Now, we have also spent money in poison eradication. Some of the men mentioned the poison on the range. Sometimes the division between cattle and sheep on the range is determined by the presence of poison-larkspur poison. We know that the sheep are not harmed by it, but the cattle are. It may be that that partly explains the situation that the witness brought out this afternoon. But as to trespassing over there, we had a trespass case a couple of years ago that we undertook to settle, and did settle, and then on the other side of the river that the other man mentioned we undertook to and thought we had settled that cattle trespass situation, at least I thought so, from my office. I sent my assistant over there and had a round-up or count on the winter range the summer after the first trespass occurred, and as the witness said, he was fined or paid a trespass of $150. That particular individual has had those cattle taken away from him, all except a few that he had in his own brand, and he is not trespassing any more. But it seems that a new outfit has the cattle, and there is something for us to do, to see if we can not control that situation. But I think you appreciate that it is not only a forest reserve situation but it is a public domain situation, which is very difficult to handle, and as one of the men said, it would be altogether too expensive to fence it. I did not know that this trespass had continued, but we undertook to settle it three years ago. Now, I mentioned

Senator CAMERON. How much more have you got? If you are going to be with us at Glenwood Springs perhaps you can finish up over there. If you do not mind, we will give you some more time over there to finish up.

Mr. HATTON. All right.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Tomlinson, will you take the stand?

STATEMENT OF T. W. TOMLINSON, SECRETARY AMERICAN NATIONAL LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, DENVER, COLO.

Senator CAMERON (presiding). Mr. Tomlinson, will you state your name, your address, and your position to the reporter?

Mr. TOMLINSON. T. W. Tomlinson. Secretary of the American Livestock Association. Address, 515 Cooper Building, Denver, Colo.

I have been the secretary of the American National Livestock Association since 1905. During the past 20 years, dating from 1905, our association has been confronted with a great many questions involving the administration of grazing on the national forests, and has at different times endeavored to secure some regulation of grazing on the so-called open public domain. During these 20 years I think there has been some modification of sentiment as regards the administration of the national forests. At the outset there was, particularly in Colorado, considerable opposition to any effort on the part of the Federal Government to exercise any sort of regulation over the national forests. In fact, stockmen generally were pretty bitter about this so-called infringement on what they considered to be their rights.

As years passed on I think the sentiment of the great majority of stockmen became more favorable to some method of control such as was in under the Forest Service. At the outset there were Vogue 43213-25-PT 12—6

no fees. Then a nominal fee was established, and that by a series of changes was gradually increased until in 1916 it was proposed to make a 100 per cent increase.

Dating from about that time I have heard more criticism of the Forest Service and their arbitrary methods of advancing fees, and of some of their regulations which stockmen considered unnecessary. It is true many of the regulations were suggested for selfish reasons by some of the stockmen, but that did not allay what has been a rather growing criticism in some sections of the West against the administration of the national forests.

Now in what I say I do not wish to be known as being thoroughly familiar with the administration of grazing on the national forests. My knowledge mostly comes from close association with the members of our national association. I have had two experiences with trying to run livestock on the national forests, on the Rio Grande Forest. I happened to be connected with a company which at one time ran some sheep on that forest, and at another and later period ran some cattle. The man who was in active charge of the operations of that company, and who was himself a practical stockman in the plains country, expressed himself after these two experiments as being utterly through with any effort to successfully run livestock on the national forests.

I do not mean by that that it was an impossible undertaking to successfully run livestock. Indeed the contrary is probably the fact. Nevertheless I want to cite this in connection with my own experience illustrating the viewpoint of many practical stockmen who have had experience in running livestock under fence, on the open range, and in the national forests.

Perhaps at this juncture it would be well to state what the American National Livestock Association is. It is the national organization mostly of cattlemen, although we have in our membership some sheepmen, some hogmen, and some horsemen, through their appropriate organizations. We have a membership of upward of 60 State and local livestock organizations, as well as a large number of individual stockmen who joined our association as individual members as distinguished from association members.

As to the condition of the cattle industry to-day I wish not to read into the record, but to file as an exhibit a document issued by Armour's Livestock Bureau as to September, 1925. It shows by charts and figures the prices paid for range cattle during the past 35 years. The chart shows that since 1920 up to and including 1924 the actual prices of range cattle were in some instances a little less and in some other instances rarely averaged more than the prevailing prices in 1902-1904.

