66 



My estimation is that the Forest Service has probably spent a 

 very substantial part of that alone in constant hassles and audits 

 and arguments with our resort alone. And I believe that the sav- 

 ings will be much greater than that to the United States by going 

 to a system that is easily administered and easily determined such 

 as that which is before the committee here. I strongly urge the sup- 

 port of this bill and urge the committee to send it out with a favor- 

 able recommendation to the House so that we can get this voted 

 on. 



Two years ago, the Forest Service through the Administration in- 

 dicated to the industry that there would be a new fee system pro- 

 posed administratively by the Forest Service. And then all of a sud- 

 den, that didn't happen. We have a new Forest Servics administra- 

 tion proposal for administering fees on the Forest land which was 

 mentioned by the Forest Service representatives, Mr. Unger and 

 Mr. Laverty, that appeared here this morning. 



I have reviewed that, and that proposal which they would like 

 to adopt administratively would first of all cause problems because 

 it again depends upon subjective analysis rather than objective fact 

 as to what is owed to the Forest Service. 



And there is no way that any appraisal system is going to prop- 

 erly reach the question of fair market value, and I believe that the 

 system which is proposed in this bill will avoid all of these difficul- 

 ties and permit an objective, fair, and proper fee to be paid to the 

 United States for use of these lands. 



One last point. It must be remembered that in use of the Forest 

 land, a ski resort is not like a concessioner perhaps in a national 

 park where the drawing point is the asset that is there naturally. 

 A ski resort takes, in many instances, hundreds of millions of dol- 

 lars to invest to make that resort and to take a piece of raw land 

 and create it into something that is of recreational value to the 

 American people. And that should be kept in mind in looking at the 

 various alternatives here. 



Finally, the Forest Service's administrative proposal that they 

 have put out in the Federal Register now would simply replace 

 40 pages of Federal Forest Service Handbook with 30 pages which 

 is a lot different than the very simple bill that is before the com- 

 mittee. Thank you very much for your courtesy in allowing me to 

 speak. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. Mrs. Chenoweth. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, but I cer- 

 tainly appreciated the very good and informative testimony, and I 

 will certainly study it. You certainly have my ear. Thank you very 

 much. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth, and I thank the 

 panel. Mr. Gardner, I appreciate you coming on impromptu. I 

 didn't mean to catch you cold, but I wanted your testimony as part 

 of the record here. 



Thanks to Mr. Mosgrove and Mr. Beck — thank you so much for 

 your very informative testimony. Again, you have sat patiently 

 through this hearing and heard what we have discussed. I would 

 appreciate it if you have anything you want to give us. Fine. Noth- 

 ing is set in stone at this point. 



