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

Carol Raish

Alice M. McSweeney

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-113

September 2003
Abstract

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: a

pilot study. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-113. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 89 p.

The ranches of northern New Mexico, composed of land and livestock, are integral components of

family and community life. This pilot study examines current economic, social, and cultural aspects of

livestock operations owned by ranchers with Federal grazing permits (permittees) on the Canjilon and

Española Ranger Districts of the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests. This research develops preliminary results and tests survey methods that will be used in a planned larger study. Information gathered

from the study is intended to help agency managers administer forest lands with increased effectiveness by promoting greater cultural understanding. It will also be valuable as a public information tool

because many residents of the State, especially those newly migrated to both urban and rural areas,

are unfamiliar with the primarily Hispanic culture and traditions of northern New Mexico. The study

focuses on both the economic and noneconomic contributions of livestock ownership to local families and communities. It explores the ways in which ranching maintains traditional values and connects families to ancestral lands and heritage. Acknowledging the importance of small livestock

operations to area families and communities is crucial for understanding their way of life and resolving

disputes over public land and resource use.

Keywords: Northern New Mexico, permittees, ranching, livestock, ancestral lands, values, tradition,

heritage

Authors

Carol Raish is an Anthropologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, NM. 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. degree in anthropology at the University of New Mexico.

Alice M. McSweeney is a Range Scientist and Social Science Analyst with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, NM. She completed a B.S. degree in agriculture and an M.S. degree

in range science at New Mexico State University.

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.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Cover photo: Corral on the road to Gallina, NM, 1993. 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.

Cultural Heritage Research Project Leader, Joe Tainter, provided unfailing guidance, support, and critical review throughout all aspects of the project. We owe him our deepest thanks. Many other Forest

Service employees also contributed greatly to this research by giving their time, effort, and good counsel. These include Don Case and Jerry Elson, both now retired from the Carson and Santa Fe National

Forests, respectively, as well as Gene Onken and Lori Osterstock, District Rangers on the Canjilon and

Española Ranger Districts when the study was designed and developed. Cipriano Maez, Range Technician from Canjilon, and David Manzanares, now with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and

formerly of the Española Ranger District, provided indispensable assistance and advice. Donald Serrano,

currently Española Range and Watershed Staff, and District Ranger John Miera continued after David

Manzanares left the District. Refugio Martínez, formerly Canjilon District Ranger, assisted us at both

the Canjilon and Española Districts.

This study has benefited considerably from the comments and suggestions of several reviewers from

different universities and organizations; both Clyde Eastman and John Fowler of the Department of

Agricultural Economics, New Mexico State University, participated from the beginning of questionnaire development through preparation of the final report. Their guidance has been essential to the

success of the research. Rudy King, Rocky Mountain Research Station Statistician, deserves special

thanks for his excellent work throughout the project concerning statistical methods and techniques.

Additional valuable review comments were prepared by Lori Osterstock, Region 3 Acting Director of

Ecosystem Analysis and Planning/Watershed and Air Management; María García, Española Deputy

District Ranger; and David Stewart and Ber Brown, Director and Assistant Director of the Region 3

Rangeland Management Staff. We also express our appreciation to David Sánchez and Joe Romero of

the New Mexico Cattlegrowers for their helpful comments, reviews, and advice.

We appreciate the technical assistance of Nora Altamirano and Roberta Montoya, Rocky Mountain

Research Station Office Automation Clerk and Office Automation Assistant, who provided much needed

logistical support with several mailings of questionnaires, letters, and draft documents. We thank Carmen

Gallegos, Support Services Specialist, for financial counsel and Roy Jemison, Research Hydrologist, for

keeping the computers running. As always, Richard Periman, Research Archeologist, has provided allaround support and good advice. Pam Stoleson, Biological Technician, did an outstanding job of

compiling the many data tables in appendix C.

We acknowledge the financial support of the Cultural Heritage Research Work Unit and also the

generous financial assistance provided by Deborah Finch, Project Leader of the Ecology, Diversity,

and Sustainability of Soil, Plant, Animal, and Human Resources of the Rio Grande Basin Ecosystem

Management Project. It has been our pleasure to work on this project for the past several years; we

dedicate it to the ranching families of northern New Mexico.

i
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

Carol Raish

Alice M. McSweeney

Contents

Summary and Management Implications ........................................................................................ 1

Introduction and Historical Background ......................................................................................... 2

Spanish and Mexican Periods ...................................................................................................... 3

American Period ......................................................................................................................... 4

Methods.......................................................................................................................................... 7

Study Site Selection ..................................................................................................................... 7

Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 7

Data Entry and Analysis............................................................................................................. 10

Prior Research............................................................................................................................... 11

Ranchers and Ranching on the Española and Canjilon Ranger Districts ........................................ 13

Longevity of Residence and the Ranching Tradition .................................................................. 13

Personal and Family Portraits .................................................................................................... 13

Ranching Operations................................................................................................................. 15

Issues and Concerns .................................................................................................................. 20

Working on Forest Service Managed Land ................................................................................ 22

Livestock, Community, and Family ........................................................................................... 24

Land Use and Ownership.......................................................................................................... 27

Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................................ 31

References .................................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix A: Questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 34

Appendix B: Example Letters ........................................................................................................ 45

Appendix C: Questionnaire Results in Tables ............................................................................... 49

ii
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 1

The ranching tradition in northern New Mexico is

long standing, enduring across many generations. Livestock ownership and ranch life are powerful forces that

bind families and communities, continuing a heritage

that began with Spanish colonization. Owing to the

history of land use and ownership in the region, many

contemporary ranchers rely to a considerable degree

on public land to graze their animals. Rules and regulations governing use of these lands have the potential

to significantly affect the viability and survival of local livestock operations.

Controversy continues over the use of Federal lands

and land management agencies in northern New

Mexico, as well as in the Western United States as a

whole, which often arises from agency officials’ imperfect understanding of local sociocultural values and

attitudes toward land use. Although Forest Service permittee relations have improved in recent years, problems still exist. This is exemplified in northern New

Mexico where distinctive custom, culture, and tradition contribute to misunderstanding and conflict.

This pilot study is the first part of a longer term research program that will address the problem by gathering information on contemporary land management

and use issues among ranchers with Federal grazing

permits. This study, limited to two Ranger Districts of

the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests, develops

preliminary results and tests survey methods that will

be used in the next phase of the research with all permittees on the two Forests. The work is intended to

assist managers in addressing land management and

use issues now and in the future. It will also be valuable

as a public education tool because many residents of the

State, especially those newly migrated to both urban and

rural areas, are unfamiliar with the primarily Hispanic

culture and traditions of northern New Mexico.

Acknowledging the importance of small livestock

operations to area families and communities is crucial

for understanding their way of life and resolving disputes over public land and resource use. The study focuses on gathering information on both the economic

and noneconomic contributions of livestock ownership

to local families and communities. It explores the extent to which the use of public land for grazing and

other purposes provides opportunities for community

interaction and maintenance of traditional culture.

Those permittees with whom we spoke consider the

ranching way of life vital to maintaining their cultural

heritage and traditional values, as well as to passing

those values on to future generations. There is a strong

sense of responsibility to land, livestock, family, and

community, with land often viewed as part of the family, not as something to sell. Keeping land in the family and upholding traditional values are regarded more

highly than material possessions or monetary gain.

Changing attitudes and values among the general

public have the potential to negatively impact the rural

ranching way of life in northern New Mexico, with its

ties to traditional lands and heritage. The effects of

population growth and urbanization on land values,

property taxes, water availability, and attitudes concerning ranching and other traditional rural economic

activities require in-depth study. These trends add to

the difficulties the permittees discussed with us concerning “making ends meet” and keeping their lands

in agricultural use. This becomes increasingly difficult as neighboring lands are sold and subdivided. The

ranchers struggle with the problems, challenges, and

benefits of working on both private and public land

and fear losing their permits, ranches, and rural cultural traditions, which are so heavily dependent upon

land and livestock ownership.

Summary and Management Implications
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

The ranching tradition in northern New Mexico (fig.

1) is deeply rooted in history, with responsibility toward 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 serves to preserve the

culture and heritage of the past for future generations.

Due to the history of land ownership in the region, many

Introduction and Historical Background

ranching operations rely on public lands as a necessary source for livestock grazing. A substantial amount

of these lands were formerly granted to or used by local communities and the ancestors of current permittees. Regulations and management decisions

concerning these lands significantly affect the operation of ranching throughout the area.

San

Juan

Mtns.

Canjilon

Pk

San

Antonio

Mtn.

Tres

Piedras

N

Tierra

Aramilla

Canjilon

Lindrith

Cuba

Ojo Caliente

Embudo

Sangre de Mtns.

Christo

Abiquiu

Coyote Canones

Cerro

Pedernal

El Rito

Questa

Taos

Elizabethtown

Ocate

Trampas

San Juan Chicoma

Pk Jemez

Sandia

Mtns.

Mtns.

Espanola Chimayo

Santa Cruz

Pojoaque

Truchas

Mora

Ft. Union

Sapello Watrous

Rociada

Las Vegas

Gallina River

Pecos

River

Rio Pueblo

Pecos

Pecos

Glorieta

Tesuque

Nambe

Yapashi

Jemez

City

Town

Pueblo

Pueblo

Ruins

Isleta

Cochiti

Coyote

San

Felipe

Santa

Ana

Miles

0 5 10 15 20 25

0 10 20 30 40

Kilometers Manzano

Mtns.

San

Idelonso

Santa Puye Clara

Los

Alamos

Galisteo Rio Grande

Rio

Puerco

Rio

Rio

Mora River

Grande

Chama

San Miguel

Albuquerque

Santo Domingo

Nacimiento Mtns.

Santa Fe

Sandia

Taos

Taos Pk

Baldy Pk

Picuris

Pk

Jicarita

Pk

Wheeler Pk

Hermit

Pk

Lake

Pk

Truchas Pk

Picuris

Chama

Colorado

New Mexico

107 Wo

107 Wo 106 Wo 105 Wo

106 Wo

37o

Dulce

N

N N

N N

36o

36o

35o35o

Map Area

New

Mexico

~

Figure 1—North-central New

Mexico, adapted from de Buys

(1985).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 3

Today controversy continues over the role of Federal lands and land management agencies in the Western United States, where considerable amounts of land

are under Federal control. The State of New Mexico is

no exception. In the State’s six north central counties

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

and Taos), the general area of concern for this study,

approximately 34 percent of the land is Federally controlled. Together, the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA Forest Service (USFS)

manage 52 percent of the land in Rio Arriba County and

53 percent in Taos County (Eastman and others 2000).

Much of the debate over Federal land use occurs

because land managing agencies have not adequately

emphasized and monitored sociocultural attitudes toward land valuation and use. The Española/Canjilon

study addresses 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. This study examines the economic,

social, and cultural aspects and contributions of the

generally small livestock operations on the Española

and Canjilon Ranger Districts of the Santa Fe and

Carson National Forests of northern New Mexico. For

this discussion, cattle ranches with less than 100 head

(or approximately 135 animal units yearlong—AUY)

are classified as small. Those ranches with 40 head

(approximately 54 AUY) or less 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 1 AU in

1 year (Torell and others 1998).

