southern Sierra. The opening of San Gorgonio or a portion thereof would do little toward increasing the area available for skiing. Such opening, however, would destroy a valuable Wilderness Area and deprive many thousands of our city youth groups of the opportunity to enjoy a Wilderness experience.

I hope your committee will agree the greatest public service will be to maintain the San Gorgonio Wilderness boundaries as they are, with no invasions or deletions.

Respectfully submitted by one who is thoroughly familiar with the whole problem.

STATEMENT OF M. R. LUND, D.M.D., REDLANDS, CALIF.

It is with great personal interest that I learned of your plan to hold public hearings in San Bernardino on November 16, 1965, pertaining to the question of allowing a skiing development on a designated portion of San Gorgonio.

I have stated a number of times my convictions on this proposal both locally and to my duly constituted representatives in Sacramento and in Washington, D.C.

The concern I have voiced is to try and gain an improvement in the facilities for skiing in Southern California. During the years I have resided in this area skiing as a recreation has been highly irregular as a result of inadequate snow. In spite of this, the popularity of skiing has steadily been increasing. My belief is that the lack of snow in a great part is due to the lack of adequate elevation. When a snowfall does occur its retention is often short lived because of warming temperatures. Then we observe the North slopes of San Gorgonio and see snow very much in evidence and wonder if there is not some way it could be made available.

Comments are made that snow is being manufactured to compensate for the current lack, but it is apparent that it will not be economically feasible to cover a slope of adequate length to make it worth while for most skiers.

It is suggested that the area in question be retained as is and the participants hike in to do what skiing they can. There is some merit in this but it does not appear feasible that families with children will design to do this. Neither should we expect people whose physical condition is no better than the once-aweek golfer to attempt this. I am sorry about the physical condition of our citizens, but I don't think this a valid reason to make the area in essence off limits because of lack of interest in cross country skiing.

Also it is apparent that this problem will magnify as the years go by because of the dramatic increase in population predicted for this portion of our state. In spite of this point of view I would wish to have steps taken which would not damage currently popular areas of San Gorgonio for summer time use. I also wish this preserved. My hopes are to have a reasonable coexistence of both points of view.

I would be willing to appear in person to give testimony in support of the views which I have expressed.

Also I am secretary-treasurer of a loosely knit organization of physicians and dentists the bulk of whom reside in Southern California. This is an avid group of skiers (nearly 150 families) organized with this as a common interest. As an organization we have not solicited an official position on this problem though many who have volunteered their comments would support the views I have expressed.

I appreciate your interest in this problem and from my biased point of view am hoping the findings will harmonize with my convictions for wider horizons in skiing.

STATEMENT OF JOHN RAISELIS, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

What is all this talk about opening up the San Gorgonio wilderness area for skiing? In their efforts to convince our public officials into believing that opening up this area will be in the best interests of the majority of the citizens of this state, the proponents of said movement have so clouded the real issues involved that an immediate need for a full clarification of those issues exists. First of all, it is claimed that our local skiing youths need more and better facilities in order to develop into "Olympians", the implication being that, by opening up the San Gorgonio area, this metamorphosis will take place. Further,

they claim that the existing resorts are inadequate and the best ones are too far away, necessitating too much travel time which eats into their skiing time.

It is true that the best ones are distant enough to cause considerable inconvenience, travelwise, at present. However, not one of those proponents has even considered what the future travel conditions to those resorts might be. Apparently, they assume that the present means of transportation will remain static ad infinitum, oblivious to the fact that the future will bring such radical changes in our entire transportation system that travel to places like Mammoth will be reduced to a matter of a couple of hours or less. These transportation changes will take place and must be considered as a vital factor in this controversy before a final disposition is made.

Next, it is claimed that not enough areas for skiing are available and that the existing slopes are inadequate for one reason or another. Here, again, it can be argued that somebody, always, will find something unsatisfactory with any of the existing areas, even the best ones, and that no amount of new developments no matter where they may be located, will assuage the feelings of every group concerned. Also, most, if not all, of the problems of inadequacy can be resolved by making better use of the existing facilities rather than by building new ones. A change of attitude coupled with a change in training methods appears to be a positive and inexpensive solution, also.

