Mr. McLEAN. Most of the resolutions have stated that they prefer Government rather than State control.

Mr. BACON. I haven't heard a stockman yet say he knew how this could be handled, but we feel we should try to work out some plan we thing would be practical.

Mr. Lɛɛ. How are you going to put a value on this land? There are lots of years when this range wouldn't support an old turkey hen. You can't lease that land on a basis of a year like this year. Whoever comes out here to fix a value on this range should be taken out a year like last year and let him decide what it is worth.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. If you put the public domain under some sort of control and they act like the Forest Service does, they might keep you in your lambing sheds until they say the feed is right on the range, and you probably wouldn't have any lambs left.

Mr. LEE. They certainly would have to let us all go on at the same time or there would be trouble again. Curran here would get out and eat all the blossoms before I got there.

Mr. RIDDLE. They don't let you on the forest reserve now until about the 1st of August, do they?

Mr. BACON. About that time on part of it.

Mr. LEE. When that committee comes to Salt Lake we should attend that meeting and let them know what we want. They may pass some bill we don't want but they can't scare me, because we have to get by some way or other and if the stockmen don't use this range it isn't going to be used. I think they want it used.

The CHAIRMAN. They almost passed rules and regulations on the Forest Service that we couldn't use.

Mr. LEE. I have yet to see anything in the forest reserve that we couldn't work out to our advantage when we got a hearing. I haven't any trouble with the Forest Service.

The CHAIRMAN. They cut nearly half our land off because we had too much land. We came out of that with about half the land we had had and 6,000 sheep instead of 12,000.

Mr. LEE. Maybe they had reasons for that you arn't telling here.

The CHAIRMAN. I always thought more money was the big reason.

Mr. LEE. If you thought that you should have set in.

The CHAIRMAN. I did afterwards.

Mr. LEE. I believe our reserve here will work out all right. I think the Forest Service is all right. They have done good work and if we hadn't had the Forest Service we wouldn't have any range to-day.

Mr. MCNAMARA. This is the eighth meeting I have attended and you are the fourth man in all these meetings that I have heard make that kind of a statement.

Mr. LEE. Do you mean to say only four men out of that bunch? I think most of them must have been very unfair. I know about the forest reserve and I wouldn't be fair to them or to myself if I didn't say that I believe if we didn't have the forest reserve we wouldn't have any good range in this country to-day. It would have been overgrazed and actually worn out. Mr. CURRAN. I think Mr. Lee is absolutely right about that.

Mr. MCNAMARA. At every meeting we have had there has been all kinds of objection to the way the forest reserve is being operated at the present time. Mr. LEE. I fight a lot with them, but I find the differences can always be adjusted. The most trouble I have is with these rangers. They are the ones that try to put unfair practices into use.

Mr. MCNAMARA. Hugh Sproat, Jimmie Farmer, John Curran, and you are the only ones I have heard praise the Forest Service.

Mr. MCLEAN. We arn't trying to do away with the Forest Service. The whole object of these meetings is to try to find out what the stockmen want. Mr. LEE. Bacon, have you been traveling around over the State telling the people you want the forest reserve put out of business?

Mr. BACON. No; I haven't and no one else has. We don't want that. I do think, though, that there are evils in the Forest Service that should be corrected and this is the opportunity we will have to say what we want. We want to eliminate some of the trouble we have been having.

Mr. LEE. If you think you are going to be able to handle sheep without fighting all the time, you just as well get out of the business.

Mr. BACON. We think the department that administers these things should be out West and we are asking for that.

Mr. LEE. It is all right to ask it but you won't get it.

Mr. BACON. Well, it is the first time the people of the West have had a chance to say what they want. I think one thing will be accomplished and that is the legislative and judiciary functions will be taken from the Forest Service. That would make a lot of difference if they haven't anything to do with making rules and simply administer them.

Mr. LEE. When you pass a law instead of a regulation you may borrow a lot of trouble. Remember that New York has about 40 votes and Idaho about two. I don't think we can pass any law that is practical for us. Somebody is going to get up in Congress and say we are using forest reserve that belongs to them and it is going to be hard to make a law that is advantageous to us. The people west of the Mississippi River have very small representation in Congress.

Mr. BACON. My point is that they should do with the forest reserve what they propose to do with the public domain-lease it to a man and leave it to his judgment to handle it as he sees fit. That would be all right.

