Cascades both of which are remote wilderness set-asides areas-a family can appreciate and enjoy getting away from things. However, one doesn't have to spend large amounts of money or all his vacation time to get to them. In the areas in Idaho most of the areas about which the current discussions have been held cannot be enjoyed by a family such as ours. There is no way to them, or if there is, it is by dusty, rocky roads built along the streams, prohibiting any enjoyment whatsoever. After one arrives finally in the wilderness area there are no trails, stopping places, or any of the simple conveniences that one these days is led to consider a minimum.

On this basis, who for and why are these areas being further removed from use?

Summing up, I believe the Senate bill, S. 174, as passed by the Senate to be a serious threat to the welfare and income of the citizens of Idaho and am opposed to it.

Yours very truly,

L. E. STEVENSON

STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. SMITH

My name is Richard K. Smith, and I reside, with my wife and two children, at 621 22d Avenue, Lewiston, Idaho. I am opposed to S. 174, as passed by the Senate, primarily because it sets aside vast areas of land in such a way that they will be accessible only to a very limited number of people. The great majority of people, including my family, will not be able to visit these areas or use this land in any way, except perhaps around the edges, because of the lack of roads.

STATEMENT OF K. L. WAIDE

My name is K. L. Waide. I reside in Lewiston, Idaho.

I am opposed to the establishment of a national wilderness preservation system (S. 174). This legislation will place far too much restriction on the use of public land.

The mining and prospecting group will be restricted. Although they can enter wilderness areas on horseback and use a pick and shovel, they are forbidden the use of all power equipment. Many of the minerals now being sought are of such a nature that mechanical devices are a must if they are to be discovered. The possibility of timber utilization will be completely banned. Any increase in the utilization of grazing potential will be restricted.

No thorough examination will be conducted to study each area. This legislation will place within the wilderness system 55 million acres of land about which very little is known.

I must vigorously oppose the enactment of S. 174.

Mrs. ProST. I would appreciate it if you would clarify one statement you made. You say you are opposed to "setting aside any additional wilderness areas under inflexible and overly restrictive Federal laws until a thorough inventory and evaluation of all resources is completed on the lands affected?

What is your position with regard to the primitive areas in Idaho that would become part of the wilderness system?

Mr. Cox. You mean the wilderness areas that will be classified from existing primitive areas?

Mrs. PFOST. Yes. In other words, the areas shown in green on the map. Every acre of that is now in a primitive status.

Mr. Cox. Correct.

Mrs. Prost. What is your position under those circumstances in view of the fact that it does not take in additional land?

Mr. Cox. As you know, Madam Chairman, our committee presented a statement at the Lewiston hearings in opposition to the Forest Service's proposal which you see on the map. We felt the Forest Service

left too much land in there, and we recommended that further land be classified for multiple use. We do not know yet what the Forest Service's decision is on that map.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you very much, Mr. Cox. Are there any further questions?

Thank you, Mr. Cox.

Mr. Cox. Thank you, Madam Chairman. [Applause.]

Mrs. ProST. Our next witness is Mr. George W. Beardmore, secretary, North Idaho Forestry Association, Lewiston, Idaho. You may proceed, Mr. Beardmore.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. BEARDMORE, SECRETARY, NORTH IDAHO FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, LEWISTON, IDAHO

Mr. BEARDMORE. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am George W. Beardmore, secretary of the North Idaho Forestry Association, Lewiston, Idaho. I appear before this subcommittee in opposition to S. 174, the wilderness bill.

The North Idaho Forestry Association is one of the oldest conservation organizations in the Nation. It was organized as an unincorporated, nonprofit association of forest land owners in northern Idaho on October 10, 1908. It has remained active throughout these years and has been dedicated to its purposes, as expressed in article II of its constitution, in "the conservation of forest resources of northern Idaho generally and particularly and the promotion of practical forestry."

I am a native of Idaho. I am proud I have been born, reared, educated, and lived in this fine State for more than 53 years. I have been secretary of this association since March of 1945. I have been president of the Potlatch Timber Protective Association since March 1952. I was a member of the State Cooperative Board of Forestry from 1947 to 1955. I am an attorney by profession, employed by Potlatch Forests, Inc., since June 1940.

