In addition, some 7 million acres, or over 10,000 square miles of our national forests, are already administered as wilderness, and there is no reason to believe that their status is in danger of being changed.

The mining industry has been, and still is, a firm supporter of the multiple-use concept, and I firmly believe that the withdrawal from the State of Idaho of the vast acreage that would be dedicated under the present bill as wilderness is distinctly against the best long-term interest of all of the people of our State and our Nation.

The withdrawal is indeed alarming, not only to Idaho, but also to the entire West, where the livelihood and future of our population depends so much on wise use of public land, whether it be for recreation, water, soil conservation, flood control, grazing, mining, timber, or other multiple and generally productive uses for many, many people.

Why should we set aside a vast area merely to satisfy a minority group and prevent its utilization for the benefit of the majority of our people as a means of livelihood and for accessible outdoor recreation?

I do not feel that potential resources within our State should be locked up for only the wealthy outdoor enthusiasts who can afford the time and the cost of expensive pack trips into these enormous and otherwise inaccessible wilderness areas.

I believe that a thorough study should be made of potential water resources in the area subject to this proposed legislation, and of the timber resources that are presently available.

I also believe that a comprehensive geologic study should be made before this area is locked up as wilderness. This last item is indeed of great concern to the mining industry of Idaho, as we of the industry have only to look back a few years to the beginning of the uranium industry in Utah. Had this area of Utah been classified as "wilderness" or "primitive," it would have been swallowed up just as the primitive areas of Idaho will be under the proposed bill.

Had we hastily locked up this area of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico by a bill such as S. 174, our Nation would indeed have found it quite difficult or impossible to mine or even to prospect for uranium in an area which has supplied a large quantity of uranium so important to our Nation in progressing with the atomic age.

As you know, our lead-zinc industry in Idaho has had a difficult time in the last 5 or 10 years. Congress has recognized this fact by recently passing the small mines bill which has been a step in aiding the industry. We have been looking for diversification and my company has been successful in finding uranium deposits. We are continually looking for other kinds of metals.

The bill as it now stands bars the use of even the most rudimentary forms of prospecting. All mechanized equipment essential to efficient prospecting, such as rock drills and diamond drills, is effectively banned in a wilderness area.

Furthermore, airborne geophysical methods, roads, and all forms of mechanized transportation, including airplanes and heilcopters, are forbidden. And even if by some accident a substantial mineral deposit were discovered, it could not be acquired and developed except with specific approval of the President of the United States.

Under the provisions of the present bill, over 6 percent of the entire State of Idaho will be locked up for the exclusive benefit of an extremely small and specially privileged minority who can actually use wilderness.

I firmly believe that commonsense dictates that no vast areas of our State should be given over to wilderness or any other highly restricted single-purpose use until an exhaustive study has been made of the resources that may exist in the area.

Otherwise, we are certain to stifle the growth and development of the State and the West, and deprive not only the State, but the Nation of needed resources for the future. Opportunities for specialized wilderness-type recreation are not the only resources that must be defended. We also need forage, timber, minerals, and forest recreation accessible by roads that the vast majority can enjoy.

In my opinion S. 174 is one of the most flagrant examples of special interest legislation I have ever seen. For it seeks to set aside an area in the West equal to the size of the entire State of Idaho for the sole enjoyment of an extreme minority of unusually rugged individuals who can and will hike into these enormous areas, plus an equally small minority of people who can afford the cost of expensive pack trips into these areas.

No one else can use this vast wilderness proposed by S. 174. This is so in spite of all the emotional and high-sounding phrases by which the proponents of this measure seek to delude the average citizen. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mr. Magnuson.

Our next witness is Mr. Thomas P. Koch, of Ravalli County, Mont.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. KOCH, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONT.

Mr. KOCH. I am sorry I have no prepared statement with me, Madam Chairman.

I appear on behalf of myself and also on behalf of a witness you have later on, Mr. Robert C. Sykes, who is the president of the Montana Wildlife Federation. He called me last night and asked me if I could testify for him, too, and I believe he either has submitted to you or to Washington a written statement. He said he would take care of that. In addition, I will have a written statement.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you. Your statement will be made a part of the record following your testimony.

Mr. Kосн. My name is Thomas P. Koch. I am a lawyer and I live in Hamilton, Mont. I am here to represent myself and the Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association of Hamilton, Mont., of which I am a member and on whose wilderness committee I serve.

I flew over this morning and came across the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area and had a chance to see it from the air for the first time. I have walked into it and have been in there on horseback, but I never had an opportunity to see the thing as a whole before today. I would like strongly, on behalf of myself personally and on behalf of the Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association, and on behalf of the Montana Wildlife Federation, to urge the passage by the House at the earliest opportunity of S. 174.