Mr. LEE. I don't think much of that. About the time you get a man educated they send a new one from back East from some college and you have to educate him. I never expect to see the time come when I won't have to fight for what I get.

Mr. BACON. I believe we can improve on the present system. If you are going to do it, it must be gotten before this committee. The East has said they want to hear our side of the story, and it looks like we might get some consideration.

Mr. CURRAN. I think the feeling here generally is that people don't want allotment. They want to leave it like it is.

Mr. BACON. I think that is the feeling, but it seems something is going to be done.

Mr. McLEAN. I think everybody wants it left as it is, but if it can't be left as it is, they want it under one head.

Mr. CURRAN. My stand on the forest reserve is as Lee put it. I think if it hadn't been for the Forest Service we wouldn't have much range to-day. Mr. McLEAN. Nobody wants to get rid of the Forest Service, and no resolutions to that effect have been passed. They simply want it reorganized. Mr. LEE. Whatever I believe in I believe in fighting for. If control of the public domain is inevitable, our resolutions are all right. I know our good friends the Idaho woolgrowers will see that we have the right kind of representation before that committee.

Mr. Chairman, will you read the resolutions that have been passed at other meetings and as you have amended them?

Whereupon Mr. McLean read the resolutions as amended.

FAUSTINO ARRISOLA. What about the winter range? We can't regulate the winter range. Sometimes there is lots of snow and sometimes not any. One

year we have got feed and the next year nothing at all.

Moved by Curran that the resolutions as amended be adopted; seconded by Lee. Motions adopted.

Mr. Gedney stressed the importance of collecting all dues and urged the men already in the association to try to get additional members and to see that all dues were paid.

(Whereupon the meeting adjourned.)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE HEARING ON PUBLIC LANDS HELD AT OAKLEY, IDAHO, BY THE IDAHO WOOL GROWERS' ASSOCIATION, FRIDAY AFTERNOON, JUNE 26, 1925

Meeting called to order at 2.30 p. m. by Mr. McNamara.
Present: Fifteen cattle and wool growers.

Introduction of Mr. Donald McLean by Mr. McNamara, who discussed the methods of handling public lands, quoting arguments pro and con as given by different men in previous hearings.

Mr. MCNAMARA. In order to get this before you and to bring it to a discussion, I am going to call on several of you gentlemen and I want you to express yourselves very freely. We are taking a transcript of this testimony so that we can bind it together and when we go before this committee we will know something about what the stockmen think and feel about this matter. I will call on Senator McMurray, if he has any ideas.

Mr. MCMURRAY. suppose all present are pretty well familiar with what has transpired in the meetings throughout the State-we have seen it in the papers. Of course, it does not make a great deal of difference what this association does in this remote place. The majority would naturally rule. Of course, I think we have a condition here in regard to the range which is different from most places. It is unanimous, I think, that we are opposed to any particular change, but it seems that we realize the fact that a change is bound to come. We must fight the driving out of the stockmen regardless of what we people here think. The majority of our range is patented land, but most of it has been abandoned and we are using it. We graze over it without any rental. But I think we realize the fact that we must cooperate with this movement which seems to be a national movement, and we are not going to be able to stop it and we must decide what is the best solution.

Personally I am opposed to the State taking over the land. Perhaps that is because I am familiar with the way things would be handled in the legislature. Just to show you how this thing works, let me tell you about the bounty bill in the last legislature. The bounty was costing us $300 a day, and, because we were the only State having a bounty law, the surrounding States were bootlegging their hides into Idaho for the bounty. So I got a senator to introduce it. When this bill was introduced in the senate he said: "Now, this isn't a livestock measure. I expect the livestock men in this senate will vote against it, because it is a measure by which we are taking the bounty off and leaving the tax on the sheepmen. But it is for the general welfare, and we want to stop that $300 expense." And it was passed in that intelligent way. But when it was before the house the member who introduced it unwisely mentioned the fact through his speech: "Now, I want you people to understand that this is a stockmen's measure." That settled it. The result was that we couldn't put it across that day. And only by the greatest effort were we able to get it through the next day.

