| OCR Text |
Show ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC FOREST LANDS 583 in 1899 initiated the practice of requiring permits for grazing on the forests, thus enabling the Land Office to control the number of sheep on a range. Most of the forests were later reopened to sheep but in a number of forests where damage was clear, they were banned.55 Sheep and goats continued to be the culprits during Hermann's administration and in 1900 were again barred from all forests except those where the rainfall was sufficient to assure that the limited pasturing permitted would not damage the grass. A total of 1,400,000 sheep and 434,750 cattle and horses were permitted to graze in the forests in 1901. State and regional wool growers associations were allowed virtually to determine which sheepmen should be given permits and for what number of sheep. This practice of allowing wool growers associations to perform the business of the government was dropped as soon as Hermann left the Department. In 1903, W. A. Richards, Hermann's successor, reported that the number of both cattle and sheep that had previously grazed on lands now included within the reserves was greater than they could properly bear, damage had been done, and the number to be permitted had to be reduced. He stressed that in making reductions the office was trying to create the least possible difficulty for the stockmen.56 Until 1906 no charge was levied for grazing in the forest reserves, nor was there any specific authorization for such a charge. Yet to administer the forests, control grazing to prevent destructive use of the range and trespassing, it seemed essential to have a fee. Introduced the first year the reserves were transferred to Agriculture, the fee 55 Grazing fees were considered, with the price ranging from $5 per 1,000 sheep in the Mount Rainier Reserve to 1 to 2 cents per head of sheep and 8 to 10 cents per head of cattle in the Cascade Range Reserve. Secretary of the Interior, Report, 1898, pp. 87-88; and Report, 1899, pp. 101-112. 56 Secretary of the Interior, Annual Report, 1901, pp. 127-32; 1902, pp. 331-38; and 1903, pp. 323-27. ranged from 5 to 7 cents per sheep and from 20 to 40 cents per steer or horse. Stockmen, already disturbed by the limitations placed upon their numbers, became thoroughly upset by the introduction of the fee and were to grow angry every time it was raised. In a report of the Forest Service of 1906 it was stated, "Opposition to the fee is disappearing. There is no longer any doubt as to the advantages of preventing conflict and overgrazing on the ranges. Under restricted grazing cattle and sheep keep in better condition and yield a better profit, and the range is not injured. . . . Every effort is being made to give the stockmen the fullest practicable use of the range. Small nearby owners have the preference, larger regular occupants come next, and owners of transient stock come third." The statement is a bit smug, particularly in the light of later protests against the reduction of grazing permits and the imposition of higher fees.57 One must concede that it took courage on the part of Pinchot to institute fees for grazing when resentment against the enlargement of the area in reserve was reaching a high point. At the same time that fees were being introduced, the Forest Service was contracting for the sale of timber. Pinchot planned to sell a substantial amount of stumpage to provide a growing fund for improvement and development of the forests and expected that by 1916 income would equal expenditures. Congress early became disillusioned with the broad financial authority granted him in the Transfer Act of 1905. It left Pinchot less dependent upon congressional appropriations than bureaus usually were for he did not have to justify all items of expenditure. In 1906 Congress stipulated that the special fund from receipts of timber and grazing fees was to be expended only in "accordance with specific estimates ... to be submitted . . . with estimates of appropriations . . ." 67 Secretary of Agriculture, Yearbook, 1905, p. 640. |
