the fish and game licenses indicating the receipts from both resident and nonresident licenses?

Mr. CULLEN. I would say roughly our budget is in the $2 million bracket; about 43 percent of that income comes from out-of-State hunters and fishermen. I can give you the true figures. The Boise office can furnish you anything you need.

Mrs. Prost. We would like to have that furnished for the record, Mr. Cullen, if you could assume the responsibility for that for us. Mr. CULLEN. I will take care of that.

(Subsequently the committee received the following information from the Department of Fish and Game of the State of Idaho:)

Tabulation of Idaho hunting and fishing license sales for the fiscal year 1961

In addition to the basic licenses listed above the department received revenue in fiscal year 1961 from the sale of 135,997 deer tags in the amount of $129,197.15 and 56,324 elk tags in the amount of $107,015.60. There is no known way of determining the number of nonresident hunting and fishing (combination) license buyers who purchased a deer and/or elk tag. Deer tags cost $1 each and elk tags, $2 each. License vendors receive a 5-percent commission on all licenses and tags sold and the department's revenue is reduced accordingly below the actual sale price of the particular license and tag.

(In addition, the Idaho Fish and Game Department submitted the following detail of cash receipts for the period July 1, 1960, to June 30, 1961.)

Mrs. ProST. Could you also give us some idea of the general impact of the primitive areas?

Mr. CULLEN. Yes; we had a survey made at the time we conducted the Bruces Eddy survey. I am happy to take care of that. Mrs. PrOST. You will have to do that at a future time?

Mr. CULLEN. Yes; I will take on the obligation.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you very much, Mr. Cullen. We will appreciate

that.

(A statement concerning the survey referred to was forwarded to the committee by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and is set forth below :)

STATEMENT REGARDING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF HUNTING AND FISHING IN THE PRIMITIVE AREAS OF IDAHO

1. Sources of material

(a) “Wildlife Values With Special Reference to Idaho Wildlife as a Recreational Resources," by Willis C. Royall, 1954.

(b) "Sportsmen Expenditures Associated With Big Game Hunting, Clearwater Basin," by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

(c) "Nationwide Hunting and Fishing Economic Survey," by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

(d) Questionnaire surveys of hunting and fishing harvest by Idaho Fish and Game Department.

(e) Verbal discussion with Department personnel, outfitters, guides, and others.

2. Economic impact of big game hunting in the primitive area

(a) Part or all of the following big game management units are in the primitive area and are used as a basis for economic estimations: 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 26, and 27. (See Idaho big game regulations and hunting map.)

(b) From the questionnaire survey, approximately 50 percent of the resident and 80 percent of the nonresident elk hunters used the primitive area for their elk hunting. In 1960, this would be 24,799 resident elk hunters and 5,380 nonresident hunters.

(c) From Royall's Economic Survey, the Clearwater Basin Survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Economic Survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the individual resident elk hunter spends $112 on

his elk hunt and the nonresident $235, not including license fees. From these figures on numbers of hunters and elk hunting costs, the nonresident big game hunters spent $1,264,000 and the resident hunters spent $2,777,488 during the 1960 season in the primitive areas.

3. Economic impact of fishing in the primitive area

(a) Economic and harvest surveys on fishing are not available that have specific reference to the primitive areas of Idaho. Transportation and fishing methods in the primitive area vary considerably. Following are some examples of the types of fishing expeditions that are made to the primitive area:

(1) Airplane trips are made to the primitive area for steelhead fishing in the winter. Based on discussions with guides, department personnel, and others, it is quite evident that there are hundreds of people who follow this sport. Literally thousands fly to either the main Salmon River or the Middle Fork of the Salmon River for steelhead fishing each winter.

(2) The practice of making float trips for cutthroat trout has become very popular on the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. This practice is also followed on the Selway River. One survey by the fish and game department tabulated 238 anglers spending 5,320 hours on the Middle Fork of the Salmon for cutthroat trout during one survey period in the summer of 1960.

(3) There are over 2,000 mountain lakes in Idaho, a majority of which are located in the primitive area. Figures are not available, but from discussions with personnel and others, it is evident that each one of these lakes receives many visitors on fishing trips each summer. An indication of the popularity of these mountain lakes is the fact that in the past 7 years the department has published and completely distributed 50,000 mountain lakes bulletins (two editions) which have maps to show how to get to these fishing waters and the kind of fish to be found therein. Many of the fishermen pack into these mountain lakes. Some use their own equipment and others use the services of regular guides and outfitters. An increasing number of people hike to these mountain lakes with packs on their backs.

(b) From the foregoing statements, it is evident that a large number of people are using the primitive areas for a part of their fishing each year. Again, from a study of available statistics and discussions with other department personnel, it is estimated that at least 25 percent of the fishermen enjoy this primitive area type fishing. Using figures from the various economic surveys, resident fishermen spend about $100 a year on their fishing, nonresident fishermen who purchase the season fishing license spend about $200 a year, and the nonresident tourist fishing license holders spend about $100 a year. On these bases, 41,625 resident and 19,853 nonresident fishermen spent about $6,600,000 in 1960 on fishing trips to the Idaho primitive areas.

4. Summary

In summary, 66,424 resident and 25,233 nonresident hunters and fishermen spent about $10,640,000 on hunting and fishing trips to Idaho primitive areas in 1960. This is about one-sixth of the total $60 million expended annually by hunters and fishermen in the entire State (license fees not included).

