you to support S. 174 and other bills to establish a national wilderness preservation system. Thank you very much. Mrs. Prost. Thank you. [Applause.] Mr. Kral, you have submitted a few statements and we would appreciate it if you could tell us which one you will present at this time. Mr. KRAL. The one for the North Cascades Conservation Council. Mrs. Prost. Thank you. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HENRY KRAL, MEMBER, NORTH CASCADES CONSERVATION COUNCIL, EVERETT, WASH. Mr. KRAL. I have testimony from three other organizations favoring the wilderness bill besides the North Cascades Conservation Council. Among them are the Snohomish County Homemakers, and the Everett Citizens Committee for a North Cascades National Park, and also my personal testimony which contains proof that the manufacture of plywood is not completely dependent on old growth timber as some manufacturers would have us believe. I am here to represent the North Cascades Conservation Council. First of all we want to thank you, Congresswoman Pfost, and the entire committee for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. The North Cascades Conservation Council is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to preserving the natural scenic beauties of the Pacific Northwest. We are incorporated in the State of Washington and have a membership of about 1,000 persons from all walks of life, whose occupations range from plywood mill workers, like myself, to doctors, educators, businessmen, engineers, and so forth. This organization has been instrumental in obtaining approximately 25,000 signatures for a North Cascades National Park study. We strongly urge the immediate passage of S. 174, commonly called the wilderness bill. Too much time has already been lost since this bill was originally introduced. Time and again the opponents of this bill have stalled it, had it amended and reamended. All this time the conservationists have patiently stood by, listened to all their complaints and protests no matter how fantastic or groundless the opponents' claims were. They have made concessions upon concessions, bending over backward to make sure this bill was fair and just to everyone. This has gone on to the point where the bill's opponents openly joke about the concessions made since the original introduction of the wilderness bill. This should certainly leave no doubt in anyone's mind that any justifiable objections to the bill have been met long ago. There have also been many amendments to this bill that have damaged it severely. Therefore, any further crippling amendments are completely unacceptable. We would respect fully recommend that if any further amendments are made to this bill that they be made only upon the recommendations of the conservationists. [Laughter.] We have given them every opportunity. Now let us have our turn. There has been much said in the numerous Senate committee hear ings on this bill but it will do no harm to draw renewed attention to many of these pertinent facts. (1) Neither the forest economy of the Nation, nor the Northwest, nor that of the State of Washington will be jeopardized by the wilderness bill. (2) We know of no industry on which so much misinformation has been spread than on forestry and lumbering. In fact, the forest industry appears to suffer a split personality. When they are convincing the public and their own members on what a good job of intensive forestry they are doing, the optimism flows enthusiastically; without a gasp for breath they flip to a posture of pessimism when talking about their condition and its relationship to recreation lands. (3) There is no crisis or timber famine in America. There never has been nor is there likely to be one in the foreseeable future. The economic difficulties faced by the industry are rather caused by oversupply of manufactured timber products, economic conditions, competition of other materials, overexpansion of the industries, and other factors having no relationship whatsoever with availability of raw materials. Recent timber inventories in the Pacific Northwest indicate increased volumes not previously known to exist. There is no need to glut the wood market with wood from our wilderness areas, present and potential. We can afford both forest recreation areas (such as wilderness areas, national parks, and so forth) and intensive integrated forestry. On this we base our justification for urging passage of S. 174. (4) More forestry and more wilderness are compatible ideas. (5) The indirect benefits of outdoor recreation areas can do much to stimulate the economic growth of the Pacific Northwest. (6) There is no economic justification to oppose the wilderness bill. (7) We agree with the well-known forester, Arthur Carhart, that the official of any timber company who proposes logging be allowed within national parks, monuments, and dedicated wilderness areas, is out to make a fast and easy dollar at the expense of the future of his children and that of the country and his country's future. Why is the wilderness bill necessary? At present the national parks are protected by the act of 1916 and other miscellaneous laws. In some respects, however, they are still unable to protect some of our finest national parks from unwise pressure from local