GRAZING FACILITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1926

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND SURVEYS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment on yesterday, at 2.30 o'clock p. m., in the committee's hearing room in the Capitol, Senator Robert N. Stanfield (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stanfield (chairman), Smoot, Cameron, and Ashurst.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Hagenbarth, you may be heard at this time, if you wish.

STATEMENT OF FRANK J. HAGENBARTH, SPENCER, IDAHO, PRESIDENT NATIONAL WOOL GROWERS' ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hagenbarth, you are president of the National Wool Growers' Association?

Mr. HAGENBARTH. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have been for how long?

Mr. HAGENBARTH. Fourteen years. I have been engaged in the growing of livestock personally for 39 years and am at the present time engaged in that same industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Both cattle and sheep?

Mr. HAGENBARTH. Both cattle and sheep. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, before beginning my testimony I would like the privilege of making some references to my personal business.

The CHAIRMAN. You may do so.

Mr. HAGENBARTH. I do this not from choice but from compulsion. I had called to my attention day before yesterday the fact that in the February issue of the American Forestry Magazine considerable stress was laid upon the statement that Mr. Hagenbarth, president of the National Wool Growers' Association, was one of the largest permittees, if not the largest permittee, on the national forest and the largest grower of sheep in the United States, the purpose being, in my judgment, to suggest the inference that my testimony, my attitude, and all the work that I have done in this matter are colored by reason of my large personal interest.

Colonel Greeley in his testimony yesterday, not voluntarily, but as the result of questioning, made reference to the fact that the Wood Livestock Co., of which I am president, have a permit for in excess of 50,000 head of stock on the forest. Those statements going out in that bald unqualified manner might be misconstrued, and I there

fore wish, Mr. Chairman, to make this brief statement for the benefit of the committee. When I left school and started out in this business that my father had already organized-he started in 1885 and we have continuously followed it ever since-we had a small outfit, but during the intervening years all of the money that we have made in that business, and considerably more than my father made in the mining business, has been put into this business. We have never taken out any more than enough to pay living expenses. Our stockholders are about 20 in number, consisting entirely of my brother and myself, our respective families, and our employees. We have men who have been with us for as long as 30 years; in fact, most of our principal men have been with us for more than 20 years. They have married in our service and are bringing up their families, and the second generation is coming on and working in the business. We have made it a policy that our old employees shall have the privilege of becoming stockholders, and many of them have taken advantage of the opportunity. We select for that purpose men who have given good service, and who have been with us for a considerable number of years, and we give them a very low price on that purchase of stock. I personally contribute shares for that purpose, and my brother has done likewise. I personally own only about 17 per cent of the company's authorized stock issue.

The reason that I make this detailed explanation is to point out that ours is not a corporation in the sense that it is a commercial organization that sells stock generally to the public and goes out to exploit an industry or a business. It has grown up naturally with the people who have given their lives to it and are still engaged in the business.

There is another matter that I dislike very much to touch on; I believe in avoiding it as far as possible, but I would like the privilege of making a little statement here as to the attitude of the press throughout the country, not confining myself to the American Forest and Forest Life Magazine, but including certain newspapers.

I do not think we have had a square deal altogether on the part of the press, but I do not think that has been intentional; I think it has been due largely to ignorance of the true conditions. The statement has been made in the press that livestock men are trying to tear down conservation and destroy the forests, and for selfish reasons. I am not only going to deny that in my own behalf, but I want to call attention to the facts, to the end that the press of the country may correct some of the impressions that have heretofore been given by various publications. I desire to call the attention of this committee and the press to various statements in the testimony of Colonel Greeley.

I think Colonel Greeley can not be said to be other than fair to our side; at least, while he would not lean too strongly toward us, he would be, perhaps, fairer than we might be the other way. Colonel Greeley testified to this committee within the last few days. to this effect: "I know perfectly well that the stockmen do not want to break down the conservation of timber and water."

He further testified:

A use of the national forests so important as grazing and so permanent on a considerable number of the forests at least should have its general status on the national forests defined by law.

The Chief Forester also said that in his opinion there probably would never be fewer livestock grazed upon the national forests than at the present time, and that he saw no reason why the number might not be increased from time to time as areas became available, without injury to the forest or to reforestation.

The people of the country have been led by-I do not want to say vicious, but I will say by colored reports to believe that the grazing use was detrimental to the forests and should be discontinued. This impression should be corrected, and we are going to try to correct it, Mr. Chairman.

In order to qualify as a reasonably fair witness before your committee, I want to go back a little into past history. I regret very much that my personality as such should have been brought into this thing, but inasmuch as it has and a selfish coloring has been given to the picture, I want to recite a little history that may serve to correct these false impressions. It can easily be verified, and can easily be contradicted if untrue.

Back in the early nineties, and especially in 1900, when this question of creating the forests was first initiated, and was strongly opposed throughout the West, especially by the stockmen, but by the West generally; when such men as Senator Heyburn, of Idaho, and Senator Tom Carter, of Montana, both very good personal friends of mine, were fighting this whole plan tooth and toenail, I was for it.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean they were fighting the plan of con servation?

Mr. HAGENBARTH. They were opposed to the institution of the national forest system. I was for it."

