(The memorandum referred to is here printed in full, as follows:)

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes. That is the highest I have ever paid. That is the maximum.

The CHAIRMAN. It is $430 a month in the valley as against $554.10 in the forest reserve?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And when you graze in the valley you are grazing on privately owned lands?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes, absolutely-leased land, owned land and other land. Those figures for running sheep in the forest reserve are the minimum, and the figures for running them in the valley are the maximum.

Mr. BOWDEN. The minimum is in the forest reserve?

Mr. BIGELOW. In the forest reserve; yes. Those are extremely high grazing fees there in the valley, the highest I have ever paid. Mr. BOWDEN. How long a period do you graze in the valley? Mr. BIGELOW. Seven months.

Mr. BOWDEN. And five months in the forest reserve?

Mr. BIGELOW. Five months in the forest reserve.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do such figures cover an entire year's grazing? Mr. BIGELOW. Yes, sir. That does not take in lambing and other expenses; that is just merely on the grazing end.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the feed and the cost of running the herd? Mr. BIGELOW. Yes, the care of the sheep. Without this national forest [indicating on map] this 12 miles wide by 40 miles long across the county of Madero is worthless.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of the privately owned land? Mr. BIGELOW. The privately owned land.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that entirely dependent upon the right to graze in the forest reserve?

Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely. Honestly, I don't know what I would do with my holdings that I have there if you took this forest reserve area away from me.

The CHAIRMAN. Any increase in the grazing fees on the forest reserve area decreases the value of your privately owned property?

Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely. We can not stand an increase. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your opinion that the charge being made for grazing in the forest reserve is already too high?

Mr. BIGELOW. Well, it is high enough.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the charge for grazing in the forest reserve should be in excess of the cost of administration?

an al

Mr. BIGELOW. That is the way it looks to me-no; it should be the cost of administration with a reasonable overhead; that is, lowance to take care of anything that might come up.

The CHAIRMAN. And if the charges made for grazing in the forest reserve do show a profit, do you think that the entire profit should got to the State rather than a large percentage of it go to the Federal Treasury?

Mr. BIGELOW. I think it should go to the State.

The CHAIRMAN. Aside from that, is the State suffering a loss by reason of the lessening of the value of the taxable property on account of the increased fee charged for grazing?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. So unless the increased charge for grazing in the forest reserves goes to the State, the State is suffering a loss?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes. This is the way I figure it. I pay taxes on my cattle and sheep, and when I go in and pay a profit for running in here I pay another tax.

The CHAIRMAN. You pay a tax for operating on the forest reserve? Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely; I am paying two taxes. Part of my tax goes to help maintain the Government. Why not divert that profit back to our State and see if we can not overcome this in some way?

The CHAIRMAN. And then if you do and make a profit on your operation, you pay an income tax to the Federal Government?

Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely, yes. You are taxed any way you turn. You are in a bad fix, you know, if you have anything. Not only that, but if you have a public utility the Government says you shall not make anything out of it. You can't do anything, only just keep on going. And what bothers me is I am afraid this annexation to the national park is going to stop me from grazing.

The CHAIRMAN. If that should happen, would that destroy the value of your own property?

Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely. It affects not only the proposed park addition, but it also affects all of this area of privately owned lands, because we have nothing here to keep our stock during five months.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you could not pay the tax you are now paying for the support of the local and State governments if you were to lose the right to graze in the forest reserve, because the taxable value of your property would be destroyed?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes. I would have no place to go. There would be five months that my stock would have no place to feed; that is, no feed available down in the valley. You understand, the sheep don't go to the forest, and they consume this other food that is left. There is about enough left there to hold them over, and by going into the mountains we relieve that congested condition down in the valley.

The CHAIRMAN. Then to take out this one link in your chain of operation would destroy the entire operation?

Mr. BIGELOW. The entire operation. It would destroy the disposal of the surplus stubble and the vineyards, because those people that stay out can not run any more sheep than they have; they have gone the limit.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you patronize the farmers that are not in the livestock business? Do they find a market through you for what would otherwise be wasted?

Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. Then to take away your right to graze in the forest reserve would be a detriment to them?

Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely. I go in there year after year. I have my people that I rent that vineyard from; they hold it for me. Not only that, but these sheep fertilize that land. They clean up all of the weeds and everything there and put it on to that soil.

The CHAIRMAN. Would your going out of business lessen the meat and wool to the full extent of your present operations if you were to lose your right to graze on the forest reserve?

Mr. BIGELOW. Oh, yes; I think there are something like 500,000 sheep run in there. You stop that industry and see what you do. The CHAIRMAN. That would take away from the American people the source of their meat supply they now have through the operation of 500,000 sheep, and also the supply of wool that is received from the operation of 500,000 sheep?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is quite a large proposition.

Mr. BIGELOW. I think Mr. Wing has that; that is why we were late this morning. We were figuring what it would do: just trying to see what that figuring would run into and to see what it means to California and the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. It would take off the tax rolls of the counties within the State of California the values that are aggregated in the operation of 500.000 head of sheep?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes, sir; that is what it would do.

Senator ODDIE. Indirectly, would it affect or reduce the market for eastern manufactured products?

Mr. BIGELOW. It would tend to reduce them if we went out; no, it would have a tendency to raise that.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this industry a patron of eastern manufac turers, and if this industry should perish would the eastern manufacturers lose just that much of a market for their products? Senator ODDIE. Yes; that is what I meant to ask.

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes. And not only that, but it would force our eastern market to buy foreign wool.

The CHAIPMAN. It would reduce to that extent the supply of raw materials?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. I was referring to manufacturers of other products that people are to-day using in this western country.

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes. You take a dry year there and we have to order corn to feed these sheep and cattle to carry them through the winter and the drought.

Senator ODDIE. In other words, Senator Stanfield is trying to show the interdependence of the various industries throughout the whole country.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there no other summer range available where this industry is carried on, if you were to lose your present summer range?

Mr. BIGELOW. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So the whole scheme is dependent upon that one link just as much as upon any other?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes. Take out this and we are gone, take out the other and we are gone, but take the three combined and we have a good living business.

The CHAIRMAN. It takes the three to make your 12 months cycle? Mr. BIGELOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bigelow, in your utilization of the grazing on the summer area, are you in conflict with any other interests that are using that area for other purposes than grazing? By that I mean, are you in conflict with recreational life in that area? Are you interfering with people who want recreational privileges? Mr. BIGELOW. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you interfering with the conservation and perpetuation of the wild life in that area?

Mr. BIGELOW. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you interfering with the forestation of that area?

Mr. BIGELOW. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you interfering with the timber operations or the utilization of the timber in that area?

Mr. BIGELOW. No, sir; we are protecting it.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you increasing or decreasing the fire hazard? Mr. BIGELOW. We are decreasing the fire hazard to a very large

amount.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you in conflict with the mining interests in that area?

Mr. BIGELOW. No, sir; we do not interfere with them, or they with us.

The CHAIRMAN. Then there is no conflict of interest?

Mr. BIGELOW. No; none whatever. I believe we really are a benefit. The CHAIRMAN. Is your operation in every sense constructive and helpful to the other interests in the national forests?

Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you in favor of area allotments rather than the per capita permit system? First, I will ask you, have you a certain allotment on which to run your sheep?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is an area allotment?

Mr. BIGELOw. An area allotment.

The CHAIRMAN. But you are only permitted to run a certain number of livestock on that area?

Mr. BIGELOw. That is it.

The CHAIRMAN. If you were granted a lease to that area of such a nature that you could graze to the full carrying capacity of the land, would it be an incentive for you to improve and increase the forage of that area?

Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. If the full benefit were to inure to your good, it would be an incentive for you to produce the maximum amount of grazing on the area?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes, sir; absolutely. You see, we don't know where we are. We know we are in there this year, but we don't know what rules or laws might come up next year and destroy our business.

The CHAIRMAN. So long as these areas are Federal owned and under Federal control, is it your opinion that Congress should enact a law legalizing your right to graze within that area?

Mr. BIGELOW. That is the way I feel about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Or would you prefer to be there at the sufferance of a bureau within the Government?

Mr. BIGELOW. Take it out of the Forest Service's hands?

The CHAIRMAN. No. Would you prefer to have Congress enact a law legalizing your right to graze there or are you better satisfied to be there as a matter of sufferance on the part of the bureau? Mr. BIGELOW. No; I would rather have it legalized.

The CHAIRMAN. If it were legalized and you knew you were to have a certain definite tenure, would it tend to stabilize your business?

Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely. I could then go out and protect myself better in here (indicating on map), and then I could go down here and make heavy investments in land, because now I don't know ' whether I want much more of that land unless I know what I am getting on the forest reserve.

The CHAIRMAN. If you were to be granted a 10 or 20 years' lease of your allotment to use in a practical and efficient way, protecting all other interests that might come within that area, would it tend to stabilize your business?

Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely. I would know right where I was at, without a drought come on.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the kind of legislation you would favor? Mr. BIGELOw. That is what I would like to see.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Bigelow, in case you had a lease for a definite tenure a certain number of years-would it have a good effect or otherwise on your business if it were still possible that the Bureau of Forestry could increase the fees at any time during the continuance of that lease?

Mr. BIGELOW. I am not in favor of raising the fees at all under any conditions.

Senator ODDIE. Would it have the effect of unstabilizing your business if there were a possibility of your fees being raised at any time?

Mr. BIGELOW. We haven't had them raised, but there is a possibility. We have had that fear right along, and it is a very uncomfortable feeling.

Senator ODDIE. You know the order was almost given last year for a decided increase, and Members of the Senate and House of Representatives from the various Western States, of both political parties, went to the Secretary of Agriculture and made a very strong protest?

Mr. BIGELOw. Yes: I know that.

Senator ODDIE. And on that protest the matter was delayed? Mr. BIGELOW. Yes; and we protested out here. We did everything in our power to stop it. We can't afford it.

Senator ODDIE. What I am getting at is this: Is it important to you as a livestock producer to know what your overhead cost will be, as far as possible, in advance?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes.