G
. Cache - Supervi s ion.
Inspection Report on
Cache National Forest,
by L. F. Kneipp! Assistant
Foreoter.
April 8; HJ09.
The appeal of Williams and Wetzel from the
Supervioor ' s decision in which they were limited to the
number of 400 head of sheep as new beginners , was thoroughly
discussed with Supervisor Clark , and the records in tne case
examined. Assuming that all statements made by the appellants
are correct , the Supervisor's action in limiting them to a
permi t for 400 head of sheep was entirely justified a.nd in
accordance with his instructions. The appellants have no
reasonable claim to greater grazing privileges than this except
because of the fact tnat their ranch property will feed
a larger number. This year it has been necessary to reject
the applications of twelve bona fide settlers and feeders, who
were practically in the same class as Williams and Wetzel , and
in allowing these people a permit for 400 head full recognition
has been accorded them. It is, therefore, recouunended that
the Supervisor be sustained, and Williams and Wetzel notified
that they will not be allowed privileges for any number of
sheep in excess of 400 head.
The verbal appeal of J. S. Moffat , as agent
for his sons P. D. Moffat and Brother, was also considered.
The circumstances of the case indicate that J. S. Moffat , who
holds permit No. 658 to graze 600 head of sheep , is also
1
interested in the application of his sons and has an interest
in the sheep, out even if this is not true the Moffat Brothers
Can not be considered as having preference rights over other
new owners whom it was necessary to reject. P. D. Moffat owns
a 40 acre tract of land, of which 14 acres are cultivEted, 20
acres is hay lAnd, and six acres pasturage. His brother does
not own any land at all. Of the 12 applicants rejected at
least half of them had stronger claims for recognition than
Moffat Brothers did. Mr. Moffat has laid stress upon the
fact that these sheep which were to be grazed within the Forest
had been purchased from Nebeker and Hulme , but it may be
pointed out that the latter did not relinquish their range
rights and have made application for the same number of sheep
this year, and consequently the Moffats acquired no rights by
reason of the purchase.
The case of the Hodges Land and Livestock
Company was also considered. The principal source of friction
in this case is in connection with a timber sale, and not with
the e;razing privilege. although Mr. Hodges does feel that he is
being subjected to unnecessary reduction. In 1907 he applied
for a permit to graze 3,600 head of sheep, which was approved
for 3,060 sheep; in 1908 his application was approved for
2, '709 sheep, and in 1909 for 2,550 sheep. As Mr. Clark had
planned a 10% cut on all permits from 2,500 to 3,000 head in
cases where the sheep were fed, it will be seen that Mr.
Hodges was not cut the full sliding scale reduction , and is
being treated very fairly by Mr. Clark. The circumstances
surrounding this case are peculiar. Mr. Hodgen is reported
- 2 -
to have three wives and a large number of children , and in
order to provide for them equally has organized a stock com-pany
and di stributed the stock among his various children.
His chief claim for preference consideration lies in the
fact that the stock holders in his company number 20 or 30
people , and he believes that the company should be given
greater recogniti on than is accorded an individual. An
examination of the records makes it evident that Mr . Hodges
has been treated very fairly , except that there is a possibility
that the range furniShed him is somewhat inadequate
to his needs, but this can not be determined by the Supervisor
until the summer season enables him to make a proper
inspection, at which time he will take the necessary steps
to allot Mr. Hodges a satisfactory range .
In the case of Nebeker Brothers , permit No .
560--1909 , ooth Ex-Supervisor Woodruff and Supervisor Clark
have made mistakes . The firm of Nebeker Brothers was recognized
in 190~ as new owners and given a permit for 600 head
of sheep , notwithstanding the fact that one owns an interest
in the permit held by Nebeker and Hulme for 2 , 100 head of
sheep, and another owns an interest in the permi t he l d by
Nebeker and Rider for 2 , 100 head of sheep. I n 190~ the firm
was also given State land permit for, I think , 900 head addi tional.
This year Supervisor Clark has granted the firm a
regular paid permit for 1,100 head of sheep, which is practically
an increase in permanent number of 500 head , when , as a
matter of fact, the firm should never have been recognized in
the first place, and at all events should not have been granted
.. :3 -
~ny increase. The ac tion to be taken now is doubtful. I
have no recommendations to make.
The allowances for the use of private lands
within tne Forest is a matter which might properly be given
some attention during the coming season, but it is obvious
that the allo~ances made in past years have been altogether
too liberal. Aquila Nebeker,owning lands in excess of 1 , 900
acres, nas been allowed a free permit for 2,900 head of sheep ,
while the Hodges Land and Livestock Company has been allowed
a free permit for 660 sheep , in lieu of the release of 520
acres. These amounts appear to be excessive and should not
be allowed unless a field examination proves beyond a doubt
that the lands are capable of supporting these numbers of
stock. Supervisor Clark intends to take this matter up as
soon as possible, but it is a subject worthy of the consideration
of the District Office also .
The rights acquired by priority in the use of
the range and the ownership of improved ranch property, and
the rights secured by permits issued under the State ' s quota
in accordance with the contract between the Forest Service and
the State of utah, have been considered practically interchangeable
, and the latest ruling will result in a great deal
of confusion unless it is con~idered tnat some of the old
users of the Forest, to whom the State's quota has been assigned
this year by Supervisor Clark, actually occupy the
same position as persons securing paid permits from the Forest
Service. For the past year or two persons whose rights to
share in the use of the range are unquestioned have been
- 4 -
persuaded to secure their permits from the State's quota in
order to facilitate this branch of the work , and these parties
must necessarily be restored to the privileges which they en-joyed
before the ruling that the permits issued on account of
State lands convey no ri~hts goes into effect . Mr. Clark
thoroughly understands the situation now, but does not see his
way clear to carry out the latest instructions unless he reA
Ifo 7'111 Q.IfT
calls his letters of approval and makes a relttti! elneli\ of the
State privileges, which, of course, he does not desire to do.
The question of the riehts acquired by State permits must
therefore be held in abeyance until the end of the present
season, after which Mr . Clark will make the necessary adjustments
and allot the State peI'mits ei ther as supplemental to
regular permits or else to neVi owners not otherwise entitled
to consideration.
- 5 -
"
