factor that is involved here. This range has been endorsed by the people of the area that I claim as home, as you know. If the people of Alaska will show to the rest of the country that they intend to set aside the areas that are necessary in the interest of conservation, then I think we will have the support we need to restore Public Land Order 82, to restore Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 to public domain, and that will have a tremendous effect upon the economy of Alaska, merely from the point of view of roadbuilding funds which you yourself brought up.

Senator BARTLETT. Very important point.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Secretary. Mindful of the fact that the Secretary has agreed to this reservation tomorrow, figuratively or literally, but also mindful of the fact that a good many months and years perhaps have gone by since it was first proposed, do you or do you not believe that it is useful to hold further hearings in Alaska this coming autumn, perhaps a hearing, particularly in Fairbanks, where the views of the local people might be solicited?

Mr. LEFFLER. I question, Mr. Chairman, whether I am competent to comment on that particular question.

Senator BARTLETT. Let me rephrase it then.

Mr. LEFFLER. I think it is a matter entirely for the Congress. Senator BARTLETT. If you do not care to answer it, it is perfectly all right.

Do you think any great harm would be done in respect to the cause for which you appear here today if further time were to go by to permit such a hearing?

Mr. LEFFLER. There is some question that if we delay action too long, one way or the other, that we might lose the support of the group on the other side of the line.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, thank you very, very much, Mr. Secretary, and

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Lansing A. Parker, Assistant Director, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife.

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, in view of the hour, I am sure most of the points have been covered and I wonder if I might be excused. Senator BARTLETT. Certainly, sir, if you have no testimony which you think would be useful at this time.

Dr. Buckley, do you have any more to contribute?

Dr. BUCKLEY. No, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Alfred J. Rissman, Chief of the Bureau of Realty, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior.

Mr. RISSMAN. I do not think I have a thing I can contribute. Senator BARTLETT. Mr. J. W. Penfold, Izaak Walton League, Washington, D.C.

We will have a 5-minute recess.

(Short recess.)

Senator BARTLETT. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Penfold. Glad to have you here, Mr. Penfold.

Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the privilege of appearing in support of this legislation. I have a brief statement in the form of a letter addressed to the chairman, and I will in the interest of time, I will even brief that with your permission.

Senator BARTLETT. Go ahead and read it.

STATEMENT OF J. W. PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. PENFOLD. Very good, sir.

The Izaak Walton League of America-I might identify myself. J. W. Penfold, conservation director, the Izaak Walton League of America.

The Izaak Walton League of America for a long time has been interested in seeing some of the northern area of Alaska placed under a management plan which will preserve a significant sample of its unique flora and fauna. The league was highly pleased, consequently, when Secretary Seaton announced, something over a year ago, his intention to take steps in that direction. His action has been commended by resolution of the league's annual convention in May 1958, and a copy is attached.

The league likewise wishes to commend the chairman of this committee for introducing the legislation to implement the program which is now before the committee.

Alaska is now a full-fledged State. We anticipate that its development will be as dynamic as has been that of the 48 other continental States. We anticipate, as well, that Alaska, learning from our past experience, will avoid most of the oversights which in retrospect have characterized much of our development. We need only mention such wildlife species as the eastern elk, the Great Plains bison, the passenger pigeon, to illustrate resources which could have been preserved for today and for generations to come had we been foresighted rather than oversighted.

S. 1899 would authorize establishment of an Arctic Wildlife Range and assure that this interesting and unique ecological complex of plants and animals can survive long into the future. The prospects of our Canadian neighbors designating an adjoining wildlife preserve on their side of the line appears promising, thus opening another splendid example of international cooperation for protection of the natural world.

S. 1899, of course, protects fully the demands on the area which the national defense may require. It provides for the orderly location and recovery of minerals to be found there. It provides for the proper harvest of game and fish species. It specifies limits of the area within which the Secretary may designate the specific wildlife range. specifies that he shall administer the area in the manner he finds to be in the public interest.

It

This is flexible legislation, Mr. Chairman, which recognizes the unique wildlife values of the area, and assures that they shall not be lost to future generations of Alaskans, and all other Americans, through carelessness, oversight or unthinking exploitation, while placing no real obstacles in the way of Alaska's necessary and desired development.

We believe S. 1899 to be sound legislation and are happy to support its enactment. We appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee and present our views.

(The resolution referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION No. 15-ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has started the administrative process to set aside 9 million acres in northeastern Alaska as the Arctic National Wildlife Range; and

Whereas this great area is necessary to the preservation of some of the finest wildlife species on the North American continent: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., in its 36th annual convention assembled at Colorado Springs, Colo., this 16th day of May 1958, That the Secretary of the Interior be commended for this action and urged to speed action giving this great wildlife range permanent status.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Penfold.

