printed hearing record. Since it is pertinent, it should go in the record now.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,

FOREST SERVICE, Washington, D.C., August 7, 1958.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The enclosed summary of the composition of the active multiple-use advisory committees to the Forest Service dealing with national forest matters is transmitted in reply to the request of Senator Neuberger at hearings of July 23 before your committee on S. 4028, relating to the establishment of a national wilderness preservation system. The summary is as of June 1, 1958, and is for insertion on page 43 of the transcript of the hearings. It is difficult and perhaps not too realistic to classify members by individual interests. Most members of these committees have broad interests covering more than one aspect of national forest matters.

Very truly yours,

EDWARD C. CRAFTS, Assistant Chief.

Interests represented on active multiple-use advisory committees to the Forest Service dealing with national-forest matters, as of June 1, 1958

Senator JACKSON. The first witness is Mr. Osseward, Seattle, president of the Olympic Park Associates. Mr. Osseward, you go right

ahead.

STATEMENT OF JOHN OSSEWARD, PRESIDENT, OLYMPIC PARK ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mr. OSSEWARD. My name is John Osseward. I am president of Olympic Park Associates, Inc., and chairman of the Northwest Wilderness Bill Coordinating Committee. I live at 12730 Ninth Avenue, NW., Seattle, Wash., and am a public accountant. I am presenting this statement in full for the record but omitting much of it in reading in order to save time.

Senator JACKSON. Without objection the entire statement will be included in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN OSSEWARD, PRESIDENT, OLYMPIC PARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Senator Jackson, Senator Magnuson, and members of the staff, my name is John Osseward. I am president of the Olympic Park Associates, Inc., and chairman of the Northwest Wilderness Bill Coordinating Committee. I live at 12730 Ninth Avenue NW., Seattle, Wash., and am a public accountant. I am presenting this statement in full for the record but omitting much of it in reading in order to save time.

Our organization reaffirms the position it took at the Bend, Oreg., hearing in favor of the wilderness bill, and we recommend its earliest possible enactment. Mr. Chairman, in opening the case in favor of the wilderness bill, I should like to present first of all the remarks that Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, and Senator James E. Murray of Montana made on February 19, 1959, when this bill S. 1123, was introduced in the Senate and also the supplementary memorandums submitted at that time by Senator Humphrey, entitled, "A description of the National Wilderness Preservation Bill," together with a selection of reports and comments on the wilderness bill. These remarks and this description provide something that is most essential to an understanding of just what the wilderness bill is. Most of our trouble so far has come from misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the bill.

1

The wilderness bill, as Senator Humphrey explained, S. 1123, is the result of considerable modification to meet suggestions and the reasonable objections of governmental departments concerned, as well as private organizations. It has been our purpose to avoid conflicts with existing programs. At the Bend hearing we were amazed when person after person testifying against this bill indicated that "vast additional areas of public lands would be locked up." On the contrary, it should be clearly understood that the wilderness bill does not withdraw any additional area from other uses. Let me emphasize this one point, that commercial utilization is presently not allowed in any of the areas which would become a part of the national wilderness preservation system under the wilderness bill.

The bill merely adds the recognition and protection of law to the existing wilderness of our present national parks, those wild, primitive, and wilderness areas presently dedicated under the Forest Service's existing multiple-use program, and certain wildlife refuges. Indian land would not be involved without the consent of the Indians. Under present laws and regulations the important existing wilderness areas of our national forests receive protection through administrative action only.

Units of the national wilderness preservation system would continue under the proposed law to be administered by the same agencies that now have jurisdiction over these areas. There would be no interference with the existing Forest Service multiple-use concept or the purposes for which the national forests are established. Congressional approval would be required for additions of wilderness as well as for deletions. Grazing, motorboating, and aircraft landings would be permitted where these practices have already become well established. The Forest Service would control disease and insects and the President may authorize prospecting, mining, and the establishment of water reservoirs, including road building found essential to these ends. It would therefore appear, that continued resistance to enactment of the wilderness bill confirms our fears that industry has further plans of appropriating to themselves the wilderness we now have.

