It has been noted that in other hearings concerning wilderness preservation that the antiwilderness forces have been mustered in force through propaganda and devious means such as half-truths, misleading statements, and occasional false information. Lower echelon individuals of industrial organizations are opposed to wilderness because they are asked or told to take such a stand by their superiors.

Consequently, it has been most outstandingly noted that only an extremely small percentage of wilderness opponents have ever visited or used any of our Nation's wilderness areas. It would be of great interest to determine what percent of the opponents of the Wilderness Act have visited or used a wilderness area.

In speaking out for the many conservationists and wilderness lovers that we represent, men and women of all social and income levels, we most respectfully ask for your committee's endorsement of the Wilderness Act and the continued active support of the committee members in bringing about the final passage of the Wilderness Act on the floor of the House of Representatives.

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN KERSHAW AND ISABELLE LYNN, DOUBLE K MOUNTAIN RANCH, GOOSE PRAIRIE

For the past several years, while the pro and con factions have worked over the wilderness bill, an interesting change in attitudes has come about: Even those who are most violently against the legislation have been forced to review their stand that wilderness is simply a huge outdoor playground with trees. Need for fighting fire (natural phenomena in wilderness), need (though none has been demonstrated) for commercial exploitation, and the virtuousness of making these areas available to the aged, the lame, and the halt are now some of the noble reasons advanced for destroying the remaining wilderness. The most regrettable thing about the length of time it has taken the Congress to hear all sides, to examine, and to amend the bill is the amount of de facto wilderness that has been consumed in the process.

That wilderness is a playground is simply a byproduct of its existence, and this is no way derogates its function as such, for it is an extremely important byproduct in this age of speed, noise, and gadgets. Man cannot divorce himself from his biological heritage without unknowable results, which thinking beings would rather not experiment with.

Wilderness is a scientific laboratory and a museum. Everything in it is important, and will continue to be important both for study and enjoyment. Until all plant and animal relationships in the universe are clear-from the pill millipede to the grizzly-we must keep these pristine parts of the earth for study. By the time these relationships have been established, it is to be hoped that man will have progressed far enough intellectually so that any question of wilderness destruction is merely ridiculous. In the meantime, wilderness is the first of our natural resources to be in real danger of total disappearance, and neither this nor any generation has a legal or moral right to destroy what is irreplaceable.

While those who oppose the bill at the hearings have outnumbered its proponents, the important fact is that the number of pro-wilderness witnesses who have written letters and statements and sent telegrams for the record considerably outnumber the bill's opponents. This is understandable: Those who are against the bill are opposed for commercial reasons. (We shall hazard a guess here that their witnesses and lobbies are tax-deductible expenses.) Those who favor the bill, rich and privileged though they are, according to the bill's opponents, simply cannot afford the money or the time for personal appearances at hearings. Their letters, statements, and telegrams should count no less than a personal appearance.

Such a point of view may be difficult for some Congressmen who have large logging interests within their constituencies, but under the circumstances of the expressed will of the people, the House has no alternative but to vote a resounding and statesmanlike "Yes" on S. 174.

STATEMENT OF LEMHI COUNTY SPORTS MEN'S ASSOCIATION, SALMON, IDAHO, SUBMITTED BY F. S. KIMBALL, PRESIDENT

1. This association, consisting of 101 members, has overwhelmingly voted their approval of the wilderness bill at a regular club meeting.

2. It is requested that this be made a part of the record of hearings concerning this bill.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JUSTIS D. DUVEL ON BEHALF ON THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE GARDEN CLUBS, INC.

The approximately one-half million members of the national Council of State Garden Clubs, Inc., representing 47 States, have authorized the following statement in behalf of the wilderness bill:

The National Council of State Garden Clubs, Inc., an organization dedicated to the conservation of our natural resources, and to the importance of preserving America's remnants of wilderness for watershed protection, clear pure water, and the protection of wild game, firmly believe, after careful study of the matter at hand, that the Wilderness Act, S. 174 properly directs emphasis in future management of the wilderness system, and we urge the subcommittee to report S.174 with the following weakening amendments removed:

(1) That amendment which would permit the Federal Power Commission to authorize dams in wilderness areas. (Allott amendment)

(2) The amendment having to do with the procedure in primitive areas, which would permit the Secretary of Agriculture to remove a primitive area entirely from the wilderness area without a fear or reversal by the Congress. (Section 3 (b) (1).)

