STATEMENT OF CLAUDE H. REES, STOCKMAN, RIFLE, COLO. Senator CAMERON (presiding). Give your name, your occupation, and your residence to the reporter, please. Mr. REES. Claude H. Rees; stockman; Rifle, Colo. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I might open my remarks by saying that we appreciate the opportunity that has been given us to appear before the committee and present our problems to you for your consideration. My particular subject will be the grazing on the national forests. I presume, Mr. Chairman, it is unnecessary for me to go into the history of the grazing fees on the national forests, for your committee of course has all of this data on hand, and any statement that I might make along this line would be superfluous. I would say, however, that at the time that these reserves were established that no grazing fee was charged, and that beginning with the year 1906 a grazing fee was charged to cover the cost of administration only. Forest reserves were established for the conservation of our timber and the preservation of our water supply with the grazing privileges of secondary importance, and it was deemed sufficient if the fee charged was large enough to cover the cost of supervision of these grazing rights and to see that our forest reserves were not damaged by the grazing privileges granted. Increases were made in the grazing fee from time to time, but still with the idea of keeping the cost down to actual needs until about the year 1916, when it was announced that the policy would be to advance the fee and collect what would represent the full market value of the pasturage sold. We were and are opposed to the establishment of a commercial value principle in the charging of a grazing fee, for several reasons. In my opinion, those pioneers who braved the hardships of the West and aided in the development of this country in a very large measure are responsible for the improvement of the forest reserve ranges, or I think it might be safely said made these reserves what they are to-day and created a demand for the grazing, are entitled to reap the benefit of their labor, which would in no way affect those who have not access to the national forest for grazing privileges. In settling in this western country and developing the land the grazing rights were of first importance, for without these privileges then the land was and is at the present time worthless. Take away grazing on the national forests and the public domain and a very large proportion of the land in the West is absolutely worthless, for it can not be properly utilized without these rights. I wish to call to the attention of the committee the fact that ranches so situated that they carry with them a priority right in grazing on national forests are at this time and have been for some years past in no demand and can be sold scarcely at any price. Every raise in the grazing fee naturally deducts from the value of the land and detracts from the wealth of the Nation. As has been said, grazing on national forests is of secondary importance, the primary object being to conserve the forests, and they are administered with this end in view. To preserve for all of the people in these United States the timber which from time to time becomes more valuable. Cooperating with Federal officials in carry ing on this most important work are the stockmen of the West who, although it is detrimental to their personal interests so to do, aid in every way possible in improving these grounds and making them the playground of the Nation that all may come and enjoy the wonders of the West that are wrapped up in these forest reserves. Millions contributed by stockmen for grazing rights are spent on these reserves in building roads and trails through the national forests to make them more accessible for the public that they may enjoy the beauties of nature. Building roads and trails through the national forests and opening them to the public naturally lessens their value to the stockmen as grazing lands, for livestock can not and will not do well when frightened and harried from place to place by people seeking enjoyment on our national forests. I wish to quote from an article written by the district forester, Mr. A. S. Peck, in the Rocky Mountain News, of Denver, of December 31, 1922, in connection with the building of roads and trails in the forest reserves. [Reading:] The forest-development roads, on the other hand, will be of only secondary value to communities and to the traveling public as a whole in making accessible to them the resources of the national forest. The primary object of these roads will be to open up the remoter regions of the national forests for the increased value of the property concerned. This is no more than the interest any owner should take in increasing the value of his own property or, as in this case, no more than the interest any responsible manager should take in the welfare of the property in his charge. Every citizen is the owner, and in proportion as he exercises this right of ownership he realizes in one way or another on the investment made for the improvement of his property. If you are seeking trouble, go into the feed lot or pasture of some successful stockman and scare his stock and you will quickly find the trouble you are hunting, for he knows well that every disturbing influence among his stock means a shrink and the loss of many days' feed. Figures from colleges carrying on experimental work in feeding livestock are available showing the loss caused by transferring stock on feed from one pasture or lot to another, even though every precaution is taken to prevent any undue excitement or uneasiness. Those people who have made a success of the handling of livestock know that to do well or put on flesh stock must be contented and used to their surroundings. The grazing of livestock on national forests is not detrimental to the real object of the reserves, the preservation of our timber, but rather aids very materially in its production, as Forest Service officials who are familiar with the work will testify. As has been said, we feel that it is wrong to commercialize the grazing on these national forests, and we hope and feel that the Congress or the Secretary of Agriculture will