The study focuses on gathering information on both

the economic and noneconomic contributions of livestock ownership to local families and communities. In

other purposes allows communities to maintain social

cohesion and traditional culture. Local attitudes toward

land management agencies and policies are examined.

Some comparisons to previously collected information

from the general area are also made.

Research on the two Districts serves as a pilot study

to test the research design and data collection methods

that will be used in a larger study planned to include

livestock operations and grazing permittees on all

Ranger Districts of the two Forests (Raish 1999). Results from the present study are used to evaluate and

refine research questions for the larger study by

developing new topics and questions, and by deleting

inappropriate topics. Although this pilot study provides

valuable information to assist managers in addressing

land management and use issues, it represents only

those who were interviewed for this initial portion of

the project. These data cannot be generalized to nonparticipating permittees from the two Districts, to the

two Forests, or to northern New Mexico as a whole.

Methodological aspects of the study are discussed in

detail in a separate section of this report.

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. Because 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. In the remainder of this section we

discuss not only the history of the area, but in some

cases how that history helped mold our methods for

the current and future phases of our research.

Spanish and Mexican Periods

Many of the small livestock operations in northern

New Mexico are owned by Hispano families, regional

residents since well before United States conquest in

1848.

The Hispano ranching tradition began with Spanish

colonization in 1598 but did not become fully developed until after the reconquest of 1692 through 1696

(Earls 1985; Simmons 1979; Wozniak 1995). When

Juan de Oñate colonized what is now New Mexico in

1598, he brought European domesticated plants and

animals, including cattle, sheep, goats, and horses

(Baxter 1987; Hammond and Rey 1953). In addition

to their domesticates, the Spanish introduced new technologies and subsistence strategies into the existing

Native American agricultural system. The settlers

changed indigenous farming practices, which had relied on extensive 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 mainly because of 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
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

of the Spanish were forced out of the Upper Rio Grande

for 12 years. The settlers returned between 1692 and

1696 when Diego de Vargas initiated and completed

the Spanish reconquest of New Mexico (Simmons

1979).

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). After the

reconquest, the economic, political, and religious systems of New Mexico were different from the prerevolt

systems. The new generation of Spanish colonists were

accomplished agriculturalists and stock raisers who

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

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

The descendants of these people are the Hispanic villagers and farmers of northern New Mexico.

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. There were various

types of land grants, but 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 smallsized, 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 description 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 manuring 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 2 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 scattered 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 overutilization increased during the Mexican period as commercial sheep production increased

(Scurlock 1995). However, the large majority of operations remained small and subsistence-oriented during this period. As an example, Rothman (1989)

describes use of the Pajarito Plateau west of Santa Fe

in the following way. Throughout the 1800s, local Hispanic and Pueblo residents of the nearby valleys used

the plateau as common property, bringing their small

herds to the plateau for summer grazing. They also

harvested from the abundant timber resources for 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 United States 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
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 5

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 stated by Eastman

(1991:103): “...landholders were turned into claimants

who had to incur a substantial expense to have their

property respected.” Money was scarce in the subsistence economy of the region, so 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

from 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 19th 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) argue 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 the State (Griswold del

Castillo 1990). Although fraudulent claims definitely

should have been rejected, many potentially legitimate

claims were also rejected, often on the basis of documentation that was incomplete or inconsistent. Claims

from residents who had occupied their land for generations were denied because of lost or inconsistent

documents (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, which differed in significant

ways from prior systems of payment in agricultural

products. 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 to this day, with initiatives presented at regular

intervals to Congress recommending further study of

the problem. Most recently, the General Accounting

Office (GAO) has undertaken a study of community

land grants in New Mexico (GAO 2001) at the request

of several members of the New Mexico Congressional

delegation. It remains to be seen what, if any, action

will result from this effort.

Today much of the former grant land in northern

New Mexico is managed by Federal agencies, primarily the USDA Forest Service (USFS). Many of these

lands came into Federal control after being degraded

in one form or another by large commercial ranching

or timbering operations that occurred after alienation

from the original Hispano owners (Eastman and others 1971; Rothman 1989). Nonlocal corporate interests generally owned these enterprises (Wildeman and

Brock 2000). When the commercial operations were

no longer profitable, the land was often sold to the

government. In this way, the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests 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). Of these Forests, 22

consist of confirmed Spanish and Mexican land grants

with additional land coming from claimed but unconfirmed grants (de Buys 1985; Hurst 1972). Currently,

many local ranchers have grazing permits on the two

Forests, but since they 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 20th 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. There was a

continuous decline in the number of grazing permits

and the number of animals permitted. On the Carson

and Santa Fe National Forests there were 2,200 individuals holding permits in 1940, which by 1970 had

been reduced to fewer than 1,000 (de Buys 1985).

With declines in the numbers of animals permitted

to graze on the two Forests, the small subsistence ranchers suffered increasing limitations on their herd sizes

over the years. One community had herd reductions of

60 percent , while the ranchers of another lost permits

for 1,000 cattle in a period of a few years (de Buys

1985). Free-use permits, issued for animals such as milk

cows and draft horses, were phased out by 1980. Also

during this period, there were massive declines in the

numbers of sheep and goats under permit. By 1980,
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

there were no goats on either Forest and no sheep on

the Santa Fe (de Buys 1985; Van Ness 1987).

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 there was a notable trend toward permit consolidation, which 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 is reflected in statements from the

residents of Cañones that Forest Service administration favored large-scale ranching and was often not

compatible with the subsistence needs of local communities (Kutsche and Van Ness 1981).

Our discussions with local community leaders

showed that an examination of the contemporary role

of ranching in northern New Mexico requires an assessment of the economic impact of these prior reductions in AUMs. One suggestion was to compare current

economic conditions and an economic situation that

might exist had animal numbers not been reduced. This

matter is important because, if land base and animal

numbers had not been reduced, the economy of northern New Mexico might today be quite different. With

retention of former animal numbers and a sufficient

land base, ranches might currently operate at a higher

level of production. There might be less necessity for

secondary employment, allowing more time and effort to be devoted to the livestock operation. An increase in profits would provide the freedom and

incentive to carry out innovations and improvements,

leading to greater credibility and financial returns to

support industries and the community as a whole. Data

to model such a scenario do not currently exist. Future

phases of the research will be directed toward obtaining this information, if feasible.

Discontent over Federal grazing policies, lost grant

lands, and general economic decline in the region led

to protest movements in the 1960s.The most well

known 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 “citizens arrest” at

the courthouse in Tierra Amarilla that led to violence.

There was also a takeover of the Echo Amphitheater campground, which brought national attention and news coverage. Two of the main goals of the group’s actions were

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

of grazing on the National Forests (deBuys 1985).

The violence of these protests caused the Forest

Service to reexamine its policies in northern New

Mexico, resulting in The People of Northern New

Mexico and the National Forests, commonly known

as the Hassell Report (Hassell 1968). The unpublished

report recommended 99 measures, of which 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 National 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

stressing 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 are 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. Unfortunately, the authors have found that

many Forest Service employees some three decades

later are unaware of the Hassell Report (1968) and the

conditions that led to its development. Although there

have been recent efforts to develop regional cultural

awareness programs and hire managerial level employees from the region, a need remains for training in the

cultural traditions and social values of northern New

Mexico. Significant misunderstandings persist, and the

potential for conflict remains.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 7

Study Site Selection

The present study is designed to provide muchneeded information concerning the culture and economic practices of the region for agency employees,

policymakers, and the general public. Two Ranger Districts were chosen for the initial study, Española on the

Santa Fe National Forest and Canjilon on the Carson

National Forest. The Española Ranger District was

selected first for this initial study because it is a good

example of livestock operations in northern New

Mexico and, in particular, on the Santa Fe and Carson

National Forests. After discussions with range staff,

the study was broadened to include the Canjilon Ranger

District of the Carson National Forest to give representation to that Forest also (D. Case, personal communication, 1997). Although carefully selected, these

two Districts cannot be assumed to represent the two

Forests or the general area in any statistical sense.

At the time of research design development, there

were nine active grazing allotments on the Española

Ranger District, ranging from approximately 7,000 to

73,000 acres. On the Santa Fe Forest as a whole, allotments typically range from approximately 4,000 to

100,000 acres. Virtually all the Española allotments

have more than one permittee, ranging from two

through 16. Of the active allotments on the Santa Fe,

70 percent have more than one permittee, with a range

of two through 20. Of the 17 listed grazing associations on the Santa Fe, six occur on the Española District.

Of the 55 people with Forest Service permits on the

Española District, 30 (55 percent) have permitted head

numbers from one to 25, 11 have 26 to 50 (20 percent), and 14 have 51 to 100 (25 percent). Española

exemplifies the common allotment pattern of the northern New Mexican Forests, typified by small herd sizes,

shared allotments, and organized grazing associations

(Raish 1999). This pattern is consistent with the general area, having small and extra small cattle operations (as defined earlier) comprising 87 percent of the

ranches in Rio Arriba County and 96 percent in Taos

County (Eastman and others 2000). Multiple-permit

allotments (referred to as community allotments), small

herd sizes per permittee, and grazing associations of

permittees show continuing communal range use in

northern New Mexico.

The Canjilon Ranger District, with its 57 permittees, was recommended for study by range staff on the

Carson. At the time of data collection in 1999, Canjilon

had 10 active grazing allotments ranging from approximately 300 to 43,000 acres. Five of the allotments (50

percent) have more than one permittee (ranging from

two through 25), with five having one permittee. The

District’s grazing associations occur on the allotments

with the most permittees. The majority of herds range

from four to 250 animals with six operations having

100 or more head of cattle (sheep operations are larger

and are discussed in following sections of this report).

The largest herds per permittee occur on the allotments

with only one permittee. Of the 71 allotments on the

Carson, 40 percent have more than one permittee, ranging from two through 25. There are 24 grazing associations on the Carson (Raish 1999). Canjilon provides

contrast with Española, having more single-permittee

allotments with larger herd sizes, while still having

many of the relatively small-sized livestock operations

typical of northern New Mexico (Raish 1999).

Information on range figures from the Santa Fe and

Carson National Forests was obtained from range data

tables provided by Jerry Elson, Range and Wildlife

Staff (retired) on the Santa Fe National Forest; Sylvia

Valdez, Resource Assistant on the Santa Fe National

Forest; Don Case, Range, Wildlife, Fish, Soil, Air, and

Water Staff (retired) on the Carson National Forest;

and Lorraine Montoya, Resource Assistant on the

Carson National Forest.

Data Collection

Development of the Questionnaire and Discussion

Questions—Following the format of prior studies in

the region (Eastman and others 1971, 1979; Gray 1974),

data collection is organized around a written questionnaire, supplemented by a personal interview (appendix A). The questions are grouped to elicit the following

categories of information:

Methods
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

a. Background information on the permittee and his/

her family.

b. Background 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 consists of 52 questions divided

into seven sections. Two sections request demographic

information and descriptive information on livestock

operations. Questions on age, education, employment,

primary language spoken in the household, and years

of residence in the area provide demographic data. Information on livestock operations consists of questions

concerning the number of years the permittee and his

or her family have owned livestock and have had Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management grazing

permits. The number and type of animals owned are

also requested. A third section deals with costs and

benefits of owning livestock with questions focused

on the costs of the livestock operation and 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 is included.

