nity to dispose of their claims since within the forest boundaries the Government is about the only prospective purchaser of such lands. This also applies to the acquisition of other private lands not secured under the mining law. The Forest Service in region I has acquired 700,000 acres of private or railroad land-grant lands. Under the exchange law such lands are subject to mineral entry. Although we have experienced no difficulty up to the present it is perfectly logical to expect that mineral claims may be filed on such lands and sold to private individuals under the mining laws for much less than the Government paid for such lands. The mining law and the generalexchange law are therefore somewhat in conflict.

The eastern portion of region I helps to support a very prosperous sheep and cattle industry. The high mountain ranges in the national forests provide the summer grazing for a very large number of cattle and sheep. Water is just as important to grazing as is the grass. In the more arid sections, water is unquestionably the controlling factor. Between the mining laws and the homestead laws much of the land supporting the key water holes has passed into private ownership. The Forest Service has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in developing wells, springs, and small reservoirs to provide stock-watering facilities. This has been necessary because the natural sources of water are frequently fenced off and closed to stock running on the forest land. It is too late to correct the past operation of these laws but the stockmen who are dependent upon this summer range and the Government which has developed the new sources of water supply certainly need protection that will assure such sources of water supply remaining in public ownership. There are a number of cases where nonoperating mining claims supporting stock-watering facilities could be acquired by the Forest Service but since they would in most cases be subject again to mineral entry such procedure does not appear to be a wise Federal expenditure of funds. In a few cases we have acquired such lands subject to mineral reservations which remove them from the application of the mining law. This procedure cannot always be applied, however, and is not the final solution.

The basic laws creating the national forests recognized the importance of developing the country. These laws protected the settler and prospector by providing him free timber subject to regulations. The Forest Service is also authorized to issue occupancy permits to bona fide enterprises. Settlers and prospectors can secure free grazing permits for a limited number of stock. The timber sale procedure would permit a miner to purchase Government stumpage. It is true that securing these various permits is not quite the same as direct ownership, yet Congress prescribed these methods with the obvious intent to help and encourage mineral development. Many prospectors, miners, and settlers make full use of these privileges.

The separation of the surface rights from the subsurface rights has been recognized by individuals and corporations for centuries. It is a very common practice for lands to be sold or exchanged in private transactions subject to the reservation of minerals, gas, oil, and so forth. This procedure has apparently been a well-recognized business practice. It would greatly simplify the administration of the national forest if the surface and subsurface rights could be definitely separated and so recognized in the mining laws. It would also mate

rially benefit the Forest Service and mining industry if nonoperating unpatented claims became null and void after a prescribed period. They should be either brought to patent or abandoned on a specified date. Their location should be tied to a general land-office location. We want to see the mineral resources developed to the fullest extent but we also wish to manage the national forests so as to produce the maximum benefits to the Nation as a whole. It is believed there is a solution to this problem if we can gather for discussions of this description, explain our respective problems, and open-mindedly approach their solution. Thank you.

Congressman WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I have a question or two at this time. I'll ask the witness, I forgot your name

Mr. HARMON. Harmon.

Congressman WHITE. Mr. Harmon, the Forest Service exercises all the right of proprietorship in the administration of this land, do they? If people trespass they're infringing on the Forest Service, and things like that?

Mr. HARMON. Yes, sir.

Congressman WHITE. You feel you're rather a proprietor than_a custodian of the land, that the land is actually owned by all the people of the United States, but the Forest Service is the custodian, but you exercise all the rights of a proprietor? Isn't there a little difference between custodian and proprietor?

Mr. HARMON. I don't know just what the distinction is; Congress turned over to us the responsibility of the administration.

Congressman WHITE. That's just the trouble, the Forest Service has a proprietor complex and they don't realize they're just the custodians for the people. Do you know anything about laying administrative sites on land, if you want the land for a purpose you just put an administrative designation on it, and that withdraws it from all location?

Mr. HARMON. No; it doesn't.

Congressman WHITE. You don't know of any case where a man is holding a placer claim, and you said you wanted that for a mule pasture, and you wanted it for an administrative site, and excluded him and drove him out of there; you don't know anything about that?