(3) Two additions in section 6(c) (8) authorizing prospecting for water resources and the completely subsurface use of wilderness areas.

STATEMENT OF NEW MEXICO WILDLIFE AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, INC., PRESENTED BY Doc H. BURNETT, PRESIDENT

This statement is filed with you for the record in the wilderness preservation hearings May 7-9 on behalf of the New Mexico Wildlife and Conservation Association, Inc. and affiliates throughout the State.

This will confirm once again the firm stand this organization has taken from the beginning on wilderness preservation that we are unalterably in favor of it. We endorse S. 174 as a good, sound measure to accomplish the desired end in complete fairness to all. Not only is this organization strongly supporting the wilderness preservation proposals but every other organization in the State concerned with outdoor recreation, and many others as well are in accord with our position.

We feel strongly that we owe it to posterity as well as to ourselves to save some of these unspoiled areas. They are becoming more useful and important every day. To be sure there are selfish, commercial interests who can't see the soul-satisfying, esthetic, recreational, and scientific, educational, and watershed values. They are blinded by the dollar sign which they imagine exploitation would bring. But the fact is they have no vested rights there at all. These areas belong to the great American public. We want them saved for the public forever.

The opponents have been pleading that we wait until the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission's report became available before passing any legislation. The implication has been all along that they would abide by the findings of the Commission in this regard. So now the report is available and strongly recommends just what we have been recommending all along-that wilderness preservation legislation to enacted without delay. So Mr. Chairman we urge you and your committee to get on with the job of passing the bill which passed the honorable Senate 78 to 8.

Let us not wait as we so neglectfully done with our seashore recreation areas. We saved only a few hundred miles out of many thousands and now that we need them badly they must be bought back at astronomical prices, a million dollars or more a mile.

Please remember that once a wilderness area is destroyed it is practically impossible to restore it. Let's not wait until it is too late. The part of wisdom is to save enough now. Whether future needed changes are accomplished by positive or negative act of Congress is completely inconsequential compared to the basic need for wilderness preservation. Who was it fiddled while Rome burned?

The claim by many opponents of the legislation for preservation of our most valuable wilderness areas that only a few very hard and very rich people can use these areas is utterly ridiculous. They can be used by the average American man or woman. They can and are used at very low costs for hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, camping, fishing, and hunting. Even the deluxe

wilderness trail ride trips sponsored by the American Forestry Association and Wilderness Society where everything is furnished but one's bedroll (even a medical officer to take care of any possible sickness or accidents) cost only about $21 per day. That is less than it costs to stay at a good hotel in any large city. As to light use, that is a myth too. Right here in New Mexico there were last year, according to reliable statistics of the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Game and Fish, over 8,000 users of the 165,000-acre Pecos wilderness area. People who make such claims as to light use by very hardy and rich people only simply do not know what they are talking about.

Finally I wish to call attention to the fact that practically every wildlife and conservation organization in the country favor wilderness preservation by statute along the lines of S. 174. The President has strongly endorsed it. The Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service have done likewise. And now the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has come out unequivocally for it. The Senate passed the bill S. 174, 78 to 8. What more endorsement is needed to get it out of committee and through the House of Representatives?

STATEMENT OF QUETICO-SUPERIOR COUNCIL, SUBMITTED BY ERNEST C. OBERHOLTZER, PRESIDENT

May I ask your indulgence for the filing of this statement for the printed record of the hearings to be held on the wilderness bill, S. 174, on May 10 and 11? I only wish it might have been filed at least 50 years ago, when credit could have been taken for foresight instead of hindsight.

