Mr. SMITH. Let me see if I have the chairman's suggestion clearly in mind. I want to be sure I have it clearly first so I will be able to cogitate on it. It is the suggestion that of the primitive areas where there appears to be no serious question for alternative uses, that they blanketed in as they are, and these where there are some questions about economic development be allowed to come in on an act basis rather than be all embraced and then excluded.

Mr. ASPINALL. That is right, but held in their present status at the present time. On these inroads, as you speak of private businessmen who are for them, although we may be critical of some of their operations, nevertheless it is the heart of our economy, the way our business people act, as a rule, that they be left so that they cannot be despoiled until a determination by Congress.

Mr. SMITH. I would be reluctant to give an answer now, but I would like to think about it.

Mr. ASPINALL. You think it over, and remember that this has to do with the provision that S. 174 carries that conveys to the President and the executive department what we think is congressional policy and responsibility.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Prost. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SAYLOR. Madam Chairman.

First, Mr. Smith, I want to congratulate you on your statement and tell you that, as usual, you have pointed out the two real problems that exist in the legislation that is before us.

I might say to my colleague from Colorado, the chairman of the full committee, that having to carry the cross alone is something that is not unusual in this committee.

I have had it on several other occasions. I do not relish it at any time. It is always a great deal more pleasant to have the hearty cooperation of the chairman of the full committee.

It makes our work not only in this committee but on the floor a great deal easier. But sometimes there are some problems that are of such magnitude that some of us can look at them without the local interest.

Mr. ASPINALL. Especially, if my friend will permit me, when he has no interest involved whatsoever, so far as local interests are concerned.

Mr. SAYLOR. Maybe I have more interest than all of the local interest combined.

Mr. ASPINALL. That is not the way my friend operates on other matters that affects his people in his district.

Mr. SAYLOR. I certainly hope that something can be worked out because, as was indicated by the two Secretaries that were here yesterday, it is very evident that this is a part of the President's program, one which the chairman knows I support wholeheartedly.

I have no questions to ask.

Mrs. PrOST. The gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. LANGEN. No questions.

Mrs. ProST. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dominick.
Mr. DOMINICK. I have no questions, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. PEOST. Thank you very much.

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you.

Mrs. ProST. Our next witness was to have been Mr. Burton W. Marston, chairman, Public Lands Committee, Izaak Walton League of America; immediate past-president, Wyoming division, IWĽA. He has submitted a statement for the record, and was listed as a witness this afternoon.

Without objection, the statement of Mr. Marston, the immediate past-president of the Wyoming division, IWLA, and chairman of the public lands committee, will be placed in the record at this point. Is there objection?

Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would only ask that the staff make it in the form of a statement and not in the form of a letter, in which it is placed at the present time. With that understanding, I withdraw my objection.

Mrs. ProST. Is there objection?

Hearing none, it is so ordered.

(Statement of Burton W. Marston follows:)

STATEMENT OF BURTON W. MARSTON IN BEHALF OF WYOMING DIVISION, IZAAK

WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC.

Inasmuch as I submitted a statement on behalf of the Wyoming Division, IWLA, last October at the subcommittee field hearing at Montrose, Colo., which was subsequently printed in the report of that hearing, I shall submit no further statement on the items covered in my statement at that time. However, I should like to offer the following suggestions and information, on items which were not available to me at that time.

(1) Figures on the annual total visits to two of our Wyoming wilderness areas on a 10-year basis have been given to me recently by two of our national forest supervisors, which to me are quite significant. Opponents of the wilderness bill have often made the statement that these areas will become locked up and that only a few persons will be able to visit them. These figures indicate clearly that such is not and will not be the case.

In the 383,000-acre Bridger Wilderness Area of the Bridger National Forest in western Wyoming, a high rocky mountain country of unusual scenic attrac tions, the number of annual visits by sightseeers, fishermen, hunters, campers, and other outdoor recreationists, all either by horseback or hiking, has increased from 6,400 in 1952 to 25,000 in 1961. This area was reclassified from a primitive area to a wilderness area by the Forest Service in 1959 and most of the increase has come since that change was made.

Also in the 93,000-acre Cloud Peak Primitive Area of the Big Horn National Forest in northern Wyoming, which is another high mountain area of unusual scenic attraction, the number of annual visits by hikers and horseback riders has increased from 2,800 in 1951 to 5,500 in 1961, nearly double.

