OCR Text |
Show PUBLIC LAND TRANSFER TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP CALLED OPEN THREAT Forests And Parks Claimed : Endangered By Land Transfer Proposal; Supporters Named! ' by CLF Senate Bill 1945 may have died with the 79th Congress, but opponents of the controversial measure are reasonably sure that it was never buried. According to the bill's enemies, respiration has been applied, and Senate Bill 1945 is agam roaming the national nation-al Congress awaiting a sponsor. In its original form S. B. 1945 provided for the granting oi pub-i.c pub-i.c lands to the slates by the federal government, and caiied the elimination of lands lrom national lorc-sts, national parks ai.d monurnenis as well as ga...e preserves. According to Aurthur Carhart, writing in the Denver Post, the whole thing started again in Salt Lake on August 17, 1946, when 10 cattlemen and wool j growers decided that, "a pro-1 gram for proposed transfer of ' public domain to private ownership," owner-ship," was needed. And Carhart charges that the group is now active in trying to bring it before Congress. Certain others agree that sometime during the 80th Congress Con-gress a bill will -be introduced aalling for a return of publically owned lands to the states, and subsequently to private ownership. owner-ship. These persons name the American Farm Bureau Federation Federa-tion and wool and cattle growers associations as the backers of such a proposal. - 1 After a careful study of Senate Bill 1945, Carhart concludes that such a law would prove disastrous dis-astrous to the national forests and national parks. And he ' points to the following wording of S. B. 1945 to support his con-1 elusion, "eliminate lands from ' national forests, parks, monuments, monu-ments, reservations 'and with-drawls with-drawls in connection1 with such grants and for other purposes." There is little doubt that a majority of the people would object ob-ject to some sort of transfer which might affect the lands administered ad-ministered under the Taylor Grazing Act, but a general hue and cry is expected to go up if the national forests and parks are transferred to stpte or private pri-vate ownership. Carhart and James A. Diffin are two writers who insist that the intent of the bill would be to eliminate forests for-ests and parks now public property. pro-perty. : They assume, and reasonably so, that the irrigation in the arid regions of the west would be materially affected by a slow process of watershed destruction brought about by over grazing, and unrestricted timber cutting Recreational areas, now provided pro-vided by . the national forests, could not possibly exist if the national forests revert to private ownership, both Carhart ' and Diffin contend. In a final thrust at the livestock live-stock interests, Carhart says: "If the public domain is given up to private ownership, such action would allow private livestock owners who now hold permits for grazing their stock on public lands, to purchase the acres within their alloted areas and only those who now hold permits per-mits could buy. Nobody else will have a chance to make such purchases, not even vCierans." - Thus the ghost of Senate Bill 1945 walks, and all indications point toward its re-introduction in the Congress or another bill containing similar provisions. |