I would also like to include a copy of a letter to me from Representative Rivers, dated March 10, 1959, in which he stated, relative to the Alaska Arctic Wildlife Range: "You have convinced me that same is justified."

Because of the above statements I now anticipate your support of S. 1899 and the establishment of the Arctic Wildlife Range.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Doctor.
(Letters referred to by Dr. Pruitt follow :)

Mr. WILLIAM O. PRUITT, Jr.,
College, Alaska.

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,
March 3, 1959.

DEAR MR. PRUITT: Thank you very much for your letter of February 18. As yet, Secretary Seaton has not submitted to Congress his proposed legislative request for withdrawal of some 9 million acres in northeastern Alaska. I believe that this matter should be thoroughly investigated by the Congress. I certainly would not oppose it if it can be demonstrated that so much land is needed. This is as much land as the total acreage of the States of Connecticut and Vermont combined. I am opposed to the withdrawal of large tracts of land in Alaska merely because they are available. I very much appreciate your views on this. With best regards, I am, Sincerely yours,

E. L. BARTLETT.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

Mr. WILLIAM O. PRUITT, Jr.
College, Alaska.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 10, 1959.

DEAR MR. PRUITT: Thank you for your very adequate letter of March 6 on the subject of a wilderness area which would be in the northeast part of Alaska. You have convinced me that same is justified.

I must state nevertheless that I have an ulterior purpose, which is to the effect that this large wilderness area, as proposed would be ammunition against future withdrawals in other parts of Alaska. The matter of military reservations is well in hand as under present law the military must have an act of Congress to authorize withdrawal of any particular area exceeding 5,000 acres. With sincere good wishes, I am,

Cordially yours,

RALPH J. RIVERS,
Member of Congress.

Senator BARTLETT. You said that the polar bear is well on the way to becoming an endangered species. It is my recollection that this does not conform with the information given me only this year by the Fish and Wildlife Service. I have been worried about the polar bear for several years, very seriously worried, and if I recall correctly the Fish and Wildlife Service informed me this year that the present take of polar bear is not such as to cause concern that the species might be exterminated.

Do you care to comment on that?

Dr. PRUITT. I would say

Senator BARTLETT. Let me state it in other terms.

You made the positive statement on the one side and the Fish and Wildlife, if my memory is correct, on the other. How are laymen to know because their conclusions are reached by biologists too.

Dr. PRUITT. I speak of the polar bear in terms of the world population, as a biologist, not in terms of the management or the administration of wildlife management in what is rather, what is actually rather a restricted portion of the wildlife range.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, I think you are absolutely right. We have to look upon it in terms of the world population, or we won't be getting a correct look, will we?

Dr. PRUITT. That's right. Particularly with this species. With other species we can afford to be fairly provincial since their distribution is within our boundaries, but for things such as the caribou and the polar bear, particularly northern creatures, we can't afford that. Senator BARTLETT. Doctor, do we have any evidence at all which would demonstrate in what manner and under what circumstances a polar bear from our side might cross over to Siberia and the other way around?

Dr. PRUITT. That could only be done with marked individuals, and to date I do not know of any successful markings. There may possibly have been some which have not been reported in the literature, but I do not know of them.

Senator BARTLETT. Would you assume, without any scientific data to substantiate what you say, that there is a considerable crossing over? Dr. PRUITT. Yes. There is not only a crossing over, but from my understanding of the literature on bears it is that there is a slow, more or less swirl, as it were, of bear population around the Polar Basin.

Senator BARTLETT. I won't comment upon the book, "Arctic Wild"; it seems to me we had a review of your review before you appeared. [Laughter.]

You read there

A book such as this, which could have been written only because wilderness exists, is of more value to the human race than all the gold mines in the North.

Were those your words?

Dr. PRUITT. Yes, and I certainly do believe that.

Senator BARTLETT. Worth more than one gold mine I know of, in my lifetime. [Laughter.]

Why do you say, Doctor, that the Barren Ground caribou is definitely an endangered species?

Dr. PRUITT. For several reasons. First, surely because of the tremendous decrease in numbers of this animal, on the continent wide basis.

And second, because of the destruction of the habitat, particularly the winter range.

Senator BARTLETT. What is destroying that winter range?
Dr. PRUITT. Human activity.

