to be scientists, engineers, teachers, etc. than those who never have these values introduced to them. It is a most rewarding hobby and the only one I and many others have found which gives us a chance to adequately work off the tensions evolving from modern day living. It gives us a chance to stand back and get things into perspective; to view life objectively. It also affords one a chance to find what is really important and that we aren't really dependent on so many of the things we take so much for granted today.

Sounds like a very rewarding hobby doesn't it? It is. Unfortunately there is one drawback; it is an activity which, it seems, must be constantly defended from those who would destroy it. Although it harms no one, this hobby is repeatedly brought under attack by those who would destroy it merely for their own personal material gain. They would force those of us who don't wish to strive for great material wealth into giving up that which we hold so dear. What is this hobby which seems so beneficial, but is under this constant barrage of attempts to eliminate it? It is hiking and camping along wilderness trails. Simple as that. There are many of us who have an all pervading curiosity about the world around us; how it was created; what its natural laws are; how they apply; of what uses can they be made We also strive to know our fellow man and what is really best for man and the world he lives in. I for one find the best place to approach these and other problems is in the wilderness, as nearly as possible the same as when God created it.

Those who would destroy the small remaining portions of this wilderness have many rationalizations as to why they think their reasons are valid. For instance: They make the claim that it is too hard to get to these places for many. (More people-more money?) If it is really so hard then I wonder how on earth the pioneers ever settled this great country? They didn't have fancy autos to get around in while they grew big fat wide bottoms. Think how much healthier we would all be if we did more horseback riding, walking and outdoor living. "But there isn't time to go to these out-of-the-way places unless there are roads for faster travel," is another claim. As far as I've been able to determine, most everyone has the same 24 hours every day to spend as he sees fit. From the crowds in many back country areas these days it would seem that there is time for many people. How come some have enough "time" while others don't? Do you suppose those who do find time to get in to remote areas are the one who genuinely want to? I know I never have much trouble finding time to do something, if I really and truly want to do it!

To the claim that there are so many who are physically unable to get around to see the outdoors without artificial transportation I am reminded of something I saw recently. While returning down a mountain trail I came across a mother with her two children. One was a little girl about ten or eleven years old. She was crippled in both legs and unable to use them. She was on crutches and making her way slowly down the steep trail. Mother was wisely not helping; just keeping her speed to that of her daughter's. When asked if any help might be needed, the mother's reply was a cheerful, "we'll make it okay". Why was this crippled girl able to make progress on this trail and why did she even try when there are so many places one can drive to with commercial “advantages"? Very simple-she wanted to! There are very few people in this country who are really unable to get into wilderness areas—if they really want to.

There are many whose values are on the "material standard". Although those of us with values based on the "aesthetic standard" think we can understand these people, they seem unable to understand us and our needs. They would no doubt say the same about us. We, however, are perfectly willing to let them keep their cities and commercial projects in developed areas with no wish on our part to destroy those things. They, on the other hand, seem to be driven with a desire to destroy forever that which is so dear to us.

Are we selfish and anti-social? I don't think so. Most outdoor people I know are willing to share this bounty with any and all who are interested. We encourage trips into the back country for children in the knowledge they will benefit immensely, as we do. Hikers are among the most friendly, helpful people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. None of this standing back and watching while someone is in trouble as has happened on some city streets recently. No, we are a basically friendly lot and more than willing to share the outdoors with all who really want to enjoy it. Our only objection is to the use of artificial means to enter and use this domain. If we didn't dislike unnecessary commercialization we wouldn't head for the backcountry at every opportunity.

If it were otherwise we would stay in the city, or commercialized areas, with our material wealth minded friends.

We can only say we are willing to share the wilderness with all who are interested. Please though, don't destroy it as wilderness. Remember it is no longer wilderness if there is a road, or landing field, or mechanical means of locomotion, or buildings, or finished lumber tables, or even paved trails. I could say, with tongue in cheek, outhouses too, but with the increasing pressure of use in some areas these have become a necessity. Also, there are areas with fire dangers such that use of stoves or manufactured fireplaces are a practical need. Other than these however, let's leave at least a small part of this country as nearly as possible in its original state so that those who follow us down the trail of life can get the feeling of what it took to settle this great country. The serenity to be found beside a bubbling stream; the quiet of the wide beautiful desert; the uncluttered view from a mountain peak, away from the sight of man-made works. Let us give children the chance to find themselves as only the wilderness outdoors can do; showing them that most of todays so called "necessities of life" are not really that, but only things to make life easier for those who so wish it.

