These will be caused, either as they have been, historically, by wildfire in overmature, diseased, decadent trees, or through logging. Using a hundred-year rotation for annual allowable cuts in the Rockies can result in only a small fraction of the managed timberland showing scars of harvest.

The wilderness set-aside concept is a selfish, uneconomic one for the benefit of the very few who have the desire, physical condition, and time to visit these areas on foot or horseback. The recreational opportunities for the mass of our people, the stability of our timber-dependent communities, and the economic well-being of our Nation, all dictate that our forest lands be operated under multiple use, which includes the growing and harvest of successive crops of timber on our commercial forest lands. Public Law No. 86-517, the Multiple Use Act of June 12, 1960, was intended to insure such management.

Thank you very much.

Senator BURDICK. Thank you, Doctor.

Joe Dzivi, Conservation Committee, Kalispell.

Mr. LIVINGSTON ROGERS. Senator Burdick, Mr. Dzivi is sick. He will not be here. I have a statement for him which I can present when my turn comes if you wish.

Senator BURDICK. Fine.

Mr. Robert G. Kokoruda, president, Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association.

Mr. VAN DER SANDE. Our organization has been represented, Senator Burdick.

Senator BURDICK. Dr. Elmer W. Smith, Lincoln, Mont.

STATEMENT OF DR. ELMER W. SMITH, LINCOLN, MONT.

Mr. SMITH. Perhaps my point of view is somewhat different. You have covered most of the ground of why we ought to try and preserve the Lincoln back country. I thought perhaps it might be an interesting idea, as to why we should try and preserve it for the wild inhabitants thereof.

Probably the greatest predator our world has ever seen has been mankind. The amount of killing we do is staggering among animals, among ourselves.

We import a great number of animals every year, and most of them die. We have 74,000 mammals last year; 203,000 birds, excluding parrots and canaries; 405,000 reptiles; 137,000 amphibia, and millions of fish, all brought in, probably most of them on a pet basis. Many of the pets can't possibly live. We have the spider monkey, you have the wooly monkey and squirrel monkey, so wily and hard to keep alive. You have an Indonesian fairy bluebird brought in, and dies almost as soon as it is sold. We have the three-toed sloth that can be bought on the New York market and many pet shops. Nobody has ever succeeded in keeping it alive in captivity.

Along medical lines, in 1967 we brought in 62,000 primates, monkeys and apes. In 1958, 1959, and 1960, we reached a peak of 223,000, 190,000 221,000, respectively. These were probably used mostly for polio research, but they were killed just the same. We are now using them to test diseases, for arteries, for transplants. A little better than bootlegging hearts. But there are 250,000 chimpanzees in the world, and they won't last very long. They are using, exclusive of cattle, sheep, goats, and horses, 10 million pounds of undressed furs, 11 million pounds of undressed hides and skins.

The hunting is regulated somewhat in this country. In other countries of the world people simply hunt for food. The amount of killing is unknown.

In the United States alone we have provided 127 million acres of wet lands. Fifty million acres of this land has already been converted with express highways and so forth, destroying its usefulness.

Perhaps figuring that the Lincoln back country should be used to preserve your wild animals is an outrageous idea, but I think it should be considered. We have all enjoyed them. I think they have about as much right to live as many humans.

Senator BURDICK. Thank you very much.

The next witness will be Mr. Livingston Rodgers, president of the Great Falls chapter of the Montana Wilderness Association.

STATEMENT OF LIVINGSTON RODGERS, PRESIDENT, GREAT FALLS CHAPTER OF THE MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION

Mr. RODGERS. I have been coordinating some of the efforts of some of the people who wrote letters in connection with this hearing. In this connection I did receive a statement from Mr. Joe Dzivi. I gave it to his son, because he was expected to be here, but I got a note this morning that he was ill, so I will just submit his statement and copies for the record.

Senator BURDICK. Without objection, so ordered. It will be printed at the end of your remarks.

Senator METCALF. Senator Burdick, before Mr. Rogers goes ahead, I want to say that we are very much indebted to him and members of the committee for efforts in coordinating and preparing and plowing the ground for this hearing before we came out. He has been of great assistance to me, to my staff, and to Mr. Porter Ward on the staff of the committee. We want to thank you publicly.

Mr. RODGERS. Thank you very much.

I received letters which were written to me to be handed in to the committee at this hearing. Some came before the June hearing, and then subsequently we have received other letters. Mr. Fred Hill, city clerk, when the original hearing was scheduled, received letters addressed to Senator Burdick. I do have some letters that came in, including letters received today. Of these letters I received a total of 20, and 19 were against Mr. Metcalf's bill. One is in favor of it. These were letters that were addressed to Senator Burdick at the Civic Council Chambers.

Senator BURDICK. Without objection they will be received and placed at an appropriate place in the record.

Mr. RODGERS. In addition to those letters, the ones that were received from different sportsmen's groups, I received a total of nine from Northern Continental Conservation Committee, Lewistown Rod & Gun Club, Montana Wildlife Federation, Hill County Wildlife Association, Skyline Sportsmen's Association, Powell County Sportsmen's Association, Upper Gallatin Conservation Association, Billings Chapter Montana Wilderness Association, and the Billings Rod & Gun Club. I will introduce those statements.

Senator BURDICK. Without objection they will be received.

Mr. RODGERS. Then, in addition to that, I received individual letters from 182 people in Montana in favor of Mr. Metcalf's bill. I received letters from 28 people in 14 States outside of Montana, from Mrs. Roland Renne, in Washington, D.C., to Hugh Galusha, in Minneapolis. So in addition to the 182 from in-State and 20 out-of-State, there are 210 letters in favor of the bill, which I will introduce.

Senator BURDICK. Without objection they will be received.

Mr. RODGERS. Then I also received group letters. Ninety-five citizens from Chinook, 30 members of the faculty of Eastern College, Mr. Henning spoke this morning, 10 from Helena, 16 more from Helena, 42 in Great Falls, 59 from Fort Benton, and 59 from Laurel, which is in all 314 signatures on these letters. Of course, they are in favor of the bill. Thank you.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOE DZIVI, FLATHEAD WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee, my name is Joe Dzivi and I am President of the Flathead Wildlife Association. Our Association and I strongly support passage of legislation to create the Lincoln-Scapegoat Wilderness area. I live in Kalispell, Montana and I have been a lifelong resident of this state.

During the 1930s I was employed by the U.S. Forest Service as a Packer and on game management. This job involved packing supplies into the remote areas by packmules and studying wildlife and its habitat in a large area of the Flathead National Forest, including portions of the present Bob Marshall Wilderness area. Part of the time while on this job, I lived year around in remote ranger stations accessible only by trail. In the past 40 years, I have hunted, fished, hiked, packed or camped in nearly every section of western Montana's forests and mountains including the Lincoln-Scapegoat area. I have been privileged to enjoy our great wilderness areas and I am concerned that unless we use the most perceptive foresight this privilege will not be available for future generations to enjoy.

The Forest Service has designated a 500,000 acre study area which includes the proposed Lincoln-Scapegoat Wilderness area. The Forest Service has concluded that only two alternate possibilities for management of the study area exist. Either wilderness classification or development of a complex of roads for scenic drives, commercial development and logging. The Forest Service favors the latter proposal on the grounds it provides for a great variety of recreational opportunities not now available in the Region. They argue that development of a road complex in the entire study area would permit more ready access to primitive and wilderness areas for short term or short distance excursions.

I believe that the Forest Service's premise that there are only two alternatives available for management of the study area is erroneous. The proposed Lincoln-Scapegoat area involves only the most remote one-half of the 500,000 acre study area. If the wilderness area is created, the Forest Service plans for developing the study area could be utilized in the remaining 250,000 acres. This would permit realization of nearly every one of the Forest Service's stated goals and still preserve the beautiful wilderness area in its natural state.

The northern region of the Forest Service includes 16 national forests with a total area of 26,000,000 acres located in eastern Washington, northern Idaho, Montana and the western Dakotas. There are hundreds of areas and sites in this region which can and should be developed to encourage greater use by the motoring public. Anyone who concludes that the Lincoln-Scapegoat area is the only or best area for such a development is not being realistic. This area is ideally situated for establishing a wilderness area. If the Lincoln-Scapegoat area is established, it will in effect extend the existing Bob Marshall wilderness area to a point where it is much more accessible to the casual or short term wilderness adventurer.

Our present wilderness areas may be ample for today's population but will they be adequate in thirty, fifty, or 100 years Once a wilderness area is destroyed it cannot be restored. Gentlemen, I respectfully urge you to give favorable consideration to this measure and assure to our grandchildren the right to see and enjoy what our fathers found when they came to this great country. Thank you.

Senator BURDICK. Mrs. Harold Goldberg, New York. (No response.)

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Sherman S. Cook, Lincoln.

STATEMENT OF SHERMAN S. COOK, JR., LINCOLN, MONT.

Mr. Cook. Senator Metcalf, Senator Burdick, thank you for the opportunity to appear here this afternoon.

My name is Sherman S. Cook, Jr. I have lived at Lincoln, Mont., for more than 15 years, and have been postmaster there for 10 years. By way of background, my formal education includes a year at the University of Montana as a forestry major. My practical experience includes more than 5 years as the owner and operator of a small woodpreserving plant and sawmill near Lincoln. I am vice president of the Lincoln Back Country Protective Association, and a charter member of the Lincoln Lions Club and the Lincoln Volunteer Fire Department. I am very much interested in affairs which concern the welfare of my community.

I have used wilderness on many occasions in the past and have found some of these trips among my most enjoyable experiences. I am no longer able to do so myself, but I would like to see enough such areas kept intact to provide for the needs of other Americans forever. However, this is not my principal reason for appearing here today. My chief concern is with the full extent to which opening the Lincoln Ranger District has affected Lincoln and all its citizens. By opening I mean the decision to commence intensive management for saw log production and other purposes. I am profoundly disturbed by what I have discovered.

To demonstrate my reasons for concern, I would like to draw a few comparisons between Lincoln and Augusta. Both are in Lewis and Clark County. Each has a population estimated at about 450, and the post offices of each serve an estimated 1,000 people. The two offices generate almost exactly the same amount of gross receipts. Here the similarities end. Taxable values in Lincoln School District 38 for fiscal 1968 are $855,000 while those at Augusta total $1,944,000 in round figures, or more than double the tax base at Lincoln. Augusta has many good, substantial homes. Lincoln has relatively few modern homes. Most of the land in Augusta School District 45 is in private ownership and is on the tax rolls, but most of the land in Lincoln School District 38 is Forest Service land. Augusta has a high school. Lincoln needs one terribly but so far has not been able even to consider financing one. A few years ago Augusta was able-barely, I am sureto build sewage system. Lincoln needs one even more but cannot hope to finance it under present circumstances.

a

One is impelled to question why two towns in the same county, and of almost identical size, should differ so greatly in their outward characteristics and in the relative sizes of their tax bases. How does it happen that Augusta can furnish some of the most essential public services and educational facilities, and Lincoln apparently cannot? An analysis of what constitutes economic base and tax base reveals the answers.

Since the principal factor in the economic base at Augusta is ranching, it follows that the economy is quite stable, encouraging permanent residents and businesses in the town serving the ranching community. This, in turn, encourages construction and purchase of permanenttype homes and commercial building, contributing materially to the tax base. As mentioned above, most of the land in the school district is on the tax rolls and contributing to the tax base. Lincoln, on the other hand, has, for the past 15 years, been heavily dependent on logging and lumbering and mining exploration activity for much of its economic base. A few modern homes have been built during this period, but more than half the population live either in trailer homes or in made-over summer cabins which cannot be considered anything but substandard housing. Accordingly, the tax base has not expanded in proportion to the increase in the population. We are critically short of rental housing but no new units have been built for several years. The result is a tax base within the town itself of only $246,445 taxable value, a base so small that we are unable to furnish our citizens with any essential public services, as is dramatically demonstrated in our need for sewage disposal.

In the summer of 1967, the Helena engineering firm of MorrisonMaierle, Inc., sent engineers out to Lincoln to look the situation over. Since no money was available to pay them to make a real engineering study upon which to base firm cost estimates, the best they could do was to give us a very rough, educated guess of $300,000 for planning and construction of a disposal system, a figure they admitted was very probably low. Considering that construction costs are rising very rapidly, a more realistic figure today might be $350,000. Assuming we might obtain maximum Federal grants totaling about $100,000, we would have to raise $250,000 ourselves. Unfortunately, the legal limit to which we could issue general obligation bonds for this purpose is only about $45,000 or less than one-fifth of what would be needed.

The pitcure is equally dismal in respect to our other critical needa new elementary school and a high school. Our grade school is an outmoded firetrap, bursting at the seams. Our high school students must either live away from home or travel 60 miles to Augusta or to Seeley Lake daily. It is sufficient to say that for Lincoln to duplicate the Seeley-Swan High School would cost us very close to $300,000 but our bonding capacity to finance it is estimated at less than half that amount.

We must now inquire into why our capacity for public finance is so far short of our most pressing needs. I do not wish to anger anyone who works for the Forest Service or who works in the lumbering industry, but I feel compelled to recite here the harsh facts of our economic situation, since I am unaware that anyone else has taken the time and trouble to uncover them. The men who work in the woods and sawmills are hard-working people doing dangerous jobs. I have no doubt that Lincoln merchants deeply appreciate their patronage, but the inescapable conclusion which must be drawn is that, on the average, these people do not, under the conditions prevailing in their industry today in the Lincoln area, earn sufficient annual incomes to enable them to invest in homes and other taxable property which would make a fair contribution to the tax base. It is not their fault. It is the fault of a basic policy decision made many years ago by the