Mrs. ProST. The next witness is Mr. R. Stanley Pearce, president, Orofino Chamber of Commerce, Orofino, Idaho. Is Mr. Pearce here? (No response.) Mrs. Prost. Apparently he is not here. Our next witness is Mr. G. Heber Smith, regional director, National Wildlife Federation, Box 212, Grace, Idaho. You may proceed, Mr. Smith. STATEMENT OF G. HEBER SMITH, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, GRACE, IDAHO Mr. SMITH. As previously instructed, I have here a short statement from the chairman of the fifth district, Idaho Wildlife Federation in southern Idaho, who would like this made a part of the record. Mr. OLSEN. In favor or against the bill? Mr. SMITH. In favor. Mrs. Prost. Without objection, it will be included in the record at the conclusion of your statement. You may proceed. Mr. SMITH. As a director of the National Wildlife Federation for the States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and being a longtime resident of Idaho, I am greatly concerned about the passage of adequate legislation to protect wilderness values of this country. Not only do I feel strongly about this matter personally but I can vouch for similar feelings from large numbers of individuals associated with the National Wildlife Federation. I wish it known that I appear here at no expense to the federation and that this statement does not necessarily reflect the policy of the National Wildlife Federa tion. The passage of S. 174 in the Senate by a large majority required an effort of 6 years' duration. The bill has been discussed, modified, and compromised by dedicated leaders who now believe its present form will adequately protect wilderness and not create hardship on anyone. Many of the amendments proposed by those who oppose the bill have not been made in the spirit of helpfulness but in an effort to destroy the basic legislation involved. Undoubtedly continued efforts to reduce the wilderness bill to an ineffective instrument will be made in the House. This is not surprising. Ever since farsighted individuals proposed restrictive legislation on the natural resources of this country there has been a continual effort to seek exceptions. Everyone seems in favor of multiple use until it affects his own special interests, and then a great hue and cry of wounded indignation springs forth. Indeed, even though the National Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and other agencies are now well established, they have great difficulty in accomplishing their responsibilities because individuals and groups that have a monetary interest in these lands resist any changes that threaten this monetary gain. The wisdom of our forefathers in establishing the philosophy of total public interest has been demonstrated repeatedly. The estab 77350-62-pt. 1——3 lishment of a secure wilderness system is in keeping with this philosophy. For 6 years the opponents have suggested the bill is not needed, using present-day conditions for their arguments. This argument is completely invalid since the measure is designed to perpetuate wilderness for future generations, thinking of 50, 100, and 500 years hence. Waiting to secure wilderness at a later time would result in nothing but a search, since none would remain unless something is done about it right now. Presently established wilderness areas, by and large roadless, came about as a natural sequence and were not highly exploited for commercial purposes simply because they lack high commercial values. Stating that valuable resources, presently unknown, will be "locked up" forever by wilderness legislation is ridiculous. S. 174 specifically takes care of this problem. America is not going to let herself suffer for lack of some basically needed resource just because it is in a wilderness area. Every broad measure available clearly reflects that the present areas now designated as wilderness, primitive, wild, and roadless are now serving their highest and best use and will for a long time to come. Making exceptions for this industry and that interest makes a mockery of the wilderness idea. It is difficult to deny the fact that wilderness preservation has a great deal of merit. The question of how much and under what conditions seems to be the bone of contention. The history of the bill in the Senate need not be repeated in the House. It is my own personal opinion that if the House of Representatives causes further delays and creates crippling amendments it will be due to the fact that political expediency will be taking over in place of total public interest. While those seeking to serve America in lawmaking positions must be practical, it also follows that this motivation should not prevent broad public interest legislation from receiving fair consideration. A fair consideration means a full debate on the floor of the House of Representatives which, in turn, can come about if the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee reports the bill out. I earnestly solicit a favorable reaction to the principles contained in S. 174. Thank you for the opportunity of appearing here. (The statement of Doyal Stiles, referred to above, follows:) FIFTH DISTRICT WILDLIFE FEDERATION, Conda, Idaho, October 28, 1961. The membership of the fifth district, Idaho Wildlife Federation, do hereby request that they be placed on record as being in favor of the wilderness bill (S. 174) as was passed by the U.S. Senate. DOYAL STILES, Chairman. Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness is Mr. Lyle Stanford, College of Idaho, Caldwell, Idaho. You may proceed, Mr. Stanford. STATEMENT OF LYLE STANFORD, COLLEGE OF IDAHO, CALDWELL, IDAHO Mr. STANFORD. Madam Chairman, I am Lyle Stanford of Caldwell, Idaho. I am representing the Idaho Wilderness Committee. I have submitted by mail a paper to be included in the record of this hearing. I have taught biology and other sciences for more than 25 years. My residence has been Idaho for all except 4 years of my life. For many years I spent all or parts of my vacations and other free time camping near to or hiking in the various primitive and wilderness areas. Some of this pleasure I must now forgo, but I do sincerely desire that it be a possibility for others in the years to come when the population and an increasingly technological society will have few nature-based pleasures left. As I have mentioned, my business is teaching. I consider that I have two main areas-biology teaching and the teaching of conservation of resources. I began one of the first summer workshop programs in conservation in the State of Idaho. I was interested in doing this because I like Idaho very much and this is one State with a great many possibilities for far-thinking and sensible conservation. I have presented similar courses at eastern universities in the summer because I also believe that conservation problems concern our Nation as well as our State. I would like to defend something that is almost a dirty word among my opponents and that is the business of sentiment. When you are not thinking dollars you are thinking sentiment, believe it or not. You are thinking children, thinking your love for your children, you are thinking the beauty, you are thinking, in a sense, perhaps, effeminately when you are talking fishing and this is sentimental and we must know that sentiment is a part of the resources of the United States. We are almost based on sentiment. While much of my reading, writing, and teaching has had to do with conservation of minerals, forests, soil, and water, population problems, economics and the like, I have come continually more to realize that our highly civilized United States, with the world's highest standard of living, must recognize the great resource it has in its growing leisure time and must recognize the need to see that this leisure time is not all wasted in shoddy, thoughtless, materialistic pleasure. The hard-won resources of leisure time (vacation and the many shorter periods) may be sheer wasted resource if not at least partly used for the betterment of the physical and mental human being. In these times when many people and agencies, including President Kennedy and the Army, recognize that Americans are a very soft people, we should be encouraging our young people, and all who can, to build vigorous bodies and stable, clean minds by planning and taking part in simple outdoor living. The small amount of wild land remaining has great possibilities in this building of minds and bodies. Some States and large groups of citizens know this to be true and encourage it. Handled, and advertised and encouraged in its use, the wild lands have proved to be and can prove to be of tremendous importance in this building of Ameri can citizens. Instead of working against the wilderness concept, Idaho people should recognize how fortunate they are in having this small area of resource and guard it and use it. I am interested in one argument that is often brought up against the wilderness resource or the wilderness concept. It is maintained that even the crowded Eastern United States have fine wilderness resources. I am well aware that there are in Maine and especially in New York State such jealously guarded State wild lands as the Adirondacks area, which is such a great resource to the East. But it is further argued that many areas of the East which were once settled, lumbered, or otherwise exploited or harvested are now fine, wild areas. I have experienced many of these regrowth and manaltered wild lands. I suppose for the insensitive, the callous person, or the kid of the great city streets who has never known anything better, this may be real wilderness and a visit to such an area—a wilderness experience. But we of the West either know or can know better than this. Unfortunately we can sometimes make some people fairly happy by keeping them ignorant. Idaho and some other States have a small amount of the real thing— real wild land. This is a real, not a watered-down regrowth resource. In the years to come it can be made to pay off in vigorous bodies, clean, rested, stable minds and in love of the outdoors and of the West. Let us defend this resource, let us use it, let us encourage people to experience it. Let us go by roads to its edge and camp there as I and many do; let us encourage others to increasingly walk or ride into the area a mile or 10 miles by trail. Let us recognize and advertise this resource for what it is a tool to lend strength to our State and Nation. (An additional statement submitted by Mr. Stanford follows:) STATEMENT OF L. M. STANFORD, Caldwell, IDAHO, OCTOBER 23, 1961 What is the wilderness bill? What is it exactly without scare language and scare treatment? What is it insofar as it can be expressed or defined in a few words? I deeply feel that the wilderness bill is one of our truly great pieces of legislation and cannot be characterized at all well in a short letter, but this letter is a half attempt to characterize the bill. The wilderness, as must all great legislation, presupposes a nation that is going to continue-as a great nation-a nation that will continue to and increasingly consider all sides of its citizens' life. The