Forest Service Revenue and Organization 191 



This is obviously contrary to the policy underlying the federal 

 income tax, and does not treat all citizens of the Republic equally. 

 It favors the small man. This is, in theory, beneficial to the 

 Forest Service, since it makes friends for the administration 

 among the small settlers throughout the West. If such a regula- 

 tion followed the policy incorporated in the federal income tax, 

 this ten head would he exempt for all owners, rich and poor alike. 

 This, to my mind, would be preferable. The grazing administra- 

 tive regulations and instructions are admirable. They excel, in 

 the detail of range regulation, anything that has been put in force 

 by any power in the world. Yet, in the h\g factor of grazing 

 fees, the grazing administration is lamentably weak. The grazing 

 business of the West, notwithstanding figures published by the 

 Forest Service, is mainly in the hands (judged on the basis of 

 number of stock grazed) of the big men. In Arizona, on the 

 Coconino Forest, probably 65 to 75 per cent of the grazing 

 business is directly or indirectly in the hands of three families. 

 Those who know the West, know that this statement is prac- 

 tically true for most of the big grazing centers. Since the "htg 

 business" controls the grazing of the West, why should not com- 

 mercial rates he charged? Private owners charge much higher 

 rates than the Forest Service, and even the Indian Service charges 

 about five times as much as on the National Forests. For exam- 

 ple, on the Apache Indian Reservation, the 1916 year-long rates 

 for cattle were $3.50 and 50 cents for sheep. These rates were 

 the result of competitive bid. Forest Service timber sale rates 

 are in theory at least also fixed by competitive bid. On the 

 Sitgreaves National Forest, which joins the Apache Indian Reser- 

 vation, the year-long rate for cattle is 48 cents, and for sheep 

 12 cents. The main business difference is that, on the Indian land 

 the range may be fenced. Is there any reason why the Forest 

 Service should forfeit two or three million dollars a year simply 

 to prevent regulated fencing? The main reason for not allowing 

 fencing on the National Forests is the desire to keep grazing 

 for the small man. The Forester wishes to prevent the big man 

 from outbidding the small man and putting him out of business, 

 so does not use a complete system of bids in fixing grazing fees. 

 These arguments, to my mind, are not sound. They are political 

 catch-words; politics, and politics alone, prevent the Forest Ser- 



