cooperation of ranchers and other land users. The large increase in our game herds has taken place due to water development, the proper distribution of range salt, and more modern game management methods.

At the present time there are 13,860,382 acres in the United States set aside as wilderness areas and we understand that the Forest Service is currently contemplating several million additional acres. We can see no reasonable need for more lands to be set aside in wilderness and, in fact, we believe such action would be detrimental to the economic growth of our country.

We are all familiar with Public Law 85-470, which was introduced by Senator Clinton P. Anderson, of New Mexico, and which provides for a complete study of the outdoor recreation resources of this country. A final report of this Commission to Congress is to be made not later than September 1, 1961. We cannot understand why our Congress continues to consider legislation such as the wilderness bill before the report of the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission has been completed.

In addition, we cannot understand why it is necessary for Congress to establish a wilderness commission, when all available records show that the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has done an outstanding job of preserving wilderness areas over a prolonged period of time. The only reason for a commission of this kind that we can see, is simply the creation of another Government body which will begin an endless program to acquire more and more land for wilderness areas at the economic expense of all the people in the West.

(The resolution submitted by the witness is as follows:)

RESOLUTION OF THE NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Whereas the recent New Mexico Legislature has enacted a memorial addressed to the National Congress, copy of which is attached, of passing legislation which would create a national wilderness preservation system with overlapping authority on the national forests to set up wilderness areas on Federal lands throughout the United States; and

Whereas this memorial covers explicitly the reason our association has adopted in the past against such legislation. Therefore we commend the members of

the State legislature for enacting this memorial.

Mr. STONG. R. E. Jones, Colorado Cattlemen's Association.

STATEMENT OF R. E. JONES, PRESIDENT, COLORADO CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, Senators of the committee, my name is R. E. Jones and I reside on my ranch in Yampa, Colo. I am president of the Colorado Cattlemen's Association.

The Colorado Cattlemen's Association is a nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization made up of livestock producers and feeders from all sections of Colorado; 3,861 livestock producers and feeders are at present paid up and active members, in addition to which there are 72 local livestock associations affiliated with the Colorado Cattlemen's Association. The policies of the association are established by democratic procedure in open conventions.

My appearance before you today is in support of the position and policy of the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, adopted by rollcall vote at our association's annual convention, held in Denver, Colo., June 12-14, 1958. Such a position was unanimously reaffirmed by our members and our board of control at a regional meeting of the Colorado Cattlemen's Association held in Montrose, Colo., November 7, 1958. This position was in opposition to S. 4028, but the objections to S. 4028 have not been met by S. 1123, the wilderness bill in the 86th Congress.

Prior to opposing S. 4028, the bill was studied in detail by committees of each of our 72 local associations and by our State association's board of control. Opinions were requested from other segments of Colorado's economy, such as water, tourists, mining, lumber, and businessmen's organizations. Since the introduction of S. 1123, similar study of its provisions have been made.

Following these investigations as to how the bill would affect Colorado's eastern tourists, recreationists and sportsmen, as well as future water development and Colorado's general economy, we, in the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, are of the opinion that we must oppose S. 1123.

Would the areas that will be set aside under the bill be for the use and enjoyment by the people? The answer is "Yes," but only in a very restricted way and only to those limited few in a financial bracket who could afford guides and pack trips, or to those few with the physical stamina to endure long outdoor trips on foot. The U.S. Forest Service, in its last record year report, states that nine-tenths of 1 percent of the total national forest visitors entered the 14 million arces of national forest land, at present classified as wilderness, wild, or primitive areas. This would certainly seem to demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed program are actually of value to a very special and restricted minority of our population.

Many thousands of tourists, from our Eastern States, who annually come to Colorado with limited funds and limited time, have the right to expect adequate accommodations within our Federal lands and adequate roads by which to view our many scenic wonders. Facilities and roads are, at present, inadequate. The effect of S. 1123 will be to curtail the use of existing facilities and roads and prevent future development of such facilities, thus locking this area to many thousands of eastern tourists.

