The CHAIRMAN. Referring back, Mr. Petrie, to those fifty-odd homesteads that you mentioned-final disposition has been made of those homesteads-are they owned by the homesteaders at this time? Mr. PETRIE. I have not been directly in touch with conditions there for three years. At that time they were beginning to be abandoned and trades were being considered, and some trades being made for these homesteads by stockmen in that vicinity. There can be but one ultimate result, and that may be the condition to-day, that they will all be abandoned. There were 52 in this particular filing. The only reason that the 52 were not rented was because the owner of one of them had made about $7,000 in an oil well in Oklahoma, and he indicated by his remarks that he intended to stay there until that was exhausted; but he had nothing in the way of production and derived no part of his subsistence or that of his family from the production of the homestead. That is practically a 100 per cent proposition; they will all be abandoned or absorbed by or traded for by stockmen in the vicinity, all of which puts an extra burden upon the stockman. He is forced to pay a price for something that he does not receive, in many cases. He pays a price for a certain amount of something that he should not have been forced to buy. In addition to that, he did not get the grass, because in many instances these homesteads have been partially fenced, partially plowed, the original seed has been destroyed, and in its place there have come sunflowers and brush and thistles and all sorts of weeds which are a detriment to the range.

Also he is forced to pay additional money for the clearing of the section that he might purchase. By that I mean the clearing of the wire, which is a great menace to the livestock running at large, and, as you will see, to men on horseback that are forced to ride that country. I have in mind a tract of land lying about 65 miles northeast of Deeth, Nev., in which there is an area of perhaps 150 square miles in which every single homestead has been deserted. A great deal of sage brush has been cleared, fences have been built, and the condition to-day is tumble weeds and scattered wire through the sage brush all over that section.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Petrie, are you familiar with any of the bills that have been proposed to Congress for the leasing of the public domain?

Mr. PETRIE. I was familiar with the Lever bill and the Kent bill at the time they were before Congress. I am not familiar enough with them now to try to outline them, only in a general way. I know the general intent of those bills, which I thought at the time was good.

The CHAIRMAN. To your knowledge, has the public domain been depleted or depreciated by reason of overgrazing or unregulated grazing?

Mr. PETRIE. I would like very much to have the figures so that I might know definitely for my own information just what per cent of the public domain has been ruined by improper grazing. It has been caused largely by people, many of whom were not citizens and nontaxpayers as far as land is concerned. By that I mean the sheepmen who graze from place to place and who do not graze-if they would graze all the time it would not be so bad, but there are particular sections in this western country where the spring and summer

range is in great demand, sections where there is a preponderance of winter range. Consequently, there is a big rush by these tramp outfits to be first on the ground, regardless of whether the range is in condition to be grazed. But they do not graze on the ground; they drive their sheep over long stretches and entirely stamp out and eliminate the grass roots, particularly in sections of the country similar to Nevada and Arizona and some portions of New Mexico where the grass roots are not deep and the nature of the grass is such that it is easily trodden out. That condition alone has caused the loss, temporarily at least, of a good many millions of acres of the public domain, and it can not be corrected without a rest and a sane handling of that land after the rest, because it will take a number of years to bring back a range that is practically cleaned out of its natural grasses.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Petrie, you are certain that promiscuous and unregulated grazing has resulted in great loss or damage to the forage on the public domain. If Congress should enact a law providing for the leasing of the public domain, should that law in your opinion provide for the leasing of the public domain on an area basis?

Mr. PETRIE. Well, that is a big question; there are a good many answers to that question. It depends on a good many different things. In the first place, I should think, as a cold business common-sense proposition, that before the Government took on any more obligations in the way of handling the public domain, they should perfect in some manner the handling of that which they already control. By that I do not wish you to understand that I do not think such a measure would be beneficial

The CHAIRMAN. Developing that idea, Mr. Petrie, you are referring to the handling of the ranges in the forest reserve? Mr. PETRIE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to develop your opinion as to a policy different from that employed in the grazing of the forest reserves. As you are aware, the forest reserves are grazed under the permit system. While certain areas may be set aside as allotments, the user of an allotment is only permitted to graze a certain number of livestock, and there is a certain number beyond which he can not increase his right to graze.

