EDITORIAL 



177 



INCREASING THE GRAZING FEES ON NATIONAL FORESTS 



THE growing efficiency with which national property 

 in the West is being administered is nowhere more 

 strikingly shown than in handling the grazing busi- 

 ness on the National Forests and Indian Reservations. 

 The policy of charging fees for grazing, inaugurated by 

 the Forest Service in 1905, was later adopted by the 

 Department of the Interior on the reservations, but was 

 never extended to the public lands. 



Grazing privileges on Indian lands are auctioned to 

 the highest bidder under sealed bids on five-year con- 

 tracts. In this way the market value of the grazing is 

 actually secured. But the system inevitably leads to few 

 and large units, controlled by the larger and wealthier 

 organizations or individuals. The method brings in the 

 maximum revenue to the Indian funds at least expense 

 for administration. 



The Forest Service has pursued a different policy. 

 Not having the Indians as their sole beneficiary, they 

 were guided by the principle of the greatest good to the 

 greatest number. In contrast to Indian Reservations, 

 National Forests are opened to settlement wherever 

 agricultural lands are found within their boundaries. 

 One of the chief sources of income for the homesteader is 

 grazing. But he has at most but a few head of stock, 

 and his chances in the free-for-all scramble on the public 

 range are very poor. A policy of large units, auctioned 

 grazing privileges and fencing would inevitably freeze out 

 the small man on National Forests. 



To prevent this, the Forest Service created preferen- 

 tial rights in favor of the settler and home-builder. Ten 

 head of stock are grazed free. The remaining carrying 

 capacity is distributed, first to the settler and what is 

 left goes to the stockmen with larger herds or flocks. 

 Grazing permits are for one year, and, to make room for 

 new homesteaders, the number of stock grazed on a 

 permit may be reduced, this reduction to fall on the larger 

 permittees. Under this system, the Forest Service now 

 issues 33,300 separate grazing permits. 



Meanwhile, the grazing privilege became more valu- 

 able for many well-known causes, chief of which were 

 the growing scarcity of free range and the higher price 

 of meat. The prices received for grazing on Indian, 

 state, railroad and private lands rose accordingly the fees 

 charged on National Forests remained stationary. Finally, 

 the discrepancy became too great to be further tolerated 

 and the Service gave notice of an increase, which in three 

 years' time would double the present scale of charges. 



The various livestock associations uniformly pro- 

 tested against this increase, but the stockmen were united 



in support of the system, at the established rates! To 

 quote from a pamphlet recently issued by a stockman in 

 Arizona : 



"The Forest Service have promulgated and have now 

 in force a regulated system of grazing on their Forests 

 of which they may justly be proud, covering an almost 

 unbelievable range of conditions as wide as this great 

 country itself. 



"The stockmen do not fear, but favor the regulation 

 of their business based upon fairness and the greatest 

 good to the greatest number." 



But they quite naturally desired to secure these privi- 

 leges at as low a cost as possible, and if protests would 

 accomplish this, they were going to protest. 



So long as exclusive fenced units are denied, and the 

 gateway of opportunity held open for new permittees, 

 National Forest grazing privileges are not worth as much 

 per head as Indian or private grazing. But the Forest 

 Service should not permit unfair privileges by allowing 

 grazing on these Forests at less than real value. Not 

 only is the Government at present meeting an annual 

 deficit of over $2,000,000 in administration while the 

 stockmen get grazing for half what it is worth, but the 

 states, through their county, school and road funds, lose 35 

 per cent of the gross revenue which they should receive 

 from this source in lieu of taxes on the grazing lands. 



The result of this agitation was not all that the friends 

 of the National Forest Administration could wish. In 

 spite of the testimony of the grazing experts of the Forest 

 Service, the Department of Agriculture, after a final 

 hearing, reduced its proposed increase from 33^j to 25 

 per cent, and declared that further increases should be 

 contingent upon future investigations of the actual value 

 of the grazing privileges on each separate forest. Encour- 

 aged by this success, the agitation against these normal 

 increases is bound to continue in full force. 



In these contests between interests which have special 

 privileges to defend, and the public, it too often happens 

 that the special users are well organized and ably repre- 

 sented, and that the interests of the general public do 

 not receive as vigorous and adequate a presentation as 

 they should. The American Forestry Association desires 

 to see such of our national resources as are retained in 

 public ownership administered in absolute fairness to the 

 user. But in a competitive commercial business such as 

 grazing, or timber sales, justice, both to the public and to 

 other individuals in the same business, demands that 

 forage as well as timber be sold for as nearly as possible 

 what it is actually worth. 



CONSERVATION of life and limb in the lumber 

 industry is said to be one of the biggest problems 

 now confronting the nation's lumbermen. Habitual care- 

 lessness is reported responsible for ninety per cent of all 

 industrial accidents, and the subsequent condition of the 

 injured, involving lost time, lost faculties, and even loss 

 of life, depends on proper attention the first few minutes 

 after an accident, pending the arrival of a physician. 



OFFICIALS of the Pennsylvania Department of For- 

 estry are much encouraged by the replies received to 

 a circular letter on reforesting, addressed several weeks 

 ago to all the water companies in the state. To date, ninety- 

 five water companies have written to the Department 

 stating that they are interested in restoring tree cover to 

 the lulls on their watersheds, and applications are listed 

 for over 100,000 trees to be used for this purpose. 



