Mr. KELLY. No, I guess not.

(Supplementary statement filed by Tom Kelly, Magdalena, N. Mex. :)

What I mean here is-I own cows, but legally I can't put any in on my father's permit or we would suffer the cut. We tried it once and that's what we were told.

Mr. LINDH. This is after the inspection September 10, the first one. We do not feel that the inspection of September 10 indicated the range conditions exist that would alter the previous decisions to close Baldy allotment on. The vegetation had improved in some areas but the erosion was more pronounced over a large area.

Mr. KELLY. Well, when they did that, when they sent us this first letter, they mentioned that they wouldn't recognize any sale to anybody or any transfer on the permit. So, that left us sitting. We are still sitting.

Senator ANDERSON. Let's pray that the advisory board with Dub Evans as chairman says the range is good.

Mr. KELLY. They tell them every year. What good does it do to tell them?

Mr. SETH. I would like to ask Mr. Lindh if he would take the recommendation of the advisory board?

Mr. LINDH. We would not take the recommendation of the advisory board as final. We would certainly consider it.

Mr. KELLY. We think we have just as much right there as anybody, I know.

Senator ANDERSON. If there is going to be a grazing lease on it, you have more right than anybody else. If it is closed to all grazing, Mr. Lindh has said there will not be a new grazing lease issued to anybody on there. You have as much right and more than anybody else. If they close it entirely to grazing, no one will have any right there. Let's pray they don't close it to grazing. I certainly hope they won't.

Mr. KELLY. They had a forest ranger there in that area, I guess since about 1935. He has retired now. We invited him along on the ride just to, you know, wanted to try and get his opinion what he thought of it. He said in his report-he wrote a report, to-he said that the range had improved 35 percent since he came there. It has been improving every year. There are some bad spots on it, of course. Senator SCHOEPPEL. What is this man's name?

Mr. KELLY. Gibson.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Mr. Gibson?

Mr. KELLY. Yes, his report is with the advisory board. The Forest Service has all the reports on it.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to hear your story, Mr. Kelly.
Mr. KELLY. Thank you a lot.

Mr. FRANK KELLY. That ranch today is in better shape than it has been in 40 years.

The CHAIRMAN. We hope you work out of your trouble all right. However, it does seem to be an administrative situation.

Mr. TOM KELLY. If they do take this away from us, our 200 acres won't amount to much when we lose the 40 sections.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand that. We hope for the best.

STATEMENT FILED BY THE FOREST SERVICE RELATIVE TO THE GRAZING PERMITS OF FRANK AND TOM KELLY, MAGDALENA, N. MEX.

Mr. Frank Kelly has had a grazing permit on the Cibola National Forest since its creation. He has had a permit for as few as 25 head in 1910 to as many as 284 in the early 1940's.

In 1946, due to lack of forage on the Baldy allotment, Mr. Kelly voluntarily reduced his preference from 245 to 150 head of cattle yearlong. In 1948 Mr. Kelly's preference was reduced 18 head for trespass.

The topography of the Baldy allotment is extremely rough and steep and the soil is loose. Areas on which it is practical to graze domestic livestock are limited. These areas are mostly confined to steep, narrow canyon bottoms and adjacent open, steep south exposure hillsides. It is practically impossible to graze domestic livestock in such country without overgrazing the canyon bottoms and other areas close to water. Inspection reports since 1922 consistently show that these areas, grazed by domestic livestock, were overgrazed and that the heavy use was resulting in severe erosion damage.

During the middle 1940's, stocking by deer contributed to the range depletion. The Forest Service, however, did take action to reduce the game population and in cooperation with the State game departments special hunts were scheduled. A joint examination made by the State game department and the Forest Service in 1950 indicated deer numbers were not excessive. A close check is being maintained in cooperation with the State game department to avoid excessive numbers of deer in the future.

During the period 1945 to 1950, a thorough study was made of the Baldy allotment situation as it pertained to the grazing of domestic livestock. The study indicated that some drastic action had to be taken to halt the severe erosion damage taking place. Because of the rough type of country, the limited areas domestic livestock could use, and the seeming impracticability of obtaining good grazing management on the allotment, it was felt that it would be necessary eventually to stop grazing domestic livestock on the area.

On July 21, 1950, the forest supervisor told the Cibola National Forest Advisory Board that he had notified Mr. Kelly that because of very bad erosion conditions on the Baldy allotment it would be necessary to cancel his grazing permit December 31, 1955. The advisory board suggested, and the forest supervisor agreed, that in cooperation with the Cibola National Forest Advisory Board and the Kellys, each year during August all parties would ride the Baldy allotment during 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, and twice in 1955-once in the spring and again in the fall. This procedure is being followed. At the end of 1955 the findings will be analyzed and the situation reconsidered with the advisory board and the Kellys in the light of conditions at that time.

