8. 1123 LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN PREVIOUS PROPOSALS

There are no real substantive changes in S. 1123 and the other bills introduced this year over the provisions of S. 4028 considered at the last Congress. The provisions of S. 1123 are supposed to give assurance that grazing, where it is an established custom, will be continued unaffected.

Section 3(c) (1) of the bill provides that "within national forest areas included in the wilderness system, grazing of domestic livestock and the use of aircraft or motorboats where these practices have already become well established may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable."

This is a dangerous provision because it does not make it mandatory that the well-established practices of livestock grazing shall continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary deems desirable. It is only permissive legislation and if the Secretary did not see fit to continue livestock grazing in the wilderness system, there is no provision that would require him to continue the grazing.

WILDERNESS LEGISLATION RESTRICTS POWERS OF SECRETARY

The wording in section 3(c) (1) would "water down" some of the powers of the Secretary and what little power he may have left is further restricted in section 3(a) which reads "except that any agency administering any area within the wilderness system shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes as also to preserve its wilderness character."

BILL STRIKES AT MULTIPLE-USE POLICY

The proposed wilderness bill strikes at the very heart of the multiple-use policy of the Federal Government. Cattlemen believe public lands should continue to be administered on the basis of multiple use of these lands. The multiple use of our public lands is not only practical but beneficial to the land, the people, and all of the resources on these lands. When restricted to a single use only a few people benefit. They should continue to be shared for such uses as grazing, reclamation, water development, wildlife, and the vacationing public.

MULTIPLE USE PROTECTS PUBLIC LANDS

The multiple use of public lands protects these lands as well as other surrounding public and private lands from destruction by fire. Fire protection without adequate roads and trails is practically impossible and the brush and undergrowth that will thrive in these closed areas will become a menace to the economy of the people of our State as well as the Nation. This debris and undergrowth, when ignited under such conditions, would create uncontrollable fires destroying everything in their path, laying waste to natural resources such as valuable forage, timber, and wildlife, and the adjoining property of our citizens.

GRASS MAIN FEED IN RAISING LIVESTOCK

The Nation's grasslands, hay lands and forested range lands furnish about one-half of the feed for all livestock. Grass is the principal feed for maintaining breeding herds, growing cattle for further finishing in feedlots or preparing them for direct shipment to packing plants. This most important renewable natural resource on public lands is dependent on the livestock owner for orderly harvest and conversion into national wealth.

Suppose we take a look at the thinking of the promoters of the wilderness areas in order to surface their selfish and complete disregard for the economic and recreational opportunities for our people.

WILDERNESS PROMOTERS AGAINST THE MANY

Dr. James P. Gilligan of the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, speaking at the October 26, 1954, meeting of the Society of American Foresters, expressed quite well the self-centered attitude of the promoters of this legislation. These remarks by Dr. Gilligan were given endorsement through quotations by Congressman John P. Saylor and further endorsed by Howard Zahniser, executive secretary of the Wilderness Society, by inclusion in an article in the National Parks magazine.

Dr. Gilligan said in part, "wilderness conditions, of course, have vanished from developed areas; and the sight, sound, and sometimes smell of these concentration zones disperse so widely that quite large sections cannot be considered natural, let alone wilderness. National parks, too, must often justify their existence to the locality or State in which they are situated, principally on economic grounds.

"As long as the drums throb for more tourist dollars, park administrators will find it hard to accommodate the increasing army of sightseers without extending development. It is highly improbable that a seemingly logical course of restricting the number of visitors to any national park will be put into effect until every possible means of providing accommodations is exhausted. It is a fair question to ask how much of the parks will be developed by then."

DR. GILLIGAN CRITICAL OF MASS USE OF PARKS

Dr. Gilligan said further in his remarks that "because of Congressional measures, which ordinarily prevent utilization of wood, water, mineral, or forage resources in areas of the national park system, the National Park Service is the most logical existing agency to preserve extensive wilderness regions. However, it is subject to the unrelenting pressures of mass use, and retreats gradually behind the cold logic that more areas must be developed to care properly for the public to whom the land belongs. It is merely another application of the philosophy that as many people as possible should use these areas, even though finally there is little left of the original landscape."

How can individuals who feel like this toward the "masses of the people" have the audacity to cloak themselves with high sounding phrases like "for the permanent good of the whole people" and propose to close over 50 million acres of national park and national forest lands to use by the vast majority of the "whole" people for the benefit of the minority who prefer to walk in or pack in to view the wilderness.

Suppose we now take a look at the public lands in California and the population pressures for greater use of such lands for mass recreation.

FIFTY PERCENT OF CALIFORNIA IS PUBLIC LANDS

California has a land area of a little over 100 million acres, of which almost one-half of it is public lands. Of this total land area 28.5 percent is taken up by grazing of livestock, 10.5 percent by crops, 36 percent by forests and watersheds, 4 percent by roads, urban and industrial uses, and the remaining 21 percent is barren waste, mostly desert.

