Page images
PDF
EPUB

The CHAIRMAN. In the handling of what?

Mr. O'NEILL. Dudes--that is, eastern tourists. They call them dude wranglers. Well, that has built up quite a business in the last six or seven years. The National Park Service runs down there, and they see those people are making money and are building up these ranches to take care of the dudes, and it looks to me as though they want that business. Now, they propose extending the park and taking in all those people and telling them to get out of there, which I think justly belongs to those young men that have come in there and built up that business.

I was over there last Thursday and I talked to Robert Miller and a great many others, and everybody in Jackson Hole is opposed to the national-park extension in spite of the propaganda they put out that everything is agreeable and everything is going fine. I don't know why they do that, but everybody in Jackson Hole is opposed to the extension of Yellowstone Park. If they make that extension, it will drive those fellows out that established their business there.

That is about all I have to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Are the people of Wyoming generally opposed to the national-park extension?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any necessity for the extension of the park for the purpose of preserving the wild life?

Mr. O'NEILL. I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. You have State game laws in Wyoming that protect all sorts of wild life?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, sir. The report of the game warden is for everybody to get out and get an elk, because they are overstocked. That was the report he made at the opening of the game season.

The CHAIRMAN. And they permit the killing of one elk to an individual?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O'Neill, are you of the opinion that the right to graze in the national forest should be made a legal right?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. A legal right, in place of grazing there by sufferance on the part of the bureau?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that there should be provided some disinterested tribunal or agency before which irreconcilable controversies between the users of the forest reserve and the Forest Service officials might be tried?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You graze upon the public domain?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you in favor of Congress enacting a law providing for the leasing of the public domain?

Mr. O'NEILL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that such a law could be so restricted and safeguarded as to meet your approval?

Mr. O'NEILL. No, sir; I don't think it could.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the resolutions adopted by the meeting of representatives of the American National Livestock

Association and the representatives of the National Woolgrowers' Association in Salt Lake City on August 24 and 25?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, sir; I read it in the paper and I heard you read it here this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. You have already stated that you would not be in favor of the enactment of any sort of leasing law. But if a law is to be enacted, do you think it important that such provisions as are set forth in that resolution be incorporated in the law? I will read them to you:

First, that any principles underlying a grazing use of the public domain must recognize the necessity for definiteness of control in the operator.

That is, that the individual operating on the range, the user of the range, shall have the control of the grazing; that the control shall not be passed to any bureau of the Government?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes; I believe in local control.

The CHAIRMAN (reading):

A charge basis which does not depreciate investment values in privately owned properties dependent upon the use of such ranges.

That means that any charge greater than the benefits received by reason of the regulation should not be made, because any charge that would be in excess of the benefits derived would depreciate the value of the property.

Mr. O'NEILL. I do not believe in the Federal Government being a landlord and taxing the people here to put money in the Federal Treasury.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that the resources of the State of Wyoming belong to the State of Wyoming and should not be taken from the State of Wyoming for the benefit of the Federal Treasury? Mr. O'NEILL Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN (reading):

That priority and use shall be the general basis of granting right to occupy such ranges.

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes; and I believe that we should look after the people that are coming in.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think they might have gone a little further there and included dependent ranch property as well as priority and use as the general basis?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN (reading):

That preceding any application of any law to this problem the public domain should be classified as to its proper use with reference to the best economic development and benefit to the general public.

By that I presume they mean that where it is more beneficial to the general public for some other purpose than grazing it should not be considered.

Mr. O'NEILL. I think it should be given to whatever the best use is for it.

The CHAIRMAN (reading):

Any law enacted covering this matter should be based on the principle of local option in States or grazing districts.

If such a law is to be enacted, do you think it should carry a local option provision?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes: I think it should.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you in favor of a long-term tenure of lease to cover the grazing privileges within the boundaries of the national forest?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would such a long-term tenure tend to stabilize the livestock industry if you knew for a certainty that you would have the use of your range for a number of years?

Mr. O'NEILL. Well, it would be just the same as knowing what you were going to get for your cattle another year. If you knew that you had that land for a number of years you would know just what to count on, and it would be an advantage to the ranchman. He could figure just what to count on in the grazing there would be, just as if he knew what his price was going to be; then he would know what to count on. But those things are things we could not have. But if he knew what the grazing was going to be that would help his business.

The CHAIRMAN. It would tend to stabilize?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the 640-acre so-called graz ing homestead law?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. As you have observed the operation of that law, has it been beneficial to the locality within which you have observed its operation?

Mr. O'NEILL. Well, the benefits are local. There are some places where it has and there are other places it has not been beneficial. Where there is a sufficient growth of grass, it has been beneficial. The CHAIRMAN. Has it tended to promote home building?

Mr. O'NEIL. Not to any great extent. Up in our country the suc cessful people have been the families that would take up blocks of it, and then one of them would stay there the year around and tend to it and the others would go away and work, and they are building up some herds of cattle that way, small herds of cattle, and it has been beneficial to those people.

The CHAIRMAN. Where the homesteads have been taken and grouped together under one control that has been beneficial?