Since 1950, the Kellys have constructed several short drift fences, have done some reseeding, are salting away from water, and in general, are getting much better distribution of livestock use. They are attempting to improve management on the range, apparently with favorable results.

If the final analysis of the findings of the examinations mentioned above results in a decision that an adjustment is needed in livestock use, Mr. Kelly will be given sufficient time after 1955 to adjust his operation in accordance with the program then worked out.

The CHAIRMAN. This completes the witnesses for today and completes them on schedule. The clerk advises me that we have heard 18 different people this morning, and I am sure that the committee has profited from the statements which have been made to us. It has been very helpful, and we thank everybody that has taken part in this hearing.

(Whereupon, at 1:30 p. m., the committee adjourned.) (Additional statements filed with the committee are as follows:)

Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN,

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Santa Fe, September 11, 1953.

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: We of New Mexico are greatly interested in Senate bill 2548 and in its aims and purposes. This State is one in which the adminis

tration of forest lands is of the utmost importance in our economy and to the welfare and recreation of our citizens. As the committee knows, nearly half of the land in New Mexico is owned by the Federal Government.

The national forests comprise the greater part of our State, which is valuable for summer grazing, attractive for recreation, and of importance for watershed protection.

We in New Mexico are very happy with the message of the President concerning these matters which was delivered on July 31, 1953. In the message the President calls attention very clearly to the duty of the Federal Government to manage wisely its lands and forests.

I would particularly like to call attention to the statement of the President in this message where he said "In the utilization of these lands, the people are entitled to expect that their timber, minerals, streams and water supply, wildlife and recreational values should be safeguarded, improved, and made available not only for this but for future generations.

"At the same time, public lands should be made available for their best use under conditions that promote stability for communities and individuals and encourage full development of the resources involved."

I believe that Senate bill 2548 is an important step in the fulfillment of the aims outlined by the President. I think that it is fundamental to good land administration that there be cooperaion between the administering agency and the land users.

This bill opens the way for such cooperation in stating a definite policy in regard to the handling of improvements placed upon forest lands by the grazing users, and recognizes that the person who spends his money for such improvements is entitled to participate in the benefits which result from such improvements and be compensated if the Government terminates his use or gives it to another.

The bill is also significant in that it creates a definite procedure for appeal from decisions of those administering grazing policies in the forest and upon lands administered under the Bankhead-Jones Act. We all appreciate the fact that local administrators have wide discretion and powers at the present time. It is important therefor that those whose livelihood depends upon the decisions made by these individuals may have some right to appeal to a high authority or the courts. The bill provides that the hearings are to be held in the State where the lands are located. We all know that when hearings and procedures upon matters of this character are held in Washington, that in itself is a barrier to the use of such right.

These forest users are practical business people but are not used to elaborate procedures on hearings in Washington, consequently this bill gives a right which is more than a paper right.

There are other important matters contained in the bill relating to the maintenance of standards and rules for base properties, for rules in connection with the terms and conditions under which transfers of grazing privileges may be made, and providing for an economic study to obtain information necessary to determine the method in which fees are to be determined.

In this time of emphasis upon international affairs and world problems we must not lose sight of these fundamental matters which affect the citizens of New Mexico in their day-to-day lives.

With kindest regards, I am

Sincerely,

E. L. MECHEM.

PHOENIX, ARIZ., September 14, 1953.

Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN,

Chairman, Senate Agriculture and Forest Committee,
Governor's Conference Room, State Capital Building,

Salt Lake City, Utah:

Arizona Farm Bureau Federation endorses statement made at Albuquerque by Reuben V. Anderson, chairman, Western State Farm Bureaus. We recommend S. 2548 be favorably considered by your committee.

WILLIAM C. DAVIS,

Executive Secretary, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation.

LAS CRUCES, N. MEX., VIA HELENA, MONT., September 15, 1953.

Senator GEORGE AIKEN,

Senate Agriculture Committee, Baxter Hotel, Bozeman, Mont.: Board directors New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, in session today, issued statement of Reuben Anderson, president, Wyoming Farm Bureau, and representing Eastern State Farm Bureaus, made in Albuquerque, September 11, endorsement this statement in addition to statement jointly issued by the New Mexico Cattle Growers, New Mexico Wool Growers, and New Mexico Farm Bureau.

DELMAR ROBERTS,

President, New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau.

CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,

Berkeley, Calif., September 24, 1953.

Hon. GEORGE AIKEN,

United States Senate,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: For a number of years the California Farm Bureau' Federation has worked with the American Farm Bureau Federation and other livestock associations in planning for a grazing bill beneficial to the users of the grazing lands, as well as all others interested in those lands.

It has been a very difficult problem to solve. However, we feel that Senate bill S. 2548, known as the compromise grazing bill, which is sponsored by the American Farm Bureau Federation, comes nearer to meeting all things desirous by those who are sincerely interested in the protection and development of these lands. We are very happy to lend our support to this bill, and also the fine statement of Mr. Reuben Anderson, of Pine Bluff, Wyo., which was made in our behalf. We sincerely hope that you will lend your full support to this bill. Sincerely yours,

CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
LOUIS A. RozZZONI, Vice President.

