Our committee regards recreation and timber harvesting as compatible. We see evidence every day that forest management increases recreational opportunity. We cannot understand how S. 174 can be considered a recreation bill. How can vast, permanently roadless areas inaccessible to family recreation be viewed as helpful to the expansion of outdoor life? Instead it seems more likely that the withdrawals would intensify growing recreational problems by making less lands available for such use.

We should like to call to the attention of the committee the unexplained difference of treatment by S. 174 as between national forest lands and roadless national park lands. We believe that with S. 174, Congress would vote itself into a subsidiary role in policymaking for these lands. To this we are utterly opposed. Congress should keep intact its constitutional authority over public lands.

Most of all, our concern over this bill centers on its harsh indifference to the interests and hopes of the many western communities dependent on productive use of national forests.

We wish to thank the Public Lands Committee for taking time to come out here to hear our views firsthand on this vital matter. Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you. Are there questions of Mr. Potter?

We are very happy to have your testimony this afternoon. As a former constituent of mine, let me say we would welcome you back to the great State of Idaho sometime.

Mr. POTTER. Thank you.

Mrs. PFOST. Our next witness is Mr. Edwin F. Smith. While Mr. Smith is coming to the stand will Mr. F. T. Wilmoth, of the Minerals Association of Northern California, please come to the front row. You may proceed, Mr. Smith.

STATEMENT OF EDWIN F. SMITH, PLACERVILLE, CALIF.

Mr. SMITH. Madam Chairman and honorable board, my name is Edwin F. Smith. My address is 117 Canal Street, Placerville, El Dorado County, Calif. I was born in Ione, Amador County, Calif., in 1890; my parents, also being natives of California, were engaged in the business of mining clays for the production of pottery and brick. They also ran a country store, raised cattle for the production of beef, and dairyed to a limited degree.

My grandparents were gold miners and wagonmakers. Therefore, my civil background had to do with lands and their natural resources. My official experience has been in the management of public lands, as I secured a position with the U.S. Forest Service as a forest fire guard on July 15, 1909, on the Tahoe National Forest, was appointed to assistant forest ranger of the Lassen National Forest on June 1, 1911, and forest ranger March 1, 1915, continuing in that position until July 25, 1917, when I joined the Army.

I served in the Army with the 10th and 20th Engineers-Forestry— from July 25, 1917, until March 20, 1919, harvesting timber in France for the Armed Forces.

I returned to the Forest Service as a ranger on the Tahoe National Forest on March 20, 1919, appointed deputy supervisor of the Eldorado National Forest on January 1, 1920, and forest supervisor on January 16, 1920, and remained in that position until my retirement

on June 30, 1950, with a service of my Government of some 39 years, 7 months, and 5 days, all pretty much in the use of lands and their natural resources.

Since my retirement from Government service I have been employed as a forest consultant by a lumber manufacturing company.

I wish it understood that conclusions reached in this presentation are my own, based on my experiences and in no way influenced by my association with Government agencies or private industry, and are given with the idea of help in managing and protecting public lands for all the industrial economy of the State of California, and particularly the area wherein I reside.

As I understand it, the committee is interested in securing public opinion on the proposed legislation which has to do with the so-called wilderness bill, which in turn attempts to set aside certain portions of public lands within the national forests for a specific and continuing use for one class of persons and one class of use. This is indeed a departure from the long-practiced method of permitting the present managers-the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management-of meeting their obligations.

Since my experience has been with the U.S. Forest Service my remarks must deal with the management of the public lands under their jurisdiction.

The Congress created the Forest Service as a bureau of the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of managing the forests, lands, water, and other related resources connected thereto, and have the power still to direct such administrators when and if they fail in such administration.

To my knowledge the Forest Service has met the challenge of the Congress through the Secretary of Agriculture, and have over the years of their administration, as the trends indicated, planned and directed the uses of these lands with the aid of the professional and trained personnel within their organization, with the end result of preparing ahead of time for the impact of other uses not contemplated at the time of the creation of the Bureau by the Congress.

