United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-276

June 2012

Social, Cultural, and Economic 

Aspects of Livestock Ranching 

on the Santa Fe and Carson 

National Forests

Alice M. McSweeney

Carol Raish
McSweeney, Alice M.; Raish, Carol. 2012. Social, cultural, and economic 

aspects of livestock ranching on the Santa Fe and Carson National 

Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-276. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 199 p.

Abstract

We examined the cultural, social, and economic aspects of livestock 

operations of ranchers who have Federal grazing permits (called permittees) 

on the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests of northern New Mexico. 

This study was an expansion of the 2003 pilot study and was designed to 

provide much-needed information concerning the culture and economic 

practices of the northern New Mexico region for USDA employees, policy 

makers, social science researchers, and the general public. The research 

focused on both the economic and noneconomic contributions of livestock 

ownership to local families and communities, and we explored ways 

in which ranching maintains traditional values and connects families to 

ancestral lands and heritage. Sense of place, attachment to land, and the 

value of preserving open space were common themes throughout the 

interviews. The importance of land and animals as means of maintaining 

culture and way of life figured repeatedly in permittee responses, as did 

the subjects of responsibility and respect for land, animals, family, and 

community. This report will assist agency land managers in the effective 

administration of forest lands by promoting greater cultural understanding 

of the local ranching community. It will also serve as an educational tool 

for the public, as many visitors and residents of New Mexico are unfamiliar 

with the primarily Hispanic culture and traditions of the region. Due to 

the history of land ownership in the region, many ranching operations rely 

on public lands for livestock grazing. Recognizing the importance of these 

small livestock operations to area communities and families is crucial to 

comprehending and resolving disputes over public land and resource use.

Keywords: northern New Mexico, permittees, ranching, livestock, ancestral 

lands, land grants, values, tradition, heritage, culture, knowledge, sense 

of place, querencia

Authors

Alice M. McSweeney is a Range Scientist and Social Science Analyst 

with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

She completed a B.S. degree in Agriculture and an M.S. degree in Range 

Science at New Mexico State University.

Carol Raish is an Anthropologist with the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Albuquerque, New Mexico. She completed a B.A. degree in 

Spanish at Washburn University, an M.A. degree in Anthropology at the 

University of Nebraska, and a Ph.D. in Anthropology at the University of 

New Mexico.

Dedication

To the ranching families who generously shared their stories with us...

Cover photos: Corral on the road to Gallina, New Mexico; limousin cattle 

near Coyote, New Mexico; grazing land on Hamilton Mesa, Santa Fe 

National Forest, New Mexico. Alice M. McSweeney.
Acknowledgments

We express our sincere appreciation to the ranchers we had the pleasure 

of meeting during this project. Their willingness to take time from busy 

schedules to share knowledge, reminiscences, and concerns with us made 

this study possible.

This study has benefited considerably from the thoughtful comments 

and detailed suggestions of several reviewers from the academic 

community. We gratefully acknowledge the following for their time and 

assistance in reviewing the draft of this report: Dr. Kelly W. Allred (Ret.) 

of the Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State 

University; Dr. Clyde Eastman (Ret.) of the Department of Agricultural 

Economics, New Mexico State University; and Dr. José Rivera of the 

School of Architecture and Planning, University of New Mexico. We also 

acknowledge Kathleen Sanderson for her tireless review chapter by chapter 

and her enthusiastic interest in the people, animals, and places of our 

project.

We thank Christopher Allison, Gerald Chacon, Edmund Gomez, Patrick 

Melendrez, Patrick Torres, and Ray Torres of New Mexico Cooperative 

Extension Service for their valuable information and explanations on 

livestock production.

We acknowledge the members of the Northern New Mexico Stockmen’s 

Association for their hospitality and support of our work, and thank

Palemón Martinez, Joe Romero, and David Sánchez for their helpful 

comments, reviews, and advice over the years. We acknowledge Gonzalo 

Varela of Pecos, New Mexico, for his kind assistance with historical 

background information on the Pecos High Country. We also thank James 

Atencio and Antonio Medina, grazing permittees on the Santa Fe National 

Forest, for contributing their perspectives on the world of the northern New 

Mexico ranchers in such beautiful prose.

Many Forest Service employees contributed their time, effort, and good 

counsel to this research, including: David Stewart, Director of Region 3 

Rangeland Management; Lawrence Atencio, Range Staff, Coyote Ranger 

District; Jim Eaton, Range Staff, Cuba and Jemez Ranger Districts; Mike 

Lujan, Range Staff, Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District on the Santa Fe 

National Forest; Melvin Herrera, Range Staff, Camino Real Ranger District; 

and Wayne Yonemoto, Range Staff, Tres Piedras Ranger District on the 

Carson National Forest. We also thank Chris Chavez, Land Surveyor, Santa 

Fe National Forest Supervisor’s Office, for assistance on land grants, and 

Pete A. Martinez, Cartographer, USDA Forest Service, Region 3, for map 

design.

The staff of the Conejos Peak Ranger District in La Jara, Colorado, provided 

meeting space in which to conduct interviews with permittees from 

southern Colorado. Information on range figures from the Santa Fe and 

Carson National Forests was obtained from range data tables provided by 

Sylvia Valdez, Resource Assistant on the Santa Fe National Forest, and Dan 

Rael, Resource Staff on the Carson National Forest. Rudy King (Ret.), Dave 

Turner, and Scott Baggett, Rocky Mountain Research Station Statisticians, 

deserve special thanks for their excellent work throughout the project 

concerning statistical methods and techniques. We acknowledge the 

helpful and extensive contributions of Melinda Larson in editing this report.

We also acknowledge the financial support of the USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Human Dimensions program and the 

Grassland, Shrubland, and Desert Ecosystems program.
Contents

Introduction............................................................................................... 1

Historical Background ............................................................................... 2

Methods..................................................................................................... 6

Prior Research.......................................................................................... 10

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................ 12

Ranching on the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests............................ 16

Personal and Family Portraits................................................................... 17

The Ranching Career................................................................................ 18

Ranching and the Family .......................................................................... 19

Ranching and the Community.................................................................. 24

The Business of Ranching ......................................................................... 25

Livestock and the Ranch........................................................................... 28

Land, Vegetation, and Wildlife Changes................................................... 39

Federal Land and Allotment Management................................................ 42

The Environment and Environmentalists .................................................. 47

Responsibility to the Land........................................................................ 51

Land, Livestock, and the Rural Ranching Culture ..................................... 53

Land Ownership and Sale ........................................................................ 55

Land Grant Loss Revisited........................................................................ 57

Consequences of Loss of the Ranching Way of Life .................................. 59

Knowledge and Experience to Share ........................................................ 63

What the Public Should Know ................................................................. 65

Conclusion............................................................................................... 67

References ............................................................................................... 72

APPENDIX A........................................................................................... 77

APPENDIX B ........................................................................................... 78

APPENDIX C........................................................................................... 85

APPENDIX D.......................................................................................... 185

APPENDIX E........................................................................................... 189

ii
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 1

Introduction

The ranching tradition in northern New Mexico and 

southern Colorado (fig. 1) is deeply rooted in history, 

with the responsibility to care for land and livestock 

enmeshed in family values. Livestock ownership and 

ranch life are powerful forces that bind communities 

and families. Continuing this way of life on ancestral 

lands preserves the culture and heritage of the past for 

future generations. Due to the history of land ownership in the region, many ranching operations rely on 

public lands for livestock grazing. A substantial number of these lands were formerly granted to or used by 

local communities and the ancestors of current permittees (livestock owners who graze their animals on 

Forest Service-managed land for a fee under permit) 

when the area was under Spanish, and later Mexican, 

control. Regulations and management decisions concerning these lands significantly affect the operation 

of ranching throughout the area. The sustainability of 

these fragile ranch economies depends on the availability of both water and productive land.

Today, controversy continues over the role of Federal 

lands and land management agencies in the western 

United States, where considerable amounts of land are 

now under Federal control. The State of New Mexico 

is no exception. In the state’s six north-central counties 

Figure 1—North-central 

New Mexico and the 

San Luis Valley, southern 

Colorado. Prepared by 

Pete A. Martinez, adapted 

from de Buys (1985).
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

(Mora, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Miguel, Santa Fe, 

and Taos), the general focus area of this study, approximately 34 percent of the land is Federally controlled. 

Together, the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) manage 52 percent 

of the land in Rio Arriba County and 53 percent in Taos 

County (Eastman and others 2000).

Many of the local ranchers said they concur with 

the sentiment expressed by Wendell Berry (1990: 157): 

“We don’t trust our ‘public servants’ because we know 

they don’t respect us. They don’t respect us, as we understand, because they don’t know us; they don’t know 

our stories.” We addressed this problem by exploring 

contemporary land management, valuation, and use 

issues within their cultural context among ranchers 

with Federal grazing permits (permittees) on National 

Forest lands in northern New Mexico.

Understanding the importance of livestock operations to area families and communities is crucial to 

comprehending and resolving disputes over public 

land and resource use. In this study, we examined the 

social, cultural, and economic aspects and contributions of the generally small livestock operations on the 

Santa Fe (SFNF) and Carson (CNF) National Forests of 

northern New Mexico. For purposes of this discussion, 

cattle ranches with fewer than 100 head (or ca. 135 

Animal Units Yearlong—AUY) are classified as small. 

Those ranches with 40 head (ca. 54 AUY) or fewer are 

considered extra-small. The number of Animal Units 

(AUs) is about 1.35 times the number of mature cows 

on a cow/calf ranch. An AUY is the amount of forage 

consumed by one AU in one year (Torell and others 

1998).

This study focused on gathering information on 

both the economic and non-economic contributions of 

livestock ownership to local families and communities. 

In addition, it explores the extent to which the use of 

public land for grazing and other purposes allows communities to maintain social cohesion and traditional 

culture. Local attitudes toward land management agencies and policies are examined. Some comparisons are 

also made to previously collected information from the 

general area and to results from our pilot study (Raish 

and McSweeney 2003).

Information from the pilot study was used to develop the research design and data collection methods 

used in the present study, which include livestock operations and grazing permittees from the remaining 

four ranger districts on the SFNF and two additional 

districts on the CNF. The 2003 work collected data 

from the Española Ranger District (of the SFNF) and 

the Canjilon Ranger District (of the CNF) (Raish and 

McSweeney 2003). The current data collection encompasses the Coyote, Cuba, Jemez, and Pecos/Las Vegas 

Districts of the SFNF and the Camino Real and Tres 

Piedras Districts of the CNF.

In order to understand the problems and issues of 

livestock grazing on public lands in New Mexico, it is 

necessary to explore the historical background of land 

valuation, use, and ownership in the area. Since contemporary problems and controversies often have their 

roots in the past, this orientation clarifies the role of 

historical practices and events in shaping current practices, issues, and disputes.

Historical Background

Many of the small livestock operations in northern New Mexico and the San Luis Valley of southern 

Colorado are owned by Hispanic families, regional 

residents since well before United States conquest in 

1848. The Spanish term “Hispano” is also used in this 

study to refer to the people of northern New Mexico. 

The terms “Hispanic” and “Hispano” refer to residents 

of the southwestern United States who are descended 

from Spaniards who settled in the region prior to U.S. 

annexation. Some southern Colorado and a few northern New Mexico ranches are owned by Anglo families. 

In regional parlance, the term “Anglo” refers to any 

non-Hispanic of European descent. A number of permittees on the Tres Piedras Ranger District of the CNF 

in New Mexico have their home ranches in southern 

Colorado. We recognize this residence pattern and also 

the fact that the San Luis Valley of southern Colorado, 

the headwaters area of the Rio Grande, is a part of the 

northern Hispanic ranching tradition. However, for 

ease and simplicity of expression in this report, we 

will generally refer to the study area as “northern New 

Mexico.”

Spanish and Mexican Periods

The Spanish introduced the first European domesticated plants and animals into the New World. When the 

Spaniard Juan de Oñate colonized the area in 1598, he 

brought European plants and animals, including cattle, 

sheep, goats, and horses, into the region that now comprises northern New Mexico (Baxter 1987; Hammond 

and Rey 1953[1]). In addition to their domesticates, the 

Spanish introduced new technologies and subsistence 

strategies into the existing Native American agricultural system. The settlers intensified indigenous farming 

practices, which had focused mainly on extensive 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 3

floodwater farming using water control and soil retention techniques, to more intensive irrigation agriculture 

from major watercourses (Earls 1985; Wozniak 1995).

During the 1600s, Pueblo Indian populations in the 

region declined because of warfare, introduced diseases, and famine caused by a series of severe droughts 

and destruction of food stores by raids from nomadic 

Indian groups. As the Puebloan population declined, 

the tribute and labor requirements of the colonists became increasingly onerous. These conditions, along 

with forced relocations and missionization, led to the 

Pueblo Revolt of 1680. During this rebellion, the vast 

majority of the Spanish were forced out of the Upper 

Rio Grande valley for 12 years. The settlers returned 

between 1692 and 1696 when Diego de Vargas initiated and completed the Spanish re-conquest of New 

Mexico (Simmons 1979). The regional ranching tradition began with Spanish colonization but did not 

become fully developed until after the re-conquest 

(Earls 1985; Simmons 1979; Wozniak 1995).

Hispano populations rose throughout the 1700s to 

approximately 25,000 by the later part of the century. Even so, the significant population declines of the 

Puebloan groups left a sufficient amount of land for 

both groups to farm and ranch along the main waterways and their tributaries (Simmons 1979). At that 

point, the economic, political, and religious systems of 

New Mexico were very different from the pre-revolt 

systems. The new generation of Spanish colonists were 

accomplished agriculturalists and stock raisers who 

generally worked their own land and maintained relatively peaceful relations with the Pueblo Indian groups 

as both used the land in similar ways (Simmons 1979). 

The descendants of these Spanish and Puebloan peoples are the Hispanic villagers and farmers of northern 

New Mexico today.

During the Spanish Colonial (1598 to 1821) and 

Mexican (1821 to 1848) periods, land ownership and 

use were confirmed by land grants from the Spanish 

Crown or Mexican government. Although there were 

various types of land grants, community grants, in 

which groups of settlers used portions of the grant in 

common, are of particular interest because they are a 

major land ownership issue in the area today (Eastman 

and others 1971; Harper and others 1943). Within community grants, settlers received individually owned 

building sites and agricultural plots of irrigated land, 

which were often quite small, averaging from 5 to 

10 acres (Van Ness 1987). They tended to grow even 

smaller as they were divided for purposes of inheritance. The farmers also used the village grazing lands, 

timberlands, and community pastures as common 

lands (Eastman and others 1971). Because kinsmen 

often worked their fields cooperatively and herded 

their animals together, they were able to subsist on the 

small-sized, scattered agricultural plots.

Throughout the Colonial period, a subsistence, agropastoral economy based in small, scattered villages 

existed along the Rio Grande and its tributaries. Raids 

from nomadic Apache, Navajo, Ute, and Comanche 

limited range expansion and travel for commerce and 

trade (Clark 1987; Van Ness 1987). Thus, the villagers’ main goal was production for local subsistence, 

not competition in a commercial market. The community of Cañones (Kutsche and Van Ness 1981; Van 

Ness 1987) provides a good example of ranching and 

farming in the Hispanic villages. Both animal and plant 

production formed parts of a mixed farming system, 

with sheep and goats most frequently used as food. 

Livestock were used for plowing, threshing, transporting produce, and fertilizing fields. The community stock 

were individually owned but cooperatively grazed. 

They were moved into the higher-elevation pastures 

during the spring and summer and returned to the village after the harvest to graze and manure the stubble 

fields.

Livestock numbers were not great for the first two 

centuries after the conquest. In these early years, sheep 

were more numerous than cattle, in part due to sale and 

loss of the latter to nomadic Indian groups (Gonzales 

1969). In the early 1800s, the number of sheep increased 

as the Spanish population expanded eastward onto the 

plains across the Sandia and Manzano Mountains and 

westward from the Rio Grande Valley. This movement 

coincided with the growing trade in wool and sheep 

during the Mexican period (Eastman and others 2000).

Although concentrations of sheep and cattle near villages produced some areas of overuse during Spanish 

Colonial times (Baxter 1987; Scurlock 1995), herds 

were generally small in proportion to the land base 

(Rothman 1989). Thus, relatively small populations 

of subsistence farmers and their animals successfully 

used the resources of the region during the long period 

of Spanish control (Raish 2000).

Areas of over-utilization increased during the 

Mexican period as commercial sheep production increased (Scurlock 1995). However, the majority of 

operations remained small and subsistence oriented 

during this period. As an example, Rothman (1989) indicated that, throughout the 1800s, local Hispanic and 

Pueblo residents of the nearby valleys used the Pajarito 

Plateau west of Santa Fe as common property, bringing 

their small herds there for summer grazing. Residents 

also harvested from the abundant timber resources for 
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

personal use and small-scale business ventures and 

planted some summer crops. The small size and noncommercial nature of these operations ensured that 

sufficient grass and forest resources remained for all 

who needed them.

American Period

Both patterns of land ownership and use changed 

substantially after U.S. conquest of the region during 

the Mexican-American War of 1846 through 1848. 

Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United 

States agreed to recognize the property rights of the 

resident Hispano population. To obtain valid land 

titles according to U.S. law, however, land grantees 

had to petition for title confirmation, at first through 

the Surveyor General to the Congress and after 1891, 

to the Court of Private Land Claims (Griswold del 

Castillo 1990). To accomplish this, claimants often had 

to hire an attorney, file their claim, and locate required 

supporting documents. As Eastman stated (1991:103), 

“...landholders were turned into claimants who had to 

incur a substantial expense to have their property respected.” Since money was scarce in the subsistence 

economy of the region, many landholders signed over 

portions of their land to pay legal fees. Thus, even 

successful claimants lost substantial amounts of land 

because legal fees often accounted for one-third to 

one-half of the land involved (Eastman 1991). In addition, many land claims were rejected; approximately 

24 percent of the acres claimed in New Mexico were 

confirmed compared to about 73 percent in California 

(Ebright 1987, discussed in Raish 2000).

The Surveyor General and the Court of Private Land 

Claims refused to confirm grants for various reasons. 

Boundaries were sometimes vague; original titles may 

have been lost; and communal ownership of pasture 

and woodlands ran counter to Nineteenth Century 

American concepts of private ownership (Eastman and 

others 1971). Often, the Court confirmed house lands 

and irrigated farmland but did not confirm community 

pastures and woodlands, also part of the grant, which 

had always provided the Hispano villagers with their 

main grazing and fuel wood resources. Lands from unconfirmed claims became part of the public domain.

Ebright (1987), Griswold del Castillo (1990), and 

Eastman (1991) argued that, in many cases, the U.S. 

Government did not honor the intent of the Treaty and 

related documents that land grants in the ceded territories should be recognized. The Government adopted 

an approach that some consider legalistic and restrictive toward land claims in New Mexico (Griswold del 

Castillo 1990). Although fraudulent claims were rightfully rejected, many potentially legitimate claims were 

also rejected, often on the basis of incomplete or inconsistent documentation. Many of these rejected claims 

were from residents who had occupied their land for 

generations (Eastman 1991). Villagers also lost considerable amounts of confirmed land because they could 

not pay property taxes under the American system of 

monetary tax payments. Unscrupulous land speculation by both Anglos and Hispanos, which was often 

upheld by the courts, also resulted in land loss (de Buys 

1985, discussed in Raish 2000).

Land grant loss remains an issue of bitter controversy, with initiatives presented regularly to Congress 

recommending further study of the problem (Raish and 

McSweeney 2008). In a 1998 report, Meyer reviewed 

how the intent of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (to 

protect the property and rights of the former Mexican 

citizens) was never implemented. He cited Michael J. 

Rock’s statement that “it will take Congressional action to overthrow the precedents established by...court 

decisions and to fulfill the obligations of the United 

States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo” (Meyer 

1998: 85).

Meyer (1998) stated that land and water are not only 

part of the physical landscape but are also part of the 

cultural landscape. Loss of access to these resources 

threatens the livelihood of many Hispanos, attacking 

the social fabric of rural Hispano communities. He concluded that the time is right to reconsider the property 

guarantees of the Treaty in light of the loss of community lands, and suggested a town-by-town study of 

New Mexico’s common lands with parameters set by a 

proposed Hispanic Land Claims Commission.

After various legislative proposals to address the 

topic of property guarantees in the Treaty, Congress 

did commission a study, but not the one Meyer 

recommended. The General Accounting Office, currently known as the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO), presented its report in June 2004. In brief, the 

Report stated “there does not appear to be a specific legal basis for relief, because the Treaty was implemented 

in compliance with all applicable U.S. legal requirements” (GAO Report 2004:12). However, possible 

Congressional actions are identified in the Report: (1) 

no action, (2) acknowledgement of hardships imposed, 

(3) re-examination of claims, (4) transfer of lands, or 

(5) financial payments (GAO Report 2004).

The land grant heirs and activists we interviewed 

(Raish and McSweeney 2008) were not pleased with 

the findings of the Report. Comments ranged from “a 

whitewash” to “a slap in the face” (Ebright 2004). Also, 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 5

not surprisingly, those interviewed by the GAO for the 

Report preferred the last two options if Congress were 

to take any action (GAO Report 2004). In response 

to the options proposed in the 2004 GAO Report, the 

New Mexico Land Grant Forum, the Mexicano Land 

Education and Conservation Trust, and officials of 

various land grants requested that Congress establish 

a $2.7 billion trust fund that would compensate land 

grants for loss of lands and resulting economic hardships. Interest from the trust would be used by land 

grants for land recovery, community and economic 

development, and educational and cultural programs. 

The New Mexico Land Grant Council (formed in 

2007) has expanded the trust proposal to cover issues 

such as land restitution, adjudications, and recognition. 

Regarding land restitution, the Council has requested 

such concessions to land grants as (1) payment in lieu 

of taxes if their former common lands are now owned 

by any Federal agency; (2) first priority to former common lands disposed of in the future; (3) stewardship, 

access, and right to use natural resources on former 

common lands now under Federal management; and 

(4) first priority to lease rights on Federal lands that 

are former common lands. Regarding adjudication and 

recognitions, the Council has requested that Congress 

act on any unadjudicated or unjustly rejected land 

grants identified in the GAO Report. The Land Grant 

Council is still working for resolution of these issues 

(New Mexico Land Grant Council 2007). However, 

in 2011, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed 

between Forest Service Region 3 and the New Mexico 

Land Grant Council to serve as a framework for better 

cooperation (Melonas, personal communication).

Today, much of the former grant land in northern 

New Mexico is managed by Federal agencies, primarily the Forest Service. Many of these lands came into 

Federal control after being degraded in one form or 

another by large commercial ranching or timbering 

operations (generally owned by non-local corporate interests) that occurred after alienation from the original 

Hispano owners (Eastman and others 1971; Rothman 

1989; Wildeman and Brock 2000). When the commercial operations were no longer profitable, the land was 

often sold to the Government. Meyer (1998) discussed 

how the Federal Government proved to be the biggest beneficiary of decisions reached by the Court of 

Private Land Claims.

Because of these Government purchases, the CNF 

and SFNF include all, or portions of, various former land grants that were mainly used as community 

range and woodland by local villages (de Buys 1985; 

Eastman and others 1971; Gonzales 1969). Twenty-two 

percent of these forests consist of confirmed Spanish 

and Mexican land grants with additional land coming 

from claimed but unconfirmed grants (de Buys 1985; 

Hurst 1972). Many local ranchers have grazing permits 

on the two Forests, but since the ranchers are often descendants of former grantees, many resent Government 

restrictions and payment to use land they consider part 

of their ancestral heritage.

The Forest Service began to address problems 

of land condition in the early part of the Twentieth 

Century. Beginning in the 1920s and accelerating from 

the 1940s through the 1960s, livestock ranching on 

the two Forests changed significantly as the economy 

changed and the Forest Service introduced range improvement programs, many of which were thought by 

local stock raisers to be harsh and poorly explained (de 

Buys 1985; Raish and McSweeney 2003). The number 

of grazing permits and the number of animals permitted 

continuously declined. On the CNF and SFNF, 2200 

individuals held grazing permits in 1940, which was 

reduced to fewer than 1000 by 1970 (de Buys 1985).

With fewer animals permitted to graze on the two 

Forests, small-scale subsistence ranches suffered increasing limitations on herd sizes over the years. One 

community experienced herd reductions of 60 percent, 

while the ranchers of another lost permits for 1000 

cattle in a period of a few years (de Buys 1985). Freeuse permits, issued for animals such as milk cows and 

draft horses, were drastically reduced over a period of 

time and finally phased out between 1970 and 1980. 

Also during this time, there were massive declines in 

the numbers of sheep and goats under permit. By 1980, 

there were no goats on either Forest and no sheep on the 

Santa Fe (de Buys 1985; Van Ness 1987). For example, 

domestic sheep were permitted to graze the Pecos high 

country until 1953. After that time, the permittee was 

directed to convert to raising cattle (Varela, personal 

communication).

These significant changes came about both as a result of Forest Service direction and changing economic 

conditions, as the region shifted from a subsistencebased to a cash-based economy. Land losses and herd 

size cutbacks undoubtedly pushed many people into the 

cash-based economy of wage work (West 1982). Over 

the years, a notable trend toward permit consolidation 

led to fewer permittees with larger herds. Although 

there were definite issues of rangeland health, the livelihoods of many villagers were affected by reductions 

in permittee numbers, sheep permit reductions, loss of 

free-use permits, and restrictions on goats. This sentiment was reflected in statements from the residents of 

Cañones who said that Forest Service administration 
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

favored large-scale ranching and was often not compatible with the subsistence needs of local communities 

(Kutsche and Van Ness 1981).

Discontent over Federal grazing policies, lost grant 

lands, and general economic decline in the region led 

to protest movements in the 1960s. The most wellknown of the protest groups, the “Alianza Federal de 

Mercedes” (later called the “Alianza Federal de los 

Pueblos Libres” or simply the “Alianza”), was led by 

Reies López Tijerina. A series of incidents involving 

the group included an attempt at a so-called citizen’s 

arrest at the courthouse in Tierra Amarilla that led 

to violence. There was also a takeover of the Echo 

Amphitheater campground that brought national attention and news coverage. Two of the main goals were 

to bring the problem of land grant loss to national attention and to address grievances concerning grazing 

management on the National Forests (deBuys 1985).

The violence of these protests caused the Forest 

Service to re-examine its policies in northern New 

Mexico, producing “The People of Northern New 

Mexico and the National Forests,” commonly known 

as the “Hassell Report” (Hassell 1968). The report 

contained 99 recommended measures, 26 related to 

grazing, to improve economic and environmental conditions in the area. Some measures were implemented, 

and some progress was made. In addition, the Forest 

Service developed a special policy for managing the 

Forests of northern New Mexico.

The Southwestern Policy on Managing National 

Forest Lands in the Northern Part of New Mexico, 

or the Northern New Mexico Policy, was oriented 

to stress the importance of valuing the Hispanic and 

Indian cultures of the Southwest (Hurst 1972). Policy 

implementation, which was periodically reviewed, was 

based on the recommendations of the Hassell Report 

(1968). After the last review in 1981, the agency decided that a separate policy statement was no longer 

needed and that further implementation would be 

through regional and forest mission statements and 

plans (Hassell 1981). Difficulties with implementing recommendations of the policy were discussed by 

Raish (1997).

Problems remain in the area and many of the situations discussed in the Hassell Report (1968) have 

not improved. Severe poverty, disappearance of traditional life ways, and environmental degradation are 

still major concerns that require attention and effort. 

We have found that some Forest Service employees, 

particularly those new to the region, are unaware of 

the Hassell Report (1968) and the conditions that led 

to its development. However, recent efforts have been 

made to develop cultural awareness training programs, 

and several employees with whom we spoke discussed 

their commitment to ensuring that those who are new 

to the northern Forests receive specialized training 

(Raish and McSweeney 2008).

Despite these efforts, many training needs were 

described by both permittees and Forest Service employees who stated that the Forest Service should 

recognize the need of northern New Mexicans for traditional resources, such as grazing lands and firewood. 

As one employee commented, “We must have people 

here who are very connected to the land and understand northern New Mexico needs, lifestyle, culture, 

and traditions” (Raish and McSweeney 2008: 1054). 

We found that local agency employees often said 

they view greater participation by local communities 

in Forest Service decision making in a positive light. 

They argue for promoting local people in place and for 

longer tenure in leadership positions to build communication and trust between communities and the Forest 

Service. Some employees said they feel such changes 

in Forest Service culture are occurring, while others 

do not. Notwithstanding these improvements, misunderstandings persist between the agency and the 

permittees, and the potential for conflict remains.

Methods

Study Sites

This study was designed to provide much-needed 

information to regional agency employees, policy 

makers, social science researchers, and the general 

public concerning the culture and economic practices 

of the traditional ranching community. It follows the 

pilot study, “Economic, Social, and Cultural Aspects 

of Livestock Ranching on the Española and Canjilon 

Ranger Districts of the Santa Fe and Carson National 

Forests: A Pilot Study” (Raish and McSweeney 2003) 

that will be referred to throughout this report as “the 

pilot study” without citation. Two ranger districts were 

chosen for the pilot study—Española on the SFNF and 

Canjilon on the CNF. The Española Ranger District 

was selected first for the pilot study because it is a 

good example of livestock operations in northern New 

Mexico and, in particular, on the SFNF. After discussions with range staff, the study was broadened to 

include the Canjilon Ranger District of the CNF to give 

representation to that Forest also. These two Forests, 

located in north-central New Mexico, are home to a 

preponderance of Hispanic grazing permittees whose 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 7

families ranched in the area well before establishment 

of the National Forests in the early 1900s.

This research broadens the scope of the pilot study 

to include a wider representation of grazing permittees 

from the northern Forests. It follows the pilot with an 

emphasis on the SFNF. We invited all permittees from 

the remaining four districts of the Forest to participate in the project: Coyote, Cuba, Jemez, and Pecos/

Las Vegas. The SFNF emphasis, as well as time, distance, and financial resources, dictated the inclusion of 

only two additional CNF districts to deepen the study: 

Camino Real and Tres Piedras. Thus, the pilot and this 

larger study encompass all districts of the SFNF and 

half of the CNF districts. Tres Piedras was selected as 

a comparison to the SFNF districts because the permittees include a variety of ranchers from southern 

Colorado with larger herds and larger private land 

holdings, in contrast to the generally smaller holdings 

of the majority of the permittees on the other districts.

Santa Fe and Carson National Forests

The incidences of multiple-permittee allotments 

on the SFNF and CNF, as well as permittee membership in organized grazing associations and generally 

small herd sizes, reflect the region’s Hispanic history 

of community grazing (Raish 1999) and show continuing communal range use in northern New Mexico. For 

example, approximately 75 percent of interviewees are 

members of a grazing association (question 16; table 

29; Appendix C) with relatively small numbers of 

animals per permittee. Fifteen percent of those interviewed have 10 or fewer cows; while 67 percent have 

50 or fewer (question 29; table 55; Appendix C). This 

pattern is consistent with the northern New Mexico 

region, as small and extra-small cattle operations comprise 87 percent of the ranches in Rio Arriba County 

and 96 percent in Taos County (Eastman and others 

2000).

Tables 1 and 2 present the occurrence of multiplepermittee allotments on the Forests, listing the grazing 

allotments by district with acreage and numbers of 

permittees. There are 64 active grazing allotments on 

the Coyote, Cuba, Jemez, and Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger 

Districts of the Santa Fe, ranging in size from 1372 

acres to 94,352 acres. The Camino Real and Tres 

Piedras Districts of the Carson have 29 active grazing 

allotments that range from 409 acres to 43,621 acres. 

Numbers of permittees per allotment range from 1 to 

18 on the two Forests.

On the Santa Fe, 26 (40.6 percent) allotments have 

1 permittee and 38 (59.4 percent) have more than 1. Of 

the 38, 11 (17.2 percent) have 8 or more permittees. 

Numbers of permittees per allotment vary substantially among the four examined SFNF districts. Coyote 

had the lowest number of single-permittee allotments 

(2 or 18.2 percent) and the highest number with 8 or 

more permittees (8 or 72.7 percent). Both Cuba and 

Jemez had a higher rate of single-permittee allotments 

(9 or 47.3 percent and 5 or 50 percent, respectively). 

Cuba had no allotments with more than 8 permittees, 

and Jemez had 1 (10 percent). Pecos/Las Vegas had 10 

(41.6 percent) allotments with 1 permittee and 2 (8.3 

percent) with 8 or more. Excluding Coyote district, 50 

percent to slightly under 60 percent of allotments had 

more than 1 permittee.

The selected districts from the Carson had a total of 

8 (27.6 percent) allotments with 1 permittee, 21 (72.4 

percent) with more than 1, and 9 (31 percent) with 8 or 

more. Camino Real had 3 (25 percent) single-permittee 

allotments and 5 (41.6 percent) with 8 or more. Tres 

Piedras had 5 (29.4 percent) allotments with 1 permittee and 4 (23.5 percent) with 8 or more permittees. 

Allotments with more than 1 permittee range from 70 

percent to 75 percent.

Data Collection

Development of the Questionnaire

Following the methods of the pilot study and prior 

work in the region (Eastman and others 1971, 1979; 

Gray 1974), we collected data using a personally administered, written questionnaire (OMB 05960171) 

coupled with an in-depth interview (Appendix B). 

We referenced the pilot study assessing the research 

questions that guided this study as well as the methods 

and techniques that were used to collect the desired information (though no data from the pilot study were 

included in this analysis). Results from the pilot study 

formed the basis for evaluating and refining the research design by helping us develop new topics and 

questions and delete those that were inappropriate.

We met with Forest Service range personnel 

from both the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests 

and with officers of the Northern New Mexico 

Stockmen’s Association and the New Mexico Cattle 

Growers Association concerning questionnaire development and administration. We consulted with 

locally knowledgeable permittees from both forests 

and with Doctors Clyde Eastman (Ret.) and John 

Fowler of Agricultural Economics, New Mexico State 

University. We also met with representatives from the 

New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service: Gerald 

Chacon, Edmund Gomez, and Ursula Rossauer. The 
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

draft questionnaire for the pilot study (OMB 0596-

0144, Ret.), which forms the basis of this study, was 

reviewed by Forest Service range personnel from the 

two Forests and the Southwestern Regional Office in 

Albuquerque.

Consultation with expert researchers in the field, as 

well as published information on prior research and 

information-gathering strategies, were used to assess 

content and face validity of the questionnaire questions 

(Babbie 1990, 1995; Eastman and Gray 1987; Eastman 

and others 1971; Eastman and others 1979; Fowler and 

others 1994; Liefer 1970). Eastman and Fowler reviewed a draft of the pilot questionnaire and suggested 

revisions, which were made. With their permission, 

relevant questions from prior surveys undertaken 

in their research were incorporated into the present 

questionnaire. Dr. Don Case, Forest Range, Wildlife, 

Fish, Soil, Air, and Water Staff Officer (retired) on the 

Carson National Forest, who holds a Ph.D. in Rural 

Sociology, also reviewed the questionnaire. In addition, other Forest Service range personnel examined 

and commented on the instrument.1

Many of the questions in the present questionnaire 

were used in prior studies and proved useful and reliable (Babbie 1990, 1995; Eastman and others 1971, 

1979; Fowler and others 1994; Liefer 1970). The pilot 

study was used to assess the clarity and internal consistency of the questionnaire questions, as well as their 

relevance and complexity (Babbie 1990, 1995).

The survey questions were grouped to elicit the following categories of information:

a. Information on the permittee and his/her family.

b. Information on the livestock operation.

c. Contribution of the livestock operation to the 

household economy.

d. Contribution of the livestock operation to 

maintaining the cultural and traditional values of 

the family.

e. Contribution of the livestock operation to the 

family’s participation in the social network of the 

community.

The questionnaire consisted of 46 questions divided 

into four sections, plus 11 open-ended discussion topics. Two sections requested demographic information 

and descriptive information on livestock operations. 

Questions on age, education, employment, primary 

language spoken in the household, years of residence 

in the area, and the participation of children/grandchildren in the ranch operation provided demographic data. 

Questions concerning the number of years the permittee 

and his/her family have owned livestock and have had 

Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management grazing 

permits provided information on livestock operations. 

Other questions focused on who influenced the rancher 

to enter the business, reasons for cattle and sheep breed 

selection, and the number and types of animals owned. 

Local forage plants and vegetation changes over time 

were discussed. The section also dealt with costs in 

terms of both money and time.

In a third section, we reviewed the benefits of owning livestock with questions focused on the economic 

contribution of the livestock to family income. In addition, use of the animals and their by-products for 

household consumption and exchange with relatives 

and neighbors was addressed. General family goals 

and goals for the ranch operation were also covered 

in these questions. The questions dealing with family goals asked respondents to prioritize statements 

concerning increasing family income, increasing the 

quality of life, maintaining traditional lifestyles and 

values, and gaining personal satisfaction from livestock ownership. Another question asked respondents 

to prioritize family goals for the livestock operation, 

such as making more money from the operation, increasing the family’s quality of life related to ranching, 

avoiding being forced out of ranching, and improving 

the livestock operation by purchasing more land, better 

equipment, and more animals. The remaining questions emphasized cultural and social contributions of 

livestock ownership, including community activities 

and classes related to owning livestock, the social and 

business activities that result from livestock ownership, and whether a permittee grazes his/her cattle with 

the herds owned by relatives or neighbors or both.

The final portion of the questionnaire contained discussion/interview topics that prompted respondents to 

describe their views on a variety of topics, including 

feelings about land and livestock, teaching children 

about their heritage, working with the Forest Service, 

and preparing Forest Service employees to work in 

northern New Mexico. The ranchers were asked to 

share their knowledge concerning working with land 

and livestock and describe their responsibility and 

1

 Other Forest Service range personnel examined and 

commented on the instrument: David Stewart, Director, 

Rangeland Management, Southwestern Region; Jerry 

Elson, Range and Wildlife Staff Officer (Ret.), Santa Fe 

National Forest; David Manzanares, Range and Watershed 

Staff, Española Ranger District, Santa Fe National Forest 

(currently with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service); and Cipriano Maez, Range Technician (Ret.), 

Canjilon Ranger District, Carson National Forest.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 9

relationship to the land. A question on land ownership 

elicited views on selling land for non-agricultural uses 

or to non-locals.

The 11 discussion, or personal interview, topics in 

the final section constituted an informal, semi-structured, more ethnographically oriented portion of the 

study (Carroll and others 2009; Spradley 1979). The 

topics were designed to allow respondents to present 

their own views, feelings, and problems. Respondents 

could provide other information if they wished, focus on only one or two questions, or skip a question 

or parts of a question. None of the responses to these 

questions was examined using statistical techniques; 

responses were not used in a formal attitude survey 

or assessment. These questions were intended to give 

a personalized picture of the ranchers and their varying views and concerns, serving as a vital complement 

to the more quantitatively oriented portions of the 

questionnaire.

Questionnaire Administration

Because all permittees from the selected districts on 

the two Forests were offered the opportunity to participate in the larger study, no sampling design was 

implemented. Participation in the project was completely voluntary. The questionnaire administration 

and interviewing process was carried out during winter 

and spring of 2004, 2005, and 2006 prior to the busier 

summer/fall ranching season. Because of scheduling 

issues, some permittees from Tres Piedras, who live 

in southern Colorado, were interviewed in summer, 

2005. Before administering the questionnaire, Raish 

and McSweeney gave presentations on the pilot study 

publication and discussed the larger ranching project to 

be offered on the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests 

to groups of permittees at their Annual Allotment 

Meetings during February, March, and April of 2004 

and 2005. In 2004, presentations were made at 25 

meetings. In 2005, 19 presentations were made. We 

answered questions on the project and provided copies of the pilot study publication so that the ranchers 

could have an understanding of our work and make an 

informed decision concerning their participation in the 

project. These sessions were designed to build rapport 

and increase participation in the study. From discussions with the permittees, it appeared the published 

pilot study boosted confidence in our work and lent 

credibility to the current study. We had a total participation rate of 67 percent (238 out of 356 permittees) 

from the six districts in this study.

Before beginning data collection, McSweeney and 

Raish mailed each permittee a cover letter (Appendix 

A) in English and Spanish explaining the project along 

with a copy of the questionnaire (Appendix B) so that 

prospective participants would have an opportunity to 

review it. We also included a copy of the pilot study 

as background information. Nearly half (49.8 percent) 

of the interviewees affirmed that they read the report 

(final interview question; table 118; Appendix C). The 

review questionnaire is in English, but our letter states 

that the questionnaire is available in Spanish. Each 

permittee was called to determine if he/she wished 

to participate in the project. We scheduled interviews 

by district; the time and place of each interview was 

scheduled for the convenience of the permittee. We 

chose to personally administer the questionnaire in order to maximize response rate and clarify any questions 

respondents might find confusing. Prior discussions 

with community members and Forest Service staff, as 

well as experience with conducting the pilot study, indicated that response to a mailed questionnaire would 

probably be extremely low.

In order to ensure that questionnaire administration 

and question clarification were conducted in a similar 

manner, McSweeney and Raish administered the questionnaire and conducted the interviews together during 

the first months of interviewing in winter/spring 2004. 

We used this strategy to minimize possible problems 

caused by different interviewers interpreting or asking 

questions in different ways, which might lead to bias 

in responses. Remaining interviews were conducted either by Raish or McSweeney. The entire questionnaire 

and interview process generally lasted from 1.5 to 2.5 

hours. The questionnaire was filled out by the interviewer and detailed notes were taken; interviews were 

also taped when approved by the participant.

The following discussion of ranch life is based on 

the information we received from those that participated in the study and does not represent the views 

of any other permittees. It should be noted, however, 

that almost 69 percent (68.8 percent) of the permittees 

from the four targeted districts of the Santa Fe participated in the study, and about 66 percent (65.6 percent) 

of the permittees from the two Carson districts took 

part in the project (table 3). Non-respondents included 

persons who declined to participate for the following 

reasons: conflicting ranch responsibilities, second job 

schedules, family commitments and emergencies, or 

lack of interest in the project. A few did not have working telephone numbers, and we were unable to reach 

some after several attempts during varying times of day 

and on varying days, including week days and weekends. We did not limit our scheduling calls to work 

day hours, but generally made our calls in the evening 
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

when potential respondents were more likely to be at 

home. Our attendance at grazing association meetings 

and discussions with district range staff indicated no 

pattern of differences between those who participated 

in our project and those who did not. 

Data Entry and Analysis

All of the interview notes from the discussion topics taken by both authors were reviewed in detail by 

McSweeney, with relevant portions transcribed and 

entered into the computer. Selected quotations most 

representative of the topics were recorded for later use 

in the text (Carroll and others 2009). No names were 

entered with the interview data or questionnaire responses to preserve the anonymity of the respondents. 

We strove to include clarifications and additional 

information provided by the ranchers during questionnaire administration. McSweeney coded all responses 

and entered them into the database. Although only 

one researcher coded all responses and performed all 

data entry, variability and errors can occur as the data 

recording process proceeds. Thus, Raish recoded 7 

questionnaires from a grab sample and McSweeney 

recoded 12 (2 from each district, with 1 from early interviews and 1 from later interviews on that district) for 

a total of 19 or 8 percent (7.98 percent). The recoding 

identified 7 of the 128 variables, derived from the 46 

questions, with coding problems on one or more of the 

sampled questionnaires. These problem variables were 

re-examined on all questionnaires. In addition, all data 

entries were proofed for typographical errors and other 

data entry mistakes of this nature. Complex questions 

that are difficult to interpret (e.g., descriptions of the 

ways in which animals are lost throughout the year), 

but do not represent coding errors, are discussed under 

the appropriate topic.

The 46 questions cover attitudes and values as well 

as direct descriptive and demographic information. 

Responses derived from the interview topics provide 

a background for issues and concerns, presenting the 

kind of personal, although anonymous, information 

that lends credence, reality, and a human face to the 

more “numbers-oriented” data gathered from the questionnaire. The 46 questions and the discussion topics 

are identified by their numbers as they appear throughout this report.

The demographic data, information on livestock operations, and descriptions of the economic, social, and 

cultural contributions of livestock operations derived 

from this study are summarized using basic descriptive statistics. These include percentages of occurrence 

for the discrete variables (rounded to the nearest whole 

number within the text), with frequencies and measures of central tendency and dispersion presented for 

the continuous variables. Data tables containing this 

information are located in Appendix C. Comparisons 

between selected responses from this study and those 

from earlier studies are made to assess possible changes in the role of livestock operations over time.

Prior Research

A considerable body of work provided a valuable 

framework for assessing and understanding the cultural, social, and economic role of livestock operations in 

the communities of the north. Our pilot study is part of 

that framework. Both McSweeney (1995) and Atencio 

(2001) have interviewed ranchers concerning their 

views and attitudes about the ranching way of life and 

its role in maintaining traditional culture and heritage. 

Anthropological community studies (e.g., Kutsche 

and Van Ness 1981), land grant studies (e.g., Briggs 

and Van Ness 1987), and specific studies of livestock 

operations (e.g., Eastman and Gray 1987; Fowler and 

others 1994) have also been undertaken.

Since the 1970s, there has been increasing research 

on land grants and land grant problems in New Mexico. 

The aforementioned works describe land grant history, 

examine the role of community grant lands in village 

subsistence practices, and explore the economic effects 

of land grant loss. A summary discussion of land grant 

studies ordered by legal, historical, anthropological, or 

political orientation is given in Briggs and Van Ness 

(1987). Raish and McSweeney (2008) recently undertook a specific study of land grants and the Forest 

Service. These types of studies provide the necessary 

background for understanding public land use disputes, given that much of the Federal land is former 

grant land.

Various works (discussed in Eastman and others 

2000) describe contemporary community organization, 

traditional culture, farming, and stock raising in north 

central New Mexico, including the ways in which communities have responded to changing Government and 

patterns of land ownership (Gonzales 1969; Knowlton 

1961, 1967; Kutsche 1983; Sanchez 1940; Swadesh 

1974; Van Ness 1976, 1987). Leonard and Loomis 

(1941) on El Cerrito and Kutsche and Van Ness (1981) 

on Cañones are excellent community-specific studies. 

Forrest (1989) examined the effects of Depression Era 

and New Deal programs on the Hispanic villages of the 

area. Part II of Weigle’s 1975 reprint of the 1935 Tewa 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 11

Basin Study consists of an extensive bibliography of 

studies on Hispanic New Mexico (Weigle 1975).

The Tewa Basin Study “...was among the first and 

most ambitious of government efforts to explore sociocultural and environmental variables,” providing “an 

indispensable foundation for any discussion of social 

change and rural culture in northern New Mexico” 

(Weigle 1975: viii). The study provides information on 

32 Hispanic communities of the area during the mid1930s, including information on farming and livestock 

raising.

In addition to these studies, specific studies of 

ranching operations have been conducted, primarily 

by economists, rural sociologists, and anthropologists 

from New Mexico State University. Their work examines the economic benefits of small farms and ranches, 

the attitudes and values of ranchers and farmers, and 

the economics of community grazing on both private 

and public lands (Eastman and Gray 1987; Eastman 

and others 1971, 1979; Fowler and others 1994; Gray 

1974). State-wide agricultural economic research by 

Fowler and associates (Fowler and others 1994; Fowler 

and Torell 1985) also contains sections that pertain to 

the northern region of the state.

As Eastman and others (2000) discussed, contemporary ranching operations in northern New Mexico 

are generally small. Even in earlier years when people 

were more dependent upon agriculture, the majority of operations were small. Several descriptions of 

communities in the 1930s drawn from the Tewa Basin 

Study are good examples of this long-standing pattern 

(Weigle 1975). The village of Cundiyo was described 

as having 21 families with 175 cattle, ranging from 1 

to 19 animals per family. Seventeen families owned 

a total of 31 horses. There were also 12 sheep and 3 

goats in the village. Corn was the most important crop, 

but others included beans, chili, squash, and fruit. Each 

owner worked his own land with neighbors cleaning irrigation ditches together and helping each other during 

planting, harvesting, and house building. No one hired 

outside help (Weigle 1975, discussed in Eastman and 

others 2000).

During the Tewa Basin Study (Weigle 1975), the 

village of El Rito comprised 210 families. The average 

farm had 8 acres with sizes ranging from 2 to 71 acres. 

Main crops were beans, wheat, and alfalfa. According 

to the study, the farmers and ranchers had more range 

for livestock than other communities in the area using both private grant land and permits on the Carson 

National Forest. Villagers owned 607 head of cattle 

and 500 horses. The largest herd numbered 78 cattle 

and 8 horses, with the average family having 1 team 

of horses and 3 head of cattle. Three ranchers had a 

total of 3260 sheep, and one family owned 300 goats. 

The sheep grazed part of the year on the Forest, while 

the goats ranged yearlong on the private grant land 

(Weigle 1975, discussed in Eastman and others 2000).

The community of Truchas was divided into three 

scattered groupings of dwellings consisting of around 

200 families. The principal crop at the time of the Tewa 

Basin work was wheat, along with peas, potatoes, and 

beans. The farmers also cultivated substantial amounts 

of alfalfa and owned 200 head of cattle, 200 horses, 50 

sheep, and 1100 goats. One man owned a herd of 200 

goats. Cattle herds ranged from 1 to 20 with an average of 3 head. Only about 60 families owned cattle. 

Animals grazed on private grant land (Weigle 1975, 

discussed in Eastman and others 2000).

In 1967, Kutsche and Van Ness conducted ethnographic research in the village of Cañones, which at 

that time had 30 households. The primary crops were 

alfalfa and pasture, along with grain and garden vegetables. As the authors stated, “Since forage is so scarce, 

it is economic for landowners to devote most of their 

irrigated land to their livestock, which requires relatively little labor, and to spend their own time earning 

wages elsewhere” (Kutsche and Van Ness 1981: 36, 

discussed in Eastman and others 2000). Cattle were 

grazed under permit on the national forest during the 

five-and-one-half-month grazing season and were on 

private pasture and feed during the remainder of the 

year. Eighteen families had no cattle, while one had 2 

cows, six had between 5 and 8, four had between 10 and 

20, and one had over 20. There were also 10 sheep and 

1 goat in the village, and 10 families owned 27 horses. 

The 1967 study showed a trend away from dependence 

on farm produce toward full-time outside employment 

combined with stock raising and a kitchen garden. This 

trend has increased in recent years, as demonstrated by 

1980 figures that showed a higher proportion of adult 

males commuting to work than in previous years—

four to Española and two to Los Alamos (Kutsche and 

Van Ness 1981).

Other research, also conducted primarily in the 

1970s and 1960s on small-scale cattle operations, 

demonstrated that although domesticated animals were 

important components of household economy, most of 

the small operators no longer depended on their crops 

and animals for their full support. The operators generally had outside jobs or were retired. The function 

of the livestock herd was not purely economic—it was 

used as a partial subsistence and back-up resource and 

as a means of saving for hard times or special expenses. The animals also added to economic security by 
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

providing meat no matter what the market price or the 

condition of family finances (Eastman and Gray 1987).

Raish and McSweeney (2003) found many of the 

same patterns continuing in the late 1990s and into the 

present day (as demonstrated by this study). Livestock 

operations on the Española and Canjilon Ranger 

Districts from the pilot study are generally small; with 

the few large and very small operations removed, herd 

sizes range from 8 to 160 with an average size of 54 

animals and a median of 50. Eighty-two percent of the 

ranches are classed as extra-small or small with 1 to 

99 head (Raish and McSweeney 2003). As noted previously, the majority of ranching operations are not 

full-time, with about 16 percent of the respondents reporting their primary, but not necessarily only, job as 

rancher/farmer. Of those, 10 percent described themselves as full-time ranchers.

In addition to the economic considerations, the animals served important social and cultural functions. 

The small-scale producers stressed the importance of 

the good quality of life that ranching provided them 

and their families. They spoke in terms of preserving a working relationship with the land that could be 

passed on with pride to their children. Owning animals 

was very important to them as a way of reaffirming 

ties to their ancestral lands and heritage. In many cases, the extra buffer that the animals provided allowed 

the family to stay in the ancestral, rural community 

and continue at least a part of the traditional lifestyle 

(Eastman and Gray 1987).

Theoretical Framework

Sense of Place in Northern New Mexico

Both place attachment, or sense of place, and a 

landscape perspective can shed light on the values and 

actions of northern New Mexico ranchers. These concepts help to locate the ranchers’ stories in a theoretical 

framework of larger social actions. The following discussion of sense of place is drawn from a review by 

Farnum and others (2005) and is relevant to our use 

of the topic. The construct of sense of place was detailed by Tuan in the mid-1970s (1974, 1976, 1977), 

but has undergone many revisions over the years. In 

sense of place studies, the term “place attachment” is 

often used to encompass place-related concepts such 

as place dependence, identity, rootedness, and satisfaction (Kaltenborn 1998), stressing the human emotional 

bonds and attachments to certain places.

Attachment to a place can encompass the role of 

that place in the way a person constructs and maintains 

self identity (Manzo 2003; Williams 2002). Place dependence indicates personal connections based on 

activities that occur in a specific place or that the place 

can provide (Gibbons and Ruddell 1995). In their 

review, Farnum and others (2005) stressed the multifaceted nature of sense of place, encompassing both 

attachment and dependence, its multiple and evolving 

origins, and its emphasis on both internal and external 

factors.

Many authors, and certainly our research in northern 

New Mexico, indicate that sense of place centers on 

specific locales and the meanings/emotions that develop through personal or collective experience of them 

(Farnum and others 2005). Research has shown that 

places that are important to people are those that people 

have responsibility in shaping, that provide opportunities for desired activities, or that fit into their way of 

life (Gustafson 2001). Other studies have shown that 

place attachment develops over time as people interact with a place, developing meaning, memories, and 

feelings, with greater attachment among those who live 

closer to a site (Moore and Scott 2003).

Farnum and others (2005) reviewed the idea that 

people who live near a specific area (often termed “locals”) may be economically dependent on that land and 

develop social identities and group cohesiveness related to those places (Bonaiuto and others 2002). Thus, 

these people are more sensitive to land-use changes 

or access alterations, which may impact aspects of 

their lives such as livelihood, social relations, recreation, family traditions, and heritage. Locals can have a 

greater place attachment to public lands than non-locals 

whose economic well-being and social institutions are 

not dependent on the place (Beckley 2003). In a study 

in Norway, Kaltenborn and Williams (2002) found that 

those who had lived only in the local community valued social networks, local cultural history, and local 

mining history more strongly than outsiders or other 

residents who had also lived in other places.

Research on the topic has shown that local residents 

often feel a special, privileged sense of place (Hawkins 

and Backman 1998), with a desire to educate others about the local area and its meanings and values 

(Stewart and others 2003). This sense of ownership 

can cause difficulties in decision making if outsiders 

and land managers think that it is the “locals” who 

need education. In this way, conflict and tensions can 

arise between newcomers and long-term residents. 

Wasserman and others (1998) observed that longterm residents felt that newcomers and outsiders did 

not appreciate the value of “their” area, were changing 

the local way of life, and were bringing in unwanted 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 13

values. We have heard these types of comments repeatedly from the permittees we have interviewed, as 

detailed in following sections.

In another study with strong implications for our 

work, McAvoy (2002) examined the view that varying ethnic and cultural groups have different values 

and priorities when it comes to place attachment. In his 

example, Native Americans may view place in terms 

of ancestral, religious, and community-based customs. 

Their view of a special place may embody the collective experiences of the group going back generations 

and defining characteristics of group identity.

The same can be said for the traditional, land-based 

Hispanic communities of northern and central New 

Mexico. As Rudolfo Anaya described, “The land belonged to the community, it was cared for, it was the 

Mother Earth which nurtured us. It provided firewood, 

grass and water for grazing animals. Over the centuries the people developed a spiritual attachment to the 

land” (Anaya cited in Anschuetz 2002: 7.17). In these 

worldviews, the group, more than the individual, has 

the primary importance, which differs from the dominant Euro-American view with its emphasis on the 

individual (McAvoy 2002). An outgrowth of this type 

of study moves into what is referred to as “politics of 

place,” highlighting the struggle of a people to authorize specific meanings and privileges in certain places 

for their group based on prior relations to the specific 

place (Gieryn 2000).

Anschuetz’s (2002) work with Native Americans 

and Hispanics is also directly relevant to our study. 

In one of his studies on the landscape perspective, he 

examined the relationship of both Native Americans 

and Hispanics in the Albuquerque area to special places and landscapes (Anschuetz 2002). He made some 

important points in his discussion of the cultural landscape concept (similar to the sense of place concept) 

and how the landscape approach encourages and enables consideration of the cultural-historical traditions 

through which people occupy and modify their community lands.

According to his discussion, culturally significant 

landscapes are special places that are truly integral 

to how people and communities sustain their cultural 

identity. Physical space in the environment becomes 

a “place” when people set down roots and acquire 

knowledge of its characteristics. Experience with the 

land, resources, communities, and individuals influences how people learn about a place and understand 

their relationship with the landscape (Anschuetz 2002).

When Baseball Hall of Famer Ernie Banks of the 

Chicago Cubs responded to the question, “Was there 

a point in time when you realized you’d fallen in love 

with baseball?”, he summed up the feeling of place importance perfectly (National Public Radio 2009):

When I first stepped into Wrigley Field in 

1953...I put on the uniform, and I couldn’t 

wait to get down and walk on the field just 

to see the place. I think I was the first one on 

the field.... This is the place I want to be...I 

wanted to stay there. I didn’t want to leave 

the park. It just captured me; it just grabbed 

me! It said ‘this is the place you need to be,’ 

like it was talking to me, the park itself! 

