Mr. McLEAN. I think you have confused the reserve with Government control. The Forest Service will be changed some and all the public lands will be put under some control which will have to be worked out. Mr. ELLIS. Are we going out of forest-reserve control? Mr. MCLEAN. It is possible. Mr. MCNAMARA. There is a to dispose of.

That thing will have to be under some control. motion before the meeting that we would like

Mr. HUNTER. As I understand from the meeting at Pocatello, I think we invited all the associations and also the farm bureau to assist us in this work. It is going to be done whether we want it to be done or not. That is the understanding we had at Pocatello. All that were interested or concerned in this matter were invited to help us frame up some way how this land should be handled. I don't think they were trying to work in an underhanded way.

Mr. MCNAMARA. We will vote on the amendment to the original motion. Will you please read that amendment, Mr. McLean, so they will know.

Mr. MCLEAN. The amendment that you are voting on is that a board of appeals shall be created by Congress, members of which shall be appointed by State associations using the public domain.

Mr. PETERSON. I object to the State associations.

Mr. MCNAMARA. All those in favor of the amendment will please rise and stand until we count them.

(Twenty-one ayes.)

Mr. MCNAMARA. And those opposed to the amendment please rise.

(Three negative votes.)

Mr. MCNAMARA. The amendment is carried.

Now you are voting on the original motion as amended. Secretary, please read the motion.

SECRETARY. It is the consensus of opinion of this meeting that we want the public domain put under some form of Government control.

(2) That the forest and public domain be administered by the same bureau or department of the Government.

(3) That the grazing rights on both the forest and the public domain be legalized.

(4) That a board of appeals be created by Congress, members of which shall be appointed by the State associations using the public domain. This board is to be made up of one man actively engaged in the livestock business from each of the 11 Western grazing and public-lands States, who shall be paid a per diem and expenses.

(5) That it is our recommendation that for efficiency, economy, and the elimination of friction the administrative offices of this bureau having control of the forest and public domain be established in the Western States.

Mr. MCNAMARA. All those in favor of the original motion as amended and read please rise.

(Twenty-seven ayes.)

Mr. MCNAMARA. All those opposed please rise.

(Five opposed.)

Mr. MCNAMARA. Now that we have disposed of that motion we would like to hear any general discussion along this line.

Mr. PETERSON. The only objection is being appointed by associations of these 11 stockmen. I claim that the Secretary of the Interior should appoint the 11 men.

Mr. MCLEAN. I think that is a minor detail.

Mr. PETERSON. It would be very much fairer; it is very nice to have 11 stockmen to appeal to, but I think it would be fairer to the people to have them appointed by the Interior.

Mr. McLEAN. I think you will find that if the stockmen get the court of appeals they won't care very blame much who they are. If they can get that one principle through, they will be very lenient about who appoints them.

Mr. PETERSON. I have handled stock all my life, and I want something that is fair to us all, and I believe that through the association appointing this appeals board they would likely stay in politics-you favor me and I will favor you. My opinion is that appointment of these men would be much fairer by a disinterested party.

Mr. PINCOCK. I desire to withdraw my last vote: I didn't understand I was voting for the amendment until after the vote was cast.

Mr. NELLSON. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there is very much difference. I move we make it unanimous.

Mr. McLEAN. My understanding in regard to these matters is this: That after these meetings are held by the woolgrowers and the cattlemen and farm bureaus and any other organizations that the different organizations will get together and go over this very thoroughly before they take it up with this committee, so that there will be no danger of one organization going down there having a certain object in view and another organization going down there with just the opposite. They certainly will have to work out some plan that is agreeable to all.

Mr. PETERSON. That is the object of this meeting-to thresh this out and get something that is fair to us all.

Mr. McLEAN. If we were trying to put over something secretly, we would have a private committee and not call public meetings.

Mr. PETERSON. We want to look after our own interest and we want the best system.

Mr. EDWARDS. Is this meeting to finish your work or are you going to hold another meeting later?

Mr. MCLEAN. This is supposed to be the final meeting at Idaho Falls.

Mr. COHN. I would like to have a little information on these 10-year permits. Can they be changed before the 10 years if they see fit to change them?