not do this thing; but if it is to be done, many, many handicaps and restrictions must be taken into consideration in arriving at what may be determined as its commercial value. As has been stated by the Chief Forester in one of his annual reports: Agricultural lands, the public domain, and the national forest ranges are so interrelated that the grazing administration of the latter must of necessity take into account the conditions created by the presence of lands of the other two classes. Some four years ago, at the time that this raise in the grazing fee first came up, as secretary of the Western Slope Stockgrowers Protective Association, I addressed a letter to Mr. Gilbert N. Haugen, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, that I would like to incorporate in the record at this time. This letter is of March 11, 1920, and is as follows [reading]: Hon. GILBERT N. HAUGEN, Chairman Committee on Agriculture, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In view of the fact that the Committee on Agriculture has seen fit to impose an exorbitant grazing fee on the stockmen using the forest reserves, we take the liberty of writing you in order to give you a few facts concerning the grazing of cattle on the forest reserves which we feel sure that the committee does not understand. Since the committee has based its argument on the fact that the grazing fee in the East has materially advanced in the last few years as a reason for advancing the fee on the reserves, we will take that question up first. Granting the fact that the fee for pasturing cattle in the East has been increased in the last year or two we will ask the committee if the cattleman was justified in paying the additional fee that has been charged, and if it is not a fact that many of those who did pay the fee asked did not lose money on the cattle that were put on the pasture? Also is it not a fact that much of the pasture land has not been grazed the past season for the reason that the cattlemen could not afford to use the pasture at the price that was asked? The value of any grazing privileges should be determined by what that privilege is worth in dollars and cents to the party using it. To determine what this will be it is necessary to take a great many things into consideration. It stands to reason that the pasturage located near a market center and close to a railroad is more valuable than grazing land remote from the market and several days drive from the railroad. This difference in value is represented not only by the expense of handling, but also by the shrinkage in weight of the cattle. As the forest reserves are in a great many instances in isolated districts 100 miles from any means of transportation to reach them at all with a bunch of cattle and so utilize the feed means a big expense to the party holding the grazing permit. That your committee and others in Congress have no idea as to the conditions here in the West is evildent by the statements that some of them have made. In the first place forest reserves are not maintained for the sole purpose of furnishing pasturage for stockmen who desire to graze stock thereon, but are set aside for the purpose of protecting the timber and the water courses. The stockmen opposed the measure in every way that they knew, not that they objetced to paying a reasonable grazing fee, but because they objected being placed under the supervision of parties who were not familiar with the livestock industry and who might at their discretion impose restrictions upon them that would entail a big loss in the handling of their cattle. Grazing permits are now issued to stockmen subject to certain restrictions and the permittee is compelled to follow these rules under penalty of having his permit revoked. Since the purpose of the forest reserves is to protect the forests and watersheds, the game resources, and to provide recreational use of the national forests, the grazing of stock on the reserves is secondary to the real purpose of national forest reserves. Since it is necessary to maintain the Forest Service for the protection of the timber and of the watersheds, and since the grazing of livestock is merely of subsidiary importance and conducted by the same officials who attend to the other branches of the service, the grazing fees should be looked upon more as "velvet" than as the main support of the forest department. The forest reserves are not under fence and owing to the rough topography of the land and the fact that it requires several acres of land to maintain an animal during the season, it is impossible to keep stock within any certain bounds, so that the loss from straying, predatory animals, poisonous plants, mudholes, and other conditions over which we have no control cause an actual loss of at least 5 per cent per annum-this in addition to all other expenses. The average number of cattle grazed on a permit the past year was 68. When you consider that many of these animals either strayed or were driven by mistake from 40 to 50 or even more miles from their range, you will realize that this creates quite an additional expense to users of the reserves that the stockmen using private pastures do not have. Many stockmen have constructed drift fences at their own expense but owing to the fact that the snowfall in these high altitudes is extremely heavy, which causes severe damage to the fence, much of it having to be entirely rebuilt each year. Fenc ing is a very expensive proposition and especially so as these permits are not permanent. We think that you will readily see that it is impossible to control the movement and drift of cattle running on the reserves, and that this is one of the principal reasons why the cost of utilizing these grasses amounts to more than the cost of pasturing cattle in the East. In addition to this we have a small calf crop in comparison to those who use an enclosed pasture as the rough nature of the country makes it a difficult proposition to breed our cows. They also lose their calves at time of birth due to this character of the country. Predatory animals also take considerable toll of the calves in the wild lonely country in which the cattle are grazed. A great many cattle die each year from eating the many poisonous weeds