The remaining four sections emphasize social and

cultural contributions of livestock ownership, including the reasons for owning livestock, community activities related to owning livestock, a rancher’s

preferred means of saving money, uses of the money

earned from the livestock operation, and plans to use

the livestock operation as a retirement activity. Questions also elicit information on the role of livestock

ownership in selecting a place of residence, the social

and business activities that result from livestock ownership, and whether a permittee grazes cattle with relatives or neighbors or both.

A section on family goals requests respondents to

prioritize statements concerning increasing family income, increasing the quality of life, maintaining traditional lifestyles and values, and having greater respect

within the community. Another question asks respondents to prioritize family goals for the livestock operation, such as making more money from the operation,

increasing the family’s quality of life, avoiding being

forced out of ranching, and increasing the size of the

operation. The section on land ownership and use

attitudes contains questions concerning the merits of

hiring local versus nonlocal workers, selling land to

local versus nonlocal buyers, and managing Federal

lands primarily for the benefit of local residents or for

users and tourists from other parts of the country. Other

questions deal with ranchers’ willingness to sell inherited land and their views on what factors constitute land

ownership.

Consultation with expert researchers in the field, as

well as published information on prior research and

information-gathering strategies, are used to assess

content and face validity of the questionnaire questions

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

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

1970). Drs. Clyde Eastman (retired) and John Fowler,

Department of Agricultural Economics, New Mexico

State University, reviewed a draft of the questionnaire

and suggested revisions, which were made. With their

permission, relevant questions from prior surveys

undertaken in their research are 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. degree in rural sociology, also reviewed the questionnaire. In addition, the following

Forest Service range personnel examined and commented on the instrument: David Stewart, Range

Administration, Southwest Regional Office; George

Martinez, Rural Community Assistance Program

Manager, Southwest Regional Office; Jerry Elson,

Range and Wildlife Staff Officer (retired), 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, Canjilon Ranger District, Carson

National Forest.

Reliability of the questionnaire is increased by the

use of questions/measures that have proved reliable in

prior studies. Reliability will also be assessed by using

the present study on the two Ranger Districts as a basis of comparison to the responses from the planned

larger study to be conducted on all Ranger Districts of

the two Forests (discussed in Babbie 1990, 1995). The

rationale for selecting all the permittees from the

Española and Canjilon Districts as an alternate population with similar characteristics for the pilot study is

discussed in the previous section. Because all permittees from the two Districts are offered the opportunity

to participate in the pilot, and all permittees from the

two Forests will be offered the opportunity to participate in the proposed larger study, there is no need to

test a sampling design.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 9

The pilot is being used to assess the clarity and internal consistency of the questions, as well as their relevance and complexity (Babbie 1990, 1995). Many of

the questions have been used in prior studies and have

proved useful and reliable (Babbie 1990, 1995;

Eastman and others 1971, 1979; Fowler and others

1994; Liefer 1970). Reviewers have already commented on these issues in their examinations of draft

instruments. Their suggestions have been implemented.

These issues are discussed in greater detail in following sections of this report.

The six discussion, or personal interview, questions

constitute an informal, more ethnographically oriented

portion of the study (Spradley 1979). They are designed

to allow respondents to discuss their own views, feelings, and problems. Respondents can provide other

information if they wish, focus on only one or two

questions, or skip a question or parts of a question. No

responses to these questions are examined using statistical data manipulation techniques; they are not used

in a formal attitude survey or assessment. These questions are intended to give a personalized picture of the

ranchers and their varying views and concerns, serving as a background for the formal study.

Questionnaire and Discussion Question Administration—For approximately 1 year prior to beginning data

collection, Raish spoke with Forest and District personnel, community members, and grazing permittees

at association meetings discussing the proposed project

and soliciting input from those who would be involved.

At the time of data collection, there were 55 permittees with active grazing allotments on the Española

District and 57 on the Canjilon District for a total of

112. All permittees were offered the opportunity to

participate in the project.

Before beginning data collection, Raish and

McSweeney mailed each permittee a cover letter (appendix B) in English and Spanish explaining the project

along with a copy of the questionnaire, so that people

would have an opportunity to review it. The review

questionnaire is in English, but our letter states that

the questionnaire is available in Spanish and the discussion or interview questions are also available in

Spanish. We then called each permittee with a listed

telephone number to determine if he/she wished to

participate in the project. We scheduled times and

places at the convenience of the permittee to personally administer the questionnaire and discuss the interview questions for those who wished to participate.

We chose to personally administer the questionnaire

to maximize response rate, clarify questions, and

assess “problem” or inappropriate questions that should

be removed for the planned larger study. Prior discussions with community members and Forest Service

staff also indicated that response to a mailed questionnaire would probably be extremely low. Those permittees without listed telephone numbers were sent a

stamped, addressed envelope and a form to return to

us indicating interest. Of the six with no listed telephone number, one participated in the project.

McSweeney and Raish administered the questionnaire and conducted the interviews together in the vast

majority of cases with Raish going through the questionnaire with the respondents. Owing to scheduling

conflicts, Raish conducted a few of the sessions alone.

We used this strategy to minimize possible problems

caused by different interviewers interpreting or clarifying questions in different ways, which might lead

to bias in responses. The entire questionnaire and

interview process generally lasted from 1.5 to 2.5

hours. Our following discussion of ranch life is based

on the information we received from those who participated in the study and does not represent any

other permittees.

In all, 62 (55 percent) permittees from the two Districts participated in the project by completing questionnaires. All but three of these also participated in

personal interviews. The group consisted of 29 (53

percent) from Española and 33 (58 percent) from

Canjilon. Nonrespondents included persons who declined to participate, those with listed telephone numbers whom we were unable to reach after several

attempts, and those without listed telephone numbers who

did not respond to the written request to participate.

We are in the process of using the information from

this initial study to revise and redesign both the questionnaire and the discussion questions to improve clarity, relevance, and simplicity and eliminate redundancy

in the information collection instruments for the proposed larger study. For example, project participants

answered the majority of the questions in a straightforward manner with little hesitation. Many of the questions elicited supplementary comment, providing

additional information to the responses. As will be

noted in subsequent discussions, a few questions did

require some explanation and clarification on the part

of the interviewers. One question in particular, involving amounts of money spent on range improvements

(30), proved too complex and time consuming to be

answered within the framework of the interview process. Thus, this question will not be discussed in the

report. Alternative means of obtaining this type of information will be developed for the larger study.
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Data Entry and Analysis

All interview notes from the discussion questions

taken by both McSweeney and Raish were transcribed

and entered into the computer anonymously (preserving the anonymity of the respondents) as were the questionnaire responses. The questionnaire coding system

was developed with an eye toward preserving as much

response variability as realistically possible and including clarifications and other information provided by

the ranchers during questionnaire administration. Raish

coded all responses to questionnaire items and entered

them into the database. Although only one researcher

coded all questionnaire responses and performed all

data entry, variability and errors can occur as the data

recording process proceeds. Thus, a 10 percent “grab”

sample of six questionnaires was recoded to determine

if code selections remained the same on the second

coding. The sample consisted of three Española and

three Canjilon questionnaires including those from

early, middle, and late in the data coding process. The

recoding identified nine of the 103 variables (derived

from the 52 questions) as showing coding problems

on one or more of the sampled questionnaires. Thus,

these problem variables were reexamined on all questionnaires. In addition, all data entries were proofed

for typographical errors and other data entry mistakes

of this nature.

Responses derived from the discussion questions

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. These discussion questions are identified as interview questions with their number as they

appear throughout the report. The 52 questions on the

questionnaire cover attitudes and values as well as direct descriptive and demographic information. These

questions are also identified throughout the text by their

corresponding number.

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. Preliminary comparisons between selected responses from the present study and those

from earlier studies are made to assess possible changes

in the role of livestock operations over time.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 11

There is a considerable body of work that provides

a valuable framework for assessing and understanding

the economic, social, and cultural role of livestock

operations in the communities of the north. 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 (such as Kutsche and Van Ness

1981), land grant studies (such as Briggs and Van Ness

1987), and specific studies of livestock operations (such

as Eastman and Gray 1987; Fowler and others 1994)

have been undertaken.

Since the 1970s, there has been increasing research

on land grants and land grant problems in New Mexico.

These 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).

Such studies provide the necessary background for

understanding public land use disputes, given that much

of the Federal land is former grant land.

Various studies (discussed in Eastman and others

2000) describe contemporary community organization,

traditional culture, farming, and stock raising in northcentral New Mexico, including the ways in which communities have responded to changing governments and

patterns of land ownership (Gonzales 1969; Knowlton

1961, 1967; Kutsche 1983; Sanchez 1940; Swadesh

1974; Van Ness 1976, 1987). Excellent communityspecific studies include those of Leonard and Loomis

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

on Cañones. Forrest (1989) examines 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 Basin Study consists of an

extensive bibliography of studies on Hispanic New

Mexico (Weigle 1975).

The Tewa Basin Study itself “...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 mid-1930s, including information on farming and

raising livestock.

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). Statewide 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) discuss, contemporary ranching operations in northern New Mexico are

generally small. Even in prior 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

serve as good examples of this long-standing pattern

(Weigle 1975). The village of Cundiyo was described

as having 21 families with 175 cattle, ranging from

one to 19 per family. Seventeen families owned 31

horses. There were also 12 sheep and three goats in the

village. Corn was the most important crop; other crops

included beans, chili, squash, and fruit. Each owner

worked his or her 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 study, 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

Prior Research
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

herd numbered 78 cattle and eight horses with the average family having one team of horses and three head

of cattle. Three ranchers had a total of 3,260 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 approximately 200 families. The principal crop at the time of

the study was wheat with other crops including peas,

potatoes, and beans. The farmers also cultivated substantial amounts of alfalfa and owned 200 head of

cattle, 200 horses, 50 sheep, and 1,100 goats. One man

owned a herd of 200 goats. Cattle herds ranged from

one to 20 with an average of three 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

5.5 months grazing season and were on private pasture and feed during the remainder of the year. Eighteen families had no cattle, while one had two cows,

six had between five and eight, four had between 10

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

and one 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. They generally had

outside jobs or were retired. The function of the livestock herd was not purely economic. They were 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 providing meat no matter what the market price or the

condition of family finances (Eastman and Gray 1987).

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

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). These trends continue in the region today

and are essentially the pattern found by this study.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 13

Longevity of Residence and the

Ranching Tradition

Information derived from our interviews demonstrates the long tenure of local residents and their depth

of knowledge concerning land ownership and use patterns in the region. Of those we spoke with, 97 percent

were born in northern New Mexico (question 1; appendix C, table 1), 94 percent of the families had been

residents of the area since their grandparents’ time or

earlier (question 2; appendix C, table 2), and 86 percent reported great-grandparents or even earlier relatives living in the communities of the north, with many

having ancestors in the area in the 1700s and 1600s

(appendix C, table 2). Commitment to remaining in

their local communities is strong among these ranchers, with 85 percent stating that they would remain in

the home community even if they no longer owned

livestock (question 13; appendix C, table 13). However, several commented that they could not imagine a

life without livestock nor living in the city without

animals. Several said they had passed up jobs or promotions or had gone into certain lines of work to remain near their ranches and land. Several also

commented that they or other family members had returned home from elsewhere as soon as they had the

opportunity. The desire to raise their children near their

land and heritage and away from the troubles of the

city was often repeated. The appeal of the small home

community and the rural life is strong.