Now the mere statement of that fact carries with it, I think, by reason of the tremendous increase in the overhead cost of conducting the business, the conclusion that the range cattlemen of to-day must be in very deplorable condition. And that is regretfully the fact. A great majority of them have been forced out of business. Those who remain are badly involved. Some so precariously that they probably will not be able to survive. More than the majority of the range cattlemen have failed in the past few years. They failed because their net income has not measured up to their expenses.

As to the sheep industry, while prices have been a trifle more favorable during the past twelve months, it has far from recovered from the depression following the war. Sheepmen are in a trifle better condition than the cattlemen, but nothing warranting an increase in their overhead.

Now, I wish to briefly comment on the so-called Rachford report. And in order that it may be in the record I wish to offer a letter addressed by me to Colonel Greeley, dated December 16, 1924. It constituted the reply of the American National Livestock Association written by me in response to Colonel Greeley's request that I examine the Rachford report and submit our recommendations and criticisms.

Senator CAMERON. That may be placed in the record.

(The letter from Mr. Tomlinson to Colonel Greeley referred to is here printed in the record in full, as follows:)

W. B. GREELEY,

DENVER, COLO., December 16, 1924.

Forester, United States Department of Agriculture,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. GREELEY: I have your favor of November 29, inclosing a copy of the range-appraisal report of C. E. Rachford, dated November 5, 1924, which submits a new basis of maximum and minimum grazing fees on the different forests. You state that you "desire to take action at an early date on the tentative schedule of fees developed by field officers," and submit your recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture; that you will appreciate it if I will go over this report carefully and let you have the benefit of my comments or criticisms by January 1; and that Secretary Gore will plan to take final action upon your recommendations on or about January 15, 1925.

I thank you for this opportunity to examine and comment on the report, although the time allowed is surprisingly short in view of the importance of the subject. The annual convention of the American National Live Stock Association will be held at Albuquerque, N. Mex., January 14-16, 1925, when the report could be carefully considered by our national forests advisory board and by our association. I, therefore, hope it may be consistent for you to defer your decision until after our convention. Obviously, within the time limit which you have set, and with only one copy of the report and exhibits, I could not present the question to all the members of our board and get a reply to you by January 1.

Pending action by our association, I am glad to submit my comments. The history of grazing fees on national forests, the various advances made, and the reasons therefor, as disclosed in the Rachford report and from data in my office, appear to be substantially as follows:

National forests, established under the act of 1891, were administered by the Interior Department, without any grazing fees, up to the time of their transfer to the Department of Agriculture in 1905. After that transfer regulations were adopted, and, commencing January 1, 1906, a fee for grazing was charged, which, as represented, was intended to cover the cost of administration of grazing on the forests.

INCREASES IN GRAZING FEES

In 1910 a slight increase was made in the grazing fees on certain forests. Effective January 1, 1912, a small increase was made on all forests.

In 1915 a substantial increase was made, which placed the fees from 50 to 75 per cent higher than the cost-of-administration basis of 1906.

In 1916, according to the Rachford report, another increase was made by advancing the maximum grazing fee.

ADVANCES OF 1917 AND 1919

On November 3, 1916, Hon. D. F. Houston, Secretary of Agriculture, wrote me, as secretary of the American National Live Stock Association, to the

effect that for two years the Forester had been considering an advance in grazing fees to a basis which would represent "the real market value of the pasturage." He stated that "a study was made by the Forester of some 900 cases involving lands in the vicinity of the national forests," and that "on the private lands it was found that the average rate per month was 3.6 cents per head of sheep and 11.7 cents per head of cattle." He explained that, on account of certain restrictions on national forests, stockmen are "naturally willing to pay higher prices for private lands," but that "it would appear that the real value of the grazing privilege upon the national forests is about twice the rates charged at present." It was then proposed to distribute a 100 per cent advance over a period of three years, commencing March, 1, 1917. Stockmen vigorously opposed this advance, and in his letter of February 1, 1917, Secretary Houston modified the plan submitted in November, 1916, as follows:

"Instead of an increase of 33% per cent for the first year, an increase of 25 per cent will be made on all forests at this time to apply on permits issued for grazing periods beginning on or after March 1, 1917. Further increases will be deferred until a specific study of the existing conditions upon each of the national forests has been made. Upon the basis of the facts thus obtained, after having considered all of the advantages and disadvantages of the locality, additional increases will be made when the real value of the forage upon any forest is found to be more than the amount charged, but no such additional increase will be made effective before March 1, 1918."

