too often; they are too swift for us. And of course we have talked the matter over about going out and killing them. I think if the Forest Service would give the people time, say 30 days or whatever it would require, to get the horses off the range that they want, and then dispose of the others, it would be a good idea. But our supervisor tells me that when they go out they can not kill them. But we can. Now the Government is the highest authority we have, and to say that the forest office there hasn't got power to get rid of those horses is a mistake-they don't pay a cent tax or anything else to the Government. There they run.

Representative ARENTZ. In other words, on your forest reserve there are 1,000 to 1,500 wild horses?

Mr. DIERINGER. Yes.

Representative ARENTZ. They eat as much as a steer, and when it comes to the adjustment of your range rights, a variable amount, 25 one way or the other, you are held down to a certain number and can not go beyond that?

Mr. DIERINGER. Correct.

Representative ARENTZ. That is all.

Mr. DIERINGER. I can explain a little more about it if you want it, but your time is limited so I don't want to take it.

Senator ODDIE. Just one more question, Mr. Dieringer, about the opening date. If the matter were left to you is it possible that in the spring you might have to make a quick decision which would result in opening the range sooner than usual? For instance, suppose that the snow covered the range on a certain date in the spring, and that a thaw should come, and that snow should go off the foothills and the grass would get a start. If that was left up to you would you put your cattle out then when you thought it was right? Mr. DIERINGER. Yes, I would put them out when I thought it was right.

Senator ODDIE. Is it possible that if this matter is to be decided in Washington or in some other State a delay might occur in getting the information?

Mr. DIERINGER. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. Might that delay amount to several weeks as the conditions are now? For instance, the local supervisor would have to send word to Ogden, the Ogden district forester would have to send word to Washington, then the word would have to come back to Ogden, then back to the supervisor, then to the ranger. Would that result in a delay?

Mr. DIERINGER. Yes, when it has to go all around about that way it would.

Senator ODDIE. Do you know of any cases in your section where the cattle are forced to be kept on the pasture, and in the fields longer than they used to be?

Mr. DIERINGER. Yes, they are now.

Senator ODDIE. Does that result in any case in injuring the hay crop or the pasturage?

Mr. DIERINGER. It does to a certain extent. We can not use any water when the cattle are on there.

Senator ODDIE. Does that result in decreasing your hay crop?
Mr. DIERINGER. Yes, it does.

Senator ODDIE. Does that result in an extra loss to the livestock producer?

Mr. DIERINGER. It means an extra loss of course.

Senator ODDIE. If that rule and regulation was wiped out would you be able to conduct your own business in a manner that would be more beneficial to the stock, to your property, and to the range?

Mr. DIERINGER. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. That is all, Mr. Dieringer. I want to thank you. Mr. DIERINGER. I want to say this, in regard to this money that they used in building the trail in the mountains. If they would use that to kill off these wild horses, or to clean out the springs, or for some beneficial use on the range it would be better. But as it is. I don't think a member on the Toyabe Range Board agrees with them, and I have talked with a good many. I have been on that board since that reserve was established.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Dieringer, another thing. You say you have a 10-year permit?

Mr. DIERINGER. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. Do you know that the right is reserved in the Secretary of Agriculture and the Forest Service to increase your fees at any time?

Mr. DIERINGER. Yes, I understand that.

Senator ODDIE. Is it proper for a business to have an overhead expense which is liable to be increased a certain amount at any time so that the owner of that business can not tell what his costs will be in the future?

Mr. DIERINGER. No, I don't believe in that at all, I don't believe in that increase.

Senator ODDIE. Would that uncertainty have the effect of making the business less valuable and stable than it is to-day?

Mr. DIERINGER. Yes; of course.

Senator ODDIE. That is all. Now, Mr. Creel.

STATEMENT OF CECIL W. CREEL, DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO, NEV.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Creel, will you state your name and your position to the reporter?

Mr. CREEL. Cecil W. Creel, director of agricultural extension service, University of Nevada.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Creel, have you a statement to make?
Mr. CREEL. I have, Senator.

Senator ODDIE. Will you make it in your own way?

Mr. CREEL. I am appearing before the committee as a representa tive of the extension livestock committee representing the agrica tural extension service of 11 Western States. We had hoped t make a presentation at Salt Lake City, but due to the crowded program there we were unable to do so.

Before taking up the matter of our interest in this entire publ domain, the forest reserve problem, I would like by way of intr duction to give something of the historic background to the interest of the Federal and State Governments, as I see it, in agricultur

Agriculture is recognized as the backbone of any nation, I believe. It was particularly so recognized by the founders of this country, our forefathers, who realized that a nation which did not maintain a successful agriculture generally went into a decline and disappeared. In accordance with that general policy of encouraging and maintaining agriculture the Congress of the United States in 1862 passed a land grant known as the Morrill Act, which provided for the founding of agricultural colleges in all of the States.

A further act was passed at a later date providing for a Federal appropriation to maintain those colleges, or to assist in maintaining them. This was designed to enable the youth of our country to be educated along agricultural lines.

Following this the Congress of the United States passed the Hatch Act. which provided for the creation of agricultural experiment stations in all of our States, and provided a Federal appropriation to maintain the same.

Later the Adams Act was passed which made a similar appropriation for agricultural research.

