Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Wine.

Mr. L. V. Venable, representing the Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Venable? Anyone here from the Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce? When he comes in, if you will, have him notify me. Mr. C. J. Hopkins? I imagine they are together. Mr. Hopkins? STATEMENT OF C. J. HOPKINS, REPRESENTING THE PENINSULA PLYWOOD CORP.

Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is C. J. Hopkins and I am making this statement as a representative for Peninsula Plywood Corp. at Port Angeles, Wash.

This statement is being made to your committee supporting opposition to wilderness area Senate bill 1123 as an expression of vital interest and concern in this proposed law by working people who are personally affected and concerned by this type of legislation. The ownership of our company, Peninsula Plywood Corp. at Port Angeles, is vested in some 260 common stockholders, of which approximately 240 work in their own plant and live in the Port Angeles community, plus approximately 100 nonstockholder employees. These people form a definite segment of that community's economic and cultural pattern by enabling that more than $2 million per year are earned and spent locally through the payroll alone of the plywood plant operation which they conduct. The company owned and operated by these solid community citizens is a State of Washington corporation that pays its full share of all applicable local, State and Federal taxes. The principal source of raw material to supply this 17-year-old local industry comes from public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Creation and expansion of the Olympic National Park adjacent to the Port Angeles area has already locked up some 18 billion board feet of merchantable timber within its 896,000 acres, and is a constant reminder to us of the tremendous waste and losses in public resource potential that maintain in areas dedicated to single use purpose. Our people are absolutely opposed to any other type of public land administration than that being followed by the U.S. Forest Service where good multiple-use policy and practice_create earning power, funds for support of public schools and roads, stability of community industries, and a general concern for the individual needs of all American citizens and still leaves the areas fully productive. We are opposed to any line of thought, as encompassed in Senate bill 1123, which sets aside considerable portions of public domain for the single purpose of catering to a small minority of American citizenry when those same areas could, through proper multiple-use practices, be much more completely enjoyed and appreciated by a far greater percentage of our fellow citizens. We are completely confident that a much more broadminded administration, suitable to the average American, can and will result from following multiple-use procedures currently available. The following of sensible multiple-use practice in administering all areas of public land ownership will greatly enhance the basic principle of handling these lands in the manner that will be most acceptable in doing the greatest good for the greatest number.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Hopkins. You don't happen to have the statement of Mr. Venable.

Mr. HOPKINS. No, I do not, but I know that he is here and will be back shortly.

Senator JACKSON. All right. He desires to be heard?

Mr. HOPKINS. He does.

Senator JACKSON. You have him let me know when he comes, if you will please. Thank you very much.

Dr. Murray Johnson, Tacoma. You may proceed, Doctor.

STATEMENT OF DR. MURRAY L. JOHNSON, TACOMA, WASH.

Dr. JOHNSON. Senator Jackson, ladies and gentlemen, I testify today only as a private citizen who was born and raised in the State of Washington and who has personal knowledge of the areas involved in the National Wilderness Preservation Act. I testify, I believe, also for a number of my friends with whom I have talked this situation over in the last number of years.

I have only three points to make beyond the aims that are admirably stated in the act.

First, during the past 30 years my friends and I have seen innumerable primitive areas opened up by roads and commercial enterprises. We realize that this is necessary progress and that it will continue. We accept this as inevitable in the face of expanding population. There are tremendous areas in our State now available by road; these areas become larger each year. Thus we are providing increased outlets for our people as part of the natural progression of events. It is, however, a false premise that these areas maintain all their desirable properties. The same roads that allow access to the interested forest user also attract a few undesirable persons. Trash along our highways and vandalism in roadside parks eloquently attest to this.

Second, I must refute the often repeated argument against the Wilderness Act that it sets aside these wild areas only for the few who can afford it. As all of us know, walking and/or camping in wilderness is one of the least expensive and most rewarding of experiences. It is only when commercial enterprises appear that the price may go into the range of the favored few. Even horse packing as is done by many groups is within the price range of even the lowest paid wage earner.

Third, in the past several years I have personally talked with a great number of our responsible Washington citizens regarding the principles of the wilderness system. These have been from all walks of life and in many categories of business. I can only state what appears to be a great unanimity of opinion that this system is a necessity. We in the Northwest are a population of outdoor lovers. We want some wilderness left for our children.

