to such a high pitch that English sheep owners took over tilled lands and deliberately destroyed forests to increase sheep pasture, thereby enriching themselves and impoverishing the agricultural classes. Furthermore, England had at one time a large area of royal forests, maintained by the kings largely for hunting purposes. At first grazing was almost excluded from them, but later to supply revenue and in response to popular pressure was admitted under a permit system which resulted finally in the establishment of legal grazing "rights." Grazing so completely destroyed most of these royal forests that they were later abolished. On those still remaining the " 'rights" are so well established that the present forest administration is finding it simpler to acquire private lands for reforestation under the present large-scale Government reforestation projects than to try to extinguish these old "rights," although from a grazing point of view they are now largely worthless. In addition tehre are over two and one-half million acres of public grazing lands in England and Wales alone which have become, owing to the invasion of heath vegetation and economic changes, largely worthless for grazing but which can not be reforested owing to the tenacious way in which the right holders hang on to their privileges. It is estimated that the loss of meat and wool production from reforesting these lands would be practically nil, and the increase in permanent labor employment from so doing would be tenfold. The Swiss Republic is a confederation of almost independent cantons, comparable to American counties in size. The history of forest destruction parallels that of the French mountains, with the difference that the Swiss Cantons confronted with the results of overgrazing finally, in defiance of all of their traditions of local independence, were obliged to cede to the central government the control of mountain lands, both forests and grazing. They are now both under supervision of the forest officers but managed separately, the stock being rigidly excluded from all localities where it can do harm. Notwithstanding the advantages of this arrangement, the forest officers are constantly subjected to pressure to open forest areas to grazing and are obliged to constantly be on guard to prevent recurrence of former deplorable conditions. In Italy the situation is fairly similar to that of France, except that forest destruction took place much earlier and was much more complete. There are evidences that a well-defined forest and grazing issue existed even in Roman times. The modern Italian Government has attempted to restrict grazing to reasonable bounds, but, faced with deeply entrenched "rights' and the age-long ingrained habits of a pastoral people, has made little headway. Spain's barren and treeless condition is proverbial, yet there is abundant evidence that at one time it was well forested. The grazing industry is an ancient one there and was carried on under a system of "rights" that a modern sheepman might well envy. The herders had a legal right of way during their extended migrations over any lands they might care to traverse. It is hardly necessary to ask what became of the trees. A well-known French writer has sufficiently summed up the situation by characterizing Spain as a country "ruled and devastated by sheep herders." Germany has suffered less than some other countries from overgrazing because stock raising as a range industry has never been important there and because its foresters and public officials have long realized that sheep and cattle had no place in the forest, and have generally been given the authority to exclude them-often by methods which could not be used in other countries. It is interesting to note, however, that although at the time of Frederick the Great the German peasants were the most downtrodden in Europe they rose in armed revolt when an attempt was made to take away their rights of use in the public forests-showing the difficulties which face governments in extinguishing rights once they are created. The old Austrian Empire had much the same conditions to face as France, except that its government was weaker, its grazing interests probably stronger, and its climate perhaps more favorable to forests than France. Grazing destruction on the public forests and pastures in the Austrian Alps has long been evident. North Africa has a history to tell of widespread forest destruction and progressive degeneration due to pastoral habits of the Arabs. The French forest service in Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco is doing a heroic work for civilization by saving the forests from sheep and goats, and more than one forest officer has paid the penalty for his devotion to his profession and the common good with his life at the hands of sheep herders. In India in the early days of the British forest administration one of the chief occupations of the forest officers was the control of grazing in the face of a population believing in the theory of the more trees the less grass. Under the indifference of the native rulers magnificent forests were gradually melting away owing to entirely unrestricted cattle grazing carried on under more or less well-defined "rights," which have had to be curbed, under great difficulties, in order to