Instead, we were greeted with mega-decibels of rock music, sufficient to vibrate the cabin in which we stayed and loud enough to prevent anyone from sleeping. In no way did Yosemite Park resemble the great outdoors that night. It more nearly resembled a seat near an electric guitar in a small cellar discotheque. The music I have described started at 10 p.m. and did not end until I got up at 1:30 a.m., traced the source of the music, and pulled several large plugs from an outside power source, thus disconnecting the "band." Immediately thereafter, I went to the Park office and registered a complaint with personnel at the desk. I was told that "the Park Police were looking into it." How they could avoid finding the source of the music long before I did, is literally beyond my comprehension.

The next morning I found the resident manager who proceeded with me to the location of the previous night's party. I described the whole situation to him and received abject apologies from him. We met two sheriff's deputies who stated that "there had been quite a brawl there the previous night and it had taken several cars of deputies to break it up." We then went to the manager's office where he proceeded to take my name, address, and other details. He informed me that the party was held by a group of MCA employees who had been doing some filming in the park, and not by any of his personnel. I then proceeded to Lewis Memorial Hospital with my youngest son who had become violently ill during the night with a stomach upset which was certainly not helped by the music and vibrations. * *

What kind of administration is that?

Mr. DICKENSON. It is the type of activity which should not be permitted, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. I cordially agree. Now, would you look into it and give me and my colleagues here on the two subcommittees a report as to how this type of thing by employees of your concessioners is permitted?

Mr. DICKENSON. We will investigate and report, sir.

[The December 16, 1974, letter from Mr. Bradley Rosenthal to Senator Bible, from which Congressman Dingell read, and responses from Mr. Edward C. Hardy, Chief Operating Officer, Yosemite Park & Curry Co., and the National Park Service, follow:]

POTOMAC, MD., December 16, 1974.

Hon. ALAN BIBLE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BIBLE: I would like an answer, in plain English, describing what, if anything, you and your committee are doing about the irresponsible management of Yosemite Park. I was apparently mistaken in believing that the park belongs to all the people. I didn't realize that it is now a private playground for the benefit, amusement and profit of the MCA Corporation.

On August 24, 1974, I arrived at Curry Village with my wife and two children for what we thought would be the high point of a three week tour through the west.

Instead, we were greeted with mega-decibels of rock music, sufficient to vibrate the cabin in which we stayed and loud enough to prevent anyone from sleeping. In no way did Yosemite Park resemble the great outdoors that night. It more nearly resembled a seat near the electric guitar in a small cellar discotheque. The music I have described started at 10 p.m. and did not end until I got up at 1:30 a.m., traced the source of the music, and pulled several large plugs from an outside power source, thus disconnecting the "band". Immediately thereafter, I went to the Park office and registered a complaint with personnel at the desk. I was told that "the Park Police were looking into it". How they could avoid finding the source of the music long before I did, is literally beyond my comprehension.

The next morning I found the Resident Manager who proceeded with me to the location of the previous night's party. I described the whole situation to him and received abject apologies from him. We met two Sheriff's Deputies who stated that "there had been quite a brawl there the previous night and it had taken several cars of Deputies to break it up". We then went to the Manager's Office

Mr. Alderson?

Mr. COOPER. I had another comment on films, but I think the films have been adequately dealt with earlier in the hearing. So, why don't you go ahead?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE ALDERSON, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL AFFAIRS, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. ALDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am George Alderson, director of Federal affairs, the Wilderness Society. Rather than read my whole statement I request that it be included in full.

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection your full statement will appear in the record. The Chair recognizes you for such additional comments as you wish to make.

Mr. ALDERSON. The Wilderness Society believes that the two subcommittees here have performed a vital public service by investigating the Yosemite episode. The issues involved here are important for two

reasons.

First, the influence of the concessioner of Yosemite is indicative of the excessive influence of concessioners throughout the national park system and upon the parks themselves. My statement lists a number of cases in which our organization has been involved, with other citizen organizations in the respective States, in cases where the concessioner was using direct pressure upon the Park Service to influence the supposedly professional judgment of the agency, with a consequent impact on the development and conservation of the parks.

Second, the process by which the master plan was prepared for Yosemite may be indicative of deep-seated fallacies in the master planning process for all units of the national park system.

