they could not usually agree, therefore, it would be necessary to refer those matters to the advisory committee, so long as they pretend to recognize such a committee. That, to my knowledge, has never been done.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are you in favor of Congress passing a law providing that grazing areas in the national forest shall continue to be grazed?

Mr. NOBLITT. Yes, I think that it would be a mistake to eliminate grazing from those areas.

Mr. BOWDEN. And you think that there ought to be positive law enacted by Congress providing that the Forest Service shall continue grazing on areas where grazing can be profitably carried on?

Mr. NOBLITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are you in favor of changing the Forest Service system from the permit system to an area system, that is, giving the user of the forest reserve a certain area for a period of years to graze his stock upon in preference to the permit system of giving him permit to run a certain number of stock at such place as the Forest Service shall deem advisable?

Mr. NOBLITT. Personally, I think that it should be based upon an area system and handled in such a way that there would be some penalty in case of overgrazing, but that the permit holder would be allowed to vary his numbers according to his own condition.

Mr. BOWDEN. Will you state the advantages, as you see them, of that system?

Mr. NOBLITT. Well, in the first place, it would do away with the necessity of cutting down their herds to an identical number in all cases. It ought to tend, and I think would tend, to induce them to take the very best possible care of their allotment.

Mr. BOWDEN. And under the present system there is not the same inducement?

Mr. NOBLITT. No: there can not be.

Mr. BOWDEN. Going back to the area system, who, under your idea, should have control of the grazing of the area, the operator-that is. the stockman-or the forest supervisor?

Mr. NOBLITT. The stockman should have it, with a limit, as I suggested, that would prevent him from continually overgrazing. That could well be left to the Forest Service officials and the advisory board consisting of other users.

The CHAIRMAN. Will there be much inclination to overgraze if overgrazing would result in detriment and loss to the user of the forest reserve?

Mr. NOBLITT. Taken from our experience on our outside lands. leased and privately owned, I would say "no." On the contrary. the inducement would be to preserve those ranges to the very best possible advantage.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is there any general reduction program on in the Teton or Wyoming National Forests, reduction for either distribution or range protection?

Mr. NOBLITT. There has always been more or less reduction for both. Under our so-called 10-year permit system the forestry department have reserved the right to make, I believe, annual reductions for the purpose of range protection to the extent that if they were to exercise their prerogative in that connection they could elim

inate a grazing outfit entirely within the 10-year period. Or, in other words, I believe the Use Book provides and the 10-year permits provide that they may, if they want to, reduce up to 10 per cent each year.

Mr. BOWDEN. For range distribution?

Mr. NOBLITT. Yes; for range protection.

Mr. BOWDEN. There is no limit on the reduction for range protection, is there?

Mr. NOBLITT. Yes; I think there is. In our district there does not seem to be much tendency to crowd that limit. The distribution phase of the question has been handled fairly satisfactorily. Class A men, who have enjoyed the most of that distribution, have almost invariably made a failure of the sheep business and most of them have gone out, offering their sheep for sale and their permit with it. Those that have not done that-those, in other words, that are doing their part toward building up and keeping up the community-have not been a detriment to the industry.

Mr. BOWDEN. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all, Mr. Noblitt, unless you have a further statement that you wish to make.

Mr. NOBLITT. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenkins.

STATEMENT OF P. W. JENKINS, CATTLE RAISER, CORA, WYO.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenkins, will you give your name and address to the reporter.

Mr. JENKINS. My name is P. W. Jenkins, Cora, Wyo.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your occupation, Mr. Jenkins?

Mr. JENKINS. Cattle raiser.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been engaged in the cattle business?

Mr. JENKINS. Seventeen years.

The CHAIRMAN. And do you graze on the national forests?

Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And also on the public domain?

Mr. JENKINS. To a certain extent. A small amount.

The CHAIRMAN. What national forest do you graze in?

