||34 IS UTAH SAHARA BOUND? and Washington, D. C and not between the livestock interests and the local public. It is high time that Utah citizens become aroused to these matters of land ownership, for Utah stockmen alone voiced opposition to the proposed private or state ownership of public lands. It is to their credit that they recognize the extent of forage rehabilitation under government management, the tremendous cost of the project and the financial obstacles to private or state ownership. It is to our shame that no public interest is evidenced in a matter of such vital public concern. In the final settlement of the issue of land ownership the public and not the private interests should be the deciding factor. We must always remember that these lands, whoever owns them, must serve the multiple uses of water, of grazing and of public recreation where game animals play no mean role. We must decide whether federal, state or private ownership would serve best the public interest. 3. The need of a sustained program of revegetation. Society in general must accept the responsibility for the present state of vegetational impairment in Utah. The injuries that accrued to the land over the past century of grazing use came from an industry intricately woven in the economic fabric of this people. The benefits of use were shared by all the people of the state, for little outside capital owned the flocks and herds. The proprietors of livestock merely shared the fallacious public belief in the inexhaustibility of the plant resource and like most citizens failed to detect the important relationship between vegetation, soil, and water. Most rural communities of this state could no more survive the loss of the grazing industry than they could have been founded without this resource. The dilemma, therefore, that now confronts us is a program of management that can maintain and increase the income from grazing and at the same time protect and improve the more important resource of water that also depends on the soil. Fortunately there is sound reason to believe that such a program is feasible. Studies conducted by the Intermountain Forest and Range Ex-, periment Station29 over a period of ten years and on areas involving more than 300,000 acres of nonforest land have shown that in "Forage produced, whether measured in amount of forage grown or in sheep (and cattle) months of grazing obtained, has been in most cases from 5 to 15 times as great as on the same range before re-seeding." So phenomenal has been the success of reseeding experiments that Congress in 1946 appropriated $500,000 for the purpose of reseeding depleted ranges. $153,000 of this amount is to be expended in Utah. The sum is not large in comparison to that needed to reseed the vast areas of sagebrush and other range lands now unproductive in forage. The benefits will be great, however, for aside from the monetary returns that are certain to follow a program of reseeding there will remain an improved condition of vegetation and soil that is bound to catch the public eye.