In summary, I wish to state a self-evident but basic fact that has been mentioned before: A wilderness area can always be opened up if it can be demonstrated in the future that it is in the public interest. We cannot, however, create this unique type of area once it is invaded. Thank you, Senator.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Doctor, for your fine statement. The next witness, Mr. Hugh Russell, Jr., of Seattle. Would you like to summarize your statement and have the statement included in the record at this point?

STATEMENT OF HUGH H. RUSSELL, JR., SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes; I would like that whole statement in the record. Senator JACKSON. All right, and then go ahead with your 5-minute statement in any way you want.

Mr. RUSSELL. These maps I wanted to give you so you would know the area better. This is an index to topographic mapping in Washington, which has the Olympic Peninsula. It gives the dates it was mapped and the dates it was surveyed, and explored.

I wish to also quote for the record that in the last session of the Washington State Legislature there was pressure put on the city of Seattle Water Department, for which I work, to open up their watershed lands for public use and pleasure, and we objected to this primarily because we felt that it would raise the cost of water and destroy the pure mountain quality of our water.

In the salute to our flag there are the words "with liberty and justice for all." This is intended to mean special interest groups, majority and particularly minority groups or interests.

A nation's people have a successful democracy only to the extent that they are mature enough to defend and practice democracy for the other person or group as well as for themselves. To possess sufficient vision so as to consider the long-term objectives and benefits that a minority group may possess and be dedicated to protect. Over and above what the majority of people may consider immediate short term gains for only their immediate generation's benefit.

True, the wilderness is used by the minority of our people, but so are the libraries, blood banks, night schools, YMCA, and YWCA, art and historical museums. All of these things and many more are made available for the majority of our people's use, but are they used to maximum benefit? No. If they were, life would be fascinatingly more interesting to the majority of people in this city and every other community in the land. The irony of what has been said is that all of these things are free economically, or very nominal in cost, to the pocketbook so that everyone can afford them.

I wish to make a few quotations here from the Bend, Oreg., hearing. For example, Harry S. Mosebrook of the pulpwood industries objects to the wilderness bill because, as he states, "a National Wilderness Preservation System would unnecessarily freeze large areas of land and resources for a single use for a small number of people, thereby eliminating the multiple-use management of the lands in the wilderness system."

The answers I have numbered below. No. 1, if that is the case the lumber industry should have started practicing timber conservation 50 years earlier than they claim they have. No. 2, it means that Weyerhaeuser series of timber regrowth and conservation projects are just a lot of bunk and that they haven't been so successful as their ads in the Saturday Evening Post claim they have. No. 3, the total available cutable timber in the Olympic Forest would, with today's mechanical chain saws and logging equipment, last, at the very most, 10 years. At the end of that time the lumber industry would be right back where they are today, only they would have postponed their ailment for approximately 10 years and during that time curtailed further development of what conservation programs they may have

already started. No. 4, I have yet to see a second growth or thinnedout area still suitable as a national park or recreation area. No. 5, Governor Langlie stated once before, on the same issue, that the forests have been getting along for hundreds of years before man came here and will continue to do if left alone.

Germany as a nation did not come into existence until 1873, but by the 1880's they had achieved great success in their reforestation and conservation program, and continued to progress in this field until the advent of World War II.

Denmark for years had produced Douglas-fir trees with three times the yield that our American forests produce today, and their soil never has been as good as ours. By the way, the Douglas-fir was obtained from this country originally.

Executive Vice President W. D. Hagenstein, of the Industrial Forestry Association, Portland, Oreg., quoted: "Wilderness areas are generally remote and hence accessible to relatively few." (a) Young families with small children can't very well walk 15 to 20 miles into a wilderness if they want to take the youngsters along; (b) older people on the average haven't the stamina to invade these areas very far; (c) workingmen don't often have the time or money to explore these areas whose vastness requires either considerable time by foot or an expensive pack trip which few can afford; (d) these areas also provide a real worry to the Federal forest managers who must protect them against fire and in some instances have been up against it when serious insect epidemics have broken out.

The answers I have numbered below. No. 1: If that is the case, any young family who tries to hike into a forest 15 or 20 miles the first time with or without kids should have their heads examined. That would be like skiing off of a skijump the first time you had skis on or trying to set a swimming record when you could hardly dogpaddle.

