trail riders. They are of all ages, from all over the country, of all walks of life and financial status. There are schoolteachers, nurses, pilots, retired military men, technicians, a doctor from Switzerland, newsmen, secretaries, typists, scientists, chemists, doctors, businessmen, Girl Scout directors, students, farmers, housewives, filling station operators, engineers and, believe it or not, lumbermen and ranchers. Most of these types of people certainly are not in the rich or even well-to-do class. Yet they regularly go on these wilderness trail ride trips to get away from the hubbub, stresses and tensions of modern life and enjoy a vacation in the midst of scenic grandeur remote from clanking noises, glaring lights and the smell of gasoline.

Over 3,600 persons have participated in these American Forestry Association sponsored trail rides. The miles they have traveled placed end to end would reach the moon and back, or gird the earth at the equator 20 times. Yet these rides constitute only a tiny fraction of the use made of wilderness areas for a high class, distinctive type of recreation. There are many times more privately outfitted trips, to say nothing of the thousands of hikers, backpackers, and horseback riders who go into wilderness areas on their own to vacation, hunt and fish under primeval conditions.

One of the greatest necessities for maintaining a wilderness system is for the educational and recreational benefits of our young peopleBoy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 4-H clubs, school groups, family groups and many others. Such a trip is a real highlight in their young lives. It does them a world of good to see what a piece of God's great country looks like in its pristine beauty unspoiled by man. My observation, in more than a half century of experience, is that nothing does young folks as much good as a pack-in camp trip into a wilderness area. Young folks who do that sort of thing do not get into trouble. I know a grandmother who several times each summer takes her four grandchildren. and often others on horseback rides deep into the Pecos wilderness. If more people would do that sort of thing they could stop griping so much about juvenile delinquency. Yet some would deprive our youth of that God-given, inspiring, educational privilege. I am convinced that unless the wilderness system is perpetuated by act of Congress it will gradually be destroyed.

Without legislative sanction, pressures will be exerted first here, then there, to reduce sizes, cut off a corner, build a road, cut a block of timber, establish summer homes, and so forth, and erode the system away until nothing is left. There is a report just out by an organization called the New Mexico Land Resources Association which says that 65 percent of New Mexico national forests is nontimber producing, and recommends such areas (except interstate stream watersheds of high value) be eliminated, turned over to the State and sold. Watershed values, except on interstate streams, is disregarded. If they would do that to the national forests, which the public cherishes so much, what wouldn't they do to the wilderness areas? I strongly suspect the tail would go with the hide.

The great bulk of the national forest wilderness areas are in alpine country of extremely high value for watershed purposes. If there were no other reasons, that alone would justify keeping them in their primeval condition for maximum water benefits considering permanence, stability, and quality of waterflow. Remember, dam building

and mining are provided for where the overall public benefit is paramount.

There is much more to say, but I will conclude with this little poem. The "Arizona Highways" thought well enough of it to pay me a considerable price for it.

PERCEPTION LOST

His eyes are dim who cannot see a mountain's purple majesty.

His ears are deaf who cannot hear love songs of birds in spring of year.
His feel is numb who never seeks a mountain breeze to cool his cheeks.
His soul is dead who gets no thrills from rocks and woods and templed hills.
He who no wilderness has trod has missed a chance to walk with God.

Thank you.

Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much.

Mr. BARKER. Mr. Secretary, I have here three telegrams, one from New Mexico Council of Izaak Walton League; one from the Espanola Valley Chapter of the Izaak Walton League; and one from the Los Alamos Chapter of the Izaak Walton League in which they have asked me to speak for them.

I have spoken and if you will attach this to my report, thank you. We also have the statement of the Pueblo Chamber of Commerce. Senator GOLDWATER. They will all be printed.

(The statements and telegrams follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE NEW MEXICO WILDLIFE AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, INC. This association representing the organized sportsmen of New Mexico made certain recommendations for improvement of S. 4028. We are happy to note that most of them have been incorporated in the new bill S. 1123.

Almost without exception the membership of the New Mexico W.C.A. is highly favorable to wilderness preservation. We believe wilderness preservation should be an established policy of this country backed by legislative sanction. We do not believe that a mere administrative policy gives either the present, or much less, future generations the proper insurance for perpetuation of a national forest wilderness system. It would be a national disgrace to fail to preserve an adequate system of wilderness areas for the future.

As to the Wilderness Preservation Council provided for in the bill, we feel that in a purely advisory capacity without administrative authority it can be of valuable service in the collection and publication of wilderness information. On the other hand, the Council is not necessary to a good wilderness bill. The imperative thing is that there be set up an adequate wilderness system to meet the needs of present and future generations for educational, scientific, conservation, recreational and scenic uses. The need for such areas for educational and recreational use and enjoyment of boys and girls cannot be overemphasized, and let us not forget that boys and girls are our responsibility. Wilderness use by them will cut down the much griped about juvenile delinquency.

