limited size that elevations presently use by existing lifts. They are expensive to install and at best cover areas of a few acres. They are fine for rank beginners, but they offer nothing to anyone who is advanced beyond the beginning states of skiing. Furthermore, “artificial snow" has no more lasting qualities than natural snow. The retention of snow for skiing depends upon climatic conditions. Its retention over a long period of time depends upon cold days and nights. Consequently, "artificial snow" cannot be relied upon to extend or enlarge the ski season for the same reason that natural snow cannot be relied upon. The climatic conditions do not permit it. (c) It is sometimes argued that the San Gorgonio area is now available for skiing and that therefore lifts are unnecessary. This argument completely overlooks the difference between lift skiers (who comprise approximately 98 percent of all skiers) and cross-country. skiers. It is true that the area is available for cross-country skiing. However, cross-country skiing is nothing more than hiking on skis. It is totally different from downhill skiing, or lift skiing. It should further be emphasized that while cross-country skiing is a fine activity, and should be encouraged, it is available only to those who have the skill, the strength, the experience, and the endurance to do it. This excludes women, it excludes the thousands of children between the ages of 6 and 18, and it excludes the older skiers, all of whom lack the qualifications to hike from "Poop-out Hill" up to the areas where the bowls of snow exist. This argument is totally fallacious. In short, the present limitation on the use of Mount San Gorgonio area creates a de facto discrimination against 98 percent of the skiing population in favor of a very minority. When the entire matter in controversy is viewed objectively, and without all of the emotional arguments on either side, certain propositions seem clear and irrefutable. These are: (a) That this area is public domain. It belongs to all citizens. It belongs as much to those who ski as to those who enjoy hiking and camping. Neither has a prior right or preference: (6) The area should be developed in such a manner that it may be used and enjoyed by the greatest number of our citizens over the greatest period of time, and should not be preserved as the exclusive domain of the few. In this connection, it should be emphasized that the wintertime recreational use for skiing and other winter sports is totally compatible with the summertime use for hiking and camping. At present, the principal use of the area is for hiking and camping, most of which occurs between June 1 and Labor Day of each year. It is accomplished in the main by the many children who attend the youth camps in the Barton Flats area. After Labor Day, the use of the area is minimal almost to the point of being nonexistent. There is no reason whatsoever why the present uses of the area for hiking and camping, principally by youth groups, cannot and will not continue, notwithstanding the development of the area for winter recreational use. There is the matter of establishing a "precedent.' One of the arguments most frequently advanced by the opponents is that it will establish a bad precedent with respect to other wilderness areas if the proposed legislation is adopted. This is absolutely untrue. Precedent depends upon similarity of circumstances. The circumstances here are unique in the extreme. As previously pointed out, the unique qualities of Mount San Gorgonio, as a skiing area, are these: (a) The extreme altitude (11,485 feet); (b) The north-facing slopes, having the ability to hold snow for long periods of time; and (c) The close proximity to tremendous population centers. So far as I can determine, these conditions are duplicated nowhere else in the entire wilderness system. Most wilderness areas are remote from population centers. Most have much lower elevations. Few, if any, have suitable snow conditions. An analogous situation exists with respect to municipal zoning laws. It has never been contemplated that zoning laws are fixed and immutable forever. It is true that they are passed to preserve property values, to stabilize a community and to provide adequate facilities for the entire population by placing certain activities in the most appropriate areas. However, the history of zoning laws has been that wherever it was shown that an area was improperly classified, or that there had been changes which justified a change in the zoning law, the law was changed accordingly. Certainly it was not the intent of the wilderness bill to prevent the development of the public domain for the greatest use and enjoyment by the greatest number of people wherever such need was shown. Although it initially sounds impressive, the "precedent" argument is not valid and does not withstand close analysis. I therefore respectfully urge the honorable members of this committee to report favorably to the Congress of the United States upon legislation designed to open 3,500 acres of Mount San Gorgonio for lift skiing, with appropriate safeguards built into the legislation to protect the existing uses and benefits. May I conclude by reading to you a list of the organizations in this county that have gone on record by resolution favoring the adoption of this legislation. The San Bernardino Realty Board; the San Bernardino Motel Association; Victorville Chamber of Commerce; Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce; Asbury Chamber of Commerce, Colton Chamber of Commerce, Menton Chamber of Commerce; the Menton Rotary Club; the High Desert Tourist and Recreation Council; Apple Valley-Victorville-Lucerne; Yucca Valley Realty Board; the Argonaut Club, a service club in San Bernardino; the Lucerne Valley Chamber of Commerce; the San Bernardino Junior Chamber of Commerce; and, the Victor Valley Junior Chamber of Commerce. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. BARING. Are we going to hear from your associates? Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir; may I seek permission from the committee to offer in evidence 20 copies of a little brochure which our citizens committee has prepared, with reference to my statement? Mr. HOSMER. I move that with unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, it be received for the file. Mr. BARING. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. WILSON. Thank you, sir. Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Wilson, Mr. Dolder mentioned six sites that were within 4 hours distance driving from the metropolitan area here which were considered for skiing. Presumably, five of them, that is all of them except San Gorgonio, were approved by the State. What is the matter with them? Mr. WILSON. I would like for someone to tell me where they are. I can tell you one thing; they are not in San Bernardino County, to my knowledge. Mr. HOSMER. He did not say they were in San Bernardino County. He said they were within 4 hours' travel time of this metropolitan area. Mr. WILSON. He indicated they were in the southern slope of the Sierra Nevada which puts them up in Kern County and some distance far remote at least from the San Bernardino area. Although it is closer to Los Angeles, he is talking about 4 hours' driving time; I assume he is talking about some 200 miles. Mr. HOSMER. I do not think that 4 hours' driving time is an unreasonable amount of time in order to pursue a hobby, is it? sir. Mr. WILSON. Well, that depends on your personal point of view, Mr. HOSMER. Well, it would be nice to be able to go out in your backyard and go into a ski lift. But I do not think many people have that opportunity available, do they? Mr. WILSON. I suppose not. Mr. HOSMER. Now, these five other sites, this one would just give you a 16 percent more chance to get some snow. What is so utterly important about it, other than its availability to those of your association who happen to live close to it? Mr. WILSON. I do not understand your question. Mr. HOSMER. The five other areas, according to Mr. Dolder, which are desirable for skiing and available for skiing, except for the different snow conditions, and you have mentioned that all of these areas have different snow conditions; but, you added the sixth one, which is San Gorgonio, and that is only increasing the probability by some 16 percent of having good snow. So what is so important about this to you, other than the fact that it is readily accessible to your home? Mr. WILSON. I am talking about an area within 85 miles of Los Angeles, which somebody can get into his automobile in Los Angeles, as they do now, go up to Big Bear, ski all day and go home. If you have to ride 4 hours up and 4 hours back, that area is useless for that type of skiing. Mr. HOSMER. Apparently, from the report given by the motel association here, they must be contemplating some overnight trips. Mr. WILSON. I suppose they do. Mr. HOSMER. No further questions. Mr. BARING. All right, we will hear from Mr. Keith Hubbs. STATEMENT OF KEITH HUBBS, MEMBER OF CITIZENS Mr. HUBBS. Mr. Chairman and members of the honorable committee, to the best of my knowledge, the question of opening the San Gorgonio area for winter recreation has been going on since the early thirties. At that time skiing was a little known sport. Today it is one of the fastest growing types of recreation we have. The fact that we have far too few good winter recreation facilities is obvious in our country's attempts to make a good showing in the winter Olym pics. Last winter was the first time a U.S. male has ever won an Olympic gold medal. In 1962, 3 years ago, the U.S. Forest Service, in their own literature, claimed we had far too few areas for winter recreation. The brochure went on to say U.S. forests should have multiuse, meaning use by all types of recreation, hiking, camping, skiing, hunting, fishing, and so forth. We skiers are not proposing to do away with any of these other sports, we are proposing instead to use the area together. The proponents want to put the accessibility road out of sight, want to provide no overnight facilities, and want to have the area remain under the supervision of the U.S. Forest Service. The portion in question is only approximately 10 percent of the total area and this portion has the least amount of use. The slopes intended for skiing would be very dangerous to hikers. I have hiked to the top of San Gorgonio several times, and I have also hiked in mountains in Utah with ski lifts on them. I can honestly say a ski lift will not harm this area in any way. Skiers are nature