sively, I went up last week as I have at times before to look over the problems so it would be fresh in my mind before the hearing.

Certainly I feel that any type of improvement is going to have an effect on the wilderness; this is unavoidable.

The skiers are not saying that we can completely preserve every characteristic of the wilderness. But what we do want to point out is this: Our only hope of good skiing in southern California is that in San Gorgonio.

If it is at all possible to work out some agreement where we can use the mountain and still maintain most of the wilderness characteristics and still satisfy our need, then we are willing to go to any lengths to do this.

As I take it the bill shows, and as we have been trying to present here today, it is our feeling that the advantages of this ski area would outweigh the imposition that we would be placing on the wilderness area.

Certainly we are all part owners of this wilderness area as it is
So we are all concerned with it.

now.

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Donnelly, you do recognize the problem as some of the rest of us do.

You

But do you have anything to suggest; you saw the area on the map as outlined, which has been pointed out as the only logical area. saw the parking lot. You have heard suggestions of closing the road in the summertime during the nonskiing periods.

What suggestions do you have? You just do not throw it into somebody's lap and say, "You worry about it."

That would be easy for you to do, but we have to come to grips with the problem. There are hearings being held trying to elicit something which might be satisfactory to both sides.

Mr. DONNELLY. Actually, in talking to some of the people who are here today that questioned the use of the ski area, the problem seems to be of so much having a ski area with some facilities there, but the fear that once we get our foot in the door that we will take over the whole wilderness area.

As far as I can see the best thing is good legislation to completely limit us in what we are asking to develop to protect the wilderness area. As it was brought to my attention in the ultimate future if the public wants to extend this area enough, eventually it will probably be done and this is not to the liking of we, as skiers, any more than it is to the wilderness protectors. We also like to consider ourselves as protectors of nature. But the situation is that we would like to have a ski area, and the only place that we have any possibilities is here.

I think perhaps in the bill, in the formal bill, they could include a definite location of the road, if there is to be a road, a definite number of lifts, whether it be one or whatever number it is, and have everything very definitely stated in the bill and then hope that it can be policed, I assume that we can police it.

Mr. HOSMER. Have you people ever sat down with each other and talked this over?

Mr. BROWN. Certainly we have.

Mr. HOSMER. And are you still at loggerheads?
Mr. BROWN. Yes; definitely.

Mr. DONNELLY. You mean the skiers, as opposed to the antiskiers? Mr. HOSMER. Yes; I guess you could put it that way.

Mr. DONNELLY. Actually, because we do not have the setup for a debate with a moderator-and there is a lot of emotional feelings. involved I am sure you know what happens.

That is why we do not accomplish anything.

Mr. HOSMER. I see.

Mr. DONNELLY. That is why we are having the hearing.

Mr. HOSMER. We have the hearing on the Upper Colorado or the Lower Colorado Basin project, also.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BARING. Thank you, gentlemen.

We have now come to that point of the day that we designated for the opposition witnesses that can only appear today, on Tuesday; and, they cannot appear tomorrow, Wednesday.

I am going to take them in groups of four and they will be limited in the time for presentation because we have 30 witnesses to take in the next 45 minutes.

Mrs. John Gerhart, Howard Klebsch, Gertrude Hagum, and Clark Jones.

Mr. Jones.

STATEMENT OF CLARK H. JONES, PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERATION OF WESTERN OUTDOOR CLUBS

Mr. JONES. Mr. Baring, Mr. Dyal, and members of the committee: My name is Clark H. Jones. I live in San Bernardino and have taught in the public schools here for 19 years. I am speaking today on behalf of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs of which I am the president. The federation includes 40 member clubs in the States of California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, with an aggregate membership of approximately 46,420 persons. The majority of these clubs are camping, hiking, and mountaineering groups with a deep devotion to the conservation of the American landscape.

The federation is on record, by resolutions at its annual conventions in 1946, 1961, 1963, 1964, and 1965, as opposed to any type of manmade winter sports development within the present existing boundaries of the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area. We are, therefore, opposed to H.R. 6891 and all other current legislation which would permit such a development, commercial or otherwise.

