisions of this bill for the acquisition of our private property casts the dark cloud of acquisition by condemnation over us. The threat to our grazing, lumber, and mining privileges, with the curtailment threat of these privileges, hanging over us has already devalued our properties. The very introduction of this legislation has already made the sale of our properties very difficult. We realize that once this bill is passed our local taxes for schools and roads will have to be increased proportionately to offset the loss in fees from timber and grazing that are now turned back to the county from the Forest Service. Sixty-five and four-tenths of our county is Federal lands. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management turn back 25 percent of the fees collected from grazing and timber, to be used for schools and roads. These funds pay only 33 percent of the cost for these purposes. Our privately owned property pays 67 percent of the cost of schools and roads, yet our private property is only 34.6 percent of the total land in the county. Recreation, scenic, scientific, and other such uses pay no taxes. Yet our private property will have to pay the costs for these services, including that of roads to serve the vacationist. For the sake of brevity I will enumerate our objections to this kind of legislation as follows: (1) It would be detrimental to many people of the Western States and benefit a very few select people. (2) It would discriminate against other multiple users by creating an Advisory Board with three members dedicated to wilderness. (3 It would increase local taxes on private property. (4) It would be detrimental to our already inadequate schools by taking away fees from forest uses. (5) It would violate States rights by giving power to an agency far removed, without knowledge of local problems. (6) It would be a threat to private-property rights of individuals by authorizing the acquisition of these properties for wilderness purposes. (7) It would devalue all ranches and other business using the Federal lands. (8) It is not needed since the areas involved are already ably supervised by dedicated people in Government service. (9) It would set a precedent for other groups to demand advisory boards be created for their pet projects. (10) It would defeat the very purpose of conservation, since it would make fire and pest control more difficult. (11) Wilderness areas decrease the water yield of watersheds. (12) The areas involved are not convenient to the centers of population. (13) Smaller areas in each State would better serve the purposes stated as the reason for this legislation. (14) Recreation and other stated purposes cannot be benefited by legislation of this nature. (15) It has already cost us valuable time and money to fight for our rights and will continue to do so. Thank you gentlemen for listening, and I file my statement with you. Mr. STONG. Bruce Renwick, of the Los Angeles Chamber of Com merce. STATEMENT OF BRUCE RENWICK, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. RENWICK. Chairman Murray, Senator Goldwater, my name is Bruce Renwick. I appear as a representative of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. Our chamber is opposed to the enactment of S. 1123... Probably no metropolitan area having the population we do has as much need for recreation as is the case with us. We have a goodly number of members of the Sierra as well as unaffiliated clubs who use our mountain trails. We have a great many people whose family responsibilities and other ties do not permit them to enjoy our forests, and yet who seek relaxation in the great outdoors. Therefore, we believe the Congress and Federal Government should proceed for the enjoyment of the majority and not for a limited number of our citizens. Likewise, we believe it unwise that restrictions be placed upon public lands to a degree that may limit the support of our economy. The United States is in need of the production to maintain our present level. With our growing population, and each of us would still like to further improve the standards, and particularly our forest areas, prevent access in case of fire, and where overmaturity of trees, we would encourage the highest of restrictions, which are outstanding in providing protection. We recognize the need for this in the case of our other public lands, but we firmly believe in this as in so many other facets of the Government, it is important that the relative be considered and that they be balanced rather than for a limited few. It is our understanding that the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission established by Congress is presently en gaged in preparing a recommendation on the recreational needs of the American people, and this Commission is scheduled to report its recommendations to Congress by 1961. Since this Commission presumably will report pertaining to recrea tional needs, it would appear unwise to proceed with the establishment of a national wilderness system prior to obtaining the benefit of their recommendations. May I express my appreciation of the opportunity to appear before you? (The prepared statement submitted by this witness follows:) STATEMENT OF BRUCE RENWICK, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce has long been concerned with conserving natural resources of this country and, more particularly, of course, those in the Pacific Southwest. We have carried on and are continuing an educational program for the prevention of fires in our foothill areas. We have supported measures to encourage reforestation and worked to preserve our national forests and national timberlands against insect damage. We have helped to set up programs for protection of other public lands against despoliation by human elements, as well as by erosion and other natural factors. These things we mention as evidence that we are familiar with the problems that arise in the administration of our public lands, as well as the opportunities for making these lands useful for the people of this country. While the Los Angeles metropolitan area increasingly becomes a large industrial and commercial center, our mountains and other public lands are still in close proximity and we are vitally concerned with their wise administration and use. It is with this background that we make our representations with respect to proposals for |