This is my boy Richard. I wanted him to tell you his story. He is a Star Scout and leader of his troop. Mrs. Prost. We will be happy to hear from you, Richard. STATEMENT OF RICHARD LEE, COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO Mr. RICHARD LEE. This year our Scout troop was set to go over to the Selkirk area. We hopped from the truck, about 16 boys in the back of the truck, and all started up the road and met logging construction on the way. It was kind of a dusty trail. We hiked up a small trail with nice ridges and old trails where goats and things like that could go. It was nice and pretty, but there were hardly any signs of game, no deer tracks or anything like that. We had a wonderful time. We did not catch too many fish, but we all had great fun, and usually you do. Our family used to go over to Lochsa and track up, and before the road was there we would catch lots of fish. We would fill up every night and each had a fish breakfast every morning. Really good. Last year we went hunting with Dad down to Tom Beal at the head of Moose Creek. We camped in the morning and we have pots and stuff like that, and a good meal. And old Oscar, who has been hunting for years, said, "Take your boy and go up over the ridge here and there will be an elk there." So we go over and hike half an hour or an hour and he showed me to go this way [indicating], that he is coming up around the mountain. He goes up around and soon you hear two shots, and I, boy— I freeze. I go over and he put two through the ribs of the big bull elk, 12 points, who is still running. I had to finish him off. Great trip. Quite a good-sized horn. That year we had a party of six and had a wonderful trip. That is all I have to say. Mrs. ProST. Thank you very much. Can you tell us how old you are? Mr. RICHARD LEE. Fourteen. Mrs. ProST. What grade of school? Mr. RICHARD LEE. Ninth grade. I was 12 when I got the elk. [Laughter.] Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness is James W. Olson, of Grangeville, Idaho. You may proceed, Mr. Olson. STATEMENT OF JAMES W. OLSON, GRANGEVILLE, IDAHO, REPRE- I first wish to take this opportunity to thank the Public Lands Subcommittee and especially Representative Pfost for taking time and interest in scheduling this Idaho hearing. It is obvious that our Representatives in the House are interested in the opinions of local people who have a very personal interest in the wilderness bill. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for our representatives in the Senate who apparently ignored requests to hold local hearings. We of the Grangeville Jaycees wish to go on record as being opposed to S. 174 for the following reasons: (1) The bill is entirely unnecessary because existing regulations adequately insure that the people of the United States will have wilderness areas for recreational use. (2) If this bill is passed it will change a relatively simple procedure of reclassification, which by the way, is handled primarily by local Forest Service personnel and in which local people have ample opportunity to express their views, to a system breeding confusion, complication, and unwieldiness, and which, by the way, will virtually eliminate local opinion. (3) Prior to the passage of this wilderness bill or to the establishment of a wilderness area we should study the primitive boundaries and reclassify any land which is more adequately suited to be managed under the multiple use concept of Forest Service management. (4) It has been said, and very eloquently, I might add, by our U.S. Senator, that this legislation is needed now, for the benefit of the minority of the population who will someday visit these areas. He has also said that the majority have no right to trample upon the rights of the minority. These statements are well made and I do not believe any of us intend to trample upon anyone's rights anymore than I believe the legislature has the right to reclassify more than 3 million acres of Idaho land without first establishing that this land is more valuable to the people of the United States as wilderness area than for any other purpose. (5) It is entirely possible that in time, if this bill is passed, it will increase the Government cost of administration; because this bill lumps into one system lands administered by three separate agencies, confusion and overlapping of supervisory authority could result. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that to correct this problem a new agency will be created whose job it will be to administer all wilderness areas. (6) We personally believe, however, that the most objectionable feature of this bill is the inconsistency and attempted wastefulness of public moneys by the U.S. Senate. It was only a few years ago that the U.S. Senate, recognizing that the recreational situation within the United States needed adequate study before any areas were set aside, passed a bill creating a commission to study this very problem. The report of this Commission is due by Jauary 31, 1962, or 3 months from now. In the 3 years of its existence more than $2 million of our money has been appropriated to enable this Commission to conduct its study. Ignoring