waters were sadly polluted a little at a time. A fine example of the desecration of land is the strip mining in the Eastern United States so prominent in the news recently, and many of you have seen the ugly scars left by greedy dredges right here in Montana.

These encroachments on the sporting world were so gradual as to be unnoticeable until suddenly there was little land to hunt on and very little clean water to fish in. What remained supported little game or had become the property of private clubs.

The fish and game management agencies may err, they are not infallible, but their errors in judgment can be corrected, if we have land suitable for the transplanting of wildlife and the suitability of the land does not include roads, buildings, mines, or any other permanent evidence of man's inconsideration for the balance of nature.

With Glacier Park to the north and Yellowstone Park to the south for the automobile bound tourist, it is inconceivable that one area cannot be set aside for those who want to return to nature in its most primitive form. Any given area can be converted into a profitable business venture in a few short years, but it would take many life spans to return that commercialized area back to a wilderness area.

Keeping these evidences in mind, it cannot be overemphasized that the Lincoln back country must be preserved as a wilderness area so that those who follow in our footsteps can know the joy, the peace, and the relaxation that goes with communing with nature, so that they, too, can pass on to their descendants the awesome wonder of wildlife in its own natural habitat.

Thank you.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much for your statement. The next witness is Mr. Doyle N. Romans. Mr. Romans, we are pleased to have you here.

Mr. ROMANS. I would like to present one statement for the record for Mr. Virgil A. House, vice president, Rocky Mountain Industries. In the interest of time, we will present this for the record.

Senator METCALF. The statement will be received for the record. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF VIRGIL A. HOUSE, VICE PRESIDENT, ROCKY MOUNTAIN
INDUSTRIES, WEST YELLOWSTONE, MONT.

Members of the subcommittee, my business as vice president of Rocky Mountain Industries is tourism and recreational services.

I know that the type of facility needed by the mass of tourning Americans is not an expensive two-week pack trip or a vast area to play in. They need accessible camp grounds and a place for a short hike that is different from the paved sidewalks and streets of their cities.

They need wildlife which can be seen from a car window. I doubt that the entire Lincoln Back Country, as a wilderness, will afford more sitings of grizzly bear than West Yellowstone's city dump. The grizzly bear has increased in that area in conjunction with the high rate of tourism and in conjunction with timber harvest on nearby forest lands.

Classification of the Lincoln Back Country as a wilderness area will serve no purpose other than to waste the valuable land resources and to eliminate one of our state's potential tourist attractions.

The resources that are contained in this area will, if properly used, become the source of a large number of jobs that will contribute to our state and national economy, and will, at the same time, promote recreation facilities to meet an ever-growing need.

I urge you to retain the Lincoln Back Country in full multiple use manage

ment.

Senator METCALF. Now, Mr. Romans, proceed.

STATEMENT OF DOYLE ROMANS, ON BEHALF OF THE MONΤΑΝΑ EAST SIDE FOREST PRACTICES COMMITTEE

Mr. ROMANS. My name is Doyle Romans. I speak for the Montana East Side Forest Practices Committee which has the following membership: Idaho Pole Co., Bozeman, Mont.; Yellowstone Pine Co., Belgrade, Mont.; Elk Studs Co., West Yellowstone, Mont.; Magera Lumber Co., Helena, Mont.; Townsend Lumber Co., Townsend, Mont.; Yamhill Lumber Co., White Sulphur Springs, Mont.; Burkland Studs Inc., Livingston, Mont.; Corcoran Pulp Co., Bozeman, Mont.; Northern Timber Co., Deer Lodge, Mont.; Jones Lumber Co., Livingston, Mont.; 3-D Lumber Co., Maudlow, Mont.

We support the U.S. Forest Service proposal for multiple-use management of the Lincoln back country.

We believe that the management of this land for the production of all possible goods and services services is in the best interest of our State and our Nation. We feel that some wilderness set-asides may be beneficial to our society; however, there must be a limit to the amount of basic resources that can be forfeited for such uses. We feel that that limit has been reached and we will stand against further set-asides in every possible way.

Above all, we are against the type of action which has been exercised by Congressmen of this State in moving, by legislative proposal, to set aside an area without first seeking the opinion of the people of the State, and without regard for the opinions of professional land managers who are being paid from our taxes to be informed on the management requirements of that area with regard to the needs of the people.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Romans. Actually your Congressmen here thought that by hearing these statements we would be able to ascertain the will of the people. That is the purpose of this record.

Mr. ROMANS. We realize that, Senator. Our thinking here was that the hearings should have preceded the legislative proposal.

