today would have to offer a 5-percent coupon in order to sell. Marketed on a sustained-yield basis, the reservation timber could not possibly bear that rate of interest, presuming that the purchase price would give a fair return to the Klamath Indians.

We feel that the only solution that offers a fair return to the Klamath Indians and that will protect the watershed and economy of this area, is plan 3, purchase by the Federal Government. It is experienced in the long-range management of large timber tracts on a sustained-yield basis. While many of us are opposed to Government ownership of any more of this area, we see no other solution. The Federal Government is already trustee for the Klamath Indians. It has an obligation to them by treaty. Purchase by the Federal Government should provide for a fair price to the Klamath Indians. These people should not be required to subsidize continued sustained-yield management. Marsh areas now

owned by the tribe could be made more productive of pasture with a minimum amount of reclamation. Those areas more suitable for wildfowl should be left undisturbed except that a provision should be made for public shooting on a fair proportion of the reserve.

We believe that the Congress was wise in decreeing the termination of the Klamath Indian Reservation by Public Law 587. For over 50 years, we have seen the ever-increasing deterioration of the moral fiber of the Klamath Indians. The per capita payments have become nothing but a dole. They have destroyed the initiative and ambition that many of the Klamaths once had. We believe that some system of payment to the Indians after the purchase by the Federal Government can be worked out, so that minors and those incapable of handling large sums of money because of inexperience, can be paid off in serial coupon bonds. Those capable of handling sizable amounts of money should be offered the option of taking their share in a lump sum at a reasonable discount, so that they may have the opportunity to go in business for themselves or invest the money as they see fit. Some method can surely be evolved to encourage initiative and ambition which the present system has certainly destroyed.

The Federal Government does not hesitate to spend a hundred million dollars for the economic and social welfare of foreign countries, with small chance of any direct return. Why should it hesitate to invest a like amount in the welfare of an American community where it already has a treaty obligation and it will have an excellent chance to get back its investment in hard cash and indirect benefits?

We therefore recommend to your committee the Federal purchase of the Klamath Indian Reservation.

Respectfully,

THE UNDERSIGNED.

(The complete exhibit containing 436 signatures is a part of the committee's file.)

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Reid. Are there any questions you would like to ask Mr. Reid? I just have one question. I noticed you referred to public shooting on a portion of the marsh. That isn't incompatible in your mind, is it, with the provisions in S. 2047 that would include some 70,000 acres of the marsh in a waterfowl refuge under the Fish and Wildlife Service?

Mr. REID. No, I don't think it is incompatible. I don't believe that there is much over 20,000 in the marsh that is not privately owned. I think there are some 20,000 acres that are still tribal lands. I could see no objection to public hunting. I know it is a wonderful nesting area. I lived up there for two summers. I don't believe that hunting in the fall has any bad effect at all on the nesting part of it. I think in all our reserve areas a certain proportion should be set aside for public hunting.

Senator NEUBERGER. What is the situation on areas like the Malheur refuge and others? Do they allow hunting?

Mr. REID. I don't know what proportion. I believe there is some area over there. We have limited public hunting areas down here in

the reserve across the California line in Tulelake and in the lower Klamath.

Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. Wolf, you have been with the Interior Department conservation agencies. What are the rules with regard to hunting on wildlife sanctuaries and reserves?

Mr. WOLF. I have never had any experience with the Fish and Wildlife Service, but I think we could ask them to supply for the record what their policy is.

Senator NEUBERGER. I would like to have that. Mr. Sigler, would you get for us from the Fish and Wildlife Service a comprehensive statement governing hunting in and along the reserves and waterfowl sanctuaries?

Mr. SIGLER. Yes, I shall.

Mr. REID. Senator, I think some representatives of sportmen's associations will probably discuss that.

Senator NEUBERGER. I appreciate your calling this to our attention, too, and thank you very much, Mr. Reid.

(The following information was subsequently submitted:)

Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., October 31, 1957.

Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: During your recent subcommittee hearings in Klamath Falls, Oreg., on October 2, 1957, you asked for information about hunting and fishing on wildlife refuges administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Migratory bird and wildlife refuges fall into three general categories:

1. Refuges established under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of February 18, 1929 (45 Stat. 1222, 16 U. S. C. 715), as amended. Under section 5 of that act, the refuges are inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds. Inviolate sanctuary means that the birds are to have undisturbed use of the lands.

The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 451, 16 U. S. C. 718), supplements the Migratory Bird Conservation Act by providing funds for the acquisition of areas, but it does not change the status of the refuges as inviolate sanctuaries.

2. Areas acquired with duck stamp funds under the act of August 12, 1949 (63 Stat. 599), which was an amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Under section 4 of this act, the areas acquired with duck stamp funds become parts of inviolate sanctuaries under the 1929 act, but "in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior not to exceed 25 per centum at any one time, of any area acquired in accordance with the provisions of this Act, may be administered primarily as a wildlife management area not subject to the prohibitions against the taking of birds, or nests or the eggs thereof, as contained in section 10 of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of February 18, 1929 (45 Stat. 1222; 16 U. S. C. 715i), as amended, except that no such area shall be open to the shooting of migratory birds when the population of such birds frequenting the area or in the migrations utilizing such area is on a decline, nor prior to July 1, 1952, or the date upon which the same has been fully developed as a management area, refuge, reservation, or breeding ground, whichever is later."

