By far the greatest portion of Idaho's recreation and tourism income is derived from our accessible forests, lakes, and streams-not from inaccessible areas reached only by a relatively few people who can afford the time or expense of a true wilderness vacation. A genuine wilderness trip, while highly desirable perhaps, simply isn't possible for the average family on other than rare occasions.

For example, the recreational use of the present Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area is far below what it should be. Forest Service records show that in 1958, a total of 15,850 recreational visits were estimated for the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area, or a load of 8 visits per 1,000 acres. Most of these were hunters and fishermen penetrating only the fringes and more accessible parts of the primitive area. The actual number of true wilderness travelers is unknown.

For the nonprimitive area of region 1 national forests, there were 2,914,000 visits in 1959, or 137 visits per 1,000 acres. This is 17 times the primitive area use on a visits-per-acre basis, and is even more significant in light of the fact that the great majority of visits to the wilderness were not of a true wilderness nature.

Demands for outdoor recreation are accelerating rapidly as population grows and society becomes more complex. Visits to national forests in 1959 were $1,500,000, an increase of 34 percent since 1946. For the national forests in region 1, recreation visits in 1959 were 3,320,350 for a total of 4,054,000 man-days of use. This was a 10-percent increase over 1958.

The Forest Service has recognized this increased demand through its Operation Outdoors program which includes a substantial increase in campgrounds accessible to motoring- and family-type recreationists. Such improvements are prohibited in wilderness areas.

The inaccessibility by road and limited use of vast wilderness areas have yet to be clearly understood by the average citizen. Persons commonly refer to readily accessible areas that have been harvested for timber, contain roadside camping sites, and modern lodgings as wilderness areas. For example a recent National Geographic article refers to the White Mountains of New Hampshire, a highly developed mass recreation area, as wilderness. The National Park Service of the Department of Interior states that 300,000 acres of commercial forest area in Maine, called the Allagash, is an "outstanding wilderness." The Allagash, is privately owned, has sites for fishermen, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts as well as having been harvested for successive tree crops for generations.

This makes it readily apparent the wise multiple-use management of forest lands does not destroy the scenic beauty, lay waste the soil, vegetation, or wildlife, nor pollute our lakes or streams. Rather these values can be better protected and developed under multiple use.

The West can provide reasonable wilderness for the few and multiple-use areas for the many under the Multiple Use Act of 1960, which can give proper balance to our limited wilderness area needs without sacrificing community growth and development.

(2) Fire and forest pest protection is going to be a serious problem in the wilderness areas. Many wilderness areas have all of the ingredients (mature, overmature, dead, and dying timber) for a catastrophic fire, insect, or disease epidemic. This is a constant threat to surrounding timber. It is important we give our forest land managers the appropriate tools of access to adequately protect vast stands of commercial timber. The potential disastrous fires and forest insects and disease epidemics inside wilderness areas merit the closest attention in fixing boundaries.

(3) The tragic waste of resources (timber, recreation, wildlife, grazing, and minerals) that attends nonuse should carry the weight it deserves in making land use decisions. Mass recreation clamors today for more and more space and services. Mass recreation, which has little place in wilderness, will create vastly greater pressures as our population grows. The Forest Service policy of "the greatest good for the greatest number" should be the guiding principle in establishing wilderness areas of reasonable size in balance with our other needs.

(4) Hunting and fishing prosper under multiple-use management, but often decline under wilderness conditions that work against food abundance. Sportsmen can still find good, accessible hunting and fishing if the wilderness is not made too large.

(5) The limited use of wilderness areas cannot compare in total quantity with the benefits received from multiple-use lands. We must keep our wilderness areas limited to lands of wilderness character which will still be of adequate size to meet our needs.

(6) S. 174 would include over 71⁄2 million acres of unclassified primitive areas as wilderness before proper land use studies are made to determine the best use, area by area.

Once primitive areas are blanketed into wilderness, western communities dependent on multiple use will find the burden of proof on them to effect a change in boundaries to exclude those areas most valuable for multiple use.

