Appalachian Forest Experiment Station, in the southern Appalachian Mountains and adjacent forest regions; Southern Experiment Station, in the Southern States; Central States Forest Experiment Station, in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, and in adjacent States; Lake States Forest Experiment Station, in the Lake States and adjoining States; California Forest Experiment Station in California and adjoining States; Northern Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment Station, in Idaho, Montana, and adjoining States; Northwestern Forest Experiment Station, in Washington, Oregon, and adjoining States, and in Alaska; Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment Station, in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, and in adjacent States; and Southwestern Forest Experiment Station, in Arizona and New Mexico, and in adjacent States, and in addition to establish and maintain one such station for the intermountain region of Utah and adjoining States, one for Alaska, one in Hawaii and one in the tropical possessions of the United States in the West Indies and one additional station in the Southern States. Mr. BUCHANAN. They are all provided for in that act. The only question is one or two stations are provided for that have not been established? Major STUART. Yes, sir. CONSOLIDATION OF FOREST EXPERIMENTAL STATIONS Mr. BUCHANAN. The question I want to propound is this: Has your bureau, or the Secretary, gone over these stations to see if you could consolidate them and do away with some of them and yet render just as efficient service to the best interests of the forests? In other words, do you not have a surplus of stations here? Major STUART. As I previously indicated, Mr. Buchanan▬▬ Mr. BUCHANAN. I am not censuring you for the establishment of these stations, because they are authorized in the act. The question is, could you not consolidate two or more of them in different regions and get by with less money and really do about as much good? a Major STUART. As I previously indicated, these stations are established regionally. Each one of those regions represents a very distinctive forest problem. For example the Lakes States present & distinctive class of forest problems from any other portion of the United States. The same way in the Northwest, where the stand of Douglas fir and hemlock presents a particular problem; in the South, we have the distinctive southern pines with distinctive southern pine problems. A combination of stations which will have the effect of joining unlike regional forest problems would be, as I see it, neither economical nor desirable, because under the present plan there is no duplication of effort. I think it should be further borne in mind that our problems and our approach are distinctly regional in their outlook, as against purely local or State, and that there are local forest research agencies which are meeting purely local problems. We have attempted to bring together in our forest experiment stations and to correlate there, all of our regional forest research. By so doing, we have accomplished coordination of projects and have developed a program of work which under any other scheme would require much paper work and much additional overhead expense. Our effort in the establishment of these stations has been to bring together as many related lines of work as possible, and to emphasize regional and national approaches to our forest problems. The southern station for example deals with the forest problems of seven southern States from South Carolina to Texas. The Central States station is working on the forest problems of 30,000,000 acres of forest and woodland in all or part of seven States, in a region 1,000 miles long (from Tennessee to Kansas) and 500 miles wide (from Missouri to Minnesota). Our regions are extensive in the effort to avoid overlapping and duplication. Mr. BUCHANAN. But you have some of these stations in adjoining States, have you not? Major STUART. The territories, of course, are adjacent, but not their headquarters. Mr. BUCHANAN. I mean the States in which the two stations are established join lines? They are bordering States? They border on one another? Major STUART. That is true as to the California territory and the Northwestern territory. Mr. BUCHANAN. And Utah and Arizona? Major STUART. That is true; that happened to be the limit of the region. You will notice that while it is true that this Northwestern experiment station region touches California, in Oregon, that it is at the edge of a very extensive region. The Northwestern region goes as far north as Canada, and it goes as far east as the Panhandle of Idaho. Similarly, the intermountain region, includes Utah which immediately abuts on Arizona, which is largely in another region, but it also includes in the intermountain region, southern Idaho, all of Nevada, and a tip of northwest Arizona. The regions are so distinct that I think it would be uneconomic to attempt to enlarge them. In fact our one need in forest research is to become more intensive rather than less intensive and you will probably recall that the authorization set up in this so-called McNary-McSweeney Act-is in every case quite in excess of the amount budgeted. Mr. BUCHANAN. Let me tell you how it strikes a man that has no knowledge of it, except as to research. You have experiment stations, according to this book of estimates for next year, receiving from $5,200 for the Rocky Mountain region to $78,150 for the station at New Orleans. Between those extreme limits, it is provided for 12 experiment stations. But it goes without saying you can not do much with $5,200 on any research problem in any area of any extent; and it looks to me like a few less stations, well equipped, well financed, would get more results from research