their cattle on the Wasatch Range, where we spent such an informative day yesterday, some other interest might desire to appeal from that decision, or the Secretary in some cases might want to appeal, so we intend to have that straightened out.

As to the provisions of the bill relating to appeals, we are open to suggestions. If the provisions of the bill do not offer the best way to do it we want suggestions from people who have other ideas.

Mr. FJELDSTED. Mr. Chairman, I didn't get that understanding from reading the bill, with regard to appeals being taken by anyone. If that is the purpose of the bill of course that clears up many of these things.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the purpose. If the wording is not correct we want to know it.

Mr. FJELDSTED. If the Secretary has the right to make an appeal, did I understand you to say that?

The CHAIRMAN. He has the same right to appeal as anyone else, and an individual may appeal also, as I understand it. If the terminology does not show that, we intend to see that it is so written.

Mr. FJELDSTED. I didn't read it that way, so there must be a chance for a misinterpretation. I was wondering why it would go to the appellate court, but that has been explained. I thought maybe those cases should begin in the district court.

The CHAIRMAN. It might be interesting to you to know that over a period of years, and I can't remember the exact number of years, there have been some 84,000 decisions made by local grazing committees, of which about 1,200 have been appealed, and 300 of them have been reversed, so the dissatisfaction with Forest Service management has not been as widespread as some might infer, with only 300 decisions being revsersed out of 84,000.

Mr. FJELDSTED. We think we are particularly fortunate in the State of Utah because we haven't had many decisions reversed, but we are greatly concerned about our watersheds, they are so vitally important to us because of our arid situation. We must have these watersheds protected.

The CHAIRMAN. As I say, we have already introduced another bill which deals specifically with upstream conservation of water resources, and we also believe that the grazing lands can be improved so that you can carry more cattle on fewer acres. In fact I believe we must find a way to do that in the future, as our population increases.

Senator YOUNG. I think, Mr. Fjeldsted, you have made a good point in that all these cases should be settled by the local board if possible. If a rancher has to appeal to someone in Washington, he might not appeal very often since oftentimes he is low in finances.

Mr. FJELDSTED. We feel that way. A number of our users are very small operators.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Fjeldsted.

Our next witness will be Don Clyde, president of the Utah State Wool Growers Association, Heber City, Utah.

STATEMENT OF DON CLYDE, PRESIDENT, UTAH STATE WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION, HEBER CITY, UTAH

Mr. CLYDE. Senator Aiken and members of your honorable committee, my name is Don Clyde, and I am, as has been stated, presi

dent of the Utah State Wool Growers Association. I reside at Heber City, Utah.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't come here with any prepared statement. In fact I am a sort of a surprise witness on my part, so my testimony will be that of a person very near the grassroots, just the testimony of a sheepherder. My report will not be embellished by any great adjectives or eloquent description, but it might be remembered for its grammatical errors.

I am happy to be here, and I am happy that these men who represent our people in the National Congress have the interest and the foresight to come out to Utah to listen to the complaints and the constructive criticism and whatever may be offered to acquaint them with the task which is theirs in preparing legislation to protect our national resources.

The bill which is before us, as you know, is a compromise bill. The bill which preceded this one, which originated with the stockmen primarily, was very unfavorably received by the public generally. Now this bill comes forth more or less as an aftermath, as a middle-of-the-road bill to take care of the objections in the former bill, to temper it down and mellow it, and to bring in perhaps more prominently the rights of other groups which it was felt the former bill neglected.

As livestock operators, we favor the bill, although it doesn't satisfy us, we are very frank to say that. We feel that it doesn't offer sufficient protection to the stockman's rights and privileges. However, we feel it is a step in the right direction. Some of the Senators are thinking, I'm sure, and they are going to say to me, "Well, it's better than what you have," and that is true, because we don't have anything. We had a code set up by the United States Forest Service, and we had some legislation which came very recently under the Granger-Thye Act, but it did not cover a great many points which we would like to have covered.