The ranching tradition itself is also one of long duration, with 94 percent of the permittees reporting that

livestock ownership and ranching go back in their families for at least several generations (to their grandparents’ time), and 73 percent had ancestors in the ranching

business, ranging from great-grandparents back to the

time of Oñate (question 18, 19; appendix C, tables 18

and 19.). The longevity of the tradition is also demonstrated by the fact that slightly over 70 percent have

had their Forest Service grazing permits over 50 years

and/or received them from their fathers or grandfathers.

Just 3 percent have had the permit less than 10 years

(question 21; appendix C, table 21a).

As one would expect from their long tenure in the

area, many of the families are associated with active

or former land grants and are well versed in the history

and loss of these lands; 58 percent either currently use

land grant lands for various resources, have used them

in the past, or know that their family used land grant

lands at some point in the past. Approximately onethird (34 percent) have never had any association with

land grants. The remainder do not use such lands now

and are unsure if their families did in prior years (question 20; appendix C, table 20).

The contemporary ranching operations of the area

that have access to private grant lands use a combination of privately owned or leased lands, grant lands,

and public lands as their range. Those with no access

to private grants rely on privately owned or leased lands

and public lands. Eastman and Gray (1987) and

Eastman (1991) note there are only 14 community

grants remaining in private ownership with significant

amounts of grazing land (owing to the previously discussed loss of land grants and portions of grants). Land

losses seriously limit the grazing areas available to

many ranchers. As an example, the community of

Cañones, near the Santa Fe National Forest, lost community grant lands to speculators who finally sold the

land to the Federal government in 1937. Thus, 89 percent of the Cañones valley is managed by the Forest

Service, and the town is surrounded on three sides by

National Forest (Van Ness 1987). Because of these land

losses, local stock owners are forced to rely on grazing

permits on the National Forest for their cattle.

Personal and Family Portraits

Almost half (48 percent) of the men and women who

shared their stories, information, and concerns ranged

in age from 50 to 65, with about one-quarter in the

category from 36 to 49 (26 percent) and one quarter

over 65 (24 percent) (question 4; appendix C, table 4).

Ranchers and Ranching on the Española and

Canjilon Ranger Districts
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

About 52 percent of the families use both Spanish and

English in the home, with 34 percent using Spanish as

the primary language and 13 percent using English.

About 2 percent use Tewa as their primary language

(question 3; appendix C, table 3). Many reported that

Spanish was the primary or only language used within

the home when they were young, but now they use

both languages in the home and did so when their children were growing up. Several lamented that the

younger generation seem to prefer English. The prevalence of television and the primary use of English in

schools were seen as influences.

The importance of a good education was stressed

repeatedly by the permittees and was a top priority for

them with respect to their children. In fact, when responding to a question concerning the importance of

passing on land as a means of providing for their

children’s future, several voluntarily commented “as

well as providing them with a good education.” Some

45 percent reported spending money earned from the

livestock operation on special expenses such as college tuition for the children (question 33; appendix C,

table 32c), and 90 percent of the respondents themselves have a high school education or higher (53 percent high school, 15 percent some college, 11 percent

college degree, 11 percent graduate school) (question

5; appendix C, table 5). Of the spouses, 96 percent also

have a high school education or higher (50 percent high

school, 29 percent some college, 13 percent college

degree, 4 percent graduate school) (question 6; appendix C, table 6).

Table 1 shows a breakdown of the employment categories for the 50 ranchers whose responses to question 8 (If employed outside the home or ranch, what is

your job title or description?) could be classified as to

job type. Preretirement job types are included for those

who are currently retired. Aside from those who reported their primary job as rancher/farmer (16 percent),

the other most prevalent occupations were skilled trade/

technician (26 percent), educator (14 percent), and

business owner or manager (14 percent) (question 8;

appendix C, table 8). Forty-five of the spouses have

jobs classifiable as to type, with 87 percent of those

engaged in paid work, while 13 percent list themselves

as full-time homemakers. A wide range of jobs was

given with the most popular being clerical (22 percent),

business owner/manager or those who assist with the

family business (16 percent), health care professional

(11 percent), and daycare or home care provider (11

percent) (question 11; appendix C, table 11).

The ranchers reported working 40 or more hours

per week off the ranch in 40 percent of the cases. Another 45 percent are now retired from prior off-ranch

work (question 9; appendix C, table 9). Almost 58 percent of the 52 spouses reporting employment hours

work at least 20 hours per week outside the home or

ranch, and 25 percent are retired from outside jobs;

almost 6 percent work under 20 hours per week, have

varying hours, or do paid work at home (question 12;

appendix C, table 12). The slight difference in percentages between the homemaker categories given for job

type (13 percent) and work hours (12 percent) results

from differences in the number of spouses reporting

information for the two questions.

These figures confirm what studies from the 1960s

and 1970s also showed—that the majority of small

ranching operations in the north are not full-time operations (Eastman and Gray 1987; Kutsche and Van

Ness 1981). Our study shows that 85 percent of the

ranchers have other employment or are retired from

other employment. The majority of their spouses also

work outside the home or are retired from outside jobs

(83 percent). 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

being common in the north-central area.

About 10 percent of the respondents describe themselves as full-time ranchers and farmers or retired from

this occupation (question 7; appendix C, table 7). This

category is defined as fully supported by agricultural

work as opposed to the previously mentioned 16 percent who report their primary, but not necessarily only

job, as rancher/farmer. Many of them told us they only

work outside the ranch as a way to supplement their

incomes and remain in the ranching business. They look

forward to a time when they can afford to retire and

Table 1—Primary employment categories reported by permittees.

Employment category Number Percentage

Skilled tradesperson/technician 13 26

Rancher/farmer 8 16

Educator (school administrator, 7 14

Superintendent, principal, teacher)

Business owner/manager 7 14

Other professional/scientist 5 10

Heavy equipment operator/ 5 10

Truck driver

Law enforcement officer/ 4 8

Firefighter/security officer

Laborer/maintenance worker 1 2

Total 50 100
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 15

devote all of their time to the ranch and livestock. Retaining their livestock operations for their families and

future generations is tremendously important. About

94 percent put the majority of money earned from the

ranch back into the operation to maintain and improve

it, and 92 percent plan to run their cattle operation as a

major activity after they retire from other jobs (question 33; appendix C, table 32e; question 36; appendix

C, table 35).

Over 75 percent feel that they might not be able to

afford, do not know whether they could afford, would

have problems affording, or would not have the land

to run a livestock operation if they waited until retirement to begin ranching (question 37; appendix C, table

36). Because they view ranching as a serious endeavor,

many also questioned the idea of beginning a livestock

operation without the benefit of background, knowledge, and experience. A rancher told us that the land

and livestock play a major part in his family’s life and

he is using income from his other job to maintain the

ranch and pay off his debts, looking forward to the day

when he can retire and get on with ranching full time.

The people we spoke with view their ranching as a

career and 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

has been an unfortunate tendency among some agricultural economists to classify small ranching operations by value-laden terms such as “hobbyist” (for

example, Gentner and Tanaka 2002). Implying that

working these ranches is merely a hobby can be pejorative and offensive to many, for whom small-scale

ranching is part of a long-standing tradition that maintains communities and cultural heritage. The classification “hobbyist” indicates ignorance of the broader

social, cultural, and economic values of small-scale

ranching (Barlett 1986; Eastman and others 2000).

In her work, Barlett (1986) reviews 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, but does not solely

depend on, a complex package of

benefits that may not be exclusively economic. The benefits from

these operations in aggregate make

a substantial contribution to national well-being (Eastman and

others 2000). Our work with the

permittees shows that using the

terms “part-time,” “hobbyist,” or

“lifestyle farmer” in reference to

these ranchers is both inaccurate and misleading. It in

no way encompasses the role and importance of ranching

in their lives or their contributions to their communities.

Ranching Operations

In many cases the ranching operations of the late

1990s reflect a mixture of contemporary and traditional

aspects and forms. Eastman and others (2000) note that

the overwhelming preponderance of cattle over sheep

reflects contemporary work patterns as well as Forest

Service influence. A recent study of New Mexico

acequias (irrigation ditches) by Eastman and others

(1997) found that the most common crops on the small,

irrigated farms were alfalfa and pasture and that cattle

were the most common livestock. There are practical

reasons why this is so, especially for people who have

off-farm employment. An alfalfa pasture and cattle

operation lend themselves well to evening and weekend care. Sheep operations, on the other hand, require

more intensive labor and management and do not lend

themselves so well to part-time work. There are currently no sheep operations on the Santa Fe and five on

the Carson, two of which fell within our study area.

Ranch Size—The majority of ranches throughout New

Mexico are extra-small and small cow-calf operations

with from one to 99 head (table 2), as is the case in

Arizona and is consistent with national figures (Ruyle

and others 2000). This size ranch constituted 70 percent of New Mexico’s 8,313 ranches in 1996. Other

major types of ranches include yearling-stocker operations and sheep operations (the following discussion

of ranch types and characteristics in the State is based

on 1996 figures from Torell and others 1998, unless

otherwise cited). 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 (Ruyle and others 2000).

Table 2—Comparison of cattle ranch sizes between northern New Mexico and the

State as a whole, 1996 (adapted from Fowler 2000; Torell and others 1998).

North-central New Mexico All New Mexico

Ranch

size category Number Percentage Number Percentage

Extra small and small 1,488 82 5,802 70

(1-99 head)

Medium 263 15 1,892 23

(100-499 head)

Large 53 3 619 7

(500 or more head)

Total 1,804 100 8,313 100
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Yearling operations, excluding cow-calf ranches that

purchase some weaned calves when conditions are favorable, typically buy calves to put on leased pasture.

These animals are fed until they are large enough to be

sent to a feedlot (Fowler 2000). The majority of the

State’s yearling operations are located in the northeastern, plains portion of the State, which comprises the

most productive rangeland, allowing for larger operations. This area produced 30 percent of the State’s beef

cows and contained 28 percent of the livestock operations in 1996.

Southeastern New Mexico, also a plains grassland

area but with less precipitation than the northeast, accounted for 22 percent of the State’s ranches, producing 23 percent of the beef cows and 38 percent of the

sheep. The northwest is the other region of the State

with large sheep operations, providing 36 percent of

the State’s sheep, 20 percent of the beef cows, and containing 22 percent of the ranches. The southwestern

region of the State, including the Chihuahuan Desert

of southwestern New Mexico, receives considerably

less precipitation than other areas and is less productive. This area produced 12 percent of the beef cows

and contained 6 percent of the ranches.

