look for autunite, columbite, nor even pitchblende, of which he had not even heard.

Today, even though every inch of the areas involved had been carefully studied for all the minerals we recognize and can use now-and that is not true-what of tomorrow and the new minerals which may then be known and needed? Surely, in view of all the minerals that have been added to our knowledge in recent years, we won't be so thoughtless as to contend that all minerals of the earth have now been isolated.

I am told that S. 174 does not preclude prospecting because the President could open an area to search if he is given reliable information that important ore deposits exist there. How could he ever acquire such knowledge if prospecting is prohibited in the first instance?

Great as our need is today for timber, water, meat, and minerals, the need will be far greater tomorrow, for the jobs as well as the resources themselves. We can get ready for that only by continuous development, conservation, and search. We cannot get ready by fencing off parts of the domain, by hamstringing true multiple use.

Instead, our role must be encouragement of the timberman, the stockman, the developer of water, and the prospector. Beautiful as a few million untrammeled acres may be to the occasional seeker of solitude, the resources of the areas involved can be far more beautiful, and to far more people, if developed into payrolls, tax installments, useful articles of manufacture, and greater national strength and status.

Madam Chairman, I have here a statement by Hollis M. Dole, director of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Resources. This is a paper he presented last spring before the annual meeting of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers at St. Louis. I would like to offer the statement for the record.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you very much, Mr. Shaw.

Without objection, the document which Mr. Shaw referred to will be placed in the file.

Is there objection?

Hearing none, it is so ordered.

(The document will be found in the committee file.)

Mrs. PFOST. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mrs. ProST. Is Mr. Cecil Phipps here?

Mr. DIFANI. Madam Chairman, I am George Difani. I am on the agenda just a little later on. I would like to submit Mr. Phipps' statement now.

Mrs. PrOST. Do I understand that you want to submit a statement for Mr. Phipps?

Mr. DIFANI. Yes.

Mrs. PFOST. You may do so.

Mr. DIFANI, I did this because I thought you would not permit one person to make two appearances.

Mrs. PFOST. That is correct.

Mr. DIFANI. So under the circumstances we, of course, would like to have Mr. Phipps' statement for the California Wildlife Federation as part of the record.

Mrs. Prost. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record.

77350-62-pt. 3—3

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY CECIL A. PHIPPS, CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE

FEDERATION, INC.

My name is Cecil A. Phipps and I reside in Fresno, Calif. I am the president of the California Wildlife Federation. Our organization consists of nine councils of sportsmen's and conservation clubs throughout the State. These 9 councils collectively number more than 600 clubs with over 100,000 individual members. The federation's board of directors appreciate very much the invitation to present our views on wilderness legislation to the committee.

Our organization has long been a strong proponent of mutiple-use principles of natural resource, use, and management. Nevertheless-and we do not find it inconsistent-we are equally strong proponents of wilderness preservation. We cannot believe that multiple use means the establishment of all uses on every acre of our public lands. We do not propose to take the time today to reiterate the many reasons for enactment of this legislation. After almost 6 years of study, hearings, and amendments, we believe objections have been sincerely considered and resolved, misunderstandings have been corrected, and mutual objectives attained in the bill which the Senate adopted by an overwhelming vote of 78 to 8 on September 6. In our opinion, S. 174 is an excellent compromise of the views of all the varied interests concerned.

We would like, however, to emphasize the importance of this legislation to California. First, we have the largest land area involved of any of the States, 54 million acres; however, we would like to point out that more than 4 million of these acres are already in national parks or monuments. The remaining 18 units, totaling a little over a million and a half acres are in the national forest and S. 174 provides for further study and recommendation of these areas. This 12 million acres, which we are concerned with in California, and which is part of our total of 65 million acres of wildlands, is only 1.6 percent of our total land area.