are

Late

acres

bract

You

There are things in the bill which are very meritorious, particularly the second section, on improvements. I think that is one of the finest pieces of legislation, if it is enacted, that we could have on the statute books. Heretofore the Forest Service has never had sufficient money to make any appreciable amount of improvements on our forests. As a range man familiar with a good deal of the range in northern Utah, I can think of places where perhaps a water hole, a short expanse of fence, some reseeding, and other improvements which would not run into any very considerable sum of money could be put on a range by the permittee with his own equipment without much expense, and it would bring into grazing use thousands or per-dus haps tens of thousands of acres of land which are not now being used, or are not being properly used.

tions

gene

seriou

I

the b

ands

Dasse

one la

mall

For instance, on my own range I could construct at least three water developments at a very minor cost which would conserve the country, because my stock would not have to trail the distance which they are trailing now to have access to that water. We have trails on what we call divides, where stock are going to and from their allotment. These trails were put on tops of the ridges, and whoever placed them there made a very great mistake, because the stock trail along the tops of these ridges and they begin to erode the country at the extreme top, and the water gains momentum as it runs down. ork

Just a

right

Expanses of fence which are not expensive can be put around those areas, and that erosion, which is being developed along the permittee's allotment, and which is no fault of his, could be stopped. Things of that nature could be developed, and they would be very much worth while.

My only thought, or hope, rather, is that if this bill is enacted, the Forest Service in writing these contracts and agreements will make them reasonable enough so that the permittee can come in as a cooperator and put on the improvements and then enjoy them without a lot of redtape that will run into a lot of ifs and ands and will stymie the job.

The reason I say that perhaps this bill isn't far-reaching enough is that in the livestock business we need stability. You people who are other users of the range are dependent upon it for recreation, which is fine; you sportsmen are dependent upon it for game, which we have no desire to take off the range; but these stockmen are dependent upon it for their bread and butter, and these men have put into it all of their life's savings. They have been required by the Forest Service, and properly so, to build up commensurate property which consists of tremendous blocks of land, rangeland or ranch property and water rights, and if these ranges are taken away from them or are materially reduced many of them would just simply be out of business, because they couldn't carry the overhead expense of maintaining that entire operation.

The average livestock man is not a fly-by-night operator; he isn't in business today and out tomorrow. He is in business day in and day out, year in and year out, and, therefore, I say he is entitled to some stability; he is entitled to know he is going to have this range or he isn't going to have it. He is entitled to know whether he is going to be in business tomorrow or not.

I'd like to tell you gentlemen that we are short of water in Utah. We don't have the rainfall you have in the East, nor do we have the big rivers you have in the East, nor do we have the big rivers you have in the adjacent States of Idaho and Montana. We have approximately 52 million acres of land, only about 2 million acres of which is irrigated. We have some dry farming which covers another million acres, but we have close to 50 million acres of land in Utah which is practically worthless for anything except the grazing of livestock. You can see that if these livestock numbers are reduced, or the operations of the producers greatly crippled, the State of Utah will be hard put to maintain its schools and its roads and its population generally. We need the livestock industry. It is one of the necessary industries in the State of Utah, and without it our economy will very seriously suffer.

I would like to disabuse your minds somewhat of this bugaboo of the big operator, the cattle baron, and the sheepman who has thousands and thousands of sheep. Ladies and gentlemen, that time has passed. The law of economics has taken care of that. We have only one large outfit left in the State of Utah, and that is a stock company in which hundreds of people have stock. Our units today are just small units of probably 2,000 head of sheep or a small herd of cattlejust a family unit. If a man has that many sheep he has a forest right and he has winter range, and the farmer and his boys do the work and they make their entire livelihood from it.

Now, speaking about conservation, I claim that the stockmen are the greatest conservationists in the world today. The man who has this band of sheep or this small herd of cattle and uses these ranges, if he goes out and destroys them, certainly the man is an imbecile, he just simply destroys his opportunity of making a living. As I say, we don't have any large outfits in the State of Utah except the one, and these men are so vitally interested in conserving their own ranges, in conserving watersheds, that when you people begin to talk conservation you are talking to the right people and to people who understand your language, when you talk to the livestock operators.

