were going to do with those areas, and until we could hear from some one who has studied the situation and could enlighten us on that matter, I, for one, would be up in the air; I would not know what to do regarding it.

Mr. CREEL. That opens up a large field, but I think the community lease suggestion would apply. I think it could be worked out on a community basis protecting present users on the range.

Representative ARENTZ. Well then, what would be done, for instance, with the vast desert areas that are only grazed when there is snow on the ground?

Mr. CREEL. Well, I am referring to that. I think that could be worked out on a community basis with the large or small outfits that use it.

Representative ARENTZ. Or by priority rights.

Mr. CREEL. It might have to be worked out on a permit system. Representative ARENTZ. That is one of the most serious phases, it seems to me, of this entire idea of Federal supervision of the open and free domain, the Federal domain.

Mr. CREEL. I favor the area basis wherever it can be put into successful operations, but I recognize there are many instances when the community lease basis or possibly even the permit system will still have to apply. I think any legislation would have to be fairly flexible.

Representative ARENTZ. Well, the thing that I am getting at is this, that I hope that no association or group of individuals will press for the quick passage of this legislation until all these things are ironed

out.

Mr. CREEL. Exactly so. That is exactly what we want. We want the very sort of work that this committee is doing; a thorough careful investigation.

Representative ARENTZ. You know the tendency of this age is propaganda, without giving you some definite, tangible idea of how to do things; simply pass the bill, and it is generally a case of passing the buck.

Mr. CREEL. Exactly so, exactly so. I realize, however, and I guess you do, Congressman ARentz, that there is a great deal of pressure in certain states for public domain control, like the State of New Mexico. In taking this whole thing up in a broad way we have to consider the interests of the other states as well as ours. For that reason if a leasing bill is passed I personally hope that the local option provision will be included.

Mr. BOWDEN. In the event the area system was installed on the forest, is it your opinion that the operator or lessee should be given the control of the area?

Mr. CREEL. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you recommend the repeal of the 640-acre homestead act?

Mr. CREEL. Yes; as far as that is concerned. I would not care to speak for the other States here; I am speaking for myself and my knowledge of conditions in Nevada.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you know of any large bodies of agricultural land still remaining in the public domain?

Mr. CREEL. I do not; not in this State.

Senator ODDIE. Have you anything further, Mr. Creel?

Mr. CREEL. Nothing else.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Creel, are you familiar with the Rachford report?

Mr. CREEL. I am, in a general way.

Senator ODDIE. Have you read in the Rachford Report the comparison of operating costs on the forest reserve and on privately owned lands?

Mr. CREEL. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. Do you think the conclusions arrived at are correct?

Mr. CREEL. I think the fact is overlooked, possibly, that privately owned land contributes to the tax moneys for the support of the State and local governments.

Senator ODDIE. Do you think the privately owned land is handled in a more intelligent manner than the forest reserve areas are handled now under the present conditions?

Nr. CREEL. You mean in respect to forage?

Senator ODDIE. Yes.

Mr. CREEL. I do not know that I could say they are handled any more intelligently. I have a high respect for the work of the Forest Service in conserving the forage resources on our ranges. I think there has been some splendid work done. They had to start in with no foundation, you might say, 20 years ago, and, through experimentation, to work this up. For that reason I am not inclined to criticise the policy under which they have developed. They probably did the best they could under the circumstances, but the principle stands right out now that that has got to be directed, I think, by

statute.

Let me say this, Senator, that I think the Secretary of Agriculture himself is still entirely open-minded on the Rachford report; I know he is, from correspondence.

Senator ODDIE. Do you think the forest reserve officials on the ground are handicapped by instructions that come to them from headquarters, regarding the opening date, for instance?

Mr. CREEL. I can readily understand how blanket instructions, if such instructions are given, would not be applicable to a great many areas.

Senator ODDIE. Do you believe that conditions with respect to the range in the early spring may change very quickly, say from day to day?

Mr. CREEL. Surely.

Senator ODDIE. And do you believe it would be difficult to determine what the condition of that range is from a distance?

Mr. CREEL. That is very true; I know that. I think we have not given climate sufficient attention.

Senator ODDIE. Do you believe that the rules and regulations should be so amended that the local men could consult more with the forest officials on the ground?

Mr. CREEL. I do. That is our policy in extension work. We are organized on a community basis, and consult with the community itself and jointly decide on policies.

Senator ODDIE. Do you feel that with such changes benefits would

accrue?

Mr. CREEL. I do.

Senator ODDIE. Do you believe it would prevent losses that exist to-day?

Mr. CREEL. I do.

Senator ODDIE. What is your idea as to the comparison drawn in the Rachford report between grazing fees on the forest reserve and on privately owned land? Have you given that any study?

Mr. CREEL. I would not want to go into the details of that, Senator. Secretary Jardine on the 30th of April requested me to act as his special representative, not only to review the Rachford report but to act as his adviser as to the principles contained in that report. Due to the obligations of my present position I was not able to take over that assignment and was obliged to decline. At a further conference in June, in Los Angeles, he discussed the matter, and said he was still open-minded on the subject, and felt the necessity of having a disinterested man to act as his adviser. At that time he indicated that he would, and he has since invited Mr. Dan B. Casement, of Manhattan, Kans., to make a very complete study of that situation, including the fundamental principles involved.

Senator ODDIE. Do you believe that study should be made by a man familiar with our far western country rather than by a man from the Middle West?

Mr. CREEL. In choosing Mr. Casement Secretary Jardine had in mind he was familiar not only with the middle western viewpoint, but with the far western viewpoint. He is a permittee, I believe, on the Uncumpahgre National Forest in Colorado, and he is recognized, I believe, by the stockmen of the country generally as being very competent to handle that work. I was delighted to see him appointed.

Senator ODDIE. From your conversations with Secretary Jardine do you believe he is satisfied with the conclusions of the Rachford report?

Mr. CREEL. In his correspondence with me he indicated the other Secretaries had been, but the very fact that he is going to have this inquiry made indicates that he is open minded on the fundamental principles-not only the Rachford report, but the fundamental principles involved in this entire subject of fees.

Senator ODDIE. Thank you, Mr. Creel.

(Certain additional matter subsequently submitted by Mr. Creel is here printed in full, as follows:)

Memorandum presented to the President by a committee representing the agricultural extension services of the land-grant colleges of the 11 Western States, suggesting the appointment of a fact-finding committee to determine a national public land policy

In formulating a program to improve the agriculture of the West, the range cattle and sheep industry presents itself as a major problem to the agricultural extension forces of the 11 Western States. A definite program as regards the industry can not be formulated without a consideration of the public range.

One hundred seventy-five million acres of uncontrolled range or public domain is used in carrying on the range livestock industry of the West. This range was occupied approximately to its full livestock-carrying capacity as early as 1890. This great area is unsuited to farming and can be put to beneficial use only in the producing of cattle and sheep. This land has been and must continue to be the foundation of the livestock industry of the Western States. Since the rainfall on the unappropriated public domain varies from 4 to 10 inches, much of which comes as torrential rains in the summer months, the area of land in the

11 Western States susceptible of intensive farming is relatively small. It varies from 2 per cent in an arid State such as Nevada to approximately 10 per cent in more intensively farmed States, such as California, Oregon, and Washington.

Permanent settlement of the Western States began only because the range was used as a natural resource. Through overgrazing and unregulated grazing this natural resource, uncontrolled, is being rapidly depleted. The livestock-carrying capacity of the unappropriated public domain has been reduced approximately 50 per cent in the past 15 years. This reduction is due largely to unseasonal use, which is stimulated by desire on the part of the individual stockman to secure preferential rights by early occupancy.

Overgrazing has stimulated intensive erosion, accompanied by floods which carry quantities of silt into irrigation storage reservoirs and build up the river beds, causing a lessening of storage capacity of such reservoirs and seepage of cultivated lands adjacent to the rivers. Such erosion also destroys many of the plants valuable for grazing and has reduced the water-storage capacity of the soils to such an extent as to endanger the summer water supply.

The agricultural extension services of the Western States find themselves handicapped in formulating a program in range livestock management on the western ranges due to the lack of control of grazing on the public domain. After much thought regarding a solution of this phase of the problem, the Western Agricultural Extension Conference, representing the 11 Western States, suggests that a fact-finding committee be appointed by the President of the United States to investigate the whole subject of the most desirable policy to be pursued in regard to the remaining public lands.