Mr. JENKINS. The Wyoming-Bridger.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenkins, have you a statement which you wish. to make to this committee in your own way?

Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir. Meetings of the two principal or three principal associations of the Green River Valley were held recently, and at those meetings the whole question of range management was taken up and discussed, and certain resolutions were formulated to be presented to this committee. This represents the concensus of the cattle men of Green River Valley.

I would say that practically all of these users are citizens of Sublette County, which ranks first in cattle production in the State of Wyoming, and one of the first counties in the west in the production of cattle. We are located on an average one hundred miles from the railroad. Our industry is the only industry that we can profitably follow that distance from the railroad. The product

of our ranches must be conveyed to the railroad on foot, as conveyance by other means is practically impossible.

I would like in the first place to read these resolutions. [Reading:]

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE BIG PINEY ROUND-UP AND GREEN RIVER CATTLE ASSOCIATIONS

At meetings of the Big Piney Roundup Association and the Green River Cattle Association on September 6 and 8, respectively, the following resolutions were adopted:

I. We are opposed to enlarging the area of the Forest Reserves.

ARGUMENT

(a) The Forest Reserves now includes all the forested area.

(b) Administration of grazing in Wyoming has not contributed materially to the prosperity of the livestock industry.

(c) Forest Service officials are not experienced in livestock production.

(d) Federal ownership of large areas within the State is harmful to the functioning of the State and county governments.

II. We are opposed to the leasing of the public range.

ARGUMENT

(a) It will interfere with the free movement of livestock.

(b) It will add a burden to an already overburdened industry.

(c) It will build up another useless and expensive function of Government. (d) It will interfere with the passing of title to land from Federal to private ownership and withhold it from State control and taxation.

III. We favor having the grazing fee fixed by Congress.

ARGUMENT

(a) It will add permanency to the charge and allow the producer to plan for the future.

(b) Congress will be in closer contact with the people than would be a bureau.

(c) The levying of a tax should be done by a body responsible to the people taxed.

IV. We ask that the policy in local administration of grazing be more settled and that the stockmen interested be given a voice in making rules controlling the handling of their livestock.

ARGUMENT

(a) Inexperienced officials have been given power to control salting, distribution of stock, number of the range, movement of stock, etc., to the loss and impairment of the industry.

(b) Local government is best, as those on the ground have the most intimate knowledge of conditions.

(c) It will result in more sympathy between the stockman and the Forest Service.

V. The grazing fee should be fixed on the cost of administration economically conducted.

ARGUMENT

(a) It is class legislation to call upon the livestock industry to support a national institution or to yield a profit to the Federal Government. (b) The livestock industry is now overburdened with costs.

(c) The Government should not profiteer.

VI. We are opposed to commercialization of the grazing.

ARGUMENT

(a) It destroys the value of ranches adjacent to the forest reserves.

(b) Migratory herds will drive out permanent ranching.

(c) On the forest reserve are losses by straying, poison, predatory animals, etc., amounting to about 10 per cent of those turned out.

Mr. JENKINS. I would say that this is comparing the grazing on the public domain with privately owned pieces of land. [Continuing reading:]

(d) Public grazing does not admit of scientific breeding.

(e) Public grazing does not admit of orderly marketing.

(f) Distance from the railroad of range, isolation of homes, denial of comforts of life, etc., make a great difference in the values of grazing. VII. We are opposed to Federal landlordism.

ARGUMENT

(a) It is unconstitutional.

(b) It is undemocratic.

(c) It is adverse to State interest and development.

(d) It paralyzes private enterprise.

(f) It removes large areas from taxation and leaves it for the State and county to police and develop and to educate its inhabitants.

VIII. We believe that the laws should be so enacted that the public lands may pass into private ownership as rapidly as is consistent with proper development. That the expense of the central Government should be cut down by restoring to the States those functions formerly intended to vest in them. That the natural resources of right belong to the States and should be reserved to the States.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenkins, you concur with these resolutions? Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir, Senator; I do.