This is your place. This is the place where 

you do all the things you need to do in the 

game. And I just fell in love with it.

Others see sense of place developing more 

slowly over time. As John Brinkerhoff 

Jackson (1994:151, 158) wrote, “Most of 

us...would say that a sense of place, a sense 

of being at home in a town or city, grows 

as we become accustomed to it and learn its 

peculiarities. It is my own belief,” “that a 

sense of place is something that we ourselves 

create in the course of time. It is the result of 

habit or custom... we recognize that several 

localities have an attraction which gives us 

a certain indefinable sense of well-being 

and which we want to return to, time and 

again.... It is not a temporary response, for 

it persists and brings us back, reminding us 

of previous visits.” “One way of defining 

such localities would be to say that they 

are cherished because they are embedded 

in the everyday world around us and easily 

accessible, but at the same time are distinct 

from the world.... We are refreshed and 

elated each time we are there....”

Anschuetz (2002) spoke of this type of place interaction and emotional ties to the land in terms of 

communion (Johnson 1994), stating that communion 

“generally characterizes the relationship between the 

Southwest’s historic rural communities with their cultural landscapes. Given their sustained, intensive, and 

subsistence-based interactions with land, experiences 

of the region’s traditional rural communities provide 

contexts for developing communion based on intimate historical-ecological relationship” (Anschuetz 

2002:2.8; see also Levine and Merlan 1993).

“In the acequia [irrigation ditch] culture of the 

Upper Rio Grande, connections with a geographic 
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

locale are an integral part of individual as well as collective identity. Everyone is ‘from a place.’ ‘De dónde 

eres?’ [‘Where are you from?’]”. The acequia of their 

community very likely delineates the physical boundaries of their place...” (Rivera and Glick 2002:13). 

According to Rivera and Glick (2002), there are about 

1000 community acequias (irrigation ditches) in New 

Mexico and southern Colorado, which function as 

autonomous, self-governing institutions in charge of 

local water distribution and canal maintenance.

Sense of Place and Querencia

The idea of belonging to a place was a recurrent 

theme throughout our interviews with permittee ranchers. Their connection and attachment to place was 

present in their answers to interview questions such as 

length of land tenure and connection with land grants. 

It was especially evident in their responses to our 

discussion topics at the end of each interview. These 

commentaries abound in expressions of sense of place, 

apparent in descriptions of their feelings toward land 

and livestock, in their ways of instilling values in the 

children, and in their attitudes toward land ownership.

From an earlier set of interviews with northern 

New Mexico ranchers, McSweeney (1995) noted that 

while herds and land holdings varied in size, monetary return seemed to be somewhat overshadowed by 

the enjoyment of where and how the ranchers live and 

work. This sense of place transcends the delineation 

between private and public lands. Feeling part of a 

place is characteristic of those who have taken time to 

become familiar with and fit into their surroundings, 

understand the nature of the place, and learn from it.

The word “querencia,” derived from the Spanish 

verb “aquerenciarse,” means “to become fond of a 

place” (Spanish and English Dictionary: 476). More 

than a word; it is a concept that does not translate 

simply into English. There is something of the intangible in its use and meaning. “Querencia, donde 

quieres estar” is the place where you want to be, the 

place where you know how to go about the tasks of 

daily life, the place where you feel you belong. It is 

yours because you care about it; being there gives a 

sense of contentment and an uplifting of the spirit 

(McSweeney 1995).

It is the place that provides one, human or animal, 

with the resources needed for survival—food, water, 

shelter, and safety. In turn, there is a responsibility 

to care for such a place. Querencia goes beyond the 

boundaries of legal ownership, beyond the promise 

of monetary return. It implies a reciprocal, symbiotic 

relationship. It belongs to both the human and the animal realm, defining a special relationship that crosses 

the boundary between man and animal, encompassing 

both. Arellano (1997: 35) defined querencia as “that 

which gives us a sense of place, anchors us to the 

land, and makes us a unique people.”

Although a specific question regarding the notion 

of querencia was not posed in this project, several 

ranchers used the term or referred to animal behavior 

patterns that fit the concept. They told us that cows 

have a sense of where they should be and are accustomed to staying in separate herds. They explained 

the importance of allowing the cows to become acclimated to an area, how the young then learn from 

their mothers. Animals pick places they like, “just 

like people.” Permittees referred to this as querencia.

We asked two of the permittees who participated 

in the study to explain and define querencia as it applied to their work and experience with livestock. A 

rancher from the Pecos/Las Vegas district offered the 

following:

Well, we work with the Querencia System. 

What is the Querencia System? ...Their 

mamas have introduced them [the calves] to 

the area. They know the grazing. They can 

get into places that you don’t know existed. 

They can get into aspen groves. There are 

areas in there that are hidden, you don’t 

know about, that you don’t know, because 

they’ve been there with their mamas and 

their grandmothers. It’s a heritage thing. 

And what happens is you try to keep your 

cows in their area. You try to keep them in a 

normal radius being that they don’t have the 

physical boundaries or the fences. You go 

up there where you can call for your cows 

and they’re going to come out. If not in that 

general area, go a few miles. People ask..., 

“How do you drive these cows up there?” 

And you don’t drive them; we just follow 

them.... And what happens is you have 

other herds, and there are boundaries, and 

those cows don’t allow those herds to go 

into their querencia. There’s a territoriality; 

they’d clash. “Hey, what are you doing in 

our area?” It’s something unique to this area, 

this management. We’ve been managing 

cows this way all our lives and our parents 

and grandparents and great-grandparents 

before us (James Atencio, Rociada, New 

Mexico).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 15

The following are the thoughts of another permittee from the same district on the concept of querencia, 

sense of place, and management of grazing animals:

Management cannot be mechanical and 

superimposed on cattle...because cattle, 

being closer to nature than humans, know 

better where to graze, how to graze, how to 

congregate, to compare their children. They 

do socialize, for example, “Look, this is my 

baby calf!” So, obviously, they select areas 

where they move to during the day, at night, 

and different months as the season changes. 

They have a heightened sense of awareness 

of how to co-exist with the grasses, the 

forest, and the elements. Cattle know if they 

are feeling ill and know the kinds of herbs 

with which to treat themselves.... Animals 

have a brain too! They have intelligence 

and know better how to survive. We are 

not a cow! On the other hand, we have 

domesticated cattle to some extent and, 

therefore, have a responsibility to work with 

them...” (Antonio Medina, Cleveland, New 

Mexico).

In the Coyote district, we were told, “The cows 

have their own areas [i.e., querencias]... choose their 

areas well ... [and] are used to moving according to the 

weather and vegetation.” A permittee from the Cuba 

district said, “We have our own area of the allotment. 

The cows know the area. We have smart cows; they 

want to move when they need fresh grass. They won’t 

stay where the grass is low.” And in the Camino Real 

district, we heard that a feature of querencia is that it 

allows the animals to become accustomed to a place, to 

know where to find pasture and water.

Several ranchers referred to “training” the cows, a 

form of training that seems to stem from the rancher 

making use of the cow’s natural behavior patterns. The 

rancher must learn where to place salts and to be diligent in the upkeep of waters. He shows the cows where 

he wants them to be and the routes to follow by repetition in his own work, his own behavior and repeated 

patterns. In that way, humans and cows learn to work 

together. Newly acquired cows can learn from those 

already acclimated to the place. Permittees stressed a 

preference toward retaining a resident herd of cattle, 

of keeping replacement heifers from their own herd as 

opposed to purchasing new ones.

Benefits to the health of the land and ease of handling 

livestock are suggested by many ranchers in connection with querencia. The cows become used to the 

pattern of grazing without the need for division fences. 

Boundaries are created through repeated patterns of 

foraging and are assisted by thoughtful placement of 

salt; the cows can anticipate the rancher’s intentions. 

As one rancher stated, “Years back, there were no fences. The cattle went up and came back on their own; 

they had their querencias. Now there are fences and the 

permittees have to move the cattle.” A permittee told us 

that new Forest Service personnel come in with ideas 

on rotation grazing systems that don’t work in their 

area, as opposed to the old way where each permittee 

had a certain part of the allotment with cows familiar 

to the area.

Querencia and Rotational Grazing Systems

The subject of grazing systems emerged when 

permittees were asked how they might share their 

knowledge and experience. While many seemed comfortable with and adapted to a formal rotation system, 

others explained why they prefer a more open, flexible, 

traditional system. Their comments often arose due to 

problems they were experiencing from increased fencing within the allotments in conjunction with Forest 

Service implementation of rotation-type grazing systems (subsequently defined). A major concern with 

such systems stemmed from the possibility that a heavy 

concentration of animals would lead to over utilization 

of forage. Other observations suggested that frequent 

movement of livestock would result in increased trampling of grasses, damaged trails, angry recreationists, 

loss of animals, and loss of productivity. Other pitfalls 

attributed to rotation systems included: more fences, 

more gates left open, and pastures at “rest” being 

susceptible to trespass by unauthorized cattle and unregulated access by elk.

As discussed in Kruse and Jemison (2000), various grazing systems were defined by the New Mexico 

Interagency Range Committee in 1970. Summaries of 

two systems relevant to our study follow. “Deferred rotation” involves discontinued grazing by livestock on 

parts of an area to allow for plant restoration. “Rest rotation” involves discontinued grazing on portions of an 

area for a full year and on the other portions of the area 

during succeeding years. Both systems require two or 

more pastures and incur increased costs due to fences, 

maintenance, and livestock handling.

To clarify Forest Service definitions of rotational 

grazing, we consulted range staff from districts on the 

Santa Fe and Carson National Forests (Atencio; Eaton; 

Herrera; Lujan; Yonemoto, personal communications). 

While individual responses to this request provided 
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

standard definitions, there was variation in the application of such systems from district to district. This 

was not surprising, as districts differ to some extent 

in topography, location, history, and demographics. 

Rotation systems were adapted according to elevation, 

terrain, and climate. In speaking with range staff from 

the various districts, we learned that deferred rotation 

is currently the most commonly implemented grazing 

system, with some rest rotation in areas where it is feasible. In range management parlance, the word “rest” 

indicates a full year of non-use of a certain pasture, 

while the word “defer” indicates a delay or suspension 

in the grazing schedule.

Rest rotation implies a year of non-use for one 

pasture within an allotment. For example, if there are 

three pastures in an allotment, one will not be grazed 

for the entire season or year while the other two are 

used. A rested pasture is not grazed by livestock but 

may still be grazed by elk, which naturally reduces the 

efficacy of the rest period to some extent. In addition, 

this particular system doesn’t work well with lack of 

water, precipitation being a major factor in increasing 

forage growth during the period of rest. For these reasons, it was pointed out, permittees find rest rotation 

less acceptable than deferred rotation.

In deferred rotation, all pastures within an allotment are used throughout the grazing season, with one 

deferred at a time to allow forage species to reach a 

certain stage of reproduction. In an ideal system, the 

rancher would alternate the entry pasture each year, 

following sequentially with the others, and then repeat 

the process. This can work given uniform elevation of 

pastures throughout the allotment, but that is not the 

case on the two Forests. Due to differences in topography and elevation, only some of the pastures could 

serve as entry pastures. For example, grasses at higher 

elevations leaf out later in the growing season than 

those at lower elevations. The purpose of deferred rotation is to provide for plant health. Deferment of a 

pasture to avoid grazing during a major growth period 

allows the opportunity for re-growth while still grazing the pasture during the season. Timing of rotation 

from one pasture to the next is determined by on-theground range conditions.

Deferred rotation, we were told, also provides a 

smoother transition for the querencia folks. Permittees 

who have been accustomed to historic ways of managing their herds prefer deferment over rest, it was 

explained, because with the former the range is utilized at some point, whereas, when rested the range 

is off limits for the year. “...as long as they can use it 

they are fairly okay with that [the deferment] as long as 

we work with them on the planning” (Lujan, personal 

communication). To convert an allotment to a rotation 

system, there must be cooperation with the permittees. 

These systems are discussed at Annual Meetings with 

Forest Service personnel and are developed with the 

input of the permittees.

The concept of querencia was more familiar and acceptable to Forest personnel on some districts than on 

others, and the occurrence of querencia grazing varied 

widely. On some districts, querencia was described by 

range staff as “alive and well,” while on others it was 

viewed as a thing of the past. The strength of tradition, 

history of an area, and type of terrain seem to have 

great bearing on its persistence. Range staff that were 

most familiar with the idea defined querencia grazing

as putting animals in a certain place, in separate corners of an allotment or pasture. There, cows stay in 

their own groups, in their own querencias. Some allotment pastures on deferred rotation are large enough 

for different groups of cows to spread out into separate areas, one staffer explained. The cattle like to stay 

apart for the most part. We were told permittees are 

quick to point out that their families have grazed these 

mountains for hundreds of years, depending on these 

resources as a way of making a living, a practice handed down throughout generations (Atencio 2009b).

Ranching on the Santa Fe and 

Carson National Forests

Longevity of Residence 

and the Ranching Tradition

Our interview results demonstrate the long tenure 

of the study participants in the area and their depth 

of knowledge concerning regional land ownership and 

use patterns. Ninety-five percent of those with whom 

we spoke were born in either northern New Mexico or 

southern Colorado (question 1; table 1; Appendix C), 

and 97.4 percent of their families had been residents 

of the area since their grandparents’ time or earlier 

(question 2; table 2; Appendix C). Ninety-one percent of the interviewees reported great-grandparents 

or even earlier relatives living in the communities of 

northern New Mexico, with many having ancestors in 

the area in the 1700s and 1600s. Some of these were 

actually able to report that their ancestors came in with 

Oñate (3.4 percent); 2.2 percent also reported Native 

American heritage. 

Commitment to remaining in the local community 

is very strong among these ranchers and their families. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 17

Many commented that they could not imagine a life 

without livestock; they could not imagine living in the 

city without animals. Several said they had passed up 

jobs or promotions or had gone into certain lines of 

work, such as teaching or local community service, 

to remain near their ranches and land. Yet many (91.1 

percent) reported that some family member has left 

the community, usually for employment, education, 

marriage, or military service. However, of those, 49.4 

percent returned home when they had the opportunity. 

It was important that roots, home, and family draw 

people back. The appeal of the small community, rural 

way of life, and a place to raise children near their 

land and heritage, away from the troubles of the city, 

encouraged people to return (question 3; table 3-6; 

Appendix C).

The tradition of ranching is also of long duration. 

Nearly 95 percent (94.8) of those we interviewed reported livestock ownership in their families at least 

from the time of their grandparents, and 72.3 percent 

had ancestors in the ranching business, ranging from 

great-grandparents back to the time of Oñate (question 24; table 47; Appendix C). Some were able to 

count generations of livestock ownership, and a few 

described it as “always” or “since the beginning.” The 

longevity of the tradition is also demonstrated by the 

fact that 76.4 percent have had their Forest Service 

grazing permits over 50 years and/or received them 

from their fathers or grandfathers. Almost 52 percent 

(51.5) of this group had a history of grazing their 

animals on these lands prior to Forest Service management of the area. Just 3 percent have had their permit 

less than 10 years (question 26; table 50; Appendix 

C). Of the 59 Forest Service permittees who also 

have permits on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

lands, 69.5 percent have had their permits for over 

50 years and/or received them from their fathers or 

grandfathers. Of this group, 30.5 percent had a history of grazing their animals on these lands prior to 

BLM management of the area (question 26a; table 51; 

Appendix C).

Personal and Family Portraits

Of the men and women who shared their stories, 

information, and concerns, 39.7 percent were 50 to 

65 years old, with 37.6 percent over the age of 65. 

Those from 36 to 49 made up 17.3 percent of the 

group, while those 35 and under constituted only 4.6 

percent (question 5; table 8; Appendix C). These figures demonstrate the aging population of ranchers in 

northern New Mexico but are somewhat deceptive in 

that younger family members may be waiting in the 

wings to carry on the family tradition. This topic is 

discussed in greater detail in later sections.

Northern New Mexico is historically bilingual. Of 

the families we interviewed, 56.7 percent use both 

Spanish and English in the home, 19.7 percent use 

Spanish as the primary language, and 21.8 percent use 

English as the primary language. The remainder (1.6 

percent) use other combinations of languages including Jicarilla and American Sign Language (question 4; 

table 7; Appendix C). Many reported that Spanish was 

the primary or only language used within the home 

when they were young, but now they use both and did 

so when their children were growing up. The primary 

use of English in the public schools, as well as the 

prevalence of computers, television, and other media, 

were seen as influences.

In our discussions, the importance of a good education was stressed repeatedly by the permittees. 

Eighty-seven percent of the respondents have a high 

school education or greater (36.1 percent, high school; 

28.6 percent, some college; 13.4 percent, college degree; 8.8 percent, graduate school) (question 6; table 9;

Appendix C). Ninety (90.1) percent of the spouses also 

have a high school education or higher (41.3 percent, 

high school; 24.9 percent, some college; 11.7 percent, 

college degree; 12.2 percent, graduate school) (question 7; table 10; Appendix C).

Education was also a top priority for our interviewees with respect to their children. In fact, when 

responding to a question (question 46; table 117; 

Appendix C) concerning what gifts would benefit 

their children in the future, education figured heavily 

in their responses. Almost 43 percent (42.9) reported 

spending money earned from the livestock operation 

on college expenses for their children (question 44d; 

table 110; Appendix C). When asked if their children 

or grandchildren had continued their education after high school or hoped to do so in the future, the 

majority (88.8 percent) responded in the affirmative, 

while only 2.7 percent responded in the negative. The 

remainder (8.5 percent) were unsure if their children 

would continue their education, as the children were 

undecided or were too young (question 12; table 21; 

Appendix C). Respondents then discussed the educational interests of their children. The most prevalent 

categories were: agriculture, business management, 

education, engineering, medical/health care, and 

skilled trades/technical/clerical (question 12a-d; tables 22-25; Appendix C).
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

The Ranching Career

Respondents said they view their ranching careers 

as an integral part of their lives, and many consider 

it their primary occupation. Often, working another 

job is more of a necessity than a choice. There is a 

tendency among some agricultural economists to classify small ranching operations by value-laden terms 

such as “hobbyist” (e.g., Gentner and Tanaka 2002). 

However, one respondent said, “It’s not a hobby. 

How can it be a hobby when a cow kicks you in the 

ribs? It’s hard work!” Implying that these ranches are 

merely hobbies is offensive to many, for whom smallscale ranching is part of a long-standing tradition that 

maintains communities and cultural heritage. Using 

the classification “hobbyist” indicates ignorance of 

the broader social, cultural, and economic values of 

small-scale ranching (Barlett 1986; Eastman and others 2000).

Barlett (1986) reviewed the prevalence and historic 

importance of part-time farming worldwide. She is 

one of the first researchers to suggest that choosing 

part-time farming is a rational economic decision that 

incorporates benefits that may not be exclusively economic. In aggregate, these benefits make a substantial 

contribution to national well-being (Eastman and others 2000). According to the 2007 census of agriculture 

(www.agcensus.usda.gov), small farms are defined 

as those with $250,000 or less in annual sales. These 

farms account for 91 percent of all farms in the United 

States. More specific to our work, are farms with less 

than $10,000 in annual sales, which account for 60 

percent of all U.S. farms. According to the census, operators of farms in this category typically work off of 

the farm (71 percent). As our work with the permittees 

has shown, using the terms “hobbyist” or “lifestyle 

farmer” in reference to these farmers/ranchers is both 

inaccurate and misleading. It does not encompass the 

role and importance of ranching in their lives or their 

contributions to their communities.

We asked the ranchers we interviewed if they consider themselves to be a full-time or a part-time rancher 

(question 8; table 11; Appendix C). This question was 

designed to gather information on how the rancher 

views himself/herself and his or her work, and was 

not necessarily defined in terms of hours worked or 

money earned. Forty-nine percent of the participants 

said they consider themselves full-time, while 40.1 

percent consider themselves part-time ranchers. Many 

of our interviewees said they see themselves as ranching full time although they may indeed have another 

outside job. Interestingly, 10.5 percent expressed the 

challenge of full-time/part-time ranching by responding that they have two full-time jobs. “It depends on 

how you look at it; it’s two jobs,” said one respondent. For example, we were told it’s like working two 

and a half jobs. It’s a full-time way of life, part-time 

economically. The other job is part-time. One rancher 

said he works in Santa Fe but still has to come back to 

feed and irrigate—“Everything I do, I do full-time or I 

won’t make a success of it.”

Question 9 (table 12; Appendix C) asked if a person 

was employed outside the ranch or had been employed 

outside the ranch (for example, prior to retirement). 

Almost 14 percent (13.9) are full-time ranchers with 

no outside job. However, 83.2 percent of the permittees responded that they have, or at one time had, 

outside employment, with 2.9 percent indicating that 

they were self-employed at another non-ranch job. Of 

those with outside employment, 50.7 percent are retired from the non-ranch work, and 49.3 percent are 

still employed. Many of the respondents told us they 

only work outside the ranch as a way to supplement 

their incomes in order to remain in the ranching business and look forward to retirement when they can 

devote all of their time to the ranch and livestock. 

Retaining their livestock operations for their families 

and future generations is a common goal.

In a related question we asked, “Would you farm or 

ranch full-time if you could afford to do so?” (question 11; table 20; Appendix C). Almost 90 percent 

(88.9) of those interviewed responded in the affirmative. This view was summed up by one who quickly 

said, “In a heartbeat!” Of the remainder, 1.5 percent 

answered “probably,” and 2 percent responded “yes, 

if there were enough money to support the family.” 

Those who responded negatively included 4.5 percent 

who said “no” and 3 percent who responded “no” because they also enjoy the other career.

Of those reporting outside jobs, some work in the 

local community while others commute to larger urban areas. The most commonly reported categories 

of employment were: skilled trade/technical/clerical 

(33 percent), professional/scientific/managerial (12.3 

percent), heavy equipment operator or mechanic/

truck driver (12.3 percent), Forest Service/other 

Government agency (11.3 percent), business owner/

manager (8.9 percent), teacher/counselor/principal/

school superintendent (8.9 percent), and doctor/veterinarian (1 percent) (question 9a; table 13; Appendix 

C). Some have made conscious employment choices 

in order to remain in the local community by working 

in the educational system, for Government agencies, 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 19

or owning local businesses. Since finding employment 

in rural areas can be difficult, this choice often means 

sacrificing career opportunities and advancement. The 

ranchers reported working 40 or more hours per week 

off of the ranch in 86.9 percent of the cases. Those 

working less than 40 hours per week off of the ranch 

comprised 6.5 percent. Those with seasonal work or 

variable hours comprised 6.5 percent (question 9b; 

table 14; Appendix C). Of those with jobs, 50.7 percent are retired from the non-ranch employment and 

48.3 percent are still employed (question 9c; table 15; 

Appendix C).

Question 10 (table 16; Appendix C) asked if the 

rancher’s spouse was employed outside the ranch or 

had been employed outside the ranch (for example, 

prior to retirement). In 73.9 percent of the cases, 

spouses have, or at one time had, off-ranch employment; 26.1 percent do not work away from home. Of 

those with outside jobs, 34.4 percent are retired from 

the non-ranch employment and 65.6 percent are still 

employed. Of those having outside jobs, the most 

commonly reported categories of employment were: 

clerical/technical (26.8 percent), teacher/counselor/

principal (20.3 percent), restaurant/cook (9.8 percent), 

health care professional (8.5 percent), professional/

scientific/managerial (7.2 percent), daycare provider/

homecare provider (5.2 percent), and nurse/doctor 

(5.2 percent). The spouses work 40 or more hours per 

week off the ranch in 74.8 percent of the cases. Those 

working less than 40 hours per week off of the ranch 

comprised 19.9 percent. Those with seasonal work 

or variable hours made up 5.3 percent (question 10; 

tables 17-19; Appendix C).

Overall, 60.5 percent of the ranchers who participated in this study reported receiving less than one-third 

of their income from the ranch operation, while only 

10.3 percent reported that they are fully supported 

by the ranch (question 42; table 105; Appendix C). 

These figures confirm what studies from the 1960s and 

1970s also showed—the majority of small ranching 

operations in the north do not fully support the family (Eastman and Gray 1987; Kutsche and Van Ness 

1981). The majority of the ranchers and their spouses 

also work outside the home or are retired from outside 

jobs. Information collected by Fowler and associates 

in the early 1990s (Fowler and others 1994) showed 

that, statewide, 75 percent of extra-small and small 

ranches had people employed off the ranch bringing 

in 44 percent of family income. Thus, the trend toward 

off-ranch employment is statewide as well as in the 

north-central area.

Ranching and the Family

We began our discussions of the role of ranch life 

in the family by talking with the permittees about who 

influenced them to go into ranching (question 21; table 

44; Appendix C). The greatest influence came from 

fathers and grandfathers for a total of 57.3 percent, 

while 11.8 percent referred to parents and grandparents 

as their inspiration. A selection of their comments included: “Grandpa’s iron fist...you eat here you work;” 

“You can’t make a living playing;” “He was teaching 

us to be men;” “My dad, he loved his ranch and cows;” 

“My dad was my best friend.” A permittee from the 

Cuba district described his grandpa predicting that he 

would be the one to keep the ranch going. One remembered his grandfather as an old-time cowboy. Another 

from southern Colorado said his grandfather was his 

idol—“I liked his lifestyle.” He worked with sheep and 

cattle and did everything on horseback. His dad was 

the same way. Yet another named his dad, saying, “He 

was a great influence; we always worked together.” In 

paying tribute to their father and uncles, two brothers 

said “we automatically took the reins after they were 

gone.”

Extended family, which includes brothers, uncles, 

aunts, cousins, and fathers-in-law, figured in the responses of 8.3 percent. One rancher told us that she 

was raised on a ranch by her uncles. Another said, 

“My aunt was a good cattlewoman...a good judge of 

cattle... [I] didn’t learn enough from her.” Around 17 

percent (17.2) credited being “brought up with it” or 

“born into it” for bringing them into the ranch business. As one respondent said, “I was born a rancher. 

I like animals. I like horses.” Another said, “It was a 

family thing; everybody pitched in, closeness, a gathering.” Various other influences, such as neighbors and 

friends, an agriculture teacher, education in animal science and veterinary school, and previous employers, 

rounded out the total. One respondent cited his horse as 

an influence, saying, “There is no better thing for your 

brain than to get on a horse and ride. You can think and 

know what’s going on around you.”

Common responses to “At what age did you first begin working with livestock?” (question 22; table 45; 

Appendix C) were: “As soon as I could ride a horse, 

we had no choice,” “as soon as I could walk or sit on 

a horse,” and “when I first walked.” Remembering 

back, a rancher described going to the sheep camp riding behind the saddle or on a pack saddle by age 2.5. 

One remembers using buckets to get on his horse when 

he was only 5. However, by age 8 he had a “real job” 
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

making 25 cents per head per month to take care of cattle in the village. “As soon as they trust you to feed the 

hens and rabbits,” you could work with the animals, 

he said. Another recalls caring for the chickens, ducks, 

cats, and dogs. Others responded with such milestones 

as being old enough to lift a fork of hay and feed the 

animals: horses, cows, pigs, chickens, and goats. “We 

started pretty young, as soon as [we] could carry a 

bucket of water,” one rancher said. Another rancher 

said at 8 years old he fed the horses grain and helped 

feed the bulls; at age 9 he rode to round up the cows. 

By age 6, 69.6 percent of respondents were working 

with the family’s animals, 92.4 percent by age 10.

A quarter of those we interviewed (24.5 percent) 

owned livestock by the time they were 6; 49 percent 

owned livestock by age 10, and 80 percent (80.3) were 

livestock owners by age 18 (question 23; table 46; 

Appendix C). About 20 percent (19.7) obtained their 

animals as adults. For example, one said he was responsible for animals by age 6 but did not purchase his cattle 

until he was 30.

“The ownership of animals is passed down early to 

new generations, with the parent often setting aside a 

calf or two for children, naming them in that fashion, 

‘this calf belongs to Alberto Jr. and is not for sale.’ Pride 

in that ownership followed. Normally, offspring from 

that animal would also belong to ‘Alberto Jr.’ as a startup herd, or for the ‘savings account’ to buy the first car, 

go to college, etc.” (Rivera, personal communication). 

Some children are presented with a calf or lamb when 

they are born. Some have memories of very early ownership; for instance, being given a horse at the age of 

2. Others considered animals their own when they were 

able to care for them, often barnyard animals such as 

chickens, rabbits, and pigs. One spoke of his first horse 

at age 4, and another spoke of his first goat at 5.

These animals evoke important childhood memories. 

A participant explained that he started with a horse of 

his own; he could have a cow when he understood the 

responsibilities of owning and caring for animals. A 

rancher, whose father had died when the boy was only 

6, said that he had to help his mother with the work. She 

told him, “When you find those cows, they’re yours.” 

Some children were given or earned animals annually 

to build up a herd. Sometimes, they were given animals 

that needed extra care—orphaned lambs or a horse that 

was blind in one eye. Another remembered owning his 

own horse by age 12, a big old horse named Duchess; “I 

loved that horse!” he said.

We asked if children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews participate in ranching (question 13 and 14; tables 

26 and 27; Appendix C). Responses referenced both 

young children and grown children. A classic response 

described a 21-month-old boy who cleans the corral 

with his toy backhoe, owns a real horse named Freckles, 

and has ridden in both round-ups. Animals, especially 

the horses, are a big draw for the children. Youngsters 

begin learning to help by riding the tractor, assisting 

with haying, moving cows to the allotment, feeding 

the horses, and working on other tasks. One dad said 

his 22-month-old loves to feed animals and gather eggs. 

Another respondent described a 3-year-old who loves 

riding the tractor with his grandpa and visiting the “rancho.” One rancher said his grandchildren love to help 

with the branding, round-up time in the mountains, and, 

of course, horseback riding.

Several ranchers mentioned that their grown children often come back to visit and help out on the ranch. 

Parents value the times when their children and grandchildren can return home to help and spend time visiting 

as a family. Ninety-three (93.1) percent of the permittees with children or other young relatives stated that the 

children participate in ranching, while 67.2 percent of 

those with grandchildren say the children participate in 

ranching. In some cases, children (.4 percent) or grandchildren (22.6 percent) are too young to participate.

Question 15 (table 28; Appendix C) asked, “Do any 

of your children plan to continue the ranch operation?” 

Sixty (60.1) percent responded with an unqualified 

“yes” that children, grandchildren, or other young relatives would continue ranching. An additional 23.2 

percent responded “probably,” “possibly,” or “hopefully.” “Yes, they sure like it,” one rancher said. A rancher 

cannot operate without the family. A couple said they 

will set up a trust to ensure continuation of the ranch by 

their children. A young grandson wants to be a rancher, 

but grandpa says be a veterinarian. One says his grandson wants to continue the ranch. Since the age of 9, 

the grandson has been buying his own cows and goats, 

already has his own brand, and is involved in Future 

Farmers of America (FFA). In addition, several respondents mentioned the possibility of nephews continuing 

the family tradition. Some know their children want to 

move back and hope they will be able to do so.

An interviewee said that his son is thinking of buying cattle again. One man said that when his sons retire 

from military service, they want to come back to the 

ranch. Another commented that the children have ranching on both sides of the family, so they probably will 

continue the lifestyle; however, he noted that it’s hard 

to know what the children will do because of the influence of peers. Continuing in that vein, another rancher 

said that it’s hard to know because kids are completely 

different now. About 17 percent (16.7) said they feel that 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 21

no young relatives will continue working on the ranch, 

do not think they will, or do not know if they will. A 

permittee said that it’s hard to leave a good job and take 

a salary reduction. Other ranchers responded that their 

children would like to go into ranching, but the costs 

are too high, saying that ranching is a lot of work, with 

minimal monetary return. One respondent summed it up 

by saying, “I don’t bring it up. The ranch is so small; the 

world has changed so much. I don’t push it, but back 

them up in whatever they do. Later, if they want it, I’ll 

help them. They always have to work, though.”

Teaching the Children: Lessons on 

Tradition and Heritage

During our interviews, we asked, “Have you used 

your land and livestock to teach your children about traditional values and their heritage?” (discussion topic 2; 

Appendix D). “Absolutely, our whole goal is to maintain 

tradition and values that our grandparents have passed 

on to us. The work that is done on our land is a family 

affair (fencing, branding, moving cattle, etc.), is all done 

together,” said a rancher. It “is a continuing tradition that 

we pass on, so young ones can share in the inheritance,” 

said another.

“I took the children out with me and talked about 

the land and the animals.”

In general, interviewees verified that they taught their 

children and grandchildren about heritage and values 

through ranch work and a close association with the 

land and livestock. The few who do not have children 

said they shared their time and knowledge with nephews, nieces, or the children of neighbors. Several sought 

to help less privileged children by introducing them to 

ranch experiences.

“You pass down the way of raising your family, 

father to son, not just land and animals.”

Repeatedly, the words “respect” and “responsibility” 

were used in reference to teaching a child. Respect for 

the land, animals, family (especially elders), neighbors, 

and one’s self is stressed as a necessary part of developmental learning. Likewise, responsibility to care for the 

land, animals, family, and community is a major component of a ranch child’s home education. They were not 

allowed to trash the land.

“Teach them to respect the livestock and care for the 

animals, even a cat or dog,” we heard from a rancher. 

“You can’t shirk responsibility,” explained another, “you 

feed before you eat; that carries over to community.” A 

rancher said that children are taught to understand and 

care for animals as well as for the community. He said, 

“They must learn how to deal with plain old work and all 

the values that go with it.” “You teach a lot of respect for 

land, people, and animals and to have responsibility.... 

They see the birth of a calf and watch the butchering 

(death) of calves. Because of this animal’s life, you have 

meat,” said another. “Children must learn the consequences of what they do...you are in control of some 

animal’s life,” a respondent told us.

“Take them along; explain how things are done....”

When asked how they teach their children, a recurring 

response revolved around the close association of parent 

and child working together. “I had them with me all the 

time;” it is a time of togetherness; and “they work beside 

us” were common responses. Children must be taught 

to work, ranchers said, by example and by explanation 

of how and why things are done in the daily rounds of 

chores on a ranch. Children may be given responsibility 

to do work on their own, but only after time spent learning the methods and reasons for what is being done from 

parents and grandparents. The children received instruction on how to work and the value of doing a job right. 

According to respondents, there is a difference between 

taking a job just to get paid and doing a job for the satisfaction of a job well done.

“When you have family closeness, it’s something 

special.”

“Family ties were always important factors in that 

a ranch is hard work but a wonderful setting to keep a 

family together,” said one rancher. There is a bonding 

effect for the family brought together by the livestock. 

Respondents said they spent time with the children and 

tried to show them that people ranch for the desire to 

be on the land. Children learned by “watching what we 

did,” by going out in the middle of the night to check on 

the calves, said a rancher. “This country grows on you.... 

The kids like the values and friendships of this community.” It is important for children to get involved in the 

community. They must learn the importance of working 

with their neighbors, sharing, and all getting along. Land 

and livestock are assets that build community.

“Livestock have a lot to teach us.”

Children can learn a lot from animals, we were told 

by respondents. “You can see the gentleness of who 

they are, how loving: for example, a mother cow cleaning her calf,” said one rancher. Another said he taught 

his children to feed and care for animals, to be kind to 

the animals. Growing up on a ranch or farm, children 

learned to appreciate where milk and eggs came from, 

not having to go to a store. Animals have a personality; 

they become what you make them, a rancher explained.
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

“They help me with branding and feeding, see on 

their own how animals are dependent on people,” said 

an interviewee. Animals should be treated properly; 

if a person is nice and patient with them, the animals 

will be patient in return. Seeing animals being born 

is a good education for the children. “They know the 

circle of life; see animals born, some die. They raise 

orphan lambs with a bottle. They know what it’s like 

to see something they love pass away.” They need to 

experience the branding, roping, the riding, etc., in 

harmony with the cattle work, in harmony with the 

land. It’s important for kids to know these things and 

to feel it. You can tell them, but they have to feel it. 

Tell them how to do things and the reasons for doing 

them. Bring them in as soon as you can; even a threeyear-old is not too young to begin to learn.

“Ranching is educational; it helps throughout 

life.”

Many compared the benefits of practical learning with the advantages of a more formal scholastic 

education. Contrasting these two approaches to learning, they explained to us that, while book learning 

is important and necessary to a child’s future, onthe-ground field work is just as important if one is 

to continue in the ranching business. They said they 

want their children to have both forms of education, 

to have the opportunity to attend college, and to have 

a variety of experiences. At the same time, there is 

the hope that the younger generation will return to the 

home ranch to share that learning and to reinforce and 

regenerate life in their rural communities. When his 

son was small, a rancher told us, he carried him on the 

saddle. He said he feels that children can learn a lot in 

school, but it is different for them to be out on open 

land, observing wildlife, or seeing a calf being born.

Close association with the land and animals assists 

in this very practical form of education. Time spent 

tending cattle or sheep on the grazing allotment provides an opportunity to become intimately acquainted 

with nature and can pique the interest and curiosity 

of a child as well as an adult. If they sit out there 

and look at birds and trees, they grow up with different values in life. “They do appreciate the earth, 

and I think they are very grateful. It makes for a very 

well-rounded child from what I have seen,” said one 

respondent. Children appreciate the beauty of the wilderness, being out there. It’s a different life. “Every 

time I go up there with my children, I tell them we are 

very fortunate to live where we do. It’s a very healthy 

life to be up there. Kids learn.”

“The most important value that exists is the love 

of the land and stewardship of our beautiful 

ranch and all nature.”

Children benefit from time spent together and learn 

family values. They see the struggles and learn the 

values and discipline. In cold or snow, they are taught 

to ride anyway. They are taught values and self respect 

by ranching, tending their own livestock, and helping 

others. They must have respect for others while doing business. Children need to learn the importance 

of work and responsibility for animals and jobs that 

need to be done. They don’t have time to get in trouble when they are out doing chores and working with 

the family. “While my children were growing up, 

they were all involved as a family in farming, ranching, milking cows, lambing sheep, calving, branding, 

shearing, irrigating, and operating machinery. They 

had to make business decisions when I was gone and 

they were left to operate the farm,” said one rancher.

“Working with land and the animals is who you 

are as a person.”

These answers not only reflected a rancher’s way 

of teaching the young but also how he was taught in 

his own formative years by parent, grandparent, or 

some other adult mentor. The influence and lessons 

of the participants’ predecessors reach out from the 

past as these families strive to work together on the 

land. Stories of the past, family history, and heritage 

are used to illustrate ranch ways and family values. 

They represent a way of reinforcing who one is, one’s 

identity as a rancher. Children are encouraged to take 

pride in their work, in their heritage, and in who they 

are as members of the ranching community.

“I feel for each generation,” a rancher said. 

Listening to his father, he said he realizes there are 

things he and his own children can never experience. 

“Today’s culture works against you,” he said. These 

thoughts were expressed in the following statements 

by various respondents: “They need to know what 

the past generations had to do to work the land and 

animals;” “If you involve them in taking care of the 

animals and owning the land, some will see the benefit of keeping it;” “If you make it attractive to them, 

they will stick to it;” “Tell them that ‘no more land 

is being made,’ so take care of it, and if you can, buy 

more;” “See what happens to land when the developer 

comes in;” “ Try to teach them the importance of the 

land, to inculcate the idea that land is not the same 

as money; it is part of the family;” “Sometimes you 

don’t know that you are teaching. Maybe years down 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 23

the road they come back and ask a question such as, 

‘why is the land gone from the family?’”

We asked the ranchers what they would consider 

valuable gifts to bequeath to children that would 

benefit them in the future (question 46; table 117; 

Appendix C).

“A legacy of tradition”... land never to be sold 

but passed on through the generations.

When asking this question, we explained that participants could specify tangible or intangible gifts. 

Many suggested combinations from both categories. 

Most frequent offerings were land (33. 5 percent), livestock (15.3 percent), education (31.4 percent), and a 

work ethic (15.3 percent). Values (family, moral, and 

religious) (22.9 percent) and respect and responsibility (15.3 percent) were frequently mentioned. Tradition 

and culture (9.7 percent) once again made an appearance as important considerations. Other suggestions 

included common sense and the sharing of knowledge 

from parent to child. Many considered continuation of 

their way of life (quality and enjoyment) as a benefit 

in the future. References to gifts of money or financial 

security were rare (1.7 percent). There were comments 

that “money doesn’t buy everything,” while recognizing a need for “the monetary ability to succeed.” On the 

lighter side, one did respond with “the Baca Location,” 

(formerly a large private ranch, now the Valles Caldera 

National Preserve).

Not only were land and livestock designated as 

gifts of choice; they were to be coupled with the gifts 

of knowledge and understanding: the knowledge of 

how a ranch works and understanding the benefits of 

working one’s own ranch and working with animals. 

It is not enough merely to own such treasures; the 

recipient must learn to care for them and appreciate 

their value. A life of ranching and farming experience, 

lessons in the role humans play in animal’s lives and 

vice versa, seeing animals born and prosper—these 

are gifts the ranchers said they deem valuable. As one 

rancher expressed it, he would want to leave his children with the benefit of his experience.

However, “Teach them to work!” was a frequent 

response. It emphasized the fact that knowing what 

to do with land and animals does not come automatically with the gift. How to run a ranch business and 

work with the animals are lessons that must be taught. 

Hard work was often listed along with other benefits 

to children. The value of work was stressed; what you 

put into life is what you get out of it. Learn how to do 

quality work and to experience the satisfaction of a job 

well done.

The opportunity for an education was mentioned 

by a third of the ranchers as beneficial to their children’s future. The importance of education in the eyes 

of the ranchers can be reinforced by their responses 

to our earlier question, “Have your children continued their education or hope to do so in the future?”

Although a formal education was rarely available to 

many of those we interviewed, many have worked 

diligently to provide their children with a college education. While many recognize the value of a formal 

education, they also stress the importance of a practical education in the business of ranching and animal 

husbandry, “the importance of living in harmony with 

the land,” as one rancher referred to it.

Many of the responses fit into the category of values. It would be difficult to separate the proposed 

gifts, as they tend to be interwoven one with another. 

To help and share experiences as a family, to have 

faith in God, and an appreciation for the beautiful 

area where they live are examples of the ranchers’ 

values. Discipline, love, and time were added to the 

list of gifts. More personal expressions of these gifts 

included “tell [the children] how important they are...

show them how to fish.”

Responsibility toward the animals and the value 

of life was considered important. Children would 

be admonished to care for the land, the animals, and 

themselves. Respect humans and animals; respect 

others, especially the elders. Spend time with older 

people. Respect the value of the land. Have love for 

the land and care of the animals.

Personal qualities were also suggested as beneficial gifts, including character, honesty, self respect 

(pride), and good citizenship. Leadership skills, independence, the ability to problem-solve, and the ability 

to think things through and make decisions were also 

mentioned. Ranchers said they advised youth to 

“stand up for what you believe,” to have an appreciation for life, and to know what it’s like to work 

and wait for something. “Life is a journey,” said one 

rancher; “find a path through life” and “take time to 

enjoy it!”

Ranchers also spoke of “a legacy of tradition.” 

Tradition, care of the land and acequias (irrigation 

ditches), knowledge of the way of life and culture, 

and ability to survive—all of these are part of a valued 

heritage. Uphold the tradition of the family and experience and enjoy the outdoors, ranching, and wildlife 

of this area. To many we interviewed, the family ranch 

represents a legacy for the future, the land never to be 

sold but passed on through the generations.
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Family Goals and Values

When asked to prioritize family goals and values, 

48.1 percent of the participants ranked continuing 

the way of life and maintaining the traditional values 

of their parents and grandparents as most important. 

Having a better quality of life and spending more 

time with the family was ranked number one by 41.8 

percent of the group. These two choices comprise 

89.9 percent of the total. Gaining personal satisfaction from managing a successful ranch business was 

selected as most important by 7.2 percent of those interviewed. In contrast, having more income and being 

able to buy more material goods was ranked as most 

important by only 3 percent (question 45a-d; table 

116; Appendix C).

Ranching and the Community

When a community loses its memory, its members 

no longer know one another. How can they know one 

another if they have forgotten or have never learned 

one another’s stories? If they do not know one another’s stories, how can they know whether or not to trust 

one another? People who do not trust one another do 

not help one another. And this is our predicament now 

(Wendell Berry 1990: 157).

Community and Family Cohesion

Livestock ownership and ranching are powerful 

forces that bind communities and families. Almost 72 

percent (71.8) of those we interviewed said they currently work their animals together, sharing responsibilities 

with their relatives, or did so in the past (question 19; 

table 42; Appendix C). The majority of the permittees 

(86.5 percent) work their animals together with neighbors or with other community members. Of those, 21.8 

percent specified that they work primarily with other 

members of their grazing association. About 7 percent 

(7.1) answered that they help out if needed (question 20; 

table 43; Appendix C).

Ranchers discussed their involvement in community 

activities related to owning livestock in questions 16 to 

18. Grazing association membership is very common in 

northern New Mexico, with 77.6 percent of our study 

participants indicating membership at some point in an 

association (question 16; table 29; Appendix C). Of this 

group, 2.1 percent are no longer members. Of those in 

grazing associations, 61.2 percent attend between one 

and five meetings, and 32.8 percent attend six or more 

meetings in a year (question 16a; table 30; Appendix C). 

Meetings include formal association meetings, Forest 

Service allotment meetings, and informal meetings on 

the allotment. Several of the ranchers are association 

presidents who described their responsibilities in that 

role. An association president checks out needed repairs, 

monitors grasses, pays association bills, coordinates with 

the Forest Service (which takes a considerable amount 

of time), and spends a lot of days on the allotment.

Several also mentioned involvement in other state 

and local ranching associations such as Northern New 

Mexico Stockman’s Association and the New Mexico 

Cattle Growers’ Association. Availability of agriculture-related classes or seminars varies from one area to 

another (question 17; table 31; Appendix C). Nearly 39 

percent (38.7) responded that classes are available in 

their area, 6.7 percent said that occasionally classes are 

available, 2.1 percent indicated that classes used to be 

available, and 5.5 percent said none was available in the 

immediate area. Forty-seven percent were unaware of 

any agriculture-related classes or said none was available. Where classes or seminars have been presented in 

a nearby area, 69.6 percent have been able to attend at 

one time or another and 27 percent have not (question 

17a: table 32; Appendix C). A few respondents mentioned the problem of time constraints, and one actually 

teaches the classes.

As we learned from the interviewees, many livestock-related community events draw people together 

and foster community cohesion (question 18; tables 33-

41; Appendix C). Respondents indicated all activities in 

which they or family members participated, including: 

livestock auctions (82.7 percent); brandings (77.7 percent); rodeos (77.7 percent, of whom 2.1 percent also 

compete); fairs (76.1 percent); acequia association 

(57.2 percent, of whom 9.7 percent are officers); bull 

sales (53.4 percent); 4-H events (24.8 percent, of whom 

2.5 percent are also leaders); and national, state, and local associations (18.1 percent). Other organizations and 

events are: sheriff’s posse, horseshows, team roping, fiestas, Future Farmers of America/Future Homemakers 

of America, roundups/cattle drives, sheep sales, stock 

shows, and matanzas (occasions when families and 

neighbors gather to share in the butchering and processing of the meat).

In addition to community activities, the livestock 

themselves play an important role in family and community interactions. In many cases (61.5 percent), 

children and grandchildren receive animals for 4-H projects or to start herds (question 38; table 99; Appendix 

C). Many ranchers reported giving live animals, meat, 

or by-products to friends and neighbors (question 40; 

table 102; Appendix C). Sixty-five percent responded 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 25

in the affirmative, giving animals or products regularly, 

occasionally, or having done so in the past. A few (3.5 

percent) mentioned trading or bartering these products 

for goods or services, a practice more common in the 

past. In our pilot study interviews, several respondents 

commented that they do not barter, preferring to sell 

animals and keep things on a cash basis. Around half 

(45.3 percent) reported donating animals for charitable 

purposes, such as church or school raffles or to assist a 

family in need (question 40a; table 103; Appendix C).

The animals provide a variety of resources to the 

families who raise them. Eighty-six percent of interviewees reported butchering between one and six 

animals (steers, heifers, calves, lambs, goats, and pigs, 

most commonly) for the use of the family and extended 

family (question 37; table 97; Appendix C). The numbers of animals butchered are generally proportional to 

the size of the family and number of households in the 

extended family. For example, answers ranged from 7 

to 21 animals to be shared among 6 to 10 households. 

Often, these numbers consisted predominately of 

lambs. Those who do not butcher make up 7.6 percent 

of the group. The reasons for not butchering include 

small family size, children that are grown and moved 

away, and one who said he doesn’t kill his own animals. Some only butcher if they have an open heifer 

(not pregnant) or a severely injured animal (question 

37a: table 98; Appendix C).

Use of animal by-products, such as hides, wool, 

milk, or manure, seems to have declined in recent years 

(question 39; table 100: Appendix C). There were comments that respondents “used all of the above when 

growing up” and “way back, we used everything.” 

The most commonly used by-product is manure (mentioned in 79 percent of the cases), followed by milk 

(25.4 percent), hides (14.7 percent), and wool (8.4 percent). Manure is used to fertilize gardens and fields if 

it is free of noxious weeds. There are several reasons 

for the decline in the use of other by-products. In the 

past, it was more common for families to have a milk 

cow and make butter, cheese, and cream, as several 

respondents told us. They commented that now there 

is no time for milking and maintaining a milk cow. 

Others said they had a milk cow when their children 

were young but do not have one now. Hides are still 

used by these ranchers in the manufacture of saddles, 

chaps, pack equipment, and drums. However, tanning 

and leather work are time consuming processes that 

require considerable skill. There are fewer sheep on 

the ranches in this study, and, as will be discussed in 

following sections, demand for wool is declining nationwide (question 39a: table 101; Appendix C).

The Business of Ranching

Goals of the Livestock Operation

When asked to prioritize goals for their livestock 

operations (question 41; table 104; Appendix C), 

the majority (61.4 percent) of those we interviewed 

ranked first “To maintain the family’s quality of life 

that results from owning livestock (spending time 

outdoors, working together, keeping the children busy 

and out of trouble, etc.).” “To avoid being forced out 

of livestock ownership (the family has had livestock 

for generations)” ranked second (18.5 percent). “To 

improve the livestock operation by purchasing more 

land, better equipment, and more animals” ranked 

third. Consistent with our pilot study and earlier research (Eastman and Gray 1987; Eastman and others 

2000), the last priority was “To make more money 

above costs each year from the livestock operation 

in order to increase the family’s overall income and 

material goods.”

Eastman and others (2000) described the value 

placed on the quality of life that ranching provides 

to livestock owners and their families. Eastman and 

Gray (1987) discussed that small-scale livestock producers have a hierarchy of goals that differ noticeably 

from those of large, commercial producers. These 

studies found quality of life was the highest-ranking 

goal with income being the last choice. Eastman and 

Gray (1987) described the benefits of small-scale cattle ownership as providing a sense of security, gaining 

personal satisfaction from work, and upholding family tradition. Our study confirms these values.

Ranch Finances

Virtually all of those we spoke with consider the 

ranch an investment, a form of savings, and a tradition. We asked respondents to select their preferred 

means of saving or investing money from the choices listed in question 43 (table 106; Appendix C). 

Eighty-four (84.4) percent of those interviewed said 

they wish to save or invest money by buying land 

in the area, improving the ranch, or doing both. Of 

that figure, 56.3 percent would buy more land in the 

area, while 19.7 percent would buy more livestock 

or improve the stock operation in other ways such 

as investing in range improvements. An additional 

8.4 percent would do both. The least popular option, 

putting money into a savings or investment program, 

garnered 11.8 percent, although an additional 2.5 percent would put money into savings or investments in 
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

combination with buying land or livestock. An additional choice was purchasing water rights to keep 

them in agricultural use. Another chose “hanging on 

to and maintaining what we have” and buying land to 

keep a neighbor from selling to an outsider. The effects of selling land and water rights are discussed in 

greater detail in following sections.

Eastman and others (2000:543) discussed use of 

extra-small and small ranches as both an investment 

and a form of savings in the following way:

“While the ranch may produce little or even 

a negative operating income, the assets have 

a high value which is expected to increase. 

Most northern ranchers own their homes, 

land, and cattle, and these constitute a 

significant investment and form of savings, 

which often has very high value. Managed 

properly, operating losses often provide 

income tax write-offs against other income. 

Thus, small operators stand to benefit from 

a reduced tax burden while their assets 

increase in value.”

Although livestock are not the primary means of 

support for the majority of families with whom we 

spoke, the animals do make a substantial contribution 

to household economy. Respondents selected all the 

ways in which they used money from the livestock 

operation. Buying more livestock and upgrading the 

livestock operation was indicated by 73.9 percent of 

respondents. Other uses of those earnings included: 

basic living expenses (69.3 percent); household improvements (52.4 percent); family emergencies (47.9 

percent); children’s college education (42.9 percent); 

special expenditures such as a trip (20.2 percent); and 

investments such as stocks, bonds, and savings accounts (20.6 percent).

Other more specifically stated uses of earnings 

were paying land and livestock taxes (21.4 percent); 

purchase and repair of equipment and facilities (8.3 

percent); grazing permits (5 percent); and purchase of 

hay, feed, and pasture rental (5 percent). Respondents 

also listed expenses such as insurance and payment 

of loans and mortgages (question 44; tables 107-115; 

Appendix C).

We asked the ranchers to show how much time, 

labor, and money they invest in their Federal grazing allotment (Forest Service or BLM) in addition to 

the grazing fee during a typical year (question 31). 

Time was represented by days of personal labor of 

the permittee and helpers. Time and money invested were recorded in terms of improvements to the 

allotment such as fences, waters, trail repair, etc.; 

wages for hired herders; veterinary expenses; shoeing 

horses; fuel; salts; and supplements. Major one-time 

expenses are discussed separately. This discussion is 

not an account of yearly ranch expenses, but a listing 

of the permittee’s contribution with respect to time 

and money involved throughout the allotted grazing 

season, exceptions being overlap in veterinary and 

shoeing expenses, which run throughout the year.

Time and Labor

“Daylight to dark to run a decent operation!”

Participants contributed many pertinent comments 

in the process of providing the numbers requested, 

some of which follow. Number one is to understand 

who the stewards of the land are, the ones who really 

work the land. People think it’s an easy ride, free grazing. They don’t see how much money, time, and work 

go into maintaining the land. No people are more interested in the sustainability of land than those who use 

it because they depend upon it. Permittees don’t establish the stocking rate; the Forest Service does; we don’t 

take up whatever we want [in number of cows]. People 

don’t know the risk involved and the amount of investment, time and financial, the amount of commitment 

and perseverance it takes.

“Whatever it takes!”

The first part of this question (question 31a; table 86; 

Appendix C) asked the rancher to calculate the number of working days that he or she and various helpers 

spent on the allotment. These figures ranged from 3 to 

1460, with a trimmed mean of 135 days (with removal 

of the five highest and lowest outliers) and a median of 

92. Figures that are high in proportion to the number of 

animals may represent retired individuals who are now 

ranching full-time and are able to devote as much time 

as they wish to the animals.

A view of time spent working on the allotments is 

shown in the following sampling of comments. “A 

farmer or rancher doesn’t have hours; he has days!” 

One rancher told us that gathering the cattle takes 

about 12 days for all of the family, six men plus the 

three women who go along to help and to cook. On 

the winter allotment some family member is up there 

10 times per week for 30 weeks, a permittee told us. 

In summer, the ranchers have a rider, but the permittee is out there about 15 days of summer. It’s a family 

deal, checking the cattle, gathering wood, picnicking, 

and camping by the cows. Several mentioned that their 

wives go with them to the allotments to help with the 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 27

cattle and the meals. A rancher remembered that when 

he was a little boy, he used to go by horse and wagon 

to Valle Grande (currently the Valles Caldera National 

Preserve). He spent summers there in a tent with his 

mother and the other children.

Allotment Expenses

The second part of this question (question 31b; 

table 87; Appendix C) asked the ranchers to calculate the amount of money they invest on their Federal 

grazing allotments, excluding the cost of the grazing fee. Improvements made on allotments become 

the property of the Federal government. For the most 

part, monetary amounts reflect the size of the individual herd. These amounts also vary between allotments 

and districts. One of the major difficulties for the 

ranchers who participated in this study was separating allotment-related expenses from their year-round 

ranch costs. Over 30 percent (30.7 percent) of the respondents listed various expenses but no total figure 

or no dollar figure. Of those who were able to provide 

dollar figures, amounts ranged from less than $1000 

to slightly over $65,000. Over half (61.9 percent) reported $5000 or less in expenditures. The majority 

spent $10,000 or less (76.4 percent) in expenses associated with their allotments. Those spending between 

$10,000 and $25,000 comprised 18.2 percent of the 

group, while 5.4 percent spent $25,000 or more.

Another reason for differences in amounts invested on allotments stems from variations in the way in 

which the Forest Service handles improvements. On 

some allotments, the Forest Service provides materials and the permittee provides labor; on others, the 

permittee provides both. We heard many contradictory comments regarding Forest Service assistance and 

participation. Some said the Forest Service personnel work well with them and put in time and effort; 

many others commented that the Forest Service used 

to furnish materials and work with them but no longer 

do so. We asked respondents to indicate the improvements for which they are responsible. These include 

fences, corrals, waters, trail repair, wages for hired 

herders (required on some allotments), veterinary expenses, shoeing horses, fuel, salts, and supplements.