To define the controversy as a battle between hikers and skiers is an oversimplification. If San Gorgonio is developed, the greatest losers will be future generations of southern Californians. Of southern California's three highest mountain areas, only the San Gorgonio region remains unimpaired. Mount San Antonio (Old Baldy) has a ski lift on its slopes and Mount San Jacinto, an aerial tramway reaching to the 8,500-foot level. As bulldozers and subdivisions sweep across the land to make room for added millions of people, San Gorgonio will become increasingly precious as an island of wilderness in a sea of civilization. A winter sports development, if permitted, would only temporarily meet the needs of the skiers, and southern California's last remaining high mountain wilderness would be lost forever.

Those who would develop San Gorgonio overlook the fact this is already the second most heavily used wilderness in the Nation. In nearby Barton Flats is the largest single concentration of youth camps west of the Hudson River. To thousands of these youngsters wilderness has a historical value, for in the San Gorgonio area they can share at least in part some of the wilderness camping experiences of their forefathers. Would such experiences still be the same within sight of ski towers or within earshot of a public address system or traffic noise? Nor are the would-be developers correct in their assumption that the public lands-that the wilderness area is not used in the winter. Many times in December, January, and early February before the heavier snows fall, my wife and I have found both adults and youth groups hiking and camping in considerable numbers.

To reduce human erosion and spread out the existing use, the U.S. Forest Service is building new trails and establishing new campsites. Particularly adaptable to youth groups will be the Dry Lake area, which would be included in the 3,500-acre enclave which is being proposed for the winter sports development. The connecting road, parking lot, and building at the lower terminal would render this entire area useless for wilderness camping.

Some of the proponents of mechanized skiing have said that they wish only a small minimal development. The Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs does not question the sincerity of these people. We simply recognize the economic fact that once the door has been opened there will be pressures for expansion.

The term "family recreation area" in H.R. 6891 and its companion bills is misleading. If this means snow play as it tends to imply, this problem can be solved easily by simply creating more parking space along presently existing roads in the San Bernardino and Sierra Madre Mountains. The Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs is not opposed to winter sports developments, as such. Some of our northwest clubs such as the club in Portland and the Seattle Mountaineers include many skiers. We are opposed, however, to the use of wilderness areas for the purpose of mechanized downhill skiing.

The proposed 3,500-acre withdrawal from the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area is the first major test of the National Wilderness Preservation Act and, as such, could set a dangerous precedent. If the heart is cut out of San Gorgonio, what is to prevent the piecemeal destruction of the rest of the wilderness system? We, the living, have an obligation to preserve America's scenic beauty for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. We must not fail.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BARING. Thank you, sir.

The next witness will be Gertrude Hagum.

Mrs. HAGUM. Mr. Chairman, I am Gertrude Hagum. However, there is no way possible I can make my statement in 1 minute or within 2 or 3 minutes for that matter. I have 40 pages in my report.

I will be here tomorrow. In fact, I took today and tomorrow off for this purpose.

I would appreciate having at least 5 minutes sometime tomorrow. Mr. BARING. If you can save it for tomorrow, we will give you more time.

Mrs. HAGUM. All right, sir, I will do that.

Mr. BARING. I understand Mr. Howard Klebsch is not here. Also, Mrs. John Gerhardt is not present today but will be here tomorrow. I will call the next four speakers: Rev. Edward Allen, Robert Gardner, Rodney Ellsworth, and Gene Goodman.

Reverend Allen, I take it you will be the first speaker.

STATEMENT OF REV. EDWARD P. ALLEN, DEAN OF THE FAMILY CAMPING PROGRAM OF THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES

Reverend ALLEN. I come before you as a group recreational leader in the Episcopal Church in southern California and as a parish priest. In the former capacity I conduct a weeklong program of family camping in one of the group camping areas in Barton Flats, which is under the supervision of the U.S. Forest Service and which borders the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area. Three years ago we left the church's development cabin-camping area in San Diego County to make room for the increasing number of children brought to us by the population influx. We looked for an inexpensive campsite capable of handling up to 10 families at a time, in a mild climate and a beautiful location, with water sport and hiking facilities, and centrally located for the convenience of families from all parts of southern California.

