Number permits, pay stock grazed, and average number of stock per permit, 1944.

Congressman BARRETT. Mr. Dutton, in furnishing the committee the figures on the cattle and sheep on the forest since 1920, will you give them year by year up to 1944?

Mr. DUTTON. You mean on a national basis?

Congressman BARRETT. Yes.

Mr. DUTTON. I'd be glad to; yes, sir.

(Figures were later submitted as follows:)

Livestock permitted on western national forests, 1920 44, inclusive

Senator O'MAHONEY. Now you wanted to make some comment with respect to one of my earlier questions.

Mr. DUTTON. Yes; your original question, as I recall, was one dealing with our policy for handling transfers, and I had discussed a number of features. There was one other feature that I should like to mention, that repeatedly has given us some trouble. The better the market, the more money the operator is able to pay for his range or obtain for his product, the more we have difficulty with fraudulent transfers.

Our regulation and instructions for many years have required that, in order for the Forest Service to approve a transfer of preference, there must be a bona fide sale of either the commensurate base property, or the permitted livestock. True, our instructions in that respect have been subject to various interpretations; and in some cases has led certain forest supervisors to make a much more liberal interpretation than certain other forest supervisors.

In order to overcome these fraudulent transactions, we are proposing to insert in the waiver form, on the back of this form, and have it signed both by the seller and the purchaser, certain stipulations, which must be agreed to in order to insure transfer of the preference. Mr. Magagna's report mentioned a number of those.

The only comment I wish to make-and I don't believe he brought it out, is that the provisions to which he took exception are not to be applied if, in the judgment of the local forest supervisor, after conference with the permittee, they are unjustified. I realize that every one of the reasons which he cited is a reason why we may not want to do that. We recognize that, certainly, but we do not recognize that anyone ought to have the privilege of going out here today and buying permitted sheep or cattle and commensurate land with the hidden intention of transferring that back to the original holder tomorrow, for the simple purpose of obtaining a grazing preference. We do not agree with that at all, and that's why we are setting up these proposed restrictions.

We have not to date had many objections to the proposal, because they will not operate to block any bona fide transfer of lands or livestock.

Mr. MAGAGNA. May I interrupt?

Mr. DUTTON. Sure.

Mr. MAGAGNA. Our objection, if you might state it, is this, just the thing you say, the discretion is left with the forest supervisor; and we're then in the position that he's the absolute judge of whether or not it's necessary to waive them. "The livestock operator has not much to say about it, unless he can convince him.

While we're on that proposition of regulations, I'd like for you to explain the theory of why, in considering limits, you now want to consider the livestock owned, instead of the permitted number? On what theory do you feel that a livestock operator, owning and operating livestock on the outside of the forest and never coming in the forest, should have any bearing or connection with the application of limit?

Mr. DUTTON. You made two points there, Mr. Magagna, and I would like to refer to the first one first. You stated that the local

forest supervisor has the final authority to determine whether or not these provisions should be applied. My only comment on that is that someone, somewhere, must have final authority for making decisions and II—

Senator O'MAHONEY. May I say. Mr. Dutton, I'm going to interrupt the session at this point; it's getting along toward half past 1. Congressman BARRETT. I'd like to have Mr. Dutton and Mr. Magagna inform me, after the recess, whether or not there is any appeal from the decision of the local supervisor.

Senator O'MAHONEY. It seems self-evident that we're entering on a very broad question. It is also clear that it is the fundamental question of the boundaries of discretionary power in an administrative official.

The committee will stand in recess until 2:30,

(Whereupon, at 1: 20 p. m., the committee recessed until 2:30 p. m.)

ALTERNOON SESSION

The hearing was resumed at the above hour.

Senator O'MAHONEY. The committee will resume session. Mr. Dutton, were you about to answer a question, or to begin a comment that would provoke a question?

STATEMENT OF WALT DUTTON, CHIEF, DIVISION OF RANGE MANAGEMENT, FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.-Continued

Mr. DUTTON. Both, I think, Mr. Chairman. When we adjourned for lunch at least three comments or questions were left hanging in the air. I think I should like, first, to refer to one of the statements in Mr. Magagna's paper, which dealt with the matter of decisions when differences of opinion arose with respect to the management and administration of the range. I was about to say that we appreciateI think I did say we have a very high degree of respect for the honesty and good intentions of most of the national-forest permittees,

I should like to add that frequently differences of opinion, honest differences of opinion, do arise." When those differences of opinion arise, it becomes necessary for someone somewhere to render a decision. Our position has been that we do not feel the local forest officer can shift the responsibility for making decisions, in the final analysis, to users of the range. In other words, the local forest officer must assume full and complete responsibility for final action taken.

Another feature of that question, and in connection with our position of opposition to legislation which would place administrative responsibility on advisory boards, is that we do not regard it as good administration to do just that. We must remember that in the administration and management of national forest ranges, a great many other resources and activities are at stake, in addition to grazing. We have the production and cutting of timber; we have the use of these lands for recreation; and with all due respect to Mr. Magagna's paper, I must take opposition to the inference, at least, that there is no conflict between the use of the lands for recreation and grazing, because there are conflicts, here and there; so I should not like to see that stand as an over-all statement.