Fences, Waters, and Trail Repair

Fence repair and construction were the biggest 

problems reported by the permittees. Elk, snow, and 

falling trees damage fences on Forest Service allotments; however, repairs are the responsibility of the 

rancher. Steep terrain on some allotments exacerbates 

the problem. Many said they feel the Forest Service 

requires construction of unneeded interior fences. 

Other fence damage is caused by hunters, wood haulers, and recreationists. People from cabins next to the 

allotment and people with four-wheelers leave gates 

open, allowing cows to get out and resulting in complaints to the Forest Service. “My cows love to play 

golf!” commented one rancher whose allotment is 

near a popular golf course.

Because of the ever-present need for water, permittees expend considerable time and effort developing 

and maintaining waters such as springs, dirt ponds, 

tanks, canoas [troughs], drinkers, wells, pumps, and 

pipelines. “It’s not peaches and cream!” It costs more 

if water must be hauled to the livestock.

Many trail their cattle and sheep to the allotment 

on horseback. Trail repair requires more labor than 

monetary outlay. On several districts, Forest Service 

trails are often not cleared of deadfall early enough in 

the grazing season; so, permittees must clear them to 

bring the cattle in. Drinkers for livestock and wildlife 

are heavy and must be packed in and assembled. One 

rancher always takes horses to pack in salt and minerals, or whatever is needed, and to pack out trash left 

by recreationists. There is “a lot of [trash]...even pots 

and pans,” he said.

Salts and Supplements

Salt and supplements can be considerable expenses 

for the ranchers. They use salting for cattle distribution—moving them to prevent overgrazing. Salt and 

mineral blocks are provided for nutrition and used as 

a tool to keep cows from high pressure or restricted areas, especially in the vicinity of streams and 

springs. One respondent commented that salt doesn’t 

last because the elk eat most of it.

Shoeing

“Horses are high-maintenance animals.” Horses 

that are used frequently or on rough terrain must be 

shod. Frequency and cost of shoeing varies according 

to number of horses and whether the work is done by 

a farrier or the rancher. In the latter case, this expense 

has been calculated by hours of work and materials.

Wages for Hired Herder/Rider

Some allotments require a hired herder who stays 

with the cattle throughout the entire grazing season. 

Many remote allotments without cross fencing require the supervision of a herder. This person spends 

the summer on the allotment with the cows caring for 

their health and herding them from location to location as needed. Permittees on these allotments also 

spend time at the cow camp so they are able to check 
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

their cows personally. “My cows are my livelihood; 

and I’ll watch them!” said one rancher. The large 

sheep operations tend to have hired herders for protection and proper distribution of the sheep.

Veterinary Expenses

“[It’s] not just the vet,” this also includes the cost 

of medicines and vaccines administered by the rancher. The veterinarian is called for severe injuries or 

illness, but the rancher must do much of the doctoring himself. Cows, we were told, will get sick in the 

first 10 days after transport, so the permittee must go 

to the allotment every other day to check on them. 

Vaccination, dehorning, and castration are usually 

done by the rancher and helpers as is the doctoring of 

livestock on the allotment and assisting with calving 

and lambing. These medical expenses can be formidable, especially when accidents and illnesses occur.

Fuel

As we learned, livestock operations spend large 

amounts of money on fuel. Gasoline is needed for 

trucks to transport animals to and from the allotments, 

travel to and from the allotment to check on the livestock, and/or for operating water pumps and hauling 

water to allotments that do not have water available. 

Even though many with whom we spoke work their 

livestock on horseback on the allotment, they still 

must trailer the horses to the allotment area because 

of long distances from home.

Major One-Time Expenses

The third part of question 31 asked for an account 

of any major, one-time expenses on the allotment 

in recent years. These one-time costs ranged from 

$150 to $50,000. Considering the diversity in herd 

sizes owned by the various permittees, the amount 

of expense incurred is relative to the extent of the 

individual ranch. Major expenses are related to the 

development, maintenance, and replacement of critical water resources and infrastructure such as fences 

and corrals. It is often necessary to hire extra help 

for such projects, which adds to the cost. In addition, 

there can be loss of income in the form of wages if the 

permittee is obliged to take time out from off-ranch 

employment to complete a project.

Another type of major expense was attributed to 

alterations in management of livestock or numbers 

of animals. Permittees spoke of expenses in extra 

transportation and feeding of livestock caused by 

requirements to move them off allotments and onto 

home range or leased pasture during times of severe 

drought (most notably in the summer of 2002). This 

often meant the purchase of hay or loss of production 

on their hay fields during summer months. Investment 

in new permits and animals was also mentioned, and 

the loss of animals to fire while pastured on remote 

allotments qualifies as a most unfortunate example of 

a major one-time expense.

Livestock and the Ranch

Seasonal Ranch Schedule

We asked our participants to briefly describe their 

work schedule throughout the year to give us an idea 

of the time and effort that goes into ranching (question 

27; Appendix D). They responded in a variety of ways: 

by season (often beginning with the season of the interview); by months or groups of months; by events such 

as calving, branding, and transport of livestock; or by 

a general statement of activities throughout the year, 

the latter providing some excellent pictures of ranch 

life. There were several descriptions of ranching while 

working an “outside” or second job. Family time was 

often included in the responses. A compilation of ranch 

activities and daily chores are listed here by season, in 

addition to a selection of narratives that paint a picture 

of ranch work throughout the year.

“Ranching is year-round work.”

Beginning in spring, there are fences to repair and 

acequias to be cleaned. Early spring calving occurs 

primarily between February and April, followed by 

branding. Heading into summer, there is irrigation to 

be done, animals to be moved to the Forest, cleaning of 

waters, and maintenance of allotment fences. During 

summer, livestock are moved throughout the allotment 

and at home, there is cutting, baling, and bringing in 

the hay. As fall approaches, permittees gather the livestock, hoping for a good crop, and prepare for sale. A 

rancher told us that he prefers to sell his animals to 

someone he knows personally; he “babies them.” The 

family keeps the cows at the ranch in winter, feeding, 

breaking ice, and watering evenings after work and on 

weekends. “Working with animals, it’s sun-up to sundown,” he said.

One rancher reminded us that what happens on a 

ranch throughout the four seasons is not only agricultural, but cultural, social, human, and spiritual as well. 

The following is his description of a year in the life of 

a ranch:

“Spring time, of course, is a time for rebirth, 

a time to spring forth. And with that comes 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 29

ditch cleaning, grazing permits, tagging, 

branding, castrating, moving the cattle out 

of the fields to the spring pasture lands. 

Then comes planting, sowing, irrigation. 

It is a time of thanksgiving. Winter is a 

time of reflection, and spring is a time of 

thanksgiving. ...

“Summer is a time of herbs from the 

garden.... So, then it’s the time to take the 

cattle out of the pasture lands up to the high 

elevations to the national forests to the 

grazing allotments and to do the fencing, 

to clean out the springs, to check the 

vegetation, to rotate the cattle, to visit with 

the forest rangers and to kind of collaborate, 

collaborative relationships with Forest 

Service and ranchers. The summer is the 

time for harvesting your greens for canning, 

freezing, and drying.

“And then in the fall is the time of maturity 

and a time of more harvesting of hay.... 

It’s time to thrash your wheat, to thrash 

your beans...September, it’s time to bring 

the cows down to the lower elevation, back 

to the pasture lands.... I have goats, I have 

horses, pigs, and chickens. Those are yearround. Fall is a magical time because there’s 

fruit, fruit picking, wine making...and then 

canning, processing, and preservation.

“In winter time, you repair your farm 

equipment and get ready for spring use. 

You put hay away for winter; the livestock 

feeding is a daily chore. You also spend 

a lot more time inside. You tend more to 

special interests and hobbies. You do more 

socializing, visitation, my sense of family 

and community.... You live high on the 

hog if you still planned and grow most of 

your own food as we do, so you enjoy your 

choke cherry jellies, you enjoy your homemade wine, you enjoy your wheat, your... 

garden, products from your dairy.... Winter 

time is the time to rest, and it’s also a time 

for healing, and it’s a time for death, a time 

for cleansing. Rest, healing, and cleansing; 

everything that is weak and sick will die, 

and it returns to the earth. Then the winds; 

the spring winds will come to air out and 

refresh things....” (Antonio Medina, 

Cleveland, New Mexico)

The following responses were given by numerous 

respondents and are included to illustrate the yearly 

work schedule:

“Ranching is not a job. It is a way of life. You 

work 24-7 in one way or another.”

“It’s every day; it’s a life, an occupation,” stated 

a rancher... “sometimes fixing fences, if not chasing 

cows, working on the yard or house or equipment...”. 

“You are concerned every day with the operation, 

priorities. It’s part of the ranching occupation...a constant thing you have to be doing to keep your operation 

running at its best.” When everything goes right, you 

work from sun until dark, all day. “It’s 2:00 pm, and 

no dinner. When it goes wrong, you may work in the 

wee hours of the night, or you’re five miles from home 

and can’t come back in the dark, or have trouble with 

a pickup. You watch the animals to see how they are 

doing and go with that.” You must watch closely the 

cows with nursing calves in winter. You “appreciate 

these warm, dry days so the cattle don’t have to fight 

the elements.... You count your blessings!”

A rancher told us that “it’s impossible to 

schedule anything. You just have to go 

with the flow and handle what comes up. 

I thought I was going to go and cut down 

logging slash and instead I had to repair 

the corral that the cows broke down.... A 

good amount of our time is spent on fence 

maintenance and keeping the cows where 

they’re supposed to be... (the horses too) 

a couple of days every year tracking them 

down and getting them back and then 

finding the hole in the fence they got out of, 

thanks to the elk, usually.... The brand new 

fence shows the elk damage very clearly.... 

Or going home after work and feeding the 

cows at 2:00 o’clock in the morning, ‘cause 

I go home and eat supper and fall asleep 

on the couch and wake up at 2:00 in the 

morning and go feed, and it’s dark and cold. 

Because I have to work and I’m the one 

in the family that’s the most familiar with 

calving...[the cows] pretty much have to do 

it on their own.”

“There’s no ‘off season;’ it’s ongoing!”

“Ranching is a two-step dance; two steps forward, 

two steps backward,” we were told. There’s “no set 

schedule, you work with the seasons.” Working with 

animals, it’s sun-up to sun-down. Ranchers keep the 
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

cows at the ranch in winter, in the mountains in summer, water and feed and break ice in the evening. 

Calving may occur early (in January or February), in 

which case ranchers must bring the new-born calves 

into the house to dry them.

When irrigating, a permittee told us, his day can 

begin at 4:00 a.m. and go until all hours of the night, 

three to four days a week, 12- to 14-hour days. The 

number of hay crops depends on the weather and on 

Forest Service delays, he explained. In other words, if 

the cows are still in the hay fields, because of delays 

in taking them to the allotment, the permittee cannot 

irrigate to start the hay crop, which means there won’t 

be time for a third or fourth cutting of alfalfa.

“In winter, [you] get up at 5:00 a.m. to break ice, 

feed hay, and give molasses,” explained the son and 

grandson of an elderly permittee. In spring, you check 

cows three to four times per day so the heifers calve 

okay, mend old fences torn up by elk, mend corrals and 

water lines, chase neighbor cows out, or help rancher 

neighbors. “So you get up with the sun and stay out 

after the sun goes down, finishing up, practically every 

day, seven days a week...helping the neighbors, helping each other. So the day off or the hour off you’ve got 

for a rancher is when you go to church on Sunday...

that’s where you gather with the rest at the end of Mass 

and you talk...about the cows with the other ranchers.” “It’s too bad my Dad can’t talk, because he’s the 

one that’s full of history.... It’s so sad...he’d have the 

horses in the trailer and say, ‘Hurry up, you’re running 

late!’” said the son of the permittee.

“I have a day job so I can keep this job because I 

love it so much.”

There were many permittee ranchers who hold 

down other full-time jobs along with keeping up with 

ranch work. One family told us that they picked their 

careers as teachers in order to stay in ranching. That 

way they have the summers and evenings to ranch. 

Several elaborated on the complication of having a 

second job.

When working the “outside job,” a rancher explained that his wife helped out, especially with the 

sheep and lambing. The kids help as well. After work, 

he checked the cows; on weekends, who worked 

depended on what was happening. There might be 

lambs to castrate or cows to work or farming to do. 

He said he was up at 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. to do chores 

before leaving at 7:00 a.m. for work at the outside 

job. Lambing is usually in May, but “it depends on 

how you chance it,” he said. In other words, if you 

start breeding and lambing early to get bigger, better 

lambs, then there are birthing risks with early lambs 

due to weather. Rain isn’t bad, but cold (e.g., 4 o

F 

below zero or lower), snow, and wind in open country are detrimental. Lambs born at night can freeze. 

Long wool covers ewes, but also makes it difficult for 

lambs to get milk. 

Another rancher told us that he was a “weekend 

cowboy” in the years he worked construction. It 

cost him more to work than to ranch, causing him 

to lose money on the ranching. For example, he had 

to hire people to help with ranch work, such as hay 

production, so he retired to work the ranch full time. 

“Ranching is like a full time job; you have to be there 

every day, Christmas and Thanksgiving. Animals 

don’t know holidays or boundaries; they just look 

for grass. You break ice, or feed, or provide water. A 

rancher can’t afford to get sick.”

In another interview, a rancher said he had recently 

retired. It was difficult for him to imagine how he 

worked a job 50 hours each week and handled the 

ranch at the same time because now 80 percent of his 

time is devoted to ranching. Before work, he had to 

get up and feed and chop ice at 5:00 a.m. and again 

when he got home in the dark. When the kids were at 

home, they helped a lot. He had to coordinate work 

on weekends, and still raised a family, but couldn’t 

have afforded to without his United Parcel Service 

job. “Income from the cattle is not so great, but gives 

[some] income, and [our] own beef, and a way of 

life.” A rancher laughed heartily when asked to describe his ranch work schedule.

“We have been trying to meet for two 

years! Does that give you an idea? When I 

was working, it was very difficult because 

I used to work 40 hours a week and I did 

it on a weekend basis.... I’ve always felt 

like I had two full-time jobs.... I’ve been 

very fortunate that I was able to have a job 

where I could retire at the age I did. And 

now I’ve been gone for three months and 

I keep on wondering, how did I manage? 

I’m going to give you a day by day. You get 

up at 4:00 a.m.; you feed in the mornings, 

calves, whatever you have. You always 

have livestock in the corral.... While I was 

working, you’d go to work, 10 hours away 

(8 hours at work, 2 hours traveling back and 

forth), and come back. You always had to 

feed your animals at home, plus you have 

your hay, your regular hay to cut, bale, 

irrigate. It never ends.... And I’m still on 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 31

that schedule. You don’t have dinner before 

9:00 p.m.” (Joe Romero, Velarde, New 

Mexico)

“...always something to do!”

“During the winter-time, that’s a daily chore to feed 

them ‘cause we don’t have winter wheat where we 

can keep them. We have to raise our own, or buy our 

own [hay]. Summer-time, we have them out there in 

the Forest Service permit, from May on, or from the 

end of May.” “Do you go out there on horseback?” 

we asked. “In prior years we used to do that, but nowa-days, we give a ride to the horse in a trailer.... It’s 

not like it used to be before. I used to ride from here 

and ride all day long and come back by 10:00 in the 

evening. It’s not that way anymore. What I used to 

do in a day, now I do it in about two or three hours. 

Everything’s fast paced these times, and you have to 

adjust to that, I guess. I wish it would be the other 

way around. I liked better the other way around; it 

was more peaceful, more slow-paced, more time to 

enjoy things. Now-a-days, you’re just running down 

the road in a truck, and you don’t see anything....”

Hay Production

Hay production (question 32; table 88; Appendix 

C) was mentioned by the ranchers in their discussions 

of seasonal work. Most of those we interviewed (79 

percent) grow supplemental hay for their livestock or, 

in some cases, for sale. A few (2.9 percent) grew hay 

in the past but no longer do so. Of the 18.1 percent 

who do not grow their own hay, 12.6 percent purchase 

hay. Of those who grow their own hay, the most commonly produced plants are: alfalfa (Medicago sativa), 

77.7 percent; timothy (Phleum pratense), 40.4 percent; smooth brome (Bromus inermis), 25.5 percent; 

orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), 25.5 percent; oats 

(Avena spp.), 20.7 percent; and clovers (Trifolium 

spp.), 15.9 percent. Some produce straight alfalfa; 

however, most produce mixtures of the above-listed 

plants (question 32a; table 90; Appendix C).

Range Plants and Animals

Plants and animals are major elements that define 

a ranch. Without cattle and sheep, grasses, and other 

range forage, there would be no ranch or ranchers. 

Therefore, the many complicated and varied responses 

to questions such as choice of animal breeds and knowledge of forage plants merit a fair amount of scrutiny. 

Extremely important topics for agriculturalists 

are animal breeds and the reasons for their selection. 

During the interviews, we asked each permittee what 

breed(s) of cattle or sheep he or she raises and why that 

particular breed was selected (question 28; tables 52-

54; Appendix C). Permittees were allowed to provide 

as many reasons for selection as were relevant to each 

operation.

Cattle Breeds

Generally, a rancher is looking for a breed, or combination of breeds, of cattle (or sheep) that best suit 

his particular needs, abilities, and the environment in 

which the animals are to live, thrive, and be productive. The ideal herd is made up of animals that possess 

a good temperament, handling ease, disease resistance, 

calving ease, maternal qualities, growth potential, an 

ability to adapt to the land and climate, and the potential to provide a product that sells well at market. 

Decisions are not governed by chance or indiscriminant whim; care and thought go into these choices 

along with a considerable amount of innovative experimentation and study on the part of the individual 

rancher.

Selection of a Breed

Most breed selection of cattle began in the late 

1700s, mainly in the British Isles. Similar to current 

practices, selection of animals was based on traits that 

farmers considered best for their area. The most desirable animals were kept as breeding stock, while those 

of lesser quality were culled from the herd, thereby increasing gene frequency of the desired traits. Over time, 

the number of animals with similar traits increased, 

and outside stock was rarely introduced into the herds 

(Gillespie 1983). Points to be considered when selecting a breed include: all breeds have strong and weak 

traits, no one breed is best for all traits; and every breed 

has a wide range of genetic variation. However, selection of the best animals as breeding stock and the use 

of good breeding practices are more important than the 

particular breed selected. The selected breed should 

produce well in the area where it will be raised. Market 

demand for a breed should be determined, and foundation breeding stock should be available at a reasonable 

cost (Gillespie 1983). Ranchers’ responses throughout 

the interviews coincided well with these points.

It is edifying to consider a brief history of the introduction of cattle to North America, as the sequence 

and timing of such occurrences have influenced the 

ranchers’ choice of breeds. Initially, breeds of longhorned cattle were brought to the new world by the 

Spanish (ca. 1500s); after which, several British 
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

breeds, notably the Hereford, Black Angus, and 

Shorthorn, were introduced (ca.1700s and 1800s) to 

become dominant in beef production in the United 

States. The Brahman was brought to the United States 

in the early 1900s. The more “exotic” Continental 

breeds were not imported until much later, ca. 1960s 

and 1970s (Gillespie 1983). This sequence helps explain the timing of changes made to breed choices 

discussed with the ranchers.

It was common throughout the interviews to hear 

that a father or grandfather had raised Herefords, 

while subsequent generations introduced the newer 

Continental breeds into their herds. This could not 

have been done prior to import of these “exotic” 

breeds into the United States and should not reflect 

poorly on earlier choices. Many are now breeding 

cattle for specific traits and results such as size and 

market preference, but when there were fewer choices 

this was a non-issue.

The Hereford and Black Angus

The interviews were heavily interlaced with comments about two predominant British breeds—the 

Hereford and the Black Angus. Both are early introductions to the United States, the Hereford from 

England in 1817 and the Black Angus from Scotland 

in 1873 (Gillespie 1983). The Black Angus was listed 

in 73.6 percent and the Hereford in 63.4 percent of 

the responses as being bred either singly or in combination with other breeds. The next most prevalent 

breeds were the Limousin, Salers, and Charolais 

(42.1, 16.2, and 12.8 percent, respectively), all introduced into the United States in the 1960s. In spite of 

a myriad new breeds and combinations thereof, the 

Black Angus and Hereford retain a strong influence 

on the northern New Mexico ranches and continue to 

dominate the picture on grazing allotments of the two 

National Forests. The Black Angus is also the most 

prevalent breed of cattle across the state according 

to County Extension specialists with whom we consulted (Allison, personal communication; Chacon, 

personal communication).

A cross between the Black Angus and Hereford 

produces a calf with a black body and white face, 

commonly referred to as a “Black Baldy,” a crossbred 

prevalent (16.2 percent) in the area. As one permittee 

explained, Black Angus crossed with Hereford produces smaller calves (easier on the cow at birth) that 

gain weight quickly, are good milk producers, have 

good dispositions, suit the market preference, and 

disperse well on pasture. Another said that he had experimented with many breeds and, through study and 

trial and error, determined that Black Baldies are best. 

“They are easy to handle, but high tempered if harassed,” he said. Black Baldies do better at sale than 

straight Herefords and also at high altitudes where 

Brisket disease is a problem, we were told.

“...To increase profit”

A rancher can only purchase what he can afford 

and what breeds are available. For instance, a certain 

breed of bull might be just what is needed to improve 

the herd but may be too expensive or unattainable at 

the time for purchase. It is unusual for the permittees 

to have a registered herd (livestock having pedigrees 

verified and filed by authorized associations of breeders [American Collegiate Encyclopedic Dictionary 

1952]); however, a few of those interviewed have 

chosen to do so. For example, one rancher, who has a 

registered Black Angus herd, told us that they require 

less feed and are smaller at birth, but grow fast and 

sell well, and are therefore more profitable. Another 

family has a herd of registered Hereford and said they 

consider the Hereford a more docile breed, and the 

bulls are polled (hornless).

Reasons for choice of breeds were divided into 

nine general categories, which were derived from 

the permittees’ responses (question 28c; table 54; 

Appendix C). There was usually more than one reason for selection (therefore, percentages do not total 

100 percent). The categories and scores follow: marketability (47.7 percent), growth characteristics (36.2 

percent), adaptability/ hardiness and efficiency (31.7 

percent), preference and tradition (28.4 percent), disposition (24.8 percent), birthing ease (22.9 percent), 

disease resistance (18.3 percent), maternal characteristics (15.6 percent), and hybrid vigor (8.7 percent).

Marketability: “Black is beautiful!”

There were many comments among interviewees 

to the effect that the market dictates their breed choices and that buyer preferences are subject to change. 

These preferences may be influenced by such criteria as health campaigns, a demand for lean meat (no 

fat and no marbling), or a good advertizing strategy. 

However, the ranchers continue to stress the importance of producing meat of good taste and quality. 

There are differences of opinion regarding market influence. Some said that the smaller-boned Hereford 

produces more pounds of meat for pounds of animal. 

Others said they believe that the Black Angus brings 

a higher price at market. It is interesting to note that 

Black Angus is often identified in the grocery store, 

which can sway the shopper’s choice in purchase of 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 33

beef, a good example of marketing strategy. Most frequently, however, we heard that black cattle sell best 

and that crossbreds do very well at market.

Maternal Characteristics, Birthing Ease, and 

Growth Potential

It is difficult to separate the categories of birthing 

ease, maternal abilities, and growth potential. Calves 

that are small at birth cause less difficulty for the 

mother cow, especially first-time heifers, and generate less work for the rancher, less likelihood of pulling 

calves, and less need for intense observation. Many 

of those interviewed stressed the importance of good 

mother cows possessing such traits as a good disposition and mothering ability. The cow must be able to 

provide enough milk to nurture the calf. The calf must 

have the genetic potential for growth. Fast growth 

for good weight gain at weaning and sale equates to 

efficiency of gain. Polled breeds are also a benefit, 

causing fewer problems at birth and saving the work 

of dehorning. The importance of a good bull must 

also be given consideration. We frequently heard the 

choice of using Black Angus bulls because they produce smaller calves at birth, resulting in calving ease, 

fewer losses of cow and calf, less work and stress for 

the rancher, and, ultimately, increased profit.

Adaptable, Hardy, and Efficient: “They know the 

country!”

Cattle must be suited to the area if they are to 

thrive. A rancher must consider the terrain, climate, 

and elevation of the country. Many allotments are at 

high elevations (8000 ft to above 10,000 ft). Some 

breeds are not fit for the environment, we were told. 

They must be able to exist on rough terrain, on mountain slopes, and find feed in difficult circumstances. 

Ranchers spoke of the importance of cattle with an 

ability to survive, that are able to “scrounge around” 

for food. Ranchers said they want “thrifty animals” 

that are resourceful and “will get out and graze.”

Interviewees stressed the importance of keeping a 

resident herd and retaining replacement heifers that 

were born into the herd, as the animals have a better chance of success when adapted to and familiar 

with their environment. A rancher who has crossbred 

cows and crossbred bulls said the aim is to breed for 

hardiness. “You need cattle that can withstand the elements and high elevations,” he said. He has learned 

from experience and has kept the same herd for years. 

Another explained that he only purchases the bulls; 

all replacement heifers come from his herd. “They 

know the country!” he said.

Tradition and preference: There’s “nothing better 

than a Hereford cow.”

“Tradition” may be translated as lessons passed 

down through the family, usually from a father, grandfather, or father-in-law. If a rancher says that he or she 

likes a certain breed, there are generally good reasons 

for that preference. For example, a rancher said that he 

likes the look and temperament of the Polled Hereford, 

“a very old breed, mellow and easy to handle.” Another 

stated that at auction, she buys a “pretty cow” if she 

“likes the look.” These comments most likely refer to 

the animal’s conformation and condition. Yet another said that he has a crossbred herd but would prefer 

Hereford if he could afford them; they were always in 

the family, so he knows them better.

A rancher told us that he prefers a Black Baldy 

cow because she is smaller, more docile, a more efficient producer, and not inclined to jump a 5-ft fence. 

In comparison, he observed, Limousin, Gelbvieh, and 

Charolais are big cattle that make for big production 

costs and low quality meat. The animal eats in proportion to its body weight. Another said, Hereford breed 

back well (have a better conception rate), take less feed, 

and he just likes them. Another rancher has Blonde d’ 

Aquitaine; he likes their looks and added that quality 

and breeding make an efficient animal.

Disposition

 Different breeds have their own personalities. 

Animal disposition and behavior are important considerations in choice of breeds. These small ranches are 

personal, family-run operations, requiring a close relationship between animals and people. Ranchers stress 

the importance of gentle, smart cattle that are easy to 

handle. Handling ease depends on characteristics of the 

breed and how they are handled, we were told. Such 

phrases as “when you learn to work with them,” “it’s 

how you treat them,” and “it depends on how you handle the cows” were often expressed.

Disease Resistance

Disease resistance is a major factor in choice of 

breed. For example, the white-faced Hereford is prone 

to pinkeye, which is not a problem in the darker breeds 

of cattle. This was often mentioned as a reason for 

crossing the Hereford with other breeds. Pinkeye is a 

disease carried by insects. The condition affects an animal’s eyes and can spread throughout the herd if not 

treated in time. In the milder form, the eyeball develops 

a pink color and the cornea becomes slightly clouded. 

In the acute form, the eyes tear, the cornea becomes increasingly cloudy, cancerous ulcers may develop, and 
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

blindness may result. White-faced cattle or cattle with 

white around the eyes are most susceptible. Pinkeye 

is most common during periods of maximum sunlight 

(Gillespie 1983).

Brisket disease is another common concern, given 

the high elevations on many allotments. Brisket disease is a heart condition of cattle that occurs at high 

altitudes. It may be caused by the enlargement of the 

heart in cattle that cannot adapt to high elevation; diet 

may also be a factor. Some disease can be bred out of 

a herd through natural selection. Blackleg, a disease 

caused by bacteria, is most serious when bacteria lodge 

in deep wounds. Calves can be vaccinated against 

Blackleg when young and then again at weaning, as 

prevention is more effective and less costly than treatment (Gillespie 1983).

One rancher told us that he learned from his fatherin-law to avoid disease by using replacement heifers 

or purchasing directly from a rancher, not from a sale 

barn. Many with whom we spoke stressed the importance of the resident, non-integrated herd as a means of 

avoiding the spread of disease.

Hybrid Vigor

There seems to be general agreement among those 

interviewed, with the exception of the few who have 

purebred or single breed herds, that crossbreds sell 

better, do better, are hardy, and disease resistant. They 

believe these characteristics result from hybrid vigor. A 

rancher justified his crossbred herd choices as follows: 

Salers are tough and adapt to any place like the mountains; Black Angus for the name, buyer’s preference; 

Hereford are small boned and pound for pound produce 

the most meat. Crossbreds were described as good milkers and good breeders that do well in the mountains.

An Unusual Case Caused by the Vivash Fire of 

2000

When a pair of brothers were asked what breeds 

they prefer, there was a brief silence followed by an explanation that they did not have a choice due to losses 

from the Vivash Fire, northeast of Pecos, New Mexico. 

They lost their original herd of 52 head of cows and 

bulls in the fire. They had a Beef Master bull crossed 

with Black Angus and Charolais cows. They now have 

a Black Angus bull, the only one available to purchase. 

Another permittee family also answered that they did 

not choose their bull, a Black Angus, but had lost their 

herd in the same fire. Another permittee told of losing 

10 pairs of mama cows and calves in the same fire. A 

fourth said he was with the cattle when he and his son 

saw the smoke and were able to move the herd to safety 

on foot. There was no time to go back for the horses. 

They later discovered that baby calves had been inadvertently left behind to perish in the fire.

Sheep Operations in the Study

Despite the long history of the nation’s sheep industry, dating back to the second voyage of Columbus in 

1493, numbers of sheep and lambs in the United States 

have decreased steadily since the mid-1940s. This 

decline can be attributed to a combination of forces, 

including globalization of the textile industry, growing competition from other meat and fiber industries in 

the United States, and import competition from large 

lamb and wool producers, notably Australia and New 

Zealand. In addition, many issues and events have 

contributed since the end of World War II, including: 

a negative experience with Government issued mutton during the war, the repeal of the National Wool Act 

of 1954, foreign wool production subsidies, changes 

in consumer preferences, losses from predator kills, 

changes in regulations and permits for grazing on public lands, and endangered species regulations (National 

Research Council 2008). Wool production has declined 

more rapidly than lamb production. Once considered 

the mainstay of the U.S. sheep industry, wool currently 

accounts for only 10 to 30 percent of sheep production income on range systems and less than 5 percent 

on farm flock systems. Contributing to this decline 

are competition from an increasing number of natural 

and synthetic fibers and the loss of the National Wool 

Act (encouraging production of wool, an essential 

and strategic commodity for manufacture of blankets, 

uniforms, and sleeping bags for the U.S. military during war time) and other legislation that provided price 

support to the U.S. wool industry (National Research 

Council 2008).

Sheep are the Heritage of the Grandfathers

Many ranchers switched from raising sheep to cattle 

due to Forest Service direction. One rancher remembered that the Forest Service had recommended that his 

father get rid of the sheep and goats. For others, a shift 

in employment circumstances, from full-time ranching to the necessity of taking a second off-ranch job, 

brought about the decision. Cattle require less intensive 

herding and care than sheep; thus, they are easier to 

manage for people with full-time, off-ranch jobs. When 

working the outside job, a rancher explained that his 

wife helped out, especially with the sheep and lambing.

We asked Dave Stewart, Director of Rangeland 

Management for Forest Service Region 3, to discuss 

the decline of sheep operations on the Forests we 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 35

studied. According to him, the vegetative composition on the allotments of northern New Mexico is 

more suited to cattle grazing than sheep production. 

This is due to lack of a forb community, essential in 

the diet of sheep. It is an ecological situation. In the 

Pecos Wilderness area of the Santa Fe National Forest, 

the priority is to manage for Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep, which were reintroduced to the area in the 1960s. 

There also is cooperation with the New Mexico Game 

and Fish Department to avoid disease-related contact 

between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep (Stewart, 

personal communication). Grazing of domestic sheep 

in the Pecos high-country ended with the 1953 season 

(Varela, personal communication).

While there are no longer sheep permits on the Santa 

Fe National Forest, there is a viable sheep industry on 

the west side of the Carson, mostly in the Tres Piedras 

district. From a social and natural resource perspective, 

the level of sheep and lamb grazing in that area appears to have stabilized to a sustainable level and is not 

in conflict with any natural resource values, Stewart 

stated. There are some dual-use permits for cattle and 

sheep on the Carson, giving permittees the opportunity 

to shift from cattle to sheep, providing a more economically sustainable situation for ranchers on that district 

(Stewart, personal communication).

Study participants provided examples of declines 

in numbers of sheep. One rancher said his permit was 

for 720 head, but was cut to 550 because of drought. 

Another told us that she had 750 Rambouillet sheep 

permitted seven years prior to the interview, but none 

permitted currently. Yet another rancher listed 2000 

Rambouillet ewes in the past, but now only 57. There 

is also a declining market for the wool, we were told. 

A rancher said, “You can hardly give the wool away. 

Now that the subsidies ran out, nobody wants it. It’s 

not worth your time.” Wool is not selling anymore, we 

were told, due to competition from England. However, 

there is a large demand for quality lamb, particularly 

from the post-World War II generation, but not enough 

is being produced to meet this demand.

With fewer sheep today, there are more problems 

with noxious weeds; some believe the forests were in 

better shape with goats and sheep to keep the weeds 

eaten down (Melendrez, personal communication). 

Disadvantages to raising sheep include predation by 

dogs and other animals, susceptibility to parasites, and 

a low resistance to disease and injury (Gillespie 1983).

Selection of a Breed

Breed selection of sheep is similar, in some aspects, to selection of cattle. Personal preference, how 

well the breed is adapted to the area, the market for 

the product, the availability of breeding stock, and 

the prospect of multiple births are all considerations. 

Sheep are most commonly classified by type of wool. 

The fine wool breeds (e.g., Merino, Rambouillet, and 

New Mexico-bred Debouillet) were developed from 

the Spanish Merino, which produce fine wool with 

heavy oil content and are primarily used for wool 

production. Merinos have a strong flocking instinct 

and the ability to do well on poor-quality rangeland. 

Flocking, or banding, refers to the tendency of sheep 

to stay together in a group called a “flock” or “band.” 

The medium wool breeds (e.g., Cheviot, Hampshire, 

Dorset, and Suffolk), many of which originated in 

England, were bred primarily for meat production. 

Their fleece is medium in fiber quality and length, and 

wool is a secondary product. The long wool breeds 

(e.g., Cotswold and Lincoln) were developed in 

England and are larger with long, course-fiber wool. 

The crossbred wool breeds (e.g., Columbia) were developed, primarily in the United States, by crossing 

long wool with fine wool breeds to improve carcass 

quality and length of wool fiber. These breeds have 

better banding or flocking instinct than the long wool 

or medium wool breeds and are well adapted to the 

western range (Gillespie 1983).

The Merinos evolved in an arid area of Spain and 

had to be herded because of the vast area of rangeland. In comparison, the more independent Suffolk that 

evolved in small, verdant pastures of England did not 

require herding. This explains the flocking instinct of 

the former in contrast to the latter (Melendrez, personal 

communication). Of the breeds specified by participants in this study, Rambouillet and Merino represent 

fine wool breeds, Dorset and Suffolk represent medium 

wool breeds, and Columbia represents the crossbred 

wool breeds. The Churro, also represented, was brought 

in by New Mexico’s early Spanish settlers. Descended 

from the common sheep of southern Spain, this breed 

possesses the hardiness and stamina necessary for survival in a harsh environment and a long staple fleece 

suited to hand spinning and weaving (Baxter 1987).

Thirty-five ranchers who participated in this study 

listed sheep among their livestock. Of those, 46 percent 

of sheep were unspecified breeds, mostly occurring in 

small numbers incidental to their cattle operations. 

Eleven breeds or combinations thereof were listed 

by the 19 ranchers with larger flocks. Of this group, 

Rambouillet and Suffolk were the most popular breeds, 

listed in 57.9 percent of the responses either singly or 

in combination with other breeds. The next most prevalent was the Columbian (21 percent), followed by the 
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Merino, Churro, and Dorset (10.5, 10.5, and 5.3 percent, respectively).

Ranchers gave several reasons for their choice 

in breeds of sheep (question 28b; tables 53 and 54; 

Appendix C). The Merino and the Rambouillet were 

chosen for their high-quality wool as well as the meat. 

Ranchers specified the Suffolk (“Blackface”) as the 

best meat breed and for its gentle disposition and the 

Columbia for size of offspring (heavier lambs), good 

meat, and larger breed. A rancher with a crossbred 

flock said he felt there was a history of better weights 

by crossbreeding. He said that the Columbia have a 

clean face, the Suffolk stay away from flukes (a parasite), and white-faced sheep band together. For some 

families, sheep represent a sense of tradition and are 

raised because a father or grandfather herded sheep. 

Others maintain sheep simply because they like them. 

Others purchase a few lambs to butcher for family 

consumption or for a 4-H project for children. Some 

amount of trading of sheep and wool was mentioned.

Herd Sizes

As reviewed in our pilot study, the majority of 

ranches throughout New Mexico are extra small and 

small cow-calf operations with from 1 to 99 head. As 

is the case in our project area, northern New Mexico 

has considerably fewer medium-to-large ranches and 

more extra-small and small ranches than the state as a 

whole. Other major types of ranches include yearlingstocker operations and sheep operations. Cow-calf 

operations consist of a base cow herd, their calves, 

generally some yearling heifers and steers, replacement heifers, and the bulls needed to support the herd 

(Fowler 2000; Torell and others 1998).

Cattle Herds

The herd sizes of the participants in our study ranged 

from 1 to 620 mother cows, with size determined by 

economics, available land, and grazing permits (question 29; table 55; Appendix C). The average herd size 

was 70 animals with a median of 30. Fifteen percent 

of the permittees have herd sizes ranging from 1 to 10 

animals, 22.6 percent ranging from 11 to 20, 29.1 percent ranging from 21 to 50, 15.4 percent ranging from 

51 to 99, 14.9 percent ranging from 100 to 400, and 

3 percent with over 400 animals. Thus, 17.9 percent 

of the cattle operations that we studied have 100+ 

animals, placing them in the category of mediumto-large ranches. Two of these are considered large 

sized ranches with 520 and 620 head, respectively. As 

tables 4 and 5 show, there was a somewhat greater 

number of large and medium sized ranches on the 

Carson than on the Santa Fe. This is reflective of the 

greater number of larger ranches that have permits on 

the Tres Piedras district. These ranchers are primarily 

located in the border area of southern Colorado and 

northern New Mexico in an area of more extensive 

grassland habitat. These areas are also home to the 

four medium and large sheep operations.

These figures represent numbers of adult cows 

only. Numbers of bulls owned range from 1 to 30. Of 

those that own bulls, the majority of ranchers reported one to five animals (73.5 percent). Five percent 

have association-owned or leased bulls. Heifers (as 

herd replacements) are maintained by 59.7 percent of 

the permittees, with animal numbers ranging from 1 

to 103, dependent on herd size. A few (10.5 percent) 

ranchers listed steers as part of their herd, generally to 

be sold in the fall. We also asked the respondents to list 

the number of calves; however, due to confusion over 

our wording on the question, some responded with 

numbers of calves currently on the ground (present in 

the herd), while others reported calving rate or conception rate (question 29; tables 56-59; Appendix C).

Sheep Flocks

Once the prevalent livestock of northern New 

Mexico, sheep were outnumbered by cattle in the 

last half of the Twentieth Century due, in part, to 

Government influence, increased threat of predation, 

and lack of time for their more intensive management. Only four of the permittees who participated 

in this study have large flocks of sheep ranging from 

300 to 2000 head of ewes. Their home ranches are 

located in southern Colorado, with permits on the 

Carson National Forest in New Mexico. Those who 

listed small numbers of sheep tend to keep them close 

to home on private land.

Sheep numbers in our study range from 2 to 2000. 

The large majority (87.4 percent) of interviewees 

have no sheep. Of the 30 ranchers who own sheep, 

most (80 percent) have between 2 and 23 ewes; two 

people (6.7 percent) have flocks of 57 and 60. The 

four larger operations (13.3 percent) have 300, 380, 

550, and 2000 ewes, respectively. (question 29; table 

60; Appendix C). These figures represent numbers of 

adult females only. Number of rams owned or leased 

ranged from 1 to 40 (question 29; table 61; Appendix 

C). Of those ranchers owning or leasing rams, the 

majority (63.2 percent) reported one or two animals. 

Two people (10.5 percent) lease rams, and a few 

(15.8 percent) own 10 to 15 rams, with the largest 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 37

operation owning 40. We also asked respondents to 

list the number of lambs; the majority (77.8 percent) 

reported 2 to 20, but two ranchers (7.4 percent) have 

50 and 58 lambs (question 29; table 62; Appendix C). 

The four larger operations (14.8 percent) have 180, 

300, 464, and 3400 lambs. Ewes frequently produce 

twins; therefore, these numbers were expected to be 

higher in most cases. Apparently, predation is a factor 

in the lower reported numbers.

Horse Herds, the Remuda

A number of permittees we interviewed still own 

and use horses to work their livestock and as a form 

of family recreation (89.9 percent). Many said they 

take pride in their horses reflecting the long Hispanic 

tradition of horsemanship and horse culture. A few 

respondents breed registered Quarter Horses as an 

important aspect of their ranch life. Two have horses 

for guide and outfitting businesses. Of the 214 stockmen who own horses, equine numbers ranged from 1 

to 100 (question 29; table 63; Appendix C). The majority (90.2 percent) of respondents own 1 to 8 horses, 

8.9 percent have 9 to 20, and 2 (0.93 percent) own 50 

and 100 head. Very few horses were reported lost on 

public land; three owners (1.4 percent) reported losses 

of one animal each, while one (0.5 percent) reported 

a loss of two horses. On private land, however, seven 

ranchers (3.3 percent) reported losses of between one 

and five horses each.

Herd Size Reductions

 During our discussions of herd sizes, a substantial 

number (46.2 percent) of interviewees reported larger 

herd sizes prior to the droughts of the early to mid2000s and consequent agency-mandated reductions 

in numbers of animals and time on the allotments 

(question 29a; table 64; Appendix C). Interviewees 

described these as painful losses because once sold, 

it is extremely difficult and much more expensive to 

rebuild the herd when conditions improve.

Animal Losses

As we learned from our participants, yearly losses 

of livestock represent both emotional and economic 

hardships. “The loss of one cow is a big thing. One 

cow represents a big investment.” Whatever the reasons for loss, animal deaths have a serious impact 

upon the success and economic viability of the extrasmall and small ranches of the area. Although losses 

can vary tremendously from year to year, we asked 

permittees to report numbers of animals lost, along 

with the cause of loss, during a typical year (question 

30; tables 65-72; Appendix C). However, we recognize, as did participants, that there is no such thing 

as a “typical year.” Although it may appear from the 

following discussion that some animals “never die,” 

this simply represents that fact that none has died in 

the “typical year.”

Cattle Losses

Almost forty percent (37.8) of informants reported 

no cows lost on public land, and 63.9 percent reported no losses on private land. About 56 percent (56.2) 

of the ranchers reported losses of one to five cows 

on public land, and 34.8 percent reported one to five 

cows lost on private land. Ranchers (7.5 percent) 

reported losses of one to seven yearling heifers and 

steers on public land, with 3.8 percent reporting losses on private lands. Calves are more frequently lost 

on both public and private land due to their greater 

susceptibility to predators and illnesses. Seventy percent (70.1) of ranchers reported losses of calves on 

public land ranging from 1 to 50, with 1 to 5 being 

most common (57.7 percent). On private land, 48.5 

percent reported losses of from 1 to 24, calves with 1 

to 5 being most common (40.8 percent). Of the 225 

ranchers owning bulls, 18 (8 percent) reported the 

loss of 1 bull on public land and 6 (2.7) reported the 

loss of 1 bull on private land.

Sheep Losses

Of those respondents owning sheep, 89.7 percent 

reported no losses of ewes on public land, and 72.4 

percent lost no ewes on private land. It should be 

noted that many who own small numbers of sheep 

maintain them on the home ranch, not on public land. 

Three ranchers (10.2 percent) reported losing 10, 20, 

and 100 ewes, respectively, on their public land allotments. Around 23.9 percent lost between 5 and 15 

ewes on private land, with the owner of the largest 

herd (3.4 percent) losing 100 head. There were no 

ram losses for public land primarily because rams are 

generally maintained on the private land. Two ranchers (11.2 percent) reported losses of 1 and 5 rams, 

respectively, on private land. About 89 percent (88.5) 

reported no losses of lambs on public land, and 73.1 

percent lost no lambs on private land. Two ranchers 

(7.7 percent) reported losses of 30 lambs each on 

public land, while one (3.8 percent), again the largest 

owner, reported 170 lambs lost on the allotment. On 

private land, 22.8 percent reported losses of from 1 

to 20 lambs with one (3.8 percent) reporting 170 lost.
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Causes of Animal Losses

 Causes of these losses include the death of mother 

or infant from complications at birth, weather-related 

deaths, predation by wild animals, disease, injuries, 

poisoning from toxic plants, lightning, or old age. 

Other reasons for loss are rustling, malicious killings, 

accidental shooting by hunters, and predation by packs 

of domestic dogs. For example, 31 ranchers identified from 1 to 25 animals killed by dogs (question 30; 

table 85; Appendix C). While wild animals such as 

coyote, cougar, and bear represent a hazard on more 

remote allotments on forest land, the domestic dog 

poses a greater threat on pastures located close to the 

home ranch or on allotments located adjacent to more 

populated, urban interface areas. Although the financial loss may be the same, respondents said it seems 

easier to accept an animal’s death from natural causes 

or accident than to find one shot presumably for target 

practice (question 30; tables 65-84; Appendix C).

In our discussion of animal loss, we asked respondents to list all applicable reasons for the death of their 

animals (tables 6 and 7). Thus, the percentages listed 

for this question (question 30) reflect multiple responses and do not equal 100 percent. Our research shows 

that on public land (the allotments), the most common 

causes for loss of young animals, such as calves and 

lambs, include theft (42.9 percent), predation (33.3 

percent), disease (29.2 percent), death at birth (13.1 

percent), accidents (10.1 percent). The most common 

causes for loss of mature animals, such as cows and 

ewes, include diseases and old age (46.9 percent), 

lightning (19.1), theft (18.5 percent), toxic plants (13 

percent), predation (11.7 percent), and vandalism (9.9 

percent). A very large category for both age classes 

consists of unknown causes; animals found dead, or 

never found (33.3 percent for young animals and 27.4 

percent for mature animals).

On private land, the most common causes for loss 

of young animals, such as calves and lambs, include 

death at birth (39.5 percent), predation (38.8 percent), 

disease (34.5 percent), and weather-related death (16 

percent). The most common causes for loss of mature 

animals, such as cows and ewes, include diseases and 

old age (71.6 percent), accidents (16.8 percent), predation (11.6 percent), vandalism (8.4 percent), toxic 

plants (8.4 percent), lightning (6.3 percent), and theft 

(6.3 percent).

A larger number of the permittees in our study reported problems with theft or vandalism on their 

allotments than on their ranches, which are better supervised. Theft, a major cause of animal loss on forest 

allotments, is even worse in areas with greater access 

to roads. Vandalism is also a serious problem on the allotments. In reference to this, ranchers have described 

coyotes as a “normal” problem and are far more disturbed by the activities of the “two-legged coyotes.” 

Predation by wild animals or domestic dogs is also a 

source of animal loss. Calves and lambs are subject to 

a higher predation rate than the mature animals.

Toxic Plants

Poisonous plants were mentioned as a cause of animal losses. All plants have some secondary compounds 

that can be toxic when consumed in sufficient quantities. However, a few that accumulate toxins at high 

levels are palatable to livestock, resulting in a high risk 

of poisoning (James and others 2005). The following 

plants were most frequently mentioned by the ranchers 

in this study as causes of animal losses.

Locoweed (Astragalus and Oxytropis spp.) constitutes the most widespread poisonous plant problem 

on western U.S. rangelands, with species occurring 

in every major plant community. Locoweed damages 

the nervous system and compromises reproduction. 

The major toxin is the indolizidine alkaloid swainsonine (James and others 2005). Locoism is caused by 

the consumption of certain locoweeds by cattle, horses, 

and sheep on western rangelands. There are at least 372 

Astragalus spp. in the United States, most of which are 

toxic to some degree. These perennial plants are found 

primarily on rangeland where year-round grazing is 

conducted. Following rains, they are often the dominant forage available (Cheeke and Shull 1985).

Principle signs of intoxication are those of nervous 

system impairment, including dullness, depression, excitement when disturbed, lost sense of direction and 

herding instinct in sheep, habituation to the plants, or 

an apparent craving for them. Affected animals will 

seek out locoweed. Abortion is common in cows and 

ewes on locoweed infested range. Affected horses become listless, unaware of their surroundings, wild and 

unmanageable when excited, and, in the early stages 

of locoism, are dangerous to ride. Consumption of 

the plant may result in mortality. In cattle and sheep, 

death may occur after an intake of about 300 percent 

of the animal’s body weight of locoweed. Horses are 

most susceptible to the toxin, a lethal dose being about 

30 percent of body weight. Death of poisoned animals 

may also occur from mishap such as tumbling over a 

cliff or embankment (Cheeke and Shull 1985).

Larkspur (Delphinium spp.) is a toxic plant that 

grows at high elevations on many allotments and is 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 39

a serious problem. Avoiding it is a matter of timing. 

Larkspur is at its worst from late spring until around 

mid June. Therefore, it helps to delay taking the cattle to those areas where larkspur occurs until after the 

plants have bloomed. Larkspur is a climax species that 

increases with improving range conditions and is quite 

palatable to cattle. Calves are often poisoned on mountain allotments because they tend to remain in groves 

of trees, where larkspur is growing. A “babysitting” 

cow is often left to tend the calves while most of the 

herd is out grazing in meadows. Because of their small 

size, calves can easily ingest a lethal dose. The toxin 

in Larkspurs is an alkaloid compound that results in 

death from respiratory paralysis. Sheep are less susceptible than cattle, as it takes approximately four times 

as much larkspur to kill sheep than cattle (Cheeke and 

Shull 1985).

Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula L.), another plant 

that was listed by the ranchers, is a perennial native to 

Eurasia. It is also a serious problem in North America 

where it infests almost 2.5 million acres. It has been 

reported to cause severe irritation of the mouth and digestive tract in cattle and may result in death of the 

animal. Leafy spurge is extremely difficult to control 

due to its extensive root system and encapsulated seeds 

that may be viable in the soil for up to eight years 

(Whitson and others 2006).

Pingue (Hymenoxys richardsonii) is a common 

rangeland plant of the Compositeae family that contains sesquiterpine lactones. These toxicants are highly 

irritating to the nose, eyes, and gastrointestinal tract, 

causing vomiting and resulting in death from inhalation 

pneumonia or permanent lung damage accompanied 

by chronic coughing. Sheep and goats are the main 

livestock species affected, as cattle and horses rarely 

consume toxic quantities of this unpalatable plant 

(Cheeke and Shull 1985).

Snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), a perennial resinous shrub, is found on desert ranges of the 

Southwest. The toxin is believed to be a saponin compound. Symptoms include listlessness, loss of appetite 

and weight loss, a rough hair coat, and gastroenteritis. 

It causes abortion in cattle (Cheeke and Shull 1985).

Consumption of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) 

needles can cause abortion in cattle, which has been 

suspected by ranchers for many years. Although the 

active principle remains unidentified, diterpene resin 

acids have been implicated. Pine needle abortion remains a common problem in western ranges. Affected 

cows also have increased incidence of retained placenta and impaired breeding performance (Cheeke and 

Shull 1985).

Allotment Grasses

In question 33 (table 90; Appendix C), we asked 

participants what grasses or other forage plants are 

consumed by the livestock on the rangeland allotments. This information demonstrates another aspect 

of the knowledge, interest, and awareness of the ranchers concerning their lands and their forest allotments. 

While 23.5 percent said they were not sure of specific 

plant names, 1.7 percent stated they could consult references or another family member, and 1.3 percent 

remarked that they know the grasses by sight, not by 

name. The majority (73.5 percent), however, provided 

detailed combinations of forage plants on their allotments. This information is listed in detail by district, 

along with added comments from the respective Forest 

Service range personnel, in Appendix E.

Land, Vegetation, and Wildlife 

Changes

Observations of the Permittees

When asked in question 35 (table 95; Appendix C) 

if they had noticed any land, vegetation, or wildlife 

changes on their allotments or in the general area during their lifetime, the study participants introduced 

numerous topics that we categorized as: (1) drought 

or decreases in precipitation, (2) fire suppression and 

need for fire, (3) tree and brush encroachment, (4) recreational damage, (5) increasing human populations, 

(6) changes in wildlife populations, (7) declining 

water supply, (8) invasive plant encroachment, and 

(9) erosion. Their observations fell most heavily in the 

following categories: changes in wildlife populations 

(more elk, less deer and other wildlife), 49.8 percent; 

tree and/or brush encroachment (decline in meadows 

and open areas), 46.7 percent; drought (less rain and/

or snow and springs have dried up), 39.6 percent; and 

invasive plant (exotic and native) encroachment, insects, and diseases, 20.4 percent. The choice of “need 

for fire (past fire suppression a source of problems)” received only 6.7 percent of the observations. However, 

“absence of fire” weighed heavily in the ranchers’ discussions regarding tree encroachment and invasive 

plant proliferation. Their comments reflect the keen 

observations and knowledge common to those who 

live close to the land.

“We don’t see many deer, mostly elk...”

Participants made the following observations 

concerning changes in wildlife populations, with a 
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

substantial number focusing on the growing populations of elk. It was noted that there were more turkeys, 

rabbits, and young deer, and fewer coyotes. The beaver 

seem to be gone. “We don’t see many deer, mostly elk, 

and very few bears or turkey,” said one rancher. Deer 

have declined in the whole area. According to many, 

there are complaints about cattle overgrazing meadows, but elk are there year-round. The number of elk 

in the 1960s and 70s used to be small, but has grown 

tremendously. Several respondents discussed that elk 

cause problems such as fence destruction. As one 

rancher put it, “It looks like someone is chasing the 

elk back and forth across the fences.” Participants also 

mentioned that elk consume the re-growth of grass and 

keep it short. One informant mentioned that the Pecos 

high-country used to be full of grass; now with the elk, 

all open land is grazed down to the ground. “We had 

deer and antelope, but those small animals did little 

damage compared to elk.”

“Meadows are smaller because we don’t have 

those burns.”

Ranchers have observed fewer open areas due to 

tree encroachment and fire suppression. “Meadows are 

smaller because we don’t have those burns,” a rancher 

told us. There were fewer trees in the past because they 

had sheep and goats that kept everything clear. There 

has been a “dramatic decrease in meadows, [an] unhealthy forest, greatly decreased biodiversity, choked 

up conditions, and loss of water due to poor forest management,” according to another. The whole forest is 

overgrown; “you used to be able to ride a horse through 

with no problem.” “I’m seeing our meadows being taken over by trees.” There is a fear that there will be more 

trees and less grass in the future. Tree encroachment has 

resulted from lack of fire and the absence of logging. 

Folks “on the outside looking in” do not want to see any 

trees cut. In the past, logging opened up areas, allowing 

for increased growth of grasses.

In discussions of drought and invasive species one 

rancher said, “In years past, we got a lot of snow and 

rain, [that] since have slackened.” Others mentioned 

an increase in invasive weeds due to drought. Cheat 

grass (Bromus tectorum) and snakeweed have become 

rampant; they have been introduced through human activity. Non-native weeds come in from other states by 

means of hay and seed. Ornamentals have been brought 

in and have gotten loose. Ranchers listed as problems 

plants such as Canadian thistle (Circium arvense), bullhead thistle (Circium vulgare), jimsonweed (Datura 

stramonium), Russian thistle/tumbleweed (Salsola 

iberica), sweet-clover, a plant that resembles alfalfa 

(Melilotus spp.), burdock (Arctium minus), bindweed 

(Convolvulus arvensis), and stinging nettles (Urtica 

dioica L.). Some also mentioned that since the 1970s, 

there has been a spread of larkspur and other noxious 

weeds; in these cases, the area must be fenced off to 

protect the cattle.

Observations of the Older Generation

In Question 36 (table 96; Appendix C), we asked participants in the study to describe any land, vegetation, 

or wildlife changes related to them by older members 

of the family or community. These responses fell into 

similar categories as those described previously with 

the addition of (1) changes in land use and management 

and (2) declining agricultural production. Observations 

attributed to the older generations fell most heavily in 

the following categories: (1) changes in land use and 

management (more animals, sheep, or goats in the past) 

46.3 percent, (2) drought (less rain and/or snow, springs 

have dried up, drought in past) 27.1 percent, (3) tree 

and/or brush encroachment (decline in meadows and 

open areas) 24.3 percent, (4) changes in wildlife populations (more elk, less deer and other wildlife) 21.5 

percent. Again, “need for fire” received only 7.3 percent 

in the frequencies; however, the topic of fire suppression emerges in the discussions of tree encroachment. 

This is especially evident in recollections of burns set 

by the stockmen at the end of each grazing season.

“God provides lightning for a purpose.”

