The Government has spent $300,000 for a survey designed to move all "nonessential" facilities out of Yosemite Valley to El Portal, a distance of 14 miles and out of the Park. The capital cost alone of this proposal was estimated to be $110,000,000! The practical obstacles to transporting the people-if they would be transported-and the implementation of this report are stupendous! It would require over 300, fifty-passenger buses operating over a narrow winding road (a bus every few seconds) just to move the people in and out of the Park. (See V.T.N. Report). The next step to advance the proposal of removing visitor accommodations from the National Parks is to discredit the concessioner who by law (P.L. 89–249 after very extensive Congressional hearings), was selected as the best method to provide guest services. Here's where MCA comes in. Letters circulated by The Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and the National Parks and Conservation Association are urging contributions to fight MCA in Yosemite. Lets look at the charges and the facts: First charge That MCA has proposed exploitive development in Yosemite. Facts. (a) MCA has proposed replacing 150 tents (out of 402) with an equal number of cabins. The Park Service has approved these plans. This is consistent with long standing Park Service policy of requiring decent facilities for the accommodation of the Park visitor. This plan was initiated and first approved by the Park Service when I headed the Yosemite Park and Curry Company some three years before MCA acquired an interest in Yosemite. If you deny upgrading of facilities, you end up excluding overnight visitors. If this policy of exclusion is permitted, it would effectively deny the use of the Park to the senior citizens, the handicapped and the ordinary family inexperienced in camping. It would take away the Parks from most of the people who now use the Parks. (b) The Curry cafeteria that MCA is building is to replace the one partially destroyed by fire on Easter Sunday, 1973. This facility serves the Curry Village, where most of the lower rate facilities are located and is a replica of the destroyed building. Rebuilding was approved by the Park Service before MCA became involved in Yosemite. (c) The construction of a food service at Glacier Point would be a replacement of a temporary facility placed there to serve the people after the Glacier Point Hotel burned about four years ago. This development was approved and presented by the Park Service in the Master Plan to the public over two years before MCA became involved in Yosemite. There is no plan to replace the Glacier Point Hotel. Second charge That MCA would build an aerial tram to Glacier Point. Facts. The proposal to build an aerial tram was presented as an alternate proposal as part of the Park Service Master Plan over three years ago. It was approved at a public hearing by Ansel Adams, the famed photographer and conservationist who has spent over 50 years in the Park. He even proposed the site for its construction. There were persons in the National Park Service who thought the tram approach had merit. Proponents argue that an aerial tram would have less impact on the environment than the road that it would replace; would cut down on the number of automobiles that would congest the Park roads; and would give the ordinary visitor a finer quality experience by giving him a view of the rim horizon and the valley without the required forty-mile automobile trip. An objective person would have to acknowledge that there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. Third charge That MCA plans to lure convention business to Yosemite. Facts. Convention or meeting groups that do not dominate the facilities have always been permitted during the "off season" as a means of permitting a wider enjoyment of the Park. It also encourages use of the Park during slack times and provides a way to spread costs and keep summer rates down in these highly seasonal operations. The picture of the chairs in Yosemite Valley was prepared several years before I was active with the Yosemite Park and Curry Company. This is typical of the conservationists distorting the facts to create an emotional response. Fourth charge That MCA has despoiled the wilderness by filming and painting the Valley walls. Facts. The proposal, welcomed by the National Park Service, to use a film series to portray the role of the Park Ranger and disseminate Park policies was, in my opinion, not too well conceived. To attach dastardly motives is to distort for the purpose of discrediting the concessioner and advance plans to have the facilities moved out of the Park. The exaggerated response to painting nine square yards of rocks with a water based paint (which was immediately removed) in a 750,000 acre Park shows how emotional the charges are. I do not defend the action, but the over-reaction is ludicrous. As a person who has spent the greater part of my life as a proponent of the National Park concept and as one jealous of the rights of the people to use and enjoy their National Parks, I must protest the use of falsehoods and half-truths to accomplish the objective of removing guest facilities from the Parks. The Conservationists, regardless of how extreme, have a right to their views, but the public has a right to the truth so that a sound decision can be made. The real issue is the right of people to use their National Parks. The basic concept as enunciated in the Yellowstone Act and the Act creating the National Park Service was to set aside these areas for the use and enjoyment of the people, consistent with preservation of the natural resource. Take away the facilities that permit the people to use and enjoy the Parks and you effectively take away their Parks. Stephen Mather, first Director of the National Park Service, recognized this when he said, "Scenery is hollow enjoyment for a person who has just finished an indigestible breakfast and spent a night on an impossible bed". Let's preserve the Parks for the people's use and enjoyment. If further information is required, I will be happy to provide it. If a hearing is held, I request an opportunity to testify. Respectfully, DON HUMMEL, Chairman, Conference of National Park Concessioners. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. DON HUMMEL, Chairman, Conference of National Parks Concessioners, DEAR MR. HUMMEL: Thank you for your letter of December 18, 1974, concerning issues involved in the operation of the concessions at Yosemite and other National Parks and requesting an opportunity to testify at our hearings. As Chairman Dingell indicated at our December 20 hearing, we will be holding additional hearings early in the 94th Congress. When hearing dates are established, we shall promptly inform you. We appreciate receiving the views expressed in your letter and will include the letter in the hearing record of December 20, 1974. Sincerely, HENRY S. REUSS, Chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee. Mr. DINGELL. Is there any further business to come before the subcommittees? If not, the subcommittees will stand in recess until 6 o'clock tonight. [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittees recessed, to reconvene at 6 p.m., the same day.] EVENING SESSION Mr. REUSS. The Conservation and National Resources Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies will be in order for their continued hearing into concessioners' practices in the National Park System. We have with us this evening Mr. Ronald H. Walker, the Director of the National Park Service. Would you come forward, Mr. Walker? STATEMENT OF RONALD H. WALKER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. REUSS. Please make yourself at ease, We thank you for coming. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief statement, if it would be appropriate. Mr. REUSS. Yes, we would be delighted to hear it. Mr. WALKER. First of all, let me issue my sincere apologies for causing any inconvenience to you, or to this is Mr. REUSS. Thank you. Can you speak up? I hope that microphone Mr. WALKER. Sir, can you hear me now? Mr. REUSS, Yes, we surely can. Mr. WALKER. I would like to state for the record that I was not here for the hearing this morning because it was my understanding that it was not necessary for me to be here today. Secretary Kyl informed me the chairman did not insist that I be here so long as I made available the best possible of witnesses within the National Park Service; my deputy was available to answer the questions. We were also informed that it would be a brief, concise hearing; and I did just that. I asked my deputy, Russ Dickenson, to be here to answer any and all questions. In addition, I attempted to make reservations upon arriving at Denver to return to Washington, D.C. Sir, I might add, it is a very confusing place during this time of year, at Christmas. We worked with the Red Carpet Club at United Airlines. I'm not sure how many reservations, if we did have very many. I do know that in the meantime I called back to Washington and talked to Curtis Bohlen, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, who had in the meantime, after a number of phone calls, talked to Secretary Reed. And at that time Secretary Reed said, with the understanding that he had with Secretary Kyl, that I should stay in Denver and conduct the business which was to spend the better part of the evening and this morning with my successor, who is the superintendent of the Grand Tetons, Gary Everhart. I did just that. At the point at which it became necessary to fly all night, changing at a city, or cities, and arrive here on the Hill with no preparation or sleep, I decided to accept the Chairman's word that it was unnecessary for me to be here. I would also like to kill any inference that I attempted to skip this hearing can you hear me, sir? Mr. REUSS. Go right ahead, Mr. Walker. Mr. WALKER [continuing]. That I attempted to skip, or avoid, this hearing; it's not my style or my nature, and I would not do that. Mr. REUSS. Did you get the letter of December 17, to you from Mr. Dingell and me? Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir; I did. That arrrived-we were informed sometime in the morning-and it arrived sometime mid-afternoon, and in a meeting in Secretary Reed's office with a number of people present. Mr. REUSS. What day was that-December 17? Mr. WALKER. It was the same day, sir. The letter was written on the 17th and we received it on the 18th. I believe my dates are correct. And at that time, Secretary Reed called Secretary Kyl on the phone to say that there was not enough time to prepare a reply to this lengthy letter, and the questions and answers and kinds of data the committees wanted. And at that point Secretary Kyl-I'm assuming-called either you or someone else, and sometime late that evening I got a call back in my office from Secretary Reed saying: Ron, it's not necessary for you to be here; you should go ahead and meet with Gary. Your Deputy can go, so, inform Russ and make sure that they are well prepared and represent you well. I will continue, if you don't mind, sir. I was in Denver at Secretary Reed's direction. My Deputy, who has more information relative to the congressional inquiry, was available to respond to your invitation. Secretary Reed felt it more important for me to be with and prepare the new Director during this transition. I have exactly six business days left on the job. Gary Everhart was in Denver meeting with the FAA on discussions about a regional transportation study for the Grand Tetons Airport, which is why we had arranged to meet there. Furthermore, I would like to be on record stating that is is not necessary to subpena me ever. I have always appeared before every congressional committee willingly, and always answered truthfully. However, for the very reason that I did not fly all night and arrive unprepared this morning, I did fly all day and arrived just now, unprepared to address any substantive issues. My appearance is to show good faith. I have not been briefed, and will be unable to address any substantive issues today. I will be more than happy to appear for that purpose on Monday, or any other date the chairman would like; and hope that my Deputy has been able to address some of the concerns that these committees have. May I request that I appear on Monday, when I have been able to focus on your questions. Mr. REUSS. We are going to declare a 10-minute recess in a moment. to enable members to answer the bells and then come back. Mr. WALKER. Fine, sir. Mr. REUSS. But let me say that, (1) I don't think it is useful to go into what happened in Denver Mr. WALKER. Thank you, sir. Mr. REUSS [continuing]. Or (2) what happened in the Department of the Interior here, and I am grateful for your apology. We are glad you are here. It may be that we want to continue our interrogation of you on Monday, but we will want to ask you some questions Mr. WALKER. All right, sir: I will do the very best I can. Mr. REUSS [continuing]. This evening. So, if you will make yourself at ease here for 10 minutes, we will be back. We will not keep you unduly but there are members, including myself Mr. WALKER. I'll do the very best I can. Mr. REUSS. Thank you very much. We now stand in recess for 10 minutes. [Whereupon, at 6:20 p.m., a 10-minute recess was taken.] Mr. REUSS. The two committees will resume their hearing. Mr. Walker, if you will sit down, and if you want your associates to join you Mr. WALKER. I'll do the best I can. Mr. REUSS. You might want to confer with them. Bring anyone you wish. Mr. WALKER. Thank you, sir. Mr. REUSS. As you say, you haven't been briefed on the hearing. Let me tell you the nature of the concern that I have, which I think is also on the mind of other members of the subcommittees. In brief, it is that the National Park Service in the last year or two has seemingly grown very close to the concessioners in the national parks particularly to the concessioner who, since September 1973, has had the concession in Yosemite National Park. I refer to the Music Corp. of America, and its subsidiary, MCA Recreation, Inc., which is part of a conglomerate that includes Universal Studios. Specifically, members of the subcommittees are concerned that the national parks remain available to people of modest means. It's hard enough in days of expensive transportation for people of modest means to afford the transportation to our great national parks. When they get there, we believe they ought to be entitled to simple, unostentatious, and inexpensive, quarters, camp, and tenting facilities. Thus, we were concerned when we found that MCA was apparently moving vigorously toward replacing inexpensive camp sites and cabins with very expensive motels-a fact which the Park Service itself recognized would make the use of the facilities out of the question for people of modest means. And we were concerned when evidence appeared that the National Park Service-far from resisting the tendency to make more expensive National Park Service concessioner's accommodations-apparently was doing its best to accommodate the concessioners. We were concerned that even though Congress had indicated some years ago, back in 1958, that the El Portal facility outside of Yosemite National Park proper would be a good place for nonessential activities. nonetheless 13 liquor outlets within the park itself, operated by MCA Recreation, continued to operate there: and that far from moving toward their removal outside the park, the Park Service is apparently doing its best to keep them there thus doing the bidding of Music Corp. of America. We were concerned, too, that Universal Studios, one of the other members of the MCA conglomerate-which has nothing to do with park concessions-was allowed into the national park to make its films with what seems to have been unusual solicitude by the National Park Service: The providing of a highly paid Park Service official named Morehead to Universal; the use of park rangers for this com |