As an individual American, the wilderness areas away from roads and the other appurtenances of civilization have provided me with a welcome relief from the tensions of modern living. I am certain that my vacations in the back country have enabled me to lead a more useful and productive life. On each of my trips in recent years I have encountered more people on similar quests. I am certain that as our population increases and our citizens have more leisure and higher incomes, the demands on our wilderness areas will become progressively greater. Many who are now satisfied with roadside recreation will discover that only beyond the roadheads can they find the identification with their natural surroundings that is essential to the truly cultured man. We Americans of this generation have the choice to make we can save this small portion of our primeval continent for rediscovery by delighted generations yet to come, or we can take these irrevocable steps of logging off the last vestiges of virgin forest and bulldozing roads into the last nooks and crannies of our backcountry. The opponents of the wilderness bill advance arguments that seem to bear no relation to their real concern. I except the mining industry which forthrightly states its opposition because it wants to mine in wilderness areas. But the forest products industry representatives oppose the legislation because the aged and infirm, the mothers with small children, the poor hunters who can't afford packhorses will not be able to view these scenic areas unless we build roads for them into the very heart of the wilderness. Deer hunting will allegedly suffer unless we harvest mature timber to increase the browse. Fishermen will not be able to get to remote lakes with their motorboats unless the roads are built. What is this hypocrisy? Why this feigned concern for people who are not physically able to walk beyond the road's end? We do not provide opportunities in this country for the aged and crippled to play football or ice hockey. Should we, therefore, destroy our wilderness so that every part of our scenic back country can be viewed effortlessly and carelessly from an automobile cushion? Should we not leave some challenge and adventure for the young people of the future? It should be apparent that the concern of the forest products industry representatives is not with the citizens who will use their logging roads for roadside recreation. It is with the remnants of merchantable timber that could be harvested once the roads are built. The inescapable fact remains that roads destroy wilderness. The wilderness bill adds no areas to the wilderness preservation system that are not now protected from logging. Is it not evident that this blind opposition of the forest products industry is an indication that these people are hopeful of logging in the dedicated areas we now have? I urge the members of the subcommittee to seize this opportunity we have to preserve our wilderness areas for Americans of all time. Future generations will bless us for our wisdom if we set up this wilderness preservation system or curse us for our cupidity if we fail them now. Sincerely, JOSEPH W. MILLER. MOSCOW, IDAHO, October 28, 1961. GRACIE PFOST, Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSWOMAN: I have been a resident of Idaho for 48 years. I have hunted and fished in a good many places in Idaho. I have worked in the mines and the forests and for the last 28 years I have been in the construction field which is dependent on the minerals and timber to a great extent. I have mentioned this to add some measure of weight to my request. I ask you to use your position and vote to maintain a wilderness area in your State and mine. Do not let the large lumber interests move into this and destroy all of our forests just to save a few ripe trees. Trees have been growing, ripening, and dying in this wilderness area for many millions of years and will continue to do so if it is preserved as a wilderness area. Sincerely yours, I wish this letter entered in the hearings. -13 77350-62-pt. 1 JOHN MILTON. IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, October 26, 1961. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Subcommittee Chairman on Public Lands, DEAR MRS. PrOST: This letter is submitted to urge that prompt favorable action be given to the wilderness bill and the enactment of amendments that will strengthen the bill and not those that weaken it. This is evidently in opposition to commercial interests, but we emphatically feel that potential profits of these organizations should not be a deciding factor in the careless destruction of natural resources, as shown by the mines of north Idaho and in too many places elsewhere. Destruction of our natural values is poor trade for a few temporary material baubles of so-called modern civilization. The narrow advocates of overcivilization in our State should spend a few years living in Eastern cities to realize what the loss of our natural values can mean. Let us do all possible to preserve our beautiful wilderness areas for the inspiration and enjoyment of this and future generations. Very truly yours, Mr. and Mrs. JACK I. HAGEN. Mrs. ProST. Mayor Curtis of Orofino was unable to remain over this evening and, without objection, his statement will be placed in the record. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, OFFICE OF MAYOR, Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C.: I wish to make a statement in opposition to S. 174. There are many reasons why a person living in Idaho finds himself opposed to such legislation as S. 174 proposes. Many of these reasons hold true to most western States to a degree, but in Idaho our people are more dependent upon the natural resources. Our State is young, energetic, resource wealthy, but so far from development that such legislation would have a serious strangulation effect upon our young, vigorous energy. I fear our State would soon resemble a territory to big, wealthy interests of the steel and concrete jungles of Los Angeles and New York. For the next few generations at least it is plain to see that our advancement and economy must be enhanced by our miners developing ore bodies, the loggers and foresters working on still undeveloped timber stands which ultimately will be in sound timber management, farmers and livestock people expanding their grazing activity, and all of these fields of endeavor depend upon the availability of public acres. How can we bring industry and wealth to our State when the basic resources are not available as S. 174 would provide? True enough, tourism and recreation are important and we must welcome the advantage of this industry which so much depends upon our ability to provide. However, such secondary resource would be of no value if our people were not prosperous enough to afford such. Water resource is important to Idaho and always will be. Our State is one of the principal water producers of the West. Water production is planned and it does not just happen. Our water-production problems will surely be a matter of greater importance with the ensuing years demanding more flood control, water storage, kilowatt production, and navigation benefits. Surely vast areas of primitive and wilderness acreas with vulnerability to the ravages of fire and erosion does not enhance clean water and water benefits to our people. Wilderness areas will, through the scourge of fire occurrence, contribute to siltation in downstream water development projects. In all, S. 174 appears to me to be a great step backward in the progress and planned projects as we see them now. Reasonable fire protection is accessibility-not vast areas where men cannot be quickly employed. Wilderness areas so vast as proposed cannot be adequately protected from fire. Without fire protection, wilderness areas will, in a few year's time, be mere waste areas, a disgrace to our great Nation. The wilderness concept as proposed in S. 174 violates multiple use. Wilderness is single use. Such rich benets to few privileged nonresident people cannot be given so great a consideration. Wilderness areas as planned in S. 174 are too large. People cannot get to them. We need such areas but they are valueless unless they can be enjoyed by more people. The U.S. Forest Service reports show few people getting far beyond the end of a road. This is also true in national parks. Vacation time and money available to most people prohibit visits to wilderness areas where several days of travel are involved. The luxury of visiting wilderness areas as proposed is a rich man's trip-not for our average people, and therefore not in the best interest. Our cities', counties', State and local governments depend upon people who are well employed. Jobs are needed by our workingman so that he can pay his grocery bill and raise his family. A reservation of public lands for the privileged few does not buy bread and butter for the house nor pay taxes. People are our greatest resource, and we must always keep in sight the matters that make our people healthy, strong, and prosperous. Three years ago our Congress provided money to study the subject of wilderness in the creation of the Outdoor Resource Review Commission. Two and one-half million dollars has been spent to date and now we are considering wilderness legislation before the Outdoor Resource Review Commission report has been made public. This, to me, is a waste of public money in the worst sense. In summary I wish to comment that our public lands are now under good management. Why should we confuse the issue? A. B. CURTIS, Mayor. Mrs. ProST. Mr. Robert D. Werner, publisher of the Clearwater Tribune at Orofino, was unable to remain over this evening. Mr. Werner is in opposition to the wilderness legislation. Mr. Curtis, whose statement has just been filed in the record, is in opposition. Mr. T. B. Burton, a rancher from Cambridge, Idaho, also was unable to remain over. He is in opposition to the legislation. Mr. W. L. Mills, Boise Cascade Corp., who opposes the legislation, has requested his statement be placed in the record together with a copy of a portion of a page of the Congressional Record containing a statement by Senator Dodd on the subject. He also includes with it a newspaper article, but the policy of the committee does not allow newspaper articles to be made a part of the record. So, without objection, the newspaper article will be placed in the committee file. Without objection it is so ordered. Mr. W. L. Mills, of Boise Cascade Corp., also handed me a statement by Robert D. Hayes, who is in opposition to the legislation, and asked that it be placed in the record. Hearing no objection, the statements referred to will be included in the record at this point. (The statements referred to follow :) BOISE, IDAHO, October 27, 1961. To the Honorable Chairman and Members of the Interior and Isular Affairs Committee Meeting in McCall, Idaho, on October 30 and 31, 1961: I take this opportunity to object to the final passage of Senate bill 174. Inasmuch as Idaho is a sparsely settled State in the early stages of its development, I most strenuously object to the freezing forever of the many known and unknown natural resources situated in these areas in Idaho, covered by this bill, and which are and will be in the years to come, so necessary in the orderly development of our State. Once placed in the proposed wilderness system as envisioned under Senate bill 174, the resources of timber, grazing, and minerals in these areas and for which Idaho is renowned, for all practical purposes could not be used. I object to the restrictions Senate bill 174 would impose upon the development of the State of Idaho. I feel that our natural resources and recreational values should be developed under the multiple-use concept for greatest good to the greatest number of people. As our presently underdeveloped State is gradually opened up, I feel that an orderly harvest of the timber grazing, and mineral resources must be carried out in all areas for the economic benefit of our State and Nation. I feel that the scenic beauty and the recreational possibilities in our beautiful mountain areas should be made easily available to all of the people. The privileged few who have the time and financial means necessary for trips into these planned wilderness areas should not be the only beneficiaries. I crave the understanding of the committee and plead that the future development of the State of Idaho be not hamstrung by Senate bill 174, which would in effect close the door on any resource utilization on many thousands of square miles. Respectfully submitted. ROBT. D. HAYES. STATEMENT OF T. B. BURTON, CAMBRIDGE, IDAHO My name is T. B. Burton. I live at Cambridge, Idaho, in Washington County. I am a rancher, producing livestock feeds and have both sheep and cattle. The ranch property which I own and manage has been in existence for more than 60 years as an operating unit producing livestock. I am opposed to the provisions of S. 174. As an upvalley rancher surrounded by Federal lands, I am well acquainted with their values. They represent an important part in supporting the economy of outlying communities. Among these values are timber harvest, mining, water resource development, and a conservative grazing use as can be made of some of these federally owned lands. Without a range livestock industry, the greater part of our valley would not have a market for the feed grains, hay, and pasture they produce. Important to us is water. We know every possible means to conserve water through development of storage in our high mountain areas must be utilized. Any part of our mountain range areas lost for that purpose will impair the future needs for all people and for all purposes. Establishing areas where no water storage facilities can be constructed, as set out in the proposed wilderness legislation, is dangerous and is not being farsighted in anticipating eventual needs. In our high mountain areas, timber which becomes disease infected should be harvested. This is a protection against fire and also a safeguard in preserving our watersheds. When areas are placed into wilderness under S. 174, there could be no harvesting of ripe, diseased, or dead timber. I have seen many areas in Idaho where down timber caused by disease presents a most serious fire hazard. Every year the sale of disease-infected timber is authorized by the Forest Service, even though it may not be at its fullest potential commercial value, for the very purpose of providing safeguards and eliminating a serious fire hazard. Again, I say the provisions of the wilderness bill instead of preserving our resource values will contribute in time to their loss. This bill will not permit the construction of roads nor the use of mechanized equipment in them. It will not allow construction of any type of water storage facilities or conservative grazing use-yet both are renewable annual resources. Prior to enactment of such legislation as S. 174, there should be a survey of all the resource values of our federally owned lands. Such a survey has been talked and proposed, but it has never been completed in the areas that would be affected by this wilderness legislation. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, OROFINO, IDAHO, October 30, 1961. Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C.: My name is Robert D. Werner. I am publisher of the Clearwater Tribune at Orofino, Idaho, and have been chairman of the legislative committee for the Orofino Chamber of Commerce for the past 10 years. Our chamber opposes the wilderness bill S. 174, because there is no need for it at this time. For more than 20 years large areas have been put in reserve under a primitive classification, fully protected against encroachment, except under strictest accountability of the Forest Service. It was then, and is now certain that the Forest Service is still the best qualified agency to make the proper land classification when such time arrives. The amendments made to S. 174 by Senate action have improved the measure, but the insistence that final action be taken in 10 years puts too much of a burden on the resources of the Forest Service and could lead to hasty and inadequate study of these remote areas. The 1961 fire season demonstrated how a short but serious fire season could disrupt normal control plans and we ended up with the worst fire season since the primitive areas were established. The past season demonstrated for the first time since 1934, that, without roads, almost no organization is big enough to cope with devastating wilderness fires. Region 1 was lucky in its fires in wild and primitive areas, that high winds did not inflict losses up to 50 times the acreage that was burned. As it was, suppression costs mounted to $6 million or $8 million. We oppose S. 174 because we think the Forest Service is more capable of determining equitable use of these resources than the Audubon Society in New York. One has only to read the National Geographic to find out that the average easterner's conception of wilderness is an outdoor region suitable for mass recreation with heavy penetration of roads. We have millions of acres of actual wild areas between the Snake River Valley and the Coeur d'Alenes that would qualify as true wilderness in the eyes of many of those who support this bill. America cannot afford the tragic waste of resources that would deny use of 71⁄2 millions of acres of primitive area to family recreational use and loss of timber, grazing, and wildlife resources which lack of access brings. These areas are an ever-mounting threat to our timber resources both from insects and fire. In Idaho there are 3 million acres in primitive areas with 12 billion board feet of timber. This represents one-eighth of our saw timber resource. Once this land grab for single use has been achieved, Idahoans will be hard pressed to outtalk the millions of easterners who know nothing of wilderness hazards-but whose unrealistic idealism exerts such a potent force upon Congress. ROBERT D. WERNER. STATEMENT OF W. L. MILLS, BOISE CASCADE CORP. Madam Chairman, I am W. L. Mills of Boise, Idaho. I am director of company relations for Boise Cascade Corp. My company appreciates the opportunity you have provided in permitting me to appear before this committee. It is our desire to present a completely factual case. I am appearing in opposition to Senate bill S. 174 as the legislation passed the Senate in the first session of the 87th Congress. Our corporation operates in the lumber manufacturing business in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, so any legislation affecting our business necessitates serious study by those persons charged with the conduct and operation of Boise Cascade. S. 174 is the type of legislation which necessarily has an effect on all operators manufacturing lumber and lumber products. Forest products are an important part of our national economy. The industry is fourth in the United States, providing a $6 billion annual payroll, and manufactured goods from the industry are valued at over $21 billion. One and one-half million people are employed in the industry. Within our own corporation we employ 7,000 people as part of this 11⁄2 million. To these 7,000 people we owe an obligation to provide an opportunity to be employed steadily at jobs returning a fair compensation to each person. With the demand for forest products increasing, we would be remiss as company officials if we did not concern ourselves with the effect S. 174 would have, should it become law. The adequate supply of raw materials is absolutely essential to protect the jobs of our employees and the investments of those shareholders who have provided the capital for the expansion and operation of our business. Our company is, to a great extent, dependent for its existence on the ability to be able to purchase publicly owned timber at a reasonable price. Any legislation which may ultimately reduce our source of supply is of serious concern to us. Many forestry experts, both government and private, have recently expressed concern over the increased demands for forest products and the continuing |