With our population growth in Colorado and in the West, we are extremely aware of public pressures and the need for designation of such areas as this bill proposes in its well-drafted statement of policy. We are equally concerned that the serious and wide-reaching impact of this bill be a continuing congressional responsibility, supplemented by specific executive department and State participation, to the end that potential economic development and population growth may not be denied full use of necessary natural resources consistent with the preservation of wilderness areas, defined to permit efficient administration and maximum public use.

Should the subcommittee desire further expansion or clarification of these comments and recommendations, I should be privileged to provide them.

That concludes the Governor's statement.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you very much, Mr. Kuiper.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Aspinall, the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Kuiper, in your work as engineer and also in your capacity as an employee of the State of Colorado, and your present capacity as director of the water conservation board, you are familiar, are you not, with the various areas of Colorado as far as present and future water resource development programs are concerned?

Mr. KUIPER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ASPINALL. In your opinion, do you consider that the future development of our water resource values, limited as they are, would in any way endanger a practical wilderness program?

Mr. KUIPER. No, sir, Congressman, I do not, specifically on your statement of a practical wilderness program. We feel that a practical wilderness program can be devised which will not adversely affect our water development program.

Mr. ASPINALL. Do we have sufficient areas which are primitive within themselves which could be put in a wilderness program and where there should be very little, if any, water resource development?

Mr. KUIPER. Yes, sir, we do.

Mr. ASPINALL. I think that is all.

I would like to ask Mr. Woodward a question.

Mr. Woodward, how long have you been with the Colorado Department of Game and Fish?

Mr. WOODWARD. I have been there about a year and a half, sir.

Mr. ASPINALL. Where were you before?

Mr. WOODWARD. Prior to that time I held a similar position in South Dakota.

Mr. ASPINALL. Are your present activities in the program which you now manage in Colorado carried on in a way so that they would not endanger a practical wilderness program?

Mr. WOODWARD. Of course, I think what the game and fish interests are concerned with is a practical wilderness program, and we want a wilderness program that under all circumstances, as we have stated, keeps these areas open to public hunting and fishing.

Now we would respect the need for controlling public access, for restricting wheeled vehicles, because this in itself is a serious problem in some parts of our system now. But we would want to keep this

open and, as I say, on a practical basis. The only possible way to manage game in an area like this is to have it open to public hunting.

Mr. ASPINALL. Do you foresee any particular difficulties in the coordination of your responsibility in keeping these areas open and keeping the streams and lakes stocked and the game properly controlled with a basic wilderness program?

Mr. WOODWARD. No. I think they would be quite compatible.

Speaking from Colorado's standpoint, as far as the commercial interests are concerned in the matter of forests, for example, very few of the present wild and primitive areas have commercial timber stands. I think there would be a minimum of conflict there.

As far as the mining interests are concerned, and as far as water development is concerned, I think that practical boundaries can be selected that can be compatible to all of those uses.

Mr. ASPINALL. Are you engaged at the present time in stocking any lakes that are over 11,000 feet in altitude?

Mr. WOODWARD. Yes, sir, we are.

Mr. ASPINALL. How do you stock them?

Mr. WOODWARD. We do this by airplane and also by packhorse. We are beginning to experiment now with the use of helicopters for this purpose, and I would expect before long we will be doing most of this with helicopters.

Mr. ASPINALL. Do you mean to say you can use helicopters in the Rocky Mountains at altitudes of 10,000 and 11,000 feet?

Mr. WOODWARD. We have been experimenting and looking over some units that operate well up to 14,000 feet. As a matter of fact, we used them this year even in some of these primitive areas on our elk count, and it is a very satisfactory means of transportation in that kind of country.

Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, we have had furnished to us at our request a tabulation of the hunting license sales in the United States for the fiscal year 1960. This has been furnished to Mr. Pearl by Mr. D. W. Janzen, Director of the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The tabulation is very interesting. It shows there have been 18,439,621 total license sales, with revenue take of $60,981,203.

