(3) Provides for reviews of all these lands, except wilderness and wild areas that already have been reviewed, and provides orderly procedures for any necessary changes.

(4) Makes special provisions to respect all private rights, to protect established practices, such as grazing, for example, and to permit economic uses that may become needed in the national interest, such as mining, for example. (No areas now open to lumbering are involved.)

(5) Recognizes that "increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, is destined to occupy and modify all areas except those that are designated for preservation"—and, for this reason, establishes a congressional policy and program "to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness."

STATEMENT OF R. CECIL LOVEL, Moscow, IDAHO

It is with deep conviction and utmost pleasure that I speak on the wilderness bill. The clarification of this important legislation has been its best defense against the ill-advised attacks of certain industrial repesentatives and that desperate group of professional politicians who are attempting to drive a wedge between the people of the State of Idaho and our brilliant junior Senator, Frank Church.

The antagonistic arguments advanced by these special interest groups, the mining industry, the timber corporations, and a few livestock representatives, as well as the aspirants for Senator Church's senatorial seat, have many times and in many places been so well refuted by that courageous statesman, Senator Church himself, that I am not going to dwell upon these biased attacks, and their refutation, but I am going to explain to you what may be the most important of all, the philosophical reason.

Now I know when we speak of philosophical things we immediately feel that we are talking about something that is completely intangible, something that we can neither see nor feel-something that has neither size nor shape-something that cannot be measured in dollars and cents. And this is true. We cannot measure philosophical things by the conventional standards of measurement, but I do believe that I can make you understand the philosophical reason so that it will not be easy to forget. I am just as sure of this as I am that you believe in a Divine Creator, and that you have great love for your children,

In this frantic struggle to maintain a place in this modern society of ours, we are apt to lose sight of the irrefutable fact that we are on this earth but a few short years. We come here as naked babes, with nothing but the right to live in a God-given world-a world that for millions of years has been shaped and reformed by His hands; into innumerable areas of vast rolling prairies, flanked by the majesty of awe-inspiring mountains, from which bubbling waters form sparkling streams that go leaping and frothing their boisterous way to mighty rivers-rivers that relentlessly, but quietly, surge onward to the beckoning sea. This is our beautiful world. We come to this world with nothing and we leave without possessions for the great beyond. But, when we leave this earth we must go, secure in the knowledge that our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren, and all the generations that follow, will also have the right to enjoy the hospitality of Mother Nature, during their brief sojourn here. For we must recognize that we are but overnight guests in this Garden of Eden. And we must shamefacedly admit that we have ravaged this garden-we have lain waste to innumerable areas-without thought for future generations we have pillaged and plundered with a savagery unbecoming to creatures moulded in God's image and we should bow our heads with shame.

But it isn't too late to make some small measure of retribution. It isn't too late to set aside some sections of the country that we can use and enjoy-in such a manner so that our children and their posterity can also use and enjoy.

Just imagine, the hospitality of the mountain streams-the inviting comfort of the wilderness solitude—the profound inspiration of the mountain crags. pictured against a background of cumulus clouds on a deep blue skythese are things we can enjoy-but we cannot take them with us and we have not the right to destroy them for future generations. So my friends, while it is yet time, let us set aside some of these small wilderness areas and as good custodians of our Creator's trust-preserve in perpetuity—that which is a birthright of all mankind.

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE GARDEN CLUBS, INC., SUBMITTED BY MRS. JUSTUS D. DUVÉ, CHAIRMAN OF LEGISLATION

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 fear of reversal by the Congress (sec. 3 (b) (1)). "(3) Two additions in section 6(c) (8) authorizing prospecting for water resources and the completely subsurface use of wilderness areas."

TELEGRAPHIC STATEMENT FROM ROBERT P. KOENIG, PRESIDENT, CERRO CORP., NEW YORK, N.Y.

Cerro Corp. wishes to record its support of an amendment to wilderness bill S. 174 which will fully preserve the rights under existing statutes of individuals and corporations to prospect, explore, locate mining claims, develop, and exploit mineral deposits. We consider that S. 174 without such an amendment is unwieldy and would deprive citizens of their liberties and rights to exploit our mineral resources, and will result in the locking up of resources for our future needs in the wilderness areas.

STATEMENT OF STUDENTS' COMMITTEE FOR WILDERNESS, Portland, Oreg. When the first European emigrants came to settle in North America they faced a huge wilderness. They were challengers. They tried to beat the wilderness back far enough that they could grow crops, pasture domestic animals, and build houses where they would be safe from the creatures of the forest. It was like chipping at the Rock of Gibraltar with a hammer and chisel, but instead of a chisel the pioneers had ax and plow, and instead of a hammer they had the will to make a home, a new life. They kept cutting and plowing, continually chipping away more wilderness, making more land livable.