In 1904 I had a survey made of what is now known as the Targhee Forest-larger in its area than it is now, because, unfortunately, certain portions were eliminated and brought the map down here to President Roosevelt and his advisers, including Mr. Pinchot, and requested that a forest be created in the territory where for many years we had ranged. I did that for the reason that I believed it was a great step toward the conservation of the forage on the forests and the regulation of grazing on the forests, and that it would be not only beneficial for us in this industry, but for our country generally-granted always that it be properly and fairly admin

istered.

I want to say now that in my judgment I do not know of a better, more constructive, progressive, and generally satisfactory example of organization and work in this country than has been performed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the foresters under the Secretary of Agriculture. It is true there are special instances where there have been abuses, conditions that we are now trying to correct. for men, prone to err and given too much authority, have worked serious injury to others. But those things must be curbed. There must be some method of correcting them and curbing them. But, as a general proposition, in my judgment, the work done by the For

estry Bureau has been one of the biggest things in the forward. movement looking toward the perpetuation and stabilization of the range and dependent livestock industry that has happened in a quarter of a century.

With that explanation, all more or less personal, I should like to proceed with a statement covering the subject we have all been discussing.

In the first place I believe that the forage on the forests is a crop resource economically comparable to other resources of the forest and an object of conservation. The primary necessities of men consist of shelter, food, and clothing. Forage, from the forests, provides both food and clothing. Forage is a yearly crop, and with proper grazing and proper administrative methods, comes again every year in equal or increasing quantity.

That forage is of great value to the Nation. As nearly as I can gather the figures, more than 50 per cent of the forests to-day is chiefly valuable for grazing. The total area of the forest is about 137,000,000 acres. Speaking in figures of approximation, not to exceed one-third of that is timebrland, areas that can be defined as timberland or forests as such, including a considerable area of burned over and cut-over lands in that amount. Another third, again roughly speaking, consist of brush lands, scrub timber, and possibly some potential forests. This second half, the brush lands, bear a great deal of forage and are largely valuable for grazing, and from a conservation standpoint are not damaged by grazing within reasonable limits. The other one-third, approximately, we may define as strictly nontimbered, potentially or otherwise, its chief value being the production of forage for grazing.

Now, we are asking that this large amount of forage, a yearly crop of great value, shall be brought by amendment of the law under the law creating the forests; in other words, that there shall be a legalization and proper use and conservation of forage, not inimical to timber conservation or the other resources. Forage should be conserved and used in the same manner for beneficial purposes as other resources of the forest, and for similar reasons.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard-we have said it ourselves, and we have quite often heard the statement, referring to the original law creating the forests, that it did not take grazing into consideration. I am entirely unable to understand why this original law takes on such a sacred character that we are estopped forever from trying to perfect it or amend it by bringing in another resource that may perhaps have been forgotten. The Constitution of the United States is not too sacred for amendment. We have 19 amendments now to that greatest and grandest of documents ever written in the history of mankind. By what token then has this law become so sacred that we are forever estopped from adopting an amendment to it that will bring forage within the provisions of the law in the same manner as the other resources?

For the present generation in the West the use of that forage is an absolute necessity. The morale of a large portion of the citizens of the West would be destroyed if the privilege of using that forage were taken from them.

Under the old law, unamended, we find a number of beneficial uses. We find timber to the lumberman, water to the farmer, minerals to the miner. Ripe timber is cut from the forest and sold as lumber. Why not harvest the forage crop in the same manner, under the same principles, for the same people, in the same country? Why is there to be a distinction between one class of citizens and another or one class of raw commodities and another or one industry and another?

The President's first agricultural conference plainly recommended that the forage in the forests should be brought under the law, Mr. Chairman. The National Chamber of Commerce, which many of us have come to recognize as a guiding star of business activity in this country, has seen fit to pass a resolution recommending that the use of forage on the forests be brought under the law.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we have had more or less crimination and recrimination between supposedly inimical interests. I believe that this whole thing has been the result of misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge, on our part to begin with, of some of the elements that enter into the question, the allaying of certain fears that certain people had, ardent conservationists, especially ir this eastern part of the country; and on their part a lack of knowledge of the true conditions surrounding the industry in the West and of the actual things that the livestock men were striving for. Some of our opponents have quoted something that I might have said as president of the National Wool Growers Association, standing up before a body of men, or some resolution passed by one of our associations, some platform written at Salt Lake City or at Boise it does not matter where. We do not claim that those are perfect, any more than we claim that the law creating the forests originally, is now perfect, as we are asking that it be amended. But we are here for the purpose of, first, advising this committee to the uttermost of our strength and ability that there is no attack on conservation, veiled, open, destructive, or otherwise, in any feeling or desire by 99 per cent of the western stockmen and the people of the West. There may be 100 per cent of misunderstanding as to our attitude in some quarters, but there can be no misunderstanding of the statement that we are in favor of conservation to the uttermost on the forests.

We have gone on for many years. Many bills have been introduced. There has been no classification of the public lands. In fact, the classification of our forests to-day, the nearest we have got to it, is not scientific, accurate, or absolute. I do not think the Forest Bureau would contend that it is, as applied to this grazing question. Some of the laws we have recently passed have been a serious detriment to everybody concerned. Take the 640-acre homestead law; it was destructive to the homesteader as well as to the livestock industry, and it is generally conceded now that that law was passed without the thorough threshing over that this matter is receiving, and we are anxious to avoid any more such mistakes.

When your committee, Mr. Chairman, came through the West seeking information as to the use of the public domain in the national forests, it seemed that it was in your minds to write a law. We accordingly felt, being on the ground and deeply interested in