I would ask unanimous consent this be placed in the record at this point.

Mrs. PrOST. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ASPINALL. Along with the letter of transmittal from Mr. Janzen.

(The documents follow:)

Mr. MILTON PEARL,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE,
Washington D.C., February 5, 1962.

House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
New House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PEARL: The material you requested from Mr. S. E. Jorgensen of this office is enclosed. This includes our press release of October 30, 1961. relating to the number of licensed hunters in the United States and a tabulation of the number and value of resident and nonresident hunting license sales on a State by State basis.

This material covers fiscal year 1960 and is the latest available information

Sincerely yours,

D. W. JANZEN, Director.

Tabulation of hunting license sales in the United States in fiscal year 1960

Compiled by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife from information furnished by the State fish
and game departments.

Mr. ASPINALL. Also there was furnished to Mr. Pearl by Lansing
A. Parker, Assistant Director of the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and
Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, a
tabulation of fishing license sales in the United States for 1960. This
shows there were 23,232,927 licenses issued, with total revenue re-
ceived of $52,142,836.53. I do not know exactly where that 53 cents
comes in. But this is rather a large sum of money.

I would ask unanimous consent that this tabulation along with the
letter of transmittal be placed in the record at this point.
Mrs. Prost. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The documents follow:)

Mr. MILTON PEARL,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE,
Washington, D.C., January 26, 1962.

House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
New House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PEARL: The material you requested from Mr. S. E. Jorgensen of this
office relating to the number and value of resident and nonresident fishing licenses
on a State-by-State basis is enclosed.

This tabulation covers fiscal year 1960 and is the latest available information.
Sincerely yours,

LANSING A. PARKER, Assistant Director.

Tabulation of fishing license sales in the United States in fiscal year 1960

Mr. ASPINALL. I think that is all I have, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Prost. Are there further questions?

Thank you very much, gentlemen. We do appreciate your appearing here.

Mr. KUIPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. WOODWARD. Thank you.

Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness is Mr. W. C. Hammerle, manager, policy programs, American Pulpwood Association.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. HAMMERLE, FORESTER AND POLICY PROGRAMS, AMERICAN PULPWOOD ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. HAMMERLE. I am William C. Hammerle, forester and manager of policy programs for the American Pulpwood Association, with headquarters at 220 East 42d Street, New York, N.Y. The American Pulpwood Association is composed of pulpwood producers, dealers, consumers and others directly concerned with the growing and harvesting of pulpwood-the principal raw material used in the manufacture of paper and paper products.

Our association presented its views and constructive suggestions for improving S. 174, in February 1961, before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Some of our suggestions were accepted but unfortunately some serious objectionable features remain in Senate-passed bill, S. 174.

In the statement which follows we recommend for the consideration of this committee two major alternatives:

1. Table S. 174 and similar legislation to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System; or

2. If this committee determines that the present administration of the areas proposed in the wilderness system by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior is not adequate to safeguard these areas, and that action by the Congress to permanently restrict these areas to limited use is essential, we strongly urge your consideration of amendments to S. 174 which will

(a) Give primitive areas the same treatment as national parks, wildlife refuges, and game ranges;

(b) Provide for positive action by both Houses of Congress; (c) Provide clear definition of "Wilderness," and

(d) Provide for periodic review of wilderness system areas. 1. Table S. 174 and similar legislation: All of the areas referred to in the proposed legislation are in Federal ownership and will continue to remain so. Moreover, their present status as wildernesstype lands has been and will continue to be such under existing legislation and administrative regulations. There has been no significant effort on the part of the various commercial users of our forest resources to take over or attempt to allocate for their particular use any of the federally owned areas under consideration.

On the other hand, it seems quite obvious that groups interested only in preservation are attempting to create an urgency for action, without thorough study of the respective areas, in order to lock up large areas for all time for the benefit of a few people. This urgency ignores the recommendations of ORRRC for a thorough study of all recreation needs, thereby defeating the purposes of the Congress in establishing the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.