The Coconino sun., 1920-01-16
DENY THAT RANGES
 WILL BE INJURED

, TUCSON, ARIZ., Jan. 11.-Denial that "some of the finest ranges in Santa Cruz county would be devas- tated and the stock industry ruined be- yond repair by drastic rules of the Forest Service" was emphatically made by local Forest officers when asked as to the authenticity of reports appearing in numerous papers simul- taneously about December IT. They stated further that the local officers are unaware as to what rulings, are considered unjust.
 When the bureau of forestry was reorganized in 1905 as the forest ser vice, the value of the grazing re- sources was recognized and under au- | thority of congress, the secretary of agriculture, with the advice of officers and members of the great National Livestock associations, promulgated regulations for the control of grazing on the national forests. These regu- lations were designed to establish the stock industry on permanent basis. That this was accomplished is attested by the unqualified endorsement of the | grazing administration on the nation al forests by the National Livestock associations, the Arizona Cattle Crow CTS association and practically the en- tire stock interests of the western range states.
 Under these regulations the number of stock to be grazed on the several range allotments is determined by ex- perts of the department cooperating with the stockmen themselves. The number is fixed as the maximum num- | Der which can be safely carried throughout the year on the range. Forest Supervisor Wales states that the necessity for removing a cOnsid- erable number of stock from Santa Cruz county was brought about large | ly through the court decision in 1917 that the Baca Float No. 3 land grant was valid. This decision elected nu- merous settlers on the grant and the later fencing of the north half greatly reduced the available open grazing area. The fencing of the south half will still further restrict the available open range and it was probably in an- ticipation of the completion of this lat ter fence that the stockmen have been forced to ship.
 The forest supervisor outlined the grazing and grazing trespass policy on the Coronado National forest brief ly as follows:
 Annually in January applications for grazing permits are received and the privilege of grazing stock on the forest ranges is distributed equitably to the full capacity of the range. Pri- mary considerations in this distribu- tion are, first, a recognition of the preference established by long use of the forest range by the permitted number of stock and in connection with ranch property; second, certain dependence on the range as means of livelihood by the bona fide home builder. It was pointed out that pro- lection was given the established stock industry to the extent of preferences gained by the stockmen through per- same time the development of the country was encouraged through the granting of new permits to home builders.
 Notwithstanding the fact that the forest range is limited in area and can only take care of certain number of cattle, certain parties, whose names were withheld for the present, have il- legally grazed stock without permit, thus overstocking the range to such an extent as to ultimately cause the very devastation complained of in the articles referred to.
 The charge made as the grazing fee for stock under regular permit is $1.00 per head per annum. Where stock grazing in violation of the reg ulations, charge representing the actual commercial value of the Trage is made. $500 per head per annum does not appear exorbitant when com pared with soc per head per month actually paid for the use of the north half of the Baca Float Grant, or the 25c per acre annual rental asked for the lease of the south half. Approxi- mately fifty per cent of the total re- ceipts are returned to the state and county for road and school purposes in lieu of taxes.
 It is interesting to note that of the four alleged shippers, only three hold forest permits and in each of these three cases, no reductions have been made in the number of cattle permit ted in past year. If the figures as to the alleged numbers shipped are cor rect, it is interesting to note that ac- cording to the county assessors rec. ords, taxes are not assessed against any of the parties to the extent of the number shipped. In fact, one of the parties mentioned who is in the city today from his ranch in the San Ra- fael Valley, denies that he has ship ped any cattle recently, nor that he