nearby on ranches dependent on the use of the national forest range, up to the limit of the grazing capacity of the national forests.

The demand was so great that every effort was made to distribute the grazing privilege as widely as possible. Eventually it became apparent that distribution in general could not go further without breaking down the integrity of the stockraising enterprises enjoying the privilege. In fact, in some cases it may have gone too far.

There are about 24,000 range users with paid permits on the western national forests; 19,000 of these, or 79 percent are small operators, each permit being for not more than 100 cattle or 1,000 sheep. This 79 percent of the permittees graze only 31 percent of the permitted livestock; the other 21 percent, the larger operators, graze 69 percent of the stock. In general, it can be said that section 3 would work against the 79 percent, in favor of the 21 percent.

The present policy strictly limits additional distribution in the interest of all practicable stabilization of the livestock operations based on the national forests, and hence the communities they support. But the need has by no means disappeared to make some further equitable adjustments designed to help the little man who now is permitted fewer stock than needed for decent family support, or perhaps to let in an occasional new applicant in case of exceptional need.

The Department is thoroughly committed to the idea of making the use of national-forest ranges promote stability of enterprise to the maximum degree feasible. But I regard it as entirely unsound public policy to deprive a publicland administrator of all authority to exercise a margin of discretion in making equitable adjustment as occasion arises.

Section 3 has other highly important undesirable elements:

1. The Solicitor of the Department is of the opinion that its enactment would be a definite step in the direction of vested rights, because it would guarantee a perpetual right to the use of the range except under a limited set of conditions. In other words, the Government could not take any part of any preference enjoyed by present users to give to any other person, regardless of the circumstances. The use of the national forests for grazing is now and always has been solely a privilege-not a legal right. It is extremely important to avoid any step which would allow any group of individuals to establish a permanent, indissoluble encumbrance on the property of all the people.

2. The enactment of this section would confer on present range users a degree of protection not sought by or conferred on any other class of forest users, with the exception of mining interests. No other group of users is guaranteed a perpetual right of use against other potential users in the same class. It would thus constitute special privilege and class distinction. The establishment of such a precedent would no doubt lead to similar demands from other classes of users. The result would be to greatly hamper and complicate national-forest administration and protection.

It is noteworthy that this legislation is sought only by the American National Live Stock Association; the sheepmen are not asking for it.

For the foregoing reasons, the Department recommends that section 3 of S. 3532 be not enacted.

As required by Budget Circular 344, this matter was referred to the Bureau of the Budget, and under date of April 23, 1940, the Assistant Director thereof advised this Department that there would be no objection to the submission of this report to the committee.

Sincerely,

H. A. WALLACE, Secretary.

Did you want to explain the bill, Senator Hatch?

Senator HATCH. No; I have no particular desire to be heard on the bill this morning myself. I wanted to be present because certain residents of New Mexico, cattlemen chiefly, are greatly interested in this bill and would like to see it enacted.

I have read the report of the Secretary-just glanced through it hurriedly-and I think probably the objections he makes as to section 3 of the bill have already been considered by those who are interested in its passage. I know he points out that section 3, in his opinion, would tend to grant a vested right in perpetuity in the forest lands. I do not so construe section 3 myself, and I know that is not the

intention of the authors of the bill. I am quite sure they will have an amendment to offer which will obviate any trouble on that score. Senator Johnson is the author of the bill and I understand does not care to be heard on it himself, and I would suggest that you go ahead and hear those proponents of the measure who are present. I know there were to be some representatives of the cattlemen here. Senator SCHWELLENBACH. We have two representatives of the Department here. Suppose we hear them first.

STATEMENT OF C. M. GRANGER, ASSISTANT CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. GRANGER. I am Assistant Chief of the Forest Service, in charge of national-forest administration.

I see you have the report of the Secretary of Agriculture on the bill, so it will not be necessary for me to repeat the statements that are made in that report. Is that right, Mr. Chairman?

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Yes; the report is in the record.

Mr. GRANGER. If I may just go back briefly before discussing the provisions of this particular bill. The grazing use of the national forests, of course, antedates the creation of the national forests, and when the Department of Agriculture was placed in charge of the national forests in 1905 recognition was given to this use. Recognition was given to the fact that the use was a very important part of the western economy, in which all of the national forests then were located, and every effort was made to accommodate it, consistent with the protection of the other resources of the national forests and the growing volume of other uses of a different character. Priority was given to those who had been using the national forests before their creation, and at that time we found a good many transients who were moving in sheep, particularly from other States, who had no base of operations, so to speak, and were not contributing to the permanent welfare of the West, of the livestock industry or of the use of these public areas.

