one of the backers of these bills receives his or her bread and butter and their vacation money through an operation of some capitalistic, commercial enterprise. If this be greed-then the shoe fits everyone. Their case against mining on these grounds is not sound. 3. Roads and recreation What as to roads? The miner's roads, the timberman's roads, put in at their own expense, open up new areas where the public can come in to see the sights and the hunter hunt. Is this bad? Yes, say the "B. & B." people. These wilderness areas must be "locked up" and only available to those that will hike in or ride horseback—there must be no commercial enterprise, no roads, no motors whether on cars, trucks, jeeps, airplanes, motorboats, or tractors. By this elimination of transportation the bulk of the population is deprived of their right to see their own country and in the manner they are accustomed to. For the most part it is the only way possible for them. The bulk of the conservation groups, nature clubs, women's clubs, bird societies, garden clubs, particularly from the East, make no mention in their letters submitted to the Senate committee that they had any intention of coming west to hike or ride into our western wilderness. They have no intention to, and it is safe to say many aren't able. Yet they are "fer" the bill, no matter what it does to the economy of the Western States that are concerned with the bulk of the public land areas. The legislative bodies of Idaho and Wyoming adopted vigorous joint memorials against S. 174. The director of the Department of National Resources of Alaska opposes; the Department of Commerce and Economic Development in Washington opposes; Senator Bennett of Utah wanted amendments, which were not granted; California State Chamber of Commerce opposes, just to name a few. And yet the bill, S. 174, on its cover states "To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes." For a bulk of the population seeking recreation it is a permanent "keep out." They are not able to get the super thrill-the wilderness experience, which is the label of the birds and bees people for their exclusive ecstasy. 4. People Aren't the miners, lumbermen, stockmen, and innocent average recreation seekers people? To keep them out of the wilderness the voice cries "unfair." The miners, lumbermen, and stockmen are not lobbying for legislation to keep out the hunters, hikers, and horsemen. They welcome them. 5. Who uses the wilderness now? As a clinical question--many would like to know what number of super recreationists are using the wilderness now. Claus J. Murie of Moose, Wyo., director of the Wilderness Society, didn't know when questioned by Senator Allott. He should have begged for help from David R. Brower, executive director of the Sierra Club, San Francisco. He knew. To quote him, "An important part of our program is the wilderness outing division of the club, which every summer takes nearly 2,000 people of all ages and financial ability back into wilderness on nonprofit club arranged trips." Hurrah, cries the voice. And how many million acres do 2,000 people need to get their wilderness kick? Also, this is only a little over 1 out of 10 of their own membership of 17,000. Yet this club is one of the most powerful and potent advocates of the throttling wilderness legislation. About four-tenths of 1 percent of the people who use the national forests get into these wilderness areas. Where are the rest of the whole people? 6. Multiple use? "Multiple use" are words used a multiple of times in the Senate hearings. These words stem from the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960. Public Law 86-517. This stated national forest areas should be "administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish purposes." It is assumed these are renewable resources. It also states that "nothing herein shall be construed so as to affect the use or administration of mineral resources of national forest lands." Yet 1 year later, in July 1961, there is legislation that constricts to single purpose rather than multiple use on millions of acres, even though they say in S. 174 (par. 2, sec. 3) it is to be supplemental to but not an interference with Public Law 86-517 on forest lands. But it does interfere, it goes to a single use in the wilderness, and particularly erases mining. The birds and bees people are confused about this. In many of their letters to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs they refer to the multiple use. Well, in the whole sense, it is gone. In fact, in the words of Senator Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico, a sponsor of the bill, we have the following during the hearings on S. 174. Mr. Leonard E. Pasek says "I think perhaps I got that impression because the bill accents the one single use of wilderness for this vast area." Chairman, Senator Anderson: "That is right, preservation." And the voice cries in the wilderness "Goodbye multiple use." 7. Preservation and roads Speaking of preservation, how can we preserve the wilderness for posterity without roads? How are they going to preserve timber if there are no roads to take firefighters and equipment in? And there will be fires for the lightning hand of God cannot be legislated against. Further, great areas of virgin timber become infested with beetles that kill the trees. Wildlife needs control. How are we going to preserve what we can't get to without roads? As an example we will quote further from the hearings. We will quote from a speech made by John Fedkiw, forest economist of Oregon, and a copy of his speech was introduced by Senator Neuberger. It should be read by all. It refers to the Douglas-fir region of Oregon and Washington: "In the early fifties, catastrophic blowdown and beetle-kill losses were estimated at 15 billion feet. Two and a half billion feet were salvaged by December 1954, but only by a well-coordinated and accelerated roadbuilding program into the most heavy concentration of dead timber on public and private lands." Do we need roads, or don't we? Yet the ardent conservationist says pure wilderness has no roads; no hand of man must touch. Then should we let it die? How can such persons talk of being conservationists. They are just the reverse. 