It is the understanding of the Quetico-Superior Council of Minneapolis that the wilderness bill withdraws nothing, appropriates nothing, sets up no new agency, but contains a deadly declaration by Congress that wilderness is something to cherish in the public interest. We have been for that from the beginning and long before any move was made in Congress. There must be some point in administrative policy where wilderness is recognized by Congress for its deep and expanding significance to the Nation as a natural resource. Otherwise, the results are controversy and vacillation costly to all concerned. Our own experience in consolidating Superior National Forest shows clearly how much could have been saved both in priceless resources and in the actual expenditures by Congress if a clear course could have been steered from the beginning. When someone like myself who has lived close to wilderness for most of his lifetime looks back for 50 years to what has happened to wilderness and its creatures and then projects his view 50 years ahead, it is difficult to believe that anything of the true wilderness such as our pioneers knew will remain. The ratio between the vanishing wilderness and the swarming, mechanized population is truly alarming. The hope lies in unequivocal action by Congress.

STATEMENT OF THE SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. The Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D.C., a nonprofit scientific and educational fish conservation organization dedicated to the improvement of sport fishing, and supported by fishermen and industry, supports the objectives of the wilderness bill (S. 174), introduced by Senator Clinton P. Anderson and passed by the Senate September 6, 1961.

The amount of lands involved, taking into account the overall national perspective, does not appear excessive to us. We believe that every effort possible should be made to preserve this small vestige of the primeval in order that future generations of Americans may have an opportunity to know and appreciate this aspect of their heritage in some small degree. We are convinced, too, that consideration must be given to a full variety of outdoor environmental experiences within the framework of meeting the growing demands for outdoor recreation, the needs for which were recently documented by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Demands on back-country primitive areas by anglers are also increasing, especially by those desiring the unique fishing opportunities offered only in wilderness situations. Such fishing opportunities would disappear almost overnight, if not safeguarded by legislation similar to that proposed in S. 174.

There is much current concern regarding increasing water pollution in our streams and lakes. Protection of the headwaters in wilderness areas could help to assure the American people that there will always be some uncontaminated supplies of clean, clear water above all sources of pollution. Water quality in these watersheds within wilderness areas could be preserved in its natural state of purity, providing external tangible yardsticks for measuring effectiveness of water pollution control programs.

One of the major determinations made in the ORRRC Study Report 3, “Wilderness and Recreation, a Report on Resources, Values, and Problems," was that 75 percent of those penetrating the boundaries of wilderness areas planned fishing as one of their major activities. Those fishermen desiring to exert themselves can have as a goal practically virgin waters in which to fish-an imcomparable fishing experience that could become entirely impossible to attain unless such areas are protected from possible future administrative policy changes that could eliminate management under wilderness concepts.

The Sport Fishing Institute generally concurs in the principles to which S. 174 addresses itself, to protect by statute subject to change only through deliberative process-those areas now designated administratively, or regarded generally, as wilderness or related purpose areas. With statutory protection, there would be a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people. We feel that this approach provides for public uses and benefits that are of overriding value to America. For these reasons, Sport Fishing Institute urges approval of S. 174 by your committee as a means to that end, and respectfully requests that this be made a part of the official record of hearings.

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. THUNE, MORAGA, CALIF.

In the course of my work as general secretary of the Young Men's Christian Association of Oakland, Calif., I have the opportunity to rub shoulders with urban young people.

For many years I have made it a point to visit some of America's great wilderness areas. A good number of city-bred boys and girls have always accompanied me on these adventures. These experiences have led me to believe that the natural world offers one of the finest places for finding many of the answers we are looking for today. The natural would has always been the place where I have seen the finest leadership qualities develop.

In this day of increasing urbanization and mechanization we must find the way to preserve wilderness as one of the tools for serving youth if we expect to develop a nation of wholesome and intelligent persons. Nature is a great teacher.

Wilderness is a resource that belongs to all the people. It is a resource that belongs to all generations to come. These wildlands are great storehouses of nature. They must be preserved as part of a balanced conservation program for educational, recreational, inspirational and scientific use.

Our country is still relatively young. The neuclear age is just beginning. In our midst we still have some priceless wilderness areas; however, each year we find reasons to reduce them. We have found through bitter experience that once they are gone, they cannot be restored to their original highest use.

