Although this legislation has been widely acclaimed by its advocates as an enlightened conservation measure, we believe it is actually a glaring departure from conservation philosophy as conceived and endorsed by such notable authors of the conservation movement as Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot. To them conservation meant the wise and judicious use of natural resources to the end that the greatest good for the greatest number of people would be served in the long run.

The wilderness bill, as we see it, emphasizes nonuse of the valuable resources in wilderness areas, or, in effect, waste of these resources. The vast areas which would be impounded as wilderness would serve only a limited esthetic or recreational need for an extremely limited number of people, and, if preserved in their pristine condition, would doubtlessly, in the long run, be devastated by the ordinary ravages of nature such as fire and insect infestation.

It is our view that the principles of conservation and the interests of the Nation would best be served by application of the multiple-use concept in the administration of Federal lands.

This is not to say that we feel there is no place for wilderness preservation in our national policy for administration of our remaining public lands. On the contrary, we are convinced that there are tens of millions of acres of remote and high country that will find their highest and best use for generations to come as unspoiled wilderness. Furthermore, we believe that these areas will be more than adequate to serve the needs of the limited number of people who have the physical stamina, the time, and the financial resources to take advantage and enjoy the benefits of them.

According to official Forest Service figures, there were a total of 68.4 million recreation visits made to the 181 million acres of natural forest areas in 1958. Of these millions of forest recreationists, only a little more than 550,000 visited the 14 million acres of wilderness and primitive areas. Thus, 8 percent of the national forest land was literally reserved for about eight-tenths of 1 percent of the people who seek recreation in national forest lands. The other 99-plus percent found their pleasures in the areas under multiple-use management.

There are already some 6.8 million acres of these lands that are permanently set aside as wild, wilderness, or canoe areas, and in addition, the major portion of our 22 million acres of national park land is preserved in an unimpaired primitive status, as required by the national park law. There are, therefore, at least 22 to 25 million acres of wilderness area already available for those more venturesome recreation seekers who like to get away from roads and other evidences of civilization.

If more acreage is needed for this extremely small group of people it seems to us it is incumbent upon them to produce evidence and establish the need. The question is not whether wilderness areas are desirable or necessary but rather how much wilderness do we need and can we reasonably afford, in view of the impending population explosion.

It seems to us the burden of proof should logically fall upon those who demand more permanent wilderness acreage and the evidence of need should consist of more than glittering generalities and emotional appeals about the grandeur of nature, the solace of solitude and the spiritual rejuvenation of unborn generations.

In addition to the spiritual and recreational requirements of these generations, there are the physical requirements to consider. The new Americans in the years ahead are going to need jobs as well as solitude and minerals, food and fiber as well as recreation. It seems to us it would be a grave mistake to handicap unnecessarily the economic machinery for providing these jobs and materials.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate and emphasize that the mining industry's opposition to the wilderness bill is not based on any quarrel with the wilderness preservation concept, but rather on the sincere conviction that passage in its present form would not serve the best interests of the relatively undeveloped West or of the Nation as a whole.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Hesse. [Applause.]

(The statement of Mr. Schwinn, referred to by Mr. Teske, follows:)

STATEMENT OF DONALD E. SCHWINN

My name is Donald E. Schwinn. I am a lawyer and a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah, and I am a member of the Public Lands Committee of the Utah Mining Association.

The Utah Mining Association represents all of the major mining industries in the State of Utah. At the present time, its membership includes approximately 34 mining companies employing in excess of 10,000 persons.

Miles Romney, manager of the Utah Mining Association will make a formal statement to this committee at its hearing in Montrose, Colo., on November 1. However, I would like to have the record show that, in behalf of the Public Lands Committee of the Utah Mining Association, I support and endorse the statement and testimony presented for the Idaho Mining Association by its secretary, A. J. Teske.

I respectfully request that this brief statement of endorsement be entered in the record immediately following the statement and testimony of the Idaho Mining Association.

Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is Mr. Robert Morris, Idaho Mining Association, Boise.

You may proceed, Mr. Morris.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT MORRIS, IDAHO MINING ASSOCIATION, BOISE, IDAHO

Mr. MORRIS. Honorable Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I am Robert Morris of Boise, Idaho, a small businessman and equipment salesman. My comments here will be my own.

I wish to state my objection and opposition to the wilderness bill, S. 174, for the following reasons and request that these objections be included in the official records.

I believe the enactment of the bill at this time would be a threat to our economy and a greater threat to the military strength of the United States, at this time and in the time of war.

Within the boundaries of most of the proposed wilderness areas in Idaho are a large portion of the vast wealth of our country's undeveloped minerals, timber, grazing, power, and others. In all probability the largest portion of the known rare earth deposits in the United States are there-rare earths which are now so critically needed in our economy and in our space and missile programs.

There has been no competent, qualified, and unbiased inventory of these natural resources made. I grew up on the backwoods at the

very edge of one of these proposed areas and with my father, a professional mining engineer and one of the foremost geologists in the United States, have been in these areas many times, on his reports and exploration trips, and any attempt to minimize the natural resources within the areas is biased and misleading. Therefore, I propose that any action on passage of the wilderness bill, S. 174, be delayed until an unbiased, competent, and qualified inventory of the natural resources within their boundaries be made.

The enactment of the bill would deny the public use and development and production of the natural resources within the wilderness areas. Resources which are needed now and in the very near future are in these areas. Our economy is badly sagging, due in large part to the fact that the majority are living off of non-resource-producing businesses and the natural-resource-producing industries which are our basic wealth are in a minority.

The ratio is out of balance. Also our population is expanding at a gigantic rate. We need all available resources. What happens during a depression? Those who can go back to producing from the land which gives us new wealth.

Therefore, due to these reasons any withdrawal of the use of the natural resources of an area the size of the proposed wilderness bill will be badly felt in our national economy in the very near future.

We are now in a full-scale cold war and also a full-scale shooting war is imminent. All of our natural resources within the boundaries of our country are needed now. It takes time, especially time, to develop and produce natural resources such as timber, minerals, livestock, and others.

Therefore, at this time a large resource withdrawal as proposed by wilderness bill, S. 174, is very critical to our safety and military strength.

This Nation is what it is today due to the production and development of our natural resources by free private enterprise. The wilderness areas are wilderness today due to their natural location, elevation, geologic status and climatic conditions and most of them do not need any manmade wilderness law to keep them that way.

Representative Olsen, I noticed, today asked about mineralization in the proposed Selway-Bitterroot area and some other areas, and also had any beryllium deposits been discovered in these areas. There has been beryllium discovered in the Sawtooth primitive area which shows good promise.

Mr. OLSEN. Do you know whether on Montana land or Federal land?

Mr. MORRIS. On Idaho Federal land. The fluorspar deposits in there, titanium, I think are on Federal land.

Mr. OLSEN. I thought they were on State of Montana land. That is the only reason I asked.

Mr. MORRIS. I would have to look it up for sure.

Mr. OLSEN. I am aware it affects this area and I thought I would help that witness today. I was trying to help him a little. I am glad to have any information now.

Thank you.

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you very much.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you very much, Mr. Morris. [Applause.]
Our next witness is Mr. C. E. McDowell. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF C. E. MCDOWELL, IDAHO MINING ASSOCIATION, BOISE, IDAHO

Mr. MCDOWELL. Madam Chairman and gentlemen, I am Charlie McDowell from Eagle, Idaho, and a citizen and miner.

I wish to state my objections to this wilderness bill, S. 174, as I believe the enactment of this bill is a threat to the economy of the State of Idaho and the United States, also to the livelihood of the people of Idaho.

We all know that logging, mining, grazing, and farming are the backbone of Idaho's industry and economy. I oppose this bill because it would restrict future mining and exploration and development of one of the largest undeveloped mineral areas in the United States.