8. Who has read the bill? How many "B. & B." people have actually read S. 174? (Have you, reading this statement, read it?) Not just heard about it? How many really know all its provisions? A raise of hands would bring a poor count. They are just in favor of wilderness. So is the mining industry, the timberman, the stockman. We just don't see why we all can't share it for its multiple use. That is real democracy. We don't want it all as the proponents of wilderness legislation do. 9. Protection for mining? Senator Anderson and others say that mining is taken care of in paragraph 2, section 6C of S. 174, wherein "(A) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting (including exploration for oil and gas), mining (including the production of oil and gas)," etc. This is as close to nothing as you can get. It means that old Sour Dough Sam, a prospector, or an active mining company wishing to explore-must seek an Executive order before they can even try. Remember, if you are going prospecting or exploring you are looking for something. You don't already know where it is. And, if mineral is found on public land, it is not per se immediately profitable. The greedy, commercial minded man or company has to make it so, and risk capital, employ labor, and exert great energy to do so, and may never make a cent. There is no automatic profit. An amendment to the bill, permitting prospecting, but not mining claim location, means nothing as obviously no one would go through the arduous task of prospecting, or the expensive program of exploration, without preknowledge that he would be able to locate a mining claim on what he may discover. This is elementary commonsense. To go back to the President-on bended knee, his permission must be asked to just go and look. Only the most naive would think he knows anything about western wilderness, and that he has time to find out. This is a very busy time for our Executive, and we in the mining industry would like to carry on in our regular, established way and not disturb him. We are sure he wouldn't do so, but if the President was to set himself up as an expert on western wilderness we'd say he's just full of old Hyannis Port. 10. Inconsistency We see many inconsistencies in the Senate hearings. We will quote some-all referring to S. 174-Assistant Chief of Forest Service says, "It doesn't change the situation with respect to logging." Chief of Forest Service says, "We would not have timber cutting," They should get together. Mr. Don Clausen, president, New Mexico Wildlife and Conservation Association, Inc., says, "May I point out that this bill does not change the status of these areas." Mr. Elliott S. Barker, Santa Fe, N. Mex., says, "S. 174 would take away no privilege that anyone now enjoys." To these two great misconceptions the voice cries, "Read the bill." It is definitely taking away from the prospector and the miner his present rights in the wilderness. He can now locate a claim and start development work on wilderness or primitive areas as he has done since 1872. This right should stay in status quo and not be erased by emotional legislation; legislation by obsession, hysteria, and panic. Mr. Barker is quite pleased with a letter he has from the Tiano Sporting Goods Co., in Santa Fe. It says: "The Tiano Sporting Goods Store serves a very large segment of the people in this area who indulge in outdoor recreation. "A great many of our customers hike, ride horseback, pack in, camp, hunt, and fish in the Pecos Wilderness Area. We know that practically all of them are highly in favor of wilderness preservation and necessary legislation to guarantee continued protection of wilderness areas. "We of this company are also highly in favor of it. It is hoped your committee will act favorably upon the wilderness preservation bill.” The voice cries, "Talk about commercialism," Isn't it wonderful that all these people want to buy sporting goods to go into the wilderness; guns, ammunition, fishing tackle, flies, boots, hats, tents, sleeping bags, etc.? Isn't this making money out of the wilderness? Isn't this commercial? Barker further says: "Even these de luxe wilderness trail rides, sponsored by the American Forestry Association, the Wilderness Society, and others with everything furnished, except one's bedroll, including horses, saddles, sleeping tents, food, cooks, pack outfits, packers, wranglers, guide, and a medical officer cost only $20 to $22 per day." Paradise now. But isn't this commercial? The hiker should go barefoot. That will give him a real wilderness experience. The rider go bareback. The hunter use only a bow and arrow made by his own hands. This is the real essence of primitive. In fact, why are these so-called sportsmen's groups so interested in pure wilderness, with no roads? What they really want is some animal's head, preferably with horns. And the quicker they can get it, the better. If they only want the "wilderness experience" why do they take guns? Why do Izaak Walton League members take fishing rods? And can they say they don't want to catch the limit? Barker says, hunters, and fishermen go in to refresh their minds and restore their souls. The main thing they want to refresh is their egos-the bigger the horns, the longer the fish, the more refreshed. Heber Smith of Grace, Idaho, Wildlife Federation, says some go in to "soak up the scenery." Some hunters soak up a lot more than that, and don't always bury the cans. OK, OK, let them hunt heads, let them hook fish, let us hunt minerals, and let's leave each other alone. Some "B. & B." people are afraid of a population explosion and the rush to subdivide Mount Whitney. The wilderness areas are in no such danger. Α greater danger is not in the population exploding, but being blown up by the H-bomb. Headlines in the paper of October 17, 1961, say "Mr. K says 'We'll fire 50-million-ton bomb.'" We would be in a very bad way strategically if the tainted, commercial-minded prospectors hadn't made a vigorous, rigorous, and intensive search for uranium minerals a few years ago. What chance would we have right now, if we had no uranium or other radioactive minerals? 