As an illustration of the attitude of stockmen generally, I might state that a few years ago in one of our outlying areas the school board couldn't open the schools because one large outfit hadn't been able to pay its taxes, but the outfit went out and borrowed the money and paid it into the country treasury, because they realized the gravity of the situation, and the schools were opened. If we destroy this industry or cripple it, there will be a great many schools that won't be opened, a great many roads that won't be built, a great many institutions that are important to the State of Utah that will not continue in existence. Speaking again regarding the bill, one of the features which we feel is weak, which some of the former speakers felt was strong, is the right of appeal. We feel that the stockmen should have the right of appeal before an impartial tribunal of some nature. I realize that heretofore we have had a semblance of the same, but there has been so much machinery, so much red tape, so much inconvenience, that it has been almost impossible to take advantage of it.

But

STA

M

Ha

We feel that when there is a complaint against a decision of the Secretary, the decision should be made and then the appeal should be taken before the proper authorities and there should be no intervening time in which the stockmen might continue to injure the range. we feel that we should have the right to a hearing. We feel that the American system, the judicial strength of our Government, has been very much in evidence and everybody is entitled to be given the right to a fair trial. We feel that no individual should be able to come out on the range and say to this stockman, "This land is overgrazed; take your stock off." In that case the operator should be able to have the situation fairly appraised and see if he is injuring the range, or if it is just a capricious idea or thought of the overzealous

ranger.

Now, with all due regard and all kindness to the Forest Service, I will say that the forest officials never overrule the decision of one of their subordinates; I don't say never, but I contend that has been the general rule as we have experienced it out on the range. We don't want one man to have the authority to say, "This is the thing you have to do," and then the stockman must take it or leave it. We feel as citizens we should have the right to come before a fair tribunal and furnish our witnesses and produce our testimony and see which side is right. If the administrator is right, well and good. If the stockman is right then the thing can be rectified if an injustice has been done. We believe very strongly as stockmen in the principle of multiple We are not the greedy, malicious type of individuals which we have been featured as being. During the hearings on the former bill, the stockmen's bill, the newspaper reports were very erroneous. We want to divide up the range, if that is necessary, providing for every

use.

interest, providing for multiple use to bring other interests in and let them have their share, and we are willing to move over if we have crowded too much and see that everybody has the benefits and enjoys the products of the national forests. We are interested only in that particular part of the forest resources connected with grazing. We want to maintain the grazing, and we want to keep a continuing crop of grass and weeds and browse. We want it to be there forever for our children who will come into the stock business, and no group will make a greater sacrifice to continue this great production than will the stockmen of this State.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clyde.

Are there any questions? [No response.]

We will now hear from Mr. J. Wells Robins, president of the Utah Cattle and Horse Growers Association, Scipio, Utah.

STATEMENT OF J. WELLS ROBINS, PRESIDENT, UTAH CATTLE AND HORSE GROWERS ASSOCIATION, SCIPIO, UTAH

of

Mr. ROBINS. Mr. Chairman, honorable Senators, and our great Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra T. Benson, ladies and gentlemen, I deem this a great privilege and a great opportunity to be here this morning to testify for the stockmen of this State. You can tell by the color my hair that I have been before these committees and fighting for the cause of the stockmen for a good many years, and the thing that I never could understand, ladies and gentlemen, was why we as a group are always referred to as a group of unscrupulous men who have nothing at stake but our own personal financial welfare. I think I represent a group of people who will stand at the head of any group as real conservationists, men who are interested in the welfare of this great country of ours in every respect. We have had our troubles, it is true, and we have had some mighty hot contests with other people in this room and others in this State, but at the present time I think we have a better working relationship between the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the big-game people, and all those other interests than we have had for a long time in the past, and to this committee I want to say that we have great confidence in these organizations and we believe that in the present situation we can work out problems with them.

I forgot to state for the benefit of all the organizations I am naming that I am president of the Cattle and Horse Growers Association and also a member of the Board of Big Game Control for the State of Utah.

We think the bill you have to offer us is in the main satisfactory. We would like to have some things added to it, of course, if we had our own way, but we recognize the multiple-use principle in connection with the national forests, and we ask for no special privileges. We would consider as of first and paramount importance in this State our watersheds. In the State of Utah our cattle permits average about 26 head. These cattle are tied in with our forests and our farms and public domain land, and if you destroy either one of them in any way you cripple the entire operation. As Mr. Clyde said, we are not a group of large operators in this State. We have a few reasonably large operators left, but they are not many.