Mr. MCLEAN. It is awfully easy to find some fault with you and to find you have infringed, and then they can change them.

Mr. COHN. They can't cut you every five years?

Mr. MCLEAN. We feel that if the forest is reorganized with a board of appeals this will be eliminated.

Mr. PETERSON. That is what we are asking for.

Mr. MCLEAN. We are asking for legal rights.

Mr. PETERSON. Does that mean a right just the same as a water right? I don't believe that would be proper.

Mr. MCNAMARA. What about your water?

It is moved and seconded that we adjourn, gentlemen. All those in favor of the motion say "Aye."

(Carried unanimously.)

PROCEEDINGS AT THE MEETING HELD AT RIGGINS, IDAHO, JUNE 15, 1925

Meeting was called to order by Mr. H. L. Householder, chairman, who explained the purpose of the meeting and introduced Donald McLean. After Mr. McLean's talk those present were called upon for individual expressions of opinion, whereupon Mr. Charles Clay took the floor.

Mr. CLAY. We have heard several plans for handling the forest reserve and public domain, but a plan strikes me that isn't mentioned. The way we are running stock at the present time we have to furnish the money to pay for supervision of the range. Instead of State or Government control, why not have stockmen control the range? Aren't we capable of handling the range? Why ask the forest reserve to do it? Let them handle the care of the forests and the watershed, but practical stockmen could handle the range better than the Forest Service can.

We have, for instance, one case in the State where stockmen are in charge of an important department, and that is the case of the Idaho Sheep Commission. Before the sheepmen took charge of the work here the State never had been rid of scab, and now we are rid of it. We have made a success of this business. If we could get the range under our own control, we could handle the range to benefit the stockman. If we put it under Government or State control, it will probably be handled by men not practical and competent to

handle range.

If we are not competent to handle the range, we should have a guardian appointed over all our businesses-not just the stock business.

The last four or five years we have needed a guardian all right, for we have made a failure none of us have made money; but part of our downfall is due to the way the Government has handled the range.

They created the forest reserve for protection of timber and now charge us to use grass when it is a benefit to the timber to run sheep on the range and keep down the grass and underbrush.

Another thing the Government did was to create the 640-acre homestead law. That law took away all the public range of any value in the public domain.

Now we have to lease and buy and finally own it. That is what government or State control means. Stockmen can handle the range business better themselves and better than any other individual or Government. Why ask the State or Government to take it over? If they are going to run it, why not turn over the stock and let them run them also?

On legal rights, the stockmen have no rights and haven't had at any time. This year I know how many I have on the range-next year I don't know until way along in the winter how many I can get on, and at different times the allotment is changed. That is all right providing there is enough range for everyone, but there isn't. The range condition changes all the time in the mountains. I believe in the forest reserve. One thing, they protect the timber of these forests, but while they are protecting the timber they are destroying the range. There are places in these mountains where you could get at one time with a band of sheep, but to-day you can't get through for brush. The best range in these mountains is where it has been burned over and has grown up with fresh feed. In the early days the Indians always burned off the hills and mountains so they would have good pasture and forest fires were not considered. There wasn't any underbrush to create forest fires. If the stockmen had this under control they would work to develop the range and get it back where they could use it. We just as well appoint a guardian to run our business as to put the range under Government or State control, and I don't want anyone yet to run my business for me.

Whereupon Mr. E. W. Rhett took the floor.

Mr. RHETT. I would prefer to see it all under one head rather than two heads. If we aren't satisfied with the Forest Service we should educate them to suit us. In any case I want to see it all under one head.

Mr. AITKEN. I don't know as I can say much, but it seems to me too bad when people are afraid to trust our Congress and politics. We should have Congress and politics we could be proud of. I am in favor of one head if the public domain is to be supervised, and I think it needs some regulations. I would like to see it under the Forest Service if it could be reorganized in some way.

W. A. SEWELL. Why put it under two or three different heads? It can be handled better under one head and I would like a little more cooperation than we have had in the past.

