increase the size of the claims, and then see that they do actually perform the work on the claims. Perhaps maybe that's it. I kind of think that one of the things that is wrong is a prospector or a person filing claims can file too many, more than they can reasonably work. Your trouble isn't with the larger miners and their operations; and of course, one thing I want to say, we do not want to discourage prospectors, we want to encourage them, help those people, because there's no question but what these mineral resources contribute to the national economy to a great extent; without them we're certainly going to be putting ourselves into a very bad spot, and the new minerals coming forth all the time and new discoveries where it has been prospected many times before. I think as you have outlined, we're going to sit down around a table, probably, and discuss these things pro and con, and I hope out of it will come a very good mutual understanding between the Forest Service, the timber interests, the mining service, and the grazing service, and their position in the national economy, and where it all comes in and spells so much to us all, and for the Congressman's information I wish to say I myself have bought the grazing off of many, many mining claims that were not being worked, and it was the only way I could get along. If my livestock trespassed on them I was in trouble immediately, and those are some of the things I think should be rectified.

I have an idea maybe there should be a greater personnel with the Bureau of Land Management in order to inspect and look into these claims; perhaps maybe some of it is our own fault in that we have been lax and not reporting it. I think out of it we are going to work out something real good, and this Congress here is probably going to work out something beneficial to all of us.

Congressman WHITE. We deeply appreciate the information you bring. I would like to ask a question or two. You speak of these claims that the locator took land. Were those claims fenced?

Mr. STANFI.ELD. The claims were not fenced; they're unfenced claims.

Congressman WHITE. The man came out and pointed out his stakes, and says those are his claims?

Mr. STANFIELD. That's it.

Congressman WHITE. If I bought the section of land right alongside and didn't fence it I couldn't keep your cattle off, could I?

Mr. STANFIELD. Perhaps, Mr. Congressman, it applies more to sheep than it does to cattle; I own sheep and cattle.

Congressman WHITE. If you owned a piece of land down there and it isn't fenced, and his sheep goes on your land or his cattle, can you keep them off without it being fenced under Idaho law?

Mr. STANFIELD. You can order him off, and bring him in for trespass.

Congressman WHITE. You haven't any legal rights under the laws of Idaho if your land is not fenced, to keep sheep off?

Mr. STANFIELD. Perhaps that is true in most every State. Congressman WHITE. Wasn't he just putting a bluff into you? He had no legal right to keep you off.

Mr. STANFIELD. I'm asking you this question now.

Congressman WHITE. I'm asking you.

Mr. STANFIELD. Now, I'm asking you relative to the laws, does that pertain to sheep, or does a man operating sheep have to know where he

is taking them, and be responsible for the actions of the men in charge of those sheep?

Congressman WHITE. We are working and operating under law, and we're dealing with laws here. Under the laws in Idaho, if a stock-grazing district is established, then you can't run your cattle at large in that grazing district, but if they don't establish such a district, and the land is unfenced, there's no way you can keep people legally off. You can go out with a gun, or make a bluff at it. He's subject to the law; I think that man simply bluffed you.

Mr. DRAKE. I think I could probably clarify that for you, Congressman. It is not necessary in the State of Idaho to fence against sheep. It is against cattle, in order to claim a trespass, but as against sheep it is not necessary.

Mr. GOLDY. And there's a similar law in Oregon, Congressman.
Congressman WHITE. We're interested in the law.

Mr. DRAKE. That is the law.

Mr. GOLDY. In Oregon, and Idaho, apparently, Congressman, an individual can be in trespass if his sheep get on somebody's land, even if the land is not fenced.

Mr. DRAKE. That's correct.

Mr. DON CLARKE. (Director of Game for the State of Washington). Mr. Chairman, in all respect to the Congressman from Idaho, we came in here to hear papers, and I understood we were to hear discussions later. I think it would be advisable for anyone who wants to ask questions to jot them down and have them for our discussion period. I haven't time to stay here more than 2 days.

