Page images

Whereas, the greatest good for the greatest number of our present and future citizens would be served by retaining the San Gorgonio Wild Area in its present status.

Now, therefore, be and it is hereby resolved by the Monterey Park City Council that it is unalterably opposed to any change in the current status of the San Gorgonio Wild Area which would permit the commercial development of any portion of the area, such as the presently proposed commercial ski resort development.

The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Adopted and approved this 15th day of November, 1965.

Chester s. Valenta, Mayor.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Monterey Park at a regular meeting held on the 15th of
November, 1965, by the following vote of the Council :

AYES: Councilmen: Lewis, Erambert, Fry, Irvine and Valenta.
NOES: Councilmen: None.
ABSENT: Councilmen: None.

City Clerk, Monterey Park, California.

Deputy City Clerk. Also, please note the Alhambra YMCA stand with a resolution from their board of directors.

This letter is dated November 15, 1965; it is addressed to the committee and reads as follows:

Gentlemen : At a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Alhambra District YMCA on January 3, 1964, the Board of Directors unanimously Approved the following resolution that is still the opinion of the Board :

“Resolved: That the Board of Directors of the Alhambra District YMCA expresses its opposition to any change in the current status of the San Gorgonio Wild Area which would permit the commercial development of any portion of the Area, such as the presently proposed commercial ski resort development."

In addition to its youth and adult programs in Alhambra, Monterey Park, San Gabriel and South San Gabriel areas, the Alhambra District YMCA owns and operates a mountain resident camp in the Barton Flats area immediately adjacent to the San Gorgonio Wild Area.

It is our firm conviction that the preservation of the San Gorgonio Wild Area, without further road or commercial development, will present the "greatest good for the greatest number" of our present and future citizens. We believe that any commercial development of the San Gorgonio Wild Area will greatly reduce the effectiveness and the value of our mountain camping program in teaching the YMCA Christian principles of spirit, mind, and body to the youth of our community.

We, therefore, wish to register our protest against the currently proposed development and request that the San Gorgonio Wild Area be included in the proposed Wilderness preservation system. Sincerely,


Alhambra District YMCA. Gentlemen, thank you for this opportunity which you have afforded me to present my love for the out of doors in the primitive area of San Gorgonio. I trust you will give it your full consideration and preserve these wonders of nature for the future generations of children.

One of the questions you gentlemen keep asking is: “What is different about this country here; what is it that is so unique ?"

I and many, many people I know are sure there is something very unique about it, even if we have had a hard time bringing it to your attention.

I would like to answer this question with a question. Why else would we who know practically every mountain hiking trail and camping spot in the southern California area keep coming back to this one over and over again?

I personally have returned to it 20 times for each trip to any other spot. Many of the other areas are closer to Los Angeles and much more accessible.

I do not believe any of you gentlemen are at all qualified to make a judgment on opening this area until you have visited it and I do not mean by helicopter.

A year ago December, a customer in a Thunderbird ran up against a brick wall at my place of business. I was left with a broken femur and with bones sticking out of the flesh. I spent all of December in the hospital and most of the next 6 months in bed.

This last February a pin was pulled from the center of my femur where it had been hammered in the day of the accident. I meant to bring the pin, it is about 2 feet long. I have it in the car.

Until May of this year, I did not feel I could walk without dragging my left foot behind me. That was 6 months ago, I have since then walked to slushy meadows. I should be honored to be your guide in a special tour of this area and I make myself available at your convenience and at my expense; because I do not believe you are qualified to make a honest judgment of something you have not seen and which cannot possibly be described by words. You have absolutely no right to judge this country without seeing it.

The reason my city council voted unanimously to leave the area as it is and also the board of the YMCA is because all but one of them has been there so they know what they are judging; they are qualified.

Would you buy a large piece of property of your own, gentlemen, without examining it or asking yourself this question-or, asking yourself this question: Would you buy and sell an immense piece of property of your own if you had never really seen it?

Gentlemen, this is your property and from my point of view, you are selling it, you are now selling it.

You are completely changing the use of it. You are asking people who believe in primitive area to give up the only good spot they have of the country destined to be most populace and certainly would-or, would you not ask those who ski to give up their best skilift. This is the comparison.

A big commercial or business area will bring a city more revenue and will be used by more people than a beautiful residential area that may presently exist there. Is this reason enough to allow it?

I have no doubt in my mind how a statewide or nationwide poll would come out on a ballot in connection with this wilderness area.

This brings up an important question. To whom does this land belong? To the hikers? To the skiers? To one city or two? To one county or two? To part of a State or the whole of California? Or, does it belong to the whole Nation, the whole United States? I believe your responsibility on this question is to all of the people of these United States.

I have this morning and last night both talked at my expense to Sacramento and I truly believe that there will be a clarifying statement on the position of the Governor sent to you today. If not, it will be forthcoming.

[blocks in formation]

If you could eliminate personal financial gain I think you would agree with me that over 50 percent of the opposition would fold up. Not that I am against personal financial gain; I have been in business for 16 years and I am not an idiot. But, I do not want it to be gained at the loss of the primitive area.

This may be a little corny, but I wrote this when I was 16 years old on the back of a bag when I was in the mountains and I would like for you to hear it. It is entitled “In the Quiet of the Mountains."