Mr. HARMON. As for as we know there is no withdrawal law that permits withdrawal of lands in the national forest that are not at the same time subject to mineral entry.

Congressman WHITE. Then if a local forester excludes a man from his mining claims, and that's now a mineral site, he's going beyond his authority, is that right?

Mr. HARMON. Only it it's an invalid claim.

Congressman WHITE. Well, how do you determine what claim is valid and invalid?

Mr. HARMON. A mineral examiner looks it over and determines whether there are mineral values, and then it goes through the usual procedure, sometimes to the courts.

Congressman WHITE. Is that final and absolute?

Mr. HARMON. No; our mineral examiner is merely contributory evidence to assist the Bureau of Land Management and the courts to determine whether it's a valid claim.

Congressman WHITE. Do you know the average per-acre revenue you get in grazing forest land?

Mr. HARMON. Approximately; yes.

Congressman WHITE. How much?

Mr. HARMON. Well, it varies from around 40 cents to 72 cents per cow-month.

Congressman WHITE. Oh, that's per cow, but what about per acre? Mr. HARMON. Well, I'd have to check the records on that, Mr. Congressman.

Congressman WHITE. Well, I'll give you the records; it's estimated at 212 cents an acre; now, you'd exclude the miner in the development of the resources to obtain 212 cents per acre?

Mr. HARMON. Well, no; we haven't proposed the exclusion of miners at all.

Congressman WHITE. How would he build a cabin or mill if he didn't have the surface rights?

Mr. HARMON. I believe he should have a certain equity in the surface, in order to conduct a mining claim.

Congressman WHITE. How would he open his claim if he didn't have any timber?

Mr. HARMON. The laws the Congress has passed provide the adequate disposal of the timber, Mr. Congressman.

Congressman WHITE. Wait a minute; at the present time the law stands that a man can use the timber on his mining claim for mining purposes.

Mr. HARMON. That's correct.

Congressman WHITE. Are you in favor of that? If I heard your paper right you're in favor of taking the timber away from him. Mr. HARMON. No.

Congressman WHITE. You wouldn't change that part of the law at

all?

Mr. HARMON. That's right.

Congressman WHITE. You gave us so many statements I couldn't remember them all; I didn't want to interrupt. Do you realize when a mining claim passes to patent, before he patents it he must do $500 worth of work on each claim?

Mr. HARMON. That's right.

Congressman WHITE. That makes activity and business in the district, and then when he acquires patents he must pay taxes.

Mr. HARMON. That's right.

Congressman WHITE. And the control of title passes from the Government authorities to the State authorities and the county, and it's now subject to taxation?

Mr. HARMON. That's correct.

Congressman WHITE. And it cost a man about $500 a claim to obtain a patent, doesn't it?

Mr. HARMON. About that.

Congressman WHITE. He has to pay the Government $5 an acre? Mr. HARMON. $2.50 in some cases, $5 in others.

Congressman WHITE. Well, $2.50; you're talking about placer; if it's a lode claim it costs $5?

Mr. HARMON. That's right.

Congressman WHITE. Well, do you get $5 for much of this exchange land you're talking about?

Mr. HARMON. It's not uncommon at all to get

Congressman WHITE. Does a man pay as much for a mining claim as you get?

Mr. HARMON. Oh, yes, surely.

Congressman WHITE. And you advocate retention of the mineral rights?

Mr. HARMON. No; we don't advocate that at all.

Congressman WHITE. Do you know that there are thousands of acres of reacquired land in the national forests of Idaho in which the big companies hold the mineral rights and escape taxation on those mineral rights? And do you know that there is one big block of reacquired national forest_land_with_the_mineral rights in private ownership? Rich veins have been found outcropping in this land, and when anyone wants to work it, the owners made impossible requirements in the provisions of any lease the finder may obtain. These mineral resources are still lying there idle. They are not being developed or used as a result of these Government land exchanges which leave the minerals in private ownership.

Mr. HARMON. I believe you have in the State of Idaho State laws that permit the taxation of mineral reserves.

