these areas into the statutory wilderness system more or less by rubberstamp ratification by the Congress of the administrative decisions of the Forest Service without any independent legislative examination of the merits of the decision applying to each area. Names and locations of the areas are not stated in the bills, nor is there any delineation of their boundaries. While we have great respect for the professional and technical competence of the Forest Service, the pending bills must necessarily proceed on an assumption of infallibility on the part of the Forest Service.

We are informed on page 7 of the report on S. 174 by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that these three classifications cited comprise a total area of 6,773,080 acres. If the Congress were to give positive study and attention to the individual areas, it might conclude that some of them, or some parts of them, should not be statutorily classified and kept as wilderness areas, particularly the 2.3 million acres containing commercial-type timberlands. Many persons might believe that such a tremendous total acreage, including 14 individual areas averaging 350,000 acres in size and 30 other individual areas averaging about 60,000 acres in size, is more than enough to maintain in a primitive and undeveloped condition.

However, in addition to these 6.7 million acres, the pending bills would also blanket into the statutory wilderness system an additional 7,890,973 acres of national forest land, subject to later exclusion over a period of years. This vast land mass consists of 39 individual areas averaging 200,000 acres each in size. These areas have not actually been classified as wild or wilderness areas by the Forest Service and they, too, contain some 2.3 million acres of commercial-type timberlands. Nevertheless, it would be possible under pending bills for them to become statutory wilderness areas through mere failure of the Congress to take negative action.

The need to have 6.7 million acres of the national forests blanketed in automatically by the pending bills and an additional 7.8 million acres of the national forests similarly blanketed in, subject to later exclusion, is highly questionable in light of the fact, as stated by the report on S. 174 by the Senate Interior Committee, that:

There is now approximately 22 million acres in 27 parks, 20 national monuments, and 1 seashore recreational area regarded as suitable for consideration as part of the wilderness system.

In addition, the report says that:

Out of more than 275 federally owned wildlife refuges and game ranges, there are approximately a score, comprising totally between 22 and 23 million acres, which contain large areas of primeval land suitable for saving as wilderness.

Surely, with all these millions of acres within the national park system and Federal refuges and ranges available for preservation as wilderness, there is no necessity to automatically blanket in all of 14.6 million acres of land within the national forests which were established for the purpose of continuing timber and water supply. Surely, the Congress should exercise some affirmative judgment as to how many millions of acres should be statutorily classified and kept as wilderness

areas.

Another reason why the designation of wilderness areas is of such major significance as to warrant affirmative action by the Congress is because such designation involves the weighing of important considerations of public policy. In determining the total amount, the location, the shape and size of wilderness areas, not only should economic considerations be weighed against recreational considerations, but also conflicting recreational objectives should be evaluated. The report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission points this out most clearly. At pages 92 and 93, the report states:

While some of our citizens seek a completely natural environment for outdoor recreation, a larger number prefer activities in less primitive surroundings. Outdoor recreation for this larger group requires basic facilities, roads, picnic tables, sanitation * * *.

A third basic goal is accessibility, an opportunity for all Americans to know and enjoy the outdoors. Providing reasonable access to the out of doors for large concentrations of population will be one of the central problems of outdoor recreation over the next 40 years ***.

A fourth goal, also identified by the Congress, is to attain an effective balance between the recreation needs of the Nation and the many other uses of our natural resources. Careful planning and coordination of effort will not only reduce conflict between recreation and other resource uses but, in many instances, can open up new recreation opportunities without detriment to other uses. To secure the benefits of outdoor recreation for the American public, a national policy should encourage shared responsibility, not only between public and private activity, but among all levels of government.

At page 3 of the report, it is stated that:

Driving and walking for pleasure, swimming, and picnicking lead the list of the outdoor activities in which Americans participate, and driving for pleasure is most popular of all.

Obviously, there will be no driving for pleasure in wilderness areas because roads will be prohibited. Opportunities for swimming will be quite restricted because of the inaccessibility of suitable sites and because of the lack of development of these sites. Picnicking also will be extremely limited because of the lack of any recreational facilities in wilderness areas. Certainly, these factors should be weighed in the decision which this Nation makes as to how many millions of acres it wishes to devote to wilderness areas.

At page 5, the Commission's report suggests a further public policy determination:

Outdoor opportunities are most urgently needed near metropolitan areas. Three-quarters of the people will live in these areas by the turn of the century. They will have the greatest need of outdoor recreation and their need will be the most difficult to satisfy as urban centers have the fewest facilities (per capita) and the sharpest competition for land use.

