tion, vice president of the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association, chairman of the Arizona section of the American Society of Range Management, chairman of the Tonto National Forest Advisory Board, and clerk of the Roosevelt Elementary School District.

Both my personal and service organization knowledge of Federal land administration leads me to the following conclusions:

(1) I oppose the enactment of S. 1123, or any legislation of this kind, which would convert large areas of land to the single use of a limited group or number of American people.

(2) I oppose the enactment of S. 1123 because I am dedicated to the support of the principle of multiple use of Federal lands.

(3) I oppose the enactment of S. 1123 because I am convinced passage of the bill would measureably reduce school tax revenues. The taxable value of my school district would be lowered and hence income reduced. Aid received by the school district under Public Law 874 is certainly not enough; taxable values are vital.

(4) I oppose the enactment of S. 1123 because as shown by past experience our large bureaucratic departments with civil service protection would, with certainty, administer this act with little or no regard to individual, local, or State situations.

(5) I oppose S. 1123 because it would restrict future mining exploration and development. Some of the largest copper mines in the United States are near the Superstition wilderness area. To limit development of new mining properties is most undesirable.

(6) I oppose S. 1123 because it would limit, as well as deplete, hunting resources. My range has provided one of the better hunting areas in the State. The number of hunters during wild hog and deer seasons on this range runs into the hundreds. But this new bill would stop all predator control on or near the wilderness area, and create an unmanageable situation for both game and livestock.

(7) I oppose the enactment of S. 1123 because it will limit grazing in whole or part on numerous ranches resulting in economic loss to the nearby local communities.

I submit that S. 1123 should not be enacted into law because of the above listed reasons. Rather, I stand behind the multiple-use principle, and maintain that only by continuing and improving true multiple-use legislation can we insure the fair and greatest benefits to the greatest number of people.

STATEMENT OF AMERICAN NATIONAL CATTLEMAN'S ASSOCIATION

The American National Cattlemen's Association has gone on record in opposition to previous wilderness bills and respectfully submits that the new bill now under consideration is still unacceptable to the Nation's cattle grower's.

In spite of the new language in S. 1123, there are still many objections, most of which have been raised in previous testimony. Rather than again discuss the bill point by point, we list two basic objections which stand out above all others: (1) The proposal gives wilderness legislative statute beyond its proper place in the multiple-use philosophy, a concept essential to equitable conservation and development of our public domain.

(2) The bill still would create a built-in lobby to further this one facet of public land administration and advance the unbalance that the legislation would create.

We therefore wish to register our opposition to the passage of S. 1123.

STATEMENT OF THE APACHE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Hon. Senator GOLDWATER,

Phoenix, Ariz.

SPRINGERVILLE, ARIZ., March 27, 1959.

DEAR SENATOR GOLDWATER: It is our desire to offer strenuous objection to U.S. Senate bill 1123, the so-called wilderness bill. We request this letter be represented at the hearing which will be held in Phoenix, April 2, 1959.

We are sure that you are acquainted with the workings of the Apache Soil Conservation District. We are sure, too, that we have a genuine interest i conservation use of basic renewable natural resources.

Our 17th year as a district has just been completed. During these years much has been accomplished. Our main purpose is to help farmers and ranchers with the wide variety of soil and water conservation problems. Our aim is every acre to its best use. Now, best use is not a nearsighted view or goal. The efforts of this organization are directed at preserving and protecting every acre so that it will give its maximum today, tomorrow, and to the generations yet unborn.

Our studies have been intensive and extensive in scope. The best technical help available from private and governmental sources has been used through the years.

Our belief is firmly and strongly held that the principle of multiple use is valid, sound in every way. Further, that it is the lifeblood of this whole area, and has a profound effect on the economy of our entire State and Nation. Without proper use of these lands thousands of happy, contented citizens would have their whole communities wrecked.

Over the years we feel the multiple-use plan has offered and will offer more to the masses of people from both economical and recreational standpoints. We respectfully urge your opposition to the Senate bill 1123.

Sincerely yours,

MELVIN S. CROSBY, Chairman, Board of Supervisors.

STATEMENT OF THE CORONADO TRAIL SPORTSMEN

CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION,

CLIFTON, ARIZ., March 30, 1959.

Wilderness Legislation Hearings, Phoenix, Ariz.

GENTLEMEN: The officers and board of directors of the Coronado Trail Sportsmen of Clifton-Morenci, Ariz., are unanimous in their agreement that the best interests of the sportsmen of this area would not be served by any so-called wilderness bills now pending.

We feel that the Forest Service as presently operated, maintains sufficient areas where complete wilderness exists to satisfy the primitive desires of the very limited number of people who can take advantage of them.

We also feel that the proper harvesting of our game and fish requires even more roads, trails, and camping facilities than are now available.

We believe that the multiple use of our forests would be defeated by such legislation, and we therefore shall request our Senators and Representatives to vote their opposition to all such bills presented at the present time.

