Mr. QUICK. In all probability I would not have made the decision, and certainly we would not stand in the way of progress. On our refuges some exploratory work has been conducted. We do recognize the need for certain strategic metals.

Congressman WHITE. You certainly want fishhooks; don't you? Mr. QUICK. I haven't done much fishing personally, Congressman. Perhaps we could do like the boys in Alaska do, or the Eskimos; they use bones for fishhooks.

Congressman WHITE. If we did that we could conserve some more

iron.

Mr. GOLDY. I wonder if Mr. Callahan could explain how he got elected senator without being a hunter or fisherman? His is the first case I ever hear of.

Mr. CALLAHAN. I don't like to say this in the presence of the hunters and fishing people, but I always considered when I got down in the legislature that the men in the house would be the ones to look after the hunting and fishing laws; I didn't want any mix-up with those guys at all, and kept out of trouble by not doing so.

Mr. GOLDY. I wonder if we can hear from Mr. Vaught, representing the livestock industry?

Mr. VAUGHT. Speaking for the Idaho cattlemen, we could endorse the proposal you have made here, or one similarly worded, provided the language in its didn't handicap the mining industry in any way and still gave other segments of industry the rights and privileges of the surface.

Mr. GOLDY. Thank you, Mr. Vaught. Any other comments from the livestock representatives here?

Mr. STANFIELD. About all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, in listening to this discussion, there's a lot of it I have been quite familiar with, especially the Rogue River country and different sections of Oregon. I do know that the Rogue River from Gold Beach up for a hundred miles is some of the finest fishing and ranks close to it of hunting that there is any place in the State of Oregon, and I do know that filings have been made, hundreds of them, to take that land not specifically for mineral, there is mineral there, but those claims to a great extent have been disposed of to people from San Francisco and Hollywood who come in there and now control, those people control the better part of the hunting and fishing in the lower Rogue River, so that it certainly has been abused.

I think one of the principal things we're interested in is in drawing a law or revamping a law that gives protection to every interested party, without abuses. I think it's the abuses that have been discussed here more than anything else. I'm sure that as far as the Coeur d'Alene country, the sunshine country over here where Mr. Callahan comes from and our Congressman comes from, their interest and their condition is different from what it is in other sections. Now then, I am personally familiar with that country down around Bend where you talk about the pumice, and Tommy Connelly has gone in and got possession of the land, and he's making a very nice living from the sale of pumice, but as you stated before, there's only a very small amount of that taken out, and I can't see why it's necessary to allow them to disturb at this time the forest lands or the timber just for the pumice that is there.

I think we must be terribly careful about hampering the development of subsurface resources; I think by all means the prospector should be encouraged and that the subsurfaces should be explored, but I think in doing so that they should be careful that they don't have to disturb too much of the surface or interfere too much with the other uses like the timber or the grazing or that part. The thing we're particularly interested in is the surface, the people coming in and taking abuses and taking a number of claims that they don't expect to use, that they're just exploiting, that they're going to hold over a period of years and turn around and tell us if we're going to get a little water we have to pay them so much, or control a bunch of grazing land; those are the things we are interested in.

I am sure we can sit down with the mining people, especially with people like Mr. Callahan and Mr. Oscarson in their condition, and work out something that is going to take care of us nonmining people; I am sure that the lumber people can do it, and I am sure that the Department of the Interior and the people handling it at the present time desire it, desire to work out something harmonious. How they're going to work it out is a problem. I'm just sure when it gets back to Congress the people from New Jersey are going to say this or that, we'll wonder what interest they have in it, and somebody from Alabama, and our Mr. Congressman is going to say "Where does he come into it?" but he has some other power group or recreation or Izaak Walton or somebody else that has gone to the outside to bring him in to bring pressure to bear. I know those things happen. I've had enough association with Government to know that even the localities oftentimes are not allowed to say the things that are of interest to that particular locality.

One thing I know is the building of the Longview Bridge for the Weyerhaeuser people across the Columbia River. The people of Portland and vicinity were very much opposed to the building of the bridge on account of the waterway. I know organizations said "It's worth so much money to us if we don't have to go outside to get this done, but if it isn't done, we're going to get it." I know in Congress, regardless of Senator McNary and Senator Stanfield, from down in Tennessee, a bill was introduced for the building of the Longview Bridge; and I know our Congressman is thinking about some of those things at this time, and I think we've gone a long way and got pretty close together, and Mr. Callahan and Mr. Oscarson and the wildlife people and all, a little group can sit down and probably draft something that is going to take care of this, and maybe something can be work out.

Mr. GOLDY. Are you suggesting, Mr. Stanfield, sir, perhaps what we ought to do is have a very small group, as Mr. Callahan and Mr. Oscarson and the members of the industry make some progress, that maybe we have a small group?

Mr. STANFIELD. That's what I suggest; I think we can get something done.

Congressman WHITE. Would you put any prospectors or mining people on the group?

Mr. STANFIELD. I think they should be protected.

Congressman WHITE. Would they be in this group?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I'm too old to start prospecting.