In the quiet of the mountains.
Just the whispering wind to blow;
And take with it all your troubles.
That is where I long to go.
For there is peace and true contentment,
And your heartaches seem to flee.
Though my feet may lead me elsewhere,
That's where my heart will long to be.
Just to smell the pine in the crisp blue air.
And see each inspiring morning start,
There is no better way to cleanse the soul,
Or to free a prisoned heart.
And as the mighty wind blows hard,
It shakes the cobwebs from your head.
And the heart is warmed by the evening sun,
As it sets a fiery red.
Fools are we to fight the world.
To seat and bleed a tired brain.
To increase our worries evermore
For riches. We call that gain.
We tie our shoestrings to a city street,
Then close up ear and eyes ;
And run in circles trying to see
If we can reach the sky.
Oh that someday I may have the strength
To reach down and cut my ties.
And claim forever nature's restfulness,
Where true contentment lies.
There in the quiet of the mountains.
Just the whispering wind to blow;
And take with it all your troubles

That's where I'll always long to go. Gentlemen, I want to thank you for this opportunity which you have afforded me to present my view and my love for the out-of-doors and for the primitive area of San Gorgonio.

I trust you will give it your full consideration and preserve these wonders of nature for the future generations of children to come.

I would still like the opportunity of showing you the area before you make your judgment.

Thank you very much.
Mr. BARING. Are there any questions?
Mr. HOSMER. I have no questions.
Mr. Johnson. I have no questions.
Mr. BARING. Thank you very much, Mr. Witz.
The next three witnesses will appear together as a panel.

Mr. Michael McCloskey of the Sierra Club; Mr. Robert Marshall, Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club; and, Mr. John Palladino, River side Chapter of the Sierra Club.

I will give the names of the next panel of witnesses so they may stand by and be ready for the purpose of saving time.

Mr. Joe Momyer, Defenders of San Gorgonio Wilderness; Mr. Harry Krueper; Mrs. Alice Krueper; and, Mrs. Marjorie Jones.

These people whose names I have just called will stand by.
You may proceed, Mr. McCloskey.



Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is Michael McCloskey.

I am conservation director of the Sierra Club, a national conservation organization of 34,000 members with chapters throughout much of the Nation.

The Sierra Club feels that H.R. 6891 and companion bills to develop a ski resort in the San Gorgonio Wilderness pose a sharp challenge to the integrity of the national wilderness preservation system, now barely a year old.

Because of the grave precedent that would be set by these bills to authorize piecemeal dismemberment of this system, the national office of the Sierra Club wishes to defer presenting its case against the bills until hearings are held in Washington, D.C.

However, the club does have two local chapters that are deeply involved in the effort to defend San Gorgonio Wilderness. These are its Angeles and Riverside Chapters whose statements will be presented by their chairmen, Mr. Robert Marshall and Mr. John Paladino.

Thank you very much.
Mr. BARING. Thank you very much, Mr. McCloskey.
The next speaker will be Mr. Robert R. Marshall.

Mr. MARSHALL. I am Robert R. Marshall. I live at 1986 North
Orange Grove Avenue in Pomona, Calif., and I am chairman of the
Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club.

The Angeles Chapter consists of members of the club who live in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and I represent them by the specific authority of the chapter's executive committee.

We have 6,200 members, and that number is now increasing at a rate greater than 1,100 per year. We do not, and never have, conducted membership drives or campaigns, and this growth rate can only signify that there is a great increase in public interest in wilderness; growing faster even than skiing.

For the sake of information only, I am attaching an appendix to this testimony which is a document analysis of the number of skiers in southern California. It is an updating of the same analysis I presented to this committee in Las Vegas in January—or, on January 13, 1964. Since that time, nothing has come to my attention which would challenge the validity of it, and one or two indications have corroborated it. The number of southern California skiers in 1965 is estimated at somewhat less than 71,000.

I have literally lived with this San Gorgonio controversy for more than 3 years, and I think I understand it about as well as anyone. I would like to call just one point to your attention, and I hope I can impress you that it is an extremely important one. If

you wish to have a clear understanding of the entire controversy, this point is the one which you must resolve first. Otherwise, you will be spinning your intellectual wheels trying to decide what is right and what is not. The two sides are usually in disagreement on it.

The question is this: Will a ski development within the present San Gorgonio Wilderness Area make any significant alteration of what remains? A great many proponents of this legislation will say that such a development will not hurt anything, or similar phrases such as, "It wouldn't impair any present uses.” I doubt if any opponent of these bills will agree. Each one of them knows better, and that is why they are here.

If you think of a present use as, say, hiking along a trail, and you argue that a skilift would not preclude this, in the strict sense you are probably correct. But, this sort of thing is not the real use of a wilderness area. The important question is, what goes on in the mind of the hiker! If that lift is there, does he think the same things he would if it were not? Unquestionably not.

Such a development would alter his thinking quite a bit, even if the lift were on the other side of the hill. Thinking is a far more important use of a wilderness area than what happensor, it is more important or a more important use of a wilderness area than mere hiking. What happens to our thoughts is far more important than what happens to our feet, and wilderness areas are established for our minds, not our muscles.

Since yesterday, we also discovered they are also established for people who want larger potatoes.

Development, even if minor, results in widespread impairment of the kind of thinking which is possible only within a deeply natural environment.

But, I am not going to ask you to take my word for it. There are experts on the subject; I will list three: The Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, The Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs. These are foremost organizations devoted exclusively to the actual, genuine uses of wilderness. They are unanimous on this point: A development such as is contemplated would be highly destructive of the values which wilderness areas are established to preserve. Not only these organizations, but a great number of individuals with widely different backgrounds are going to appear before you these 2 days and come to the same conclusion.

Do not fall into the trap of thinking we can have our cake and eat it. too. I am afraid you are going to have to decide one way or the other; you cannot decide it both ways.

The attractive bait of limited, so-called harmless development is being waved before you. If you think this would make everybody happy, you are mistaken. It would make no one happy.

Instead of the greatest good for the greatest number, you would end up with no good for anyone at all. A substantially restricted development, besides being uneconomic and requiring public subsidy for survival, would not satisfy the demand it would receive. But, it would destroy the wilderness.

« PreviousContinue »