Senator CAMERON. Have you any solution by which we could turn all of this land back to the federal government and take all of the fences down? Mr. PLATT. Oh, gosh, no. Senator CAMERON. Would you be willing to take the fences off of this land and leave it all, open? Mr. PLATT. Yes sir. Senator CAMERON. Provided everybody else did the same? Senator CAMERON. Would you still want to lease any land that you could not fence? Mr. PLATT. No, I have got more land leased now than I want. Senator CAMERON. As a matter of fact you didn't want to own or lease any land? Mr. PLATT. Well, I own quite a bit now that I would like to sell back to the railroad company for what I paid for it. Senator CAMERON. You say you want all the fences taken down? Mr. PLATT. I said I thought that was the only way you could run the cow business. Senator CAMERON. Gentlemen, it is now after 11 o'clock and I want to say to all of you that I hope you will come over to Springerville tomorrow and if you have anything you haven't thought of tonight we will be glad to hear you in the morning. Thank you. (The subcommittee adjourned at 11:30 p. m. to meet at Springerville July 20, 1925, at 9:30 a. m.) NATIONAL FORESTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN SATURDAY, JUNE 20, 1925 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND SURVEYS, The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment of Friday, June 19, 1925, at 9.30 a. m. at Springerville, Ariz., Senator Ralph H. Cameron presiding. Senator CAMERON. The committee will come to order. I am not going to try a speech, because it is not necessary. We don't want to lose that much time. The committee is out here to get evidence upon the public-land situation, and we want each one of you who will testify here to do it voluntarily and freely. Come up here and talk just like you were around a camp fire. We want to get the situation as you see it so that we can get evidence to take back to Washington. Mr. McKay, will you take the witness stand? STATEMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER J. MCKAY Senator CAMERON. You reside where? Mr. McKAY. I reside on a ranch about 12 miles southeast of here. Senator CAMERON. In Apache County? Mr. McKAY. Yes, sir. Senator CAMERON. Your post-office address is what? Mr. McKAY. Springerville. Senator CAMERON. Are you in the cattle business? Mr. McKAY. Yes, sir. Senator CAMERON. How long have you been in the cattle busi ness? Mr. McKAY. About 14 years at this place. Senator CAMERON. Are you on the forest reserve? Mr. McKAY. Yes, sir. Senator CAMERON. What forest reserve? Mr. McKAY. The Apache National Forest. Senator CAMERON. Mr. McKay, would you like to make a statement to the committee or had you rather have the committee ask the questions? Mr. MCKAY. Well, I would like to make a short statement. I have some opinion about the Forest Service's policies that in a general way do not coincide with my belief as to the best management of the range. I have no kick against our local administration. I believe our local officers are doing the best they can. I believe they are carrying out their instructions, and, of course, we know that is their duty. It is the policy of the Forest Service in a general way that I find objections to. I have jotted down some points here to call to memory. Now, in the beginning of the Forest Service-in its early years-all of the forest officials claimed, at least, that they were going to foster the livestock business; that they were interested in it and, from what I can see of the trend of things, it looks to me as though the Forest Service is antagonistic to stock raising, and, in fact, they do not hesitate to say that their business is raising trees, not stock, which, of course, shows where their interests lies, and I feel, at least, that their idea is that trees must be grown regardless of whether anything else is grown or not. For that reason, it seems to me that it has changed from an institution that fostered and encouraged the livestock business to an institution that is antago nistic to the livestock business, and the grazing fee had been entirely too high for what they gave. The Forest Service never has guaranteed anything but space on the forest, neither feed nor water or anything else, and I think the fees are too high for that. If we were buying space, I don't think it ought to cost us that much. As I say, there is no guaranty of anything else. I don't say that there could be, but then I do say that the fee could have been lower. During our calamitous position after the close of the war, when the price of stock dropped, they commenced to cut down in numbers insisted that we cut down at a time when we could not get anything for our stock. We could only reduce our assets, but that would not reduce our liabilities at all, and we could get rid of our stock by practically giving them away and pay nothing on our debts. Well, I think then was the time to have stood behind us and helped us to stay. I sold cattle in 1922-cows that netted me about $15 a head. To be sure, I had, after paying expenses, nothing to pay on debts. Everything tended to show, up until this year. that the constant study of the Forest Service was to raise the grazing fee. This year they are waived, and it is a godsend to us. It is to me, anyhow. In the issuance of permits I believe that a man's patented holdings within the forest should be considered. I believe, where a man has a heavy investment in ranch property that he is operating for the benefit of his stock, for the purpose of feeding his stock and taking care of them, that his permit should be-well, it should be large enough in numbers to be commensurate with his investment. because a ranch is worthless unless you can run stock in connection with it. If a man raised a great deal of grain in this country, or hay, why, he would not have a market. He would have to furnish his own market with stock, and the condition of a man who has such an investment should have more consideration in the matter of grazing rights than the man who has practically no investment on the forest outside of his stock. Now, our grass, it is true, has been depleted, but it has been depleted since the Forest Service took charge. In the early days of the Forest Service there were many places where you could get rich, and your feed would drag in the markets. To-day we haven't got that grass. We have lost it under the Forest Service management, and I believe we have lost it on account of fencing it. I don't believe that a fence is a good thing for this range. Cattle naturally want to drift, and when the summer rains come they want to drift back to the lower country. They drift up against that fence, and right there they stay until they kill the grass out. I don't know of any other cause. We have had dry years, and everything indicates that this country has had dry years since time immemorial, but we had grass until we lost it. I don't believe we lost it on account of drought. True enough, grass is not as luxuriant during dry times as in wet times. At the same time, we had many dry seasons in bygone days, and still we had grass. I have also thought about this amount of money that the Forest Service refunds for roads and schools. I believe it is unjust. I believe that the Forest Service should reduce the grazing fees instead of collecting grazing fees from us and then returning it to the State for roads and schools. I believe it should reduce the grazing fees and not make us pay it now. Senator ASHURST. Mr. McKay, please develop more in detail in what way it is unjust to the stockmen. Mr. MCKAY. Well, it is this way: The State is supposed to levy taxes for roads and schools. If levied by the State, those taxes will fall on everybody alike; that is, in proportion to their property— the value of their property-but when the Forest Service charges us a high grazing fee and then refunds a part of that money to the State, it is collecting that part only from the stockmen, and those who are not engaged in the stock business do not have to pay any part of that refund. Senator ASHURST. Your point is that the persons engaged in raising sheep and cattle pay more school and road taxes than the banker? Mr. MCKAY. Yes, sir. Senator ASHURST. A discrimination? Mr. MCKAY. Yes, sir. Senator ASHURST. And other classes of citizens? Mr. MCKAY. Exactly. Senator ASHURST. I think you are right about that. Mr. McKAY. I think it simply penalizes the livestock business. It is a penalty on the man who engages in the livestock business. He has got to pay that much more, and I don't think there is any necessity for it. I think that the Forest Service should reduce the fees so as not to collect that amount that they pay now to the State. I think, if the State will levy its taxes, we will pay our share. As it is, the stockman is paying more taxes in that way than any other class of people. Senator CAMERON. That is, he is paying more road and school taxes? Mr. MCKAY. Yes, sir; he is paying more road and school taxes. Now, in regard to what I think is antagonism of the Forest Service to the livestock industry. I think that grass is a charge on the forest. In other words, if it should not grow tall, there is less fire menace than when you have tall grass. Senator CAMERON. Just a moment. I would like to ask you a question here at this point. Mr. McKay, you were at one time a ranger on the forest reserve, were you not? |