canned that. It was a 16-hour day just to feed and clothe the family and 

 according to Dr. McConnon's statistics, to sell to six other people. 

 Contrast this with the life that evolved as the farm efficiency grew and 

 the rural people were reduced in numbers as they went to the urban areas 

 to work and we all know what our standard of living is today with 40-hour 

 work weeks and more and more people attending universities, obtaining 

 degrees, preparing them for hundreds and thousands of other jobs and 

 hopefully learning how to use their leisure time. 



Although I say that I look back on my boyhood with nostalgia, I must 

 admit that I prefer to adjust the thermostat rather than harness a team 

 and drive one or two miles to a coal mine and spend the better part of the 

 day mining coal. I have no desire to return to those days. I remark on 

 these events only to emphasize that we have changed our way of life in 

 this nation and this world. Thre is no turning back. I am sure we all 

 know that. There is no such thing as being independent of others as we 

 were on our farm in my youth. Today, like it or not, we are here in 

 Montana and the West depends on Peoria, Chicago, New York and all the 

 other sections of the industrial parts of this nation. And yes, of this 

 world. For our freezers, refrigerators, appliances, transportation, 

 communication, drugs, hospital supplies, clothes and all the things that 

 sustain life itself, just as these areas are dependent on us for food, 

 lumber and energy which go into the commerce of the nation and the world 

 to supply the needs of each and everyone of us. So when we ask 

 ourselves what are the demands of the nation for our western resources, I 

 say we must respond with a knowledge. . .we must go into the life-stream of 

 commerce, just as vital to the West's survivial as it is to the East's, 

 North's and South's survival. 



Use of these resources doesn't mean destruction of these resources. 

 Admitedly, oil and coal is nonrenewable and we use it knowing that we 

 must develop alternative sources at some future time or as soon as 

 possible. Conservation must be foremost and used by all as one of the 

 energy tools. But while it's substantial, it is limited to probably 10 or 20 

 percent at the most of our energy supplies. The answer for our future 

 has to be the wise use and development of our renewable and nonrenewable 

 resources within the framework of our excellent environmental laws, and I 

 presume that that is where we might have some arguments. Are they 

 excellent environmental laws? We hear they are and I presume that it's all 

 in the manner in which they're enforced, in which they're interpreted. We 

 would assume that they should be good laws and we would hope that if 

 they aren't, if they don't prove to be good laws that they should be 

 adjusted. 



But it should be an orderly development. Timber is an absolute must 

 in our future needs. It is renewable and if properly managed, it can 

 supply us with literally thousands of our shelter, paper and chemical 

 requirements. We must resit the urge to lock up too much of our timber 

 resources in wilderness areas, instead of intensely managing them on a 

 rotation system. By proper management we can have fine recreation areas 

 and still supply ou housing, paper and chemcical needs available from our 

 timber. I have long advocated that we have a good rotation program, a 

 good timber management program. I strongly feel that we are perhaps 

 locking up too much of our timber and wilderness areas. I feel that they 

 can be rotated and I know that we have lots of contrary opinions on that 