11. Minerals exploration program and inconsistency The greatest inconsistency of all stems from approval of S. 174 by the Department of Interior. They approve of the elimination of claim location and mining from millions of their acres in the public land of the United States, yet they have their own program called minerals exploration program. The foreword states: "The Office of Minerals Exploration, under Public Law 85-701, is authorized to provide Federal financial assistance for the discovery of additional mineral reserves, excluding organic fuels, within the United States, its territories and possessions." The following minerals and mineral products are eligible for assistance. We must need them or they wouldn't be on the list. The Government will contribute up to 50 percent of the allowable cost of exploration, not to exceed $250,000. Quite a program and definite proof of the Government being cognizant of our mineral needs. It does not make sense to exclude millions of acres from such a program. We repeat, a new war is imminent. Should not we be mineral strong to our greatest strength? 12. Mining claims now on forest land There has been criticism by the proponents of the bills that there are many mining claims on forest land not now operating. That is true, and for a very definite reason. The mining industry, for some reason or other, has not been given adequate support. The prices for minerals are too low, particularly gold. If the price of gold was raised to $70, about where it should be, there would be an amazing activity on the various gold claims throughout the United States, and these claims would make up a large percentage of the mining claims located. You will note on the minerals exploration program that gold has been included. We might ask what production would there be in the raising of wheat, corn, or cotton if the prices today for these products were cut in half? 13. Freedom? Anthony Wayne Smith, executive secretary, National Parks Association, calls for "complete frontier freedom." Agreed, let's have it. Complete that means for all. The great West was developed by pioneers and they did it in the wilderness, the hard way. They really believed in the line of our national anthem that says "Land of the free, and home of the brave." Are freedom for all and pioneer spirit a thing wholly of the past? Is it to be that the voice crying in the wilderness "Let there be freedom for all" is to fade to a feeble whisper and croak like Poe's raven "Nevermore, nevermore"? 14. Solution The wilderness area and all public lands now open for location of mining claims and mining should remain in status quo. There should be no drastic changes made on purely emotional rather than practical viewpoint. The amendment offered by Senator Dworshak to S. 174 is the most logical proposal. It reads substantially as follows: "Nothing in this act shall affect the application of the mining laws to any lands included in the wilderness system, except that such laws shall be administered to the extent possible without violating any provisions thereof, in accordance with the purposes of this act." Existing rights and incentives have to be preserved to encourage the development of the potential mineral resources of our public lands. Only thus do we have the soundest procedure for the whole people. Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness is Mr. William H. Larson. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. LARSON, MANAGER, WASHINGTON FOREST PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, SEATTLE, WASH. Mr. LARSON. I am William H. Larson, manager of the Washington Forest Protection Association, which maintains its offices at 6623 Stuart Building, Seattle, Wash. Our association was formed in 1908 as a voluntary association of the private forest landowners in the West who recognized the threat to our State of the terrible fire losses which were then being incurred. Since that time, this association has worked steadily in the public interest to reduce these losses so that a stable economy could be based on this renewable resource. This association has been a constructive advocate of many of our present forest policies during its 53-year life and we present our remarks today with the same philosophy. Because of our long experience in the protection of our membership acreage now 33 million acres we feel competent to comment on the protection aspects of this legislative proposal. The basic issue of the debate surrounding S. 174 is simply this: Will the Congress rely on the "multiple use law" enacted at its last session as its policy directive to the U.S. Forest Service for the management of all the uses of the national forest; or will the Congress single out a minority segment of one of these uses-wilderness recreationand enunciate a policy which directs the custodial agency to administer large areas exclusively for this use. The first alternative-reliance on the Multiple Use Act as the policy directive has many advantags for the protection of all of these values. In its proper sense, forest protection is not confined to protection from fire. It is a complex job of protection from fire, insects, disease, and animals. The job is complicated by the mutual aggravation of some of these destructive agents, principally fire and insects. Protection from fire involves many factors. During numerous days each year in our humid western Washington forests the measured fuel moisture in the forest drops to 10 percent. On several days it reaches below 5 percent during an average year. Lumber comes from a dry kiln at an average moisture content of 10 to 15 percent. This accumulated dessication of our forests, coupled with low relative humidity and high wind, produces conflagration conditions several times during an average season. During these periods, no area is safe from fire. Because of the long period of time necessary for a tree to reach maturity for industrial or recreational use, fires repeated only two or three times a century will degrade or ruin the timber stand for any use and will keep it that way. All of the 50-year history of our association points to the necessity for speed of action on forest fires. My oral testimony to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on November 7, 1958, concerning the wilderness bill documents statements of forest service personnel regarding the necessity of road access to fires for quick suppression. When a forest burns, several things happen to the area that compounds the overall protection problem. The dead trees stand high in the wind to throw fire from tree to tree several miles ahead of the main fire. In our Yacolt area over 200,000 acres of Federal and pri 77350-62-pt. 3-2 |