Page images

Mr. FAVRE. Yes; we do. Not taking this unit, though. As a matter of protection to the permittees that were paying for the feed, why, we took action to keep out the trespassing stock if we got evidence on it. Those cases come into a court of law unless a person wants to settle it outside.

Mr. BOWDEN. Where you have trespasses alleged to have been committed by a permittee, do you assess the penalty and state that if the penalty is not paid that you will cancel his permit?

Mr. FAVRE. They are handled differently. We have been advised at one time by the district judge that we had that choice of action. To cancel the permit instead of bringing in small cases into his court. And so in small cases very often a slight reduction or a greater reduction, depending on how flagrant the case is, will be applied.

Mr. BOWDEN. You do exercise that penalty, then, in some cases? Mr. FAVRE. I have not exercised that penalty in the State of Wyoming-I have been here for three years-but it was exercised in Nevada, I believe, on two occasions while I was there in the Jeriod of five years.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you given notice to permittees that it would be exercised in the event that the trespass penalty was not paid? Mr. FAVRE. No.

Mr. BOWDEN. Cattle graze on this 25-mile strip just referred to during the summer time, do they not?

Mr. FAVRE. Not very much, I wouldn't say. They turn out there in the spring, and then they drift up toward the higher ranges, and there is not much grazing there in the summer on account of the lack of water, etc., down lower on the 25-mile strip.

Mr. BOWDEN. Well, is there grazing on that 25-mile strip during the summer time-on a portion of the 25-mile strip farther down than the 3-mile limit?

Mr. FAVRE. Yes; some stock, I believe, stays down in there.

Mr. O'NEIL. You take the cattle up to the forest to-day and they would all be down there in the morning, because those cattle, if they Want to go, they just naturally drift all night and they are back in the morning. And if the flies are bad, why, they probably would come faster than ordinarily. And they would be down in the morning.

The CHAIRMAN. The tendency of the cattle is to come back onto the lowlands rather than to go up on the highlands?

Mr. O'NEIL. Well, there is a tendency to go up on the highlands early in the spring, and when fly time comes in the fall the drift is the other way. Nature does that for them; that is the instinct of the


Mr. BOWDEN. Well, do you think that your 3-mile strip within the forest is comparable to the summer-grazing area outside of the forest. Mr. FAVRE. The outside, what is used by the stockmen in the summer period.

Mr. BOWDEN. You really believe that, do you?

Mr. FAVRE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Favre, in a matter of trespass do you impose punitive or exemplary penalties or only amounts covering the actual damage committed?

Mr. FAVRE. My office does not have the authority to impose punitive damages. The service does impose punitive damages as well as actual damages in certain cases where the case is pretty flagrant. The CHAIRMAN. What do you men by a flagrant case?

Mr. FAVRE. Well, a case, perhaps, where he had committed the trespass a time or two before. A similar trespass.

The CHAIRMAN. Regardless of whether the owner contributed personally to the trespass or whether the cattle

Mr. FAVRE. No; that is always taken into consideration-whether the man himself contributed. If it is shown that he, himself, was doing all he could to prevent it, why, certainly, it would be settled on an "innocent" basis. That is the practice for actual damage.

Mr. BOWDEN. In determining the violation of a rule or regulation, do you consider only such evidence as is submitted by affidavit or do you consider other evidence?

Mr. FAVRE. We consider evidence submitted by affidavit. The statement of our own men and

Mr. BOWDEN. Is that statement made under oath?

Mr. FAVRE. His own statement has not been made under oath usually, but it is something that originates in our own organization, and he would make affidavit about it at any time we wanted it.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you consider evidence of others than those in your service?

Mr. FAVRE. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you require that the statements be made under oath and in writing, too?

Mr. FAVRE. Yes; affidavits.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think that if you exact an affidavit on the one side that you should on the other?


Mr. FAVRE. Well, I mean suppose they submit evidence in support of their own case from the outside, why we would have the man submit an affidavit, because if it went to court why we would have an affidavit-we know what he is going to swear We know what our own man is going to swear to anyway. And if it went to court, all right. If he wanted to settle it outside, why it is perfectly agreeable.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you accept the unsworn statement of the defendant as well as the unsworn statement of the ranger?

Mr. FAVRE. Yes; we usually have him submit that in a letter form. Send him a letter asking for his statement concerning the circumstances of the case before we proceed further with the case. and he submits us a written sstatement which is accepted just the same as the ranger's statement.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that is all, unless you have a further statement to make, Mr. Favre.