than a lot of scattered stations with small amounts appropriated for them that take care of principally their personnel. Major STUART. Mr. Buchanan, that is quite true, if you are willing to withhold any effort at all in forest research in certain sections of the country. The authorization set up for this particular item of forest management is a million dollars. That is in contrast with the estimate submitted for 1934, of $492,671. When the larger sum is made available, it will be quite practicable and possible to have a comprehensive spread of forest research in all these regions. Our position is that we should give all of these regions some benefit from the funds that come to us for forest research. That is, that we could not justify a position that forest research should not be made in the Northwest or not made in the South until we get more money, but that as we do get money for forest research, we should attempt to conduct, up to the limit of those funds, as much work as we can. True, that results in some very small sums here for individual regions; but we think it is better to give them the benefit of that work than to completely deprive them of funds. Mr. BUCHANAN. Do public lands come within the scope of each one of these 12 experiment stations? Major STUART. Yes, sir; the station in the Central States, at Columbus, Ohio, has the smallest acreage in northern Arkansas. The projects of that station are primarily those of the farmers' woodlands in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, northern Arkansas, and western Kentucky and Tennessee. They cover a wide field of work and for the farm-land section the data would apply to southern Michigan and Wisconsin and even for a part of western Pennsylvania. Mr. BUCHANAN. Public lands in Pennsylvania? Major STUART. Not public lands. Mr. BUCHANAN. My question is: Do any of these stations have to do exclusively with privately owned forest lands? I mean, in the neighborhood. You divide it all into regions. Do any of these stations do work exclusively for a region where there is no public land? Major STUART. No, sir. Mr. BUCHANAN. You have public lands in every one of these regions that these experiment stations are located in, have you? Major STUART. In this particular region I mentioned, there are very few National forest lands, but there are State forest lands and other public forest lands. Mr. BUCHANAN. I am talking about Federal Government. Major STUART. The region with the smallest amount of national forest lands is the Central States region. In the other regions there are more extensive national forest projects. Mr. HART. This station in Ohio, in connection with the Ohio State College? Major STUART. It is a cooperative station. Major STUART. It is in the college building. Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you receive any State funds in this region? Major STUART. Yes, sir; that can be said as to all of the regional forest experimentation work. In most of the work, particularly where our offices are in connection with State institutions, we are furnished quarters. In most places the States do not supply us with funds, but pay some travel expense, or they loan us men for special work or they furnish us with equipment and laboratory space. Mr. BUCHANAN. You are furnished money, are you not? Major STUART. In some cases we do actually get money. Mr. Kotok, director of our California experimental station, is here. I know we are getting cooperative funds out there. Mr. Kotok, would you mind stating how much cooperation you had, in your work there in California? Mr. KOTOK. When the station was originally established in 1926, cooperative funds from the State forestry budget and from the university itself, amounted to about $20,000, in addition to actual sums we had of Federal money. It varies from year to year, but it would be closer to $35,000 than $25,000. It varies from $25,000 to $35,000 a About one-half the funds are without restrictions on them at all. These fit into whatever program we set up. The others, are for established cooperative projects with the States. It never has been less than $25,000. Some years, approximately $35,000. Included with this State money is that from a number of counties which contribute regularly to the budget, in all about five counties. RANGE INVESTIGATIONS Mr. BUCHANAN. The next item is: Range investigations: Investigations and experiments to develop improved methods of management of forest and other ranges under section 7, at forest or range experiment stations or elsewhere, $112,102. Major STUART. The following statement is presented in explanation of this estimate: WORK UNDER THIS APPROPRIATION The object of range investigations is to determine how to produce and utilize forage crops on forest and range lands most effectively. These ranges totaling 240,000,000 acres of grazed forest lands and nearly 590,000,000 acres of untimbered range lands constitute one of the most important sources of feed for the western domestic livestock industry, from which the Nation obtains a high percentage of its wool, lambs, and beef. The application of research results has already brought more economical production and savings of several million dollars to the industry annually. Thus, the work has an important bearing on the stability and welfare of the range livestock industry and conservation of the range resources. The work includes such phases as determining ways and means for restoring and improving depleted ranges by natural revegetation and by artificial reseeding, values of range plants for grazing and how to increased and maintain the more valuable species, carrying capacity of different kinds of range for different classes of livestock, the best and most profitable methods of handling livestock on ranges, adjustments in management to insure