age. In going into this tfcoroTighly, however, I find that 

 it is too difficult and erfcencls over too great a length of 

 tirue to o"btain the necessary date, needed at once. It is, 

 therefore, imperative that we have a means of comparison to 

 show the actual value of the forage of the forest which will 

 give us quicli results. The nost reliable and accurate meth- 

 od that I have "been able to find is a comparison of the ac- 

 tual "beef produced in pou.ids on the National Porest with 

 that of adjoining public range outside of the Porest, S'or 

 this soason I have token the average weights of 200 head of 

 "beef outside of tlie range, which I i-iind "jo be 535 pounds. 

 The same number and class of stocli o'vned by the same party 

 grazed inside the Torost averaged at the time of leaving 

 560 pou:.ds, or a difference of 27 pounds. This figured at 

 the average price of 11^ is 2,97. Of this amount, 31^ is 

 charged for grazing fees, which reduces it to $2.66. De 

 ducting the actual amount of cost of grazing administration 

 per head, or 8.0^ por head, leaves a "balance of 2.57. This 

 figured on the number of be exes produced, or approximately 

 6,000 head is equivalent to 15,420, the actual value of 

 the national Porest forage for cattle yearly above that of 

 the public range. Sheep 16^ per head gain. 



Other methods of comparing the cost of administra- 

 tion of grazing to the actual public service rendered will 

 undoubtedly be suggested, 



189 



