Existing wilderness has been, and is being properly administered by the Forest Service under authority of Wilderness Area Regulation U-1 (CFR 251.20) of the Forest Service Manual.

Idaho is one of the public lands States which must rely upon multiple use of its natural resources to maintain its economy and support State and local government.

Stockmen must utilize public lands for grazing. S. 174 recognizes existing grazing rights, but only with the provision that these rights are "subject to such restrictions and regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary holding jurisdiction over the area." It does not recognize or allow for future expansion. The forest products industry ranks among the largest in the State and this position has been attained through sound conservation practices that emphasize the cutting of timber on a sustained yield basis. Logged areas, after they have been fully developed, enhance rather than desecrate the forests. Access roads, built to standard, are available for fire control and forest management. Such roads are also available to outdoorsmen for the proper harvest of fish and game and for camping areas.

S. 174 purports to offer safeguards for the forest products industry, but the socalled review prior to wilderness classification is limited only to consideration of "suitability for wilderness."

Ex

There is no specific requirement that areas with valuable timber, minerals, forage, or other resources must be eliminated from wilderness classification. Mining and minerals processing is another of Idaho's leading industries. ploration and development, including the location of strategic minerals vital to national defense, is a necessary adjunct to the mining industry.

S. 174, however, permits no activity that would be "incompatible with the wilderness concept."

The Idaho State Chamber of Commerce specifically objects to any other provisions of S. 174 which eliminate affirmative congressional action for wilderness classification and which unduly favor certain States.

The proposed legislation, by allowing only a congressional veto of a Presidential recommendation, is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the powers it confers upon the legislative branch of the Government.

Under S. 174, there could be no amendment of a Presidential recommendation. Should a recommendation be vetoed by the Congress, it could be immediately reintroduced with only minor revision. Neither would there be a limit on the number of times a rejected recommendation could be revised and submitted.

S. 174 grants special review procedures for one State, Alaska, before land in this State could be classified as wilderness. Another State, Minnesota, is granted certain exclusions from wilderness classification.

The Idaho State Chamber of Commerce respectfully submits that such special provisions are not in the public interest, unless they are applied to all public lands States.

The Idaho State Chamber of Commerce reaffirms its position that it does not oppose wilderness use for certain areas of public land and as the only use for certain of these lands.

All lands under consideration for wilderness classification should be subject to a complete inventory to determine their highest possible use. The inventory should include recreation, hunting and fishing, minerals, natural gas and oil, grazing, and forest products.

Each designation of a wilderness area should be considered on its individual merit and any authorization for wilderness classification should only be by affirmative congressional action and with the approval of the legislature of the State in which the area is located.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. ProST. Thanks very much to you, Mr. Harris. [Applause.] Our next witness is Mr. Ronald D. Johnston, of the Alph Johnson Lumber Co., Orofino, Idaho.

You may proceed, Mr. Johnston.

STATEMENT OF RONALD JOHNSTON, OROFINO, IDAHO

Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam Chairman, and Congressman Olsen, my name is Ronald Johnston, of Orofino, Idaho. I am representing no firm or association, but speak today as a private citizen interested as well in preserving for our children the opportunity of enjoying all the rights, benefits, and duties inherent in our governmental system.

I want to do what I can to assure all people the chance to make their marks on society-a chance to follow their pursuits without urdue, unnecessary governmental restrictions on their activities.

For the benefit of Mr. Trueblood, there are a lot of affiliated woodpeckers around our sawmill. I have seen both Rocky Mountain sheep and goats from highways and last year my wife had to shoot a bear out on the back porch to keep him from running away with the garbage can. So we do not need a million acres all in one piece to find big game and wildlife.

It appears to me that S. 174 is a form of undue, unnecessary governmental restriction on the activities of the majority, with that restriction resulting in enjoyment of relatively few. It appears that if S. 174 is enacted into law, it will further increase the artificial restraints on the utilization of our natural resources, which are the basis for the wealth of our Nation.

With little regard for geographic and economic differences in the widely divergent areas embraced, this bill attempts to cover all areas and types of terrain with one bit of legislation; this is tantamount to saying that the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona, Glacier National Park, and Nez Perce National Forest are identical in their particular characteristics and therefore deserve identical treat

ment.