Now, suppose that Congress should enact a law providing for the leasing of the public domain on the area basis. There should be no restriction or interference with the lessee on the part of the Government further than to make the lessee personally responsible for the conservation of the forage on his allotment and the improvement thereof. Any increase in forage that he may bring about upon that area would inure to his benefit. Would that system restore and conserve the forage on the public domain?

Mr. PETRIE. I think that is a sane and sound theory. That has a great deal to do with the condition that exists to-day-the fact that the permittee could not control the range for which he paid. That is a very, very important factor in the ultimate working out of an economic system.

The CHAIRMAN. If he could control the grazing in his own way, is it your opinion that it would bring about the maximum improvement so far as the carrying capacity of the range is concerned?

Mr. PETRIE. As a general proposition, yes; I think that is a very good plan. I think that is the important feature of it all, that we have not had proper control of the range--when I speak of the range I refer to the public domain as well as the forest reserve. I think that has been largely because of the condition that exists to-day, the losses that have accrued to the stockmen.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, as to the fee or rental that should be charged. You have already testified that the value of the property is dependent upon the privilege of grazing. From that it would follow that a heavy rental would detract from the value of the privately owned and taxed ranch property. In your opinion, then, in order to be fair to the State and fair to the local tax districts, should the fee or rental charged be in excess of the nominal cost of supervision?

Mr. PETRIE. It certainly should not.

The CHAIRMAN. If it were in excess of that, would it take from the taxation districts of the local and State governments and give to the Federal Treasury, assuming that the rentals collected for the use of the public domain should go into the Federal Treasury?

Mr. PETRIE. The situation is this, as I see it: Assuming a policy of this sort were to be inaugurated, the permits should be given to landholders, landowners, in the locality where the land rented or leased is located.

This brings to my mind a condition that is not fair, that we are working under now, and would not be fair under this new management. Take, for instance, a man owning and grazing sheep a portion of the year on the public domain, say, in the State of Nevada, where there is a great excess of winter range. He can afford to pay more for any sort of lease, whether it is an Indian lease or whether it is a private lease; or he could afford to pay more in the case of the lease on the public domain, provided such arrangement were possible, than the man who owned the land; because the fact that the landowner has his investment in the land, and thereby an absolute and prior right to it, because it is the foundation of his investment; and in inaugurating a policy of this sort there should be the greatest care exercised to see that no permits on the public domain were given to any but bona fide holders and owners of land and bona fide taxpayers.

The CHAIRMAN. For the distribution of the leases, would you take into account the present use of the range for grazing purposes, and prior use, as well as ranch property as a basis?

Mr. PETRIE. Well, the basis of your right to the range is covered in the statement I have just made, that you must be a bona fide landholder. But, on the other hand, the old permittees on the forest reserve have acquired their rights, no matter how, and they have established a business in the community; they are a part of that community; they are taxpayers in that community; they are entitled to some consideration, and just what that consideration is I am not prepared to say here to-day. But, in my mind, the general plan that should be followed is the protection of the bona fide landholders in the community where these permits are to be granted, taking into consideration at all times that the original holder of a

forest-reserve right over a period of years certainly should not be deprived of that right, no matter who the new applicant might be. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your opinion that if the user of the forest reserve were granted a lease on the area basis, whereby any increase in forage or improvement of the allotment would inure to the user's benefit, there would be an incentive for him to bring about the maximum production of forage?

Mr. PETRIE. There is no question about that. That has always been my theory of operating the reserve, as far as it was possible. I have built up several reserves, but only through being fortunate in having the right from the forestry officers supervising that district was it possible for me to do that; and I know of many instances where the situation was the reverse. I have taken that position in many livestock meetings, that where a permit is given to a man, assuming it is a permit from year to year, there is nothing stable about it. There is nothing stable about a permit that only runs from year to year, with no certainty that you may renew it.

