56 BULLETIN 1001, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



be shown for most of the older States, by the disposal they have made 

 of their -school lands. 



There is no doubt that in most States the lands would be allotted 

 to users in some way or other in a very short time, if their disposition 

 were transferred to the various State land departments. If the dis- 

 tribution of the land were the only desideratum, this method would 

 probably accomplish the end more quickly than any other proposed. 

 And, if the proposal could be called a policy, the rapidity with which 

 the land might be disposed of would still be an argument against 

 rather than in its favor, since it is important that the present adjust- 

 ment of the business be changed very gradually and with the good of 

 the greatest number as the controlling principle. State manage- 

 ment would also result in great diversity of managerial policy. For 

 such reasons it is believed that Federal authorities are in a much 

 better position to control wisely. 



As a legislative policy for the management of our remaining public 

 lands this proposal can hardly have great weight, since it would 

 merely avoid the question at issue — not solve it. If the land were 

 transferred to the States for administration it would be as necessary 

 for their officials to formulate a policy as it is now desirable that the 

 Federal Government should make improvements in its existing policy. 

 What is wanted is a policy of management and not a transfer of 

 responsibility. 



Adaptation of the permit system. — The permit system of control of 

 the grazing lands would often differ very little from a leasing system, 

 but it has several advantages over that system, not the least of 

 which is its flexibility. The essential difference between them is 

 that under the permit system a man receives a permit to graze a 

 definite number of animals for a definite period of time on certain 

 specified lands, with priority right to consideration for renewal at a 

 future time, while under the other system a man gets the use of a 

 definite number of selected acres of land for a definite period, usually 

 also with priority consideration for renewal. The one plan deter- 

 mines the number of animals and the authorities take the responsi- 

 bility of estimating the amount of land necessary to care for them. 

 In the second case the user leases a specified piece of land and adjusts 

 his stock to the feed produced thereon. At first sight there is no 

 difference in the effect, but there are really two factors that are 

 vitally important and over which sincere differences of opinion may 

 arise and cause arguments in which differences of interest would 

 interfere with correct judgment. 



The amount of feed required for a given kind of animal differs very 

 little, hence a uniform charge per animal for forage is fair to all and is 

 easily applied; but a uniform charge for forage per acre of land is not 

 at all equitable because the forage produced by different acres is 



