STATEMENT OF REV. DON M. CHASE, ST. ANDREWS METHODIST CHURCH, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Reverend CHASE. Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking as pastor of the church exactly, but as one who has worked for several years in the summer program of the Methodist Church in California, and speaking from the point of view of the camping program of the California-Nevada Conference of the Methodist Church.

It is the belief of the church, of the section of it of which I am here the spokesman, that camping in the wilderness makes possible some living values for the youth of our communities which are not attainable so well in any other way than in wilderness camping.

We believe that living close to nature, on the earth, where man has built and created nothing at all, and adapting to the realities of earth and stone and sky and water and sun and darkness, warmth and cold, carries us back into communion with God, and at one also with our forefathers whose lives and efforts and suffering built a heritage for us.

It is a sad fact that a great proportion of our youth and young adults have never lighted a fire, gathered fuel, seen bread baked over an open fire; have no experience of a rainstorm from which they could not retreat to a warm building and a change of clothing; have no experience of a sunrise or sunset giving a beautiful glow to a mountain crag; have no knowledge of a deer grazing at dusk in a meadow.

It is a sad fact that with the exploding population our earth and our generation is experiencing, it will be only a few years until the only wilderness areas left will be those which today are set apart to be kept in a state of virgin wilderness.

That you may know that we mean what we are saying, let me add that the Methodist Church has a number of camps-or camping groups, perhaps we should say who go into the wilderness to an entirely undeveloped area, with the aid of a packer, but each boy or girl or counselor carrying his own pack, and live for a week or 10 days with no facilities at all except those which we create for ourselves, and then we go away leaving only fire-blackened stones to mark that place, the wilderness unpolluted and unaltered. Of course, we never go to such a place without encountering other groups with similar interests, Boys Scouts and so forth, going or coming, making the most of the heritage of the wilderness.

And so we plead that the Congress of the United States take a statesmanlike action to prevent the search for financial wealth from depriving us forever of that other far more important wealth of the spirit, actual firsthand acquaintance with nature as God has made it, experience of living with nature, far from automobiles and roads and radios.

Dollars are necessary, and we have no criticism of those who seek to expand business and industrial opportunities; but even more necessary is a quality of life to which the wilderness areas have an important contribution to make, and which, without the wilderness areas, will not be so well made and preserved.

We realize, of course, that there are already wilderness areas. But increasing pressures of population, by the time these western areas have twice or three times the population we now have, will mean that,

like Yosemite today, a city's population will have moved into the mountain with somebody camping under every tree, and the wilderness will be no more.

Unless the wilderness areas are set aside in vastly greater extent than is now the case, that will be the situation. The future is in your hands, and failure now will cheat the unborn generations of a heritage which can never be regenerated. To take a small and minimum view of the necessities of the case is to sell America's future short.

We plead for your support of the considerable expansion of the wilderness areas.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Are there questions?

Thank you.

Reverend CHASE. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. We will next hear from George N. Swallow, of the State Grazing Board of Nevada.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE N. SWALLOW, POST OFFICE BOX 457, ELY, NEV., REPRESENTING THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE STATE GRAZING BOARD OF NEVADA

Mr. SWALLOw. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Public Lands, my name is George N. Swallow. I represent the Central Committee of the Nevada State Grazing Board, State of Nevada. This organization is made up of all livestock men in the State of Nevada who operate on Bureau of Land Management lands.

I wish to make the further statement that I do not officially represent the State Grazing Advisory Board and the National Advisory Board Council, all set up under Federal law and rules and regulations of the Federal Government.

I appear in protest to S. 174.

The proposed wilderness legislation states that the purpose is

to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes.

We want to point out that the establishment of a National Wilderness Preservation System is not for the permanent good of the people.

A policy statement contained in S. 174 as passed by the Senate states that the Congress recognizes

that an increasing population accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, is destined to occupy and modify all areas within the United States except those that are designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition. It is accordingly declared to be the policy of the Congress of the United States to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.

The definition of wilderness as stated in S. 174 as passed by the Senate of the United States is as follows:

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence,

77350-62-pt. 39

without permanent improvements or habitation of humans, which is protected and managed so as to preserve it natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's works substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

We believe the enactment of legislation which would establish a National Wilderness Preservation System would not be in the best interests of the people of the United States. We believe the establishment of a National Wilderness Preservation System would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America, and in not keeping faith with the founders of our Republic.

We feel that the popularity of wilderness legislation has been brought about by a handful of ardent and dedicated people who have influenced large numbers of people in the urban areas, and have led these followers to believe that wilderness legislation will insure the public with the beauty of national wilderness forever. The idea has also been advanced by this same group that a National Wilderness Preservation System will provide recreation for the general public. Notwithstanding the fact that S. 174 and other proposed legislation provides for protection of and continuity to some extent of prospecting, mining, oil exploration, and livestock grazing, no guarantee is included or provided in any manner.

S. 174 stated that

the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting (including but not limited to the production of oil and gas), and mining (including but not limited to the production of oil and gas), and the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, waterconservation works, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof than will its denial; and the grazing of livestock, where well established prior to the effective date of this act with respect to areas established as part of the wilderness system by this act, or prior to the date of public notice thereof with respect to any area to be recommended for incorporation in the wilderness system, shall be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions and regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary having jurisdiction over such area.