Mrs. ProST. Next is Mr. McGee. Following Mr. McGee will be Mr. Carlson.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. MCGEE, SILVERTON, IDAHO, NEWS EDITOR, RADIO STATION KWAL, OSBURN, IDAHO

Mr. MCGEE. Madam Chairman, Congressman Olsen, ladies and gentlemen, my name is John C. McGee. I live in Silverton, Idaho, and I am presently news editor of radio station KWAL in Osburn, Idaho. I belong to numerous sportsmen's groups. Officially, I represent no special group, but I do feel that my views are shared by many fellow sportsmen with whom I come in daily contact, and for that reason I am here today to urge a defeat for S. 74 providing for the establishment of a wilderness area in Idaho.

Like many other outdoorsmen, I feel that all Americans should have the opportunity for healthful, high-quality, unrestricted out

door recreation. Being a firm believer in a balanced recreation program for all, and having learned to define conservation as the wise use of our natural resources, I have attempted to take an objective look at some of the groups which have been in the vanguard of pushing wilderness legislation. I have and still belong to some of these organizations, but I cannot fail to see a group of enthusiastic wilderness devotees with, generally speaking, some especially dedicated devotees at the top. The obvious growing ambitions which have accompanied their increasing political effectiveness is too often in conflict with the real issue.

The real issue in this instance, as I see it, evolves around, "For whose benefit are we creating this wilderness area?" If it is for the sportsmen, the man or woman who likes to fish and hunt, the family man who enjoys taking his youngsters out in the great outdoors for a weekend camping trip-then we are approaching the solution from the wrong angle. In the particular areas familiar to me, and I refer to the Bitterroot-Selway region, I much prefer it in its present primitive state-its easy accessibility-isolation from the congestion of everyday living offers the average person the ultimate in recreational enjoyment.

Speaking primarily for Idaho, but I am sure the same applies in other Western States, nature's scenic beauty has remained unchanged for years. True, a road here and there to log off timber may have slightly changed the contour to the eye, but it certainly has not marred the beauty or impaired the hunting and fishing that abounds in our primitive area. It has been my experience, in Shoshone County where I have lived most of my life, that these alterations have, if anything, increased its productiveness both for fish and wildlife.

Game management officials preach the same doctrine nationally that a certain amount of wildlife must be harvested each year to maintain a healthy and productive herd. In an area as large as is proposed in the wilderness bill for the State of Idaho, it is very doubtful if this formula can apply successfully. Were it broken down into smaller segments, say not over 200 square miles in area, my opinion of wilderness areas might readily be altered. Where this single area is much larger, it offers little for the average, small-salaried sportsman, who would find himself at a sad disadvantage to compete with the man of means, who could afford an expensive safari into the heart of the wilderness area.

I have spent a great deal of time in the East, and have had numerous occasions to observe some of the private hunting preserves enjoyed by wealthy sportsmen. I have seen clubs and private hunting reservations established adjoining the large wilderness area that corral some of the better access trails in the prime hunting and fishing areas. In Idaho we are proud of our hunting lands, but we are also willing to share them with others who want to come here to fish and hunt. The possibility of having these primitive areas revert to commercial or residential use is too many generations away that it doesn't warrant consideration at this time.

Besides objecting to the wilderness bill and its many amendments designed as a blessing for the outdoorsman, I personally look upon its enactment into law as an encroachment on the rights of Idaho resi

77350-62-pt. 1-16

dents to establish a federally controlled domain within the boundaries of our State without the sanction of the majority of the people. In its present status its efficient administration under the Forest Service cannot be denied.

I can also visualize how an easterner or person from a large city might feel about creating a wilderness area. From my own recollection of 19 years surrounded by tall buildings, posted farmlands and private estates, the ultimate goal of preserving our wide open spaces is an unselfish desire. On the surface, it seems like the prudent thing to do in the face of our growing population. However, most city dwellers are not properly apprised concerning the scope of primitive areas in the West and the little change that has been wrought by man and machine-in altering these primitive paradises. If anything, man has given nature a helping hand.

In conclusion, I hope this committee will give serious consideration before creating this monstrous, untrammeled, limited-purpose area, for the benefit of so few-while in its present state can be enjoyed by so many.

Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. McGee.

Mr. Carlson, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF LEROY A. CARLSON, COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO

Mr. CARLSON. Madam Chairman, and Mr. Olsen, my name is Leroy A. Carlson, a lifelong resident of the State of Idaho, and at the present time I am president of the Coeur d'Alene Valley Chapter of the Idaho Outdoors Association which has a membership exceeding 300 sportsmen, the largest chapter in the State.

I am not here to represent this group but merely to express my own personal views, as I see them. Like many others, when this bill was first brought to the attention of Sportsmen's Clubs, it offered what we thought was the ideal solution to preserve our primitive areas for our children. Basically, I believe that such areas should be established throughout the entire United States, but under different circumstances than that which is proposed under this bill.

I believe that legislation such as S. 174 is neither necessary nor desirable at this time, because we have an adequately protected primitive area properly administrated by the U.S. Forest Service, and enjoyed by both residents and nonresidents alike.

It is inconceivable to me that some groups wish to enlarge the area which is presently accessible to so many and by this conversion reduce its overall use into a gargantuan that only can be enjoyed by a few hardy souls, or those who have the means to employ guides and pack animals.

Our game biologists, who have spent years of research in game management, have repeatedly stressed the importance of harvesting deer and elk to maintain a healthy brood stock. By creating such a gigantic wilderness area such as the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area, encompassing over 2,500 square miles, over twice as large as the State of Rhode Island, it stands to reason that wild game would suffer from lack of hunting pressure.