(2) Regarding amendments to S. 174.

(a) We strongly urge against any amendment to section 3 (f) which would provide that before any recommendation of the President made in accordance with that section shall take effect, Congress shall approve a concurrent resolution expressing itself in favor of such recommendation. This we believe is wholly unnecessary and would seriously hamstring the future additions to the wilderness system, such as many of the presently classified "primitive” areas of the national forests, which are of true wilderness character.

(b) The complicated section 3(b)(1) in regard to a primitive area recommendation "if Congress rejects a recommendation of the President and no revised recommendation is made to Congress with respect to that primitive area, the land shall cease to be a part of the wilderness system." This portion should be corrected so that the primitive area shall remain in status quo until a subsequent recommendation of the President or until Congress shall have determined otherwise by law.

(c) The parts in section 6(e) (8), authorizing prospecting for "water resources" and "the completely subsurface use" of the wilderness areas "if such activity is carried on in a manner which is not incompatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment", should be deleted. It is difficult to visualize any important "subsurface" use that would not involve surface

changes also. This part is unnecessary as the President could authorize such development and so could Congress.

(d) The section pertaining to the Presidential Land Use Commission for Alaska is not necessary in this bill. It should be considered as separate legislation.

(3) I am confident there is a rapidly growing number of people, even right here in my own State, who are wanting a wilderness preservation system and policy set up by Congress. After all it only involves about 2 percent of our total land area, much of which is in Alaska. If we want to have some kind of democracy in our land we should give some attention to this wholesome desire on the part of such a large part of our civilian population. Our progress as a nation does not depend entirely on material resources, important as they are. Our inspirational, nonmaterial tendencies are also important, and are receiving greater attention everywhere. America took the lead in the work of establishing a national park system, and later the wilderness philosophy. This has been followed by other nations until now these concepts are worldwide in application. If we can act now to insure that these valued scenic and inspiring areas can be handed down to our children and to their children, in their near primitive form, I am sure they will be most grateful to us. I will appreciate the earnest consideration of yourself and the members of your committee to these recommendations, on behalf of our Wyoming division, IWLA, and on behalf of our public lands committee on behalf of the national organization.

We hope the hearing is accomplished as planned and we shall be most interested in the outcome and the recommendations which your committee makes to the House.

Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is Mr. Clare Conley, managing editor, Field & Stream magazine, Nampa Rod & Gun Club.

STATEMENT OF CLARE CONLEY, MANAGING EDITOR, FIELD & STREAM MAGAZINE; NAMPA ROD & GUN CLUB

Mrs. PrOST. We are happy to have you with us.

Mr. Conley hails from my hometown of Nampa, Idaho.

It is a real pleasure to see you again and have you appear before our committee this afternoon.

Mr. CONLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your kind remarks. Mrs. PrOST. You may proceed.

Mr. CONLEY. My name is Clare Conley, managing editor, Field & Stream magazine. I represent the magazine and the Nampa Rod & Gun Club.

Just three and a half centuries ago the British established their first permanent settlement in what was to become the first 48 of our 50 States. Those hearty pioneers came to a land consisting of 2 billion acres of virgin wilderness.

In the 350 years since them, man, working with the zeal of a fanatic and the power of a bulldozer, has reduced this unmarred wilderness to a few patches scattered throughout the States that total only about 45 million acres.

Today it is the historic duty of this subcommittee to decide whether it is more important for Americans that the last 2.3 percent of this huge country be preserved as virgin wilderness, or left half guarded to the ravages of commercialism.

Field & Stream magazine and the people of Idaho whom I represent (the members of the Nampa Rod & Gun Club) believe in perpetuating this last bit of wilderness by means of S. 174, the Wilderness Act, sponsored by Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico.

The worst problem that the Wilderness Act has had to face is public ignorance of what the bill itself means, stands for, and does. Because of this lack of knowledge by the average person the opponents of the measure have found a fertile field in which to sow the seeds of doubt. They have exaggerated isolated cases of anticipated individual hardship into importance far exceeding reality. But worse than that, they have spread misunderstanding by out-of-text quotes from the act and the use of words heavy with connotation such as "denies rights of individuals," "locks up the forests," "Congress loses control of the land," "stops development of the West," and "blankets in lands."