preserve one of the country's greatest resources. The withdrawal of British authority which is sought by certain elements in the Indian population would soon result in the return of the old conditions. Australia is one of the world's great grazing regions, and one where grazing takes precedence over forestry, timber being frankly destroyed to facilitate the growth of grass. The system of grazing leases in vogue there which have recently been set before the American people as a model through the agency of the National Wool Grower are found to have the same objectionable features as the Stanfield bill would introduce in this country, namely, they do not permit of government regulation and tend to become fixed rights. The system has occasioned the condemnation of one of the greatest British foresters as being admirably adopted not only to facilitate forest destruction but also range depletion. In conclusion, it is sufficient to say that, if in the face of the evidence taken from all over the world of damage due to unrestricted grazing and of the practical impossibility of extinguishing legally established grazing rights which are sure to cause it, the Stanfield bill is passed, it should be in the full knowledge that a backward step is being taken in our national conservation policy which it will literally never be possible to retrace. THE AUSTRALIAN GRAZING LEASING SYSTEM (By P. L. Buttrick) The National Wool Grower, which purports to be the official organ of our western stock industry, had in its January issue an article upon Government regulation of grazing on public lands in Australia. From this article, it would appear that the Australian stockmen lease public grazing lands under a nearly ideal system, one which the editors of the Wool Grower would like to see introduced into this country in place of our Forest Service system, which they consider unsatisfactory. An analysis of the conditions of these Australian leases as set forth by the Wool Grower indicates that they have three main features: First, they are an "area basis," which means that the holder may place as much stock on the leased area as he wishes, there being apparently no way in which the public can, under these leases, prevent overgrazing with all its attendant evils; second, the leases are mostly for long terms, so that they would appear to be in a way to become somewhat of a form of intangible property, a condition which has caused much difficulty in other parts of the world and which we wish to avoid in America; and, third, that the fees are low and apparently fixed for long terms in advance, perhaps more of an advantage to the grazing interests than to the public at large. It is of course right and proper that, in a country as well adapted to grazing as Australia, land systems favorable to it should prevail. It seems, however, highly probable that the grazing industry has been favored by the Commonwealth governments more than the best interests of the Australian public justify. Australia, although it has some magnificent forests, is perhaps the least forested of all the continents. It has long been a timber importing country, importing approximately 50 per cent of what it uses, notwithstanding which timber is being deliberately destroyed to promote grazing under the leasing system so attractively set forth. This is frankly confessed by the caption under the picture on page 19 of the article in the January Wool Grower, above referred to. It may well be that the timber so disposed of is largely "scrub." but already Australia is finding that half a loaf is better than no bread. Unfortunately Australian forestry has never been on a very sound basis. The forestry departments in the various Australian States have not been very strong and to a considerable extent seem to have been dominated by questions of political expediency, which has apparently meant that the grazing interests have unduly dominated their actions, and in their official reports they have said little about grazing damage. It remained for Sir David Hutchins, one of the most distinguished of British foresters, long the head of the South African forest service, to call the attention of the whole British Empire to the deplorable forest conditions prevailing in the island Commonwealth. A few years ago, as a delegate of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, he made an exhaustive study of the situation. Perhaps his most noteworthy conclusion, in view of the glowing accounts we have received of the Australian leasing system, in his unmeasured condemnation of it. He declares, first of all, that the power of the Australian land office to lease forest lands for grazing over the head of the forest service is fundamentally wrong and can not help being destructive to forests cut of all proportion to the grazing receipts. He states that in New South Wales it is a matter of common knowledge that this leasing system has been a public scandal, that in Queensland the system is resulting in a million acres of land a year becoming derelict, and finally notes with satisfaction that in Victoria the system is gradually being done away with. Sir David declares that fire is the greatest curse of Australian forests--and traces most of the fires to the grazing industry, whose philosophy there, as in some other parts of the