TENURE AND USE OF ARID GRAZING LANDS. 41 
Fences. — The best control is that afforded by properly arranged 
fences, though this method of obtaining control involves a heavy 
expense. Yet many, if not most, of the stockmen are ready to begin 
the work of building long strings of fences that will outline the major 
subdivisions of the range country just as soon as they can obtain 
legal authority to do so. 
With nothing more than the legal recognition of the right of a 
particular man to use a given area for a limited time, the existing 
laws will stop trespassing at once, because the precedents are already 
established in the region by experience in the national forests. And 
with legal tenure assured, the building of fences can go on as rapidly 
or as slowly as individuals may choose. 
Fencing need not prevent entrymen from homesteading agricultural 
land, nor prevent prospecting for minerals. It merely protects the 
equity of the user of the range and makes it necessary for the would-be 
entryman to take expert judgment as to the proper classification of 
the land. As already pointed out, it has been demonstrated many 
times that fencing in proper sized areas is not only practicable 
economically but is highly remunerative. The increased returns 
from a fenced area in a very short time pay for the fence. Even on 
a range of relatively low grazing capacity, the protection which a 
fence affords makes it a profitable investment. 
Advantages to the general public. — Benefits which would accrue to 
the State as the result of controlled ranges are, (1) an increase in the 
taxes derived from the stock business because of the value of per- 
manent improvements like fences, corrals, watering places, and other 
11 developments " which will be made as soon as men can be sure 
they will profit by what they may do; (2) increased taxes because 
of more accurate counts of live stock that are possible on inclosed 
areas ; (3) increased rentals from State lands which men will have to 
pay whenever they inclose such State lands in their pastures. 
Objection has been made to Federal regulation of the grazing lands 
because it was assumed that the State would not get the right to 
tax such lands. This has been advanced as an argument in favor of a 
law that would either put the land under the control of the State or 
assign it to private ownership so that the State might tax the owners. 
Any sort of managerial supervision will result in the charging of 
some kind of fee for the use of the land. The policy of sharing 
receipts of a similar character between the Federal and State Gov- 
ernments is already established in the administration of the national 
forests. Hence' an extension of such a practice is to be expected 
with relation to grazing lands if they were placed under Federal 
management. 
In a more general, though not less sure way, the people at large 
benefit by such range control. The resulting increase in production 