I would ask you-you refer to "unique wildlife value." Your information concerning that wildlife comes from where?

Mr. PENFOLD. Well, it has not been information which I have gathered personally, Mr. Bartlett, because I have had no opportunity to be in the area. Botanists and biologists from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, from private scientists who have been in the area, from articles and papers which I have read.

Senator BARTLETT. You refer to "articles and papers." That is what I was seeking earlier from the Department of the Interior. Would you make those available to the committee, if you can put your hands on them?

Mr. PENFOLD. I will be glad to make available such as I can put my hands on but I do not have a personal library on it.

Senator BARTLETT. Give us a bibliography, if you can.

Mr. PENFOLD. Very well, I would be happy to.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much. One more question: The information did not come from any of your own people in the Izaak Walton League? It is from other sources?

Mr. PENFOLD. I don't think that-well, yes, for example, Dr. Olaus Murie has been a long-time member of the Izaak Walton League and has been a national director of the league, and on some of its national committees. He spent a whole summer in this specific area, two or three summers ago and has written on it. He would be one of the persons appearing on the bibliograpny I furnish you.

Senator BARTLETT. You couldn't have a more splendid witness then. Thank you.

Mr. C. R. Gutermuth, Wildlife Management Institute. We welcome you, Mr. Gutermuth, and we are glad to hear you testify.

STATEMENT OF C. R. GUTERMUTH, WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Bartlett, with your permission I would like to have this formal statement entered into the record as though it were given and I would like to comment on some of the highlights of this proposed withdrawal.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF C. R. GUTERMUTH, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Mr. Chairman, I am C. R. Gutermuth, vice president of the Wildlife Management Institute. The institute is a national membership organization, and its program has been devoted to the restoration and improved management of natural resources in the public interest since 1911.

The institute supports the objectives of S. 1899. The establishment of the proposed Arctic Wildlife Range in Alaska is the only sure way that some part of that vast wildnerness of rugged mountains and Arctic coast can be retained in a relatively undisturbed natural condition. The proposed area is believed to be large enough to be biologically self-sufficient. It contains ample habitat for the wide variety of birds and mammals that inhabit the area and that should be perpetuated as a part of our Arctic heritage. Establishment of the range would assure for all time that there will be at least one place in Alaska where native forms of animal and plant life can be observed, studied, and enjoyed recreationally. We know from the brief histories of other States that such opportunities have been overlooked many times in the past.

Rather than take the time of the committee in repeating the many reasons why conservationists believe that the Arctic Wildlife Range should be set aside as proposed in S. 1899, Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on the relatively few objections that have been expressed to the establishment of this superb management area, which I have visted. It is my belief that this proposed Arctic Wildlife Range has far more support in this country and in Alaska than the opposition wants you to think.

I have here an editorial from the Fairbanks News-Miner of March 17, 1958, which summarizes the support and opposition for the Arctic Wildlife Range. It states, in part, that the proposed range "has been endorsed by, among others, the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce.

"We have already stated the News-Miner stand in this matter. We favor establishment of the wildlife range. We favor it on the grounds that some few sections of Alaska should be preserved for posterity just as God made them, and this one is an appropriate area, being remote and unpromising as far as commercial and industrial development is concerned."

Mr. Chairman, I request permission to submit this excellent editorial for the hearing record.

The principal argument that has been voiced recently to enactment of S. 1899 is that 921⁄2 million acres of Alaskan land already have been withdrawn or reserved for various purposes by the Federal Government. The opponents now are saying that it is unrealistic to expect the State to give up another 9 million acres for the wildlife range. This, they are contending, would add approximately another 10 percent to the land already withdrawn in Alaska for Federal purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I want to put that arithmetic in better perspective. The huge area of Alaska embraces some 375,296,000 acres. By my calculations all existing Federal land reservations and withdrawals and the like in Alaska amount to only about 24 percent of the land mass. This is considerably less than is controlled in some of our older, established States. Nevada, for example, has 87 percent of its area in public ownership, and most other Western States have a third or more. The 9 million acres that would be withdrawn under S. 1899 for the Arctic Wildlife Range amounts to less than 2 percent of the Alaskan land mass. While it may represent a 10 percent addition to lands already administered by the Federal Government in Alaska, it is less than 2 percent of the total area of that huge new State, and that is the figure that counts.

