Weekly journal-miner., 1910-05-04
Believed Department s Purpose is Not Fully
 Understood
Policy to be Pursued Is However Not An
 Innovation

WNSHiNniON,D V. Npfli E" The protests which have been re. ceived in considerable number by the '. <. Department of Agriculture against eliminating from National Forests non.timbered lands chiefly valuable for grazing are regarded by Secretary Wilson as indicating that many communities fail to rclize the limitations within which the Depart. ment must act in earring out faith. fully the intent of existing laws. Most of the protests set forth the injury which it is feared may result from unregulated grazing on the land to be eliminated. Since, however, the lands which it is proposed to eliminate are either forested now nor regarded as suitable for the future growing of trees the government has no authority to hold them as parts of the National Forests after their actual chacter has been determined.
 The policy to be pursued with re. gard 10 such lands was recently agreed upon by the Secretary of Agri. culture and the Secretary of the In. terior jointly and laid before the Pres. ident. who gave it his approval. This policy is not an innovation but is the same policy which has been applied by the Forest Service in deciding where National Forest boundries should be drawn. The reason why lands formerly included in National Forests are now being eliminated is to be found not in change of policy but in the fact that the actual conditions were sscertained last year, for the first time. through careful boundary examinations.
 The evils feared by those who are now making protest against the ex. cIusion 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 uncon. trolied, transient stock may not only eat up the forage but also depiete the range through overgrazing, to the loss and even the eventual ruin of the local stock owners. Although Sec. eretary 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 or National Forests except as far as IN necessary to secure practical nd. ministrative boundaries.
 Another ground of protest against the elimination is that administration by the Department of Agriculture has already resulted in great improvement to the water flow, or that unregulated grazing will result in polluted stream, or serious damage to watersheds. In some cases the increase in water supply which has followed National Forest administration is put as higb as go per cent. To those who make this point Secretary Wilson is replviny that every effort has been made to safeguard water supplies; that the limitations proposed are only along The borders of the forests, and the protection of water flow is recognized !" legitimate reason for retaining brush land even though 1t is not like " to grow timber of commercial value. It is not denied that in some cases the elimination of purely graz. Ing lands may possibly result in al certain amount of stream pollution, but the Department of Agriculture holds 1t has no authority to try to prevent this through National Forest | administration of such lands. In the main 1t is believed that the inter. | es's of water users have been we'll cared for in making the eiiminations.