the sense of charging all that the traffic would bear. We certainly don't want to squeeze the last nickle out of the range users. Had that been the purpose of the Government, the way would have been extremely easy by offering the ranges for competitive bids and let the stockmen themselves determine what they wish to pay for them. We don't believe in that. We do believe, however, that in disposing of a commercial commodity, a recognized commercial commodity of the West, which is range, that the public should obtain fair compensation based upon its reasonable value to the user of that commodity. I would not carry that to any extreme; I would give the stockmen the benefit of the doubt. I have some question in my own mind as to whether or not in these range appraisals in certain cases where I have checked them up, I may not have gone too far in applying the valuations I did. We are not after the full commercial values, but I want something that does represent-at least this is my viewpoint-that the Government should charge what represents a fair compensation for a commodity that is commercial in character and that is utilized for commercial purposes. We should bear in mind the fact-and I believe it to be a fact-that the national forest ranges are the cheapest feed available in Arizona of comparable quality. That is understood, and I checked it by asking the question of a number of individual stockmen, "Is it true that the national forest ranges are the cheapest feed in this State, considering their quality?" They have told me it is the cheapest feed, or is as cheap. These national forest ranges are utilized by about one-third of the livestock in the State; the other two-thirds don't have an opportunity to utilize them. We have to reject every year many applications from people who would like to get national forest permits, but we can not accommodate them. We have built up a system of preferences, with which you are familiar, under which the homesteaders and ranchers within the national forests in their vicinity, or the prior users of the forest, have preferred rights. They are protected from the competition of the other two-thirds of the livestock that would in some cases like to get on the national forests. Now, whether it is fair, under those conditions, to award the use of this commercial commodity, because you can not call it anything else than a commercial commodity, at something less than fair compensation, is a question that has been hard for me to answer. It is a matter of general policy that Congress should settle. As Senator Ashurst has said, Congress has never taken any action on grazing fees other than the insistance that the fees be put upon a commercial basis.

I would also like to bring out this point: We have the taxation problem in the national-forest counties. The national-forest lands are withdrawn from taxation, and an appropriation of 25 per cent of the grazing receipts has been made by Congress in recognition of that fact. Whether it is equitable to award the use of a commercial commodity for a nominal consideration, or at the cost of adminis tration, and to that extent reduce the revenue that the counties would otherwise obtain from the national forests, that is another question of general policy that Congress should consider and determine. It does not seem to me that it was fair in many of these counties, where large portions of their area have been placed within national forests. We recognize that. We know there are a good many situations where the effect of that upon the county revenue

43213-25-PT 4—56

has been serious. It does not seem to me to be a fair proposition to turn over a portion of the resources on those lands for commercial use at less than fair compensation for it and thereby deprive the county of the revenue they would otherwise obtain. I am just offering these points, not that I wish to argue them, but I would like to have the committee consider that they are points of general policy that Congress ought to determine.

There is this other question: Whatever the grazing fees may be, they should be fair to the individual permittee; they should take into account the very wide differences in the value of the different allotments. Now, we have some grazing allotments that are not worth the cost of administration. I know of some grazing allotments in Utah that, because of their inaccessibility and the very poor quality of their forage, and other factors, would not justify an appraisal of more than 1 cent per month for sheep. Now, on the other hand, right in that same State we have very choice grazing allotments, accessible, with fine forage and fine water, allotments that produce fat lambs that can be shipped direct to the packing house. Now, are you going to charge the same fee for those two allotments at those two ends of the extremity? That doesn't seem to me to be equitable. I think that whatever the method of fixing the fees should be, it should take into account the difference between the quality and value of the individual allotments. If it does not appear the desire to charge fair compensation on a basis of actual value, let us charge one-half of the fair compensation on a basis of actual value, or one-third, and at any rate equalize the charge in accordance with the quality of the individual grazing allotments.

That is all that I have on that question, unless the committee wished to interrogate me on it. I would like to say, just before leaving that, that there is no question in my mind, or, I think, in the mind of any forest officer, but that the presence of livestock in proper numbers on the national forests is a benefit. We have recognized that, and we have stated that time and again.