Some objection is being raised to S. 1899 because removal of the 9-million acre tract from the rolls of unappropriated and unreserved public domain, it is said, would cause Alaska to lose some $600,000 annually under the provisions of the Federal Highway Act. Under that law the financial aid is allocated on the basis of the relationship the unreserved public domain in a State bears to the State's total area. What this actually means is that Alaska some day might have to increase its matching funds. In other words, Alaskans might have to put a little more of their money in their roads.

Unless we are badly mistaken, the figure that is being used-$600,000—is in error. Not all the 9 million acres in the proposed range are unreserved public domain; about half of the area is included in a previous land order of the Department of the Interior. The sum that Alaska might "lose" is nearer $300,000, that is, if Alaska ever gets in a financial position to begin to fully match the road aid funds for which the new State is eligible.

You will note that the editorial from the Fairbanks News-Miner reveals that 5 million acres of the proposed range "were already withdrawn in Public Land Order 82 ***"

It is well known that Alaska suffers from the lack of transportation facilities. If the withdrawal of this 9 million acres for the Arctic Wildlife Range seriously deters Alaska's highway building program, then I believe we should be seeking an amendment to the Federal Highway Act to rectify the situation, for the benefit of Alaska and all other States.

I do want to point out, however, that under the Statehood Act, Alaska is to select some 103,350,000 acres of vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved lands that presently are in Federal ownership. In theory, then, the amount of Federal aid for highways that Alaska will "lose" by the selection of the grant lands will be nearly 12 times that which is claimed for the 9 million acres for the proposed Arctic Wildlife Range.

Some persons say there is no need for enactment of S. 1899 because the proposed wildlife range is remote and inaccessible. There is no danger in the foreseeable future, they say, that human activities will endanger the natural character of the area and its fish and wildlife. I do not believe that we need to dwell on this point, Mr. Chairman. The history of wildlife conservation is marked by lost opportunities because men lacked sufficient imagination to envision the rapid expansion of human activities. Alaska is full of light airplanes, and these light personal planes are getting into all parts of the country. Contract flyers are taking hunters, fishermen, and sightseers all over Alaska, including the Arctic. They are hunting polar bears and walrus in the international waters of the far north, and every place is susceptible to human exploitation. S. 1899 is an imaginative proposal, and it is being advanced on the sure knowledge that once lost, this opportunity cannot be regained.

A final point. The institute does not believe that creation of the Arctic Wildlife Range would nullify or negate in any way the authority of the new State to administer its wildlife resources. Hunting and fishing on Federal wildlife areas traditionally is done in accordance with State regulations and with the concurrence of State fish and game departments.

Mr. Chairman, conservationists support the objectives of S. 1899 because we know that it is good for Alaska and for the Nation as a whole. We commend this committee for giving the matter such prompt consideration and we urge favorable action on the proposal.

[From the Fairbanks (Alaska) News-Miner, Mar. 17, 1958]

THE MISCHIEF GOOD MEN DO

Today the News-Miner prints in full on page 6 the long article by Phil Holdsworth, territorial commissioner of mines, opposing the plan for creation of an Arctic Wildlife Range in the northeastern corner of the Territory. The proposal, made by the Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Association, is favored by the Department of the Interior. It has been endorsed by, among others, the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce.

We have already stated the News-Miner stand in this matter. We favor establishment of the wildlife range. We favor it on the grounds that some few sections of Alaska should be preserved for posterity just as God made them, and this one is an appropriate area, being remote and unpromising as far as commercial or industrial development is concerned.

The area involved, while large, is tiny in comparison with the size of Alaska. (The News-Miner was the victim of one of its own typographical errors last week when in an editor's note we tried to say the range comprises "one-fiftieth" of Alaska's total area. The words which came out in the paper were "onefifteenth.")

Mr. Holdsworth tries to make something of the circumstance that the withdrawal requested was described as containing 6,400,000 acres in a Bureau of Land Management press release, while actually the proposed range contains a claimed 9 million acres. The fact is that nobody has measured it exactly. The area proposed for withdrawal at this time in anticipation of legislation was asked by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the basis of a metes and bounds description. The land office estimated it roughly at 100 miles square, which would work out at the 6,400,000 acres. Mr. Holdsworth has gone around the boundaries with a planimeter and come up with the answer 9 million which is probably fairly accurate. There was never any intention on anyone's part to deceive.

The mines commissioner states flatly that the area "will not be open to mining, contrary to the impression the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce and many individuals have received." In making such a statement we are afraid Mr. Holdsworth is questioning the sincerity of Secretary of the Interior Fred A. Seaton, who has demonstrated many times over that he is 100 percent sincere with Alaskans.

In his announcement last November that the much larger Public Land Order 82 area would be opened to oil and gas leasing, Secretary Seaton said that in the