the national forest primitive and wilderness areas. Questioned further, he said that although they are not now permitted to do so, they hope that they will be. Other lumber industry spokesmen, questioned similarly by Mrs. Pfost, were more subtle and evaded her pointed questions. But in his few sentences Mr. Hughes unwittingly revealed the basic reason behind the lumber industry's fierce opposition to the Wilderness Act. Passage of the act will allow public hearings and public opinion to play a greater part than they now do when commercial interests attempt to have boundaries changed to accommodate themselves. A substantial minority of Americans use the wilderness every year, 2 to 3 million people. "Wilderness" as here used includes national parks, national wildlife refuges, and national forest wilderness-type areas (wilderness, wild, canoe, primitive). According to Mr. Edward Crafts, Assistant Chief of the Forest Service, in 1960 there were about 1,900,000 man-days use in wilderness-type areas. For round numbers, let's say 2 million man-days use on national forest lands alone. Many more millions care about wilderness. Perhaps they "use" the wilderness only every other year, or once in 5 years. Perhaps they will only look into it from a roadside. Perhaps they will never set foot in it, but will enjoy it through pictures and movies taken by others. But through their letters and through their organizations they are signifying that they care very much not only that there be wilderness, but also that it have the strongest protection possible against those who think as Mr. Hughes, and all others who would change its wilderness character. How many millions care about wilderness? Perhaps your committee can determine this. Among the 22 National and 58 State and other organizations supporting the wilderness bill are these very large groups: National Wildlife Federation, National Council of State Garden Clubs, General Federation of Women's Clubs, AFL-CIO, Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, Audubon Society, Wilderness Society, Izaak Walton League. An informal tally at a luncheon on November 6, attended by representatives who were attending the Sacramento hearing for conservation and outdoor groups, showed that the 40 people there represented organizations with a total membership of 150,000.3 If we add the organized sportsmen of California, who sup port the bill also, we have several times that number. The millions who care about wilderness ask that wilderness be preserved on a very small proportion of our lands-2 percent. Under the Wilderness Act, not 1 acre will be added to the wilderness-type lands already administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service. Is 2 percent too much? Will restrictions on 2 percent of our land damage significantly the prosperity of certain industries, as our opponents claim? Considering the exploding population and the increasing use of wilderness, 2 percent seems little enough wilderness. Furthermore, most of the wilderness lands are not suited to commercial uses. Very little of them contain additional meadows which could be grazed, or commercial timberlands. Much of it is above timberline, a land of ice and snow 9 months of the year. Reserving 2 percent of our land as scenic gems will not interfere significantly with the activities of miners, cattlemen, woolgrowers, or lumbermen. The opposition of these interests is selfish and unreasonable. 1 S. Rept. 635, July 27, 1961, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, p. 6. 2 "Hearings Before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, 87th Cong., 1st sess. on S. 174," Feb. 27-28, 1961, Washington, D.C., p. 231. 3 California Federation of Women's Clubs, 65,000; Southern California Chapter of Nature Conservancy, 300; California Audubon Societies, 7,500; National Parks Association, 17.000 Wilderness Society, 15,000: American Association of University Women, San Francisco Branch, 300; Tamalpais Conservation Club, 1.000; Mountaineers, 4,500; American Alpine Club, 500; Appalachian Mountain Club, 6,500; American Institute of Landscape Architects, 200; California Roadside Council, 900; C. M. Goethe Aboretum Society, 60; North Cascades Conservation Council, 900; Oregon Cascades Conservation Council, 250; Committee for Preservation of Tule Elk, 500; Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, 30,000. See the following: National parks. National forest wilderness, wild, canoe, primitive_ National wildlife refuges (out of a total of 22 million acres, 15 million Total Acres 22, 000, 000 14, 500, 000 15, 000, 000 51, 500, 000 Since primitive areas are now being reclassified, none are being enlarged and some reduced, the maximum wilderness possible is 50 million acres. Total land area of our 50 States is 2 3 billion acres (S. Rept. 635, July 27, 1961, pp. 6, 7, 16). 77350-62-pt. 3- -8 Passage of the Wilderness Act will in no way interfere with grazing. The bill states specifically in section 6(c) (2) (B) that "the grazing of livestock, where well established prior to the effective date of this act *** shall be permitted to continue *." The bill neither increases nor decreases the authority the administrators now have to regulate grazing. Passage of the Wilderness Act will restrict mining on a maximum of 6 percent of the public domain, a maximum of 35 million acres out of a total of 656 million." All of this land has been open to prospecting for a century. Yet. "in the whole of the wilderness system covered by the bill *** only six mines are in operation, and these mines will continue, for the restrictions imposed by the bill within the wilderness system are made expressly subject to existing rights." If, as our mining friends imply, the wilderness areas are loaded with valuable ore, why are there only six mines operating? Why are they not in them now, mining and prospecting? I have been married to an oil geologist long enough to know that oil companies know the formations of just about every square mile of the United States that is likely to contain important petroleum deposits. If there were good possibilities of finding oil and gas close to home in our wilderness lands, why then are our large companies not in them