Mr. BRUNDAGE. I don't know that I can interest you. In the first place, I think it is a good thing to have the Government land under some sort of control. We couldn't expect any interest around here since the Government land is all taken; nevertheless up the Big Salmon River there is a strip of land, mostly timber, that hasn't been taken. During the war the large outfits put all their sheep on the reserve and then put their surplus bands on that strip of public land, Stanfield especially, to the detriment of the small man. I am glad to see the time come that Government land is going to be under some sort of supervision. I have seen much of the public domain almost denuded, and it looks to me that it is high time some of it gets a rest. Personally I presume you are right in not wanting it under two heads, but I think State control best. There is too much delay in Government control. When you have to take anything up with Washington it takes too long to get any action. However, it is only under certain conditions that I would want to see public land under any control and one is provided the citizens of Idaho can have first right. The man who owns his ranch should be protected first and not have a monopoly such as the forest reserve was under during the war. Stanfield and Clinton and a lot more would have owned the national forest if the war had lasted a little longer, and the little man would have been put out of business. I took this up with Borah during the war, but we couldn't get anywhere. Thank goodness, Swift & Co. is going and the big outfits have to go.

I understand that forest people to-day are taking all stray stock and taking it off the range. I think these men here that lease this land, if there is a band of horses to be turned loose, it shouldn't be on him. I don't want to see the public domain put under any supervision unless it is at the actual cost of administration, but by all means take care of the little man and the big man will take care of himself. The home builders of Idaho must be taken care of. Don't let tramp sheep and cattlemen run out the men who have blazed the trails into the country. If you do, they must go out of business. We want equal rights for all, but I think if possible the small man and his home must be protected.

Mr. HOUSEHOLDER. I am in favor of having all public domain under one head and under the present Forest Service, providing we can have some few changes made, and providing we can have a board of appeals some place where we can air our grievances. It is a little one sided the way it is now. It is hardly a square deal where a ranger or forest supervisor can cancel a permit and one have no appeal of any kind. I rather believe that has been the opinion of all the meetings we have held. All are in favor of the Forest Service control, providing we can have the board of appeals and some changes in the regulations of the present Forest Service.

(Mr. Hurd, forest supervisor, was asked to take the floor.)

Mr. HURD. I do not feel like making any remarks on this subject that might be on one side or the other. I feel a little like I am in on trespass anyway, and I really do not think I have much to say. So far as I am concerned personally, individually I am not looking for any more trouble. I have plenty to do, as it is, with one and one-half million acres to supervise and am not looking for any more land or stock to take care of or any more stockmen to look after under my domain. One or two statements made by Mr. McLean about the range that I would be inclined to question, but I think this is not the place to take them up.

Whereupon Mr. McLean repeated for Mr. Hurd his statement in regard to most of the forest rangers not being experienced stockmen.

Mr. HURD. Your statement to the effect that with rare exceptions the men the Forest Service were not practical men and had not had experience with livestock-the head of the department at Washington was in the stock business in Arizona for a great many years and Rachford was in the stock business. Glenn Smith, of Missoula, Mont., the same way. Bill Daisy and myself and a good many rangers learned to milk cows and herd sheep early in life.

There appearing to be no further discussion on the subject resolutions were called for and the following offered and adopted:

Mr. J. S. Aitken moved that provided all can be placed under one head that the public domain and Forest Service be placed under State control. Seconded by Brundage. Motion carried.

Mr. W. S. Brundage moved that the forests and public domain be administered by same bureau or department of Government provided the bona fide settler have absolutely prior rights and that the tramp sheepman and foreigner who is not a citizen be excluded so far as possible from those rights. Motion seconded by Clay. Motion carried.

Mr. C. M. Clay moved that the grazing rights on both forest and public domain be legalized. Seconded by Brundage. Motion carried.

Whereupon Mr. Brundage remarked that he would hate like hell to see any game wardens get in charge and that he wanted to see practical sheep and cattle men put on the board of appeals.

Mr. C. M. Clay moved that a board of appeals be created by Congress and be made up of one man actively engaged in the livestock business for each of the 11 Western States to be paid a per diem and expenses. Seconded by Aitken.

Motion carried.

Moved by Clay that the administrative offices to have charge of the public domain be located in one of the Western States. Seconded by Brundage. Motion carried.

