At the outset I want to compliment those of you who are here this morning. We are pleased to see the interest shown in this important piece of legislation, particularly by the fact that you conformed to our request through news reports we released in advance, and 110 of you sent your requests for time to our office in Washington, D.C., and sent five copies of your statements as we requested. We asked for the five copies so that the press, as well as each member of the committee, and particularly the committee reporter, would have a copy of your statement in full.

Judging from the number of people at the press table the five was not quite adequate, but we hope they will be able to share copies.

I want to say, too, that I am most, most pleased to be able to hold these hearings in this gorgeous setting and even "Old Sol" is shining on us this morning so that our visitors may truly enjoy the beauty of the mountains and the forests surrounding the gorgeous Payette Lakes.

McCall is just a few miles from the primitive area as you people know. Therefore, we felt that we should hold the hearings as close to the primitive area as possible and yet not duplicate what was accomplished in the area of Lewiston and Grangeville where primitive area hearings were held by the Forest Service earlier in the year.

The gentleman from Montana is recognized.

Mr. OLSEN. Madam Chairman, I want to say that I am very happy to be here with you this morning and particularly I am happy to be here with yourself as chairman of this subcommittee. I would like to tell the people here in Idaho that Gracie Pfost is the authority on public lands in the House of Representatives in Washington. All of us that have questions about public lands look to Mrs. Pfost to tell us her experience and knowledge because she has spent so much time and obtained so much experience with this legislation.

So I want to tell you that I am not nearly so familiar as she said. I am down here because I am not familiar. I am down here to learn with Gracie Pfost. Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Congressman Olsen. I might take a brief moment to read a short résumé as background.

As I think everyone knows, the proposals for a wilderness system have been discussed throughout the United States during the last several years, but it is only now that we have reached the point of having fairly concrete proposals upon which the proponents of this legislation have reached agreement.

By way of background I should mention that there are eight bills pending before the committee that were introduced in the House of Representatives in addition to S. 174, which passed the U.S. Senate on September 6, 1961, and has been referred to our committee for consideration. I find by and large that when people today refer to "the Wilderness Act" they mean S. 174 as passed by the Senate and for this reason and also for simplicity of reference I think it would be well if we likewise refer to that bill when talking of specific provisions. And even though extensive hearings were held by the Senate, not all aspects of this legislation have been publicly explored in the areas affected and, of course, amendments were added after the hearings were closed.

Therefore, this is the first opportunity to secure public opinions on them. This subcommittee is here officially to find out how you people who would be most directly affected by the legislation feel about it and see whether there are any positive recommendations that may be made concerning the legislation.

In short, we want to hear all sides of this issue and endeavor to determine, first, whether there should or should not be established a wilderness preservation system as envisioned by the proponents and, secondly, if such a system is to be established, to write the best bill possible for the protection of the greatest public and national interest. For additional background I think it might be well to review here for a moment the areas that would be affected by S. 174. Under that act, 14,664,388 acres of national forest lands would be incorporated into the wilderness system at the outset-that is nationwide. There is provision, however, for the subsequent deletion of 7,907,416 acres of lands presently classified as "primitive" to be based upon recommendations made by the Secretary of Agriculture to the President and in turn to Congress. Congress could by resolution of either the House or the Senate reject the President's recommendations concerning the continued inclusion of primitive areas in the wilderness system. There are at present 3,017,907 acres of forest lands classified as "primitive" in Idaho.

In this connection I would also like to call attention to the pending proposal of the Department of Agriculture to reclassify the SelwayBitterroot Primitive Area to wilderness status, whether this bill is passed or not. If the reclassification of this 1,162,555-acre area is accomplished and S. 174 were to be enacted as presently written, then the area would automatically become a permanent part of the wilderness system; however, if it retains its status as a primitive area it would be subject to review and possible deletion from the wilderness system within 14 years after passage of the bill.