We note with satisfaction that S. 1123 gives legislative sanction to the well thought out multiple use principle in administration of the national forest resources. We do not see how anyone can disagree with that section of the bill. It seems a bit difficult for some to understand that wilderness is one of the natural resources of the national forests just the same as grazing, timber, mining, recreation, wildlife, etc. But it really is, and an important one at that. The fortunate part of it is that wilderness preservation does not mean that all other uses will be excluded. As a matter of fact the great bulk of existing wilderness areas in the national forest system are in high country where precipitation is relatively great and hence are of high value for watershed purposes. There can be no doubt that in the long run, all things being considered, primeval watersheds are the most efficient. Any one doubting that has only to look at what has happened in the Middle East, China, etc. to be convinced. So in setting up the wilderness system we are also preserving a very important watershed system. The two go hand in hand. Then there are other uses also of high value-recreational, wildlife, educational, scientific, scenic and

even some conservative grazing of livestock for which the bill provides. Many of our members have diligently studied the wilderness preservation proposal and we cannot see where and how any one would be injured. It adds no new area, and it takes away no privilege presently available to anyone, except possibly mining. But even there the bill specifically provides for mining and dam building where the public interest is dominant.

Many have said that wilderness areas are for only a very few rich people. Nothing could be further from the facts. A very great many people use the wilderness areas and they are mostly not rich folks either.

We are strongly convinced that wilderness preservation is in the best interests of the public generally.

ELLIOTT S. BARKER,

Westward Ho Hotel, Phoenix, Ariz.

LOS ALAMOS, N. Mex., April 1, 1959.

DEAR MR. BARKER: The Los Alamos Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America and other sportsmen's and conservation organizations here in Los Alamos authorize you to speak for us at the hearing of wilderness bill. We are behind you all the way.

Sincerely,

MILTON E. BAILEY, President, Los Alamos Chapter.

LOS ALAMOS, N. MEX., April 1, 1959.

ELLIOTT S. BARKER,

Westward Ho Hotel, Phoenix, Ariz.:

Espanola Valley Chapter, IWLA, authorizes you to speak on our behalf in favor of the wilderness bill.

W. E. COURTNEY, President.
A. R. VIGIL, Secretary.

LOS ALAMOS, N. Mex., April 2, 1959.

ELLIOTT S. BARKER,

Westward Ho Hotel, Phoenix, Ariz.:

New Mexico Council of the IWLA authorizes you to speak in favor of wilderness bill for us.

A. D. VAN VESSEN, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. THOMSON, MANAGER, PUEBLO, COLO., CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE

My name is Charles L. Thomson, and I appear here today in Phoenix, Ariz., in the capacity of president of the Mountain States Association, and as manager of the Pueblo, Colo., Chamber of Commerce, 211 West Fifth Street, Pueblo, Colo. The Mountain States Association represents the majority of the chambers of commerce in the eight Mountain States. It is a volunteer organization, and chambers of commerce join at their own desire. The association was established in 1936 by a number of chambers of commerce who desired that the Mountain States area should have a stronger and more unified voice in legislative matters before the Congress of the United States. It was felt then, and the feeling still exists, that due to the distance between the Mountain States and Washington, D.C., and the lack of population in our area, the Mountain States area does not have the opportunity to express itself as vocally as do more populated areas in the East, Midwest, and South.

I am here today to speak in opposition to the wilderness bill, S. 1123. My testimony will be very brief, since representatives of the Mountain States Association have testified previously in opposition to this bill. We had representatives in attendance at the hearings held in Salt Lake City and San Francisco, and have made our stand known collectively and individually in letters to the Congressmen and Senators from the Mountain States area.

It is our feeling that the legislation now being considered would only complicate the management of the wilderness or primitive Government controlled areas in the Mountain States area. In other words, we feel that the U.S. Forest

39871-59--29

Service, a department of the Department of Agriculture, has the authority and is doing a marvelous job in managing and controlling the primitive or wilderness areas in the eight Mountain States. It would seem to us false economy that a second agency should be now established, over and above the U.S. Forest Service, to supposedly manage the areas which the U.S. Forest Service now manages so very effectively. Further, we feel that the legislation now being considered is not realistic as it effects the Mountain States area. We grant that there might be certain areas in the more densely populated East that may require stringent rules and regulations, but this certainly does not apply in the Rocky Mountain West. We feel that this legislation is too broad to be applicable in this instance and we feel it will tend to deteriorate the good work already established by the U.S. Forest Service.

We do therefore respectfully and sincerely request that the members of this committee recommend that this legislation not be approved by the Members of Congress of the United States. We feel that strengthening of the Forest Service department is a much better and more economical approach to the entire matter. We do thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Congress of the United States and we earnestly solicit your support of our request.

(Mr. Barker subsequently transmitted the following letter which was ordered to be printed in the record :)

Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,

SANTA FE, N. MEX., April 20, 1959.

Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: At the hearing on the wilderness preservation bill, S. 1123, held in Phoenix, Ariz., on April 2, 1959, a member of the New Mexico Legislature submitted for the record a copy of House Joint Memorial No. 3, memorializing the Congress of the United States to decline passage of this bill. This memorial deserves especial notice because of its inconsistencies, absurdity, and because it is an affront to the intelligence of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and the public.

