Upon what is known as the Paradise and Shoshone division of the Toyabe National Forest there is present considerable numbers of mustang horses. The topography on these divisions generally is such that it is almost impossible to successfully make a drive and round up this class of stock. These horses are valueless, and are present in such numbers that they do materially affect the grazing of domestic stock. The most effective method of ridding the range of this class of animals is to secure authority for their destruction. The State laws of Nevada provide for their destruction under certain restrictive measures. The stipulations, however, in the State law are to the effect that no wild unbranded horse, mule, or burro under the age of 1 year can be killed. It also provides that a bond in the sum of $2,000 must be given by each individual who desires to attempt control under this law. The requirements of this law entails an expense which is prohibitive and also places a jeopardy for legal entanglement upon the person desiring to take action to such an extent that makes compliance impracticable. Very truly yours, JAMES E. GURR, Hon. ROBERT N. STANFIELD, RENO, NEV., November 28, 1925. Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Washington, D. C. SIR: Having made application to our Senator, Tasker L. Oddie, at the time of the meeting of your committee at Reno, Nev., in September, 1925, with the members of the Nevada Livestock Association, regarding the regulation of grazing on the public lands within our State, for an opportunity to present the views of the George B. Williams Land & Livestock Co., Senator Oddie suggested that I write to you a brief letter embodying our ideas upon the subject. We believe that there should be no regulation of the winter-grazing lands by the Government in any event, as any system of regulation by Government permit or lease would work great hardship, injustice, and loss to the livestock interests of Nevada. We believe that it is impossible to adopt any system of regulation, by statute or otherwise, which would not greatly impede, injure, and endanger the livestock interests in Nevada during the winter season, as the livestock can not be kept on the same grazing areas from year to year owing to the radically varying climatic conditions of each particular range in our State. The sheep and cattle are greatly endangered during some winters by deep snow on the ranges, and then it would be very disastrous to have them confined to any particular areas, the sheep in particular. In certain winter seasons there is a great scarcity of snow on our ranges, which would make it impossible to confine either sheep or cattle to designated localities, as in order to live they must be allowed to follow the snow under the will of the owner without hindrance by law or Government official. Either a leasing or Government system would necessarily confine the sheep to its own allotted areas, which every livestock man should know can not be done safely in any winter season in Nevada, as no one can ascertain beforehand what climatic conditions will prevail in any season. A great many people in our own State do not even know that sheep in winter eat snow instead of having to find water to drink, upon the ranges of the desert, and I presume that no one east of the Mississippi River ever had this information or gave the subject any consideration or thought. Our position was fully demonstrated as to the truth of our statements in the winter of 1916, when owing to an unusual depth of snow on our winter range, had we been under regulation by statute, or of the Department of the Interior, confining our sheep to a particular range area, they would have nearly all perished; and again in the winter of 1917, the same result would likely have occurred by reason of lack of snow on our winter range. This was our actual experience. There is no good reason why any national forestry system should have been inaugurated in Nevada, as there is not a single forest needing any kind of protection by the Government in cur State. In fact there are no lands, which can properly be denominated forest lands within our boundaries, except in very small areas in the western portion thereof. At the meeting of your committee hereinbefore referred to, we were given to understand that in the event that a leasing system should be provided for, only a nominal rent would likely be charged, but let us reflect that when the Humboldt National Forest was established the sum charged per head for the grazing of sheep was less than one-half of the sum charged to-day. What assurance have we that a rental of Government lands for winter grazing purposes would not amount to quite an exorbitant sum to many who are engaged in the livestock industry, and taking this into consideration, with the fact that the livestock industry is already much overburdened by State and Federal taxation, so to speak, we see no good reason or good judgment for placing any of the public domain outside of our national forests already established, under any further regulation or expense to the livestock owner. We feel that owing to the fact that the aggregate number of sheep in the United States is now less than one-half of that of a few years ago, the sheep industry of the far west needs fostering instead of discouraging regulation and taxation. It seems to us that the only reason that can