tion is composed of a representative cross section of Idaho's populace lumber mill and wood workers, farmers, businessmen, teachers, clerks, and others.

We find that opposition to S. 174 comes primarily from large timber and mining operators who appear to be able to obtain much support from some of our newspapers which seem to be not too concerned with giving both sides of the story.

One of the larger timber company employers in this area has, on at least two occasions in recent months, caused petitions to be circulated among its employees against the wilderness bill. It has sent to each one letters, and at least one pamphlet, all containing misleading information about the wilderness bill.

It seems to me that these opponents of wilderness legislation are placing the immediate dollar return to themselves far above the general welfare and best interests of our State as a whole.

We think they are wrong in this attitude, and we think their economic judgment is wrong. This legislation does not take away from them anything they now have. Their concern seems to be chiefly with the feature of this bill that provides for transfer of primitive areas to wilderness status. But, not that only lands presently designated as "primitive" can be transferred to the more permanent "wilderness" category, note, too, that ever since these primitive areas were established in Idaho some 20 or so years ago they have been closed to logging, and no roads have been allowed.

How can something be locked up or taken away from a person when he never had it in the first place?

Please note also that the total lands-the maximum possible, if you please that could conceivably be included in the wilderness system would be only a little over 2 percent of our land in the entire United States. This 2 percent includes not only our primitive areas but also much of our national parks, national monuments, bird and game refuges, canoe and wild areas. Indeed, the primitive areas involved amount to only about one-half of 1 percent of our land. And even this will be reduced even further in the reviewing process before the primitive areas are approved as wilderness.

Forest Service and timber company spokesmen alike insist that our timber economy has been on a sustained-yield basis for many years and still we cut more timber annually than we can market. So where is the need to grab this remaining one-half of 1 percent?

Indeed, it must be obvious to any intelligent person that unless we stop short of that point we must some day come to the last tree. Must our greed drive us that far? Or can we let wisdom and vision prevail and leave a few comparatively small areas untouched and unspoiled by man for future generations to enjoy!

Our timber industry is sick. But its illness is caused by lack of market and low prices rather than any weakness in supply.

Actually, in our State of Idaho the tourist industry has grown so rapidly in recent years that it promises in the near future to be our most important industry financially.

If we can retain our great primitive areas and advertise and promote these natural attractions our tourist business will increase many times over. And all without cutting a tree that would take years to replace, and without molesting a single one of our priceless trout

streams or laying these vast watersheds open to virtual destruction through logging.

If we act now with an eye to the future and manage this great resource wisely we can turn some of our Federal, tax-free land into our greatest source of income.

Yes, we are enthusiastically for S. 174 because it is a step in the direction of sound conservation of natural resources, but we have one serious reservation.

We note that the bill provides (sec. 3 (B) (1)) that if the President has recommended inclusion of an area in the wilderness system and his recommendation is rejected by Congress, and no revised recommendation reaches Congress within 2 years, or if somehow the President fails to make any recommendation at all within 14 years of the date of signing of this bill, the area in question would revert to national forest status.

Thus, we could conceivably lose all of our primitive areas in Idaho and have less than we have today. This weakness in the bill has caused several of my friends to decline to get out and support S. 174. We think this is a serious weakness, and it is our fervent hope that the House of Representatives will see fit to insist on a corrective amendment.

Otherwise, through delaying tactics, the enemies of this type of legislation may well be able to negate completely the noble purpose

of this bill.

To summarize, it is our belief that S. 174, which has now run the gamut of years of hearings and amendments, offers no threat to the legitimate aspirations of any group or segment or business in our society. Rather, it is a long-overdue statement of broad conservation policy in the public interest.

These resources are not ours to destroy; they are instead an obligation that we owe to the future.

Therefore, we earnestly solicit your support for this bill, S. 174. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I would like to introduce several statements from persons, some members and some not members of our organization, who were not able to come to this meeting.

I will add a few remarks and then introduce these letters.

Incidentally, I found in talking to various people about this wilderness bill, there is considerable misunderstanding, lack of understanding, about it, and recently I have discovered that particularly on the part of the lumber mill workers in the Coeur d'Alene area.

I have a few statements that I would like to present in behalf of some of these people, and I would like to mention also that, while I understand that the hearings being held were for the purpose of obtaining information as to public sentiment, quite a number of people have expressed regret to me that the hearing was here and at this time rather than a little bit nearer to their work. Lumber mill workers were not able to come, of course. Many businessmen I talked to who would like to have testified were not able to come, either.

Here I have a letter from Elmer A. Parrott, of Coeur d'Alene, who is owner-manager of the Parrott Furnace & Sheet Metal Co., a plumbing and heating concern in Coeur d'Alene. I should like to introduce his letter to be made a part of the record.

