OCR Text |
Show ;10 SHOULD CONTROL THE POBLICOOfllN Authority on Subject Recommends Rec-ommends Transfer to the Forest Service Depart -ment of the Government (By DR. GEORGE STEWART) Agronomist, With the United States Forest Service. That the unreserved public domain do-main be transferred to the several sev-eral states was probably not a mature thought. Certainly it is not a definite, clear-cut move towards to-wards conservation. It would probably prob-ably prove to be exactly the opposite. op-posite. Sincere and careful analysis anal-ysis shews the evidci.e to be favorable fav-orable to federal rather than to state control. The acute grazing problems that now exist on public domain lands have resulted largely from the entire en-tire absence of control. Most close students of the question have reached the conclusion that some sort of control is absolutely necessary, nec-essary, if this great national resource re-source is not to be destroyed, or at least largely wasted. Any control con-trol whatever would be indefinitely superior to none. All constructive leaders, however, are anxious to ( Continued on page 3) PUBLIC DOMAIN (Continued from page 1) see that system inaugurated which, in the long run, will bring the greatest beneficial effects to ultimate ul-timate users and to the nation. As long as the federal government govern-ment has supervision of a great resource, the officers of that government gov-ernment are bound by legal duty, and even more fundamentally by moral obligation, to make an honest hon-est attempt to conserve that resource re-source in such a manner that it may become the greatest possible force for good in our national welfare. wel-fare. Certain resources are most valuable when they are allowed to become private property. The usefulness use-fulness of other resources are best preserved and magnified by being retained in public ownership in order that use by private economic enterprises may be so controlled as not to pervert, to weaken, or to destroy the major utilities of the resource. Considered from this angle, it seems that there are five possible possi-ble methods of disposing of the surface rights of the public domain: do-main: To leave them as they are, without any form of actual control; con-trol; to permit them to pass out of government hands into private ownership; to organize a federal leasing system; to turn them over to the separate states to handle as each sees fit; or to Tetain them in federal ownership and organize a control system by means of a federal permit system in which, supervision and responsibility is delegated to some agency of the federal government, which arranges ar-ranges for private use on the fee system. The status of these federally fed-erally owned lands is such that until congress takes definite, positive posi-tive action of some sort, the present pres-ent condition merely remains. Lack of control is so thoroughly beset with such difficulties as forage destruction, de-struction, soil erosion, increase of poisonous plants, monopoly of watering wa-tering places, exploitive land settlement, settle-ment, tramp stockmen, and generally gen-erally inefficient use due to the absence ab-sence of incentive to establish either .physical or management improvements im-provements it is so surroundingly beset with these difficulties as to make the demand for something better just short of a universal cry. The few individuals who have acquired ac-quired profit-yielding monopolies cn the public domain are the only informed voice not now calling for relief. In other words the real opposition op-position to establishing control of some sort is coming from a few large outfits who in reality control con-trol and who believe they may continue to control large areas of land by virtue cf their ownership of watering places. Obtaining feed in this manner gives it to them without cost. During our whole national history his-tory the land policies have been based on the assumption that an land was capable of being utilized as farms cr as small ranches. Practically all of the land e;sx of the Missouri river, and most of it east of the Rocky mountains moun-tains has been so utilized. Tne oncoming on-coming scarcity of such national supplies as timber, minerals, oil, and more remotely, coal, has led to a remolding of opinion regarding regard-ing their proper disposition. It is now clear that certain aspects of future national welfare will be better protected by a part of the resources in this class being reserved re-served to the nation. Of late, it has also become clear that the protection of water sheds against forage destruction and against soil erosion has assumed an importance that warrants national na-tional scrutiny. Private enterprise bent on economic gain is not to be trusted with a physical resource or with a legal right that may influence influ-ence in a basic manner our ultimate ulti-mate welfare. The tangle of water wa-ter rights and of power privileges on the Colorado river has thrust into our faces the danger of conflicting