these facts the U.S. Senate has passed S. 174 and has urged the House of Representatives to do the same. All this was done approximately 3 months before receipt of a report which cost the American people $2 million and which passage of this bill could invalidate entirely. In conclusion we urge you to seriously consider all of the factors involved before any action is taken, keeping in mind that passage of this bill will assign 3 million acres of Idaho land to the ill-afforded luxury of wilderness. Mrs. ProST. Thank you very much. Mr. OLSON. Thank you. Mrs. ProST. Our next witness is Mrs. Natasha D. Boyd. STATEMENT OF MRS. NATASHA D. BOYD, HAYDEN LAKE, IDAHO Mrs. BOYD. Madam Chairman, Congressman Olsen, and fellow testifiers, I am Mrs. Natasha Boyd. I represent myself and my husband. I am 100 percent for the passage of this bill. Mr. Larson and Mr. Magnuson and others have stated that only the rich and the rugged can visit our wilderness areas. How can this be? I am a half-century and 5. Yet this last summer I myself, my husband, and our two children, who are 7 and 11, visited the SelwayBitterroot Primitive Area, and the cost was barely above the natural food bill and gas and oil which it cost to drive the Jeep pickup to Boulder Flat. We all enjoyed fish until it almost came out of our ears. We enjoyed the scenic beauties and the children had their first chance to see the mysteries of a natural hot spring, not man-developed, the peculiarities of the moose, the hunting of the osprey. And they saw a little boa, a rare snake, an unusual thing. They saw plants and herbs, many of them, and they ate wild things. They are still benefiting from their trip. We in Idaho have a special interest in the wilderness bill. Idaho is sparsely populated compared to other States. Her economy needs dollars. Tourism is, as of 1960, our third ranking industry. This information came from the Idaho Department of Commerce and Development publication, "Preliminary Tourist Survey." This publication also gives an excellent breakdown of the $120,321,840 which the tourists spent in 1960, showing the benefits to the farming and building industries and many other businesses. Why do tourists come to Idaho? They certainly do not come for her theater, her music festivals, her gigantic buildings, her historic monuments or even primarily for her lakes (other States surpass her in size and numbers of lakes). They come for her touch of the marvelous old pioneer days, her free open spaces, and her wilderness. A little personal example here will illustrate the point. Our out-ofState visitors this last summer consisted of a pair of old college friends who came to float through our wilderness down the Salmon River and stopped to see us while they were here. The others, a family of four, came to see us and were so entranced with Idaho that they are in the process of buying a place near us. This home and acreage will be paid for out of moneys earned outside Idaho. Why is Lewiston rushing construction of tourist camps? Why are we so often seeing new resorts and guest ranches? Possibly Idaho citizens are finding tourists mean dollars. Does the preservation of the remaining wilderness mean anything to us? I think so. We hear much from the mining and lumber industries about their need for more resources. But why are they not using the resources at their disposal now? Could it be that the public demand for these products is slackening? Times do change. Remember tourism is now our third ranking industry. Other more universal reasons for guaranteeing the preservation of our wilderness areas include keeping these areas as historical museums to preserve some small part of our country as our forefathers and the pioneers found it. Also, I consider, wilderness areas should be preserved as laboratories and museums for future scientists. Should we manange to keep from blowing ourselves to bits, we are going to be forced to study life processes minutely in order to gain knowledge of ourselves. Our present modern laboratories are manmade environments and may well produce unnatural results which lead us astray. Our wilderness laboratories might be a key to the future. Last but not least, the wilderness serves our men of letters and our artists as a source of inspiration. Dag Hammarskjold, Justice William Douglas, Emerson, Thoreau, and many of the Biblical prophets knew or know the value of wilderness inspiration in times of stress and strain. Our citizens have benefited from the wilderness-inspired art of the frontier artists, of Thomas Moran, of Edward Wesson, Cedric Wright, and Ansel Adams. Let me summarize. We of Idaho need our wilderness preserved as an aid to our economic development. We of the United States of America need wilderness areas as laboratories, as museums for our youth, and as places of inspiration for our thinkers and artists. I would like to read my husband's, if there is time. Mrs. PFOST. You may do so. STATEMENT OF CARL BOYD (AS READ BY NATASHA BOYD) The northern part of Idaho is primarily supported by one industry, lumbering. In Shoshone County the only industry is mining. These are failing miserably to support the economy. It is no secret that