it through July and August we would probably be cut down to onethird of the stock we could run here. We have got quite an abundance of winter range.

The CHAIRMAN. Then it is, in fact, an essential link in the year's grazing.?

Mr. HAY. Oh, yes; they must work together.

The CHAIRMAN. And, therefore, the value of your dependent ranch property is largely predicated upon that right to graze within a forest reserve?

Mr. HAY. That is the only value it has to the use of the public land.

The CHAIRMAN. Would any increase of grazing fees tend to lessen the value of the dependent ranch property?

Mr. HAY. Yes; I feel that it would. The greatest damage is to have your herds reduced when you have made your plans for using the forest reserve. Now, we have a 10-year permit now. We come in this year with a 10-year permit instead of a year-to-year permit. And I feel that that is going to be very beneficial. We can safely figure on the number of animals that we are permitted to go on the forest reserve; we can figure that we will have about that many each year. I feel that that is going to help.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any further statement, Mr. Hay?

Mr. HAY. Well, I believe that Mr. Yates and Mr. Taliaferro have covered the situation here. You take over here on the Bitter Creekit is about 150 miles to Fremont Peak-where most of our users go. And some of the men on the south go down on Smoke River. Now, that area between those two points, in case that there should be any regulations, why, it would be most impossible to move ewes and young lambs on a trail that distance. You have got to take the best care possible.

The CHAIRMAN. That is on the public domain?

Mr. HAY. Yes; you have got to take the best care possible and work them around to the greatest advantage in order to not have a serious loss as it is, and I hope that the Government will not try to come in and pass such laws and that Congress will realize that we do not want to be peoned out here and get weaklings instead of men. It is a mighty serious matter. It would affect every business in this State if allowed. The settlement of this western country will gradually come about, and as other districts will gradually become crowded people gradually come in here. And right at this time we have not been bothered; not many people come in, for the simple fact that it is most impossible to get water for domestic use. Now, those things will finally work out, and if left alone I feel that in an orderly way it will finally settle up.

The CHAIRMAN. If Congress should enact a law, if it should become inevitable that such a law be enacted, do you think that the plans for range distribution and the system employed in grazing should be left entirely to the people affected thereby-the users

thereof?

Mr. HAY. Absolutely; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that is all, Mr. Hay. Thank you. Mr.

Fields.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH FIELDS, CATTLE RAISER, LIMA, WYO.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fields, are you engaged in the livestock business?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir.

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

Mr. FIELDS. Thirty years.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you graze within the boundaries of the national forest?

Mr. FIELDS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you graze upon the public domain?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been grazing upon the public domain? During all this period?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In one locality?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fields, would you favor the enactment of a law providing for the leasing of the public domain?

Mr. FIELDS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fields, has there been any depreciation or depletion of the forage of the range where you graze during the time that you have grazed there, resulting from promiscuous grazing or overgrazing?

Mr. FIELDS. I do not think so; not materially.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the range is about as good as it was 30 years ago?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any serious conflicts between the livestock men grazing on the public domain in the locality with which you are familiar?

Mr. FIELDS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fields, are you the owner of ranch property? Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the value of your ranch property in any wise dependent upon the right to graze on the Government lands? Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If that right were taken from you, would it materially affect the value of your ranch lands?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir; it would.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it impair your ability to pay taxes? Mr. FIELDS. If you take away from me the grazing of the public domain it would affect my paying taxes; sure.

The CHAIRMAN. And therefore would it detract from your support of the local government and public improvements within your State?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any statement that you would like to make to this committee in your own way?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you do so?

Mr. FIELDS. I have been engaged in the livestock business 30 years, in the cattle business. A year ago I sold my cattle and invested what

little money I got out of them in sheep, and have been applying to the forest supervisor for a permit, which I could not get. I would like to have a permit on the forest for my small band of sheep. The forest supervisor just simply ignored my request this year. Last year they told us we would get far enough along, so they said, for the next permit to be issued, but it never came. This year so far they have just simply ignored us.

I would like to ask a question of this committee. Under what conditions is a man entitled to an A-1 permit on the forest reserve? The CHAIRMAN. You are asking me that question?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure I would like to answer your question, Mr. Fields, but I do not really believe that I have a right to answer it. I would like to answer it by asking you a question. Have you propounded that question to the forest supervisor of your forest? Mr. FIELDS. No; not that question. I have asked for a permit. The CHAIRMAN. And been denied?

Mr. FIELDS. Well, yes. I haven't got it. He told me last year I was the next man to get one, but this year he simply ignored our

request.

Mr. BOWDEN. Did he tell you why he refused you a permit?

Mr. FIELDS. No; he didn't tell me anything this year; he didn't

even answer.

Mr. BOWDEN. What did he tell you last year?

Mr. FIELDS. Told me that I was the next man to get one.

The CHAIRMAN. But the next time has not come ?

Mr. FIELDS. No.

Mr. BOWDEN. How many did you apply for? For how many

sheep?

Mr. FIELDS. For 600 head. My son and I are joint owners of ranch property up there, 320 acres, only a short distance from the forest. We are joint owners in the sheep, and we asked for a per

mit for 600 head.

on!

