6 GKAZING FEES— GUARANTY PRICE ON WHEAT. 



There are multiple factors which enter into the jalue of graz- 

 ing on these national forests, which I doubt ««^ld be correctly 

 and intelligently presented to your committee by stockmen who 

 might come here to testify; and in that aspect I thmk, before 

 the committee presses the question of this advance, you ought, 

 not only in fairness to the users of these reserves, but also in justice 

 to vourselves, send a representative committee out to thorougHly 

 inspect the conditions of grazing on some of these representative 

 forests throughout the West. ,r /-. 



Mr. TiNCHEE. Do you not think that the reports from Mr. Crraves, 

 who has charge of the forests, would be reliable m that respects He 

 has probably better facilities for understanding the true condition 

 than a congressional committee. 



Mr. ToMiLSON. I should think that Mr. Graves's recommendations 

 would be fairly correct, but Mr. Graves does not understand the 

 forests as well as the stockmen who use them. I have not heard 

 what Mr. Graves's position has been, at least the record of the hear- 

 ings does not disclose it accurately, but I have been told on the out- 

 side that he was not averse to some increase, that he had been impor- 

 tuned by Congress to try to make the forests self-supporting and 

 finally had assented to your demand. I do not know whether that 

 is a correct statement of his position or not. 



I have been told that Mr. Potter opposed the increase, and largely 

 because of the existence of this so-called five-year permit and the un- 

 derstanding with the stockmen about it. 



I wish, however, to refer briefly to some disabilities encountered 

 by the stockmen in using these reserves. I hope it is a matter of 

 record, and if it' is not it should be, that the users of the forests have 

 in the past 10 years paid for more than half the improvements put 

 on the forests. You understand that the permits provide that in the 

 making of those improvements the title to the same goes to the Gov- 

 ernment. Therefore, from that viewpoint the users of the forests 

 are paying considerably more than the actual fee assessed. We do 

 not secure as good returns from the bulls on the forests ; the losses 

 are extraordinary, as compared with the losses in fenced inclosures ; 

 and the expense of getting the stock to the reserves is extremely 

 heavy ; the restrictions are many and are expensive to comply with. 



You may remember that at the time the 64:0-acre grazing-homestead 

 bill was enacted that there was a great deal of talk about driveways 

 to and from the forests, and the Interior Department withdrew in a 

 few instances driveways as long as 150 miles. Now, these drive- 

 ways were for permitting the users of the forests to drive from their 

 permanent location to the reserves. It is not infrequently the case 

 that the users of the reserves are obliged to ship their live stock by 

 train to as near the forest as possible, and then drive them the bal- 

 ance of the way. All this contributes to the expense of using the 

 grazing on the forests and to our mind largely makes up for what 

 appears on the surface as too great difference between the cost of the 

 grass on the forests as compared with the grazing under fenced 

 pastures. Poisonous plants and predatory animals take a heavy toll 

 on our live stock. 



However, I do not wish to keep you here with a recital of what we 

 consider the heavy disabilities of grazing on the forests. My purpose 