It would also restrict logging of large amounts of ripe timber which will otherwise die or burn in forest fires and it will restrict the grazing of sheep and cattle.

I talked to a lot of people in the last few months about this, farmes, grange members, church members, and I find a very high percentage of people against it. Most of the people who are for it are people who are nonproductive. They are not in any land production such as the development of these resources.

The Congress has given the Forest Service the laws to regulate these areas and they are doing a very good job. The game department has their laws. I think it is necessary to defeat this bill to preserve the economy and livelihood of the people of the State of Idaho and of the United States.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you very much, Mr. McDowell. [Applause.] Our next witness is Mr. Wilbur F. Wilson, president of the Idaho Wool Growers Association, Boise, Idaho.

You may proceed, Mr. Wilson.

STATEMENT OF WILBUR F. WILSON, PRESIDENT, IDAHO WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION, BOISE, IDAHO

Mr. WILSON. Madam Chairman, Representative Olsen, my name is Wilbur F. Wilson. I live at Hammett, Idaho, and am a farmer and livestock rancher. I am a second-generation rancher and farmer. Our family has been using the public domain Federal lands for 60 years. I am president of the Idaho Wool Growers Association.

On behalf of hundreds of members of our organization which I represent, we appreciate the opportunity to have the privilege of presenting our views to your committee in respect to wilderness legislation as proposed in S. 174.

At our area meetings, midyear meetings and our conventions for the past 2 years, the members of our organization have unanimously opposed enactment of wilderness legislation. They are convinced the intent and the final result of enactment of such legislation would be detrimental to continued operations of many industries and which would adversely affect our economy.

The present bill, in our opinion, is still in a most undesirable form. Though some say it contains safeguards in a modified form for someresource use, on study, this is not effectively set out.

We are convinced that this measure deprives Congress of its constitutional rights in legislating laws in establishing specific areas for administration by land management agencies.

We note that automatically, such areas as those now set aside as parks, monuments, and primitive could be designated under this act as wilderness and all provisions of the law would apply. Congress many years ago, in its deliberations and good judgment, by their own volition, set up our national park system and designated monument areas. The Forest Service, for a great many years, has established designated areas classified as primitive and wilderness.

This bill would undo a great part of what Congress and efficient administration has accomplished. It would take out of the hands of the people's representatives and place it into the executive branch of our Government the right to designate lands that shall be classified as wilderness. It would be a reverse of the processes of our form of government as set out in our Constitution.

This is distinctly class legislation in that they propose to take vast areas of public lands for one exclusive use, yet Congress just this last year recognized the need for multiple-use principle being applied in the administration of all Federal lands.

Definitely, if such areas are to be established, it should only be done by an act of Congress. Individual areas should be considered and appraised on their own merits as to the need and justification for wilderness. In that way, Congress will have the authority to prove or disprove any new additions.

Locking up vast areas for a single-use purpose is contrary to longestablished policies because it does not provide the greatest good to the greatest number. All use of resources in the wilderness areas would be lost to mining, harvesting of ripe timber, water development, grazing, and mass recreation.

This legislation would make wilderness areas inaccessible, because of no roads, no motorized equipment, and no lodging facilities. It would be accessible only to a relatively few nature lovers who have plenty of time, money, and stamina to enter them either on foot or on horseback. Figures released by Federal agencies support this statement, in that there have been estimates that probably less than one-half of 1 percent of the people seeking recreation ever have the time or the money to enter the present primitive areas.

In session early this year, our State legislature said:

*** 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 Lultiple-use potential than that of single-use dedication as primitive or wilderLess...

They further said:

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. * * *

Passage of S. 174 or any similar legislation broadening and setting up an automatic establishment of wilderness areas by an Executive elict is unneeded. There is ample authority now within land administration agencies to provide for preservation with use of all lands now under Federal ownership.