The whole thought of this movement in agricultural education and agricultural experimentation and research was to provide a fund of information for the farmers of the country in order that their enterprises might be conducted successfully. It was found, however, that the movement was falling somewhat short of the mark, and in 1914 Congress passed what is known as the Smith-Lever Act, which provided an agricultural extension service, a joint Federal and State agricultural extension service, which would take out the accumulated information of the agricultural colleges of the States, the State experiment stations financed jointly by Federal and State funds, and the research information obtained by the United States Department of Agriculture, and make the same available to the farmers of our country. By farmers I mean not only the crop farmers, but the livestock producers of the country. In other words, the entire design of this movement and the whole thought in aiding agriculture from the outset of the foundation of our country, as I see it, was to enable the individual farmer or livestock producer to make a success of his enterprise. In other words we can not benefit agriculture in any general way by blanket legislation. Agriculture can not prosper unless the farmer or the stockman as an individual prospers. Now, I will use that in the way of an introduction and go ahead with our interest.

In accordance with the provisions of the Smith-Lever Act, as stated previously, extension services were set up in all of the States, in the Western States as well. County agents were placed out in the various counties, and the work inaugurated in 1914 and 1915.

We found this had happened, however, after the work had progressed over a period of six or seven years, that the crop farmers, or the small farmers of our country were getting the major portion of the benefit of the work. That the livestock producers, particularly in the Western States-and I might say that they are the largest taxpayers, particularly in the State of Nevada-were getting very small benefits from this work.

The question arose in our minds as to where the difficulty existed, why they were not getting their major share of the benefits through the county agent. The various western extension directors came to

the conclusion that they were not getting the benefits because the Department of Agriculture at Washington and the State agricultural colleges and experiment stations were not making information available for these extension services to carry out to the livestock producers of the West.

In the fall of 1922 a number of the western extension directors met in Washington, and through the good offices of Senator Oddie I was able to obtain a conference with the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Wallace, and that time I put up to him the question of what the Department of Agriculture was in a position to do to assist the range livevestock producers of the Western States. Mr. Wallace was not in a position to answer that question at once, but said that he would find out.

At that time he had created what was known as a cotton council to assist the cotton producers of the Southern States. He put the question up to myself and a number of the other western directors as to the advisability of forming within the Department of Agriculture a range livestock council composed of representatives of the different bureaus of the Department of Agriculture to find out just what the Department of Agriculture was in a position to do to assist the livestock producers, and what information they had available that we could use out here in the West through our county agents in bringing this matter to the attention of our livestock producers and helping them in their enterprises.

In 1923 Secretary Wallace called a number of the western directors to Washington, particularly those from the range livestock States or intermountain States, and had us meet with his newly formed range livestock council. At that time we found that they had accumulated a vast store of information; a very vast store of information we found existed in the United States Forest Service through the very splendid work that they had done in experimental work in the matter of rotation, grazing, and revegetation; the Bureau of Animal Industry had a splendid contribution; the Bureau of Plant Industry likewise; the Biological Survey and the other bureaus. They suggested, however, the advisability of this council or its representatives meeting with representatives of the land-grant colleges of the Western States and State agricultural extension services at some western point that fall. and there formulating an extension program in range management and livestock improvement for the West.

In accordance with that suggestion such a meeting was held at Fort Collins, Colo., in November of 1923. I was chairman of the joint committee of the State and Federal officials which drafted a seven-year program in range management and livestock improvement for the West. With the permission of the committee I would like to include that report in the record.

Senator ODDIE. That can be included in the record.

(The report presented by Mr. Creel for the record is here printed in full, as follows:)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RANGE MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK IMPROVE

MENT

The 12 Western States contain approximately 650,000,000 acres of land which can probably never be utilized except in ranging sheep and cattle and in the production of forests. This condition establishes the production of range livestock as one of the basic agricultural industries of this great western country.

Of this area 228,000,000 acres are in the public domain and not under adequate control. The remainder is included in the national forest or is owned privately. Range management will therefore always be one of the outstanding problems in an extension program.

The following outline gives briefly the principal items which should be included in an extension program for range management and livestock improvement: I. Range improvement.

A. Fencing.

(a) Selection of markets.

(b) Preparation and loading.

(c) Orderly movement.

(2) Market service.

(a) Market news.

(b) Standard classes and grades-cattle, sheep, wool. (3) Methods and practices. Cooperative organizations. (a) Shipping direct to feeders.

(b) Shipping direct to central market.

(c) Selling wool.

IV. Prevention of losses.

A. Disease control and eradication.

B. Predatory animals.

C. Poisonous plants.
D. Exposure.

E. Animal parasites.

V. Ranch management.

A. Cost-of-production studies.

B. Interrelation of irrigated ranch and range.

C. Interrelationship of cattle and sheep.

The chief means within the control of the rancher of increasing the profits and nsuring the permanency of the range industry are in the reduction of production costs. We believe that this can be most effectively accomplished by laying pecial emphasis on the following projects:

(1) Increasing the calf and lamb crops.

(2) Establishing better feeding and grazing practices.

(3) Instituting improved breeding methods.

(4) Saving young animals.

(5) Keeping records of the ranch business to determine operation costs. We recommend that the above program cover a period of seven years, and that each State establish definite goals. In this connection we urge that commencing with 1924 at least one range livestock project be conducted in every organized co unty producing range livestock.