So the Secretary of Agriculture at that time, in issuing instructions to the Chief of the Forest Service, laid down the general rule that the home builder was to be given preference in the distribution of the privilege of using the national forests. He also laid down the other general rule that any questions of conflict in use or requests for use of the national forests were always to be resolved so as to bring about the greatest good to the greatest number in the long

run.

So the administration adopted regulations which were authorized by the general act of June 4, 1897, to regulate the use of the national forests, along with others, and out of that has grown the present pattern of use. It has achieved a considerable degree of stability, and that has come about through cooperative relationships with the stockmen, exercised in large measure through these advisory boards, which is one of the things provided for in this bill, and a recognition also that beyond a certain point the use of the range could not be divided up among a large number of people without actually impairing the integrity of the use, the stability of it, and in consequence having an adverse effect on the western economy, which is dependent on the best use of the ranges.

The national forest ranges, for the most part, are summer ranges. There is some all-year-round use in your territory, Senator, but in the main they are summer ranges and they serve to supplement the winter ranges and the ranches which are owned by those who are permitted to use the national forest.

One of the criteria by which we judge the dependence of an applicant for use of national forests is the geographical relationship of the ranch and the extent to which he is implemented to take care of the stock during periods when they are not on national-forest lands. In other words, he must have a ranch where he raises hay or some provision for range which will take care of the number of stock for which he seeks to have a permit on the national forest.

We have recently revised the regulations governing this use to make them conform to what seemed to be the requirements of good policy now in the administration of the use, and these changes were gone over with all of the stockmen through their representatives. A very large number of meetings were held throughout the West, and the proposed policies were discussed, and some alterations were made in the light of those discussions. So that I think it is fair to say that the present policies now have almost the unanimous support of the livestock users of the national forests.

Turning more particularly to the provisions of the bill, sections 1 and 2 seek to give legislative authority to the establishment and the use of advisory boards. Provision was made for these advisory boards in the beginning of the administration of the national forests by the Department of Agriculture through regulation, and there are now nearly 800-I believe seven-hundred-and-seventy-some-of such advisory boards which represent small, medium-sized, and large groups of livestock users. Some of them are just little neighborhood groups that have an interest only in a limited portion of the national forest. Some of them have larger areas as their zone of interest, and some of them are State-wide. Then there are the two national livestock associations, the American National Livestock Association, which represents the cattlemen, and the National Wool Growers, which represents the sheepmen.

There is no need, of course, for further legislative authority to set up and use advisory boards. The proponents of this part of the bill can, of course, and will, give you their viewpoint as to why they feel this particular portion of the measure is desirable, and the Department has taken the position that while it sees no need for further legislation authority on the subject it is not objecting to the enactment of this portion of the proposed legislation.

Senator HATCH. As a matter of fact, Mr. Granger, that part of the bill merely confirms largely the present practices and policies? Mr. GRANGER. That is right.

Senator HATCH. Makes it legislative in character.

Mr. GRANGER. It makes it specifically legislative, whereas it is now backed by the general law of 1897, which authorizes the Secretary to issue permits for the occupancy and use of the national forests. Senator HATCH. And that general legislation, of course, is merely permissive in character.

Mr. GRANGER. That is right.

Senator HATCH. The Secretary could abolish the whole set-up if he desired to?

Mr. GRANGER. That is right.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I notice the bill provides for the election of advisory boards when a majority of the permittees of a subdivision of a national forest, or an entire national forest, or a group of national forests, petition the Forest Service for such boards. Do your regulations have those same provisions in them?

Mr. GRANGER. Yes; they contemplate all of that, and that is the actual practice now. We feel that it would be desirable, if Congress should decide to give legislative confirmation to this practice, to have it couched in somewhat more general terms, and the Secretary of Agriculture has suggested language broader in its import. We are not making any great issue of that, but we feel that it would be somewhat more consistent with the way in which the regulations are now authorized.