The closing in of meadows due to lack of natural fire 

was a common observation. Concern was expressed 

over Forest Service suppression of natural fire. There 

were comments that God provides lightning for a purpose. Many told us that, in years past, stockmen burned 

forest meadows at the end of the grazing season. In the 

days of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers, the 

last sheepherder to leave the mountains before winter 

would set fire to the pasture. Then, early snows would 

serve to quench these fires, preventing them from 

spreading. In this way, stockmen could keep the meadows open as a means of maintaining forest clearings, 

thereby ensuring adequate grazing for the following 

year. The Forest Service ultimately stopped this method 

of forage management, according to the reports of those 

with whom we spoke.

The project participants related comments from the 

older generation regarding changes in land use and 

management and the decline in agricultural production. The mother of one respondent remembers better 

quality grass on the range. “People need to take care of 

this place like they used to,” she said. Nowadays, there 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 41

is less fuel-wood cutting and less logging. “There used 

to be more logging. Every little valley would have a 

sawmill,” said one rancher. They also spoke of changes in the ways Forest Service personnel worked on the 

land. For instance, it was more common in the past for 

rangers to check forest allotments on horseback.

They used “Mother Nature and common sense!”

There were more cattle and more permittees in 

times past. One permittee said, “It was better in those 

times—more freedom!” Respondents said animals 

moved more freely to querencia areas; the system 

worked better; fire was used at end of the season. An 

uncle talked about no fences, no broken range. When 

cattle were allowed to spread out, it was easier to 

round them up in their own groups. Certain permittees 

grazed livestock in their own querencias year-round, 

but now they have to graze in bunches, which does not 

work as well; and still there are the elk.

Another said that there used to be more domestic animals in the forest, sheep for instance, but the 

stockmen would not overdo it. If there were no feed, 

why would they send the animals up there? They used 

“Mother Nature and common sense,” the rancher said.

Some members of the older generation mentioned 

that when they had sheep on the range, the land was 

kept cleaner, with less encroachment of shrubs, trees, 

and weeds. There were many fond recollections of the 

sheep that were prevalent in the region. As described 

to us, there used to be many sheep allotments. They 

would lamb on the range and shear them and would 

haul the wool down in wagons. They also had burros 

that were turned loose. Kids would round them up and 

ride them all winter. One older man can remember that 

as a kid, he would go up with his dad and two brothers 

to the mountains. He recalled that the aspen leaves had 

to be “as big as a silver dollar” before his father would 

take the cattle onto the allotment.

According to recollections of the older generation, 

there seems to be a slow increase in the amount of 

noxious weeds and a take-over by plants unsuitable 

for grazing. Compared to now, ranchers said there was 

ample forage in the past. Fathers and grandparents 

talked about open range and that grant land was taken 

away. They used to have sheep in New Mexico and 

later began to raise cattle. The grass was so high; you 

could hardly see the sheep in the 1960s, they said.

“What happened to meadows and open spaces?”

“Tree growth chokes grass... [limits available 

sunlight and] takes moisture from other vegetation.” 

Absence of fire was also mentioned as a cause of 

overgrowth and encroachment. A participant said his 

father talked about fewer trees and evidence of fires in 

old aspen stands. There used to be roads where arroyos 

are now; there used to be trails that are now no longer 

useable due to overgrowth. Another remembered his 

father saying that pine trees were more spread out and 

that game animals had been abundant; now the forest 

is so thick, the animals are crowded out. The forest is 

less healthy, and there is mistletoe. There used to be 

Cottonwoods (Populus spp.), but now they are gone 

and replaced by brush.

One elder said the land was going to change and 

always talked with his children about it. The older 

man felt that before the Forest Service, the land was 

all open, and then began to change with Forest Service 

rules (for example, prohibition of tree cutting). 

Another father said there was no sagebrush when he 

was first there. Trees are not as healthy now; more are 

diseased and the needle and bark texture are different. 

He said on trees, there are different types of critter’s 

webs that were not there when he was a kid. Another 

rancher related that her grandfather talked of trees taking over meadows, but she did not understand what he 

was trying to tell her then. While yet another respondent mentioned that old trees were widely scattered 

when he first came here. “What happened to meadows 

and open spaces?” his dad wonders. “It’s hard to recognize areas.” His dad used to say that you could point 

a horse in any direction in the old days; now you can 

hardly walk through the same area due to deadfall and 

tree encroachment. Elders commented on recent overprotection of forests from fire, thinning, and logging.

“...Drought has ever been a problem. It’s a 

natural thing.”

Drought was another common topic of conversation, with the prevailing view that there have always 

been wet and dry years. The older generation spoke of 

worse droughts at the turn of the Twentieth Century, in 

1927, and in the 1950s. They talked about drought and 

how they had to adjust herd sizes and sell some of the 

livestock. Older members of the community discussed 

that drought has always been here, but now there are 

people studying it, trying to justify their jobs. “Fresh 

out of school and ignore years of expertise. Drought 

has ever been a problem. It’s a natural thing,” said 

one of the ranchers. The older ones have observed 

a lack of severe winters in recent years. In the past, 

mountain snow packs were greater. Snow was up to 

a horse’s belly and deeper, and ranchers had to break 

a trail through the snow to move the livestock off the 

allotments.
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

“...We need the smaller animals back.” 

Finally, there were discussions of changes in wildlife populations over the years. There were a lot of wild 

horses, turkey, and deer in the old days; one does not 

see that many deer anymore. One permittee’s father 

remembered las Prisas when beavers were there with 

no roads on the allotment. His father showed him the 

old beaver dams, berms, and bumps. Another told us 

that his father used to see a lot of jackrabbits; now you 

do not see them anymore—the same with bobcats and 

some mountain lions. “We used to see so many deer, 

now many elk. We need the smaller animals back,” 

said the rancher.

Others continued the discussion, recalling the 

prevalence of wild horses, turkey, and deer. They said 

that elk were not there at that time and mentioned 

problems that are attributed to the elk. Many observed 

that elk are damaging their private alfalfa fields and 

fences. They lie in the fields, bed down, and urinate 

on the hay. They do a lot of damage in spring and 

summer.

Informants stated that every year, the Forest Service 

says the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

is trying to lower the numbers of elk, but that does not 

seem to be the case; ranchers said they aren’t seeing the 

numbers going down.

Federal Land and Allotment 

Management

As we discussed changes to land, vegetation, and 

wildlife with our interviewees, we asked them to 

also describe their experiences working with the 

Government (FS or BLM) on these lands (discussion 

topic 4), suggest improvements for Forest Service land 

and allotment management (question 34), and make 

recommendations for preparing Forest Service personnel to work in northern New Mexico (discussion 

topic 5).

Working with Federal Agencies

When we asked the ranchers in the current study 

to discuss their views on working with the Federal 

Government, topics from our conversations with permittees in the pilot study resurfaced (discussion topic 

4). Many with whom we spoke said they believe they 

have good or improving relations with Forest Service 

personnel. One rancher commented that relations have 

improved some, adding that when he was young, the 

agency was a dictatorship. Others stated that Forest 

Service employees are cooperative, pleasant to work 

with, and helpful. Several said they have good discussions with Forest Service staff that conduct themselves 

in a professional manner and have been out to inspect 

the allotments and ride with the ranchers. The Forest 

Service is seen as having its hands tied in many situations, with pressure from outsiders and special-interest 

groups. A couple of permittees indicated good, cooperative relations with local employees but problems 

with the “higher ups.” Around 50 people, a little over 

20 percent of respondents, described no problems with 

the Forest Service.

The majority, however, provided suggestions to 

improve problems they are having with the agency or 

discussed frustrations that seem to have no immediate 

solution. During these discussions, it became clear that 

good working relationships are often dependent upon 

personal and professional qualities of the rangers, 

range conservationists, and permittees. Both “good and 

bad” rangers and other staff were mentioned. Preferred 

agency personnel are those who have experience with 

livestock and the “common sense” not to slavishly 

follow the book. Rangers who only value formal education and ignore the value of the ranchers’ lifetimes of 

experience are viewed negatively by the ranchers and 

with suspicion. According to the permittees, a much 

more productive working relationship derives from 

mutual respect and learning. One rancher reported that 

he has learned from the Forest Service employees and 

they have learned from him, combining the benefits of 

formal education and years of experience on the land.

“This is how it will be done!”

One permittee said that the Forest Service needs to 

give more credit to locals and respect their knowledge. 

Another stated, “Ask us, we have lived it; give us a 

chance; we know the land.”

Respecting on-the-ground knowledge includes 

valuing the special knowledge of place that people 

whose families have lived in the area for generations 

possess. Common comments we heard sum up the 

notion that the Forest Service should get more local 

people involved—in range management, in sharing their knowledge, and in working for the Forest 

Service at higher levels. An interviewee told us that 

rangers come in and say “This is how it will be done” 

instead of asking ranchers how they have been doing the work. Ranchers feel that agency personnel 

err because many do not know the local customs and 

culture, and the backgrounds and education of many 

higher level staff do not seem to fit the area or the job. 

Permittees feel there is too much direction coming 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 43

from these upper-level personnel who are not familiar 

with conditions on the ground. “It seems that rangers 

are transferred just when they figure things out,” said 

a rancher.

“To Forest Service staff, it’s a job; to the ranchers, 

it’s their life.”

Constant transfer and reassignment of Forest Service 

personnel elicited complaints from many with whom 

we spoke in both the pilot study and this study. In fact, 

even those with positive opinions of the agency voiced 

this complaint. As one person discussed, some Forest 

Service employees are good, some are bad, but most 

are there for the job. Permittees are there generation after generation. The rancher is not going anywhere; the 

agency employee will move on. “It takes a long time 

to break in new folks,” a rancher said. The permittees 

said they respect agency staff that may come from elsewhere but stay long enough to get to know people and 

make the effort to participate in the local community. A 

few also mentioned the serious problem that new employees may not honor the commitments made by their 

predecessors to the ranchers.

Another issue of real concern to the ranchers we 

interviewed is the diminishing amount of time that 

Forest Service personnel are able to spend in the field 

examining the condition of the range, riding with 

the permittees, and/or checking on trespass cattle. 

According to comments we received, popular opinion 

is that Forest Service employees are too hung up on 

paperwork and are never out on the land. One man described that staff used to meet permittees in the field, 

but now they hardly get out of the office. Telling people 

in the field what to do from behind a desk and a computer is a big complaint from the ranchers. One man 

told us that the Forest Service never sees the people on 

the ground. He said, “We know if springs are drying 

up, if grass is shorter. We know what’s going on.” He 

continued that he might not see a Forest Service person 

in the field for a month, while he is there five days a 

week.

“[They] want us off, won’t push us off, want to 

harass us off.”

One critic suggested that the quote given above 

should be the Forest Service motto. Others said they 

also believe that the Forest Service is trying to get the 

permittees out. A respondent commented that ranchers have to do things now that they never had to do 

before. One said that when he complained about a 

boundary fence problem, the Forest Service threatened him with “action” on his permit.

Some of those with whom we spoke said they feel 

strongly that too much attention is paid to environmental groups, while much less is focused on the 

concerns of local rural communities. “Agency people 

need to be out on the range, not pushing paper and 

dotting ‘i’s for the environmentalists.” This attitude is 

summed up by the view that the Forest Service pays 

more attention to the Forest Guardians, a Southwestern 

environmental group, or to one individual complaint 

than to the 30 families who are worrying how they 

will make it this year. Permittees also are of the opinion that there have been many changes in forest and 

range management to keep the environmentalists 

happy. If the environmentalists make a complaint, everything comes to a halt. Views on environmentalists 

and environmentalism are discussed in greater detail 

in a following section (discussion topic 7).

There are respondents who feel that the Forest 

Service does not act responsibly, especially when it 

comes to honoring commitments to permittees. A few 

comments along this line of thought are given below. 

The agency promises too much and does nothing, ignoring complaints from the ranchers (for example, 

concerning trespass cattle or competition from elk) 

to avoid becoming involved or getting into trouble. 

There are a few who made stronger comments, calling the Forest Service “a bunch of crooks” who are 

only concerned about making their paycheck. The 

comment was made that the Forest Service does 

not pay attention to the permittees. Ranchers cannot 

make the Forest Service understand what is needed, 

one said. According to another comment, trees are encroaching into meadows, but the trees cannot be cut 

because of spotted owl habitat, although no owls have 

been seen in the area by respondents. The trees were 

overgrown and burned; now, there are no trees for 

any owls, a rancher said. Permittees complained that 

Government-mandated delays on when they can take 

animals into the allotments cause problems, especially in areas where there is competition from large 

numbers of elk.

“There’s a lot of knowledge out there.”

Our interviews have shown that the permittee 

ranchers of northern New Mexico seek greater participation in the Forest Service decision-making process 

and the opportunity to use and share their knowledge. 

They desire to be valued equally with some user 

groups and above others (e.g., outsiders and environmentalists) on the basis of their heritage of long 

tenure on the land and prior ownership under Spanish 

and Mexican land grants. The majority of men and 
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

women we interviewed during our studies said they 

do not view Forest Service employees as “crooks,” 

but as partners with whom they desire a cooperative, 

respectful relationship. Their comments demonstrated that they have a storehouse of knowledge from 

generations spent on the land to share with agency 

professionals. They seek respect for their knowledge 

and the opportunity to share it.

Recommended Allotment Improvements

The question, “What are the top three improvements you wish to see on your Federal grazing 

allotment?” elicited a variety of responses, with some 

very strong common threads (question 34; tables 

91-93; Appendix C). To analyze responses to this 

question, we made three separate lists comprised of 

all the first, second, and third choices. Not surprisingly, in an arid area, maintaining, improving, and 

developing waters was the top choice on both the 

first and second improvement lists, and was one of 

the second/third choices on the third list. Maintaining 

and improving fences (especially boundary fences) 

was the second choice on lists one and two and the 

first choice on list three. Conducting prescribed burns 

and thinning ranked third on the first and second lists, 

but did not make the top three on the third list. Three 

improvements tied for second/third places with the 

same ranking on list three: maintaining, improving, 

and developing waters; improving Forest Service law 

enforcement; and reducing the elk population. The 

importance of waters, fencing, and thinning/burning 

is corroborated by identical positions on both the first 

and second choice lists.

Permittees also commented on recommended 

improvements that individual permittees cannot accomplish on their own. Many would like to make 

allotment improvements but feel they are prevented 

from doing so by Government rules and regulations. 

One described the need to thin out trees so the meadows aren’t choked but said he feels his hands are tied. 

He commented that the old-timers always had an axe, 

cleaned trails, and removed encroaching trees. We 

heard a considerable number of recommendations 

that the Forest Service thin trees on the allotments and 

on the forest, in general, to control tree encroachment 

and outbreaks of disease. Other suggestions included 

restricting recreational all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use 

and closing unused logging roads to stem erosion 

and environmental damage because cars and ATVs 

are much more damaging than cattle, in the ranchers’ view. There were also a number of comments that 

the Forest Service should work together with the New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish to control elk 

populations, which are a problem in some allotments.

We then asked, “If the desired improvements are 

not being implemented by the agency, why not?” 

Respondents were allowed to provide up to five reasons (question 34a; table 94; Appendix C). The top 

four suggested reasons are the following: (1) lack of 

agency funding (51.7 percent); (2) the Forest Service 

does not take responsibility for decisions and improvements, is not willing to help, is uncooperative, 

staff remains in the office versus out in the field, “ask 

and ask” but nothing happens (45.4 percent); (3) elk 

and people tear up improvements, people cut fences 

and leave gates open (26.4 percent); and (4) problems 

with clearances to conduct work, red tape, and communications (24.1 percent). Additional comments 

were: not enough staff, insufficient law enforcement, 

and a lack of time (16.7 percent); outside influences 

from environmental groups objecting to projects (12.1 

percent), and interagency conflict primarily between 

the Forest Service and the New Mexico Department 

of Game and Fish (7.5 percent).

This information indicates that the ranchers who 

participated in our study understand that there are 

insufficient monies for the agency to undertake all 

the desired improvements and that there are pressures from outside groups, clearances, and red tape 

that can and do impede progress on desired projects. 

However, the permittee views on Forest Service inaction also provide insight into major problems of trust 

and respect between the permittees and the agency 

and its staff. Comments concerning the unwillingness 

and uncooperativeness of Forest Service employees 

indicate a level of dissatisfaction with the agency that 

merits strong consideration. In an effort to gather information to assist managers in improving relations 

between the ranchers and the agency staff, we asked 

the participants in our study what qualities they would 

like to see in land managers working in the area that 

might remediate some of their concerns.

Recommendations for Working in Northern 

New Mexico

Working with Government agencies on former land 

grant lands or on lands that were formerly unfenced 

and open for local use is a source of resentment and 

frustration for a number of the grazing permittees. 

Perceived behaviors, attitudes, and inexperience on 

the part of agency employees are apparently at the 

root of many of these frustrations. As we conducted 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 45

our pilot study, we heard various suggestions for improving training for Forest Service personnel working 

in northern New Mexico that might ease the situation. 

Thus, we included a specific question on the topic 

(discussion topic 5) for this study.

Several common themes emerged during our discussions. In fact, those we interviewed had a set 

of very similar recommendations across the two 

National Forests. These recommendations reflect 

the genuine concern and frustration many feel when 

working with the agency. According to the permittees, 

working relationships with district rangers and range 

conservationists could be much improved with the addition of university programs focusing on rangeland 

field internships and on improving understanding of 

Hispanic culture and the rural way of life, in general. 

The ranchers also repeatedly stressed the importance 

of rangers and staff participating in the many, varied 

aspects of rural community life.

“Come spend a summer with me.”

The number one suggestion was to develop programs that would allow university range students to 

spend time living and working with a ranch family 

on the land. Recommended time periods varied from 

a summer, to six months, to a year—but all were definitely more than a few field trips. There were many 

invitations to “come spend a summer with me” and 

get a taste of what it is really like. The son of one 

permittee suggested that trainees should spend a week 

with his dad in the mountains to learn about the area 

and the way people live. “They want to do the work 

by the book, and that does not go in a country like 

this,” he said. He continued by saying that the ranchers live a simple life but still have what they need and 

can do it by themselves; they don’t need to depend on 

the Government; and the way they handle their cattle 

in the Forest is better than the Forest Service way because local ranchers know the country. That is good 

for the Forest Service and the permittees.

Interviewee suggestions included: “an apprenticeship with permittees for the summer, working 

on projects, such as fences and cattle guards...live 

in the community and help.” Range students could 

work with both the Forest Service and with ranchers 

on allotments...being in the field, hands-on, working 

with the public. “Before [Forest Service employees] 

tell you how to do it, they should have two to three 

years of on-the-ground experience...get their hands 

dirty; a lot of people need that.” Forest Service employees “need hands-on experience. Let them breathe 

the same air you’re breathing. They’re learning a lot 

from books, but it must be applied.” There was also a 

suggestion for universities to have ranchers come in 

and give a six-week seminar for the range students. 

For the ranchers we interviewed, a college education 

is just a starting place. “It’s good to go to school, but 

nothing beats experience,” one said.

“Get to know the community...”

Many of the ranchers feel that rural agricultural 

values, traditions, and ways of life are not well understood by outsiders. Increasingly, agency personnel 

are considered to be outsiders by the northern New 

Mexico communities, as the days of range conservationists with local rural backgrounds give way 

to professionally trained outsiders. This view was 

summed up by one of the permittees from the Jemez 

district: “There should be more involvement with the 

ranching community! Work with the communities; 

do not force them.” Many ranchers said they feel that 

newer people do not understand livestock or rural 

communities. They recommended sending students 

and new Forest Service employees out to mingle with 

the people and ride with the ranchers, especially with 

the long-time ranchers.

The interviewees also made the following suggestions. Become part of the community; live in the 

community; learn what is going on. Get out there 

and interact more with the people. Spend time with 

the permittees on the allotments. Students attending 

college need to know how the people interact, how 

people in the community work together, like a team... 

how they value and protect the animals... know how 

important this lifestyle is. Go to livestock auctions 

where people meet; talk to people; introduce yourself; 

and find out the interests of the older people. New employees should go out and live in the community for 

a summer as a student and not as an employee of the 

Forest Service. Learn how to understand the people—

how and why they do things. Consider where to live 

for involvement with the community, to understand 

their ways and culture. Get involved and listen to 

what the people have to say...so there will be no fear 

or resentment. When you want to make a difference, 

go about it in a slow way.

“Talk with the older people...”

“Talk with the older people in the area and use 

their years of experience that time has given them; 

[do] not take everything from a book that doesn’t always apply to this particular area,” said one rancher. 

Forest Service people need to talk with “old-timers” 

and see how ranches have been run before the Forest 
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Service mandates changes. Again and again, we heard 

the importance of listening to the elders in order to 

learn from the experience and wisdom that they have 

gained over the years. “Look around, ask questions of 

older people. Send students out with somebody who 

knows the cattle business,” said a respondent.

“Local people have a way of seeing the grass 

versus measuring it.”

Additional views and concerns focus on how 

newcomers to the agency could learn to work better with local people. Many told us that newcomers 

should learn from Forest Service employees who are 

already there working and from the ranchers on the 

allotments who have been there for years. According 

to interviewees, to help the communities, the agency 

should be more sensitive to the needs of ranchers, for 

example by bringing in more assistance programs for 

drought conditions. An often-repeated complaint was 

that the Forest Service does not hear what the people 

are saying. The Forest Service does not listen. By implication, the Forest Service needs to participate more 

in community life, listening to what people are saying and paying attention to their needs and concerns, 

responding with positive actions.

We heard that Forest Service Range Conservationists 

and other staff should work to understand the livestock business. Interviewees said they think that 

agency personnel should consider how local people 

are paying their bills. Grazing “systems” need to be 

flexible in northern New Mexico; drought is a way of 

life. Forest Service people need to understand how 

decisions the agency makes affect communities economically. Smaller ranching operations are prevalent 

in the region; these people need to be considered. A 

permittee told of going to a meeting where someone 

said that if small ranching operations were gone, it 

wouldn’t make a difference. According to him, people who say that are only looking at the number of 

calves sold, not at what would happen to the people. 

Permittees feel that Forest Service personnel need to 

understand the importance of small cattle herds. Five 

cows can be important to a family. Sometimes agency 

personnel seem to think they know everything from 

school. “They could listen to us to learn from local 

ranchers.” “We could learn from each other and share 

knowledge.” Understand “that working together 

makes it easier for everyone, both the Government 

and the permittee....”

“Learn our culture, our way of life.”

In addition to knowledge of agriculture and ranching in general, interviewees recommended university 

courses in Hispanic culture and history and in the 

Spanish language. However, one rancher commented: “I would say, as far as possible that they’d be 

persons or staff who come from a background experience of working the land and livestock... Then 

it wouldn’t matter so much if they spoke Spanish or 

not, if they knew the culture...” There is indeed the 

strong sentiment that many outside the region do not 

understand the importance of Hispanic culture and 

heritage to the northern communities and families. 

Issues such as land grant loss retain their primacy as 

community concerns, especially as they affect land 

available for pasture and other resources like fuel 

wood. Understanding the importance of livestock and 

ranching to maintenance of Hispanic cultural heritage 

is critical.

The following comments present the concerns of 

the permittees that Hispanic culture and tradition be 

respected and that loss of resources from the land 

grants be mitigated or at least considered. “Educate 

employees [on] multi-cultural issues, socio-economic 

aspects, and traditional uses of public domain land 

historically used by ancestors.” Prepare them for 

Spanish heritage and tradition. There is a lot of literature they could read to help them learn to understand 

and interact with the people in the community. They 

should read the Northern New Mexico Policy (Hurst 

1972) and some information on land grants. Force is 

not the way to handle land grant issues. Have plenty 

of patience in dealing with the people here. Try to be 

more cordial, not so forthright, and be less forceful. 

Northern New Mexico is very unique, a different way 

of life. The agency and the permittees need to work 

together in every situation. Don’t apply rules from 

outside. As one rancher added, agency employees 

should be prepared to know about the culture wherever they are going, not just northern New Mexico.

“Learn from local experience; listen to local 

people.”

Some permittees said they feel that rangers and 

range conservationists in the past understood livestock better and were more supportive of the ranching 

culture. People remembered that in the old days, they 

could use wood and grazing without charge. These 

were their rights before the Forest Service was established, back when there were the Mercedes (land 

grants). The local people said they believe they should 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 47

still have those rights. Many said they feel that people 

who work for the Forest Service don’t realize the history. Another rancher added that Rio Arriba and Taos 

Counties, partial locations of the SFNF and CNF, 

have relatively small percentages of private land, 

which mostly has resulted from earlier land grant 

losses. The percentage of Federal and Indian land in 

Rio Arriba County is 69 percent and is 56 percent in 

Taos County (Eastman and others 2000). Thus, there 

is a tremendous impact on small private land holdings 

if the Forest Service holds back on allowing animals 

to go into the allotments for even one or two weeks. 

The permittees are maintaining the animals on their 

private agricultural lands in winter that need to “get 

going” (for planting) in the spring. Agricultural land 

is so expensive that ranchers cannot buy it; so this is 

not a viable option.

To assist in addressing this issue of cultural and 

historical understanding and sensitivity, the Northern 

New Mexico Stockmen’s Association (NNMSA) has 

met with the Forest Service staffs at both the Regional 

Office and at the Supervisor’s Offices of both the Santa 

Fe and Carson National Forests. The Stockmen’s 

Association has also met with the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and is making progress in talks 

with the agencies. The NNMSA wishes to encourage 

local high school students to prepare themselves to 

pursue Government jobs in resource management as 

they become available. NNMSA also wishes to encourage the agencies to provide cultural sensibility 

training to outsiders who come into the area to work. 

NNMSA has requested the NM Extension Service to 

undertake this task, as there is a prepared curriculum 

for this type of training.

Many we spoke with encourage the agency to hire 

local people who know the custom and culture, the 

land, and the animals. People who understand and are 

willing to listen to the concerns of their neighbors are 

ideal candidates to work in the area. Some ranchers 

even expressed that only locals should be hired. Most, 

however, would like to work with Forest Service staff 

that are experienced with livestock and ranching in 

the area and are sensitive to the cultural traditions 

and concerns of the smaller ranch owners. Of equal 

importance is the commonly heard desire that once 

the Forest Service has trained, experienced people in 

place that they be allowed to stay and work in the 

area and be rewarded for their loyalty to their chosen 

place of work. The perceived Forest Service pattern 

of requiring employees to move to gain promotions 

hinders their developing solid and effective working 

relationships with the local ranchers.

The Environment and 

Environmentalists

Views of the Permittees

“I thought I was an environmentalist until 

environmentalists came along and told me I 

wasn’t.”

The permittees said they are deeply troubled by relations between the Forest Service and environmental 

groups and the effect this relationship may have on 

the future of ranching in the area. The environmental 

movement and environmentalists were also presented 

by ranchers as major concerns when we asked them 

about threats to their livestock operations during the pilot study. These concerns remain and were discussed in 

detail during interviews for the current study (discussion topic 7). Most we spoke with said they consider 

themselves to be environmentalists and resent criticism and pressure from “outsiders” whom they feel do 

not understand the local people, the rural way of life, 

livestock, or where food comes from. Although various interviewees said they believe that environmental 

groups do “some good [and] some bad,” interviewees 

are also of the opinion that these groups have too much 

money, too much power, and too much influence on the 

Forest Service. One of the most commonly heard comments focused on the importance of balance in life and 

nature and on the view that many of the environmentalists who cause problems are radicals or extremists.

“They are trying to touch the land; I live the 

land.”

A picture of those extreme environmentalists emerges from comments made during the interviews. The 

perceived extremists are characterized as people (mainly outsiders) with money, power, “book learning,” a 

lack of common sense, and little experience on the land 

with too much time on their hands. Interviewees told 

us that environmentalists come in wanting to change 

the way permittees ranch, conduct their lives, and 

access forest resources. Environmentalists want livestock off the land and are seen as trying to take away 

the life of the ranchers. In response to our question, 

“what thoughts come to mind when you hear the words 

environment or environmentalist...?” one permittee 

responded “...I’m not going to be able to put my cows 

on the Forest.” Another explained that he had nothing 

in common with the environmental movement, “They 

are trying to touch the land; I live the land.”
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

“Farmers and ranchers are the best 

environmentalists.”

One rancher discussed environmentalists in the following way: Some of their concerns are justified, but 

the environmentalists should be realistic; they “portray 

an idealistic environment rather than a working environment with respect to lifestyles.” He continued that 

environmentalists want to preserve one species at the 

cost of doing away with the culture and lifestyle of the 

people. On the other hand, there are old-time ranchers 

who want to run their fully authorized numbers, even if 

the land cannot handle it in certain years. He noted that 

some kind of “medium” has to be reached on both sides.

“We, as permittees, are environmentally concerned, 

but not like the extreme environmentalists who want 

it like pre-European times...” “Agriculturalists are 

the first and best environmentalists. Too much of the 

current environmental movement is concentrating on 

preservation. Leave it just the way we think it might 

have once been, rather than for the use and benefit of 

mankind.” Another said that environmentalists go too 

far; they don’t have facts, just their agenda. “I feel that 

I have the same goals as true environmentalists but am 

in opposition to radical environmentalists with hidden agendas.” In summing up, a permittee stated that 

he had an environmentalist attitude to begin with, adding “we wouldn’t have what we have now without it,” 

but reiterating his opposition to extremists and radical 

environmentalists.

“Our land is our pride. We won’t do anything to 

jeopardize it.”

Many of the permittees stated that although they 

may have views in common with the environmentalists 

concerning protecting the land, ranchers are the biggest 

protectors of the land; they have proven themselves for 

decades and centuries. Those we spoke with said they 

feel that many people may complain about farmers and 

ranchers but are not out there doing anything to improve the land. There is a prominent feeling that people 

in the livestock business are the best environmentalists 

there are because it is their livelihood and their way of 

life; they do not want to destroy the land. According to 

them, ranchers and farmers love the land and want to 

take care of it. On the same theme, a permittee told us 

“we don’t want to beat up the land and abuse it...[the 

forest] was here before I came and will be here when 

I’m gone.” Ranchers are not going to do something to 

the land that will hinder their production. They want 

it in as good condition, if not better, for their children, 

respondents said.

“Environmentalists don’t have an understanding 

of what happens here.”

The permittees commented that the environmentalists have money and time; they don’t ask questions 

of the people from here; they don’t see the people 

of the land. To one rancher, environmentalists represent bureaucracy and lawsuits filed without really 

knowing local people and the local economy. The 

frivolous lawsuits hurt families and kill communities. 

According to another rancher, environmentalists are 

trying to eliminate people’s culture, heritage, and way 

of life.

Studies on plots show we need to “mow the 

lawn” or it becomes overgrown.

The majority of ranchers we spoke with stressed 

the importance of responsible use of the land both 

for the people and the environment. Of great concern 

to them is the waste of resources that many perceive 

environmentalists espouse. One discussed this in the 

following way: Timber and grazing land are crops. 

When ripe, they should be harvested. We need to 

make lumber out of it rather than let it rot and blow 

down. Areas need to be grazed to keep the grass clean 

and growing. Cattle are “weed-eaters”; cows clean the 

forest. The interviewees said they often support timber harvest, thinning, and burning, after useful wood 

has been removed. “Don’t burn something up that can 

be used by the local communities” was a common 

theme; a lot of dry wood could be used by the people, 

said one rancher.

“Now I think environmentalists and ranchers 

can learn from each other.”

A number of permittees suggested that ranchers, 

environmentalists, and the Forest Service get together and discuss issues in an attempt to develop 

cooperation and solutions for common problems. As 

one permittee said, “at one time when you mentioned 

environmentalists, we went ballistic, but now I think 

environmentalists and ranchers can learn from each 

other. You always have something in common, a happy medium, neither right nor wrong.” A few said they 

feel that ranchers have a role to educate environmentalists concerning the ways in which agriculture and 

ranching support and improve the land. “We see more 

urban environmentalists on the land. We need to share 

our concern and educate them on the need to make a 

healthy environment,” said one interviewee. If we sit 

down with environmentalists, we can talk and educate them. An interviewee discussed educating the 

environmentalists in terms of a need for hands-on 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 49

experience, getting out in the forest and seeing how 

it should be managed. He continued that the heads 

of environmental organizations should get out on the 

land to see what it takes for ranchers to raise cattle 

and get meat to the store; environmentalists need to 

work with the ranchers, not dictate to them.

“We need to understand each other, to come to 

some agreement.”

Others who commented on this topic focused on 

mutual learning and the idea of give and take. A barricade to this shared learning, however, is a lack of 

communication and understanding between people, 

and solutions must be found. Environmentalists hear 

bad stories; ranchers hear bad stories. They need to 

sit down together. Many environmentalists have only 

heard of or seen clear cutting and corporate ranching 

as opposed to the ranches of the people in northern 

New Mexico who care for this land; locals have balance and understand that balance, one rancher said. 

Another said “environmentalists have a job to do just 

like us. We need to understand each other, to come to 

some agreement.” A rancher summed it up by saying, 

“We do have things in common. The world is changing; we need each other to keep the forests alive. 

Extremists on both sides are harmful when it comes 

to something as delicate as the forest.”

“We are the eyes and ears of the forest...”

After the ranchers discussed their views on environmentalists and the environmental movement, they 

described the many actions they take on their allotments and on their private land that benefit the land, 

vegetation, and wildlife habitat (discussion topic 8). It 

should be noted that permittee actions vary according 

to environmental and physiographic conditions, as 

well as to precipitation regimes of the locale. Forest 

Service management decisions also vary from district 

to district, affecting the management choices of the 

ranchers. Examples of these variations are requirements for use of rotational grazing systems, extent of 

fencing (boundary alone versus cross fencing), and 

need for a range rider as herder.

Interviewees mentioned strong feelings concerning abuses they see daily on their Forest allotments, 

especially trash dumping and damage resulting from 

unregulated use. In general, the ranchers said they 

favor proactive land management treatments such as 

brush and erosion control, thinning, and prescribed 

burning after useable wood has been removed. They 

have serious concerns over unrestricted recreation 

and irresponsible ATV use, which they said they feel 

harms the land. The ways in which the ranchers improve the lands of their allotments are the focus of the 

following discussion.

A large number of respondents mentioned the 

importance of the monitoring work they do on their 

allotments, not only in terms of monitoring range 

condition and keeping the forest clean of litter and 

trash, but also in terms of being an active and observant presence in the Forest by reporting people and 

activities that may be prohibited or illegal, such as 

unauthorized taking of wildlife and off-road vehicle 

use. They refer to themselves as the “eyes and ears” 

of the Forest, especially valuable in times of declining Forest Service staff and insufficient funding for 

law enforcement.

When asked how they work to benefit the ecosystem, the participants discussed a wide variety of 

beneficial efforts with a focus on the following: rotating the animals, removing animals during periods of 

drought, keeping animals out of riparian areas, providing waters, and maintaining water developments. 

The benefits these practices have for wildlife are an 

important source of pride for the ranchers.

“We only want the land to do what it can; don’t 

overgraze.”

Moving the cattle, rotating them from pasture to 

pasture, and not allowing overgrazing in pastures 

were discussed by almost 49 percent (116 or 48.7 percent) of the permittees as means they use to maintain 

the health of the land. Although there are differences 

of opinion concerning techniques, most agree on the 

importance of some form of animal movement. Some 

comments on the topic were: Move cattle to prevent 

overgrazing or move them to better water. Don’t allow grounds to be overused; move and rotate the cows 

to prevent overgrazing. “Make a yearly schedule to 

rotate grazing cows....”

“How do we care for what we’ve got? We have 

hearts.”

One permittee said it is very important “not to 

overgraze in any way, to withhold cattle in dry times.” 

Another added that improved waters, improved laydown fencing, and rotational grazing are beneficial 

for the forage. And another permittee stated that he 

uses fences and cross fences and, in times of drought, 

runs no cattle on the allotment. A permittee recommended the importance of herding the animals where 

there are no fences and of keeping cattle away from 

high pressure areas so as not to overgraze. One said 

that he follows the Forest Service rules and cuts down 
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

on animals and time in the allotment if the grass is not 

up to par to preserve the vegetation for the domestic 

animals and the wildlife. As a rancher cautioned, “if 

you overgraze land it will mess it up for the future. 

You need to move stock around.”

The following description demonstrates the care 

that many ranchers in our study take.

“We are constantly rotating, leaving a 

single area in rest for the entire year, doing 

spring and water improvements every year, 

using trick tanks up high to move stock 

and watering areas away from the spring 

head. We use range baskets [an exclosure 

monitoring device] to monitor grass 

growth and use by elk, deer, and livestock. 

We monitor use by elk before permitted 

livestock go on. During the season when 

grass inside the basket is 50 percent taller 

than outside, we know we need to move the 

livestock. That saves grass for wintering 

wildlife. The wildlife also uses the salt that 

is put out.”

To sum up the discussion, a permittee said “there is 

nothing like having a pretty place to go. It makes us 

feel good when people [tourists] notice how well we 

care for the range...just by looking at it and seeing the 

cows and good land.”

“It was the permittees who suggested using 

rotation.”

Some permittees pointed out that rotational grazing 

systems and herding are not just Forest Service ideas 

but have been practiced in the region for generations, 

although agency staff and ranchers may define rotation somewhat differently. One told us that it was the 

permittees who suggested using rotation to the Forest 

Service, stating that he was instrumental in forming 

the grazing association for the allotment and thinking 

about long-term effects. On the other hand, another 

said he feels that the water systems and rotation system are benefits, but thinks ranchers move the cattle 

too much and too often in order to satisfy the agency 

paperwork. “The cows are pushed too much; you can 

see it in the calf crop,” he commented. He noted that 

BLM staff was more flexible with regulations and that 

the calf crop was always better on BLM land.

Fencing, especially fencing mandated by the Forest 

Service, can also be a source of complaint for the 

ranchers because some feel that animals are forced 

into areas that are too small or that may not be their 

desired home territories (querencias). These ranchers 

said they feel that spreading cattle out is better than 

bunching them up in one compartment for a short period of time. Some said they believe that the practice 

of intense grazing in a small area for a short period 

can lead to overgrazing, especially if elk have already 

been grazing there. In discussions of today’s fenced 

pastures, we heard that it would be better for the land 

if the cattle could just move on their own as they did 

years ago. Many support the notion of querencia, that 

cows know their preferred grazing areas and when it 

is time to move to a new area. As a permittee said, 

“We have smart cows; they want to move when they 

need fresh grass. They won’t stay where the grass is 

low.” Our study shows that many ranchers support the 

old ways of following the instincts of the animals as 

opposed to imposing agency-mandated fencing and 

grazing systems.

“Wildlife and cows belong there more than we 

do; they don’t need tents or campers.”

Taking care of the wild animals is strongly linked 

to caring for the domesticated ones, according to the 

respondents in our study. As one rancher said, deer, 

elk, rabbits, and coyotes all benefit from the waters; 

“it’s beautiful to see them.” A rancher discussed how 

he fences out water sources and keeps cows out of 

riparian areas so they are not trampled. He also said 

he puts in tanks and that the wildlife share everything 

that is done. A permittee commented, “Everything we 

do for the cows is also for the wild animals. If our 

cows have water, the wildlife have water, if salt, the 

wildlife have salt.” “If we had been abusing the land, 

we wouldn’t have the wildlife we have now,” said another rancher.

Additional comments reflecting the wildlife/salt/

water improvement connection included:

Permittees are not the only ones who benefit from 

the water tanks. If you have water, you have less destruction. Added waters distribute the wildlife as well 

as domestic animals, and the vegetation will begin to 

grow more. The same holds true regarding erosion, if 

there were enough water in all the allotments, there 

would be less travel back and forth by cattle and elk 

making trails. When we move the cattle, the wildlife 

comes in after. We don’t bother the wildlife. We clean 

the streams and springs and make sure no fires are 

started. The waters help whatever is there from cows 

to rats to coyotes to deer; it’s all part of it.

“The elk are up there having a party.”

Despite the generally positive feelings expressed by 

the participants toward wildlife, the growing numbers 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 51

of elk in the area are a problem for many ranchers on 

both allotments and private land. “We move the cows 

around so they don’t overgraze. But there’s no way to 

move the elk off,” said a rancher. Frustration with the 

situation was expressed by the following comments: 

elk are a problem; they destroy water systems and 

create wallows on the allotments. The New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish need to cull cow elk and 

manage the elk. There are too many elk, herds of 100 

at a time. Cows are on public land for five months; elk 

are there year-round and on private land, which must 

be fenced to keep them out. The 400 square miles (of 

the allotment) have about 400 cows for 3 months and 

20,000 elk for 12 months. Elk are overgrazing the land 

before the cows get out there.

There are also complaints about New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish management of the 

elk. One rancher said that he has made many sacrifices over the years to improve his allotment and has 

reduced cattle numbers during the drought to preserve 

the productivity of the land, but “Game and Fish” has 

allowed the number of elk to increase. He continued 

that he is losing interest in improving the allotment 

because it goes to the elk. Another said there is a 

“big-time” elk problem on the allotment, adding that 

permittees fight with “Game and Fish,” but only permit numbers are cut, elk numbers are not. A permittee 

described an over-abundance of elk but said there is 

nothing you can do but complain to the Forest Service 

to take complaints to the Wildlife Division (“Game 

and Fish”).

In many cases, the actions of the permittees and 

their animals make positive contributions to both 

Federal and private land, from developing waters and 

maintaining fences, to using the animals as means of 

removing old vegetation and promoting the growth of 

new grasses. “Cattle are the brooms of the forest; they 

eat old grass and make room for new grasses,” said a 

rancher. As another said, the life cycle of grasses is 

definitely aided through livestock grazing, which is 

different from wildlife grazing; they go hand in hand. 

Grazing also keeps the meadows open, cuts down on 

tree encroachment, and fertilizes the land. Several 

ranchers described how cattle keep dry plants from 

accumulating and becoming fuel for fires. The sense 

of pride the northern New Mexico ranchers feel is apparent in their discussions of land stewardship, range 

and animal management, and special efforts they undertake to benefit wildlife species. Their work on the 

forest is a valued part of their heritage and a reflection of their knowledge of the land and the wild and 

domesticated animals it supports.

Responsibility to the Land

Connection to Land Implies Commitment

“I see our relation and responsibility to the land 

as being one and the same. I am one and the 

same; I am the land. So my responsibility and 

relationship is the same as I would treat myself.”

In much the same vein as the previous section, 

ranchers we interviewed stressed their feelings of relationship and responsibility to both private land and 

Federal land (discussion topic 6). “My relationship is 

totally intertwined,” wrote one. “...my family was here 

before Forest Service was. Though I am not wealthy in 

terms of dollars, I see the ranch as of great wealth that 

should stay in the family forever. Father instilled [the] 

concept in us that ranch [and] permits are never to be 

sold.” Another explained that without a relationship to 

the land, without roots, culture, or traditional values, 

one cannot thrive here. “I’ve become part of it when 

out there,” stated another. Land is sacred to the rancher, 

we heard, and all of it should be cared for.

By this point in the interview process, participants 

had provided extensive descriptions of their relationships to the land (discussion topics 1-3). Consequently, 

their answers to this question tended to emphasize 

responsibility. Responses indicated that land should 

be respected, cared for, and preserved for the future. 

Ranchers referred to stewardship, mentioning situations to guard against such as erosion, overgrazing, tree 

encroachment, and wildfires. Many stressed the need 

to care for water sources. They spoke of using the land 

productively but also extolled the aesthetic values of 

the land. There was concern over misuse and abuse of 

lands, especially from irresponsible, recreational ATV 

traffic, trashing, and littering.

“The responsibility is a never-ending deal.”

“My responsibility is to maintain a working relationship with the land, to improve it when at all possible,” 

said an interviewee. For example, make sure the cattle 

are not overgrazing; if overgrazing, you are defeating 

yourself. Being responsible calls for taking care of the 

land, making necessary improvements, and passing 

on knowledge to one’s offspring. “Anybody that uses 

that land has a responsibility to care for it,” a rancher 

stated. “The land and people’s connection to the land 

are what makes New Mexico special.”

“Our responsibility is to be good stewards of the 

land, water, and forage resources of the private and public land,” wrote one participant. Being a good steward, 
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

we were told, involves looking at land management in 

ways to improve land over time and involves knowing 

what species of grasses are there, what the livestock 

will eat, and how and when to rotate them. It will not 

do anybody any good if public land is abused. A rancher said, “I try to be a good steward of the land, try not 

to overgraze or anything. I make my living on the land, 

so I’m concerned about it.”

“We have a responsibility to maintain our land, 

not abuse it.”

Erosion control, care of waters, fence maintenance, 

and sensible grazing practices are areas the permittees consider their responsibilities, as are the reporting 

of trespass or misconduct to the agency or a lost or 

deceased animal to its owner. Picking up trash, after themselves and others, was frequently mentioned. 

Ranchers’ comments about keeping the land “clean” 

have a variety of meanings from a concern over tree 

and noxious weed encroachment and a need for thinning to a concern over land being trashed with litter and 

garbage. One rancher said he feels responsible to keep 

the land clear, raise something worthwhile, not let it go 

to weeds (e.g., Siberian Elms), improve water and irrigation practices, and know what grasses do best on the 

soil. Other comments referred to keeping waters clean 

for animals and humans and avoidance of harmful practices that might have a great impact in years to come.

“You can’t overgraze it and expect your cows to 

be fat.”

Not surprisingly, there were many comments regarding grazing management. Examples of these are 

as follow: If there is no grass and no rain, it is your 

responsibility to cut down on numbers of cows; you do 

not want an animal to starve. Most important is not to 

overgraze, not to do things in a way that will damage 

the land. Rotate cows to avoid overuse, give vegetation time for recovery, and be careful when moving 

animals not to cause erosion. “It’s my responsibility to 

the land to know why we’re moving the animals,” said 

a rancher.

“We have a responsibility to take care of land so it 

will produce,” said a rancher. “If you want your animals to do well, you must take care of the land. We 

move animals ahead of being told to do so,” said another. Respondents expressed a willingness to cut 

numbers when needed, indicating that those with 

whom we spoke only want the land to do what it can. 

The land must be cared for to have grass next year. “We 

don’t want it to be over-used so it is no longer a benefit 

to anyone.”

“Respect what is yours and also what belongs to 

others.”

Land is respected, private or public. One person 

wrote that ranchers “hold a deep respect for the land 

and nature’s ability to renew itself from drought and 

fire. We work hard to preserve the grasses from overgrazing and to keep open areas free from encroaching 

scrub and cedar. Public lands should be open to public 

access and use, but should be monitored.” Another said 

he has the same respect when working both public and 

private land, doing things the same way with an interest in both. “One has to respect the land, take care of 

it,” a rancher told us.

“Care for the land; show it has values; it shows you 

are serious.” Eroded and rundown land is of no use 

to the cattle. Ranchers say they are using the land for 

producing food, something many recreationists do not 

understand. “We are caretakers of the land. We pick up 

after the hikers. We take pride in it. It is not an investment to make money on; it is a life-long commitment.”

 “I feel better on my land.”

Over 50% of the participants we interviewed responded that they feel the same about both public and 

private land or do not consciously distinguish between 

the two. Others commented that there is a difference 

between the two and explained that perspective from a 

practical standpoint. There is an obvious interpretation 

to the question of responsibility to land that public land 

belongs to the Government (hence the general public), 

while private land belongs to the individual. “On your 

own land, you feel secure; you feel more at ease,” said 

a rancher.

The responsibility is the same, but the ability to 

manage it is different. “On private land, we have control,” stated a rancher. “On public land, we have no 

control over recreation, environmentalists, or regulations. Management capacity is diminished.” Another 

rancher told us that he feels differently about private 

land because it is his. He can’t stop people from going 

on the public land, but he can stop people from coming 

onto his own land; therefore, he can take better care of 

it. To another, there is a difference because there are restrictions on public land; therefore, “you can’t put your 

whole heart into it and do what’s needed.”

“Treat it as my own.”

The other interpretation is more abstract; responsibility is due because land matters in spite of ownership. 

“To me it’s our land and we must take even better care 

of our public land than private because of the many 

owners. Work with nature. Let fire burn if it’s not 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 53

hurting people or animals. Fire is part of nature, part of 

God’s design.” A rancher said that he cares for public 

lands as though they were his own and has money invested in both. Be responsible; “if you don’t have land, 

you have nothing.”

“All of our family uses Government property as if 

it were our own. You won’t see trash or ATV tracks or 

beer cans or plastic bags in trees on our land. We don’t 

even camp.” Even on private land, this family does everything on horseback. A rancher expressed the hope 

to always be able “to use these lands appropriately and 

keep inappropriate things at bay.... Why would you 

want to take care of private land better than your public 

land?” He feels it is a special privilege to be able to use 

the public lands. Another respondent commented that 

work cannot be done only on private land, coordination 

is necessary between both. “It’s a big responsibility.... 

We take care of the land the same way as [we take care 

of] our kids. And we teach our kids to do it. It’s like it’s 

ours,” was a final comment.

“I want to leave it better than when I got it.”

Another aspect of responsibility, we were told, is to 

leave the land better than you found it. “I’m a caretaker. Hopefully I’ll leave it in better shape.” This was 

a common goal expressed by the ranchers. “I try to 

maintain the land and try to leave the land as natural as 

possible”...not adding excess structures and not trashing it. Pack it in; pack it out. Leave the public land the 

way you found it, or improve it; that benefits both the 

land and the cattle. This was described as a moral and 

ethical responsibility.

“When you empty a can, you put it back in your 

saddle bag.”

Don’t abuse, overgraze, litter, or trash the land. “I 

take my responsibility very seriously. I don’t abuse or 

litter. I don’t appreciate others doing it.” Trash pollution is seen as a great problem. We were told that 

ranchers don’t dump trash and that litter, such as broken beer bottles, endangers cattle. “Why would we 

want to destroy it? We must take care of it, or [we] 

won’t have anything.” Another said he treats public 

land as if it were his own and hates to see somebody 

tear it up. In his observation, ATVs, four-wheel drive 

vehicles, and camp fires do more damage in a weekend than cows do all summer. According to him, 

people are destructive, which causes many changes.

“This is my home land!”

“I feel very responsible for the mountains.... I have 

great love for the mountains. I spent a lot of time there 

as a child growing up.” A rancher said he believes 

he is more responsible and has a better relationship 

to the land than any Government official. “We like 

it because it’s ours, not because we’re paid to like it, 

because we grew up here and made our life here and 

were born and raised here.” Another told us, “I love 

the land. It has given me everything that I am. It’s a 

lot of work, but I have a lot of good feelings toward 

that land.”

“Preserve it for younger generations....”

We heard land referred to as “an inheritance for all 

of us.” A rancher told us that his main responsibility 

is to protect land for the future so that tradition and 

the rural way of life may continue to flourish. “It’s 

beautiful to see the land. We appreciate the land we 

have and keep it suitable for generations to come.” An 

interviewee said, “It’s not just about making money 

this year; it’s something our kids and great grandkids 

could have.”

Land, Livestock, and the 

Rural Ranching Culture

The Land and Animals

Feelings about land, livestock and their role in 

maintaining rural ranching traditions and culture 

were discussed with enthusiasm and eloquence (discussion topic 1; Appendix D). Attachment to place 

and affection for the animals were recurrent themes. 

Ranchers spoke of having a “connection with the 

land,” “a connection to the past,” and “a connection 

to that place.” They referred to being “tied to the land 

and livestock.” They frequently speak of the animals 

(a word more often used than the term livestock) as 

part of the family, as beings to be treated with admiration and respect.

Caring for the land and animals gives the ranchers 

a reason for being, work they enjoy doing, and satisfaction at the end of the day. They expressed a sense 

of privilege to be the ones living in that place. There 

is contentment, a “sense of belonging” to a place 

where they know how to live and who they are. It is 

part of their identity; way of life; history; and past, 

present, and future.

The role of land and animals is intertwined with 

tradition, culture, family, community, faith, and 

closeness to nature. A necessary symbiotic relationship develops between rancher, land, and animals. 
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

The following are quotes and excerpts from the interview discussions on the role and importance of land 

and animals to the lives of these ranch families.

“I like to wake up in the morning and see the 

cows and go work on the land.”

Land and livestock are an integral part of ranch life. 

They give a rancher meaning and purpose, providing 

social, spiritual, and economic instruction and a feeling of satisfaction in his daily work. As one expressed 

it, “Other than family, they are the most important 

thing we’ve got. We don’t really own the land; we’re 

just shepherds of it and of the animals.”

Land and livestock are basic to rural life. If that 

disappears, the rural atmosphere would erode and disappear. “We have a tie to the land, more of a cultural 

thing,” stated a rancher. “Most Hispanic ranchers feel 

the same way...[it’s] sacred. Land is not a commodity 

that you buy and sell but pass on to the children. [It’s] 

the same with animals. [We] keep a group of animals, 

buy bulls, and use our own replacement heifers, so [we] 

have lines of cattle that go back about forty years.”

“You have to have a feeling for the land to be a 

rancher.”

“The more you work the land, the more you get to 

love the land. It’s true; if you don’t have love for it, 

you won’t work it.” “We don’t own the land, it owns 

us. The land will remain while humans come and go; 

to sustain future generations, be careful what you do 

today!” “Sometimes I look at myself and feel sorry for 

others who didn’t have the river, the mountains, the 

feeling of being free.” “The feeling of being out here 

is a feeling you can’t really describe.” Even if every 

material thing was taken away, you’d still have a life 

because of the land. “Everybody knows we have cattle; 

it gives a certain amount of respect...people look at 

you in a different way.”

“You learn a lot from the animals...”

One person spoke of watching a mama cow taking care of a baby calf in the snow. “It’s peaceful 

with the animals; they depend on you to a certain 

amount.” “They make you more compassionate....” 

It is “very pleasant to be up with the animals,” stated 

a rancher who wishes he had more time to be with 

them. Animals are a lot of hard work. If you don’t like 

them, you are in the wrong business. “We all love our 

cattle and horses.... They come right after my family.” Some say they have bonded with the animals and 

know them by name. “I like my cattle. I talk to my 

cows. They become pets because I have names for 

them all. They get to know you. There is a feeling of 

satisfaction.”

“I worry about the cattle a lot. If I forgot to feed an 

animal, I get up in the middle of the night to feed them. 

They are like family.” Another says he worries about 

the welfare of the cows; do they have enough water 

and food. He enjoys the livestock business. It’s something not everybody gets to do, which makes it more 

interesting. “If you grow up with animals, then you 

learn to care for them; you feel you are part animal.” 

“I’m relaxed when I’m out there with the cows.” “A 

place without animals...is not a very pleasant place 

to live,” commented a rancher’s wife. When she goes 

somewhere with no animals, she feels “so lonely.” In 

another rancher’s words, “What would the place be 

without the animals and tradition and culture?”

“It keeps the family together.”

“Traditional branding brings family and friends together. Butchering of livestock is a custom held in our 

household for years, plowing, planting, and harvesting crops...helped keep our family united.” Ranching 

is the center of their lives. “All of us do farming and 

ranching together...as a family.” There is a sense of 

family and camaraderie from going up to the allotment. Extended family comes back to help. That was 

a blessing, the time together.” “It’s a big part of our 

culture and traditions; without land and livestock our 

way of life would die.” It is “important to keeping the 

communities alive because there are not many jobs in 

this area.” It is “important for the ranch to remain in 

the family.”

“It’s a connection to the past.”

“We come from a rich and glorious past. Although 

people no longer have big herds or hundreds of acres, 

they still hold a part of their heritage.” A rancher explained that he thinks of himself as going back in 

time, maintaining values, and keeping old-fashioned 

ways alive. “By farming and ranching, you keep that 

connection.” The land and livestock have been in 

these families for generations; it’s a way of living in 

northern New Mexico. It brings the memories back 

of growing up, how things were at that time, and how 

things have changed. It is a tradition of what one’s 

father and ancestors did. Ranchers said they feel they 

are doing something that is worthwhile.

“Besides being a way of life, culture and custom, 

it is part of our being...cattle are a part of our lives...

acequias are traditional and historic...the investment 

is tremendous.” Ranchers are trying to keep the tradition, some of which is already lost because of modern 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 55

ways. For instance, “people used to ride to care for 

the livestock and for pleasure; now kids want to look 

at TV and mess with cars.” Another remembered, 

“We used to have dances out here; now there is not 

that closeness between people.”

It’s “a pretty heavy role, this tradition here in 

northern New Mexico. Around here, everybody has a 

few cows, small pastures, a baler to bale hay, a tractor,” said a rancher. Because of limited numbers of 

animals, he explained, it is hard to make a living here, 

so most need other jobs. Looking back on the generations and what it took to get established strengthens 

his heritage. The rancher thinks of his father and 

grandfather riding the same ranges before him and the 

opportunity for the children to do the same. They will 

never get rich, he said, but they will get “that sense 

of belonging” of knowing “where they came from.”

“Those are your pride,” the land and animals.

“The tradition and culture are directly tied to the 

land and livestock. This lifestyle gets in your blood.” 

“It’s not a hobby; it’s a tradition. It’s a good life.” In a 

rural ranching tradition, land and livestock go hand in 

hand. A rancher explained that he has seen the benefit 

of correct livestock use on public and private land and 

wants to preserve that. “I’m here, and I chose to stay 

here! I enjoyed the way I was raised on this land, this 

way of life,” another stated. “The animals are part of 

it. The land and animals and way of life are all tied 

together.” He said it is part of his identity.

“I think it’s a gift from God, I really do,” one rancher said. “You learn how to care for things.... There’s 

almost a spiritual aspect to it.” To another, the way of 

life provides him with a sense of freedom, peace of 

mind, a lot of space to think, and a chance to breathe 

fresh air. It is “a religious heritage,” another said, 

“God put us on the ground to care for it.” “It’s a way 

of life out there, breathing the fresh air, looking at the 

trees and grass,” a rancher explained. It became clear 

to us during the interviews that there is a quality of 

life here that needs to be seen and realized and understood by outsiders. The land is “part of an inheritance 

our fathers and fore-fathers worked hard to gain.” It 

is important, a rancher said, to “pass on the tradition 

that was passed on to me, the values, the importance 

of living with the land, in harmony with the land.”

