The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-07-11
THE SHEEP IN UTAH.

The Ogden Standard calls renewed
attention to a long-standing dscrep
ancy between tho u. S. Depart
ment Of Agriculture and the local
reckoning as to the number of sheep
in Utah. The Department estimates
have always varied largely from the
local reckonings, and nothing that
could be said or done here served to
bridge over the difference. The same
condition that existed in Utah as 10
this existed also in other States and
Territories of tho West. Finally the
discrepancy became so serious that the
Department sent out a special investl-
gator some three years ago to look
into the question in Utah and other
Western commonwealths. That in
vestigator reported his conclusion to be
that the Department had been largely
overestimating the number Of sheep,
not only in Utah, but throughout the
Western country generally 1t appears
that his report has just taken form in
the estimates of the department, and
|
number of sheep for the whole coun-
try is the result.
Tn Utah, for example, the depart
ment reported something more than
100000 of wool bearing sheep, and
considerably over 100000 aggregate
of sheep and lambs. It now reports
about ,650,000 wool bearing sheep, and
100000 aggregate Of sheep and lambs.
| The reductions for other States in the
| West are about in the same proportion.
The report for Montana was 4,97s 1868
| in 1910 and 4,2l5,2l4 in 1900; Wyom
ing, 4,676,206 in 1910 and 1897, ,1S5 in
| 1900; Colorado, 1,313,04S in 1910 and
1852 ,S23 in 1900; New Mexico, 2,o31,-
! 201 in 1910 and 66S,45s in 1900; Ne
vada. S10,973 in 1910 and 56S,251 in
1900; Idaho, 2,160,020 in 1910 and
l,965, ,467 in 1900; Washington, 30s 1862
in 1910 and 55S022 in 1900; Oregon,
,9S2,552 in 1910 and ,961 1856 in 1900,
and California, LAO, ,532 in 1910 and
| ,724,96 in 1900.
1t appears that the department woke
UP to the idea that it was largely over
estimating the number Of sheep, from
the fact that there was such a differ
ence between the numbers it reported
In the different States and the amount
of wool clipped, gauged by the report
of the average weight OF the fleece
The showing was so very greatly
against the department figures that il
was felt that something had TO be done
about it. Up to- that time little or no
attention had been paid to the reports
of local agencies or to the assessment
rolls, or TO anything except sort of
estimate of which no one has any
idea Of the origin; and a constant
attempt was made to square the wool
product with that overestimate. In
Utah, for instance, the wool product
was known to run year by year along
about thirteen million pounds; but,
with upward of 100000 wooI-pro-
ducing sheep, and the fleece reported at
something over seven pounds per fleece,
1t was seen that the figures did not
correspond, and that this variance was
SoiotdH'' ue luNtSIlRaIiOn Tc1CrrcQ 10
was thereuPon set on foot, with the re
suit Indicated
Various reasons have been given for
the assumed reduction in the number Of
sheep, based upon the former ex.
aggerated figures of the department
Some have maintained that the cause
grew out of a fear of reduction
or removal Of the duty on wool. Others
have given various reasons, as the un-
proiitableness of the sheep business,
now that settlers have so encroached
upon the ranges, and other explana-
tlons were given, all alike falacious,
For plainly the trouble was not in the
actual number Of sheep, but in the
overestimatc of the Department of
Agriculture, based upon it's own fanci-
full figures, derived no one knows
whence, There has, in fact, been no
reduction worth speaking Of in the
number of sheep. The reduction in the
figures of the Department of AgricuI-
ture simply means that the department
Is getting down to business, and is
finding out, rather belatedly, to be sure,
the real number of sheep in the coun-
try, and recognizing that its former
estimates were far beyond the mark