Mr. RUDISILL. Yes; I believe they will.

Senator BARTLETT. Do you have any idea what the cost of a round trip from Anchorage would be?

Mr. RUDISILL. Well, not much more than to Point Barrow, would it?

Senator BARTLETT. No; but that is an awful lot, a rather expensive trip. [Laughter.]

Mr. RUDISILL. Officials don't seem to mind it; there are a lot of people going to Point Barrow, I know.

Senator BARTLETT. What would be your idea, if a person goes up there; should he take his own camping equipment and tent and rough it as in a wilderness area, or should the Government or private capital establish a camp or camps?

Mr. RUDISILL. I believe that one of the purposes of a wildlife area is to keep camps out of the place like that.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, in the third paragraph of your statement, you said that "This is a wildlife range and not a 'wilderness' area"; and there must be a considerable distinction there.

Mr. RUDISILL. Well, there is a distinction. A wilderness area would be where there would be no hunting, no fishing, no mining, no nothing allowed, the way I get it. With a wildlife area, there would be controlled fishing, hunting, and also mining; but they would not be able to ever own the land it was on.

Senator BARTLETT. And yet, if mining was permitted, as there would be permitted, to a certain extent, under the provisions of this bill, there would be an intrusion by civilization. We have been told that the reason the bill is before us is because the Interior Department wants to make mining easier, more possible than it would be under the executive authority now residing in the Secretary of the Interior.

Do you believe that it would be well to permit mining companies to go in there and possibly disturb the game?

Mr. RUDISILL. Well, in an area that large, I don't think there could be enough of a mining company crowd in there to disturb the game much.

Senator BARTLETT. I have no further questions. Thank you sir, very much.

We are glad to have you, Mr. Moore.

STATEMENT OF MR. BUCK MOORE, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

Mr. MOORE. I am Buck Moore, appearing as an interested

individual.

Senator BARTLETT. What is your mailing address?

Mr. MOORE. 736 Third Avenue, Anchorage.

Senator BARTLETT. You may proceed in your own manner, Mr. Moore.

Mr. MOORE. I don't ever expect to get any benefit out of the establishment of an Arctic Wildlife Range. I remember, when I was a child, in the States, we were at about the same situation we are here. There was plenty of wilderness, everywhere. Nobody gave it any thought. People moved in and settled up, but now, at this time, every State in the Union, that I know about, plus the Federal Gov

ernment, is frantically buying privately owned land to put into fish and game and recreational facilities.

I think that as long as we are leaving legacies to our children, those of us who have children, in the form of taxes and bonds and bonded indebtedness, here is a good chance to leave them something that costs us nothing, and will cost them nothing. I have heard objections to it, that it will restrict mining. As far as I can find out, the only restriction will be that the mining will have to be legitimate; that surface resources will be used only in the extent necessary to promote the mine, and that when the mining is done, the land reverts to the public domain.

I think that practice has been instituted in the Forest Service, in the national forests, and I think that it should have been instituted long ago, since one of the biggest land grabs in the West have been the scratching of the ground with a pick and a shovel and establishing a claim to huge timber or other surface resources, or just a place to build a fine country home. I don't think that that is right and by this bill, that would be eliminated, as far as this range is concerned.

I don't think that it is going to cost us money, because I believe that the horse trading in Washington will make that exchange of withdrawals, which will be to our benefit in the long run. I believe that Mr. Seaton, with the power vested in him, will make the withdrawal, if Congress doesn't. He doesn't want to, I am sure, because if he does, he can't permit mining, or can't modify the restrictions so it is much better that Congress should make the withdrawal. Other than that, I have nothing to say on the matter.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Moore, I think that the committee is indebted to you for not only an adequate, but really eloquent expression of your views. I have only one question, that I would like to put to you; and I will confess to you, at the outset, that this is the crux of the whole thing insofar as I, as an Alaskan-not as a member of this committee, nor of the Congress, am concerned: and that is, that I have had tremendous difficulty, over the years, in trying to judge why it is that when the Federal Government, seemingly any branch of the Federal Government, wants to make a withdrawal, it takes in so much land. Now, for example, we know that today, about 100 million acres of Alaska's 365 million acres have been withdrawn for one purpose or another, by this Federal Government. Logical men, reasonable men, find it most difficult to understand why it is that almost 25 percent of this vast acreage is required by the Federal Government; and I will even go so far as to say that logical men, and reasonable men don't believe it is.

