Mr. HATTON. No. During all this time 10 per cent of our very best grazing lands have been eliminated from the boundaries. I say the best grazing lands, because they were these lands that you were talking about this morning, lying on the outskirts of the forests, and not as strictly timber and watershed lands as some farther interior.

So we practically almost doubled our sheep grazing use in Colorado in this period.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Now, through what process has this increase been brought about?

Mr. HATTON. To illustrate that I might cite the condition that existed in 1909 in southern Wyoming. The Hayden National Forest in southern Wyoming was very much overstocked at that time. Practically a dust bed. The sheepmen would rush in, get what they could for two or three weeks, and out again. And something had to be done to either cut down on that forest or provide other room. Just across the State line in Colorado on the Routt National Forest we had large areas in the high country that were not used by anybody, not even the local people, and it seems that there was an outlay for this surplus in Wyoming. The people of Colorado have always been very jealous, of course, of outside stock coming into the State. Some one mentioned this morning a law passed last winter trying to prevent that. But the cattlemen's association, known as the Snake River Association of Colorado, and the Carbon County Wool Growers' Association of Wyoming-Mr. Potter was then chief of grazing of the Forest Service-got together over in that country, and the cattlemen and the sheepmen agreed on the proposition like this: That the sheepmen could come over into these high, unused ranges in Colorado if they would respect the winter ranges of the cattlemen as far east as a point known as Shell Creek in northwestern Colorado. And would not come over into the Colorado side from that point on toward the forest. This was an agreement of course entirely between the two associations. The Forest Service was anxious to make use of this feed, but was trying to do it without developing any controversies as between the opposing interests.

That agreement was made, and it stood for 12 years without a break. And we moved over to Colorado 100,000 sheep from Wyoming to relieve an overstocked condition on the other side. After the 12 years different people began going into that northwestern Colorado country and going into sheep. Some of the Wyoming people came over, and these controversies have developed, all outside of the Forest Service, of course, but they resulted in this law that was mentioned this morning.

Now we found that some of those ranges were over-estimated. It is always easy to overestimate a new range, and it is usually done. Well, during the depression in cattle in the last three or four yearscattle are practically absent now from that northwestern Colorado country-in cooperation with the local stock association we have been moving some of these Wyoming sheep over onto cattle ranges with the understanding at the time as between the sheepmen and the cattlemen that when the northwestern Colorado cattlemen, either cattlemen or sheepmen, desire to use this range for themselves that

the Wyoming sheepmen would go back to their original allotments, which, as I said, were overestimated.

I have been watching those ranges for 11 years now, and there is no question but what they were overestimated. All indicators of overgrazing are present. So we told the Wyoming sheepmen that before we could put them on this 10-year permit which is now in effect that we would have to consider this demand from the Colorado people, which is already up, and perhaps reduce them slightly to more nearly fit their original allotments.

A little objection to that was voiced at the Casper meeting, but we are taking it up with the Carbon County Wool Growers' Association, and usually things are worked out amicably, and next year it is our plan to issue 10-year permits to the Wyoming people as well as the Colorado for the balance of the 10-year period and give them that much stability.

Now, to illustrate the demand for sheep range. The White River National Forest in that same region last year was twice over applied for in sheep. The authorization is something like 40,006. The supervisor received applications for nearly twice that number We had to turn down over 30,000 new applicants on the Routi National Forest that I have just been talking about. There seems to be a veritable avalanche toward sheep, and we have not roon. for them.

We can take care of in Colorado only 30 per cent of the cattle in the State in summer pasture on the national forests. We can take care of approximately 50 per cent of the sheep, and that is all.

Now, something was said this afternoon about foreign sheep being brought into the Leadville country in the high range. Now, that is true. But the same condition existed there as existed in the Routt country 15 years ago. There was absolutely no demand from local people for that country, and people from Oregon and Utah and Idaho and various other places began to make application and were taken care of. Senator Stanfield was among those that were taken care of in feed-in-transit grazing. Well, they used it so long that under our regulations and procedure they established themselves in preferences. We limited those preferences as much as we could but they are there, and we can not see any way under our policy and regulations to eliminate them for any new local demand that may develop.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. So in certain sections of Colorado then you have granted permits to people outside of the State? Mr. HATTON. Yes.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And they have been using those permits now for such a length of time that you feel they have acquired semivested rights, and you are not permitting Colorado people to expand their business or to take up that range; is that the idea?

