| OCR Text |
Show critical. Many of the good forage species were killed, to be replaced by weeds or invaders much inferior to the native plants as feed. With passage of the Homestead Act of 1909 3 and the Stock Grazing Act of 1916,4 a large acreage passed into private ownership. In 1934 the Taylor Grazing Act was passed providing for grazing dis- tricts, preference for established users of the range, collection of fees for permits to range use, and various means of improving the range. Under the Taylor Act, nomadic herds were virtually eliminated, reducing pressure on the open range. It also had the effect of stopping further homesteading, as land had to be classified as to its best use before it could be filed upon. Most im- portant, tlie public range lands were placed under administrative management, which is provided to- day by th.e Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior. The present deteriorated condition of a large part of the Colorado Basin must be attributed to overuse, primarily range abuse. Present Programs and Program Needs Eighty-five percent of the total area of the Colo- rado Rivex Basin is used as grazing land. There are still too many livestock on the ranges although the number of stock for the entire Colorado Basin is much less than the annual number of livestock in Nebrasla and Kansas. However, the usable range land necessary to support an animal unit5 for 1 month in this basin is large, varying from a minimum of 7.5 acres in Colorado to 20 acres in Nevada. In view of the fact that livestock overgrazing has been an important agent in accelerating erosion in many aareas, it is evident that a reverse process would assist in reducing the damage. Reduction in use should enable vegetation to recover and in- crease resistance of the soil to erosion. This lessen- ing of grazing should be accompanied by other measures such as reseeding, range management, and supplemental engineering. However, no measure can be successful unless it is accompanied by a re- duction in the grazing pressure upon the land. Trampling in search of feed, grazing of the plant cover, destruction of all humic material-these assist * Act of February 19, 1909, 35 Stat. 639,43 U. S. C. 218. 4Act of December 29, 1916, 39 Stat. 862, 43 U. S. C. 291-301. 6 One beef animal, or five sheep, or five goats, or one horse, according to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 368 the harshness of the climate in keeping the land impoverished once it has reached that condition. National forest policy includes adjustment of grazing use to grazing capacity. This is aided by issuance of grazing permits supplemented by such aids as range fences and other improvements, con- trol of trespassing livestock, control of noxious weeds, and deferred grazing. Public acquisition of badly depleted watershed lands is essential in the high water-yielding zone. At present it is almost entirely limited to lands which can be obtained through exchange of na- tional forest timber for private lands. About 890,000 acres should be acquired but less than 30,000 acres annually are being acquired at the present time. Present capital investments in national forest land of the Colorado Basin amount to 36.9 million dol- lars. Annual recurrent costs of management and protection are 3 million dollars. Accomplishment of the needed expanded program for full develop- ment of all forest resources, including necessary land acquisition and development of acquired lands, will require an additional capital investment of about 440 million dollars. Annual recurrent ex- penditures needed to provide an acceptable stand- ard of protection and facilities are estimated at 4.6 million dollars. In spite of present fire control efforts of the national forest program, the average area burned annually has increased in recent years in Arizona and New Mexico. Additional capital investments in roads, communication systems, lookouts, and fire-fighting equipment are needed to protect ade- quately the forest areas of the Colorado Basin. Non-Federal lands within national forest bound- aries receive very spotty fire protection, and co- operative assistance in fire control and tree planting is limited, due in part to the failure of Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming to authorize State partici- pation and provide matching funds for fire control. Currently, cooperative fire control to protect both commercial timber and the cover on non-Federal watershed lands is in effect on 6.5 million acres. This should be extended to some 2.7 million addi- tional acres for complete watershed protection. Present Federal expenditures for cooperative assistance in fire control and tree planting amount to but $14,000 annually, with State contributions of $31,000 annually. Federal participation should be increased to about $105,000 annually for fire con- trol and $85,000 for tree planting and technical |