STATEMENT OF ROLAND ROSS, PROFESSOR OF NATURE STUDY, CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE AT LOS ANGELES

In Opposition: Evidence is climatic and geologic.

Conclusions: Site is catastrophic; destruction is built in for Youth Camps, the Landscape, the Ski Installations, with injury and depletion of the Ground Water Basin.

I. SETTING IS DESTRUCTIVELY UNIQUE FOR A SKI LIFT

1. Thunderstorm Track: Regular each summer, wet Gulf Airmass; follows desert edge of mountains (east side); annual flash floods out to desert; random and scattered occurrence; thunderstorms triggered by individual mountains. 2. San Gorgonio mountain offers steep east face; shear faulted, escarpment of San Andreas Fault; highest peak plus escarpment produces greatest thunderstorm attractant along California east side.

3. Basin effect compounds normal run-off: Torrent type streambeds now present; product of normal precipitation and snow melt; one cloud-burst-gutter there now, passes through Camp Benneville Pines.

II. INSTALLATIONS PRECIPITATE CATASTROPHY

1. Mere disturbance augments run-off: Soil surface particles hold fast by friction; more power to start a particle than to carry it; trampled earth erodes readily-(starts easily); "improvements" augment run-off.

2. Water-turning surfaces: Stop percolation/infiltration/penetration; rob ground water supplies; reduce human supplies of regional water; they magnify run-off; create walls of water/moments of catastrophe.

3. Predictable catastrophe: Met by looking ahead; signs used-"danger ahead"; highway speed zones, restrictions.

Catastrophe is built in: The escarpment invites thunderstorms; have hit here, in random pattern; will hit here inevitable; natural design. Installations within this natural embayment: This unique face; this cloudburst environment featuring water-turning pavings, roofs, trampling triple compound the flash-flood.

Seventeen ton boulders go miles.

Debris submerges lower country.

4+ by 2+ mile area engulfed ne of here.

Wrightwood destroyed 1941.

Fanglomerates up & down this cloudburst fringe of Californiachange and characterize desert landscapes.

III. PREDICTABLE AND ULTIMATE DENOUEMENT

A naked worthless rock-bound Basis entitled "Catastrophe Incorporated."

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. WILKINSON, PASADENA, CALIF.

I firmly oppose the projected use of the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area as a ski resort area.

Today this area is one of the last true Southern California wilderness areas. It is an irreplaceable area of hiking trails, streams, pines and redwoods. Last year more than 55,000 people-young and old-enjoyed the recreation and relaxation afforded by the area.

Tomorrow-if this plan is adopted-this area would be criss-crossed by highways and roads, spotted with commercial developments and significantly limited in use (mostly by people on skis--and a lot of us may spend some time on skis, we spend much more time off them).

Why is this plan brought forward? Perhaps one of the biggest reasons, not discussed often, is that some people stand to make money from the proposal. Yet, this business venture is a tenuous one at best depending on such uncontrolled variables as the weather and ever changing interests of the public.

A map of Southern California ski areas shows the large number of these areas already available for use by Southern California Ski enthusiasts.

Although our area boasts all these areas only one true wilderness area remains for those seeking refuge from the hectic metropolitan pace. For the naturalist. the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area is Southern California's last link with its primitive past.

It only takes a few months to build a ski resort. It takes thousands of years to build a wilderness.

STATEMENT OF DAVID P. VAN DE MARK, PALM DESERT, CALIF.

My name is David P. Van de Mark and my address is 75240 Skylark Trail, Palm Desert, Calif. I am a full time student at Humbolt State College, 1492 “H” St., Arcata, Calif. I want to register my opposition to any intrusion into the San Gorgonio Wild Area for family winter recreation.

I am well aware of the geography of the region. From the desert floor Mount Sam Gorgonio rises mightily and can be seen for miles. From the summit one has a vista covering 360 degrees and hundreds of miles. To be on top is a wonderful feeling. But that feeling is not all from just being on top of a mountain, but it is the way you get there that also counts. The slopes and valleys adjacent to San Gorgonio Peak are wild slopes, and therein the beauty lies. Some peaks in this country are higher, but with roads and lookouts etc., I would not bother to climb them or ski on them.

I am naturally concerned about the proposals to scar this beautiful area with a winter "family recreation site." The whole integrity of the wild area as such would be ruined by facilities in the Dry Lake basin and the slopes of San Gorgonio and Jepson Peaks. No where on these summits could one escape the sight of roads, buildings, towns, and accompanying activity. Although skiing is not mentioned in the bills, down hill skiing appears to be one of the major objectives.

Why must we exploit the last of southern California's high spots with the same developments that have made their way into all the others in the San Gabriel, San Jacinto, and San Bernardino mountain areas? There are many other ski facilities with more to be built. Why must we continue to ruin our last natural environments for wildlife and fish? The rare mountain sheep use these high peaks for their home. Certainly they will be affected. And the beautiful South Fork Santa Ana River above poopout hill won't be very pretty with a road in the vicinity. Dry Lake and other close by camping areas will be replaced with cement, bottles, paper, and cans brought there by thoughtless many and their four-wheeled easychairs. It was just a couple years ago that the Wilderness Bill was passed. I thought at låst our few remaining examples of a priceless heritage were safe for those yet born to enjoy. Now, so shortly later, we are ready to begin, in what will be an obvious precedent, to pick away at that last little bit. The proposed addition would hardly make up for that which will be lost.

It is not that the area is not used. 53.900 persons spent 72,000 man-days there. Actually half of these were children-days. I can't think of a better way to use any area than giving children the opportunity to see and use what God really wanted them to see.

The argument that there are many more skiers than hikers etc. is probably the poorest. That the area would be used more developed than it is now or will be also is of questionable value.

We could turn some of our churches into ice skating rinks and draw more crowds. But churches, and I submit, wilderness areas provide values not measured in man-hours and dollars.

I might also point out that some of the most avid oppositionist to this development are skiers-two good friends of mine love to cross country ski on San Gorgonio's unspoiled slopes. Cross country skiing has many fans, including myself, although I have yet to try it-or will I ever have a chance?

Civilization is rapidly advancing both in technology and unfortunately, numbers of people. Trends of thought have varied as to how to use our outdoors. One trend that has remained unchanged is the craving for wilderness experience. Skiing is in comparison a new "fad"-what will become of it in the future is any one's guess; what will become of wilderness is known by all-it is shrinking far too rapidly from this earth.

With ease and speed of transportation improving, and with recreational time on the increase, it is possible to go farther and stay longer. Why build ski facilities in an area that really is not prime for such activity? Like wasting precious water on golf courses in the desert, San Gorgonio is certainly not the place for a resort facility to use its preciously small amount of snow for skiing. As a wilderness watershed it is far more valuable.

Aspen, Colorado; Alta, Utah; Sun Valley, Idaho; Snoqualmie Pass, Washington; Big Mountain, Montana; Jackson, Wyoming; San Francisco Peaks, Arizona; and Mammoth, California are just a handful of places "made for skiers" from a meteorological standpoint. There are hundreds of others both local and far. The point is a simple one: there are too many other places more suitable for skiing which are either already established for that purpose or will soon be; also when good years for skiing occur at San Gorgonio, conditions for good skiing will be available at other local areas. This coupled with artificial snow makes for longer seasons elsewhere. Would you prefer San Gorgonio to be an area of natural beauty, or another artificial snow playground?

In the long run San Gorgonio will be but a "spit in the bucket" as far as skiing is concerned, but now it is our heaviest used wilderness area under the jurisdiction of the Wilderness Bill. Knowing man's greed for more now, it is evident that mistakes that lie in our hands today to prevent will happen tomorrow elsewhere, and our wilderness heritage will shrink some more. Let us all try and analyze our way of life and how we want the future to be—both materially and spiritually. With this in mind, I sincerely believe the San Gorgonio Wild Area will be left for the future generations to enjoy undisturbed. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF DR. RAYMOND C. SMITH, LA JOLLA, CALIF.