A case in point can be illustrated by reviewing the ski season of 1964–1965. Last spring our local slopes received a more than generous supply of snow. Came the Easter vacation week and what happened? Instead of heading for the local snow resorts, the big majority of our youths, the group for whom the proponents want to provide more and better skiing areas, deserted the snow and headed for the beach resorts instead. That these youths did, in fact, swarm into the beach areas, one has but to check the newspaper files to read of their antics at the beaches. Here, they were cavorting in the sand and the water while our local slopes were groaning under the heaviest snow pack in recent years.

These youths were overheard discussing their plans just before Easter week. The talk overheard pertained to the fact that it was lamentable that the skiing conditions were so good at this time, but the season for beach and water skiing was at hand and water skiing it was going to be good snow skiing conditions notwithstanding!

Is this the kind of attitude, on the part of our youthful skiers, that is conducive to developing Olympic Games contenders? Is this the group of skiers for whom it is proposed to desecrate an irreplaceable natural resource in order to provide a place where they can cavort, not because of the snow there, but, only because it is the season for skiing and when the calendar says "Time is up" they seek their thrills elsewhere?

The above, definitely, is not a blanket condemnation of our youth. There are and always will be a comparatively small group of dedicated skiers who do and will continue to take advantage of most of the opportunities to visit the snowcovered slopes for practice in the hopes of developing proficiencies sufficiently good to be of Olympic caliber. These avid youths do merit consideration for their needs; but, even for this minority, the sacrifice asked is far too great a price to pay where the best interests of the rest of our citizens are concerned now and in the foreseeable future.

The claim that thousands of our Southland youthful skiers need San Gorgonio in order to develop into Olympic contenders is a monstrous one because the large majority of skiers could practice from dawn to dusk every day without ever becoming anything more than just good skiers. As for becoming Olympians, the majority of them can never make the grade because the talent, to become an Olympic contender, just isn't distributed that way, either here in the Southland or anywhere else on earth for that matter. On this account, the need for developing San Gorgonio into a skiing resort is totally unwarranted. As far as the talented skiers are concerned, there is a way out. The proposed Mineral King development will prove to be a worthy substitute for their needs. With Mineral King and all of the existing areas, there will be ample facilities to take care of most of the needs of everyone.

To conclude, skiers really do not have to have San Gorgonio after all. What is needed can be summarized as follows:

1. A realistic approach to skiing conditions here as a whole.

2. A change in training methods to take fuller advantage of all of the available facilities already on hand. The Mineral King area, when completed,

will ease matters a great deal due to the fact that it will be hours closer than Mammoth and provide nearly ideal conditions for all classes of skiers. However, this change may prove the most difficult of all to make because of the great variety of diversions bombarding everyone here in the Southland all year long. 3. A change in legislation covering the administration of all of the few remaining wilderness areas of this country and substituting in its place legislation that will guarantee iron-clad protection against any further despoiling of any of these areas for any purpose whatsoever other than maintaining them status quo.

We, the majority, need San Gorgonio as it is now, an unspoiled sanctuary of retreat in which to forget, for a while, the trials and tribulations attendant with carving out a livelihood. We need it as it is now to serve as a living laboratory in which our students can carry out their research covering the ecology of the only remaining unspoiled alpine plant and animal association left in Southern California.

The need for protection against the inroads of commercialism is imperative. Let us make certain that San Gorgonio and all of the other wilderness areas will remain a living testimonial to the foresight of our present administrators through the enactment of legislation that will preserve these areas for us the living, now, and for those unborn generations of the twenty first century and beyond who will inherit a desperate need for places like San Gorgonio-places utterly beautiful, as well as useful, in their pristine nakedness.

STATEMENT OF BEULA EDMISTON, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Although I am a scheduled witness, circumstances beyond my control make it necessary to send my testimony by Special Delivery Mail and request that it be entered in the proceedings of the Hearing.

I oppose H.R. 6891 and related "Family Recreation" bills because nature has provided everything needed or desirable for family recreation in this matchless wilderness area. Any commercial development would down grade and destroy the quality of wilderness family recreation the San Gorgonio Wilderness area now so ably provides.