and other commercial groups, and there is nothing in the present law that now protects national park back-country wilderness as wilderness. On the other hand, wilderness areas of our national forests have no protection at all by law, but merely that of administrative regulations which can be altered as easily and as quickly as they were set up. We believe that the Forest Service has done a good job in initiating and protecting these areas. Even the best administrators are human and subject to pressure, and there have been lapses. Changes in the Secretary of Agriculture will occur at frequent intervals in the future, as the political balance of our Nation swings to-andfro. The whim of one man could drastically alter any of these areas. This is really an undemocratic situation which needs replacement by a fair legal basis. At the July 23, 1958, hearing on the wilderness bill the spokesman for the Forest Service, Edward C. Crafts, said that the wilderness bill would be desirable legislation because: It would give statutory recognition to wilderness areas, and would specify procedures for their establishment and modification, and would clarify uses that could be permitted. The bill would recognize sustained yield and multiple use as purposes for which the national forests are to be administered. It would give statutory recognition to recreation and wildlife-habitat resources as two of the multiple-use objectives on the national forests. It would recognize wilderness areas as being one of the purposes for which the national forests were established. The wilderness bill is also needed for fish and game habitat protection, for recreation including hunting and fishing, for the fish and game per se; without wilderness areas in Montana, grizzly bear hunting might be a thing of the past. It is also needed for scientific reasons as a control area for research, and a genetic reservoir of unmanaged species and strains of incalculable value to the future; for education, as a natural museum for public information about resource values; and as a conservation reserve of commodity resources for future generations if they must choose to use them. It is obvious that those who have a commercial interest in making use of the wilderness lands, either now or in a future they anticipate, are opposed to the bill, while the rest of the interested and informed public is overwhelmingly in favor of it. The persistence of these selfish commercial interests in the face of proof that legitimate commercial activities will not be harmed is actually the most impressive demonstration of a real need for the protection that this legislation will afford. Because of this attitude we have a fight on our hands; the fight is not against any interest that might be damaged by the proposed bill, but rather it is against the interests who have hopes of raiding the few remaining areas of wilderness for their own purposes whenever the future may offer them a chance. The same interests that have been trying to raid public lands for their purposes are going to fight any program for any effective protection. Therefore, no further time should be wasted, and S. 174 should be passed immediately. Thank you. Mrs. PrOST. Thank you. Without objection, the statements referred to will be placed in the record following Mr. Kral's statement. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so ordered. (The statements follow :) PERSONAL STATEMENT OF HENRY J. KRAL, EVERETT, WASH. I would like to respectfully submit this as my personal testimony to this hearing committee, in support of S. 174. My name is Henry Kral and I am a plywood worker from Everett, Wash. Since most of the reasons for the need of this bill have been adequately brought out by other proponents of this bill, and since they have adequately proved that this bill will not in any way do harm to any legitimate commercial activities, I shall limit myself to three points. 1. Respectfully refer you to my personal testimony given at the Seattle Senate hearing on S. 1123 which is in the printed record of that hearing, which carries my feeling toward these areas. 2. Draw your attention to the fact that S. 174 is a much watered down version of this legislation, and any further crippling amendments would complete the scalping of this bill. 3. Most important of all, submit for inclusion in the printed records of this hearing along with this typed sheet, a copy of the Everett Daily Herald classified advertising page for May 18, 1961, which states: "Wanted-Fir peeler logs "Old growth and second growth delivered to Washington Plywood Co., Inc., lot, 6 days weekly 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays; 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturdays. AL 9-5131." This is not a one-insertion advertisement but one that appears periodically in the Everett Daily Herald for many consecutive insertions. I offer this as proof of my testimony at the above-mentioned hearing (which I hereby resubmit) as proof that second-growth timber can and is being used in the manufacture of plywood. Therefore, the available supply of timber for plywood manufacture is much greater than the industry would have us believe, and we can well afford these wilderness areas. Thank you for the privilege of submitting this testimony. STATEMENT