wilderness proponents feel that not only is America, in its best sense, expressed by its fantastically successful economic world, its great inventions, its other emphases on materialistic things of life, particularly its relatively great standard of living, but also and perhaps equally well by its great educational institutions, its museums, its art galleries, its churches, its emphasis on spiritual, its time and emphasis on enjoyment of many worthwhile things other than commercialism and materialism. The wilderness concept certainly does not oppose commercialism. It recognizes that America's strong financial and economic emphasis has been a large factor in making such worthwhile projects as national parks, wilderness, and libraries, possible concepts. Wilderness could not be a concept of any favorable interest or an exciting and feasible possibility in a low-standards or backward society. But I emphasize the wilderness idea and the wilderness bill give recognition that America has been a country with a wide spectrum of possibilities for moneymaking, and a wide spectrum for leisuretime enjoyment, beauty appreciation, and spiritual growth. The wilderness idea insists that the spectrum of America is worth maintaining and developing for an America which wants and needs strength in many directions. The loss of wilderness would be one more of the constant parade of values, great and small, that America has seen eroded away in the midst of her greatness. The alternative for the idea of great libraries is perhaps TV, since TV apparently reaches most people while the libraries are resources to relatively few. The alternative for ample and natural beach areas is Coney Island and the honky-tonk beach as the (in opposition language) "greatest good for the greatest number." The alternative to unmarred and natural beauty of wilderness and mountains is the gradual, and, perhaps swifter than we realize, shift to the commercialized mountain tavern, the lakeside marinas, Disneylands and other artificial pleasures which will be offered as the greatest good for the greatest number or the least common denominator of recreation. The wilderness idea and wilderness bill recognize that most conservation begins when it is nearly or quite too late and feels that now is the time to conserve this bright bit of America's diminishing spectrum. The wilderness bill should be read by all Americans and particularly Idaho Americans for we are Americans also, and we should consider America as a whole. The wilderness bill does not do these things 1. It does not deal in territory of States but in territory more strictly belonging to all U.S. citizens. Wilderness is now and will be, under the bill, parts of your unspoiled U.S. real estate. 2. Wilderness will not include territory which is not already a part of national refuges, national forests or national parks and canoe lands. 3. Wilderness does not "lock up" land to anywhere near the amount that our opponents have been leading people to believe. It may very well actually reduce the present operating wilderness areas to a great extent. It may actually be less of a lockout than the present situation. 4. The wilderness does not set up any new bureau. It simply gives the National Forest and National Parks and Fish and Wildlife Service a firm law under which certain territories will be maintained with wilderness status. 5. Wilderness will not stop hunting or fishing. No agencies of hunting and fishing are in any new way effected. Most hunting and fishing agencies and groups are completely in favor of the bill. 6. Wilderness will not stop measures for fighting fires, insects, or disease. Wilderness will allow territory such as primitive areas and land in national parks to be reviewed not by a single agency or department secretary but also by the President and Congress. The wilderness bill will allow a single House of Congress to oppose by resolution a move by the President to place a certain primitive area permanently in the wilderness system. Under the wilderness bill, if a primitive area inclusion is finally disapproved of by a single House, it will return to ordinary forest status. The wilderness bill is championed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of the Interior (for national parks), the National Wildlife Federation, by hundreds of organizations, by 78 Senators (against 8), and tens of millions of U.S. citizens. Over the years, wilderness will prove to be a great resource for Idaho,, the Nation, and for the mental and physical welfare of our citizens. Mrs. Prost. Mr. Olsen wishes to ask you a question, Mr. Stanford. The gentleman from Montana is recognized. Mr. OLSEN. I wondered if you could, in just a minute, tell me for the record-and I think for people here, too-what the wilderness bill does not do. Could you take a minute on that? What this wilderness bill does not do? Mr. STANFORD. The only thing I might say on that is that when the wilderness bill first came out it actually was a much more secure bill in some ways for the people who are advocating it. But at the present time it is a reasonable bill and I think it has been made by reasonable people over a reasonable 5- or 6-year period in which they have tried to meet all opposition. So I do not think there is much it does not do today. I am most sorry it did not actually carry on with some of the original intent. But I still am very much in favor of it. I think it does what we want it to do. Mr. OLSEN. What I had reference to is the statement you made for the record that you mailed in and which listed some of the things |