3. Wildlife refuges created by special act of Congress or by a withdrawal of public lands where hunting and fishing is permitted in accordance with rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior.

Sincerely yours,

ROSS LEFFLER, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Senator NEUBERGER. As long as this matter has been raised, I am going to read a very brief telegram from a gentleman who was to have been a witness here today, but cannot be here. State Representative

Joseph S. Crepeau, of Lane County, has been quite well known as a conservationist and, if I am not mistaken, I think has a small cabin himself somewhere near the agency lake. It is addressed to me as chairman of the subcommittee:

Matter of extreme urgency prevents my testifying in Klamath Falls but I would appreciate your placing me on record. Together with any other sportsman I feel that the preservation of the 68,000 acres of upper marshlands should if possible be preserved as a waterfowl sanctuary. This area is eight times as large as Summer Lake shooting grounds, and contains many thousand more geese and ducks. It is probably the largest waterfowl congregating place on the Pacific coast. I cannot urge too strongly that preservation of this area is a must. Sorry that I cannot be with you in person.

J. S. CREPEAU.

Our next witness is Mr. William Ganong, Jr., representing the Chamber of Commerce of Klamath Falls, Indian Affairs Committee. Mr. Ganong, we are happy to have you here.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GANONG, JR., INDIAN AFFAIRS COM

MITTEE, KLAMATH FALLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. WILLIAM GANONG, Jr. Mr. Chairman, in order to save the time of the committee, the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce has prepared a written statement of its position for inclusion in the record.

Senator NEUBERGER. I just want to say at this point that without objection the entire statement presented by the chamber of commerce will appear in the hearing record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE KLAMATH COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

I

The following statement is submitted in behalf of the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce:

The Klamath County Chamber of Commerce is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon with its principal place of business at 323 Main Street, Klamath Falls, Oreg. It is a member of the United States Chamber of Commerce. Its membership of 600 firms, business men, and professional men represents the business leadership of Klamath County.

The object of the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce is to promote the agriculture, commercial, economic, industrial, civic, and social interests of Klamath County, Oreg. To attain these objectives the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce by action of the organization and through the work of its various committees dedicates itself to the preservation of the American economic system and the American way of life with special emphasis on: (1) The dignity of the individual; (2) private ownership of property; (3) a free market; (4) profit, wage, and salary incentives; (5) free competition; (6) opposition to the encroachment of government, except where no alternative possibly exists, upon the prerogatives of our system of free enterprise.

II

In February 1954, after the introduction of Senate bill 2745 in the 2d session of the 83d Congress the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce stated its position as follows:

"The Klamath County Chamber of Commerce in the past has consistently taken the position that the question of terminations of the Federal trusteeship over the Klamath Tribe of Indians is primarily a matter to be determined by the tribe and that no policy should be established by the chamber on this matter until the tribe itself had acted. There is no question but that the reservation system as it has existed in the past and now exists is an anachronism and that

it is not in the best interest of either the Indian or non-Indian residents of Klamath County that it continue indefinitely into the future, but the Klamath Reservation and the Federal trusteeship were established by a treaty which was duly ratified by the United States, and such an agreement should be terminated or amended only by mutual consent of the contracting parties. However, when the contracting parties agree, as they now appear on the verge of doing, that the reservation shall terminate, then the question of how it shall be terminated is of direct and vital concern to every resident, taxpayer, and businessman in Klamath County, Oreg., and is the legitimate business of the chamber of commerce."

III

In January 1954, Senate bill 2745 (83d Cong., 2d sess.) entitled "A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Klamath Tribe of Indians located in the State of Oregon and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes" was introduced in the United States Senate. This bill was prepared by the Bureau of Indian Affairs by direct order of Congress (see H. Con. Res. 108, 83d Cong.), and it was a bill of which the Bureau frankly warned the Joint Subcommittee on Indian Affairs "*** we had no pride of authorship ***" (joint hearings before subcommittee of Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs, 83d Cong., 2d sess., on Senate bill 2745 and H. R. 7230, pt. 4, p. 252).

However, whatever its defects may have been, Senate bill 2745 did recognize that further study and planning would be necessary before any intelligent disposition could be made of the tribal assets. It was an enabling act. It established machinery whereby at a future date, after a period of study and recommendation by qualified specialists, the tribe might prepare and submit to the Secretary of the Interior a plan for future control of tribal property. Section 5 of the bill authorized the tribe to select and retain the services of qualified specialists for the purpose of making studies and reports of its reservation resources and recommendations for the management thereof, such studies and reports to "include but not be limited to the feasibility of a continuation of the practice of sustained-yield management of the Kalmath Indian Forest." The tribe was to have 2 years from the date of the act to prepare and submit to the Secretary a plan or plans for the management of tribal property. The bill envisaged that 3 years after the date of the act and after a referendum of the adult members of the tribe, the Secretary would transfer title to all tribal property to a corporation or other legal entity organized by the tribe or to one or more trustees designated by the tribe to be held for management or liquidation purposes under such terms and conditions as might be specified by the tribe and approved by the Secretary. If the tribe failed to act any tribal property not transferred was to be transferred by the Secretary to trustees selected by him for the liquidation and distribtuion of assets among members of the tribe. This was a bill with which the chamber felt it could agree in principle and after making certain recommendations for specific changes the chamber went on record as follows: "*** it is the opinion of the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce that the bill is a fair bill and as well designed as possible to meet the complex problems involved in terminating Federal control and if the principles and recommendations herein set forth are embodied in the final version of the bill, particularly in those affecting fishing rights and irrigation projects, that the bill should be passed by Congress."