be given for leasing or placing the remainder of the public domain under Federal regulation is for purposes of revenue only, and there is no greater reason for that now, all things considered, than there has been up to this time, from the beginning of the sheep industry of Nevada. Owing to the fact that the number of sheep in the ewe bands on the summer ranges in the national forests have been cut down to about two-thirds of the former number before the national forests were established and the passage of the 640-acre homestead law, whereunder the citizen livestock owner in order to protect his business in many instances is placed in a position to be compelled to either purchase or lease land, which would not otherwise be necessary in the operation of his business, all of which adds greatly to his present-day expenses of operating. Under existing regulation and conditions there is little hope for any livestock man or company that is largely in debt, and many of them are, and this in the face of the fact that all of those who are operating to any great extent stand in fear of being eventually cut down considerably in the number of head of livestock to be allowed them in the forest reserves. Under the old system when all of the public domain was open and before any 640-acre homestead act was passed, the livestock man who employed reasonable business judgment and industry need not fear, though he be in debt. We think that any law passed by Congress or any State legislature would signally fail in making any attempt to control or regulate the grazing of livestock on the public lands of either, and that it should be left as it is now, as far as the rest of the public lands are concerned. The Government is not trying to commercialize the mineral lands, then why try to commercialize the grazing lands of the desert regions? We do not feel that it is in the interest of the Federal Government or of the people of this Nation to place any further burdens upon the meat producer of the far western States, considering the decreasing facilities of the producer and the increasing ratio of the population of our country. We do not think that there is any considerable number of people residing west of the Mississippi who are clamorously inclined to effect any further change by Government regulation or law in respect to the public lands of the arid West E. L. WILLIAMS, Vice President George B. Williams Land & Livestock Co. (Whereupon, at 6.45 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet at San Francisco, Calif., to-morrow, Tuesday, September 22. 1925, at 10 o'clock a. m.) NATIONAL FORESTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1925 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE Las Vegas, Nev. The subcommittee met Friday, the 16th day of October, 1925, in the county courthouse at Las Vegas, Nev., at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Tasker L. Oddie (acting chairman) presiding. The ACTING CHAIRMAN. I will ask Hon. Samuel Arentz, Member of the House of Representatives, to sit with the committee and participate in the hearing. This meeting of the subcommittee of the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys of the United States Senate is held pursuant to Senate Resolution 347, adopted by Congress at the last session. which follows to wit: [S. Res. 347] Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to investigate all matters relating to national forests and to the public domain and their administration. including grazing lands, forest reserves, and other reservations and lands withdrawn from entry. For the purpose of this resolution such committee or subcommittee is authorized to hold hearings and to sit and act at such places and times, etc. I am also in receipt of a telegram from Hon. Robert N. Stanfield, chairman of the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys of the United States Senate, which with your permission I will read to you. Hon. TASKER L. ODDIE, United States Senator, Las Vegas, Nev. PORTLAND, OREG., October 14, 1925. You are hereby authorized to hold hearings as a subcommittee of the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys of the United States Senate, acting under Senate Resolution 347. ROBERT N. STANFIELD, Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, United States Senate. Gentlemen, we have been holding meetings in this State and 10 others in investigating matters relating to public lands. We have been requested to hold this meeting here so that the citizens of Lincoln and Clark Counties may have an opportunity to make statements before this committee regarding conditions in their own particular section of the State. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES G. SCRUGHAM, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, CARSON CITY, NEV. Governor SCRUGHAM. At this time I am glad to present to the record a statement regarding public lands situations as apply particularly to southern and eastern Nevada. First, I want to make a statement to the record that more adequate fire protection be provided for the public domain in the Charleston Range. Second, I want to ask that your committee take under consideration the practicability of devising a plan whereby vested rights to the public range will be acquired based on previous use and priority. This appears to be essential for the protection and even the existence of the stock industry, particularly along the eastern border of the State. I ask that this plan be worked out with due consideration and with rights of the parties involved bearing particularly in mind. the fact that the stock industry has been built up on the free full use of the public range and from protection thereon. Other speakers who represent their specified interests which I have in mind will give the details of their difficulties which they have undergone and will continue to undergo and suffer from if some relief is not given. Later on I will add an additional statement to the record. The third matter upon which I desire to present a statement to the record is the matter of the exchange of lands now held by the State of Nevada under the old land grants, and, which through poor selection, lie in areas of very little value to the State. For this Ĩand I desire to exchange certain areas which would be of more definite value to the State. This exchange is planned to protect certain lands within the State, and, frankly, it is a step toward State control. The water laws, we believe to be exactly what the State needs, and I believe that if the water laws as used for State control can be worked out so could State control of the lands. I desire to exchange these lands that we may secure certain areas of land in this State which will be of value chiefly for recreational purposes. I refer, in particular, to the so-called Cathedral Gulch, near Panaka and between Pioche and Caliente. The same area is of no value to the stockmen for grazing and would be of great value as a recreational playground and as an attraction to tourists from other States who might become permanent residents. Another place is the so-called Lost City in the vicinity of St. Thomas, another area which should be under the protection and control of the State and which would prove a great thing for the State. Another area to be included in this exchange is the so-called Valley of Fire and the districts to the east. These areas have no value to the forest reservations or for grazing purposes and yet would be of great help to the State if properly taken care of and used as a recreational center. We wish that you and the committee will help us on this exchange. Of course, it will take an act of Congress to duly au thorize such an exchange. The point I wish to bring is this: The stock industry on the eastern border of the State is not in a prosperous condition, and some immediate relief must be devised whereby they can be given a definite right to the range which they have been using for these many years and upon which land values have been built up and I tell you that they must have some kind of relief which will recognize the right of the individual to usage of the forest reservation range. The ACTING CHAIRMAN. I thank you, Governor. If you have any further statement we will be glad to insert it in the record. Representative ARENTZ. We should be glad to hear any further statement from you, Governor Scrugham. The ACTING CHAIRMAN. The next speaker is J. M. Hollinger. Will you kindly give your name, address, and occupation to the reporter! STATEMENT OF J. M. HOLLINGER, COUNTY COMMISSIONER. PIOCHE, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEV. The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hollinger, are you engaged in the livestock industry? Mr. HOLLINGER. Not on the open range, but I am somewhat familiar with the situation. The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the conditions that exist in Lincoln and Clark Counties? Mr. HOLLINGER. Not so much in Clark County, but I believe the same conditions might exist. The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hollinger, will you kindly give your statement in your own way? Mr. HOLLINGER. There is no use going over what I said in Reno. As county commissioner, year after year, I have found out much regarding the stock industry. Of course, I have been away from it for several years, but my observation has been that the type of cattle has dropped off from one-half to two-thirds. I made that statement in Reno. In the next place I feel that we are being burdened by transient sheep. Our tax rolls for the years 1923, 1924, and 1925 showed that we have about 118,000 sheep in Lincoln County in the winter which do not belong in our State. In addition, we have something like 30,000 sheep which are owned by Adams & McGill, which cover the entire country four months in the year. Then from Ormsby County we have a herd of about 10,000 four or five months out of the year, and many other herds which are in existence but of whose owners I know nothing definite. In addition, we have herds coming from Utah who pay no tax if they can help it, and with the little tax they do pay Lincoln County is the loser. We have to pay our assessor mileage to go after them and get the taxes. We have to hire for him an assistant and pay the sheriff mileage, too. In the long run Lincoln County is the loser, and we county commissioners of this county feel that they should have to pay a tax and help support the county. There are a good many cattlemen in Lincoln County who are unable to pay their taxes in the fall and who have to go out and get a road job for a few days to raise some ready cash. We are trying to build up an agricultural district in Lincoln County, and to do that we must have people. These people must |