I found that this sentiment prevailed all along. If we got anything passed, it had to be in the first three weeks of the session. There seems to be a prejudice against the livestock men in any measure, and I speak advisedly. I think it touches them more than any other industry we have. And yet it is necessary for the livestock men to prosper in order for the farmer to prosper, and, of course, if the farmers do not prosper, it is equally hard on the town people.

Now, it appeals to me that the reasonable thing is for the public domain to be put in with the Secretary of Agriculture and have it worked out that way. I notice you say that experts be given charge. If that means to give charge to some eastern fellow, I would object to it. If these men you call experts are practical stockmen who will work not only for the stockmen but for the Nation at large to get the most benefit for all, I think that would be practical. But I notice, as I remember it, that a majority of the stockmen have objected that it be controlled by the Forestry Service. But that would be best, I think, because the forage on an acre of ground on this Government land is so small that the acreage would have to be a very low fee in order for us to maintain it at all.

Of course, we must watch carefully or they will try to raise that publicdomain fee on us. We are fighting them all the time to keep this down. I have no particular complaint with the application of the forest rules when the man is worked over and he begins to get the viewpoint of the livestock raisers. We find then that we get along very well with him. When a new man comes on who is not practical the trouble starts. I feel that we should recommend that something be done to this land committee that has been appointed. To my mind the control of the public domain should be kept in the Department of Agriculture, and we should allot it as nearly as we can to local people, people that are practical and know the benefits and uses of the range and how livestock should be handled. I believe that these small holdings are a mistake.

In the senate once we had one new man who was going to rearrange the allotments, and he got the senate to make different joint resolutions that it had become so that the stock owners were all transient people who didn't pay any taxes, went where they pleased, and had really a splendid income with no taxes, and the small grower was crowded out. These resolutions went over to the house and they had it investigated, wihch investigation proved that there is only 3 per cent of the smaller holders that make good.

All the rest were failures. The result was that the joint resolutions were killed in the house.

If we can get practical men that will realize that things must be handled somewhere in a larger way than this, then things will work out. The range is maintained by the smaller owner, who forsakes it when the hard times come. It is the larger man who holds it together, and when good times come everybody is scrambling for range. For a man who has an allotment on the forest owns the sheep in order to get that holding. And to me if I were entirely out of the sheep business, if I wanted to go into the sheep business I would have to purchase enough sheep to make it pay. I would not want to be a drag and increase the expense per acre. If he makes that 8 per cent or 6 per cent that they require, he should make it on enough sheep to justify or he will go out and become a bankrupt and be a danger to the country.

Mr. MCLEAN. Then you are for the reorganization of the Forest Service along with the court of appeals?

Mr. MCMURRAY. Yes. I want it safeguarded with stockmen so that they will understand what needs to be done. But perhaps, as lots of those people think, it should be handled under the Secretary of Agriculture with the safeguards throughout in the way of a committee or board, or whatever you have in mind to term it, of practical men. I don't mean experts unless you mean experts that know the different angles of the stock industry. And I think that is the way it should be handled. And I think also that these fees should be kept down to a minimum, and they should bear in mind that when they raise that fee they will raise the price of the product in the Nation, and that unless they do raise the price of the product the stockmen will be a failure.

Mr. MCNAMARA. Just to give you something to think about before we go any further, I am going to read you some resolutions that were passed at some of these meetings, and you can think them over.

Mr. McLEAN. The point there was that they didn't want a man appointed on that board that was not now in the livestock business, because the industry is changing so rapidly year by year that they felt an old timer would not do, but they wanted a man who knew what was going on now in the business. One man pointed out that his father had been in when all cattlemen carried a gun for the sheepmen, and that such a man could not adjust himself to the changed conditions.

Mr. MCMURRAY. You will find this, that if you require a man to have been in the business 10 years you will not be able to get anyone to qualify. I've had experience with such things and I know. You will have difficulty if you require four or five years.

Mr. MCNAMARA. That is a mere detail.

Mr. WARD. I think that Mr. McMurray has covered about all we know here, but I think something has to be done, and I think we should just as well step in line and help ourselves as much as possible and if we can't get the best, take the next best, and let the people get together and form a plan whereby we can get the best results under some administrative power. I think the forest reserve department are the ones to handle that, or at least under the Secretary of Agriculture. Of course, I think in putting it under there it would be absolutely foolish not to make a good fight to have this Forestry Service reorganized, and we might make a trial. I would try the advantage of having the public domain as it is to-day and giving me a little to say about the forest reserve, and I believe we can have it fixed the way we want it, although the trend of the matter seems to be that we can write the bill if we just get together and it is just a sort of democratic move, and I think these resolutions here cover the situation very well, about what we want. I do not know as I have anything further at present to say on it.