During the many years I was privileged to be an administrator of public lands, the changes in the uses of such lands as well as their contribution to the wealth of and needs of industry were many and varied as

Use of the forage for the grazing of domestic stock and during war periods the cropping of timber;

The production of minerals other than gold for use in war materials;

The heavy use of the area for recreation of all types from skiing to outdoor camping; and

The development and storage of the waters for domestic, power, agriculture, and industrial uses; besides the constant upsurge in the cropping of the fish and game that are a byproduct of the habitat of the forests and streams.

These upsurges and demands were met by the classification of the lands and the direction of their uses although they were of a multiple

nature.

I was the forest supervisor when the so-called wild or primitive area known as Desolation Valley was instituted in the year 1931, and had to do with the setting of the boundaries of such.

This area comprises some 41,383 acres, and its use since its founding has never exceeded over 3,000 people in any one season whose sole purpose was wilderness travel.

There has been no violation of the principles of the keeping of the area in its natural state, and it was possible to do the necessary work of improvement to protect the area from damages caused by floods, erosion, fires, and diseases of the forests and other vegetation.

The administration of recreation in the State of California is and has been rather a difficult problem because of the different trends or desires of the people which they believe are the most beneficial to them. These range from the heavy nature lover push to the honkytonk variety where crowds dancing and partying are the season's top entertainment.

The needs for areas to care for all is not on forest lands and the adjoining private land resort developments, whether it be lone skiing, summer home life, camping in improved camp grounds, skiing with crowds, boating and skin diving. One year it goes one way and the next year something else.

Another difficulty is the fact that most of our recreation is of a seasonal nature and the heavy use is within a few short weeks, which at times taxes the capacity of the improvements maintained, where improvements are part of the necessities of the form of recreation indulged in.

In addition to the wealth-producing natural resources-all of which but minerals are renewable-that came from the national forest lands we had at all times a backlog of culture and plant improvement work, not of leaf raking nature, which aided our people during depression years as well as giving Government a continuing benefit for its outlay, such as: CCC, ERA, and CWA projects.

Under the policies of the Forest Service this work was applicable to the entire area under my administration. It seems strange indeed that well-meaning people would desire it otherwise, as while man may be a destroyer at times, there is in my opinion no natural resources that cannot with proper direction be aided and improved

upon.

After administering the Eldorado National Forest which comprises some 800,000 acres of public lands, under the policies still in existence I will defy anyone to find 1 acre of such land that has been misused to the extent that it cannot contribute to multiple-use benefits if so needed. So just where are the present policies of the Forest Service not protective, and why the present push for a change? In the State of California, in addition to the vast areas set aside by the Federal Government in national parks, game refuges and socalled limited-use primitive and wild areas, the State itself has State parks which include lands of all kinds from seashore to mountain and desert parks all dedicated to recreational use, also counties and counties and cities have added their contribution for the pleasure of said recreationists and are continuing such as needs arise.

It would be most interesting to me, and no doubt to you, if it were possible to secure from the thousands of people that signed petitions in favor of such proposed legislation, just how many have ever been able financially or physically to partake of and enjoy that which they have been led to believe is being denied them.

Personally, I am not so afraid of the package as suggested by S. 174 as I am of the interpretation of its contents in the future such as

(1) Just what kind of an area qualifies for a wilderness withdrawal and who is to be the final judge, the organized minority, the Federal administrator or the Congress?

(2) Who shall make the decision as to how much timber, minerals and water can be spared from proper cropping for the pleasure of a few, and not injure our future economy?

(3) To whom can we turn to secure the key to unlock the door to needed resources in times of economic depression or war impacts?

(4) How can we overcome the administrative and costly blocks set up by checkerboarding our forested areas so we cannot transport their products, such as minerals, wood and water, whose needs are roads, reservoirs, canals, and pipelines, to be built over the most accessible routes?

In conclusion, if the Congress in its wisdom does deem it necessary to pass the bill, or a bill of similar nature, I request that it not be made applicable to the State of California as we do not need such. Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you for your statement.