Mr. HATTON. We have considered they have established preferences and should not be removed by any new demand, because they have adjusted their business to that condition, and it would not be fair to investments, it seems to us, to wipe them off.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. They own no land in Colorado? Mr. HATTON. A good many of them are acquiring land in Colorado, but most of their holdings are in other States.

But I might say that what we call the foreign demand or foreign use of our ranges by sheep taken all together is not very large. It is not over 15 per cent of the number of stock that run in the State. It happens to be that they are concentrated pretty much in special localities like on the Leadville and Routt National Forests, and some others. It looks pretty big locally, but, generally, it does not amount to more than 15 per cent.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, 15 per cent of all the stock in the State?

Mr. HATTON. Yes; that we graze in the forest reserve.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. That you graze in the forest reserve?

Mr. HATTON. Yes.

Bearing on the question of-we will call it stability-you may be interested in how the class of permits has changed during this period 1909 to 1925--15 years. Our permits are classified according to sizes, and the statistical records are kept in that way. For instance, we have in cattle 1 to 40 as one class, 41 to 100 as another class, 101 to 200, and then over 200.

This

Now in the first class, 1 to 40, we had 1,826 permits in 1909 is Colorado; 2,304 head in 1918 during the peak of demand, and back 1,828 in 1924. Just two more in 1924 than we had in 1909.

In the second class, 41 to 100, we had 729 in 1909, 1,199 in 1918, 937 in 1924. That is 208 more in 1924 than in 1909.

In the third class, 101 to 200; 329, permits in 1909, 547 in 1918, 450 in 1924, which is 121 more in that class in 1924 than we had in 1909.

Then in the class over 200, we had 278 in 1909, 463 in the peak of 1918, and 356 in 1924, which is 78 more than we had in 1909.

Indicating that the larger permits in cattle have been pretty stable as far as Colorado is concerned. In fact, they have been more stable than the smallest class, 1 to 40.

Then in sheep our classification is up to 1,000 for the first class, 1,001 to 2,500 for the second, 2,500 to 4,000 for the third, and over 4,000 for the fourth class. Our statistics are kept on this basis.

In 1909 we had 171 sheepmen under 1,000 head, 424 in 1918, and 386 in 1924, or 215 more in 1924 than in 1909.

The next class, 1,001 to 2,500, we had 170 in 1909, 332 in 1918, and 221 in 1924, or 51 more than in 1909.

Then, in the third class, 2,500 to 4,000, we had 50 in 1909, 55 in 1918, and the same number, 55, in 1924, which is only an increase of 5 in 1924 over 1909 in this class.

Then in the next class, over 4,000, we had 29 in 1909, 35 in 1918, and 32 in 1924, which is 3 more in 1924 than we had in 1909.

So that the sheep permittees have held pretty steady during this period.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Now in what classification do these foreign owners come? I mean the livestock permitted to come in from outside of the State?

Mr. HATTON. They are of the larger permittees mostly. Senator JONES of New Mexico. They are what? Mr. HATTON. Of the larger class of permittees. They run larger numbers. I don't think, though, that any of them running in the Leadville country run over 5,000. Up in the Routt country some of

them run as high as 7,000 to 10,000, that are just over the Wyoming line. They established those preferences years ago, and have not been reduced very much. Our maximum limit generally on sheep now is 6,000 head.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. But there are some exceptions?

Mr. HATTON. There are some that run before those limits were established that still hold very largely their original numbers. But subject under our rules to reductions for new qualified applicants. Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, these large owners from outside of the State I thought I understood you to say, had acquired a preference right?

Mr. HATTON. They have these preferences, but these preferences are subject to reduction to take care of new applicants. Of course, they are pretty well guarded. A new applicant has to be specially qualified to share in the privilege, and he has to come in in a very small way.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, what are the qualifications for becoming a new user?

