ployed adequate range improvement and research programs, and in many instances they have either removed livestock entirely, or made reductions in numbers permitted to graze in order to achieve what they consider to be the proper balance between the numbers grazing and the available forage. In too many instances we feel this has been the only program that they have followed.

For instance, from 1930 to 1958, the sheep and goats permitted to graze on the national forests were reduced from 6,722,461 head to 2,608,780 head. We realize that the reductions in the sheep population, the diversion of some lots from sheep to cattle grazing and the diversion of some of these lands to other uses, all of these factors have been partly responsible for this huge decrease in the numbers permitted.

We do feel very strongly that a more adequate program of range improvement is needed, more incentive to use private funds for range improvements, and a stepped-up research program on all of these things is needed to increase our forage production. Therefore, we do strongly endorse the range improvement and research programs in the Forest Service report. We feel that these programs are doubly important in the years ahead in the light of the increasing food needs of our growing population.

Properly managed grazing does provide the means of harvesting one of our greatest national resources; in fact, it provides the only means of harvesting grass and converting that grass into food and fiber.

Mr. Dixon. Mr. Marsh, I think you have made an excellent statement. One inference you made was the removal of low-quality timber. Do you advocate the removal of such brush and trees as a means of improving the range?

Mr. MARSH. Yes, I would think that would help. I think the experiments have shown that it does help. Of course, in some areas brush has been removed and reseeding has greatly increased the forage capacity.

Mr. DIXON. Sagebrush definitely has been bad. What about brush and trees on the mountain slopes? Would you encourage removing

the brush there?

Mr. MARSH. Certainly. In some areas research to date has proven that it is a means of increasing water production. We think that more research needs to be done in that regard.

Mr. DIXON. Another thing, what is the reaction of your_great organization to the effectiveness of the game policies of the Forest Service?

Mr. MARSH. Of course, we do feel that probably that with the cuts that have been made in livestock, too many have been replaced with big game over the years, but I think the Forest Service has a fairly effective policy in big game control.

Mr. DIXON. What action would you suggest taking as to the amount of game-do you favor a big game board?

Mr. MARSH. Well, I think it should be done through advisory boards and through meetings with different organizations and with the Forest Service.

Mr. DIXON. Where they have advisory boards and they have like problems, have they settled them to both the satisfaction of the livestock people and the sports people?

Mr. MARSH. In a number of instances they have.

Mr. DIXON. I guess it is a State law that sets up such a board; is it not?

Mr. MARSH. Well, some size reports are set up under the Forest Service.

Mr. DIXON. I would not know about that. I know that the Forest Service comes in for a great deal of criticism because of their harboring big game, and has that been your experience?

Mr. MARSH. Yes, they have come in for some criticism; yes.

Mr. DIXON. I know that they have put the heat on us to the point that we feel it our patriotic duty to take our rifle in one hand and the American flag in the other and protect the livestock industry. Thank you very much for a very fine statement.

Mr. GRANT. Thank you.

Mr. MARSH. Thank you.

Mr. GRANT. Mr. Coburn, I understand, will file his statement and it will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of William H. Coburn, attorney at law, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Western Forest Industries Association, is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF WESTERN FOREST INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, OREG., ON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S PROGRAM FOR THE NATIONAL FORESTS Western Forest Industries Association is a trade organization of independent lumber and plywood manufacturers whose principal source of raw material is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior. Most of its

members do not own timber-producing land; they are thus largely dependent upon sales of timber by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for their log supplies. A majority live in Oregon and Washington where region 6 of the Forest Service manages 18 national forests containing over 17 million acres of commercial timberland. The allowable cut on the national forests in these two States is over 2 billion board feet a year and represents about 75 percent of the total allowable cut on all Federal lands in Oregon and Washington. Consequently our association has a vital and continuing interest in the policy decisions and operational plans of the U.S. Forest Service.

We wish to go on record here today in support of the program for intensified management of the resources of the national forests, as announced by the Department of Agriculture on March 24, 1959. We commend the Department and the Forest Service on the objectives-both interim and long range that have been announced as goals eventually to be accomplished. In testimony before committees of both Houses of Congress we have consistently urged the need for a realistic and forward-looking program of forest management to meet the increasing demands of our expanding economy.

We would be less than frank, however, were we to testify here today that the program as announced by the Department is, in fact, realistic. It is more a broad statement of objectives than the kind of program for intensified management of the national forests that is needed to meet the developing demands of today and tomorrow. Without in any way seeking to disparage the commendable effort made to date, we would respectfully point out that the Department's program is meaningless in terms of accomplishment unless it is implemented and fortified by additional facts.

For example, what is estimated to be the cost of attaining these commendable objectives? The report contains no information on this vital subject except the statement that "Appropriation requests to implement the program will be submitted to the Congress in future years in connection with budget presentation after due consideration of the overall fiscal needs and resources of the Federal Government." We are not at all sure of the precise meaning of the statement but if the history of departmental and Budget Bureau support of Forest Service appropriations in recent years has any significance, then we are fearful that the program before you may never be more than an exercise in wishful thinking. To support that statement, Mr. Chairman, I would like to present for inclusion in the record a table placed in the Congressional Record for August 18, 1958, by Senator Jackson. It shows the history of the Forest Service budget requests for the preceding 5 years. An examination of the protection and management items of the national forests (col. No. 1) indicates the historical pattern. In the 5-year period the Forest Service requested about $256 million for protection and management. The Department reduced this amount to $230 million. Then the Bureau of the Budget cut off another $7 million so that the request as it came to Congress was for $223 million. Congress then added $10 million for a total appropriation of $233 million for these items. This was slightly more than either the Department or the Budget Bureau thought was sufficient, yet it was substantially below what the Forest Service believed it needed for these essential functions.

Department's request to Budget Bureau (Department estimates):