In the north-central mountain area of the State, small

cow-calf operations made up 82 percent of the listed

1,804 ranches in 1996. This area also had the fewest

large (500 or more head) ranches of the various ranching areas of the State,with large ranches making up 3

percent of the total; Statewide, they accounted for 7

percent of the total. In New Mexico 30 percent of

ranches were considered to fall in the medium and large

categories with at least 100 head. In northern New

Mexico, however, only 18 percent of the ranches fell

within these size categories. Thus, northern New

Mexico had considerably fewer medium-to-large

ranches and more extra small and small ranches than

the State as a whole (Fowler 2000; Torell and others

1998).

This size pattern also occurs on the ranches we studied on the two Districts (generally extra small and small

cow-calf operations with a few larger ranches). Herd

sizes range anywhere from five to 550, with size determined by economics, available land, and grazing

permits (question 23; appendix C, table 23a). With the

few large and very small operations removed, herd sizes

range from eight to 160 (based on 56 of the 62 cases).

The average herd size is 54 animals. There is one large

ranch with over 500 head and 10 medium-sized ranches

having at least 100 head (table 3). These 11 constitute

18 percent of the total of 62, the same as the northern

New Mexico percentages for 1996 discussed previously. As is the case for the area in general, 82 percent

of the ranches in our survey are classed as extra-small

or small with one to 99 head.

A few of the ranchers also have some sheep, ranging from three to 28, which they pasture on private

land. There are also two large commercial sheep operations, which graze under permit on the Canjilon

District. These two have between 650 and slightly more

than 750 head (question 23; appendix C, table 23a).

Many people commented on the loss and decline of

sheep operations and how they missed their family’s

sheep. Once the prevalent livestock of northern New

Mexico, sheep were outnumbered by cattle in the last

half of the 20th century due in part to government influence, increased threat of predation, and lack of time

for their more intensive management.

Livestock Management and Breed Selection—Preferences vary in livestock management techniques

among the different ranching operations, often conditioned by terrain, tradition, or government regulations.

A variety of grazing systems, the details of which are

beyond the scope of this discussion, are in use. Some

of these incorporate traditional herding methods. According to one rancher, “There have been changes in

the way people manage livestock from past years and

changes in society. People have gotten away from

tradition...Years back, there was a more personal way

of management using herders for the animals.” He

spoke of intermixing new animals with older animals

that are accustomed to an area, thereby utilizing the

animals’ natural behavior patterns as a way to facilitate herding management.

Listening to explanations of the various breeds of

livestock, and the particular characteristics of each, is

reminiscent of a university lecture in animal science.

The basis for breed choice demonstrates a well-thoughtout combination of experience, reasoning, and study.

The rancher wants cattle that are adaptable to the land,

able to thrive efficiently, and genetically suited to

Table 3—Cattle ranch size on the Española and Canjilon

Ranger Districts.

Size category Number Percentage

Extra small

(40 head or fewer) 28 45

Small

(41-99 head) 23 37

Medium to large

(100-499 head) 10 16

Large

(500 or more head) 1 2

Total 62 100
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 17

produce offspring that will sell. Breeds are chosen for

qualities of disposition, low birth weight, weight gain,

and maternal characteristics. Stockmen place great

importance on the type of bull to ensure calving ease

for the heifer or cow. A cow should possess good maternal characteristics in order to provide the health and

safety of her calf. The right choice of breeds determines how well the calf will develop and gain weight

prior to weaning. Many ranchers feel that locally raised

cattle do better than cows from other places because

the former are acclimated to their surroundings. As a

permittee explained, these cows are “accustomed to

the ranch, find their way home better, survive better,

and wander less.”

A variety of breeds have been introduced or developed since the Spanish first brought cattle into New

Mexico; many are represented in the herds of today.

Although there are purebred cattle on a number of

ranches, the trend in northern New Mexico is to the

crossbred herd. Economics, practical management, and

confidence in hybrid vigor may affect preference for

the latter. Permittees must consider specific environmental conditions related to potential health hazards

to avoid producing cattle that will be susceptible to

high altitude diseases or problems resulting from exposure to intense sunlight. In addition, a breed of cattle

that requires more forage than the land can produce

will be replaced by a more suitable breed.

Animal Losses—Discussions with the ranchers revealed great respect and affection for their animals.

This is not surprising considering that the animals are

interconnected with family tradition and long association with the land. A few of the ranchers expressed this

as being “born with the livestock.”

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.” Although

losses can vary tremendously from year

to year, permittees reported average

losses of two cows (4 percent) per year

from an average herd size of 54 (table

4; question 24; appendix C, table 24a).

Reported cow losses for 1 year ranged

from 0 to 10; calf losses ranged from

0 to 12. Causes of these losses include

the death of mother or infant from

complications at birth, predation by wild

animals, disease,injuries, poisoning

from toxic plants, lightning, or old age.

Other reasons for loss include rustling,

malicious killings, and predation by packs of domestic dogs. 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, it seems easier to accept an animal’s death from

natural causes or accident than to find one shot for target practice.

About 64 percent of the permittees reported problems with theft or vandalism on their allotments (question 24; appendix C, table 24g). Theft, a major cause

of animal loss on forest allotments, is even worse in

areas with greater access to roads. “So many people

use the forest that things just seem to walk off,” a

rancher told us. Another related how he lost four calves

out of 40 to poaching or rustling, all cases that he has

proven. Rustling has been a problem on allotments in

southern Colorado, too. A New Mexico rancher lost

20 pairs there in 1 year. Although there seems to be

less rustling in recent years according to our informants,

this form of theft continues.

Vandalism is also a serious problem on the allotments. Ranchers describe coyotes as a “normal” problem and are far more disturbed by the activities of the

“two-legged coyotes.” For example, on one allotment

a calf was found with an arrow in its head. The calf

had to be sold for butchering. Another, in similar condition, appeared to have been used for target practice.

Several permittees reported stories of cows and calves

that were shot during early hunting season, when cattle

are still on the forest.

Predation by wild animals or domestic dogs can also

be a source of animal loss, as it is throughout the State.

Fowler and others (1994) report 71 percent of the

Table 4—Average number of cows lost during a typical year.

Number of cows lost Number of cows lost by

Number of ownersa by owners owner groups

19 0 0

51 5

17 2 34

4 3 12

6 4 24

5 5 25

2 6 12

18 8

1 10 10

Total 60 130

Average number of cows lost per owner: 2.17 (130 divided by 60).

a

Total number of owners discussing lost animals.
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

ranchers in the State indicated that predation was a

problem for their livestock operations in 1991. In our

survey, 51 percent of the respondents reported problems with predation (question 24; appendix C, table

24g). The smaller number found in our study may relate to the fact that many fewer sheep operations were

included in our sample than were represented in the

Statewide survey. Sheep and lambs are subject to a

higher predation rate than cattle.

In many of our discussions regarding predation,

permittees contrasted the behavior of coyotes versus

domestic dogs. In the experience of one rancher, most

losses of both cows and calves occur at calving time

from attacks by dogs, coyotes being less of a problem.

He told us that once a calf sucks from the cow, coyotes

would not bother with them. Another commented that

coyotes are not a problem unless there are infant calves;

coyotes are less likely to bother the larger calves. There

was also a contrast drawn between the more remote

forest allotments and those closer to towns and growing suburban areas, with domestic dog activity more

prevalent in the latter areas.

Poisonous plants were also mentioned as a cause of

animal loss. Larkspur, a toxic plant that grows at high

elevations on many allotments, is 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. A

few reported cows or calves found dead by a stream or

water hole. It is possible the cause was from ingestion

of plants containing cyanide. Toxins or noxious plants

in purchased hay may also result in losses. In one unusual case many cow deaths were attributed to hay

thought to be contaminated by elk urine. 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.

Costs and Returns: Time, Effort, and Income—Often, the hours many ranchers put in with their livestock in addition to their other employment add up to

two full-time jobs. Ranch work requires considerable

time and effort. Nearly 70 percent described working

every day or a portion of every day on the ranching

operation with the animals. In fact, when asked how

many days per year they worked on the ranch (question 22; appendix C, table 22), many laughed at such a

naïve question and quickly responded “every day, of

course!” One told us he gets up every morning in winter at 3:00 to drive up to the ranch and feed the animals

before going to work at his full-time job in Santa Fe.

Ranches are not only costly in terms of time and

effort; they are costly in terms of financial resources

as well. Of the 58 respondents willing to answer a question concerning how much it costs them to own livestock, only 9 percent reported spending less than $1,000

per year on their operation, while 19 percent reported

spending between $1,000 and $5,000 annually, and 48

percent spent over $5,000 (table 5; question 31; appendix C, table 30). About 24 percent did not report a

dollar figure but stated that their expenses were very

high, hard to estimate, or that the operation took all the

profit, sometimes costing more than it brought in. Specific expenses are discussed in greater detail in following sections.

Two questions (32, 34) were designed to elicit information on percentage of annual income derived from

livestock operations and on family dependence on livestock for income (question 32 and 34; appendix C,

tables 31 and 33). Direct questions concerning income

are sensitive by their nature but can yield valuable information. However, problems with wording of the two

questions, which were not discovered until well into

the interview process, produced results that may be

misleading. For example, question 32 asks directly for

an estimate of the percentage of income derived from

the ranching operation but does not specify gross or

net income. In addition, many respondents either could

not, or were unwilling to, specify a percentage. This

group either gave a dollar figure that could not be converted to a percentage or commented on the general

lack of profitability of the enterprise and described

where the money from the enterprise was being spent.

Question 34 asks people to select from a series of

responses describing their dependence on their ranches

for family income and their level of involvement in

the operation. The two-part nature of the responses to

the question may have confused some respondents,

leading to inaccurate information. Thus, results from

these two questions are not discussed further in this

report. The means and utility of determining direct

Table 5—Money spent annually on livestock operations.

Amount Number Percentage

Less than $1,000 5 9

Between $1,000 and $5,000 11 19

More than $5,000 28 48

Expenses are high and 14 24

hard to estimate/takes

all the profits/costs more

than it brings in, and so on.

Total 58 100
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 19

income information are being reevaluated and redesigned for the proposed larger study.

Virtually all of those we spoke with consider the

ranch an investment, a form of savings, and a tradition, with 79 percent wishing to save or invest money

by buying land in the area, improving the ranch, or

doing both (fig. 2; question 38; appendix C, table 37).

Some 11 percent would select a savings account or

other monetary investment, while 10 percent would

save or invest in other ways and combinations. Eastman

and others (2000:543) discuss 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.

The ranchers often view their animals as

banks-on-the-hoof, which can be used...for

emergencies, for periods of unemployment,

or for special needs such as college tuition

for the children. They also add to subsistence security by providing meat for the

family no matter what the supermarket price

is or the condition of family finances. In

some years, a profit is made when animals

are sold.