Mr. GOLDY. Well, if the Congressman will bear with us, I will certainly try to run through the agenda as we had planned it, giving each individual who came prepared to do so an opportunity to state his point of view; as soon as we have completed the statements, about the middle of the afternoon, throw it open for discussion and inquiry.

Congressman WHITE. Well, I'll say to the gentleman, the chairman, to bring out the facts you have to ask the questions when the witness is available. What we do in Congress, and this is a regular procedure, if a witness wants to read a paper or make a statement we don't like to interrupt him until he has completed his statement, but when he has completed it, we want to enlarge on what he has said.

Mr. GOLDY. I might say by way of answer, we puzzled quite a bit about the most effective way to conduct this conference. We have come to the conclusion and distributed an agenda in advance of the meeting, giving everyone who participated this understanding: That in order to get all the ideas before us for consideration, we were trying to run according to the agenda, which meant every person asked to speak would have an opportunity to do so, then starting the middle of the afternoon and tomorrow we would have an opportunity for crossexamination and general discussion. Let me explain again, our idea in holding the meeting was not to try to make a record to present to the Congress. We were merely trying to get clarification and if possible to give these gentlemen an opportunity to gather among themselves and resolve any problems they had. We had no intention whatsoever of trying to develop an official record of the sort you have in mind to present to the Congress. At the end of the general discussions tomorrow we were hopeful of having the areas of agreement, and perhaps the areas of disagreement, set down and distributed to the partici

FIGURE 3.-Boating mining supplies down the "River of No Return" located in the isolated area in the national forest in central Idaho, where boats are broken up at destination.

pants of this conference, and then I was planning to send to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the Secretary of the Interior those same reports, and then they could recommend to the Congress, what they chose. As I indicated before, perhaps before you came in, Congressman, we expected that similar gatherings would be held in other parts of the country, and I'm sure the Secretary would not contemplate sending his own point of view to Congress until he had an opportunity to look these over.

Congressman WHITE. I assume you're familiar with the program of the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior. This is a question they've been agitating for a long time, to get information before Congress, and I might suggest to you if you desire to cut off the questions of bringing out facts, that you have these gentlemen mail their papers all to Washington and they can be cataloged and digested and a report made. There's no use of bringing these people in here if you're not going to let them bring out the facts. I don't know of a procedure, by my 16 years in Congress, to establish a fact by such proceedings as you describe.

Mr. GOLDY. We were planning at least a day and a third of full discussion when everybody would have a chance to do their talking, but as you can see, we are now already well behind schedule, and I'm afraid we're going to have to operate in accordance with some kind of a plan if we're going to give every one of these gentlemen something to say.

Congressman WHITE. I suggest you hear the gentleman from Washington and let him make his statement. I'll promise not to interrupt him.

Mr. GOLDY. Are there any other representatives of the livestock industry who care to make any other statement? I would like then to call now on Mr. T. B. Murray, director of the Idaho Fish and Game Department, Boise, Idaho, to make a statement of the problems involved in the mining law from the standpoint of recreation and wildlife management. Mr. Murray.

MINING LAW PROBLEMS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF RECREATION AND

WILDLIFE

STATEMENT OF T. B. MURRAY, DIRECTOR, IDAHO FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT, BOISE, IDAHO

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Goldy, Congressman White, gentlemen, it's good to be here at this time to meet with you folks, many of whom I know in Idaho, and to make a brief statement with respect to mining and wildlife on public lands. In the public land States of the West we who are charged with the administration of wildlife management think in terms of multiple use of all land and water surfaces.

Recreation and wildlife occupy a preeminent position in our thinking with respect to the use of public lands, naturally. We recognize the fact that livestock men, mining interests, those who are interested in cutting forests, are very much interested in the surface rights also, and that they recognize the fact that multiple use is the highest type of use to which our land and water surfaces can be put. It is the duty of us who manage and administer wildlife resources to realize the problems that arise in connection with mining laws and practices,