60 BULLETIN 1001, U. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE. 
It should thus be clear that while the permit system is perhaps the 
best single system that has so far been devised for the management 
of these arid grazing lands, not the least of its advantages is that it 
does not necessarily interfere with the application of the homestead 
policy, the consolidation plan, or a lease law in the regions where these 
methods are desirable. 
It is not intended to suggest or assume that a permit system is 
flawless. It has certain well-known disadvantages. Not the least 
important of these is the necessity of a complex supervisory authority. 
In operation, more or less friction between officials and permittees 
will occur because of differences of judgment as to the use of the lands. 
This difficulty can only be minimized, not obviated. Organization 
of the stockmen and the creation of advisory boards for consultation 
with the administrative authorities have gone far toward reducing 
such friction in the National Forests. 
In administering the permit system in the National Forests it was 
found necessary, for a long time, to issue annual permits to stockmen 
in order that the necessary adjustments of numbers of animals to 
available feed might be made each year, and the greatest number of 
permittees be thus accommodated. Not until after the stock business 
of a region becomes tolerably well stabilized and the use holdings 
definitely located, is it possible to lengthen the period for which 
permit is issued. Even then the long-term permit must be hedged 
about by various restrictions and limitations that make it look like a 
doubtful asset to the permittee. These necessary limitations of the 
system usually cause permittees to delay construction of all perma- 
nent improvements because they are not certain that they will profit 
by such improvements enough to warrant the expenses involved. 
A policy of absorption by the Government of the property rights 
in such permanent improvements also causes the permittees to avoid 
or delay making such improvements. This .policy doubtless is 
derived from the custom of assuming that all permanent improve- 
ments necessarily belong to the owner of the land upon which they 
may be made. 
These difficulties, however, are not insurmountable. An annual 
permit becomes the equivalent of a long-term permit if it may be 
renewed each year for an indefinite period. Restrictions that limit 
one to the best kind of use are restrictions in name only, even if they 
do appear quite portentous when written into a contract. Nor is it 
necessary that improvements put upon the land should thereafter be 
permanently attached to the land. Many forms of lease give the 
tenant right to remove improvements made by himself from the land 
of his landlord. In certain of the Australian colonies, improvements 
are recognized as belonging to the lessee, and when made on Crown 
lands the improvements may be removed, sold to the next tenant, 