CALIFORNIA FOUNDERING IN ITS POPULATION GROWTH

California is in grave danger of foundering in its population growth. The League of California Cities meeting recently in convention, heard speakers predict a 75-percent increase in California's population by 1975. They believe that there will be a State population of 24 million people by 1975, with 90 percent of it jammed into cities, that are today's expanding suburbs.

POPULATION DRIVING RANCHERS TO BACK COUNTRY

California farmers are being driven off the more fertile land into the poorer valley basin lands and terraces. Nearly 16 percent of the total cultivatable land in this State has been diverted to nonagricultural use. Population pressure appropriated 820,000 acres of cultivatable land for nonagricultural uses between 1942 and 1956.

Since the advent of World War II, the rich valley lands have more and more been occupied by factories, freeways, homes, shopping centers, and recreational areas. Irrigated agriculture has shifted more and more to the poorer lands, the grain is planted further up the slopes, and the cattle and sheep graze beyond the grain.

POPULATION GROWTH IN UNITED STATES TO CONTINUE

Government officials and others studying population trends, point out that the population of the United States rose from 132 million in 1940 to 175 million on October 16, 1958, a gain of 43 million people. These population officials state that maintenance at this rate of annual increase, is forecast for the next 20 years. The Nation will grow to an estimated 190 million in 1965 and to 218 million in 1975.

POPULATION GROWTH MEANS MORE USE OF PUBLIC LANDS

The sheer physical pressure of population will force agriculture, industry, wildlife, and recreation to shift still further into the back country which demands the fullest use of our privately owned and public lands. Proponents of the subject wilderness bill, which would return vast areas of our valuable lands to a wilderness status, are promoting the destructive forces of class legislation and stand in the way of the dynamic social and economic growth of our Nation.

RECREATION PROBLEM ALREADY ON OUR DOORSTEP

Spokesmen for the urban areas of our State predict that San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other fast growing areas will be forced to set up a second layer of local government, a sort of "metropolitan council," to concern itself with such matters as land use, planning and zoning, traffic and transportation, water supply, and big scale recreational facilities. Pressures are building up at such speed that hunting and fishing and other forms of recreation are among the leading issues facing our 1959 session of the State legislature.

FOREST SERVICE HAS A WILDERNESS PROGRAM

Proponents for the subject legislation on wilderness areas would lead many to believe that there are no efforts being made to preserve such areas. To the contrary, the U.S. Forest Service is presently administering a wilderness and wild areas program.

These wilderness and wild areas are established under regulations so worded as to leave no doubt of the intent to keep the areas in their primitive state. These regulations make it possible for the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service to designate new wilderness areas.

The wilderness areas in our national forests alone occupy an area equal to all of New Hampshire, Connecticut, and New Jersey. It is doubtful if more than one-tenth of 1 percent of our population will make the effort to hire pack mules, guides and other services to get into the trackless wilderness areas now established.

It appears obvious that only a very small percentage of the population is benefiting from these areas, and it is equally obvious that the same few people will be the only ones to benefit from additional areas of this type.

STATE RIGHTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

Should the Congress in its wisdom approve the subject wilderness bill, then State and local governments should be given the right to approve or disapprove the withdrawal of all such lands in their respective areas. And, when there are such withdrawals, that local government be compensated for the economic loss to its community. We believe, too, that any withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more for wilderness areas should have congressional approval as do those withdrawals of public lands for military use.

CONCLUSION

Cattlemen are of the opinion that wilderness legislation is unnecessary because government agencies are already administering and maintaining adequate wilderness areas.

Our growing population calls for a fluid management policy of our public lands rather than a restrictive one as reflected by the wilderness legislation.

The proponents of the wilderness bill should tell the people the truth about their bill, because it is restrictive and would prevent most people from enjoying the most scenic portions of our country.

The proposed legislation on wilderness areas strikes at the very core of the multiple use concept of our public lands. The future of livestock grazing in such areas is questionable under the provisions of the subject legislation.

The problem facing our State is to find adequate mass recreation facilities for the family on weekend outings. Our public lands will of necessity have to play an increasing role in providing such recreational outlets.

THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT ASSOCIATION,
Phoenix, Ariz., April 2, 1959.

INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE,
U.S. Senate.

GENTLEMAN: On November 14, 1958, in Albuquerque, N. Mex., the Central Arizona Project Association, in conjunction with six other Arizona resource groups, submitted a statement in opposition to any wilderness preservation legislation.

Once again, this association submits that statement. In the present bill, S. 1123, was have found no changes from earlier bills that would lead us to modify our position. The purpose of the bill remains that of setting aside large areas of public lands for nonuse.

The other resource groups which joined in the statement of November 14, 1958, are submitted their views individually at this Phoenix hearing on S. 1123, but they, too, remain opposed to the proposed legislation.

RICH JOHNSON, Executive Secretary.

STATEMENT OF THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
NOVEMBER 14, 1958.

INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE,
U.S. Senate.