When something threatened their peace they left the plow and the ax, spit on their hands, and said, "We've won our lives from the wilderness. No man can take this from us." They won independence; they had built a Nation from raw wilderness.

In those days there was room for all. In the western wilderness were more rich lands, and people went there to settle, first along the Ohio River, later in California and the Oregon country. Wherever they went, the pioneers were resolved to push back the edge of wilderness. Some kept cutting into the eastern frontier, while others made a hard journey through the wilds to take up the fight on the far side. Wherever they fought, each side suffered: the pioneers won land, but wilderness took lives. The contest was long and hard, but the challengers won. They made our modern American life possible.

At first wilderness was an adversary to be conquered, an enemy blocking the way to life in the new-found land. The wilderness was large; man was small. By hard work and the will to win a place for himself man subdued his enemy. It was this fight that gave man the American individualism and spirit of democracy. All were equal against the wilderness.

Now we have the upper hand. Man has got bigger while wilderness has got smaller. We have a few remnants left to dispose of as we wish, like a patch of small flowers: shall we step on them in our hurry to get somewhere else, or shall we keep them alive to remind us of our great journey? Where else but in

wilderness can we be part of history and find land as it was when the first explorers and settlers came?

The U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife have done well to preserve some of these remnants. The initiative and the decisions have been theirs ever since people first realized what could happen to this tangible part of our history. We ask now that the Congress take a hand in this and make wilderness preservation a program of all the people, a national trust, instead of a policy of a few Government executives. Let us proclaim that wilderness is the business of every citizen. The wilderness bill, S. 174, should be enacted.

STATEMENT OF ROSS WILLIAMS, DEAN, SCHOOL OF FORESTRY, MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY

I would appreciate having you file this statement pertaining to the Wilderness Act, S. 174, for which you will be holding hearings on May 7, 8, and 9.

As dean of the School of Forestry at Montana State University, I am in a position where I find it possible to view the many phases of the wilderness controversy in an unbiased manner and at what I consider sufficient distance to permit me to see the entire picture.

I feel quite certain that those who are interested in the preservation of our wilderness and who are in favor of the wilderness bill are overwhelmingly in favor of having the wilderness administered by the U.S. Forest Service. On the other hand, we are all concerned with the lack of congressional authority for this agency when it comes to handling the many-sided features of the administration of these areas. Their authority should be greatly strengthened and be provided with guidelines to assist them in their administration. I feel that the wilderness bill adequately takes care of these factors.

I must confess that I am somewhat puzzled and, in fact, worried, about some of the administrative decisions that some regional foresters in the Forest Service have made in recent months. They are indicative of what can happen, when pressure is placed upon them. A good example is the Waldo Lake wild area decision. Apparently the regional forester in this instance yielded to the influence of the lumbering interests in making decisions contrary to the best interests of the public. I am satisfied that the success of the lumber industries in this instance has increased their confidence in acquiring a greater voice in such decisions. This is exemplified in the editorial and an accompanying article which appeared in a recent issue of the Weyerhaeuser News, copies of which I am enclosing. This and other incidents have been a matter of considerable concern to many individuals, including Chief Justice Douglas, as recorded in the minutes of the 1961 Wilderness Conference.

I feel there is a distinct need for the passage of Senate bill S. 174.

(COMMITTEE NOTE.-Attachments made a part of the file.)

Mrs. ProST. The committee then will turn to those witnesses who oppose the Wilderness Act as passed by the Senate or would amend its major substantive provisions.

Our first witness is Mr. Alex Deutsch, of Los Angeles, Calif., in behalf of the Far West Ski Association and the Ski Writers Association.

Mr. Deutsch, we appreciate your patience in waiting until we have been able to reach your name. I understand you came early before our hearings even started and felt you were a little crowded for time.

STATEMENT OF ALEX DEUTSCH, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., IN BEHALF OF THE FAR WEST SKI ASSOCIATION AND THE SKI WRITERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. DEUTSCH. Madam Chairman, I had a date with Congressman Saund of our State and I did not know he was in the hospital. I had a date to meet with him Friday and, unfortunately, he could not see me.

I would like to clarify one thing. I am not an opponent of the bill. I seek an amendment.

Madam Chairman, and members of the committee; I am Alex Deutsch of Los Angeles and I appear before this committee as a representative of the Far West Ski Association, Southern Council, and the Ski Writers Association of Southern California. (Exhibits A and B.) Our request is for an amendment to the wilderness bill, S. 174, which will make it possible for the millions of residents in southern California to use a small portion of what is known as the San Gorgonio-San Bernardino Wild Area for winter recreation. The wilderness bill, as presently written, would make it impossible to change the San Gorgonio area, when the bill is passed.