Despite the fact that livestock are not the primary

means of support for the large majority of families, the

animals do make a substantial contribution to household economy, with 58 percent of interviewees reporting that they use money from the ranch for basic living

expenses, including 48 percent who use livestock

money for household and family emergencies, and 45

percent who use it for special expenses, such as college tuition for the children and for household improvements (question 33; appendix C, tables 32a, 32b, and

32c). Selling livestock in an actual emergency, however, is not a popular strategy, with almost 64 percent

stating that they have not sold livestock to meet an

emergency in the past 5 years (question 35; appendix

C, table 34). Several observed that selling in an

emergency is not an economically sensible course of

action and would be strongly avoided. Keeping the herd

together and selling surplus animals at the appropriate

times seem important. Almost 15 percent of the

interviewees have sold animals to cover an emergency

one or two times within the 5-year period, 13 percent

sold three to five times, and about 3 percent sold more

than 10 times during the period or sold some stock

every year. Sales often result from serious family illness or accident.

In addition to monetary gains, the animals provide

a variety of other resources. Families butcher an average of 2.6 animals per year for household consumption by either the immediate or extended family or for

use as gifts for friends and more distant relatives (table

6; question 25 and 28; appendix C, tables 25 and 28).

In many cases, those we spoke with included all animals butchered (for whatever purpose) under the rubric of animals butchered for household consumption.

Thus, it is often not possible to sort out how many animals were actually used in the home versus those provided to friends or more distant relatives.

Of the 55 respondents who discussed sharing live

animals, approximately 38 percent share with family,

other relatives, and friends. They less commonly share

butchered animals (question 27; appendix C, table 27).

About 35 percent stated that they give away between

one and four live animals during a typical year, while

4 percent report giving more than four. Several remarked that live animals might be given but are then

butchered for meat. Permittees said that live animals

are most often given to friends, relatives, and children

to start herds. Another common reason for giving live

animals is as a donation for charity events. Others remarked that they used to give live animals but that the

family is too big now or that friends and family have

their own animals.

Preferred means of saving

or investing money

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

Savings accounts

or other monetary

investments (11%)

Buying land in the

area(45%)

Improving the

livestock operation

(24%)

Both #2 and #3 (10%)

Other (10%)

Figure 2—Preferred means of saving or investing money.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Use of animal by-products has apparently declined

in recent years, as 79 percent reported no use of byproducts such as milk, hides, or wool (question 26;

appendix C, table 26). About 8 percent use milk and

milk products such as cheese, with the remainder using combinations of milk, hides, and wool. Of the 26

people who made additional comments on the use of

animal by-products, about half remarked that their

families had a milk cow when they were growing up

and made cheese and butter but that now there is no

time for milking and maintaining a milk cow.

Use of animals and meat for bartering and trading

for goods and services is apparently not a common

practice among those with whom we spoke (question

29; appendix C, tables 29a and 29b). Of the 55

interviewees who discussed the topic, almost 73 percent reported that they do not trade or barter with their

animals, and a little over 83 percent (out of 60 respondents) stated that they do not barter or trade meat. Several commented that they do not barter, preferring to

sell animals and keep things on a cash basis. Of those

who do use animals for bartering, most trade calves

for goods, work, and services.

Use of extra-small and small ranches as a means of

maintaining family traditions and cultural heritage is

the focus of following sections.

Issues and Concerns

Because so many ranching operations in the region

rely to some extent on public land (primarily National

Forest land for those in this study), regulations and

management decisions affecting these lands

significantly impact the operation

and future of ranching throughout

the area. The degree to which a

ranch relies on leased and permitted land under different ownerships strongly affects the

complexity of ranch management.

Regulations, fees, and enforcement can vary between agencies

and within the same agency from

location to location. The managing agency defines grazing seasons and stocking rates, which are

often limited by competing uses

and values such as recreation or

riparian restoration. Restrictions

imposed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), and the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA) also come into play and often affect the timing and construction of range improvements such as

water developments and fencing. Such restrictions can

adversely affect ranch operations and economic viability (Ruyle and others 2000).

The costs of grazing on public land can also be subject to change and to considerable scrutiny. Some

people believe that ranchers are paying less than fair

market value for grazing fees, while others argue to

the contrary, stating that the additional costs associated with the grazing fee more than make up for the

difference. Some of these additional costs include

boundary fence maintenance, water source development and upkeep, brush control, and road/trail repair.

Expenses associated with grazing on public land resulting from theft, vandalism, and disruption of operations by public access increase operational costs for

public land ranchers. As populations, urbanization, and

recreational uses increase, these costs will rise (Ruyle

and others 2000). Such problems and issues are as common in northern New Mexico as they are in other parts

of the region.

When the permittees were asked to discuss their most

serious issues and concerns related to their livestock

operations, they highlighted a dozen or so categories,

many of which were intertwined with working on public land (interview question 6). A few issues such as

drought, brush encroachment, rustling, predation by

coyotes, neighbors’ dogs, and the need for communication with agency personnel were stated simply and

with little comment. Others that were mentioned with

more frequency and seemed to be of greater concern

were explained in detail. These issues were included

Table 6—Average number of animals butchered during a typical year.

Number of animals Total number of animals

Number of permitteesa butchered butchered by permittee groups

50 0

10 1 10

23 2 46

10 3 30

8 4 32

15 5

2 6 12

07 0

2 8 16

09 0

1 10 10

Total 62 161

Average number of animals butchered per permittee: 2.6 (161 divided by 62).

a Total number of permittees discussing butchered animals.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 21

in the broader topics of unstable cattle prices, high costs

of the livestock business, water sources, vandalism,

inadequate law enforcement, government regulations,

competition from elk, allotment upkeep, and environmental conflict.

The expenses of running the business and keeping

the operation afloat are concerns of many, extinction

being their greatest fear. As respondents explained,

costs of feed and hay are high in relation to the market

value of cattle, and there is not enough private land to

hold the animals until the prices go up. Cattle production is affected by drought. Other problems include

fluctuating beef prices and having to transport livestock so far for sale. Some expressed the need to have

a processing facility nearby that would enable them to

market their product more effectively. Problems arise

from economic conditions one has no control over, a

rancher told us. “The price of cattle has been low for

quite a while,” he continued. “People in other countries can produce cheaper than we can here, but we do

not know what the quality is. The trade policy [NAFTA]

has caused problems for U.S. producers. The consumer

will have to decide between quality and quantity.”

To others, water is their biggest problem, the specifics varying according to type of allotment. One permittee expressed the need for irrigation on Forest land

in dry years, others for reservoirs to keep the cattle

from moving back down to the village. Another permittee was concerned with the limiting of livestock

use of streams for drinking water. If the windmills were

repaired, a rancher explained, they could spread out

the cows for better distribution on allotments.

A particularly disturbing problem on the allotments

involves vandalism and carelessness, subjects that encompass anything from cut fences to target practice on

wells to the shooting of cattle. The carelessness of

people leaving gates open is a problem on many allotments causing difficulties with trespass and exposing

cattle to danger if they get out. Fence cutting by hunters and wood haulers is also a problem, even on private land. One rancher said the worst example of

vandalism has been people killing their cows. Many

observed that law enforcement is lacking. “People shoot

signs off fences and break fences down. Four-wheelers cut gashes through the land and are destroying the

land.” Some respondents felt that the Forest Service

does not have enough personnel to patrol the land and

control abuse.

Other problems involve government restrictions, the

possibility of losing permits, increases in permit fees,

or reductions in time or livestock numbers on the allotment. Loss of permits would ruin many of the ranchers in the area because they depend upon public land

for grazing. An increase in permit fees to equal those

on private lands would be prohibitive. “People think if

you have animals, you have money. They do not know

how much money you have to spend,” said one rancher.

“You must pay a lot of money just to keep your traditions going.” With livestock numbers so small, another

explained, it is not a very profitable business. Owing

to the dry conditions of recent years, use of allotments

has been delayed, and the cattle must be fed more at

home, increasing operating costs.

Another frequently mentioned difficulty involves the

activity of elk on forest allotments and on private land.

A herd of elk can do considerable damage to fences,

contributing to work and expenses. More seriously, elk

compete with cattle for forage. Respondents felt that

“rest rotation” (a type of grazing system) does not work

well on allotments where there is an abundance of elk.

There is no control over the behavior of game animals;

therefore the elk still eat the grasses when the pasture

is meant to be “at rest.” “The elk are putting us out of

commission,” a rancher said. Elk are also getting into

winter feed supplies of pasture and hay on private land.

“The Game and Fish Department [New Mexico Department of Game and Fish] should be held accountable,” stated a permittee, “after all, the rancher is!”

The San Antonio Mountain Elk Project—a joint research effort among the New Mexico Department of

Game and Fish (NMDGF), the Carson National Forest, the Bureau of Land Management Taos Field Office, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation—should

shed light on the activities of elk in the area. The study

was conducted from 1998 through 2001 with analysis

currently in progress. The project area includes portions of the San Juan Mountains, the San Luis Valley,

and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico. The study examines

elk demographics, spatial and temporal distribution of

elk, and resource conflicts involving elk (Smallidge,

personal communication, 2002).

Negative publicity, environmentalists, and “livestock

unfriendly” people constitute a formidable problem for

a majority of the ranchers. Several think that fear of

cattle is behind some of the public’s criticism of livestock in the Forest. There is concern over negative

publicity put out about ranching and farming, and about

apparent antilivestock bias expressed by certain newspapers. There should be more educational information

published through universities to help the public understand the role of the rancher in food production and

the importance of the ranching tradition in the State,

according to many with whom we spoke.

When we asked the ranchers about the most serious

problems they face in their livestock operations today,
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

many listed the environmental movement as a major

concern. Some simply mentioned “environmentalists”

in roles of harassment, interference, or criticism. Others spoke of “environmentalist pressure” on government agencies. Some are concerned because they feel

that the Forest Service bows to influence and pressures

from environmental groups and the monetary resources

they represent. Criticism from environmentalists and

fear of the actions of some of the more radical groups

are of serious concern to the ranchers we interviewed.

They feel resentment toward these “outsiders” who are

trying to dictate how they should care for the land, and

frustration that their own knowledge seems to be ignored. The following paragraphs contain some of the

ranchers’ thoughts on this complex subject.

Ranchers refer to pressures from environmental

groups who do not understand life in northern New

Mexico. They feel that some environmentalists do not

understand that people here still need wood for heating and cooking. “Environmentalists just have information from books. They have not lived on the land,

and they do not do labor work. We have lived it, and

they have not.” Environmentalists have little understanding of ranching, an interviewee told us. He thinks

communication needs to improve between the two

groups. He believes it is important to get along with

one’s neighbors and to try to understand them. You have

“got to know him,” he said, referring to the neighbor.

“It makes all the difference.”

“Local people,” another said, “have been using this

land for grazing livestock for many generations without destroying it. Why, therefore, should new people

be complaining?” “We’re environmentalists ourselves.

We’re not extremists.” Many of the ranchers expressed

the fear that environmentalists are trying to drive them

out. They have always thought of themselves as “onthe-ground, front-line people” taking care of the land.

Now they feel alienated from the environmental community. “Some good comes from the environmental

movement. It’s the extreme politics that cause the problem. The environmental threat is always hanging over

us.”

