Page images

Now, everybody in the country is doing this; they are all “going to the next hill.” Same way for scientists.

Mr. HosMER. Your emphasis was placed on this being a natural laboratory already in existence.

Dr. Vogl. That is right, and it is unique.

Mr. HOSMER. And, that it would become extinct by letting somebody in there.

Now, if it is already to an extent contaminated and it is within reaching distance of a large number of people, why should all the mountains in the world, plus this one, be preserved as a laboratory? You have brought a whole new issue in here.

Dr. Vogl. We will find that the environment is not the same from one area to another. If you have been born and raised in Michigan, you find that southern California has a different kind of climate, a different kind of environment; and, as a result, it has a different kind of impact on the plants and animals that have resided for centuries and centuries and eons and eons in those areas. We need to study each one of these types of environments, each kind. We need representation of each one set aside for future generations. For things that technology may develop in the future, we have no concept.

Your son may die of cancer and the cure for cancer may be in a rare plant that is found only on the top of Mount San Gorgonio, and there are quite a few rare plants.

Mr. HOSMER. The burden of your argument is that this is the last one of its type?

Dr. VOGL. That is right, in southern California. In the Mediterranean climate of southern California.

Mr. HOSMER. Doctor, how do you know there is not one of the same type someplace else? It does not necessarily have to be in the area of southern California for these purposes; does it?

Dr. Vogl. Yes; it does, because southern California has a particular kind of environment that exists no other place in the world; therefore, these plants have become extremely important.

Mr. HOSMER. Do you suggest then that this is the only one in the world, rather than the only one in California, southern California, that has that peculiar or particular ecological and other natures; is that what you are telling us?

Dr. VOGL. It is

Mr. HOSMER. There are none in South America; there are none anyplace else in the world?

Dr. Vogl. Of the identical type, there is none at any other place in the world.

Mr. HOSMER. You mean it is that rare?
Dr. Vol. There is none anyplace else in the world.

However, there is even a more important point, sir, and that is the accessibility of it and the expanding of our universities and colleges and a need for this kind of research area that is accessible.

Mr. HOSMER. You have a pretty good biology department, in your part of the State?

Dr. Vogl. That is right, but we are all paying for National Science Foundation money to send those researchers to places where the field laboratories still exist. You and I are paying the money for them. Mr. HOSMER. All I am asking you to do, Dr. Vogl, is to find out why this is a particularly extraordinary and unusual and unique mountain and should be preserved ?

Dr. Vool. I think this is going to be brought out by some students tomorrow; the main thing is it has certain plants and animals and the type of an environment that is unique to this Mount San Gorgonio. It exists no other place in the world.

Mr. HOSMER. Thank you very much, Dr. Vogl.

Mr. BARING. All right, the next speaker, Dr. Edwin Woodhouse, professor emeritus, Los Angeles City College.



Dr. WOODHOUSE. The question was asked, “Why here?".

I think I can answer that question, because, on the fringe of the San Gorgonio wilderness are over two dozen youth camps, including many church camps, YMCA, Boy Scouts, and the likes. If those ski lifts go into the San Gorgonio area, the San Gorgonio wilderness ceases to exist and the benefit of all of these camps for youth will be greatly depreciated.

That is the answer to "Why here?" because, all of these camps that are here already making use of that area need to stay here and the area would be changed for them if the commercialization is permitted.

A couple of other points have occurred to me, with the talk of intercollegiate skiing, and I believe that is utterly ridiculous. By their own definition of requirements of being able to get in and back in an afternoon and have training in skiing, that would leave out USC, UCLA, LA State, Occidental, they could not partake that sport at Mount San Gorgonio by their own definition of the requirements for training in that sport.

Again, as a former scoutmaster and Scout troop committeeman, unless there has been some change made very recently, skiing is not included in the scouting program of the Boy Scouts of America. I hope I am correct in that, unless there have been some changes made very recently.

So, why here? There are thousands of children, youth, at the camps at the fringe or the margin of that wilderness and the wilderness would cease to exist; there is no question about that. The colleges have given you the facts and I will not take time to repeat what they have said, but I know them to be fact.

That is why the answer applies here, because those camps for youth are in the margin of that area.

We have all heard at some time or other, a cracked phonograph record repeating over and over the same words. I hold in my hand the record of hearings held before this body in Las Vegas last year. One hundred and one pages of this record (725–826) contain just about all there is to be said in regard to the wilderness preservation of Mount San Gorgonio. Yet the proponents of the commercialization of Mount San Gorgonio would have you waste your valuable time repeating that which has already been said since 1947.

Mount San Gorgonio is now open to family winter recreational use. No legislation nor change of any kind is necessary. The word "ski” does not appear in the several bills now under consideration. The proponents of commercialization are now trying to obtain by subterfuge and deception that which they have been denied by democratic procedures.

The one new contribution that I could add to this discussion is to call your attention to the mountains surrounding Banff, Canada, which I visited last summer. To the northwest is a mountain with denuded scars running down its slopes. They are the ski runs, visible throughout the valley. They do not improve the scenery; they do not benefit the mountains; their only benefit is to downhill skiers.

The Division of Camping of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles is just as opposed now as it was a year ago to the commercialization of an area of prime importance to its camping program for young people. They do not want to see the creation of another Lake Tahoe.

again present their resolution, with the change of two words in recognition of the fact that the wilderness bill did pass.'

In conclusion: do not forget that Shylock wanted only “a pound of flesh, to be cut off nearest the merchant's heart." Regardless of the addition of fringe areas, the passage of one of these bills would mean the death of the San Gorgonio Wilderness; and, in turn, might well sound the death knell of the entire wilderness system.