Second, none of us can deny the economic importance of our timber, grazing, and mining, nor equally can we deny the importance of our recreation industry. They are all big business in California and all are important to our economy. It seems logical to us, however, that a very small segment of our remaining wildland resources be set aside and dedicated to this and future generations of Californians and the Nation. In just a few years since World War II, California has had a 50-percent increase in the recreational use of our outdoors and it is estimated by 1965 we will have doubled this use again. Our population explosion, and we are a bit proud of it, presents tremendous problems in resource management. One of the most important problems is that of planning and providing for the leisure time activities of our citizens. This, we believe, has contributed to some shortsighted decisions in land-use programs in the past. While the members of our organization have great faith in our trained resource managers, it seems especially prudent in California to move slowly in making the decisions for the disposition of our small amount of remaining primitive areas. We believe this proposed legislation will assure our citizens that the right decision will be made.

Congress cannot make a wilderness area, however. Congress can and should give its protection to the small amount remaining of God-created wilderness. Mrs. Prost. You may proceed now with your own statement, Mr. Difani.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. DIFANI, REPRESENTING THE
ASSOCIATED SPORTSMEN OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. DIFANI. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, my name is George Difani, of Carmichael. I am a past president of the Associated Sportsmen of California and a director of the California Wildlife Federation, the California affiliate of the National WildlifeFederation. I appear here today to represent the Associated Sportsmen of California, an organization of 120 sportsmen's clubs with a membership of 30,000 members, organized within a 150-mile area of

the San Francisco Bay. It was founded in San Francisco in 1925. Madam Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear here today and present a statement for the Associated Sportsmen of California, favoring the Wilderness Act, as passed by the Senate in S. 174. We are also happy and pleased that our Senator Kuchel has had the broad vision to have been a coauthor and an active supporter of this legislation. I would also like to pay tribute to President Kennedy for his natural resource message and, particularly, his stand on wilder

ness.

California needs the wilderness bill now. Our population is increasing at an unprecedented rate; people are living longer; leisure time is increasing, and the period of retirement is extended.

This is in accord with the fact that California has the largest amount of acreage in wilderness of any State. There are 27 areas, totaling 5,775,053 acres. This is slightly over 5 percent of the total area of the State-9 areas are under jurisdiction of the National Park Service; 18 are within the national forests; 16 of these areas would receive further study before becoming permanent areas under the Wilderness Act.

As we understand the act, hunting and fishing will continue to be available to the public, and these two natural resources will be under the control and management of the various State departments of fish and game.

We think this is a reasonable act and much work has been done to compromise the opposition of the commercial interests. Mining, gas and oil, timber and grazing have all had concessions granted as indicated in comparisons of the various versions of the legislation since its inception 6 years ago.

We are disturbed about the continued opposition of these groups. Very recent statements in the press indicate the spokesmen for these interests have not read the bill and the extensive printed record that has been compiled and made available to the public. The act further provides that the President is given the power to open areas where it can be shown commercial use would be in the greater public good than preservation of wilderness.

Congress, by passage of S. 174, would reserve for itself the power to either add to or delete areas from the wilderness system as recommended by the President.

Recognizing a wilderness system by congressional action has been a controversial subject since the 84th Congress. Many hearings have been held; much printed information is available, and, summing it all up, we have come to the conclusion that S. 174 is fair to both sides. This bill puts the President and the Congress in the saddle to make the final decisions and that's as it should be. We urge your committee, Madam Chairman, to report S. 174 favorably as it passed the Senate and we fondly hope the House of Representatives will take early affirmative action, passing the bill on to President Kennedy, who has assured the people of his approval.

Thank you.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mr. Difani.

The gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Difani, did you say that approximately 5 percent of the land in the State of California is already in wilderness? Mr. DIFANI. I believe those are the figures.

Mr. RIVERS. That is what you said, is it not?

Mr. DIFANI. 5.2 percent.

Mr. RIVERS. How did that acreage get to be designated as "wilderness"?

Mr. DIFANI. I believe by executive decision.

Mr. RIVERS. Would that be under the forest management or Forest Service management?

Mr. DIFANI. Areas under forest control.

Mr. RIVERS. And that was done by administrative determination, was it not?

Mr. DIFANI. Yes.

Mr. RIVERS. Do you want more than the amount of wilderness that is already so designated to be designated?