now (as they are in only one State, Alaska) coring and wildcatting-instead of devoting their energies to costly explorations offshore and in faraway lands such as the Middle East and now Africa? Should a national emergency make even our marginal, poor-grade deposits essential to our survival, or should now unimportant minerals become significant for national defense, the Wilderness Act gives the President full authority to permit prospecting and mining in wilderness. Passage of the wilderness act will not damage the lumber industry. National forest wilderness-type lands (wilderness, wild, canoe, primitive) containing commercial timber amount to only nine-tenths of 1 percent of all the commercial forest lands in the United States.' Who are the selfish, who are the unselfish? Those who ask that 6 percent of our public domain be kept unscarred wilderness? Or those of the mining industry who are not satisfied with 94 percent, but want 100 percent? Who are the reasonable, who the unreasonable? Those who ask that ninetenths of 1 percent of our commercial timberlands be kept unblemished virgin forest? Or those of the lumber industry who are not satisfied with 99.1 percent, but would have 100 percent? Who is speaking for the long-range public good? The opponents of the wilderness act, the vested commercial interests, who fear that passage of the act will limit their dollar-making activities? Or the proponents who-with passage of the act-will gain not a penny, but will have only the satisfaction of having helped protect some wild beauty that is irreplaceable and priceless? Who hope to preserve 2 percent of the land not for profit but for people for their use, their pleasure, their souls and spirits. I urge prompt passage of the wilderness act, for I believe its passage will build a strong door for wilderness. A door allowing people in, but a strong door keeping out all that would destroy what 2 million people come for-scarce, untouched, unscarred, beautiful virgin wilderness. A door keeping out bulldozers and chainsaws, both marvelous inventions I am grateful to have operating on 98 percent of our land-marvels that should be kept out of the 2 percent, our few sanctuaries of wilderness. Wilderness is for the many; profits for the few. Total public domain (this figure excludes national parks, where mining has never been permitted). 656 Maximum public domain which would be restricted to mining by passage of the Wilderness Act: 14,500.000 acres in national forest wilderness-type areas, 24,000,000 acres in refuges and game ranges, or a total of 38.000.000 acres, maximum. (Figures obtained by telephone from the Government agencies involved.) Congressional Record, Sept. 6. 1961, p. 17204. Total commercial forest lands in the United States. 490,000,000 acres; commercial forest lands within national forest wilderness-type lands, 4,500.000 acres ("Hearings Before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate. 87th Cong., 1st sess. on S. 174," Feb. 27-28, 1961. Washington, D.C., p. 233. Mrs. ProST. Are there any questions? Mr. RIVERS. I note the maps and figures do not include the State of Alaska. Mrs. SCHUMACHER. I am sorry, sir. Mr. JOHNSON (presiding). And I want to assure you the maps will be made a part of the file. They will not go into the record, but will be made a part of the file of this hearing. Mrs. SCHUMACHER. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. We will now hear from Ralph A. Nissen of the California Farm Bureau Federation, Williams, Calif. STATEMENT OF RALPH A. NISSEN, CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, WILLIAMS, CALIF. Mr. NISSEN. Congressman Johnson, and members of the committee, I am Ralph A. Nissen, a farmer from Sacramento Valley, Calif. Í am chairman of the Public Use Committee of the California Farm Bureau Federation, and here to represent the president of our federation. The California Farm Bureau Federation is a general farm organization comprising 53 county farm bureaus having a total membership of 62,000 families. The federation's headquarters are at 2855 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, Calif. At the last annual meeting of our federation, our house of delegates adopted the following resolution: We recognize and support the wise and proper use of any resources available on the public lands in California, which areas comprise nearly half of the land in the State. The citizens of California, as well as the agricultural and industrial economy of the State, are becoming more and more dependent upon these lands for multiple use and the water necessary to insure our future well-being. In view of movements by certain groups presently underway to limit the use of these areas, to the detriment of other segments of the population dependent on the areas, by means of legislative proposals to create a "National Wilderness Preservation System, we urge the Congress of the United States to retain the existing authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the use of all national forests, including wilderness areas. This may sound strange to you people, hearing farmers saying this, but we would like to reemphasize that we are practical people and we certainly want to see our tax dollars spent wisely and the source of them protected. We are opposed to the enactment by Congress of special wilderness legislation which would establish extensive wilderness areas on national forests, Bureau of Land Management, and other public lands. Most of our land in the West, and most of the areas which would be included in wilderness areas under S. 174 and similar bills, is capable of providing multiple-use benefits simultaneously under sound conservation management. To limit the potential of such areas is to deny maximum benefits to the taxpaying public, which financially supports such lands and programs. Such legislation strikes at the heart of the multiple-use policy of Federal land administration, and as so soundly practiced by the U.S. Forest Service through national forest administration. If enacted, S. 174 would give a degree of congressional protection to wilderness use of Federal lands not now enjoyed by any other use. This would set a dangerous precedent as encouragement for