con-flicting state, municipal, and private pri-vate interests. A whole series of such far reaching results are bound to arise around the problems prob-lems of grazing, of timber control, of soil erosion, and of monopoly privileges on the public domain. Even if private ownership were the desirable end of our land policy, pol-icy, it is no longer possible. Large areas of the public domain are not capable of becoming private pri-vate property as we have used that term. When once we recognize recog-nize that many sections of land are entirely dependent on access to a single watering place by animals ani-mals grazing on those sections, that the watering place is already the private property of a citizen who may legally prevent access to it of animals not his own, and that the owner of the water virtually vir-tually owns all the tributary public pub-lic lands without the cost of acquiring ac-quiring legal ownership or of paying pay-ing taxes when we recognize that these conditions prevail, as they do at intervals throughout the whole west, the reason is clear why there is still public domain and why it will remain public domain do-main for a long time. Much of it is merely not capable of being used as private grazing units. All that can be done, without establishing control or without revising radi- calhr cur land and water ptlicies is to leave it as it is cr to go through some formality that would give the present users the legal strength of vested rights. While appreciable fractions of the public dcrr.ain are used under un-der the water monopoly, it must be acknowledged that they are only fractions. Other bodies cf land are capable of best use by a community group, the individuals of which are kept within reasonable reason-able bounds by some recognized authority. Such authority should also protect the occupants against the destructive incursions of tramp herds. The great distances between the winter and the summer ranges rang-es increase the importance of group units as compared with private pri-vate holdings. Moreover, the limite.d carrying capacity of many areas gives them such low capitalization values as to present taxation difficulties. This low valuation would really prevent pre-vent private individuals from building build-ing fences, corrals, dipping vats, or shearing sheds and from locating lo-cating the sources of underground water. The vegetation on many cf these ranges is valuable only for winter or for early spring grazing, graz-ing, and cannot be used for summer sum-mer grazing on account of there being no available water. If water wa-ter could be provided and yearlong year-long grazing begun on our winter ranges, many of them would deteriorate de-teriorate almost beyond belief on account of plant leaves being eaten eat-en as soon as they were out of the bud. Private ownership was perhaps possible in the beginning had the watering places and certain lands able to endure summer grazing been reserved for use only in connection con-nection with purely winter ranges. Now that they are gone, however, nobody except the owners of these "key" lands and of the watering places can afford to own the tributary trib-utary lands. Perhaps not even the owners of the watering places can successfully assume the economic responsibilities of ownership, such as taxes and improvements on the lands of lowest forage capacity. Leasing has two distinct advantages advan-tages government control without heavy burdens of administration and development, and direct income in-come of considerable revenue. Opposed Op-posed to the advantages are two disadvantages: First, leaving the management of the land for forage for-age in the hands of individuals, with the likelihood of over-grazing, at least near the end of the lease. Second, the fact that leasing has not brought about the really successful suc-cessful cooperation in the United States between the lessee and the government that we are told prevails pre-vails in Australia and several European Eu-ropean countries with regard to land purchase and rural credit generally. Wooton, who studied this question closely in Arizona and New Mexico, concluded that "the second serious difficulty lies in the fact that the kind of law that will suit the conditions in one region re-gion will not do at all in another place; and so far no one has been able to devise a lease law that would cover the necessary provisos pro-visos and exceptions and properly localize the application of such limitations." A combination federal fed-eral lease system might be devised devis-ed wherein the terms of the lease controlled the number of animals and the s?ason of grazing. At the end of such lease period five or ten years a well-qualified inspector inspec-tor would study the range and make such modifications for the new lease as the result of the old one seemed to warrant. The many merits of such a leasing system might warrant its trial were it not for the fact that either lease would have to be let on a competitive com-petitive basis or new, qualified eraizers could not be admitted. Competitive bidding destroys stability sta-bility by creating uncertainty es to who will have the land next time. The failure to admit new graziers would give to present users us-ers monopoly privileges without ownership responsibilities. It h.as been proposed several times in previous years that the public domain be transferred to the state in which it is located for whatever disposition that 5'a'e mirh: th.w to make cf it. Preside:-.: Hvver's rubhc lands crvr.