The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-05-14
THE NUMBER OF SHEEP.

UcIe mas LOT many years DdCk pCcn
a curious exaggeration on the part
of the T. S. Department of Agricul
ture of the number OF sheep IN the
United States TO go no farther than
the case Of Utah. there has IN past
years been determined effort on the
part Of the Department to insist that
there were some 100000 sheep in Utah
No remonstrances could shake the fixed
opinion of the officials of the Depart
mcnt that this was the proper number
of sheep to return from Utah; and
those who made the returns wcra in
| structed TO report. not as 10 the abso.
lutte number. but as 10 the percentage
as compared with tho year before. This
maintained the Department opinion in
| full strength, although it was easy to
show, and was in fact shown from time
TO time, that the estimate was a gross
eIaggeration
When the Department began to real
izo that it was exaggerating on this
point, and that lis returns Of wool clips
did not harmonize with the number of
sheep, it sent out anxious inquiries
from the Department to brace up the
figures of the previous reports. But
this could not be done; for taking the
average weight Of fleeces aud the wool
produced, there was shocking discrep-
ancy between these two points and the
number of sheep. If there were, say,
100000 sheep, producing fleeces that
weighed on the average seven and one
half pounds each, there being, say.
900 tleecclcss lambs, there would
naturally be expected something over
100000 pounds of wool from Utah.
But the average nun about 100000
pounds. So the Department was con
founded by its own figures when these
figures were compared. Aud the esti-
mate of the number of sheep was prop
erly reduced to conform to the facts, as
We state this as an introduction 10 a
second letter received from our friend
at Hanksville, Utah, in opposition to a
protective duty upon wool. We printed
his former letter on May 1st. 1t ap-
pears that there was paragraph in
tended TO be included in that letter
bearing on this point which we did not
receive. Our CORES pondent encloscs a
second letter covering the point, which
is as follows:
Granite Ranch,
Hanlsvllle, Utah. MAY s, 1919
TIL.
cause a paragraph Of my ar
ticle OF April 81 was not contained in It's !
publication in your paper of May 2
intended 10 include the findings OF the !
Taft Tariff Board. as TO the amount of
wool produced in this country as COM
pared with what we consume.
They found that we produce only 40
per cent Of the amount consumed. Now |
IL anyone can give good business rea-
son why we should try 10 foster an in
1ustry that has been protected for many:
enough 10 produce but 10 per cent of
what we require, I'd like to have IL,
Why should We enhance the value OF the
whole amount consumed TO protect an
that Is on the wane? The
sheepmen toll us that the range Is over
stocked now. II that be true and the
INDUSTRY has already beer. developed TO
the limit of our resource for production.
and il still lacks 50 per cent OF afford
nE enough for our requirements. why
.ry 10 develop II more by increasing the
,ent that we produce and the Go per
'ent impOrtedl that we do consume2 |
We Americans don't contend for this
principle except when II comes to poll
les. Then we are dead sure that il Is
ust the correct mode OF procedure to
make the ninety other fellows pay more
or what they require In order that ten
II us may make "A little easy money"
But the wool question Is about set
led, so far as the tariff is concerned.
md as you say. the raising of sheep
md Flsfss ton nf
,e put on another basis" 1t should be.
The sheepmen OF the western range"
VII have TO learn the improved methods
" the farmers of the general farming"
district, and the wool producers of the
Ohio territory may be eliminated. II
Won't hurt much. They only produce (
yill only apparently have a deleterious
fleet on less Than one -hundredth part '
n ! per cent our population 10 do away
With the industry in that small district ,
Then II the sheep ralsers and wool pro- .
uccrs OF the western range" can't get
long without help, I'd be in favor OF
uosidizins them I'll they learn tho mod +,
rn methods "f the general farming |
PRODUCERS. so that their wool VIII cost
hem nothing. NJ
The missing paragraph was not in the
ormer letter as received. but our CORE
pondent suggests in private note that t
10 knows that he wrote the paragraph, c
mt that possibly he got it mixed with !
N article he sent out in the same mail q
o an Eastern publication This must y
ave been the case. 4
With regard to the number OF sheep, ]
re have indicated above the reason for l
lie reduction III the numbers as given l
" the q. S. Department Of Agriculture {
With regard to the western ranges be. c
NC fully stocked now. il is to be noted !
hat the ranges arc being very much 5
decreased by the taking up Of land for d
dditional homesieads and for various :
agricultural, and industrial '
ecds; and besides. the handling of the )
razing lands in the West is always !
subject Of more or less criticism. that ;
eing n subject in itself of very keen >
ontrovcrsy. a
With regard to the application on the n
-csforn rauucS of .hc .rnp.rol g,r,,;...f