It is reasonable to believe that the cooperative or self-help phase of this bill has exceptional merit by making it possible for range users to cooperate on a range-improvement program and be given consideration for his efforts.

Most of us have seen enough range-improvement projects, such as reseeding, water development, etc., that we are convinced that these programs intelligently carried out will mean more stabilized livestock economy as well as protection and expansion for any use that the public lands may be used for.

Am also in hope that the opportunities for range improvement offered by this bill can eventually be extended to the grazing lands of the lower elevations, now mostly under the control of the Bureau of Land Management thereby giving additional protection to forest-grazing lands of higher elevations.

Extensive reseeding and water-development projects in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada have been made and the benefits are tremendous by providing much more grass, consequently watershed protection assisting in flood control, help stabilize our livestock economy, and improve our recreation possibilities.

These conservation and improvement practices of our natural resources are vital owing to simple fact that we are faced with an expanding population which according to predictions will be double by 50 years or less.

Range improvements should not be discouraged by the Federal Government, in fact, be expanded either, by cooperation of both parties or by either party in order to improve and perpetuate the resources of the United States.

STATEMENT FILED BY CHANDLER B. CHURCH, PRESIDENT, Nevada WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION, ELKO, NEV.

By the means of this statement I would like to comment, for the consideration of the committee, upon some of the points raised by those appearing in opposition to S. 2548 at the above-mentioned hearing:

A minority group involved

One opposition witness (Mr. Martin of Idaho, I believe) seemed to stress the points that incident to grazing use of national-forest lands only a small number of individuals were directly concerned in relation, say, to the number of individuals making recreational use of those lands and that only a small percentage of all the cattle and sheep of our country was concerned.

It seemed to me that there were several things he did not mention which should be considered in this connection, as follows:

1. A great part of the cattle and sheep credited to the livestock populations of other States such as those in the Central United States originated from our country's great stretches of rangelands which are situated in the West either in national forest or Federal grazing districts. Without the annual supply of replacement and feeder cattle and sheep from the western range regions, the livestock population of many other regions of our country would be very much reduced, especially in those cycles when boom conditions are not present in the livestock industry and the livestock population as a whole declines.

2. Some of the opposition, in comparing the numbers of persons in the grazing and recreation groups, list in the former group only the number of permit holders, paying no attention to the number in each permittee family or the employees directly affected by the grazing use.

3. And, finally, is it the opposition's view that the proper interests of minority are to be set aside just because they are in the minority and are the interests of thousands of western communities which are either wholly or materially dependent for their social and economic welfare upon an efficient, orderly, and conservative grazing use of the Federal grazing lands to be disregarded just because of the fact that, taking our country as a whole, the population of these communities is small in relation to that of our entire country?

Multiple-use board

Regarding the criticism that S. 2548 would afford special treatment for the grazing-usage group above and beyond that afforded other forest-land-usage groups unless it provides for boards of advisers with a membership representing all the multiple-usage groups:

Why should representatives of other uses such as timber, recreation, mining, etc., want to participate on an equal basis with the representatives of the grazing users on grazing boards dealing only with and by existing law limited to dealing only with problems directly related to grazing any more than graziers would

want to so participate in the activities of similar boards dealing only with timber, or mining, or recreation, etc., problems? It may be all right, as is now the case, to provide for a representative of other uses, such as a big-game representative, to sit in at grazing board sessions as a sort of liaison agent, but not to enter into such purely grazing problems as grazing boards handle, vote for vote with the elected grazing representatives.

There is no intention to here say there isn't a place for multiple-use boards in the administration of national forest (and possibly also Federal grazing district) lands to handle problems strictly of a multiple-use nature but if provision for such need be made by statute rather than by regulation, as now, I see no more logic in injecting such legislation into a statute designed purely to deal with grazing problems than if, before the committee, was a proposed bill dealing only with timber, or recreation uses, and so on, problems.