Yours truly,

(Signed) BRYANT PHINIZY, President, Coronado Trail Sportsmen.

RESOLUTION OF THE COOLIDGE (ARIZ.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Resolved by the Legislative Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of Coolidge, Ariz., this 31st day of March 1959, that the Coolidge Chamber of Commerce: (1) Is opposed to S. 1123, National Wilderness Preservation Act in its present form; (2) recognizes that the basic principles embodied in the act are meritorious; (3) recommends that safeguards by way of hearing and appeal from administrative determinations be provided within the act so that local and statewide economic interests shall be adequately protected.

LETTER OF C. C. FAIRES, GLOBE, ARIZ.

GLOBE, ARIZ., April 6, 1959.

Hon. JAMES MURRAY,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office
Building, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: It was with deep regret that I was unable to get to Phoenix to testify in the hearing on the wilderness bill, S. 1123. However, being of about the same age, I hope you will understand, and permit me these few words in support of the bill.

I have been an active hunter and fisherman all of my life, and for many years have packed into the Black River roadless area with a large party of my fellow fishermen. I have hunted and fished in Arizona since the days when we made our trips by wagon, and I feel very strongly the necessity for protecting some of these areas for our future generations if we want them to cherish some of the traditions of America.

At the same time, I am cognizant of the need for proper management of our resources and watersheds, but I cannot see any real conflict. If there is, it should be compromised, and not allowed to prevent needed legislative protection for these areas we already have.

From newspaper accounts I was gratified to learn that the bill aroused considerable support from interested citizens to offset to some extent the opposition of the commercial interests, and I also was gratified to learn that even the commercial interests seemed to be strongly in support of our present system of wilderness areas, roadless areas, wild areas, and primitive areas. It would seem to me that possibly we should take advantge of this support and set up legislation, to protect these areas now, and let this new resources review commission deal with the problem of evaluating other proposed wilderness areas. Yours sincerely, C. C. FAIRES.

ARIZONA SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL 3

A joint memorial requesting the Congress of the United States to prevent enactment of a proposed bill establishing a national wilderness preservation system and designating certain areas to be maintained as a wilderness

To the Congress of the United States of America:

Your memorialist respectfully represents:

A bill has been introduced into the Congress of the United States providing for the designation and maintenance of wilderness areas within the States, and such areas shall be supervised and maintained by the Federal Government.

It is acknowledged that the Government of the United States now owns approximately 70 percent of the land in Arizona. The enactment of this oppressive legislation would have the tendency to either increase the Federal lands within this State or to cause the Federal Government to exercise more stringent regulations over the land it already owns and controls.

Federal lands within this State now include an abundant supply of wilderness reservations. It is entirely possible that rigid regulations, which might well be imposed, would deny the scenic wonders of these areas to many thousands of visitors annually. Moreover, such regulation might make fire protection difficult, or more expensive or it might encroach upon the water rights of the State of Arizona. All these factors would retard the economic development of this State.

Wherefore your memorialist, the Legislature of the State of Arizona, prays: That the Congress of the United States consider carefully the impact of the proposed legislation relating to a national wilderness system since it appears to the Legislature of the State of Arizona that enactment of such a measure will unduly restrict the use of the wilderness areas and retard the economic development of this State. Moreover, the U.S. Government now controls vast areas of land within this State and any approach to this problem should be in the direction of relinquishing control rather than subjecting additional areas of land within this State to Federal control or cumbersome regulations.

IDAHO HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 6

To the honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled:

We, your memorialists, the Legislature of the State of Idaho, respectfully represent that

Whereas there is now pending in the Congress of the United States a bill known as H.R. 1929 to establish a national wilderness preservation system; and Whereas the economy of the State of Idaho is based upon its agriculture, mining, lumber, sheep and cattle industries, and the use of its waters for irrigation and hydroelectric power; and

Whereas the enactment of this bill will deny to the natural resources industries of the State of Idaho the right to wisely develop the natural resources contained in the great primitive areas of this State, and further deny access to these primitive areas to millions of American citizens, all to the detriment of the said industries and to the people of the State of Idaho; and

Whereas one of the great potential industries of the State of Idaho is its tourist trade and wildlife attractions: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, State of Idaho (the Senate concurring), That we most respectfully oppose the enactment of said H.R. 1929, for the reasons that the enactment of said bill prevents the normal development and utilization of the natural resources contained in such a wilderness system, that the agricultural, mining, timber, sheep and cattle industries, and the wildlife and tourist industries will be irreparably damaged, and that the present very satisfactory and normal administration of our natural resources by the present land management agencies will be superseded and replaced by another unnecessary Federal bureau; be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of state of the State of Idaho be authorized and he is hereby directed to immediately forward certified copies of this memorial to the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America, the Secretary of the Interior, and to the Senators and the Representatives in Congress from this State.