The permanency of the business and the foundation of a successful business depends upon a tenure of an indefinite period. It is a right belonging to the owner of land in fee simple; if he has a right to a permit on the forest reserve for one year, he has a right to that same permit as long as he is the owner of the property and handles his forest-reserve range as he would handle property of his own. That should be the attitude toward the handling of the forest reserve; it should be an inducement to the permittee; that he should receive suitable returns for care and maintenance and building up of the area which he grazes.

That condition has not been followed out generally in the operation of the forest reserve. My experience with the Forest Service has been very satisfactory, but that is not the general condition.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Petrie, what has been your experience regarding the rules and regulations of the Forest Service in reference to the turning-out dates in the spring?

Mr. PETRIE. As a matter of fact, that is about the only real difficulty I have had personally, in my own person experience with the Forest Service-the fact that I ordinarily could not get permission to turn out on the forest reserve at the time I thought it was proper to turn out and at the time I would have turned out had I owned the property or held the property under lease.

Senator ODDIE. Do you think that two weeks' leeway given by the Forest Service to the local forest-service official is sufficient?

Mr. PETRIE. I do not think that is the way to handle it. It can not be determined in weeks; it should be determined entirely by the intelligence and fairness of the supervisor. You can not express that condition in weeks. I will tell you why you can not-for the reason that there is a variation in climatic conditions one year as compared with another. In many States there are times when livestock would be turned out from two to three weeks earlier, and should be turned out from two to three weeks earlier than in some other year. That is another error in the administration of the forest reserve as it is carried out to-day.

Senator ODDIE. Should that matter be left more to the judgment of the local livestock men, or not?

Mr. PETRIE. There is no question but what there should be some plan adopted whereby he would have some voice in the setting of the date. He certainly is better qualified to do that than some inexperienced employee of the Forest Service who has neither knowledge nor years of experience to tell him what is best for the sheep or the cattle on the range. I feel this way, that when a man becomes a permittee on the forest reserve under present conditions he should have the same interest in the preservation of that feed as if he were holding under a premanent lease.

Senator ODDIE. Does the withholding of the stock from the spring range beyond the normal or customary time for turning it out result in loss of condition of the stock?

Mr. PETRIE. There are no doubt many instances of that kind. In the old days before the establishment of the forest reserve that was left entirely to the will of the animals turned at large, and they followed up from the low lands to the higher mountains as the grass grew, always grazing ahead on to the newer and fresher feed, and they automatically took care of themselves and the range. But under the present conditions you must not only hold your stock out of the reserve when they should be in there, to the detriment of the stock, but you must hold them out of the range to the detriment of the range, thereby destroying grass that they would use and should use and will need in the fall when they return from the higher ranges. The setting of a certain date on any forest reserve as a time to turn your cattle out, even with two weeks' leeway, is not right. You do not have to go back any further than the spring of 1925, when we had in Nevada a season that was nearly 30 days earlier than the one just prior to it, 1924. That is why some one with judgment should exercise the determination of the time to turn the cattle out, and the man who owns the stock and has the investment certainly should have some voice in that matter.

Senator ODDIE. Does this regulation result in an economic loss to the livestock industry?

Mr. PETRIE. It certainly does.

Senator ODDIE. Is it possible for forest reserve officials to name a date in advance when the cattle shall be turned out and fix that date properly?

Mr. PETRIE. That is absurd to start with. There is only one way to determine when the cattle should be turned on a high range, and that is for somebody with experience and intelligence to go to that range and see just what the actual conditions are there. He can not even guess at that 30 miles away in the valley. In my personal experience that is the trouble I have had with the Forest Service, the difficulty in getting the rangers or the supervisor to go with me so that I might show them that the range was ready for the sheep and that the sheep should be there.

The theory is very good that you can set a date, ordinarily, but as I have stated before two or three times, it is not practical. There is only one way to find out, and that is to go to that range, because climatic conditions vary from year to year and seasons vary as regards moisture. To run a range properly somebody who knows and somebody who is interested should be on the ground. That is the only sane manner, in my judgment, to handle a business of this