before the proverbial mark of man. I would consequently support the maintenance of the San Gorgonio Wild Area as it exists today, without access of facilities' development for a winter sports area. Thank you, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF JOE S. HASKELL, M.D., VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PALOMAR NATURE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Dr. HASKELL. I am Dr. Joe S. Haskell.

What is the wilderness area?

We stand amazed, in our age, at the character and accomplishments of our pioneer forebears who met the challenge of the wilderness and brought forth from it this great country of ours. I never cross our great deserts or mountain chains without marveling at the fact that those pioneers crossed these in covered wagons, without map or previously constructed road. I doubt that there are many among us today who could duplicate their accomplishments. But they were hearty souls, and meeting the challenge of the wilderness, with little more in the way of tools than their personal stamina, made them so. Now the wilderness that those pioneers met and knew is all but gone, having given place to man's encroachments and alterations. With these changes in the past we offer now no criticism, and in the main we have no argument. But now that there is so little of that wilderness left, we see the need of preserving for our own, and for future generations, some small examples of what this great land was like when the pioneers found it.

To preserve such an area, means that it must be of sufficient size to contain life as found in nature, both plant and animal. In the case of the latter, it is well known that many among the wild animals must have a wide range of territory in order to support itself. If this habitat is encroached upon, these animals must either move elsewhere or die out and thus become extinct. Human, so-called, development supplies this encroachment and hence destroys the wilderness, or that part of it. The proposed development in this bill would be in the very heart of this wilderness area and would take the land providing the most suitable habitat for much of the animal life. Its effect would not be limited to the area of development but would destroy the entire San Gorgonio Wilderness Area as a natural biological laboratory. This fact will be substantiated by the biology departments of any one of or all of the schools, colleges, and universities of this section of the country and beyond.

As to plant life, this area contains all of the life zones corresponding to the range from our high desert country at this latitude to the arctic. Surrounding this northern border of the area are more than 25 permanent camp developments for youth training and many more undeveloped organizational camp spaces as well as individual or family camp provisions. All of these use the wilderness area freely and at will. Its value in character building is appreciated and is beyond estimate in terms of cash equivalent. Here one learns to meet the wild without destroying it and the requisite resourcefulness becomes a part of him as he meets it personally with limited tools and equipment and knows that it must be left as he found it, for his own future use or for those who may follow him there.

This is a virgin forest. And like virginity elsewhere, it cannot be violated and restored. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. Should we not think twice before making such a move?

True, the bill provides that an equal amount of land shall be added to the wilderness area to replace that removed. But there is no like or suitable land available. Î am a physician, let me compare it to the human body. Suppose the heart is removed. The whole body would be dead, though we threw into the casket any number of extra hands or feet, the equivalent or more in volume to the heart that has been removed.

THE REAL ISSUE

I am sure that I am adding no new knowledge to this committee when I say that the whole issue here is a commercial ski development, though the word "ski" or "skiing" are cleverly left out of the bills. Nor is it a new issue. It has raised its ugly head, backed by a commercial ski development organization in Los Angeles, since 1947. At that time extensive hearings were held by the Forest Service and the proposals were rejected by that body. The area was classified as a wild area in 1956. But the ski resort question was again introduced by a proposed amendment of the wilderness bill to exclude San Gorgonio from the Wilderness Act. This amendment was voted down by the House on July 30, 1964. Now it comes up again under the guise of "Family winter recreational use and for the development and installation of facilities necessary therefor." Its proponents admit without hesitation that this means the same old previously defeated, when openly presented, ski resort development.

Please do not get the idea that I am opposed to skiing. This is far from the case. Nor am I a newcomer to the field of skiing. I was a member of the Big Pines Ski Club back in the thirties, when the Big Pines playground was a Los Angeles County park. For 2 years I ran the emergency hospital at that place. Later while taking postgraduate work at Boston, I and my family, rode the New England ski trains which went out from the cities of the area as far down as New York and all converged on the same day at one of the skiing areas. And I am still interested in the sport.