For the sake of brevity the memorial's seven unsound "whereases" will be bypassed and only the conclusions will be listed. These I shall number and quote verbatim and comment on each before going on to the next one. The memorial states:

"Whereas the legislature and the responsible officials of the State of New Mexico recognize

"1. That the social and economic welfare of the State of New Mexico is best served by the present uses allowed of federally controlled lands." Comment: That is fine, and those favoring the bill agree. There are presently eight areas included in the wilderness system in New Mexico, present uses of which are restricted to wilderness purposes. The two in national parks and monuments, embracing 195,983 acres, are not subject to any kind of commercialization anyway and their principal scenic attractions are already accessible by motorized equipment.

The six wild, wilderness, and primitive areas in the national forest system embrace 942,728 acres, or 1.2 percent of the State's area and 11 percent of the State's national forest area, reserved for recreational, scenic, educational, scientific, and primeval watershed conservation, where roads, permanent habitation, commercialization, etc. (other than grazing of livestock) are prohibited. That is the way it is now and House Joint Memorial No. 3 approves of the present uses allowed.

"2. That New Mexico has an abundance of scenic wonders to which access would be deprived by the proposed legislation."

Comment: Passage of S. 1123 would in no way change the present accessibility or inaccessibility of "scenic wonders" or any other area. The wilderness bill would not change the existing system in any way. Its purpose is simply to guarantee perpetuation of the present system and replace the insecure administration under orders of the Secretary of Agriculture with the security and stability of law.

"3. That the proposed legislation is burdensome and expensive to administer and will cause great inconvenience and financial hardship to the people of New Mexico."

Comment: The present uses allowed of the wilderness system are, obviously, not considered burdensome by the legislature; otherwise it would not have

stated its approval of them (see item 1 above). How can the proposed legislation be considered burdensome? It takes nothing away that anyone now has. It deprives no one of any privilege that he now enjoys.

As to being expensive as well as burdensome, it is true that the wilderness preservation bill would appropriate $100,000 for a Wilderness Preservation Council to collect and disseminate information, etc., for the entire national wilderness system. The Council would act in an advisory capacity and would have no administrative authority over any area or agency. Now let's see how burdensome and how much financial hardship an appropriation of $100,000 would be on the people of New Mexico and the rest of the United States. On a per capita basis a $100,000 appropriation would be only six one-hundredths of 1 cent for each person. In terms of a nickel-an-hour parking meter on the amount of this assessment one could park for less than a minute. How utterly ridiculous for a legislature to tell Congress that such an appropriation would be burdensome and cause financial hardship to the people of New Mexico.

"4. That the proposed legislation unduly restricts the use of federally controlled lands, and encroaches upon the water rights of New Mexico." Comment: S. 1123 does not add any restrictions to those presently in effect. It adds not 1 acre to the national forest system. It specifically states that grazing of livestock, where such practices are already established, may be continued. As to alleged encroachment on State's water rights, section 3C(5) states, "Nothing in this act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws." In other words, the question of water rights remain exactly as they are now.

The bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use such methods as he deems necessary to control insects and diseases in the national forest wilderness system. The bill also provides that the President may authorize mining and dam building, with necessary access roads, where the public interest will be best served thereby. Surely the legislature would not advocate mining, dam and road building unless the public interest is paramount. Or would it?

In conclusion I must say that the reasons stated for opposing the wilderness preservation bill are inconsistent with facts and are entirely without foundation in reality. If there were any better reasons surely they would have been presented. Therefore, one is forced reluctantly to suggest that the committee consider whether or not it might simply be that the organized commercial interests who piloted this memorial through the legislature realize that the stabilizing effect of S. 1123, will make it more difficult than under the present administrative setup to invade and commercialize the last 11 percent of New Mexico's national forests for their own selfish ends.

Surely we should, and can afford to, save a few areas in their primeval state, as God made them, for use and enjoyment of present and future generations as wilderness at a per capita cost of six one-hundredths of a cent per year.

Respectfully yours,

ELLIOTT S. BARKER.

Senator GOLDWATER. Mr. Don Clauser. You are representing Santa Fe and Albuquerque Wildlife and Conservation Associations? Mr. CLAUSER. Yes. I am going to file the Albuquerque one without reading it, and I have a short statement I would like to read. Senator GOLDWATER. You go right ahead.

STATEMENT OF THE SANTA FE, N. MEX., WILDLIFE AND

CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. CLAUSER. Senator Goldwater and members of the hearing, this statement is made on behalf of the Santa Fe, N. Mex., Wildlife and Conservation Association, representing some 400 members. Living adjacent to a fine wilderness area, our members are very familiar with wilderness areas and how very much they mean to the public. Many of our members, perhaps most of them, use the Pecos wilderness area for camp trips, hiking, horseback riding, and hunting and fishing. For a satisfying vacation, where one can relax and refresh his mind