Now we confront a situation where either on his own authority, or by the authority conferred upon him by passage of this bill or a similar bill, the Secretary of the Interior, will establish a wildlife range, almost as big as the States of Delaware, Connecticut, and Vermont combined; and further withdrawals of this nature are in contemplation. Therefore, sir, my question: Do you think that for proper protection of the game in that area, such a big withdrawal is essential?

Mr. MOORE. If adequate protection to certain of the animals is to be provided, there must be a large area since they, especially the caribou, and to some extent the sheep, are migratory. Many of them will go across the border into Canada, where I hear they are going to set

up a similar withdrawal; and that would just about take care of the migration of the caribou.

This large area, of course, brings up the idea brought up by our State game and fish man, who said that he would not object if the control was left with the State, but I can say this for the State fish and game, they have got more problems and fewer men than will be able to handle the situation for a long time to come. If they can get any help whatsoever from the Federal Government, in this case, the management of this wildlife range, I think they had better take it. Senator BARTLETT. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Dr. Irving, please.

Dr. IRVING. Shall I begin?

Senator BARTLETT. We would be happy to have you begin, but before you do, I am going to make a guess that you are one man who may have been to this proposed range?

Dr. IRVING. That is correct, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. Would you give your name and your mailing address?

STATEMENT OF DR. LAURENCE IRVING, 1511 BANISTER ROAD, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

Dr. IRVING. My name is Dr. Laurence Irving. I live at 1511 Bannister Road, Anchorage. I appear here in one of those rare categories as a private citizen, representing only my own interests and concern. I have, however, written a statement expressing my interest in the proposed establishment of an Arctic Wildlife Range in northeastern Alaska, which I strongly favor.

I strongly favor Federal establishment of a proposed Arctic Wildlife Range in northeastern Alaska.

Since 1947 I have joined with scientific colleagues to investigate life and its environment in the arctic interior of Alaska. I have published more than 20 scientific articles on adaptation to arctic life based upon studies in arctic Alaska and Yukon. This is only an insignificant part of the valuable and completely new scientific information and fascinating literature that has come to refresh and inspire us from arctic Alaska. Its importance is based upon the fact that the present life and undisturbed terrain of that country bear the only large-scaled picture of unaltered imprints of the ancient movements of man, beast, and vegetation as they developed together during the changing natural conditions of ancient times.

Exploration has depended upon the hospitality and guidance of people resident about this area. Literary and scientific accounts acknowledge their regard for the remarkable knowledge of_their country which has been obtained from long-term and aboriginal people resident in arctic Alaska.

The accounts by residents of arctic life and other phenomena cover observations in all seasons and weather. From them we occasional visitors can learn about natural processes as they have been observed during many years and by many generations. The truthful and vivid accounts of these lifelong and full-time observers are fascinating. They see the natural situation not only as it concerns individuals but in relation to their families and communities as it appeared to their ancestors and as they hope it will be for their children. No

where else can we find people so closely related to their natural environment. Association with them is delightful, inspiring, and educational.

I believe that the Arctic Wildlife Range might be most usefully directed to making available to visitors the fascinating experience of viewing the country in company with these resident people. The administrative service of the range will doubtless seek to employ them as rangers and for the guidance and information of visitors. I propose that the designation of an advisory committee of a few resident Eskimo, Indian, and white people would bring the eager interest of the arctic communities to assist in the management of their ancestral country.

