Senator BARTLETT. Can you give these to the committee for the files?

Mr. ZAHNISER. Yes, I will leave these with you immediately, and I shall be glad to compile a set for the committee's records, too, and submit it with an introductory and interpretive statement, if that meets your pleasure.

Senator BARTLETT. We would be very pleased to have that.

Mr. ZAHNISER. And I want to say again, at what I take is the end of this hearing, that you have been very patient and I can see that you and Senator Gruening have a deep interest in this. I trust we can work out the kind of program that we are striving for here. Our challenge and our opportunity are to incorporate a public policy for preserving some areas in their natural state in a civilization or culture which is rapidly growing and becoming more and more mechanized and bringing us more and more benefits, but also threatening all these areas. Yet it looks as though it looks to me as though the program that is represented in this bill that has been developed by the Department of the Interior is the sort of thing that makes it possible for us to enjoy these advantages without sacrificing the other benefits.

And as to the future, it looks as though we can accomplish this purpose by choosing such an area as this Arctic Wildlife Range carefully, as it has indeed been worked out I have seen Dr. Murie work out on the map with people the boundaries of what he thought would be a minimum area that would accomplish the preservation of an extensive wilderness and yet without limiting in any significant way the ambitions or opportunities for the residents of Alaska and the other Americans who share their ambitions and look forward to sharing their country, too.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much. If you will permit me to say, in conclusion, as an Alaskan, rather than as chairman of this committee and I will speak personally, though I suggest that I am probably speaking for Senator Gruening and countless other Alaskans as well-it isn't that we are in basic opposition to this sort of thing at all. It is, on the other hand, that we favor a conservation policy, but we are increasingly, over the years, alarmed by the fact that the Federal Government, not just the Department of Interior, not just the Fish and Wildlife Service, but seemingly every agency, when it desires to make a withdrawal in Alaska, makes it of such huge size, incomparably larger than in any other State. We can't always understand or even frequently understand why this should be so. Why should so much land be needed for a given purpose?

Mr. ZAHNISER. Well, Senator Bartlett, magnitude is of the essence of Alaska. When we think of Alaska, we think of magnitude. The bears there are larger; the land areas are larger

Senator BARTLETT. I know. I think that is the trouble. I think people take more than they actually need because there is so much land there, and I think this applies to the Department of Defense in some cases also.

Mr. ZAHNISER. We don't think Alaska is larger than we need it. We are delighted and thrilled that it is as large as it is. When we find that, before we had realized its significance, the wilderness in our other 48 States had slipped away for other purposes, and we still see that our sense of bigness in wilderness can yet be realized in Alaska, be

cause Alaska itself is so big that it can contain even a big wilderness we are encouraged to try to work out these difficulties.

Senator BARTLETT. I wish they could be worked out on a slightly smaller scale.

Mr. ZAHNISER. I share with you the sense of difficulty we have. But I urge you, and offer on my own behalf that we will do everything we can, to work out these difficulties, Dr. Murie and I, to meet the requirements. If the difficulty is with an inequity in a road program, we will seek to try and solve that inequity, or whatever it is, because if we don't solve these problems now, no one will ever solve them. The opportunity will be gone.

Senator BARTLETT. I would add to one statement you made, or rather, a concluding remark of my own. You said correctly that Mrs. Murie has engaged in field expeditions to Alaska. But, as a matter of fact, she has done more than that, because she was raised in Fairbanks, Alaska, and we were schoolmates in a far-off day when neither of us suspected there would be any controversy about the wilderness

areas.

Mr. ZAHNISER. I am sorry she is not here instead of me to share this discussion with you.

Thank you very much.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

A STATEMENT BY OLAUS J. MURIE, DIRECTOR OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, ON THE ARCTIC WILDLIFE RANGE

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of the Wilderness Society, as its director, I would like to make a statement in favor of S. 1899, to create the Arctic Wildlife Range.

