The daily sentinel., 1910-04-29
ANSWER MADE
TO PROTESTS
Especial to The Sentinel.I

Washington, April 29.-The pro-
tests which have been received in con-
siderable number by the U. S. De-
partment of Agriculture against ELI
minating from national forests non
timbered lands chiefly valuable for
grazing are regarded by Secretary
Wilson as indicating that many COM
munities fail to realize the limitations
within which the department must
act in carrying out faithfully the in
tent of existing laws. Most of the
protests set forth the injury which
1t is feared may result from UNI eg-
ulated grazing on the land to be ELI
minated. Since, however, the lands
which it is proposed to eliminate are
neither forested now nor regarded as
suitable for the future growing of
trees, the government has no auth
ority to hold them as parts of the
national forest after their actual
character has been determined.
The policy to be pursued with re-
gard to s'ich lands was recently
agreed upon by the secretary of agri-
culture and the secretary of the in
terror Jointly and laid before the
president, who gave 1t his approval.
This policy is not an innovation but
.
been applied by the forest service in
deciding where national forest bound
aries should be drawn. The reason
why lands formerly included in ma
tional forests are now being elimi-
mated is to be found not in a change
of policy. but in the fact that the
actual conditions were ascertained
last year, for the first time, through
careful, boundary examinations.
The evils feared by those who are
now making protest against the ex-
clusion of the lands in question are
usually of two kinds. In many places
residents find themselves likely to
suffer from an invasion of the range
by outsiders. If the grazing is an
controlled, transient stock may not
only eat up the forage but also de-
plete the range through overgraZing,
to the loss and even the eventual
ruin of the local stock owners. AL
though Secretary Wilson recognizes
that this may be the case, he has
pointed out to those who make this
argument that government control
of lands valuable only for grazing
was not contemplated by the laws
authorizing the creation of national
forests, except as far as is necessary
to secure practical administrative
boundaries.
Another ground of protest against
the eliminations is that administra-
tion by the department of agriculture
has already resulted in great i'm
provement to the water flow, or that
unregulated grazing will result in
polluted streams or serious damage
to watersheds. In some cases the
increase in water supply which has
followed national forest administra-
tion is put as high as % per cent.
To those who make this point Secre-
tary Wilson is replying that every
effort has been made to safeguard
water supplies; that the eliminations
proposed are only along the borders
of the forests, and the protection of
water flow is recognized as a legiti-
mate reason for retaining brushland
even though 1t is not likely ever to
grow timber of commercial value. 1t
is not denied that in some cases the
elimination of purely grazing lands
may possibly result in certain
amount of stream pollution. but the
department of agriculture holds it
has no authority to try to prevent
this through national forest admin
istration of such lands. In the main
it is believed that the interests of
water-users have been well cared for
in making the eliminations.