I would include the following resolution:



RESOLVED: That the Division of Camping of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles record its 100 percent endorsement of the basic policy of preserving such wilderness areas remaining in our country, whose preservation as wilderness is essential to give to future generations the opportunity to see and enjoy their natural heritage.

Further, in view of the enormous population increase which has already taken place in Southern California, and which will continue for some time to come, it is our conviction that it is more imperative than ever that those few wilderness areas within Southern California be maintained and protected.

Be it further resolved, that the Division of Camping of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles supports the general policy of maintaining the San Gorgonio Wild Area in its present status and that it be retained in the Wilderness Area.

The above resolution was approved unanimously by the executive council of the Episcopal diocese of Los Angeles. Thank

you very much. Mr. BARING. All right, thank you, sir. The next witness, Mr. Richard Witz.



Mr. Wrtz. Honorable members of the committee, I am Richard Witz, primarily representing the Monterey Park City Council and the Monterey Park Recreation and Parks Commission. I am presently and have been a member of the commission for the past 6 years, serving 2 years as its chairman. I am a charter member of the Izaak Walton League of America, San Gabriel Valley Chapter, and the past and present vice president of this organization. I am presently an active member and a past officer of the Rotary Club of Monterey Park. I am a present member of the Alhambra YMCA. I have owned and operated a retail business at the same location in the city of Monterey Park for the past 18 years.

I know it has been a long day and everybody is tired. I have always given days of my time at the cost of many dollars to present something that I feel is important to the greatness of these United States, as is this. I could do no justice to my belief in as short a period of time as you are now allowing me.

I have six pages of testimony and resolutions and many pictures, from my city and from many other organizations. I would like to be heard when it may be fully digested.

I do not believe the committee is very fair to limit anyone who has put the time and the effort involved in such an important issue as this is and frustrate them with such a limited presentation and limitation as you are allowing here and forcing them to miss many important facts that are important.

Mr. BARING. Mr. Witz, the reason why you are on today is because you stated that you could not attend the session tomorrow.

We have gone over an entire hour tonight, or actually 2 hours, because some could not be here tomorrow.

Now, the same thing goes for the proponents who could not come today, they will be here tomorrow. There happens to be 30 of these witnesses who have testified in the last 2 hours.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to say also that we have sat here and we are only 3 members of a 30-man committee and we are out here to hear your statement and whether we hear it or not your statement and your material will be accepted into the record. The material will be accepted for the file and your statement will appear in the record as if read in full, and it will be there for the benefit of the other members of the subcommittee and for the other Members of Congress.

There are only three of us out here to take these hearings. The purpose of taking the hearings is to get a complete record, to get all the information in the file and then the staff will work that over and there will be reports made. It was the same way with people who appeared at the hearings in Las Vegas and presented the statements. They all appeared in the record as if read.

I think your statement is a little bit incorrect.
Mr. Wrtz. I do not think you can accomplish the same thing.

Mr. HOSMER. Well, Mr. Witz, instead of badgering the committee, why do you not give us something about your position-precisely and concisely—that would intrigue us to spend more time reading it?

Mr. Witz. Well, it is all quite intriguing and at great effort I would like to come back tomorrow, if I may be permitted to have more time in which to present my statement. I would not waste your time or mine by presenting it now, because I could accomplish nothing in a minute or two.

Mr. BARING. If the gentleman can come back tomorrow, we will see that he gets more time.

Thank you, Mr. Witz.
Now, we will hear the next witness, Mr. Cleaver.

STATEMENT OF GORDON CLEAVER, ELECTRICIAN Mr. CLEAVER. I am an electrician and employed locally.

The San Gorgonio issue, like any great controversy, has arguments on both sides. The following arguments point overwhelmingly in favor of retaining this area in its present status:

1. The complete San Gorgonio Wilderness Area encompasses only 4.3 percent of the San Bernardino National Forest and is the only true wilderness area left in the entire southern California area.

2. Any commercial development would seriously restrict or curtail all of the present uses of the area.

3. Other areas are available for new commercial ski development.

4. The headwaters of the Santa Ana River are in the San Gorgonio area and any commercial development would have a detrimental effect on the entire valley system.

5. Thousands of boys and girls from the 26 youth camps in the immediate vicinity use and depend on this area for much of their outdoor recreation. Any commercialization would rob these youngsters of any invaluable wilderness experience.

6. San Gorgonio is a very unusual area for southern California. It has rare forms of botanical life, century-old trees, unique animals such as the bighorn sheep and is the only arctic alpine zone in the southern part of this State. All these unique features would be damaged or destroyed if the area was commercialized.

7. The proposed ski development would conflict with plans for new campsites and trails which are necessary to meet the increasing usage of the wilderness area. The proposed development would remove the very heart of the wild area.

8. The ski season on San Gorgonio is very unreliable and very definitely not of the caliber claimed by the proponents of this development. When the season is extra long on San Gorgonio, the same holds true for the resorts in the rest of the San Bernardino mountains. Other years the snow is just as unreliable on San Gorgonio as at the rest of the resorts.

9. The proposed development would take public lands and put them into the hands of a private concern so they could make a profit from the use of this land. At present anyone can use this land free of charge.

10. Attempts to install large skiing facilities in this area were denied last year when the wilderness bill was passed by a decisive vote in the House of Representatives.

As stated earlier, this issue has two sides. These are not necessarily always equal or near equal. In the San Gorgonio case they are very unequal. "The people who would destroy this lovely area and deny a wilderness experience to our young people have only one reasonable argument and now it is being challenged.

For the foregoing reasons I now urge you to preserve this wilderness in its present status. The San Gorgonio Wilderness Area should remain under the protection that was afforded it under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Now, I would like to add just one thing:

I know your time is very limited, but there was a person here earlier who claimed to represent labor, labor unions.

« PreviousContinue »