posal for the Anaconda-Pintlar. The committee regards this area as a good example of the type of country which should be classified and maintained as wilderness, with the reservations mentioned previously.

The committee feels that a well-balanced, long-range, overall program of integrated natural resource management must be developed. Although there are many complex problems, much progress has been made during the last half century; even greater progress will be made in the next, through the sincere cooperation and dedicated efforts of all the individuals, organizations and agencies involved.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mr. Cox, the members of the committee realize that we do have a very complex problem in the wilderness

measure.

Could you tell us in just a few words, using as examples our primitive areas in Idaho because we are both more familiar with them, how you feel the change from primitive to wilderness will change the manner in which the area is now being used.

Mr. Cox. I did not quite catch the last.

Mrs. ProST. What I am trying to say is: How do you think, when the primitive areas are designated as wilderness, that the uses will be changed from the present primitive uses today?

Mr. Cox. Madam Chairman, the uses, of course, as permitted under the bill would not change from what they are today. But that is not the basic problem. We are concerned by the problem of ascertaining the values on these areas and an intelligent reclassification of the portions that should be put into multiple use and those portions which should go into wilderness. There are many thousands of areas in the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area which do qualify and should be reserved as wilderness. But our main concern is that we feel under the provisions of this bill, once they are placed into the system, it would be much more difficult to get those areas which are qualified for multiple use taken out of the system.

Mrs. PrOST. In other words, you are looking ahead to the possibility that one of these days certain areas may need to be used for cutting timber or for mining or something like that, and you feel that under the present primitive system the areas would be more readily accessible than they would be if designated wilderness areas. Is that your position?

Mr. Cox. I will not say, Madam Chairman, it would be more readily accessible, but the possibility of working out these boundaries, these boundary changes, which are needed in the not-too-distant future would be more likely to occur under the present system than perhaps under the wilderness bill as now written.

That is why we are recommending-one of the recommendations for amendment is for positive congressional action. We feel that if Congress is going to accept the responsibility of reviewing these areas then they should assure that adequate debate will take place on the floor of Congress and not perhaps become bottled up in a committee or through perhaps blanketing wilderness areas in by default, as it were, through the inability of Congress, let us say, to actually bring the proposal to the floor of Congress for debate.

Mrs. PrOST. What is your opinion-you probably have heard me ask the question a few times-regarding the roads. The primitive areas in Idaho appear to have more roads penetrating them than any other primitive or wilderness areas. There are 192 miles of such roads in

Idaho. What is your recommendation, should the committee see fit to place these areas into wilderness status, with regard to those roads? You are probably familiar with some of them, are you not?

Mr. Cox. Yes, Madam Chairman. This, of course, presents quite a problem and would have to be considered on the basis of considering each individual case on its own merits. Now I believe that some of the roads in the present Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area should be kept open for the very good purpose that you outlined a day or two ago, for access by people who want to go in and enjoy the primitive area and perhaps a short wilderness trip of some type.

I know of several roads where there is a possibility of this. You can drive to the end of the road and hike a reasonably short distance and get into some very beautiful country, where you have the feeling of remoteness and wilderness and have a true wilderness experience.

However, if the roads are cut off, the difficulty of getting into the areas would be greatly increased. So I would feel in many cases these roads, the use of them, should be permitted and they probably should be excluded from the wilderness system itself.

In other words, the boundary should be taken around them in some such manner so that the roads would not be cut off.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you.

Now there is one other thing, No. 3 in your summary of recommendations, that bothers me a little and perhaps you can clarify it for me

to make possible under more realistic regulations a thorough inventory and evaluation of the mineral potential in wilderness and primitive areas.

I think some of these minérals would fall in the category of “unknown" today.

Mr. Cox. That is right.

Mrs. Prost. I wonder if you could elaborate on that just a little to clarify what you mean by that statement?

Mr. Cox. Madam Chairman, I believe this is a very important phase of the problem which you are considering, this matter of mineral potential. Certainly the areas in the primitive and wilderness areas, the regions we have on the list, must contain minerals which will be of value to us in the future. We feel we simply could not risk the possibility of not knowing what is there in advance.

As some of the gentlemen brought out in previous testimony here, it is extremely important that some sort of an inventory be made of these minerals at more or less periodic intervals so we know what is there and where it is, so in the event of an emergency we will be much better prepared to develop this mineral potential if needed. How this would be done is a matter of great controversy. I think you received proposals here today and from some previous people testifying that one possibility would be the use of helicopters and power-drilling equipment which could be used and not destroy or even leave much evidence on the landscape, and that this could be done in such a way as to not damage the wilderness characteristics at all, in my opinion. Does that explain and answer the question?

Mrs. PrOST. That is helpful. In other words, you are saying that at regular intervals in the future you would recommend that a new look be taken at this. Do you mean that you feel we should keep it

open for constant inventory or would you be satisfied that every 10 or 15 years a new look might be taken?

Mr. Cox. Madam Chairman, it should be done either on the basis of a periodic interval relatively short, not exceeding perhaps 10 years, or whenever the need for a new look becomes evident.

In other words, perhaps we discover a new mineral we do not even know about today, and say the Selway-Bitterroot contains geological formations that indicate the possibility of that mineral being present there. Then there should be a provision so that the geologic exploration could be made to determine if the mineral is there. So it would be done either on the basis of periodic intervals or whenever the need arises.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Langen.

Mr. LANGEN. In the interest of time I hesitate to ask any questions, but let me just ask one. I note you have referred several times to the fact that there are some areas that you feel ought to be included in the wilderness area.

How did you arrive at this decision? Where are they and why, in your judgment, are those wilderness lands?