The Multiple Use Act of 1960 provides for wilderness as an authorized recreation use along with timber, minerals, water, wildlife, and forage on national forests.

There are 7 million acres presently classified as wild, wilderness, or canoe areas. According to Director Conrad Wirth, 90 percent of the national park system's 22 million acres qualifies under a reasonable definition of "wilderness." These areas are permanently withdrawn from multiple use for limited use.

This established wilderness of some 27 million acres, which is roughly comparable in size to the State of Pennsylvania, has met and will meet our wilderness needs for many years. The existence of this large area of wilderness, already protected by law, will allow sufficient time to thoroughly study and evaluate the 72 million acres of primitive areas for their highest use. Therefore there is no need for hasty creation of wilderness from these primitive areas.

CONCLUSION

The Inland Empire Multiple Use Committee is opposed to S. 174 because it is unnecessary and not in the best interests of the citizens of Western States. The bill as amended and passed by the Senate is still too restrictive of the use of too large an area of western public lands. If this bill is enacted into law, the future industrial and recreational development of many Western States would be jeopardized. Reasons for this conclusion are discussed in the body of this report.

The bill (S. 174) should be either stopped entirely or amended further to correct a number of defects.

The committee reaffirms its support for a reasonable, carefully planned program of wilderness preservation. The values of wilderness, though nebulous and difficult to measure, are nevertheless important.

The committee is opposed, however, to setting aside any additional wilderness areas under inflexible and overly restrictive Federal laws until a thorough inventory and evaluation of all resources are completed on the lands affected.

Mr. Cox. If I may, I have statements from 13 persons in the Lewiston area who have asked me, because they could not be here today, to present these statements for them and have them entered into the record. These people live in the area and are subscribers to the multiple-integrated concept and have asked me to express their opposition to S. 174.

Mrs. ProST. Without objection, they will be placed in the record. (The material referred to follows:)

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
New House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

OCTOBER 28, 1961.

DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS: I am Henry Ard. I live at Lewiston, Idaho. It is my intention here to express my opposition to the wilderness bill (S. 174). Wilderness is a valid use of one of our natural resources, but wilderness areas should be established after careful study to insure that the use of natural resources will provide the maximum benefit for the greatest number of our citizens. In my opinion, S. 174 does not fulfill this requirement because

(1) Areas having higher value for uses other than wilderness are not established and excluded from the wilderness areas.

(2) Adequate provision for mineral prospecting and evaluation is not included. The use of modern equipment in this work is severely restricted.

(3) Rich areas of timberland are left inaccessible to fire suppression equip

ment.

(4) Too much land is excluded from recreation use by the average family.

Sincerely,

HENRY N. ARD.

STATEMENT OF JACK BAGGS

I am Jack Baggs of Lewiston, Idaho. I would like to stress the following disadvantage of a national wilderness preservation system as formulated by S. 174.

Large roadless areas such as those to be set aside by S. 174 would create a number of problems in the fire protection of our timber resources. Idaho, for example, has worked diligently for 50 years toward an effective means of controlling wildfire in the timber country. Only through access can an efficient fire prevention system be obtained. Under weather conditions such as were experienced this past summer, one severe electrical storm could have turned the north Idaho woods into a raging inferno, heedless of ownership or boundaries. Some may argue that the timber within the wilderness areas will not be utilized anyway but this doesn't recognize the fact that fire knows no boundaries once it has had the opportunity to rage out of control. Our "weak link" in fire protection is the large roadless area, as was indicated this past summer in the Idaho Salmon River Valley.

The statement has been made that wilderness areas would be free of cost to the general public. In a system such as proposed by S. 174, the cost of fire prevention alone could easily run into millions of dollars.

I wish to express my opposition to the enactment of S. 174.

STATEMENT OF JERRY DAHLGREN

I am Jerry Dahlgren of Lewiston, Idaho. My objection to the enactment of legislation establishing a national wilderness preservation system is based on the waste of our natural resources.