Arbitration board or board of appeals (sec. 6, S. 2548): Regarding the suggestion that selection of the third member lie with the Secretary of Agriculture. This would give those in administration of forest grazing lands (in which category it looks like the Secretary should properly be placed) 2 selectees as against the appellant's 1 and, as viewed from the side of the appellant group, would completely undo the benefits underlying the idea of an impartial arbitration board. Actually, of course, the board would have no power except to recommend or advise a settlement to the Secretary so that final decision, in any event, by the Secretary upon the appeal remains in his hands just as now.

Regarding the other suggestion that the third man should be required by the bill to be qualified as one fitted to represent the public interests, in general:

In the first place, it looks to me like both the Secretary's appointee and the Secretary himself, as final arbiter, would provide ample protection for the public's interests, in general and, in the second place, it seems to me quite certain that the restrictions which the bill already applies to the third member, plus his having to be acceptable to the Secretary's appointee, would amply assure all concerned that only a person having the public interests in mind would have a chance to serve as third member. Offhand, it looks like it will be difficult enough, under the bill's present limitations, for the first two to agree upon the third without adding further difficulties.

That the problem can be handled under the present rule and regulation system without legislation: It seems to me quite clear, if we are to be realistic and logical in approaching and trying to solve the problem, that it must pretty well be viewed in the light of a problem involving a landlord-tenant relationship in the use of agricultural (in this case, pastoral) lands and also involving the fact that there long has been and still is lacking a proper incentive on the tenants' parts to adequately care for and upbuild their allotted Federal pastures (as demonstrated by the widespread and heavy reductions in the pasturage use which the landlord agents have felt it necessary to apply for range protection over the years).

The task of adequately caring for and upbuilding their allotted Federal pastures and thus helping toward a situation ending or at least minimizing any need for pasture-usage reductions is a complex, expensive, and long-term proposition in the rough, mountainous areas concerned. To anyone at all familiar with the problem it seems to me that it must be apparent, therefore, that there can be no practical chance for the tenants to undertake such a job unless given the incentive therefor by having some quite definite assurances that they reasonably will be protected in the reward of their labors and financial outlays at least for as long as the lands concerned are left available for grazing use by Uncle Sam or his authorized agents. And, to me, it seems equally apparent that no such assurances can be available to the tenants if they are to be based only upon rules and regulations laid down by Uncle Sam's agents and subject to change by them when and as they see fit.

The long history of agricultural landlord-tenant relationships seem to me to have convincingly demonstrated that unless the tenants can have at least some definite safeguards of a nature which, if necessary, can be defended in court against possible bad landlords or their agents, there can be no reasonable assurances for them in the benefits of their good tenancy and thus no chance for them to carry on the practices essential thereto.

Such safeguards could hardly be called reasonably definite, in my opinion, if they were based merely upon rules and regulations which the landlord agents could change at will regardless of their effect upon the tenants.

That the provisions for appeals, hearings, and court review would place serious new handicaps upon the landlord's agents in their efforts to protect the Federal

land resources from injury: There is nothing whatever in the provisions which could in any way be used by a tenant to "stay the hands" of the landlord agents in any step they deemed necessary to protect the Federal range from injury or to reverse an action taken by a landlord agent to prevent such range injury unless the court should determine that the agent's actions, instead of being necessary to prevent the injury, had been taken on the basis of malice, etc. Obviously there can be no reasonably definite safeguard for good tenancy if there can be no protection by our courts against the victimizing of even good tenants by occasional bad landlord agents.

The Department of Agriculture's favorable report upon the bill seems to make both these points quite clear in its explanations of the provisions of sections 7 through 10 and section 11.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank everybody today who has contributed to this hearing, and we will certainly take your suggestions into consideration. We may be wrong about our own interpretation of some of the aspects of the bill, and if so we want to determine what is right. I do not feel, however, that we are wrong about the objective of the bill. It is to protect, conserve, and increase the value of our public resources, and particularly our water resources and the use of our water resources in the United States.

This hearing is not a final hearing. The final hearing will be held in Washington, and we will be glad to have statements from any of you, or suggestions as to how the legislation can be improved, because when any legislation is reported by our committee we want it to be as fair and as sound as it can possibly be.

Thank you all.

(Whereupon, at 1: 10 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 9 a. m. Thursday, September 17, 1953, at Helena, Mont.)

(Additional statements filed with the committee are as follows:)

STATEMENT FILED BY KELSO MUSSER, CHAIRMAN, LIVESTOCK COMMITTEE," COLORADO FARM BUREAU, DELTA, COLO.

My name is Kelso Musser. I am chairman of the livestock committee of the Colorado Farm Bureau, the largest farm and ranch organization in Colorado consisting of 10,500 members. I am also a rancher, grazing cattle on my private lands as well as having a permit to graze on the forest lands on the Uncompahgre project in western Colorado. I am authorized to make this statement at this hearing for the Colorado Farm Bureau.

President Eisenhower stated the basic problem very well when he said: "We need to carry forward the tradition of conservation improvement and wise use in the development of our land and water resources." He further stated: "To do this within the framework of a sound fiscal policy and in the light of defense needs will require the maximum cooperation among the States and local communities, farmers, businessmen, and other private citizens and the Federal Government."

The President's statement ties in with the policy of the Colorado Farm Bureau and that policy can be stated as this: Federal legislation which will stabilize and clarify the rights of private users of public lands suitable for grazing is needed. The lease with the private user should encourage improvement of the land. Grazing users should be provided as much security of tenure as is compatible with the public interest in the management of the land. The legislation should establish more specific relationships between public agencies and grazing landowners of the same general character as the regulations now applicable under the Taylor Grazing Act. User advisory committees should be given legal status. In cases where overgrazing threatens the first effort should be to increase the carrying capacity of the land. Where reductions in grazing use are essential for the protection of the resource the users should have a sufficient period of time to adjust their operations."

We believe that this act which we are testifying on today will accomplish the objectives of the President's statement and also the resolutions which cover this subject and which have been adopted by our membership body. The bill provides

specifically that the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promote investment and improvements on Forest Service lands by private users of these lands.

1. The United States Department of Agriculture may enter into agreements with such users with respect to and continued use of the increased carrying capacity resulting from these improvements.

2. Users should be compensated for the improvements they make if the continued use of the grazingland is terminated for any reason other than their own unlawful acts.

3. Base properties should be required as a qualification for grazing privileges. 4. No reductions in the grazing capacity of any permittee shall be made solely because of a transfer of the privilege to another permittee.

5. A detailed appeal procedure, including access to the Federal courts, is provided.

We think all of these things are good. We think they will lead to establishing a free, cooperative relationship between those using and paying for the grazing rights on these lands and those responsible for the administration.

This is the first attempt that has been made to get uniform rules and regulations set down so that users of such lands may know where they stand. This is done without the slightest limitation or denial of the rights and priveleges of the general public to such lands. Since these lands concerned have multiple uses the bill protects the rights of other individuals. It guarantees them the right under proper Government authorization to fish, to hunt, and to cut the timber off of it and under proper authorization to operate sawmills.

Cooperation has been lacking in some areas. We would like in particular to see the relationship improved so that we can all go forward together in improving the resources which this great country has.

We believe that the principles proposed in this act are just and fair to all and urge your and your committee's support for immediate passage of the act as soon as possible after Congress reconvenes.

Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN,

MANTI, UTAH, September 12, 1953.

Chairman, Committee on Forest and Agriculture, United States Senate, Public Land Clinic, State Capitol Building, Salt Lake City, Utah. DEAR SIR: Unable to attend the hearing in person, I sincerely hope this letter will suffice.

Having failed in a more obvious effort to establish political, administrative, and judicial control of national-forest lands, the stockmen are now making a concerted effort to effect a more modest and more subtle approach in hopes of greater gains later. I wish to express my personal opinion on some recent remarks published in the Salt Lake Tribune by Mr. James A. Hooper of the Utah Wool Growers. I presume his remarks adequately represent the views of proponents of S. 2548.

I am enclosing Mr. Hooper's remarks in case you have not read them. His opening suspicions are themselves psychologically suspect. They remind me of the old political trick of casting the suspicion on the opposition of which one is himself suspect. Mr. Hooper has no moral ground to be suspicious of defenders of the status quo. On the contrary, it seems more legally exact for his opponents to be wary of those who desire to overturn it, especially in view of the fact that the desire for changes in forest-administration policies stems not from the people, nor even from all agricultural groups, but from only one segment of one segment of agriculture-the already well-privileged group within the stockmen group which is itself a special interest of agriculture. They do not have general support from the public at large, including most agriculturists, which is generally content with the policy, the attitude, and the ability of the United States Forest Service under the status quo.

