year framework of the Master Plan. We support the elimination of automobile use within the Valley once the overnight visitor has reached his lodging or camping destination and feel this also can be accomplished within the next 10 years. We also support the establishment of Park carrying capacities which will control visitation levels. All we ask is that the architects of the planning process combine their dreams and visions with facts of reality-namely, time, money and technology. Because we have lived in the business world perhaps our comments seem stark to some conservationists but they are not meant to diminish our unyielding philosophical commitment to environmentally sound planning. National Parks are preserves for the people. Sometimes I fear our critics have lost sight of this basic concept. As preserves for the people preservation must be balanced with use, albeit careful, intelligent use. When viewed in context, none of our statements are deviations from sound environmental planning, but this fact does not come out in a fair reading of the press coverage. For example, I was quoted as saying, "An example of Park management imbalance is the philosophy that preservation is more important than public service." Philosophically, I agree with Howard Chapman that in balancing use and preservation in planning, it is better to err on the side of preservation. My statement was a commentary on the Yosemite Park Service management in not providing rangers for the manning of campground kiosks; thereby prohibiting campers who were in Yosemite from securing an available campsite for the evening. This is a serious disservice to the public. My comment in context demonstrated a concern that the Yosemite Park Service was allocating its personnel to the detriment of adequately administering the campground. We have acknowledged that the recent problems in campground administration are associated with the breakdown of the contracted nation-wide park reservation system-this contract has been terminated for inadequacy of service. Finally, much has been alleged concerning concessioner pressure on local Park Service officials. We have, as you know, a new Superintendent in the Park. Much of the planning process was already underway and was being supervised by both the Western Region office in San Francisco as well as at the Denver Service Center of the NPS. Thus, a certain sense of indecisiveness naturally developed in the Superintendent's office which tended to delay planning progress. Our coordination necessarily gravitated towards the Denver and San Francisco offices. When decisions were made that appeared to us to be either arbitrary, uninformed or unfeasible we requested that the planning teams permit such decisions to be reviewed by the NPS staffs in Washington. At no time were such appeals made behind anyone's back-in fact, we requested such reviews be made with the local planning staff in attendance. Once there was final agreement among all NPS management, there was no further action taken. It should be understood that the NPS in Washington were having concurrent meetings with national leaders of various conservation groups on these same subjects. Our only view has been that the planning process be conducted on a logical basis with a clear understanding of the objectives and with all the facts available to make these important long-range decisions for the future of the Park. CONCLUSION In conclusion the allegations by Michael McCloskey that "MCA is trying to whipsaw and browbeat the Park Service, to get them to do what they want," and Larry Moss' accusation that we have "a lack of understanding of the Park itself, the purposes of the Park and what a concessioner function is in a National Park" are counterproductive and do not advance the purposes of either conservation or public use of the parks. We welcome the exposure of any proposal to the scrutiny of our critics and the test of time. We regard our association with the NPS as a partnership under the stewardship of good taste and supreme sensitvity to the natural resources that are Yosemite. In the final analysis the planning process is in the hands of the Park Service. Any proposal must be approved by the NPS and conform to the Yosemite Master Plan which is being drafted. Within the guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act all sectors of the public will have an opportunity to comment on and influence that plan. When the wheat is sifted from the chaff, we have not advanced any radical ideas for the desecration of Yosemite, and yet MCA has been cast as the protagonist of exploitive development. We are environmentally conscious and ever mindful of our custodial role within Yosemite. We are not going to propose or do anything to damage the legacy of this majestic natural preserve. Thank you for your time and concern. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, JAY S. STEIN, Vice President. Mr. DINGELL. Now, on September 25 I got a letter from Acting Assistant Secretary of Interior Curtis Bohlen in which he said as follows: The [National Park] Service, pursuant to policy, discourages the use of concession facilities for conventions and other group gatherings during the season of heavy visitation. However, concessioners have for many years hosted such gatherings during "off" seasons with the Service approval. This is not only sound business practice, but it also provides such groups of people the opportunity to visit Yosemite when it is not crowded. Thus, MCA, Inc., recently sought to attract "off" season convention business through the dissemination of a prepared brochure. Apparently, the public has misconstrued the intent of that publication and believes that MCA, Inc., intends to make the park a convention center to the exclusion of "on" season visitors, which is simply not the case. [The full text of the letter is printed on pp. 9–10.] Mr. DINGELL. Here is the brochure which I suspect you are aware of. This brochure has a lot of pictures in it. It is entitled "Yosemite The Unconventional Convention." On its cover it shows in the background some of the better-known mountains at Yosemite, with a convention panel and a rostrum, and a bunch of chairs in the foreground. The text begins: "It's not just another American convention hotel with the glass and steel and plastic flowers. It's a great American castle. Probably the only one of its kind in the world." And then it goes on with descriptions of the park: "Here you have over 700,000 acres of park to enjoy. Which means a convention at Yosemite offers more diversions than just the hotel bars when you relax. "And more peace and quiet when you get down to work. "It may not be the convention you had in mind at all. But then again, it may just be the unconvention you had in mind." I took the trouble of asking the GAO to look into this matter and GAO said that, from January 1973 through October 1974, there have been one or more conventions at Yosemite in every month, including the summer months. From January 1973 through November 1974 there were 2,561 room-nights for conventions at Yosemite. Yosemite has booked at least 40 conventions to be held in the period from January 1975 through May of 1980. In many instances the number of lodging units set aside for these 40 conventions exceed a hundred rooms. For example, the California Medical Association, post graduate students, has booked 115-plus rooms at the Ahwahnee, and 150 rooms at the Yosemite Lodge for May 15, 1975. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Is May 15 considered the off-season? Mr. DINGELL. The 1970 "Administrative Policies" for areas in the National Park System, published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service states (p. 50): Conventions. The use of concession facilities for conventions, group meetings, nd the like during seasons of heavy vacation travel, should be discouraged. [NOTE. A January 1975 draft revision of this document continues the same language, but adds the following sentence: "Conventions are not permitted if they would interfere with general public use and enjoyment of the area."] Mr. DINGELL. I will insert the brochure with which I am sure you are familiar Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir; I certainly am. Mr. DINGELL [continuing]. In the record without objection. [The brochure and related memorandum follow:] Memorandum to: Regional Director, Western Region. From: Superintendent, Yosemite. JUNE 10, 1974. Subject: Yosemite Park & Curry Co. promotional packet. Transmitted herewith for your information are two copies of a rather impressive promotional packet advertising Yosemite National Park as a convention center. This item was called to our attention by Mr. Joe Bolin, who you may recall has expressed a very active interest in the Yosemite Park and Curry Company proposal relating to replacement of units at Curry Village. I was not personally aware of the existence of this rather impressive advertising packet, although I was informed by Mr. Sleznick that something along these lines, but not so elaborate, had been issued by the Company in the past. In reviewing the material contained herein, I find nothing that is really contrary to our policies relating to such activities. However, it is my judgement that the public reaction to this advertising effort would have likely been quite critical. At least I would anticipate that this would be the reaction of the Conservation Organizations. This is just to keep you and your office informed of the aggressive efforts of our present concessioner to promote the commercial aspects of Yosemite National Park. Any comments or observations that you may have with regard to this material will be appreciated. LESLIE P. ARNBERGER. Enclosure. |