STATEMENT FILED BY ALVA A. SIMPSON, ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX.

I desire to protest the passage of S. 2548 with reference to so-called stabilization of administration on national forests. My father was an 1859 pioneer in Colorado. I was born in that State. We experienced all of the pioneering of the West, and participated as livestock producers. We were guilty of considering the public domain as our own, as have the present livestock producers due to their heritage of free use until the national forests were created.

Ever since the establishment of the old Yellowstone Forest Reserve in Wyoming by President Harrison, the livestock industry has attempted to establish rights to the lands withdrawn for national-forest purposes.

This bill, while in effect, merely confirms present practices of the Forest Service, gives legal recognition to one group of users, and opens the door to future moves to finally establish private rights on public lands. The livestock industry has no more right to ask for such legislation than has the timber industry, the thousands of recreationists, or any other of the multiple users of nationalforest land. Presently the livestock industry has stabilization on the national forests, and has had since their creation. Why should this Government, by legislative act, enter a wedge that can be expanded in the future and which will eventually create the same situations as are existent in England where separate interests have separate rights on the same land? I would refer you to the statement of Secretary of Agriculture Wilson who, in 1906, said to Gifford Pinchot:

"You will administer the national forests for the greatest good to the greatest number."

Are the livestock interests the greatest numbers and is grazing the greatest good when we consider the value of water from these great watersheds as well as timber and outdoor recreation?

The legislation is not in the public interest; it should not be made into law.

STATEMENT FILED BY EDGAR PERRY, ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX.

My name is Edgar Perry, and I reside at Albuquerque, N. Mex. I am a forester, formerly with the United States Forest Service, and at one time was State game and fish warden of New Mexico. I have lived in the West for more than 40 years, and my work has kept me in close contact with the range livestock industry most of that time. I have had much opportunity to study the stockmen's relationships with the national forests and the adequacy of existing administrative processes in connection with national forest grazing use. This statement is directed toward Senate bill 2548 of the 83d Congress, which is designed to modify such processes.

This bill is the outgrowth of several years of controversy between the western livestock industry and the United States Forest Service regarding grazing privileges on the national forests. Apparently it is a compromise in respect to legislation introduced earlier in the session which failed of committee approval.

While the earlier bill did contain proposals foreign to existing practices and philosophies regarding administration of the national forests, S. 2548 proposes very little not already provided for by existing administrative practices, or by existing law. At best it could have little effect on the controversy over grazing use since it does not touch the matter at issue. There have never been any serious differences, so far as I know, in respect to range improvements, base property requirements, grazing fees, or for provisions for appeal from administrative decisions, except where such decisions have dealt with reductions in grazing privileges. That is the only real issue between the stockmen and the Forest Service, and that subject is excluded, very wisely, from the scope of this bill.

While section 3 of the bill does deal with one phase of grazing privilege adjustment, it merely prohibits something which does not actually exist, i. e., the reduction of such privilege when the permit is transferred from one party to another "solely on the basis that the permit is being transferred." The so-called "transfer reduction policy" has been only a device to avoid disturbing the permittee's operation by deferring needed reductions, when possible, until such time as a transfer occurs. While the permittee is a beneficiary of this practice so long as he retains his permit, if he wishes to sell out, the pending reduction affects the price which he can command for his ranching operation.

The only practical effect which this section could have would be to impel the Forest Service to make needed reductions currently in order to avoid the appearance of violating its provisions. The Forest Service could have no possible motive for penalizing the exchange of ranch ownerships.

The guiding principle in the administration of any public property is that the public shall be preeminent in its enjoyment. True, this bill specifically reserves to the administrators power to restrict or deny grazing privileges for stated reasons, but by that very fact it casts a shadow on the public's proprietorship. The administrators already have that power, in connection with any use, under the broad enabling legislation creating the national forest system.

In my opinion the public interest would best be served by leaving resource management on the Nation's public lands in the hands of the administrative agencies responsible for such management, with as little hampering legislation as possible. It goes without saying that such management will irk this group or that from time to time, but to attempt to settle all such differences by piecemeal legislation, whether in behalf of stockmen, lumbermen, water users, or any other group, can only result in building up a system of quasi-rights in the use of such lands inimical to the best interests of the public as a whole.

At the very least, any legislation affecting the authority of the administrators should take into account the interests of all the parties concerned. The present legal provision for national forest grazing advisory boards is a case in point. Surely any body legally constituted to advise the Forest Service on nationalforest administration should not be limited to one class of users, whose use is competitive with that of various other classes. If advisory boards are to be prescribed by law, then the law should recognize the right of all legitimate interests to be represented in their membership.