I also have a letter from Fred T. Swan, of Coeur d'Alene, which I would like to place in the record, and one from Fred W. Muller, Jr., of Coeur d'Alene, and a letter from H. Frank Evans, also of Coeur d'Alene, who is a college instructor.

Also a letter from Conrad Knutson, of Coeur d'Alene, a cabinetmaker. Also a letter from Cecil F. McCracken, who is also a carpenter and building contractor; a letter from George E. Allman, Coeur d'Alene, who is a farmer; a letter from Robert G. Thomas, Coeur d'Alene, who operates an insurance agency; a letter from Royal Shields, who is manager and part owner of an independent creamery there, also a member of the board of directors of a local bank, and he is also a member of the executive board of the Coeur d'Alene Chamber of Commerce, although he is speaking only for himself. Then a letter from Martin J. Hagen, of Coeur d'Alene, a businessman, and a letter from Robert B. Garrett, of Coeur d'Alene.

Then I would like to make a brief comment about an article that was in the paper, in our local papers, in the local Coeur d'Alene press, last Friday and in the Sportsman's Review for the same date. I make this mention because it indicates fairly clearly the fact that we are not getting complete information on this matter through our local press.

The original article from the local newspaper had five short paragraphs about a letter written by Mr. McArdle, chief forester, to Senator Dworshak, and those five paragraphs were, I think, the most detrimental remarks in Mr. McArdle's letter. In the Review of the same date, the Sportsman's Review, we presented a more complete article there with these two paragraphs included which had not been included in our local newspaper, and I think they are worth mentioning to indicate what was left out.

I am quoting from the article in the paper:

Continuing, the chief forester said: "Within our nationwide fire planning project, preliminary results showed an acceptable fire control job can be done each year in wilderness areas under the actual fire conditions within reasonable limits, cost, and sacrifices to watersheds and resources."

That was left out of the other newspaper item.

In another part, he says:

In setting up wilderness area boundaries under existing Forest Service regulations, we gave earnest consideration to fire protection problems as well as resource management matters in reaching these decisions on wilderness area boundaries.

Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs. ProST. Thank you, Mr. Manley. If there is no objection, the letters submitted will be made a part of the record at this point. (The letters referred to follow:)

Representative GRACIE Prost,

COEUR D'ALENE WILDLIFE FEDERATION,
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, November 14, 1961.

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Public Lands,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PFOST: I testified at the hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Public Lands at McCall, Idaho, on October 30, 1961, and listened to most of the testimony presented on that date. However, as time for oral presentation of testimony was limited to 5 minutes, wtih no opportunity for rebuttal, I respectfully request that the following observations be entered in the hearing record:

(1) Although the intent to hold a grassroots hearing at which Idaho people could testify was commendable, I think even a cursory glance at the roster of those testifying will indicate clearly that the most numerous elements making up Idaho's population were conspicuous by their absence. There were many mine owners, executives, large stockholders, lawyers, and geologists representing them. But where were the miners. Who spoke for these hundreds of men who work in the mines?

There were the usual battery of large timber company executives, their satellites and the groups who front for them. But where were the loggers and the lumber mill workers?

The cattlemen's association was well represented and the American Farm Bureau was there. But who was there to represent the thousands of small independent farmers in Idaho?

The State chamber of commerce was there, and I notice its board of directors includes strong representation of the mining company and timber company executives. The local chambers of commerce were there to oppose S. 174, but I know personally many small independent merchants and their employees who are strong backers of the wilderness bill-I introduced representative testimony in the hearing from 11 of these "little people" who wanted to be heard but couldn't afford the time and expense to travel to McCall for this hearing.

Yes, this was the opposition, and I think it was there in force. I think it was obvious, too, that the dollar sign of selfish interest was the dominant motive behind this testimony. It was disappointing, too, to see the lack of knowledge of the contents of the bill itself displayed by many of these witnesses, some of whom obviously hadn't written their own testimony and hadn't even bothered to read the bill.

Who, then, was there in favor of the bill? The organized sportsmen's groups representing thousands of members in Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Oregon. Almost a David and Goliath struggle, but now as then I am confident that truth and justice will prevail.

(2) As one evidence of ignorance of the content of S. 174, one opponent said it would establish more Government bureaus. This cannot be substantiated anywhere in the bill.

(3) Some one else claimed taxable property would be lost. This, too, is false. The bill specifically provides that only Federal lands can be included in the wilderness system.

(4) Another opponent corrected this but asserted that taxes on the products of this land would be lost. This would be true if and when the land were developed by mining or timber interests, for example, but this would be far in the future and at best could never come up to the economic boom that we can obtain through proper tourist promotion of our wilderness areas.

(5) Someone said counties should be consulted before a wilderness area is established. The bill already provides for obtaining the Governor's opinion. If we must take such a matter to the county, why stop there? Why not ask every mayor of every village and hamlet. Actually, since only Federal lands are involved and every U.S. citizen has an equal share in them, it would be more realistic to ask all U.S. citizens their opinion in creation of each wilderness area. Better yet, why not ask for a national referendum before we let any more of our national forest lands go to the timber and mining companies. (6) Mining representatives in one breath said they don't oppose wilderness areas but only want a study made first to determine possible mineral resources. But when cross-examined they were unwilling to grant approval even after the study is made.