lovers and outdoorsmen and thereby conservationists. Lifts, rather than being a detriment, will serve only to enable many more people to appreciate the beautiful wilderness area San Gorgonio has to offer. Even deer hunters use the lifts in Utah to reach the mountain tops, which in spite of the lifts still remain wilderness areas. As a skier, hiker, outdoor sportsman and a southern Californian, I truly hope this committee has the foresight to see the benefits to all by opening San Gorgonio to multiuse and by providing more recreation area for our fast growing population. Mr. BARING. Are there any questions of Mr. Hubbs? We will hear from Mr. Ely, secretary, Mentone Chamber of Com merce. STATEMENT OF CHET ELY, SECRETARY, MENTONE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; SECOND VICE PRESIDENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CITIZENS FOR SAN GORGONIO Mr. ELY. I became a member and an officer of the San Bernardino County Citizens for San Gorgonio for several reasons. First, I feel the people of southern California need winter recreation and that San Gorgonio would be ideal for that purpose. Second, I feel that a major winter recreation area such as San Gorgonio would become a great asset to the economy of our entire county. Third, I was concerned that any facilities for winter recreation should not interfere with the wilderness values of the area or with its present usage by youth camps and others, and I knew that the other members of this group shared my concern and were interested in developing a plan for safeguards that will preserve the area for future generations without locking it up for use today. As the chairman of the citizens committee, Bill Wilson, has pointed out, we have developed such a plan and earnestly hope that the final form of this legislation will reflect these safeguards. Opponents of this legislation seem to base their arguments on several points which we think are answered by these safeguards. They say that a winter recreation area would not be compatible with a wilderness area. However, if overnight accommodations and entertain ment facilities are specifically prohibited in the bill, we feel this problem will be solved. With only the bare minimum facilities consisting of a ski lift, warming hut, and safety facilities, I am convinced the remaining 90 percent of the mountain would not be affected with the litter about which there is some concern. If the access road is located far to the east of the present hiking and camping areas, as we propose, I do not see how it would interfere with the present uses at all. This area has 35,000 acres; only 10 percent (3,500 acres) is being requested. I sincerely believe that it is big enough for all, and that it is a shame to let that mountain sit there unused in the winter while hundreds of thousands of Californians would be enjoying it. Furthermore, I do not believe that there is danger of future expansion, or what the opponents refer to as the foot-in-the-door approach. First of all, only the 10 percent of the area in question would be adequate as a winter recreation area and therefore no further expansion for that purpose would be feasible. If lodging is outlawed, I do not believe that Congress will reconsider and will later pass an entirely new bill to allow this. I have two reasons for this belief. 1. The most important one feature that San Gorgonio has that makes this legislation so important is that it is accessible to over 8 million people for "day use." With homes within an hour or two drive from the recreation area, a very small percentage of users will require lodging and ample lodging can be found in the surrounding mountain communities, such as Big Bear and Lake Arrowhead as well as in Mentone, Redland, San Bernardino, and the high desert area. With the very limited demand, lodging would not even be economically feasible. 2. If this small portion of San Gorgonio is exempted for winter recreation it will be because of the tremendous need. I cannot believe that Congress would allow other facilities to be installed at a future date by a special act of Congress when there will be no pressing need. At any rate, even if Congress should be so inclined the powerful lobby of the Sierra Club will continue to be an effective watchdog. Mr. BARING. Are there any questions? Mr. HOSMER. I have a couple of questions in connection with litter. What is that about litter? Mr. ELY. The thing I get sometimes or a lot of times is that they say if this is opened up it-there would be more people there and there will be more litter scattered around. As I understand some of the things that are in this, this would be more or less controlled. It would be cleaned up more so than it is now. I know there are some groups going in there now and making a special effort to keep this clean. By not having overnight accommodations and so forth, it would still be easy to keep clean. That is not necessarily true right now. Mr. HOSMER. Have you ever been in a public park about 6 o'clock in the afternoon? Mr. ELY. Yes; I have. Mr. HOSMER. The San Bernardino Citizens for San Gorgonio; how many members does that organization have? Mr. WILSON. As a committee, sir, I would say we have over 100. Mr. HOSMER. Over 100? Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. 58-133-67- -3 |