The only spot that meets all these requirements for family recreation is Barton Flats, and its value hinges on our access to the few remaining wide-open spaces that are in the adjoining wilderness area. We are fortunate to get space for a week in the summer, for the demand for camping facilities is heavy. With 20 percent of the Nation expected in southern California by 1980, I urge that all public lands reserved for camping and wilderness use be protected for the use of this growing multitude.

As a parish priest who takes his young people camping three times a year to get them away from the business of the urban life, I also protest any commercial development of existing recreational and wilderness areas. Most public campsites are now crowded and fenced. In many instances, the human need to "get away from it all" is frustrated by nearby commercial ventures, which for whatever good intentions may be designed to serve the public, still only add to the feeling of being hemmed in by civilization. Beautiful mountain land open and accessible to the public is at a premium in this crowded corner of our most populous of the 50 States. Let us not make people pay to use what is rightfully theirs and which is most valuable in its natural

state.

Thank you.

Mr. BARING. The next statement will be that of Robert Gardner.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. GARDNER, CONSULTING GEOLOGIST, PASADENA, CALIF.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Baring, honorable members of the subcommittee. and distinguished guests, my name is Robert C. Gardner, consulting geologist.

Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you today to present what I consider to be vital facts affecting the long-term utilization of the last remaining mountain wilderness in southern California.

The following points are not listed in order of importance, and I hope the subcommittee will weigh each of them on their own merits:

1. The current usage of the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area in terms of numbers of visitors annually is almost impossible to accurately estimate. Reportedly, studies have been made by different interest groups on both sides of the present controversy to establish a figure upon which to base their arguments. Estimates have ranged from 5,000 visitors annually (advocated by some of the ski interests) to more than 100,000 persons annually suggested by some of those who would maintain the wilderness integrity of the area. It seems clear that the most accurate figure must lie somewhere between these extremes, and for purposes of this statement an estimate of 50,000 visitors annually will be adopted. In terms of sheer numbers this is not great it is far outdistanced by the annual usage of Disneyland and Marineland, as well as several other commercial amusement centers in and around the Greater Los Angeles area. However, these 50,000 persons (and surely greater numbers in future years) are dependent on the existence of the wilderness area for their recreation. invaded by commercial interests, the values these 50,000 persons seek would no longer be available anyplace in southern California. The point here is that certain recreational activities are dependent on wilderness-nothing else can be substituted.

Once

The figure of 50,000 visitors annually is very misleading. I am sure the ski interests can quote much higher use figures for many of their developed areas. However, we must remember that many of the visitors to the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area stay for several days. Use figures based on man-days would be far more revealing and I am sure would compare favorably with the use of other recreational facilities in southern California.

In the areas around the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area some 25 nonprofit organization camps are located. They are located here because the wilderness is here. The elimination of the vital "heartland" of this wilderness area by the construction of commercial ski facilities would severely diminish the quality of the recreational programs now offered by these organizational camps.

Summary: Based on current usage by individuals and organizational camps, it is quite clear that any commercial encroachment on the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area would work to the detriment of the effectiveness of the camps as well as deprive a significant part of our population of the type of recreation they now enjoy and which is available nowhere else in southern California.

2. Approximately 31⁄2 hours from Los Angeles by automobile a major ski resort development is about to be constructed in an area more than the equal of San Gorgonio from a snow reliability standpoint. I am referring to the Mineral King area on the south boundry of Sequoia National Park. San Gorgonio is better than 21⁄2 hours from Los Angeles and although it admittedly has the best snow conditions in southern California, it is not the peer of areas currently available or soon to be available in the Sierra Nevadas. It seems a travesty to even consider allowing a commercial development of any kind into the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area when comparable major ski facilities are assured of construction not significantly further away. It is important to remember that San Gorgonio is the only remaining wilderness area of its type in all of southern California.