We understand this study will be available within a year. The viewpoint of the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission, when available, should be studied carefully. We feel that proposed wilderness legislation leaves administration of large areas of the public lands to the decisions of administrators who are not answerable directly to the people. This contains a dangerous precedent in that it amounts to an abandonment of congressional authority insofar as public lands are concerned.

I want to thank the chairman and members of the House subcommittee and the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee for arranging to hold these hearings in order that proponents of a National Wilderness Preservation System and those opposed may have the opportunity of stating their respective positions.

Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Swallow.

Our next witness is Frank P. Knight, director of the Arizona Department of Mineral Resources, Phoenix.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF FRANK P. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES, PHOENIX, ARIZ.

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank P. Knight. I am director of the Arizona Department of Mineral Resources.

The Arizona Department of Mineral Resources and the Arizona Small Mine Operators Association, with over 3,100 members, oppose the wilderness bill, S. 174, now before your committee because it would allow the permanent commitment of 58,135,178 acres of federally owned land to single purpose use without adequate determination of either the need or the advisability of so doing.

The United States can ill afford the denial of multiple, productive use of such large areas with unknown natural resources without more careful consideration; nor can it afford to allow areas to be locked up for single purpose use without more positive control than is proposed in this bill.

Fortunately, your committee has seen the need for further investigation, and it is hoped that hearings will be held in affected areas of more Western States, including Arizona.

It also is fortunate that your committee soon will have available the report and recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which should be very helpful in determining the need of single-use wilderness areas.

Unfortunately, it is not a simple matter to determine the highest use of our lands, and therefore, multiple use should be allowed until single wilderness use is clearly indicated. After all, wildlife and cattle are little harmed by nearby mining or timbering or by each other.

Millions of sportsmen and campers in eastern and other regions of the country prefer the accessible woods and lakes they can frequent and love, even though the lands may be in productive use for timber, minerals, livestock, or other needs. Few can afford the time and money for pack trips into the vast roadless areas of wilderness in the United States which are far from most homes.

One reason given for withdrawing these huge areas is the feardeveloped by proponents of the bill into belief of certainty-that posterity will have no wilderness if we do not set it aside now. It is doubtful that it makes any appreciable difference to posterity whether it is done now or 20 years from now. It also is very unlikely that posterity will benefit more by establishment of wilderness-type areas under new laws rather than under those which have provided for the present areas.

I would like to read, in this connection, from the statement of Richard McArdle, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, on S. 174, before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 85th Congress, 1st session, June 19, 1957:

Despite these problems, fire, insects, and disease and so forth, the Department of Agriculture firmly believes that wilderness areas should and will be continued as part of the multiple-use administration of the national forests. Its record of wilderness area administration over three decades supports this statement of policy. Some proponents of the pending bill feel there will be gradual encroachment and attrition in these wilderness areas as the country's population continues to grow and the economic need for the timber and the other resources included in the wilderness areas becomes more acute. Such attrition has not occurred.

This brings to mind the last time I saw a pileated woodpecker in the forests of Maine. Just over a ridge I ran on to an old dodger, thoroughly grown, and with a lovely cover, rough grouse. With the drift of population from the east to west, I wonder if it is in Mr. McArdle's mind that as the easterners came in here and took over the wilderness, they might leave behind areas back east that might make up the deficiency.

It is evident to us that posterity would suffer from the single purpose legislation proposed in S. 174. It is amazing to us that wilderness enthusiasts are so little aware that the minerals upon which our civilization is based and the other important products of the lands necessary to our welfare and security, are of such tremendous importance that we cannot afford chances of even delay in their future availability, let alone their possible permanent loss.