In addition to the Forest Service areas it is possible under S. 174 for units within the national park system to be incorporated within the wilderness system. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to review units of the national park system that comprise continuous areas of 5,000 acres or more without roads and make recommendations for incorporation of each such portion into a wilderness Recommendations forwarded by the Secretary through the President to Congress could be rejected by resolution of either House of Congress.

Within Idaho there are two units of the national park system that could qualify under this provision-the Craters of the Moon National Monument which embraces 48,003 acres of federally owned land, and the Yellowstone National Park with 31,488 acres located in Idaho.

Finally, there would be incorporated into the wilderness system portions of wildlife refuges and game ranges as recommended by the Secretary of the Interior through the President to the Congress subject to the same right of either House of Congress to reject the recommendation. There are no such wildlife refuges or game ranges in Idaho.

Without going into detail of the provisions of the act pertaining to administration of the wilderness I think it should be noted that subject to existing rights there would be no commercial enterprise, no

roads, no mining, and no use of motor vehicles, motorboats, or aircraft except where such practice has become well established.

For the convenience of those testifying here and for the benefit of the committee we have had prepared for us by the Forest Service the maps that you see on the walls showing location of wilderness-type areas throughout the Western States. Reference to these maps will be helpful when they are necessary but should be specific.

As I told you earlier, it will be necessary to be concise and move quickly. I do wish that time permitted us to hold these hearings longer. We made an attempt to try to start our hearing today earlier but that could not be done. Our agenda has been established for several weeks and Idaho gets the only day-and-a-half hearing during the entire session. We will be busy for about 2 weeks with hearings on this and other public lands matters and the members will not be able to go back to their districts until the middle of November. Keep in mind also that hearings will be continued in Washington, D.C., after the Congress reconvenes next January. So, therefore, there will be additional time to be heard.

For those who may not have statements with you this morning but would like them printed in the record, we will allow some additional time for the printed statements to be sent to Washington to be included in the record of the hearings. We want everyone at the grassroots level who wishes to be heard to have their say. We will make every attempt to hear everyone and we shall start now with our first witness on the agenda.

Our usual procedure during congressional hearings is to hear all of the proponents first and divide the time equally between them and the opponents. Because we felt that we should take the people in the order in which they requested time and because some who did not write in did not tell us whether they favored or were against the legislation, we felt it was best to take witnesses in the order in which they are listed. It may be our first witness will be for, the next against, and the next three or four may be against, but we are taking them in the date order in which they requested time.

Our first witness this morning is Mr. E. M. Stoddard, president, Southern Idaho Forestry Association, 114 South 10th Street, Boise, Idaho.

Will you please come forward, Mr. Stoddard and take a seat here at the end of the witness table on the platform?

You may proceed, Mr. Stoddard.

STATEMENT OF E. M. STODDARD, PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN IDAHO FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, BOISE, IDAHO

Mr. STODDARD. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, my name is E. M. Stoddard, and I come before you on behalf of the Western Pine Association, in which I serve as chairman of the committee on forest conservation.

I headquarter at Mountain Home, Idaho, where I am manager of the Sawtooth Lumber Co. The Western Pine Association is the largest lumber regional trade group in the United States, having more than 400 member mills in 12 States and representing an industry producing about 30 percent of America's softwood lumber volume.

The western pine industry employs directly approximately 70,000 workmen, earns some $700 million a year for the western economy and is of course the mainstay for thousands of jobs and businesses in hundreds of communities. Most of the raw material for our industry is purchased at public auction from Government forests.

As part of the foundation for our industry's statement on S. 174, let me point out that the timber supply situation in the western pine region is considered excellent, for present and future, providing the basic resource-the commercial forest-is permitted to go on producing its multiple crops for use. Our interest in the wilderness system bill stems from concern over possible attrition of the commercial forest base as a result of this proposal and other pressures for special-use dedications.

