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 
