In most wilderness areas, the areas do not have the organized campouts that are being placed in San Gorgonio at this particular time.. Any area the size of San Gorgonio, at least the area that is used, the records show that there are between 50,000 and 60,000 youths using the area.

When does the wilderness status of that thing start to change?

Reverend LEOVY. Well, it is an interesting area. It is not as rugged as some of the terrain up in your district, however, Mr. Johnson. Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I was thinking that here the area is used a little different than some of the wilderness area up in my district at the present time.

We have been told that its use increases. As southern California grows, I imagine more and more people will go in there as the access becomes better.

Reverend LEOVY. Yes; I think there is a point there, that summer users are probably easier on it than winter users because, for one thing, they can get their water from the streams, for instance. They do not have to have it piped to them.

I love to ski, but when I ski I would like to go first class. Once a year we will do something like that, like going into San Gorgonio; but, by and large, you know, you have to have some comforts. The weather is against you. The present use has been by and large concentrated in precisely the areas or area that both our side and the skiers' side is talking about.

I have talked to some of the Forest Service people on this.

There is hope that the organizational camps--and this is beginning to happen already-will begin to spread their use into some of the other area that was a little less inviting initially.

The heart of this will remain a novice area and some of this heavy use that you are talking about could be spread over the area into these areas that are a little less desirable, not only for our kind of use but also for the skiers'.

Mr. JOHNSON. You say the person that skis in San Gorgonio is a heavier user of the area than the wilderness area users?

Reverend LEOVY. No. I think they are winter users; the winter people who use this area-well, you know you cannot send people in there to get caught in a storm without having some kind of shelter for them.

It seems to me that unless they know what they are about, like a few skiers who go in there now do know; whereas, the summer users go in and the worst thing that is going to happen to them is that they might get caught in a rainstorm.

When they carry the stuff on their back-our gang took in shelter halves and pitched their tents at various places-so that kind of impact in terms of numbers is a lot less, even though you may be dealing with approximately the same number of people.

They do not have to have piped water because the streams are not frozen in the summer, as an example.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I must disagree with you that the winter use is harder on the area; because, by far, the summer users are much harder on an area. There would have to be some limitations placed there, I would think.

Reverend LEOVY. That may be true.

58-133-67-10

Mr. JOHNSON. If you are going to protect that as a true wilderness area, it seems to me there would have to be some limitations.

Reverend LEOVY. Yes, that is right, sir. But 20 years from now it might not even be possible; 20 years from now it will not be the answer to the ski problem either.

Mr. JOHNSON. It would at least be one ski area.

Reverend LEOVY. One among many; yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. BARING. Thank you, sir.

Now, our next speaker, Mr. Lundberg.

STATEMENT OF PETER M. LUNDBERG, YUCAIPA, CALIF.

Mr. LUNDBERG. I am Peter M. Lundberg and reside at 33848 Avenue B, Yucaipa, Calif. I am a junior at Yucaipa High School and am testifying on behalf of the San Gorgonio wild area and against the bills which would open the area to commercialization.

I have been up into the wild area only once and I have never seen such natural beauty and felt so close to our God. I am already planning a hike back into the area even further.

It is appalling to think that people would even consider building a road up the proposed route, through Slushy Meadows and into Dry Lake, ruining all of this beautiful forest for the sole purpose of making another ski lift and for someone to make more money. The ski lifts would ruin much more of the area, chopping down the trees for them and the ski runs would even take up more of this valuable land. The roads and the ski lifts would ruin part of this area, not to mention what the people they would bring in would do.

Another fact which we all should consider is the loss of natural watershed which is so important to us today.

I do not want this area commercialized and ruined. We are going to have to learn to take care of the San Gorgonio wild area and preserve it for future generations to enjoy. I just hope that the people will realize this and help fight to save it.

Thank you.

Mr. BARING. Thank you very much. This panel is excused.
Our next panel; will you start, Mr. Madero?

STATEMENT OF ROGER MADERO, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF.

Mr. MADERO. I am Roger Madero, of 2863 North E, San Bernardino, Calif.