other special use interests to seek similar congressional protection. It would be only reasonable to expect that other user groups would seek congressional protection for their interests. Thus, the multiple use policy would be completely destroyed. This proposed legislation is extremely objectionable to the people of the West whose livelihood depends on the wise management of the natural resources of the West-wise management under the multipleuse concept, which benefits the greatest number of people rather than a limited few. In the 11 Western States, where 53 percent or 400 million of the 750 million acres of the total land area is federally owned, our very economy is dependent upon the uses made of these Federal lands. To limit to single-purpose use large areas capable of providing multiple-use benefits, on a continuing basis under wise conservation management, is to limit the economy of the West. The records show that only 0.3 percent of our population visit and use wilderness areas while around 30 percent visit and use national forest areas under multiple-use management; that only 1 percent of the people visiting and using national forests visit and use wilderness areas. This amounted to only about 530,000 people in 1956, according to U.S. Forest. Service records. Now we are talking about setting aside as much as 400-million-plus acres of wilderness area for use by such a small number of people. This is not in the best interest of the taxpaying public and the economy of the Western States. The use of wilderness areas will, in our opinion, always be limited to a relatively small number of our population. Young families with small children will not hike or pack for miles into such areas. Older persons have not the stamina for such rugged outdoor activity. Working men and women do not often have the money to provide the expensive packing and camping facilities needed nor can they take the time to travel to and then pack back into deep wilderness areas. Thus, the use will always be limited to a relatively few. The establishment of extensive roadless areas, such as proposed in S. 174, would create complex fire, insect, and disease control problems which would have serious effects, not only on the wilderness as such, but also on areas outside of the wilderness areas. According to a map prepared by the Council of Conservationists, 588 Fifth Avenue, New York City, showing the areas by States that would eventually become part of the wilderness system, California would have more area than any other State. There would be some 27 such areas involving millions of acres. It is reported that Ely, Minn., a city of 7,000 population, has suffered a loss of tourist and recreational income in excess of $250,000 annually since the elimination of access roads into the adjacent wilderness area and the banning of flying over and landing in the area. Eighty percent of the former recreational users of the area now go elsewhere. If this should happen to the cities of California near the wilderness areas that would be created, the economy of our State would suffer irreparable damage. Conditions change from time to time. What today may be the highest use of an area may not be tomorrow. We cannot escape the need for gearing all natural resource management to the general economic conditions of our Nation. Outdoor recreational activity is of necessity geared to the economic conditions prevailing at a given time. The administration of Federal lands should be sufficiently flexible so as to allow for changing economic conditions and needs. The present administration by the Forest Service is flexible enough to meet such changing needs. We should not freeze the administration of such lands so that needed and desirable changes would be most difficult to accomplish. Presently administered programs are sound and adequate, and S. 174 or similar legislation is not needed. The U.S. Forest Service, under its multiple-use management program, has over the years classified some 15 million acres for wilderness type use. If we enact S. 174, we will be letting the emotions of the uninformed public, spurred on by a special interest minority, override knowledge, logic, and vision. Sound resource conservation and management result from the wise resource use-not from nonuse. I thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. Are there any questions? If not, we want to thank you for your presentation. Next we have Mr. Irving J. Symons, Sonora, Director of the California State Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Howard Gray of the Nevada Mining Association will be the next witness. You may proceed, Mr. Symons. STATEMENT OF IRVING J. SYMONS, CALIFORNIA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SONORA, CALIF. Mr. SYMONS. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Pfost, and members of the committee, my name is Irving J. Symons. I am a director and regional vice president of the California State Chamber of Commerce, agriculture and industry. I am appearing on behalf of the chamber to support the present procedures under which the wilderness areas in our State have been established and protected, to oppose the proposed wilderness bill, S. 174, and to state some personal observations. The California State Chamber of Commerce is a statewide organization representing thousands of members engaged in almost all types of professions or enterprises. The greater majority of our members are classed as small businessmen. Many of them operate recreation facilities or are in other ways directly concerned with what has been termed the "growing recreation problem." We maintain active regional councils in all sections of the State and statewide committee including recreation, water and natural resources committees which report to our board of directors. For nearly four decades the chamber has taken a keen interest in the management of our forest and watershed lands and the development of outdoor recreation. I am president of Hales & Symons, a general hardware establishment in Sonora, Tuolume County, which lies some 100 miles south of here in what is known as the mother lode. My family came to this Sierra Nevada county in the 1850's and 1860's. My father founded |