Mr. DIFANI. Mr. Rivers, I believe under this bill, if it passes in its present form as it passed the Senate, the Congress and the President and the people of the country will have an opportunity, at least in this State and in Idaho, to reassess the present primitive areas. I am of the opinion that possibly some of the now primitive areas in the 10-year period may become available to timber harvest or other uses. Mr. RIVERS. Does not the Forest Service already have the authority to reassess and reevaluate and modify and redefine the boundaries? Mr. DIFANI. Yes. They have done that in California. They have done that in Idaho also.

Mr. RIVERS. I am trying to understand whether you want more wilderness in California or whether you want to protect that which has already been designated. That is what I am wondering about.

Mr. DIFANI. That would be a little hard to answer. Personally I would answer that by saying we have a sizable area in wilderness in California at the present time, and I think our group would want to take a good look at any additional areas if they were presented for wilderness, particularly if they would restrict hunting and fishing. Mr. RIVERS. That is all, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. PrOST. Are there further questions?

Thank you, Mr. Difani.

Mr. DIFANI. Thank you.

Mrs. PFOST. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mrs. ProST. Our next witness is Mr. Gordon K. Van Vleck, president of the California Cattlemen's Association.

You may proceed, Mr. Van Vleck.

STATEMENT OF GORDON VAN VLECK, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. VAN VLECK. My name is Gordon Van Vleck. I own and operate a commercial cattle ranch in Sacramento and El Dorado Counties, Calif. I am a permittee on the El Dorado National Forest and my range borders on a wilderness area. I am president of the California Cattlemen's Association for which I speak today.

The California Cattlemen's Association whose headquarters are 659 Monadnock Building, 681 Market Street, San Francisco, represents 2,614 cattlemen comprised of beef cattle producers and beef cattle

feeders. It was established in 1917 for the purpose of promoting principles of breeding, raising, feeding, and marketing cattle.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to express the thinking of the members of our association on legislation to establish wilderness areas in our national forests and parks. Before commenting on such legislation, I would like first to give a brief background of the cattle industry in California.

CALIFORNIA LEADS NATION IN FARM PRODUCTION

California led the Nation in more than 30 of the 70 major agricultural crops last year. The State's $3.2 billion agricultural income for all crops in 1960 was well above the nearest competitor, Iowa, which cashed in on a little more than $2 billion worth of crops.

CALIFORNIA RANKS SEVENTH IN CATTLE ON FARMS

California ranks seventh in the Nation in the production of all cattle and calves, with 4,203,000 head on farms and ranches on January 1, 1961, valued at $638,856,000. California ranks eighth in the Nation in beef cattle production with 2,702,000 head on farms and ranches on January 1, 1961.

Cattle and calves in California were the highest cash commodity in 1960. A breakdown for cash receipts from farm marketings in California in 1960 showed that all livestock, poultry and related products accounted for a little more than $1.2 billion of the $3.2 billion for all agricultural products. Cash receipts for cattle and calves reached an alltime record of $514,721,000.

CALIFORNIA IMPORTANT MARKET FOR REPLACEMENTS

California is one of the important markets in the Nation for stocker and feeder cattle. In 1960, around 1,435,000 head of stocker and feeder cattle and 450,000 head of cattle and calves for immediate slaughter were shipped into the State. Texas was the largest shipper of stockers and feeders with 528,000 head followed by Arizona with 512,000. Arizona led the other States in cattle for immediate slaughter with 264,000 head.

CALIFORNIA LEADS NATION IN CATTLE SLAUGHTER

Commercial slaughtering plants in California slaughtered more cattle than any other State; 1960 was the eleventh consecutive year in which California led in the slaughter of cattle. California slaughtered more cattle and calves combined than any other State in 1960.

CALIFORNIA IMPORTANT CATTLE FEEDING STATE

California subsequent to World War II became the leading western cattle feeding State. It is estimated that the 559 feedlots in the State fed an alltime high of 1.6 million head of cattle during 1960. Besides finishing cattle in feedlots, California has made great strides in finishing cattle on irrigated pastures and supplemental feeding on meadows and open ranges.