As a fourth-generation western pine lumberman, I feel I can testify as an expert on the unique role that Government lands and timber play in the lives of western citizens. The mill that I own employs less than 100 men and draws nearly all of its log supply from the Boise and Sawtooth National Forests. Most other mills throughout the entire western pine region are in a like situation, depending wholly or in part on Government timber sales. That is so, not because private timber has been cut out, but because private ownership never had the lands in the first place. Only 16 percent of the western pine commercial forest is owned by the lumber industry. Seventy-three percent is Government held or controlled. Sixty percent of the whole is national forest.

Obviously, then, without Government timber there could be no western pine lumber industry as we know it. But it goes deeper than that. Control of industrial destiny means similar influence over our communities and people, for the lumber industry is in effect only a necessary economic middle force between the landlord and the citizens. Employment tax support, business in hundreds of our communities depend on lumber manufacturing-sometimes exclusively.

Mr. J. B. Edens, president of the Western Pine Association, recently put it this way:

Congress and the Government agencies *** are partners in a delicately balanced economic mechanism in which they have tremendous influence and corresponding responsibility.

In other words, while Government has the power in the public land States to make ghost towns it also can help the people prosper, build, grow-by land management decisions.

We urge, therefore, most earnestly that the vital interests of dependent communities be closely considered in decisions and actions affecting public lands.

Our position on the wilderness system bill and similar proposals is summarized in the following several points:

(1) In the public land States, Government control of resources is of such deep meaning that Government must live up to a dual responsibility role on the one hand to all the people and on the other to local communities dependent on public lands in their vicinity for

livelihood.

(2) We have no quarrel with the wilderness preservation concept but we do believe areas to be set aside should be carefully chosen and

individually acted upon in positive, forthright manner. The proposed blanketing-in of nearly 8 million acres of unclassified primitive area lands goes contrary to what we consider sound procedure.

(3) Since multiple use has been practiced by Government agencies and private landowners for many years and since it became law for the national forests in 1960, we think any proposed withdrawal of public lands from multiple use should require public hearing in the locality of every proposed deviation from multiple use.

(4) We contend the burden of proof as to wilderness quality and value of proposed set-aside should be on those wanting to set aside. Under S. 174 the burden of proof is on those advocating multiple use to prevent excessive withdrawals.

(5) We view recreation as part of the basic concept of land use. Recreation and timber harvesting are compatible. In fact, forest management increases recreational opportunities.

(6) We doubt that S. 174 can be considered a recreation bill. It seems more likely that virtual locking up of large areas without allowing roads will intensify growing recreational problems by making less lands available for family recreation.

(7) We think Congress should keep intact its constitutional authority over public lands. The bill relegates Congress to a subsidiary role in land policy, with the President calling the turns.

(8) We consider the wilderness system bill unneeded. We know of no threat whatever to wilderness. There is sure to be plenty of U.S. wilderness without this legislation.

As an Idaho man speaking for an important basic industry, I stress the ominous portent of the drastic primitive area land grab which is certain to have an adverse effect on forest-borne communities in every Western State.

Particulary, I plead the case of Idaho, which is earmarked to contribute more than 3 million acres of the nearly 8 million acres that the wilderness system bill would blanket into sanctuary status at the outset. And of that 3 million acres, more than 12 million acres is commercial forest.

Dedicating productive forest areas on a scale like that to aesthetic use of a privileged few can hardly be in the public interest, either of the people of Idaho or the Nation.

In respectfully submitting this statement for the record, I ask also that the committee include the attached State-by-State summary of "1960 Production of Lumber and Jobs by the Western Pine Lumber Industry," compiled from statistical information of the Western Pine Association. On the basis of all official resource information available there is every indication the western pine lumber industry will be able to maintain indefinitely or increase its present rate of productivity under multiple-use management policies for the commercial forest. We wish to commend the members of this committee for taking the time to come out here to look into our land problems. We should like to see more frequent visits to the pine region by congressional bodies, which we believe would facilitate programs on the national forests.