Mr. Cox. Mr. Congressman, I wish I could have the pleasure of showing you some of them. We have many of them in Idaho. These are areas in the back country. They are, generally speaking, the higher and more scenic country containing many hundreds of beautiful lakes, stands of timber which may not be of great commercial value at the present time. Their highest use is for wilderness-type recreation and watershed values, big game. These lands under this present status, with one possible exception of minerals which may not be known that could exist there, this land, in our opinion, these areas are the ones which qualify for wilderness.

Mr. LANGEN. That is the exact point. How do you know there are no minerals there?

Mr. Cox. We do not, and that is why

Mr. LANGEN. If there are minerals there, I suppose they are as important as anywhere else.

Mr. Cox. Čertainly I agree with you. That is why we are recommending specific provision for inventory of these minerals and not to do it today and say, "This is good for all time," but to provide for some periodic review and inventory of the minerals as new ones are discovered.

Mr. LANGEN. Of course, that technically means you will not set aside any of it.

Mr. Cox. This setting aside, sir, is something which perhaps is a matter of your concept of how long these areas should be set aside. It is conceivable you could set aside an area of wilderness today and it might remain so for many, many years, and then perhaps you would discover mineral deposits in one small portion of that wilderness area, and then that would be made available, but the balance of the wilderness would not be despoiled.

Mr. LANGEN. I am in agreement with you as far as the minerals are concerned. I am just trying to see whether or not we can arrive at some kind of a manner or a system by which we can accomplish this and at the same time satisfy the demands of a number of people and

interests that have registered their approval or disapproval of the

entire measure.

Mr. Cox. I can appreciate your problem.

Mrs. ProST. Are there further questions?
Thank you very much, Mr. Cox.

The subcommittee will stand in recess until 1:30 this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., the same day, May 11, 1962.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mrs. PrOST. The Subcommittee on Public Lands will now come to order for the further consideration of the wilderness preservation system legislation.

Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. George Denison.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you, Mr. Denison, before the committee. We appreciate very much your coming here and spending a week in the Nation's Capital in order to testify before this committee.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE DENISON, LEWISTON, IDAHO

Mr. DENISON. My name is George Denison. My address is Lewiston, Idaho. I am here to oppose the wilderness bill S. 174. I am representing 2,942 people on this petition to be presented here at this hearing-stockmen, lumbermen, miners, farmers and other business people from the States of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, most of them from Idaho-2,234 from Idaho, 321 from Washington, 276 from Oregon, 75 from Montana, and 25 from other States.

LIVESTOCK

I have been in the stock business most of my life, over 40 years. In the last 10 years I have been prospecting and mining. That's 50 years or more all together.

My opposition to the wilderness bill is that if 32 million acres are taken out of Idaho, this will work a hardship on the peoples of Idaho, who depend on our lumbering, mining and stockraising for their income. Cattle and sheep are a benefit to the range to help prevent forest fires.

Lumber companys and miners want livestock on their property to keep the grass and underbrush grazed off to protect the timber from fires.

Here is an example of some fisherman starting a fire. Mr. Charlie Dunham, now of Lewiston, Idaho, had 2,500 head of sheep on summer range on Nez Perce National Forest in Idaho. This was in wilderness kind of country. No roads as S. 174 says.

A fisherman camped on Johns Creek fishing and started a fire below his sheep and burned the band of 2,500 head, and this was a severe loss to Mr. Dunham, through carelessness of a fisherman. The fire burned at least 7,000 acres. It went to the top of the ridge and open country before the Forest Service could stop it. There weren't any roads, so they couldn't get enough men in to stop the fire sooner.

At one time 30 bands of sheep or more, plus lots of cattle, grazed on summer range in what is now wanted for wilderness.

Now there is none that I know of. Wouldn't it be better to have this range used for livestock, mining and lumbering to give more employment to more people and more taxes for the State and Government?

If this is turned into a wilderness there will be no taxes. Wouldn't it be better to have some revenue from this than to have it turned into a trophy hunters paradise for a choice few and a fire hazard?

Mr. Dave Little of Emmett, Idaho, took over his father's livestock holding in southwestern Idaho in 1942. He grazed sheep on 18,000 acres of summer range in the Boise National Forest. Last year the Forest Service announced it was cutting his allotment to 1,050 acres because they claim the range is overgrazed.

This puts him out of the sheep business. Mr. Little said he spent $10,000 fighting to save his range as he wouldn't run sheep on range that was overgrazed because he wanted his sheep fat. He told us that a few days ago.

No stockman wants his stock on land that is overgrazed. The range was not overgrazed.

LUMBERING

The lumber and wood products is one industry in Idaho. It is the largest industry employing more people than any other. The lumbermen built roads into inaccessible places in order to get out their products.

If the wilderness is tied up now who is going to benefit by these resources? No one. The lumbering in this wilderness part hasn't been touched. There are trees ready for harvest now, and if not used will be lost and will build up a fire hazard.

These roads the lumbermen build into these places are used for recreation that gives more people a chance to get into the mountains that couldn't go otherwise to enjoy it with their small children and older people that can't walk into these places, and can't afford the price for someone to pack them into these places.

So let's use these resources to give employment to our unemployed. The 12 Western States depend on lumbering, mining, livestock and farming for their income.

MINING

Since World War II the mining industry has been hurt worse than any other industry, and something should be done about the gold mines that have been closed. If they were opened up, it would help relieve the unemployment in our State. There's a lot of minerals in the wilderness that could be mined.

Idaho is one of the richest mineral States in the United States. Walter Hovey Hill, a noted engineer, went east to attend his 50-year class reunion. When he returned to Grangeville, Idaho, he said: Idaho is the richest mining State in the Union-only the back of Idaho has been scratched on minerals.

More new valuable minerals are coming in every year.

Idaho is a big gold-producing State if they would turn gold loose and let people own it, it would reach its own level.