New surface discoveries of major ore deposits are unlikely. Buried ores must be found to yield the metals of the future. These facts make the proposals of S. 174 and the continuous withdrawal of public lands from mineral entry particularly alarming. Fortunately, our dependence upon minerals is evident wherever anyone stops to look, and of course is generally recognized. However, most of the people, including proponents of S. 174, know little about mining and what must be done if we are to have our mineral and other needs supplied. Nor do they understand the impracticality of the bill's provisions for Presidential permits and regulations for prospecting or mining.

It would be impractical, if not impossible, and certainly unattractive, to try to prospect for buried ore deposits under the restrictions of S. 174. It would be bad enough even if the bill allowed motorized equipment and air travel, because even then one would not want to spend the considerable sums necessary without assurance that he alone would have the right to proceed to develop, extract, and sell the ores which he found. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone would undertake the bill's difficult procedure of securing a permit.

Consequently, it is unlikely that anyone would apply for Presidential authorization and regulation for mining. It would be particularly unlikely that anyone would do so who is familiar with long

established regions where mining has been allowed subject to regulations of the administrative body. There never has been any mining because the regulations never have appeared.

Over 6 years have passed since mining agreed to the multiple-use law under which it lost its right to that part of the surface of a new mining location which is not necessary for mining purposes.

Pursuant to other provisions of the same law, many of the old claims have forfeited surface rights not needed for mining. Former abuses were thus corrected and proper mining, grazing, timbering, watershed, and recreational uses now get along pretty well.

If regulation is needed to prevent an inconsiderate party from doing needless unsightly work in scenic areas, mining probably would go along with it. But mining denies the need or advisability of its elimination from the huge areas subject to the single-use provisions of S. 174.

There now are 83 wilderness-type areas established in the national forests of 14 States. Their total is 14,664.053 acres, of which 13,764,325 acres-94 percent-are in the 11 Western States. These lands plus an additional 18,484,900 acres of national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, and game ranges, make a total of 32,249,200 acres in the 11 Western States which are committed by S. 174 to single-purpose use. This is an area larger than the State of New York, and it is 8.9 percent of the total of 362,445,000 acres of federally owned land in these Western States. An additional 25,885,978 acres of national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, and game rangelands in Alaska also are committed by S. 174 to single purpose use.

The Alaskan lands so committed are 7.1 percent of her 362,194,000 acres of federally owned lands, whereas 8 percent of the federally owned lands in the 11 Western States is committed by S. 174. Yet Alaska is given special treatment in the bill. True, 99.1 percent of her total area is federally owned, but federally owned lands in the 11 States range in percentage from 29.6 in Washington to 86.4 in Nevada and there are large areas of federally controlled Indian lands besides. Therefore, the adverse impact of S. 174 upon the economy of many if not all of them would probably equal or exceed that upon Alaska. Federally owned land in Arizona committed by S. 174 to single use totals 3,752,927 acres, or 11.6 percent of the total lands in the State so owned. Arizona land ownership as of June 30, 1960, is as follows:

Of these federally owned lands in Arizona -approximately 10 million acres or over 30 percent of the total are reserved for special use for national parks, historic sites, recreation, wildlife, wilderness-type areas, military and airfields, power, reclamation, and flood control. We in Arizona want no further inroads upon our public lands with exclusion of mining, grazing, mass recreation, timbering, or other uses vital to our present and future economy and welfare. We object to the bill's proposals to set aside lands of which 94 percent are located in the 11 Western States and Alaska, for a single wilderness purpose of much less importance to the Nation than the benefits to all States of multiple productive use of these lands.

In 1959, prior to the April 1959 hearing at Phoenix, Ariz., on legislation to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System, the legislature of the State of Arizona in a joint memorial prayed:

That the Congress of the United States consider carefully the impact of the proposed legislation relating to a national wilderness system since it appears to the legislature of the State of Arizona that enactment of such a measure will unduly restrict the use of the wilderness areas and retard the economic development of this State. Moreover, the U.S. Government now controls vast areas of land within this State and any approach to this problem should be in the direction of relinquishing control rather than subjecting additional areas of land within this State to Federal control or cumbersome regulations.