Conservation must be based on use and regeneration. Timber and grass that is not used is wasted and S. 174 does not allow for adequate utilization of either. The timber within the prospective wilderness areas will become overmature and eventually rot into the ground.

Utilization of the grazing potential will be severely handicapped, since no increases in grazing will be allowed.

Prospecting will be hampered since no powered equipment can be used in the search for minerals. Many of our strategic minerals must be sought with mechanized equipment. Another point of importance is the question, "What minerals will become strategic in the near future?" Twenty years ago who had ever heard of uranium?

Again I would like to express my objection to the enactment of this legislation.

STATEMENT OF CARL DEWARD

I am Carl Deward, a professional forester, a member of the Society of American Foresters, and a taxpayer in the city of Lewiston, Idaho. I wish to express my objection to the establishment of a wilderness preservation system such as is advocated in S. 174 and its amendments.

The U.S. Forest Service, managers of public lands, placed tentatively 20 years ago, certain lands into the "primitive" classification. These lands were unsurveyed and no determination had been made of their value other than that of wilderness. Under S. 174, these lands will now be placed under the "wilderness" category. The lands still have not been surveyed and no determination has been made as to their values other than wilderness.

Lands being placed in the "wilderness" category should first be examined carefully to determine if "wilderness" is the best classification. Great economic benefits may be lost to Idaho citizens through unmined minerals, uncut timber, and ungrazed pasture. Why the hurry for "wilderness" classification after so many years as "primitive" with no attempt made to determine the other values these areas may contain?

STATEMENT OF WILSON S. KALE

My name is Wilson Kale. My residence is in Lewiston, Idaho.

I am opposed to the Senate bill (S. 174) pertaining to the wilderness system. These vast areas, if the wilderness bill is enacted, will be set aside for the selfish interests of a limited few. Their inaccessibility will eliminate everyone

traveling by automobile. How many of the general public have the time or financial means to visit these areas? How many, but a selected few, will take a pack on their back or hire a string of horses to travel through this country? What are the economic values that will go to waste?

It is my opinion that these areas should be maintained for all, the timber harvested, property managed against the ravages of fire and insects and a road system making the land accessible.

These lands belong to everyone. How can they be set aside for so few by the enactment of Senate bill S. 174 or any other bill closely related?

STATEMENT OF OTIS C. Maloy, Jr.

LEWISTON, IDAHO, October 30, 1961.

Honorable Chairman, Members of the Committee:

I am writing in regard to the various wilderness bills now before Congress and to the effect of certain of these proposals on our local economy. I have B.S., M.S., and Ph. D. degrees in plant pathology and will confine most of my comments to the disease and insect problems that may arise because of the inaccessibility of large areas of timberlands. It is recognized that the most efficient and economical method of combating many diseases and insects in our forest lands is by the removal of infected or infested trees. But access is a prime requisite. The spruce bark beetle epidemic in north Idaho in the 1950's is an example of what can happen when insect populations build up in inaccessible areas. Insects and diseases do not recognize artificial barriers and, therefore, are not confined to these remote areas. Because of this the large areas set aside as roadless wilderness areas constitute a threat to the timber industry of north Idaho.

In addition, the inaccessibility of these wilderness areas eliminates them as recreational areas for the majority of the people. Neither the local population nor the average tourist can spare the time or the money to penetrate beyond the fringes of these areas. For these reasons, I am opposed to S. 174, even as amended.

Sincerely yours,

OTIS C. MALOY, Jr.

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE NORDBY

I am Clarence Nordby of Lewiston, Idaho. I wish to express my opposition to the Senate bill for establishment of a national wilderness preservation system (S. 174).

This legislation can only benefit a small minority group by setting aside large roadless tracts of public land as wilderness. It is my considered opinion that the motoring tourist will receive very little recreational value under such a plan. Only by access will the average family be able to enjoy the benefits of our scenic back country.

I am not opposed to wilderness per se, but under this legislation (S. 174) the areas are too extensive and inaccessible to be useful.