world, seems to be, "The more trees the less grass." That he does not make this assertion regarding the cause of fires without reason seems evident from his newspaper quotations regarding the determined origin of particular fires. As to the grazing industry as a whole, he makes an observation which strikes at the very roots of one of Australia's greatest problem--that of population. It is well known that the continent has a small populaion and one that is gaining but slowly. Sir David states that the reckless destruction of forests to make pasture means reducing the capacity of the land to support population, and declares that in Australia forest industries will support ten times the population that the same area will support when used for grazing. All this formidable indictment of the Australian grazing system might be assumed to come from one thoroughly out of sympathy with the industry, but this charge can not be laid at the door of Sir David Hutchins. He is noteworthy in the forestry profession as one believing that forestry and grazing can to a considerable extend be combined on the same area. If the report had been made by one of the vast proportion of foresters who believe that the two can not be combined, we might expect even stronger statements. It is only fair to state that conditions seem to have somewhat improved in the 10 years since Sir David issued his trumpet call, and that the change has come about by increasing the authority of the forest administration in their control over grazing on public lands although the fundamental difficulties still seem to remain. It is therefore sufficiently evident that, whether or not our own Forest Service grazing system is satisfactory, we should look to Australia for example as to what to avoid rather than as to what to copy. EXHIBIT D REPORT ON SENATE BILL 2584, INTRODUCED BY SENATOR STANFIELD JANUARY 16, 1926, AND REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND SURVEYS The grazing bill introduced on January 16, 1926. by Senator Stanfield as S. 2584 proposes to promote the development, protection, and utilization of graz ing facilities, first, on the unappropriated and unreserved public lands of nine Western States, and, second, on the national forests within these same states. The bill, as drawn, would give to the range livestock industry grants and privileges which would in effect create permanent property rights to grazing throughout the national forests free from effective administrative control by any public officer not dominated by this industry. It would transfer bodily the jurisdiction over grazing upon at least 40,000,000 acres of national forests from the Agricultural to the Interior Department, thus depriving the Secretary of Agriculture of control of this resource on the areas for which he is responsible. It would elevate gazing to a position as one of the primary purposes for which the national forests were created, and thus destroy the conception that these forests were primarily for timber production and its attendant benefits. The final consequence of such legislation, if enacted, will be to render impossible the protection of the forest growth upon 90,000,000 acres of our national forests from damage by stock grazing, to disrupt the protective measures required for control of this damage, and finally to bring about the destruction of the forests and the loss of the public benefits of timber and watershed protection for which they were created. Should this protection be withdrawn, extensive erosion and damage to stream flow will occur, as it has in the past on these same areas, causing untold losses to irrigation, the silting up of reservoirs, loss of water power, dangerous floods, and destruction of fishing and other recreational values. Policy. This bill provides Title I, section 1, that it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to promote more complete development, protection, and utilization of the grazing facilities of the National Forests, and Title III, section 302, in furtherance of this policy the protection and development of uncultivated grasses and forage plants in the national forests and the utilization of such grasses and plants for grazing purposes shall be considered as one of the purposes for which such forests are established and maintained. Property rights.--Title I, section 1: To stabilize the range stock-raising industry by making provision for definite and stabilized grants of grazing privileges. Title III. section 308 (3), for 10 years. Section 307 (a) (1), to owners of grazing privileges in effect at the time of the granting such privileges; i. e., to existing permittees. Section 307 (b), which can not be reduced by more than 5 per cent thereof in any 10-year period to make room for any new homesteaders. Section 311 (a), which can not be reduced in amount during the life of the contract unless stated in the contract itself. Section 310: The grantee may with the approval of the supervisor assign in whole or in part any contract and the supervisor shall not withhold his approval "except for good causes." On death of a holder all rights shall inure to the benefit of his devisee or of his estate. Section 308: A contract for grazing privileges shall be on an area basis unless the supervisor decides against this form of contract. Section 2 (2): This