77350-62-pt. 1—4

I have heard it said that the people who support this bill do it purely as a matter of emotion, that they are trying to set aside a vast part of the United States for the use of a special few.

of

Now, I think that the purpose of the bill, the primary purpose the bill, is to set aside a large portion of the United States for a special few. Those special few are not even in existence yet, but they will be someday. I have children. I hope my children will have children and that their children will have children. I do not feel that it is right for our generation to completely clean out all of the wilderness that remains. It seems to me that the future generations should have some say in this matter.

You all know that this is an irreversible process. You cannot make wilderness. You have to take wilderness as you find it. Why should not my children and the succeeding generations have some say about some part of the United States and what use shall be made of it?

Certainly you may be locking up for a generation or more mineral resources that our generation could profitably use. But certainly the generations that are to come should have some right to say how those resources should be used and should have some place where they can get away from an internal combustion engine and see what the country was like once.

Therefore, I strongly urge the passage of the bill S. 174. [Applause.]

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you.

(The statement of Mr. Koch follows:)

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. KOCH ON BEHALF OF THE RAVALLI COUNTY FISH & WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION

The Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association wishes to place on record a reiteration of its longstanding policy of support for the wilderness bill.

Much of Ravalli County is composed of national forest and, under the proposal of the bill, parts of that forest will be set aside as wilderness. The members of our association are well aware of the importance of the forests to the economy of the county, but we are also aware of the recreational values of primitive

areas.

We have been witness to propaganda and testimony against the bill on the part of well-organized commercial interests. Much of this propaganda has been misleading to uninformed persons who have been led to believe that a major part of Montana, and a major part of the Government land throughout the country, are to be set aside irrevocably and in perpetuity from all exploitation. Actually, only a small fraction (4.3 percent) of the land area of Montana and a small fraction of Federal lands will be thus reserved and all reservations would be subject to review within 10 years. Furthermore, there is nothing irrevocable about any decision to set aside certain lands. Antagonists of the bill have sought to create the impression that the land and its resources would be "lost forever to the American public," whereas in fact they would be held in trust for the American people and would be subject to special uses in the future, if the Nation's welfare should so demand.

Opponents of the bill have created confusion in the minds of the public by invoking the concept of multiple use in opposition to the special use of recreation that is envisioned in the bill. However, the multiple-use concept was never meant to enforce equal use of all lands for all purposes.

Carried to a logical absurdity, there must then be mining on lands without mineral wealth, logging on lands without merchantable timber, and grazing on forests without grass. In the true sense, multiple use means that where several compatible uses may be made of the forest, no one use should be pursued to the exclusion or detriment of the others. Thus logging, grazing, mining, and hunting can be, and are, pursued over a very large part of the national forests without serious detriment to each other. On the other hand, those uses, except

hunting, are not compatible with high standards of esthetic recreation but another exceedingly important use, watershed protection, is compatible. In our opinion, those two uses constitute sufficient justification for making certain areas inviolate for the foreseeable future.

We are reminded over and over of the desperate need of the economy of this region for the material wealth of the national forests. However, recreation constitutes one of the greatest factors in our economy; it is an increasing source of income, and it is not limited if we do not destroy our capital. On the other hand, despoilation of the forests can seriously reduce income from tourism and recreation.

At this time, when our burgeoning and wealthy population is expressing its requirement for relief from the stress of urban existence by exhausting the facilities of our national parks, the need for additional outdoor recreational areas would seem to be self-evident. There is every indication that the demand will continue to increase and at an accelerated rate. We feel that setting aside some lands for recreation is a logical provision for the future. If other-more pressing demands for those lands should occur, they may be handed over unspoiled. They will not be lost forever.

In conclusion, we want to present a plea for an end to public hearings on this matter. We have been engaged very actively in this controversy for more than 4 years at great expenditure of time and money. Our funds and our time have been expended with no thought of personal gain but in the sincere belief that the wilderness bill is for the best interest of the country. On the other hand, the commercial interests and the organizations they control can afford to fight the bill with all the resources of money and professional personnel they command. We feel that the interests of the informed public have been amply demonstrated in the great mass of testimony already available.

Mrs. PrOST. Without objection, the statement of Mr. Robert C. Sykes, president of the Montana Wildlife Federation, supporting the wilderness bill, will be placed in the record at this point. Hearing none, it is so ordered.

(The statement of Mr. Robert C. Sykes follows:)

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. SYKES, PRESIDENT, THE MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION My name is Robert C. Sykes. I am an attorney by profession, living in Kalispell, Mont., a small town that is in the middle of a green valley surrounded by mountains. Within a 60-mile radius of Kalispell, there are more than 500 lakes. I appear here today on behalf of the Montana Wildlife Federation, of which I am the president. I wish to thank this committee for the privilege of making this appearance in support of the wilderness bill, and giving me this opportunity to state the view of the members of my organization.

I think it might be interesting to consider that the four largest industries of the State of Montana are mining, agriculture, logging, and tourist trade. These are the same industries that are here today expressing their opinions on the wilderness bill. As a smalltown attorney, my livelihood is dependent upon the economy of Kalispell; and my clients, naturally, are my neighbors and friends who are the loggers, mill operators, the ranchers, and farmers, as well as those who serve the many tourists that visit our beautiful country each year. These are the same people who make up the membership of the Montana Wildlife Federation throughout the State of Montana. Now it would be extremely unwise for me, from a selfish standpoint, as well as from an economical standpoint to jeopardize the existing economy of those who make up the membership of the federation. In other words. I would not be here before you today, if I thought that this wilderness bill would adversely affect Montana's economy or any segment of that economy.

I would not purport to be an expert on the uses of natural resources. However, I am a user of those natural resources, and I live with and represent people who make other uses of other natural resources. My hobby is horses and amateur-style pack trips. Because I have had the actual privilege of enjoying and using these resources, and because I live with and work for other different users of these natural resources, I believe I understand the meaning of multiple use of national forests.

I appeared before the Senate committee at the hearing in Salt Lake City as conducted by Senator Murray of Montana, and also appeared before the Senate

committee in Washington, D.C., where the hearing was conducted by a subcommittee handled by Senator Anderson. I would urge the members of this committee to study the constructive remarks made by the supporters of this bill and the statements of the opponents which were wholely destructive in character and which in effect opposed wilderness use on public lands, without a single constructive suggestion.

As I understand it, multiple use means that use or management of the forest lands which achieves the maximum benefits for all the various users of such lands. I further understand and assume that such management for multiple use requires application of this principle to the national forests as a whole rather than attempting to apply multiple use to each and every foot of ground that exists. If this is a reasonable definition of multiple use, then by all means, the wilderness bill is necessary so that wilderness use can have value or recognition, whatsoever, in the multiple use of national forests.

I have been quite impressed with the viewpoint expressed by Senator Anderson when he compares a wilderness area to a museum. He quotes Dr. Luna B. Leopold, Chief of the Water Resource Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, who said: "We take for granted that there is some social gain in the erection and maintenance of a museum of fine arts, a museum of natural history, or even a historical museum. Sooner or later, we ought to be mature enough to extend this concept to another kind of museum, one which you might call the museum of land types, consisting of samples as uninfluenced as possible by man." I think we must take for granted that he also includes the fish and wildlife that inhabit such a living museum.

The wilderness areas of Montana are a vital segment of our tourist trade. Should Montana ever lose its wilderness areas, the adverse effects to Montana, economically, would be disastrous.

I sincerely believe the opponents of the wilderness bill are opposed to wilderness use of public lands. They profess stanch support for the multiple use of public lands; however, I earnestly submit that the only multiple use they will ever support on public lands are to those lands which do not in any way contribute to the type of resource which their industry is dependent on. I further submit that they probably are speaking for a segment of the industry they represent, but that segment is either misinformed or does not know the purpose of the wording of Senator Anderson's bill. I do know that the opponents who have appeared here today do not speak for many of the members they claim they represent. Without qualification, I know that I speak for every conservationist, not only in the State of Montana but everywhere else, when I ask that this committee support Senator Anderson's bill.

In considering Senator Anderson's bill, I fail to see how it will, in any way, adversely affect the economy of any of the members of my federation, regardless of what vocation, business, or industry their livelihood is dependent on. For instance, this bill does not in any way affect the present establishment of the working circle or the annual sustained yield cut, as established by the National Forest Service for logging. The reason for this is that wilderness areas have never been used in establishing such working circles or sustained yield cuts. The provisions in the bill, itself, under section 6, paragraph (c) and more particularly the subparagraphs (1) through (7), thereof, clearly permit existing users to continue to do so, and go further than that, and permit the President to authorize prospecting, including exploration for oil and gas, as well as the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs and other facilities needed in the public interest. Also, the Secretary may permit grazing of livestock, where this has been done prior to the passage of Senator Anderson's bill. I do not know what more could be expected in giving reasonable protection to grazing and mining interests than this.

I request favorable consideration of Senator Anderson's bill for the following

reasons:

(1) To protect and preserve the last reservoir of natural resources for the use of future generations.

(2) To establish and protect the economy derived through wilderness recreation and education.

(3) To afford greater opportunity to those living adjacent to wilderness, in having the right to speak relative to any boundary changes of such wilderness area.

(4) To prevent exploitation of what few resources that would otherwise be the passage of the bill.