As a result of our experience with many of the national parks, especially during the past decade, our conclusion is simply this-that where the great dangers to the national park system were once from logging, mining, and grazing, the greatest danger now is posed by the concessioners which operate in the parks.

Throughout the country, the concessioners are pressing for expansion of their facilities into the now natural parklands, and they are opposing wilderness protection for the parks under the Wilderness Act of 1964. We believe that the growing influence of these firms must be curtailed.

The Yosemite incident is only the latest in a series of similar incidents, and perhaps worst than most, but they all have got to stop. The National Park Service is restricted by its Organic Act of 1916 to only such development as is required to provide for the enjoyment of the scenery and the natural historic objects and wildlife in the parks, as was indicated by earlier witnesses. My statement cites the 1916 Organic Act and the act of 1965, which prescribes the concession policies for the National Park Service.

Throughout these statutory provisions the emphasis is on preservation of the parks, and the only development permissible is that which is "necessary and appropriate" for enjoyment of the four specifically mentioned values of the parks-the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein. That is what the 1916 act indicates is to be enjoyed in the parks; it's not enjoyment of simply

anything, or rock music, or movies, but only the types of enjoyment that fall within the four specifically named categories.

The Wilderness Society believes that these mandates are being violated by the continuation of elaborate concession facilities in the parks. Yet, instead of conducting an orderly phaseout of many unnecessary facilities, the Park Service is being pressured into expanding the facilities in many parks. I have given examples in my statement. We have reached the point where too often national park policy is being dictated by the profit motive under the pressures instigated by park concessioners. The influence of the concessioners clearly will be even more difficult to deal with now that conglomerates have moved into the parks. The widespread political ties of such corporations, their apparently ready access to capital, and their lack of a personal commitment to the parks, spell trouble for the National Park Service. In other words, this is a whole different scene from the Fred Harvey Co., or the Yosemite Park & Curry Co., when it was run essentially as a family corporation, where the staff of the concession had lived in the park practically all their lives and shared the concern with the Park Service. This is a new scene and we have to meet it with appropriate changes in policy.

Commendably, the Park Service has moved toward stronger policies against expansion of the concessions. My statement cites the language that is proposed as part of the preliminary draft of National Park Service administrative policies released in September of this year.

However, if the influence shown by MCA in Yosemite is indicative of what we can expect elsewhere, this policy will never be implemented, even if it's been adopted, because as we have seen in the Yosemite case, the actions of the Park Service don't necessarily reflect the policies which they have established.

Other changes are badly needed to bring concession policies into line with the statutes governing the national park system, and we have already recommended some changes to the Park Service, including a complete prohibition against conventions. Now, although I differ with my colleagues a little bit on this, we believe that the use of parks for conventions is simply not consistent with the 1916 Organic Act, which allows only such use as falls under the terms "provide for the enjoyment" of the scenery, and the natural and historical objects and the wildlife therein. The purpose of a convention in our view is not to enjoy these values, but to conduct business, professional, or organizational affairs. The enjoyment of the park values is only incidental. It's incidental in the same respect that enjoyment of the park values would be incidental if you had a highway going through the park. We have a policy against through highways and in favor of park roads that aren't a connecting link between two major communities, for example. People driving along a through highway would enjoy the values, but it would be incidental to their travel between the communities on either side.

So, in the same respect we believe that the 1916 Organic Act requires that the activities conducted in parks be directly related to the function of the enjoyment of the four specifically named values.

Turning to the process by which the Yosemite master plan was prepared, we are very appreciative of the subcommittees' effort to bring this out, and get the facts on the table, because much of what was happening we never knew. The public never knew what was going on.

However, the process that was used is no longer being used by the Park Service in new master plans that it is now undertaking. Instead they are preparing master plans in a regional context which take into account the natural resources and public use areas nearby. It also involves more continuous public involvement, as opposed to the 11thhour public meetings that were to be conducted in the Yosemite sequence. As we have found through the years, the last-minute public meetings made public participation virtually ineffective in the consideration of these master plans because it was too late in the game; the Park Service had already come to a conclusion, and it was awfully hard to change them that late.

The August 1974 draft of the Yosemite master plan was faulty on several grounds, and I would like to mention four.

One is that it was done without any public participation.

Second, that it was based on direct, continuing consultation with the concessioner, who thus had an inside track and special opportunities that were denied to the public, to influence the plan.