Respectfully,

STATEMENT OF THOR NYBERG

CLARENCE NORDBY.

I am Thor Nyberg of Lewiston, Idaho, and I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed national wilderness system and what it would mean to the people of Idaho. I am especially opposed to the effect it would have on the north Idaho communities who depend on this State's timber and mining resources for their livelihood.

This legislation is unnecessary and not in the best interests of the people of Idaho.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. OLIN

My name is Robert W. Olin. I reside at 302 Eighth Avenue, Lewiston, Idaho. I was born in Idaho; graduated from the University of Idaho with a B.S.

electrical engineering degree. I have been associated with forest interests in Idaho for over 30 years.

The past 15 years I have promoted the use of two-way radio by the tree farmers throughout the Nation. This has meant much personal effort before the Federal Communications Commission to secure the right to use radio channels. For 12 years I have been national chairman of the organization that represented the Nation's tree farmers before FCC. Please recall the Communications Act of 1934 and as amended demands radio be used for public interest, convenience, and necessity. FCC by regulation has ranked safety of life and property the first priority in use of radio channels. Forest workers, appreciative of this only means of forest communication, have respected and emphasized safety of life and property in their radio use, and often report lifesaving experiences in the use of radio to our national committee. One of the most common experiences is the use of forest radio by private searching parties hunting for lost hunters, berrypickers, fisherman and other public visitors.

I am convinced the average visitor to forest and remote areas are untrained, poorly equipped, and personally unprepared to care for themselves under the rigors of these environments, without manmade help.

I believe wilderness areas proposed under S. 174 can become a death trap for these devout, untrained wilderness seekers. National attention is focused on "wilderness" and excites the creation of unreasonable personal desires in minds of great masses of such nature lovers. Thus, moved by their enthusiasm-ignoring logic and reason-they seal their doom by entering these vast wilderness areas devoid of human aid.

This personal view is well supported by the annual shocking death toll every hunting season. Forested regions are invaded by an untrained army of heavily armed novice hunters. They kill each other; they wander hopelessly lost waiting for help or merciful death; they flounder and die in sudden storms—because their incapabilities were realized too late. These people, like other nature lovers, enter wilderness filled with a zeal, a "buck fever," unprepared and unmindful of the rigors Mother Nature can impose.

I could logically oppose S. 174 for many economic reasons. I choose to oppose S. 174 for the sake of human lives I feel such opposition may help save.

PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE,

LEWISTON, IDAHO, October 28, 1961.

House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.

DEAR SIRS: I am a fairly recent resident of Idaho, having moved to Lewiston, Idaho, 3 years ago. I live at 1203 Eighth Street with my wife and family. One of our reasons for considering Idaho as a place to live was the closeness to what we thought was the wonderful outdoors. Idaho has been considered to be one of the last remaining areas for the enjoyment of outdoor activities. Much to our surprise, however, we have found conditions much different than what we had supposed. We have few areas which have been developed enough to be available to any but those who have unlimited funds and time to spend. For the family with a limited vacation time and budget, most areas are as unavailable for use as if one's residence were elsewhere.

From our observation, this problem has developed because the State of Idaho has little or no funds available for development of these areas. One of the reasons for this is that over half of the State's area is under State or Federal ownership and thus has a low tax income.

I have read information and heard debates on the wilderness proposals. I must confess that I am appalled at the ease with which those in favor of or those who propose further set-asides or restrictions do so without regard to the welfare of the citizens of Idaho. It is as if the 677,000 people of the State are not large enough to be considered in anything of this kind.

When one considers the amount spent for educational purposes in the State of Idaho, it is found that the State ranks among the lowest in the Nation on a per capita or on any other basis. One of the reasons, again, is that the State does not have enough tax support because much of its lands are removed from consideration.

Our family has lived in several States in our Nation. We have traveled throughout the United States. We have, therefore, standards by which to compare. When we visit an area in the outdoors we know what to expect. In the King's Mountain area of the Sierra Nevadas or the Three Sisters area of the