I do not contend that this bill will "lock up" all these various natural resources; to the contrary, it gives at least a semblance of opportunity to unlock that which has already been removed from utilization. However, the methods by which some areas may later be excluded are the reverse of accepted procedure. It tentatively removes the whole area from economic development, with any reversion dependent upon action by the executive department and failure to oppose this action by the legislature. The President makes the lawCongress must veto if it does not like it. In my grade school civics classes I always heard it was the other way around.

Section 3(a) states that the wilderness system shall comprise certain specified areas, "subject to existing private rights." However, section 4 immediately following states:

The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture are each authorized to acquire as part of the wilderness system any privately owned land within any portion of such system under his jurisdiction, subject to the approval of any necessary appropriations by the Congress.

Thus, the point so strongly made by proponents of this act, that of permitting those already on the land to remain, is nothing but an outand-out farce. Those whose rights antedate the provisions of this bill by many scores of years, and who maintain private homes, ranches, mines, and so forth, will find those rights preempted by a stroke of the pen on a U.S. Treasury Department check.

Many areas to be incorporated in the system should rightly be there; many others should not.

77350-62-pt. 1—9

I may add it always has happened in the past that land will always go to its best economic use and if that best use is wilderness, that is the way it will be.

Those areas which are already in the national park and national monument system are already reserved for single use management, and do not need the further restrictions to be found in S. 174.

The lands currently under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, as well as those now in game and wildlife refuges, deserve individual attention and study, as is given the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area. This study then should be followed by positive action by the Congress, rather than the negative approach used in S. 174. Thus closer attention may be paid to each area, to determine whether exclusion from sustained yield, coordinated use management is truly in the best interest of the whole people.

So let us not be in too big a hurry to create by statute a type of area, reserved for a single use, until we have determined beyond the slightest doubt that this is the best use, both for esthetic enjoyment and for economic advantage of all the people.

In many cases, both wilderness enjoyment and economic utilization can be compatible—and, I humbly submit, wildlife is usually better off after a virgin area has been logged over. Let us not be hasty in throttling the economic good of the people of large areas, in effect creating or enlarging so-called depressed areas, while preserving untouched land in primitive condition for the esthetic enjoyment of relatively few.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge that this committee give this bill. S. 174, an unfavorable vote.

I thank the members of this committee for the opportunity to make these opinions known.

Mrs. PFOST. Without objection, the resolution of the Idaho State Legislature submitted with your statement, Mr. Johnston, will be made a part of the record.

(Resolution referred to follows:)

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL No. 6

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled:

We, your memorialists, the Legislature of the State of Idaho, respectfully represent that:

Whereas the economy of the State of Idaho is based upon its agriculture, lumber, mining, sheep and cattle industries, and the use of its waters for irrigation and hydroelectric power; and

Whereas approximately two-thirds of the land area of the State of Idaho is federally owned and contains approximately 3 million acres set aside for primitive and wilderness areas; and

Whereas these designations are restrictive to full utilization and deny to the natural resources industries of the State of Idaho the right to wisely develop the natural resources contained in these large primitive and wilderness areas of the State and further deny ready access to these areas to millions of American citizens, all to the detriment of said industries and to the people of the State of Idaho; and

Whereas one of the great potential industries of the State of Idaho is its tourist trade and wildlife attractions: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, State of Idaho (the Senate concurring), That we are most respectfully opposed to the dedication of additional lands as primitive or wilderness areas in the State of Idaho and respectfully request that all primitive and wilderness areas in the State of Idaho be reviewed

and studied with the view of eliminating all lands which have a higher or greater multiple-use potential than that of single-use dedication as primitive or wilderness; and be it further

Resolved, That we oppose Federal enactment of future wilderness legislation embodying the principle of locked-up areas for single-purpose use which would deny to the natural resources industries the right to wisely develop such natural resources and would also be to the detriment of said industries and to the people of the State of Idaho; and be it further

Resolved, That the present agencies administering all Federal lands do so with the view of developing the full multiple use of the lands to further the general welfare and the economy of the State of Idaho; and be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of state of the State of Idaho be authorized and he is hereby directed to immediately forward certified copies of this memorial to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, the Secretary of Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and to the Senators and Representatives in Congress from this State; and be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of state of the State of Idaho be authorized and he is hereby directed to immediately forward certified copies of this memorial to the speaker of the house and to the president of the senate of the following States: Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota, and that these States are hereby urged to take similar action in their respective legislative bodies.