Thus, the provision of millions of acres far from metropolitan areas for the most primitive form of outdoor recreation will not solve the problem of three-quarters of the people who will have the greatest need for outdoor recreation. This consideration should likewise be weighed by the Congress in deciding what lands shall be dedicated to purely wilderness purposes.

Another point is the effectiveness of land for recreation use. On this score, at pages 3 and 4, the Commission's report states that:

Across the country, considerable land is now available for outdoor recreation, but it does not effectively meet the need. Over a quarter billion acres are public designated outdoor recreation areas. However, either the location of the land, or restrictive management policies, or both, greatly reduce the effectiveness of

the land for recreation use by the bulk of the population. Much of the West and virtually all of Alaska are of little use to most Americans looking for a place in the sun for their families on a weekend when the demand is overwhelming. At regional and State levels, most of the land is where people are not. Few places are near enough to metropolitan centers for a Sunday outing. The problem is not one of total acres but of effective acres.

This clearly raises the question as to how effective wilderness areas are for public recreation purposes. The problem of providing public outdoor recreation is not one of how many millions of acres can be dedicated to wilderness purposes, but of how the Nation can provide sufficient effective acres for public outdoor recreation. Again, this weighty problem deserves to receive affirmative consideration of the Congress in the first instance, rather than to be treated through an incidental, after-the-fact determination of whether to veto a wilderness area designation made by the executive branch.

Another extremely important point made by the Commission's report, at page 4, is that:

Outdoor recreation is often compatible with other resource uses. Fortunately, recreation need not be the exclusive use of an area, particularly the larger ones. Recreation can be another use in a development primarily managed for a different purpose, and it therefore should be considered in many kinds of planning-urban renewal, highway construction, water resource development, forest and range management-to name only a few.

The strict wilderness concept does not allow the compatibility of other uses. Therefore, this should require a very real consideration for the Congress in determining how many thousands of square miles should be restricted to a wilderness condition.

Another point made by the Commission's report, at page 4, is that: Water is a focal point of outdoor recreation. Most people seeking outdoor recreation want water-to sit by, to swim and to fish in, to ski across, to dive under, and to run their boats over. Swimming is now one of the most popular outdoor activities and is likely to be the most popular of all by the turn of the century. Boating and fishing are among the top 10 activities. Camping, picnicking, and hiking, also high on the list, are more attractive near water sites.

As previously indicated, water sites in wilderness areas are inaccessible for all practical purposes by the overwhelming majority of the public. There would be no roads by which families could transport their boats to water on trailers hitched to their automobiles. In most areas, in fact, motorboating (which has become extremely popular and provided many jobs in a fast-growing industry) would be completely prohibited. The prohibition on motorboating would automatically prohibit water skiing, which is an increasingly popular form of outdoor recreation. It should also be noted that no ski lodges or ski tows for snow skiing would be permitted in wilderness areas. Camping, picnicking, hiking, fishing, and swimming in wilderness areas all would be extremely difficult for most people because of inaccessibility and lack of facilities.

In regard to economic aspects of outdoor recreation, the Commission's report states, at page 4, that:

Outdoor recreation brings about economic benefits. Although the chief reason for providing outdoor recreation is the broad social and individual benefits it produces, it also brings about desirable economic effects. Its provision enhances community values by creating a better place to live and increasing land values. In some underdeveloped areas, it can be a mainstay of the local

economy. And it is a basis for big business, as the millions and millions of people seeking the outdoors generate an estimated $20 billion a year market for goods and services.

As previously pointed out, the wilderness concept imposes severe restrictions on the forms of outdoor recreation which may be pursued and on the extent of use for recreational purposes. Thus, wilderness areas will not provide anywhere near the economic benefits which would be provided by varied outdoor recreation facilities freely accessible to the general public. This is certainly an additional consideration to be weighed in the first instance by the Congress in making decisions as to the size and location of wilderness areas.

The Commission's report points out, at pages 4 and 5, that:

About 90 percent of all Americans participated in some form of outdoor recreation in the summer of 1960. In total, they participated in one activity or another on 4.4 billion separate occasions. It is anticipated that by 1976 the total will be 6.9 billion, and by the year 2000 it will be 12.4 billion—a threefold increase by the turn of the century.

In contrast to those billions of outdoor recreation occasions, wilderness areas, by reason of their nature and location and lack of recreation facilities, will provide an extremely small number of outdoor recreation opportunities for the American public.