The CHAIRMAN. The resolutions are in opposition to any leasing of the public domain, and you have stated therein your objections. If Congress should pass, nothwithstanding the objections that have been made to the leasing of the public domain, a bill providing for the leasing of the public domain, what provisions would you suggest be placed in that bill to protect the interests that you represent?

Mr. JENKINS. Well, Senator, it is rather hard for me to outline any policy or any form of a leasing bill, as my ideas have all been centered on opposition to it. But I feel a great deal like the mother that said to her little boy, "Now, Johnnie, you are not to go out into the rain to-day, but if you do, put your overshoes on." So I will say that if we have to have a leasing system that the fees first should go to the State to relieve taxation.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you prefer that there should be a fee that yielded a profit rather than the charging of a nominal rental that would not be in excess of the cost of supervision?

Mr. JENKINS. I would not be in favor of a fee that would yield a profit; but from experience in the past I would say that such a fee would be levied. It is impossible, or has been impossible, to prevent the constant increase of grazing fees. Once the system is started it grows apace year by year. In my time there have been, I believe, three or four increases in grazing fees.

The CHAIRMAN. You have stated here in reference to forest-reserve fees that you are in favor of them being fixed by statute, or statutory fees. If a general leasing law is to be passed I presume that you favor the fixing of the rental or fees that might be charged there

under?

Mr. JENKINS. I believe it should be done by the lawgiving body— by the Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not true that you are in favor of a statutory fixing of fees to prevent the very condition that you have been. reciting, the interminable increase of fees?

Mr. JENKINS. That is our object in advising that the fee should be fixed by Congress. It would stabilize our industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if Congress should fix the fee to be not in excess of the cost of administration and regulation, then there could be no profit from the collection of fees?

Mr. JENKINS. No.

The CHAIRMAN. So there could be no reason for a provision in the bill that such fees that are collected in excess of the cost of administration should be turned to the State?

Mr. JENKINS. No; not if the bill provided that the fees should be based upon the cost of administration economically conducted. The CHAIRMAN. I take it that you would recommend that if a general leasing bill is to be enacted into law that it should carry such provision?

Mr. JENKINS. I think it should. Then, in the second place, I think that the bill should provide for the leasing of areas consistent with the conditions as they exist. Now an allotment to individuals in Upper Green River Valley would be practically impossible for the very fact that the public range is scattered, large areas of it without water. The people hold their grazing up there in common. The allotment of certain areas to individuals would necessitate fencing. We would have fences the cost of which would be in excess of the profits to be derived from the range.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it possible that community leases might be granted wherein the community could fence or in some way inclose the entire area leased to them?

Mr. JENKINS. That would be rather difficult. That would be the best solution of the problem in our country, but it would be difficult to handle in that the grazing in our country is conducted by associations. These several associations have districts around the rim of the valley. The public domain is the strip in this horseshoe arrangement, and in moving the cattle from the ranches to the separate districts we all pass over pretty much the same ground. And it would be rather difficult to arrange a community lease. Such a thing, though, might be worked out.

The CHAIRMAN. Could the public domain with which you are familiar be divided into grazing districts or community districts? Mr. JENKINS. It could.

The CHAIRMAN. Then if Congress enacts a general leasing law and it carries an optional provision wherein the residents of such natural grazing districts or community districts could decide as to whether the area within their district should be leased to them or not, would that meet the objections of your associations to a general leasing law?

Mr. JENKINS. No; that would meet only one of the objections. We have other objections which we have filed, of course, that I think are even greater than the arrangement of the system. In the first place, we believe that this will retard the free passing of the land into private ownership and bringing it under taxation. That has resulted on the forest reserve. The land once placed within the boundaries of the forest is taken away from settlement practically.

The CHAIRMAN. Then it is your opinion, I take it, that a general leasing law should provide that no restrictions be placed upon the