-m:ss:-n is consid'-n; arr.-r.s o'hrr this. The n cf r-'l'T.r.r 'h- lr..:s to the sr-:s can rr-.ib'.v 'of-t re out bv :.r r.-.ik- -.::; a rr.'-f c : a rr, . r a ' : -n rf ' rttch: bo -r.p ti:-..l-r a f--l-rsl I On :!.- r.a-. ral f - ' a '. ' - ' are creating a cisturban:e cut cf : all prepcrtton to their numbers. The permit system new in op-j op-j eration cn the national forests ; achieves the following important ' cbjects: i , , . . ' i 1. IrtiTci conservation ot tne ' forage resources and protection cf ; the watersheds and cf associated ' resources. 2. Grants grazing privileges to i the present user in such a manner j as to correlate the summer ranges j cn the national forests with the j winter and spring ranges cn the public domain, and with the pri-1 pri-1 vat-e ranch enterprises. 3. Provides elasticity for ad-j ad-j justment to local conditions, to the admission of new graziers, and to new types of farming as they grow up in the farming vicinity. 4. Insures equality of opportunity oppor-tunity by removing the element of unfair competition that large outfits out-fits have too frequently employed in dealing with small outfits. While there are several theoretical theoret-ical principles, such as the intrinsic in-trinsic justice of state rights that favor state administration as opposed op-posed to federal, the practical difficulties dif-ficulties in the way of state control con-trol are very great. Perhaps this is best brought out by stating briefly the concrete advantages in favor of control by the federal government. These may be summarized sum-marized as follows: 1. A federal agency can manage man-age these lands under one head, whereas if the lands pass to the control of the separate states there would be eleven or more separate heads, many of which would be competitive. The stockmen stock-men now have ample troubles without magnifying them manifold. mani-fold. 2. Under the United States forest service there could be a unit correlation between the summer ranges on the national forests and the winter and spring ranges on the public domain. If the public domain lands were handled by the separate states this correlation could not be effective because many cf the summer ranges are in a separate state from the winter win-ter ranges. Winter ranges in the Utah-Nevada desert receive sheep from the summer ranges in Colorado, Colo-rado, Arizona, Nevada, and in some cases as far as Oregon. 3. Our state boundary lines are artificial and do not enclose distinctive dis-tinctive geographic units. This is exemplified by the location of winter win-ter and summer ranges and by the Colorado river problem. Under state control there would have to be pacts for intcr-state grazing control. Who is there who has studied the progress of the Colorado Colo-rado compact who would like to repeat the experience every time an inter-state problem arose? 4. Even when some satisfactory agreement is reached that will settle set-tle the present controversy over water and power rights on the Colorado river,' the silting problem in the reservoirs will deserve serious seri-ous consideration. Only the proper prop-er federal agency can successfully prevent grazing in one state which will cause destructive silting of reservoirs in another state. 5. The federal government has a staff of men accumulated and trained during the last twenty-five twenty-five years. Their training is both intellectual and practical and they have found the proper adjustment between theory and practice. The beginning of state control would mean that each state would be seeking men for their separate j staffs. Under a single federal ag- ency salaries large enough to at-j at-j tract big-calibered men may be j paid, whereas eleven states could I not hope to do this. All large j business enterprises are eonsoli-I eonsoli-I dating in order to provide managerial mana-gerial ability of a high rder. 6. Federal employees are hired i under the civil service, and their positions are more nearly permanent, perma-nent, on account of which the men can be more efficient than can 'politically-appointed men in separate sepa-rate states. State employees should have permanency of tenure but unfortunately there are few western west-ern states in which this is the case, even in theory, and certainly not in pracice. If p:ty poli'.i'S be allowed to enter this problem, as t'.".r-y would in mar.v of the s'r.fs. a n:?t cpl'-rable c:.' i-s.cn i-s.cn in affairs rn.cr.t be rre-:pi- 7. Ore cf tie chi'f argurr,' :.' s f r .? ' : : '. at the pr'-'r.-t r.-e is tia- tie r:-.-r is (r.'