Passed by the house January 27, 1961.

Passed by the senate February 6, 1961.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you. [Applause.]

We have had many delightful and stimulating witnesses today. Even so we get a little bit tired of sitting. I do want to compliment you people upon having your five statements. You have made it possible for us to hear witnesses much more rapidly than if we had to depend entirely on off-the-cuff remarks.

At this point I thought it would be good for us to stand and take a "seventh inning stretch."

So we will take a short recess.

(A short recess was taken.)

Mrs. Prost. The committee will come to order.

We have been advised there are a few people who cannot remain over this evening, but you have previously written in and requested time. Therefore, we are going to hear from three or four who must leave this evening.

First on the list is Mr. Orrin Lee of Coeur d'Alene.

STATEMENT OF ORRIN LEE, COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO

Mr. ORRIN LEE. Madam Chairman, neither one of us has a written statement.

Mrs. Prost. You may proceed.

Mr. ORRIN LEE. I am Orrin Lee, born in Rexburg, Idaho, now living in Coeur d'Alene, and I am a businessman there. I think I represent those select few which you have heard mentioned in the newspapers and here today. I am one of those who appreciates and enjoys the wilderness area.

My family, together with my close friends, different ones have, during the past few years, made a summer trek into a primitive or backwood area. We also take a fall hunting trip into the area.

At first we went just close to Coeur d'Alene, over in the Little North Fork and Coeur d'Alene River Valley country. But the roads moved in, the timber was cut pretty well, and the streams dwindled in size,

and fish were not available to catch in the proportion which they were previously; so we moved from there into the Cedars area on Moose Creek upstream from Cedar ranger station into Montana and on over the hill. We fished and hunted in that area for a number of years. The roads were built over the top, the timber roads were built about every 100 yards on the side of the mountain, and we vacated that area. Then we took our families, when the little ones got big enough to sit a horse, and we went down the Lochsa River from the ranger station to spend our vacation.

One of my close friends is manager of the Woolworth store in Coeur d'Alene, and another one is a carpenter, and we have a few ponies that we raise and a used truck which we use, and we made our trek down the Lochsa River.

As you know, the fishing was great before the road came in, and there was elk and such, and you could see them and the boys saw them. The roads then took that area away from us in the sense we particularly enjoyed and last year we went over into the head of Moose Creek, which is on this map here, out from Tom Beal Park. hunted there successfully this fall.

We

There has been some statement about not many people using that area. There were 21 cars of hunters parked in the end-of-theroad area, which is the little red road there on the map to the left of the pipe. Twenty-one cars were parked there at one point on the opening of the season.

I feel it a responsibility to come here today to defend, if I can, the thing I like best about Idaho. I live in Idaho. I am not one of the tourists, or tourist dollars. I am a resident of Idaho, and I appreciate this wilderness area that we have.

I grew up over in the Yellowstone country, as I said, and I appreciated that, and I still do, but as much as this area where it is untouched and pretty much free. Where one person may use it now, there will be a hundred tomorrow, and a thousand later on. I said I was one of those special few. The implication has been given only a few people can afford to go. For five of us who hunted this fall, harvesting for elk, our out-of-pocket expense-I say, out of pocket-because we always have our truck and a few horses-was $22.60 each for five of us.

We have hunted in the Cedars area for as little as $13.50 each for the entire hunting trip, or the entire out-of-pocket expense.

There is one other point I would like to make. I have here the statement that appeared in the Coeur d'Alene paper, as you mentioned before, where the Chief of the Forest Service is quoted, I think out of context and very unfairly, by saying, "Wilderness Bill Costly to Idaho, Forest Claims." I say that is a direct misrepresentation of what was written. In the other paper, of course, is the full text, and the full text says the fire prevention problem can be solved. The people of Idaho have not received adequate information, not true information, about this bill, and they are finding out in the mills, and among the common people, they are finding out a lot about it. And when they do it will snowball and roll, and the opponents will be, I think, 98 percent for it.

I would also like to join another man and say I have been a Republican all my life. But I am adding "Church" to it in this next election. Thank you. [Applause.]