I speak from personal knowledge and experience. For three generations the Edmistons have enjoyed family recreation in the heart of the San Gorgonio Wilderness area-the very part proposed for commercial development. My husband climbed "Gray Back" when a lad with his father. It means a lot to climb a mountain with your dad when there are no commercial helps or hindrances along the way. As a girl, I explored the wonders of the heartland wilderness with my family and friends. It was an experience never to be forgotten because it was alone with nature, a rare retreat from commercial enterprise. My husband explored the San Gorgonio wilderness extensively with youth groups from his Riverside County home. I can never forget the particular meaning of singing "There's a long, long trail a winding" as my San Bernardino County high school organizations and family parties enjoyed the exquisite wilderness experience in the heartland of the San Gorgonio area. The quality of such experience would be destroyed or made false, perhaps even shoddy, by adjacent or present commercial development. Now my family and I live in Los Angeles. Still the San Gorgonio Wilderness area provides some of our most cherished wilderness outings. Our son rejoiced with us when, after full airing and discussion, the San Gorgonio Wilderness was established. We know from first hand knowledge that the area now serves a maximum quality family recreation experience to the maximum quantity of people the area can well support. My husband and I have long been associated with a number of youth serving agencies. We help Los Angeles youth groups enjoy wilderness outings. Why do they want to go to the San Gorgonio Wilderness area? Perhaps it is because it is the best place, and almost the only place a young man can really grasp the meaning of "Give me men to match my mountains!" Commercial development would destroy that priceless quality.

Families come to us continually pleading for knowledge of places where they can find family recreation away from the commercial pull for Coke or stronger drink, funny books and juke boxes, and commercial mechanization of any sort. People need places of wilderness quality family recreation. There is no shortage of commercial fun spots. Wilderness recreation is rare and should be protected.

To the skiers, I say, "Come join the family recreationists. Just don't expect to be pulled back up hill here." The San Georgonio Wilderness should be kept inviolate. It is meeting a tremendous need for family recreation. Any development would be a decimation.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR C. KELLER

I am not a member of the Sierra Club. Unless the couple of dollars I contributed a long time ago automatically conferred membership, I am not a member of the Defenders of San Gorgonio or any similar conservation group, nor have I ever attended a meeting of any such organization. I am not a naturalist, and not much of a hiker. Aside from my son's tenderfoot membership in the Boy Scouts I have no connection or affiliation with any of the many youth groups and church groups that use the San Gorgonio area. Although an attorney, to the best of my knowledge, I have no clients who have any economic interest in the preservation of the area, in skiing, or in hiking, and I appear only on behalf of myself and my immediate family-and, indirectly perhaps, of the unborn children of my children.

I think, however, I am representative of many in Southern California, who, like me, enjoy and love the San Gorgonio area more than any other portion of Southern California.

It is not my purpose today to discuss comprehensively all of the issues concerning this controversy, but merely to touch briefly on four considerations which merit attention:

(1) The irrevocability of the opening of the area for promotional purposes. (2) The inadequacy of detail in the proposal to permit its proper evaluation. (3) The illogical nature of the argument that more people would be served by a ski lift.

(4) The incompatibility of wilderness and nonwilderness.

MAN CANNOT MAKE WILDERNESS

An editorial in the November 13 issue of the San Bernardino Sun-Telegram was illustrative of the failure to comprehend the nature of wilderness. It said, in part, that it did not quarrel with the argument:

"That a part of this country should be left as it was created ***. But we do argue that there are other fine regions that could be made wilderness areas✶✶✶

A wilderness area is a virgin land, untouched by man. How, then, does man "create" wilderness area? The Sun-Telegram has obviously come a long way from the simple philosophy of Joyce Kilmer that only God could make a tree. Because a wilderness area is by definition virgin land, the day the dozer bites the first dirt, the San Gorgonio area becomes no longer a wilderness area. Man can do many wonderful things. He has built fantastic bridges, planes to carry him through the air, rockets to carry him through space, artificial arteries, and so forth. He has learned how to make artificial snow; and as those of you from the Midwest or South know, he has in recent years even built the mountains under the snow-to be sure they may be more like hills now, but they are substantial, are enjoyed by thousands of skiers, and will doubtless increase greatly in number and size.

But there is one thing man cannot do: Man cannot restore virginity. And the king's horses and the king's men will learn how to put Humpty-Dumpty together again long before man, be he naturalist, ski promoter, or congressman, will be able to undespoil that once virgin land that has been despoiled. A decision not to open this land to promotional activity now, may be reversed five years from now, twenty years from now, or whenever it becomes crystal clear that such is wise. But a decision to open the land is forever.

Should such an irrevocable decision be made in the absence of 100% certainty of its advisability? The irrevocable nature of such an opening of the San Gorgonio area must be borne in mind throughout any discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages thereof.

THE WORLD'S ONLY SUPER-WILDERNESS-WITH SIX-LANE HIGHWAYS

Of course, the enabling legislation which is now sought by the resort promoters cannot be specific. But its generality permits a great deal of inconsistency in the arguments of its supporters. These inconsistencies would be apparent if an actual usage plan were presented in form detailed enough to permit evaluation. Thus, sports writer Vincent Flaherty stated in support of the proposal that "you may be certain 60,000 people would visit Gorgonio every week-end...." Let us assume that this means 30,000 people on Saturday and 30,000 on Sunday. Presumably to make the trip and the daily chair-lift worthwhile, most skiers would come in the morning, and stay all day. Further assume, an average of three skiers per automobile. This would require a parking lot which can accommodate 10,000 cars. Assume further that the automobiles arrived, not in spurts, but steadily over a four-hour period from 8:00 a.m. to noon each day. That would mean 2,500 automobiles pulling into the parking lot each hour, 42 each minute, or one every 1.4 seconds.

No two-lane mountain road can accommodate that kind of traffic. Even if all automobiles were equal in power and all drivers identical in driving habits, a four-lane highway would be severely taxed. And those of you who are familiar with mountain driving know that this might well be inadequate due to the interruption in steady flow of traffic which is caused by the slower vehicles even on multi-laned traffic.

The cost of such a highway, of course, in this particular area, would be astronomical due to the cutting, filling, and blasting which could be necessary to create a level roadbed of such width over, around, and through steep granite terrain. The ski lift promoters obviously will wish, not that the world beat a path to their "better mousetrap," but that county, State, and Federal Government taxpayers build that road for them.

If it has not been done already, I suggest that estimates of the cost of building such a super-access highway through such mountainous terrain be determined together with the cost of annual maintenance, snow plowing, and highway patrolling. A better evaluation of the true cost to taxpayers as compared with the profits of promoters would be facilitated by such a study.

JUSTICE FOR MINORITIES

One of the principal contentions of the promoters is that more people would use the area for skiing than previously used it for hiking, and that, therefore, it should be opened so as to benefit the greatest number of people. That more people would use the area for skiing on a certain day than would ever use it for hiking on a certain day is undoubtedly true, and would be true of any place in the country. Were 60,000 people to go hiking in that area, or in any area of comparable size, in one day, the solitude which makes it desirable would be lost and few would want to come back to hike the following day.

Whether over the course of a year more individuals would derive enjoyment from the skiing than now enjoy the area, is highly speculative. But assume that they would: Is that an adequate argument for taking away one of the few areas that those who love wilderness can now enjoy?

If San Gorgonio is so much superior to Mount Baldy, or Snow Valley or Big Bear for skiing, it is unfortunate perhaps that many years ago one of these areas was not set aside as a wild area and San Gorgonio then developed for skiing. This was not done. Instead, Baldy, Snow Valley, Big Bear, and many other areas were permitted to develop as resort areas, and they cannot now be converted back to wilderness. Only a very small portion of Southern California today is set aside as wilderness, and of this, San Gorgonio is by far the most nearly ideal. Should it be taken from those who love it as it is merely because they are a minority?

At any one hour of the day, more people would like to watch "Peyton Place" on television than would want to watch "Hamlet," "Meet the Press," a news broadcast, or a symphony. Probably more people would enter the National Gallery of Art on any one day if the paintings were removed, beer served, and go-go girls entertained. Should we then eliminate all news broadcasts, press confer