which grow in these mountains. The cattlemen annually spend a large amount of money in conjunction with the Government in trying to eradicate this evil. The fact that the cattle have to travel long distances in many instances for water causes them to stay near the water holes where the grass is eaten off. Consequently they do not do well, in spite of the fact that one of the members of your committee has made the statement that in some places they raise cattle to maturity and make fine beef animals without the stock ever having had a drink of water but the moisture in the feed, the dew, the rain, and the fog. I will say for the benefit of the committee that Mr. McLaughlin made that statement, and it is of record in the Congressional Record. [Continuing reading.] To this we can only say that cattle will not live in the West on the dew and rain. The heavy shrinkage at time of gathering cattle for market due to the fact that it is necessary to hold cattle on poor feed until the roundup is finished and then to drive them the four or five days' trip to the railroad is an added expense that the eastern stockmen know nothing of but which costs the western stockmen a large sum of money. We wish to call your attention to the fact that the cost of administering the grazing branch of the Forest Service amounts to $1,500,000 and that the receipts from grazing fees for the past year were $2,600,000. so that instead of the grazing privileges costing the Government anything they have shown a profit of $1,000,000. The Secretary of Agriculture last year granted us five-year permits in order to stablize the cattle industry in the West and that the users of the national forests would know what they could except in the way of grazing fees and the number of cattle that they would be allowed to run on the reserves. These permits were issued with the understanding that the fee would be the same for the next 5 years. The Forest Service officials all made the statement to your committee that they thought that they were charging all that the grazing permits were worth. If a man is a man he always tries to live up to his agreement whether it is verbal or written and we see no reason why the forestry officials should be made to repudiate their contract in this instance. The western stockmen do not own nor control the national forests or its resources and any one may settle in this western country and enjoy the same privileges that they do in regard to grazing stock on the forest reserves and they will be made welcome. Your committee is to be commended for their earnest effort in trying to save our Government unnecessary expense at this time and in trying to increase the income as much as possible, but we feel that you are doing us great wrong in trying to put an additional expense on us at this time. Many of our stockmen have followed the Government's request to increase their herds and because of the demoralized condition of the market face heavy losses. In case that you still feel that the fees should be raised we would ask that you send representatives from your committee (who are cattlemen) out here to investigate conditions. It would give us a great deal of pleasure to show WESTERN SLOPE STOCK GROWERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, R. C. CALLEN, Vice President. CLAUDE H. REES, Secretary. Mr. REES. Now, I would like to talk on the differences between the grazing on the private land and the forest reserve. In making a comparison between the private pastures and the forest reserve, as has been said a great many things must be taken into consideration. For one thing, the infectious diseases on the public domain and the national forest reserves are entirely out of your control. In private pastures of course you have your stuff where you can isolate them, and thereby greatly reduce the loss from diseases of the different kinds. On the national forest and the public domain, as you know, this stock strays from place to place so that you can not accurately keep track of the cattle and sheep that are grazing. So that your loss from theft is a very great item. If your cattle are confined to a pasture you can very easily keep track of the number that you have and prevent this loss. Also on the forest reserves and public domain the loss has been very great, due to the fact that the hunters are allowed to hunt over this territory, and a great number of animals are killed in that way. They are shot and killed or crippled by these hunters out after the game. In private pastures you have control over this proposition and you are able to prevent that loss. The loss on the national forests, as given in the report given out by the Forestry Department a year ago, I think it was, amounted to 4,000 cattle and horses and 35,000 sheep. From poisonous plants, 6,000 cattle and horses and 15,000 sheep. The loss from predatory animals, of course, is heavy on private pastures, but it is not as great as it would be outside on the public domain and in the national forests. And the loss from the poisonous plants is entirely being pre vented. Representative TAYLOR. That is because the forest reserves are the natural breeding grounds of the predatory wild animals, are they not? Mr. REES. Yes, sir. As I say, you can prevent the loss altogether from poisonous weeds in your pastures, because you have the control over the movement of your stock, and you can keep them off. The stockmen, of course, try to prevent loss on the national forests, but it is impossible to restrain your cattle and prevent a loss of this kind. Naturally in handling this stock on the forests, if you try to hold them up in a limited area and prevent them from ranging over the territory that they are supposed to cover, you prevent a gain on your stock. You have got to allow them a certain amount of territory, or you will receive no gain. Your stock will not do well. And whenever you allow them this much leeway, why, then, naturally they get out of your bounds and you can not control their movement. I have here the report of the United States, Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and Bureau of Animal Industry, cooperating with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station. This report is gotten out by Mr. G. S. Klemmedson, |