But as to family skiing, I would like to recommend to those who have lately taken up the sport, what is commonly, sneeringly referred to, at least by the advocates of this bill, as cross-country skiing. I have tried all forms of the sport, even jumping, and ski-joring. But for family participation and enjoyment, there is none of it that can begin to compare with cross-country skiing. In this even the little tots can participate and not only feel the exhilaration of gliding over the snow but take time to appreciate the scenery and the natural wildlife.

Downhill skiing is the hot rod form of the sport. I have never known a family to take with them a family ski tow. This phase of the sport requires a commercial ski resort or development. I have done enough of it, and not without enjoyment. But it is not a family type of sport. Never have I seen a family come down such a hill all holding hands as I have seen them do in cross-country skiing. This is generally an individual dash downhill run, though other members of the family may be making the descent simultaneously. This is

the freeway traffic phase of the sport. Try timing it sometime as to how long it actually takes standing in line at the foot of the hill waiting to get back on the tow at a busy resort, on a busy day. Here you may meet the other members of the family if the first ones down wanted to wait.

I can also recommend snowshoeing as a real family sport.

To family winter recreation seekers who are willing to go crosscountry skiing or snowshoeing, the wilderness area has been and now is open and available.

FINANCIAL GAIN FOR THE COMMUNITY

This has been a means of winning some converts to the ski development idea, although somewhat inflated in our opinion as to the actual gain.

It happens that I am currently president of the San Bernardino Optimist Club, an organization that has sponsored Boy Scout troops and an explorer troop, as well as many other character-building organizations and activities. How can we justify it to these coming citizens if we place monetary considerations above things, such as this wilderness area, in comparative values. I could conceivably increase my family income, if it were possible to persuade my wife to become a prostitute, but the point that I am trying to make is that there are some things too sacred to sacrifice for financial gain. In my opinion the preservation of this wilderness for continued use by our children, and ourselves, is such an asset.

Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum. (Hebrews 8:1.)

Do we retain in this area a wilderness of inestimable scientific and recreational value or do we sacrifice all of this for just another ski resort?

I, therefore, call upon the members of this committee to arise to the demands of the situation and to:

First, prevent the rape of the virgin of San Gorgonio, and

Second, stand, as Fate has placed you, as the guardian angels at the gate of this garden to prevent its desecration, by the flaming sword that proceeds out of your mouths, even your vote.

Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF JACK E. AND ADA J. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. This is a statement in opposition to H.R. 6891 and it is requested that it become part of the record of this hearing.

The wilderness bill of 1964 can be regarded as the moment in history that this Nation acknowledged its responsibility to the future and to the land. It represents a significant point in our maturity, where our appreciation of the vast natural blessing that is America converged with the realization that only immediate preservation could afford our posterity their rights to the same blessings. The affirmation came none too soon, and the efforts to destroy the wilderness bill-such as the one now before you-illustrate how near it came to being too late. One need not be antagonistic toward the sport of skiing (or boating, hunting, motorcycling, surfing, or free enterprise) to object to such an establishment as it is here proposed in the heart of San Gorgonio

or any other wilderness. It is necessary only to recognize (1) that the integrity of a wilderness is destroyed by such a development, and (2) that if skiing enthusiasts are entitled to such violation, so are all other interests.

We emphatically deny that the proposed development is compatible with the wilderness concept. Dispassionate appraisal of the monuments, parks, and forests of the federal system will convince the most skeptical that where man goes he leaves his mark. Access roads, accommodations, utilities, and supplies spawn machines, noise, beer cans, tissue paper, and destruction. The highest original motives cannot guarantee the contrary. Once invaded, the wilderness is no more; where once man was an intruder, he has become instead a conqueror, and tolerates no threat to his comfort from nature's austerity. The wild country succumbs easily to technology, but when it is vanished forever it may be man who realizes too late that he himself is the tragic victim.'