The setting aside of areas of virgin wilderness for posterity, has emotional appeal-especially to those in States which have no such publicly owned areas but we cannot afford to act in accordance with the provisions of S. 174.

Nor do we need to. Our wilderness needs have been taken care of generously under existing laws. The Forest Service has said that there is no appreciable wilderness attrition. Therefore, there is no immediate or near future need for this bill, and as future needs develop they can be met under present laws as has been done in the past.

No legislation providing for the setting aside of large areas of land to be limited to a single use or to be excluded from any productive use, should be passed without requirement of thorough investigation of all resources in the lands involved. Investigation of mineral resources admittedly would be difficult but it would be necessary if important resources were to be saved. Where would we be if large sections of the limited areas of uranium bearing lands had been set aside in roadless areas, inaccessible by airplane or other mechanical means, 30 years ago when uranium was comparatively worthless? Resultant delay in discovery of this essential mineral could have been disastrous.

The need for maximum utilization of lands will continue to increase. The need for minerals will also increase and new ones will be added to the list of those vital to our security and welfare. The search for them must only be restricted because of clear need. We cannot simply choose to find them outside of wild areas. They may not be there, and we must find them.

Miners of Arizona and other Western States are greatly troubled by the steady withdrawal of public lands for single purpose uses, and many others share their belief that no area of over 5,000 acres should be set aside without being delimited and specifically approved by Congress.

Because of the fact that this bill does not require congressional approval of such areas, and for the above stated and other good reasons, Arizona mining is opposed to S. 174.

Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Knight.

At this point the copy of the telegram to the chairman from Mr. Charles F. Willis, State secretary, Arizona Small Mine Operators Association, Phoenix, Ariz., will be made a part of the record.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

(The telegram follows:)

Hon. W. N. ASPINALL,

PHOENIX, ARIZ., November 3, 1961.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
Sacramento, Calif.:

Please incorporate into the record of the hearings on S. 174 being held by your committee in Sacramento, Calif., on November 6, 1961, this expression of opposition to the enactment of that bill. We protest against the enactment of this or any other so-called wilderness legislation at least until such time as a report and recommendations are received from the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission.

There is no evidence at this time that any wilderness legislation is needed as there is ample authority under present laws for the creating of areas with similar intent and purpose. One does not have to look back very far to the time when most of the land areas of our Western States were in the wilderness classification, but it was the exploration and development of these lands which built these States and created the resources so necessary to our national security.

The present world situation is such that we must do nothing to threaten the self-sufficiency of basic resources of the country in the event of conflict. One cannot conceive of anyone advocating a threat to our national security in order that a relatively few hunters and fishermen may have large areas of lands set aside for their future pleasure and recreation. Experience has shown that lands already set aside have attracted but few visitors.

On behalf of the 3,000 members of the Arizona Small Mine Operators Association we protest against any destruction or limitation of the foundations upon which our western public land States have grown and prospered.

CHARLES F. WILLIS,

State Secretary, Arizona Small Mine Operators Association. Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Louis D. Gordon, executive secretary of the Nevada Mining Association, Inc.

Mr. John Dozier will be next, a member of the Madera County Chamber of Commerce.

You may proceed, Mr. Gordon.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS D. GORDON, PHOENIX, ARIZ., REPRESENTING THE NEVADA MINING ASSOCIATION, INC.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, on behalf of Nevada Mining Association, I am filing this statement in opposition to enactment of the wilderness bill (S. 174).

The Nevada Mining Association consists of 29 regular members representing active mining companies in the State of Nevada; 57 affiliate members representing purveyors of machinery, equipment, and supplies to the mining industry; and 277 associate members, representing mining engineers, geologists, mining attorneys, stockholders in mining companies, and others interested in the mining industry.

I might say, were it not for the condition of the lead and zinc industry, the discontinuance of the tungsten industry and the state of