This association followed the development of this wilderness bill, its amendments, and have reviewed the statements and recommendations of the Inland Empire Multiple Use Committee presented to this subcommittee by Royce G. Cox.

The North Idaho Forestry Association endorses and approves those statements. On behalf of the North Idaho Forestry Association we desire to take only a few minutes to state our position on this bill and reemphasize our position.

We are not opposed to the wilderness concept. We are opposed to the wilderness bill, S. 174, as amended. We appreciate the fact the amended bill is a slightly more palatable bill, and we are not attempting to be "intellectually dishonest" in our opposition and neither are we "misled alarmists."

We are not attempting to convince anyone that Idaho is contributing more acreage to the wilderness than any other State. We are saying that over 3 million acres of Federal lands that have not been classified as wilderness will be blanketed into a system that puts the "burden of proof" on the State from which it came to retrieve the full use of those acres and before a "jury" that is not interested in a local problem. We do say, if there is a demonstrated necessity in the best.

interest of this Nation that more land is needed for wilderness or any other purpose, the citizens of Idaho will have no objections and will gladly contribute more than its share.

Our great Nation was built by development of its natural resources. Congress has directed that public lands be managed under the multiple-use concept of land management. It is an unwise reversal of present public land policy to now blanket into a single-use wilderness system some 54 million acres on which many millions of acres the natural resources never have been adequately inventoried. There is no compelling reason that these acres be virtually locked up, with exploration and development prohibited. Vast areas of wilderness are a luxurious economic waste which we can ill afford.

The demand for recreational areas is for the mass of our population that desires family access to the outdoors. There is plenty of wilderness for the few who have the desire and means to seek the solitude of the wilds. The fact remains that about 95 percent of the use of our national parks is on 5 percent of the lands along the roads. More people could enjoy the scientific, educational, and scenic values of even these park areas if they had inexpensive access to them.

We know this subcommittee is aware that well over 50 percent of the land area of the 11 Western States and Alaska is in Federal ownership management. In these 12 States more than 90 percent of the lands affected by the wilderness bill is found. Their lifeblood is more development and use of the natural resources-not less. To intentionally deprive this vast area of our country of the privilege to fully utilize that which nature has endowed it with is a public disservice. It is no answer to say this bill is no more restrictive than present regulations or that the only thing really new is Congress taking the veto power from the executive branch.

The single-use need for wilderness in the foreseeable future does not outweigh the prudence and wisdom of having these lands available for multiple use. We are aware these primitive areas are now restricted, but we do not agree that the proposed bill adequately assures us in Idaho that nonwilderness areas will be returned to the national forests to be administered as other national forest lands. The important difference is that review and classification of these lands under present administration procedure can be had as the necessity arises and by the agency which by law of Congress must manage the lands within the multiple-use concept. We believe it is unnecessary and undesirable to now say to the Forest Service, "After inventing the wilderness area idea and having started such zoning in 1924 and having set aside over 14.6 million acres of wilderness-type lands, you no longer are competent." The alarmists are those who fear there will be no wilderness under our present system.

We suggest that if it is the will of Congress that it is necessary to mollify the apprehensions of the wilderness people, amend S. 174 so it includes only lands presently classified as wilderness. If better use in the future can be found for these areas, then Congress should pass appropriate legislation at that time. If the so-called primitive areas or parts thereof should eventually be determined to be needed for only single-use dedication, then Congress can pass legislation to include that area in the wilderness system.

But do not pass legislation that in effect puts 3 million acres of land in Idaho in a wilderness system, subject to review, and say to 667,191

plus people in Idaho that before you can regain multiple use of these lands you must come 3,000 miles to Washington, take aggressive action in Congress where you have two Senators and two overworked Congressmen, to charge into the wilderness zealots and expect the impossible.

The basic fear in Idaho is that once the land grab has been made in S. 174, the 667,191 citizens in Idaho will be left crying in a political wilderness in which they have no desire to be.

The importance of the total acreage affected and the total known resources within these areas has been minimized. We are "wood wise" enough to read the signs when those who favor the wilderness system say, "The maximum possible inclusion would be 3,094,568 acres, which is only 5.7 percent of Idaho's total area," and "The need is for the application of modern forestry techniques to all the 488 million acres of commercial forest lands in the Nation, outside the forest wilderness areas, rather than to cut over the nine-tenths of 1 percent of such lands in the area of wilderness value to permit a few more days of procrastination."