Section 3, of course, is the controversial section, and the report of the Secretary of Agriculture makes it quite clear that he regards that as an undesirable approach. It has two aspects which seem to us to make it undesirable. The first is that it would guarantee a perpetual right of use to the national forests to those who at this moment are enjoying that privilege, as far as taking away from any of them is concerned to give to any other person who now has a permit, in order to increase the number of allottees or to admit any new applicants to the use of the range. The language, of course, makes provision for reduction in present permits or their cancelation entirely, as may be necessary for the protection of the range or the other resources of the national forests, or in order to correlate the grazing use with the other uses, although there is some question about the language in which that particular thing is drawn, as to whether it would place unnecessary hurdles in the way of the administrative officer in determining his stand in that regard.

Senator HATCH. Mr. Granger, is it not true-I am only repeating what I have been told-that that language was inserted to prevent the very thing that the Secretary points out, and that you have just mentioned, about it being a perpetual and vested right?

Mr. GRANGER. Well, I will come to that in a moment, if I may, Senator Hatch. I am taking it a step at a time.

Senator HATCH. Very well.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Would you at this point in the record define a "fully commensurate permittee"?

Mr. GRANGER. A fully commensurate permittee is a permittee who owns or controls the facilities necessary to provide forage for his livestock during the period that it is not on the national forest. It may be hay, it may be other range land, or a combination of them. And there is no fixed percentage of it that he has to own, but he has to have a sufficiently substantial interest in the facilities for taking care of the stock-I mean forage-in order to make it a reasonably permanent set-up, so he is not a transient. That term is sufficiently defined in the regulations and practices of the Bureau, so there could be no dispute about the meaning of it in the legislation, I think.

Mr. W. L. DUTTON (United States Forest Service). I think, too, Senator, for the benefit of you, Senator Hatch, and Senator Schwellenbach, one from the extreme Southwest and the other from the extreme Northwest, that it should be pointed out that there is quite a variation in the term "commensurability," depending on the locality,

and it has been sort of worked out cooperatively between the permittees and forest officials. Down in Senator Hatch's country, on your year-long ranges, frequently commensurability attaches to ownership of water or headquarters ranch, while up in your country it might be altogether range land.

Mr. GRANGER. Now, the use of the range, as to the selection of individuals to be granted the privilege, of course, has been an evolutionary process. It began, as I indicated earlier, with those who were on the range when the national forest was created, but there is a vastly larger number of applicants for the range than can possibly be accommodate, and there is a vastly larger number of ranches so situated as to potential dependency on the range than can be accommodated. So that the present permittees represent only a part of those who would be helped materially by an opportunity to use the national forest range. There is also a large number of present permittees who have permits for such a small number of stock that they find a great deal of difficulty in making a go of it, and as I indicated earlier, one of the things that we try to do is to give as much stability as possible to the enterprise which furnishes the sole or principal support of a family, or where the use of the range is essential to the maintenance of that enterprise. In other words, trying to keep as many people as possible anchored to the soil in a way which will give them at least a decent opportunity to make a living.

So that selecting the present permittees at this moment and freezing their preferences as far as taking away from the one to give to the other is concerned, would, it seems to us, be an undesirable move, in that it would stop what is bound to be an evolutionary preference. No one can foresee now what the social and economic situation is going to be in the future, and we feel that the way should be left open for such readjustment of distribution of the privilege as it stands at present as would be indicated in any sound method of taking care of these social and economic changes that are bound to come. However, we know that you have got to have at any one time some reasonable assurance that things are not going to change rapidly, and the present regulations set up what we call upper and lower limits, and write into the policy provisions against drastic distribution, which we think is full assurance at the present time of the degree of stability which is warranted. And the majority of the stockmen, I believe, will support that view. Therefore, we would urge very strenuously against the enactment of section 3 in its present form, as a freezing of the right of those who now enjoy the privilege to continuous use, as far as redistribution is concerned. The other point is the one of vested rights. We are not contending that the language of section 3 in itself completely establishes vested rights in the use of the land on national forests, but it is the opinion of the Solicitor of the Department that it does take a step in that direcion, because it guarantees to the existing group of users of perpetual right to the use of the range except as it is necessary to modify that use in the interest of protection or correlation, but without any opportunity to change the use in order to deal fairly with those who are in the lower brackets or in the occasional instance when some outside man might be considered by the Secretary as entitled to have a look-in. Therefore, anything that tends in

230668-40- -2