best range use without interfering with reforestation, and methods for controlling poisonous range plants on the range, etc. The character and value of the results which are being obtained from the investigative work under this appropriation are indicated by the far better maintenance of the feed supply especially during drought, calf crops half again as large, better growth and greater values for animals, death losses one-third as much, and more economical production being obtained under experimental management on southwestern semidesert ranges over a period of years as compared to results under the common range practice of the region. Likewise, studies of foothill grazing problems in the San Joaquin Valley of California recently started are indicating why the type of grazing often practiced there has been so destructive to forage values. Long dry summers make forage growth difficult and the recent series of dry years has so depleted the forage cover that the problem of range feed supply has become alarming. Grazing capacity of the foothill ranges has decreased from 30 to 50 per cent during the past quarter century. Last winter on many ranges not enough dry herbage remained at the beginning of the rainy season in late autumn to furnish roughage for livestock placed on the range. New growth started within 72 hours after the first rains, but plant development was very slow and the average height of the new ground cover of green herbage did not exceed 2 inches until March. Thus there was not only an insufficient forage supply for this critical period but the close utilization on many areas seriously damaged the palatable perennial plants. Similarly, the value of conservative grazing in stabilizing production of cattle in the Northern Great Plains of Montana is indicated by recent studies there. Under the common range practice of the region, vegetation has been so closely utilized each year that there is no reserve to offset scant production during drought, such as has prevailed for three years. The inadequate feed culminated in forced shipments of nearly 60 per cent of the breeding herds last winter at ruinous prices. Contrasted to this, on experimental ranges conservatively grazed the breeding herds were fully maintained with some supplemental feeding, After the break of the drought this spring, excellent growth on the experimental pastures made possible an excellent growth on young heifers of nearly 3 pounds per day. Forage production on the experimental ranges was two to three times as much as on outside ranges and of far better quality. The estimate is for $112,102, a decrease of $10,928, of which $7,898 is on account of legislative furlough, and $3,030 is real reduction which must be taken care of by reduced operating expenditures. This range investigative work is essential to the conservation, management, and improvement of the range resources both on the national forests and on other range lands. We have grazing to utilize the forage growth in the forests and in openings within the forests, as well as on range lands that are untimbered. Our work under this heading has brought about some very interesting results, the application of which has meant much to the Government and to the livestock industry. For example, we found by devising deferred and rotation grazing we have an increase in grazing capacity and better growth of animals and better economical production. Mr. BUCHANAN. What do you mean by rotation grazing? Major STUART. Deferred and rotation grazing means taking your given area of range and successively reserving portions from grazing one year after another until after seed maturity of the important palatable plants. Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you mean grazing a while and letting it rest a while? Major STUART. Yes, sir. Mr. HART. During the summer time? Major STUART. A part of the range is reserved from grazing during the summer time, or it may be that you would, under certain conditions, where you wanted to build up your range rapidly-you might not have any grazing on that particular area that particular year. Usually you can get back to it the same year. This system gives the forage plants on the reserved part an opportunity to make vigorous growth and seed before being grazed. The rotation feature affords this opportunity successively to all portions of the range. The particular point or condition to guard against, we find in grazing, is too early entrance on the ground or too heavy grazing when the stock do get there, or too much concentration of grazing. If you can control the stock as we do on national forests, get them on the forest at a time when the forage can best stand it, keep them quietly grazing rather than to concentrate, and take them off before they do too much injury, all of which can be worked out practically, you get better results from the forage growth and better results in the stock itself. These investigations aid us in determining such essential features of range management. Mr. HART. I have seen some sheep grazing in Oregon. If you could get them more concentrated than I have seen them I do not know how you would do it. Major STUART. That leads to range destruction. Mr. HART. Of course you would have to shove them apart to walk through them. You could just walk right on them. They were a solid bank. I remember the first time I ever saw them. It was quite a sight. As far as I could see, sheep! We were on some pack horses going up through the mountains to the lakes. They certainly were concentrated. I do not know whether that was the everyday experi ence or not, but I just saw that one flock. Major STUART. If left to themselves, particularly around water holes, stock will have a tendency to bunch up, and that is very destructive to the range. Those situations can be met by a proper |