Mr. HATTON. We call them Class A's. That Class A is an applicant who owns and resides upon improved ranch property in, near or adjacent to the forest reserve, whose land is dependent on the forest reserve for its best production, and who does not own more than the protective limit number of stock. The protective limit in cattle runs all the way-according to the locality, and the way stock are running in the locality-from 50 head to 125 or 200 head. The protective limit in sheep, according to locality, runs all the way from 1,000 head to 1,500 head; the average number being about 1,250 head.

Now if a man owns that number, either in cattle or sheep, has the land qualifications, and produces feed for the winter, or can take care of them in some way on the feed, either pasture or hay or whatever it happens to be, according to the custom of the locality, he may be considered for a permit even to the extent of reducing some of the larger ones.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. I was just speculating in my mind as to how a man could meet those qualifications. He has to own the land and have the livestock which is dependent upon the forest reserve for feed. Well, how is he ever going to get in that situation to meet those qualifications, I mean a new man who wants to establish a new home?

Mr. HATTON. Sometimes they consider their statement that they intend to purchase. It is not always necessary for him to actually own the stock at the time of his application, but he must show to the satisfaction of the local forest officer that he will get them.

I may say that very little has been done in this district in reducing larger owners to take care of smaller ones. It has not reached at all the state that it has reached in other districts. For instance, the Utah district. I think there is only one forest in this district, the Grand Mesa National Forest, where we have had to follow a system of reductions to any extent. And those have already been made in cooperation and agreement with the local livestock asso

ciations.

Mr. BOWDEN. What is the largest sheep permit you have in your district?

Mr. HATTON. I think the largest would be about 11,000 head. Mr. BOWDEN. How many sheep permits have you in your district which call for over 10,000 sheep?

Mr. HATTON. I could not say. My figures show them only as being over 4,000 head.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you know how many cattle permits you have got for numbers exceeding 5,000 head?

Mr. HATTON. I haven't that figure, but there are not a great many. Mr. BOWDEN. Do you know what is the largest cattle permit you have in your district?

Mr. HATTON. The largest we had up to a couple of years ago was about 2,000 head. That outfit went bankrupt and no longer exists. Senator CAMERON. Thank you.

Mr. HATTON. I have several other things.

Senator CAMERON. It is getting late.

Mr. HATTON. Would you be interested in the number of livestock associations we have in the district? We had 36 in 1915, and we have 156 now, with a membership of 3,548. Last year 2,721 stockmen met in these meetings. This is a 433 per cent increase in cattle associations since 1915, brought about wholly on the principle that we feel that we can get the best range management by this sort of cooperation. And we feel that even during these hard times that our stock associations have been 75 per cent effective.

Occasionally there are rules that are asked for that can not be approved, but in a large majority of cases our management constitutes majority rule of the stockmen. I have run across_instances where I have felt that the majority were in the wrong. But when we get together on the ground we can usually adjust those things.

I want to say this as a working principle, that I have always taken the position that when a man complains and keeps on complaining and then complains some more, he either has a real complaint or a misunderstanding or a point of view that does not fit in with the policy of the regulations. And our policy is to go to that man or to that group of men and thresh it out; and in all my experience in the service, which has been 24 years now, I believe I can count on the fingers of one hand the cases that we have found it impossible to settle under that sort of a policy.

Someone mentioned the range improvement question. I think that has been brought out before. It is controlled largely by the amount of money we have for that purpose, which has been $50,000 a year to the entire Forest Service. This district has never received but $7,000 or $8,000 of that $50,000, and this last year we gave up all of it but $1,300 to help out the southwestern district, which needed it more than we did.

Now, with that amount of money we have constructed the following improvements in cooperation with the stockmen; this is since 1915: 510 miles of fences, costing $71,192; 69 corrals, costing $5,736: 877 miles of driveways, costing $25,623; 14 bridges, costing $3,405; 321 water development projects, costing $11,032, a total of $116,988 expended in this district in this period.

Now, I might say that half of that money at least was put up either in labor or funds by the stockmen themselves. And we have put up all that we have had to spend.