Without objection, the letter will be placed in the record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:) SANDPOINT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Sandpoint, Idaho, October 26, 1961. Hon. GRACIE PFOST, Public Lands Chairman, McCall, Idaho. DEAR MADAM: We would like to ask that your committee take no action for or against wilderness bill S. 174, or make any recommendation to the House of Representatives regarding the bill. We think that additional hearings should be held to give interested people the opportunity to express their opinions. We have heard a great deal of argument both for and against this bill, and we feel that only after giving the people you represent an opportunity to express themselves can you arrive at the proper decision. Sincerely, A. T. PETERSON, President (On behalf of A. M. Nelson, President, Priest River Chamber of Commerce; and Winston Cook, Bonners Ferry Chamber of Commerce). Mrs. Prost. At this point the Chair would like to ask if there is anyone in the room who cannot remain over and testify in the morning? If there is we will hear them. We have one other witness we will hear from tonight and we do want to hear from as many as we can. Our next witness is Mr. William M. Carson of Weiser, Idaho. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. CARSON, WEISER, IDAHO Mr. CARSON. Madam Chairman, Congressman Olsen, ladies, and gentlemen, my name is William M. Carson, and I reside at Weiser, Idaho. I am a farmer and am appearing on behalf of approximately 3,000 sugarbeet farmers from southwestern Idaho and eastern Oregon who are members of the Nyssa-Nampa District Beet Growers Association, of which organization I am president. We are opposed to the passage of S. 174 to establish a national wilderness preservation system, as it does not fully safeguard the interests of the citizens of our area, as well as the general public. While we recognize the desirability for preservation of certain wilderness areas throughout the United States, we believe that the present wilderness and primitive areas created under existing law, being managed ably by the Federal agencies concerned, have provided the small minority of well-financed citizens, who can afford the pleasures of wilderness areas, ample places to indulge their recreational hobbies. When one considers the small proportion of our population which would undertake a trip into a wilderness area, on foot, and with pack on back, and then considers what proportion of our population can afford the luxury of guides and pack trains, it is readily apparent that this legislation, while in theory is intended for the general public, in practicality is for a select few. Having lived close to primitive areas for the past 50 years and having partaken of outdoor recreation almost all my life, I wonder whether the tourists and wildlife enthusiasts from the East contemplate the problems of wilderness vacationing. Therefore, any legislation which makes possible the general creation of additional wilderness areas should have all necessary safeguards to preserve the greatest good for the greatest number with full recognition given to vested or existing rights and uses. The public domain should be used, wherever capable, for all consistent purposes and, where uses are inconsistent, those most essential should receive preference. We believe the order of preferential use should be as follows: (a) National defense; (b) Production of necessities of life such as food, timber, minerals, S. 174 gives the President the power to recommend inclusion of large tracts of public land into the wilderness system with his recommendation becoming effective unless the Congress by joint official act disapproves the recommendation within a specific time. This, to our mind, is legislation by default. No appropriation of public land can be made for any purpose except by authority of Congress. Such authority should always be exercised affirmatively and never by the failure of Congress to act. We are of the opinion that Congress should not relinquish its authority to the executive branch of Government, except possibly in time of war. Under this proposed legislation, the act provides that the President may permit uses other than recreation, such as mining, prospecting, reservoirs, water-conservation works, transmission lines and facilities needed in the public interest, also grazing. In addition, a further authority is reposed in the President to impose such rules and regulations in the exercise of said aforementioned uses as he may deem desirable. Such provisions can make possible the elimination of all multiple use of wilderness areas, dependent upon the whim of the President and his advisers. In the same manner the presently established uses other than recreation in existing wilderness areas can likewise be curtailed or eliminated by onerous rules and regulations promulgated by the President. We think that all of the above uses are more vital to the welfare of our Nation than "limited class recreational benefits." We urge that any wilderness legislation which may be considered by Congress should include permanent protection of present and future reservoir and watershed facilities, grazing privileges, beneficial use of timber, as well as prospecting and mining when in essential national demand. These uses are the lifeblood of our national economy and should never be subservient to recreation. I appreciate being afforded the opportunity of appearing before this committee. Mrs. ProST. Thank you. [Applause.] Mrs. ProST. Is Mr. Crollard in the room? Mr. Winkle? Mr. Shawver of Boise? Mr. OLSEN. I move we adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9:30 and reconvene at that time. Mrs. ProST. Thank you, Mr. Olsen. The committee stands in adjournment until tomorrow morning at 9:30. (Whereupon, at 9:45 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., the following day, October 31, 1961.) WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1961 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS OF THE McCall, Idaho. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:35 a.m., in the Masonic Hall, Hon. Gracie Pfost (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mrs. PrOST. The Subcommittee on Public Lands will now come to order for further consideration of the wilderness legislation. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Roger H. McConnel, representing the Bunker Hill Co. and the Northwest Mining Association. You may proceed, Mr. McConnel. STATEMENT OF ROGER H. McCONNEL, REPRESENTING THE BUNKER HILL CO., KELLOGG, IDAHO, AND THE NORTHWEST MINING ASSOCIATION Mr. McCONNEL. Madam Chairman, Congressman Olsen, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Roger H. McConnel. I live at Kellogg, Idaho, and I am a mining geologist. This statement is made in behalf of the Bunker Hill Co. of Kellogg, Idaho, and also in behalf of the Northwest Mining Association, an association of about 700 people in the mining industry of Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. It also represents my personal convictions. We in the Northwest greatly appreciate the opportunity the House Subcommittee on Public Lands is giving us in the West to present our views on S. 174 which will so seriously affect the West if it is passed. Blanketing into a wilderness system of such an enormous area of relatively little known public land, which in total exceeds the size of the entire State of Idaho, for extremely restricted use as is proposed by the wilderness bill, S. 174, will have a long-range, and very adverse effect on the Western States. After all, the Western States depend for their growth and development upon the efficient productive use of the vast areas of public land within them. By this bill, not only will productive, multiple use of land in the proposed wilderness system be prevented, but the recreational use of this land will be wholly restricted to an extremely small percentage of the public; namely, to those very few, less than 1 percent, of the population who: (1) Can and will take long distance hikes into these huge areas of a few hundred to over 2,000 square miles of rugged roadless terrain; (2) Those who are sufficiently well to do to afford expensive pack trips into them. No one else can use these areas, because there will be no road access, and no motorized transport of any kind, including motorboats and airplanes. Many people seem to have only a dim and inconsistent idea of what wilderness really is. Many people are obviously misled by the extreme and emotional statements of wilderness advocates, into vaguely thinking that they can use these areas, or that somehow something is being preserved for use by all of the people. But obviously, without roads, and without even airplane access, the vast majority of the public simply cannot get into these remoted areas, and therefore cannot enjoy them or use them in any way. What most families need and want is road access into, and reasonable development of scenic areas to make their camping possible within the limits of their financial ability. This need is well illustrated by Forest Service reports on recreational use of the forests in 1958. That year there were 68.4 million recreational visits to all national forests. But there were only 556,100 visits into the 23,000 square miles of roadless areas of the national forests that are now administered as wilderness or primitive. Thus it is obvious that the 23,000 square miles of land in national forests already administered almost wholly as wilderness is being used by less than eight-tenths of 1 percent of the people who use national forests for recreation. In other words, though about 8 percent of the total land in national forests is administered as wilderness, it is actually used by only eight-tenths of 1 percent of the people who use national forests for recreation. Hence, as a recreational measure this bill is no more than a spectacularly large land grant for the exclusive enjoyment of an extremely small percent of the recreation-seeking public. The outdoor recreational needs of the Nation are now under study by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Commission, which is scheduled to report to Congress in 1962. Congress, having appropriated about $2,500,000 for this study, should await this report and seriously consider its recommendations before hastily passing an extreme measure such as S. 174, which will actually serve the needs and desires of but a tiny fraction of the public, and to the exclusion of all others. As to the effect of the proposed wilderness system of up to some 90,000 square miles-an area considerably larger than the entire State of Idaho on the development of the West, the following comments seem self-evident: Nearly 50 percent of the land in the 11 Western States, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii, is public land. This land contains the fundamental resources of the West: water, forests, grazing land, minerals, and opportunities for outdoor recreation. Multiple productive use of most of this land is essential to the development of the West and the Nation. Unless there is a harvesting and integrated use of the resources this land possesses there is really no multiple use, but rather a single use only, because the other resources of the land are wasted. With the population expanding, the resources contained in or on this land will be needed. Under the provisions of S. 174 nearly 9 percent of the total area of public land in 11 Western States will be blanketed into the wilderness system. This seems an excessive acreage to be devoted to so specialized a use to the absolute exclusion of all other uses. As to mineral resources that may be contained in this proposed and huge single-purpose withdrawal, it is well to keep in mind the following facts: (1) Mineral districts, even the great ones, are very small in area. Thus the amount of land involved in mineral production is very small in relation to the total land available for other uses. (2) Mineral districts, both those now known and those yet to be discovered, exist only where they are. Minerals and metals are not a crop that can be harvested at will in other localities. Production is possible only where ore bodies happen to exist, and at no other place. (3) Mineral districts exist only as a result of rare and very special geologic circumstances. And the recognition of these geologic environments comes about only after painstaking, expensive search, using all the geologic, geochemical, and geophysical techniques that are available. The day of comparatively easy surface discovery of substantial ore bodies by the old prospector is gone. The surface mineral indications he may now find must be tested, and this cannot be done without very extensive and expensive geologic and geophysical work, drilling, and underground work. (4) Most of these areas proposed to be set aside solely as wilderness have had little or no geologic study. Most of what mapping has been done is of the sketchy, reconnaissance type that has very limited value in searching out the geologic conditions associated with hidden ore bodies. Furthermore, within these great roadless areas there has been exthemely little use of geophysical and geochemical techniques, the most modern techniques available. Let me emphasize that these hidden, difficult-to-find ore bodies are all that remain to be found. Yet there is little question but that they exist, and given access to the land for prospecting by a modern and growing technology, they will be found. (5) The mountainous, geologically complicated areas are commonly the sites for mineral districts. This is an established fact. In other words, the inaccessible, mountainous, relatively little known areas now demanded for wilderness under the provisions of E. 174 are precisely the areas which deserve careful study for hidden ore deposits, before they are sealed off for single-purpose wilderness use. To do the reverse, as is proposed by S. 174, is, to say the least, dangerously irresponsible. No exclusive single-purpose wilderness area should be created without first making a careful inventory of the mineral potential of each individual area under consideration. What if Butte, Mont., or the Coeur d'Alene district, Idaho, or the Four Corners uranium area of Utah-Colorado-Arizona-New Mexico, had been less obvious in surface mineral indications, and had been locked up as permanent, single-purpose wilderness? |