“Sometimes you’re tired but have to work 

anyway.”

These ranchers do not just extol the rewards and 

pleasures but are realistic in describing the difficulties and downside of ranching. “Not everybody is cut 

out for it. It’s hard to live on the amount of money 

a rancher makes.” Many must supplement the ranch 

income with another job, and, if lucky, can retire back 

into ranching. “It’s hard to work on the ranch, hard to 

get up so early for two jobs.” A rancher said that he 

loves the work even when there’s no money in it; he 

likes the peace and quiet. They ranch, not so much for 

the profit, but for the satisfaction and enjoyment.

“There is pressure sometimes with limited time, 

but the work and enjoyment is the best feeling. [You] 

feel good when the crop comes in, and in winter when 

all is done, feel you have accomplished something.” 

“It has given us a sense of accomplishment and pride 

to be able to provide food for our Nation along with 

other hard-working, honest families.” The work is 

hard and can get frustrating, but love for the land 

and animals was said to keep the ranchers going. “To 

me, it’s a gift from Heaven.... Not everybody has the 

opportunity to have what we have and to enjoy the 

frustrating times, but you still enjoy them. It’s one 

more obstacle that you cross; it makes you stronger.”

“It’s my connection to that place”

“This is a stewardship issue, a values issue. Doing 

this is a way to keep New Mexico rural, in condition,” 

stated a rancher. Otherwise, land would be purchased 

for development and water export. Another responded, “The land we have has been in our family for five 

generations. These properties are more than just dirt; 

it is a part of our family just like a child and grandchild. The livestock we raise is to maintain our simple 

life and to teach each generation to love the land as 

our ancestors did.” It is the “best way to raise a family, working together, enjoying life through work.” 

“It’s a great place to raise kids and teach them how to 

work and succeed.”

Land Ownership and Sale

Responses to a question concerning land ownership 

and sale of family land (discussion topic 3) continue 

the discussion provided by the ranchers concerning the 

role of land and livestock in culture and tradition and 

the ways in which they are used to teach the younger 

generation. Answers to discussion topic 3 reinforce the 

values and lessons of the other topics by contrasting 

the benefits of land ownership with the repercussions 

of land loss. Land and animals, family and community, 

and way of life join forces to create a sense of place 

that becomes the definition of who one is. Loss of that 

place, in consequence, equates to a loss of identity. 
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

In speaking of land, language, and memory, Arellano 

(1997: 32) said, “He that loses his land loses his memory, and no amount of money or technological advances 

will help us recover that loss.... The challenge for all 

of us is to find a way of rediscovering what we already 

have.”

Consequences of Land Sale

This question, with few exceptions, was a disturbing topic for the ranchers to consider and discuss. 

Sale of ranch land, they believe, invariably results in 

an increase in land taxes and escalating land prices, 

bringing subdivision, development, and the loss of 

open space. They also feel that outsiders are attracted 

to the beauty of the landscape and picturesque villages, but then these newcomers require large homes 

that eclipse the very setting they admired and, at 

closer observation, may view the local people as poor 

in comparison to themselves. People and traffic increase, but new fences and walls inhibit the freedom 

the locals once had to ride or move livestock across 

the land. Another great concern is that drugs may enter the rural scene, affecting the morals and values 

of rural youth. Community life becomes fragmented. Also, the water supply, always a major issue, is 

stretched thin, and the acequia system, so important 

for community cohesion and continuity, is not understood. In some areas, ranchers described the added 

problem of commercial, production agriculture taking 

over where the family ranch once prevailed.

There were a few comments regarding the right of 

people to sell what is theirs—such remarks were usually tempered by regret. One respondent stated, “I feel 

very strongly that a person who owns property has the 

right to do what he wishes with what is his. I would 

feel very upset if someone said what I could not do 

with what is mine.” However, most expressed dismay 

over a neighbor’s decision to sell. They said they feel 

that land is too valuable but understand that because of 

age and declining health, the choice must sometimes 

be made to be closer to conveniences. “People make a 

mistake by selling, but I guess some have to sell. Little 

by little ranchers and farmers are coming to an end. It’s 

hard to see it! But, now more people are moving in...

with money. People that used to live here were poor...

they’ve never seen so much money, so they sell....”

“Santa Fe happens!”

“Land ownership has been a contentious issue for 

many generations here...land is managed by the agency, [land that once] belonged to the community, to the 

land grant system... so there’s still a lot of aggravation 

over that.” Private land within the community is being 

sold to non-agricultural users who know nothing about 

farming. “All they want to do is just build their little 

fence around themselves and be left alone.... So what 

I told the community here is, we have a big job ahead 

of us and that’s to throw down all these fences because 

these communities [need] to interact and work together, 

and we see some major changes happening. You go to 

a community and find out who the newcomers are. The 

first thing they build are these fantastic fences between 

them and the rest of the community. And here you want 

to know who your neighbor is, what makes him tick, 

can you help him....” Whether the fences are real or 

perceived, they can form barriers between neighbors.

“Money’s here, money’s gone, but land remains.”

Many spoke of the need to hold onto land, of how 

no more land was being created, of the importance of 

land that has been in the family for generations. “The 

problem is we can’t afford to buy land anymore if it’s 

not in the family. The families are splitting up ranches 

and selling to people for houses, little getaways...and 

there is no way to buy more land.” In the short term, 

the seller gets a lot of money, but not in the long term. 

They realize that the kids can make more money by 

selling off farms and working in town, but the money runs out. “It just limits what you can do with your 

operation.... The land values go up. Then your young 

kids, they see it, ‘well, we can make more money by 

selling the land than we can by farming the land’.... 

That’s a false hope...because money will be gone and 

your land will be gone along with it, but it does give 

kids false hope...it’s sad but true, and that’s what’s happening right now.”

“If neighbors sell land or water rights..., it weakens 

the agricultural base. It changes the nature of the relationship to the land, lifestyle, and value system. Then 

they have to find ways to survive the escalating costs.” 

It has come to a crisis here with the high land prices, 

they say. Water is a major concern. According to one 

rancher, even one house on a piece of land begins to 

change it. Development changes the nature of the area 

completely, he says, and increases the likelihood that 

water will be sold and exported. In some ranching communities, lengthy legal suits have arisen with outsiders 

who do not understand the traditional ways of the acequia system. Some new neighbors want the ditch to go 

from a functioning system to an aesthetic one. There 

is the possibility of confrontation between those who 

use sprinklers and wells for production agriculture and 

those who have traditionally used river water and water 

rights for irrigation.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 57

“There’s that human encroachment coming.”

Respondents expressed fear and concern over the 

reality of sales increasing land values (i.e., price per 

acre) and, thus, leading to an increase in land taxes and 

the inability of locals to purchase land at the greatly 

increased prices. They also expressed dread of rural, 

agricultural, and open lands being converted to development, with the land never to be recovered. The 

following is an example of the effect of escalating land 

prices on working ranches.

“When a ranch goes up for sale, what we’re 

gonna’ deal with here is the...insanity of 

real estate prices in general...25 years 

ago, a decent size ranch (6000-8000 acre 

ranch)...would go for something like just 

under $100 an acre.... The same place today 

is $600 or more an acre. The consequences 

of that are disastrous.... Whoever has the 

money to buy that is buying it to play with. 

It’s an investment. And if you find a Rocky 

Mountain ranch that has some size to it...

that has changed hands in the last 10 years 

and they’ve paid those prices (somewhere 

between $5000 and $10,000 an acre).... 

A strictly agricultural-based operation 

doesn’t pay...what it’s doing is putting 

the agricultural industry as far as a ranch 

around here, an actual working ranch that 

is actually trying to make ends meet, almost 

non-existent any more.”

Loss of the public land grazing permit also presents 

a threat to ownership of the ranch. As discussed in a 

study of ranching conducted in the southern Rockies, 

“if access to forage on public lands is curtailed, the 

economic viability of these ranching operations may be 

compromised, leading to ... conversion to exurban development,” which could have important consequences 

for conservation in the region. Their findings indicate 

that working ranchlands provide a buffer around public 

lands (Talbert and others 2007: 5-7).

“Yuppies and vegetarians are moving in like 

gangbusters.”

Ranchers expressed apprehension over the inevitability of “outsiders” moving in as ranch lands are sold. 

For them, past experience confirms the perception 

that “outsiders” often do not appreciate the community or the land into which they have moved and 

tend to dislike the presence of livestock. Many with 

whom we spoke feel that some of these newcomers 

may fit in, but it seems that most do not understand 

the rural or agricultural way of life or the culture of 

land-based, predominantly Hispanic residents. There 

is a lack of understanding of ranch ways, especially 

regarding the handling of animals. “Outsiders” often 

prove themselves to be aloof, walling out neighbors, 

but not adequately fencing out livestock. They tend to 

lack an interest in community participation and do not 

understand the importance of acequias and the responsibilities involved.

“You see that situation happening all over northern 

New Mexico where people move in. ...and so what 

you’re seeing is a lot of people coming in...who have 

a totally different concept of land ownership, and it 

changes things.” “Most Hispanics grow up in northern 

New Mexico with kind of a land grant mentality, even 

if they do not realize it; it’s this common land sort of 

thing.” People used to walk, ride, or drive through each 

other’s land on trails and roads that were considered 

more or less public. “But now you see people moving in...and they put up fences with locked gates and 

signs with very strong language saying, ‘keep out, 

trespassers will be prosecuted,’...it leads to problems 

and animosity...means having people from outside that 

again have a different value system, a different idea of 

land ownership.”

All of this leads to change: in their way of life, in 

community structure, in the future of agriculture, and 

in the future of their families. Land sale, to these ranchers, is not merely the relinquishing of a piece of real 

estate, for land is not generally viewed as such in these 

rural communities. Instead, it represents a complexity 

of losses in the form of tradition, culture, connection 

between past and future, and one’s reason for being. 

To the ranchers, land is that place where one lives and 

works and raises children, a place to experience the 

freedom and pleasures of nature; land is home. If the 

land is part of who one is, the loss of that land can be 

devastating.

Land Grant Loss Revisited

Considering the possibility of land loss in the 

present puts many in mind of prior land grant losses 

suffered by ancestors and still remembered with considerable sadness and bitterness. Question 25 asked 

the permittees if their family members were part of 

a land grant, and if they were no longer associated 

with a grant, how that occurred. Almost 50 percent 

(49.6) reported that their families were or had been 

associated with a land grant (question 25; table 48; 

Appendix C). Of those, 44 percent had suffered some 
58 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

form of loss in various ways (question 25a; table 49; 

Appendix C).

Land Grant Connections

Question 25 brought forth a range of stories and 

information concerning past land loss and the serious consequences of those losses to family fortunes 

and well being, both past and present. Some of these 

discussions are reprised in the following sections 

from prior work by Raish and McSweeney (2008). 

The majority of ranchers who could trace connections 

to a land grant were fairly knowledgeable concerning the circumstances leading to loss of those lands. 

Responses ranged from brief comments that land was 

taken away or sold because of financial need to more 

complex explanations. Many stated that these grants 

ended up as Forest Service (some as BLM) lands or, 

to a lesser degree, were transferred to various pueblos. 

Most frequently, the answers focused on the simple 

theme that the U.S. Government took the land.

This view is echoed in the words of Ebright (1987: 

50) on the treatment of Hispanic people with respect 

to the land grant issue: “No one individual or group of 

individuals is to blame.... They all played a part in the 

chicanery of land grant adjudication, but the drama 

was allowed to proceed by the U.S. Government.” 

Ebright described the Hispanic residents of rural, 

northern New Mexico as a people who still live close 

to the land. He stated that “the land grant story is not 

simply a fading part of New Mexico’s history,” but a 

story of generations of families and “of a passionate 

and continuing struggle for the land their ancestors 

were promised when they became citizens of the 

United States in 1848” (Ebright 1987: 50).

Ranchers spoke of how land was lost because the 

people could not afford the taxes or could not read 

English and were unaware that the taxes were due. 

One interviewee answered that his mother was from 

a land grant now owned by the Government. He said 

he suspects that the Government wanted the land and 

took it using unfair tactics. For example, when New 

Mexico became a state, a messenger told people they 

had to be in Santa Fe at 8:00 a.m. the following morning for a hearing on the land allocation, but they had 

no vehicles to get there in time. Also a notice was 

posted in a newspaper, but not in the town where the 

people lived. He said he believes such means were 

used to separate people from their ancestral lands.

Another also stated that his family’s grant land was 

taken away by the U.S. Government. He told the following story:

I own part of my Granddad’s homestead, 

but that’s not part of the land grant. It was 

taken away by the U.S. Government.... Of 

course, my Grandmother couldn’t speak 

English at all, and my Granddad was in 

France during World War I in 1918, and 

he wasn’t here to sign some paperwork 

or something, and then they took part of 

that land away and turned it into National 

Forest.... My grandmother...had a lot of 

animosity towards the U.S. Government 

over that. My Granddad...it didn’t bother 

him that much. I mean it did, but he said, 

“Hey, that’s just the way things happen in 

this country.”... Of course there were a lot 

of families that were moved, relocated, and 

stuff was taken away from them.

The grandson, who is now a permittee, said meetings have been held regarding the land grant, and he 

thinks that the U.S. Government is trying to settle some 

of the grants. He holds on to the hope that heirs to the 

grant will get some settlement as others have, especially for the grazing land. “I probably will never see it, 

but maybe something will come about, I don’t know. 

Maybe a percentage of it will be turned back.”

One respondent told us he can trace his connections 

to the Trampas Land Grant back to 1751. He shared information on the grant compiled by Arguello (no date). 

The grant was confirmed by the U.S. Congress in 1860, 

but boundary resolution was delayed because of the 

Civil War. Multiple subsequent surveys and manipulation by corrupt lawyers of the group referred to as the 

Santa Fe Ring led to partition and sale of the grant. The 

grantees lost everything, and now that land is part of 

the Carson National Forest.

Another person with whom we spoke discussed the 

Capulin area as a place where everyone had access to 

land for grazing and timbering. Later, the land was 

bought by a private company, but people were supposed to be able to use it with no taxes as long as the 

company owned it. The 1930s brought drought and depression. Many people left. The company traded the 

land to the Forest Service, and that was the end of free 

use.

Many permittees told us that studying land grant 

issues helps them maintain their connection with the 

land. They said they feel that there may not be an equitable resolution of land grant questions, but they 

still wish that the Government would acknowledge 

the injustices of the past. As our research has repeatedly shown, much of the northern National Forests are 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 59

emotionally and psychologically vital to the lives of 

the rural people. “[Ranching] has been happening here 

for centuries [400 years]. History did not start here 

in 1846.... Land is one of the things that hold people 

together.”

Land Grants and the Forest Service: 

The Contemporary View

To understand how the Forest Service views land 

grant issues, we spoke with a variety of agency personnel at the region, supervisor’s office, and district levels 

who were recommended for their knowledge of land 

grant policy and issues. Official Forest Service policy 

supports the conclusions of the previously discussed 

2004 GAO Report that land grant adjudications were 

accomplished properly. According to Forest Service 

lands staff, the agency has a mandate to defend U.S. 

title to National Forest lands and to manage them to 

the best of its ability. Forest Supervisors have received 

direction to defend U.S. title to lands; Forest Service 

resources are not to be used to undermine U.S. title 

(Raish and McSweeney 2008).

However, in our informal discussions with Forest 

Service staff, we found a range of views concerning 

land grant topics and problems, which are discussed 

in greater detail in Raish and McSweeney (2008). A 

few of these comments are presented here. One person 

told us that the GAO report did not address the issues 

permittees are concerned about, and the situation is not 

resolved in their eyes. He said the Forest Service will 

continue to do its work until things change, trying to 

keep the land sustainable and used in the proper way.

Several employees said that they do not work directly 

with active land grant groups, stating that it is hard to 

find a clearinghouse that provides someone to contact 

on the different land grant boards. One staff member 

commented that the Forest Service should establish 

stronger ties to active land grant groups and make sure 

grant members know who to contact in the agency. 

This train of thought ended with, “[The Forest Service] 

should be doing more; we could be doing more.” 

However, one reason for lack of communication was 

referred to by a Forest Service interviewee as “fear of 

giving the farm away.” This mindset was described as a 

Forest Service mentality, which has made some agency 

people hesitant to become too involved with the land 

grant groups, knowing that the grantees want the land 

back. On the other hand, another employee questioned 

why the land grant groups have had to pay taxes when 

the pueblos do not. According to this person, the King 

of Spain granted lands to both pueblos and Spanish 

settlers in the form of land grants. When surveys turn 

out to be inaccurate, pueblos often have lands returned, 

while this is not the case for the land grant groups. He 

said he feels that the land grant groups have not had the 

support the pueblos have had.

Many Forest Service staff members we interviewed 

stressed the need for training Forest Service employees 

(especially those from outside the area) in the history, 

culture, and traditions of the local people, stating that 

many of the local Forest Service employees recognize 

the need that northern New Mexicans have for traditional resources. “We must have people here who are 

very connected [to the land] and understand northern 

New Mexico needs, lifestyle, culture, and tradition.” 

Another recommendation concerned the Carson and 

Santa Fe National Forests working more closely together and coordinating fees because they serve many 

of the same people. The staffer also felt that trust building and small accomplishments are needed among the 

groups, saying that land grant people work well with 

individual Forest people and vice versa, but will probably never be “hand-in-hand” with the agency. In 

summation, we heard “treat people with respect and 

expect respect. Work in partnerships. Pass land on to 

children and grandchildren in a sustainable manner.”

Our discussions with Forest Service personnel demonstrate that effort and concern go beyond the “official” 

agency position. Many local people are employed by 

the northern Forests and understand the concerns of 

friends, neighbors, and relatives. These employees said 

they often view greater participation by local communities in Forest Service decision-making in a positive 

light. They argue for promoting locals in place and for 

the importance of longer tenure in leadership positions 

to build communication and trust between communities and the agency. Some staffers said they feel such 

changes in agency culture are occurring, while others 

do not. Despite some disagreements, those we spoke 

with said they believe that land grant issues can only be 

resolved by Congress and not through the courts.

Consequences of Loss of the 

Ranching Way of Life

One of the more powerful and disturbing discussions we had with the participating permittees derived 

from our asking how they would imagine the economic, social, and environmental consequences if the 

ranching way of life was lost in northern New Mexico 

(discussion topic 10). “All of what I think is special 
60 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

about northern New Mexico would change as a result,” 

answered one rancher.

“How many days do we have to answer this 

one?”

Respondents often hesitated before answering this 

question, as we were asking people to picture an end 

to life as they know it. The idea was unthinkable to 

many and frequently elicited such reactions as “devastating” or “disastrous.” Of great concern throughout 

the ensuing discussions were the probable effects such 

a scenario would have on culture, tradition, children, 

family, community, and the land. The consensus was 

that people would have to move away from home and 

from their rural communities because there would be 

no reason to remain. There were also dire predictions 

that such a loss might create a state of poverty and result in a dependence on Government welfare. Only a 

few envisioned negligible consequences in any of the 

three categories: economic, social, and environmental 

consequences.

Economic Consequences

“There would be a huge economic impact.”

On the subject of economy, one rancher explained, 

“It’s not just the rancher; it’s the butcher, the meat 

processor, feed stores, hay, and tractors. We put food 

on people’s tables, leather for shoes.” He predicted “a 

trickle-down effect on others; everybody shares the 

money. There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle.” Ranchrelated businesses would lose and many businesses 

would close up, as ranchers and farmers spend money 

in the local communities (on tires, pickup insurance, 

fuel, feed, and trucking, etc.) and most have money in 

local banks. 

Ranchers said they feel the local economy would 

suffer if the people were to leave. Ranchers have supported these communities, we were told, and kept them 

alive. Farms and ranches provide employment; without 

them there would be no need for stores, seed dealers, 

livestock auctions, or school teachers. “If they do away 

with the rancher, they will be doing away with a lot,” 

a permittee told us. The end of the ranching life would 

affect more than northern New Mexico; it would affect 

the whole nation. “I think the consequences would be 

great all around.”

“We couldn’t make it without our ranch and 

cows.”

It would be a definite impact to the economy, ranchers said, even though most of them do not use the ranch 

as full-time support and must have second jobs. There 

are people in the community, however, who support 

themselves with full-time ranching. Others have only a 

few cows but depend on them, as do many of the elderly—it adds to their income. If you need money quickly, 

we were told, you can sell a cow or some hay rather 

than borrowing from the bank. Sale of a few animals 

has helped when money was needed during times of 

family emergency or for a college education. “It would 

be a great loss, what we get from selling cattle and hay. 

Sure it’s hard going, but it would diminish the picture 

of what New Mexico is about. It’s what makes New 

Mexico special.” The people in northern New Mexico 

have their jobs but also this supplemental income and 

meat for the table. “Good operations make good money; small operations supplement the family.”

“We would have to go out to look for 

employment.”

There was a general feeling among those with whom 

we spoke that an end to ranching would result in an 

exodus of residents from rural communities to seek alternate employment due to the lost income. “What jobs 

would there be? Logging is already gone.” Respondents 

told us that loss of the logging industry has already resulted in losses to the economy and employment. One 

rancher said that another type of job might be less work 

but not what he enjoys. The ranching business is the 

work of choice, he said. “A computer job is no more 

important than the man over there feeding cows.”

Another rancher predicted migration to the cities accompanied by more economic problems. Young people 

would have to move out to seek employment. It is happening now. “We could all go on welfare,” one said; 

“that is what it would come to.” Out here, there are 

no jobs to be had; we live off the land and animals. 

Locals would have to take menial jobs or move to town 

and become dependent on the Government, resulting in 

degradation and more poverty. Communities would be 

poorer as a result.

People would be more dependent on Government 

programs and subsidies. The change would be devastating to the communities of northern New Mexico. 

“People here may not make a great living, but it is a living.” As it is, they do not have to go to the Government 

for food stamps. “We raise our own food and trade 

lumber for hay.” If ranching is all a person knows and 

it was removed, there would need to be Government 

support. Now a self-sufficient provider for the community, this rancher said he would be converted to a 

welfare recipient.

“People don’t realize how important farming is.”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 61

Land gives us something to eat, permittees stated, 

and small farms are important. If no one farms, we 

were told, there will be no food in the stores, not only 

in northern New Mexico but throughout the United 

States. Beef would be imported or raised by big industry. “We would have to pay a fortune for [feed lot cattle] 

and get diseases from meat that has been pumped full 

of steroids.” Range-fed beef such as the permittees 

raise is rapidly becoming a desired commodity for reasons of human health, environmental protection, and 

humane treatment of animals. For decades, these permittees have been producing the kind of beef and lamb 

that is now so much in demand. Local people like to 

buy local beef, quality meats. The ranchers told us that 

purchased beef does not taste as good as the beef they 

raise.

“It will typically hurt people who can’t afford to 

lose.”

The loss of ranching would be devastating to all 

communities, socially and economically—as devastating as being wiped out by a hurricane. Money does not 

answer all the problems in the world. “I see the major 

issue in northern New Mexico as the selling of land, 

making money...becoming developed. [I am] worried that we will lose a lot of small and even big land 

owners.”

Economics and social life are connected in northern 

New Mexico. Even for people with three, four, or five 

cows, it is part of the living. Ranchers said they feel that 

grazing their animals on the forest contributes significantly to the well-being of the area. Without it, herds 

would be reduced and families would move, disrupting 

the social and economic benefits of schools, towns, and 

churches. Small communities would be hurt, said one 

rancher, but the economic loss would not be as great as 

social and cultural losses.

Social Consequences

“Ranching in northern New Mexico is a way of 

life, if you have 8 cows or 100. It is tradition and 

pride passed down from generations.”

This portion of the question weighed most heavily 

in the ranchers’ responses. Although economic and environmental concerns mattered greatly to them, losses 

that would affect family, community, and culture appeared to be more critical. Many said they felt the 

greatest impact of change would be on the social aspect 

of life. The perceived consequences could threaten the 

very core of life.

“Loss of traditional values, which strengthen our 

culture...”

The social aspect of family and community life 

would deteriorate, ranchers predicted. There would 

be a decline in family unity and cultural values. Older 

generations would feel the loss; younger generations 

wouldn’t know what they had missed. Many pictured 

having to move away, ranches being replaced by industry or another type of people, and culture and tradition 

gone with them. “It would be the end of everything... 

a sad day in northern New Mexico. It’s a way of life.”

“It would be horrible for me because I have a son 

and grandson coming into it,” stated one rancher. “And 

I know it’s not the most profitable place to be, but it’s 

been a way of life all my life.” The way of life would 

be gone...no getting up in the morning to check the 

animals. There would be no animals to feed, no hay to 

cut; they would be “like city people.” It would be a loss 

of a heritage that has existed for many years.

“Even if [you] have one cow, kids have to do 

chores.”

Many spoke of the work ethic that the ranching 

tradition can engender in children. If ranching ended, 

new generations would have to find other ways to learn 

what it was like in their parents’ and grandparents’ 

time. Now, they know work ethic because they grow 

up with it. Ranchers expressed concern that without 

the rural life, youth would have more opportunities to 

get into trouble. Families and culture would suffer, and 

boredom would set in.

Ranching is a way of life in which children help out. 

This life keeps the kids out of trouble, similar to sports, 

a rancher said; and doing the regular work of ranching 

keeps you fit. As a coach, he could see evidence of that 

fitness in farm kids and also a different attitude of respect and a tendency to stay out of trouble. There was a 

prediction that children might not amount to anything 

or learn to work before getting out in the world. With 

ranching, they learn to respect life in animals and the 

environment.

“Life for me would be gone.”

Several spoke of a connection with animals—the 

beauty and happiness of seeing them—and the loss to 

themselves and to the children if ranching disappeared. 

One rancher said he cannot imagine this country without farming and ranching. There would be no cows 

and nothing to talk about. People have gatherings for 

brandings and during hay season; it is a big part of life. 

County fairs are a reason for kids to raise their animals. 

Rodeos, the play aspect of ranch work, came from 
62 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

this lifestyle. All these activities need the animals and 

ranch families. Another rancher said it would be lonely 

for him without animals and work. “It’s the beauty of 

living in the country. It gives a good reason to live.”

 “It would be a very sad place to live in.”

“The older generation would suffer the most,” said 

a respondent. They could not live without ranching. 

Many said they feel that in rural communities, there 

is more respect for elders from the younger generation 

than in a big town. One said that older people would 

end up in the ghettos and would become “a social 

leech.” Older people keep going on a ranch, we were 

told, resisting “a move to the couch.”

“Community life...nothing would be there.”

The sense of community would be lost. Neighbors 

would associate less. Ranching and farming families 

are the community. “Communication between neighbors starts because of ranching. By talking, we learn 

what is new, who is sick. We would lose that and would 

see a lack of familiarity with neighbors. There would 

be nothing to get [neighbors] together,” a rancher explained. People in farming and ranching are also united 

through the churches and the schools, another rancher 

said; they pull together.

Communities would become ghost towns. There 

would be no children for the schools, no more matanzas, or picnics up in the hills. As more people move 

in, the permittees notice, much of the social aspect is 

already disappearing. In the past, neighbors were better acquainted. “We had a lot more time, a lot more 

dinners. Now we don’t have time; we’ve moved on already,” said one permittee. “As agriculture leaves, so 

do the people,” said another.

“The dislocation from the land would cause a drastic 

increase in disorientation: drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, conflicts, lack of understanding among peoples 

and cultures. It would cause many of us to move to 

already exploited urban areas.” More kids would be 

influenced by television and drugs instead of learning 

how to care for an animal, grooming and feeding them.

You would see crime and drugs and disconnection 

from the land. Ranchers said they felt that drug problems and social issues are directly related to loss of 

land.

“It would tear families apart.”

Family background is still embedded in the culture 

of the ranching environment. The social life is built 

around animals. To people with a few animals, they are 

like family. “The aspect of families getting together 

branding and harvesting will be gone; no more dinners 

from the harvest. And we will lose family values,” said 

a rancher. “Going to mass to thank the Lord for what 

we have done. We lose the negative of life when all 

are working together,” said another. The ranch keeps 

the unity of the family, a rancher told us; it is a family operation. When he has to go get a cow, his wife 

will leave her household chores and say, “I will go with 

you; I will help you.”

“Pages in a history book.”

The way of life would be relegated to pages in a 

history book. “This is live history that has been passed 

on from generation to generation.” It’s easier now with 

machines, but life and values are the same, a rancher 

explained. Dismay was expressed over much of the 

younger generation that does not want to be tied down 

to the ranch. They can make more money in an 8-hour 

a day job and get paid more often. They come and visit 

for a few days and then go back to the city. A rancher 

said that bothers him because he thinks the younger 

generation will start selling the land; because they do 

not have the interest. “The life would deteriorate even 

more than it is today. People lose their pride when 

forced off the land,” said the rancher.

Environmental Consequences

“If ranching is lost, all ranches will be subdivided 

into little ranchettes bringing more development into 

[the] area.... This would be disaster to [the] environment, especially wildlife. It would make some better 

off, but many poorer.” Environmental consequences 

ranchers predicted centered on fire, erosion, overgrowth, and development with consequent loss of open 

space. Water rights would be lost. There would be 

nothing but houses, towns, and cities. This type of scenario is also discussed by Talbert and others (2007) for 

areas currently undergoing varying degrees of development in the southern Rocky Mountains, extending 

from southern Wyoming into northern New Mexico.

“The environment would go down.”

Ranchers said they felt there would be a great threat 

to the ecosystem if ranching was lost. It would no longer be the environment it is. There would be no one 

who owned the land to care for it. Acequias would 

close and dry up; the water would not run. Irrigating 

benefits other people in the community, we were told; 

it supplies water to the aquifer. A rancher spoke of “the 

beauty of the forest and ranches,” saying he would 

rather see a beautiful ranch with cattle and horses than 

a shopping mall.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 63

“More of the nature inhabitants will migrate 

away.”

If there were no cows, there would be no ranchers 

to police the area. “[We] maintain the waters and keep 

the springs clean, a benefit to wildlife.” Wildlife would 

not be in some areas if ranchers were not maintaining 

waters. Subdivisions are fragmenting the land, causing the number of wildlife to dwindle. One can “either 

look at a subdivision or see wildlife and a few cows.”

One rancher described his prediction for the fate 

of the environment as follows: “If this would happen, land would be used for buildings. There would 

be no way of ranching or raising livestock. People are 

already pushing wild animals out of their natural habitat. Without the open lands of ranches, animals would 

have nowhere to go. We are invading their land and 

territory.” A rancher spoke of his concern for wild animals whose habitat is shrinking. He gave an example 

of bears venturing into town or city and how they are 

captured, tranquilized, and, if lucky, relocated. What if 

bears could do that to humans, he asked; animals have 

no other choice.

“Without the eyes and ears of ranchers.”

Ranchers inform the Forest Service about damage 

and do many improvements to the land and the Forest. 

There was great concern that, without grazing, land 

would become overgrown and more susceptible to severe fires. With fewer animals to eat the undergrowth, 

meadows would decrease. People do not seem to understand harvest of the forest, one rancher said. In the 

past, the last one off the forest with the sheep set fires 

to decrease tree growth and increase grass production.

“Housing would encroach.”

Open spaces would be lost without ranching. You 

would exchange livestock for recreation, exchange 

a cow for a house. “I don’t want to see development 

happen.” Land will become “little pieces of paradise.” 

Who will clean the ditches, they ask, if the children are 

not taught now? There would be an increase in development pressure, an increase in water use, and local 

people would move out; it would look like any other 

place in the United States.

Subdivided land would be like a city. “It would be 

a big loss, a Wal-Mart/Macdonald’s America.” There 

would be nothing but condos all over the place. There 

would be an increase in recreation areas, destroying 

clean water and acequias. Houses or businesses would 

replace ranches. There would be no reason to keep all 

that open land.

“The more people...the more houses.”

Communities would dry up and lands would be sold 

and developed. All we would have would be development. It’s already happening. There would be more 

people, more trash, and more vehicles. Land would 

turn into a park or zoo or will wind up in housing, 

causing an increase in taxes for everybody. It would 

be destroyed. If people were to sell out and then come 

back and see subdivisions, it would break their hearts.

“The more people...the more noise.”

There are too many people. “There would be no type 

of control. Now there’s a little bit of respect.” Land 

goes dead with no life on it. With no cattle it would just 

end up with ATV trails and erosion. ATVs, Jeeps, and 

motorcycles cut across meadows and leave scars that 

do not heal. There would be more roads, more traffic, 

and more noise. There would be no erosion control, no 

brush control. The air would not be clean.

“The more people...the more problems.”

Ranchers predicted that without ranching, private 

land would be subdivided and developed, further 

impacting and damaging public land. Land fragmentation from development would significantly diminish 

wildlife corridors. The water supply, already stretched 

thin, would be placed in further jeopardy by excessive 

demand, the threat of diversion, and the loss of water 

rights. A rancher summed it up by saying that he would 

feel sorry for the land.

Knowledge and Experience to 

Share

Despite fears and concerns over loss of the ranching 

way of life, those with whom we spoke remain proud 

and optimistic concerning continuation of their heritage and sharing their hard-won knowledge with both 

family and the public (discussion topic 9). When asked 

what knowledge and experience they gained from 

working with the land and livestock that they wished 

to share with others, they provided us with a wealth 

of valuable information showing their vast store of 

knowledge and deep love of the land.

However, this was a difficult question to answer on 

the spur-of-the-moment, and most interviewees hesitated before answering to give careful consideration 

to a response. As one rancher explained, “You don’t 

know what knowledge you have; you take it for granted.” But he went on to say that your knowledge and 

experience are priceless.
64 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Listen to the Land and Animals

Such an array of experience and potential knowledge comes from a lifetime of work with the land and 

animals. Operating a ranch, whether large or small, 

requires knowledge and expertise in many fields: animal behavior, veterinary skills, biology, plant ecology, 

water (acequias), mechanics, construction, and human 

relations to name just a few. Being observant of land, 

animals, and nature was a recurrent theme, as were 

thoughts on the care and management of land and livestock. Learning from others and from the animals also 

ranked high in ways they had gained knowledge. Words 

such as values, respect, and quality continue to permeate 

the ranchers’ responses. Again, all are interdependent: 

land, water, plants, animals, family, and community.

“It’s hard to put it down in writing, isn’t it?” asked 

a rancher. “...I’ve always said, rain cures all problems 

with the land... if you don’t get rain, you don’t have it; 

you get rain, you’ve got it all. And the cows do good 

when it rains; the cows don’t do well when it’s dry.... 

Our land would grow with water. Look at the land and 

learn from it. Look ahead and plan, cut back before 

it gets so bad.” She said she can teach how to plant a 

garden, butcher, can fruits and vegetables, dig a ditch, 

and irrigate an open field. “I have done it all.... Being a 

country girl and raised with it from day one, you take it 

for granted; it’s a thing everyone should know.” Another 

rancher told us that one of his goals is to write short stories about his up-bringing on a small farm and ranch as 

a way to share his experience with others.

“We know what to do.”

“Be aware of the strengths and limitations of each 

area. Know what practices or proven traditional uses insure productivity and profitability,” wrote one rancher. 

“Have patience, and work one day at a time. There are 

going to be many ups and downs, just roll with the flow,” 

advised another. A rancher described his knowledge as 

“...the overall picture: from working the land (planting 

and irrigating) to raising cattle, to working with Forest 

Service personnel, association members, livestock auction people, vendors. It all revolves around raising a herd 

of cattle and following the complete cycle. It touches a 

lot of people and businesses.” Use your eyes; get into the 

country and constantly ask questions, was another answer. This rancher also believes that agricultural people 

need to be more willing “to educate the non-informed.”

Responses also included comments on land management: Do not overgraze! It takes many years to grow 

grass but not much to destroy it. Do not introduce nonnative species. Crested wheat has killed off the natives 

and then dies and leaves barren land. Respect the land. 

Keep the land and watersheds clean and they will help 

you in turn. Never go to the mountains unprepared. Use 

proper gear and tack and keep your vehicles in good 

shape. Respect the animals. When you start to ride into 

the wilderness, be sure your horse will be in shape to 

bring you back.

“The land speaks to you.”

Ranchers stressed the importance of being observant. 

Much of their knowledge has been gained by being there 

and observing the land. Pay attention to what you are 

doing and consider the results; if they are not good, then 

change what you are doing; do not just do things out of 

habit. “Play it by ear.” The environment tells you a lot. 

A rancher explained that he knows the land, sees where 

it rains, watches daily, and is with the cattle. He said he 

is there, “listening to the land, the dust, the brush, the 

cattle; not everybody can do it.” He said he feels he is 

“a part of the land.” “You’ve got to take care of the land. 

The land will talk to you and tell you what needs to be 

done.... The land speaks to you.” By working with the 

land, you become familiar with it and know where good 

grazing areas are and which earthen dams are best. You 

learn this over time, stated another.

“The cows will teach you how to handle them.”

There’s a lot you can learn from the animals, the 

ranchers told us. Animals know things, such as when it 

will snow. Watch their behavior and be observant. “You 

learn something every day. It’s a continuous learning 

experience. The livestock teach you things. You think 

they’re dumb, but if you just sit back and watch them, 

they’re smarter than people.” Pay attention to the cattle; 

they will tell you. You learn their ways. You know where 

they go for water, how to track them, and more or less 

where they are from their habits; it saves a lot of time.

“The cows will teach you how to handle them. Mother 

Nature gives them a sense that they never disobey.” A 

cow leaves her calf, gets water, and comes back; the cow 

can find the calf, even when the rancher cannot. This 

rancher described how a cow can take her baby through 

the river; she knows how to handle the little ones. The 

little calf gets right behind her and they “sail across the 

river.” It is nice to see and learn, he told us. You take the 

cow up the trail, and she’ll never forget the way back.

“Be patient with animals” was another often repeated 

recommendation. A rancher told us that he would like 

younger people to be more patient and think about what 

they are doing, to learn to handle the animals correctly. 

If they would slow down and watch, he said he believes 

they could learn what the animals want. A rancher told 

us that he could teach people how to handle animals 

with less stress. “You can work the whole herd alone,” 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 65

he said, “Take your time.” “Take it easy,” drive the cattle 

at their own pace, and do not force or tire them. Do not 

holler at them or run them or get them excited or stressed 

out. If you find a calf by itself, leave it alone so its mama 

can find it. “It’s a lot of hard work. Be patient with animals. It’s dangerous sometimes.... Learn to think like 

the animals.”

“Feed your animals well.”

“We have to be dedicated to raise healthy animals,” 

respondents told us. “It’s quality not quantity. If you sell 

30 head of quality calves, you get the same amount of 

money as for 50 head of poorer calves.” The former is 

better management; the latter is hurting the environment. Cattle must be cared for, stated another rancher; 

feed and water them and the production follows. You 

cannot starve them. It’s the same way with Forest land; 

it cannot be overused and still flourish. “You have to find 

the good spots for the cattle, setting out salt [for distribution]. A cow can’t go a mile or two to water or she will 

lose the weight she has gained.... It’s a waste of time to 

raise junk; encourage people to raise better cattle.”

Lessons from Experience

The following comments from the interviewees 

represent an accumulation of ranching experience and 

knowledge: Move cattle as fast as the slowest one. Do 

not push or crowd cattle on trails or in confinement. Give 

them enough air; give them time. Learn to respect animals; they can tell you when they are hungry or thirsty 

or sick. You can tell by looking. Animals cannot help 

themselves, so the owner must guide them. You are the 

guardian and life of your livestock. Keep a close watch 

on your animals, especially the young “mamas”; firsttime mothers need help. All animals have a personality, 

all are different, just like humans, and many will protect 

their young better than human mothers. If you do not 

respect animals, they won’t respect you; that is true also 

with humans.

“We are still learning.”

“We are the first ones to see the results of overgrazing 

or notice it is happening and the last to be consulted,” 

stated a permittee. He said he could pass on to others 

what does and does not work and is willing to share 

his knowledge with agency personnel and the public. 

Another said that if the grass is too low, move the cows. 

He has learned from experience and from watching the 

cows throughout the week. They are ready to move 

when the grass is getting low.

The animals will tell you the time to move. They will 

push through the fences if an area is short on water or 

vegetation.

“Everyone tells everyone the do’s and don’ts.”

Working together with parents and neighbors, sharing ideas and figuring things out to solve problems is a 

source of knowledge. One gains knowledge from other 

people, so talk to those people, they told us. “Listen; respect the ideas of other people. Hear them out, or you 

won’t get their point.” A permittee told us that he gained 

experience by listening to his dad and to others regarding 

what would help the land and people. When he worked 

with the Forest Service, he learned how to solve erosion 

problems. Another said that his father taught him how to 

use salt to move cattle. “You know cattle will be where 

the water is,” he said. “You can tell by looking how the 

grass is—eaten down or too dry.” “Many times I come 

to work with my neighbor, and something comes up, 

you know, a certain problem. He might have the answer, 

I might have the answer; so we work it out together to 

do the right thing at the time.” “And what I know about 

livestock is, if you overgraze, it just ruins the land.... So 

it’s really up to the Forest Service and the permittee to 

work together, to bring these things about.”

A permittee expressed a wish that ranchers’ knowledge be respected by the Forest Service and the public. 

“Listen to the old-timers,” he suggested, “to the Spanish 

people who have been here for years, the way they raise 

their cattle; they can teach you things you would never 

think of.” Another said that he has a lifetime of knowledge and experience to share. He has had the opportunity 

to speak at seminars on agricultural tourism and considers taking people out riding in the wilderness to be an 

educational opportunity for them. It gives folks a greater 

appreciation of life here. People think the Forest Service 

was here forever, which is not the case, he said. So, he 

tries to educate people on differences in land ownership, 

providing a historical perspective.

What the Public Should Know

To Tell Our Story in the Hope of Being 

Understood

“The erasure of a human subspecies is largely painless to us if we know little enough about it. ... We grieve 

only for what we know” (Aldo Leopold 1949: 48).

At the conclusion of each interview, we asked the 

permittees what they would want the public to know 

and understand about them (discussion topic 11; 

Appendix D). In response, ranchers described themselves as “a unique breed of people,” hard-working, 

honest, and proud people with a lot of wisdom and 

dignity, people who are trying to make a living like 
66 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

everyone else. They described ranching as an honest 

way of earning a living, but most importantly as a way 

of life. And while they speak of ranching as hard and 

often hazardous work, they emphasized the blessings 

and benefits and the fact that they thoroughly enjoy 

what they do.

“The pride we take in livestock and working the 

land.”

Respondents tended to emphasize the hard work 

that defines being a rancher. “The larger community 

should know that it is extremely hard work. It’s an operation that is very prestigious to our communities.” 

They described themselves as steadfast, hard-working, 

and knowledgeable about the land and cattle, minding their own business, and not trying to hurt anyone. 

“We’re all the same, trying to get by one day at a time.” 

Most ranchers are struggling to make a living; “I don’t 

think any of us are getting rich.” The public doesn’t 

realize how much work goes into ranching. “Farmers 

and ranchers have developed a love for the land and 

spend lots of hours [doing what] no one would be 

hired to do. They get muddy and tired.”

“I do it because I like ranching.”

Many spoke of the importance of enjoying the 

work. “Ranchers like to mess with cows, like the outdoors, the adventures.... They like nature. It gives 

them an opportunity to visit with neighbors and relatives, wheeling and dealing over cows, and to teach 

their children and grandchildren the way of life.” This 

permittee told us that he would like people to understand that it is not easy to be a rancher, and there is 

not that much money at the end of the year. You have 

to love ranching to stay with it. “If you like what your 

job is, you do quality work.”

“We love the land.”

Respondents were concerned that people should 

understand their care for the land, that they are not out 

to destroy the land. “We are a solid, caring people who 

appreciate and love the land and care for it so that it 

is there for the future generations.” There was a wish 

expressed “to perceive us as responsible people who 

love the land and the livestock.” Another wrote that 

the public should know “that we patrol and care for the 

forest area and work to keep it clean and beautiful so 

that the open space is a pleasure to enjoy.”

“We’re not bad people.”

“We have a stake [in the public land] more than [the 

public does] because if we don’t maintain the land our 

life and business are in jeopardy.” “It’s not huge corporations running animals on public land; it is small 

ranchers. People think cows are overgrazing. We say, 

‘No, they’re not!’... We do care for the land. If we had 

been destroying it, we wouldn’t be here today.” “Often, 

we hear from environmentalists what we shouldn’t be 

doing (i.e., grazing cattle on public lands). Yet, what 

draws those people here is the way people have lived 

here.” A permittee explained that ranchers pre-dated 

the “Forest” (Forest Service). He told us that the Forest 

Service was not the saving factor of maintaining this 

land in good condition; the people took care of it.

 “That we are not abusing the land.”

“We are not out to destroy the land, rather to preserve it.” “Land is one of the things that holds people 

together.” “We are working for the land.... We respect 

the land, and the public needs to respect it.” Permittees 

want the public to know “that we do take care of the 

land. We don’t misuse it like they are led to believe we 

do.” Many are disturbed by the public’s picture of ranchers as destroyers of the land. “The producer in America 

wears a black hat today,” stated a rancher.

“That we supply some of their food.”

“We are a big part of the economic picture here in the 

north.” Ranchers said they feel the food they produce 

is a benefit to the public. They feel they are providing 

a service to consumers by producing quality, range-fed 

beef and lamb. It is a good, healthy way of life. Many 

butcher their own meat, so they know what they are eating instead of eating “processed beef that has been fed a 

lot of junk.” “If we don’t produce our own food, where 

will it come from?” There was a comment that people 

in the United States don’t appreciate agriculture. “They 

need to stop and realize where meat comes from. The 

demand is great; the supply isn’t.”

 “There is a myth about public land.”

“It is not a charity act of the Government to let us 

graze the land.” The use of public land is not a gift; great 

expense goes into it. There is “a perception that we’re a 

bunch of lazy bums on welfare or subsidies,” a rancher 

told us and added that he would like that impression 

to go away. “People think they know about ranching,” 

stated another; “they think the Government is subsidizing the rancher.” Many environmentalists, they feel, 

are quick to equate ranching with big business and big 

money. “We are not corporate ranchers; the majority are 

family based....”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 67

Without public land, most ranchers would be out of 

business, as most do not own enough land to raise animals without the use of Federal land.

“That we honor and respect the land.”

“We are not money hungry capitalists who ravage 

the land for profit, but rather concerned and involved 

citizens who have traditional ties to the land and who 

love as well as respect it.” A rancher stated, “We firmly 

believe we are here to take care of the land, believe we 

are stewards of the land and believe in the ecosystem 

and environment. [We] want to continue to educate the 

youth to carry on the traditions, maintain respect and 

discipline, and work as a community.” Another said, 

“God gave us land to live off, but to take care of it too, 

not just have it as a playground.”

 “We’re not going to give up!”

These responses also indicate the tenacity and dedication of the rancher. “We’re not going down without a 

fight; we’re here to stay! We have a vested right here. 

We are like the owl. How come they are disturbing our 

nest? We are not in this to make money but to maintain 

a way of life and to keep tradition.” Many ranchers keep 

going in spite of difficulties such as drought and low sale 

prices. “A few families still make a living off the land as 

this ranch does. You depend on nature for everything. 

It takes a lot of heart and discipline to work a ranch or 

farm.” It takes a lot of determination.

“We’re not the enemy!”

“We’re just people like they are; just trying to earn 

a living, raising our kids, teaching them some morals,” 

said a rancher. “Educate people that, just because the 

majority of us don’t have a college education, we are 

not stupid.” There is a lot to learn from a rancher; if he 

does not know the answer to a question, he will point 

you to someone who does. “We have a lot of respect 

for each other.” Regarding the public, a rancher commented, “We need to respect them; they need to respect 

us. We can work together.”

 “Learn who we are.”

“People want to see you as rich because you are 

a land owner. We are rich in some ways, but not 

money-wise. We are very fortunate that we live here.” 

A rancher expressed a need for the public “to communicate with us on whatever questions they have otherwise 

they won’t understand where ranchers are coming from. 

If you don’t communicate with other people, you won’t 

learn about their feelings or thoughts.” Another respondent explained that, “Even though we don’t have all the 

terms, the big words, we must care for the land. Our 

lives and future generations depend on that. We don’t 

always take the right path, but don’t make the decisions 

lightly.” “I would like to share what we have and what 

we do and be neighbors, and think we can learn from 

each other,” offered a rancher. “The problem is expecting conflict instead of communication.”

A rancher expressed the hope of gaining the public’s 

respect, “We wouldn’t have a life if not for ranching.... 

We value it a lot,” he said. “It might be fading away, but 

still there are people like me who will not let it fade away, 

who are not in it for the money, just plugging along.” Yet 

another told us, “We are trying to continue a way of life 

that has been going on for hundreds of years. It’s why 

the valley is the way it is.” One summed it up by saying, 

“That we are a people with a vision, with a heart, with 

an understanding about nature and about life in general. 

That we value the land, the water, the way of life, and 

will not sell it for economic and material blessings.”

Conclusion

“We know too that nature includes us. It is not a place 

into which we reach from some safe standpoint outside 

it. We are in it and are a part of it while we use it. If it 

does not thrive, we do not thrive” (Wendell Berry 1990). 

In similar manner, a participant in this project said, “If 

you are here as a shepherd of the land, you must protect 

it. If you don’t protect the land, it won’t protect or provide for you.”

The ranchers who took time from their busy schedules to share their stories with us are those represented 

in this report. They have expressed their feelings for the 

land upon which they carry out the daily business of 

ranching and for the animals that are a major component 

of their lives and livelihood. Much of what we heard 

from permittee ranchers in this study follows closely the 

stories, experiences, and thoughts of those represented 

in the pilot study. The value placed on history and heritage, tradition, and ties to the past is revealed through the 

longevity of the ranching community. Their present way 

of life portrays a continuation of those values, with hope 

projected into the future through their children.

Ranchers spoke of a working relationship with the 

land and stressed that all land should be respected no 

matter the ownership. Their comments are reminiscent of Aldo Leopold’s land ethic (1949: viii-ix) when 

he spoke of land as a community that should be loved 

and respected: “We abuse land because we regard it as 

a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a 

community to which we belong, we may begin to use 

it with love and respect.” Respect and responsibility 
68 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

were terms frequently used throughout the discussions, 

whether the subject was care of the land, animals, family 

(especially the elders), or community. Respect and responsibility toward these essentials of life were depicted 

as major components of a ranch child’s home education.

Concern continues to dominate conversations on subjects regarding sale of private land and controversy over 

use of public land. There is a tie between the two; owing 

to regional history, loss of Federal grazing land is generally detrimental to survival of the ranch and the private 

land of which it is comprised. The negative effects of 

subdivision and population growth are cause for apprehension among respondents. There is a general aversion 

among the permittees to development. Preservation of 

the land, therefore preservation of open space, is seen as 

of paramount importance.

These lands have been a part of ranch family life for 

generations. The tendency for ranch land to be sold and 

subdivided rather than to continue as agricultural land is 

a great concern for many respondents. It takes just one 

ranch to sell for the process to begin in a domino effect, 

with one ranch sale affecting the next, with land being 

divided and taxes increasing, and with mounting demands on the limited water supply. Ranchers observed 

that as new people move in, some adapt to life in the 

rural communities, but many want to alter the place to 

suit their own notions of civilization. The contrast created with the addition of extreme affluence can transform 

what was once viewed as quaint to the perception of a 

less than desirable appearance of poverty.

However, being rich is not only how much money 

one has. “Though I am not wealthy in terms of dollars, 

I see the ranch as of great wealth that should stay in the 

family forever.” Retaining the livestock operation for 

family and future generations is a goal common to the 

permittees. Many ranchers only work other jobs as a 

means of supplementing their income; some have made 

conscious employment choices in order to remain in the 

local community. In spite of difficulties, they expressed 

hope for the future of the ranch, the land, and the family.

The ranchers spoke of “a legacy of tradition.” Land 

and livestock were not the only gifts of choice designated for the benefit of children. These were to be coupled 

with the gifts of knowledge and understanding: the 

knowledge of how a ranch works and understanding the 

benefits of working one’s own land and working with 

animals. It is not enough merely to own such tangible 

gifts; the recipient must learn to care for them and appreciate their value.

Participants in the project spoke with affection of the 

people whose influence guided them into ranching. They 

reminisced over a first calf, lamb, or horse and about 

early childhood experiences helping parents and grandparents on the land. Family is essential to the success 

of a ranch and highly valued in the culture, hence the 

emphasis on how children are taught through instruction and example. The community is an extension of the 

family, as shown through the sharing of responsibilities 

and the nurturing of individuals.

A permittee rancher described his work as “the most 

enjoyable thing there is.” What seemed to matter most 

to him was the state of being there, in that place, within 

those natural surroundings, working at an occupation 

from which he derived great personal satisfaction. 

Enjoyment of ranch work and satisfaction in a job well 

done are factors that produce excellence.

Respondents appeared concerned about how they are 

perceived and are disturbed by the apparent negative attitude of the public toward them and their often difficult 

dealings with Forest Service personnel. They expressed 

a sincere desire to be understood and treated with consideration, and stress the importance of communication 

between people. They recognize the need to communicate ideas and share knowledge with agency and public 

alike and were generous in sharing such information. 

Some of their suggestions for agency personnel included 

taking an active role in the local community, riding with 

ranchers to assess the condition of the land first-hand, 

and valuing experience equally with “book learning.”

The desire for a chance to be heard and for their ways 

to be understood was evident in the willingness of these 

ranchers to participate in this project. The process of 

developing rapport and building trust during the initial 

phase of the project proved worthwhile. “Why show interest in our life?” asked one, “Is this my opportunity to 

voice my opinion, to make things better?” Another expressed gratitude for the research, commenting that “the 

Spanish contribution is only one part of it; it should be 

all over the West.”

Sense of place figured strongly in respondents’ stories. It is apparent in descriptions of feelings toward land 

and livestock, in ways of instilling values in the children, and in attitudes toward land ownership. In all of 

these, participants showed a strong connection and attachment to place. Caring for the land and animals gives 

the ranchers a reason for being, work they enjoy doing, 

and satisfaction at the end of the day. They express a 

sense of privilege to be the ones living in that place. 

There is contentment, a “sense of belonging” to a place 

where they know how to live and who they are. It is part 

of their identity, their way of life, their history—their 

past, present, and future. It is their querencia.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 69

Table 1—Santa Fe National Forest active grazing allotments.

District Allotment NFS Acreage # of Permittees

Coyote Chama 39,583 6

Coyote Coyote 19,956 12

Coyote French Mesa 24,519 9

Coyote Gallina River 22,262 9

Coyote Jarosa 22,007 12

Coyote La Presa 10,802 1

Coyote Los Indios 7,617 1

Coyote Mesa Alta 36,057 8

Coyote Mesa Del Medio 16,708 8

Coyote Mesa Poleo 22,486 11

Coyote Youngsville 30,456 18

Cuba Chiquito 11,799 1

Cuba Cuba Mesa 7,299 1

Cuba Gallina Mountain 11,650 4

Cuba Gurule 8,362 1

Cuba La Jara 14,947 2

Cuba Laguna Seca 7,274 1

Cuba Llaves 10,756 2

Cuba Ojito Frio 9,789 3

Cuba Ojitos 18,373 1

Cuba Palomas 5,297 1

Cuba Penas Negras 15,360 6

Cuba Pollywog 20,130 2

Cuba Red Top 9,716 2

Cuba San Miguel 21,949 1

Cuba San Pedro 21,572 3

Cuba Senorito 21,462 3

Cuba Simon 12,505 1

Cuba South Ojitos 9,667 1

Cuba Vacas 7,894 4

Jemez Alamo 25,491 1

Jemez Bland Canyon 8,195 1

Jemez Cebolla San Antonio 24,997 4

Jemez Del Norte 6,599 2

Jemez Las Conchas 1,372 1

Jemez Peralta 12,400 1

Jemez Ponderosa 2,621 1

Jemez San Diego 94,352 11

Jemez Vallecitos 15,928 2

Jemez V-Double Slash 35,234 2

Pecos/LV Barbero 18,380 5

Pecos/LV Bear Lake 41,446 15

Pecos/LV Beaver 13,078 1

Pecos/LV Bull Creek 13,362 3

Pecos/LV Capulin 7,220 6

Pecos/LV Colonias 21,425 2

Pecos/LV Cow Creek 4,187 1
70 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Pecos/LV El Pueblo 26,596 3

Pecos/LV Fisher 2,037 1

Pecos/LV Glorieta 30,342 2

Pecos/LV Macho 36,623 2

Pecos/LV Rio De La Casa 16,366 4

Pecos/LV Rosilla 9,696 9

Pecos/LV San Geronimo 6,938 2

Pecos/LV San Jose 11,933 1

Pecos/LV San Luis 38,162 4

Pecos/LV Sapello 6,304 2

Pecos/LV Solitario 5,016 1

Pecos/LV Springs 24,417 3

Pecos/LV Tecolote 10,884 1

Pecos/LV Tres Hermanos 5,909 1

Pecos/LV Valle Grande 36,242 1

Pecos/LV Valle Medio 14,232 1

Pecos/LV Valle Osha 8,645 1

Source: Southwestern Region GIS Data Base, Kevin Sanchez, February 2010, District 

Permittee and Allotment Lists.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 71

Table 2—Carson National Forest active grazing allotments.