OF EVERETT CITIZENS COMMMITTEE FOR A NORth Cascades NATIONAL PARK We present this statement under the auspices of the Everett Citizens Committee for a North Cascades National Park. Our organization was formed with the following objectives: To secure the support of the people and the Government in the protection and preservation of scenic, scientific, wildlife, wilderness, and outdoor recreational recourse values in the North Cascades; giving particular attention to the formation of a national park in the North Cascades. Within the past 25 years the destruction and despoilation of wilderness has been relentless; and since the last war it has become obvious that unless something is done immediately our last remnants of priceless irreplaceable wilderness would soon be gone forever, due to this shamelessly vicious onslaught. Those who are blessed with foresight see what this will mean in another 50 years the loss of beauty, the ruination of quiet places and the suicidal destruction of health-giving areas that are essential to the sanity and bodily well-being of the people. Thus a bill was drawn up 5 years ago for the protection of wilderness for all time. This bill, S. 174, has been so tampered with, so manhandled, that it is scarcely recognizable for what it was. The conservationists have been willing-in order not to be held up another 5 years, to make concessions-they have been too easy in this matter. At this late date we state that any further crippling amendments would render the bill worthless. We do not work for today-we work for the future-for what is worthwhile, not for a passing day, nor for a momentary profit. Let there be no hesitationfor once lost, the wilderness is irreplaceable. What will we leave to posterity? Taking into consideration what man has done already to the good earth, we should be setting aside a heritage for our grandchildren that will make them proud to be citizens of a United States that is truly America, the beautiful. We urge the passage of S. 174 without further crippling amendments or hesitation. ADELSA S. DоPH, Secretary. Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is Mrs. Neil Haig. STATEMENT OF MRS. NEIL HAIG, SEATTLE, WASH., CHAIRMAN, PACIFIC NORTHWEST CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB, AND WASHINGTON STATE VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF WESTERN OUTDOOR CLUBS Mrs. HAIG. Madam Chairman and Mr. Olsen, I am Mrs. Neil Haig, of 2216 Federal Avenue, Seattle, Wash., chairman of the Pacific Northwest chapter of the Sierra Club, and also Washington State vice president of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, which consists of 14 clubs and about 5,500 members. I wish to speak on behalf of S. 174, known as the wilderness bill and which is being considered by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Hon. Wayne Aspinall, chairman. Many of us have followed every step in the preparation of the wilderness bill since its inception over 5 years ago until its enactment on September 6, 1961. The high purpose of this act in establishing a policy to preserve the wild, wilderness and primitive areas, about one-fifth of the public lands under the Federal Government, for the benefit of our people everywhere in the United States is above reproach. These lands, our land, have already been set aside in the past years by the several Government agencies and bureaus that have them in their jurisdiction, and are responsible for their management, such as the Park Service, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and so forth. They have not affected the economy of any of the regions where this has been done and will not in the future. There is not one commercial interest that can say it has been affected in the past. The act clearly states that all future designations will be decided by Congress after recommendations from the various services or bureaus by whom they are managed. We all know that the trite terms "locked up" and "multiple use" have been overworked and misapplied in their relations to the diversified management plans of our Federal lands. We all know that the various Federal agencies are requested by law to serve all the people and to manage our public lands to meet their needs in recreation, commercial use and other uses. We know that wilderness is one of the many uses. We all know that no designation is "locked up" but that all designations must have policies, rules and regulations in order to have them serve their best use, and to preserve their entity. All areas are open to all people. Any specified use such as timber harvesting has to have a sustained yield and allowable cut at each cycle; grazing has to be controlled to prevent erosion; recreation areas must comply with certain regulations; mining has to be limited to mining; watersheds must be properly protected to provide clear and abundant water and prevent floods; wilderness has to be preserved in its natural state to serve educational, ecological, and esthetic purposes. Each area of use has its policy and the wilderness bill will provide a policy for wilderness which is needed because of its unique use. The wilderness bill will preserve the wilderness character of these areas for all generations to enjoy as well as providing a laboratory for |