Whereupon Mr. Rhett remarked that he was well satisfied with the Forest Service and would rather improve it than try to create some other system. There appearing to be no further business to come before the meeting, same was adjourned.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE Meeting Held at LEWISTON, IDAHO, Wednesday, June 17

Mr. R. R. Steen, president of the Lewiston Wool Growers' Association, opened the meeting and presented Mr. H. L. Householder, an officer of the Idaho State association, who took charge and explained the purpose of the meeting, after which he introduced Mr. McLean, who gave a brief résumé of the data which had been gathered at the previous meetings. Those present were called upon for expressions of opinion.

Mr. H. C. BRYSON. The Washington men came up here more as a matter of information than to make suggestions. We are here largely to see and understand what is being done by the Idaho association and while we do not rep

43213-25-PT 10——12

resent all the interests in the State of Washington, we are representatives of the Wool Growers' Association. I feel the sheepmen from my State, from my present knowledge, feel as you men do. I think one suggestion is a most wise one to consider, not putting any more of the industry under Government control and Government administration than we already have.

Before the forest grazing of stock was created the livestock industry as a whole throughout the West was in better condition and better managed and the industry. as a whole making more money, the range in better condition than under the forest administration. There isn't a man, as far as stockmen are concerned but what will admit it is not only a detriment to stockmen to have the homestead right, but a detriment to men who try to file on homesteads and make a home as well. People living in this country know that the available land here in the West on which you can develop the agricultural industry is scarce. It really is a damage and an injury to most men to permit them to file and prove up on land and wrong to let them expect they can make a home on it.

Personally, I am sure the men I represent will agree with all you have to say in regard to regulating the public domain. The only thing I am afraid of is that we may ask for too much and get nothing. What we now need, not only sheepmen but cattlemen, is to be relieved from some of the regulations of the forestry bureau. We are not so much concerned in the use of the public domain at this time as we are in the regulations of the forest reserve.

The country needs the benefit of the livestock industry and will derive more benefit from that than could possibly accrue from homesteading a piece of land. People generally do not realize nor consider the importance of the livestock industry to this country. It is one of the biggest factors in the Western States outside of the lumber indutsry, and if you eliminate as a range proposition the livestock industry of the West you will find people will pay tremendous prices for leather, wool, and other products of the industry and that the public interest would not be served.

We have talked this matter over and worked with it for a number of years, and I am prepared to say that the Washington men are anxious to join with the Idaho men, when a workable policy can be determined, so we can go to a Senate committee with some fair plan and say we are united on it and see if we can't get somewhere. We will never get anywhere with different organizations working on different things. We must go with a united program. I am anxious to work with your organization in the State and do all I can to get Washington men to work with you to determine a feasible plan, and when this has been done, see if we can't get some remedial legislation passed. There is nothing in the law to-day about the right of the stockman. His is simply a permissive right. You may pay for a permit on the forest reserve and have all your resources invested in a winter range and some ranger, for some reason, say, 'Here, you are violating some of the regulations of the forest reserve," and cut your allotment or order you off. You have absolutely no recourse. I was told at a meeting in Walla Walla the other day by a district forester that if there was any dispute between the forest officer and the forest user that the word of the forest officer would be taken without permitting any evidence to be offered to see which one was right, that his word would be taken until it was proven conclusively that the ranger was wrong. So, if the ranger is inclined to use it, he has absolute power in his hands to put any man out of business and there is no recourse. When an industry like the livestock industry has no legal status it is time lawmaking bodies listen to what we have to say and give us some relief.

Mr. McLean then told of Mr. Jardine's visit to Idaho Falls and of his trip out to see the deserted homesteads in that community.

Mr. CLEVE HALSEY. This section of the county that I am most familiar with has very little Government land, except in the forest reserve. I realize in the sections where there is large bodies of Government land it is very unsatisfactory as it is and very uncertain, and I certainly agree with Mr. McLean in saying it is an injustice to any stranger to allow him to come and settle on any of the public domain here in the Northwest now. Not very long ago I was talking with a man and he said, Why can't a man make a good living up here if he can get a section of this land?" I asked him how he thought he could live on a section of land that could be rented for $60 a year and support a family on it. That is the condition. I didn't homestead. When I came to the country it was in the spring. I came from the South and the land I lived on in Virginia didn't look any better than this brake land up here