The Commission's report recommends, at page 8, that:

Congress should enact legislation to provide for the establishment and preservation of certain primitive areas as "wilderness areas."

On pages 131-132, the Commission's report repeats the recommendation that:

Congress should enact legislation providing for the establishment and management of certain primitive areas (class V) as "wilderness areas."

We have no objection to this if it is intended to mean that the Congress should exercise its legislative responsibility in affirmative fashion and make certain which primitive areas should be preserved as wilderness areas.

The Commission states that:

The purpose of legislation to designate outstanding areas in this class in Federal ownership as "wilderness areas" is to give the increased insurance of attaining this objective that action by the Congress will provide.

We wish to reiterate that we are not opposed to affirmative legislation by the Congress to designate outstanding primitive areas in Federal ownership as wilderness areas. We are opposed to a blanket approach to the important question of designating wilderness areas and to a procedure whereby Congress would be relegated to a mere veto role.

The public policy question involved in the designation of individual wilderness areas could not be better stated than it is at page 113 of the Commission report in discussing what it refers to as "Class VPrimitive Areas" as follows:

* it must be recognized that there are some areas which meet the physical requirements of this class but which for economic and social reasons are more valuable for some other purposes.

The public policy question is also posed at page 117 of the Commission's report:

Areas suitable for zoning as either class III (natural environment areas) or with class V (primitive areas) present an especially difficult problem. The former classification permits wider recreation use and also other uses, while

the latter preserves truly primitive conditions. Class III should usually be given the preference where the need to make the area available for general recreation use or for economic utilization of its resources is clearly more urgent than the need for its preservation in primitive conditions. Where this situation does not exist, the class V choice should be preferred, since once primitive conditions have been destroyed their restoration is virtually impossible.

We submit that the Congress should determine the question of proper zoning or classification through the traditional process of affirmative legislative action.

At page 71 of the Commission's report, it is stated that:

The most promising means of providing an adequate supply of wilderness recreation appears to be very restrictive management in those areas set aside formally as wilderness areas, and augmenting these opportunities with quasiwilderness areas. Many of the latter are in the East and South, which do not have the larger undeveloped areas. Even if managed to allow other limited uses and more recreation development in some parts, they could provide a form of "wilderness experience" that will satisfy a large proportion of those who see it.

The Congress is surely the body which in the first instance should determine the balance between pure wilderness areas and quasiwilderness areas.

The extreme approach to outdoor recreation represented by the strict wilderness concept was very clearly pointed out by Senator Ernest Gruening in his individual views on S. 174:

Some of the more extreme, and, I regret to say, even fanatical, of my fellow conservationists would like to keep all of Alaska a wilderness, even to denying the accessibility upon which the enjoyment of wilderness is predicated. They oppose the harnessing of rivers and lakes for hydro. They are more concerned for a nesting duck and an anadromous salmon than for the economic welfare of a multitude of people. Their error, as I see it, is that they do not believe, as I do, that we conserve natural resources, whether wildlife, timber, water courses, soil, and scenic beauty, not for themselves but for the future enjoyment of human beings. We preserve moose not for the sake of the moose, but so that coming generations can ever see moose, photograph moose, hunt moose in undiminished supply. A wilderness that few, if any, can ever get to and hence enjoy, may furnish a snobbish and selfish pleasure to the few exceptional ones who can manage, at great expense not available to their fellow citizens, to get there, but it is not in keeping with what I deem the promise of our national park system, of our national forest wonderlands, and, indeed, of the proposed wilderness preservation system. Kings enjoyed such solitary monopolistic privileges in the Old World, in the days of feudalism, but they are unsuited to a contemporary and future democracy.

Still another reason why the Congress should affirmatively make the decision in the first instance as to the designation of wilderness areas lies in the fact that these areas will be deprived, perhaps irrevocably and in perpetuity, of the benefit of positive forest management. Positive forest management helps prevent erosion in many important watershed areas. Many forms of wildlife find food and shelter in healthy, growing forest that they cannot find in unmanaged, overmature wilderness stands. Further, accessibility is really the key to forest recreation, and managed forests are accessible through their system of roads and trails for logging and fire-protection purposes. With the modern science of forest management, people no longer cut the forest and move on. They are growing trees as a crop, protecting them from fire, insects and disease. They are learning more about forest dynamics and the science of silviculture. They are learning how to improve the stands of timber and the rate of growth.