No. 2 answer to (b): Of course, older persons don't have the stamina. How many hunters every year die of heart attacks during hunting season because they sit in an office all the rest of the year and don't take care of themselves physically?

No. 3 answer to (c): I would like to know what Mr. Hagenstein means by "workingmen." Doctors work harder with their hands and minds than grave diggers do with their backs. The average man with the 40-hour week has more time than the doctor. It is just a matter of using time most efficiently, and here people are hollering for a 30hour week. And where do they all already spend most of their leisure time? Improving their minds to make a better living? No; that takes too much effort. It is spent making mountains out of molehills in routine household tasks, such as watching TV on sunny days and gaining unnecessary weight. As far as the pack trip is concerned, sure, if you put as much planning into it as going down to the corner tavern to buy a beer, of course it is going to cost money, but if you split the cost between several persons, put in a month of work planning the trip, there is no reason whatsoever why a pack trip shouldn't be very successful and comparatively inexpensive, about $10 a day for everything. But, a so-called workingman also has to be a thinking one and do some careful advance planning for the trip.

No. 4 answer to (d): It has definitely been proven that 90 percent of all forest fires are man caused, and with reasonable caution and

commonsense can be entirely eliminated. There is adequate literature available telling how to build and extinguish campfires. As for the insect epidemics, it is the same old story of man upsetting the balance of nature by killing off predatory animals, thus winding up with too many deer who eventually starve to death. More domestic trees and animals are subject to diseases than are the wild ones. Senator JACKSON. I am sorry; we are trying to adhere to the rules. You have gone 7 minutes. The entire statement will be included in the record. I don't want to be unfair, but the only question is, I am pressed here by people from out of town who have to leave. I am sure you understand; we are just trying to be equitable. Very fine statement. The entire statement will be in the record at this point. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF MR. HUGH H. RUSSELL, Jr.

In the salute to our flag, there are the words "with liberty and justice for all." This is intended to mean special interests groups, majority and particularly minority groups or interests.

A nation's people have a successful democracy only to the extent that they are mature enough to defend and practice democracy for the other person or group as well as for themselves. To possess sufficient vision so as to consider the long-term objectives and benefits that a minority group may possess, and be dedicated to protect.

Over and above what the majority of people may consider immediate shortterm gains for only their immediate generation's benefit. True, the wilderness is used by the minority of our people, but so are the libraries, blood banks, night schools, YMCA's and YWCA's, art and historical museums. All of these things and many more are made available for the majority of our people's use, but are they used to maximum benefit? No; if they were, life would be fascinatingly more interesting to the majority of people in this city and every other community in the land.

The irony of what has been said is that all of these things are free economically or very nominal in cost to the pocketbook so that everyone can afford them. The majority of people are just too lazy and negative thinking to get up and get out and see what is available. The majority would rather take the course of least resistance because the things that the minority take the effort to stand up and fight for, just take too much effort on the part of the majority to chip in and help out, they with all of their timesaving gadgets would rather go from home to work and back again with their heads stuck in TV between times.

Sure, the minority use the wilderness, but they also represent all financial strata of our society, occupations, and emotions, and for that matter, the minority study at correspondence coures, are too busy trying to do a good job in their livelihood to complain or gripe about it. They furnish leadership in Congress, know how to make love to their wives and/or to their husbands, and know how to do a good job washing and taking care of their cars and homes.

The persons who rest on the oars of life are going backward and criticize the minority who do the rowing of the ship of state and/or wilderness. Any person who takes the reins of leadership will always be criticized; you can't be a leader in wilderness preservation or anything else and expect to win a popularity contest and have any backbone left.

Harry S. Mosebrook of the pulpwood industries objects to the wilderness bill because, as he states, "A national wilderness preservation system would unnecessarily freeze large areas of land and resources for a single use for a small number of people, thereby eliminating the multiple-use management of the lands in the wilderness system."

(1) If that is the case, the lumber industry should have started practicing timber conservation 50 years earlier than they claim they have.

(2) It means that Weyerhauser's series of timber regrowth and conservations projects are just a lot of bunk and that they haven't been as successful as their ads in the Saturday Evening Post claim they have.

(3) The total available cutable timber in the Olympic Forest would with today's mechanical chain saws and logging equipment last, at the very most, 10