Senator METCALF. Now do you think that when we created the Bob Marshall Wilderness we forfeited resources?

Mr. ROMANS. Yes, I do. This would be my personal opinion. Any time we set aside these areas, merely what you people are talking about, wilderness, then they will be most ntaurally preserved. I don't feel we need to legislatively set aside land for protection. We have land managers that that is their job, and I believe they are capable of doing it. Senator METCALF. So you ou regard the creation of a special use such as the wilderness use, as a forfeiture of all other resources?

Mr. ROMANS. I believe that there are certain values involved, sir, that have to be considered. Through hearings of this type you will, of course, here those differences of opinion. We believe that the wilderness bill, in itself, provides a means to do this.

Senator METCALF. Thank you for your contribution.

Mr. ROMANS. I have also a statement of my own for my company that I would like to present for the record. I will summarize that statement saying we also are in favor of the Forest Service management. Senator METCALF. Of the multiple-use plan?

Mr. ROMANS. Yes.

Senator METCALF. The statement will be received for the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF DOYLE ROMANS, ELK STUDS CO., WEST YELLOWSTONE, MONT.

Mr. ROMANS. Members of the subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Doyle Romans, forester for Elk Studs Co. of West Yellowstone, Mont. I am a forestry graduate and have been associated for 12 years continuously with forest land uses in this region through employment by the U.S. Forest Service, State of Idaho Forestry Department, and by private industry. I believe that the people of the United States are entitled to a fair return from their property. If a few citizens desire to restrict usage for their own benefit, then they should pay for that use in an amount at least equal to the monetary losses sustained by the rest of the people because of the restricted use. These losses occur from the lost sale of goods, reduced tax potential, and lack of employment potential that not only reduces the tax income, but necessitates greater compensatory expenditures. The loss of recreation potential that can be gained under full multiple-use management cannot be measured easily, but should weigh heavily on any decision concerning the use of the Lincoln back country, as should the loss of renewable timber and other

resources.

Under multiple-use management, such as that proposed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Lincoln back country will provide needed recreation facilities for a large number of people and the facilities can be adjusted to fit demand so that the land will be serving at full capacity at all times. At the same time, the area will provide wood, water, wildlife, and forage on a sustained basis and will be subject to increased management for production as the need grows. Water yield alone can provide adequate justification for retaining the area under management. One fundamental phase of watershed management consists of the manipulation of vegetation on the watershed to influence the quantity of water stored and the time rate of delivery of that water. H. G. Wilm has pointed out in the 1949 Yearbook of Agriculture: "Removing merchantable timber on each four to five acres of high-altitude watershed land-in certain parts of Colorado-should make it possible to irrigate another acre of valuable land in the valleys below. Not only that, but it will increase the capital value of the watershed land itself through a treatment which ordinarily pays for itself and almost always gives a profit to the landowner and the timber operator." Fairfield Osborn, as President of the Conservation Foundation, quoted the above statement in the foreword of "Vegetation and Watershed Management," while pointing out that water requirements could double within twenty five years. The removal of the Lincoln Back Country from management makes its forests more susceptible to epidemics of disease and insects and more susceptible to disastrous fires that can destroy the wildlife and fish habitats, waste needed wood and forage, create flood conditions downstream, and render the area practically useless to man for many decades.

I do not believe that our nation is so rich that it can ignore the benefits to be derived from good land management-wood, water, wildlife, forage, recreation, employment, flood control, tax base-all components of a healthy nation-all renewable. I support full multiple use management of the Lincoln Back Country.

(The following statement was submitted by Mr. Romans on behalf of his company, Elk Studs Co.) :

STATEMENT OF ELK STUDS CO., WEST YELLOWSTONE, MONT.

One Million Feet, What Will it Do?

Just how much DOES the manufacturer of forest products mean to the economy?

Timber from the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in western Oregon alone are expected to add $1.1 billion to the Gross National Product and to provide nearly 75,000 man-years of employment during the fiscal 1968. Each million board feet of logs harvested adds about $800,000 to the GNP and supports 54 man-years of private employment.

These figures were developed in testimony submitted to the U.S. Senate committee hearing on the budget for Interior & Related Agencies. Thank you.

Senator METCALF. The next witness will be Prof. W. R. Pierce, professor of forest management, University of Montana.

Mr. Pierce, we are delighted to have you here, and have your help.

STATEMENT OF W. R. PIERCE, PROFESSOR OF FOREST
MANAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA

Mr. PIERCE. Thank you, Senator Metcalf, in considering me in this rather lengthy program.