District Allotment NFS Acreage # of Permittees

Camino Real Angostura 17,715 3

Camino Real Black Lakes 12,089 9

Camino Real Capulin 13,744 4

Camino Real East Fernandez 2,082 2

Camino Real Flechado 6,364 1

Camino Real Knob 10,081 1

Camino Real Luna-Chacon 28,550 17

Camino Real Rio Chiquito 20,561 5

Camino Real Rio Pueblo 23,845 8

Camino Real Santa Barbara 34,235 15

Camino Real Tienditas 409 1

Camino Real Trampas 28,901 13

Tres Piedras Apache Complex 27,097 7

Tres Piedras Carson-Mojino 7,615 1

Tres Piedras Cerro Azul 20,257 6

Tres Piedras East Pinon 3,050 1

Tres Piedras Jawbone 18,303 5

Tres Piedras Lagunitas 26,066 7

Tres Piedras San Antone 41,843 11

Tres Piedras San Antone Mountain 7,478 2

Tres Piedras Santos 8,799 1

Tres Piedras Servilleta 10,101 1

Tres Piedras Spring Creek 25,073 11

Tres Piedras Sublette 10,957 4

Tres Piedras TCLP 40,226 4

Tres Piedras Tio Gordito 27,089 6

Tres Piedras Tio Grande 31,984 14

Tres Piedras Tres Orejas 5,801 1

Tres Piedras Tusas 43,621 10

Source: Southwestern Region GIS Data Base, Kevin Sanchez, February 2010, District 

Permittee and Allotment Lists.

Table 3—Survey participants by district.

Santa Fe NF Districts # of Permittees # of Interviewees Percent Interviewed

Coyote 85 52 61

Cuba 36 28* 78

Jemez 27 18 67

Pecos/Las Vegas 54 41 76

Total 202 139 69

Carson NF Districts

Camino Real 76 54 71

Tres Piedras 78 47 60

Total 154 101 66

*Two interviewees listed Cuba as their second district.
72 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

References

Allison, Christopher D. 2010. [Personal communication]. 

February 2. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State 

University, Cooperative Extension-Animal Resources, 

Extension Specialist.

Allred, Kelly W. 2005. A field guide to the grasses of New 

Mexico. 3d ed. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State 

University, Department of Agricultural Communications. 

388 p.

American Collegiate Encyclopedic Dictionary. 1952. New 

York: Random House. 2 vol.

Anaya, Rudolfo. [no date]. Sale of Atrisco Land Grant 

means loss of history, tradition. Atrisco Land Grant File. 

Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico State Records Center and 

Archives. Copyright by Rudolfo Anaya.

Anschuetz, Kurt F.; Ferguson, T.J.; Francis, Harris; Kelly, 

Klara B.; Scheick, Cherie L. 2002. “That place people talk 

about”: the Petroglyph National Monument ethnographic 

landscape report. Prepared for the National Park Service 

Petroglyph National Monument, Albuquerque, NM.

Arellano, Juan Estevan. 1997. La Querencia: La Raza 

Bioregionalism. New Mexico Historical Review. 72(1): 

32.

Atencio, Ernest. 2001. Of land and culture: environmental 

justice and public lands ranching in northern New 

Mexico. Santa Fe, NM: Quivira Coalition and the Santa 

Fe Group of the Sierra Club.

Atencio, Lawrence. 2009a. [Personal communication]. 17 

November. Coyote, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Santa Fe National Forest, Coyote Ranger 

District, Range Staff.

Atencio, Lawrence. 2009b. [E-mail message to A.M. 

McSweeney]. November 17. On file at: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Albuquerque Laboratory, RMRS-4853, 

Albuquerque, NM.

Atencio, Lawrence. 2010. [Personal communication]. 

January 7. Coyote, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Santa Fe National Forest, Coyote Ranger 

District, Range Staff.

Babbie, Earl. 1990. Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: 

Wadsworth. 395 p.

Babbie, Earl. 1995. The practice of social research. Belmont, 

CA: Wadsworth. 476 p.

Barlett, Peggy F. 1986. Part-time farming: saving the farm 

or saving the life-style? Rural Sociology. 51(3): 289-313.

Baxter, John O. 1987. Las carneradas: sheep trade in New 

Mexico, 1700-1860. Albuquerque, NM: University of 

New Mexico Press.

Beckley, T.M. 2003. The relative importance of sociocultural 

and ecological factors in attachment to place. In: 

Kruger, L.E., tech. ed. Understanding community-forest 

relations. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-566. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 105-126.

Berry, Wendell. 1990. What are people for? San Francisco: 

North Point Press.

Bonaiuto, M.; Carrus, G.; Martorella, H.; Bonnes, M. 2002. 

Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in 

land use changes; the case of natural protected areas. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23(5): 631-653.

Briggs, Charles L.; Van Ness, John R. 1987. Introduction. 

In: Briggs, Charles L.; Van Ness, John R., eds. Land, 

water, and culture: new perspectives on Hispanic land 

grants. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico 

Press: 6-12.

Carrol, Matthew; Ní Dhudháin, Áine; Nugent, Ciaran. 

2009. Afforestation and local residents in County Kerry, 

Ireland. Journal of Forestry. 107(7): 358-366.

Chacon, Gerald. 2010. [Personal communication]. January 

29. Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico State University, 

Cooperative Extension Service (Ret).

Cheeke, P.R.; Shull, L.R. eds. 1985. Natural toxicants in 

feeds and poisonous plants. Westport, CT. AVI Publishing 

Company, Inc. ISBN 0-87055-482-4.

Clark, Ira G. 1987. Water in New Mexico: a history of its 

management and use. Albuquerque, NM: University of 

New Mexico Press.

de Buys, William. 1985. Enchantment and exploitation: the 

life and hard times of a New Mexico mountain range. 

Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Earls, Amy Clair. 1985. The organization of Piro Pueblo 

subsistence: A.D. 1300 to 1680. Albuquerque, NM: 

University of New Mexico. Dissertation.

Eastman, Clyde. 1991. Community land grants: the legacy. 

Social Science Journal. 28(1): 101-117.

Eastman, Clyde; Carruthers, Garrey; Liefer, James A. 1971. 

Evaluation of attitudes toward land in north-central New 

Mexico. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University. 

Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 577.

Eastman, Clyde; Gray, James R. 1987. Community grazing: 

practice and potential in New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: 

University of New Mexico Press.

Eastman, Clyde; Harper, Wilmer; Guerra, Juan Carlos; 

Gomez, Bealquin. 1979. New Mexico small farms: a 

socioeconomic profile. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico 

State University. Agricultural Experiment Station 

Bulletin 407.

Eastman, Clyde; Raish, Carol; McSweeney, Alice. 2000. 

Small livestock operations in northern New Mexico. In: 

Jemison, Roy; Raish, Carol, eds. Livestock management 

in the American Southwest: Ecology, Society, and 

Economics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science: 

523-554.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 73

Eaton, Jim. 2009. [Personal communication]. November 

17. Cuba, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Santa Fe National Forest, Cuba and Jemez 

Ranger Districts, Range Staff.

Eaton, Jim. 2010. [Personal communication]. January. Cuba, 

NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Santa Fe National Forest, Cuba and Jemez Ranger 

Districts, Range Staff.

Ebright, Malcolm. 1987. New Mexico land grants: the legal 

background. In: Briggs, Charles L.; Van Ness, John 

R., eds. Land, water, and culture: new perspectives on 

Hispanic land grants. Albuquerque, NM: University of 

New Mexico Press: 15-64.

Ebright, Malcolm. 2004. The G.A.O. land grant report: a 

whitewash and a slap in the face. La Jicarita News. July 

2004.

Farnum, J.; Hall, T.; Krueger, L. 2005. Sense of place in 

natural resource recreation and tourism: an evaluation and 

assessment of research findings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-660. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 59 p.

Forrest, Suzanne. 1989. The preservation of the village: New 

Mexico’s Hispanics and the New Deal. Albuquerque, 

NM: University of New Mexico Press. 253 p.

Fowler, J.M. 2000. Historic range livestock industry in New 

Mexico. In: Jemison, Roy; Raish, Carol, eds. Livestock 

Management in the American Southwest: Ecology, 

Society, and Economics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: 

Elsevier Science: 419-444.

Fowler, J.M.; Rush, D.; Hawkes, J.M.; Darden, T.D. 1994. 

Economic characteristics of the western livestock 

industry. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University. 

Range Improvement Task Force, Agricultural Experiment 

Station, Cooperative Extension Service, College of 

Agriculture and Home Economics Report 35.

Fowler, J.M.; Torell, L.A. 1985. Financial status of the range 

livestock industry; the New Mexico example. Las Cruces, 

NM: New Mexico State University. Range Improvement 

Task Force, RITF Report 20.

General Accounting Office [GAO]. 2004. Report to 

Congressional requestors on the Treaty of Guadalupe 

Hidalgo: findings and possible options regarding 

longstanding community land grant claims in New 

Mexico. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.

Gentner, B.J.; Tanaka, J.A. 2002. Classifying federal public 

land grazing permittees. Journal of Range Management. 

55(1): 2-11.

Gibbons, S.; Ruddell, E.J. 1995. The effect of goal orientation 

and place dependence on select goal interferences among 

winter back country users. Leisure Sciences. 17: 171-183.

Gieryn, T.F. 2000. A space for place in sociology. Annual 

Review of Sociology. 26: 463-666.

Gillespie, James R., ed. 1983. Modern livestock and poultry 

production, 2nd ed. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers Inc. 

822 p.

Gonzales, N.L. 1969. The Spanish-Americans of New 

Mexico: a heritage of pride. Albuquerque, NM: University 

of New Mexico Press.

Gray, James R. 1974. Economic benefits from small livestock 

ranches in north-central New Mexico. Las Cruces, NM: 

New Mexico State University. Agricultural Experiment 

Station Bulletin 280.

Griswold del Castillo, R. 1990. The Treaty of Guadalupe 

Hidalgo: a legacy of conflict. Norman, OK: University of 

Oklahoma Press.

Gustafson, P. 2001. Meanings of place: everyday 

experience and theoretical conceptualizations. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 21(1): 5-16.

Hammond, G.P; Rey, A. 1953. Don Juan de Oñate, colonizer 

of New Mexico, 1595-1628 (1). Albuquerque, NM: 

University of New Mexico Press.

Harper, Allan G.; Cordova, Andrew R.; Oberg, Kalervo. 

1943. Man and resources in the middle Rio Grande valley. 

Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Hassell, M.J. 1968. The people of northern New Mexico and 

the national forests. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. Southwestern Region. 

Manuscript on file.

Hassell, M.J. 1981. Northern New Mexico policy review 

and action plan. Memo on file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Albuquerque Laboratory, RMRS-4853, 

Albuquerque, NM.

Hawkins, G.; Bachman, K.F. 1998. An exploration of sense 

of place as a possible explanatory concept in nature-based 

traveler conflict. Tourism Analysis. 3: 89-102.

Herrera, Melvin. 2009. [Personal communication]. November 

2. Peñasco, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Carson National Forest, Camino Real Ranger 

District, Range Staff.

Herrera, Melvin. 2010. [Personal communication]. January 

7. Peñasco, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Carson National Forest, Camino Real Ranger 

District, Range Staff.

Hurst, William D. 1972. Region 3 policy on managing 

national forest land in northern New Mexico. Memo on 

file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque 

Laboratory, RMRS-4853, Albuquerque, NM.

Ivy, Robert Dewitt. 2004. Flowering plants of New Mexico. 

4th ed. Albuquerque, NM. RD & V Publishers. 573 p.

Jackson, John Brinkerhoff. 1994. A sense of place, a sense 

of time. New Haven and London. Yale University Press. 

212 p.
74 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

James, Lynn F.; Gardner, Dale R.; Lee, Stephen T.; Panter, 

Kip E.; Pfister, James A.; Ralphs, Michael H.; Stegelmeier, 

Brian L. 2005. Important poisonous plants on rangelands. 

Rangelands. 27(5): 3-8.

Johnson, R.J. 1994. Community. In: Human Geography. 3rd

ed. R.J. Johnson, Derek Gregory, and David M. Smith, 

eds. Oxford: Blackwell: 8-81.

Kaltenborn, B.P. 1998. Effects of sense of place on responses 

to environmental impact: a case study among residents 

of an Arctic community. Applied Geography. 18(2): 

169-189.

Kaltenborn, B.; Williams, D.R. 2002. The meaning of 

place: attachments to Fumundsmarka National Park, 

Norway, among locals and tourists. Norwegian Journal 

of Geography. 56: 189-198.

Knowlton, C.S. 1961. The Spanish Americans in New 

Mexico. Sociology and Social Research. 45(4): 448-454.

Knowlton, C.S. 1967. Land grant problems among the state’s 

Spanish-Americans. New Mexico Business. 20: 1-13.

Kruse, William H.; Jemison, Roy. 2000. Grazing systems 

of the southwest. In: Jemison, Roy; Raish, Carol, eds. 

Livestock Management in the American Southwest: 

Ecology, Society, and Economics. Amsterdam, 

Netherlands: Elsevier Science: 27-52.

Kutsche, P. 1983. Household and family in Hispanic northern 

New Mexico. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 

14(2): 151-165.

Kutsche, P.; Van Ness, J.R. 1981. Cañones: values, crisis, 

and survival in a northern New Mexico village. Salem, 

WI: Sheffield Publishing Company. 244 p.

Leonard, O.E.; Loomis, C.P. 1941. Culture of a contemporary 

rural community: El Cerrito, New Mexico. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of 

Agricultural Economics. Rural Life Studies No. 1.

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. London: 

Oxford University Press. 295 p.

Levine, Frances; Merlan, Thomas W. 1993. Documenting 

traditional cultural properties in non-Indian communities. 

In: Traditional Cultural properties. In: Patricia L. Parker, 

guest ed. CRM 16 (Special Issue). Washington, DC: 

National Park Service: 55-64.

Liefer, J.A. 1970. Attitudes toward land ownership and 

usage in north-central New Mexico. New Mexico State 

University, Las Cruces, NM. Thesis.

Lujan, Mike. 2009. [Personal communication]. October 30. 

Las Vegas, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Santa Fe National Forest, Pecos/Las Vegas 

Ranger District, Range Staff.

Lujan, Mike. 2010. [Personal communication]. February 4. 

Las Vegas, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Santa 

Fe National Forest, Forest Service, Pecos/Las Vegas 

Ranger District, Range Staff.

Manzo, L. 2003. Beyond house and haven: toward a 

revisioning of emotional relationships with places. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23(1): 47-61.

McAvoy, L. 2002. American Indians, place meanings and 

the old/new West. Journal of Leisure Research. 34(4): 

383-396.

McSweeney, A.M. 1995. Views on land and nature: 

conversations with northern New Mexico ranchers. New 

Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM. Thesis.

Melendrez, Patrick. 2010. [Personal communication]. 

January 29. Alcalde, NM: New Mexico State University 

Cooperative Extension Service. Natural Resource Agent.

Melonas, James. 2012. [Personal communication]. 

Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, New Mexico State Liaison.

Meyer, Michael C. 1998. The contemporary significance of 

the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: 85.

Moore, R.L.; Scott, D. 2003. Place attachment and context: 

comparing a park and a trail within. Forest Science. 

49(6): 877-884.

National Public Radio. 2009. Ernie Banks still swinging for 

‘worthwhile’ life. Morning Edition broadcast. 6:oo AM, 

October 13, 2009.

National Research Council. 2008. Changes in the sheep 

industry in the United States: making the transition from 

tradition. Committee on the Economic Development and 

Current Status of the Sheep Industry in the United States; 

Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Division on 

Earth and Life Studies. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. 347 p.

New Mexico Land Grant Council. 2007. Proposal for 

Congressional action. Unpublished proposal on file at: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, NM. 13 p.

Raish, Carol. 1997. Northern New Mexico and the USDA 

Forest Service. Paper presented at the Second International 

Conference on Natural Resources and Cultural Heritage: 

Partnerships without Borders, at Arizona State University, 

Tempe: 17-20 November 1997. Unpublished paper on file 

at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, NM. 13 p.

Raish, Carol. 1999. Española/Canjilon pilot study: economic, 

social, and cultural aspects of public land grazing on the 

Santa Fe and Carson National Forests. In: Finch, D.M.; 

Whitney, J.C.; Kelly, J.F.; Loftin, S.R., eds. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-7. Rio Grande ecosystems: linking land, water, 

and people toward a sustainable future for the middle 

Rio Grande Basin. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agricuulture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 35-38.

Raish, Carol. 2000. Environmentalism, the Forest Service, 

and the Hispano communities of northern New Mexico. 

Society and Natural Resources. 13(5): 489-508.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 75

Raish, Carol; McSweeney, Alice M. 2003. Economic, social, 

and cultural aspects of livestock ranching on the Española 

and Canjilon Ranger Districts of the Santa Fe and Carson 

National Forests: 28.

Raish, Carol; McSweeney, Alice M. 2008. Land grants 

and the U.S. Forest Service. Natural Resources Journal. 

48(4): 1039-1055.

Rivera, Jóse. A. 2011. [E-mail message to A.M. McSweeney 

and C. Raish]. February 24. On file at: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Albuquerque, NM.

Rivera, Jóse A.; Glick, Thomas F. 2002. The Iberian origins 

of New Mexico’s community acequias. Paper presented 

at XIII Economic History Congress, Buenos Aires, 

Argentina: 22-26 July 2002. Unpublished paper on file 

with authors at: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 

NM. 16 p.

Rothman, Hal. 1989. Cultural and environmental change 

on the Pajarito Plateau. New Mexico Historical Review. 

64(2): 185-211.

Sanchez, G.I. 1940. Forgotten people: a study of New 

Mexicans. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico 

Press.

Sanchez, K. 2010. District permittee and allotment lists. 

Southwestern GIS data base. Unpublished data base on 

file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM.

Scurlock, Dan. 1995. Environmental history. In: Finch, 

D.M.; Tainter, J.A., tech. eds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-268. 

Ecology, diversity, and sustainability of the middle Rio 

Grande Basin. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station: 12-28.

Simmons, Marc. 1979. History of Pueblo-Spanish relations 

to 1821. In: Ortiz, Alfonso, ed. Handbook of North 

American Indians: Southwest (9). Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institution: 178-193.

Spanish and English Dictionary. 1962. Williams, Edwin B., 

ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Spradley, James P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. 

Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich College 

Publishers.

Stewart, W.; Liebert, D.; Larkin, D. 2003. Community 

identities as visions for landscape change. Landscape and 

Urban Planning. 69: 315-334.

Stewart, David. 2010. [Personal communication]. April 

19. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Region 3, Director of Rangeland 

Management.

Stubendieck, J.; Hatch, Stephan L.; Hirsh, Kathie J. Eds. 

1986. North American range plants. 3d ed. Lincoln, NE: 

University of Nebraska Press. 465 p.

Swadesh, F.L. 1974. Los primeros pobladores: Hispanic 

Americans of the Ute frontier. Notre Dame, IN: University 

of Notre Dame Press.

Talbert, Colin B.; Knight, Richard L.; Mitchell, John E. 

2007. Private ranchlands and public grazing in the 

southern Rocky Mountains. Rangelands. 29(3): 5-7.

Torell, L.A.; Hawkes, J.M.; Stromei, T.D. 1998. Range 

livestock cost and return estimates for New Mexico, 

1996. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University. 

Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 726.

Tuan, Y.; 1974. Topophilia: a study of environmental 

perception, attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 

Prentice Hall. 260 p.

Tuan, Y.F. 1776. Geopiety: a theme in man’s attachment to 

nature and place. In: Bowden, M., ed. Geographies of 

the mind: essays in historical geosophy in honor of John 

Kirkland Wright. Oxford, England: Oxford University 

Press: 11-39.

Tuan, Y.F. 1777. Space and place: the perspective of 

experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 

Press. 235 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007 Census of agriculture 

Available: www.agcensus.usda.gov.

Van Ness, John R. 1976. Modernization, land tenure and 

ecology: the costs of change in northern New Mexico. 

Papers in Anthropology. 17(2): 168-178.

Van Ness, John R. 1987. Hispanic land grants: ecology and 

subsistence in the uplands of northern New Mexico and 

southern Colorado. In: Briggs, Charles L.; Van Ness, 

John R., eds. Land, water, and culture: new perspectives 

on Hispanic land grants. Albuquerque, NM: University of 

New Mexico Press: 141-214.

Varela, Gonzalo. 2010. [Personal communication]. May 

27 and December 18. Pecos, NM: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger 

District, Range Technician (Ret).

Wasserman, D.; Wormersley, M.; Gottlieb, S. 1998. Can a 

sense of place be preserved? In: Smith, J., ed. Philosophy 

and geography III: philosophies of place. New York: 

Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.: 191-214.

Weigle, M. 1975. Hispanic villages of northern New 

Mexico, Part I (reprint of volume II of the 1935 Tewa 

Basin study with supplementary materials), and Part II 

(bibliography). Santa Fe, NM: The Lightning Tree-Jene 

Lyon, Publisher. 278 p.

West, Patrick C. 1982. Natural resource bureaucracy and 

rural poverty: a study in the political sociology of natural 

resources. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, School 

of Natural Resources. Natural Resources Sociology 

Research Lab, Monograph No. 2. 168 p.

Whitson, Tom D.; Burrill, Larry C.; Dewey, Steven A.; 

Cudney, David W.; Nelson, B.E.; Lee, Richard D.; Parker, 

Robert; Ball, Daniel A.; Elmore, Clyde L.; Lym, Rodney 

G.; Morishita, Don W.; Swan, Dean G.; Zollinger, Richard 
76 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

K. 2006. Weeds of the West. 9th ed. Western Society of 

Weed Science, the Western US Land Grant Universities 

Cooperative Extension Services, and the University of 

Wyoming. 626 p.

Wildeman, Gerry; Brock, John H. 2000. Grazing in the 

Southwest: history of land use and grazing since 1540. In: 

Jemison, Roy; Raish, Carol, eds. Livestock management 

in the American Southwest: ecology, society, and 

economics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science: 

1-25.

Williams, D.R. 2002. Leisure identities, globalization, and 

the politics of place. Journal of Leisure Research. 34(4): 

351-367.

 Wozniak, Frank E. 1995. Human ecology and ethnology. 

In: Finch, Deborah M.; Tainter, Joseph A., eds. Ecology, 

diversity, and sustainability of the middle Rio Grande 

basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-268. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 29-51.

Yonemoto, Wayne. 2009. [Personal communication]. 

November 19. Tres Piedras, NM: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Carson National Forest, Tres 

Piedras Ranger District, Range Staff.

Yonemoto, Wayne. 2010. [Personal communication]. 

January. Tres Piedras, NM: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Carson National Forest, Tres 

Piedras Ranger District, Range Staff.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 77

APPENDIX A

Cover Letter

Dear Sir or Madam:

With the sponsorship of Forest Service Research, we are inviting all grazing permittees on the Santa 

Fe and Carson National Forests to participate in a study to demonstrate the importance of livestock 

ownership and grazing on federally managed land. Information from the study will be used to acquaint both the Forest Service and the public with the role and significance of the ranching tradition 

in Northern New Mexico. Hopefully, this will result in greater respect and understanding of the local 

history, culture, and values. We are planning to attend your allotment meeting to discuss the project.

We will need your assistance to describe the cultural, social, and economic contributions that livestock ownership makes to the families and communities of Northern New Mexico. Participation in 

the project is completely voluntary. All information will be confidential and anonymous. The Rocky 

Mountain Research Station will publish a final report from the project, and all participants will receive 

a draft report for comment and a copy of the final publication. We have completed a pilot study on the 

Española and Canjilon Districts and have published the results. 

The enclosed questionnaire is designed to gather information for this study. Please look it over to see 

if you would be willing to participate. If so, we would like to meet with you to fill out the questionnaire during a personal interview. After completing the interview, you will have an opportunity to 

discuss any additional issues or problems that may concern you. 

One of us will call to ask if you would agree to be part of the project. We will then set up a time and 

place to meet with you at your convenience (for example, your home, office, a local restaurant, the 

ranger station, etc.). The interview should take about 1 to 11⁄2 hours. We hope you will decide to help 

us gather this valuable information. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Carol Raish Alice M. McSweeney

Research Social Scientist Social Science Analyst
78 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

APPENDIX B

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for 

this information collection is 05960171. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 

90 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 

QUESTIONNAIRE

LIVESTOCK OWNERSHIP AMONG USDA FOREST SERVICE

GRAZING PERMITTEES IN NORTHERN NEW MEXICO

Please help us gather information about the importance of livestock ownership by answering the following questions. All 

questions apply to the permittee. For the purposes of this questionnaire, livestock refers to cattle and sheep.

Family Information

1. How many years have you lived in northern New Mexico? _________

2. When did your family first come to northern New Mexico? __________

3. Have members of your family left the community? _______

Why have they left? ________________________________________________

Have any returned? ______ Why? ___________________________________ 

4. Circle the primary language spoken in your household. (Please circle one response.)

Spanish English Both Other (specify)_______________

5. Please circle your age range. 20-35 36-49 50-65 over 65 

6. Please circle your highest level of completed education. 

 Grade School High School Some College College Degree Graduate School

7. Please circle your spouse’s highest level of completed education.

 Grade School High School Some College College Degree Graduate School

8. Do you consider yourself a full-time or part-time rancher? (circle one)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 79

9. Are you (or were you) also employed outside the home or ranch? ______

 If so, please give your job title or description _____________________________

 and the approximate number of hours worked per week. __________

 Are you retired from this outside job? _______ 

10. Is (was) your spouse employed outside the home or ranch? ______

 If so, please give your spouses job title or description _________________________

 and the approximate number of hours worked per week. __________

 Is your spouse retired from this job? _______

11. Would you farm or ranch full time if you could afford to do so? _______

12. Have your children continued their education or hope to do so in the future? _______

 If so, what are their educational interests? __________________________________ 

_______________________________ __________________________________ 

_______________________________ __________________________________ 

13. Do your children participate in ranching? _______

14. Do your grandchildren participate in ranching? _______

15. Do any of your children plan to continue the ranch operation? ________

Community Activities Related to Owning Livestock

16. Are you a member of a grazing association? ______

If so, how many grazing association meetings do you attend per year? ______

17. Are agriculture related classes or seminars available in your area? _______

If so, how many do you attend during a typical year? ______

18. What livestock related community events (brandings, rodeos, county fairs) do you attend throughout the year? 

________________________________ ________________________________

________________________________ _________________________________

19. Do you work your livestock together sharing responsibilities with relatives (other than your children who still live at 

home)? _______

20. Do you work your livestock together sharing responsibilities with neighbors who are not relatives? _______
80 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Description of Your Livestock Operation

21. What or who influenced your interest in farming and ranching? 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

22. At what age did you first begin working with livestock? _______

23. At what age did you first own livestock? _______

24. How many previous generations of your family have raised livestock? _______ 

25. Is (was) your family part of a community land grant? ______

If you are no longer associated with the grant land, how did that occur? ________________________________________

____________________________________

26. When did you or your family first acquire a grazing permit on USFS-managed land? _____

on BLM-managed land? _______

27. To give an idea of the time and effort that goes into ranching, briefly describe your work schedule throughout the year. 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

28. What breed(s) of cattle or sheep do you raise and why did you select those breeds?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

29. How many head of each type of livestock do you own during a typical year?

 Cows _________ Ewes ________

 Bulls _________ Rams ________

 Yearlings ______ Lambs _______

 Calves ________ Horses _______

30. How many animals are lost during a typical year, and what were the causes?

 Kind of Animal Number Lost On Public or Private Land Cause of Loss

 ________________ ______________ _______________ ________________________

________________ ______________ _______________ ________________________

________________ ______________ _______________ ________________________
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 81

31. To show how much time, labor, and money you invest in your federal grazing allotment (USFS or BLM) in addition to 

the grazing fee during a typical year, please estimate the following:

a. Days of personal labor (permittee and helpers) _________

b. Improvements to the allotment $____________

(Please indicate which in the space provided)

(1) Fences ________

(2) Water _______

(3) Trail repair _______

(4) Other (list) _______

c. Wages for hired herder $_________

d. Veterinary expenses $_________

e. Other (please specify) ________________________

If you have had major, one-time expenses on your federal allotment during the past five years, please list them with their 

cost.

_______________________________________________________________________

32. Do you grow supplemental forage (hay) for your livestock? _______

What mixture? ___________________________________________________________

33. What grasses (or other forage plants) do the livestock consume on rangeland?

________________________________________________________________________

34. What are the top three improvements you wish to see on your federal grazing allotment?

If these are not being implemented, why not?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

35. Have you noticed any land or vegetation changes in your lifetime? _______

If so, please explain. ______________________________________________________

36. Describe any land or vegetation changes related to you by older members of the community. 

 ___________________________________________________________________________
82 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Livestock Ownership and the Family

37. How many animals do you butcher for your family members during a typical year? _______

38. Do you give livestock to children or grandchildren (to start a herd or as a 4H project)? _____

39. Do you use any animal by-products such as hides, wool, milk, or manure? _______

 If so, which do you use? ____________________________________________

40. Do you give live animals, meat, or by-products to friends or neighbors? ________ 

Or as a donation to charity? _______

41. Please read the following statements about goals for your livestock operation, ranking them in order of importance 

from 1 to 4 (with 1 the most important). 

______ To make more money above costs each year from the livestock operation in order to increase the family’s overall 

income and material goods.

______ To maintain the family’s quality of life that results from owning livestock (spending time outdoors, working 

together, keeping the children busy and out of trouble, etc.)

______ To avoid being forced out of livestock ownership (the family has had livestock for generations).

______ To improve the livestock operation by purchasing more land. better equipment, and more animals.

42. Please estimate the percentage of your total gross income, before expenses, that comes from the livestock operation 

during a typical year. _______%

43. If you could pick one of the following means of saving or investing money, which would you choose? (Please circle 

one letter).

a. Putting money into a savings or investment program?

b. Buying more land in the area?

c. Buying more livestock or improving the stock operation in other ways such as investing in range 

improvements.

d. Other (Please describe).

44. In which of the following ways have you used earnings from the livestock operation?

(Please circle all appropriate letters.) 

a. Basic living expenses.

b. Household improvements.

c. Family emergencies.

d. Children’s college education.

e. Special expenditures such as a trip.

f. Investments such as stocks, bonds, savings account, etc.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 83

g. Buying more livestock or upgrading the livestock operation.

h. All goes back into the livestock operation.

i. Other ____________________________

45. Please read the following statements, ranking them in order of importance to you and your family from 1 to 4 (with 1 

the most important). 

______ To have more income and be able to buy more material goods.

______ To have a better quality of life and spend more time with my family.

______ To continue the way of life and maintain the traditional values of my parents and grandparents.

______ To gain personal satisfaction from managing a successful ranching business.

46. What would you like to give your children that would be a benefit to them in the future?

Discussion Topics

1. Please describe your feelings about your land and livestock and what role they play in maintaining rural ranching 

tradition and culture. 

2. Have you used your land and livestock to teach your children about traditional values and their heritage? If so, please 

describe.

3. Please give your opinion concerning land ownership in your area. For example, how does it affect you and your 

community if neighbors sell land for non-agricultural uses?

4. Describe your experiences concerning working with the government (FS or BLM) on your allotment(s).
84 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

5. What are your recommendations for preparing FS people to work in northern New Mexico? 

6. How would you describe your responsibility and relationship to the land, both private and public? 

7. What thoughts come to mind when you hear the words environment and environmentalist? Do you feel that you have 

views in common with environmentalists and the environmental movement?

8. What actions do you take on your allotment that might benefit the ecosystem (wildlife, vegetation, etc.)?

9. What knowledge and experience do you have from working with the land and livestock that you would like to 

contribute to or share with others? 

10. What do you think the economic, social, and environmental consequences would be if the ranching way of life were 

lost in northern New Mexico? 

11. What would you like the public to know and understand about ranchers in northern New Mexico?

12. Have you read Economic, Social, and Cultural Aspects of Livestock Ranching on the Española and Canjilon Ranger 

Districts of the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests: A Pilot Study? Yes No
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 85

APPENDIX C

Table 1—Permittee length of residence (PLENRES–Question 1).

PERMITTEE LENGTH

OF RESIDENCE*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

02

03

04

05

06

3

2

7

4

222

1.3

.8

2.9

1.7

93.3

1.3

.8

2.9

1.7

93.3

TOTAL 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(02) 6-10 years

(03) 11-20 years

(04) Over 20 years but less than entire life

(05) Born/grew up here, moved away, and returned

(06) Entire life

Table 2—Family length of residence (FLENRES—Question 2).

FAMILY LENGTH

OF RESIDENCE*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Total

97 (Missing)

4

2

15

36

12

2

8

6

13

7

23

17

45

25

6

2

6

2

3

234

4

1.7

.8

6.3

15.1

5.0

.8

3.4

2.5

5.5

2.9

9.7

7.1

18.9

10.5

2.5

.8

2.5

.8

1.3

98.3

1.7

1.7

.9

6.4

15.4

5.1

.9

3.4

2.6

5.6

3.0

9.8

7.3

19.2

10.7

2.6

.9

2.6

.9

1.3

100.0

TOTAL 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Permittee came here as an adult

(02) Parents
86 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

(03) Grandparents

(04) Great-grandparents

(05) Great-great grandparents

(06) Great-great-great grandparents

(07) Ancestors came in with Oñate/1598

(08) Late 1500s/Early 1600s

(09) 1600s

(10) Late 1600s/Early 1700s

(11) 1700s

(12) Late 1700s/Early 1800s

(13) 1800s

(14) Late 1800s/Early 1900s

(15) 1900s

(16) Family/ancestors are Native American

(17) “Forever,” assuming from Spain

(18) Early Spanish settlers

(19) Early Spanish settlers & Native American

Table 3—Have members of family left the community? (LEFTCOM—Question 3).

LEFT COMMUNITY*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

99

Total

97 (Missing)

215

18

3

236

2

90.3

7.6

1.3

99.2

.8

91.1

7.6

1.3

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 87

Table 4—Why have they left? (WHYLEFT—Question 3a).

REASON FOR

LEAVING*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

99

Total

97 (Missing)

155

2

3

1

3

16

3

11

2

1

9

2

1

1

1

1

22

234

4

65.1

.8

1.3

.4

1.3

6.7

1.3

4.6

.8

.4

3.8

.8

.4

.4

.4

.4

9.2

98.3

1.7

66.2

.9

1.3

.4

1.3

6.8

1.3

4.7

.9

.4

3.8

.9

.4

.4

.4

.4

9.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Employment elsewhere

(02) Military Service

(03) Marriage

(04) Preferred to leave the area/go to the city

(05) Education

(06) Employment & college

(07) Employment & health

(08) Employment & military

(09) Employment, military, education, & marriage

(10) Military & marriage

(11) Employment & marriage

(12) Education & military

(13) Employment, military, education

(14) Education & marriage

(15) Health problems & marriage

(16) Unknown
88 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 5—Have any returned? (RETCOM—Question 3b).

ANY RETURNED*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

99

Total

97 (Missing)

116

81

8

7

23

235

3

48.7

34.0

3.4

2.9

9.7

98.7

1.3

49.4

34.5

3.4

3.0

9.8

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Maybe, plan to, come & go, want to

(04) Not yet

Table 6—Why have they returned? (WHYRET—Question 3c).

WHY RETURNED*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

99

Total

97 (Missing)

9

15

1

14

52

16

10

115

232

6

3.8

6.3

.4

5.9

21.8

6.7

4.2

48.3

97.5

2.5

3.9

6.5

.4

6.0

22.4

6.9

4.3

49.6

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Retired

(02) Returned to help with/run the ranch

(03) Returned to rear their family in a rural area

(04) Preferred to live in a rural area/slower pace

(05) Roots are here; this is home, to be close to family

(06) Retirement & heritage

(07) Found employment, back to roots
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 89

Table 7—Primary language spoken in household (LANG—Question 4).

PRIMARY

LANGUAGE*

NUMBER OF

HOUSEHOLDS PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

47

52

135

1

1

2

19.7

21.8

56.7

.4

.4

.8

19.7

21.8

56.7

.4

.4

.8

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Spanish

(02) English

(03) Both

(04) Other/Combination of languages

(05) Spanish, English, & Jicarilla

(06) Sign language and English

Table 8—Age range of permittee (AGE—Question 5).

AGE RANGE

OF PERMITTEE*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

Total

97 (Missing)

11

41

94

89

2

237

1

4.6

17.2

39.5

37.4

.8

99.6

.4

4.6

17.3

39.7

37.6

.8

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) ≤20-35

(02) 36-49

(03) 50-65

(04) Over 65

(05) Multiple: group or dual interview
90 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 9—Permittee’s highest level of education (PERMED—Question 6).

PERMITTEE’S HIGHEST

LEVEL OF EDUCATION*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

31

86

67

1

32

21

13.0

36.1

28.2

.4

13.4

8.8

13.0

36.1

28.2

.4

13.4

8.8

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Grade School

(02) High School

(03) Some College

(04) Associate Degree

(05) College Degree

(06) Graduate School

Table 10—Spouse’s highest level of education (SPOUSED—Question 7).

SPOUSE’S HIGHEST

LEVEL OF EDUCATION*

NUMBER OF

SPOUSES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

05

06

99

Total

97 (Missing)

21

88

53

25

26

24

237

1

8.8

37.0

22.2

10.5

10.9

10.1

99.6

.4

8.9

37.1

22.3

10.5

10.9

10.1

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Grade School

(02) High School

(03) Some College

(04) Associate Degree

(05) College Degree

(06) Graduate School
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 91

Table 11—Do you consider yourself full-time or part-time rancher? (FLLRANCH—Question 8).

FULL/PART-TIME

RANCHER*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

Total

97 (Missing)

99

95

17

1

25

237

1

41.6

39.9

7.1

.4

10.5

99.6

.4

41.8

40.1

7.2

.4

10.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Full-time

(02) Part-time

(03) Now full-time, retired from an outside job

(04) Retired from ranching

(05) Full-time (has two full-time jobs, the ranch & 2nd job)

Table 12—Permittee employed outside home or ranch (PERMJOB—Question 9).

PERMITTEE

OUTSIDE JOB*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

04

198

33

7

83.2

13.9

2.9

83.2

13.9

2.9

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(04) Self employed
92 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 13—Permittee’s job description (PJOBDES—Question 9a).

PERMITTEE’S JOB

DESCRIPTION*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

16

17

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

25

18

1

18

67

25

2

5

8

1

4

1

24

3

2

204

1

33

10.5

7.6

.4

7.6

28.2

10.5

.8

2.1

3.4

.4

1.7

.4

10.1

1.3

.8

85.7

.4

13.9

12.3

8.8

.5

8.8

32.8

12.3

1.0

2.5

3.9

.5

2.0

.5

11.8

1.5

1.0

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Professional/Scientific/Managerial

(02) Education System/Teacher/Principal, etc./School Superintendent/School Administrator

(03) Health Care Professional

(04) Business Owner/Manager

(05) Skilled Trade/Technical/Clerical

(06) Heavy Equipment Operator/Truck Driver/Van Driver/School bus

(07) Artist/Artisan

(08) Agricultural

(09) Law Enforcement/Fire Depart./Security Officer, etc./Security Access. Specialist

(10) Laborer/Maintenance/Cleaning

(11) Veterinarian

(12) Military

(13) Doctor/Dentist/Nurse (RN)

(14) FS/ BLM/NPS/USDA Dept. Rural Devel

(15) Group interview: Multiple jobs

(16) Accountant/Banking

(17) Postal Service

(99) No off ranch job
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 93

Table 14—Approximate number of hours worked per week (PWORKHRS—Question 9b).

TOTAL HRS. WORKED

PER WEEK OFF RANCH*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

4

9

97

74

6

7

2

199

6

33

1.7

3.8

40.8

31.1

2.5

2.9

.8

83.6

2.5

13.9

2.0

4.5

48.7

37.2

3.0

3.5

1.0

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Less than 20 hours

(02) 20 hours or more but less than 40 hours

(03) Full time, 40 hours per week

(04) More than 40 hours per week

(05) Seasonal work

(06) Hours vary

(07) Multiple: group or dual interview

Table 15—Retired from outside job (PERMRET—Question 9c).

RETIRED FROM

OTHER JOB*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

103

98

2

203

2

33

43.3

41.2

.8

85.3

.8

13.9

50.7

48.3

1.0

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Group interview: some yes, some no
94 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 16—Spouse employed outside home or ranch (SPJOB—Question 10).

SPOUSE

JOB OUTSIDE* 

NUMBER OF

SPOUSES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

153

55

2

211

1

26

64.7

23.1

.8

88.7

.4

10.9

73.0

26.1

.9

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Multiple: group or dual interview

Table 17—Spouse’s job description (SPJOBDES—Question 10a).

SPOUSE JOB

DESCRIPTION*

NUMBER OF

SPOUSES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

08

09

10

11

13

14

15

16

18

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

11

31

14

5

41

3

8

2

5

15

55

8

2

7

1

208

3

27

4.6

13.0

5.9

2.1

17.2

1.3

3.4

.8

2.1

6.3

23.1

3.4

.8

2.9

.4

87.4

1.3

11.3

5.3

14.9

6.7

2.4

19.7

1.4

3.8

1.0

2.4

7.2

26.4

3.8

1.0

3.4

.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*(01) Professional/Scientific/Managerial

(02) Education System/Teacher/Coach

(03) Health Care Professional/Counselor

(04) Business Owner/Manager, Assists with family business

(05) Skilled Trade/Technical/Clerical

(06) Heavy Equipment Operator/Truck driver/School bus

(07) Artist/Artisan

(08) Daycare Provider/Home Care Provider

(09) Law Enforcement/ Fire Dept./Security Officer/Security Specialist

(10) Housekeeping/Maintenance
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 95

(11) Restaurant Worker/Cook

(12) Veterinarian

(13) Does not/has never worked outside the home

(14) Doctor/Dentist/Nurse (RN)

(15) University student (with work)

(16) Government: Federal, State, County

(17) Group interview: Multiple jobs

(18) Postal Service

Table 18—Approximate number of hours worked per week (SPWORKHRS—Question 10b).

SPOUSE

WORK HOURS*

NUMBER OF

SPOUSES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

8

22

91

22

2

6

151

5

82

3.4

9.2

38.2

9.2

.8

2.5

63.4

2.1

34.5

35.3

14.6

60.3

14.6

1.3

4.0

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Less than 20 hours

(02) 20 hours or more but less than 40 hours

(03) Full time, 40 hours per week

(04) More than 40 hours per week

(05) Seasonal work

(06) Hours vary

(07) Does not/has never worked outside the home

Table 19—Spouse retired from off-ranch job (SPRET—Question 10c).

SPOUSE

RETIRED*

NUMBER OF

SPOUSES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

52

99

151

2

85

21.8

41.6

63.4

.8

35.7

34.4

65.6

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Does not/has never worked outside the home

(04) Outside job is related to agriculture
96 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 20—Would farm or ranch full-time if affordable (RANCHWISH—Question 11).

RANCH

FULL-TIME*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

Total

97 (Missing )

99 (N/A)

177

9

4

6

3

199

2

37

74.4

3.8

1.7

2.5

1.3

83.6

.8

15.5

88.9

4.5

2.0

3.0

1.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Yes, if the money were there—could support self and family

(04) No: because they enjoy the other career as well

(05) Probably

(99) Full-time rancher

Table 21—Have children/grandchildren continued education or hope to do so (CHILDED—Question 12).

CHILDRENS’

EDUCATION*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

198

6

18

1

223

5

10

83.2

2.5

7.6

.4

93.7

2.1

4.2

88.8

2.7

8.1

.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Too young

(04) Unknown/Don’t know yet
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 97

Table 22—Educational interests of first child (EDINTSA—Question 12a).

EDUCATION

FIRST CHILD*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

18

19

20

21

22

23

26

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

24

1

29

7

31

1

6

10

2

13

7

25

5

3

10

4

9

2

2

4

1

1

197

11

30

10.1

.4

12.2

2.9

13.0

.4

2.5

4.2

.8

5.5

2.9

10.5

2.1

1.3

4.2

1.7

3.8

.8

.8

1.7

.4

.4

82.8

4.6

12.6

12.2

.5

14.7

3.6

15.7

.5

3.0

45.1

1.0

6.6

3.6

12.7

2.5

1.5

5.1

2.0

4.6

1.0

1.0

2.0

.5

.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Agriculture/Ranching/Wildlife Science

(02) Artist/Artisan/Music

(03) Business Management/ Economics/Accounting

(04) Computer Science

(05) Education/Teacher

(06) Heavy Equipment Operator/Truck Driver

(07) Health Care Professional

(08) Law

(09) Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice

(10) Medical Fields (Doctor, Nurse, Dentist, Pharmacist)

(11) Sciences (physical, biological)

(12) Skilled Trade/Technical/Clerical

(13) Veterinarian

(14) Wants to attend college

(15) Military

(16) Communications

(17) Real Estate

(18) Still in College or Graduate school/Graduated

(19) Engineering/Mathematician/Architecture
98 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

(20) Chef/ Food Service/Restaurant

(21) Social/ Political Sciences

(22) FS/BLM/NPS

(23) State government/County gov’t/City gov’t

(24) Home Economist

(25) Banking

(26) Librarian

(27) Human Resources

(28) Psychology

(29) Journalism

Table 23—Educational interests of second child (EDINTSB—Question 12b).

EDUCATION

SECOND CHILD*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

27

28

29

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

13

4

14

9

12

1

4

4

4

13

7

31

5

1

6

1

4

14

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

159

18

61

5.5

1.7

5.9

3.8

5.0

.4

1.7

1.7

1.7

5.5

2.9

13.0

2.1

.4

2.5

.4

1.7

5.9

.8

.8

.4

.8

.8

.4

.4

.4

66.8

7.6

25.6

8.2

2.5

8.8

5.7

7.5

.6

2.5

2.5

2.5

8.2

4.4

19.5

3.1

.6

3.8

.6

2.5

8.8

1.3

1.3

.6

1.3

1.3

.6

.6

.6

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Agriculture/Ranching/Wildlife Science Second Child Edn
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 99

(02) Artist/Artisan/Music

(03) Business Management

(04) Computer Science

(05) Education/Teacher

(06) Heavy Equipment Operator/Truck Driver

(07) Health Care Professional

(08) Law

(09) Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice

(10) Medical Fields (Doctor, Nurse, Dentist, Pharmacist)

(11) Sciences (physical, biological)

(12) Skilled Trade/Technical/Clerical

(13) Veterinarian

(14) Wants to attend college

(15) Military

(16) Communications

(17) Real Estate

(18) Still in College or Graduate school/Graduated

(19) Engineering/Mathematician/Architecture

(20) Chef/Food Service/Restaurant

(21) Social/Political Sciences

(22) FS/BLM/NPS

(23) State government County gov’t/City gov’t

(24) Home Economist

(25) Accounting/Banking

(26) Librarian

(27) Human Resources

(28) Psychology

(29) Journalism

(30) History

(31) Languages
100 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 24—Educational interests of third child (EDINTSC—Question 12c).

EDUCATION

THIRD CHILD*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

30

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

4

2

9

4

8

1

5

2

2

9

5

16

2

1

7

10

1

2

1

3

1

95

18

125

1.7

.8

3.8

1.7

3.4

.4

2.1

.8

.8

3.8

2.1

6.7

.8

.4

2.9

4.2

.4

.8

.4

1.3

.4

39.9

7.6

52.5

4.2

2.1

9.5

4.2

8.4

1.1

5.3

2.1

2.1

9.5

5.3

16.8

2.1

1.1

7.4

10.5

1.1

2.1

1.1

3.2

1.1

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Agriculture/Ranching /Wildlife Science Third Child Edn

(02) Artist/Artisan/Music

(03) Business Management

(04) Computer Science

(05) Education/Teacher

(06) Heavy Equipment Operator/Truck Driver

(07) Health Care Professional

(08) Law

(09) Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice

(10) Medical Fields (Doctor, Nurse, Dentist, Pharmacist)

(11) Sciences (physical, biological)

(12) Skilled Trade/Technical/Clerical

(13) Veterinarian

 (14) Wants to attend college

(15) Military

(16) Communications

(17) Real Estate

(18) Still in College or Graduate school/Graduated

(19) Engineering/Mathematician/ Architecture
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 101

(20) Chef/Food Service/Restaurant

(21) Social/Political Sciences

(22) FS/BLM/NPS

(23) State government/County gov’t/City gov’t

(24) Home Economist

(25) Accounting/Banking

(26) Librarian

(27) Human Resources

(28) Psychology

(29) Journalism

(30) History

(31) Languages

Table 25—Educational interests of fourth child (EDINTSD—Question 12d).

EDUCATION

FOURTH CHILD*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

03

05

06

07

08

10

11

12

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

23

25

31

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

1

6

5

1

2

1

2

1

7

1

1

1

3

3

2

2

2

2

3

46

13

179

.4

2.5

2.1

.4

.8

.4

.8

.4

2.9

.4

.4

.4

1.3

1.3

.8

.8

.8

.8

1.3

19.3

94.5

5.5

2.2

13.0

10.9

2.2

4.3

2.2

4.3

2.2

15.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

6.5

6.5

4.3

4.3

4.3

4.3

6.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Agriculture/Ranching/Wildlife Science Fourth Child Edn

(02) Artist/Artisan/Music

(03) Business Management

(04) Computer Science

(05) Education/Teacher

(06) Heavy Equipment Operator/Truck Driver
102 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

(07) Health Care Professional

(08) Law

(09) Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice

(10) Medical Fields (Doctor, Nurse, Dentist, Pharmacist)

(11) Sciences (physical, biological)

(12) Skilled Trade/Technical/Clerical

(13) Veterinarian

(14) Wants to attend college

(15) Military

(16) Communications

(17) Real Estate

(18) Still in College or Graduate school/Graduated

(19) Engineering/Mathematician/Architecture

(20) Chef/Food Service/Restaurant

(21) Social/Political Sciences

(22) FS/ BLM/NPS

(23) State government/County gov’t/City gov’t

(24) Home Economist

(25) Accounting/Banking

(26) Librarian

(27) Human Resources

(28) Psychology

(29) Journalism

(29) Journalism

(30) History

(31) Languages

Table 26—Do your children participate in ranching? (CHLDRNCH —Question 13).

CHILD

PARTICIPATES*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

Total

99 (N/A)

211

15

5

1

232

6

88.7

6.3

2.1

.4

97.5

2.5

90.9

6.5

2.2

.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Nephews/Nieces participate

(04) Too young to participate
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 103

Table 27—Do grandchildren participate in ranching? (GRCHRNCH—Question 14).

GRANDCHILD

PARTICIPATES*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

04

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

119

18

40

177

1

60

50.0

7.6

16.8

74.4

.4

25.2

67.2

10.2

22.6

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Great nephews/Great nieces participate

(04) Too young to participate

Table 28—Do children plan to continue the ranch operation? (CONTRNCH—Question 15).

CONTINUE

RANCH OP’N*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

133

10

31

23

1

6

15

14

233

1

4

55.9

4.2

13.0

9.7

.4

2.5

6.3

5.9

97.9

.4

1.7

57.1

4.3

13.3

9.9

.4

2.6

6.4

6.0

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Possibly, Maybe, Probably

(04) Hope So, hopefully

(05) Grandchildren will continue the ranch

(06) Nephews, nieces, other close relatives will/may continue the ranch

(07) Doesn’t know

(08) Doesn’t think so
104 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 29—Are you a member of a grazing association? (GRASSOC—Question 16).

MEMBER GR

ASSOC’N*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

Total

97 (Missing)

179

53

5

237

1

75.2

22.3

2.1

99.6

.4

75.5

22.4

2.1

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Used to be, but no longer

Table 30—If a member, how many meetings attended per year? (ASSOCMTS—Question 16a).

MEETINGS

ATTENDED*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

6

55

57

40

20

3

2

183

2

53

2.5

23.1

23.9

16.8

8.4

1.3

.8

76.9

.8

22.3

3.3

30.1

31.1

21.9

10.9

1.6

1.1

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) None

(02) 1-2

(03) 3-5

(04) 6-10

(05) More than 10

(06) Many meetings, involved in many state and local ranching associations although may have a single permit 

 allotment and no association

(07) No # specified/“all,” “many,” etc.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 105

Table 31—Are agriculture-related classes or seminars available in the area? (AGCLASS—Question 17).

AG SEMINARS*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

92

81

31

16

5

13

38.7

34.0

13.0

6.7

2.1

5.5

38.7

34.0

13.0

6.7

2.1

5.5

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Unknown

(04) Minimal available, Occasional

(05) Used to be

(06) Not in immediate area

Table 32—If so, how many do you attend per year? (ATCLASS—Question 17a).

SEMINARS

ATTENDED*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

07

08

09

10

11

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

33

40

15

5

5

16

4

1

3

122

2

114

13.9

16.8

6.3

2.1

2.1

6.7

1.7

.4

1.3

51.3

.8

47.9

27.0

32.8

12.3

4.1

4.1

13.1

3.3

.8

2.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) None

(02) 1-2

(03) 3-5

(04) 6-10

(05) More than 10

(06) Semester or more of classes

(07) When possible

(08) A few or vague re: number/Occasional

(09) Used to attend

(10) Teaches the classes

(11) Time restraints
106 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

What livestock related community events do you/did you attend? (Table 33-41, Questions 18a-18i)

Table 33—Brandings attended(BRANDS—Question 18a).

BRANDINGS*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

Total

97 (Missing)

63

121

53

237

1

26.5

50.8

22.3

99.6

.4

26.6

51.1

22.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes, with the family

(02) Yes, with family and other community members

(03) No

Table 34—Fairs attended (FAIRS—Question 18b).

FAIRS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

04

05

102

61

57

18

42.9

25.6

23.9

7.6

42.9

25.6

23.9

7.6

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) County Fairs

(02) All types of fairs

(03) Attend and compete at fairs (any family members)

(04) No

(05) State Fair
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 107

Table 35—Rodeos attended (RODEOS—Question 18c).

RODEOS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

10

170

5

53

4.2

71.4

2.1

22.3

4.2

71.4

2.1

22.3

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Local Rodeos

(02) All types of rodeos

(03) Attend and compete in rodeos (any family members)

(04) No

Table 36—Four-H/ FFA attended as a child or children attend (FOURH—Question 18d).

FOUR-H

FFA*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

53

6

178

1

22.3

2.5

74.8

.4

22.3

2.5

74.8

.4

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) Yes, a leader

(03) No

Table 37—Bull sales attended (BULLSALE—Question 18e).

BULL SALES*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

127

111

53.4

46.6

53.4

46.6

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No
108 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 38—Livestock auctions attended (LVSTKAUC—Question 18f).

LIVESTOCK

AUCTIONS*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

Total

97 (Missing)

196

41

237

1

82.4

17.2

99.6

.4

82.7

17.3

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

Table 39—Acequia association meetings (ACEQUIA—Question 18g).

ACEQUIA

MEETINGS*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

113

23

102

47.5

9.7

42.9

47.5

9.7

42.9

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) Yes, am/have been an officer

(03) No

Table 40—Ranch related state or national associations, land grant meetings (STNTMTS—Question 18h).

STATE/NATIONAL

ASSOCIATIONS*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

29

14

195

12.2

5.9

81.9

12.2

5.9

81.9

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) Yes, am/have been an officer

(03) No
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 109

Table 41—Other organizations or events (OTHER—Question 18i).

OTHER EVENTS OR

ORGANIZATIONS*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

163

5

10

9

3

15

6

2

2

5

7

1

1

1

2

1

4

1

68.5

2.1

4.2

3.8

1.3

6.3

2.5

.8

.8

2.1

2.9

.4

.4

.4

.8

.4

1.7

.4

68.5

2.1

4.2

3.8

1.3

6.3

2.5

.8

.8

2.1

2.9

.4

.4

.4

.8

.4

1.7

.4

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) No

(02) Sheriff’s Posse

(03) Horse Shows/Sales/races/horse associations

(04) Ropings/Team roping

(05) Fiestas

(06) FFA/FHA

(07) Roundups/Cattle drives

(08) Sheep Sales

(09) Ag’ Expositions/Ag’ Fest

(10) Matanzas

(11) Stock Shows

(12) Fiestas, FFA

(13) Field days

(14) Fiestas, farm equipment auctions

(15) Farm auctions

(16) NM Mounted Patrol

(17) Pioneer/Frontier Days/local festivals

(18) County Fair Board

(19) Quivira Conference
110 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 42—Do you share livestock work and responsibilities with relatives? (RUNRELS—Question 19).

WORK WITH

RELATIVES*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

155

67

14

2

65.1

28.2

5.9

.8

65.1

28.2

5.9

.8

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) No, but relatives often help out

(04) Used to

Table 43—Do you share livestock work and responsibilities with neighbors? (RUNEIGHS—Question 20).

WORK WITH

NEIGHBORS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

137

52

17

32

57.6

21.8

7.1

13.4

57.6

21.8

7.1

13.4

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) Yes, especially with other association (allotment) members

(03) Yes, help out if needed

(04) No
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 111

Table 44—Who influenced your interest in farming and ranching? (RNCINFL—Question 21).