A Wilderness Act is a much needed piece of protection. Such an act would represent the work of men and women of vision. It would serve as a great monument to the sense of values of this generation.

America needs the safeguards to prevent the exploitation of every corner of this country. I urge the adoption of a strong wilderness bill,

STATEMENT OF MORTON R. BRIGHAM, LEWISTON, IDAHO

I would like to enter a statement contained in this letter in support of the wilderness bill and request that it be made part of the record.

Two 8 by 10 enlargements of pictures taken in April 1962 near Lewiston are enclosed. One shows a sizable stream of water running down a road. This was taken on the PFI road leading onto Craig Mountain and shows water from melting snow carrying countless tons of mud into the Lewiston Orchards water system. Culverts on this road have never been adequate, plug up or overflow every year, and the result is muddy water and severe erosion.

The other photo shows the aftermath of winter logging in Webb Creek. Snow is removed from the frozen earth in winter to drive vehicles in logging operations. When the spring thaws come, the roads are soon bare and the soft mud is subject to the worst kind of erosion as shown in the photo.

Multiple use enthusiasts claim logging improves the yield of high quality water. I ask you to look at these pictures and you will see how the whole country would look if it is all logged, and how much truth there is to their claim. Also enclosed is further evidence I would like to call to your attention. The enclosed map is taken from page 6 of a Forest Service brochure showing their plans for the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness. As indicated on the map, they intend to chop off several huge pieces of the existing wilderness, including over 310,000 acres in the upper Selway drainage. If this plan goes through, the Selway River is virtually doomed as a fishing stream and this unsurpassed wildlife and scenic area will look like the enclosed photos in due time. Here is a case where an existing Federal agency is proposing the elimination of vast areas, and only Federal legislation can stop this trend. Those people who say nothing is wrong with the way agencies are handling wilderness matters at the present time cannot explain away the existence of this map. The plain fact is that if the wilderness bill is not passed, the Selway will become one more place with stumps and muddy water.

I urge favorable action on this bill.

(Committee Note: The attached map and photographs may be found in committee files.)

STATEMENT OF ILLINOIS AUDUBON SOCIETY, SUBMITTED BY RAY MOSTEK, VICE PRESIDENT

The Illinois Audubon Society has been in favor of the wilderness bill ever since it was first introduced into Congress by Senator Hubert Humphrey. We favor its passage now.

We are greatly disturbed that only now has the House Interior Subcommittee decided to hold hearings on the subject. We trust that this does not mean that it intends to delay an early report of this act to the floor of the House. We feel that it is urgent that no more delays be encountered or tolerated.

The Illinois Audubon Society has long recognized that unless large areas of this country are preserved in wilderness, there is little hope for saving some of our wildlife. Small areas, cut up by roads offer little or no refuge to many of our large game and birdlife. This is very true in the case of the grizzly bear and the condor.

We are disturbed by the knowledge that some of the wilderness areas of our country could be now destroyed by a mere Executive order, well-meaning though it might be. We feel that our large areas in our national parks, our national forests, and our national wildlife refuges should be under the full protection of the U.S. Congress.

Though we are concerned that the present wilderness bill is much weaker than the one originally introduced, and though it lacks some features we should like to have been retained, we are ready to accept this bill. We trust it will not meet with any further weakening amendments.

The Illinois Audubon Society is grateful for the overwhelming vote that S. 174 received in the Senate, 78 to 8. We trust that it will receive the same huge margin of victory in the House.

The wilderness bill has been called the most important conservation bill in Congress in the last decade. It has been discussed for 5 years. It is time to make it law.

STATEMENT OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., COLORADO DIVISION, SUBMITTED BY EDNA H. HILL, SECRETARY

Colorado Division of the Izaak Walton League of America went on record in support of S. 174 for the following reasons:

(1) Establishes a national policy for wilderness preservation and a program to carry it out.

(2) Gives statutory protection to wilderness areas in national parks and monuments, national forests, and national wildlife refuges and ranges. (It provides that these lands shall continue to serve their present park, forest and refuge purposes but shall be so handled as to continue to preserve their wilderness character also.)

77350-62-pt. 4—26