task of making a careful survey or appraisal of national forest range. Both problems could have been solved by reverting to the competitive bid policy for which there is ample precedent in the policies of other governmental agents handling grazing lands, and in the Forest Service itself in the sale of timber. That it is not after revenue alone is shown by the fact that the Forest Service did not take advantage of the high markets and the high values of private land in 1919 in establishing the grazing fees. It is shown that it did not take advantage of the opportunity offered it by certain Members of Congress to arbitrarily increase the fees in 1920 by 300 per cent. Claim No. 12. It is said that the present method of range appraisal does not take into consideration the ability of the livestock industry to pay the price asked. Answer. A diligent search has been made for some indicator that would tell me what the stockmen could afford to pay or what the industry was able to pay. So far as we have been able to discover, the clearest indicator is the price actually paid by stockmen for similar private land under normal conditions, and in determining what normal conditions are it is necessary to go back over a period of years so that the high and lows in market values will be equalized, the average of which should represent a fair and reasonable figure to assume for normal conditions. Claim No. 13. It is said that what the service has determined is the market value of private land and not a reasonable commercial value. Answer. All that needs to be said is that the market value of private lands would be indicated by the price paid for 1922, 1923, or 1924. Had the figures for only one of these three years been taken this argument might have considerable weight. As a matter of fact, however, our tentative figures are based upon the price paid for private lands as indicated above over a period of years and represent a figure about 30 per cent below the price charged in 1922, 1923, and 1924. Claim No. 14. It is contended that if the Government increases its fees private landowners will immediately increase theirs, which will simply continue a vicious circle of increased burdens upon the stockmen. Answer. Analyzing the situation as far as possible, it seems that the stockmen themselves create the price for range lands. They are the ones who know the character, the amount of land, range conditions, shortage of feed, and the value of such land. They pay whatever these conditions justify, but oftentimes do not consider the real value of the tract as they should consider it. If the Government increases the rates and the stockmen permit and accept an increase on private lands, that is their own responsibility and not the Governments. They might as well do as the stockmen have done in other cases and organized in such a way as to permit the payment of a reasonable value but preclude the possibilities of extortion. Furthermore, it is doubted if an increased rate will have the effect expected. This is because there has never been up to this time a careful study of range values. There has never been an agency to which private landowners could go and ascertain what their grazing lands were really worth. The completion of the range appraisal now places at the disposal of private landowners an authoritative source from which the value of their lands can be ascertained, and unless I am greatly mistaken the gradual tendency of private landowners will be to accept this appraisal rather than to attempt to boost the prices above it. The range appraisal, therefore, to my mind represents an impartial and unprejudiced attempt of a governmental agency to determine actual range values. The results should be a criterion or guide that stockmen, county assessors, landowners, and others can use in determining what fair rental or assessment values are for grazing lands. Claim No. 15. It is contended that a precedent already exists for the establishment of grazing fees at the cost of administration in that timber is sold to settlers at cost. Answer. In using this argument it seems that the stockmen are forgetting that they are in this class of settlers, and that they are entitled to a consideration that is extended to all settlers and are directly benefited by this provision. They are forgetting also that as a particular class of settlers they are benefiting in addition to the sale of timber at cost by the utilization of another product of the forest to which the balance of the settlers, no matter how much they may desire the range, are excluded. It is well to point out further that timber at cost applies to material needed for farm improvement. 43213-25-PT 1—4 If the average settler desires to secure timber for sale he must pay the commercial value, but so long as he uses it in the development and improvement of his ranch property it is sold to him by the Government at cost. The same principle is recognized in the granting of free grazing of milk and work animals to settlers. These animals are used for the maintenance of the home and can not be said to enter into a commercial industry. In either case, that of timber or range, fair compensation should be required for Government property put to commercial use. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. A thorough study of the reports and conditions surrounding the use of national forest ranges show conclusively that the field officers have arrived at a fair and reasonable fee to be charged for national forest range. 2. Undoubtedly the fees established are below the current rates for private land comparable to national forest range, but the average rate over a period of years is more representative of normal and fairer values. 3. The Forest Service has given due consideration to the condition of the industry and developed a program of increasing the fees which will not be put into effect during a period of depression in the range livestock business. It must be recognized that during this period of depression forest permittees are in a specially favored class, since stockmen not privileged to use national forest range are already paying a higher rate than the fee which the service proposes to establish when normal conditions are restored. 4. A fair and reasonable rate for the use of national forest range appeals to me as a sound public policy. Its adoption will have far-reaching effects on greater stability in the business and better management of public property. 5. The spread between maximum and minimum fees is sufficient to enable local officers to make necessary adjustments between ranges and individuals. No minimum fee has, however, been set arbitrarily, except in certain instances in district 1, where the appraisal figures showed west side of ranges to have no value. In these cases it is believed the setting of a minimum fee to cover the cost of administration is desirable. 6. It is recommended that a copy of this report be transmitted to the American National Livestock Association and the National Wool Growers' Association, with a request for careful examination and the submission to the forester of their comments and recommendations. 7. It is recommended that after giving proper consideration to the comments and recommendations of the two national associations above mentioned the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture be secured for the establishment of maximum fees for each forest and, as contemplated by the Grazing Manual, district foresters be given appropriate instructions and authority to adjust fees below the maximum between ranges and individuals. C. E. RACHFORD, (Whereupon, at 11.35 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned to meet at 10.30 o'clock a. m. to-morrow, Saturday, April 18, 1925.) |