A number of individuals, who are interested in the welfare of Alaskan civilization and are well versed in the science of outdoor resources, have investigated interesting parts of Alaska over the years. Several parties have studied the area of the Arctic Wildlife Range, and have been very enthusiastic about it. I have also had the privilege of living in Alaska and have traveled over much of it, ever since 1920. Then in 1956 the Conservation Foundation of New York and the New York Zoological Society made it possible for five of us to make a detailed study of the northeast corner of Alaska. We also had then an opportunity to discuss the proposal for preservation of this area with many Alaskans.

Speaking of Alaska in general, certainly it is not a wasteland, a barren country, for certain groups to exploit for temporary gain, as long as it may last. This in spite of the many articles and books which have used the term "Frozen North" and similar dramatic phrases. The many pioneers I learned to know in Alaska got something much more valuable from that big country than the gold they took out of the ground.

Recently, in his article on Alaska for the Britannica Book of the Year for 1959, Senator Gruening, in describing the Brooks Range region, says:

"Lovers of the wilderness have begun to make their pilgrimages into that region, and some have declared their preference of it to the better-known regions previously described. It is the greatest untouched wilderness area under the American flag."

The editor of the Fairbanks News-Miner, in supporting the Arctic Wildlife Range, said in effect, that gold mining is a "one-shot proposition" (being ended when the gold supply is finished) but that recreation lasts indefinitely.

We found that the Arctic Wildlife Range, up there in the Brooks Range, is a beautiful place, and full of interest for the people who want the outdoor life. There is, of course, the caribou herd, a living resource that Alaska is fortunate to have. These animals need space and food, and through the centuries they have learned to travel widely to get them. We, who enjoy hunting and observing these animals, also have the opportunity in such a dedicated area, to travel widely and absorb some of the adventure and peace of mind that we associate with the thought of Alaska.

In the Arctic Wildlife Range we found moose in the valleys, and the white mountain sheep in the high mountains. In a recent survey I learned that among the older 48 States only 4 have grizzlies, in a few places-only a remnant of this great North American animal. Those of us who have had extensive experience with grizzlies now realize that our only hope of saving this animal and a few other similar ones is by maintaining some wilderness areas. Alaska still has grizzlies, and has also the chance to learn from the experience of other States and take the proper steps in public planning.

There are many other animals in the Brooks Range, and in 1956 we identified 86 different kinds of birds. And the flowers are an experience. It is a surprise to people who have read so many books about the barren north that we found whole slopes colored by the northern form of rhododendron, bright rose color. The cotton grass, growing in moist places, circumpolar in distribution, and in Norway called "myr ull" (moor wool), is a charming aspect of the Arctic, among the many other flowers that give color and interest.

Here, in the Arctic Wildlife Range, north of the Arctic Circle in Alaska, is a wonderful opportunity for this Nation to honestly declare that we mean it when we say we love America "Thy rocks and rills," and all that goes with the true appreciation of the values in our land.

As we mingled with the Alaskan people in 1956 and 1957, we found many of them enthusiastic about saving a piece of Alaska, such as the Arctic Wildlife Range, to continue to be Alaska as we have always known it. Garden Clubs were very enthusiastic; the Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Association first proposed this project; the Izaak Walton League chapter at Anchorage and the sportsmen's group in Juneau are in favor of it, as is the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce. We found people of various tastes and occupations, hunting guides, educators, newspapermen, businessmen, from southern to northern Alaska, in favor of this proposal.

Let me call attention to these people; we must not ignore them and lightly cast aside their wishes, in this democracy. All of us have the task of making a living; but we long for something more, something that has a mental, a spiritual impact on us. This idealism, more than anything else, will set us apart as a nation striving for something worthwhile in the universe. We found Alaskans, children and adults, becoming much interested in art and in music. It is inevitable, if we are to progress as people in the highest sense, that we shall become ever more concerned with the saving of the intangible resources, as embodied in this move to establish the Arctic Wildlife Range. I do feel that people, in Alaska and throughout our Nation, who want to preserve what such an area has to offer for the future, deserve a hearing, as well as those who call attention to economic and commercial aspects.

We have the two things to consider: making a living as a material need, and the urgent need to make our living meaningful and beautiful. I realize that this testimony does not deal with economic considerations, but if we are going to amount to anything as a great country we must give serious attention to our mental and spiritual needs-hard to define but of greatest importance. Our Congress could add something bright to its record by recognizing the wishes of those Alaskans and others who approve Secretary Seaton's action in presenting Senate bill 1899 to establish the Arctic Wildlife Range.

A STATEMENT BY MARGARET E. MURIE-THE ARCTIC WILDLIFE RANGE

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I wish to present a plea for favorable action by your committee on S. 1899, a bill to establish the Arctic Wildlife Range in Alaska.

I consider myself an Alaskan. I grew up in Alaska, first in Juneau as a very small child, later in Fairbanks, where my family lived until after I was married. Since then, accompanying my husband, Dr. Olaus J. Murie, I have spent time in other parts of Alaska, including St. Lawrence Island in Bering Sea. I have gone along on expeditions to three different portions of the Brooks Range in Arctic Alaska; the Koyukuk region in fall and winter; the Old Crow River country in summer, and finally, in 1956, on the expedition sponsored by the New York Zoological society, the University of Alaska and the Wilderness Society, the area since designated by the Secretary of the Interior as the Arctic Wildlife Range. It is difficult for me to testify on this subject, because, if I speak from my heart, and as a woman, I am speaking, not of the economic, material future of Alaska and of the future citizens of all the United States, but of their spiritual, mental,

and physical welfare, and we really need a different set of words to speak of those things.

If we do not succeed, in the present trend of American civilization and education, in turning the children of the near future into robots and automatons and weaklings, there are going to be increasing numbers of young people, and older ones, who will need and crave and benefit from the experience of travel in far places, untouched places, under their own power. For those who are willing to exert themselves for this experience, there is a great gift to be won in places like the Arctic Wildlife Range, a gift to be had nowadays in very few remaining parts of our plundered planet-the gift of the personal satisfaction, the personal wellbeing purchased by striving—by lifting and setting down your legs, over and over, through the muskeg, up the slopes, gaining the summit- -man using himself.

Going back to Alaska after several years' absence, it was a happy revelation to me to speak to people of every walk of life and a great variety of occupations and have them tell me that they felt that the untouched parts of their enormous country were already in danger; that some sections needed protection already. A clerk in a grocery store said to me: "They're taking it away from us fast; somebody better do something pretty soon about saving some."

I know there is the argument that this place is so remote it will not be visited much or "used up" even if not protected. In 1920 none of us living in Fairbanks would have believed that by 1956 tourists would be visiting Point Barrow and Kotzebue every day if they wished to. How can we look into the future; how can we lay down laws as to what people of the future will want or should have? Do we not have some obligation to save some untouched areas, while we still have them (and barely have them), so that those of the future may have the choice to keep, or to use up? Is the great State of Alaska, is the great United States, so niggardly, so poor, so in need of every last scrap of natural resources for material uses, that we cannot save this 10 percent of Alaska's land as God made it? If we are that poor, that desperate, why don't we all just quit and go home and wait for the end? I love Alaska; I feel deeply about this; I am also sure I speak for many Alaskans-Alaskans who perhaps do not know how to be vocal, who do not belong to any organized group, but who deserve to be heard just the

same.

To be "practical" for a moment: Considering that under the provisions of this bill no legitimate activities are jeopardized, such as hunting, trapping, fishing, mining; considering that in the 50 or more years the area has been open to prospecting no appreciable mineral deposits have been discovered, and that even so mining is not forbidden-considering all this, I cannot see why provisions to protect this beautiful natural region from reckless exploitation, to keep it in as natural condition as possible, should rouse any opposition at all.

This hearing is being held very close to the Fourth of July. This makes one recall Fourth of July speeches, about the ideals of America, the freedom of the American citizen, the love of our beautiful country. Action by Congress to protect a unique Arctic form of environment not to be found elsewhere, but belonging to our "American heritage" would be a superbly fitting Independence Day observance.