four lumbering counties have been declared as depressed areas. We need multi-industry instead of more of what we already have. Our fifth largest payroll in Idaho is unemployment compensation payments. Our best commodity is our scenery, the mountains, the streams, the fauna and flora that inhabit them. Large amounts of it are already exposed to the touring vacationer. Many, many people want something else a wilderness. They are willing to pay to enjoy it. A trip can be simple or expensive. I was told by a man in California who had flown into an Idaho wilderness that this was the best vacation he and his family had ever had. He hopes to do it this summer and each summer. People are only beginning to discover our wilderness because the national parks and other areas are becoming so crowded. It is extremely important that the wilderness bill be passed. Let us not sell our birthright for a mess of pottage. Mrs. ProST. Thank you, Mrs. Boyd. [Applause.] We will now turn back to our regular calendar. Mr. Tony Galdos will appear for the Gem County Chamber of Commerce, of Emmett, Idaho, taking the place of Mr. George Speros. You may proceed, Mr. Galdos. STATEMENT OF TONY GALDOS, REPRESENTING THE GEM COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, EMMETT, IDAHO Mr. GALDOS. Madam Chairman, my name is Tony Galdos. I am a member of the Gem County Chamber of Commerce. I have been appointed by the president to come here and read a resolution passed by that organization. This is the resolution: Whereas S. 174 "To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System," has been presented to the Gem County Chamber of Commerce; and Whereas the economy of the State of Idaho is dependent upon water resources, agriculture, mining, lumber, livestock operations, tourists, and multiple use of natural resources; and Whereas such "Wilderness Area," if created, would in our opinion, interfere with the multiple-use concept of our natural resources; and 3 2 M Whereas Idaho forest lands, in primitive areas or otherwise, can support more than one use, under proper management; that our primitive areas are presently managed for the best interests of the public, commerce, and industry; that S. 174 is not necessary or required, since the so-called primitive areas are presently protected and administered under existing laws, rules, and regulations without violating basic concepts of multiple use. The existing laws, rules, and regulations and established procedures preserve hunting, fishing, and recreation areas, without the necessity of "experimental legislation" such as S. 174. This is no time to be experimenting with our natural resources; and Whereas development of watersheds, rivers, streams, and reservoirs for irrigation would be impaired in the "Wilderness Areas"; and Whereas uncontrolled forest, insects and diseases could interfere with proper timber and watershed management in said areas; and Whereas prospecting for minerals in said areas would be impaired; and now, therefore, be it Resolved, That Gem County Chamber of Commerce, Emmett, Idaho, hereby declares that it is opposed to S. 174, for the reasons mentioned above; be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to our representatives in Washington, D.C. Madam Chairman, if I might, I would like to digress and make one comment as to one point I am particularly proud of in this resolution, that one sentence "This is no time to be experimenting with our natural resources." This comes from a town which has just recently lost 100 men to active service and, basically, in this town we are keenly aware of our birthright and American heritage and things of that nature, yet we have not dwelled upon that in this resolution sent here. Our American heritage, we realize, is not one, but many, and we have had challenges from nations that are willing to bury all of those heritages that we cherish. Therefore, to those people who say that the wilderness bill covers only one-fiftieth, or a little bit of money, or just a tiny bit of lumbering, I would like to hasten to point out that there is only one degree of difference between hot water and steam. Hot water may be fine in a hotwater bottle at the foot of the bed, but to meet this challenge we need steam in industry. Thank you. [Applause.] Mrs. ProST. Thank you Mr. Galdos. Mr. GALDOS. Thank you. Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is Mr. C. J. Hopkins, secretary of Potlatch Forests, Inc., Lewiston, Idaho. You may proceed Mr. Hopkins. STATEMENT OF C. J. HOPKINS, SECRETARY, POLATCH FORESTS, INC., LEWISTON, IDAHO Mr. HOPKINS. Madam Chairman, and Representative Olsen, my name is C. J. Hopkins. I am secretary of Potlatch Forests, Inc., with general offices at Lewiston, Idaho. We are opposed to the enactment into law of S. 174 or other similar-type bills. We wish to reaffirm our position taken at the hearings on the Selway Primitive Wilderness Area designation at Lewiston, Idaho, on March 9, 1961, and wish to make it crystal clear that we are not opposed to the designation of wilderness areas as such when such areas have been adequately reviewed and are found to best serve the limited or single-purpose use of wilderness. |