The wording "subject to such restrictions and regulations as are deemed necessary for jurisdiction of such area," offers little or no protection. This wording gives the individual company or corporation no definite protection in continuity insofar as oil exploration, mining, and livestock grazing. This wording, as contained in S. 174 and other bills and proposals for the establishment of a National Wilderness Preservation System, is for the purpose of satisfying the proponents of the multiple-use concept and philosophy. Anyone would have to be naive indeed to accept bill guarantees as meaning the continuation of oil exploration, mining, livestock grazing, and so forth. If proponents of a National Wilderness Preservation System mean what they purport to say, and imply, such safeguards should be spelled out in order to give continuity and permanence to mineral exploration and livestock grazing.

Approximately 87 percent of the State of Nevada is public domain. Livestock grazing and mining make up two of our most important

industries. In the future these lands may give us an important oil industry. If S. 174 is enacted into law and a large portion of our State placed under this system, our general economy would suffer. We would also lose the future potential of new wealth from the public

lands of our State.

A wilderness system will stifle our free enterprise system now enjoyed under our Republic. Since the Constitution of the United States was written and adopted, we in the United States of America have operated under the free enterprise system. Our Constitution provides for the protection of life, liberty, and property. Without property in private ownership, we cannot enjoy the protection of liberty and the protection of property as is provided by the Constitu

tion.

Since the 17th century, the United States of America has become one of the most powerful and richest nations in the world. This has been accomplished primarily and entirely as a result of the free enterprise system. In order to have a rich, powerful, and progressive nation, we must continue to have the production of new wealth from our

resources.

To date, the only source of basically new wealth that means anything to our economy is from the minerals mostly under the ground and agricultural production. To set aside vast areas of public domain and, at the same time, place these areas in a deep freeze, will hamper and restrict the exploration and development of natural resources necessary to our economy.

In the past, and even at the present time, some national writers have and are giving the general public the impression that livestock men are despoilers of the land. Because of this, a desire has been created by many conservation-minded people to preserve large areas of public domain from destruction. The livestock people have not been destructive of the range; on the contrary, livestock men, as a whole, have been conservationists and are conservation minded.

No one realizes better than the people who are engaged in the livestock industry that true conservation must be practiced if a livestock entity is to be continued and preserved. The livestock industry has created each and every year new wealth which has helped to build a strong economy, and has become part of the tax structure. The livestock men, who are among the greatest lovers of the outdoors, have recognized that nature has provided renewable resources for the use and welfare of the general public.

Those who propose the National Wilderness Preservation System have the concept that this system will preserve the beauty of the national wilderness, and that recreation for the general public will be provided.

History has shown that where large areas of public domain are closed to livestock grazing and timbering, everything of value from the standpoint of beauty and recreation will be destroyed. For example, many of the forest areas and wilderness areas that have been closed to grazing and timbering develop such a growth of dry grass and timber that when nature strikes with a bolt of lightning, the whole area becomes a massive conflagration. Then valuable resources such as grass, wildlife, as well as timber, which makes up part of the valuable watershed, are completely destroyed.

Dedicated proponents of the wilderness preservation system expound the theory that somewhere in our land people must have the opportunity of getting back to nature, away from it all, and be able to view and see areas untrammeled by man. Man was put upon this earth to live, progress, develop, and use the resources wisely. Therefore, is there anything wrong with this animal we call man trammeling all of the area of the United States?

Of all living things on earth, man is supposed to be the most intelligent and most favored. We have been unable to understand how the wilderness legislation itself does anything for the overall cause of recreation for the general public. In order to get into wilderness areas, it would appear that the individual must hike or ride horses. The number of people living in this century who can take time to hike and who have the money and resources and time to hire horses and so forth, are extremely limited.

Therefore, it would appear as if this type of beauty would be limited to an exceptionally small minority who either have wealth and time on their hands, or others who are not engaged in making a living.

Should a National Wilderness Preservation System be established in which roadbuilding is not allowed, the building of trails is not allowed, the establishment of airports is not permitted, and waterways are closed to motorboats, and so forth, it would be almost impossible to fight forest fires.

Our opposition to a National Wilderness Preservation System does not mean that we are opposed to all forms of land being in public ownership. We have many lands now administered by the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Park Service, the Indian Service, and the Reclamation Service, where a good job is being done under the multiple-use concept.

We do feel, however, that other than small areas which are clearly in the public interest to remain in public ownership, that the majority of these lands should be gradually put to a higher use, and placed in private ownership. The development of this Nation's resources can be accomplished only by the majority of our public lands being placed eventually in private ownership. The public domain, with the exception of a few small areas, should be converted to private ownership as soon as possible.

Forest Service statistics show that over a 12-month period approximately 700,000 people visited the forest with automobiles, drove over the roads, enjoyed the scenery, and communed with nature. There was also approximately 6,000 who went on foot and camped. Something less than one individual out of a thousand who visited the forest areas had any desire to wander on foot and camp out in a wild and primitive state. Anyone who wants to go on foot into the mountains, into the forest, or into inaccessible areas on the public domain can do so today. It does not seem expedient or logical to pass wilderness legislation to give the public the privilege of doing what they already can do. The only important result would be the creating of a much larger tax burden for the general public.

Before wilderness legislation is considered or passed by Congress without first knowing the results of a closer related study which Congress authorized previously, all facts and information contained in the study should first be analyzed.