I am reminded of a statement of a past director of the National Park Service, Newton B. Drury, with regard to preservation of outstanding samples of our American environment. He said; in effect: Surely we, this Nation, are not so rich we do not need them; not so poor that we cannot afford them.

I feel so sure that, if we are big enough to save this bit of loveliness on our earth, the future citizens of Alaska and of all the world will be deeply grateful. This is a time for a long look ahead.

Senator BARTLETT. I should like now to offer for the record a copy of a radiogram addressed to me, dated June 29, 1959, from Gov. William A. Egan, concerning the bill before us; a copy of House Joint Memorial No. 23 of the first State legislature; a copy of a wire directed to me, copies of which I have already furnished the committee, from the Alaska Miners' Association, Anchorage Branch, Harold Strandberg, vice president, dated May 16, 1959; a copy of a letter directed to Senator Gruening from Alaska Department of Fish and Game, C. L. Anderson, director, dated May 21, 1959; copy of a letter dated May 23, 1959, addressed to Secretary Seaton from Governor Egan; a letter addressed to Chairman Magnuson from Larry Johnson of El Cajon,

Calif., endorsing the bill; a letter dated June 25, 1959, from Hans Krimm, Baltimore, Md., addressed to Chairman Magnuson, also endorsing the bill; and, finally, an editorial from the Alaska Sportsman of July 1959 entitled "Main Trails and Bypaths."

(The documents mentioned are as follows:)

Hon. E. L. BARTLETT,

New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

JUNE 29, 1959.

Re Arctic wildlife refuge hearing June 30, my position set forth generally in release of May 19. In addition would suggest that conservationists be enlisted to press for a change in Highway Aid Act's formula to offset the violence done State road program by large withdrawals that restoration of equivalent withdrawn acreage be made a condition to every future major withdrawal and that congressional approval be a requirement to all withdrawals in excess 5,000 acres. Please advise Gruening and Rivers.

In the House

WILLIAM A. EGAN, Governor.

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 23

IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

FIRST LEGISLATURE-FIRST SESSION

To the Honorable Fred A. Seaton, Secretary of the Interior; the Honorable Arnie J. Suomela, Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife; the Honorable Edward Woozley, Director, Bureau of Land Management; the Honorable E. L. Bartlett and the Honorable Ernest Gruening, Senators from Alaska; the Honorable Ralph J. Rivers, Representative from Alaska:

Your memorialist, the Legislature of the State of Alaska in first legislature, first session assembled, respectfully submits that:

Whereas the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has made application through the Bureau of Land Management for the withdrawal of certain lands in Alaska for the creation of an Arctic wildlife range; and

Whereas the land involved in the proposed withdrawal makes up almost the entire northeast corner of Alaska and consists of approximately 9,000,000 acres; and

Whereas such a withdrawal would increase to 17,000,000 acres the amount of Alaskan lands devoted to game refuges; and

Whereas this gigantic withdrawal from the public domain would discourage industrial and mineral development of the area; and

Whereas the maintenance of a pristine, untouched Arctic area would actually attract few residents and tourists, due to inaccessibility, making the recreational possibilities of such a withdrawal doubtful; and

Whereas eventual industrial and mineral development of the area, if left in the public domain, could in the future make the area both accessible and valuable; Now, therefore, Your Memorialist urges that all possible action be taken to discourage the establishment of this arctic wildlife refuge in northeast Alaska. Passed by the House March 17, 1959.

Attest:

Passed by the Senate March 30, 1959.

Attest:

Certified true, full, and correct.

WARREN A. TAYLOR,

Speaker of the House.

ESTHER REED,

Chief Clerk of the House.

WILLIAM E. BOLTZ,
President of the Senate.

KATHERINE T. ALEXANDER,

Secretary of the Senate.

ESTHER REED,

Chief Clerk of the House.