sort. It can not be done at long range. It can not be done from Washington, it can not be done from Salt Lake or Denver or any other headquarters of the Forest Service.

Senator ODDIE. Is it a fact that grasses mature at different dates in the lower ranges and in the upper ranges?

Mr. PETRIE. That is true in any range country I know anything about, and particularly in Nevada. There is a grass we call June grass that is very valuable at the time it comes, but you delay a week or so you get that grass too late-it dries early. It depends upon the season whether it dries in June or not. Sometimes it dries in May, and if you delay a week or so you have lost that feed for all time. Why did you lose it? Because you were not permitted to graze on it at the time you should have grazed on it and would have grazed on it had you' controlled it. This does not, of course, refer to the very high altitude, but it refers to a lot of forest reserve territory, particularly in Nevada, where it is not particularly high.

Senator ODDIE. Do you believe that the Forest Service officials fail to take cognizance of the different maturing dates in the various sections of the range, the lower and upper sections, or do you think it is from lack of knowledge on their part?

Mr. PETRIE. It is from a combination of conditions. There are exceptions, of course. I know of some reserves that are very well handled, and I know others that are not. It is a question of personality, and it is a question of interest, perhaps, quite as much as knowledge. It is a lot easier to stay in a camp all the time or to stay in town than it is to ride these ranges.

Senator ODDIE. Do you know of any cases where the rules and regulations for the withholding of stock from the range beyond the customary date have resulted in compelling the stock rangers to herd their stock more than they otherwise would?

Mr. PETRIE. I think there are many cases of that sort. I have had a number of personal experiences of that sort, where I have been forced to hold sheep in the low hay country when they would have made a better gain-that is, the lambs-had they been allowed to go to the higher ranges at the time the higher range was in suitable condition for them without any damage to the range.

Senator ODDIE. Then do you think that if the stock were allowed to follow their natural instincts and travel from the lower to the upper portion of the range at will, it would result in better results. to the cattle and to the range land?

Mr. PETRIE. My observation over a period of more than 40 years is that they know a lot more about it than two-thirds of the Forest Service officers and half the stockmen. That is just my view; I may not be right about that, but that is my theory. I learned that a long time ago, before there were any forest reserves, and I see no difference in conditions to-day.

Senator ODDIE. You believe, then, that interfering with the natural instincts of the stock will result in loss of condition of the stock and in loss of money to the stock grazers?

Mr. PETRIE. There is no question about that.

Senator ODDIE. What has been your experience with the advisory boards provided for by the Forest Service?

Mr. PETRIE. Just what do you mean by the advisory boards?

Senator ODDIE. The rules and regulations or the customs of the Forest Service call for the organization of advisory boards among the local stockmen.

Mr. PETRIE. I have had no experience with them personally. I have met with a number of them. I think the trouble comes to some extent from lack of cooperation by the employees the rangers. There is a good deal to the story, which I do not think has any particular part in this hearing; that you can not expect to employ men of intelligence—I do not mean to intimate that our forest rangers are not intelligent as a body, because I think they are, but the point I want to make is this, that you can not expect the wisdom or the judgment from a man who has had little experience and a man who can be employed for the nominal sum that is paid these forest rangers. You can not expect the attention and you can not expect the quality of labor.

Senator ODDIE. Do you believe that the policy and the system are right which permit rules and regulations such as we have been discussing to be imposed upon the local officials of the Forest Service? Mr. PETRIE. NO; I do not. I think I have covered that pretty well.

Senator ODDIE. Should there be more local control than there is now?

Mr. PETRIE. Absolutely; that is just what we need.

Senator ODDIE. What is your idea of the relation between the livestock industry and the farmer, the raiser of grain and hay? Is the small farmer dependent on a successful livestock industry to any

extent.

Mr. PETRIE. He is dependent upon a successful livestock industry to some extent, in fact, to quite a large extent, for the marketing of his product, because he sells that product largely to the producer of livestock. So his success is dependent upon the condition of the producer of livestock.

Senator ODDIE. If certain conditions affect the livestock grazers adversely, will they be reflected in the condition of the small farmer? Mr. PETRIE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And likewise is the feeder for the market dependent upon the range man for the supply of his feed-lot animals? Mr. PETRIE. They make his market for the product that he raises. The CHAIRMAN. And they furnish the animals for the conversion of his crops?

Mr. PETRIE. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. Are you familiar with the Rachford report, Mr. Petrie?

Mr. PETRIE. I am not; I have not seen it.

Senator ODDIE. That is a report by the Forest Service on the subject of grazing fees.

Mr. PETRIE. I have not seen it.

The CHAIRMAN. You have already testified, I believe, Mr. Petrie, that you do not believe an increase in grazing fees would result to the benefit of the American people?

Mr. PETRIE. I have covered that. I think it would be a very great detriment to the livestock interests and to the people at large and no benefit to the Government, State, or county.

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

Mr. PETRIE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Green.

STATEMENT OF SHERWOOD GREEN, REPRESENTING MADERA COUNTY SHEEPMEN'S AND CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS,

MADERA, CALIF.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Green, whom do you represent?

Mr. GREEN. Both the Madera County Sheepmen's and Cattlemen's associations, and also the Rod Club of the Chamber of Commerce.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a statement that you will make to the committee, Mr. Green?

Mr. GREEN. Yes; I have. The subject that I want to introduce digresses from the one that the committee has been considering, and relates particularly to the proposed extensions of national parks. For the purpose of clarifying what I want to say, I want to call your attention to this map for just a moment. [Indicating a map of California.]

This area that I am drawing my hand across represents the San Joaquin Valley. It is about 40 miles wide from east to west, and about 240 miles long. Immediately east of and bounding this valley along its eastern border are the Sierra Nevadas, and in this Sierra Nevada mountain country are two national parks and a large forest reserve area—that is, an area under the Forest Service. This valley, by the nature of the soil that it is composed of and the hot climate, is particularly adapted to intensive agriculture, and that intensive agriculture is in a considerable measure controlled and determined by the water supply.

There are no summer rains at all in this area. During the entire winter season and well into the spring there are heavy snowfalls in this mountain area, and the water from that snow flows through the streams but in peak loads that come with the melting of the snows in the hot weather of spring, through May and June.

By reason of the location of these national parks adjacent to this agricultural area, they perform certain services to the public, and those services I want to outline to you briefly.

Perhaps the principal service that these parks perform is the service of providing recreation. That is, they furnish recreation for recreation seekers. They also furnish, these entire mountain landsI am speaking not of either the parks or the forest reserve, but the mountain lands as a class-a grazing service; they furnish a very considerable grazing service. While I am mentioning that I want to say that between the valley proper and the high mountains there is what we call the foothill area, and the value of those foothill lands is considerably determined by the fact that the people of the valley are either cattlemen or sheepmen. Their grazing on their home lands is seasonal, by reason of the fact that they travel with their cattle into the higher mountains during the summer. So the value of this foothill land is largely determined by the grazing permits in the national forest areas held by the owners of the foothill lands.

Those mountain lands also furnish a service in the form of lumber, which they furnish to people engaged in that industry. They also furnish water for power and irrigation and civic uses. They also furnish a mining service. I have outlined the thing by holding up the five fingers of my hand, and using the thumb as the nub. I call the thumb the recreation service; then come grazing, mining, lumbering, and irrigation.

This [indicating on map] is the Sequoia National Park. It is an area of, roughly, 300 square miles. It has been proposed in a bill that was introduced in Congress-and I understand it is again proposed to introduce the bill-to increase the area of this park by taking into the Forest Service an additional area of over 700 square miles. The pink area [indicating on map] is now within the forest reserve area, and it is under the control of the Forest Service. The blue area is under the control of the National Park Service. Yosemite National Park lies along the northerly border of Madera County, in here, and the area of the Yosemite National Park at present is approximately 1,124 square miles, and they desire to add to that 75 square miles.

The

Now, the particular thing that I want to make clear to this committee is that under the present Forest Service we enjoy in the forest areas approximately the same type of recreational facilities and that the same service is rendered to the public under forest supervision as is rendered under park supervision, with the slight difference that under the Forest Service supervision you are allowed to do some things that you are not allowed to do in the parks proper. By that I mean that the whole forest reserve area is now open to the general public and supervised to a large extent by the general public for recreation. People drive up there to camp, and they hunt and fish and enjoy the mountain scenery the same way that they would in the park areas proper. Under the Forest Service administration, as I have outlined, they are also permitted to use the lands for grazing, for mining, for lumbering, and for the development of water for irrigation, power, and civic uses.

Under the National Park Service the four services other than recreation are lopped off; you are not permitted to use the areas for grazing, for mining, for lumbering, or to impound water for the development of power or irrigation.

It seems to us here in California that the present 1,200 square miles of area in the park lands is sufficient to serve the purposes that can be served solely by national parks. Those national parks usually surround some natural phenomenon of unusual or considerable interest. The proposed extensions are all beautiful mountain lands, but they are not different in any great degree from the surrounding mountain country. They are just typical mountain country, and the present national-park areas take in a large amount of just that sort of mountain country that they make no great use of.

For instance, in the Yosemite National Park, with its 1,124 square miles, it is only the small valley proper and the immediately surrounding area that is used intensively. If you were furnished the figures of the number of people that visit Yosemite National Park they would loom large in number. The service is great to the whole country. But that service is confined to a small area. I have taken

a pack horse and, leaving the road, the most southerly road in the park, I have traveled two days without seeing anyone. Throughout the area that would parallel that zone, all along the park boundary on the southerly side, you could ride from the center of that area east or west for a day without encountering more than one or two persons, although it is a very beautiful mountain country. You might ride north or south for several days and encounter practically

no one.

So the recreational service in what I will call the buffer area that surrounds the center of interest within the park is very slight. It is very little used. People who travel into the park stick to the automobile roads and enjoy the things that they can see through that method of transportation or within a reasonable hiking distance.

Now, to take these areas that are proposed to be included in the national-park system and place them there would be, to a large extent, to duplicate these areas that are now so very little used, and at the same time it would be to lock up things that are, to a large extent, perpetual. I have heard it said that the water there is like a coal mine that for every ton of coal you take out that ton is replaced immediately by nature. In so far as that water is used for power or for irrigation or civic uses, that is in a large measure true, because the water is replaced in the stream for use again.

Now, to lock up such a perpetual use to the public by taking it out of the Forest Service and placing it under the administration of the National Park Service seems to us to be a waste of that resource and to accomplish no good. In particular I want to say that there is an additional recreational use created in those areas where irrigation dams have been installed, just by reason of the installation of those dams making the place more attractive to the public than was otherwise the case.

Now, I want to say a little with regard to grazing. The nationalpark areas are not permitted to be grazed, while the forest-reserve areas are permitted to be grazed, and the value of the lands that are adjacent to those forest-reserve areas depends, of course, on what those lands will produce for their owner. You asked the last witness a question about taxes. If you want to ask me that question I would answer it in this way: The question was whether or not the forest-reserve permits affected the taxable value of the land; that is, the permits to pasture cattle. My answer to that would be that the assessors arrive at their assessable value simply by what the lands will bring on sale over an average period.

These lands that I am discussing now are dependent upon the forest-reserve areas. The sale value of those lands depends, of course, upon what they will produce to the owner. Take the lands and separate them for their pasturage privileges in the mountains, and they would have practically no value, because the seasonal nature of the crops that are grown there--they are entirely pasturage lands, or almost entirely pasturage lands, with small supplemental hay areas-is such that without it was supplemented with something to make a complete year's feed it would be of slight use to anyone. So that to a very large extent in our district those lands and the intermediate lands that adjoin the mountains are used by people who reside on those lands and use them for the purpose of grazing, as a home ranch, and have permits to use the upper lands in the summer.