No advance was made in 1918, but on November 25, 1918, Secretary Houston wrote me a letter, from which I quote as follows:

"Careful consideration has been given to the question of the rates which will be charged for grazing upon the national forests during the coming season, including further information which has been gained regarding the relative values of grazing in different localities. * * * In accordance with the conclusion announced by me on February 1, 1917, that the charge for grazing should be based upon the real value of the forage, I have decided that, beginning March 1, 1919, the charge for grazing upon the national forests during the year long period will be.

Then follow the grazing rates, which, in effect, made the 100 per cent increase.

In your annual report for the fiscal year 1920 you refer to the 1919 advance in the following language:

“Grazing fees.-On February 1, 1917, the Secretary of Agriculture announced that grazing fees would be based upon the real value of the forage utilized. Valuation studies in the western range districts were undertaken, and on March 1, 1919, the grazing fees formerly in effect were approximately doubled. The fees then established by the Secretary of Agriculture, which greatly increased the receipts from the national forests, represented the best judgment of the department as to the actual value of the ranges under market conditions prior to that time, taking into account the restrictions placed upon their use by Forest Service regulations."

PRESENT REAPPRAISAL

On April 16, 1920, you were appointed forester; on November 3 of the same year you submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture a plan for the reform of grazing fees; on November 6 the Secretary approved your plan, and another study of grazing fees was then inaugurated. The Rachford report, which you inclose. is the result.

The basis of maximum and minimum grazing fees on the different forests. as shown in the Rachford report, admits of the following composite comparison with the grazing fees in effect for 1924 :

Eliminating the forests in Arizona and New Mexico (district 3), where no substantial increase is contemplated, the comparison is:

This new basis would increase grazing fees an average of more than 100 per cent.

The report sets out the “basic private land fee in cents per head per month ' in various districts, and a composite average of all districts-except district 3 (New Mexico and Arizona), where an error is manifest in the figures-is: On cattle, 24.2 cents; on sheep, 7.13 cents.

In Secretary Houston's letters, already referred to, the study made during the two years previous to November, 1916, confirmed by the further study conducted up to November 25, 1918, represented the grazing value of private land per month to be: For cattle, 11.7 cents; for sheep, 3.9 cents. In other words, the report indicates that the rental of private lands is practically 100 per cent higher than was found by the examination of the Forest Service during the years 1914-1918.

Elsewhere in the report (p. 49) it is stated that "the basic fee of private lands is about 18 cents for cattle and 6.5 cents per head for sheep per month." An average of the rates submitted to you for approval exceeds these basic figures for private land.

VALUE OF CATTLE RANCHES HAS DEPRECIATED

I have thus set out the following brief history of grazing fees on national forests and a condensed reference to the findings in the Rachford report in order to make clear some of my comments on the present reappraisal scheme. At the outset I wish to state as a fact that cattle ranches-whether privately owned, with all the livestock running on such privately owned land, or ranches which use for pasturage either national forests, public domain, or leased landcan not be sold for as much money as in 1914-1918, when the former study of values was made; nor can they be sold now to so good an advantage as previous to the war. There is practically no sale for ranch property in the West except at a ruinous discount.

If, as found by Mr. Rachford, privately owned pastures leased by stockmen for grazing purposes have a value 100 per cent higher than was stated by your department to be the real value in 1914-1918, I think a good share if not all of that increase can be accounted for by the advance in grazing fees imposed in 1917 and 1919. A careful reading of the report does not indicate that any consideration was given to the influence of such increase on the rental value of private lands leased for pasturage purposes and adversely on the value of privately owned and operated cattle ranches. It seems to have automatically increased the value of leased land and depreciated the value of ranch property.

As stated in the resolution adopted at our annual convention held in Omaha in January, 1924:

46

'Since the original policy of basing fees on the cost of administration was departed from a process of confiscation of property values has been steadily going on, which now seems about to be carried to completion."

The present deplorable financial condition of western cattlemen abundantly confirms that statement.

You recognized the correlation of all grazing lands when you stated in your annual report for the fiscal year 1922:

"Agricultural lands, the public domain, and the national forest ranges are so interrelated that grazing administration of the latter must of necessity take into account the conditions created by the presence of lands of the other two classes."

The Rachford report mentions some of the factors affecting the value to the stockman of national-forest grazing-such as summer and winter grazing, ranch property investments, labor, feed, etc.-but discards as impracticable any method of determining grazing fees which would be based either on what the stockman could afford to pay or on the invested value in ranch property.