permit for the 10-year period, with one exception, assuming that the grazing fees are paid and that the regulations of the department are complied with. That exception is the clause which states that "necessary reductions for protection may be made in term permits at the end of any grazing year during the term-permit period. At the end of the first five years of the term permit, a reduction may be made for distribution which, taken together with all reductions made for protection during the 5-year period, does not exceed 10 per cent." Reductions for range distribution are limited to 10 per cent. They can only be made at the end of the first five years. The permittee is again secured from that standpoint. He is not, however, given complete security. You might, indeed, say he is given no security at all from reductions that appear necessary for the protection of either the range or the young timber, or possibly all other factors that might enter into the situation, such as the protection of watersheds. The terms of this instrument were very fully discussed with the stockmen, with whom the regulations were reviewed in detail, and the term permit in this matter was acceptable to the committee of stockmen. I do not recall that any objection was made to the stipulation that reductions for protection might be made as they appeared to be unavoidable, and the term permit has been provided for in this matter. I do not contemplate any further reductions unless some unforeseen emergency should compel them. I have not yet seen my way clear, from the standpoint of protecting the public interests involved, to tie the hands of the Government entirely as to possible reductions for range protection during the course of the 10 years. We can not foresee just what conditions might arise or just what emergencies may come during the period. Our good faith is pledged to the stockmen to make no reductions during the period unless they are absolutely unavoidable, and I think that that good faith is reasonably justified by the record of the grazing use of the national forests. You have had witness after witness appear before you who has testified to the fact that he has grazed a substantial number of sheep or cattle on a particular national forest ever since it was created. I think you will find that in comparison with any other ranges in this State the use of the national-forest ranges during the past 20 years. has been as stable as any and much more stable than the great majority. While certain reductions have been made when they appeared to be inevitable, or where they appear desirable to provide for the homesteaders and newcomers-while certain reductions have been made, nevertheless, you will find on these national forests, as you will find on any national forest, that the great majority of the present permittees have been on the national forest for a long period of years and have had a suitable range. However, I don't know that there would be any objection to put-ting a limit upon the reductions that might be made for protection. I haven't considered that matter before, because it has never been raised before, but I think it might be practicable to put some limit on the reductions that might be made for protection so as to block up that one hole that remains in the stability of the 10-year permits. We designed the 10-year permit system in consultation with the stockmen or their representatives as a means of stability, including the stability of their credit. We wanted to make it a matter of range tenure under which they could secure better banking facilities and under which they would be encouraged to go ahead with any methods of improving their business, either the construction of range improvements or increasing the quality of their herds, or anything that might appeal to them as business men, with certainty of having a 10-year use of the national-forest range. I will be willing to make a concession, if you want to term it that, in this matter in order to add to the stability of the 10-year system. I see no objection to making the 10-year permit a contract. Our timber operations are under formal contracts executed by both the contractor and the representatives of the Government. I see no objection to making the 10-year permit a contract if that is going to add to its stability or give the permittee a more complete right. Senator ASHURST. Would you pardon an interruption? Colonel GREELEY. Certainly. Senator ASHURST. I think you have made a very clear statement up to date, but I can not concieve how a 10-year permit can be a 10-year contract if it is revokable, or if the amount of stock may be diminished upon the happening of some unforeseen event. Now, I will say that we haven't got along the best, but I would rather trust your good faith than any Forester we have ever had. But business is not built on promises. Why is it that you can not make a 10-year permit or a 5-year permit absolutely revokable? Colonel GREELEY. It is nonrevokable except to the right to make reductions. Senator ASHURST. Yes; that is true it can not be revoked except for violation of its terms, but why is it that you reserve the right to make reductions? Colonel GREELEY. Well, as I explained, that matter was pretty well thrashed out with the stockmen when our present grazing regulations were drafted and they offered no objection to that clause. Their general viewpoint, as I recall it, was that the carrying capacity must be kept on a safe basis, and the responsibility must rest with the Forest Service, after due study and consideration, to determine what that safe carrying capacity is. It is to the interest of the stockmen to keep the number of the livestock on a safe carrying capacity, and they didn't regard that as a disadvantageous feature of the permit. But I want to make this permit a means of stabilizing the use of the national-forest range. I think the time has come definitely to take the step and I am willing to put a limit on this reduction for range protection. As a matter of fact in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred there would be no reduction for range protection during the 10 years, because we are working out our carrying capacities now: and I may say that outside of Arizona I don't know of any situation in the national forests where there has been serious difficulty in reaching an entirely and amicable agreement with the stockmen on what the carrying capacity should be for the ensuing 10 years. In the other national forests we have had better range conditions, better economic conditions, and the adjustments necessary very largely have long ago been made so that in entering this 10-year period the cut necessarily has been very small. Senator ASHURST. Now, Colonel, I want to follow your wishes in the matter, but I have two or three questions. I will not propound them now if it interferes with you. Colonel GREELEY. Any time, Senator. Senator ASHURST. But I notice in red print the fees for 1925 and 1926-the third line from the bottom in the red print-the fees for 1925 and 1926 will be at the rate of 75 cents per head per year. Colonel GREELEY. That was probably before the waver of fees went into effect. Senator ASHURST. And then the next printed line is: "The fees for 1927 and thereafter will be determined by the Secretary of Agriculture." Is that the way the permits are to read? Colonel GREELEY. Yes, sir. Senator ASHURST. Well, then it leaves it open to you to charge $1.25 per head for 1927 ? Colonel GREELEY. I would like to check that up, Senator, in connection with the range appraisals. Senator ASHURST. All right. Colonel GREELEY. I would like to say just a word or two to cover some of these points that have been raised regarding the distribution of livestock and the 10 per cent cut on transfers. The position taken by the Secretary of Agriculture in 1905, and it became a fundamental feature in the grazing regulations from the outset, was that the new settler, or homesteader, should be given the preference in securing national forest ranges. That was at a time when settlement in the Western States was still going on to a large degree in connection with the classification of lands suitable to agriculture in the national forests. We opened to settlement approximately 25,000 additional homestead units. Other settlements were taking place on land outside of the national forests, but so near them that the new settler was necessarily a factor in the use of the range. Th principle was laid down that these new settlers, or small ranchers I should say, the ranchers with small livestock outfits should be given the preference. That involved a process where the ranges were fully stocked of reducing the herds of the people already in the business. That process has been carried on more or less steadily on most of the national forests, so that the number of our permittees have steadily increased and the number of permits for small herds have steadily increased. How we were to find the range to take care of these newcomers where the national forests were fully stocked was a knotty problem. We worked out a set of regulations covering a general plan of reducing the old users of the forest where necessary to make room for the newcomer, or the ranchers who were entitled to increase their herd. Many of these homesteads, as you gentlemen will appreciate, depended upon the national forest range to be successful. The stockmen themselves 10 or 12 years ago made this proposition that on fully stocked ranges where it is necessary to provide range for the class A applicant it would be fairer to provide the range by making a cut on the man who is selling his business or transferring it to someone else than to make it on the man who was staying in the business. That proposal was viewed with a great deal of reluctance by the Forest Service, because it has always been our viewpoint that the transfer of the grazing privilege on the national forests along with 43213-25 PT 4-55 the range, where the herds are maintained, should be permissible. The proposal to make cuts on those transfers was made by the stockmen themselves. At a number of conferences they insisted that that was a fairer way of providing range than to make cuts upon the people who were staying right on in the business with their old ranges and outfits. So finally that feature was drafted in the grazing regulations. That was the origin of the 10 per cent cut on transfers. It is simply an expedient to provide slack range on fully-stocked areas to take care of class A permittees. We have gone pretty far in admitting the class A permittees. There are certain sections in the West where I think that policy is entirely justified, because it means setting up more men in the livestock business, the cultivation of more land, the creating of more homes, more taxable wealth, and the advancement that comes with increased population. There are other sections of the West where the opportunity for new settlers are so limited, the possibility of establishing new homes are so few, that in my judgment it would be a wiser policy for the Government to tighten up on the admission of additional class A grazing permits. I think that that situation is true in much of Arizona, and one of the features of the program of the forest service in this State in connection with this 10-year period is to so provide on these fully stocked ranges, after all of the adjustments have been made for the beginning of the 10-year period. As we go forward with these individual allotments, which are necessary in our judgment to get the best management of the range, we will not disturb the arrangement during the ensuing 10 years by admitting more class A applicants. We feel that it is right, under these conditions, to say to the newcomer, "These ranges are fully stocked. To get the stocking on a proper basis we have had to cut the men who have been in the business. We are sorry we can not provide you with range during the remainder of this 10-year period. I believe it is for the best interests of the State to stabilize the use of the ranges in the hands of the present permittees so that they can go ahead with their individual allotments, and be secure in obtaining the benefits of any better forage that may come about on these individual allotments. That is a part of the general program which I have approved with special reference to northern Arizona, under which we are going to segregate the sheep and cattle business, on ranges exclusive for each, giving the individual permittees their own individual allotments just as soon as possible. Part of the program is that to the extent that the forage conditions improve on these individual allotments during the ensuing 10 years, the present permittees, are going to get the entire benefit of the increased carrying capacity. That means that later on during the period, if they can increase their herds, they will have the opportunity to do so. The general rule will be that where we have class A permittees already on the forest, with less than a reasonable number, less than the limit, they will be given the first opportunity to increase up to the permitted limit. Now so much for the general program Senator CAMERON. It is now 11 o'clock, and I think we had better adjourn until to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock. (The subcommitte accordingly adjourned.) NATIONAL FORESTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1925 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, PUBLIC LANDS AND SURVEYS, Flagstaff, Ariz. The subcommittee met at 9 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment at 11 o'clock p. m., June 16, 1925, at the courthouse, Senator Ralph H. Cameron, presiding. Senator CAMERON. The committee will come to order. Will you come forward, Colonel Greeley? STATEMENT OF COL. W. B. GREELEY, CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.—Continued Colonel GREELEY. I would like to say a word, Mr. Chairman, about the question of sheep driveways. That has been one of the most difficult situations to deal with fairly that we have had on our hands in Arizona. If we had only the sheepmen to deal with, the question would be simple enough. The sheep driveway is a necessary feature of that industry, under Arizona conditions, and in the administration of the grazing on a national forest, we have recognized it. In fact, on the national forests in this State, there are about 600 miles of stock driveways, used primarily by sheep, embracing a total of around 50,000 acres of national forest land, or approximately 6 per cent of the total acreage of the national forests in this State. The driveways, we recognize are necessary to the handling of the sheep business, and it has been our policy from the outset, and is still our policy to provide them, and to maintain them at an adequate width for the handling of the sheep, not particularly for sheep. That involves a conflict of interest between the sheepmen who use the driveways and the cattle permittees whose permits are crossed by the driveways. There has been a great deal of trouble over that situation, the sheepmen feeling, and I have no doubt with some reason, that in places the driveways are made too narrow. On the other hand, the cattlemen whose ranges are crossed by these driveways have constantly protested against the continuance of the driveways. We have had to make the fairest adjustments that we could between those conflicting interests. While I was in the State during the past month I went into the situation on the Heber-Reno driveway in considerable detail. I went over parts of it in person and laid down a definite program for correcting that driveway, where it should be |