STATEMENT OF DON CLARKE, DIRECTOR OF GAME, STATE OF WASHINGTON Mr. CLARKE. I think Tom Murray, of Idaho, covered the situation very well. In our State our principal problem is in disrupting spawning beds and in pollution of streams by dumping refuse from the mines, in some cases cyanides, into our streams. That's our principal objection, and we're more fortunate in Washington probably than in Idaho; we don't have the mining that they do have in Idaho; but I would like to discuss it further at the conference later. Mr. GOLDY. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Any other representatives here from recreation and wildlife groups who would like to make any comments at this time? Mr. P. W. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, Schneider is my name, from the Oregon State Game Commission; and Mr. Murray and Mr. Clarke have covered our position just about as we see it. We would like to participate in this general conference tomorrow. Mr. GOLDY. We'll be very glad to have you at the sessions this afternoon and tomorrow. Congressman WHITE. One question, Mr. Chairman. You said you favored what Mr. Murray said. Do you favor leasing of the mineral resources? You favor that, do you, as advocated by Mr. Murray? I want to ask Mr. Clarke, representing the State of Washington, Do you favor what Mr. Murray advocated, the leasing system for the utilization of our mineral resources? Mr. CLARKE. I haven't even had a chance to give it any thought, Congressman. Congressman WHITE. You haven't formed any opinion on it? Mr. CLARKE. No; because I don't think this is the time for discussion. I think that discussion period is later. Congressman WHITE. Well, I'm just asking for an opinion. You've already said you favor everything he advocates. Do you favor the same thing? Mr. SCHNEIDER. We're interested in an opportunity to discuss with the group here the problem of surface rights. Congressman WHITE. I hope to have the privilege of interrogating you a little further on the subject. Mr. SCHNEIDER. All right, sir. Mr. GOLDY. In order so that we don't get too bogged down in the agenda this afternoon, and leave plenty of time of the sort that Congressman White wants for general discussion, I'd like to call on one or two individuals now before we adjourn for lunch. I'd like to call first on Mr. R. U. Harmon, Recreation and Lands Division, United States Forest Service, Missoula, Mont. MINING-LAW PROBLEMS IN RELATION TO PUBLIC LAND ADMINISTRATION STATEMENT OF R. U. HARMON, RECREATION AND LANDS DIVISION, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, NORTHERN REGION, MISSOULA, MONT. Mr. HARMON. Region I of the Forest Service includes a part of South Dakota, Montana, north Idaho-that portion north of the Salmon River-and the northeast corner of the State of Washington. The existing mining law is troublesome to the Forest Service in administering the national forests. The trouble we experience is largely due to individuals using the mining law to secure an equity in property in order to obtain rights, values, and privileges not contemplated by the mining law. The Forest Service is interested in the development and sound use of the resources of the Nation. Legitimate mining operations are encouraged, since the manpower, equipment, and cooperation we receive as a result of such operations are of material assistance in administering the national forests. You and I are taxpayers and as such are vitally interested in the laws of the Nation and of the States. The present mining law is costing you and me and the public thousands of dollars each year in this region. One principal item of expense is the cost of contesting claims that are not considered legitimate under the terms of the mining law. RegionI of the Forest Service has several cases at the present time that have involved several years of work to bring to a head and each will cost the Government well over $1,000 to prosecute. The claimant will lose time and money. No one profits from such transactions; Federal employees are diverted from other constructive work, and the Federal courts become more congested, delaying action on other cases of more importance. The Forest Service contests all applications for patents that its mineral examiner reports to be an invalid claim. We also contest claims not up for patent if the claimant is using such claim for other than mining purposes. We consider our actions in such cases as necessary to redeem our responsibility to Congress, which by law delegated the responsibility of administering the national forests to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Forest Service. Our past experience has indicated that a careful examination of only a limited number of mining claims is essential. Human nature being what it is, we know that a few individuals seek to possess property that has or may have potential value. The mining laws are used by such people as a subterfuge to secure title to property for its values other than minerals. Even legitimate mining operators will use the law to acquire nonmineral land. We have many cases where a company or group of individuals will file for patent a group of claims. Upon examination it is frequently found that several of the claims are valid but the rest have no discovery but were included for protection purposes in the hopes that they would slide through. This is a misuse of the law. In carefully reviewing mining applications we endeavor to protect the Government's interest. We have thousands of mining claims in this region that have been patented for many years but to this day have nothing but a discovery hole, no real develepment work having been undertaken. If a small part of the patented mining claims, if they support the minerals they were claimed to contain at the time they went to patent, were placed in production, the mineral requirements of the Nation would be more than met. Many of these claims went to patent with the owner knowing full well they would not be used for mining purposes. Many now support summer homes, resorts, and pastures, while many more were acquired for the timber values. Many claims are tax delinquent and titles so badly involved that a legitimate mining operator would hesitate to invest capital in development work. These old claims within the national forests are a real problem to the Forest Service. Frequently they are strategically located at the mouth of a canyon or occupy extensive areas in valley floors. When the Government starts to develop the resource, the first problem is to secure rights-of-way for roads. It is not uncommon for the Government to pay far more for a road right-of-way than it originally received for the entire claim. Frequently these claims occupy the only logical site for logging camps, sawmills, landings, and so forth, and the purchaser of Government stumpage must pay a high price for the use of the claim. This is reflected in lower stumage prices, less income to the Treasury of the United States, and more taxes for you and me to pay. Invariably such claims occupy the most desirable site for camp and picnic areas and probably have their highest use for such service to the public. It is not at all uncommon to find such claims so located that the public is deprived of the free use of adjacent national forest land. Perhaps the most serious handicap to good administration is the thousands of claims that have been filed on over the years with poor location notices, poor descriptions, inaccurate filings, and impossible to locate on the ground. Filings are at the county offices and are frequently difficult to run down and identify. These claims are to some extent a lien on the property. The Forest Service programs a timber sale, a group of summer homes, a resort, ranger station, or what not, and we never know for sure whether there are claims in existence. Claim markings become obliterated over the years, the location notice is not specific as to section, township, and range, and with all the care we can exercise we may inadvertently obligate land only to find that a claim has been in existence for many years. Somehow these old claims, unpatented, should be cleared from the records. It should not be possible to so confuse our land titles over a period of many years without having some time limit that periodically or in a given time cancels old claims and leaves the land unencumbered for full use and development by others. Thousands of placer claims have been patented, most of which were acquired prior to the creation of the national forests. In many instances the gold values were removed prior to patent or shortly thereafter. A large percentage of these claims are of low value except to produce timber or for the nuisance value they create by complicating the management of the adjacent land. We have reacquired many such claims. However, this is not considered a good procedure since if we acquire the claims under the general-exchange law such lands are again subject to mineral entry. Thus one could conceivably enter into a continuous cycle obviously to the detriment of the public interest. Because of this, many owners of claims are deprived of the opportu |