Permit me to quote from a letter I received from Edward R. Cliff, Chief of the Forest Service (exhibit C):

There is no specific provision in the bill (S. 174) under which a major modification or adjustment of the boundary of the San Gorgonio area could be accomplished. Therefore, to effect a major modification or adjustment of the boundaries of that area under the provisions of the bill as it passed the Senate, an act of Congress would be necessary.

Before presenting our amendment, I would like to outline briefly for this committee, two important and compelling reasons for its inclusion.

First, is the importance of San Gorgonio as a winter recreation area to approximately 10 million people living in southern California. Second, the very nature of the area is a perfect example of the type recommended for general recreation by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. With your permission, I shall be quoting from the book "Outdoor Recreation of America" published by this Commission.

San Gorgonio is less than a 100-mile drive, 88 miles, to be as close as I can determine, over fine highways, from downtown Los Angeles and within a 2-hour drive for more than 5 million people in southern California.

The peak of Mount San Gorgonio is 11,502 feet above sea level. It is the highest mountain in southern California. It is part of a high range, starting at San Bernardino Peak in the west and extending approximately 7 miles in an easterly direction.

This entire 7-mile range is above the 10,500 foot level, except for a few hundred yards at one spot. The entire range has a northern exposure, which is necessary for skiing. Not only is this range high enough to assure adequate snow every year but its slopes are of such nature as to provide some of the finest skiing in the United States. There are slopes on San Gorgonio for the expert skier, the intermediate skier, and the beginner. Most important of all, every year, from December through April, there is adequate and dependable snow for winter recreation and skiing.

In the opinion of most ski authorities in southern California the winter snow line in this area begins at 8,500 feet. All of the present ski areas operating in southern California are below 8,500 feet and most of them are even below 8,000 feet. Consequently, in winters like 1960-61, there was not one single day of snow skiing in any southern California ski resort, having ski lift facilities. The only place where skiing would have been possible, during the entire winter, was in the San Gorgonio area.

May I quote from the letter of the Ski Writers Association of Southern California (exhibit B) which states in a paragraph the essence of this problem?

There has been a tremendous outburst of enthusiasm in southern California for snow sports, particularly since the end of World War II. The torrential influx of population is widely known, and many of these people have brought their love for snow sports with them. Yet, season after season, they must leave from virtually the base of a snowcapped area and undergo a highway roundtrip of as much as 700 miles on a weekend to find skiable snow. That snowcapped area, only 2 hours from Los Angeles, has been sealed off to them by an uncompromising Government policy which has provided inadequate substitute.

In 1947, 15 years ago, the Forestry Service held a hearing on the advisability of opening a small section of San Gorgonio for winter recreation. The Forestry Service recommended against opening the area. On February 1, 1962, Senator Engle and Senator Kuchel requested by letter (exhibit D) that the Chief Forester call for another hearing on the San Gorgonio-San Bernardino Mountain Area, on behalf of their constituents.

On February 7, 1962, Mr. Chandler North, president, Far West Ski Association, Southern Council, wrote to the forest supervisor of the San Bernardino National Forest (exhibit A-3) also requesting that a public hearing be called. This request was not for a specific area, but for any portion of the area within the 7-mile range I previously mentioned. All the skiers requested was that an area between the 8,500- and 10,500-foot levels be selected. It is true, if the entire areas was made available, it would unquestionably become the finest ski area in the United States and probably one of the most popular areas in the world today.

Most of us, who have skied in Europe and in many areas of the United States, know the San Gorgonio-San Bernardino area offers as much as any winter sports area we have ever visited.

In addition, it offers something no other area can claim, namely, the area is within a 100-mile radius of at least 5 million people. This leads to the subject I would like to discuss briefly, the book "Outdoor Recreation for America." I am sure most of you are familiar with its contents. If not, may I read a few highlights.

The President of the United States has said that recreation (particularly outdoor recreation) is important to the people of America. Today, the fastest growing outdoor recreation in America is skiing. Ski areas are scarce. There are many of them in Alaska. There are many in areas where access is impossible. An area like the San Gorgonio area providing daily recreation, and I repeat-daily recreation-for several million people is rare.

I would like to quote out of context from "Outdoor Recreation of America," page 174:

The usefulness of outdoor recreation hinges on three factors: (1) Proximity of population; (2) physical and legal accessibility; and (3) suitability for recreation purposes.

Under (1), proximity: No other ski area, or other winter recreation area in the United States is as close to as large a population center as is San Gorgonio.

Under (2), physical accessibility: Physical accessibility is here— legal accessibility is in the hands of Congress.