Are there questions?

If not, our next witness is Mr. F. T. Wilmoth.

And will Mrs. C. C. Cochran please come to the witness stand. You may proceed, Mr. Wilmoth.

STATEMENT OF F. T. WILMOTH, MINERALS ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, AUBURN, CALIF.

Mr. WILMOTH. Thank you Madam Chairman and the other members of the committee conducting this hearing.

I live at Auburn, Calif., which is in Mr. Johnson's district. My profession is geologist and mining engineer. I am present today as the spokesman for the Minerals Association of Northern Californiaformerly California Hydraulic Mining Association. I have read and studied the Wilderness Act, S. 174, as well as the Senate Report No. 635 (Calendar No. 610).

I have discussed this information with other officials and members of our association and we doubt that we can contribute any new ideas to the vast amount of information which has already been assembled on the subject, both for and against it. Officially, our members have voted their opposition to this specific bill, S. 174.

Probably the best we can hope to accomplish by my presence here is to point out the areas where we have grave misgivings and apprehensions were this bill to become law. I have been instructed to describe how we think this S. 174 would affect our lives.

We are not against wilderness in principle. It may seem paradoxical at first glance, but probably the reason why most of us in the mining industry entered into it in the first place was because we loved the great outdoors and yearned for the wilds with a passion far greater than most people feel; else, why would we leave the shelter of the cities and follow the relatively dangerous, arduous and lonely occupation?

Less than a decade ago we were subjected to great pressures from official quarters, the press, and public opinion to subordinate our con

77350-62-pt. 3- 6

victions to the common good and to participate in both the philosophy and practice of the multiple use of the Nation's public domain. Now we are being asked to support legislation which concludes multiple use is not in the same public's interest and that their interest will best be served by special-privilege single use. Our members have not been agile enough to keep up with this particular nimble footwork.

There are parts of S. 174 which we do not oppose. Other parts do not, it would seem, contemplate affecting our means of livelihood. We are here concerned with how we think this proposed legislation might affect us adversely.

Let us make some comparisons: (1) Peoples of a different culture. occupied these lands before the white man took over. Our sociologists call them savages. How did these savages differ from us? We use the minerals of the earth, they did not.

(2) Vast areas of the earth have been classified by our sociologists as "underdeveloped." Don't we define as underdeveloped a nation which does not utilize its resources? We see a dual standard being proposed our tax money is to develop the resources of foreign areas and other tax dollars are to lock up our American resources. If gross national product is a measure of the advancement of society, how is our society to be advanced without the mineral base it requires?

It has been implied in testimony that the Nation's mineral deposits have already been discovered. Miners are notorious optimists, to put it mildly, but they are also hard-headed realists. Only those deposits which are economically accessible have been producers, and when the economic picture justifies it the less accessible deposits will become mines. There are lots of untapped mineral deposits in the poorly accessible regions. In fact, I have personal knowledge of several of them and I am just one person.

I know of several of the undeveloped poorly accessible deposits at the present time. I might mention one in particular which might be quite interesting to watch what happens to it if this legislation is enacted.

In the general area of Mount Dana Minarets there is a large deposit of iron ore outcropping in excess of about a million tons, which currently would be commercial if there was access to it. I don't know whether this is in or out of the present wilderness protection, but it will be included in the wilderness if this goes through. I am sure of that.

We are concerned with what kind of harassment would the owners of these claims in there have, how would they be able to get in and mine it. We are not sure there would be any protection for them. We understand there will be suitable recompense, but we are not sure how this bill guarantees any part of that. We cannot help but feel there is going to be considerable harassment to many of the areas which we believe will be blanketed into this.

The geologic processes which formed the mineral deposits also act to form our mountains. Where then will our future mines be found? The answer is obvious-in the mountains: but these are the same mountains which are intended to be left in their unspoiled condition. We do not think there is adequate protection offered our industry in S. 174. There is no assurance that the prospecting and mining which