Page images
PDF
EPUB

"On site” skiing purchases include lift fees, parking, meals and lodging.

“On site” wild area purchases or, fishing and hunting supplies, unprepared food, camping supplies. Both skiing and wilderness recreation generate considerable income in the “planning" stages, but these purchases are most often made in the community of residence.

Travel expenses are an important part of the community income generated by a recreation asset; gas and food are the main items, but there are numerous others.

Skiing income tends to be concentrated and abrupt. The community experiences a large income influx at peak times. Wild areas income is spread most evenly over a longer season. It is also more diffuse and hence difficult to measure. The two assets produce different kinds of income, received by different factors, though there may be some overlap.

It is tempting to look at the huge expenditures made in a ski community on the "big ski weekend” and project into favorable net terms. But, this gross is depreciated over the whole year by expenses which do not respect the season. As a result, net skiing income is as difficult to measure as is wilderness income. Few communities can subsist on skiing income alone. No southern California community

Big Bear, which receives the largest skiing income in southern California, is a developed recreation area. Facilities built for skiing can, and do, receive year-round use. If the San Gorgonio wild area is opened to mechanized skiing, but all other development is held in keeping with the spirit of the wilderness bill, it is difficult to see how year-round expenses will be partially offset by year-round income, as is done in Big Bear.

can.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SKIING AND WILDERNESS

The demand for southern California skiing is determined by all of the factors previously discussed, and by the cost of the readily available substitute, northern California skiing. As southern California ski operators view it, the number of people who will ski at their establishments is a function of the income and leisure of southern California, and the price of skiing at Mammouth Mountain and other northern California resorts.

Southern California operators can—well, they are the recipients of the decisions that skiers make regarding the costs and benefits of skiing locally and skiing in northern California.

To a southern Californian, a trip to Mammoth implies relatively high transportation costs, meal costs, lodging costs, and lift fees.

Further, 350 miles means 14 hours will be spent in transportation, and the skier will be faced with making at least a 2-day commitment of time; these are also costs.

The benefits he is likely to receive include longer ski runs, more challenging slopes, better snow, and some intangibles inherent in Sierra skiing. On the other hand, the relative cost of a southern California trip is much less. Roundtrip mileage is 100 miles or less. He need not incur any lodging or meal costs. Lift fees may well be less and the time commitment may be shortened to 1 day. Bene

[blocks in formation]

fits are different. The runs are not as long, and slopes generally are less challenging. Snow conditions are not as good.

Now, different skiers value the benefits and costs differently.
Some people will feel that the benefits of Sierra skiing exceed the

Costs are all relative. Others, particularly beginners and intermediate skiers, and families, will feel that local skiing conditions are quite satisfactory, and they will arrive that the costs of Sierra skiing exceed the benefits. There will also be a class between these two extremes.

They ski at both areas frequently, and evaluate conditions as they change over the season. For convenience, let us call the three groups serious, intermediate, and recreational.

The serious skier will be pleased if his income and leisure increase, but will not spend more on local skiing as a result. The recreational skier will likely increase his consumption of local skiing services if his income and leisure increase.

He will not respond to small price declines in Sierra skiing relative to local skiing, for he is more satisfied with the local product.

The intermediate skier is different. For them, local skiing represents an inferior good. If the price of Sierra skiing declines relative to local skiing-a decline in transportation or lodging costs would accomplish this—they will shift toward Sierra skiing. In economic jargon, each of these three groups represents a different market.

Each group has a different demand function, and each will respond differently to changes in variables which affect local skiing decisions.

There are said to be 70,000 skiers in southern California. Serving them are 12 local ski areas. Between them they have 14 chair lifts and 12 other mechanical lifts—Pomas and T-bars. When all the areas are operating this results in a capacity to lift 21,000 skiers per hour. In addition to the mechanical lifts, there are over 50 rope tows, these tows double the lift capacity.

It would seem that by most measures, skiing capacity of local mountains is in step with demand. Profits in local skiing are not high. They are in fact marginal, with several areas in constant financial difficulty. Local skiing can expand when profits rise. Plans have been made by government and operators to double capacity.

As stated before, the different classes of skiers have different demand functions. Economic theory would lead us to expect different prices aimed at the separate markets. In fact, this is so. In 4 of the 12 ski areas the highest price, for services most comparable to Sierra skiing, for lifts is near the Mammoth price, $5 in 1963–64.

But, even these areas have other services aimed at the recreational and intermediate market. The next price level ($4.00) is found at all areas, and is the highest price at six areas. Seventy-five percent of the chair and mechanical lift capacity can be purchased for this price—all rope tow capacity can be purchased for this or less.

It would appear that the local skiing industry is aimed at the recreational market primarily. The path of expansion in the industry is also directed toward this market. Expansion will be capital intensive and include such things as snow making and slope culture and improvement in lodges, et cetera, without the addition of San Gorgonio, local skiing will expand as the market for the service it provides expands.

Apparently there are no questions, and the subcommittee will stand in recess until 1:30 this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. on the same day in the same place.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. BARING. The subcommittee hearing will come to order.

The next panel will be Dr. Barclay Kamb, Mr. Francis L. Post, Mr. Sylvester Heinberg, Mr. Cliff Merritt.

I will call the next panel so they can be ready.

Mr. Vincent Berinati, Rev. John Birch, Mr. Harold Arnold, and a representative of the Redlands Fish & Game Conservation Association.

Along with Mr. Arnold, we will have Richard Minnich and Robert Schellhous.

The Chair has an announcement to make and that is that we will not permit any demonstrations at all. Therefore, would the people with the pickets and placards please leave the auditorium at once?

(Demonstrators withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. BARING. You may proceed, gentlemen.
Dr. Kamb.

STATEMENT OF DR. BARCLAY KAMB, PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY AND

GEOPHYSICS, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PASADENA, CALIF.

Dr. KAMB. My name is Barclay Kamb and I am a professor of geology and geophysics at the California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, Calif. I am speaking as an individual citizen.

The San Gorgonio Wilderness Area is a small but beautiful and unspoiled tract of high mountain country, ideal for camping, hiking, back-packing, riding, climbing, and, in winter, for skiing and skitouring. It is a very attractive area, of that there is no dispute. The dispute is over how its attractiveness should be utilized, and who should be able to benefit from it.

The proposed legislation, recognizing that winter snow conditions are often excellent for skiing on the north slopes of Mount San Gorgonio, is designed to make this snow resource available to skiers and to commercial interests building upon the sport of downhill skiing. It is argued that, if opened to winter sports development, the area would be more fully utilized and would benefit more people, both recreationally and economically, than if retained in its present wilderness state. It is argued that to prevent development is to restrict enjoyment of the area to a select few, and it is argued that wilderness lands are available elsewhere for those few who desire them. It is also often argued that winter sports development would not noticeably detract from the existing wilderness uses of the area.

These arguments contain the basic reasoning that is used repeatedly by local interests throughout the country to advocate development of nearby wilderness lands. Hence their consideration here constitutes a test case for the concept of wilderness preservation adopted by the Congress as national policy in the Wilderness Act of 1964.

As one who has used this and a number of other wilderness areas, I consider invalid the argument that winter sports development will not affect the wilderness use of the San Gorgonio area. The necessary roads, buildings, ski lifts, other mechanical contrivances, and activity of the resort complex will destroy the wilderness character of this area and will effectively eliminate its attractiveness to outdoor people. The truth of this is recognized in the Wilderness Act (Section 2(b)) by the restriction of wilderness status to areas in which "the imprint of man's works is substantially unnoticeable," and it seems to be recognized also in section 3 of the proposed legislation, by the provision for a real replacement of the wilderness lands to be developed.

The fact is that the lands to be developed constitute the heart of the existing wilderness area. I am familiar with the surrounding terrain, including lands in the upper Whitewater River drainage proposed as replacement areas. In my opinion, the proposed replacement lands are not comparable, in terms of beauty and attractiveness, to the wilderness area that would be eliminated by the proposed legislation.