The natives translate the national smoke signals into understandable language to mean, "Come hell and high water, your problem in Idaho is so infinitesimally small that we have no time for you and, mistake or not, you in Idaho can be sacrificed to wilderness without noticeable effect at the national level."

The Timber Resources Report No. 14, published by the Department of Agriculture in 1958, on page 130, estimated Idaho had 96 billion board feet of sawtimber. In the 1.8-million-acre Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area there is 7 billion board feet, or 7.3 percent of the total, and in the 1.2-million-acre Idaho Primitive Area there is not less than another 5 billion board feet, or 5.2 percent.

In these two primitive areas alone there is approximately 12 billion board feet of the total 96 billion board feet of sawtimber in Idaho. That is 12.5 percent of the total sawtimber available for the future forest products economy in Idaho.

We say to you, 12.5 percent of anything is not to be minimized in anyone's economy. We are fully aware these volumes are now restricted by administrative regulations as well as presently some areas cannot profitably be harvested. I can only say that when I was first following my father around in the woods of Idaho probably over 50 percent of the sawtimber was not economically operable. That same timber is now the backbone of our present-day forest products economy. To permanently lock up these tremendously large areas in Idaho would be a tragic economic wasteland for the privileged few who would trammel only a small segment.

Whether it is called procrastination or not, we caution you to proceed slowly before 3 million acres in Idaho are dedicated to the luxury of a single wilderness. These areas should be thoroughly inventoried for forest product values, explored for unknown minerals and presently unrecognized potentials for grazing, fish and wildlife, mass recreation, and wilderness.

Because of Idaho's topographical characteristics it will always contribute more than its fair share of wilderness even with full development of its natural resources. We repeat, these things should be done first by the administrative agencies at the local level and not under a review system at the national level.

By not going into the technical aspects of the problems of managing these areas in connection with fire, insect, and disease, as well as fish and game, we do not mean to leave the impression that these are not important in your deliberations. We are confident you are aware of them and we do not desire to bore you with repetition.

Also, we realize you know that 25 percent of the gross receipts from the national forests is returned to the counties ostensibly "in lieu of taxes" and to restrict the earning capacity of these national forest lands deprives these tax units of their just revenue.

Of course, one method of compensating for this loss would be for S. 174 to be further amended to permit the Idaho State Tax Commission to assess and tax these restricted lands on the same basis and by the same formula that similar lands in private ownership are assessed and taxed.

In conclusion our position is: There is no need for wilderness legislation to preserve such areas; that S. 174, as amended, is undesirable in that it is a toe-in-the-door approach to a wilderness administration agency; and all lands not presently inventoried and classified as wilderness should be excluded from the bill. The wilderness advocates need have no fear that during the hiatus period the primitive areas will be gobbled up and restricted to multiple use.

Mrs. PFOST. Thank you, Mr. Beardmore. [Applause.]

Our next witness is Mr. Bill Duff, chairman, district No. 1, Idaho Wildlife Federation, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.

Mr. Duff does not appear to be here but I see that Mr. Edward Johnson is here to represent the federation.

Mr. Johnson, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD JOHNSON, SECRETARY, DISTRICT NO. 1, IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chairman and Congressman Olsen, my name is Edward Johnson and I am secretary of district No. 1, Idaho Wildlife Federation.

Mr. Duff was not able to be here today. Mr. Duff has submitted a statement of which copies are in our record.

Mrs. Prost. Do you wish his statement to be made a part of the record and you will make a statement on behalf of the wildlife federation?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mrs. PFOST. All right. Without objection, Mr. Duff's statement will be placed in the record following Mr. Johnson's statement. Mr. JOHNSON. I also have submitted my statement for you. Mrs. PrOST. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would also call attention to the statement that has been made by Mr. Marvin E. Shelman, Bonners Ferry, Idaho, who is director of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, and he has made his statement a part of the record.

Mr. Shelman is president of the Bonners Ferry Chamber of Commerce, but is speaking only as a director of the Idaho Wildlife Federation.

I also would like to present a letter favoring the wilderness legislation by the Bonner County Sportsmen's Association, Sandpoint, Idaho.