Senator ASHURST. It reduces the fire hazard?

Colonel GREELEY. It reduces the fire hazard. There are a good many areas where the annual crop of forage if it were not grazed would add very appreciably to the fire hazard. Here in northern Arizona we have the only critical situation that has occurred in the national forests on account of the injury to young timber growth by grazing. It has required an adjustment of grazing on the areas where that injury occurs, but by a proper use grazing can continue on the national forests to the benefit of the timber growth, and not to its detriment. I want to make my position absolutely clear. We always recognize the advantage to the protection of the national forests of having stockmen on them, having them available for assistance in putting out fires. The stockmen assist us every year in putting out hundreds of small forest fires, and I want to make it perfectly clear that the Forest Service recognizes and appreciates the value of that cooperation.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you ascertained the cause of the damage to timber growth in these forests?

Colonel GREELEY. As far as my personal observation and judg ment go it is very difficult to apportion the damage as between sheep and cattle. I think it is due primarily to overgrazing by either

sheep or cattle and particularly by both classes of stock on the dually used areas. I think it is more a question of overgrazing, excessive stocking.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are there other causes that have impeded timber growth, other than climatic?

Colonel GREELEY. Yes; the tip moth has been referred to. There are certain sections here where the tip moth has done material damage through cutting off the leaders of young pines; also more or less damage from porcupines and other rodents. All of those sorts of damage have occurred. Just what proportions the various sources have contributed you can not tell. The tip moth damage, however, has been restricted to a few localities very largely, and it is usually not difficult to distinguish that damage from the grazing damage. The rodent damage is directly ascertainable from the examination of the individual trees. The grazing damage has been made the subject of a good deal of study by some of the forest officers, and there can be no question but that on a great many of these areas where the young timber growth has been stopped that grazing is the primary reason for it; no question at all in my judgment. I don't think many of the stockmen will question it on those particular areas.

On the questions of appeals I would just like to say another word. I can not let pass unchallenged the statements that have been made to the effect that the present system of appeals simply results in sustaining the decisions of the local forest officers, or that it results in a Forest Service steam roller that works effectively from the top to the bottom with the appellant the man beneath the roller. I have had a good deal of experience with the system of appeals, both from the bottom and near the top, and I know that that is not true. In my capacity as Forester I have reversed the decisions of the district foresters I think as many times as I have sustained them. In the appeals which have gone to the Secretary of Agriculture since I have been at the head of the Forest Service-well, I would not attempt any percentage statement, but I know that in a good many cases that the Forest Service has been reversed. Those appeals receive very serious consideration. They are always reviewed by officers in the Department of Agriculture outside of the Forest Service, particularly by the solicitor. The decision may be prepared by the Forest Service, or may be prepared by the solicitor after the Secretary has indicated what his decision may be. I do not wish to be in the position of justifying our present system of appeals as perfect, it is not perfect, but I do want to say that to the extent that that system has been employed, in my judgment, the appellants have secured equitable treatment.

The present difficulty with the system is that it is not ample enough. I think through the matter of distance to Washington; and the feeling perhaps on the part of the forest user that there is no use in making an appeal, or the fact that many of our forest users are not men of the type who are accustomed to proceedings of that character, they take it up with the man with whom they have direct contact and if they can not secure a favorable decision from him they let it go. I think the appeals procedure, while it has worked fairly in my judgment, is too distant to meet the conditions in the administration of the national forests.

There are two general classes of cases which ought to be considered in this connection. The first are the cases of a judicial character, cases which involve the authority of the forest officer in enforcing the law, whether he has exceeded his authority, whether he has demanded something that was illegal; also there are cases which involve the relations of the Government and a citizen as parties to a contract.

I think that in all cases of that nature, I call them just judicial cases, or cases involving legal matters, in all cases of that nature there ought to be a ready means of securing judicial review. I would favor any form of legislation that would enable a user of the national forest and a citizen to take immediately into the Federal court any question involving his contractual relations with the Government, or any question involving the propriety of the acts of a forest officer as to the enforcement of the law.