“It’s hard to be in this business in this day and age,”

another said. “You can’t compete against big corporations and environmental issues.” “We like the land,”

he said, in spite of accusations to the contrary. “Livestock and the environment can get along if both are

managed correctly.” There are those who “think ranchers rape the land,” he stated, “but if you’re smart you

do not do that.” He believes that most people who own

land want to care for it. These landowners do not want

to overuse their land or have trash lying around, in

consideration for the welfare of animals as well as for

the land and aesthetics. A rancher summed up by saying, “We must take some responsibility ourselves. We

need to invest in public lands, look at the benefit to the

resource...We need to take the initiative to continue to

keep a good open line of communication with all the

stakeholders. There are a lot of ranchers who take care

of the land, care about the animals (wildlife). We must

meet the challenge of the public!”

Working on Forest Service

Managed Land

When asked about their views and attitudes toward

working on Forest Service managed land (interview

question 5), the permittees shared their problems, frustrations, and suggestions, as well as positive experiences. Working relationships of ranchers with agency

personnel vary according to the location of their allotments, specific rangers, and personalities of the permittees. Having cattle on an allotment in the higher

elevations may be an entirely different experience from

an allotment adjacent to a busy highway or located close

to a large town. Initially, there was a polite reserve to

most of the answers, but as we talked the ranchers became more candid and less guarded. Their responses

indicated good relationships with government personnel or described relationships that have improved in

recent decades. Most of these were backed up with

explanations of why a good working relationship exists and what circumstances have brought about favorable change. Some continued with difficulties they

faced in spite of the good working relationship.

In recent years, attitudes and orientations appear to

have changed among Forest Service personnel. Raish’s

discussions with Forest and District range staffs on both

the Carson and the Santa Fe in 1996 indicate a strong

awareness of the role and importance of small herds to

local ranchers and communities. Forest Service personnel express a commitment to working with the permittees to improve range conditions within the

framework of multiple-permittee allotments. In addition, many local people currently work both as rangers

and in range positions on the two Forests, which seems

to increase sensitivity to local problems and needs.

Forest Service range staffs at the regional level describe the difficulty of balancing community, cultural,

and economic concerns with rangeland sustainability

issues in today’s climate of resource conflict and litigation. Much of Forest Service management, as they

point out, is legislatively mandated and comes under the

scrutiny of environmental, recreation, and commodity
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 23

interest groups. This complex management situation

often leads to conflict between resource users and difficulties in implementing agency programs and improvements. Nonetheless, the importance of the

ranching tradition to rural communities and the role of

ranches and farms in maintaining open space and ecosystem integrity are strongly acknowledged (Brown

and Stewart, personal communication, 2002).

The fact that a Forest Service employee was raised

in the area is generally viewed as beneficial. The “local man” is viewed as having the advantage of being

familiar with the land, may have been raised with livestock, and will be more likely to understand the people

and culture of the District. He may be perceived as an

ally and as a means of communication with the agency.

Many ranchers commented positively about a local

range technician, noting that he is knowledgeable and

has their interests at heart. One permittee described relations between ranchers and rangers as “tremendously

improved.” “ In prior years,” he said, “the ranger was

king. Now the rangers try to work with the people in

the area instead of being dictatorial.” Another who feels

they currently have a good relationship with Forest

personnel thinks the older generation found it harder

to deal with the agency. Culture, language barriers, and

personal memories of land loss contributed to the problem. In his opinion, the Forest Service is now beginning to listen more carefully to the ranchers and value

their knowledge.

A few District Rangers were mentioned specifically

as good people to work with; one in particular, with

long tenure in the area, was held in great esteem. He

was described as “a tremendous fellow,” sincere, and

willing to listen to local opinions. Many we spoke with

felt he valued their presence as permittees on the forest and had a gentle way of dealing with people. Coming from a farm background, he was in tune with the

area and the people and was highly respected and valued as an ally. “If you have good people who understand why you do things, it’s so important,” a rancher

stated. “It’s a way of keeping the peace.”

In contrast, others that we interviewed, although

usually courteous in their responses, felt that relations

with the agency were not good or had deteriorated over

time. There was some discomfort expressed over apparent unequal treatment from District to District. Most

of the problems, however, were common throughout

the area. The feeling was expressed that “the Forest

Service doesn’t understand the cattleman’s culture and

tradition,” adding that “it’s a hard thing to learn.”

As in most rural communities, there is a tendency

to place great value on long-term associations, on

knowing a person and being able to trust that person.

Emphasis is placed on the importance of personal familiarity with the land, animals, and people. Several

people mentioned that the Forest Service changes rangers too often. From the rancher’s point of view, the

frequent changeover in agency personnel promotes a

continuous lack of communication and a deterrent to

understanding. Rangers often move (usually to improve

their careers) or are transferred before they can develop

the personal relationships necessary to work effectively

in the local community.

Resentment arises when a ranger unfamiliar with

the area is given control over a person’s home territory

and way of life. This resentment is heightened when

the prevailing attitude implies that scholastic learning

counts for more than a lifetime of experience. Regulations are seen as rigid, and pressure from environmental groups seems to have a strong influence on the

agency. Improvements and livestock management systems are often mandated, and some permittees feel that

they must pay even if these improvements and systems are against their better judgment.

Timing of entry into the allotments, and movement

and distribution of cattle, are of special concern and

were mentioned frequently. Many of the ranchers gave

examples of why they believe the old ways were less

harmful and more beneficial to both land and livestock.

One permittee commented that he is not comfortable

with government management decisions that can be

both costly to him and disruptive to the welfare of his

cattle. Several felt that agency restrictions are often

counterproductive to the management of their herds.

“Moving the cows too much causes the cows to lose

cycle, but the Forest Service says, ‘This is the day you

must go in.’ The result is a loss of money because the

cows can’t be bred when they should be, and calving

gets strung out. The old men moved the cows less. The

new methods put a lot of stress on the cattle; everything gained may be lost in a 30-mile walk.”

There was an often-repeated invitation to agency

personnel to ride with the ranchers to observe and discuss the range. “Forest Service personnel are good but

should be given more freedom to work out in the field,”

stated one rancher. According to several permittees,

there are times when agency personnel do not know

things because they are not out in the field. Another

rancher described his relationship with the Forest Service as a partnership in caring for the land. He believes

ranchers and agency share a common goal and should

work together to protect the land. “Permittees are the

eyes and ears of the Forest Service,” one said, observing that the rancher spends more time in the National

Forest than does the ranger, but theorizing that part of

the reason is an “understaffed” agency.
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Livestock, Community, and

Family

Community and Family Cohesion—Livestock ownership and ranching are powerful forces that bind

communities and families. Of those we interviewed,

85 percent herd with their relatives or with help from

their relatives (question 16; appendix C, table 16), 81

percent herd with neighbors or with other community

members, often in their grazing associations (question

17; appendix C, table 17). Some 87 percent attend grazing association meetings during a typical year (question 14; appendix C, table 14), as well as participate in

many other ranching and agricultural events with neighbors (question 15; appendix C, tables 15a–f). These

include brandings (100 percent), round-ups or moving

the cattle on the allotment (94 percent), rodeos (66

percent), fairs and 4-H events (61 percent), and

matanzas (occasions when families and neighbors

gather to share in the butchering and processing of the

meat) (68 percent). Percentages include those who reported attendance at the event with no number of events

per year given, those who attended at least one event

up through those who attended more than 10 per year,

and those reporting “too many to count.” Matanzas are

apparently less common now than in the past, time

seeming to be a major factor in their decline. Of 45

people who commented on their activities, 18 stated

that matanzas are less common now than when they

were growing up and that they now butcher their own

animals for their family.

Family Values and Livestock Operation Goals—

When asked to prioritize family goals and values, 96

percent of the participants ranked a better quality of

life and the continuance of traditional values as most

important, with 55 percent choosing the former and 41

percent the latter. In contrast, the increase of family

income was ranked as most important by only a fraction more than 3 percent of the participants, with less

than 2 percent being concerned with increasing respect

within their community (fig. 3; question 39; appendix

C, tables 38a–d). This particular question was given

considerable thought by most, partly as it dealt with

their values and also because it required clarification

of our wording.

The importance of their values was exemplified by

such comments as, “numbering things is not realistic

when those things are interdependent” and “acquisition of material things is not even a priority.” It seemed

to us that the idea of gaining more respect in the

community struck the majority of participants as inappropriate to the question. For instance, one rancher

stated, “Respect in the community is not a goal to seek,

nor a value of importance.” Another asked, “How do

you create respect? It’s the way you live that does that.”

One summed up his response by adding, “If you have

the way of life, time with your family, and the respect

of your neighbors, you’ll have all you need.”

The next question (table 7; question 40; appendix

C, tables 39a–d) asked for a ranking of goals for their

livestock operations. Again, it was the family’s quality

of life and the continuation in the tradition of the livestock business that took priority, with 90 percent of

the participants ranking those choices as most important. Maintaining the family’s quality of life that results from owning livestock received the highest

proportion (over 57 percent) and avoiding being forced

out of livestock ownership, therefore securing family

tradition, receiving the second highest (almost 33 percent). The remaining two choices—making more

money above costs and improvement of the livestock

Table 7—Goals of permittee ranchers for their livestock

operations.

Goals Number Percentage

Number 1 Maintain quality of 35 57

life (resulting from livestock

ownership)

Number 2 Avoid being forced 20 33

out of livestock ownership

Number 3 Improve livestock 3 5

operation (obtain more land,

more animals, and better

equipment)

Number 4 Increase overall 3 5

income, profit, and purchasing

power

Total 61 100

Figure 3—Family goals of northern New Mexico ranchers.

Family goals of northern

New Mexico ranchers

#1

#2

#3

#4

Maintain quality of

life (55%)

Maintain traditional

values (41%)

Increase family

income (3%)

Increase respect in

the community (2%)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 25

operation—although important considerations, were

ranked as most important by about 5 percent each.

For example, one young couple we interviewed

worked in Albuquerque for a while, but they didn’t want

to raise their children in the city. They preferred to buy

cows and land than “cars and materialistic stuff,” so

they came back to live where their ancestors had homesteaded. They would not live anywhere else now and

quoting her rancher father, she said, “We like that

struggle.” They say that money is not everything; they

just need enough to live on. Another said, “It’s in your

blood for the rest of your life. If you’re raised in this

kind of atmosphere, you keep on doing it for as long as

you can, not to make money!”

Eastman and others (2000) describe the value placed

on the quality of life that ranching provides to livestock owners and their families. Eastman and Gray

(1987) note that small-scale livestock producers have

a hierarchy of goals that differ noticeably from those

of large, commercial producers. Their studies found

quality of life the highest-ranking goal, with income

the last choice, which is consistent with the results of

our study. Eastman and Gray (1987) describe the benefits of small-scale cattle ownership as providing a

sense of security, gaining personal satisfaction from

their work, and upholding family tradition. In general,

these cattle owners show a tendency to avoid debt, a

preference for proven methods of operation, a special

attachment to their livestock, and a desire to retain their

livestock in anticipation of retirement (Eastman and

Gray 1987). Our study also confirms these values.

Role of Livestock in Teaching Children—History has

been defined as “a narrative of events; a story; a

chronicle,” tradition as “the passing down of elements

of a culture from generation to generation,” and heritage as “something other than property passed down

from preceding generations; legacy...” (Morris 1978:

625,1360, 617). History provides us with a description of the past as it leads up to the present, while the

dynamic forces of tradition and heritage continue forward to influence the future. For most of the participants in this study, there is a firm set of traditional

values they hope to impart to their children and a rich

cultural heritage to be shared with future generations.

