of this bill would impose another Federal law on administrators already enmeshed in a morass of conflicting policies and procedures.

Also, the extreme inacessibility of the contemplated wilderness areas would impose severe physical handicaps on efficient management and administration. Natural disasters, forest fires, insect infestations, and so forth, which are uncontrollable in these inaccessible areas, are vastly more destructive than the worst act of man.

For the above reasons we respectfully urge that S. 174 be defeated or substantially amended. Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Artechevarria.

I want to make a statement here for the benefit of the people present that it happens to be my privilege to serve on the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, and I have been a member of that Commission since it was established by the Congress in 1957. As you people probably know, there are two Democratic members from the House side and two Republican members, two Democratic Senators and two Republican Senators from the 437 Members and the 100 Senators respectively.

The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission report will be available by January 31, 1962. In view of the fact that Con gress reconvenes on January 10, 1962, this subcommittee will not be taking action until after the report of the Commission is available. And, of course, the Commission report will be taken into consideration by both the subcommittee and the full committee at the time this measure is considered.

I thought you might like to know this because this has been referred to several times during yesterday and this morning's hearings. Thank

you.

Mr. ARTECHEVARRIA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. [Applause.] Mrs. PFOST. Mr. Hoffman.

Mr. OLSEN. Before you proceed, I want to answer the location of the mine of Mark Evans who previously testified. For the record, the Humbolt Mine is located in Township 23, north range, five east, on California Creek, at very near its source.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mr. Olsen.
You may proceed, Mr. Hoffman.

STATEMENT OF DON HOFFMAN, WINCHESTER, IDAHO, REPRESENTING LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS UNION LOCAL NO. 2796

Mr. HOFFMAN. My name is Don Hoffman, and I represent Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union Local No. 2796 of Winchester, Idaho. The resolution of local 2796 adopted with respect to S. 174 provides as follows:

Whereas lumbering is the greatest industry in the State of Idaho; and

Whereas lumber industry employs more people than any other industry in the State of Idaho; and

Whereas several billion feet of commercial timber is in this proposed area, which could become merchantable; and

Whereas we are for multiple use: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2796, go on record as being opposed to S. 174, the Wilderness Act.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman. [Applause.]

Mr. Devin of Winchester, and following him will be Mr. Palmer. You may proceed, Mr. Devin.

STATEMENT OF STANLEY DEVIN, WINCHESTER, IDAHO

Mr. DEVIN. Madam Chairman, and Mr. Olsen; I oppose this bill for many reasons.

First of all, I have heard many pros and cons about this bill. Some say the cutting of timber, mining, and building of roads will destroy the scenic beauty of Idaho, yet this is but a small destruction as to what one major forest fire could do.

I will agree that the wilderness scenery is wonderful and will fill the minds and souls of those who see it with tranquil wonder. But, ladies and gentlemen, that scenery only puts bread and butter on the table of a minority of Idahoans the ones who capitalize on tourists and vacationers.

What of game herds, some say. In the past years the game department has had several two-deer hunts to help check the overpopulation of game. May I point out that this area was, has, and is presently being logged. May I further say that at the turn of the century a deer was a spectacular sight on Craig Mountain near Winchester, Idaho. That area is now logged off, yet there is more game than ever before.

What of Lewis and Clark, ladies and gentlemen; they wintered with the Nez Perce Indians on the Lolo Trail, and practically starved to death. Before spring they were eating dog meat. This was in a primitive land which was minus game. I further add I went to school with Nez Perce Indians that numbered 3 to 1 to the Caucasians— and they are great people-at Lapwai, Idaho. From the tales they told, the only place they could find elk herds or a plains animal was in the Tammany area, the lower Wallowa range and in Shelley, Idaho, where the Bannock and Shoshone had fought them back. There weren't many game herds in this country at that time, according to their legends. They should know. They were here before us.

I do not see how or why we need this bill at the present time. Let us look at the facts, the graphs, the diagrams, and the people. The little people who are financially affected, let us look at them. These people want their children and grandchildren to enjoy the scenery and wildlife of the now primitive area, too. They just are not ready to sacrifice their means of living so that out-of-Staters and people who are not affected by the wilderness bill can come in and enjoy it. It doesn't make sense to them and it doesn't make sense to me. Therefore, I hope you, Representative Gracie Pfost, will do everything in your power to kill the bill.

Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs. ProST. Mr. Palmer, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HARRY V. PALMER, LEWISTON, IDAHO, REPRESENTING THE NORTH IDAHO CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR WILDERNESS

Mr. PALMER. Madam Chairman, I am Harry V. Palmer of 1113 Powers Avenue, Lewiston, Idaho. I am speaking today on behalf of the North Idaho Citizens Committee for Wilderness. I have lived in the Lewiston area for the past 60 years. During that period I spent 20 years in wildlife conservation and law enforcement work

for the Idaho Fish & Game Department. In the 15-year period from 1942 through 1957, I was supervisor of Idaho Fish and Game Department District No. 2, which includes Clearwater, Lewis, Latah, and Nez Perce Counties and Idaho County within which lie the Selway-Bitterroot primitive area. Because of this position, I spent a large amount of time there. I have made many inspection trips into it and am thoroughly familiar with its rich fish and wildlife

resources.

As you know, Madam Chairman, the Selway-Bitterroot in its wilderness state supports the richest variety of big game, native trout, and anadromous fisheries that is to be found anyplace in the world. It is the center of what is believed to be the largest elk herd in the world. Here the hunter, the fisherman, the outdoor enthusiast can see and enjoy wildlife in a spectacular setting of unspoiled mountain lakes, high snow-capped peaks, virgin forest, and clear, unpolluted streams. Even here in Idaho where we are blessed by the presence of large forested areas, we are finding fewer places where we can enjoy this kind of opportunity. Those lands outside of our present primitive areas will be covered with roads within the next few years. When I first visited the upper Clearwater drainage in the early 1920's, the streams were running clear and were full of native fish. In my lifetime, I have enjoyed the best of what the country has had to offer. I like to think that at least part of the experience I have lived will be known to future generations. The only way to my knowledge that this opportunity can be safeguarded for these future generations is to keep the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area and our other areas of dedicated wilderness in their natural state. The wilderness bill, S. 174, will help us do this and will establish orderly procedures for protecting and making the best use of the wilderness that we have left.

The wilderness bill does not take any property off of our county tax rolls. It applies only to Federal lands that for years have been set aside as primitive areas or as national parks, monuments, or wildlife refuges. These lands are dedicated to the use and enjoyment of people in Idaho and from over the Nation. They never have been open to logging, and they will not be under present agency regulations, even if the wilderness bill does not pass.

I believe that these already dedicated areas of wilderness county are today producing more revenue as a result of the hunting, fishing, and other outdoor opportunities they afford than they ever would if opened for logging and other commercial activities. The 20,000-odd sportsmen and other outdoor recreationists who today visit the Clearwater country each year bring millions of dollars of income into our local communities, and I am confident that with the completion of the Lewis-Clark Highway connection, Lewiston and other Clearwater communities to Missoula and the Bitterroot Valley, this area will equal our great national parks as a recreational attraction.

When I first saw the Lochsa River it was, as I have said, full of fish and running clear. I never thought I would see the day when this stream would be choked with silt and debris carried from the loggedoff slopes of its many tributaries. We have lost much that we valued there the wonderful native fisheries, unspoiled scenery, and large herds of big game. We cannot afford to lose any more of these areas.

We cannot afford to sacrifice the Lochsa face or the upper section of the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area, or the Salmon River and Sawtooth Primitive Areas.

The wilderness bill will give better protection to what wilderness we have left here in Idaho and will give us better opportunities for using this for the benefit of our people.

I urge you to report this bill promptly for a House vote without any weakening amendments.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you very much, Mr. Palmer.

Without objection, the statement of Mr. Chet Moulton, director, Idaho Department of Aeronautics, will be placed in the record. He gave me his statement last evening, stating he might not be here this morning. It is a qualified opposition statement, indicating that if the bill is passed, they would like to have it amended.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. (The statement follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS,

STATE OF IDAHO,

Boise, Idaho.

Wilderness bill hearing.

HOUSE PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE,

U.S. House of Representatives, McCall, Idaho

The Idaho Department of Aeronautics represents itself here as a function of State government without commercial or personal interest in the conveyances wrought be Senate bill 174 other than the effects such passage could have on the future of Idaho's aviation development.

As an agency charged by legislative act to supervise, foster, and promote the orderly advancement of one of the Nation's leading transportation systems within the Gem State, we would be derelict in our responsibility if we did not properly and truthfully state our opinions of the far-reaching and potential capabilities of this act as relating to Idaho's aeronautical asset.

Most of Idaho's earliest aviation development was centered around what we now term "the back country." Some of our oldest airports and airstrips dot this area which comprises both "primitive" and "nonprimitive" forest designations. It was in these regions that the names of such oldtimer pilots as Bob Johnson, Penn Stohr, George Stonebraker, A. A. Bennett, Pete Hill, Sr., and others became synonymous with the mercy and utilitarian adaptions of the airplane to isolation and the development of all sectors of our State.

George Stonebraker was known, on occasions, to jump entire dog teams over the area now in question to pack out someone in distress. It is needless to say we now consider the ambulance airplane and the utility adaptions which service the remote nooks and crannies of our State a far cry in time savings and modernization to the dog teams of yesteryear and we believe it would be negative retrogression to retreat back to this concept.

We make this type of contrast because thousands of people do, and will, use the vast interiors of Idaho. It is only natural that a certain percentage of these numbers will be taken seriously ill, need hospitalization, be delayed and have an emergency in getting back to business or transportation schedules. Every time this happens, the pressure is for an airplane because of its speed and ease of transport as contrasted to the media of horse or walking. Any action which might restrict, or delay due to special permits, might easily take a life or bring about serious consequences to those in need.

The department has no opposition to, nor do we have the prerogative to oppose, what some refer to as the wilderness concept. We do, however, feel that the past two decades of primitive concept has been very successful and does a better job of reserving our interior resource lands than what the most liberal proponents try to read into S. 174.

To be specific, we believe S. 174 has too many vague provisions in its text to inspire confidence among those with inherent loyalties to the future growth and welfare of their State. Take the local and national asset of aviation for an example. Are we to retrogress, stand stagnant, or build over an area as large as the acre dimensions involved here? Will State-owned airports in these

aircraft services be permitted or assured? Will State-owned airports in these regions be respected or, will exchanges for other lands in other areas be a contention under section 3, subparagraph (j)?

Under section 6, subparagraph (b), the act states: "Except as specifically provided for in this act and subject to any existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise within the wilderness system, no permanent road, nor shall there be any use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats, or landing of aircraft nor any other mechanical transport or delivery of persons or supplies, nor any temporary road, nor any structure or installation, in excess of the minimum required for the administration of the area for the purposes of this act, including such measures as may be required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within such areas."

The "Special Provisions,” subparagraph (c), says: “The following special provisions are hereby made: (1) Within the wilderness system the use of aircraft or motorboats where these practices have already become well established may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the appropriate Secretary deems desirable. In addition, such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the appropriate Secretary deems desirable."

It is hard to read these two paragraphs and have confidence in the compatibility of the special provision yet liberal proponents read this to be a firm statement of fact that use of aircraft, where well established, will be a reality. If this is the true intent, then wouldn't it be much better language to change the word "may" to "shall"? To this end, we urge and recommend that your committee report favorably on an amendment to change the word "may" in lines 13, and 15, page 14, to "shall" to assure this often-quoted interpretation.

Every conservation and transportation concept within our mountainous areas have been drastically altered within the past quarter century by aircraft and the ingenuity of their pilots. In Idaho, as our illustration, some confuse the issue of aircraft use in our remote and primitive areas by charging it is the airplane owner who is currently privileged- who is the rich and able. This might be brought into better focus by stating that most hunters, fishermen, hikers, or lovers of the outdoors, have established a very clear and definite pattern of flying the first leg of their journey to the interior in the comfort and timesavings of the airplane.

The airplane, upon landing, is probably more helpless than any other transportation medium in further aid to its passengers. They are strictly afoot and do, from there on, either walk or use the fast-developing services of a packer from the airstrip.

By these combinations, a person can penetrate farther, and at lesser cost, than may visitations to what are commonly termed "fringe areas." The person who has only a few days, or a weekend-the handicapped and the elderly-and those with limited financial resources-all now use Idaho's primitive areas by their combination choice of plane, horse, by foot, dude ranches, or a campout. It is truly the way and means of those with moderate finances and, a careful survey of the visitors to these areas over the next year's season would positively prove to Congress who is using, and of what financial status they belong.

Over the past two decades, we have seen the entire concept of forest and range management change. Normal pattern of forest firefighting now centers around the use of aerial survey, patrols, and aerial-borne smokejumpers who jump over a small forest fire and put out in hours what would require days to reach by any other means. The borate-bomber tankers which drop large volumes of masswater solutions on spot fires-and the helicopters which hover here and there-checking into all operations. It is not unusual to read where a lightning storm starts 35 to 50 forest or range fires in one evening yet learn they have all been put out during the following day. This is impossible without the newer uses of aircraft, and the success is due to speed of implementation. Any restrictive delay requiring permits or special approvals might completely disrupt the efficiency which has become so well developed.

Many forest administrative guard stations are regularly served by plane as a matter of efficiency and general practice with hauling of forest service administrative supplies such as bridges, building materials, etc., a common practice. In fact, practically any improvement brought about in the areas known as primitive or remote have been possible chiefly by the medium of the airplane, the resources and ingenuity of the pilots who have founded an attitude of "if it is important, give us the job; we'll find the means and way of fling it."