Your Honors: I wish to go on record in support of the argument that the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area, as provided by the Wilderness Act of 1964, should remain intact as a wilderness area.

IRREVERSIBLE DECISION

A decision to build recreation facilities within the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area is an irreversible decision. It is irreversible because the installation and development of these faclities would negate, damage, and destroy those properties of the area that make it a wilderness, i.e. the rugged, relatively undisturbed natural condition of the country. It is not only irreversible in regard to nature, but, for all practical purposes, it is politically irreversible as well. To appreciate this, one need only imagine trying to make California's Mammouth Mountain ski area into a wilderness area again. That the decision to keep San Gorgonio Wilderness Area intact was not an irreversible political decision is aptly demonstrated by the necessity of these hearings less than one year after the passage of the Wilderness Act.

SENATOR NELSON'S "ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND SURVEYS BILL"

The irreversible destruction of wilderness areas by the piecemeal invasion of these areas by exploiting interests will always be a constant concern to man. This concern is compounded when we realize that we lack the scientific and human understanding to appropriately evaluate our natural resources in relation to man's varied needs both physically and spiritually so as to make wise decisions on the use of land.

In view of this irreversibility, it would seem prudent that the piecemeal invasion of wilderness areas be avoided, replaced instead by an overall evaluation of needs and resources, including the benefit of appropriate research and study such as Senator Nelson has proposed recently in his Ecological Research and Surveys Bill.

THE HIGH PRICE OF PRIVACY

The problem under consideration here today is fundamentally the conflicting demands of the accelerating press of civilization on the one hand and man's need for spiritual inspiration on the other. This problem focuses on weighing the tangible values of the dollar against the intangible values accrued to man by what has been called, "the wilderness experience," an experience sometimes likened to religious experience where the individual man seeks to quietly understand his identity, his creator, and their relationship. Popularly conceived as a "man against nature" experience, it is more accurately an experience in which man struggles within himself to become more in accord with nature. This experience is made increasingly invaluable and necessary by the expanding crush of humanity, a crush which will soon make privacy man's most limited and expensive resource.

CONCLUSION: SAN GORGONIO WILDERNESS AREA SHOULD NOT BE INVADED

I have pointed out that to make the decision to invade the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area would be irreversible both from the standpoint of nature and of politics; that the choice of the wisest use of land and resources is handicapped by man's present inadequate understanding and information; and that as the population expands, the necessity for privacy will increase thus increasing the value of wilderness areas. When the appropriate premium value is placed upon "man's wilderness experience," it becomes evident that the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area should not be invaded.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. HUBBARD, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF.

Honorable Chairman, and members of the committee, I am William S. Hubbard of San Bernardino and I appear before this Committee as a representative of the Argonauts of San Bernardino Inc. We are a 30 year old civic booster club. Over the years we have been instrumental in helping bring such institutions as Norton Air Force Base, Kaiser Steel Corporation, and other worthwhile projects to our area. We are non-political, non-sectarian, and non-profit.

We have supported a winter recreation development for the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area since its initial conception.

Whereas naturally our primary interest in the development of a winter recreation area is for what it will do for San Bernardino, we acknowledge that there are millions of people in Southern California who have an equity in such a proposal. Southern California is engulfed in a population explosion. Millions of people want to play. That they do not want to play in a literally inaccessible region, such as the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area, has been revealed time and time again by inspections of the Dry Lake area while it was snowed in. That they do not want to play in an inaccessible area is just good common sense. Frequently, a period of many weeks will go by in the winter without anyone entering the area.

The Argonaut Club and the millions of other Southern Californians interested in Winter Recreation recognized the need for wilderness areas, however. We are for more wilderness, not less. We submit that there are many thousands of acres inside the San Bernardino National Forest, adjacent to the Georgonio Wilderness area, and above the 700 ft. level which could and should be incorporated into the existing San Gorgonio Wilderness system.

But while we are for wilderness, we are also for winter recreation. The need for such recreation becomes ever more acute. It is especially acute here