Mr. BOWDEN. What forest reserve did you apply for a permit

Mr. FIELDS. Last year in the Uinta, this year in the Ashley. We live near the line dividing those two forests; it is just south of where we live. We wrote to our Representative, Judge Winter, and he sent us some blanks and told us to make our application in the Ashley Forest this year and he thought we would get results.

Mr. BOWDEN. In the event that the forest reserve had now all the sheep that it could carry, do you think you should be allowed a permit?

Mr. FIELDS. Well, that is one question that I would like you to answer. If I am entitled to a permit I feel like my permit should be granted.

The CHAIRMAN. If you are a class A man?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Even though that requires the reduction of some other person?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes that is the way I understand it. If I am wrong I would like to be put right.

The CHAIRMAN. Undoubtedly that is one of the difficult questions that come before the Forest Service, and I presume it is most

difficult for it to handle.

On the one hand you have a present user who contends that he should be permitted to graze the number of livestock that he is now grazing

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, and has been for a number of years.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any further statement, Mr. Fields? Mr. FIELDS. No.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry that we cannot answer your question. Thank you. Mr. Winkler.

STATEMENT OF ERNEST WINKLER, ASSISTANT DISTRICT FORESTER, IN CHARGE OF GRAZING IN DISTRICT NO. 4, OGDEN, UTAH

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Winkler, you have a statement you would like to make to this committee?

Mr. WINKLER. Yes, sir; I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you do so in your own way?

Mr. WINKLER. I would like to say at the outset, Senator, that I have been associated with the livestock business directly or indirectly from childhood. I was a cow-puncher and sheep herder for many years, and operated a considerable outfit of sheep for a number of years, and since that time have been associated with a grazing business on the national forest. Since 1916 I have been directly connected with the district forester's office at Ogden, in the branch of grazing.

The principal parts of the national forests of this district were created between 1905 and 1910. In most instances the range conditions at that time were generally bad. There were exceptions, however, where the livestock business had not developed to an extent that has resulted in serious depletion of the ranges, but in the main the ranges were in bad shape.

Regulated grazing, as applied, of course necessitated from the outset considerable reductions in numbers of stock. This of course met with more or less bitter opposition on the part of the stockmen, because it affected individual interests.

Penalties for injuries to the ranges were of course in proportion to the injury that had resulted to regulated use. The restrictions imposed were doubtless, by comparison, somewhat drastic, but they were necessary if improvement and recovery of the range was to be accomplished.

These restrictions and the conflicts of interest that developed immediately impressed upon us the necessity of getting closer contact with the stockmen. To begin with, this was somewhat difficult, because there was quite general opposition, because it was affecting individual interests so directly that the stockmen were more disposed in the outset to oppose any regulation than to attempt to cooperate. That was short lived, however, and we succeeded in getting livestock associations organized. We took the initiative in that and urged it with all the force we possibly could, with the result that we now have in district 4 of the 26 national forests a little over 300 such livestock associations.

In the main the sheep associations are organized for the forest as a whole; that is, each individual forest has a sheep association. The cattle ranges are more or less community ranges where there

are community interests involved, so that there are a number of cattle associations on each national forest.

These associations we attempt to cooperate with. We take up with them the problems of administration as they arise. Hundreds of conferences are held every year with these organizations. Special rules have been passed by these associations, upon their request, for handling the livestock operations on the respective units. The wool growers, for example, have asked us to pass special rules on the question of the control of predatory animals, assisting them in the collection of assessments levied by them for the handling of that problem, together with other problems that may come up and that involve expense, so as to equalize the expense between all

the users.

The cattle men, of course, have their special rules, some of them even going to the extent of dehorning rules. It is a question, of majority rule in those instances. Often those rules meet with resentment on the part of a minority, but we have felt that where a majority of the users using a community range desired certain regulations to be applied we should comply with the wishes of the majority so long as that action did not seriously militate against the welfare and interest of the individual. Then of course we have special rules, such as the bull rule, which requires in certain instances a specific breed of bulls, which are always based on the wishes of the majority and which we do not put into effect unless the sentiment is substantially unanimous.

With these associations we consider questions of seasonal use. We consider with them questions of cuts in the number of stock. In the beginning in particular, of course, we were not always in agreement, and often reductions were made that were opposed by the stockmen. To indicate why that was necessary I would like to cite a case or two as examples.

There is a forest reserve over in Utah on which we have a cattle association that grazes 1,800 head of cattle. That range is stocked on the basis of about 17 to 20 acres per head. We were considering with that board the question of seasons, and the association took the position that not only was there no need of changing the season, but that we were terrifically understocked, contending that that rangeand they were serious-instead of being stocked at the rate of 1,800 head should be stocked at the rate of 18,000 head, a ridiculous number when you consider the range involved, which was comparatively inferior.

On other forests in the early stages of the game, on one in particular, we would graze about 220,000 head of sheep. That range had been seriously depleted prior to the creation of the forest. We saw the necessity for a reduction in numbers, but the stockmen vigorously opposed the reduction and, in fact, appealed the case to the Secretary. But the need for a reduction, for protection, was so obvious that the reduction was made notwithstanding, and we reduced them to about 170,000 head, as I recall it.

Some years later we found that we were still not making any headway in improving range conditions, and we again reduced them to about 135.000 head, in the face of the opposition of the stockmen.