My name is Bill Pierce, and I am professor of forest management at the School of Forestry at the University of Montana. I would like to make it clear that I am neither speaking for the university school of forestry, nor any of my colleagues. This is my personal opinion.

The students we turn out, the young men and recently young women that are going into this profession, we consider them land resource managers dealing with our forest resources, regardless of the use that may be set up, and the management that comes of this land. We want them to be able to retain the resource in the manner that people wish, under the use desirable, whether it be for economic support of our basic forest industries for research, for recreation, water, range, or wildlife. So if you will take my statement in that view, I would appreciate it.

Senator METCALF. We not only will take it in that view, we will take it with a great deal of respect for the position you hold, and your skill at the University of Montana.

Mr. PIERCE. Thank you. Please accept this statement as an endorsement for retaining the Lincoln back country under a flexible land management policy as provided under multiple-use management. My arguments for this request are as follows:

Our forests are the result of many years of ecological development under certain environmental conditions. We like what this produced and now seek to preserve it for our recreational use and the recreational use of future generations. But we are much too myopic in setting our course. The intent is to establish a wilderness area to save the resource from the depravations of man. But in doing this we are only preventing one of man's activities that changes a forest. We are overlooking what should be a very obvious fact, the environment that produced these forest no longer exists; we eliminate fire, introduce new diseases and insects, bring in many new species of plants, and inject a new mammal, man, in ever-increasing numbers. If we are going to preserve this or any other forest for future generations, we should be managing the unit to accomplish this goal. What is proposed in wilderness management could result in a more drastic change in the forest resource than the so-called economic activities such as logging. Just because the changes are slower doesn't mean they are less or better.

This statement is not necessarily an endorsement of the present multiple-use plan, proposed by the Forest Service, rather it is a request for the necessary freedom that the professional forester needs to do his job in forest preservation. Admittedly, mistakes have been made and many more will follow, but if the forester is not free to change with the environment and to seek and use new knowledge as acquired. the forest will not survive under the increased land-use pressures that are sure to come.

Thank you.

Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Pierce.

I feel that I should reiterate the fact that the members of this committee have the highest regard for the Forest Service and the admin

istrators of our public land. We have a great deal of admiration for the educational institutions such as the University of Montana, and the splendid Forestry Department they have there. Every once in a while there is a disagreement between Congress, sometimes in the appropriation side and sometimes on the authorization side, and sometimes the professional foresters. Sometimes you have a disagreement among yourselves and you come in and testify.

But the purpose of this hearing, of course, is to hear such men as you, and to finally ascertain if this area which was left out of the wilderness bill because it was a primitive area or wild area should not be included on a special or unique use, or should be considered, continued and developed as our very respected Forest Service management suggests.

Mr. PIERCE. I think these diversions in views that my colleagues have within an educational institution is what makes it so attractive, to me, anyway.

Senator METCALF. Sometimes divergent views make it attractive to this institution, too.

Mr. PIERCE. What I was concerned with, when you set an area aside as a wilderness, that the people who are so doing this aren't fully cognizant of the problems they give the land use manager in maintaining this unit under the restrictions imposed upon it, and it is a very strict restriction. All these areas are very delicate areas.

Senator METCALF. As you know, it is my hope that there at the University of Montana in our forestry school we get a Federal research grant for research into wilderness use and wilderness practice. I have talked to the dean many times about it, and we have underway a study going that will use your skill and that of your colleagues.

Mr. PIERCE. I hope so. It is just getting started. I hope it continues to grow, because it is a very real need. Thank you very much. Senator METCALF. Mr. Donald Aldrich. It is great to have you here before this committee, an old friend and old schoolmate.

STATEMENT OF DONALD ALDRICH, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. ALDRICH. Thank you. I am Donald Aldrich, executive secretary of the Montana Wildlife Federation, a statewide, nonpartisan organization with more than 40 affiliated clubs representing a total membership in excess of 10,000. Our support of S. 1121 is an expression of our primary objective to prevent further degradation of our environment.

Our membership is open to any organization or individual interested in promoting the wise use of natural resources. We offer a forum for all concepts, a multi-interest sounding board, evaluation and medium of communication. We feel that we represent the finer instincts of mankind, present and future, in our efforts to insure all men a pleasant, healthful environment, not only for recreational pursuits, but for everyday living.

The Montana Wildlife Federation is one of the 49 State affiliates in the National Wildlife Federation, the largest citizen conservation organization in the world. It provides information, guidance and coordination for 2.5 million people throughout the Nation.