In our opinion, S. 1123 would destroy to a great degree the present multiple use policy governing the management and development of our Federal lands, regardless of the nod given to multiple-use policy in section 1(d). This policy of multiple use has been beneficial in preserving and maintaining the wilderness effect of our Federal lands, without unnecessary restrictions on other uses. It is the policy which has made Colorado's federally owned areas really available to the sportsmen, recreationists, and various segments of our economy. This federally owned area, equaling 36 percent of the total area of Colorado, or 24 million acres, is now under complete control of various Federal agencies.

Increasing population, combined with the trend toward a shorter workweek, stresses a greater need for the expansion of the multiple use of these areas, rather than its limitation under such legislation as

S. 1123. Under present management these areas are entirely compatible. This is simply wise use, providing the most good for the most people over a long period of time.

For example, let's take our forest areas. From the standpoint of forest management, total wilderness preservation is far from desirable. Wilderness areas lead to unmanaged stands of timber, which increases the chances for outbreaks of insects and diseases. Unmanaged stands of timber become stagnated, and in recent years, an expenditure of some $500 million was made in Colorado to control an insect outbreak which built up in stagnated trees.

In unmanaged stands the forest fire hazard is increased due to an increasing accumulation of fuel on the ground. Should a fire start, the control situation is further complicated by a lack of access roads. Well-managed forests create a desirable wildlife habitat; stagnated, unmanaged forests do not. Wildlife, and the forest, suffer when proper management is lacking. Federal agencies' records prove that use which would be prohibited under S. 1123 is essential to proper management. Hence, S. 1123 would prevent the proper management of this resource. Such lack of management is a threat to every proposed wilderness area.

Water is by far the most valuable resource of the forested lands in Colorado. Over 80 percent of the usable water of the State flows from forested areas. The management given these forested areas dictates. both the quantity and quality of available water, and well-managed timber will perpetuate both.

Water yield from the forested mountains may actually mean the difference between existence and nonexistence on the land below. An adequate water yield will also mean the difference between developing or not developing future communities and industries in our Western States.

Adequate management of our watersheds and future development of our water are essential to our Western States. The well-being and future development of our Western States have a direct bearing on our national economy. S. 1123, in our opinion, not only limits our watershed management but makes future water development practically impossible.

Still another example is the grazing use of these lands. Under the supervision of Federal agencies, proper management has proved a direct benefit to fire control, watershed development, and an increase of our game animals, while at the same time preserving the natural conditions. S. 1123, by eliminating grazing on the majority of these proposed wilderness areas, would prevent the advantages derived through this type of management.

The performance records and existing programs developed by our various agencies supervising our Federal lands, in our opinion, have proved one major fact. This fact is that a management program through the multiple-use system will preserve our Federal lands in a natural condition and, at the same time, will materially aid the economic development of our Nation.

S. 1123 would seriously curtail the expression of Colorado's mining industry and prevent future development of our mineral resources. For example, if S. 1123 had been in effect 10 years ago much of our great source of uranium on our Federal lands in Colorado would not

have been discovered or could not have been mined, thus depriving our Nation of this very important mineral which is playing so vital a part in our present atomic age. This points to another very serious objection, that being to the "automatic" clauses in the bill, which would prevent the multiple use of certain areas for mining of yet undiscovered minerals, the timbering and grazing to meet the yet unknown demands of future increased generations. The word "automatically" was taken out of section 2(a) in the S. 1123 version, but the effect is the same as section 2 (a) of S. 4028.

Under national forest land wilderness designations, S. 1123 provides, and I quote:

Determinations regarding national forest areas classified as primitive shall be made within twenty (20) years after the date of this Act, and any such area regarding which such determinations have not been made shall then, with the exception of any roads, motor trails, structures, or other installations then existing, become a part of the wilderness system without further regard to this proviso.

In summarizing, in our opinion

(1) S. 1123 would eventually close forever the majority of our Federal lands, through wilderness areas, to the majority, the average U.S. citizen.

(2) S. 1123 would change our present multiple-use policy which has proved both beneficial and essential to our State's and our Nation's economy-a policy which has made possible great livestock, lumbering, mining, and recreation industries.

(3) S. 1123 would be detrimental to the management of our present watersheds and hamper seriously the development of future water supplies.

(4) S. 1123 would seriously hamper the improvement programs on our Federal lands which have been developed, over the years, by various Federal agencies in charge of these Federal lands.

(5) S. 1123 would prevent the mining of essential minerals. We, in the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, feel that S. 1123 is detrimental to Colorado, our Western States, and to the average U.S. citizen of our Eastern States, and for this reason we certainly appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee in order that you may hear our views.

Mr. STONG. Mr. Sherman Hazeltine has filed his statement and desires it to go in the the record. It will be printed at this point. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF SHERMAN HAZELTINE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA

My name is Sherman Hazeltine. I am chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the First National Bank of Arizona, whose head office is in Phoenix, and presently has 53 other offices located in 40 different communities throughout the State of Arizona. I am a native Arizonian and my family's history in the territory goes back to the early 1870's. Because of this long association with Arizona, I feel very deeply with respect to its future development and the best utilization of its many and varied resources.

I am opposed to S. 1123, the wilderness preservation bill, as I consider the effects of its enactment to be detrimental to the betterment of Arizona. Historically, the tax base of the State has rested on an inverted pyramid because so large a proportion of the area of the State is under one form or another of Federal ownership-Forest Service, national parks, Indian lands, etc. It is most necessary to the maintenance of a viable economy that the multiple-use policy

of Federal lands be continued and, wherever possible, extended. The wilderness bill in question negates such a program.

Another thing which may not be overlooked is the interdependence between the various sections of our State. Whereas to date Arizona's explosive population growth has occurred in the valleys, this does not preclude a similar future for mountain areas. Furthermore, the very existence of the valley population is dependent upon wise and productive use of the higher lands, both for water production and recreation.

The wilderness bill inferentially subjugates the good of Arizonians to some theoretic advantage to be gained by dwellers in other areas. This is indefensible on moral grounds. I should like the record to show me as being unalterably opposed to the enactment of the measure under consideration.

Mr. STONG. Noel Rankin, Silver City, N. Mex., Silver City-Grant County Chamber of Commerce.

STATEMENT OF NOEL RANKIN, PRESIDENT, SILVER CITY-GRANT COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. RANKIN. Senator Murray, Senator Goldwater, my name is Noel Rankin. I am a rancher and the current president of the Grant County Farm and Livestock Bureau. I am here to represent the Silver City-Grant County Chamber of Commerce of Silver City, N. Mex.

The Silver City-Grant County Chamber of Commerce is vitally concerned with the provisions of S. 1123 affecting wilderness areas because a considerable portion of the Gila wilderness area, the Gila primitive area, and the Gila National Forest is within the limits of Grant County, and Silver City is generally regarded as the gateway to the area. Any legislation affecting the Gila National Forest, the Gila primitive area, or the Gila wilderness area, therefore, directly affects the economy of the people of Grant County.

We are opposed to the passage of S. 1123 in its present form for the following reasons: (1) There has been created by the Congress of the United States a Recreation Resources Review Commission to investigate the usage of wilderness lands and federally controlled lands for recreational and other purposes. This Commission has been instructed to report to the Congress by September 1961. It is our opinion that any legislation affecting wilderness areas should be postponed until this Commission has had an opportunity to make its report. (2) More than one-half of the ranchers in Grant County, N. Mex. are presently the holders of grazing rights on national forest areas and primitive areas. This legislation proposes to interfere with or curtail these rights. This would have a disastrous effect on the value of ranch lands in Grant County, N. Mex., and would result in economic ruin to a great many of our ranchers. (3) The proposed legislation is intended to and would interfere with the construction of dams for the impoundment of water for recreational purposes and to prevent flood control. (4) The proposed legislation gives to a newly created governmental bureau the power to condemn private property for public use. This could well result in interference with long-established ownership and title to valuable ranch lands and other properties in Grant County. (5) The proposed legislation would interfere with and prevent the normal development of vast mineral resources located within wilderness areas, primitive areas, and national forest.