Congressman WHITE. We're going to bring you some able help. Mr. GRAY. This gentleman here from the recreation, he said 14,000 people belong to this Sierra group, a national recreation group. Did you ever stop to think that perhaps 10,000,000 people have got their money invested in Bunker Hill, Hecla, and other mining properties in the United States that need protection too, and they've got a vital interest in it, their life savings are in those stocks, that they expect to get an income out of, widows and orphans, and when you condemn mining, which is one of the basic industries of this country, and start making new laws and changing laws, you upset the whole industry. Mr. GOLDY. I'd like to make this one comment; it's true there are millions of people who could get very quickly aroused on both the side of the mining industry or recreation or lumber or livestock, and one of the reasons we want to have these meetings of this sort is so that we can sit around as reasonable people and try to arrive at reasonable agreements instead of making the problems a test of strength against the millions of people who could be mobilized on one thing, and the millions on the other.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, the position that the wildlife people or that the game and fisheries industry take isn't one of condemning anyone, that isn't our position at all. We recognize, and recognized every year from time to time we have problems with various groups represented here today and yesterday. It's our position if we are ever to get at these problems we're going to get at them by sitting down such as we are today and appraising you people, the mining people, of what our problem is, and that the substantial operator is going to recognize those.

It's a matter of cooperation, it isn't an issue to condemn or jeopardize any particular industry, and I'm sure that's the position that the States, so far as the game and fisheries people represented here today take; I know that's the case in Oregon. In fact, we don't want to incur any undue problem on the part of the mining people in the State of Oregon. On the contrary, we want to see it encouraged. However, there are certain problems which if we have an opportunity to call them to your attention, we believe that we can benefit by them, and that is in essence our position, I believe, in connection with these problems.

Congressman WHITE. Mr. Chairman, to supplement what the gentleman said, I want to call your attention to the fact that when the legislation was under consideration to authorize a tunnel through the Continental Divide, the Colorado-Big Thompson project going under and did not touch the boundary of the Rocky Mountain National Park to bring water out on that eastern side of Colorado east of the mountains, the project was very strenuously opposed by many of these wildlife organizations including the Audubon Society; I won't say Fish and Wildlife Service, I remember all the game people were there opposing the project, and the only thing that saved that project was the fact when the legislation was passed establishing the Rocky Mountain National Park, there was a specific provision in the law giving permit for this tunnel, and the tunnel that went under the Rocky Mountain National Park never touched the park, it run way under, way below, and didn't come anywhere in the boundaries, but just the same we had to sit there and listen for 2 or 3 days to the advocates

of the Audubon Society and the other, I can't name them all, but people interested in wildlife, they thought that tunnel running under that park would some way disturb the game up in the higher region; that's the absurdity to which some of this stuff is being carried.

Mr. QUICK. I would like to insert this thought, that it's not only the recreational interests involved. It's estimated that salmon fishery, commercial fishery values of the Columbia River and its tributaries total some $20,000,000 annually. That I think you will agree is big business. Now, if by pollution or other methods those spawning beds are destroyed it's a matter of vital interest to the fisheries, just as some of these problems are vital to you people in the mining industry. Certainly it seems to me it's a matter of reasonableness on the part of all. You must recognize certain problems, we must recognize certain problems, but we can't overlook the fact that by pollution of streams we are also getting entirely away from the recreational standpoint, that we can't step on the toes of another big industry, so I think it behooves us to sit down and work out these problems. Congressman WHITE. Are you interested in protecting the fish and wildlife, or is your interest in curtailing the mining industry?

Mr. QUICK. No, I want to make that clear; I didn't take time to read the preamble, and we did make a statement that we are in sympathy with and recognize the need of the mining industry, we certainly do.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I believe we should emphasize again this particular point that seems to be felt, that we are not interested in curtailing any present or potential future mining activities. We feel that there are a lot of practical approaches on problems which may be incurred as the result of general mining activity, that if by us working with you people we can save our resources and at the same time utilize the minimum of resources that you're after. I'm sure that probably there are some problems incurred under certain types of mining activities that perhaps you people aren't aware of so far as we're concerned, and if we have these opportunities to call them to your attention maybe we can work out some practical solution.

Mr. GOLDY. I'd like to say that the comments just made by Mr. Stanfield and others who have stood up, things that Mr. Callahan and Mr. Oscarson said, what Frank Sever said before, leads me to believe that while it will be impossible (and I fully appreciated, I think, when I started today), to reach a solution on some of these very difficult and complicated problems that we've been discussing here, I think it would be very well if we could get together in a small committee in the future to see if we can't sit down and work out the details of some kind of an approach to this problem which would accomplish what we're all after, a vigorous, aggressive, prosperous mining industry, and still solve some of the problems which some of our mining men in this area have really heard about for the first time, and giving them an opportunity to consult among themselves to see what solutions they have to suggest. I think it might be very helpful if we could again have in a smaller group representatives of the lumber, livestock, wildlife and the mining industry to see if we can't come closer to an agreement, and then if we could do it, take that suggested agreement and distribute it around to everyone who has attended this conference to see if we can't get a broad based agreement. If we can reach an agreetent then I think our good friend the Congressman would have some