To conservationists who have spent long years in embattled, often futile, defense of the wilderness, the struggle here taking place is an old story. Each fresh assault is launched by an enthusiastic group that is unaware that other groups, similarly enthusiastic over their special interest, have mounted, are mounting, or will mount a vigorous campaign of their own against the wilderness. And while the skier or entrepreneur will undoubtedly regard the conservationist who opposes the San Gorgonio "development" an obstructionist old fogey in the present instance, he will likely sympathize with the conservationist when it comes to, say, the opposition to motorcycling on primitive trails.

When, in passing the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Congress reserved unto itself the authority for approval, it also assumed, we believe, the responsibility for fulfilling the law's intent. It is evident, however, that this procedure is viewed by self-interested pressure groups as invitation to advocate violation of the wilderness for their particular purpose. What makes your present task, then, particularly important-event vital-is that, as one of the initial challenges to the wilderness system, this case will profoundly affect future assaults by either encouraging or discouraging such efforts.

We respectfully urge this committee to reject H.R. 6891 and all similar bills.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF DONALD L. AND PATTY D. KINNEY, COLTON, CALIF.

Mr. KINNEY. My wife and I want to add our protest to the bills now being considered by your committee. Both sides of the issue have been discussed many times and both sides have good points, but, to my wife and I, San Gorgonio is a haven-a haven from the helter-skelter life which we lead in this populous southern California-a haven from "high cost" entertainment and fun. San Gorgonio is a spot of beauty away from a tangle of freeways, billboards, tract homes, and smog. How many places in southern California can a family of three spend a 3-day vacation at the cost of $10.85 and in addition teach a small child about nature in a setting where nature is supreme?

It seems ironic to us that the proponents of the bills continue to state that San Gorgonio is only used by a few people. The U.S. Govern

ment records show that over 50,000 people a year enter the wilderness area. There are only 70,000 skiers in southern California. Is it worth losing a true wilderness area for an additional 20,000 people to enjoy— 20,000 people who are sometimes going to ski in the area?

Another point that bears study, as stated by the proponents is that only 3,500 acres will be taken from the wilderness area. Gentlemen, the area they propose to take is like taking the heart from a human. Without this area, the whole will die. At a time in our history when we as a Nation are attempting to reevaluate our country's beauty, it seems as if we are taking from the right hand and giving to the left when we consider passing a bill such as the one before you now.

The proponents state that the opening of the area will bring great economic success to the entire region. This point bears much study. Where would the extra 20,000 people spend their money? Would they buy their equipment in the shops in Redlands? Or would they buy where they live? We believe the answer is obvious. The only people who would gain monetarily from the opening of the wilderness would be the developers.

My wife and I hope that in your study of these bills that you will not lose sight of one important fact, that being that San Gorgonio is a capital wilderness area. Wilderness area is not to be used for monetary gains to satisfy a few. It is for the esthetic appreciation of many, who in this populous region of ours cannot spend the money to go to other wilderness areas within the United States to gain such appreciation, or to teach their children appreciation of God's great wilderness.

Thank you, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF MILDRED MOMYER, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF.

Mrs. MOMYER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Mildred Momyer. I have lived in San Bernardino for 25 years. Our family treasures Mount San Gorgonio for its wilderness values. We have hiked, skied, and ice skated there.

Several bills are being considered that have to do with changes in the wilderness character of Mount San Gorgonio. I am opposed to these bills for the following reasons:

1. None of the bills state

(a) Where the development will be.

(b) How expensive it will be.

(c) Who will pay for roads or snow removal.

(d) Who will build and who will profit.

2. There are claims the development will be restricted and controlled, but there are conflicting statements.

(a) Mr. Vincent X. Flaherty said:

It would outdraw such popular, but comparatively remote ski places as Sun Valley, Aspen, and Squaw Valley combined.

There will be one ski cable.

It would be the most-used ski area in the world.

Sixty thousand would use it over a weekend.

(b) Mr. Rex Hornibrook, of the Citizens for San Gorgonio organization, said during debate:

They would start with two to four ski lifts, but eventually maximum potential development was desired.