.'i -' r. . i. ' - ' t .- cc-uld be provided and Cly cne is needed since the public domain presents a unit problem. Five or six. to say nothing cf eleven, research re-search organizations would be a terrific waste cf energy and money. mon-ey. Under separate state systems valuable information from experience experi-ence and from investigational work in cne state would often fail to reach producers in another state. Under a single federal agency this drawback could be entirely overcome. over-come. 19. The ccsi to the state of handling public domain grazing lands independently would be considerably con-siderably higher than if put under un-der the United States forest service ser-vice which already has the most expensive part of the overhead organization or-ganization in a corps of trained staff members. In 1921, at the request re-quest cf Governor George H. Dern, of Utah, a careful analysis was made cf this problem for that state. Since it is about the only cne that is known to have been made, it is here summarized in a slightly modified form. The exact personnel and budgets required would vary with the particular control system inaugurated. inaugu-rated. There would have to be ( officers of general administration, i and a more detailed field force of : rangers to assist the stockmen in ! getting their allotments properly classified so as to permit com-! com-! munity grazing on these winter I ranges. The snow cover itself is a variable that cannot be over-. over-. looked. There may be early snow on one part of the range but not on another. Next winter, or even later in the same winter, this 1 condition may be reversed. If a ' stockman had to use a definite ! allotment every winter, his animals ani-mals would be without water a large part of the time. These problems prob-lems require adequate supervision and elasticity. Policing an allotted range is probably needless expense. ! except to keep off tramp herds ' during the summer. A good edu-; edu-; cational program would accom- plish more and be better received, j Range inspection at occasional I intervals must also be provided in ; any system of control. A few range ; specialists in various major fields, : such as forage productivity, animal ani-mal husbandry, disease control and marketing could not be avoided if J any consequence were to be expended ex-pended to the industry. Then, there must be clerical help in the central office and travel budgets for the inspectors and specialists. Some trails and roads are absolutely abso-lutely required. If each function were reduced :c lowest passible activity, the cost would be about $1-3.000 to S:25,ftXI. Utah's 2o.000.000 acres of public domain would carry approximately i SCO. COO ccw units for the winter and early spring grazing season. , Many of the grazing animals would be sheep but The calculation is ; made by allowing about four sheep ( for a cow unit. It was thought that the maximum charge that j could be made was twenty cents j a oow ur.it. This would give an ! income cf $1-0 .000. Utah would. therefore, have to mansge well to ; break even, without providing any-j any-j thing for research, or any income ' in lieu of taxation. On the other hand, if the United Unit-ed States forest service were allowed al-lowed to handle this grazir.a: land along with the national forests everything ev-erything could be eliminated except some rangers, their assistants, and a few specialists. Approximately $60,000 would permit the fores! service to take care of the public domain, leaving $60,000 to be divided di-vided somewhat as follows: In lieu cf taxes to the state, $i!0,000; for additional development work, including in-cluding roads and trails. $12,000; for research investigation, $1S.OOO. This is a much more complete :prcrram than the state could car-! car-! ry out without making considerable consider-able additional appropriations. If some other agency of the fed-! fed-! oral government besides the for-! for-! est service should undertake to ! control grazing on the public do- main, it. would incur most of the : expenses th.at a single state would have and there would be, in the main, a separate and competing 'agency in charge of the winter j range from the one in charge of the summer range. Otherwise, there j would be costs, friction, and lack of unit organization. It is not : thinkable that the national forests should be turned over to some oth-' oth-' or branch of the federal gov ern-! ern-! ment than that of the forest ser-I ser-I vice. It would, therefore, seem to j be very short-sighted for these I public domain grazing lands to be ' transferred to any other agency. Any agency could, undoubtedly, j render some service to the stock -.men, but why are the stockmen and the people as a whole not entitled en-titled to the best passible system? The welfare of the livestock indns-j indns-j try and the welfare of the nation jboth demand that the public do-! do-! main be transferred to the forest j service to be handled in conjur.c-' conjur.c-' tion with the national forests. |