FOREST SERVICE. 399 



because of the requirement of these permits, while Forest interests 

 were carefully protected. There was nttle, if any, abuse of the cross- 

 inj:: privilege. 



Permits issued for the construction and maintenance of range 

 improvements increased materially in number. These permits are 

 divided into two classes: Free permits, covering all constructions 

 which benefit others as well as the permittees, such as drift fences, 

 corrals, water tanks, stock trails, etc.; and charge permits, involv- 

 ing the exclusive occupancy of land for pastures, dipping vats, shear- 

 ing pens, slaughterhouses, private stock reservoirs, etc. There were 

 issued 720 free permits, allowing the use of 4,204 acres of Forest 

 land and the construction of 692 miles of drift fence, pipe line, and 

 stock trails. At the close of the year 1,621 free permits were in force, 

 involving 7,011 acres of land and 1,586 miles of drift fences, pipe 

 line, and trails. The charge permits issued numbered 1,139, and 

 allowed the use of 162,540 acres of land. The charge permits in 

 force at the close of the year numbered 2,274, and covered 428,744 

 acres. 



On several National Forests boundary fences, which had been 

 erected in previous years by stockmen in cooperation with the Forest 

 Service to stop the drifting of cattle to and from the adjoining ranges, 

 seemed about to become, in conseq^uence of proposed eliminations, 

 illegal fences upon the public domain. To allow" a reasonable time 

 for the removal of these fences, it was agreed between the vSecretary 

 of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior that the eliminations 

 shall not become effective until early in 1911. Wliere permits had 

 been issued allowing special uses of land now eliminated or to be 

 eliminated from the Forests, the Department of the Interior will 

 carry out the terms of the agreement made by the Forest Service, 

 so far as is possible under the law. 



USE OF STATE LANDS. 



The cooperative agreement between the Forest Service and the 

 State of Utah mentioned in former reports was abrogated January 1, 

 1910, by mutual consent. Under the agreement the State received 

 for stock grazed on state lands within the Forests the same fees 

 charged by the Service on National Forest lands, except that a part 

 of the fees went to pay the cost of administration by the Forest 

 Service. The land commissioners of the State were not satisfied \nth 

 tlie revenue thus yielded. Since the termination of the agreement 

 the lands belonging to the State have been leased to tlie highest 

 bidder, witli a considerable increase in revenue. Many jiersons were 

 outbitl for the use of ranges upon wliich they had depended for a 

 number of years. In many cases it was iin])ossiblo to provide them 

 with adequate ranges upon Forest lands without hardship to other 

 permittees. 



The agreement Avnth the State of vSoutli Dakota was terminated 

 for the same reason. The grazing use of the Soutli Dakota lands was 

 not as intensive as in Utali, and no embarrassment resulted from the 

 cancellation of the agreement. 



No new cooperative agreements for the administration of state 

 lands were entered into during the year. 