Third, it treats the regional context of Yosemite National Park in just the sketchiest terms. It doesn't allude specifically to any nearby public use facilities. The plan treats Yosemite almost as an island, self-sufficient from the rest of the world. This is at variance with park policy that has been in existence for 10 years.

Fourth, that some of its concession provisions are in violation of the 1965 act of Congress relating to concessioners.

These mistakes are so basic that a fresh start on the planning process may be the only way to overcome them because apparently the planning was not based on the regional context that surely must be required.

The Yosemite episode has raised yet another serious policy issue, which has been alluded to earlier, concerning the use of the national park system by commercial motion picture and television firms. This has been going on for quite some time. Many television commercials have been filmed in national parks. I remember an incident in which one of the automobile companies used helicopters to lift their new model cars onto some of the great pinnacles in Canyonlands National Park and filmed them there for their commercials. We believe that these activities are in violation of the 1916 Organic Act.

The only commercial filming that would be consistent with the 1916 Organic Act would be in case of documentary presentations about the significant values of the parks. In addition we consider that filming by news media would be permissible under the first amendment of the Constitution. Fictional, advertising, or strictly entertainment productions would, we think, be in violation of the mandates of the 1916

act.

Mr. Chairman, that completes my summary. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to join with the subcommittees and hope that this can lead to some real reforms in the park policies, because they are surely needed.

[Mr. Alderson's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE ALDERSON, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL AFFAIRS, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

I am George Alderson, Director of Federal Affairs for The Wilderness Society, a national organization of citizens dedicated to the preservation of an enduring

47-059-75-16

Mr. DINGELL. If you permit at this point, must not only be done, but it must also be done in the full glare of the public eye.

Mr. CLUSEN. That's correct, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. All right.

Mr. CLUSEN. With that, I would like to answer any questions you have regarding either this particular project, or the rest of my statement; or defer to the other gentlemen here.

Mr. DINGELL. If it meets the approval of my colleagues, I think perhaps in view of the hour, it would be well to hear each of you in order, and then direct the questions. So, if there is no objection by my colleagues, we will continue to hear your testimony, gentlemen, and then we will direct questions at you.

[Mr. Clusen's prepared statement and the internal memorandum to which he referred above follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. CLUSEN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, SIERRA CLUB

Messrs. Chairmen, I am Charles M. Clusen, a Washington Representative of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club has a long and deep interest in Yosemite National Park, going back to the founding of the Sierra Club in 1892 by John Muir who made this area famous with his writings and led the fight to save Hech Hetchy Valley from destruction by the damming of the Tuolumne River. John Muir and the Sierra Club lost that fight, but the Club over its 82 years of existence has never lost sight of the vision that men like Muir had for Yosemite. We commend your subcommittees for conducting your investigation of National Park Service concession and planning operations with specific regard to Yosemite National Park. We have increasingly in recent years become concerned about concession operations and their impact upon our National Park System. Yosemite is not the only site for such problems. A year and a half ago a great dispute occurred over the building of a large dormitory at Crater National Park. There have also been disputes regarding the possible expansion of the ski area in Lassen Volcanic National Park and the over expansion of the sewage treatment facility in Sequoia National Park. Furthermore, the Sierra Club is engaged in litigation against the Secretary of the Interior to prevent him from issuing a permit to Disney Enterprises, Inc., to build a transportation system through a part of Sequoia National Park to the proposed Mineral King ski and summer resort.

The Club strongly supported the establishment of the National Park Service and has worked diligently to insure that the Service's mission as stated in the 1916 Organic Act is implemented:

"*** to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." (U.S.C. title 16, sec. 1)

Some say that this mandate contains an inherent conflict between preservation and use. We say that it does not because the preservation mission must be and is supreme, "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein". The remainder of the mission makes clear that use is defined as the "enjoyment of the same" or the scenery, natural objects and wildlife. Furthermore, these natural resources are to be left "unimpaired for the enjoy ment of future generations", prohibiting any consumption or degradation.

I take your time to mention this often-quoted mandate because the Service seems too often to forget what their job is. And concessionaires in certain cases seem not to understand what national parks are for. Our natural heritage is probably the most important physical thing that we can pass on to our children. In fact, the future of our civilization is dependent upon it.

While it is true that a certain amount of development is necessary in parts of certain national parks to facilitate public use, it does not follow the kinds of additional developments proposed for Yosemite National Park that we have been hearing about are necessary, much less desirable.