It is recognized in the Wilderness Act (sec. 2(b)) that a wilderness area must be “of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.” Implicit in this requirement is not only the acreage involved but its geographical disposition. Although the proposed legislation would maintain the areal extent of the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area, it would alter its configuration from a compact area to a fringe surrounding a resort complex. Both administratively and ecologically such a configuration is not viable. Even if influences emanating outward from the central resort complex could be eliminated, which is unlikely, the wilderness usability of the remaining peripheral fringe would be greatly inferior to the compact area, with central high peaks, as it now exists. The "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation,” to use the language of the Wilderness Act (sec. 2(b)), are guaranteed in the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area primarily through the isolation of the central high peaks, which isolation is afforded by the surrounding wilderness fringe. The unspoiled central peaks provide the primary attraction that draws people to take advantage of wilderness recreation in this area, and that thus creates the opportunities sought for in the Wilderness Act. This is demonstrated in the use that is made of the area by children's camps located around its periphery: the children are drawn into the wilderness area primarily by the challenge of climbing the high peaks and by the attraction of camping in their midst. To develop this heartland into a ski resort, with the attendant mechanization, will effectively spoil the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area for wilderness recreation.

The national policy of wilderness resource preservation, embodied in the Wilderness Act of 1964, is based on a commitment to the human benefits of wilderness recreation, and it in effect encourages dissemination of these benefits. Wilderness areas should accordingly be chosen not merely because they are so remote or desolate as to be unattractive for development, but rather because of their inherent physical attractiveness; but this then makes them prime targets for development as population pressures increase. To remove for development the most attractive, sought-after parts of our wilderness areas, Apparently there are no questions, and the subcommittee will stand in recess until 1:30 this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. on the same day in the same place.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. BARING. The subcommittee hearing will come to order. The next panel will be Dr. Barclay Kamb, Mr. Francis L. Post, Mr. Sylvester Heinberg, Mr. Cliff Merritt.

I will call the next panel so they can be ready.

Mr. Vincent Berinati, Rev. John Birch, Mr. Harold Arnold, and a representative of the Redlands Fish & Game Conservation Association.

Along with Mr. Arnold, we will have Richard Minnich and Robert Schellhous.

The Chair has an announcement to make and that is that we will not permit any demonstrations at all. Therefore, would the people with the pickets and placards please leave the auditorium at once?

(Demonstrators withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. BARING. You may proceed, gentlemen.
Dr. Kamb.

STATEMENT OF DR. BARCLAY KAMB, PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY AND

GEOPHYSICS, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PASADENA, CALIF.

Dr. KAMB. My name is Barclay Kamb and I am a professor of geology and geophysics at the California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, Calif. I am speaking as an individual citizen.

The San Gorgonio Wilderness Area is a small but beautiful and unspoiled tract of high mountain country, ideal for camping, hiking, back-packing, riding, climbing, and, in winter, for skiing and skitouring. It is a very attractive area, of that there is no dispute. The dispute is over how its attractiveness should be utilized, and who should be able to benefit from it.

The proposed legislation, recognizing that winter snow conditions are often excellent for skiing on the north slopes of Mount San Gorgonio, is designed to make this snow resource available to skiers and to commercial interests building upon the sport of downhill skiing. It is argued that, if opened to winter sports development, the area would be more fully utilized and would benefit more people, both recreationally and economically, than if retained in its present wilderness state. It is argued that to prevent development is to restrict enjoyment of the area to a select few, and it is argued that wilderness lands are available elsewhere for those few who desire them. It is also often argued that winter sports development would not noticeably detract from the existing wilderness uses of the area.

These arguments contain the basic reasoning that is used repeatedly by local interests throughout the country to advocate development of nearby wilderness lands. Hence their consideration here constitutes a test case for the concept of wilderness preservation adopted by the Congress as national policy in the Wilderness Act of 1964.

« PreviousContinue »