Now this is probably borne out by the fact that they have so reduced and made out of proportion that unit in some sections that the man whose unit is thrown all out of gear wants to get in and even his unit up and is willing to pay a small price. But I do not think this is of any great consequence at the present time in our particular section. And this value of $5 a head on livestock permitted I think would not and I know does not work out at the present time, even in these highly congested range centers. I think, too, that we are in a way disrupting the very thing that we are trying to work for. In thickly populated communities, such as we have in Utah, by offering to present farm owners the privilege of securing a part of another livestock man's preference on the forest, we are making some of the diversified farming areas more dependent on the forest. Rather than raising crops that are of greater acreage value, such as sugar beets-and they could be raising sugar beets-they are raising forage in order to connect them up with the forests. I think that if only proper protection were built up under the law, that we would not have any bonuses attached to these permits. I think that this covers this particular section of the law and adequately explains our position with regard to further distribution where the distribution is being carried on in a way that really is not in the economic interests of the community. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is all that I have to say in regard to this subject. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the terms in section 307 should be changed so as to give the right of distribution to others than homesteaders? How do you construe the meaning of the word "homesteaders" as used here? Mr. HOOPER. Well, as "homesteaders" is used here it probably means, and without a doubt would mean, merely those who under the act of the Government had created homesteads. In other words, the whole scheme here is that we must not permit men to come into the forest and then later make a reduction because of range protection. The CHAIRMAN. Well, do you think there should be some provision in the bill whereby the newcomers or new applicants for grazing privileges could be cared for? Mr. HOOPER. Well, I think it is fundamentally wrong, but it probably must be there to take care of these men who may come in and expect to obtain a preference on the forest. In other words, the homesteader who is coming in and receives the preference on the forest by reason of this particular paragraph may eventually, if the principle is carried to the extreme, have a part of that preference taken away to take care of still another newcomer. The CHAIRMAN. If keeping in mind what is an economic unit? Mr. HOOPER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the only phase of the bill that you care to discuss, Mr. Hooper? Mr. HOOPER. Yes, that is the only phase, Mr. Chairman.' The other phases will be discussed by other witnesses. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hooper, do you know of any persons or group of people that are interested in this legislation in order that they might acquire special legal privileges and rights for the purpose of creating a monopoly in grazing? Mr. Hooper. No, and I think the economic situation itself would take care of that. I think that is proven by the past. Every man who tries to increase his preference must have owned lands back of it. In the past it has been a survival of those who were best prepared with other lands to utilize their forest permits, and we have not even under the past regulations found any monopoly being built up by stockmen. The CHAIRMAN. If you have no further statement, Mr. Hooper, the committee will recess until 2.30 tomorrow. (Thereupon, at 4.55 o'clock p. m., Wednesday, March 3, 1926, an adjournment was taken until 2.30 p. m. the next day, Thursday, March 4, 1926.) GRAZING FACILITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 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, Oddie, Norbeck, and Ashurst. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Senator ODDIE. Mr. Chairman, before we start I would like to read a resolution into the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that may be done. Senator ODDIE. Resolution adopted at the seventh annual meeting of the Nevada State Farm Bureau at Las Vegas, Nev., January 29, 1926: Resolved, That we indorse the platforms dealing with the national forest and public domain problems presented by the National Livestock Associations to the subcommittee of the Senate Public Lands Committee at the hearing held at Salt Lake City last August as well as the testimony presented to the same committee by representatives of our own organization at the hearings held by the same committee at Reno, Nev., September 21, 1925; Las Vegas, Nev., October 16, 1925; Ely, Nev., November 17, 1925, and Tonopah, Nev., November 21, 1925. STATEMENT OF VERNON METCALF, RENO, NEV., SECRETARY OF THE NEVADA LAND AND LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Metcalf, will you give your name and whom you represent to the reporter? Mr. METCALF. My name is Vernon Metcalf. My residence is Reno, Nev. I am the secretary of the Nevada Land and Livestock Association, a member of the executive committee of the National Wool Growers' Association, and a member of the executive committee of the American National Livestock Association. The CHAIRMAN. Were you with the United States Forest Service at any time during your career? Mr. METCALF. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How long were you in that service? Mr. METCALF. Approximately 12 or 13 years. The CHAIRMAN. And in what capacity were you engaged with the United States Forest Service? Mr. METCALF. In all of the official positions from the clerical through the more subordinate administrative lines, as ranger, for est supervisor, and finally as assistant district forester at Ogden, Utah. The CHAIRMAN. You grew up in the ranks of the service? Mr. METCALF. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Beginning as a ranger? Mr. METCALF. Beginning as a clerk. The CHAIRMAN. And from a clerk as a ranger? Mr. METCALF. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you have had 12 years of service? Mr. METCALF. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In what portion of the United States did you serve? Mr. METCALF. Principally in what is known as district 4, with headquarters at Ogden, Utah. During that time I served in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and northern Arizona. The CHAIRMAN. Were you forest supervisor at any time? The CHAIRMAN. What forest did you supervise? Mr. METCALF. The Toyabe National Forest in Nevada, the Humboldt National Forest in Nevada, which, just previous to my transfer, had been three distinct national forests, and the Lemhi National Forest in Idaho. The CHAIRMAN. All of those forests are grazed extensively? Mr. METCALF. The Humboldt Forest at the time I had charge of it was the largest grazing forest in the Forest Service. And in all of the others grazing use was primary. The CHAIRMAN. What opinion has your experience given to you as to the effect of grazing on reforestation? Mr. METCALF. My observation has been that wherever the man who owns the stock, or the stock themselves, had a chance to graze as the stock preferred and as the individual stockmen preferred, I never was able to see any damage done to the ground cover, and in using those words "ground cover" I include the reforestation of trees, coniferous, and otherwise. The CHAIRMAN. Much has been said before the committee relative to livestock eating the coniferous trees. What has your observation led you to believe as to the extent of consumption of coniferous trees by domestic animals? Mr. METCALF. If I might state, Senator, I think the statement going into the record was that they grazed the western yellow pine. That is a particular species of tree. The only experience that I have had with big stands of western yellow pine where grazing of both sheep and cattle was in effect was upon the Kaibab National Forest in northern Arizona. My personal observation was that reproduction of the western yellow pine on the sheep ranges, which were pure sheep ranges, no cattle grazing upon them, was just as good as the reproduction on any part of the forest. And I never personally saw a sheep eat a yellow pine seedling, or eat from a yellow pine seedling, or any evidence that they had, though it was not my particular job, you might say, to study that. Just my observation from being on the range in the general administration of grazing. Senator ODDIE. Mr. Metcalf, from your observations do you think that the certain damage and dwarfing that has occurred to certain |