Mr. O'NEIL. That has been beneficial.

The CHAIRMAN. But the 640-acre homestead alone is not a practical unit as a livestock-grazing unit?

Mr. O'NEIL. No; it is not a practical unit as a livestock-grazing unit.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you be in favor of the repeal of the 640-acre stock grazing act?

Mr. O'NEIL. No, sir; I would not.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you be in favor of enlarging the size of the stock-raising homestead to two sections or three sections?

Mr. O'NEIL. No; I would not be in favor of change.

Mr. BOWDEN. You are in favor of letting it stay as it is?

Mr. O'NEIL. Just let it stay as it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you have in mind when you say "Let it stay as it is," the area, the 640 acres?

Mr. O'NEIL. Yes, sir.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the terms of requirement should be modified so that those who took 640-acre homesteads could reasonably conform with the law?

Mr. O'NEIL. I think if there are any modifications-really I am
not familiar with what is required on a 640-acre homestead.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it requires residence, for one thing.
Mr. O'NEIL. Continuous?

The CHAIRMAN. Continued residence, except with a leave of absence over a period of time.

Mr. O'NEIL. It should be modified in order to let the people go away part of the year when they are not required there.

The CHAIRMAN. Why not all of the time that they are not required in there? Why should they be compelled to stay on the 640 acres when they are wasting their time?

Mr. O'NEIL. That would be all right to stay away then.

The CHAIRMAN. If they are staying there over a period when their time is not required or is not useful there, it is an economic waste,

is it not?

Mr. O'NEIL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then why should it not be modified so that they should not have to spend any more time than the time that is required to give the attention that is necessary for the conduct of the improvements?

Mr. O'NEIL. And make their improvements.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, another provision is that $1.25 per acre should be expended in improvements and that it shall be fenced with a certain kind of a fence. Are there not many cases with which you are familiar where the fencing in conformity to the law is an economic waste? I believe the law requires a three-wire fence and posts, etc.; are there not many instances where that is an economic waste?

Mr. O'NEIL. Yes: it is in the tracts where they have to fence the different tracts. The fence around the whole thing would answer the purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you be in favor of the law being amended so that all economic waste in the acquiring of title would be eliminated: that the law should be so modified and liberalized that there would be no ecomonic waste in the acquirement of title from the Federal Government?

Mr. O'NEIL. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you know any law which authorizes the Forest Service to control the three mile strip that you spoke about and which is public domain?

Mr. O'NEIL. No; I do not. I think that lack of authority is a dangerous thing, and they just extend that beyond their limit.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. O'Neil, I want to get that perfectly clear in my mind. Is this three mile strip outside of the forest reserve?

Mr. O'NEIL. Outside of the forest reserve.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a strip lying between the 25-mile strip and the forest reserve?

Mr. O'NEIL. Well, it is a part of the 25-mile strip.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, then, the 25-mile strip is only a 22-mile

Mr. O'NEIL. Twenty-two mile strip.

The CHAIRMAN. There are 22 miles, and 3 miles of public domain, and then the forest reserve?

Mr. O'NEIL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. But the forest reserve officials say to you you must not let your stock go within 3 miles of the boundary of the national forest before a certain date?

Mr. O'NEIL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now suppose that your stock did go to the boundarey, but not on the forest reserve, what would the forest officials say to you?

Mr. O'NEIL. Well, what they have said is to keep them back. The CHAIRMAN. Well, suppose you did not keep them back and they went to the boundary of, but not on the forest reserve?

Mr. O'NEIL. Well, I have never tried to keep them back, because I figure they were exceeding their authority.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as this 3-mile strip is concerned?
Mr. O'NEIL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course you recognize their right up to the boundary of the forest reserve?

Mr. O'NEIL. Yes. I think they were just stepping over 3 miles. The CHAIRMAN. Well, unquestionably that is true. But I was wondering if they ever said to you or to any other user of the forest reserve, "If you don't stay back 3 miles we will refuse you the right to graze on the forest reserve." Have you ever known them to say that that would be the penalty which would be inflicted if you went on that 3-mile strip of public domain outside of the forest reserve?

Mr. O'NEIL. Well, in giving the orders they just give orders that that was the orders, and that they must be obeyed. That is the way they put it.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, did you feel that that meant that if the orders were not obeyed you would be denied the right to graze within the confines of the national forest?

Mr. O'NEIL. Well, that would just depend on how much the forest supervisor would abuse his authority. He could do that, I suppose. Because with the Forest Service we would have no come-back, then, If you went over them you have got just the same as you got before. There was no come-back with the Forest Service.

The CHAIRMAN. Has your experience or the experience of those with whom you are familiar generally been, that the appeals from the decisions of the local forest supervisor were usually, if not always, sustained?

Mr. O'NEIL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. O'Neil. James P. Jensen.

STATEMENT OF JAMES P. JENSEN, CATTLE RAISER, BIG PINEY,

WYO.

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

Mr. JENSEN. James P. Jensen. Big Piney, Wyo.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jensen, what is your occupation?

Mr. JENSEN. Rancher.

« PreviousContinue »