WASHINGTON, D. C., November 13, 1924.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. KING, CIVIL ENGINEER, RENO, NEV.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. King, what is your business or profession? Mr. KING. Civil engineer.

Senator ODDIE. With what firm are you connected?

Mr. KING. King & Malone.

Senator ODDIE. Have you been connected with the agricultural extension work in this State?

Mr. KING. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. What has been your experience, briefly, with agricultural extension work, as to length of time?

Mr. KING. Four years.

Senator ODDIE. In what section of the State have you been interested?

Mr. KING. The entire State. I started working in the eastern end of the State and later was engineering specialist in livestock work covering the entire State.

Senator ODDIE. Have you made any study of the Rachford report! Mr. KING. I have read it.

Senator ODDIE. Have you made any study of the relative cost of grazing in the national forest and on the public domain and on privately owned land in any portions of the State?

Mr. KING. Yes; I have.

Senator ODDIE. Would you be willing to make a statement to the committee as to the result of your study and experience?

Mr. KING. My report is rather lengthy; I will just brief it, if I may. Senator ODDIE. Very well.

Mr. KING. I will read just the introductory paragraphs of this report. This report was the result of the forest supervisor's notic to the permittees on the Nevada National Forest that a range appraisal was in effect and in progress, and that if they had any data

protests, or information which might affect this appraisal in any way they should submit the same prior to the hearing in 1923. The Eastern Nevada Livestock Association requested Royal Mathias, former supervisor of the Nevada National Forest, and myself to act as compilers of such a report. This we did, calling in practically all of the livestock owners in White Pine County, or those functioning or ranging there under the Eastern Nevada Livestock Association. The introductory statement in this report is as follows:

The Eastern Nevada Livestock Association has been advised of the range appraisal of the grazing lands of the national forests and has surmised that said appraisal may in some manner affect the grazing fees thereon.

In view of the fact that the livestock industry of this locality, like that of all the western States, is in a precarious financial condition, it is deemed advisable to present beforehand to the proper authorities a few reasons showing why, in our opinion, range fees should be lowered as a result of the aforementioned appraisal of the national forest grazing lands.

I will not attempt to go through this report in detail, but I will go to the blackboard giving you a few figures indicating the results of our studies over a period of several months.

There are 81,000 sheep owned in the territory by permittees, of which number 432 per cent are considered in these figures. That is over all of the forest reserve and the public domain other than the forest reserve.

There are 51,000 sheep on the forest reserve, in the summer, under permit. Of these 20,200, or 392 per cent, have been considered in this report. In other words, we have not taken an isolated case, an isolated permittee with a small percentage of the livestock in the area, but a very appreciable percentage, for consideration.

What do our figures show?

For instance, we take the White Pine division of the national forest and a comparable area of public domain range, by permittees and nonpermittees, with practically equal numbers of sheep, and we determine the grazing costs per sheep day, one against the other, on the basis of interest on investment, fencing and improvements. The other factors, such as herding, taxes, etc., are practically the same on both units, consequently there is no influence one way or the other. Taking the White Pine division and this comparable area, which is shown in this report by a map, we have this for comparison: The per sheep day cost of grazing on the White Pine division of the Nevada National Forest is $0.004067, or a trifle over 4 mills. On the public domain it is $0.00154, or 12 mills, a difference of $0.00252, or 21⁄2 mills, in favor of the public domain; in other words, on the area where the best man wins, the man with the most grit and sand in his make-up. So much for the White Pine.

On the Schell Creek and Ward Mountain divisions of the same national forest, the comparison is: On the forest, $0.002017; on the public domain, $0.00066, a difference of 1% mills per day for sheep grazing.

We had very carefully kept records of the grazing days on these forests. Permits were paid for on a basis of 17,220 head, and under free use permit G-7 3,000 head, a total of 20,020, entitling the permittees to 2,426,400 sheep grazing days.

But what happened? What happens on every national forest, within Nevada, at least, is that your period of entry onto the forest

43213-25-PT 15- -20