The Delta independent., 1899-05-12
rhe uin.ah Reservation and Shssp.

Inc touoNIng order from the Com
missioner OF the General Land Office in
relatioa % running sheep on the Uintah
reservation was alluded to last wees.
An osdsr has been in force for some
time Excluding sheep from the fores;
reservations OF Colorado. and this late
order , % harmony with it.
The o0cisl order is as follows:
Mr.. ". I. S. May. Forest Superin,en-
deaf. Denver. Colo.
Dear Sir-I have considered your
report a December 90. 1898. up the
subjsct - sheep grazing in the Uintah
fores4 E1Derve in Utah, in which you
STATE that the effect of the exclusion OF
sheep fFon this reservation is an impor-
taut as1 yexed consideration; the sheep
indvoesy- being large and important
one 10 tAe state OF Utah. involving many
other i1oeresis, and sheep owners OF
Utah. snd also OF Wyoming. depending
largely - this reservation for grazing.
aad sise ser- sater and shade in snmmAx-
That the sua,ber OF sheep sesk this
reserve 10 shout 10000 or 10000. and
that to exclade the same might reeult
in COMP elltnx the owners to dispose cf
hundreds oe thousands OF ,heep. or
necessi'ats their seeking more remote
summer pasturage. or oblige them to
sink wells 10 the lowlands.
That. on the other hand. the presence
Of sheep in the reserve results in seriou.
-, ~
water supply. and also the pasturage
for cattle. thereby rniuring what is
claimed by macy to have been the
leading in that section Of the state.
You submit your personal opinion in
the matter - Z, llows:
Il favor the policy OF excluding sheep
from this reservation. | am prompted
TO this opinion. as believe it to be 10
the future interests of the general pub
lie. The continuatiou Of the present
year III destroying the ben.tits tending
To result To the people through the es
tahlish ment II this forest reserve.
You are advieesi hat . careful cons d
GRAFTON Of all the facts pre- sented
your report le.ds to following conclu-
sions:
The entire acreage OF this reserve
ts15.520 screel is be no means 81 ftici Mt
10 warrant the pssturing OF. 3o,oO o.
10000 sheer; consequently large re
ductiun would be necessary even il it
were a"visabie To permit grazing on ali
the lauds; which il is not. according 10
your rrPort. which shows that. IL allow
cd at all. sheep should be confined to
.uth urtSoGs - the reserve as constitute
"srcn aIke," and that grazing should
lie abs"luiely prohibited on the timber
sh p,s and higher ranges. From which
itaII cars that the grazing area 81 ould.
in any event, be . restricted one: which
would necessitatc n yet further and pro
porir nste reduction in the number of
sheep aduaittcd.
The question OF permitting sheep
grazing IN this reserve. accordingly mar
rows i'sclf down TO u question ot the
alviss bIlity of allowing iinitcl nam
Der OF sheep To pasture ia the open
parks.
Upon this point your report is as
follow:
The parts Il the reserve m,si liable to
injury are the eiopcr. particularly thorr
that slnic 10 the nurIh. nnrihwvst and
norileasi. Tter- is less injury IN the
open parks. bot the sheep would not b.
confined ~ tAoss open parks. They
nust have shsde and water. IL they
could be restricted 10 the edge of the
heavy tiuess - limited numb-rs. the
danger d iajssy would be limited. yet
not vholly -.
From The seaesosut q fsess, IL sp-
pears that - sses..isy sos both shsde
end sssss Ussh tssvisshay force the
sheep sroo ~ spss Vsshs sp the s,opss.
sod that h wvsla, 10 ccsseqssnes. be