The arctic population of central and eastern Alaska includes some 2,500 settled residents. Well informed visitors have remarked upon the number of well informed and influential individuals and families found on the arctic coast, along the Kayukuk and in the vicinity of Fort Uukon. I can illustrate with such well-known people as State Senator Hopson and Tom Brower of Barrow, Simon Paneak of Anaktuvuk and Jim Anderson of Bettles. It would be something new in the management of public lands to utilize the judgment of local and particularly of aboriginal residents as advisors to the administration. The announcement of such aid would most favorably affect local, national, and international interest.

I suggest that the greatest benefit of the proposed range might be in making available for all of us this rare kind of human knowledge of a natural environment for our future inspiration. It was once the foundation of human existence, but it is now only observable in the inhabitants of arctic Alaska. Here could develop an inspiring and delightful education for us and for our children.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Dr. Irving. When you are in other than your capacity as a private citizen, may I ask you, what your professional association is?

Dr. IRVING. I am a biologist concerned with research in the Arctic Health Research Center of the U.S. Public Health Service here in Anchorage.

Senator BARTLETT. What is your view as to the proposed size of the reserve; do you think it is too big, too little, or just about right? Dr. IRVING. I think the approximate figures are about right. I do not know the precise considerations which led to the establishment of the boundaries, as they are now proposed, but I believe that they were, in a large measure, laid out so as little as possible to interfere with existing establishments.

Senator BARTLETT. What is your conception of the manner in which this range, if created, should be used by the public? Should there be camping facilities, hotel facilities, trails, roads, or should it be kept pretty much as a wilderness area?

Dr. IRVING. I think that it should be kept as nearly as possiblewith as little disturbance as possible, consistent with the admission of individuals who properly wish to visit the area. I realize that that does not define very much, but I think that the administration of other comparable areas, as illustrated, the various grades of park and range land which are kept, and this it is to be anticipated, would be probably less organized with established facilities and roads than in most of our national parks.

Senator BARTLETT. How do you rate this as a game country, Doctor?

Dr. IRVING. It is an interesting game country, with a very large variety of interesting game, some of which is not to be found in other parts of the country. It is of particular interest, because the natural association of game land and people pretty well reflects, even yet, the original State which has disappeared over so much of our country.

Actually, I do not believe that it is what might be called a highly productive country, in points of consideration of the density of population by any or all of the game, and I am quite certain that as a producer of fur-bearing animals, it has been one of the meagerest sources in the northern part of the country.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Dr. Irving.

Dr. IRVING. Thank you.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Anthony.

STATEMENT OF MR. LEO MARK ANTHONY, MANLEY HOT SPRINGS,

ALASKA

Mr. ANTHONY. My name is Leo Mark Anthony, and I would like to speak here as a private citizen. My address is Manley Hot Springs, Alaska.

For the past 13 years I have been an Alaskan resident and I have been actively engaged in either mining or mineral exploration during most of this time, both privately and for various mining companies.

For the record, I support the statements made before the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on Senate bill 1899 by the following persons or groups:

Hon. Ernest Gruening, U.S. Senator from Alaska (H.R. 3-11). House Joint Memorial No. 23 (H.R. 61).

Hon. William Egan, Governor of Alaska (H.R. 63)

Senator BARTLETT. Pardon. House Joint Memorial No. 23. What House is that? Is that the State legislature?

Mr. ANTHONY. The State legislature the first State legislature, Senator. Thank you for correcting me.

Also the statement of Mr. Harold Strandberg, vice president, Alaska Miners Association (H.R. 62). In addition to supporting these expressed views, I oppose the bill for several additional reasons.

First, withdrawals of the type proposed tend to preclude mining and other forms of economic endeavor. While it is true that the area appears, to some, to be rather remote and inaccessible at this time, it must be remembered that a number of major Alaskan cities did not exist as recently as the turn of the century.

I believe Anchorage is one of those cities.

At that time, most of Alaska was regarded as remote and inaccessible.

Secondly, the supporters of this legislation have contended that the bill was drawn up to provide for the multiple use of the public domain. However, I question how much multiple use of this public domain can be made when a single-purpose agency-such as the Fish and Wildlife Service-receives blanket control over the area. These people know the habits and habitats of animals very well, but I ques