Mr. FAVRE. No; that is all.

Mr. WINKLER. I would like to make a statement or two about that trespass proposition. As stated by Mr. Favre, after the evidence in the case has been secured as to indicate a trespass, we notify the trespasser of the fact that a trespass has been committed, giving him a statement on which we base that conclusion, and ask him for a statement of his side of the case, which is given full consideration. That is not made under oath. Then, of course, the individual can settle as he sees fit. If he figures that we have not got a case,

of course he has access to the courts. We would have to prove our case in court.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you notify him that if he does not pay the penalty that you will inflict the penalty by means of reduction? Mr. WINKLER. No, sir; we do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Where a case is carried into court and the defendant wins, do you impose any penalty on him in the way of reductions, or a refusal to issue a future permit?

Mr. WINKLER. If the court decides that a trespass did not occur, no; we would not impose a penalty.

The CHAIRMAN. You accept that as the final decision?

Mr. WINKLER. Yes; we accept that as final.

Mr. BOWDEN. Taking up your sheep allotments, what supervision do you exercise over that allotment?

Mr. WINKLER. What supervision? We require, of course, that the permittee confine his sheep to that allotment. We also require certain methods of handling, among which is not to exceed a bedding to exceed three nights in the same place, unless he has got a special case in which he reaches an agreement with the administration that he is entitled to stay longer on a particular place.

We also are encouraging the practice of the so-called deferred and rotation system of use, which contemplates that they do not use their area uniformly the same year after year, but attempt to protect a certain part of it and allow it to seed.

Mr. BOWDEN. What other control do you exercise over the sheep allottee?

Mr. WINKLER. That is about the size of it.

Mr. BOWDEN. Then as regards the sheep allottee, why couldn't you give him an allotment for a period of years and let him control the grazing of that allotment?

Mr. WINKLER. In the first place, we could not very well leave the question of numbers to the individual, as I said before, and I doubt that it would be advisable to leave the season of use entirely to the individual. As I said before, you have in the livestock business, just as you have in every other business, all classes of users. In the main I will say a good percentage of the stockmen are anxious to take care of the unit-there is no question about that—but there is also the individual who may more or less look at the thing from the standpoint of immediate returns, too, depending on the peculiar circumstances surrounding his operation. Furthermore, I take it that there should be such control as will enable change when such change will be in the interest of the group, or when such change is necessary for proper


Mr. BOWDEN. There is no group.

Mr. WINKLER. But there are groups-there are elements that come up where the group is involved. As, for example, the driveway question. Or there may be a question of adjustment in the allotment in the interest of other resources or other interests.

Mr. BOWDEN. Well, why should the man having the particular allotment have to sacrifice his allotment because of some need some place else?

Mr. WINKLER. Because up to date the stockmen in the main have tended to believe in that practice.

Mr. BOWDEN. What do you believe?

Mr. WINKLER. I believe that is good administration.

Mr. BOWDEN. What is good administration?

Mr. WINKLER. To have authority vested to modify the allotment. when it is in the interest of the group or in the interest of the proper protection of resources of more importance, probably.

Mr. BOWDEN. Then if John Jones has misfortune, why his misfortune should be borne by his brothers; is that true?

Mr. WINKLER. Very often that has been taken by the stockmen as a group.

Mr. BOWDEN. No; I am asking your opinion now.

Mr. WINKLER. I believe, Mr. Bowden, that it would be unfair, for example, if it became necessary to close half of an allotment for a timber sale-I am inclined to doubt that it would be fair to that individual to say, "All right, you are through so far as half of your operation is concerned. The stockmen in many instances have agreed with that position and said, "No; we do not want that fellow kept off that half. We will share that proposition and permit the making of adjustments." That has come up repeatedly, although I will admit there is divided opinion on the point.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. Winkler, unless you have a further statement that you wish to make.

Mr. WINKLER. I believe that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Permission is granted to Forest Supervisor Favre, of the Wyoming National Forest, to submit a written statement on forest problems which shall be inserted in the record at the close of this days' hearings. We will now stand adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 6.50 o'clock p. m., Wednesday, September 30, 1925, the committee adjourned to reconvene at Casper, Wyo., Friday, October 2, 1925.)