It is precisely because we are concerned with not "cutting-up of the child," to use Mr. Hooper's picturesque language, that the general public, including State editorial opinion, is justly concerned about the political activity of the large stock interests in their own behalf. Mr. Hooper's constructiveness would be appreciated by more if he concerned himself with scientific criticism of the scientific methods employed objectively by the Forest Service personnel to determine land use and carrying capacity. He should avoid like the plague the political backdoor to the problem. If one must choose between science and

politics to solve the biological complexities of watershed conservation, only a fool or a special interest is going to choose politics.

There are probably several groups which would like to change things in their own behalf with regard to forest administration. An agency of Government like the Forest Service, dealing as it does with so many interlocking interests and problems must, if it is to operate efficiently, manage much of its affairs by rule and directive, or will find its operations hamstrung by legal redtape. A resort user may not always like the site chosen for him; some interests would prefer larger elk and deer herds and more intensive game management and game-law-enforcement practices; to others forest roads are in unreasonably bad state of repair; timbermen have issues of all kinds. And so it goes, on and on and on, far, far, into the night. If each had access to judicial review and a board of appeals, the Forest Service would soon be staffed with lawyers, not personnel trained in conservation practices. This would be a good way to absorb the lawyer surplus, but would be very bad for the administration of an agency charged by law with the scientific management of public lands. If you were to place the issue before us, the general public, to vote on directly, you would have your answer in short order.

Nobody but one seeking superfluous benefits can say the United States Forest Service does not already discuss such items as range improvements, transfer of grazing privileges, base property standards, and economic studies to develop means of determining grazing fees. But since judges and lawyers are not trained biologists, most of us cannot agree that judicial review can serve any purpose except that of the very special group which demands it.

Mr. Hooper's comments on the political facts of the past 20 years are irrelevant, but interesting insofar as it overlooks 2 facts of life: (1) Forest Service policies were not a factor in the recent elections-not even locally. (2) In his admiration for the political taste of the American electorate in 1952, he conveniently overlooks that for 20 years the American people chose the very political administration he personally abhors, and 26 million Americans voted for it again in 1952, despite the personal unpopularity of Mr. Truman and the opposite sentiment for the personality of President Eisenhower.

The arguments advanced by Mr. Hooper and his cohorts with respect to arbitrary directives and rules are easily disproved. First, the Forest Service is not staffed by clerks selected by political-spoils methods. Most of them are graduates of agricultural colleges, and hence, professional in type. They are trained according to the best in scientific forestry and range conservation principles today. Second, the Forest Service spend years in developing concepts of plant palatability, determination of scientific methods of calculating carrying capacity of soil and plant types, and in establishing workable means of managing the naturally complex relations of soil, plant, and animal. For your information, spring-fall ranges are intensively studied at the United States Sheep Station near Dubois, Idaho; summer ranges near Ephraim, Utah; and winter ranges have been under study near Milford, Utah. In some cases 20 years or more have been devoted to single problems. All I can say is, that if this represents arbitrariness, I should be most reluctant to await their deliberation.

That an administrative practice here and there may not be reasonable or efficient is difficult to deny. Whether such minor injustices as compensation to expermittees to new permittees for improvements financed by the expermittees in their own interests require any more than general clarification in commercial law is dubious. It certainly would not justify as complete a reshuffling of forest-administration policies as Mr. Hooper and other proponents of the bill seem to think.

The bill now being discussed, S. 2548, is distinctly a small group, largeprivilege bill which does not deserve public support. If Mr. Hooper really wants to be constructive, let him support his arguments, with scientific detachment, and not political attack. The stock interests are entitled only to the same treatment accorded others-no more. The status quo suits most of us in the main, and it is the general public which must first be convinced of the righteousness of their cause, and, with due respect to Mr. Benson, not the Secretary of Agriculture.

Yours truly,

ALBERT C. ANTREI.