The caribou is what is usually considered a "climax animal"—that is, it is dependent upon a vegetational association which is the stable condition. It's the climax of a long succession of vegetational changes. Senator BARTLETT. Numbers of caribou in Alaska are now increasing, decreasing, or remaining stationary, in your opinion?

Dr. PRUITT. I do not know what the year-to-year counts are.
Senator BARTLETT. No, of course not, but in a generality.

Dr. PRUITT. In a generality I would say that over a long term they have probably been decreasing. There have been and undoubtedly are more or less minor population fluctuations which has brought the population up.

Senator BARTLETT. Would you agree or disagree that there were enormous fluctuations in population between 1930, we shall say, and 1945?

Dr. PRUITT. There were population fluctuations; whether they were enormous would depend upon what your definition of enormous is, the same as the size of the Arctic Wildlife Range.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, I'm trying to recall, and probably not doing too well at it, some statements that were given to me by Federal and other officials, who said that the numbers were very drastically reduced during those years, and now there's some buildup occurring. Dr. PRUITT. In general, that would be a fairly good picture of it,

yes.

Senator BARTLETT. But you wouldn't say at this point as to any long-term conclusion that the buildup will continue?

Dr. PRUITT. No. If it did, it would be contrary to the history of caribou populations in the rest of North America. Alaskan populations fit fairly well into the picture.

Senator BARTLETT. Some have said predators were responsible for the decreases; we have heard that denied and have had witnesses assign overgrazing as the cause.

Do you have any conclusion?

Dr. PRUITT. Well, I have heard many reasons advanced, including sunspots and comets and things like that, too. I think it is fairly well known that there are probably a number of causes, but the most important cause for the decline in the Barren Ground caribou has been destruction of the winter range, particularly by fire.

Senator BARTLETT. I merely want to say to you, Doctor, in conclusion, that I have no reason to alter the statements made in my letter to you which you quoted, and in which I said I certainly would not oppose it, this being the Arctic Wildlife Range, if it can be demonstrated that so much land is needed.

Thank you, sir, for a rather new approach to the whole problem.
Mr. Wood, we're glad to have you here, sir.
Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Senator.

STATEMENT OF MORTON S. WOOD, COLLEGE, ALASKA

I am Morton S. Wood of College, Alaska, owner, Wilderness Tourist Camp, bordering Mount McKinley National Park. I came to Alaska first in 1946, and have been in permanent residence here since 1951. I own and operate a wilderness tourist camp in the Kantishna country, on the border of Mount McKinley National Park. I am also a student at the University of Alaska.

Senator Bartlett and members of the committee, I wish to go on record as favoring the establishment of the 9-million-acre Arctic Wildlife Range proposed in Senate bill 1899, as I believe it is and can become of great scientific, recreational, and esthetic value to Alaska and to the Nation as a whole.

The arctic environment of this area, its large, still relatively intact caribou herds that roam the area, as well as its other species of wildlife, make this an utterly unique area which is eminently worthy of our protection.

The opposition argues that Alaska has plenty of wilderness and that we don't need to protect any of it.

I submit that this argument is completely fallacious. When the time comes, as I can assure you it will, that we no longer have large unspoiled areas of wilderness, then it will long since have been too late to save any of it.

When our first national parks were set aside in the late 19th century, the wilderness of the American West seemed just as limitless and remote as that of Alaska seems to us today.

Today the pressure on many of these parks is so great that park visitors are limited in the length of time they can camp in these areas, and traffic control becomes a major problem. This has happened in only 50 to 70 years. There is now a crying need for more recreational and wilderness areas in many of the States, but it is now too late to acquire more land for these purposes because its unit value has increased too much.

True, our climate is far less hospitable than that of the other States, and our population growth rate may be slower, but we should remember that Alaska is now the last place under the American flag to which people can come to find and develop new land, and this fact alone is drawing large numbers of people from the States to Alaska every year.

This changes the picture as regards Alaska's population growth. We call Alaska America's last frontier, and we give a great deal of lipservice to this romantic idea, yet we do little to preserve a remnant of this much talked about frontier. Can't we see at a glance what has happened to all the other frontiers we had?

They are gone. They can never be brought back.

The opposition claims that there is too much withdrawn land in Alaska. I think it is very important to distinguish between land which is withdrawn from the people and land which is withdrawn for the people.

The Arctic Wildlife Range is not in any sense to be compared with a military withdrawal, for example, which excludes use of the area. As an Alaskan, I don't want to see another square inch of my State withdrawn from use any more than the next fellow, but a protected