I believe that if we look back to the hearings on the establishment of the national forests and the national parks that the same opponents of the wilderness bill made the same objections then that they are making now, and they must concede that they were wrong then; and in the future they will concede they are wrong now.

In closing, I would like to invite the committee's attention to the fact that once a wilderness area has been invaded and exploited and as a result destroyed, it is gone forever. A wilderness area is as fragile as the most priceless piece of porcelain or china. Should that porcelain or china be broken, it can never be replaced nor restored to its original condition. The same thing applies to a wilderness area. Restoration of a destroyed area would be impossible because of the tremendous cost it would entail.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you.

Our next witness is Mrs. Jack Yearout, representing Washington State Federation of Women's Clubs.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JACK YEAROUT, WASHINGTON STATE FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Mrs. YEAROUT. The lady of the many papers. It was announced in our weekly paper I was coming over here and would bring any testimony anyone wanted to send and these are some of those statements and I would like to include them. The only thing generally interesting in them-you may think it rigged, but I assure you it was not-is that they all favor the bill and all the people were most surprised to find they were rich because most of them are blue-collar workers who go into the wilderness because they cannot afford some of the other recreational opportunities in our country.

I am Mrs. Jack Yearout. I am chairman of the division of parks and recreation for the Washington State Federation of Women's Clubs. We have over 9,000 members.

I recently completed a 4-year term as conservation chairman. On October 18, 1958, at the fall board meeting, the Washington State Federation of Women's Clubs gave me authority to testify at a Senate hearing for the wilderness bill, citing our long support for efforts to protect wilderness areas in this country.

Just as I finished my term of office I had another opportunity to test the feeling of our membership in relation to wilderness areas. At the request of the Forest Service I asked our clubs for an expression of opinion on a reclassification proposal which would have excluded deep approach valleys in the Glacier Peak wilderness area.

The results of this survey should be especially interesting to this committee because it represents the feeling of an average group with no particular bias. You know how the lumbermen, the miners, and the reclamation associations are going to testify. You know how the wilderness society, the Sierra Club, and the outdoor federations are going to testify.

But I do not think you realize the willingness of great numbers of untrained and inarticulate, but thoughtful and serious ordinary people to keep our wilderness areas for the future generations.

The women spoke thusly-I received statements from 109 clubs, with 1,478 personal signatures with addresses and many personal letters, urging them not to reduce this wilderness area, 105 persons sent statements urging other action. About half of the 105 felt all areas should be excluded from wilderness status and about half urged us to demand vast new areas in wilderness systems.

The great majority thought we should at least hold what we have. Oddly enough, I have been thanked many times by women who seem to feel I have done them a great personal favor in letting them express their desire for preserving our virgin area.

To me this is one of the reasons we need a Wilderness Act. Those people do not know how to fight for wilderness preservation. They need congressional help; an affirmation and directive by Congress toward the preservation of wilderness values.

There are many reasons outlined today for preserving wilderness areas. They have spiritual, educational, and recreational values for most of us.

But in long association with women in conservation work, I think our urgent reason for the passing of the Wilderness Act is our concern for our children and their descendants down through the long-range look of 100 years-and beyond. There should be a choice left for them. It is possible to withdraw lands from wilderness areas. It is impossible to create a wilderness where we have not given protection in time.

I think the wilderness bill should pass the House of Representatives and I think it should be freed from some of the more crippling amendments which have weakened it. I especially like that part of the bill which leaves the management of the areas concerned in the capable hands that now manage them.

I think the majority of our citizens are anxious to have wilderness areas preserved. I think that those who oppose wilderness preservation for commercial reasons are very shortsighted; the tourist and recreational value of wilderness areas is already great and will be beyond calculation in the years to come.

This bill withdraws no new areas, it helps us preserve what we have and I think that is the minimum we should demand as a heritage for our children. [Applause.]

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mrs. Yearout.

Without objection the statements referred to by Dallas V. Hake of Wapato, Wash., Mr. and Mrs. Leal Brummer, Mrs. Wallace J. Schoenleber, and Mrs. Frank Pozarech will be placed in the record. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. (The statements referred to follow:)

To Whom It May Concern:

WAPATO, WASH.

I am writing this to express my feelings on the proposed Wilderness Act. I think it should be obvious to any thoughtful person, once land has been logged, mined, or grazed, it is no longer wilderness.

So, what is a wilderness? To me a wilderness is a place to which I can take my wife and children to enjoy clean air and pretty scenery, without the roar of trucks, the blare of civilization, nor the rattle of beer cans.

Nonsense.

Now, who can enjoy a wilderness area? Just the wealthy? Where else can I take my whole family, for as long as I can carry supplies to last, for just the food we eat, and the sweat required to get there?

As I am a postal clerk, you can accept my word that I certainly am not wealthy, and I spend most of my spare time in the wilderness.

I would like to see some guarantee that I, and my children, will be able to enjoy this privilege in the future, and the only guarantee I can see is this Wilderness Act. For my part, it should be even more comprehensive than it is. Thank you,

DALLAS V. HAKE.

OCTOBER 25, 1961.

In re the Wilderness Act, S. 174.

DEAR SIRS: Attached hereto is a resolution by the Yakima Valley District Federation of Women's Clubs favoring the passage of the wilderness bill.

This resolution reflects the opinion of over 2,100 women who are very conservation conscious and aware of wilderness needs.

Therefore, as conservation chairman of this district, I am reaffirming our stand concerning this bill as it approaches hearings in the House of Representatives.

Sincerely submitted.

SHIRLEY SCHOENLEBER
Mrs. Wallace J. Schoenleber,

Conservation Chairman, Yakima Valley District, Federation of Women's Clubs.

RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM

Whereas we believe that in the conservation of natural resources, wilderness preservation has a place, that wilderness areas have a spiritual, educational, and recreational value, and that continuing pressure by commercial groups is exerted toward logging, mining, or commercializing these areas; and

Whereas federated clubwomen have established precedents toward the preservation of wilderness areas, including the establishment of Federation Forest State Park, and support by resolution the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Yakima Valley District Federation of Women's Clubs endorse and strongly support the wilderness bill, S. 4028, which will make wilderness preservation a part of our public land policy, including definite protection of the wilderness preservation policies of our National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Submitted by:

Mrs. FRANK POZARICH, Conservation Chairman, YVDFWC.

OCTOBER 28, 1961.

Testimony to be included in the Interior Department hearing on the Wilderness Act, S. 174.

We are in favor of the Wilderness Act and hope the House of Representatives will pass this bill at the next session of Congress.

We feel that any protection which can be gained for our wilderness areas should be given.

Just a salesman and wife that like camping out in such areas.

Mr. and Mrs. LEAL BRIMMER.

Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is the Honorable Grundy M. Brown, a representative to the Idaho State Legislature from Canyon County, Nampa, Idaho.

Mr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF HON. GRUNDY M. BROWN, REPRESENTATIVE, IDAHO STATE LEGISLATURE, CANYON COUNTY, NAMPA, IDAHO

Mr. BROWN. Madam Chairman and members of the hearing committee, as a member of the Nampa Chamber of Commerce I appear here before this congressional subcommittee hearing to present a resolution by the board of directors of the Nampa Chamber of Commerce in opposition to the passage of S. 174, known as the wilderness bill. Also as a representative to the State legislature from Canyon County and as a member of the board of directors of the Idaho Motor Transport Association, which is the organized trucking industry of Idaho, and with the authorization of this board of directors, I am appearing in opposition to this bill.

My objection to this bill is based on the fact that it places too much emphasis on a single use of vast areas of public domain.

It excludes entirely too much land from the beneficial use for recreation by the average family.

It eliminates forever the expansion of Idaho's appeal to the tourist. It is a known fact that the tourist travels on the highway and when the highway ends, his tour ends. That is also true of the people who visit for recreational purposes the forests and hill lands.

Further, it closes the door to exploration of this area for mineral deposits that undoubtedly exist within its borders.

It would leave standing important stands of timber that would be of vital importance to our State and Nation, if it were handled on the basis of sustained yield.

Finally, I oppose S. 174 on the grounds that the National Forest Service, under the Department of Agriculture, already has all the legal implements necessary for the protection, preservation, and proper exploitation of all the areas in Idaho or elsewhere that are included in this proposed law.

The passage of S. 174 will completely discard 35 years of experience and study by the National Forest Service of the practical use of these lands for timber, mineral, grazing, and recreational purposes. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Without objection, the resolution of the Nampa Chamber of Commerce will be placed in the record in full together with the letter from the Nampa Chamber of Commerce Highway Committee.

Hearing none, it is so ordered.

(The document referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION BY THE NAMPA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, NAMPA, IDAHO

Whereas it is the belief of the Nampa, Idaho, Chamber of Commerce that all property should be developed to its highest and best use; and

Whereas S. 174, the wilderness bill, contains no legal requirements or provisions that areas found to contain valuable timber, minerals, forage, or other resources be eliminated from Idaho wilderness areas; and

Whereas S. 174 will restrict or eliminate mining exploration, it will discourage efforts of the mining industry to prospect for and develop mineral deposits; and Whereas S. 174 will limit the opportunity for the lumber industry to obtain timber in the wilderness areas; and

Whereas S. 174 does not provide for expansion of grazing in the wilderness areas so vital to the rapidly growing cattle feeding industry of southwestern Idaho; and

Whereas S. 174 does not provide adequate protection for existing grazing rights in the wilderness areas; and

Whereas S. 174 will restrict the use of the wilderness areas for hunting and fishing and other uses by the public; and

Whereas S. 174 will create restrictions and problems for future development of water storage in the wilderness areas for agricultural use; and

Whereas the Idaho wilderness areas are already adequately protected and administered by the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture; and Whereas S. 174 does not provide for full approval by Congress to retain the right to make public land use decisions, determine boundaries and withdrawals, etc., before administrative action takes effect: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Nampa, Idaho, Chamber of Commerce be strongly opposed to passage of S. 174, the wilderness bill, which will restrict future development of Idaho wilderness areas containing raw material resources, the future development of which is essential to community interests, business and industry, and the local, State, and National economy.

NAMPA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Nampa, Idaho, October 26, 1961.

Hon. G. M. BROWN,

Nampa, Idaho.

DEAR SIR: It is my understanding that you are to attend the subcommittee hearing on the so-called wilderness bill in McCall October 30 and 31.

I would like to protest the passage of this bill in our National Congress for the following reasons:

1. In my opinion by not allowing motor vehicles into the area it would keep out at least 99 percent of those who would traverse the area after sufficient roads have been built.

2. I feel that it would be a block on the use of natural resources, namely lumber and mining, and it would hamper the growth of Idaho and the Northwest.

I feel strongly that this bill if passed would be not to the benefit of our Northwest area and in particular to our State.

Yours truly,

JOHN WRAY,

Chairman, Nampa Chamber of Commerce Highway Committee;
Chairman, Canyon County Centennial Committee.

Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is the Honorable V. K. Brassey, a representative to the Idaho State Legislature from Boise County, Boise, Idaho. I understand he is not here, but someone has given me his statement.

Without objection, the statement of Allan G. Shepard, a representative to the State legislature from Ada County, Idaho, who suggests it would appear logical that action be suspended pending completion of appropriate studies of the matter, will be placed in the record. And also the statement of Hon. Vern K. Brassey, of Boise County, who is against the legislation.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. (The statements referred to follow :)

Hon. GRACIE PFOST,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, STATE OF IDAHO,

Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee,

House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
Washington, D.C.

Boise, October 27, 1961.

DEAR CONGRESSWOMAN PFOST: May I take this opportunity of advising you and the members of your committee of my opinions in this matter, although I regret I will not be available to testify before the committee in person.

Perhaps a brief statement of my background will be helpful to your committee. I am a lawyer practicing in Boise, Idaho, and have no retainage or other financial commitments of any kind, type, or nature to any industry in the mining, timber or livestock field. I am a State representative and have served in the Idaho Legislature during the past two sessions.

In my opinion the presently proposed legislation, Senate bill No. 174, would be extremely detrimental and harmful to the present economic well-being of the State of Idaho and would substantially impair the future development of Idaho's economic and industrial potential. As I am sure you are particularly aware, Idaho at this time I am sure you are particularly aware, Idaho at this time is, to a large degree, dependent upon certain industries and it is my opinion that the future of Idaho lies in the development of additional industries which will utilize the great nature resource potential of Idaho's soils, forests, and rivers. Studies in many varied fields have indicated the tremendous development of the entire West in the last 10 years and have led to predictions of continuing growth, both in terms of population and economy of the entire West. We in Idaho feel that our State should be permitted to develop and grow to its greatest potential along with the other Western States. I am of the opinion this particular legislation will hamper, impede, and prevent such growth and accomplishment of the potential of Idaho. As a person who was born and received his early rearing and education in the East, more specifically, Boston, Mass., I feel I am somewhat aware