Mr. BOWDEN. It is detrimental to conservation of forage?

Mr. METCALF. Certainly.

Mr. BOWDEN. And there is no incentive to improve the forage? Mr. METCALF. Not as much incentive at least.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is it possible, in your judgment, to work out individual allotments for small permittees?

Mr. METCALF. It would depend upon the situation on the ground. My idea along that line of trying to visualize a development of a circumstance where present conditions, even under a definite lease law, made it necessary to issue a lease to a group of permittees, would develop something like this. At first the group would have to arrange to handle it as a group. The minute that you gave them a right that could be transferred without a penalty to depreciate their property investments, each member of that group could then know that anything that he could buy in the way of a right, or any transaction that he could make with his neighbors concerning a right, would be safe. Anything that he bought, in other words, would be his.

Under that situation I think the development would be that the more progressive individuals, possibly, would see that the benefits of individual operation would bring them sufficiently added returns to warrant their attempting, through transactions, to secure an individual area. They might, for instance, offer the other members of the group a trade involving the other members' relinquishing all of their rights to one area; this progressive man would relinquish all of his rights to theirs. In that way I can even conceive of a situation where the future would be fenced ranges on the summer ranges, say, in our State. That would just bring the ideal situation for individual areas, and the fullest incentive to improve those areas. And the values would be always improving, to justify the added financial outlay.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do your statements apply to both sheep and cattle producers?

Mr. METCALF. The sheep operation is such that the fact that the conditions surrounding it warrant the employment of herders give them almost the same thing as a fence. They can absolutely direct the movement of their stock.

The cattle business in range sections is such that if they were required to attempt to hire enough men to herd cattle on the big ranges, as sheep are herded, the overhead would kill the business. consequently the sheep do not need that fence to practical purposes. It has been found under experimentation that even with sheep where the conditions on the ground were practical to provide fences, the sheep were turned loose in those ranges just as in a pasture, fences made coyote proof, that the improvement both in range, the product in the sheep, in lambs and wool, and in the sheep themselves, was rather remarkable. Showing that even with the sheep, that there would be much to gain through any circumstances that would permit them to have that chance if the local conditions and the natural conditions permitted it.

Mr. BOWDEN. Under the forest reserve system sheep are given individual allotments to-day, are they not? Mr. METCALF. They are.

Mr. BOWDEN. But the cattle permittees run their animals in common?

Mr. METCALF. That is quite the situation in our State anyway, in Nevada.

Mr. BOWDEN. Unless you fenced it would be impossible, would it not, to work out the individual allotment system for cattle?

Mr. METCALF. Quite generally.

Mr. BOWDEN. You believe that it would pay to fence small allotments. Would it pay the Government or would it pay the permittees to fence small allotments?

Mr. METCALF. That will always be determined by the operating return situation at the time the man contemplates fencing. There are, I think, a great many high operating expenses caused by the uncertain situation which surrounds the cattle permittee on forest reserve ranges now. With those expenses continued we all know that the business right now can not afford any overhead outlay. That as those expenses were eliminated the possibility would be there for the operator to figure it out for himself.

Now, a development along that line. Suppose that for a number of years the conditions remained such that even what we might call the most progressive cattlemen could not figure that the operating returns justify the fence outlay, I think there we could get almost the effect of individual allotments if we could get something definite in the way of a right on the part of the group to the range, through the application, for instance, of State laws such as now surround similar circumstances in the case of irrigation districts. Those in an irrigation district have a joint right to water in their reservoir. They handle the apportionment of that water under an irrigation district law that permits all the members of that district who have land to organize themselves, elect their own directors, and use that right under the rules that are set by those directors selected by a majority vote. That would also give the benefit of local consideration on the basis of experience right there in the country in the formation and application of those rules. But that can not be done as long as there isn't any definite right.

Mr. BOWDEN. I believe in your statement at Reno you advocated that there should be area allotments, and that the grazing control of that area should be in the allottee. Do you believe that a stockman having an area for a period of years would conserve the grass on the range and would also so use the range that he would not injure the other resources of the national forest?

Mr. METCALF. I think the incentive would all be to protect it. The danger of injury would be the same as at all times in all things. That some people are intelligent; some are not. It would just be a man of average intelligence who could see the wisdom of taking care of things that to a certain extent had become his to use and to sell and to transfer to his heirs without penalty.

Mr. BOWDEN. What supervision over the use of the range would you give to the Forest Service under your plan?

Mr. METCALF. I would make the Forest Service officials the police agents of the public as a whole. To the extent that they would examine into the conditions of the range periodically. Whenever they observed a situation or circumstance that led them to believe that a continuance of that would result in injury to the grazing

resource itself, to the watershed cover, or to the timber, though they were not sufficiently certain to apply some corrective measures at the time, they could begin to warn the operator that a continuance, in their judgment, would result in that harm. If it was not stopped or corrected and continued to that measure that they thought willful injury was being caused, they should then, in my judgment, have the right as the police agent of the people to take that man into the proper court with the evidence at hand and have his case tried. If the judgment was that he had caused damage he should be answerable in full for injuring the resources that belonged to the people, even to the extent that if that was repeated sufficiently in the opinion of the court to show that that man despite what his intelligence should be, that he could not use it without injury, my natural inclination would be to say that it should be taken away from him.

Mr. BOWDEN. You would have the court as the agency to decide that matter?

Mr. METCALF. I don't see how you can do anything else and follow the traditions of our Government.

Mr. BOWDEN. What would you think of this proposition, that grazing rules thought necessary to protect the range should be placed in the lease. That any violation of those rules should be determined by a board for each State, made up of a Forest Service expert, a stockman, and one who was the legal adviser of the board, and the decision of that board should be final unless the stockman desired to appeal to the court?

Mr. METCALF. Offhand I should say that it ought to be fully worth the trial.

Mr. BOWDEN. A good many of these questions would involve the opinion of an expert?

Mr. METCALF. Certainly.

Mr. BOWDEN. Could such questions be better decided on the ground than they could be decided in the court room?

Mr. METCALF. Certainly.

Mr. BOWDEN. The board would have that facility of being able to go out on the ground and see that situation.

Mr. METCALF. Certainly.

Mr. BOWDEN. What do you think of giving that board this power: That upon application of a Forest Service ranger that damage was likely to be done by methods used by the stockman, that the board would issue an order in the nature of an injunction forbidding such practice, or changing the practice of the stockman to the extent that it would alleviate the danger?

Mr. METCALF. It sounds reasonable.

Mr. BOWDEN. A remedy prior to damage instead of subsequent to damage.

Mr. METCALF. It sounds reasonable to me. It seems to be based on principles that are comparable to those that are applied to other business, if I understand you right.

Mr. BOWDEN. Will you briefly state what the effect on the economic running of livestock is by the present supervision over the grazing of livestock exercised by Forest Service officers?

Mr. METCALF. It simply puts the operator in the situation where his invested values in our State that are of such extent that they rep

resent all it is worth to run livestock the year around, are of such an uncertain basis that financial agencies, even those of our own Federal Government, can not see sufficient credit securities to take the man's property as a basis for a loan. I think a credit test is about as sound a test as to whether or not there is a foundation for values in a business as can be applied.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. Metcalf.

STATEMENT OF LLOYD L. ROOT, STATE MINERALOGIST, IN CHARGE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE MINING BUREAU

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Root, have you a statement you wish to make to the committee?

Mr. ROOT. Yes; I have a protest to enter on the enlargement of our national parks. Particularly the Sequoia and the Yosemite National Park. You have undoubtedly seen this map or one very much like it. That is the park as it is to-day, the Sequoia. The area that they intend to take in is located in through here [indicating on the map]. Here is the southern boundary of the Yosemite and here is the area they contemplate taking. This area through here [indicating on the map]. The main ridge of the Sierra Nevada Mountains runs along here. That has a granite floor, the entire area. Along through this section here is a belt of metamorphics or slate and limestone, which have a very distinct mineral bearing on the State's resources, particularly in this section [indicating on the map].

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean toward the south, so it will show in the record?

Mr. ROOT. Yes; in the south. In the Sequoia National Forest now we have excluded from use one of the best marble deposits in the State. As you know, the policy of the national park is not to allow any mining of any kind or character within its boundaries. To verify that I have here an extract of an article in a paper, which I will give you for your record, describing a trip that was taken by the men of the National Park Service together with some others, these so-called pleasure seekers condemning the lands on account of being mined. I wish that to be made a part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be made a part of the record.

(The extract from the newspaper article referred to is here printed in the record in full, as follows:)

EXPEDITION TO MAKE REPORT ON PARK EXTENSION-BEAUTIES OF POST PILE AND THOUSAND ISLAND LAKE REGION UNEXCELLED UNPROFITABLE MINING CLAIMS MAR SCENIC BEAUTIES

Some of the most striking scenic points are cluttered up with decrepit mining shafts. One in particular is directly opposite a beautiful view of Banner Peak and Mount Ritter. Unfortunately under State law any miner can locate a claim of 20 acres in this ideal vacation land of towering peaks, living glaciers, and rugged canyons without interference from the United States Forest Service, the present administrators of this area. In justice to the future development of California and the preservation of its natural scenic beauties, this wonderful country should be added to Yosemite National Park at once, where under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service it can be legally preserved. Delay means that more unprofitable mining claims and the greater destruction of California's incomparable High Sierra region will follow.-Stockton Record. September 5, 1925, by James V. Lloyd.

Mr. Root. In this area, township 17 south, range 31 east, there is a proven mineral area which has been excluded; that is, a definite mineral area has been excluded.

In township 15 south, range 31 east, there has been a good deal of prospecting going on for molybdenum. I have here a protest from an outfit which has expended over $15,000 developing this molybdenum in that area that will be included in this proposed national-park extension.

Directly north of that, during the World War, when copper was very high, they mined that territory there, taking out copper that ran as high as 30 per cent, and taking it down to Fresno on mule back thirty-odd miles and at a profit.

Just north of there, in township 11 south, range 29 east, there is a large deposit of limestone, running from a mile to a mile and a half in width and several miles in length.

Those are the known mineral deposits in that area at the present time. I have gone through a lot of the old reports of the Mining Bureau and checked up the several deposits of various kinds along this ridge. The only reason that it is not being worked at the present time is due to the inaccessibility and the hardships involved in getting in there and mining. That is all for the proposed extension of the Sequoia National Park.

As to the proposed extension of the Yosemite: This area, townships 3 and 4 south, ranges 25 and 26 east, contains the largest deposit of iron we have in the State of California. That deposit there represents 30,000,000 tons of available ore than can be mined. right now.

To the east of the minarets, as it is known, is a large area of parallel-vein systems that contain copper, lead, gold, and some zinc. It is an impossibility to determine the exact value and extent of these mineral deposits along here so as to give it to you in figures. That one deposit of iron alone would run into many millions of dollars.

There is proposed now, from the extension of the Sugar Pine Railroad from Central Camp, a railroad tapping that entire area. In 1878 there were located in this territory-township 3 south, range 26 east-46 different bona fide mineral locations. I have a copy of the Mining Bureau report giving the geological description of that area and showing the nature of those deposits, if you care for it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you may file that with the committee.

Mr. Roor. I also have for your information a recent bulletin on Madera, Mariposa, Stanislaus, and Fresno Counties, this area under consideration.

If this territory is taken up and included in the national-park system, it will be an impossibility to mine this area. As you possibly know, there is 48 per cent of Madera County under Federal regulation-that is, in the forest reserve and national parks-Tulare County 41 per cent, and Fresno County 34 per cent. If this country is excluded, you will be taking away a possible revenue. the forest reserve act there is about 35 per cent comes back to the State in money for schools and for roads. Under the national-park regulation there is nothing comes back, and there will be no possibility of the counties recovering any money for taxes when these

Under