OCR Text |
Show ¦'¦¦ ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC GRAZING LANDS 627 and survey supervisors were abolished, much to the discomfiture of some members of Congress who had found them valuable patronage. Indeed, Senator McCarran tried to re-establish the registers and brought in a measure to do so, and though the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments refused to report it favorably, he insisted that the Senate pass it.48 The second measure was an amendment to the Taylor Grazing Act increasing from 760 to 1,520 acres the amount of land in isolated and disconnected tracts that might be sold on bids at no less than the appraised value. The size of rough or mountainous tracts that might be sold to adjacent property owners, regardless of whether or not they were isolated or disconnected, was increased from 160 to 760 acres.49 Failure to classify land for sale under these two provisions of the original Taylor Act had been a major grievance to the stockmen but the process of classification was retained in the hands of the Department of the Interior. The third change related to the grazing fees. Inflation and the rise in the price of cattle made the old 5-cent fee seem low indeed, being 19.8 cents less than the Forest Service charged. An increase of 3 cents was adopted by the Grazing Service. This antagonized the livestock lobby which succeeded in further crippling the Service by reducing its appropriations for 1948 below those of 1947. On August 6, 1947, Congress approved an amendment to the Taylor Act stressing "reasonable fees," and providing two fees, one for use of the range and the other for improvements of the range. On 48 60 Stat., Part 1, p. 1100; Cong. Record, 80th Cong., 1st sess., June 16, 1947, p. 7023. It could be argued that the disappearance ol the Grazing Service was no gain for the livestockmen because its reputation had been blasted so effectively by the McCarran committee that its usefulness had been impaired whereas the new Bureau of Land Management could start with a clean slate. "Act of July 30, 1947, 61 Stat., Part 1, p. 630. the day of this enactment the Department put into effect a 6-cent fee for use and a 2-cent fee for improvements.50 The act also reduced the proportion of income from fees going to the states of origin from 50 percent to 12i/2 percent, changed the distribution of income from fees on Indian lands to eliminate the 25 percent for range improvements and to return 33i/3 percent to the states of origin and 662^ percent for the benefit of the Indians. Income from fees received for leasing isolated tracts was to be used for range improvements and 50 percent was to go to the states of origin. Proponents of Collective Interests Speak Out The McCarran committee and the Robertson committee together had listened almost entirely to the grievances of the livestock people. Private ownership, even if it involved greater cost, seemed preferable to them, though other western interests which were deeply interested in the flow of money from the exploitation of the forests, minerals, and grazing lands to Washington and then into reclamation development and back to the counties and states of origin, looked upon the question in a very different way. Little appreciation of the objectives of the conservation movement, as spelled out in the Taylor Grazing Act or as practiced by the Forest Service and the Grazing Service, was permitted to show in the reports of the two committees. Dislike of Harold Ickes, who was trying to make Interior into the Department of Conservation, was paramount with the McCarran committee and dislike of Federal ownership and management of the rangelands permeated questioning and reports of both committees. Mention of the Forest Service in a derogatory way was sure to arouse opposition from the conservationists. To suggest the 60 61 Stat., Part 1, p. 790; Peffer, Closing of the Public Domain, pp. 269 ff. |