KEMMERER, WYo., October 5, 1925. The following statement is furnished you relative to the various statements made at the Rock Springs meeting of your subcommittee, bearing upon administration of national forest.


The first witness called, Mr. Noblitt, who represented the Lincoln County wool growers, made the statement that changes in allotments were not taken up with the associations. We wish to advise in this connection that changes between individuals are matters affecting only the individuals, and therefore the association as a body would not be interested. In all these changes of allotment boundaries the individual concerned is given an opportunity to be heard and many times actual field examination by the party or parties concerned, along with forest officers, is made. In respect to Mr. Noblitt's statement that reductions had not been taken up with his board, we must advise that at least for several years past no reductions have been made, and there fore there was not an opportunity to take up reductions with the board.

In respect to his complaint concerning sheep trials, we wish to advise that the sheep trail of which he complains was established many years ago, and that all along this trail there are established sheep allotments. Naturally a change in this trail affects the permittees using the adjacent allotments, and changes in the trail can not be made without disturbing and changing the allotment boundaries accordingly. We wish to advise further that in particular reference to this trail of which Mr. Noblitt speaks, a committee of the Lincoln County Wool Growers' Association was appointed to go over this trail

with the supervisor and ranger during the fall of 1924. This ride by forest officers and committeemen from the association was made, and following the ride a meeting was held at Cokeville with the advisory board and several interested permittees. It was the conclusion of the members in attendance at this meeting that certain changes could be made in the trail, but that no individuals should suffer reduction of allotment in order to accomplish this. The specific recommendations of the committee being as follows:

"The Smiths Fork sheep trail committee, consisting of Mr. John Stoner, chairman, and Messrs. Dan Conley, William Currier, and L. W. Roberts, after having ridden on Smiths Fork Trail from Smiths Fork entrance to and including the "Hogs Back" on Grays River during the period September 8 to September 10, inclusive, submit the following as their recommendation for improvement of the trail which constitutes all improvements that the committee believes can be made in the trail at this time, and that these improvements will render the trail satisfactory.

"First. Beginning at a point where Smiths Fork intersects the forest boundary the trail should be changed from its present location to the porcupine ridge so that it will follow porcupine ridge from Smiths Fork intersection with forest boundary east and north to head of Smiths Fork with following holding ground. The head of Smiths Fork down as far as the bend to the west and including boundary creek coming in from the east.' The new trail to join the old trail at head of Smiths Fork.

"Second. A bridge across Grays River at about present location below mouth of Corral Creek.

"Third. The 'Hogs Back' being a serious impediment to progress over the trail, it is proposed to eliminate this section by (first) the Forest Service cutting out about 2 miles of trail immediately east of the Hogs back,' and (second) by going around the 'Hogs Back,' using Grays River.

"Fourth. A holding ground on Grays River south of Hogs Back from Hogs Back to the ridge immediately north of Martin Creek and from Grays River east to head of the drainage.



The following resolution was adopted by the executive committee sitting as an advisory board in regard to the above matter:

"Resolved, That the report of the special committee of September 8 and 9 be accepted on that part of the proposed new trail lying north of Corral Creek and that it be rejected as applying to that part of the trail lying south of Corral Creek, thus leaving the trail between Corral Creek and the south forest boundary line temporarily the same as heretofore. This, with the understanding that the entire trail as proposed by the committee will be given further consideration by the forest officials and the advisory board, with view to completing the change as soon as necessary adjustments in adjoining allotments can be made."

Full approval was given the above-quoted resolution, and it is being carried

into effect.

In regard to permanency of allotments, we must advise that aside from changes of allotments where only a portion of the sheep have been returned to the allotment we will say that 95 per cent of the allotments on this forest have remained the same for many years. Cattle divisions have also remained permanent except in a few cases where they have been enlarged.


One of the charges presented by the Big Piney Round-up Association's representatives, P. W. Jenkins and T. D. O'Neil, was to the effect that forest officers were inexperienced and, as Mr. O'Neil put it, "Could not run a cow outfit themselves without being in the hands of the receiver," or words to

that effect.

We must advise, in connection with experience, that of the eight district rangers on this forest seven were raised in the West on ranches with attendant livestock work. The other ranger, J. J. Albano, who happens to be in charge of the Big Piney allotment, was born in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, moved to Misouri about 1900, was on a ranch there about 5 years and came West in 1965, worked in the mines in Colorado and on haying jobs on ranches until

« PreviousContinue »