WHOSE

INFLUENCE*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

07

08

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total 

97 (Missing)

91

1

20

29

15

3

3

1

3

25

15

3

4

5

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

237

1

38.2

.4

8.4

12.2

6.3

1.3

1.3

.4

1.3

10.5

6.3

1.3

1.7

2.1

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

1.7

.4

.4

1.3

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

99.6

.4

38.4

.4

8.4

12.2

6.3

1.3

1.3

.4

1.3

10.5

6.3

1.3

1.7

2.1

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

1.7

.4

.4

1.3

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Father

(02) Mother

(03) Parents

(04) Father and Grandfather

(05) Grandfather

(06) Grandmother

(07) Grandparents

(08) Uncle(s)

(09) Aunt(s)

(10) Other relatives (brothers, cousins)

(11) Teachers

(12) No one—decided on my own

(13) Brought up with it

(14) Family business, everyone ranched
112 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

(15) Neighbor, Friend

(16) Father & whole family

(17) Grandfather, Father, Uncle

(18) Father & Father-in-law

(19) The “Life Style”

(20) For money/profit

(21) Parents & Uncle

(22) Husband

(23) Parents & Grandparents

(24) Previous employers & family

(25) Grandfather & Uncles

(26) Father & Uncles

(27) Father injured so had to take over

(28) Father and money

(29) Husband & Father-in-law

(30) His horse

(31) Father, Uncles, Ag’ Teacher

Table 45—At what age did you first begin to work with livestock? (AGEWRKL—Question 22).

FIRST WORKED

LIVESTOCK*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

Total

97 (Missing)

10

44

111

54

9

2

2

5

237

1

4.2

18.5

46.6

22.7

3.8

.8

.8

2.1

99.6

.4

4.2

18.6

46.8

22.8

3.8

.8

.8

2.1

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) As far back as I can remember (no age given)

(02) 0-3

(03) 4-6

(04) 7-10

(05) 11-14

(06) 15-18

(07) Young Adult

(08) Adult

(09) Older Adult (i.e., Retirement activity)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 113

Table 46—At what age did you first own livestock? (AGEOWNL—Question 23).

FIRST OWNED

LIVESTOCK*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

Total

97 (Missing)

3

12

42

57

41

32

29

17

233

5

1.3

5.0

17.6

23.9

17.2

13.4

12.2

7.1

97.9

2.1

1.3

5.2

18.0

24.5

17.6

13.7

12.4

7.3

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

01) As far back as I can remember (no age given)

(02) 0-3

(03) 4-6

(04) 7-10

(05) 11-14

(06) 15-18

(07) Young Adult

(08) Adult

(09) Older Adult (i.e., Retirement activity)
114 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 47—How many previous generations of family have owned livestock? (FAMOWNL—Question 24).

LS OF PREVIOUS

GENERATIONS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

Total

97 (Missing)

99

Total

2

10

53

89

31

28

2

1

8

7

1

3

235

2

1

3

.8

4.2

22.3

37.4

13.0

11.8

.8

.4

3.4

2.9

.4

1.3

98.7

.8

.4

1.3

.9

4.3

22.6

37.9

13.2

11.9

.9

.4

3.4

3.0

.4

1.3

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) I am the first to have livestock

(02) One, my parents had livestock

(03) Two, my grandparents had livestock

(04) Three, my great-grandparents had livestock

(05) Four, my great-great grandparents had livestock

(06) Five or more, my great-great-great grandparents had livestock

(07) No generational count, family has had livestock since the 1800s

(08) No generational count, family has had livestock since the 1700s

(09) No generational count, has had livestock since Oñate’s time, the Reconquest, 1600s

(10) No generational count, family has “always” had livestock since “the beginning”

(11) Since Grandfather was placed there (Native Americans)

(12) Twelve generations
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 115

Table 48—Is (was) your family part of a community land grant? (LAGRANT—Question 25).

LAND GRANT*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

05

07

118

67

25

14

14

49.6

28.2

10.5

5.9

5.9

49.6

28.2

10.5

5.9

5.9

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Unknown

(04) Family is in a grant but is inactive or uses the grant lands for purposes other than grazing such as fuel wood gathering or 

gathering of vigas

(05) Post US Conquest purchase

(06) Thinks so, but not sure

(07) Homestead land

Table 49—If no longer associated with the grant land, how did that occur? (GRNTLOSS—Question 25a).

HOW GRANT

WAS LOST*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

98

99

Total

97 (Missing)

13

10

6

6

10

27

20

8

2

1

13

119

235

3

5.5

4.2

2.5

2.5

4.2

11.3

8.4

3.4

.8

.4

5.5

50.0

98.7

1.3

5.5

4.3

2.6

2.6

4.3

11.5

8.5

3.4

.9

.4

5.5

50.6

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Family sold their portion of grant/ no longer involved

(02) Grant lost after US conquest because of inability to pay taxes

(03) Grant lost after US conquest because of inability to obtain deed because of lack of written records

(04) Grant lost after US conquest because of language and communication barriers

(05) Grant lost after US conquest because of unscrupulous land dealings (e.g., “Santa Fe Ring”)

(06) Grant lost after US conquest to the Government/Forest Service (became public land)
116 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

(07) Grant lost after US conquest because of unknown or unspecified reasons

(08) Much lost, partitioned, sold some/some now FS or NPS

(09) Lost to US Government and Indians

(10) Land lost to taxes, not sure if land grant or homestead

(11) Land lost to taxes, not grant land

(12) Family looking into it/permittee not certain

Table 50—When did your family first acquire a permit on FS land? (PERMFS—Question 26).

FS PERMIT*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

Total

97 (Missing)

122

12

14

7

13

11

5

20

5

7

12

9

237

1

51.3

5.0

5.9

2.9

5.5

4.6

2.1

8.4

2.1

2.9

5.0

3.8

99.6

.4

51.5

5.1

5.9

3.0

5.5

4.6

2.1

8.4

2.1

3.0

5.1

3.8

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) None (NOTE: All respondents to this survey should have a Forest Service permit.)

(02) Sublease on Forest Service land

(03) Since permits began in the area/Pre-Forest Service

(04) Father (or other relative of that generation) had the permit and passed it down

(05) Grandfather (or other relative of that generation) had the permit and passed it down

(06) Less than 10 years

(07) 10-20 years

(08) 21-30 years

(09) 31-40 years

(10) 41-50 years

(11) 51-60 years

(12) 61-70 years

(13) 71-80 years or more

(14) Father or grandfather had a permit and lost or sold it. Current permittee got another
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 117

Table 51—When did your family first acquire a permit on BLM land? (PERMBLM—Question 26a).

BLM PERMIT*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

10

11

12

13

Total

97 (Missing)

173

1

18

5

2

3

4

3

7

12

2

2

232

6

72.7

.4

7.6

2.1

.8

1.3

1.7

1.3

2.9

5.0

.8

.8

97.5

2.5

74.6

.4

7.8

2.2

.9

1.3

1.7

1.3

3.0

5.2

.9

.9

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) None/ Not any more

(02) Sublease on BLM land

(03) Since permits began in the area/Pre-BLM

(04) Father had the permit and passed it down

(05) Grandfather had the permit and passed it down.

(06) Less than 10 years

(07) 10-20 years

(08) 21-30 years

(09) 31-40 years

(10) 41-50 years

(11) 51-60 years

(12) 61-70 years

(13) 71-80 years

(14) Father or grandfather had a permit and lost or sold it. Current permittee got another
118 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

What breeds of cattle or sheep do you raise and why did you select those breeds? (Questions 28a-28c)

Table 52-What breed(s) of cattle do you raise? (CTLBREED-Queslion 28a).

CATTLE NUMBER OF

BREEOS~ PERMITTEES

02 8

03 1

06 2

09 2

10 9

11 10

14 2

17 2

18 9

19 38

20 1

21 1

22 2

23 5

24 1

25 24

26 6

27 6

28 1

29 1

31 1

32 1

33 4

34 1

35 1

37 1

39 2

40 2

41 4

42 1

43 2

44 2

45 1

46 1

47 2

48 2

49 2

50 3

51 1

52 2

53 1

54 1

55 1

56 2

57 2

58 1

59 1

60 2

61 1

62 2

63 1

PERCENT

3.4

.4

.8

.8

3.8

4.2

.8

.8

3.8

16,0

.4

.4

.8

2.1

.4

10,1

2.5

25

4

4

.4

.4

17

4

4

.4

.8

8

17

4

.8

8

.4

.4

8

8

8

13

.4

8

4

4

.4

.8

8

4

4

.8

.4

.8

.4

VALID

PERCENT

3.4

.4

.9

.9

3.8

4.3

.9

.9

3.8

16.2

.4

.4

.9

2.1

.4

10.2

2.6

26

.4

.4

.4

.4

17

.4

.4

.4

.9

9

17

.4

.9

9

.4

.4

9

9

9

1.3

.4

9

.4

.4

.4

.9

9

.4

.4

.9

.4

.9

.4
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 119

Key*

(1) Beefmaster

(2) Black Angus

(3) Blonde d’Aquitaine (“Blondies”)

(4) Brahmann

(5) Brangus

(6) Charolais

(7) Galloway

(9) Gelbvieh

(10) Hereford (“White Face”)

64144

65

4 17 17

661 .4 .4

67144

68

1 .4 .4

69

1 .4 .4

70

1 .4 .4

71289

72144

732 .8 .9

741 .4 .4

75144

76144

77144

781 .4 .4

791 .4 .4

80

144

81144

82144

835 2.1 2.1

841 .4 .4

851 .4 .4

861 .4 .4

881 .4 .4

891 .4 .4

901 .4 .4

912 .8 .9

922 .8 .9

93

1 .4 .4

941 .4 .4

95

1 .4 .4

961 .4 .4

1001 .4 .4

1011 .4 .4

1021 .4 .4

1031 .4 .4

1041 .4 .4

1051 .4 .4

1061 .4 .4

107144

108144

1091 .4 .4

Total 235 98.7 100,0

Missing 99

3 13

Total 238 100.0
120 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

(11) Limousin

(12) Longhorn

(13) Red Angus

(14) Salers

(15) Santa Gertrudis

(16) Shorthorn

(17) Black Angus and Gelbvieh

(18) Black Angus and Limousin

(19) Black Angus x Hereford (“Black Baldy”)

(20) Black Angus, Limousin, and Gelbvieh

(21) Charolais and Black Angus

(21) Hereford and Brown Swiss

(22) Hereford and Salers

(23) Hereford, Black Angus, and Charolais

(24) Hereford, Black Angus, and Gelbvieh

(25) Hereford, Black Angus, and Limousin

(26) Hereford, Black Angus, and Salers

(27) Hereford, Black Angus, Limousin, and Salers

(28) Hereford, Black Angus, Santa Gertrudis, Limousin, Blonde d’Aquitaine

(29) Hereford, Charolais, Red Angus, Black Angus, and Limousin

(30) Hereford, Limousin, and Beefmaster

(31) Hereford, Limousin, Longhorn, Gelbvieh, Black Angus, Shorthorn

(32) Hereford, Longhorn, Beefmaster, Gelbvieh, Red Angus, Black Angus

(33) Hereford, Red Angus, and Black Angus

(34) Hereford, Simmental, Gelbvieh, and Black Angus

(35) Limousin, Salers, and Beefmaster

(36) Longhorn and Gelbvieh

(37) Red Brangus, Black Angus, and Limousin

(38) Simmental and Black Angus

(39) Hereford and Brangus

(40) Unknown Breed(s) or unspecified (e.g., “mixed breeds” or “crossbred”)

(41) Hereford and Limousin

(42) Charolais, Limousin, Salers, Angus

(43) Hereford and Mixed (crossbreds)

(44) Black Angus and Crossbreds

(45) Black Angus, Red Angus, Charolais, Longhorn

(46) Black Angus, Hereford, and Blond d’Aquitaine

(47) Hereford, Brangus, Limousin

(48) Hereford, Black Angus, Charolais, Limousin

(49) Hereford, Angus, Brangus (Black & Red)

(50) Hereford, Black Angus, Gelbvieh, and Limousin

(51) Hereford, Black/Red Angus, and Salers

(52) Angus and Beefmaster

(53) Hereford, Angus, and Shorthorn

(54) Hereford, Black Angus, Charolais, Limousin, Salers

(55) Hereford, Angus, Charolais, Shorthorn

(56) Black Angus and Salers

(57) Black Angus and Blonde d’Aquitaine

(58) Hereford, Red Angus, and Simmental

(59) Hereford, Black Angus, Red Angus, Beefmaster, Brangus, Limousin,
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 121

Santa Gertrudis, and Shorthorn

(60) Black Angus, Charolais, and Limousin

(61) Brangus and Charolais

(62) Black Angus, Limousin, and Salers

(63) Hereford, Black Angus, Maine-Anjou, and Salers

(64) Blonde d’ Aquitaine, Gelbvieh, Limousin, and Tarentaise

(65) Limousin and Salers

(66) Angus Plus and Herefords

(67) Angus, Charolais, and Santa Gertrudis

(68) Mixed breeds: Jersey, Salers, Black Angus, Charolais, Hereford

(69) Simmental cross

(70) Angus and Brangus

(71) Limousin and Brown Swiss

(72) Black Angus, Red Angus, and Gelbvieh

(73) Hereford x Black Angus (Black Baldies) and Santa Gertrudis

(74) Hereford, Angus, Brangus, Gelbvieh, Simmental

(75) Hereford, Angus, Brangus, Gelbvieh

(76) Hereford x Angus, Longhorn, Maine-Anjou, Chianina

(77) Santa Gertrudis and Beefmaster

(78) Hereford, Limousin, Romagnola

(79) Charolais, Limousin, Salers

(80) Limousin & Gelbvieh

(81) Angus, Brahman, Hereford, Limousin, Shorthorn (Galloway)

(82) Angus, Brahman, Hereford, Holstein, Saler, Simmental; Jersey & Limousin (bulls)

(83) Hereford, Angus, Beefmaster

(84) Longhorn, Gelbvieh, Corriente (Roping Stock)

(85) Angus, Beefmaster, Simmental, Maine-Anjou, Hereford, Charolais, Brown Swiss

(86) Hereford, Charolais, Limousin

(87) Hereford & Holstein (Pintas)

(88) Hereford, Black Angus, Charolais, and Brahman

(89) Hereford, Black Angus, Simmental, Limousin

(90) Hereford, Black Angus, Simmental, Limousin, Salers

(91) Black Angus, Red Angus, Limousin

(92) Red Angus and Limousin

(93) Black Angus, Red Angus, Hereford, Limousin

(94) Black Angus, Limousin, Brangus

(95) Black Baldy, Charolais, Hereford, Beefmaster, Limousin, Salers, Santa Gertrudis

(96) Beefmaster, Black Angus, Charolais, Salers

(100) Black Angus (bull) and Santa Gertrudis

(101) Brangus and Salers

(102) Black Angus, Limousin, Holstein (bull)

(103) Angus, Galloway, Hereford, Salers

(104) Simmental and Limousin

(105) Black Angus, Limousin, Gelbvieh, Charolais

(106) Black Angus, Hereford, Limousin, Charolais, Brangus

(107) Black Angus, Shorthorn

(108) Black Angus, Charolais, Hereford, Limousin, Santa Gertrudis

(109) Angus, Charolais, Brangus, Galloway, Salers
122 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 53—What breed(s) of sheep do you raise? (SHPBREED—Question 28b).

SHEEP

BREEDS*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

Total

97 (Missing)

1

3

5

1

1

16

1

1

3

1

1

1

35

203

.4

1.3

2.1

.4

.4

6.7

.4

.4

1.3

.4

.4

.4

14.7

85.3

2.9

8.6

14.3

2.9

2.9

45.7

2.9

2.9

8.6

2.9

2.9

2.9

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Cheviot

(02) Churro

(03) Columbian

(04) Rambouillet

(05) Suffolk

(06) Columbian and Suffolk

(07) Rambouillet, Columbian, Suffolk

(08) Unknown which breeds/Breed not specified

(09) Rambouillet, Churro, and Dorset

(10) Rambouillet and Columbian

(11) Rambouillet and Suffolk

(12) Merino

(13) Rambouillet, Suffolk, and Merino

(14) Rambouillet and Churro
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 123

Table 54—Why did you choose those breeds? (WHYBREED—Question 28c).

REASONS

FOR CHOICE*

NUMBER OF

RESPONSES+

PERCENT OF

RESPONSES

PERCENT

OF CASES

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

62

19

69

104

40

54

34

50

79

12.1

3.7

13.5

20.4

7.8

10.6

6.7

9.8

15.5

28.4

8.7

31.7

47.7

18.3

24.8

15.6

22.9

36.2

Total 511 100.0

(20 missing cases plus 218 valid cases represent the 238 permittees)

Key*

(01) Preference/Liked them/Tradition Breed Selection

(02) Hybrid (crossbred) vigor

(03) Adaptable/Hardy/ Efficient animals/Self-maintain

(04) Marketability (prices, meat quality, buyer preference)

(05) Disease resistance

(06) Disposition/Easy to handle

(07) Maternal characteristics

(08) Birthing ease/Low birth weight

(09) Growth characteristics (gain weight rapidly)

+ “Number of responses” indicates the number of times each reason was chosen. Permittees could provide as many 

 reasons for breed selection as were relevant to each operation

How many head of each type of livestock do you own during a typical year? (Question 29, Tables 55-63)
124 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 55-Number of cows (COWS-Question29).

NUMBER NUMBER OF

OF COWS PERMITTEES

01 1

02 1

M 3

05 4

• 2

07 4

M 7

3

10 10

11 4

12 4

13 1

14 5

15 12

16 1

17 2

18 8

19 1

20 15

21 3

22 2

23 1

M 3

a 7

m 2

v 3

28 1

30 15

3

33 1

34 1

35 1

36 1

37 1

• 2

n 3

5

41 2

42 1

45 1

a 2

7

52 1

U 2

3

2

58 1

M 3

61 1

62 1

65 1

PERCENT

A

A

1.3

17

8

17

29

13

4.2

1.7

17

A

21

5.0

A

8

3A

A

6.3

1.3

8

A

1.3

2.9

.8

13

A

6.3

1.3

A

A

A

A

A

8

13

21

.8

A

A

8

29

A

.8

13

8

A

1.3

A

A

A

VALID

PERCENT

A

A

1.3

17

9

1.7

30

13

4.3

1.7

17

A

21

5.1

A

9

34

A

6A

1.3

9

A

1.3

3.0

.9

13

A

6A

1.3

A

A

A

A

A

9

13

21

.9

A

A

9

30

A

.9

13

9

A

1.3

A

A

A
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 125

70 3 1.3 1.3

72 1 .4 .4

80 2 .8 .9

84 1 .4 .4

85 1 .4 .4

86 2 .8 .9

88 2 .8 .9

90 5 2.1 2.1

94 1 .4 .4

95 2 .8 .9

99 1 .4 .4

100 7 2.9 3.0

103 1 .4 .4

110 1 .4 .4

115 1 .4 .4

120 1 .4 .4

125 1 .4 .4

140 2 8 9

148 1 .4 .4

160 1 .4 .4

170 1 .4 .4

178 1 .4 .4

200 2 .8 .9

201 1 .4 .4

240 2 8 9

247 1 .4 .4

250 2 .8 .9

253 1 .4 .4

275 1 .4 .4

300 1 .4 .4

309 2 8 .9

350 1 .4 .4

375 1 .4 .4

400 2 8 .9

412 1 .4 .4

413 1 .4 .4

450 1 .4 .4

485 2 .8 .9

520 1 .4 .4

620 1 .4 .4

Total 234 98.3 100.0

00 (No cows) 4 1.7

Total 238 100.0
126 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 56—Number of bulls (BULLS—Question29).

NUMBER

OF BULLS

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

12

15

16

17

19

20

22

23

25

30

999

Total

00 (No bulls)

77

52

23

11

12

4

1

7

1

5

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

3

12

223

15

32.4

21.8

9.7

4.6

5.0

1.7

.4

2.9

.4

2.1

.4

.8

.8

.8

.4

.8

.8

.4

.8

1.3

5.0

93.7

6.3

34.5

23.3

10.3

4.9

5.4

1.8

.4

3.1

.4

2.2

.4

.9

.9

.9

.4

.9

.9

.4

.9

1.3

5.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 127

Table 57—Number of heifers (YEARHF—Question 29).

NUMBER

OF HEIFERS

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

12

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

25

30

32

35

58

40

45

50

60

65

70

75

76

80

103

Total

00 (No heifers)

4

21

17

12

17

3

2

9

1

14

1

3

3

6

1

1

1

6

1

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

142

96

1.7

8.8

7.1

5.0

7.1

1.3

.8

3.8

.4

5.9

.4

1.3

1.3

2.5

.4

.4

.4

2.5

.4

1.3

.8

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.8

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

59.7

40.3

2.8

14.8

12.0

8.5

12.0

2.1

1.4

6.3

.7

9.9

.7

2.1

2.1

4.2

.7

.7

.7

4.2

.7

2.1

1.4

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

1.4

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

100.0

Total 238 100.0
128 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 58—Number of steers (YEARST—Question 29).

NUMBER

OF STEERS

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

12

14

17

25

75

76

100

Total

00 (No steers)

1

3

2

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

25

213

.4

1.3

.8

.8

1.7

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

1.7

10.5

89.5

.4

12.0

8.0

8.0

16.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

16.0

100.0

Total 238 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 129

Table 59-Number of calves (CALVES-Question 29)

NUMBER NUMBER OF

OF CALVES PERMITTEES

01 3

02 1

03 1

04 6

05 9

06 8

07 4

08 6

09 6

10 9

11 2

12 11

13 3

14 7

15 9

16 3

17 6

18 10

19 1

21 10

22 6

23 1

24 2

25 4

27 3

28 2

30 5

31 1

32 3

33 1

35 1

37 1

38 4

39 1

40 2

42 2

43 1

44 2

45 4

46 1

48 1

49 1

50 2

52 1

54 1

56 4

58 2

60 4

65 1

70 3

74 1

PERCENT

1.3

4

4

25

38

34

17

25

2.5

3.8

8

46

13

2.9

3.8

13

25

4.2

4

4.2

25

4

.8

1.7

1.3

.8

2.1

4

1.3

4

4

4

1.7

4

.8

.8

4

.8

1.7

4

4

4

.8

4

4

1.7

.8

1.7

4

1.3

4

VALID

PERCENT

1.3

4

4

25

38

34

17

25

2.5

3.8

8

46

13

2.9

3.8

13

25

4.2

4

4.2

25

4

.8

1.7

1.3

.8

2.1

4

1.3

4

4

4

1.7

4

.8

.8

4

.8

1.7

4

4

4

.9

4

4

17

.9

1.7

4

1.3

4
130 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

75 1 .4 .4

80 4 1.7 1.7

81 1 .4 .4

85 2 .8 .9

86 1 .4 .4

87 1 .4 .4

90 3 1.3 1.3

94 1 .4 .4

95 1 .4 .4

98 1 .4 .4

100 5 2.1 2.2

114 1 .4 .4

119 1 .4 .4

135 1 .4 .4

146 1 .4 .4

150 3 1.3 1.3

155 1 .4 .4

160 2 8 9

170 1 .4 .4

190 1 .4 .4

198 1 .4 .4

200 1 .4 .4

240 2 8 9

250 2 8 9

300 1 .4 .4

325 1 .4 .4

390 1 .4 .4

400 2 8 9

420 1 .4 .4

442 1 .4 .4

461 2 .8 .9

550 1 .4 .4

Total 232 97.5 100.0

00 (No calves) 6 2.5

Total 238 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 131

Table 60—Number of ewes (EWES—Question 29).

NUMBER

OF EWES

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

02

03

04

05

06

08

09

10

15

17

20

23

57

60

300

380

550

2000

Total

00 (No ewes)

4

2

4

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

30

208

1.7

.8

1.7

.8

.4

.4

.4

.8

.8

.4

1.3

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

12.6

87.4

13.3

6.7

13.3

6.7

3.3

3.3

3.3

6.7

6.7

3.3

10.0

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 61—Number of rams (RAMS—Question 29).

NUMBER

OF RAMS

NUMBER OF

PERMIITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

10

12

15

40

999

Total

00 (No rams)

9

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

19

219

3.8

1.3

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.8

8.0

92.0

47.4

15.8

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.3

10.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0 100.0
132 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 62—Number of lambs (LAMBS—Question 29).

NUMBER

OF LAMBS

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

02

03

04

05

06

08

11

12

15

19

20

50

58

180

300

465

3400

Total

00 (No lambs)

4

1

3

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

27

211

1.7

.4

1.3

.8

.8

.4

.8

.4

.8

.4

.8

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

11.3

88.7

14.8

3.7

11.1

7.4

7.4

3.7

7.4

3.7

7.4

3.7

7.4

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 63—Number of horses (HORSES—Question 29).

NUMBER

OF HORSES

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

18

20

50

100

Total

00 (No horses)

23

47

33

29

18

18

12

13

3

4

2

1

3

3

3

1

1

214

24

9.7

19.7

13.9

12.2

7.6

7.6

5.0

5.5

1.3

1.7

.8

.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

.4

.4

89.9

10.1

10.7

22.0

15.4

13.6

8.4

8.4

5.6

6.1

1.4

1.9

.9

.5

1.4

1.4

1.4

.5

.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 133

Table 54-Number of pre-drought livestock (POLVSTK-Question29a)

PRE DROUGHT NUMBER OF

LIVESTOCK PERMITTEES

10 1

12 1

13 1

14 1

18 1

20 1

23 1

25 5

26 1

28 1

30 5

32 1

34 1

35 2

37 1

39 1

40 1

42 1

43 1

45 2

50 5

55 2

60 1

65 2

68 2

70 3

72 1

75 3

78 1

80 2

85 2

88 1

92 1

94 1

95 1

97 9

100 2

104 1

106 1

110 1

116 1

120 2

125 1

130 4

131 1

135 1

142 1

148 1

150 1

165 1

179 1

PERCENT

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

21

4

4

21

4

4

.8

4

4

4

4

4

.8

21

.8

4

.8

.8

13

4

1.3

4

.8

8

4

4

4

4

38

8

4

4

4

4

8

4

1.7

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

VALID

PERCENT

.9

.9

.9

9

9

.9

9

45

.9

.9

45

9

9

1.8

.9

9

9

.9

.9

1.8

45

1.8

.9

1.8

1.8

27

9

2.7

.9

1.8

1 8

9

.9

.9

9

82

1 8

.9

.9

9

9

1 8

.9

3.6

9

9

9

.9

.9

9

9
134 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

How many animals are lost during a typical year on public Land or private land and what were the causes? 

(Question 30)

Table 65—Number of cows lost during a typical year on public land (CWLOSTPB—Question 30).

COWS LOST

ON PUBLIC

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

10

20

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (No cows)

88

69

27

21

5

9

4

2

4

2

2

233

1

4

37.0

29.0

11.3

8.8

2.1

3.8

1.7

.8

1.7

.8

.8

97.9

.4

1.7

37.8

29.6

11.6

9.0

2.1

3.9

1.7

.9

1.7

.9

.9

100.0

Total 238 100.0

175 2 8 18

195 1 .4 .9

198 1 .4 .9

200 2 .8 1.8

220 1 .4 .9

230 1 .4 .9

235 1 .4 .9

250 1 .4 .9

400 1 .4 .9

450 1 .4 .9

500 3 13 27

550 1 .4 .9

600 2 .8 1.8

720 1 .4 .9

850 1 4 9

1000 1 4 9

1350 1 4 9

2110 1 4 9

Total 110 46.2 100.0

00 (Missing) 128 53.8

Total 238 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 135

Table 66—Number of cows lost during a typical year on private land (CWLOSTPV—Question 30).

COWS LOST

ON PRIVATE

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

02

03

04

05

06

10

20

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (No cows)

149

45

20

8

6

2

1

1

1

233

1

4

62.6

18.9

8.4

3.4

2.5

.8

.4

.4

.4

97.9

.4

1.7

63.9

19.3

8.6

3.4

2.6

.9

.4

.4

.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 67—Number of bulls lost during a typical year on public land (BLLOSTPB—Question 30).

BULLS LOST

ON PUBLIC

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

Total

99 (No bulls )

207

18

225

13

87.0

7.6

94.5

5.5

92.0

8.0

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 68—Number of bulls lost during a typical year on private land (BLLOSTPV—Question 30).

BULLS LOST

ON PRIVATE

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

Total

99 (No bulls )

219

6

225

13

92.0

2.5

94.5

5.5

07.3

2.7

100.0

Total 238 100.0
136 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 69—Number of yearlings lost during a typical year on public land (YRLOSTPB—Question 30).

YEARLINGS LOST

ON PUBLIC

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

02

05

07

Total

99 (No yearlings)

146

7

3

1

1

158

80

61.3

2.9

1.3

.4

.4

66.4

33.6

92.4

4.4

1.9

.6

.6

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 70—Number of yearlings lost during a typical year on private land (YRLOSTPV—Question 30).

YEARLINGS LOST

ON PRIVATE

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

Total

99 (No yearlings)

152

6

158

80

63.0

2.5

66.4

33.6

96.2

3.8

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 71—Number of calves lost during a typical year on public land (CFLOSTPB—Question 30).

CALVES LOST

ON PUBLIC

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

02

03

04

05

06

08

09

10

12

15

16

20

50

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (No calves) 

69

39

38

32

10

14

7

1

3

8

1

3

1

4

1

231

3

4

29.0

16.4

16.0

13.4

4.2

5.9

2.9

.4

1.3

3.4

.4

1.3

.4

1.7

.4

97.1

1.3

1.7

29.9

16.9

16.5

13.9

4.3

6.1

3.0

.4

1.3

3.5

.4

1.3

.4

1.7

.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 137

Table 72—Number of calves lost during a typical year on private land (CFLOSTPV—Question 30).

CALVES LOST

ON PRIVATE

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

09

10

12

16

20

24

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (No calves)

119

34

38

10

8

7

3

4

1

1

1

1

3

1

231

3

4

50.0

14.3

16.0

4.2

3.4

2.9

1.3

1.7

.4

.4

.4

.4

1.3

.4

97.1

1.3

1.7

51,5

14.7

16.5

4.3

3.5

3.0

1.3

1.7

.4

.4

.4

.4

1.3

.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 73—Number of ewes lost during a typical year on public land (EWLOSTPB—Question 30).

EWES LOST

ON PUBLIC

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

10

20

100

Total

99 (No ewes )

26

1

1

1

29

209

10.9

.4

.4

.4

12.2

87.8

89.7

3.4

3.4

3.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0
138 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 74—Number of ewes lost during a typical year on private land (EWLOSTPV—Question 30).

EWES LOST

ON PRIVATE

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

03

04

07

09

11

15

100

Total

99 (No ewes )

21

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

29

209

8.8

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.8

.4

12.2

87.8

72.4

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.4

6.9

3.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 75—Number of rams lost during a typical year on public land (RMLOSTPB—Question 30).

RAMS LOST

ON PUBLIC

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

99 (No rams )

18

220

7.6

92.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 76—Number of rams lost during a typical year on private land (RMLOSTPV—Question 30).

RAMS LOST

ON PRIVATE

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

05

Total

99 (No rams )

16

1

1

18

220

6.7

.4

.4

7.6

92.4

88.9

5.6

5.6

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 77—Number of lambs lost during a typical year on public land (LMLOSTPB—Question 30).

LAMBS LOST

ON PUBLIC

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

30

170

Total

99 (No lambs )

23

2

1

26

212

9.7

.8

.4

10.9

89.1

88.5

7.7

3.8

100.0

Total 238 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 139

Table 78—Number of lambs lost during a typical year on private land (LMLOSTPV—Question 30).

LAMBS LOST

ON PRIVATE

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

03

06

10

16

20

170

Total

99 (No lambs )

19

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

26

212

8.0

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

10.9

89.1

73.1

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 79—Number of horses lost during a typical year on public land (HSLOSTPB—Question 30).

HORSES LOST

ON PUBLIC

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

02

Total

99 (No horses)

209

3

1

213

25

87.8

1.3

.4

89.5

10.5

98.1

1.4

.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Table 80—Number of horses lost during a typical year on private land (HSLOSTPV—Question 30).

HORSES LOST

ON PRIVATE

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (None lost)

01

02

03

05

Total

99 (No horses )

206

3

2

1

1

213

25

86.6

1.3

.8

.4

.4

89.5

10.5

96.7

1.4

.9

.5

.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0
140 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 81—Causes for loss of mature animals on public land (LOSMATPB—Question 30).

CAUSE OF LOSS

ON PUBLIC LAND*

NUMBER OF 

RESPONSES+

PERCENT OF

RESPONSES

PERCENT

OF CASES

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

30

16

19

76

11

31

9

21

54

11.2

6.0

7.1

28.5

4.1

11.6

3.4

7.9

20.2

18.5

9.9

11.7

46.9

6.8

19.1

5.6

13.0

33.3

Total 267 100.0

(76 missing cases plus 162 valid cases represent the 238 permittees)

Key*

(01) Theft (Poaching)

(02) Vandalism, Mutilation, or Shot (not specified by whom)

(03) Predation (Dogs, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, etc.)

(04) Diseases/Old age/Natural causes/Birthing

(05) Accidents (broken leg, bogs, drowning)

(06) Lightning strikes

(07) Shot by Hunters

(08) Toxic Plants

(09) Unknown/Never found/Found dead

+ “Number of responses” indicates the number of times each reason for loss was chosen. Permittees could provide 

 as many reasons for loss as were relevant to each operation

Table 82—Causes for loss of young animals on public land (LOSMATPB—Question 30).

CAUSE OF LOSS

ON PUBLIC LAND*

NUMBER OF 

RESPONSES+

PERCENT OF

RESPONSES

PERCENT

OF CASES

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

72

56

49

17

12

5

22

10

46

24.9

19.4

17.0

5.9

4.2

1.7

7.6

3.5

15.9

42.9

33.3

29.2

10.1

7.1

3.0

13.1

6.0

27.4

Total 289 100.0 172.0

(70 missing cases plus 168 valid cases represent the 238 permittees)

Key*

(01) Theft (Poaching), Vandalism (e.g., hit by car, shot)

(02) Predation (Dogs, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, etc.)

(03) Diseases/natural causes
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 141

(04) Accidents, Lightning Strikes

(05) Shot by Hunters

(06) Toxic Plants

(07) Died at birth/calving complications

(08) Died of cold/bad weather

(09) Unknown/Never found/Found dead

+ “Number of responses” indicates the number of times each reason for loss was chosen. Permittees could provide 

 as many reasons for loss as were relevant to each operation

Table 83—Causes for loss of mature animals on private land (LOSMATPV—Question 30).

CAUSE OF LOSS

ON PRIVATE LAND*

NUMBER OF 

RESPONSES+

PERCENT OF

RESPONSES

PERCENT

OF CASES

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

6

8

11

6

16

6

2

8

11

4.4

5.9

8.1

50.0

11.8

4.4

1.5

5.9

8.1

6.3

8.4

11.6

71.6

16.8

6.3

2.1

8.4

11.6

Total 136 100.0 143.2

(143 missing cases plus 95 valid cases represent the 238 permittees)

Key*

(01) Theft (Poaching)

(02) Vandalism, Mutilation, or Shot (not specified by whom)

(03) Predation (Dogs, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, etc.)

(04) Diseases/Old age/Natural causes/Birthing

(05) Accidents (broken leg, bogs, drowning)

(06) Lightning strikes

(07) Shot by Hunters

(08) Toxic Plants

(09) Unknown/Never found/Found dead

+ “Number of responses” indicates the number of times each reason for loss was chosen. Permittees could provide 

 as many reasons for loss as were relevant to each operation.
142 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 84—Causes for loss of young animals on private land (LOSMATPV—Question 30).

CAUSE OF LOSS

ON PRIVATE LAND*

NUMBER OF 

RESPONSES+

PERCENT OF

RESPONSES

PERCENT

OF CASES

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

39

41

5

2

3

47

19

13

5.6

21.8

22.9

2.8

1.1

1.7

26.3

10.6

7.3

8.4

32.8

34.5

4.2

1.7

2.5

39.5

16.0

10.9

Total 179 100.0 150.4

(119 missing cases plus 119 valid cases represent the 238 permittees)

Key*

(01) Theft (Poaching), Vandalism (hit by car, shot, etc.)

(02) Predation (Dogs, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, etc.)

(03) Diseases/natural causes

(04) Accidents, Lightning Strikes

(05) Shot by Hunters

(06) Toxic Plants

(07) Died at birth/calving complications

(08) Died of cold

(09) Unknown/Never found/Found dead

+ “Number of responses” indicates the number of times each reason for loss was chosen. Permittees could provide 

 as many reasons for loss as were relevant to each operation.

Table 85—Number of animals lost to dogs (DOGLOSS—Question 30).

NUMBER OF ANIMALS

LOST TO DOGS

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00 (Dog loss not discussed)

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

11

15

20

25

207

10

7

4

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

87.0

4.2

2.9

1.7

.8

.8

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

87.0

4.2

2.9

1.7

.8

.8

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

Total 238 100.0 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 143

Table 86-Time and labor invested in the federal grazing allotment (DAYLABOR-Question 31a)

TIME AND LABOR NUMBER OF VALID

ALLOTMENT PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

03· 1 .4 .4

10 2 .8 ,9

11 1 .4 .4

14 2 .8 9

15 2 .8 9

18 2 .8 ,9

20 2 .8 9

21 1 .4 4

22 2 .8 ,9

23 1 .4 .4

24 3 1.3 13

25 1 .4 4

27 1 .4 4

28 1 .4 .4

29 1 .4 .4

30 7 2.9 30

31 1 .4 4

34 1 .4 .4

35 1 .4 .4

40 9 3.8 3,9

42 4 1.7 17

44 6 2.5 2,6

45 4 1.7 1,7

46 1 .4 .4

48 4 1.7 1,7

50 2 .8 ,9

51 1 .4 .4

53 1 .4 .4

56 3 1.3 1,3

57 2 .8 ,9

58 1 .4 .4

60 9 3.8 3,9

62 3 1.3 1,3

64 4 1.7 1,7

66 1 .4 .4

68 2 .8 ,9

70 3 1.3 1,3

71 1 .4 .4

72 3 1.3 1,3

73 1 .4 .4

78 1 .4 .4

80 8 3.4 3.4

81 1 .4 .4

83 1 .4 .4

84 3 1.3 1,3

90 3 1.3 1,3

92 2 .8 ,9

94 1 .4 .4

96 2 .8 ,9

100 1 .4 .4

104 2 .8 ,9
144 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

1071 .4 .4

1084 1.7 1.7

1121 .4 .4

1131 .4 .4

1141 .44

120 13 55 56

1291 .44

1301 .4 .4

1321 .4 .4

1351 .44

1504 17 17

1542 .8 .9

1551 .4 .4

1561 .4 .4

1581 .44

1601 .44

1661 .4 .4

1681 .4 .4

1721 .4 .4

1741 .44

1761 .44

1803 1.3 1.3

1922 .8 .9

1981 .4 .4

2004 17 17

2084 17 17

2102 .8 .9

2161 .4 .4

2192 .8 .9

2202 .8 .9

2241 .44

2252 .8 .9

2391 .4 .4

2403 13 13

2431 .44

250289

264

1 .4 .4

2701 .4 .4

280289

2881 .44

3003 13 13

3121 .4 .4

3151 .4 .4

352289

360289

3651 .44

384

1 .4 .4

3901 .4 .4

4001 .44

4121 .44

416

1 .4 .4

445

1 .4 .4

480

1 .4 .4

5201 .44
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 145

Table 87—Financial costs associated with the grazing allotment (ANNCOST—Question 31b).

COSTS ON

ALLOTMENT*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

Total

11

12

25

77

24

12

12

6

4

3

2

165

67

6

10.5

32.4

10.1

5.0

5.0

2.5

1.7

1.3

.8

69.3

28.2

2.5

15.2

46.7

14.5

7.3

7.3

3.6

2.4

1.8

1.2

100.0

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(1) Less than $1000

(2) $1000-$5000

(3) $5001-$10,000

(4) $10,001-$15,000

(5) $15,001-$20,000

(6) $20,001-$25,000

(7) $25,001-$30,000

(8) $30,001-$50,000

(9) $50,001-$100,000

(10) More than $100,000

(11) Listed various expenses, but no total figure

(12) No figures given

528

547

550

552

576

730

796

816

826

890

900

1220

1460

Total

97 (Missing)

99+ (Hired range rider)

Total

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

232

5

1

238

.4

.4

.4

.4

.8

.4

.4

.4

.4

.8

.4

.4

.4

97.5

2.1

.4

100.0

.4

.4

.4

.4

.9

.4

.4

.4

.4

.9

4

.4

.4

100,0

'Questionnaire returned by mail, possible miscommunication.

+Hired range rider attributed with majority of the labor for this allotment.
146 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 88—Do you grow supplemental hay for the livestock? (GROHAY—Question 32).

GROWS HAY*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

04

05

188

13

7

30

79.0

5.5

2.9

12.6

79.0

5.5

2.9

12.6

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(04) Used to grow hay, not anymore

(05) No, must purchase hay ($700.00-$5,000.00 per year)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 147

Table 89-lf so, what mixture of hay is grown? (HAYMIX-Question 32a)

HAY MIXTURE'

01

02

11

14

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

29

30

31

32

33

34

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

65

66

67

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES

13

1

4

2

8

2

2

6

1

31

7

6

12

1

2

9

1

1

2

3

2

1

5

1

2

2

2

1

6

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

7

5

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

PERCENT

55

4

17

.8

3.4

8

.8

2.5

.4

13.0

2.9

2.5

5.0

.4

.8

3.8

.4

.4

.8

1.3

.8

.4

2.1

.4

.8

.8

.8

.4

2.5

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.8

.4

.8

4

29

2.1

.8

.4

8

4

.8

.4

.4

8

4

.4

.4

VALID

PERCENT

69

5

2 1

1 1

4.2

1 1

1 1

3.2

.5

16.4

3.7

3.2

6.3

.5

1 1

4.8

.5

.5

1 1

1.6

1 1

.5

2.6

.5

1 1

1 1

1 1

.5

3.2

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

1 1

.5

1 1

5

37

2.6

1 1

.5

1 1

5

1 1

.5

.5

1 1

5

.5

.5
148 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

68 1 .4 ,5

69 1 .4 ,5

70 1 .4 ,5

71 1 .4 ,5

72 2 .8 1 1

73 2 .8 1 1

74 2 .8 1 1

75 1 .4 ,5

76 1 .4 ,5

77 1 .4 5

78 1 .4 5

79 1 .4 ,5

Total 189 79.4 100,0

97 (Missing) 2 .8

99 47 19.7

Total 238 100.0

Key·

(01) Alfalfa

(02) Brame

(03) Brame (smooth)

(04) Clover

(05) Clover (slrawberry)

(06) Cool season wheat mix

(07) Crested wheatgrass

(08) Fescue

(09) Fescue (Tall)

(10) Grass

(11) Grass (Native)

(12) Grass (Late Native)

(13) K-31 (Seven-way seed)

(14) Oals (Oalgrass)

(15) Orchard

(16) Timothy

(17) Vega hay/meadow hay

(18) Whealgrass

(19) Winter wheaUas hay or as pasture for grazing

(20) Alfalfa and Brame

(21) Alfalfa and Brome (smooth)

(22) Alfalfa and grasses

(23) Alfalfa and Oats

(24) Alfalfa and Orchardgrass

(25) Alfalfa and Timothy

(26) Alfalfa and Wheatgrass

(27) Alfalfa, Brame, Crested wheatgrass

(28) Alfalfa, Brome, Crested wheatgrass, Oats

(29) Alfalfa, Brame, Oats

(30) Alfalfa, Brame. Orchardgrass

(31) Alfalfa, Brome, Clover, Cool season wheat mix, Fescue, Timothy, Vega

(32) Alfalfa, Brame, Fescue, Native grasses, Timothy, Vega

(33) Alfalfa, Brome, Oats, Orchardgrass, Timothy

(34) Alfalfa, Brame, Oats, Timothy

(35) Alfalfa, Tall fescue, Orchardgrass, Timothy

(36) Alfalfa, Orchardgrass, K-31

(37) Alfalfa, Timothy, Wheatgrass

(38) Clover and Timothy

(39) Clover (strawberry), Native grasses, Timothy

(40) Alfalfa, Clover, Orchardgrass, Tall fescue

(41) Alfalfa, Clover. Orchardgrass, Timothy

(42) Alfalfa, Oats, Timothy
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 149

(43) Alfalfa, Brome, Clover, Orchardgrass, Timothy

(44) Alfalfa, Brome, Orchardgrass, Timothy

(45) Alfalfa, Permanent pasture, "K-31"

(46) Winter rye

(47) Alfalfa, Oals, Winler rye

(48) Alfalfa, Tall fescue, Orchard, Winter wheat

(49) Tlmolhy and Red Top

(50) Oals, Alfalfa, and native [grasses]

(51) Alfalfa, Dais. and nalive grasses, Aisike clover

(52) Alfalfa, Dais, Winter wheat

(53) Alfalfa, Brome, Dais, Orchard, Wheatgrass

(54) Alfalfa, Orchard, Timothy

(55) Alfalfa, Brome or Timolhy

(56) Alfalfa, Oats, Winter wheat, Timothy

(57) Tntlcale mil( (oals, wheal, & rye)

(58) Alfalfa & permanent pasture

(59) Timothy, Red top, Alslke clover

(60) Alfalfa, Brome, TlnlOthy, Clover

(61) Alfalfa, Oats, Winter wheal, Timothy, Rye

(62) Alfalfa, Dais, Brome, Timothy, Intermediate wheatgrass, Clovers (alslke, red, white)

(63) Orchard & Timothy

(64) Alfalfa, Timothy, Vega

(65) Alfalfa, Brome, Orchard, Strawberry dover

(66) Alfalfa, Fescue, "Waler grass·

(67)Orchard, Oats

(68) Alfalfa, Dais, Orchard

(69) Alfalfa, Timolhy, Red clover

(70) Alfalfa Clover, Oats

(71) Oats, Sugar cane

(72) Alfalfa, Timothy, Aisike clover

(73) Alfalfa, Timothy, Clover

(74) Brome, Orchard, Timothy

(75) Alfalfa, Orchard, Timolhy, Winter wheal, Oats

(76) Alfalfa, Brome, Meadow (Vega)

(77) Alfalfa, Meadow grass, Oats

(78) Alfalfa, Timolhy, Alsike clover, Brome

(79) Alfalfa, Timolhy, Clover, Oats
150 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 90-What grasses (or other forage plants) do the livestock consume on rangeland? (ALLOTGRQuestion 33)

FORAGE ON

ALLOTMENT·

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES

55

5

13

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

1

4

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

PERCENT

23.1

21

55

A

A

A

A

8

A

A

A

A

8

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

2.1

A

A

17

A

1.3

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

8

A

.8

.8

A

13

A

A

A

A

VALID

PERCENT

23,5

2 1

56

A

A

A

4

9

A

A

4

4

9

A

A

4

A

A

4

4

A

A

A

2.1

A

4

17

A

1.3

A

4

4

A

A

A

4

4

A

A

A

9

4

.9

.9

A

13

4

A

A

4
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 151

511 .4 .4

521 .4 .4

53

1 .4 .4

542 .8 .9

55

1 .44

56

1 .44

571 .44

581 .4 .4

591 .4 .4

60

1 .44

611 .44

621 .4 .4

631 .4 .4

641 .4 .4

65

1 .44

66

1 .44

671 .4 .4

681 .4 .4

692 .8 .9

702

89

71

3 13 13

721 .4 .4

731 .4 .4

742 .8 .9

751 .44

762

89

771 .4 .4

781 .4 .4

791 .4 .4

801 .4 .4

811 .44

821 .4 .4

831 .4 .4

841 .44

851 .4

4

861 .4

4

881 .4 .4

891 .4 .4

90289

911 .44

921 .44

931 .4 .4

94

1 .4 .4

951 .44

961 .44

1001 .4

4

1011 .4 .4

1021 .4 .4

1031 .44

1041 .4

4

1051 .4 .4

1061 .4 .4

1071 .4 .4

1081 .44
152 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

Total

97 (Missing)

Total

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

234

4

238

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.8

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

98.3

1.7

100.0

.4

.4

.4

.4

4

4

4

.4

.4

4

4

.4

.4

.4

4

4

4

4

4

.4

.4

4

4

4

.4

.4

4

4

.9

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

100,0

Key*

(01) Unknown, not Sure

(02) Grama grass

(03) Native grasses, wild grasses, mixed grasses

(04) Alfalfa, Bluegrass, Bunchgrasses, Clover, Fescue, Mountain muhly

(05) Alfalfa, Orchard, "Turkey track" (Andropogon), Gamble Oak

(06) Blue grama, Brame, Timothy

(07) Blue grama. Brame (Smooth), Crested wheatgrass, Pubescen, Sacaton, Timothy

(08) Blue grama, Blueslem, natural grasses

(09) Blue grama. Kentucky bluegrass, Oak leaves, Western wheatgrass

(10) Blue grama, Wheatgrass

(11) Blue grama, Wheatgrass. Winter Fat

(12) Blue grama, Chico, Four-Wing Saltbush, Sand Bluestem, Needle-and-thread, Stipa, Western

wheatgrass, Winter Fat

(13) Bluegrass (native, non-native), Brome

(14) Bluegrass, Clover, Fescue

(15) Bluegrass, Clover, Fescue, Timothy

(16) Bluegrass, Fescue, Oatgrass, Timothy
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 153

(17) Bluegrass (native), Grama, Four-wing saltbush, Rabbitbrush, Sage Chamisal, Wheatgrass

(18) Bluestem. Grama

(19) Brome, Clover, Fescue, large-blade "watergrass"

(20) Mountain brome, Crested wheatgrass, Fescue, Grama, Little bluestem, Sacaton, Sideoats grama

(21) Brome, Fescue

(22) Brome, 'Watergrass: Wild Grasses

(23) Browse, Clover, Fescue, Indian ricegrass, Mountain muhly, Timothy, Western wheatgrass, Orchard

(24) Crested wheatgrass! and Native grasses! and others

(25) Grama, Palo Duro, Scrub oak

(26) "Watergrass: Grama, Thistle, Native grasses, Mullen

(27) Can consult a list or referencesla family member knows

(28) Bluegrass, Natives, Four"wing saltbush

(29) Blue grama, Fescue, Other natives

(30) Timothy, Orchard, Native grasses, "K-31," Galleta, Grama, Buffalograss, Snakeweed, Tumbleweed

(31) Timothy, Sagebrush

(32) Aspen, Oak, Bluegrass, Tall fescue, Orchard, Timothy

(33) Brome, Orchard, Timothy

(34) Bluegrass, "Watergrass"

(35) Winter: Blue grama, Indian ricegrass, little bluestem, Sand dropseed, Tabosa, Western wheatgrass,

Crested wheatgrass (FS planted)

Summer: Brome, Arizona fescue, Orchard, Western wheatgrass

(36) Brome, Clover, Timothy

(37) Clover, Sideoats grama

(38) Grama grass, Crested wheatgrass, Sagebrush

(39) Clover, Grama

(40) Native grasses and introduced species

(41) Bluegrass

(42) Oak leaves, Blue grama

(43) Weeds (Snakeweed)

(44) Kentucky bluegrass, Grama (Blue)

(45) Kentucky bluegrass, Fescue, Orchard, Brome, Grama, Mountain mUhly

(46) Knows grasses and plants by sight, not by name

(47) Bluegrass (Kentucky), Fescues (Arizona & others), Crested wheatgrass, Western wheatgrass

(48) FS: Native Bluegrass, Brome, Buffalograss, Mountain muhly, Orchardgrass, Scrub oak, and Tall

wheatgrass

BLM: Blue grama, Buffalograss, Cheatgrass brome, Fescue, Galleta,

Sand grama, Western wheatgrass, and others

(49) BLM: White sage, Weeds, Mushrooms (sheep eat them). FS: Grasses (?)

(50) Mountain brome, Fescue, Western wheatgrass, Grama, Little bluestem, Sacaton, Sideoats grama

(51) Alfalfa, Clover, Mountain fescue, Timothy

(52) Native gramas, Buffalograss, Sagebrush, "Watergrass"

(53) "Bunchgrass: Bluegrass, Winter wheat

(54) Crested wheatgrass, Fescue

(55) Gramas (blue, black, sideoats), Bluegrass (Kentucky), Indian ricegrass, Alkali sacaton, Crested

wheatgrass, Western wheatgrass, Alfalfa (dry land)

(56) Mountain muhly and Crested wheatgrass

(57) Grama grasses, Fescues, Wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, Sedge, "Bunchgrass"

(58) Blue grama, Rabbit Brush when snows

(59) Brome, "River grass: Crested wheat, "Terromote"

(60) Russian rye, Crested wheat, Orchard, Sweet clover

(61) Bluegrass (Kentucky), Bluestem, Crested wheat. Western wheat

(62) Brome grass, Russian rye, Crested wheat, Orchard, and natives

(63) Bluegrass, Grama, Red clover, weeds, and other grasses

(64) Grama (Blue & Sideoals), Alkali sacaton, Bluestem, Galleta, Sand dropseed, Timothy, Western wheat,

Winter fat ("White sage"), Chico brush, Thistle, Hogweed, Four"O'ciocks

(65) [BlM] Black grama, Blue grama, Sand dropseed [FSj Crested wheat, Needle & Thread, and Natives

(66) Blue grama, Kentucky bluegrass, Arizona fescue, Timothy, Western wheatgrass, "Mule grass and

another riparian grass:

(67) Blue grama and Crested wheat

(68) Blue grama, Crested wheat, Sacaton, Thistles

(69) Blue grama, Bluestem, Bunchgrass, Crested wheat, Galleta, Ring muhly, Indian ricegrass, Needle &

thread, Western wheat
154 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

(70) Brome and others

(71) Timothy

(72) Clover (yellow & white), Fescues, Wheatgrass (slender & tall), crested wheat

(73) Blue grama, Crested wheat, Western wheat, "junk grass"

(74) Arizona fescue, Orchard

(75) Brome, Crested wheat, Western wheat

(76) Bromes, fescue, grama (black, brown), Orchard, Crested wheat, Western wheat

(77) Brome, Sacaton, Crested wheat

(78) Brome, Orchard, others seeded by USFS

(79) Orchard, Timothy, Natives

(80) Canary grass, fox tail, Red top, Timothy, Fescues (sheep & Az), June grass, Blue grama, Alsike clover,

Kentucky bluegrass, Sedges, Rushes, Dandelions, and more!

(81) Brome, Grama (blue), Kentucky bluegrass, Arizona fescue, Crested! Western wheat

(82) Brome, Clover, Timothy, Native

(83) Buffalo grass, AZ fescue, Ken, Bluegrass, Mullon grass, Crested wheat, Western wheal, Carex

(sedge), Dandelion.. [larkspur, leafy spurge, loco weed]

(84) Kentucky bluegrass, Mountain mUhly, Fescues

(85) Mountain bluegrass, Western wheat, Galleta, Cuchilla (FS)

Western wheatgrass, Alkali sacaton, Galleta, Mat mUhly, Chamisa, Vine mesqUite (BLM)

(86) June grass, Timothy, others

(87) Bluegrass, Brome, Orchard, Sand dropseed, Rye grass, Crested wheat

(88) Blue grama, AZ fescue, Mountain mUhly, Crested wheat, western wheat, Carex

(89) Brome, Grama, Orchard, Western wheat

(90) Brome, Grama, Fescue

(91) Grama, Rye, Wheatgrass White Sage

(92) Smooth brome, Crested wheat Grama

(93) Indian ricegrass, Cheatgrass brome, Nodding brome, AZ fescue, Thurber fescue, Western wheat grass

(natives): Smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, Orchard grass, Crested wheat grass (non-natives)

(94) Bluegrass, Brome, Fescue, Mountain muhly, Orchard, "Swamp grass"

(95) Red clover, Timothy

(96) Bluegrass, Crested wheat

(100) Timothy, Wheatgrass, Crested wheat

(101) Wheatgrass

(102) Blue grama, Crested wheat, Bunch grass

(103) Blue grama, Fescue, Timothy

(104) Brome, Buffalo grass, Kentucky bluegrass, Grama, Sideoats, Orchard grass

(105) Fescue & Aspen leaves

(106) Grama grass, Bluegrass

(107) Fescue & other grasses

(108) Grama & Western wheat

(109) Blue grama, Bluegrass, Orchard

(110) Bluegrass, Grama, Alfalfa, Wheatgrass

(111) Brome, Bluegrass, Orchard, Western wheat

(112) Blue grama, Sideoats grama, Oak

(113) Blue grama, Buffalo grass, Love grass, Wheat grass

(114) Blue grama, Western wheat

(115) Kentucky bluegrass, Fescues, Rye, (high elevation natives)

(116) Blue grama, seasonal grasses

(117) Kentucky bluegrass, Sedges

(118) Grama, Alfalfa, Oats (wild), Sweet peas

(119) Russian Rye, Western wheat, Fescue

(120) Grama, White sage, Bunch grass

(121) Clover, Orchard, Timothy, "Swamp grasses

(122) Timothy, Red top, Kentucky bluegrass, Fescues, Clovers, Sedges, Rushes (Water grass), Forbs

(123) Brome, Clovers, Fescue, Orchard, Timothy

(124) Arizona Fescue, Kentucky bluegrass, Wheatgrass

(125) Brome, Crested wheat, Gramas

(126) Bluegrass, AZ Fescue, Mountain muhly, "Timber Oatgrass" (Danthonia parrii), Western wheatgrass

(127) Crested wheat, Western wheat

(128) Brome, Fescue, Crested wheat

{129} Alsike clover, Brome, Arizona fescue, Thurber fescue

(130) Orchard
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 155

(131) Squirrel tail, Bluestem, Winter wheal, Blue grama, Green clover, Bunch grass

(132) Bunch grass and Clover

(133) Patito (small fern in Aspen groves), Manzanita, Palo de Rosario, Bunch grasses

(134) Dropseed, Sideoats, Kentucky Bluegrass, Clover, Fescues

(135) Bluestem, Bromes, Clover, Fescues, Rushes, and Sedges (natives); Alfalfa, Smooth brome, Orchard,

Timothy (non-natives)

(136) Blue grama, Indian rice.

