« PreviousContinue »
far afield when it makes itself a large social organization whose major function is the entertainment of many millions of tourists. From what Roosevelt said when the Forest Service was created, the original intention was not to make its chief use one of recreation. Roosevelt said:
** Wise forest protection does not mean the withdrawal of forest resource, whether of wood, water, or grass, from contributing their full share to the welfare of the people, but, on the contrary, gives the assurance of larger and more certain supplies. The fundamental idea of forestry is the perpetuation of forest by use. Forest protection is not an end in itself; it is a means to increase and sustain the resources of our country and the industries which depend upon them.”
Now, these visitors were all entertained at no expense to themselves. There is no fee charged.
The livestock man, on the contrary, who pioneered this country and who has paid taxes to open up the roads, is charged a double tax and then assessed a fee many times the cost of administration in order to make this hospitality possible. That is one of the great troubles with the livestock industry to-day. It is paying for a lot of things from which it is deriving no direct benefit. It is paying its way; it expects to pay its way. But in order that the Forest Service may make a showing, in order that tourists may be entertained free, in order to promote a lot of side issues with which it has nothing to do, it is being taxed many times the cost of administering its own business.
We have no desire to destroy the Forest Service or its organization. We all admit that the range is better off and that the interests of the public are probably better protected since the Forest Service has come into existence. But we do want some of the glaring evils which have sprung up within the Forest Service remedied.
A good illustration of the feeling of the easterner, as typified in the Rachford report, was brought out by a cattle grower at one of our meetings recently. He testified that he had gone East not long ago with a carload of cattle, and when he passed through the Middle West a Senator's car of cattle was attached to the train and the Senator swung on the caboose. He got to talking to our Idaho man, and asked him what it cost him per head to graze his cattle on the forest reserve. He replied “ 66 cents for the season," and the Senator said, "My God, man, why aren't you rich?" Our Idahoan said, “You think we have a great advantage over you, but when we turn out 200 head on the range our loss is 15 per cent, and we will get back in the fall only 170 head. Before we have rounded them up it will have required a day's riding of a man for each head that we have, or a cost of around $5 per head, exclusive of our loss. In half a day you can round up and ship all the cattle you have on your pasture and not have over a 1 per cent loss." As a matter of fact, it costs more by nearly 50 per cent in Idaho to raise a head of cattle or a head of sheep on the range than it does on fenced pastures which are owned.
At a number of rate hearings which we have attended this past year in which We appealed from the fourth section relied on in the long and short haul clauses of the interstate commerce act, the various chambers of commerce of San Francisco, Portland, and Chicago have argued like this: You people of Idaho don't have to live in that God-forsaken country. If you want advantages of water transportation, there is nothing to hinder you doing as we have done. You can move to Chicago or the Pacific coast, where they have all these natural advantages. But if you persist on living in that dry waste, what right have you to insist on getting the advantage of the water competition in transportation that we enjoy?
As far as I know, the ocean is also a public resource, and we of Idaho have as much a vested right in the surf of those districts as have the private citizens of Swampscott or Astoria. So with equal impunity we can come back at those who say we are a favored few, who say that the range belongs equally to them, and tell them that it is a public resource all right, but that if they want to use it they should come out here and live here and pioneer and develop the country as we have done. If they insist on living in that Godforsaken country where there are no waste places they should bear the penalty and not attempt to commercialize our range and put us in the same disadvantageous position that they are in.
The easterner's viewpoint as expressed by Mr. Pinchot seems to still permeate the Forest Service. It is the idea that the western stockman is not a public-spirited citizen, that he is fundamentally opposed to public conservation of any sort, and has the sole purpose of skimming all the cream off the range
and making all the money he can at the public expense. You Senators who have lived amongst us know that there is no higher type of American citizen, that there is no class of less selfish of more broad-minded men than the pioneer stockman who has lived the greater part of his life on these western ranges. We very much resent the idea which seems to be so prevalent through the Forest Service, and which we believe is the cause of a great deal of the friction, that some young man technically trained as a forester probably in an eastern school will administer the public ranges of the West more efficiently and more to the public interest or will have the development of this western country more at heart than practical livestock men who live here and have brought up their children here and have had many years of experience.
Five separate times the Forest Servise has raised the fees trying to make them commensurate with the fees for contingent leases. As soon as the fees on the forests are raised, the lease prices on surrounding lands have automatically gone up. And this seesaw arrangement has been continuing until now they propose to make a further raise in our fees of over 100 per cent. This makes for an intolerable condition which will most assuredly eliminate the livestock business from the State if continued.
Taking up the platform as evolved at these different public hearings which we held over the State, there was a universal demand for the reorganization of the Forest Service.
They all want the reserve rights to be legalized, in the form of a long-term lease which will give the permittee an assurance of indefinite use.
The testimony which explains best the Idaho point of view in this regard follows.
From the testimony of W. R. Barber, of Twin Falls, May 10:
"The most vital principle of any public land policy affecting the stockman should be this: The recognition that the western grazing interests constitute an established industry of long standing, entitled by virtue of its priority and the vital effect it has on the prosperity of this industry—that the grazing interests shall not hereafter be subversive to the rights of every other industry.
“The Forest Service claims that principle is already recognized. It is not recognized. It has never been recognized. The grazing industry in Idaho and in all of these Western States has behind it a long-established priority. Yet there is no basic industry of Idaho which has not subverted to its use the grazing industry. When a miner staked out a mining claim, he said to the stockman, 'Get off and staff off.' When a man filed upon a homestead, he said, 'Get off and stay off, and stay 2 miles off. When the forest reserves were established, the Government said to the stockman, 'Do as we say or get off.'
“ You can not get around this fact--that all through the development of this country the rights of the grazing man have been kicked around from pillar to post. He never has had any rights. Whenever anyone wanted anything the stockman was using he simply took it up and the Federal Government stood behind him to back him up.
“Now is the time for the stockman to step forward and say: 'I have made continued use of this domain for a great many years. I have not made use of it through sufferance of you or of anyone else. I have made use of it because it was here when I came and no one prior to me was using it. I have used it under the American principle that prevailed in the development of the West, that of first come, first served. I have made a good and beneficial use of it, for through its use you have been provided with food and clothing in quantities you were not able to produce elsewhere to your needs. The continued existence of my business requires the continued use of this land, and I therefore assert that I have acquired a right to use this domain as valid, as indisputable, as unimpeachable as any right which has ever been written. Grazing rights in the balance of the public domain shall not hereafter be subverted, and shall hereafter be superior to the interests of any other industry.'
“ These reforms, it seems to me, should take the direction of the stated recognition of the principle that our industry is entitled to the means of its existence: that our forest reserve permits constitute a legal right attached to our property qualifications, an acquisition which we may sell, assign, or keep for our heirs forever, justifiable in court of law: that we are entitled to a system of fees based on costs of administration only; that we are entitled
to a court in which inevitable conflicts with other national-forest interests may be justly settled.
** But the time has come, the time is some years past, when the rights of any other industry were superior to the rights of grazing upon the balance of the public domain. It is generally conceded by the public opinion, and it is a fact supported by the diminishing business of the public-land offices, that the balance of the public domain is good only for grazing purposes. Yet there is no law which prevents any citizen not a stockman from appropriating a strategic portion of this grazing land. There is no law which would prevent the stockman from being put off these grazing lands altogether.
“We have this situation: There remains a portion of the public domain good only for grazing purposes. There exists for its use an industry of longestablished priority, an industry closely connected with the prosperity of this country, an industry which has never heretofore had any recognized rights to its means of existence.
“Any bill along this line should provide that upon the portions designated after the survey as to what are grazing lands completed, that the rights of the grazing interests shall hereafter be supreme in possession, use, and administration of these lands.
" It should establish the recognition of the grazing industry as entitled to rights of its own subversive to the right of no other industry."
From the testimony of I. H. Nash, Idaho Land Commission, Twin Falls: “When the settlers first came to this country they appropriated whatever water they wanted out of a stream and that water was later adjudicated by the court and given as a permanent right to the first applicant in just as great a quantity as he could make beneficial use of. When he got that right he could keep it forever and pass it on to his heirs, or he could sell all or any part of it, as he saw fit. Never was he compelled to have his water right cut down whenever a new settler came to the country.
" Where would you be now, those of you who own ranches, if you had been forced to accede to a 5 per cent or 10 per cent cut in your water right every time a newcomer settled in your vicinity so as to allow him to get water? Neither you nor he would be in business now.
* The Government never whittled away water rights (a great public resource) to divide up into little units for every newcomer. If the Government had ever adopted any such policy this country would never have been settled. The lack of security and stability would have kept the country from ever progressing or settling. Yet there is just as much justification for them doing so ; the western streams and river belonged just as much to the general public—to the easterner-as does this other public resource, grazing. The newcomer can always purchase a water right. Why shouldn't he purchase a grazing right instead of taking a part of the range a prior settler has been making beneficial use of and has builded his busines upon?
"I want to make it clear that I am for stabilization of the grazing on public land and for a law to give men assurance how long they will be there."
From the testimony of R. T. McNamara, south Idaho sheep and cattleman: ** One thing that we should stress very strongly is the legalizing proposition-some permanency of your business so that you will know whether you can operate for 3 years or 5 years or 10 years. It shouldn't be as it it now so that you don't know how long you will be there. The other day I was in Boise talking to a very good friend of mine. He said: 'What are you sheepmen trying to do with this public domain, trying to steal it all?' I explained it this way: ‘Frank, you are in the gasoline business. You have 10 or 11 stations here in Boise and more in the State. Now,' I said, “when you put up those service stations you either leased them for a period of years or you bought the ground on which they are built?' 'Yes,' he said. "Would you have put those stations up if you had known that your tenure on that ground would only last maybe overnight, or 30 days, or six months, or a year?' .No; I wouldn't.' That is just the position we are in in the livestock industry. Do you think it is right?' But he wasn't convinced.”
There has been no one asking that the Forest Service be done away with of that any laws be passed that would hamper the development of real homes in this or any other State, but there seems to be a feeling that it is nothing short of criminal to allow and encourage the stranger to go on land where he
can not possibly make a living. He not only loses his time and his money but comes out a “red” and hating the Government. He should be kept from homesteading when he can not come out with some profit after he has spent reasonable time and effort.
E. J. Iddings, dean of thte College of Agriculture, l'niversity, Idaho, said at the Lewiston meeting :
* There should be some management or settlement of this homestead situation so that the crime of homesteading lands that are not permanently adapted to farming may be prevented.
“ I am quite sympathetic with what has been said about the homesteader. I know one town in Idaho where they needed additional buildings for school purposes and they went out and hauled in schools and churches from communities that had been abandoned. That is a financial loss not only to the homesteader but in turn the loss of the range for many years and perhaps permanently and the human loss is tremendous. I have seen those people go into those regions with several thousand dollars and full of high hopes and come out just human derelicts. They are bitter against the Government and bitter against humanity. That is one of the vital considerations in this whole problem. I can foresee the time when we will have more homesteading. A wet year like this will encourage it. The man who happens to be holding on by the skin of his teeth will probably get a crop this year and perhaps next year; then a period of four or five years of starvation. One of the vital considerations in the whole thing is that the public domain should get into permanent ownership and stop homesteading of lands unsuited to farming."
Congressman Burton F. French, of Idaho, said at our Lewiston meeting:
* Three hundred to five hundred families in Washington County have moved out because they can not live on their land. In Idaho Falls twelve hundred families were driven out because of the same condition. It is a heart-rending proposition to drive through a country and see the deserted homes; and worst of all, people that are worse off than people in the slum district of cities, because of the poverty enforced on them."
All lands suitable for agirculture have been appropriated.
· Practically all the public lands suitable for agricultural purposes have been appropriated. Something should be done to stop the settlement on the public domain on the pretense that settlers are going there to make a living. I could not agree with the enlarged nomestead act and felt at that time that the 160 acres of land now left was not sufficient to maintain the expense of a family."
Mr. Ern G. Eagleson, mayor of Boise, stated at the Boise meeting:
* There are many kinds of mineral deposits on the public domain in Idaho in large quantities and and that will some day have future value and whatever legislation we propose, we should propose with the idea of only using it for stock range and not try to tie it up so people can't get the mineral value, but we will never get the kind of relief we want until you get the land question out of Washington. It belongs to Idaho. Years ago when much land was being filed on, the United States had many contests but where the filings originated in the State land office we never had a contest. Title simply passed from the State to the individual. The Carey Act was even better. There was no penalization to it. The modern homestead is a penal servitude and nothing else. There is no reason for a long residence on a homestead. It is of no value to anyone, but these laws date back many years and can not be changed immediately.”
DETRIMENT TO STOCKMEN
Mr. W. R. Barber stated at Rupert :
“ The greatest evil the stockman has had to bear has been the constant construction of his ranges by the encroachment of the homesteader. If these 11 States are not careful, any bill to turn control over to the Department of Agriculture or Department of Interior will not contain the provision that discontinuance of homesteading shall be put into the bill. In fact, that is the only constitutional manner in which they will sanction permanent Federal control at all, that manner whereby the pursued policy of the Federal Government to get these lands ultimately into the hands of the State is provided. It is the only manner in which such a bill could be passed without loud disapproval from their constituents in the East.
"And the passage of a bill leaving the Federal homestead laws' claim upon the balance of the public domain leaves the stockman worse off than before, for he will be required to add to his expenses the cost of range now secured for nothing without the advantage of maintaining the areas of his ranges intact against the encroachments of homesteaders. He might be given an allotment with water and at any time his allotment would be ruined by having the water homesteaded."
Gorernor C. C. Moore, of Idaho, stated at the Boise meeting:
“ There has been much land taken from the stockmen that never should have been plowed up at all."
Secretary Hoover, in a speech in May before the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, indicted our system of bureaus most severely. He would separate the semijudicial, the semilegislative, and advisory functions from the administrative functions, “placing the former under joint minds and the latter under single responsibility. Every single department, bureau, and board in the entire Gorernment." he said, “ should be placed upon the operating table and a clean-cut separation established between semijudicial and semilegislative functions on the one hand and administration on the other."
The Secretary left no room for doubt that the confusion of duties not administrative with those purely administrative is both widespread and deep-rooted. Not only, he says, are the executive departments loaded down with semijudicial and semilegislative duties but the basic principle of all sound administration is violated by reversing the natural process. Administration ought to be the work of individual executives, and semijudicial and semilegislative duties should be made the work of joint minds of boards and commissions.
These suggestions met with such universal approval at our meetings over the State that we have incorporated them in our platform, and it seems to us they point the way toward a solution of most of our troubles with the Forest Service.
(a) Administrative.-In the suggestions we have acquired for reorganization of the Forest Service we want under the administrative branch that the grazing on the forest reserves shall be administered by the Forest Service, but that this service shall contain a much larger personnel of practical stockmen than it does at present. In Idaho, for instance, we receive the gross income of about $10,000,000 for livestock; we receive the same amount and no more from timber in the State ; and if the public domain should be put under Government control practically 70 per cent of the State would be handled by a bureau at Washington. Certainly, since the livestock industry is of equal importance to Idaho with the timber industry, it seems that at least half of the men who administer both grazing and forestry should be well-trained and experienced livestock men.
(6) Legislative.-When it comes to the legislative branch of the Forest Service we believe that grazing rules and regulations should be made as Hoover suggested, by joint minds in the form of a board, which shall include largely practical stockmen. We think the fees should be nominal and but little more than necessary to cover the actual costs of administering the grazing end of the business. We should like very much to see the rules and regulations so simplified and reduced to such fundamentals that Congress could pass most of them into law.
(c) Judicial.-When it comes to the judicial branch we want the right of appeal, as impartial and as legal as through any court of equity. Of course, if the rights are legalized, or if legal leases are given, we assume that we would hare the right of appeal to the Federal court, but we do not care by what method the appeal is granted or very much what form it may take as long as we get this right of appeal. At our meetings it has often been suggested that a board might be created by Congress of 11 men, 1 from each of the 11 western range and forest reserve States, each member to be appointed by the governor of that State.
3. We feel that if the administrative offices of this bureau could be established in the West that it could be administered much more economically and in sympathy with the users of the West.
4. While this point is not one of vital interest to us, we feel that if the necessary reforms are made in the Forest Service that it makes little difference what department or bureau the grazing rights are administered by, yet the majority over the State have seemed to prefer that the Forest Service be put under the Department of the Interior. The chief argument for this has been that most all of the business of the Interior Department at the present time is