UTAH HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 3

A concurrent resolution memorializing the Congress of the United States to oppose proposed national wilderness preservation acts

Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Utah (the Governor concurring therein):

Whereas on January 9, 1959, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives of the United States of America, 86th Congress, 1st session, to establish a national wilderness preservation system, and it is anticipated that an identical bill will be introduced in the Senate of the United States of America during the same session; and

Whereas said bills, each to be known as a National Wilderness Preservation Act, authorize the immediate withdrawal of approximately 50 million acres of federally owned lands and the continued withdrawal of federally owned or controlled lands in the future, upon decision of Federal officials, into a national wilderness preservation system, to be so protected and administered as to preserve the wilderness character of the lands withdrawn and contained therein; and

Whereas approximately 72 percent of the land in the State of Utah is owned and controlled by the Federal Government and is subject to withdrawal under the act; and

Whereas any development of lands withdrawn inconsistent with the preservation of said lands for the single purpose of wilderness areas is prohibited by the act; and

Whereas Utah stands at the threshold of a new era of prosperity through the multiple development of mineral, water, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and wilderness resources on its federally owned lands as presently permitted under law; and

Whereas there was in fact, legislation enacted in 1957 by the Congress of the United States establishing an Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission to inventory our wilderness resource and report to the Congress in 1961: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the 33d Legislature of the State of Utah (the Governor concurring therein), That the 86th Congress of the United States of America be and is hereby memorialized to oppose and vote against any proposed "National Wilderness Preservation Act" as inimical to the future development of the State of Utah and the prosperity of those U.S. citizens residing therein, and as premature and unnecessary legislation; be it further

Resolved, That certified copies of the above be transmitted to the President and Vice President of the United States, the President of the Senate of the Congress, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Congress, U.S. Senator Wallace F. Bennett, U.S. Senator Frank E. Moss, Representative Henry Aldous Dixon, Representative David S. King, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular

Affairs, and the Governors and Legislature of the following states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.

LETTER OF DALE L. SLOCUM, PHOENIX, ARIZ.

Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,

PHOENIX, ARIZ., April 2, 1959.

Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,
Washington, D.O.

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I would like to restate my previous stand favoring the wilderness preservation concept as prescribed in Senate bill 1123 presently being considered in Congress and upon which field hearings have been called in Phoenix, Ariz., April 2, 1959.

I believe that such a measure is necessary for the preservation of areas prescribed in the bill and that such areas are beneficial to the health and welfare of our Nation.

As field editor of the Arizona Wildlife Sportsman magazine I would like to enter upon the congressional record a recent editorial favoring the wilderness bill which represents the view of its staff. A clipping is herewith attached. Sincerely asking your careful consideration of the measure, I remain, Gratefully yours,

DALE L. SLOCUM, Field Editor, Arizona Wildlife Sportsman.

[From the Arizona Wildlife Sportsman, March 1959]

WHAT THE WILDERNESS BILL WILL DO FOR YOU
(By Dale Slocum)

Probably of the utmost importance it would provide you with a factfinding agency where you could obtain information concerning the wilderness areas and their status at the time you would like that information available. At the present time it is almost impossible to wade through the red tape to find out the actual status of such areas. An example of this recently came to light when the hearing on the bill was held in Albuquerque. Neither the Forest Service nor the Indian Agency was certain of the status of the Mount Thomas, Baldy or the Black River areas in Arizona. Those opposed to the bill apparently would condone such lax administration.

It would provide by congressional action, that multiple-use practices be employed on those area. At the present time the multiple-use practices are only a policy of the U.S. Forest Service worked out without specific direction by Congress. It is subject to change at the whim of its administrators.

It would not set aside vast new areas of land as the opposition has stated. Actually what the bill does is simply protect those areas that have already been designated as suited for wilderness areas by the Forest Service and Park Service.

It would in no way restrict any area from hunting that is not already so restricted or withdrawn. In fact, the bill provides, "*** to protect and preserve the soil and the vegetation thereon beneficial to wildlife." This requires control of fire and overgrazing, and such measures as hunting to prevent overbrowsing by wild game. Such areas where hunting would not be permitted would be those already contained within the boundaries of the park system or within special sanctuaries that have been set aside by State action.

At the present time there are 12 areas classified as "wilderness" totaling 4,725,077 acres. Twenty-one "wild areas" having 726,168 acres, and the Minnesota "roadless areas" totaling 1,038,743 acres. These total less than 8 percent of the 181 million acres in the national forests, and already have restricted logging, grazing and mining for watershed protection.

Perhaps, one might ask, "If such areas are already set aside, why must Congress enact a bill to do what is already being done?"

The answer is simply, "It would give the general public-the people who own public lands- a voice in saying what shall be done with the wilderness areas. This voice would be exercised at public hearings, and through your elected representatives to Congress."

39871-59-31