192 Forestry Quarterly 



vice from charging fair rates. The writer believes unreservedly 

 in the policy of an immediate and considerable increase in the 

 fees. The cattle, horse, sheep, and goat business has never been 

 more prosperous. Now is the time for an increase. A considera- 

 ble increase, at once, to my mind, is preferable to a large number 

 of small increases. Anyone familiar with the stock business 

 knows that owners could well afford higher rates. To argue 

 otherwise is merely playing politics. Does the Forest Service 

 have to submit to political domination? It is believed that to 

 allow fencing would be popular with the permittees and regula- 

 tions could be drafted to prevent unfair monopoly. Community 

 fences, making suitable provision for water, would take care of 

 the settler. With fencing, the number of cattle upon which fees 

 are paid would be increased. 



The writer does not venture to quote the exact rates which 

 should be charged, but, generally speaking, about double to four 

 times the present rates would be fairer than those now in force. 

 At the same time it would, to my mind, be preferable to change 

 the last paragraph in Regulation G-5, to correspond with the 

 exemption clause of the federal income tax: 



"All permittees may graze, free of charge, not exceeding a total 

 of 10 head of cattle (or their equivalent) upon National Forests. 

 This stock can, hoivever, only he admitted after permit has been 

 issued/' 



This would be treating all owners alike, whether millionaires or 

 poor homesteaders, and would be more democratic than the pres- 

 ent unequal class exemption. The Forest Service has made a 

 name by its administrative efficiency. How can it afford to permit 

 such a glaring error in its grazing administration to go unnoticed? 

 To base the decision as to partial grazing fees purely on politics 

 and on the question whether the Wilson administration can afford 

 to make political enemies of the stock men of the West is a poor 

 sort of argument. The stock men know the truth of the state- 

 ment that the grazing fees are not in accordance with commercial 

 usage. They would, undoubtedly, bring tremendous pressure 

 to bear against an increase, but, deep down in their hearts, they 

 would recognize the fairness of the measure and respect the 

 Forest Service all the more. With desirable fencing priznlegcs, 

 they might even prefer the higher rates. They realize the inherent 