means a grant to a grantee of the exclusive right to graze within a specified area and for a definite period, such number and kinds of livestock in such measure and during such grazing season as he may determine. Section 308: Decision against such form of contract must be based on showing that it will not afford adequate protection to other and more valuable resources of the land involved, when the contract may be put on a per capita basis instead, but subject to all the above restrictions. The clauses establish grazing rights as grants of property rights in effect perpetual and inalienable, transferable as such and capable of being capitalized and sold on the basis of their actual value, and acquired without restriction as to area and number of stock within a single ownership. They would affectually bar adequate redistribution of grazing privileges to new settlers and would build up monopoly in range control in the hands of large owners. Loss of supervisory control.-Section 204 (4): The Secretary of the Interior may with th econsent of the Secretary of Agriculture add lands now within a national forest to any grazing district on the unreserved public domain, if such lands are more valuable for grazing than for the timber thereon, leaving the jurisdiction over other resources in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture. Section 313 provides an appeal against the forest supervisor, by the grantee. if the former determine to alter the grazing privileges of a grantee on renewal of his contract, to terminate the contract, or to refuse to grant an applicant a contract. Title IV, section 401, provides for the formation of a State grazing board in each of the States covered by the law. Section 402, of three members appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate. (a) Who must be residents of the State and have practical knowledge of the range livestock industry; i. e., must be stockmen. Section 403, who shall decide appeals. Section 407 (b): Their action in respect to approval of any contract shall be final with no appeal. (c) The grantee and presumably the Forest Service-i. e., the public-may appeal from such decision to the Secretary of Agriculture; but (d) In any such appeal the findings of fact of the board shall be prima facie evidence of the correctness of the facts so set forth. These provisions place the representatives of the grazing industry as the arbiters of the facts relating to possible damage done by grazing to forest reproduction and to all other uses of the forest, and deprive the forest officers of every vestige of control or regulation of such damage. Grazing fees.-Title IV, section 309 (a): Prior to January 1, 1936, there shall be no increase in grazing fees. After this date, fees shall be fixed with due regard to the economic value of the grazing privileges, and may be reduced, or the grantee released or discharged from payment by reason of (1) depletion or destruction of forage by drought, (2) calamity or disease, (3) adverse livestock market conditions causing general distress in the stockraising industry. These provisions mean that the rights granted above are not to be based on sound economic principles, but that this industry is to occupy privileged position with respect to other livestock producers. The only desirable clauses in the bill are section 314, giving the supervisor the right to impound livestock, and section 312, permitting the use of 10 per cent of the receipts from grazing to be devoted to the improvement of the range. Such minor administrative advantage hardly justifies the loss of control over the entire national forest system and its conversion in effect into pasturage for livestock production. Mr. CHAPMAN. Point 6: Without the most rigid control of grazing on the national forests by the Secretary of Agriculture, grazing rights will grow up under common law and become established as servitudes or easements in spite of statutes intended to control grazing. If legislation legalizing these rights is passed, the establishment of such easements is inevitable. Senator PITTMAN. Let us take that up now. Mr. CHAPMAN. I want first to introduce this Exhibit E, bearing on this subject, entitled "Forest Grazing Rights in Europe-Some Deadly Parallels," prepared by P. L. Buttrick, the same one who prepared the other. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to suggest to the committee that the written statement of Mr. Chapman be accepted for the record, and as he reads it that we discuss paragraph by paragraph the pending bill and the application of the paragraph to either pending or suggested legislation. If that meets with your approval. Mr. CHAPMAN. I have only got one more short statement here, one more point. Do you wish me to give that now, and then I am through? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you may do that. Anything to expedite. Mr. CHAPMAN. Point 7: Overgrazing will lead to excessive erosion, causing the destruction of agricultural lands in valleys, and the ruin, by silting up, of storage reservoirs and irrigation thus working irreparable loss to agricultural interests in the West. Extensive damage has already occurred from these causes in Arizona and New Mexico. That finishes my formal statement, sir. (Exhibit E presented by Mr. Chapman, is as follows:) |