Congressman WHITE. Is that being exercised?

Mr. HARMON. I don't know, but the law is there.

Congressman WHITE. Well, in our conference this afternoon I have a number of questions; I'll suspend at the present time.

Mr. GOLDY. I was going to ask if we could interrupt you now, because as I announced earlier we've got to keep to a pretty_strict schedule. The luncheon is being held in the Marie Antoinette Room. If you haven't got your tickets, please get your tickets at the desk outside.

Mr. FOLTS. May I suggest that we take measures this afternoon as a collective body of men to separate the two functions, one is the Federal hearing by the Congressman, and the conference? They are not harmonious and not compatible one with the other. May I suggest in some way or another we take steps to separate the hearing, because in the hearing we will merely state facts, and the conference will be a mutual exchange of ideas.

Congressman WHITE. And if the gentleman requires it, I'll pass him a subpena right now so he'll be sure to be at the second hearing. (Recess for luncheon.)

Mr. GOLDY. May we please call the meeting to order? I'm very mindful of the fact we're behind schedule, and that some of you have made other appointments this afternoon, and a couple of you have to get away, and we want to get our schedule readjusted here to permit you to make your statements before you get away. I think I indicated this morning that we had the screen set up and a projector back there for some slides, and as a preface to a statement by Mr. K. Wolfe, representing the United States Forest Service, Portland, Mr. Folts has asked whether he couldn't at this time present in about 5 minutes some slides he has which he wanted to show this group, so I have consented to have Mert start off this afternoon's session by showing some slides.

(Mr. Folts projected several slides on the screen and gave a brief description of each.)

Mr. GOLDBY. I would like to call now on Mr. K. Wolfe.

STATEMENT OF K. WOLFE, RECREATION AND LANDS DIVISION, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION, PORTLAND, OREG.

Mr. K. WOLFE. The chief purpose of the national forests is to grow trees. However, national forest lands are valuable for other purposes, too-sometimes even more valuable for one or more of these other purposes than for the growing of trees. It is essential, therefore, that plans be made and that the land be managed in accordance with those plans if it is to produce its maximum public benefits. Underlying these plans must be the basic principle that each acre should be used first for the purpose for which it is primarily valuable, and then for whatever other purposes it can serve without jeopardizing its chief value. This will mean that timber cutting will be done in an orderly manner, that here and there the timber will not be cut at all, that consideration will be given to the grazing of domestic stock and game animals, that recreation needs will be provided for, that scenic waysides will be protected along the highways, and so forth. This idea of multiple use, with first things coming first, is essential to the proper management of the national forests. The present mining laws seriously interfere with or make its application impossible on large areas of national forest land.

Here are some examples: Much of the comparatively flat land in the Deschutes National Forest lying south of Bend, Oreg., includes a layer of pumice on or close to the surface. This pumice varies in quality and in depth, but generally speaking it provides a sufficient basis for locating mining claims. Whether it is of enough value to justify a prudent man in expending time and effort in its development is a much more difficult question to answer. However, regardless of the answer, thousands of acres of this land are now included in placer claims. Pumice is being removed from only a very small area each year. The balance of the land is tied up in inactive claims.

What does this do to national forest administration? Most of this land supports a good stand of ponderosa pine timber. The accepted logging practice is to cut the overmature and other nonthrifty timber and to allow the younger, healthier trees to remain for later cutting. Generally, from one-third to two-thirds of the trees are left. However, the timber on these patented pumice claims, although it is still Government owned, cannot, except under special circumstances, be cut by the Forest Service without consulting the mining claimant. This means that the harvesting of this timber is governed not by carefully prepared plans, but by pumice developments. The result in many cases is that much national forest timber is not cut as and when it should be.

The Dalles-California Highway, an exceedingly popular tourist road, passes through this area. Along this road are some beautiful stands of ponderosa pine timber. We believe that this timber on national forest land should be maintained as a scenic attraction and therefore have allowed no cutting except of dead and dying trees. Practically all of this reserved land on both sides of the highway right-of-way is now included in pumice claims. If the pumice is removed, the trees will of course have to be cut, and instead of an ex