| OCR Text |
Show Secretary Of Utah Wool Growers Assn. Presents View Of Livestock Men On Public Lands Control Editor's Note: I (Following are excerpts from an article written by James A. Hooper, Hoop-er, secretary of the Utah Wool growers, which apeared in a recent re-cent issue of the Deseret News. These excerpts from Mr. Hooper's article are printed at the request of George C. Sorensen, president, and John Olsen, secretary of the Mt. Pleasant Watershed Sheep Association. Mr. Hooper's opinion opin-ion are, not necessarily those of the Pyramid. If any reader cares to comment, either favorably or unfavorably on Mr. Hooper's article, ar-ticle, the Pyramid will gladly print such comment.) By James A. Hooper (Secretary, Utah Wool Growers) With the vanguard of civilization civiliza-tion requiring expansion, our country fathers conceived the idea of attracting westward migration mi-gration in the Interest of the production of food, fiber and wealth. Railroads, the great symbol sym-bol of civilization, were offered land grants and certain privileges privi-leges to extend the railroads into unoccupied areas. Railroads alone could not do the job and hardy pioneers in many instances preceded the railroad. They were granted homesteads as inducements comparable com-parable to the railroads. They were permitted and encouraged to utilize the vast open areas. It required large acerages, because of the limited annual crop of forage, for-age, if they were to gain a livel-i hood and even a small part of the advantages of the urban population. Under these condition condi-tion the Western Livestock areas were settled. As the population increased, there were conflicting demands for these public ("rights." Early in the twentieth century the national forests were established and livestock men were granted the use of these areas for grazing purposes provided pro-vided they met the legal requirements require-ments set up by the federal government gov-ernment and had certain land holdings but always predicated upon their prior use. Under Regulation Later the less desirable areas comonly known as the public domain were placed under regulation regu-lation for the purpose "of stabilizing sta-bilizing the livestock industry." Again continuation of these privileges were predicated upon prior use and commensurate and dependent land holdings. Thus a pattern was set for the use of most of the remaining lands owned by the United States which were not sufficiently productive pro-ductive to produce wealth without with-out the other more productive lands, which were al:;o to a great extent dependent upon this public domain area. There now comes a new generation gen-eration part of which is demanding de-manding free and unlimited hunting privileges with no consideration con-sideration of the economy. It is not just or equitable, putting aside the legal status, to let them reap the benefits of pioneering 1 at the expense of the old established estab-lished privileges without due j compensation. It is not reason-, reason-, able for any purpose to deny these hardy pioneers and their estates the established privileges privi-leges and waive all or part of the requirements necessary for continued use. The established grazer complying com-plying with all of the requirements require-ments is entitled to the annual crop of forage as long as it it put to beneficial use and at a fair fee rather than all the traffic will bear. No other interest should be permitted to harvest the feed to wlych he is entitled by properly proper-ly qualifying himself and paying the required fee. The development of the land pattern must continue with the idea of stabilizing the livestock industry, the medium through which so many families are maintaining their homes and are beneficiaries in the production of food and fiber for the nation. Based upon priority and the establishment es-tablishment of use, intelligent management of these federal lands should work from the numbers of domestic and game animals there at the time of the establishment of preferences with due consideration to the condition of the range and the number of domestic and game anima's it will carry. Reduction of either class must lie equal after taking into consideration the economic condition of the community and the state. The comparison of production of weal'h between big game and livestock in the states and communities com-munities of the western part of the United States is ridiculous. Our communities could not stan't dependent even to a small extent upon big game. The appetite of the American people for big game is not sufficient to properly proper-ly utilize the big-game meat which is taken off our ranges. By and far the largest number of big game killed are prepared under unsanitary and improper conditions. Much of it. even that which goes as far as the lockers, is permitted to spoil. Most hunters will admit .that it is the sport of the kill, not the value of the meat. Ey and large the hunters who are residents of the state of Utah used money earned in industry and agriculture agricul-ture to pursue the hunt. |