I know that in many cases there has been a remarkable integration of the two uses, and they worked it o ddmirably. But regardless of

that, we still do have, in many places, and I think we'll have in the future, more serious conflicts as the demand for recreation increases. I just wanted to point out there that there are a lot of things to be considered here besides the use of the lands for grazing: Production of timber, for recreation, use of the lands for wildlife, and for protection of important watersheds. All of those things must be taken into consideration when we are adjusting grazing.

Another point in Mr. Magagna's statement had to do with a proposal, in this original list of proposals, that dealt with the total ownership of the livestock. I should like to say that the original proposals, which went out with our initial letter, copies of which were furnished our field people and certain leaders of the livestock industry, did carry a proposal to consider total ownership. The inference to be read into that was that we did expect to use the total ownership to quite a degree.

That wasn't the original intent. Therefore, we have already made a correction with reference to that part of the proposal to clarify it perfectly. I expect, Mr. Magagna, that you did not have access to the correction, and I refer now to a follow-up letter, which we sent to our field people, discussing that item, and at the same time copies went to Mr. Henry Boice and Mr. F. E. Mollin and Mr. A. D. Brownfield, of the American National Livestock Association; and J. M. Jones, Byron Wilson, and G. N. Winder, of the National Woolgrowers Association. They received copies of that letter. The gist of that was-I'll read it here:

It was not the intent of the revised policy to disturb present policy as to allowing increase in preference up to the upper limit through purchase of permitted livestock or base property, or as to protection against distribution reductions of preferences between the lower and upper limits, except in connection with transfer of permitted livestock or base property. To do these things would constitute a major change in distribution policy, and that would be a violation of our statement to the industry. Therefore, we propose to clarify the present wording of the circular

and then I listed that in the letter; and I think that is perfectly clear

now.

Mr. MAGAGNA. I might ask one question: Are you now going to delete the word "owned" from regulation G-4?

Mr. DUTTON. In answer to that perhaps you would like to have me read the present proposal, the proposal as it now stands for the regulation. The statement to which you objected, Mr. Magagna, had to do, first, with the sixth paragraph of the regulation, and in that initial proposal, reference was made to "Where the holder owns less than the lower limit."

That has been stricken from the regulation, and it now reads:

No grazing preference for less than the lower-limit number of livestock will be reduced for wider distribution in grazing privileges.

That's entirely stricken.

In the seventh paragraph we made a similar deletion, so that the present wording would be as follows:

No grazing preference between the lower and upper limit will be reduced for wider distribution of grazing privileges, except in connection with sale or transfer of base property or permitted livestock.

That is essentially as it was in the beginning.

62184-46-pt. 19---4

Mr. MAGAGNA. Thank you.

Mr. DUTTON. The third point that was hanging in midair at the time of recess for luncheon had to do with a question, I believe, by Congressman Barrett; and if I understood him correctly, he wanted some statement about the procedure for appeals. Is that right, Congressman?

Congressman BARRETT. That's right, Mr. Dutton.

Mr. DUTTON. The present provision for handling appeals and complaints reads:

Appeals from and complaints against the administrative action of a forest officer may be made in one of the two following ways-

and by the way, Mr. Chairman, I am now reading, not from the existing policy but from a proposed clarification of that policy, which is essentially the same, but clarified

by one of the two following methods:

By filing a complaint with the chairman of the board within 20 days after the original decision is rendered.

Upon receipt of a complaint, the chairman shall notify, in writing, each member of the board, the appellant, and the officer in charge of the national forest involved, setting forth the character of the complaint and the date, time, and place at which a hearing will be held.

In cases where the facts submitted by the complainant or forest officer are insufficient to enable the board to render a recommendation, such investigation as may be necessary, will be made by the member of the board, and its recommendation rendered in writing.

If the appellant dissents from the recommendation of the board he must within 20 days, file with the chairman of the board, a statement covering the points from which he dissents. The entire record will then be forwarded to The regional forester, who will review it and render a decision, and appent from the decision of the regional forester may be taken in the manner prescribed in regulation A-10.

A 10 is a general regulation that deals with-sets up a procedure for handling all complaints, whether they concern grazing or some other matter.

In the event a board fails to present recommendations within a reasonab e time, because of nonattendance or other reasons, the chairman will not fy the appellant, who may then submit an appeal under regulation A 10 at his option Every effort should be made, however, to secure a prompt and definite settlement by an advisory board of all matters brought before it.

That is the general procedure we've been working under for handling appeals.

Congressman BARRETT. If the supervisor acts in a capricious or arbitrary manner, of course, his decision is subject to appeal ?

Mr. DUTTON. That is correct, sir; and any decision of any forest officer, may, under this procedure, be appealed. Our preference, of course, is to have it go through the regular channels; but that doesn't bar the man from writing to anyone. He can write directly to the chief of the Forest Service. But it is always desirable to have it come through the regular channels. And any supervisor will gladly assist any complainant to prepare his appeal and forward it to the regional forester; and the regional forester, in turn, will help prepare an appeal and forward the statement to our office in Washington.

That, Mr. Chairman, covers the main points, that at least had come to my attention just before adjournment.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Mr. Magagna.