(7) Cattlemen were bitterly critical and uncomplimentary of Supreme Court Justice Douglas' article on "Wilderness" in the November 1961 issue of True magazine. For an independent judgment as to who speaks for the public interest here, I suggest a reading of this fine article written by a sincere and capable conservationist.

(8) Another illustration of ignorance was the repeated charge that 3 million acres of Idaho land would be blanketed into the wilderness system by passage of S. 174. Not one acre of Idaho land would be blanketed in. Actually, this is one of the weakest features of the bill because each of our three primitive areas would have to be reviewed before being recommended for inclusion in the wilderness system. Under the act these areas can be reduced but not enlarged. To see what will happen we need look no farther than the hearings of last spring re the reclassification of the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area as a wilderness area. Here the U.S. Forest Service proposed reducing the area

1,800,000 to 1,300,000 acres. The timber and mining interests through their multiple use committee recommended 800,000 acres less than half of the original area. Beyond any reasonable doubt this area will be reduced by at least the one-third suggested by the Forest Service. Even more drastic reductions are likely in our other areas.

(9) Some witnesses suggested no need for S. 174. Administrative guidelines established by the Forest Service are sufficient, they say. But here is the crux of the whole issue. Our wilderness areas have now gradually shrunk to a dangerously low point. We dare not trust what little we have left to the administrative policy of any Government department. The Forest Service is certainly to be commended for its initiative and foresight in establishing primitive and wilderness areas on its own volition. But the pressure from commercial interests is becoming so heavy that a definite policy established by congressional act is urgent.

(10) A railroad representative joined the opposition, seemingly more to present a united front with fellow business interests than for any possible effect on his own industry. He indulged in vague talk of huge taxes paid by the railroads, roads built, etc.; talked of lands being tied up, no provision to buy, etc. Yet, I recall testimony by U.S. Forest Service officials during the hearing on the Selway-Bitterroot reclassification that a trade of lands is being worked out to remove Northern Pacific lands from any possible wilderness restriction before the wilderness area is established. I fail to see any evidence of any railroad land being restricted as to roadbuilding, taxrolls, or in any other way.

(11) It seems that the opponents of S. 174, while accusing the proponents of emotionalism, missed few opportunities for an emotional appeal themselves. Thus a gentleman from Gem County tried to somehow use both the patriotism of his county in contributing 100 men recently to a callup of Reserves and the hardship it inflicted upon the community as arguments against the wilderness bill. The connection completely escaped me.

(12) I think the testimony of C. J. Hopkins, secretary of Potlatch Forests, Inc., Lewiston, summed up much of the deliberate misunderstanding. He was not against wilderness-only that part of the wilderness containing trees, evidently. There would be no revenue from timber sales to the schools in wilderness areas, he said. Nor is there now in the primitive area, I might add. Anyway such revenues go primarily to the county in which the timber is located. What schools would benefit? He worried, too, about the small sawmills running out of timber. I wonder how many of them could outbid PFI for this timber and how many could operate on a small scale and bring timber the many miles from this primitive area to market.

(13) Newspaper reports say that John Edwards of McCall, representing the Idaho Motel Association, spoke against the bill. This is odd because I happen to know the president of the Idaho Motel Association, A. M. Tate, of Coeurd'Alene, and when I asked him about this he said he didn't know Mr. Edwards and furthermore the motel association had not taken any stand on S. 174 and had not authorized anyone to represent otherwise.

(14) Newspaper reports also quote Jack Crollard of Coeur d'Alene as being opposed to S. 174 because he was against any legislation that provides for the few at the expense of many. Surely S. 174 does just the opposite.

(15) Someone else worried about the lack of roads for fire protection in the wilderness. But the fact is that the Forest Service hasn't even had adequate funds for trails in these areas, let alone roads. Thousands of miles of roads are now programed in national forest lands where permitted and await only funds and time to be completed. This will use all funds and crews for many years to come. Moreover, Chief Forester McArdle himself has stated that modern fire detection and suppression methods are adequate for wilderness area protection in all but the most hazardous seasons-in which cases even the roads don't provide any guarantee of control, as witness the fact that a fire raged out of control for several days this past summer 20 miles from Coeur d'Alene and only a matter of a few yards from Highway No. 10.

To summarize, this obviously does not cover all testimony presented at the hearing. But I think it is sufficient to illustrate several fundamental facts that came out of the hearing:

First, the vested interests which have a stranglehold on Idaho's natural resources now were there in force, clamoring for more.

Second, the testimony they presented was short on facts and long on emotion and repetition-sounded like a broken record.