S. 174 does none of these things, but thanks to propagandalike misunderstanding spread by opponents of the bill, vague misgivings and doubts have been planted in the minds of many people.

But S. 174 is a strong, worthwhile bill with very few, if any, faults. Because of this strength attacks against it would only be at this low level.

I ask the members of this subcommittee to consider those who oppose the Wilderness Act, first by what they stand for, and second by how many citizens they represent, and finally, ask yourselves if they are really interested in conservation or in just using up virgin resources because they are cheap.

The final judgment depends on what is the most good for the most people.

I lived all but the last year and a half of my life in Idaho, and although I worked in the woods during summers when still a student and camped in most of the Western States and western Canada, I never fully realized the value of wilderness lands. I took them for granted, as do many westerners.

I backpacked into high lakes to fish. I hunted big game in primitive areas. I even photographed most of the peaks in the Sawtooth Primitive Area from a low-flying plane.

I loved those mountains but they had always been there, majestic and awesome. It never occurred to me what it would be like not to have such public wildernesses available where I could sleep on the ground at 8,000 or 9,000 feet, out of sight and sound of all but my companions, where no chainsaws sputtered in the distance, where no cowbells or sheepbells disturbed the solitude, and where I could go and come without fear of trespassing on private land.

Then I moved east away from Idaho, with its 8 persons per square mile, to a State with 800 persons per square mile. I saw campgrounds where 1,800 persons crowded into a few square miles of State ground every day from July 4 to Labor Day.

I saw States trying to buy back into public ownership little parcels of land so that residents might have a place to get outdoors in the sunshine and fresh air. I went into a State forest preserve that looked huge on the map, but actually was a maddening checkerboard of public and private land that confused a person wanting to enjoy the forest about where he could and could not go.

I have driven through thousands of miles of woods, fields, swamps, and tidelands, every inch of which was really "locked up" by private ownership.

From all this I learned two things. Nothing can replace true wilderness, federally protected and open to the public. And secondly; wilderness, once spoiled, can never be wilderness again.

Overcrowding now and more so in the future is reason enough to save our last wilderness areas. While man may be a gregarious animal, he cannot tolerate the sheeplike closeness of his fellow man indefinitely. Man needs to have space and solitude where he can relax-if only at intervals-where he is on his own and is his own

master.

Recreation is another value of wilderness areas. Critics of the Wilderness Act claim that it is designed to help only those who can afford to hike the trails or pack in by horse. Quite the opposite is

true.

I have spent many days on trails in wilderness areas and the people I have met have enlightened me about who uses wildernesses. A man, a house painter by trade, and his wife, both in their fifties, told me as we started up a trail with backpacks, the names of many lakes they had visited in wilderness areas throughout Idaho.

The list was long. They hiked every weekend. An elderly man from California whose shorts revealed tanned legs with muscles like a distance runner said he spent his vacation every summer hiking to remote mountains of various States. It was inexpensive and stimulating.

But the most revealing experience of all occurred on the trail up Iron Creek to Alpine and Sawtooth Lakes in the Sawtooth Primitive Area. I was hunting goat at the time. Perched on a rocky ledge high above the trail I saw three dark figures proceeding up the valley floor. With my binoculars, I was surprised to discover they were Catholic

nuns.

They had ahead of them a 5-mile climb of 1,300 feet in hot garments, but to them the scenic beauty alone was worth it. In short, people of all kinds use the wildernesses.

It goes without saying that fishing and hunting are two of the biggest reasons that persons go into the wildnerness, and S. 174 has provided that regulations governing these sports remain with the proper State authorities.

Camping is a third use and from the letters with questions about gear and camping areas that come to my desk every day from Field & Stream's more than 4 million readers, I can predict that camping will boom in the next decade just as boating did in the last.

Because the purpose of S. 174 is to keep the wilderness in its primeval state, campgrounds will not be built in the wilderness areas. But in actual use, camping is allowed anywhere in these primitive areas by anyone who cares to walk up a trail, no matter whether 500 yards or 5 miles.

What arrangement could provide more camping space? Also, it has already developed where large primitive areas exist that roads. and highways around their borders are dotted with campgrounds from which campers make daily excursions into the wilderness.

Appreciation of the scenic beauty of the wilderness is yet another value that attracts persons. Many like to walk the trails with nothing more than a camera just to see the grandeur of the panorama unfold before them and to capture it on film.