Dr. Ira N. Gabrielson, perhaps the country's No. 1 conservationist, pointed this out very forcefully earlier this month in his keynote opening address to the 24th North American Wildlife Conference held in New York City March 1 to 4, 1959. Dr. Gabrielson, who is president of the Wildlife Management Institute and chairman of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, outlined what he called "major problems whose solution will require united effort." He spoke first of the wilderness bill and called it an "important item of unfinished business."

"This is needed fundamental legislation," he said, "to establish a congressional policy and program that will preserve some of our land in its natural wildness. He went on to say:

"It affects only about 22 percent of our land and as now drafted and introduced avoids interference with other programs and existing interests. There is no sound public reason why the present bill, S. 1123, and companion measures in the House, should not be enacted.

"Nevertheless, we have a fight on our hands. We may as well recognize it. The fight is not against any interests who will be damaged by the proposed bill but rather it is against interests who have hopes of raiding the few re maining areas of wilderness for their own purposes whenever the future may offer them a chance.

The documents offered will be found in the Congressional Record of Feb. 19, 1959.

"The very fact that livestock, lumber, and other commercial interests are so ruthlessly fighting this bill is evidence that they are actually opposed to reasonable safeguards for any public areas. Their pious words for wilderness are forgotten when they face a practical program to preserve it.

"I know that some of the chief proponents of this wilderness bill have hoped to avoid controversy and have done everything possible to design a measure that meets valid objections. This is a good way to plan and develop a sound public program. But I have said from the beginning that we need not kid ourselves. The same interests that have been trying to raid public lands for their purposes are going to fight any program for more effective protection." "We should start here and now," Dr. Gabrielson urged, "to see that all the people of the United States understand the issues at stake."

I am glad that such a hearing as this can help make these issues clear and speed the day for enactment of this much needed legislation.

IT'S GETTING CROWDED IN THE GREAT OUTDOORS

James

Recreationists are swamping our present outdoor facilities, according to an article entitled, "It's Getting Crowded in the Great Outdoors," in the March 29, 1957, issue of U.S. News & World Report. The article points out a visitor increase of 113 percent in the 6-year period ending 1956. In that year 55 million people visited our national parks, 50 million to the national forests, and 71 million visited our man-made lakes, a total of 176 million in all. Add to that 180 million who were drawn to State parks. The attendance continues to increase. B. Craig, editor of the American Forest magazine, has this comment: "State-owned parks, forests, and wildlife areas have shown substantial increases in some States in recent years. Whether those increases have been sufficiently large to keep pace with an exploding population in terms of tomorrow's needs is something else again. *** To say that existing State installations will be hard pressed to meet mounting recreational needs is to beg the question. Existing installations simply won't meet these pressures unless something is done about it--and soon. * * * The cry of no more land is something new to Americans only one generation removed from pioneering ancestors. we are reaching the point, if we haven't reached it already, when all land use needs must be scrupulously planned and balanced in terms of the best interests of the American people as a whole. Healthy recreational outlets should have a high priority on any planning totem pole."

But

The 4-day workweek is predicted and the 3- and 4-week vacation has already appeared on the scene. The impact of additional leisure time will compel the public servants of cities, counties, and the Federal Government to reevaluate the present supply of lands judged predominantly of recreational value. There are many forms of amusement and recreation, from crowded city parks and beaches to sailing, fishing, hunting, camping, and wilderness travel. For generations, Americans have enjoyed free access to wilderness areas. However, of recent years, in the State of Washington, more yellow gates and roadblocks appear each year to exclude the public from cutting areas underlain with hazardous slash conditions. In one lifetime we have seen primeval wilderness reduced till it is now contained in our national parks, and those dedicated wild, primitive, and wilderness areas of the national forests. And yet we witness reductions of the low altitude forests from the primitive areas as they are reclassified; reducing wilderness in view of a greater demand for it.

Wilderness, to the American people, "is something so closely tied in with their traditions, so tightly woven into their cultural backgrounds, their emotions and philosophies of life, that it cannot be ignored or neglected." 1a

In recent years, the U.S. Forest Service, in reclassifying primitive areas, appears unwilling to determine the forest approaches under 3,500 feet of elevation as being predominantly of wilderness value, if it is economically feasible to cut. Yet these forests-one of our last remnants together with those of the western Olympic rain forests-are a prelude to the mountains themselves. The forests and the alpine regions complement each other; each is a necessary element to the proper enjoyment and appreciation of the other. The forested valleys within the primitive areas to be classified are the natural entrances to the mountain wilderness and without the forests the mountains would be like a house devoid of surrounding lawn and shrubbery.

Sigurd F. Olson, president, National Parks Association.

FORESTRY

There appear to be sound alternatives to that of cutting primitive areas upon reclassification. It is a well-known fact that the lack of access roads has prevented the full allowable cut on private and, more particularly, Federal forest lands. An adequate access road program is the first essential in any intensive forestry plan. While the forest industries have made very substantial progress with respect to better resource utilization, they have a long way to go if present progress is compared to potential goals. It is now an accepted and well-known fact that forestry when intensively practiced, can produce twice and even three times the present production per acre and still operate within an allowed annual sustained-yield cutting budget. Prof. Burt P. Kirkland, of the American Forestry Association, published his epic study in 1946, called the "Forest Resources of the Douglas-fir Region" for the West Coast Lumbermen's Association and the Pacific Northwest Logger's Association. In this study he pointed out that intensive forest practices applied to the Douglas-fir region could double its 7-billion-board-foot annual sustained-yield cutting budget.

He said: "If all these means of utilizing actual growth and saving rot loss could be fully employed, the west coast forests would supply 13.1 billion feet of timber annually and keep on a sustained yield. In fact, Kirkland predicts a possible sustained yield of 20 billion feet if all our forest acres could be brought to full growing capacity."

Mr. H. D. Hagenstein, forest engineer of the Industrial Forestry Association of Portland, predicted through the columns of the Seattle Times, January 5, 1953, as follows: "Many foresters, and the writer is amongst them, believe that once all of our old growth forests have been converted to growing forests, there will be an annual growth far in excess of any past or foreseeable demands."

Richard E. McArdle, Chief of the Forest Service, stated in the "Timber Resource Review" of January 1958: "Tomorrow the Nation's need for timber will be strikingly greater than today or at any time in the past. We have the potential to meet that need if we fully apply our forestry knowledge and skills promptly, with vigor and determination.

"That, in brief is the essence of our findings in this comprehensive appraisal of the timber situation in the United States."

And in conclusion he said further: "The report should convince the reader that the United States is not faced with an acute timber shortage. There is no timber famine in the offing although shortages of varying kinds and degrees may be expected. But it is equally clear that there is little danger of timber becoming a surplus crop. To meet timber demands will take earnest effort. Meeting those needs will require not only early action but an intensity of forestry practices that will startle many of us. What we do in the next 10 or 20 years will determine whether we shall grow enough timber to enable our children and their children to enjoy the timber abundance that we ourselves know." [Italic supplied.]

3

Here in the States of Washington and Oregon there are 1.4 million acres of poorly stocked seedlings and sapling stands and 2.7 million acres of nonstocked timber areas. Old growth mortality exceeds the allowable cut which would result from cutting the low altitude forests presently protected in the unclassified primitive areas, and inventories of timber have been adjusted upward from 50 to 100 percent in recent resurveys.

In the State of Washington clear cutting of second growth timber is a serious shortcoming which has many foresters worried.

Approximately one-third of every log chemically treated to produce pulp is for the most part still wasted in lignin. "The U.S. pulpwood industry alone, last year processed more than 4 billion cubic feet of wood containing close to 20 million tons of lignin. Today's pulpmill lignin is little more than a nuisance. The great bulk of it is either burned or sluiced into streams, polluting the water and poisoning the fish. It is a chemical enigma and a major industrial waste."

994

Old-fashioned cost systems are still classifying the forest management function as burden expense rather than a capital expenditure.

2 "Forest Resources of the Douglas-Fir Region," Burt P. Kirkland, July 1946, p. 11. "A Summary of the Timber Resources Review," Forest Resource Report No. 14, p. 35. Scientific American, October 1958, p. 104, "Lignin," F. F. Nord and Walter Schubert.

"To the investor, the simple error of accounting for wood production as a loss item leads to the most serious of misconceptions in forest finance." "

Good forest management must be planned on a long-term basis and the progress of the plan must not depend on short-termed cycles of profit and loss. Intensive forestry requires a confidence in the future of the industry to encourage the investment of risk capital. Good cost accounting would be an invaluable aid to foresters and will aid management in discovering and correcting defects in methods, physical facilities, manpower, capital requirements, and organization.

It would appear that there are other means of increasing the allowable cut of timber than to encroach on wilderness needs for the future.

THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

We are not thinking in big enough terms for future recreational needs. We seem to be measuring future needs in terms of the present. Whether we wish to recognize it or not, there is an overwhelming agreement by authorities in many fields, that America is entering into the initial stage of a fourth industrial revolution.

These men indicate that a profound and fast-moving modification of man's environment is already becoming manifested by the impact of automation, dynamic population increases, bold breakthroughs in many fields of science and an exciting assurance of enormous amounts of cheap nuclear energy.

George Soule, an economist with the Bureau of Economic Research, in his book, "Time for Living," says "automation, atomic power and other developments are leading to a new form of civilization, one that will be as different from the form we now call 'modern' as the Renaissance was different from the Middle Ages."

Mr. George L. Ridgeway, director of economic research for the International Business Machine Corp. predicted in the New York Times, March 27, 1955, that by 1970 there would be a 4-day workweek with a 20-percent increase in pay.

Arnold M. Ross, professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota says in "Automation and the Future Society": "Technologists and economists have predicted that we are on the verge of a series of radical changes in industrial technology which will revolutionize productive processes. The consequences in terms of human relations and social institutions in such a revolution are certain to be enormous."

These are pretty strong words and I think we must take some heed and plan some of the humanities to catch up with the pace of science. These events will have a direct impact on recreation and wilderness.

Professor Ross foresees in the future certain dislocations and hardships during the transitional period but in the long run a raised standard of living and a great increase in population. Automation will become common in the factory and the office. The great rise in productivity may be expected to raise real income, raise the standard of living, reduce the hours of labor, causing a great increase of leisure time activities. Jobs will cease to dominate man's life and political, family, religious and cultural activity will become significant. But he emphasizes: "It is likely that the things that fill the leisure time of the average citizen will shape the future to a greater extent than any other set of factors." In view of this type of thinking, I am sure that we should not be making any decisions now to reduce the areas of the present dedicated wilderness for public use.

An industrial revolution occurs when there is a sudden great increase of industrial productivity by less man hours of labor. The first two revolutions occurred in England. The third was started in the early part of the present century by Henry Ford and it was characterized by "mass production" whereby the workers became machine operators. The great increase of production was shared by the stockholders, labor, and the general public in the form of better products, more earnings and shorter hours of work. The present technological revolution is characterized by the machine, once instructed, running itself, which is automation.

The electronic computor, perhaps more than any other single invention of the past 20 years promises to revolutionize science, business, and industry. The computor is a tool which has raised man's horizon immeasurably. It is by

"Washington State Forestry Proceedings." Seattle, 1957; "Forestry Aspects," D. N. Jeffers, branch forester, Longview Division, Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., p. 16.