Page images

Senator GOODING. And in these meetings that you have had there have been the big cowmen and the little cowmen, as we call them, and the big sheepmen and the little sheepmen?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Senator GOODING. And generally have they all agreed as to the future policy that they would like to see in force?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Senator GOODING. And that is merely just a spirit of fairness through the industry as a whole?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. We tried to open it up so that everybody could have their say and that we could give a true expression of the sentiment of the people out here with a view of working out a plan that would advance their welfare and build up our country.

Mr. BOWDEN. Mr. Dillingham, the article which you handed the committee appears in The Idaho Statesman of Sunday morning, September 13, 1925. It is headed "Forest officials oppose plan of livestock men." What are the particular objections that you have to make to that article?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. I don't know for sure that I have the right clipping. I have read it. If I haven't it here I have it in my room. The particular objection that I would have to a statement of this kind is that our producers come in close contact with the administrative forces of the Forest Service, and if it is continually brought to their attention that the Forest Service officials are not in sympathy with the reorganization of the Forest Service as is proposed by the resolutions adopted at Salt Lake, and the declaration of principles as laid down by the Idaho wool growers, they are more or less timid in making their expressions. They feel as though in dealing with those men they would rather not be in the position of opposing them very openly for the reason that it might become personal. We have had that brought out in a number of our meetings. For instance, here at the meeting held at Lewiston by the wool growers I was not present. But I have a copy of a statement that was made. Mr. Halsey said:

I have been to meetings presided over and directed by the Forest Service officers, and the average stockman is too timid to say anything. We wouldn't cross the Forest Service at a meeting for fear we would get a kick. It is a good idea to keep still if you don't want your allotment cut or something else done to you.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you wish to make that newspaper article appearing in the Idaho Statesman of Sunday morning, September 13, 1925, a part of the record?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir; I would be glad to have it made a part of the record.

(The article presented by Mr. Dillingham for the record, appearing in the Idaho Statesman of Sunday, September 13, 1925, is here printed in the record in full, as follows:)



Livestock men of the West, who are insisting that grazing privileges now enjoyed by them on the national forest reserves be made practically permanent and at reduced fees, are doing the industry much harm, in the opinion of the Forest Service officials who have come to Boise for the hearing Monday

before the Senate Public Lands Committee on a national policy for public lands.

The livestock men now graze their sheep on the forest reserves in Idaho for 3 cents per sheep per month and are subject at all times to regulation by the Forest Service. They are asking that such rights as they now enjoy be practically perpetuated through long-time leases. They want all jurisdiction of the Forest Service removed and they want to pay about one-third less for the same grazing privileges which they now enjoy.

Such a condition, Forest Service officials hold, would be far better than title to the land, because there are no taxes to pay on the land grazed over.


In addition to this, the livestock industry is asking Congress to so modify the laws that grazing permits shall pass when title to land passes; that is, a rancher whose lands adjoin the forest reserve may have a permit from the Forest Service to graze so many head of sheep or cattle. The livestock interests want the laws so changed that if the rancher sells his lands his permit passes to the purchaser.

The Forest Service, officials say, has held out against such procedure for years, claiming that such a policy was not just to those waiting to get livestock on the reserves. In the event such a transaction is made, officials say, the service aims to take care of the purchaser if he desires grazing privileges, but it does not recognize the permit held by the former owner.

The State, members of the land board say, advocates the continuation of the present forest policy in regard to grazing, but would like to see a maximum placed on the number of head of livestock that may be grazed on the forest reserves by any one grower. Inasmuch as Idaho is attempting to develop small diversified farms the State feels that these owners should be given the right of grazing a few head on the forest reserves in preference to giving the right to one or two large owners.

The State is interested from another standpoint land board members say. At the present time 25 per cent of all national forest receipts in Idaho return to the State and are apportioned to the counties which are in the forest area for use in maintaining roads, bridges, and schools.


Another feature of the policy which the livestock interests are endeavoring to have made into law is the leasing of the public domain of the West. Such a condition, State and Federal officials believe, would throw the public domain into the hands of a few to the exclusion of the rank and file of livestock owners, because they would not be able to finance themselves to bid against the large operator. At the present time the public domain belongs to no one and all livestock operators, large or small, are permitted to graze cattle and sheep.

Organized stockmen are prepared to go before the committee and present their case. In Idaho these organizations are represented by the Idaho Wool Growers' Association and the Idaho Cattle and Horse Growers' Association, and the various members of these organizations will be represented when the organizations speak. Others desiring to be heard by the committee must file their names with the committee secretary, who arranges all appearances. Only those whose names are filed with the committee can be heard.

Senator GOODING. Mr. Dillingham, in your years of association with the cattle industry you have become very familiar with the hardships and the real struggles that they have had to undergo, and you have seen one after another go out of business; you have seen their bands cut down until they are next to nothing in the State of Idaho. What would be the effect, in your judgment, of an increase of the fees that they are proposing on the cattle industry in the State at the present time if put into effect?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Well, the men are not able to meet their obligations under the present fees and the present market conditions.

Senator GOODING. It would have a tendency to drive them out of business would it not very largely?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, many of them have gone out of business. Many have gone out of business in anticipating that these raises are to be put into effect, or might come. In fact, raises have come. The fee has been advanced from about 10 or 12 cents a head since the State Cattle Growers' Association was organized in one particular forest reserve up to 60 cents a head. The men are discouraged. They are discouraged even by their bankers, for the reason that the bankers feel as though they are not on safe ground when they are handling cattle paper with the conditions as they have been. However, they are improving at this time.