GENTLEMEN: We, the undersigned, have primary interests in orderly and wise development of all the natural resources of public lands in keeping with the long-established principle of multiple use. We recognize these uses to include the many types of recreational opportunities afforded by public lands, grazing for domestic and wild animals, the production of commercial timber, mining, and water yield for domestic, agricultural, and industrial use.

Because of the chronic shortage of water in most of the Western States, and the developing water shortage throughout the Nation, we do place a special emphasis upon public lands as watersheds. And since an overwhelmingly large percentage of the public lands are located in Western States, we believe there is particular significance to those States in any proposal to establish a wilderness preservation system.

We understand the purpose of a wilderness preservation system, no matter how it may be apparently limited by definition, to be that of setting aside large areas of public lands for the specific purpose of eliminating from such areas all such forms of management as would make them useful for any purpose other than the enjoyment of scenic solitude.

To detail our reasons for opposing any legislation to establish a national wilderness preservation system, we wish to bring the following points to your attention:

1. A national wilderness preservation system is, in both theory and practice, contrary to and destructive of the principle of multiple use for public lands: According to the book, "The Federal Lands-Their Use and Management," published for Resources for the Future (p. 77), use of public lands presently administered as primitive or wilderness areas amounts to only 1 or 2 percent of total visits to national forests. Thus, the proposed wilderness preservation system is an attempt to dedicate forever to a small handful of people the exclusive use of millions of acres of Federal lands.

To put it another way, 98 percent of Americans who visit our national forests want to do so on good roads and they want at least comfortable faciliites for obtaining food and shelter. By definition, proposed wilderness areas are to be roadless, accessible only by hiking or horse trails, with no constructed accommodations to be permitted.

We submit that any wilderness preservation system is, in effect, a method of posting no trespassing signs against the American people around vast amounts of land supposedly belonging to them through their Government.

2. A wilderness preservation system would effectively and permanently prevent enlightened and intensive modern management of forest lands: Federal and State agencies in Arizona, California, and other Western States are currently engaged in a reappraisal of management practices connected with public lands. Public money is being spent in large amounts to learn the best methods of increasing the resource value of public lands to the public.

Public and private timber forest managers recognize that trees must be thinned and brush and forest debris must be cleared out to promote production of commercial timber, and to prevent or control wild forest fires.

Lacking such management, wilderness areas would become self-destructive fire traps. As such, they would also be an ever-present menace to all lands surrounding them. Barring the general public from wilderness areas would not materially reduce the fire hazard, for statistics show very clearly that by far the greater number of forest fires are the result of nature's own lightning, rather than man's carelessness with incendiary materials.

3. In Western States, particularly the Southwestern States, where of necessity most new wilderness areas would be established, the wilderness principle cannot be identified with proper management of public lands as watersheds.

Where annual precipitation is considerably less than is normal for States east of the Mississippi River, watershed management for maximum yields of water must emphasize the conservation of precipitated water, rather than mere control of floodwaters.

Every drop of water must be made to produce something of economic worth, such as grass, quality commercial timber, and above all, water for the people and industries and the agriculture that is the backbone of our economic and social existence. Our great valley cities, our green irrigated empires, are the product of our watersheds. We must manage those watersheds, in accordance with the principle of multiple-purpose use, but ultimately for their primary value as watersheds if we are to continue to grow and prosper.

We cannot so manage areas that are dedicated to untouchable wilderness. 4. State water rights are seriously threatened by the proposed wilderness preservation system: The Federal Government presently claims the right to ignore State water rights and laws on federally reserved lands.

The proposed wilderness preservation system would establish vast new Federal reserve areas upon which hundreds of cities and irrigation districts depend solely or in large part for their supply of runoff water, through water rights established under State water laws.

5. The blocking off or setting aside of great wilderness areas on Federal lands would greatly increase the difficulty and cost of administering, managing, and utilizing adjacent lands owned by the States or the Federal Government or in private ownership: Access roads to lands outside the wilderness areas would have to skirt the wilderness. Their costs would be so great as to be prohibitive in many cases; their usefulness so impaired in other cases that development of lands adjacent to wildness areas wuold be impractical even in the best interest of the public. Needed resources might well be locked up merely because the lands containing them were in the vicinity of wilderness

areas.

For these reasons we believe any wilderness preservation system is completely incompatible with the multiple-use principle of public lands management; that it is discriminatory against the general public; and that it prevents sound and orderly development of natural resources essential to the future welfare of the American people.

We are therefore opposed to any proposal presently under consideration, or which may be devised in the future, to establish by legislation or by administrative decree any wilderness preservation system in the United States.

CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT ASSOCIATION.

ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS.

PHOENIX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

ARIZONA WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE.

ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION.

ARIZONA STATE RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION.

SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS ASSOCIATION.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. MICKLE, PRESIDENT OF PHOENIX, ARIZ., TITLE & TRUST CO.

To a large and complex body of law concerning administration and management of Federal holdings, it is now proposed to superimpose another measure, along with another bureaucratie group to ride shotgun for it.

The wilderness preservation bill, S. 1123, is totally unnecessary. The U.S. Forest Service now administers some 14 million acres of its land for that pur