(137) Blue grama

(138) Wheat grass

(139) Kentucky bluegrass

(140) Bluestem

(141) Bluestem & wild pea.

(142) Bluegrass, Bunchgrass, Sedge

(143) Grama, Fescue, Wheatgrass, Native bluegrass
156 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

List the top three improvements needed on the federal grazing allotment; if not being 

implemented, why not?

Table 91—Improvements needed on federal allotment. (IMPROVS1—Question 34).

IMPROVEMENT

NUMBER 1*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

14

18

19

20

21

24

25

32

35

39

41

43

46

Total

97 (Missing)

99

3

31

1

35

89

9

3

9

5

6

3

4

7

7

5

1

2

2

1

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

235

1

2

1.3

13.0

.4

14.7

37.4

3.8

1.3

3.8

2.1

2.5

1.3

1.7

2.9

2.9

2.1

.4

.8

.8

.4

2.5

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

98.7

.4

.8

1.3

13.2

.4

14.9

37.9

3.8

1.3

3.8

2.1

2.6

1.3

1.7

3.0

3.0

2.1

.4

.9

.9

.4

2.6

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) None needed, none listed, good progress is being made on concerns

(02) Allow fuel wood gathering and green tree harvest

(03) Conduct prescribed burning and/or thinning

(04) Close some roads to limit unauthorized access (i.e., ATVs, etc.)

(05) Maintain, improve, and/or build fences

(06) Maintain, improve, and/or develop waters

(07) Maintain, improve, and/or develop roads/permittee access

(08) Maintain, improve, and/or clean trails

(09) Plant more grass/seed allotment/reseeding

(10) Provide FS assistance to permittees with building and maintaining improvements (including corrals, wind mills)

(11) Provide better FS law enforcement/Control of 4wheelers, fence cutting, etc.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 157

(12) Provide better FS management in general, better care of forest, rotation of cattle

(13) Provide/assist permittees with providing more gates and cattle guards

(14) Reduce/control elk population/or other wildlife

(15) Remove brush

(16) Remove cross/internal fences

(17) Remove poisonous/noxious weeds

(18) Boundary fencing between public and private land

(19) Educate the public who don’t understand care of the land

(20) Fill holes when live tree permits are sold

(21) FS be more sensitive to local lifestyle

(22) Clean up after thinning

(23) Logging needed

(24) Earlier entry into allotment

(25) Increase livestock numbers (permits)/increase area or time on allotments/Don’t decide on cuts too early

(26) Need a full-time herder

(27) Longer-term FS personnel

(28) Erosion control, dam arroyos to hold water

(29) System for buying out permits to reduce livestock numbers

(30) Need predator control

(31) More choice for permittees, use their ideas

(32) Better communication with permittees (cattlemen)

(33) Open up dirt tanks, build dirt tanks

(34) Need FS & BLM employees who understand and have experience with livestock

(35) Close roads to limit traffic access (ATV’s, hunters, etc.)

(36) Change fencing, remove fences to have less pastures

(37) Remove dead timber/fire hazard

(38) Need FS to control trespass (livestock)

(39) More cooperation from the public

(40) Need pasture for horses

(41) FS Range staff should spend a summer herding cattle on an allotment

(42) Better law enforcement during hunting season

(43) Decrease Wilderness areas
158 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 92—Improvements needed on federal allotment. (IMPROVS2—Question 34).

IMPROVEMENT

NUMBER 2*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

23

25

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

40

Total

97 (Missing)

99

2

1

30

2

33

49

3

5

8

7

11

4

10

7

8

1

4

3

2

3

1

5

1

1

4

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

216

1

21

.8

.4

12.6

.8

13.9

20.6

1.3

2.1

3.4

2.9

4.6

1.7

4.2

2.9

3.4

.4

1.7

1.3

.8

1.3

.4

2.1

.4

.4

1.7

.8

.8

.4

.8

.8

.4

.4

90.8

.4

8.8

.9

.5

13.9

.9

15.3

22.7

1.4

2.3

3.7

3.2

5.1

1.9

4.6

3.2

3.7

.5

1.9

1.4

.9

1.4

.5

2.3

.5

.5

1.9

.9

.9

.5

.9

.9

.5

.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) None needed, none listed, good progress is being made on concerns

(02) Allow fuel wood gathering and green tree harvest

(03) Conduct prescribed burning and/or thinning

(04) Close some roads to limit unauthorized access (i.e., ATVs, etc.)

(05) Maintain, improve, and/or build fences

(06) Maintain, improve, and/or develop waters

(07) Maintain, improve, and/or develop roads/permittee access

(08) Maintain, improve, and/or clean trails

(09) Plant more grass/seed allotment
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 159

(10) Provide FS assistance to permittees with building and maintaining improvements (including corrals, wind mills)

(11) Provide better FS law enforcement/Control of 4wheelers, fence cutting, etc.

(12) Provide better FS management in general, better care of forest, rotation of cattle

(13) Provide/assist permittees with providing more gates and cattle guards

(14) Reduce/control elk population

(15) Remove brush

(16) Remove cross/internal fences

(17) Remove poisonous/noxious weeds

(18) Boundary fencing between public and private land

(19) Educate the public who don’t understand care of the land

(20) Fill holes when live tree permits are sold

(21) FS be more sensitive to local lifestyle

(22) Clean up after thinning

(23) Logging needed

(24) Earlier entry into allotment

(25) Increase livestock numbers (permits)/increase area or time on allotments/Don’t decide on cuts too early

(26) Need a full-time herder

(27) Longer-term FS personnel

(28) Erosion control, dam arroyos to hold water

(29) System for buying out permits to reduce livestock numbers

(30) Need predator control

(31) More choice for permittees, use their ideas

(32) Better communication with permittees (cattlemen)

(33) Open up dirt tanks

(34) Need FS & BLM employees who understand and have experience with livestock

(35) Close roads to limit traffic access (ATV’s, hunters, etc.)

(36) Change fencing, remove fences to have less pastures

(37) Remove dead timber/fire hazard

(38) Need FS to control trespass (livestock)

(39) More cooperation from the public

(40) Need pasture for horses

(41) FS Range staff should spend a summer herding cattle on an allotment

(42) Better law enforcement during hunting season

(43) Decrease Wilderness areas
160 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 93—Improvements needed on federal allotment. (IMPROVS3—Question 34).

IMPROVEMENT

NUMBER 3*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

22

23

25

26

27

28

31

33

34

35

36

42

Total

97 (Missing)

99

2

10

1

24

22

9

3

7

12

23

6

4

22

5

1

3

3

4

2

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

175

4

59

.8

4.2

.4

10.1

9.2

3.8

1.3

2.9

5.0

9.7

2.5

1.7

9.2

2.1

.4

1.3

1.3

1.7

.8

.4

.4

1.7

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

73.5

1.7

24.8

1.1

5.7

.6

13.7

12.6

5.1

1.7

4.0

6.9

13.1

3.4

2.3

12.6

2.9

.6

1.7

1.7

2.3

1.1

.6

.6

2.3

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) None needed, none listed, good progress is being made on concerns

(02) Allow fuel wood gathering and green tree harvest

(03) Conduct prescribed burning and/or thinning

(04) Close some roads to limit unauthorized access (i.e., ATVs, etc.)

(05) Maintain, improve, and/or build fences

(06) Maintain, improve, and/or develop waters

(07) Maintain, improve, and/or develop roads/permittee access

(08) Maintain, improve, and/or clean trails

(09) Plant more grass/seed allotment

(10) Provide FS assistance to permittees with building and maintaining improvements (including corrals, wind mills)

(11) Provide better FS law enforcement/Control of 4wheelers, fence cutting, etc.

(12) Provide better FS management in general, better care of forest, rotation of cattle

(13) Provide/assist permittees with providing more gates and cattle guards
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 161

(14) Reduce/control elk population

(15) Remove brush

(16) Remove cross/internal fences

(17) Remove poisonous/noxious weeds

(18) Boundary fencing between public and private land

(19) Educate the public who don’t understand care of the land

(20) Fill holes when live tree permits are sold

(21) FS be more sensitive to local lifestyle

(22) Clean up after thinning

(23) Logging needed

(24) Earlier entry into allotment

(25) Increase livestock numbers (permits)/increase area or time on allotments/Don’t decide on cuts too early

(26) Need a full-time herder

(27) Longer-term FS personnel

(28) Erosion control, dam arroyos to hold water

(29) System for buying out permits to reduce livestock numbers

(30) Need predator control

(31) More choice for permittees, use their ideas

(32) Better communication with permittees (cattlemen)

(33) Open up dirt tanks

(34) Need FS & BLM employees who understand and have experience with livestock

(35) Close roads to limit traffic access (ATV’s, hunters, etc.)

(36) Change fencing, remove fences to have less pastures

(37) Remove dead timber/fire hazard

(38) Need FS to control trespass (livestock)

(39) More cooperation from the public

(40) Need pasture for horses

(41) FS Range staff should spend a summer herding cattle on an allotment

(42) Better law enforcement during hunting season

(43) Decrease Wilderness areas
162 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 94—Reasons for absence of implementation of improvements (WHYNOIMP—Question 34a).

WHY NO

IMPROVEMENTS*

NUMBER OF

RESPONSES+

PERCENT OF

RESPONSES

PERCENT

OF CASES

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

90

29

42

21

13

6

73

3

46

27.9

9.0

13.0

6.5

4.0

1.9

22.6

.9

14.2

51.7

16.7

24.1

12.1

7.5

3.4

42.0

1.7

26.4

Total 323 100.0

Key*

(01) Lack of funding

(02) Insufficient staff/Law enforcement/Lack of time

(03) Problems with clearances/red tape/communication

(04) Outside influences from environmental groups

(05) Interagency conflict (e.g., Game and Fish)

(06) FS officials unwilling to take responsibility for decisions

(07) FS says not responsible for improvements, won’t help, not cooperative, ask and ask and nothing happens; 

 staff stays in office vs. out in field

(08) People moving in so close FS can’t conduct improvement activities (burns, thinning, projects, etc)

(09) Elk, people, etc. tear up improvements, cut fences, leave gates open

+ “Number of responses” indicates the number of times each reason for lack of implementation was chosen. 

 Permittees could provide as many reasons as relevant.

Table 95—Land or vegetation changes observed by the permittee (VEGCHGP—Question 35).

OBSERVATIONS

OF PERMITTEES*

NUMBER OF

RESPONSES+

PERCENT OF 

RESPONSES

PERCENT

OF CASES

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

89

15

105

17

18

112

19

46

17

20.3

3.4

24.0

3.9

4.1

25.6

4.3

10.5

3.9

39.6

6.7

46.7

7.6

8.0

49.8

8.4

20.4

7.6

Total 438 100.0

Key*

(01) Drought has caused changes: less rain and/or snow

(02) Need for fire (past fire suppression a source of problems)

(03) Tree and/or brush encroachment, grassy open areas & meadows are declining
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 163

(04) Recreationists, four-wheelers, unauthorized access, etc. destroying the land

(05) Increasing human population (people, dogs, traffic, water use)

(06) Changes in wildlife populations (e.g., More elk/less deer & other wildlife)

(07) Declining water availability for people and animals

(08) “Invasive” plant species (exotic & native) encroachment, insect infestation, diseases

(09) Erosion

+ “Number of responses” indicates the number of times each environmental change was noted. Permittees could 

 provide as many changes as relevant.

Table 96—Land or vegetation changes related by older members of community (VEGCHOMC—Question 36).

OBSERVATIONS OF

OLDER GENERATION*

NUMBER OF

RESPONSES+

PERCENT OF 

RESPONSES

PERCENT

OF CASES

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

48

13

43

9

11

38

17

82

9

17.8

4.8

15.9

3.3

4.1

14.1

6.3

30.4

3.3

27.1

7.3

24.3

5.1

6.2

21.5

9.6

46.3

5.1

Total 270 100.0

Key*

(01) Drought has caused changes: less rain and/or snow; also droughts of past decades

(02) Need for fire (past fire suppression a source of problems)

(03) Tree and/or brush encroachment, grassy open areas & meadows are declining

(04) Recreationists, four-wheelers, unauthorized access, etc. destroying the land

(05) Increasing human population (people, dogs, traffic, water use)

(06) Changes in wildlife populations (e.g., more elk/less deer & other wildlife)

(07) Declining water availability for people and animals

(08) Changes in land use and management: Used to be more permittees, more animals, sheep, or goats. Animals 

 moved more freely to “querencia” areas; the system worked better; fire used at end of season. People 

 maintained the land better in the past. Rangers checked allotments/forest on horseback. Now less fuel wood 

 cutting, less logging.

(09) Declining agricultural production

+ “Number of responses” indicates the number of times each environmental change was noted. Permittees could 

 provide as many changes as relevant.
164 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 97—Number of animals butchered for the family per year (FMUSE—Question 37).

ANIMALS FOR

FAMILY FOOD

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

10

12

17

21

Total

97 (Missing)

18

65

72

27

15

11

13

4

4

3

2

1

1

236

2

7.6

27.3

30.3

11.3

6.3

4.6

5.5

1.7

1.7

1.3

.8

.4

.4

99.2

.8

7.6

27.5

30.5

11.4

6.4

4.7

5.5

1.7

1.7

1.3

.8

.4

.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 165

Table 98—Comments on butchering animals (FMUSECOM—Question 37a).

FAMILY USE

COMMENTS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

04

05

06

08

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Total

(N/A) 99

4

10

3

34

3

6

21

1

26

4

1

3

4

5

1

6

1

3

3

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

158

89

1.7

4.2

1.3

14.3

1.3

2.5

8.8

.4

10.9

1.7

.4

1.3

1.7

2.1

.4

2.5

.4

1.3

1.3

.8

.4

.4

.4

.8

.4

.4

1.3

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

66.4

33.6

2.5

6.3

1.9

21.5

1.9

3.8

13.3

.6

16.5

2.5

.6

1.9

2.5

3.2

.6

3.8

.6

1.9

1.9

1.3

.6

.6

.6

1.3

.6

.6

1.9

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Butcher cows and calves

(02) Butcher cows, calves and sheep

(03) Butcher cows, calves, sheep, lambs, and pigs

(04) Butcher yearlings/ heifer

(05) Butcher lambs, and sheep (or just lambs)

(06) Butcher calves

(07) Butcher calves and pigs

(08) Butcher calves and lambs
166 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

(11) Butcher yearlings and lambs

(12) Butcher steers

(13) Butchers calves and yearlings

(14) Butchers for extended family (parents, siblings, etc.)

(15) Butcher cow or yearlings

(16) Don’t butcher any; family too small

(17) Butchered some in past, no longer do so

(18) Butcher steers, lambs, and pigs

(19) Sell their animals, then buy one; buys meat

(20) Trade as well as family use

(21) Steer and pig(s)

(22) Cow, pig, goat

(23) One, every two or three years

(24) Less now that children are gone

(25) Depends on the year (“only if one breaks a leg”)

(26) Butchers “open” heifers

(27) Lamb, but more in past

(28) Calf, lambs, pig

(29) Butchered in past, but now a problem to get meat processed

(30) Butchers own calves, also buys pigs and sheep to butcher

(31) Butchers one or two unless money is tight, then has to sell them

(32) Butchers a cow(s)

(33) Butchered enough for extended family; now hardly any because own too few

(34) For personal use and for owners of ranch

(35) Goats & lambs/used to butcher a calf when children lived at home

(36) Sheep (lambs) and steer

(37) Won’t kill his own animals

(38) Just sell, don’t butcher

(39) Butcher purchased beef and elk

Table 99—Do you give livestock to children or grandchildren? (CHLVSTK—Question 38).

LIVESTOCK

TO CHILDREN*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

04

05

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A) 

142

78

10

1

231

2

5

59.7

32.8

4.2

.4

97.1

.8

2.1

61.5

33.8

4.3

.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Give livestock to other young family members or to other young people

(04) Not yet, too young, will do so in future

(05) Not yet, but his father did so to keep them motivated
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 167

Table 100—Use of animal by-products (BYPROD—Question 39).

USE OF ANIMAL

BYPRODUCTS*

NUMBER OF

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PECENT

01

03

04

05

06

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

42

1

1

121

1

22

1

6

24

5

3

3

4

4

17.6

.4

.4

50.8

.4

9.2

.4

2.5

10.1

2.1

1.3

1.3

1.7

1.7

17.6

.4

.4

50.8

.4

9.2

.4

2.5

10.1

2.1

1.3

1.3

1.7

1.7

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) None

(02) Hides

(03) Wool

(04) Milk

(05) Manure

(06) Hides and wool

(07) Hides and milk

(08) Hides and manure

(09) Wool and milk

(10) Wool and manure

(11) Milk and manure

(12) Hides, wool, milk, and manure

(13) Hides, wool, and manure

(14) Wool, milk, manure

(15) Hides, milk, manure

(16) In past years
168 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 101—Comments on use of animal by-products (BYPRODCOM—Question 39a)

BYPRODUCT

COMMENTS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

07

09

10

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

1

2

2

1

1

2

4

2

2

2

2

1

96

4

1

1

2

7

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

1

1

3

1

4

2

1

1

1

8

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

190

3

45

.4

.8

.8

.4

.4

.8

1.7

.8

.8

.8

.8

.4

40.3

1.7

.4

.4

.8

2.9

.4

.4

1.3

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

4.6

.4

.4

.4

1.3

.4

1.7

.8

.4

.4

.4

3.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

1.3

.4

.4

.4

.4

79.8

1.3

18.9

.5

1.1

1.1

.5

.5

1.1

2.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.

1.5

50.5

2.1

.5

.5

1.1

3.7

.5

.5

1.6

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

5.8

.5

.5

.5

1.6

.5

2.1

1.1

.5

.5

.5

4.2

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

1.3

.5

.5

.5

.5

100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 169

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Have a milk cow(s) and milk regularly. Make butter and cheese for home use, for gifts, and for sale.

(02) Milk all year.

(03) Milk occasionally.

(04) Milk for personal use and sometimes sell wool.

(05) Used to have a milk cow, but don’t have one now. There is no time to milk and/or couldn’t use it all up, live in town now, etc. 

 (not since brother died).

(07) When young the family had a milk cow and used byproducts.

(08) Used to have goats and make cheese. Parents made cheese and butter.

(09) Sell wool.

(10) Sell hides.

(11) Use hides for drum making. 

(12) Sell wool, used to have a milk cow when children growing up, not now.

(13) Used to have a milk cow a long time ago when children were small.

(14) Sell wool and hides.

(15) Would like to have a milk cow (no time).

(16) Spread manure on fields/gardens/ pasture as fertilizer/to build up soil/as compost.

(17) Used to milk cows and sell wool from sheep.

(18) Used to have a garden and used manure.

(19) Used to do more tanning and used rawhide for pack-horse equipment.

(20) Can’t get anyone to tan hides any more.

(21) Sold wool when had sheep.

(22) “Way back, used everything.”

(23) Used all of above when growing up...had sheep.

(24) Used to use manure for fields.

(25) Less use now than when had milk cow and milk goat.

(26) Wool for weaving.

(27) If manure is free of noxious weeds, can use on fields.

(28) Hides for making panniers, used to sell wool.

(29) Sold hides and wool and made butter and cream from cow’s milk.

(30) Used to have milk cows/used to milk a cow.

(31) Trades by-products.

(32) Buys wool from Navajo for over-seas market.

(33) Use hides for chaps, manure for fertilizer, fresh eggs from chickens.

(34) Uses all by-products.

(35) Clean out corrals, neighbors use the manure.

(36) Hides for saddle work, rawhide, leather work.

(37) Milk from the goats.

(38) By-products used by other family members.

(39) Use hides, sometimes milk and manure.

(40) Used milk for children and pincos, made cheese, sold wool and pelts.

(41) Used to milk and make cheese and cream.

(42) Made goat cheese and Cow cheese to sell

(43) Sold cheese and butter

(44) Eggs from chickens

(45) Should use the hides

(46) Uses hides for drums, used to use wool for blankets

(47) Milks cow, uses manure on fields

(48) Animal’s graze crop residue

(49) Will use byproducts in future

(50) Make cheese and cream, wool to brother

(51) Used to milk goats.
170 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 102—Do you give live animals, meat, or by-products to friends or neighbors? (GIFTANS—Question 40).

MEAT TO

FRIENDS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

06

Total

97 (Missing)

133

81

7

2

8

231

7

55.9

34.0

2.9

.8

3.4

97.1

2.9

57.6

35.1

3.0

.9

3.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Occasionally

(04) Used to, but no longer

(05) Would give to friends if asked

(06) Trade animals/meat/by-products for work or services

Table 103—or as a donation to charity? (DONANS—Question 40a).

CHARITY

DONATIONS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

Total

97 (Missing)

97

109

2

3

2

1

214

24

40.8

45.8

.8

1.3

.8

.4

89.9

10.1

45.3

50.9

.9

1.4

.9

.5

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Occasionally

(04) Used to, but no longer

(05) Would donate to a charity if asked

(06) Will do so when can afford to
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 171

Table 104a—Order of goals for livestock operation: Priority order for increasing overall income and material goods 

(PROFIT—Question 41).

MAKING

MONEY*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

Total

97 (Missing)

98 (No response)

21

51

52

109

233

4

1

8.8

21.4

21.8

45.8

97.9

1.7

.4

9.0

21.9

22.3

46.8

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

Table 104b—Order of goals for livestock operation: Priority order for maintaining family’s quality of life resulting from owning 

livestock (FAMLIFE—Question 41).

QUALITY

OF LIFE*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

Total

97 (Missing)

98 (No response)

143

53

26

11

233

4

1

60.1

22.3

10.9

4.6

97.9

1.7

.4

61.4

22.7

11.2

4.7

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth
172 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 104c—Order of goals for livestock operation: Priority order for avoiding being forced out of livestock ownership 

(FORCEOUT—Question 41).

AVOID LOSS

OF BUSINESS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

Total

97 (Missing)

98 (No response)

43

79

59

52

233

4

1

18.1

33.2

24.8

21.8

97.9

1.7

.4

18.5

33.9

25.3

22.3

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

Table 104d—Order of goals for livestock operation: Priority order for improving the livestock operation by obtaining more 

land, better equipment, and more animals (IMPROVOP—Question 40).

IMPROVE

LIVESTOCK OP’N*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

Total

97 (Missing)

98 (No response)

26

51

96

60

233

4

1

10.9

21.4

40.3

25.2

97.9

1.7

.4

11.2

21.9

41.2

25.8

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 173

Table 105—Estimated percentage of gross income derived from livestock operation (INCPER—Question 42).

PERCENT of

GROSS INCOME* 

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

16

18

19

20

Total

97 (Missing)

98 (No response)

16

63

31

31

12

24

6

4

9

7

24

1

3

1

1

233

4

1

6.7

26.5

13.0

13.0

5.0

10.1

2.5

1.7

3.8

2.9

10.1

.4

1.3

.4

.4

97.9

1.7

.4

6.9

27.0

13.3

13.3

5.2

10.3

2.6

1.7

3.9

3.0

10.3

.4

1.3

.4

.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) None

(02) Less than 5%

(03) 5%-10%

(04) 11%-20%

(05) 21%-30%

(06) 31%-40%

(07) 41%-50%

(08) 51%-60%

(09) 61%-70%

(10) 71%-80%

(11) 81%-90%

(12) 91%-100%

(13) Don’t make much money; most/all goes back into the livestock operation

(14) Don’t make money on the livestock operation but save money on meat/ enjoy eating good meat

(15) Don’t really make money on the livestock operation; it is an investment, a form of savings, and a tradition

(16) Gave a $ figure that cannot be connected to a %

(17) Don’t make much money off it cause of loan and goes back into operation

(18) Unknown/can’t figure

(19) Depends on the year, price of livestock

(20) If suddenly need money, the cows are there; can saddle a horse if have no money
174 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 106—Permittee’s chosen means of saving or investing money (SAVINGS—Question 43).

METHOD OF

INVESTING*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

06

06

09

12

13

14

28

134

46

1

20

2

4

1

1

1

11.8

56.3

19.3

.4

8.4

.8

1.7

.4

.4

.4

11.8

56.3

19.3

.4

8.4

.8

1.7

.4

.4

.4

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) a. Putting money into a savings or other investment program

(02) b. Buying land in the area

(03) c. Buying more livestock or improving the stock operation in other ways, such as investing in range 

 improvements, equipment to make life easier.

NOTE: The category “d. Other (Please describe.)” had the following responses:

(04) Investing money in a personal business

(05) Means of savings depends on the amount available

(06) b and c

(07) a, b, and c

(08) a and c

(09) a and b

(10) Discussion of problems with all the means of savings

(11) Means of savings depends upon age

(12) Hanging on to and maintaining what we have; buy land to keep neighbor from selling to “outside”

(13) Purchase water rights

(14) Purchase tractors and equipment

In which ways have earnings from the livestock operation been used? (Questions 44a-44i)

Table 107—Money from livestock operations spent on basic living expenses (LIVEXPS—Question 44a).

LIVING

EXPENSES*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

165

73

69.3

30.7

69.3

30.7

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 175

Table 108—Money from livestock operation spent on household improvements (HSEIMPS—Question 44b).

HOUSE

IMPROVEMENTS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

129

109

54.2

45.8

54.2

45.8

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

Table 109—Money from livestock operations spent on emergencies (EMERGENS—Question 44c).

EMERGENCIES*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

114

124

47.9

52.1

47.9

52.1

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

Table 110—Money from livestock operations spent on college expenses (COLLEGE—Question 44d).

COLLEGE

EXPENSES*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

102

136

42.9

57.1

42.9

57.1

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

Table 111—Money from livestock operations spent on special expenditures (SPEXPS—Question 44e).

TRAVEL*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

48

190

20.2

79.8

20.2

79.8

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No
176 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 112—Money from livestock operations spent on stocks, bonds, etc. (INVETS—Question 44f).

INVESTMENTS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

49

189

20.6

79.4

20.6

79.4

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

Table 113—Money from livestock operations spent on purchase of livestock (MORLVST—Question 44g).

PURCHASE

LIVESTOCK*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

176

62

73.9

26.1

73.9

26.1

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

Table 114—Money from livestock operations is reinvested in the operation (ALLVST—Question 44h).

REINVEST MOST

IN OPERATION*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

160

78

67.2

32.8

67.2

32.8

Total

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 177

Table 115—Other expenses such as land & livestock taxes, purchase of land, paying loans, etc. (OTHREXPS—Question 

44i).

OTHER

EXPENSES*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

164

6

1

24

3

4

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

.4

68.9

2.5

.4

10.1

1.3

1.7

4.6

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

2.1

.4

1.3

.4

.4

.4

.4

.8

.8

.4

.4

68.9

2.5

.4

10.1

1.3

1.7

4.6

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

2.1

.4

1.3

.4

.4

.4

.4

.8

.8

.4

Total 238 100.0 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes, but none listed/or for non-agri’ uses

(02) No

(03) Purchase of vehicles and heavy equipment

(04) Paying off loans

(05) Paying land taxes

(06) Buying land

(07) Land taxes, farm equipment, feed for animals, permits, insurance

(08) Land and livestock taxes

(09) Improvements on the national forest

(10) Buying land, land and livestock taxes, permits, improvements

(11) Land payments, land and livestock taxes, FS permits

(12) Insurance, taxes, equipment

(13) Paying house mortgage

(14) Land & livestock taxes and facility repairs

(15) Land and livestock taxes, permits, equipment, vet” expenses

(16) Ranch equipment (machinery) and hay

(17) Land taxes and hay & feed

(18) Hay and good bulls

(19) Land, equipment, pasture rent
178 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

(20) Improvements such as fences and ditches

(21) Permits, hay, new barn

(22) All of above

(23) Medical expenses

(24) Hay

Goals for the family, ranked in order of importance (Question 45)

Table 116a—To have more income and be able to buy more material goods (INCOME—Question 45).

MATERIAL

GOODS*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

Total

97 (Missing)

7

8

46

176

237

1

2.9

3.4

19.3

73.9

99.6

.4

3.0

3.4

19.3

74.3

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

Table 116b—To have a better quality of life and spend more time with family (QUALITY—Question 45).

TIME WITH

FAMILY*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

Total

97 (Missing)

99

77

53

8

237

1

41.6

32.4

22.3

3.4

99.6

.4

41.8

32.5

22.4

3.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 179

Table 116c—To continue the way of life and maintain traditional values (TRADVAL—Question 45).

TRADITIONAL

VALUES*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

Total

97 (Missing)

114

92

23

8

237

1

47.9

38.7

9.7

3.4

99.6

.4

48.1

38.8

9.7

3.4

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

Table 116d—To gain personal satisfaction from a successful ranching operation (PERSAT—Question 45).

SATISFACTION

FROM WORK*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

04

Total

97 (Missing)

17

60

115

45

237

1

7.1

25.2

48.3

18.9

99.6

.4

7.2

25.3

48.5

19.0

100.0

Total

Key*

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth
180 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 117-What would you like to give your children (grandchildren, etc,) that would be a benefit to them in

the future? (CHLDGIFT-Question 46)

BENEFITS NUMBER OF

TO CHILDREN" PERMITTEES

03 3

04 11

05 29

07 1

08 15

09 1

11 1

12 12

13 2

14 5

15 1

16 5

17 2

18 1

19 4

20 2

21 3

22 4

23 1

24 3

25 1

26 1

27 3

28 3

28 4

30 5

31 1

32 1

33 1

34 3

35 1

36 3

37 1

38 16

39 1

40 3

41 1

42 2

43 1

44 1

45 1

46 1

47 1

48 1

49 2

50 1

51 1

52 1

53 1

54 1

PERCENT

1.3

46

12.2

.4

6.3

.4

.4

50

.8

2.1

.4

21

8

.4

1.7

.8

1.3

1.7

.4

13

.4

.4

1.3

1.3

1.7

21

.4

.4

.4

1.3

.4

13

.4

6.7

.4

13

.4

.8

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.8

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

VALID

PERCENT

1.3

47

123

.4

6.4

.4

4

5 1

.8

2.1

4

21

8

.4

1.7

.8

1.3

1.7

4

13

.4

.4

1.3

1.3

1.7

2 1

4

.4

.4

1.3

4

13

.4

6.8

.4

13

4

.8

.4

.4

4

4

.4

.4

.8

4

4

.4

.4

4
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 181

551 .4 .4

561 .4 .4

571 .4 .4

581 .4 .4

59

1 .44

60

1 .44

61

3 13 13

621 .4 .4

631 .4 .4

641 .44

65

1 .44

661 .4 .4

671 .4 .4

681 .4 .4

69

1 .44

701 .44

711 .4 .4

721 .4 .4

732 .8 .8

742

88

752

88

761 .4 .4

771 .4 .4

781 .4 .4

791 .44

80

1 .44

811 .4 .4

821 .4 .4

83

1 .4 .4

842 .8 .8

851 .44

861 .4 .4

871 .4 .4

881 .44

891 .44

903 13 13

911 .4 .4

921 .4 .4

931 .44

941 .44

951 .44

961 .4 .4

1001 .4 .4

1011 .44

1021 .44

1031 .44

104

1 .4 .4

1051 .4 .4

106288

1071 .44

1082 .8 .8

1101 .4 .4

1111 .4 .4

1121 .44
182 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Total

97 (Missing)

Total

236

2

238

99.2

.8

100.0

100,0

Key·

(01) Moral/Ethical Values

(02) Religious Values

(03) Family Values

(04) Work Ethic ("Teach them to workl")

(OS) Good Education

(06) Respect for land and livestock

(07) Respect for other people

(08) Land

(09) Livestock

(10) Financial resources

(11) Respect for land and livestock and satisfaction of a job well done

(12) Education and land (a place to live)

(13) Education and responsibility

(14) Family values and land

(15) Traditional values and continued care of the cattle

(16) Heritage. way of life, and traditional values

(17) Responsibility

(18) Land and love of animals

(19) Land & livestock (or permits) and continue the ranching tradition

(20) Education and to be a good citizen/not on drugs

(21) Keep the land and animals and benefit from them, be able to continue ranch

(22) Knowledge of ranching (land & animals), how to manage a ranch

(23) A love for ranching

(24) Education and continue ranching & care of animals

(25) Benefits of working own ranch (vs. making money) and working with animals

(26) Independence, Ability to problem-solve, Good stewards of land, Way of life

(27) Education and hard work

(28) Education and respect for others (especially for elders)

(29) Land and knowledge of how it works (how to care for it)/ the value of land and acequias/ a legacy for

the future/never sell the land, pass it on through the generations,

(30) Education and family values

(31) Land, livestock, discipline, love

(32) A "farm or place to live better than we have now."

(33) Education and an appreciation for the beautiful area where they live.

(34) Education, land, and livestock,

(35) Love for the land and care of the animals.

(36) The ranch and value of the land in northern NM (don't sell the ranch),

(37) Lessons in the role humans play in animal's lives and vice versa.

(38) The cattle operation (land & livestock), the ranch

(39) Better direction in life and Leadership skills.

(40) A life of ranching and farming experience.

(41) Family values, respect for humans and animals, education.

(42) Education, respect for others and the land, learning how to work (quality).

(43) Education and a better life Uobs),

(44) Land, animals, money, and strong family & religious values.

(45) Character

(46) Teach how to survive and care for land, values, respect, help neighbors,

(47) Religion, good values, be responsible.

(48) Education in custom & culture, moral values, share what you have.

(49) Responsibility, value & care of land, value of money, respect, hard work, tradition

(50) Understanding of the reality of life.

(51) Respect for elders/spend time with them.

(52) Education and animals.

(53) Education, Value the ranch, Religion.

(54) Parenting, Religion, Culture, Family, Education.

(55) Education, self respect (pride), monetary ability to succeed.

(56) Value of ranching, the NM way of life, seeing animals born and prosper
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 183

(57) Moral ethic (Sunday School) and work ethic.

(58) Roots, morals, & faith.

(59) Honesty, hard work, respect for others, stand up for what you believe,

(60) The benefit of his experience.

(61) Land & help with money

(62) Religious values, work ethic (how to work), Good citizen

(63) Put God first, education, family values, respect for others

(64) Land and to experience ranch life

(65) Knowledge of what we have, the experience of having livestock, culture & tradition

(66) Quality of life

(67) A wide variety of experiences

(68) Love for God, family, and land: To help and share experiences as a family,

(69) Respect & knowledge on raising animals.

(70) Ranching way of life, how to work, responsibility, good citizen, self sufficient.

(71) Education & religious values.

(72) Love, respect, and values of life.

(73) Life is a journey .. must take time to enjoy it! Find a path through life.

(74) Integrity, honesty, how to work, responsibility,

(75) Land, values, & traditions, to continue the ranch and not sell it.

(76) Honesty, responsibility, money doesn't buy everything.

(77) Tradition, care of the land, knowledge of the way of life & culture, ability to survive.

(78) Education, teach family values and land & money management.

(79) A legacy of tradition.

(80) Depends on the child,

(81) Ranchland, livestock, equipment, tradition, and hard work.

(82) Grazing allotments.

(83) Family, Honesty, Faith.

(84) How to work, Responsibility, Pass ranch on to the children.

(85) "The Saca Location" and common sense.

(86) Tradition, values. the importance of living in harmony with the land.

(87) Responsibility toward the animals and the value of life

(88) Keep up tradition of the family, experience and enjoy the outdoors, ranching. and wildlife of this area.

(89) Principles, life experience, and ability to think things through and make decisions

(gO) Land, cattle, and family values.

(91) Land, tradition, teach the way of life

(92) Heritage,

(93) Land, livestock, and the family business (fence co.), his mother's watchl

(94) Learn how to work and what's important in life.

(95) The grazing (callie) permits.

(96) Traditional values and quality of life

(100) Only one will inherit so not to split the ranch, tell them how important they are to him, show them how

to fish.

(101) Family values and the way of life.

(102) Appreciation for life, know what it's like to work and wait for something

(103) Faith in God (or won't survive) and respect for each other.

(104) Respect for other people; teach them how to work,

(105) The value of work: what you put into life is what you get out of it.

(106) Work ethic (teach them how to work), joy of life, education

(107) Traditional values

(108) Respect the value of the land; care for the land, the animals, and themselves

(109) Education, a trust fund, love, and security

(110) Respect, experience & knowledge in working with the cattle and fencing (see #69)

(111) 'The back of your hand."

(112) Ranching lessons and common sense.
184 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Table 118—Has permittee had an opportunity to read the Pilot Study? (REPORT—Topic Question 12).

HAVE READ

REPORT?*

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES PERCENT

VALID

PERCENT

01

02

03

Total

97 (Missing)

99 (N/A)

112

83

30

225

12

1

47.1

34.9

12.6

94.5

5.0

.4

49.8

36.9

13.3

100.0

Total 238 100.0

Key*

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Parts of it
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 185

APPENDIX D

Ranch Chores by Season

To give an idea of the time and effort that goes into ranching, briefly describe your work schedule throughout the 

year. (Question 27)

Winter

Feed daily

 Feed cows when starts to snow/ horses will look for grass under the snow

 Feed after work and on weekends

 When have other job, must feed at 4 a.m. and finish 9 p.m.

Check sheep every fourth day/doctor sheep

Haul hay and feed (cake)

Feed round bales on weekend

Salt (and mineral supplements)

Break ice

Check/haul water

Pump water

Care for livestock 

Transport to pasture

Rental of winter pasture

General maintenance

Ditch repairs

Fence repairs

Repair farm equipment

Family time/activities

Eat own food

Supervise beef processing

Distribute packaged beef

Forest Service meetings 

Some cows are kept at the “house”

 Put cows in corral pre-calving

Calving begins

 Some calves are brought into the house

 Must dry the new-born calves

Doctor animals

Vaccinate cows

Keep an eye out for rough weather at high elevations (8500 ft)
186 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Spring

Feeding

Lambing

 Check for dogs and coyotes at night

 Dock tails

Calving begins or continues

 Calving “a time to wait” [49.]

Vaccinating (first set)

De-worming

Branding

Castrating

Dehorning

Ear tagging (for identification on allotment)/re-tag cows for with Forest Service tags

Spray for ticks and lice

Transporting/move livestock to pasture

Fence repair/maintenance

Fertility test bulls 

Purchase bulls

Keep replacement heifers

Purchase heifers

Breed heifers

Breed cows

Feed and check first-time heifers daily

Check cows daily while calving

Horse breeding

Acequia/ditch cleaning (when snow melts)

 Replace head gates (desaguas)

Irrigate (hay fields for alfalfa)

Burn fields

Farming

 Plow, till, harrow fields

 Plant/ sow seed

 Crop rotation

Cleaning corrals

Lumber/ haul wood

Work cattle

Sort cows to go to allotment

Move cattle to the “high country”

 To allotments (Forest Service or BLM)

Attend meetings

Note: When bulls are shared, calving occurs throughout the year.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 187

Summer

Put up “let-down” fences

Take livestock to mountains/summer range/high elevation/allotments

 Depends on weather

 Sheep to Forest/check once a week

Cows to BLM/check every other day

Check cows on pasture/ on allotment (tags)

 Check own cows even when have a hired rider

 Help other permittees

 Camp in mountains

Check progress of calves

Check cows after work (via horseback)

Keep an eye out for vandalism

Check waters/maintenance of waters/cleaning waters 

Clean out springs

Check vegetation

Fence repairs on allotments

Rotate livestock (cattle)/ routing cattle

Doctor sick cattle/ medications

Salt placement on allotments

Late calving

Irrigating

Hay (cut, rake, bale, and store in barn)

 First cutting of alfalfa in June

 Second cutting at end of August before freeze

 Cut grass hay three to four times, alfalfa three times

 Sell some hay

Cut hay on shares/“custom cutting” of alfalfa

Plant fields

Plant garden (primarily for home use)

Raise produce: apples, apricots, peaches, alfalfa, and oats

Harvest garden/grain

Clean acequias

Fencing

Farm repairs/maintenance

Haul wood

Road maintenance

Attend rodeos

Attend meetings

Meet with ranger

Train forest restoration crew (locals)

Note: It takes 10 hours per day to irrigate, plant, harvest, bale hay, and check cattle one to two times per week 

(more if sick).
188 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Fall

Repair fences on private land (before return of cows)

Round up cattle

Gather cattle

Bring cattle home to ranch

Trailer sheep home in September

Some late-born calves to be dealt with

Wean calves

Weigh calves

Castrate

Pregnancy test cows

Cull open cows (to sell)

Feed animals to condition for sale

Fatten calves to sell

Find best market for calves and produce

Sell what necessary for income

 Sell some cows/take to market

 Sell calves (late fall)

 Sell lambs (1st of November)

Deliver to auction/ take to sale barn/contract calves

Sort and ship

Cows to mowed field/wheat pasture

Butcher steers for family needs

Process meat

Harvest garden

Harvest hay

Harvest crops (September)

Make wine

Preserve vegetables and fruit

Lay down fencing in high country

Clean equipment

Feed and care for animals carried over (cows, bulls, and horses)

Be sure to have enough feed for cattle

Purchase feed/hay

Rent winter pasture (of alfalfa and winter wheat)

Provide water

Ship cows to winter pasture

Note: Sale of cattle is usually in late fall, but depends on the market and how much feed and pasture are left from 

summer. Prefer to sell before the weather gets bad. Sell after 1st November for “best market.”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 189

APPENDIX E

Forage Plants by Ranger District

In most cases, respondents (permittees and range staff) provided us with either the common or scientific name 

of plants. With few exceptions, both names are listed on the tables.

Forage Plants on Camino Real Ranger District

Permittee Plant List:

Common name grasses: Scientific name* Season:

Bluegrass Poa spp. cool

 Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis cool

Bluestem Schizachyrium spp. warm

Bromes Bromus spp. cool

 Smooth brome Bromus inermis cool

Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides warm

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum cool

Fescues Festuca spp. cool

 Arizona fescue Festuca arizonica cool

Gramas Bouteloua spp. warm

 Black grama Bouteloua eriopoda warm

 Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

 Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula warm

Needle & Thread Hesperostipa comata cool

Oats (wild) Danthonia spp. cool

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata cool

Redtop Agrostis gigantea cool

Russian Rye Psathrostachys juncea cool

Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus warm

Wheatgrass Elymus spp. cool

Other plants:

Alfalfa Medicago sativa

Clover Trifolium spp.

 Red clover Trifolium pratense

Forbs

Introduced species

Mullien Verbascum thapsus

Native grasses

Non-natives

Others seeded by USFS

Rushes (Watergrass) Juncus spp.

Sagebrush Artemesia spp.

Sedges Carex spp.

Swamp grasses (may refer to Juncus)

Sweetclover Melilotus officinalis

Sweetpeas Lathyrus ssp.

Thistle Cirsium spp.
190 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Watergrass Juncus or Carex spp.

Wild grasses

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986.

Melvin Herrera (2010) Range Staff—Camino Real Ranger District

Plant notes:

Range readiness affects them...coming out of the 

home place and onto the forest.

Warm season grasses are at lower elevations.

Cool season grasses are the limiting factor.

At higher eleations: 8,500 ft and above

Parry’s oatgrass Danthonia parrii cool

Timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia cool

Nodding brome Bromus anomalus cool

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha cool

Mountain muhly Muhlenbergia montana warm

Pine dropseed Blepharoneuron tricholepis warm

Arizona fescue Festuca arizionica cool

Sheep fescue Festuca saximontana (ovina) cool

Elk sedge Carex geyeri

Bunch grass

At lower elevations: 7,000 ft

Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool

Squirreltail (pre-awn development) Elymus longifolius cool

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

Threeawn (mid to lower elevations) Aristida spp. warm

Crested wheatgrass (introduced) Agropyron cristatum cool

Orchardgrass (introduced) Dactylis glomerata (excellent forage) cool

Timothy (introduced) Phleum pratense cool

Bluegrass Poa spp. cool

Clover Trifolium

Noxious plants:

Snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae

Pingue (at lower elevations) Hymenoxys richardsonii

Locoweed (at mid-elevations) Astragalus or Oxytropis spp.

Larkspur (at high elevations) Delphinium occidentale

Oak Quercus gambelii

(oak poisonous to livestock if depended on too 

early and leafs out and freezes)

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 191

Forage Plants on Coyote Ranger District

Permittee Plant List

Common name grasses: Scientific name* Season:

Bluegrass Poa spp. cool

 Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratense cool

Brome Bromus spp. cool

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum cool

Fescues Festuca spp. cool

 Arizona fescue Festuca arizonica cool

Gramas Bouteloua spp. warm

 Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

 Black grama Bouteloua eriopoda warm

 Sideoats Bouteloua curtipendula warm

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha cool

Mountain muhly Muhlenbergia montana warm

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata cool

Timothy Phleum pratense cool

Wheatgrass Elymus spp. cool

 Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus cool

 Tall wheatgrass Elymus elongatus cool

 Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool

Other plants:

Alfalfa Medicago sativa

Bunch grass

Clover (yellow, white, red) Trifolium spp.

Manzanita Arctostaphylos pungens

Native grasses

Palo de Rosario

Patito (small fern under Aspen)

Rabbitbrush (when snows) Chrysothamnus spp.

Watergrass (Sedge or Rush) Carex or Juncus spp.

Weeds

Wild grasses

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986

Lawrence Atencio (2010) Range Staff—Coyote Ranger District

Plant notes:

(Grasses vary in key areas, a mix of warm and cool season grasses)

Bluegrass Poa spp. cool

 Kentucky bluegrass (perennial) Poa pratense cool

 Native bluegrass Poa agassizensis cool

(a shorter plant, inflorescence opens earlier than non-native)

Lower elevations: (drainage area)

Arizona fescue Festuca arizonica cool

Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool
192 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Bottlebrush Elymus elimoides cool

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

Galleta Pleuraphis jamesii warm

Lovegrass (a good stablizer) Eragrostis spp. warm

Sagebrush Artemesia spp.

High elevations:

Mountain muhly Muhlenbergia montana warm

Sheep fescue Festuca (ovina) saximontana cool

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha cool

Sedges (“watergrass”) Carex spp.

Forbs (increasers at heavy use sites)

Introduced grasses:

Smooth brome Bromus inermis cool

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata cool

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum cool

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986

Permittee Plant List

Common name grasses: Scientific name* Season:

Bluegrass Poa spp. cool

 Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis cool

 Mountain bluegrass Poa spp. cool

 Native bluegrass Poa spp. cool

Bluestem Schizachyrium spp. warm

 Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium warm

 Sand bluestem Bothriochloa or Schizachyrium spp. warm

Bromes Bromus spp. cool

 Cheatgrass brome Bromus tectorum cool

 Mountain brome Bromus carinatus cool

 Nodding brome Bromus anomalus cool

 Smooth brome Bromus inermis cool

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum cool

Fescues Festuca spp. cool

 Arizona fescue Festuca arizonica cool

 Thurber fescue Festuca thurberi cool

Galleta Pleuraphis jamesii warm

Grama Bouteloua spp. warm

 Black grama Bouteloua eriopoda warm

 Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

 Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula warm

Indian ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides cool

Mat muhly Muhlenbergia richarsonis warm

Needle & Thread Hesperostipa comata cool

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata cool

Ryegrass Lolium perenne cool
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 193

Sacaton Sporobolus airoides or S. wrightii warm

 Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides warm

Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus warm

Stipa Stipa spp. cool

Timothy Phleum pratense cool

Vine mesquite Panicum obtusum warm

Wheatgrass Elymus spp. cool

 Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool

Other grasses:

Alfalfa (dry land) Medicago sativa

Chamisa (Rabbitbrush) Chrysothamnus spp.

Chico brush (may refer to Sarcobatus vermiculatus)

Cuchilla (no translation available)

Four O’Clocks Mirabilis spp.

Four-wing Saltbush Atriplex canescens

Hogweed Porulaca oleracea

Junk grass

Native grasses

Oak leaves Quercus gambelii

Pubescen (Pubescent wheatgrass?) (may refer to Elymus hispidus barbulatus)

River grass (Sedge or Rush?) Carex or Juncus spp.

Sagebrush (Chamiso) Artemesia spp.

Snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae

Terromote (see below)

Thistles Cirsium spp.

Weeds

Winterfat (“White sage”) Ceretoides lanata

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986 

Jim Eaton (2010) Range Staff—Cuba Ranger District

Plant notes:

North end: (elevation 7000-8500 ft)

High desert: Piñon/Juniper, sagebrush, grassland

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum cool

Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus warm

Mountain muhly Muhlenbergia montana warm

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha cool

Pine dropseed Blepharoneuron tricholepis warm

Arizona fescue Festuca arizonica cool

Smooth brome Bromus inermis cool

Dry land Sedge Carex spp. 

South end: (elevation 8000-10,500 ft)

High mountain meadows with riparian corridors

Thurber fescue Festuca thurberi cool

Arizona fescue Festuca arizonica cool
194 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Timber oatgrass Danthonia parryi cool

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratense cool

Mutton grass Poa fendleriana cool

Riparian corridor:

Rushes Juncus spp.

Sedges Carex spp.

Redtop Agrostis gigantea cool

Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool

Bromes Bromus spp. cool

Interpretations of permittee plant names:

“Alkali sacaton” may refer to Sand dropseed

“Terremote” may refer to Blue grama (“mat on dirt”)

Chamisa = Rabbitbrush

Chamiso = Sagebrush 

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986 

Permittee Plant List

Common name grasses: Scientific name* Season:

Bluegrass Poa spp. cool

 Native bluegrass Poa spp. cool

 Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis cool

Brome Bromus spp. cool

 Cheatgrass brome Bromus tectorum cool

Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides warm

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum cool

Fescues Festuca spp. cool

 Mountain fescue Festuca saximontana cool

 Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea cool

Galleta Pleuraphis jamesii warm

Gramas Bouteloua spp. warm

 Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

Mountain muhly Muhlenbergia montana warm

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata cool

Sand “grama” (sand dropseed) Sporobolus cryptandrus warm

Timothy Phleum pratense cool

Tall wheatgrass Elymus elongatus cool

Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool

Other plants:

Alfalfa (planted after a fire) Medicago sativa

Aspen Populus tremuloides

Clover Trifolium spp.

Four-wing saltbush Atriplex canescens

“K-31” (seeded mixture)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 195

Oak Quercus gambelii

 Scrub oak Quercus gambelii

Snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae

Tumbleweed (Russian thistle) Salsola iberica

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986

Jim Eaton (2010) Range Staff—Jemez Ranger District

Plant notes:

Jemez district allotments are similar to south end of Cuba district allotments

Thurber fescue Festuca thurberi cool

Timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia cool

Mountain muhly Muhlenbergia montana warm

High mesas are drier:

Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

Mountain muhly Muhlenloergia montana warm

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986

Forage Plants on Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District

Permittee Plant List

Common name grasses: Scientific name* Season:

Bluegrass Poa spp. cool

 Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis cool

 Native bluegrass Poa spp. cool

Bluestem Schizachyrium spp. warm

Bromes Bromus spp. cool

Buffalo grass Buchloe dactyloides warm

Dropseed Sporobolus spp. warm

Fescues Festuca spp. cool

 Arizona fescue Festuca arizonica cool

Grama Bouteloua spp. warm

 Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

 Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula warm

Indian ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides warm

Lovegrass Eragrostis spp warm

Mountain muhly Muhlenbergia montana warm

Oatgrass Danthonia spp. cool

 Timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia cool

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata cool

Ryegrass Lolium spp. cool

Timothy Pleum pratense warm

Turkey track (Big bluestem) Andropogon gerardii warm
196 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Wheatgrass Elymus spp. cool

 Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool

Other plants:

Alfalfa (dry land) Medicago sativa

Bindweed (chokes other plants) Convolvulus arvensis

Browse

Bunchgrass

Gamble oak Quercus gambelii

 Oak leaves Quercus gambelii

 Scrub oak Quercus gambelii

High elevation natives 

Large flat mushrooms (cows like)

Large-blade “watergrass”

Native grasses

Natural grasses

Palo Duro (may refer to Junipers)

Swamp grass (Rush or Sedge) Juncus or Carex spp.

Thistle (invasive) Cirsium spp.

Watergrass (Rush or Sedge) Juncus or Carex spp.

Wild grasses

Winterfat Ceretoides lanata

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986

Mike Lujan (2010) Range Staff—Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District

Plant notes:

Elevation/ecotone delineations, beginning with key species and adding others

High country: 9000-10,000 ft 

Thurber fescue Festuca thurberi cool

Poas (many different species) cool

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis cool

Elk sedge Carex geyeri

Timber oatgrass (often in aspen stands) Danthonia intermedia cool

Transition zone: 7000-8000 ft 

Ponderosa pine forest: Pinus ponderosa

Pine dropseed Blepharoneuron tricholepis warm

Mountain muhly Muhlenbergia montana warm

Blue grama (some) Bouteloua gracilis warm

Introduced along old logging roads or where inhabited by people:

Timothy Phleum pratense cool

Smooth brome Bromus inermis cool

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata cool
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 197

Lower elevations:

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool

Intermediate wheatgrass Elymus hispidus cool

Sand dropseed Sporbolus cryptandrus warm

Galleta Pleuraphis jamesii warm

Vine mesquite Panicum obtusum warm

Indian ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides cool

Big bluestem (Turkey-track) Andropogon gerardii warm

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986

Forage Plants on Tres Piedras Ranger District

Permittee Plant List

Common name grasses: Scientific name* Season:

Bluegrass Poa spp. cool

 Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis cool

 Mutton grass Poa fendleriana cool

 Native bluegrass Poa spp. cool

Bluestem Schizachyrium spp. warm

 Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium warm

Bromes Bromus spp. cool

 Mountain brome Bromus carinatus cool

Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides warm

Canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea cool

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum cool

 (Seedlings planted in last five years at 8000 ft)

Fescues Festuca spp. cool

 Arizona fescue Festuca arizonica cool

 Sheep fescue Festuca saximontana cool

 Thurber fescue Festuca thurberi cool

Foxtail Aloecurus aequalis cool

Galleta Pleuraphis jamesii warm

Gramas Bouteloua spp. warm

 Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

 Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula warm

Indian ricegrass oryzopsis hymenoides cool

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha cool

Mountain muhly Muhlenbergia montana warm

Ring muhly Muhlenbergia torreyi warm

Needle & Thread Hesperostipa comata cool

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata cool

Red top Agrostis gigantea cool

Russian (wild)rye Psathyrostachys juncea cool

Rye Lolium spp. cool

Sacaton Sporobolus airoides warm

Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus warm
198 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012.

Squirreltail Elymus longifolius cool

Timothy Phleum pratense cool

Tobosa Pleuraphis mutica warm

Wheatgrass Elymus spp. cool

 Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool

Other plants:

Alsike clover Trifolium hybridum

Aspen leaves Populus tremuloides

Bunch grasses

Clover (green) Trifolium spp.

Dandelion Taraxacum officionale

Mulegrass (possibly a Muhlenbergia)

Mushrooms (sheep eat them)

Native grasses

Riparian grass

Rushes Juncus spp.

Sagebrush Artemesia spp. 

Sedges Carex spp.

Weeds

Winterfat (White sage) Ceretoides lanata

Wild pea Lathyrus spp.

Winter wheat Triticum aestivum

Noxious plants:

Larkspur Delphinium occidentale

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula 

Locoweed Astragalus or Oxytropis spp.

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986; Whitson and others 2006

Wayne Yonemoto (2010) Range Staff—Tres Piedras Ranger District

Plant notes:

Higher elevations: 8000-10,300 ft

Arizona fescue Festuca arizonica cool

Thurber’s fescue Festuca thurberi cool

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis cool

Muttongrass Poa fendleriana cool

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha cool

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum cool

Mountain brome Bromus carinatus cool

Sheep fescue Festuca (ovina) saximontana cool

Columbia needlegrass Stipa columbiana cool

Alpine timothy Phleum alpinum cool

Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia ceaspitosa cool

Timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia cool
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-276. 2012. 199

Lower elevations: 7000 ft

Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii cool

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis warm

Galleta Pleuraphis jamesii warm

Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium warm

Ring muhly Muhlenbergia torryi warm

Threeawn Aristida longesita warm

Squirreltail Elymus longifolius cool

Pussy toes Antennaria spp.

Dandelion Taraxacum officionale

Yarrow Achillea millefolium

Grey Horsebrush Tetradymia canescens

*Allred 2005; Ivy 2004; Stubendeick and others 1986; Whitson and others 2006
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and series number.

Publishing Services

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526
The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information 

and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the 

forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of 

the National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and 

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. 

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, 

forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, 

community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use 

economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide.

Station Headquarters

Rocky Mountain Research Station 

240 W Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1100

Research Locations

Reno, Nevada

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Rapid City, South Dakota

Logan, Utah

Ogden, Utah

Provo, Utah

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex (including gender identity and expression), marital 

status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political 

beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to: USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410. Or call toll-free at 

(866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English 

Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

www.fs.fed.us/rmrs

Flagstaff, Arizona

Fort Collins, Colorado

Boise, Idaho

Moscow, Idaho

Bozeman, Montana

Missoula, Montana

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper