The Coconino sun., 1923-03-23

& aCl0n 10 the forest serving gfaZlnt
Il experts were in the form of querie
i put by the forest service grazing ex
i perts and the replies by the stock
! men.
Questions and Answers
i 1. Revision of the Manual-Wha
I should 1t contain, broad regulation
and general instructions versus peel
fie and definite regulations and de
tailed instructions?
Reply - We favor broad regula
tions and general instructions in tht
/ grazing manual rather than specific
and definite regulations and instruc
tions
z. Range Improvement - POLICY
I governing construction and needed
changes in regulations to accomplish
it; how shall cost of maintenance be
met; how far should fencing of ranges
and small allotments, lambing pas
lures, ETC., be carried?
! Reply - We are opposed to the re-
/ tlrement of existing range improve
ments constructed by grazing permit
1 tees now on the national forest. As
to construction of future improve
ments and maintenance Of improve
ments, local conditions should rule
matters in this connection. We be-
lieve that this question can be hand
led satisfactorily only by localities.
Concerning the last section of the
query, we believe that local conditions
also affect this matter, so that it can
be decided only by localities.
3. Stock driveways and crossing
permits-Should we charge for cross
ing permits under what circum-
stances and on what basis? Service
policy as to stock driveways. in re-
latlon to ovefgraZing and damage to
forest reproduction.
Reply = In our opinion, stock driv-
ways across national forests should
be provided only where they fit in
with the economic needs of the sec
tions concerned. Under such circum-
stances we do not favor any charges
for crossing privileges.
4. Grazing fees - Principles which
should govern their establishment and
payment; is permanent division of
payments desirable?
Reply-As to the grazing fees, we
do not believe that under any condi-
tlons the establishment of grazing fees
on a basis in excess of a rate ner
head to mean a reasonable cost of
grazing administration is warranted.
As to division of grazing payments
we believe that a permanent division
is desirable, to apply to all classes and
periods of permits, and in this connec-
ton we suggest July 1st and Decem-
Der 1st as the dates for payment.
5. Annual versus term permits
Why have term permits not been more
generally used and satisfactory; adj
yantages and disadvantages of term
permits in administration; for what
period should they be issued; how
should they be modified with view to
establishing range use?
Reply-In our judgment, term per-
mits have not been more generally
used, because they have not been suf-
ficlently attractive. We consider long
term permits as essential to the salts
factory financing, stability and well
fare of our business and recommend
that these be established for term
not less than ten years. Also that
there should be no limit restriction as
to the numbers for which term per-
nits be granted.
6. Qualifications of applicants =
Use and ma, sre of commemorative |
Reply-Commensurability standards |
should be based ON the custom and |
requirement of localities. We believe
that dependency should be based on |
or not the property invest |
nellt is of such character as to re-
lulre connection with the range in
order to be successfully operated.
qualifications as far as property is |
should depend on depend
ABILITY and coillmensurability andI
should not depend on number Of stock
owned.
z. Preferences Their value toll
1e1mittes; should they accrue to the
the stock or the ranch;
hould they be transferable as regu-
ar assets
Reply - In our opinion, the eco
ionic welfare demands that grazingI
preferences accrue to the dependent
md commensurate property uponl
which theya are based, except where
qually dependent and commensurate
property is substituted by the parties
oncerned.
.. Distribution of grazing privi- |
eges-P Principles that should govern;I
ne small permittee versus the large
perator; the new applicants results
ecured under present policies in sta
lllzing the use of national forest
anges; should further distribution be
estricted, and how? +.
Reply - In our judgment, grazingl
rivileges should have been and
hould be distributed to the commen-
urate and dependent property ac-
uired upon the basis of ability to use
1e range concerned. We believe the ]
conofic welfare depends more uponl
lie principle of connecting the rangeI
with the commensurate and ]
ependent property than in connection
18th distinction between sizes of OBJ
'ations. We do not believe that new
Iterests should be brought into con- G
ection with ranges fully occupied by
,ock owned by interests holding com
ensurate and dependent property in n
t,
We believe that it would promote
q economic welfare to displace priv
ages not based on fully commensur- b
e and dependent property invest