Mr. GROHASKY. I listened to Mr. McMurray and I concur in everything he had to say. He is a practical man and he has it down to my ideas. The business I am in we got so we want to listen to practical men instead of theoretical men, and I concur to everything he says.

Mr. HANZEL. I just have a few range cattle and horses and have no right to talk.

Mr. MCNAMARA. If you were going out in the range business wouldn't you rather have it legalized?

Mr. HANZEL. I believe I would rather have it as it is now.

Mr. MCNAMARA. But if it is going to be changed would you like to have it legalized?

Mr. HANZEL. Mostly on the range.

Mr. FRANKS. I concur with everything Mr. McMurray said. I think it should go under the Department of Agriculture with a committee appointed of practical stockmen, men that know their business and know how to run stock, and not men that are educated in schools of timbering and such as that.

Mr. MCNAMARA. The suggestion has been made at some of these hearings that at least 50 per cent of the men that handle the Forestry Service should be practical stockmen.

Mr. MCMURRAY. Fifty-one per cent.

Mr. DAHLQUIST. I just approve of everything that has been said, and also indorse the resolutions.

Mr. FLYNN. I haven't very much to say, but I will say that, so far as I am concerned, we don't use much public domain. It is mostly land we lease from the loan companies. Once in a while we get on the public domain but it has most of it gone to homesteads, so it is sufficient for us to lease it from somebody. I think that the Forestry Service should be reorganized and that our permits should be a little more permanent. We don't know whether they are going to cut it at any time. They will lease us a run for two years. We couldn't run less than 1,000 in a band, and it is too much overhead expense to these small herds. And I think Mr. McMurray has covered about all the ground there is to cover.

Mr.

Mr. Flynn and Mr. McMurray have given my sentiments as far as I can see it.

Mr. SPECKMAN. I object to making any changes from the present, but if they are going to make any changes they should be practical experienced men to handle it, and they should hold the fees down, for there is very little grass on this land that we call free Government land now that is in the

reserve.

Mr. MCNAMARA. You think it should be handled all by one department?
Mr. SPECKMAN. Yes.

Mr. MCNAMARA. Then you prefer the Forestry Department if it is safeguarded?

Mr. SPECK MAN. I do now. And if any other department gets a hold of this land we will be scrapping all the time.

Mr. FISHER. I haven't anything particular to say. One thing I have noticed that ought to be given some attention. For instance, in this raw country a year like this there is fine feed. At lots of those water holes you will find some sucker located on them and you get down and you have to give him $50. to get a drink. As far as the desert is concerned, I think it should be left alone just as it is, and I think that the fee for ranging should be held down. That can't be let get away. You noticed that here some time ago-what is the fee now (18 cents, I think). I know I ran sheep in the old Cow Creek country several years ago. At that time we paid 6 cents or 8 cents. And it has been going up ever since, and those ranges are not worth it, and if we don't make a fight on that and stop it, it is just like all Government matters that are handled. The one fellow gets in and gets some idea that he can raise the rent a little higher and he can get another assistant and they will work along fine, and about the time you think you are settled another one comes along. I can't see any objection to the way things are handled, but they should be held down.

Mr. MCLEAN. The fees have been raised five times in the last few years. This last proposition is to raise it 167 per cent for Idaho. Some States are not being raised at all, but for Idaho it is 167 per cent. They postponed it until 1926, but it was just by a clever manipulation of the National Wool Growers' Association that it was postponed.

Mr. FISHER. That would make it about 30 cents a head, wouldn't it, or better?

Mr. McLEAN. If you are giving 10 cents now, it would be 26 cents; if it is 20 cents now, it would be forty-some.

Mr. MCNAMARA. There is one thing in all of this that I think we should stress very strongly at the committee hearing at Boise and Pocatello and the general hearing at Salt Lake, and that 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 is now, so that you don't know how long you will be there. And right along that line, just as the senator has said, I don't know why it is that the livestock man is in bad repute in the State with everybody. Now, the other day I was in Boise