Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely, absolutely.

Senator ODDIE. When the livestock industry is successful do you believe that it results in a better market for farm crops generally? Mr. BIGELOW. Yes; absolutely.

Senator ODDIE. That is all.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are there other stockmen grazing in the area that is proposed to be taken into Yosemite National Park?

Mr. BIGELOW. Oh, yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. You spoke this morning of the effect of the inclusion of that area upon you.

Mr. BIGELOW. Well, I was using that for illustration, but that affects, as I said, all of them. It is 40 miles across from the south to the north boundary line of Madera County, an area of about 1,200 to 1,400 miles. They are all in the same position that I am in myself. Mr. BOWDEN. And the other stockmen using the range proposed to be included in the park will be affected in the same way that you will be in the event of its inclusion?

Mr. BIGELOW. Absolutely. There are about 20,000 head of sheep, or very nearly that, run in this area, and something like 2,000 head of cattle. But these cattle that run in here [indicating on the map] will have to move out for the simple reason that there is nothing to keep them from drifting in there, and when you get into the park with an animal you are in bad shape, whether it is intentional or accidental or anything else. I want to tell you you want to be a mighty good fellow when you get into the national park and behave yourself, because if you don't you get stung awfully. There was one year when this area here was in the national park and they caught some sheep there. This used to be the natural driveway from Mono County across over into this valley. And the soldiers caught something like 14,000 or 17,000 head of sheep across in here. Do you know what they did? They shot their dogs, and took the herders all into the Yosemite Valley, and turned those 14,000 or 17,000 head of sheep loose to the bears and coyotes, and left them to the mercy of the mountains without anyone to look after them. The CHAIRMAN. Who did that?

Mr. BIGELOW. The Park Service. That is not business.

Mr. BOWDEN. When was that done?

Mr. BIGELOw. That was done in 1905. There were 45,000 head of sheep in the Yosemite National Park, and not a living soul outside of the sheepmen knew they were there. In 1903 and 1904 also. That can be verified by the names of the parties that were in there; the names can be furnished and their addresses.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that closed to grazing now?

Mr. BIGELOW. It was closed then. It never was open.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it has been closed since to grazing?

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes. They just naturally went down over the ridge and fed all summer, and nobody ever knew that they were there. The CHAIRMAN. Well, do they graze in there now?

Mr. BIGELOW. Well, I don't know. I guess Mr. Lewis is watching a little better. You can't tell what is in there, because it is such a large area. And that is right, I am telling you the honest God's truth, and I can prove every word of it. It doesn't seem reasonable, but it is a fact just the same.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be all, Mr. Bigelow. Mr. Bixby.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF FRED H. BIXBY, PRESIDENT AMERICAN NATIONAL LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, LONG BEACH, CALIF.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bixby, have you a further statement that you wish to make to this committee?

Mr. BIXBY. Well, I could answer any sort of a question that you would like to ask. Or would you prefer to have me give you a sort of a general idea of the thoughts of the cattlemen?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I wish you would do that, and then we would like to question you afterwards.

Mr. BIXBY. That is, about the forest reserve or about the unappropriated area? Which do you want?

The CHAIRMAN. Either or both.

Mr. BIXBY. Well, I might say concerning the unappropriated area that the general opinion of the producers of cattle is that they are very insistent on some control of the unappropriated area. That is taking into consideration, of course, the fact that in a good many of the cases they have the privately owned property, and as a part of that is the fact that they can go out on the unappropriated area, too. They are quite positive that they should be able to get a term tenure, perhaps a 10 or perhaps a 20-year term on an area basis, and on a cost of administration basis for the protection that they would receive. The CHAIRMAN. A nominal rental?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes. Also those that are on the unappropriated area should be given the first chance at that unappropriated area, I would

say.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, do you mean by that those who are grazing now the present users?

Mr. BIXBY. Those who are there now.

The CHAIRMAN. And you take into account prior users, too?
Mr. BIXBY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And then would you, as one of the other elements for a basis of distribution, take into account dependent ranch property?

Mr. BIXBY. Oh, certainly; that is of vital importance.

The CHAIRMAN. Should that be a prime basis, and then as the sec-ondary basis, would you say present users, and then third, priority of usage? Should those be weaved in together in determining rights?

Mr. BIXBY. They have to have an economic, stable business plan. They can not be up in the air all the time.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, aside from the necessity just at the moment, I would like to get your idea on the character of the distribution and the rights to lease thoroughly and clearly stated in the record. You have mentioned three elements that would be taken into account in distribution-ownership of private property, present usage, and

priority.

Mr. BIXBY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, would you take those into account and consideration in the order in which they are named, or have you any other order in mind? Of course, one of those three elements must be prime over the two, and likewise the second must be prime over the third. In what order of importance do you think those elements should be considered as a basis for distribution of right to lease?

Mr. BIXBY. You omitted the term of tenure, too; that is another important factor.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, that is something that will grow out of the leases. Now I am having in mind, Mr. Bixby, at this moment the determining of who is qualified and best entitled to lease. Now we will say that there is going to be a law enacted with a longterm tenure provided, and on an area basis, as you have proposed. Then the question immediately arises after the enactment of the law who should be granted the right to lease, and you have named three factors that should be basic in considering and determining the lessees. You have named that of the ownership of dependent ranch property.

Mr. BIXBY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The present user of the range, and the prior user. Mr. BIXBY. Yes. I would say that the man that owned a piece of property that had to depend upon the unappropriated area should be given the first consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you might classify him as the A man, and the next man would be the B man. Now, would that be the present user?

Mr. BIXBY. That would be the present user.

The CHAIRMAN. And then you might take a prior user of the range who is an itinerant man, who does not own property; that there should be some provision for him?

Mr. BIXBY. The nomad who was dependent upon that unappropriated area grass would be the third man.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. And is it your opinion that all of those three elements should enter into the distribution of leases?

Mr. BIXBY. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. And the nomad should be the last man cared for, but he should be cared for in some way?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes. You can remember up at the Salt Lake conference where there was something said about the traveling flock

masters.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; the itinerant, nomadic fellow.

Mr. BIXBY. Yes. Of course I am only in the cattle business, but there is a man who must be taken care of just the same as any other man. He is in the sheep business. He is producing sheep, and he is a good sheepman.

The CHAIRMAN. It is only fair to give him a chance to qualify and come into the preferential class of lessees?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes. The lease law has always been a sort of a bugbear for a long time. Congressman Kent, you know, proposed it several years ago, and there was another bill that was passed. It was not Mr. Kent's bill, but it was another bill, which created the 640-acre homestead act, which is a very foolish bill. It has not worked out at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, Mr. Bixby, has your experience led you to believe that Congress should enact a general leasing law applying to the unreserved public domain under which there can be worked out an allotment on an area basis?

Mr. BIXBY. Oh, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. So that every user of the range shall be treated fairly and justly?

Mr. BIXBY. To my mind that is the only way that it can be worked out, on a term, so as to justify the tenant or the permittee to put up fences and improve springs and put in pipe lines.

The CHAIRMAN. So that he has a certain area that he is responsible for?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes. That would still belong to the Government, but he would have the say concerning the grazing and the improving and that sort of thing.

The CHAIRMAN. And if in a major way the improving thereof inured to his benefit, it would be an incentive for him to give the best possible care to the area and the maximum improvement?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes. It would also have a great tendency to improve the range, because he would have it for a term.

The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion it would result in a greater production of livestock, meat supply, and cloth supply?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes. If he had the security of tenure, he certainly would handle the grazing so he would not graze it to the ground, you know.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, is it your idea that the application of such an act should be made optional with grazing districts, determined by reason of the topography, settlement, or other factors? Should its application locally be optional with the users in such districts as to whether they would come in and lease or remain as they now are? Mr. BIXBY. I think that would be desirable.

The CHAIRMAN. Leaving it optional?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now if that is to be done there immediately arises the question of fencing on public lands.

Mr. BIXBY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion should the present law that prohibits the fencing of public domain be repealed and the right given to an administering body or department such as the Interior Department to issue permits whereby public lands could be fenced? Mr. BIXBY. I think that is vital importance.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, do you think there should be a provision made in the law whereby it would be flexible? As it now is you understand that there is no flexibility.

Mr. BIXBY. You can not fence.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a violation of law to build a fence on the public domain?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes, the Secretary of the Interior says that the fences that are now on the unappropriated area have to be removed. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BIXBY. That is, of course, up in the air at the present time, but the only way to keep him from enforcing that is to have a bill passed that will contemplate the stabilization of the tenure of the unappropriated area.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the present law is inflexible.

Mr. BIXBY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Secretary of the Interior has no discre

tion in the matter.

Mr. BIXBY. He is bound to force them to remove those fences. The CHAIRMAN. To prosecute them for violation of the law. Mr. BIXBY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your opinion that first there should be a repeal of the law that prohibits the fencing of the public domain, and then a law should be enacted, or perhaps an amendment to the law, making it possible for a permit to be issued for the placing of fences on the public domain under a permit issued in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Would that cover the difficulty that you are having?

Mr. BIXBY. I should think it would.

The CHAIRMAN. You are familiar with the difficulties in Arizona, where you have drift fences?

Mr. BIXBY. In New Mexico.

The CHAIRMAN. In New Mexico largely, and in all of the western public land States there is more or less of it, but I understand it is largely in New Mexico and Arizona.

Mr. BIXBY. Yes. Well, there are many miles of fences installed which have been ordered to be removed.

The CHAIRMAN. Now those fences with which you are familiar are not in conflict with any other interest concerned as to the utilization of the resources of the public domain?

Mr. BIXBY. I think not.

The CHAIRMAN. They are in no sense destructive, but are of a constructive nature?

Mr. BIXBY. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Making more sane and practical, and less promiscuous, grazing?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes; and more economical handling of livestock. The CHAIRMAN. Therefore there is every reason why the building of those fences should be permitted by a provision legalizing them?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Rather than stand in violation of law?

Mr. BIXBY. Yes. In my official position at the head of the American National Livestock Association it is the consensus of opinion that the time has come when a control of the unappropriated area must be brought about. I am speaking for the cattle interests only.

The CHAIRMAN. But in your organization there is a predominant desire for the leasing law?

Mr. BIXBY. In our organization we are for the leasing law, and we have been for it for many years, and our policy has never changed. Speaking for the State here, the cattle interests of the State are of that same opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. If a leasing law is to be enacted, in your opinion, should there be some provision whereby these lands might through some process pass into private ownership and be appropriated, having in mind our present system of homestead laws? If the homestead laws are to be repealed, is it your opinion that some other method should be brought about whereby the lands could be appropriated?