Mr. GILMORE. Well, perhaps there may be up in Canada, where perhaps some of the birds nest. But I can not see any difference between the conditions that existed prior to the passage of the Federal migratory bird treaty act and the conditions that have existed since that time, and it has been on the statute books for about seven years now.

Mr. BOWDEN. If a bird lives part of the year in a foreign country and part of the year in this country, if you are going to properly control the hunting of that bird, you must have an agreement that not only involves the State or the United States but involves the foreign country where the bird lives at other seasons of the year; isn't that true?

Mr. GILMORE. No; not necessarily. I can not see it.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, as to the treaty between Canada and the United States, of course that is a Federal question.

Mr. GILMORE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And it requires a treaty there.

Mr. GILMORE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And so long as the State adopts laws that conform to the terms of the treaty between the two powers, might that not be as far as the Federal Government should go?

Mr. GILMORE. True.

The CHAIRMAN. And leave the administration under the Federal act to the States?

Mr. GILMORE. Yes; and leave the regulation as to the seasons, as to bag limits, in the control of the State, because the State authority can administer and will administer in practically every instance that I know anything about to better advantage than the Federal Government can under like conditions. They say, "Well, we could do it if the Congress would appropriate the money." Well, but we have money, because the people who hunt and the people who fish pay for it. They are the people that do it. They take care of it, and they have taken care of it. There has been no great depreciation, so far as I know, of the supply of ducks and geese in this country from hunters. We have a nonsale law here. You can go out and kill them if you want to, but our area that is capable of being hunted, in so far as migratory birds are concerned, is being gradually restricted. You know our valley lands here are no longer great overflow swamp areas as they used to be. They have been reclaimed. The rivers and the sloughs, etc., are confined to channels with levees along each side. The water is taken out for the purposes of irrigation; and the great immense territory that we used to have, that was nothing more than wild open swamp covered with tules and all that sort of stuff, you know, is no longer in existence. Now the hunting is confined principally to rice fields.

Senator ODDIE. What is your opinion as to the approximate number of migratory birds now and in years past?

Mr. GILMORE. I can not tell that, Senator, because they fluctuate. Senator ODDIE. Is there any falling off in the numbers?

Mr. GILMORE. There is none whatever. They will come when there is water for them to come to, and when there is not they won't come. Now that is all there is to it. No regulation under the sun, Senator, can possibly regulate the flight of migratory wild fowl.

They are regulated wholly and entirely by the local conditions that are here to greet them upon their arrival, and if the local conditions are not there they do not light. Now, that is all there is to it.

Senator ODDIE. Did you hear the testimony yesterday regarding the forest reserve regulations concerning grazing fees and the han dling of livestock on the forest reserve?

Mr. GILMORE. I did.

Senator ODDIE. Are you aware that the Forest Service is attempting and has attempted to raise the fees very materially to the livestock interests using the forest reserves?

Mr. GILMORE. I have heard so.

Senator ODDIE. In your opinion, following out the line of discussion this morning, should this branch of the Government have a right to deliberately charge grazing fees which will bring a profit to the Federal Treasury?

Mr. GILMORE. That is a large question, Senator. I want you to first understand that in any statement that I make, first, I am a regular old John C. Calhoun State rights man; now, that is all there is to it. And this element is outside of fish and game.

Senator ODDIE. I know this is outside, but it is carrying out the line of argument we have had. Do you believe if a profit is made from grazing fees; that that profit should go into the Federal Treasury or into the State treasuries?

Mr. GILMORE. May I go back a little bit, Senator, on that?
Senator ODDIE. Yes.

Mr. GILMORE. I want to tell you that I was a very small youngster when I went to work in the woods. I completed my education along about the time I was 13 years old and went to work. And I have been in the woods, or I was in the woods, rather, long after I was a man grown. I have worked for the United States General Land Office field service and for the Federal Forest Service. So that I am not entirely unfamiliar with a great many of the problems that confront people both in an administrative capacity and a capacity

of the user.

The whole underlying principle of this thing relates to a power that is exercised so far away from us. Now, I have the utmost respect for many, many men that are in the Forest Service. Many of those men I number among my very close personal friends. But the regulatory principle is settled upon by an individual away back here in Washington, and in a majority of instances upon the face of the regulation itself it shows that the man that framed that regulation was entirely out of touch with the local situation. Therefore it is but natural to believe that you are going to find dissatisfaction locally.

Now, as to the United States charging a fee for the use of those lands, we believe that if they belong to anybody, Senator, they belong to the State of California, because the United States is charged under the Constitution to dispose of those lands. And I can not see wherein the Federal Government should charge upon a basis of turning an income for them into the Federal Treasury. These little counties along here inside of these national forests get 25 per cent of the fees from timber sales and from grazing fees. And stop and consider what that means to some of these little counties.

Take this little county, Alphine County, 80 per cent of its area is inside of a national forest owned by the United States Government. What opportunity, I would like to ask, anyway, is there of providing for sufficient revenue to operate that county's business? Here is Trinity County, 65 per cent of the area of that county is inside of a national forest, and is owned by the United States Government. Here is Eldorado County, 34 per cent of the total area of that county is owned by the United States Government, is within the confines of a national forest. Where are these 33 counties here that make up our forest-reserve counties going to derive their moneys from for local self-government? From 25 per cent of the grazing fees and from timber sales. Loomis County derives considerable from timber sales, so does Sierra County, because there are operative mills in there. But Trinity County on the basis of timber sales, gets a little bit less than nothing at all, because you do not have any operative mills in there.

Senator ODDIE. Are not the State and counties put to certain expenses in exercising police and other powers in administering?

Mr. GILMORE. Yes. They furnish the police protection. It has to establish schools and maintain them in there. It has to build roads, and it does.

Senator ODDIE. Well then, should the amount of the fees, over and above the cost of administration and improvements of the forest reserves be all put in the Federal Treasury, or a substantial part of it put in the Federal Treasury when the counties and the State are put to great expense in administering those areas?

Mr. GILMORE. No; I can not see the least reason in the world. Senator, why that money should go into the Federal Treasury. If you stop and consider for an instant, 22 per cent of the total landed area of the State of California is within national forest owned by the United States Government. It is valued by the United States Bureau of Public Roads, which is the basis of the distribution of these moneys for road and other purposes, the national forest resources; that is, timber and forage, at $146,599,866, for 18,891.161 acres of land.

I want to tell you about just one county, and I know about that because I was raised in Eldorado County in this State. The cruise of the National Forest Service of timber on the national forest reserves in Eldorado County alone was 4,841,862,000 feet board measure. Now the standing price of timber in this State, taking it generally as an average runs anywhere from $1.50 to $3.50 a thousand at the stump. The lowest price is paid for what we call white fir, and it is poor material. A large part of the timber stand in Eldorado County is sugar pine, because it is in the sugar-pine belt, and that has the highest value of any timber. But if you took it at $1.50, which would be the minimum price, you find out that the stand of timber in Eldorado County alone is worth a little over $7,000,000. Over a million acres of land in there that belongs to the United States Government, inside of a national forest. And surely the grazing value of those lands is worth $3 an acre. So you would have a valuation in that one county alone of over $10,000,000. But the United States Bureau of Public Roads sets a valuation for Eldorado County of $4,256,417.

Now, taking the whole valuation of the timber and forage resources of this State, and based upon the acreage you will findI think my computations are somewhere nearly correct-that these counties get a return on an average based upon the return, I believe, for last year, of something over $300,000. A little over a cent and a half an acre.

Now, I defy any person to show me any political subdivision in these United States that can exist with. an income of its land and property and everything that is thereon at a cent and a half an acre. They won't last very long.

Now, some relief, I believe, should be given to these little counties up here. Something that is going to aid and assist them in keeping away from bankruptcy that stares them in the face.

Senator ODDIE. And on the face of that you feel that a profit from the grazing would be a tribute to the United States Government which would be unfair and unjust?

Mr. GILMORE. Absolutely unfair and unjust.

Senator ODDIE. I would like to make a comment, that in our discussions and questions regarding the operations of the forest reserve I want it distinctly understood as far as I am concerned, and I know that Senator Stanfield does, that we have the highest regard and respect for the Forest Service officials, but we are questioning a policy which puts unnecessary restrictions on them, and which makes their path a very difficult one to travel in many cases.

Mr. GILMORE. It certainly does, Senator. And furthermore, I think that more discretion and wider discretion should be given to the local officials, the men who are here. They live here. They belong and they are part of the people. They are in touch with the situation. If the widest discretion is to be given the head of the department at Washington why should not the man locally be given some discretion? And that is what I have maintained from the beginning.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are you familiar with the proposed extension of national parks in this State?

Mr. GILMORE. To a certain degree only. I have never been over the territory. My knowledge would be only from what has been told me.

Mr. BOWDEN. If the proposed extensions were made what portion of the counties in which the national parks would be located would be under the control of the National Parks Service?

Mr. GILMORE. Well, of course, they are under the control of the Federal Government now, you understand.

Mr. BOWDEN. I mean under the control of the Federal Government and in national parks.

Mr. GILMORE. Well, I think that is shown on this map here. You see you are going to take a portion out of Fresno County here. and a portion out of Tulare, adjacent to the park on the south. It is about a 50-50 proposition. There will be about one-half. approximately one-half, the territory in each of the two counties. The figures were given here yesterday exactly as to that area. The proposed increase is 800,000 or 900,000 acres, something like that. Mr. BOWDEN. Do you know what part of the area of the counties concerned would be in national parks?

Mr. GILMORE. I can give you the total area of the county, and it is a mere computation.

Mr. BOWDEN. All right, if you will make that for the record. Mr. GILMORE. Now, Fresno County has a total area of 3,808,000 acres. Based upon the approximation as nearly as it can be determined, that 50 per cent of the increase would be in that county, you would have a possible deduction of say, in round numbers, 450,000 acres. Well, you would take away about one-ninth of the total area.

Mr. BOWDEN. And when that land goes into the national park the county gets no revenue at all from it, does it?

Mr. GILMORE. No; none whatever.

Mr. BOWDEN. And when it is in the Forest Service it does get some revenue?

Mr. GILMORE. It does get some revenue, certainly, because it gets the proportion of its grazing fees. Of course, the territory is at present so isolated that the question of returns from the timber sales would not be worthy of consideration.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Gilmore, what is your idea as to the effect of grazing in the national forest on the fire hazard?

Mr. GILMORE. Senator, I practiced law before the Department of the Interior for a good many years. I am familiar with a good many of the troubles of a lot of these stockmen. From all that I have been able to learn from all of the information that I have been able to gather, both my own personal examination and the testimony of men in whose statements I place the highest faith, is that grazing in the national forests is a large factor in reducing the fire hazard, a very, very large factor.

Senator ODDIE. Has the grazing in the national forests been detrimental to timber growth in any way y?

Mr. GILMORE. No; I don't see how it could be. I could not conceive of a condition wherein the timber growth would be injured in the least by grazing.

Senator ODDIE. What is your idea as to the effect it has on reforestation or the growth of young timber?

Mr. GILMORE. The growth of young timber is choked out with brush, Senator, and that is logical.

Senator ODDIE. It is choked out with brush?

Mr. GILMORE. Yes; stock will eat the brush off, but will not injure the humus or the low cover at all. As a consequence on the reproduction you would naturally have a benefit from grazing. I dare say that if you took all of the stock, eliminated them entirely from all of the national forest in California, well, it would take the Standing Army of the United States to keep the fires out of there. Senator ODDIE. What is your idea as to the original condition of the forest before man came? Do you think that there was game enough to perform this service of eating the brush in the forest that is now performed by the stock that grazes in the national forest?

Mr. GILMORE. Now, Senator, when I go into that question I am going to fly in the face of all of the Forest Service officials in the United States, but the Indian took care of his forests by burning them over, and he didn't have any bugs or beetles, or anything of that kind, and he didn't have territory that was crossed and inter