It is not only the cattle business that suffers under the control that is set up, but ranch property values depreciate very largely by reason of cuts especially. Now, in our country, which is an oldtime cattle country in the Lost River section, we use to have cattlemen whose holdings would run up from 200 to as high as 1.000. Those men were successful. They have retired. Some of them have their money in the banks that are in the country. But since the Forest Reserve has been in effect there on the Lemhi National Forest, cuts have been made continually to make room for others who came. A new crop of small beginners showing up each year finding it impossible to profit by their operations, will pass out and another new crop will come along and take their places. And the larger men have been cut down to where a sizable outfit that can profitably operate is just about to the limit.

I have had very well informed stock men who have made a success tell me that they would not attempt to operate in our country with less than 300 head. Under that sized outfit the overhead would be so much that there would be no profit. But the tendency to continually cut is discouraging to the industry, and it is not economical or good business for the country.

There is devoloping in Idaho now something that is likely to help straighten out this particular question as to cuts. The dairy industry is developing quite rapidly. Those who have heretofore been trying to get into the cattle business with 10 to 15 head, and such numbers of them that the growers were cut and their ranch property depreciated, are now paying more attention to dairying, and I think there will be less applicants in the future from small or new beginners than there has been in the past. Their experiences have been too sad. Senator ODDIE. Have you made any estimate of the cost of producing cattle raised on the range?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. One of the biggest livestock companies in Idaho is the Woods Livestock Company. Two years ago the president of that company, who is also the president of the National Wool Growers Association, stated here in Boise that it cost $70 to produce a 3-year old steer. And they keep as close books as any wholesale house or business house of any kind, or bank.

Senator ODDIE. Do they use the forest reserve?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Senator ODDIE. Is there a loss or a profit in raising those cattle? Mr. DILLINGHAM. There was a loss when it cost them $70 to produce at the time Mr. Hagenbarth made his statement.

Senator ODDIE. And you believe then that cattle raised on the range now generally are raised at a loss?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. They have been for several years.

Senator ODDIE. And that any increase in grazing fees will simply add to that loss?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir; there is no question about that. Senator ODDIE. Will this result in detriment of the ultimate consumer?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir.

I wanted to get this into the record, that the Idaho State Cattle and Horse Association approves the platform or declaration of principles presented by Mr. McLean of the wool growers, and that we also approve and indorse the stand taken by the livestock men at the Salt Lake hearing.

The livestock men would like very much to get their condition before the eastern people. We believe if they appreciated the hardships and the work, the effort that is put forth by the men on these ranges, that they would have a better conception of our position in asking for reorganization of the Forest Service along lines as laid down at Salt Lake, which we firmly believe if enacted into law would stabilize our business, make it possible for those engaged in the business to live as good American citizens, build their homes, and keep their property on the tax rolls.

There is one thought that occurs to me. A great deal is being said about reclamation. We all rejoice any time there is a big appropriation in Congress for a new irrigation project. It is very worthy, of course. But there is one thing I believe that is lost sight of and it is most important. I firmly believe that to have a prosperous section of State we must first take care of those men who have already reclaimed land. The early settlers and pioneers saw more than the land they took up when they filed and put that property on the tax roll in support of the Government. They saw more than the water with which to irrigate that land. They never could have even with the two combinations as a gift from the Government made it a home and support a Government without having had the advantage of the range surroundings. Now, they considered that as much a part of the possibility of success as they did when they filed upon the water and upon the land. It took the three in a combination to accomplish all this pioneer reclamation that has gone on for so long.

And now that they are established, control and regulation that is unreasonable is a very serious upset.

There is a sentiment in the East, or a though or a state of mind, that the cattlemen out here have the edge over the eastern grower or the middle States grower on account of the fact that he has what is termed free range. They do not appreciate that the man has paid a price as he lived his life in reclaiming some of this land.

Now, we had a man in a meeting at Mackay who was on the train with some cattle going to Omaha or Denver, I believe. He said, "A good illustration of the feeling of the easterner 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 175 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 close to around $5 per head exclusive of our losses. In a half a day you people back here can round up and ship all the cattle you have on your pasture and not have a 1 per cent loss. As a matter of fact, it costs more nearly 50 per cent in Idaho to raise a head of cattle or a head of sheep on the range than it does on the fenced pastures which are owned in the middle western States.'"

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dillingham, is there any feeling among the nonusers of the national forest, the livestock men, that those grazing within the national forests and having national forest grazing privileges are a privileged few and have a competitive advantage over them in the raising and production of livestock?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. I don't think it is very general; no, sir. There may be a few cases. It used to be that everybody wanted to be a cowman; they wanted to get in the cattle business. But they are not so anxious any more.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any figures that make a comparison of the cost of producing cattle where they are grazed on the national forest and the cost of producing cattle that do not graze on the national forest?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. About the best information I had is the statement made by this gentleman here on pastures as against forestreserve pasture that I just read.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, his was as between the Middle West and the West?


The CHAIRMAN. But I am speaking of those who are contiguous to the national forest, those who use the national forest, and those who do not use the national forest.

Mr. DILLINGHAM. I presume that cattle can be raised cheaper in Idaho, because Idaho has somewhat cheaper land values and cheaper feed as far as between pastures here and pastures in the East.

The CHAIRMAN. Can the nonuser of the national forest produce cattle as cheaply as the user of the national forest?

Mr. DILLINGHAM. I think so. Quite a number of cattlemen have come to the conclusion that the best way for them to get along is to just depend upon their pasture entirely.

Now, the livestock men would like to have it known that we feel that grazing livestock on the national forest is of benefit to the forest reserve itself in keeping down brush fires and grass fires, and the livestock men do not object to a fee that will let them live. They are even willing to see their money go into roads and trails which are used mostly for fire-fund emergencies.

I want to get our views on this 640-acre act into the record. Very few cattlemen took advantage of that act, only when they knew that if they did not some one else would take up the land that they had

43213-25-PT 105

« PreviousContinue »