In that connection a good many references have ben made in these hearings to fines exacted by the Forest Service for trespass. I want to make it clear that what has been termed fines are tr.spass settlements voluntarily accepted by the trespasser. We can not impose any fine on a trespasser as a fine, and he always has th opportunity to refer the matter to the court if he desires. A considerable number of our trespass cases go to the Federal courts. Where the trespasser, or alleged trespasser, pays what he calls a fine he is making a voluntary settlement and waving his right to refer to the courts. We can not impose any trespass settlement arbitrarily if the trespasser desires to make it a matter of court action.

Mr. BOWDEN. Pardon me, perhaps you can not do it directly. I don't suppose you could collect a trespass fee except through a court. You would have to bring suit. But indirectly you could do that by cancellation of the permit for nonpayment?

Colonel GREELEY. Yes; I suppose we could.

Mr. BOWDEN. And that perhaps is as effective as though you could determine the trespass?

Colonel GREELEY. It might be, where the trespasser is a permittee.

Mr. BOWDEN. Yes; where the trespasser is a permittee.

Colonel GREELEY. However, I just want to make it clear that I would favor any system that would enable an aggrieved person to secure prompt judicial action on any case involving his contractual relations with the Government, or the enforcement of the law by forest officers.

As to the other cases, there are a number of decisions made every year by our forest officers that involve wholly administrative questions, involve no question of contractual relations or of the enforce ment of the law. The decision as to whether Mr. A or Mr. B should have a certain range. The decision as to whether a driveway should be located at this point or that point. We have 36,000 grazing permits; we have 27,000 permits for uses of land; we have 13,000 timber sale contracts, and the number and variety of administrative decisions that are necessary in the conduct of these contracts represent an enormous volume. In many cases these decisions necessarily involve other forest resources than grazing, or involve two or more different forest resources. They may involve the adjustment of graz

ing to the growing of timber; they may involve the adjustment of grazing for the protection of watersheds; they may involve the adjustment of grazing to some recreational use of the national forests. On the Kaibab plateau we have the very important problem of adjusting grazing to the welfare of the Kaibab deer herd, the problem as to which is to have priority. In other words, these decisions, by and large, deal with a rather complex form of land management in which many different considerations apply.

I beli ve in a local system of dealing with appeals. In a good many instances we have secured effective local action on appeals through the instrumentality of the advisory board of the livestock association, through the State association, or a county or forest association.

A great many of these questions have been referred to the advisory boards of the associations and have been settled by them in consultation with the forest officers. It seems to me that that gives us the cue to consider this whole question of appeals. I don't think that an appeal should go to Washington, at least in the first instance. I would favor a local plan; let us say, with a board of appeals dealing with grazing questions in each State, or in each national forest district. A board that would consist, let us say, of two men selected by the sheep association, two men by the cattle association, and a forest officer selected by the district forester. Let any appeal from the action of a forest supervisor go to that board. If it is a sheep case exclusively, the board might act with the two sheep representatives and the forest officer, similarly if it is a cattle case. If it is a case involving both classes of stock, the representatives of the sheep and cattlemen should both function in the action on that case. Now, I believe that a local board of appeals of that nature, which would put into more effective form the somewhat informal method we now have of the advisory board of the livestock association, would meet the situation very much better than the distant board of appeals. In my viewpoint, however, it would not enable any board of appeals to exercise authority superior to that of the Secretary of Agriculture, because when you do that you are dividing the responsibility.

Mr. BOWDEN. May I interrupt?

Colonel GREELEY. Certainly.

Mr. BOWDEN. What would you think of this kind of arrangement: That the burden of the appeal from the decision of a local forest officer would be on the permittee; that is, he would have to take the laboring oar to go to this board of appeals? The decision of the board of appeals would be binding on the Secretary of Agriculture unless the Secretary of Agriculture took the case to the court. That is really what you have done in the Treasury Department. The commissioner must either accept the decision of the board of appeals or else prosecute the case in court. That condition has prevailed in numerous instances where boards have been selected.

Colonel GREELEY. Well, Mr. Bowden, I would not go quite that far, because in dealing with our many interrelated questions of land management where administrative questions are involved and not questions of law or contractural relations, it seems to me that the responsibility should be clearly vested in the head of that depart