Unfortunately, the bill which was passed by Congress bore little resemblance, insofar as the disposition of the tribal assets was concerned, with Senate bill 2745 upon which hearing was held in Klamath County and which was studied and discussed by the chamber and by the people of this county.

The Congress substituted for section 5 of Senate bill 2745 the present section 5 of Public Law 587 which eliminated the period of further study and planning and substituted a crash program for the sale of tribal assets. This was done without the knowledge of the people of Klamath County. In fact, the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce was unaware that this amendment had been made until after the bill had been enacted and signed by the President. There was absolutely no advance warning ever given the people of this county that Congress intended to make this change and radically depart from the bill upon which hearing had been held in this county.

IV

Section 5 of Public Law 587 still remains intact. The stopgap amendment, Public Law 85-132 (85th Cong., 1st sess.) does provide a new section 27 which postpones any sales of tribal property until the adjournment of the second session of Congress, but unless Public Law 587 is further amended when the 85th Congress adjourns in late summer or early fall of 1958, the management specialists will be forced to commence immediate sale of "the portion of tribal property which if sold at the appraised value would provide sufficient funds to pay the members who elect to have their interests converted into money." Since their appointment, the Management Specialists have, pursuant to the authority vested in them by the act, caused studies and reports to be made. These indicate that approximately 70 percent of the members of the tribe will withdraw. If this occurs it will mean that an estimated 3,200,000,000 boardfeet of tribally owned timber will be sold for cash to the highest bidder, just as fast as the Management Specialists can arrange for its sale. The peak production of lumber in Klamath County reached 874,954,000 board-feet in 1942 due to the demands of the war (World War II). Since that time many mills have been closed down and dismantled and lumber production has gradually decreased and leveled off at about 350 million board-feet a year. In other words, unless section 5 is amended there will be placed on the auction block for immediate cash value a volume of timber nearly 4 times as great as the maximum cut ever achieved in any 1 year (and that to meet the abnormal demand of a wartime economy) and nearly 9 times the average cut of recent years.

One does not need to be an economist to foresee the result. The elementary law of supply and demand will dictate the price which the Klamath Indians will receive for their timber. In addition, every experienced businessman knows that when any property must be sold at forced sale for cash, at best it seldom brings the top price. Further adverse factors are: that saw logs are a commodity which cannot economically be transported any great distance to market but must be converted into lumber in the approximate area in which cut; that timber is a very expensive commodity to keep in its natural state a very great length of time due to taxes, interest on investment, cost of first protection, and risk of loss; and that the lumber market has for the past year been in a depressed state. When these factors are all considered it becomes apparent that barring some unforeseen turn of events, the Klamath Indians who elect to withdraw are going to be forced to sell their timber at a substantial discount and will not receive the fair return which they should expect to receive if it were marketed in an orderly manner.

However, a greater loss will be the loss to the Nation if the Klamath tribal forest is destroyed. Here is one of the great pine forests of the Nation. It is a great reservoir of timber upon which the Nation has been able to call in two World Wars and its existence has created a stability and permanence in the pine market. If properly managed, as it has been in the past, it will contribute to the Nation's economy forever. But if destroyed through clear cutting, it cannot be replaced in a hundred years of intensive tree planting and timber farming. In effect, it is gone forever. All that will remain will be pumice wastelands good for little but grazing.

What will the Nation have lost when this has occurred?

On December 31, 1954, after 42 years of intensive logging operations on the Klamath Reservation a total of 4,674,000,000 board-feet of logs had been removed under contract by private operators from 538,000 acres of tribal and allotted forest lands. This, when converted to lumber scale, would be sufficient to furnish lumber enough to house all the people of San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland. This represented the virgin growth. But despite the removal of this timber due to scientific sustained-yield practices employed there remains a stand of more than 2,900,000,000 board-feet of timber on these cutover lands. In addition to some 1,300,000,000 board-feet on uncut tribal lands, it is scientifically and conservatively estimated that if these sustained-yield practices are continued that the Klamath tribal forest can contribute an annual cut of approximately 76 million board-feet a year to the Nation's economy forever.

If the tribal forest is clean cut as would appear inevitable if the present law is allowed to remain in effect, how will the Nation replace this 76 million boardfeet of timber per year which the tribal forests are capable of producing in perpetuity? The answer is that it cannot be replaced. It is gone and the United States, which since World War II has been transformed from a have to a have not nation in the matter of timber resources, will become increasingly dependent upon imports from foreign nations.