The present controversy regarding the proposed ski development in the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area can be resolved into one fundamental issue. The proponents of the ski development would wish to distort this issue, resolve the conflict into one between a need for further ski facilities in southern California and the concerted efforts of a selfish minority of bird watchers who wish to have the area for themselves. Such, of course, is not the case, and such a distortion is no more valid than a representation of civil rights legislation is an attempt of the Federal Government to usurp the rightful powers of the State governments or antismog legislation is an attempt to abbreviate the rights of free enterprise.

The fundamental consideration must be whether or not such a family winter recreation area will have a deleterious effect on the presently existing wilderness area, and whether or not the effect it will have should prevent its inclusion in the area. The skiing resort interests indicate that they are conservationists, and that, were there any way out of it, they would take the proposed development somewhere else. But, they whine, further facilities are desperately needed, and the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area is the place in which to place them. Thus, by their own reluctant admission, the commercialists acknowledge that the proposed development will subtract from the value of the area as a wilderness habitat. Catching themselves up short, the developers then proceed to explain how few undesirable effects the ski resort will have, and how, furthermore, the development will actually have long-term effects of a beneficial genre. The area is not being adequately used at present, they say. The proposed development will open it up to a larger number of persons who, after all, have just as much right to the area as those damned bird watchers. As a matter of fact, to add a touch of further eloquence to their arguments, the proponents of the family resort facility pose a profound query, to wit: Is a mountain any less beautiful because one views it from the comfort of a ski lift chair instead of from a bleak slope he must laboriously climb to reach the summit?

Again the distortions are obvious. No one can sensibly contest that the proposed ski development will not subtract from the value of San Gorgonio as a wilderness area. To do so would be to dispute whether a man is indeed dead if he is no longer alive. What one must seriously consider are the quantitative ramifications of the envisioned development, for here lies the crux of the fallacy and self-deception of the skidevelopment proponents' arguments. Once again we need only examine obvious facts in a logical manner. It is true that present skiing facilities are overcrowded and that San Gorgonio would provide an excellent, perhaps superlative, skiing area. But so would a virgin forest supply good fuel for a forest fire. The proposed development must, in order to meet the demands for an adequate area, be placed centrally in the wilderness area. Such an area, we are told, while placed centrally, is nought but a small portion of the 10 percent proposed for appropriation, and would not interfere with other activities in the wilderness area, as the site under consideration is now only used for skiing anyway. But, of course, as every motorist knows, it is necessary to drive to the area, and roads have a deplorable habit of taking up space. Thus it will be necessary to carve a line down the geographical, if not functional, center of the area. But one wonders if the two can be so easily separated. Is a wild area sliced in half by a development such as the one envisaged not, in fact, split into two wild areas? Can one pass from an ocean to land, cross over it, and come again to the ocean, without feeling in fact that he has come to another ocean? And, of course, the effectiveness of such an area is reduced by much more than the mathematical substraction of the area of the proposed development. And here one is considering only an idealized and hence unrealistic view.

The real truth of the matter is exhibited by the over-crowded ski developments that form the tragedy of nearby mountain resorts.

These areas of naked rock and barren slopes, with their commerical developments, parking lots, and adjacent or nearly adjacent dwelling facilities are illustrations of what can, and will, by the developers' own admission, happen to San Gorgonio. If, indeed, the present facilities are so over-crowded, if demand for further facilities is vastly increasing, if so many persons look enviously upon the majestic slopes of Mount San Gorgonio, and if, in fact, this is to be a development for a family winter recreational area, is it then too silly to suppose that the extent of the actual developments will at least equal those of other areas? Would it not, in fact, be entirely reasonable to assume that the actual development will outdo those already extant? One cannot be so naive as to assume that a few primitive huts, a pair of ski lifts, and an inconspicuous parking lot are going to suffice to handle the traffic and multitudinous crowds of thrill-seekers who will flock to the virgin paradise that is, admittedly, the present area. Just as grimly realistic is the turn of events ensuing if the development succeeds in fastening itself upon the slopes of Mount San Gorgonio like a gigantic black beetle. An exaggerated and prolix simile? Regrettably, it is not.

To provide the facilities really needed for a family recreation area, it is clear that extensive roads and trails would have to be provided. Fire danger would be increased, and hence an increased number of fire trails and other facilities would be necessitated. Several lodges and eating facilities would be forthcoming. Auto repair and maintenance developments are a necessary corollary of the traffic entering the area. Cutting of trees for ski lifts and parking lots will be necessary. The developers here start up and indicate that few trees would need to be cut and, furthermore, few would be cut. No one honestly believes the developers are going to cut any more trees than necessary. After all, that costs money, and money is clearly a prime motivation behind these developments, as will become clear later. Perhaps few trees would be cut on the slopes at first, but as the area became more heavily used, it would be necessary to clear further areas of ground. The parking lot issue seems a last desperate attempt to plead the sanity of the proposal. Trees are going to have to be thinned, ground leveled and cleared of rocks and brush. One must have room to back his car up and turn around without taking the side of the car off against the nearest tree. Furthermore, the numbers of persons coming into the area would motivate still greater developments and these same persons coming into the area would gradually filter into outlying areas. Thus, the cancerous growth we are asked to tolerate would spread its malignancy to the entire area, transforming it into a wilderness area of the most unpoetical kind-a wasteland of commercialization and pollution.

What then, to do? Is the wilderness area that important? Do we have a right to deprive so many people of the pleasures of winter resort recreation? Conclusively, the situation is not a choice between the rights of two groups to possess one area. The present area being used for ski developments constitutes 1,725 acres. Additionally, 1,625 acres are available exclusive of San Gorgonio. But, grin the ski developers, these areas are rocky deserts unfit for human consumption. The actual truth is that, where these areas are of minimal quality, aid is readily at hand. The Forest Service has agreed to aid in the development of

further facilities exclusive of the San Gorgonio area, and the perfection of artificial snow-manufacturing techniques is a further source of assistance. It is also necessary to point out the present values of San Gorgonio as a wilderness area, although only briefly, as most of them are obvious. Records indicate that San Gorgonio is the heaviest used wild area in the United States in terms of use per acre. The wild area contains perhaps the only significant "arctic-alpine" life zone in southern California. In an area as heavily populated as southern California, the preservation of a wild area is a necessity and vastly more so one as significantly unique as San Gorgonio.

Finally, then, we come to the ultimate question. What real good is a wilderness area anyway? Surely we cannot be so cynical and inhuman as to believe that our present civilization is all things to all men, that man is no more than the sum of our present technological achievements. That man is not a machine and has a spiritual side is inherent in our Constitution. Indeed, the Bill of Rights is a testament to the right of man to cultivate that part of his nature. Man must have an opportunity to escape from the society he has created, to escape from our prefabricated civilization to the contemplation of more basic underlying values. Man has the right to be alone with himself and his conscience. Whether it is any less beautiful to view nature from a ski lift or not should not concern us, for beauty is not at stake here. One can debate the nature of beauty; indeed, its very existence can be challenged. But one cannot debate whether it is any less private to view a mountain from a ski lift or not. It is no accident that Christ experienced his triumph over the temptations of Satan in the wilderness. Nor should we speculate why the solitude of outer space has awed man for centuries. The vast stillness of the New World is a part of our heritage, but the encroachments of the machine age are steadily destroying this heritage, steadily dehumanizing man's nature. What we must ask is whether or not man has a right to remain human. My proposal is a decision that will guarantee the opportunity of future generations to emulate the exercise of just this cherished right.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BARING. Thank you, sir.

The next speaker, please.

STATEMENT OF JOYCE OSBORNE

Miss OSBORNE. I was a counselor this summer at Barton Flats. As a counselor, I was in charge of several campers.

I taught them to cook over open fires. I taught them to pitch a tent and all the things that you must do to camp out overnight.

I think the Barton Flats area should remain the same as it is now. It is a true camping area, and is not like some camps which are like resorts that mar the beauty of the natural area.

For example, our campers have to cook their own food on open fires. They have to sleep on the ground instead of on cots in a cabin.

They hike into areas such as Slushy Meadows and Dry Lake. They have to learn to take care of themselves without the help of anybody. They have to take care of the camp without modern facilities or conveniences.