The participants were asked if they used land and

livestock to teach their children about traditional values and heritage (interview question 2). The ranchers’

responses stressed family bonding, responsibility to the

land and livestock, and a balanced attitude toward

money. The children, they told us, learn to care for and

respect the animals as well as the land and its resources,

factors that have shaped the lives of their parents and

grandparents. Time spent in the daily business of the

ranch provides the children with an opportunity to experience the way of life that is their heritage and serves

to strengthen family ties. The ranchers feel family life

is enriched by the teaching of parent to child in the

course of working together with the livestock on

ancestral lands. “With ranching, you do not teach by the

book; you teach by doing,” was a rancher’s observation.

Teaching the children family values and responsibility was a common theme throughout most of the

discussions. Ranch life provides time to be spent together as a family, they explained. It is viewed as a

way for the children to learn to work, to keep busy and

out of trouble. Sons and daughters alike take part in

the daily work associated with the ranch. Due to the

traditional nature of the livestock business, there can

be an opportunity for these children to learn from or

about their grandparents, a great source of heritage and

traditional values. In addition, many ranches involve

the extended family, with uncles and aunts a part of

every day life. Often, grown children who have moved

away will return to help with gathering or branding. In

many cases, a husband and wife or other family member participated as a team during the interview process. Several stressed the benefits of having the mother

present to care for the children at home.

The ranchers seemed eager to discuss teaching family values, responsibility, and the love of animals. Even

those without children of their own had shared their

knowledge and time with nieces or nephews. Some

extended their teaching to local children by serving in

the community as 4-H leaders. The children in these

communities are encouraged to participate in 4-H. In

addition, many of the ranchers have grandchildren with

whom they can share their love of land and animals.

Many feel that ranch life serves as an example for the

children, teaching them the value of hard work. They

also feel that the ranch provides continuity with the

ways of their grandparents and with their Spanish heritage.

For some, it is a form of recreation to be out riding

horses, camping in tents, the evenings spent with the

father telling the children about family history. It gives

them something better to do than town life could offer.

One rancher said he has known all the area and mountains around the area from going out with his father

and now teaches his own children the same way. Another rancher said he used the land and livestock to

teach his children about traditional values by working

together, caring for the livestock, and caring for the

land. He uses this time to tell them stories of his own

childhood with his father and grandfather and relates

the stories told to him when he was a boy. He also
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

teaches his children about the geography of the allotment, water conservation, soil erosion, and timber

management.

Another said his children were with him since they

could walk, at his side much or the time. In this way

the children become involved with the work and are

taught how things should be done, learning at first by

observation and by helping with simple chores. “Teaching the children through this work is good for several

reasons,” a rancher states: “so they will learn about the

past, so they will stay out of trouble, so they can see

what’s going on, so maybe they will want to continue

[with the ranching way of life].” “The payoff is keeping the children off the streets,” one father commented.

He said he feels “deeply grateful” for the ranch that

has kept his family close and his children out of trouble.

The ranchers tell us that their children learn to accept responsibility by working with the animals on the

ranch. “It’s the only way to raise kids, with the livestock, taking care of something beside your self,” one

says. Another rancher wants his children to understand

what it is to buy an animal and then lose it. Many of

the children are involved in 4-H projects, selling a steer

or lamb to buy school clothes. A prize steer may pay

for a year of college. Gifts of livestock keep the children in the business and help to keep up interest and

tradition.

On one ranch, the family does a lot together because

of the ranch work, but the work also keeps them apart,

the father missing a lot of school and church ceremonies. It is stressful to family life during some months,

he says, but the children go with him whenever possible. They learn the business and are introduced to

new things and, through the livestock business, have

had exposure to the outside world. They learn how to

handle adversity. The children ask a lot of questions.

They get to work together and to learn responsibility.

We were told that the traditional values of heritage,

hard work, and responsibility come more easily to these

children than to children in town. They learn what life

is about. “For the children, the ranch opens their minds

that money isn’t everything...Money could be gone in

a day’s time; land is better, especially if you have raised

your kids to respect that land and become a part of it.”

Their oldest daughter is willing to sacrifice a big income in favor of a future running the ranch.

“Your children see what you’re doing. They take

part in all phases of the ranch. But, not until they are

adults do they understand what you’ve done or tried to

teach them. You plant those seeds in the children, and

harvest the results as they grow. You only reap what

you sow.” The children of this rancher learned their

biology during the butchering of livestock. They know

where their food comes from. “They learn the value of

life, how precious, how instantaneous, when they see

the animal drop. But, they must learn to do this properly, and to value the animal’s life. The animal gave

his life to feed them. They get first-hand experience

with the land, not just as a visitor.”

Many of the ranchers encourage their children to

pursue an education beyond high school. They are obviously proud of their college graduates as well as those

in other careers. In one rancher’s opinion, “It is important to give your children a good education as well as

land.” Another considered education and good family

values as “the best way to provide for the future of

your children.” Some measure of apprehension existed

about sending the next generation out to jobs or an

education because the future of a ranch often depends

upon the continued interest and participation of younger

generations. The values and heritage instilled in childhood are necessary ingredients for survival of the family ranch.

Role of Land and Livestock in Maintaining Traditional Culture and Family Values—The traditions

and culture of the ranching families of northern New

Mexico are deeply rooted in history, with responsibility toward land and livestock enmeshed in family values. The well being of the community is also an integral

part of life, necessary to survival. Preserving the culture and heritage of the past gives a sense of identity in

the present and the hope of extending their traditions

and way of life into the future.

Great importance is placed on ranching as a tradition that goes back for generations in a family. Most

designated the 1800s or earlier as the origins of ranching in their families. They are proud of their roots and

interested in family history. Respect for family is evident in the desire to retain their lands and way of life,

entities entrusted to them by their parents. A few said

they had given up other careers to return home and run

the family ranch when a parent died or an aging father

needed help.

We asked participants in this project to describe their

feelings about the land and livestock and to explain

the role these elements play in their family’s life (interview question 1). One replied that he still lives in

the house where his grandfather lived, on the land

where his grandfather homesteaded. The grandparents

were rich in culture but poor in possessions. He took a

job closer to home when his father died because there

was no one to look after the animals. Retired now, he

works full time with the cattle and loves every minute

of it. “When you have roots,” he says, “they’re hard to

get away from.”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 27

Another states that, although the land is not a major

part of his income right now, emotionally and culturally the land and livestock have made a positive effect

on his family. “It teaches you to learn the value of

money, to learn the land.” Ranching is hereditary to

this family; they were born and raised here. “Working

and owning the same land all of your life is especially

important if that land has been passed down from generation to generation. Livestock can be replaced [if

necessary], the land can’t. ... There’s nothing better to

put your money into than land, to keep the land from

being cut up and sold in pieces. There’s not any more

land being made!”

The roles of land and livestock in daily life are not

to be taken lightly. They are closely connected to family and community. They are a reason for being, a way

of life, the way these people were raised. Land, livestock, and people are interdependent. The Spanish word

querencia, from the verb aquerenciarse, meaning to

become fond of a place, may apply here. These ranchers express the feeling of being “at home in the place

where they live and work and raise their families. This

place provides them with the resources needed for survival, and, in turn, they feel a responsibility to care for

that place...It goes beyond the boundaries of legal

ownership, beyond the promise of monetary return”

(McSweeney 1995:112).

“Being familiar with your land is very important.

You know your neighbors and who you can, or cannot,

depend upon,” a rancher stated. “You get to like your

animals. They play a part in your daily life. There’s a calmness about being among your animals. You grow into it.”

Cattle are a cultural reason to live in the area as much

as a financial reason, the acquisition of money often

less important than how and where the ranchers live.

One describes their way of life as a tradition brought

forth from the grandparents with roots that tie their

people to the land. He realizes that if he did not have

these ties to the land and livestock, he would be more

mobile and could advance more in his other job. However, he admits he would rather be his own boss as a

full-time rancher provided he owned enough land, permits, and livestock. He says he has kept the grazing

permit because of tradition. Another remembers that

from the time he was growing up, he thought he would

want to return to the ranch and raise his children there.

The pay scale is not as important to him as his health

and enjoyment of life. “There’s a lot of things more

important than income.”

A rancher told us that he thinks of land as part of the

family, not as something to sell. Another feels he should

not sell land that has been passed down from father to

son. When people ask him why he doesn’t just get rid

of the cattle, he answers that he would feel bad giving

up the livestock when his father gave them to him. It is

a family tradition. A third said the land and livestock

play a big role in keeping the family together. He loves

the land and wants to protect it. If the land is not cared

for, he told us, it will not provide for them. Being part

of nature, the cycles of spring and fall, is his way of

life. He said, “I will not sell an inch of land,” and has

taught his children to feel the same way. He does not

want the monetary value of the land to go to their heads.

Having worked so hard to acquire and keep his lands,

he would hate for his children to sell them.

“It’s not a hobby; it’s a way of life!” states another

rancher. He adds that he and his family hope to be in

the cattle business for a long time. “Everything is related to the cow business. ... Everything we do is so

integrated [4-H, knowledge of the local people, and so

forth]. It is very simple and very complicated at the

same time.” They say they will graze the land and hope

to get financial gain, but not by abusing the land. They

feel closely tied to this Forest and know it well, want

their children to be able to use it, and want it to last for

the next thousand years. They feel they are tied too

closely to the land for people to take it away from them

or tell them what to do. “It is difficult to talk about

this,” he says. In a way, the National Forest Service

land is theirs, in a way not. It is a family thing.

A rancher recalls that his family (ancestors) had

sheep and cattle back as long as they were in New

Mexico. Another respondent tells us, “For many years

the people here have used this land for subsistence. It

has been part of the continuity and identity of the people

here. Now there is the influence of new people. Mass

migration from urban areas is causing the surrounding

area to fill up.” He feels that it is losing the flavor and

tranquility so essential to them.

Land Use and Ownership

Those we interviewed consider their lands as critical to maintaining their heritage and way of life. This

complex topic includes management, use, and ownership of land and other resources. In many cases, our

discussions of these topics lent themselves to examining the issue of land grant loss and the Treaty of

Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848. Under the Treaty, the United States

agreed to respect the property rights of the conquered

peoples of the region (Griswold del Castillo 1990). As

discussed previously, many residents lost long-used

property during this period and bitterness over implementation of the Treaty continues to the present.
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo—When asked

about their views on the implementation of the Treaty

of Guadalupe Hidalgo, specifically regarding the loss

of land grants or portions of land grants, ranchers gave

varying responses (interview question 4). Views ranged

from those of the land grant activists that “grant lands

should be in the ownership of the original families” to

those expressing the desire to see “the past left in the

past.” One receives the impression, however, that most

are well aware that the treaty was supposed to protect

the property rights of the conquered people of the region. They also believe that in many cases property

rights were not honored, causing land to be lost by the

original owners, and that these losses significantly affected the ability of their ancestors to support themselves as ranchers and farmers. Furthermore, they

believe that this impact continues to the present day.

To some, the land grant issue was a remote idea, too

distant in the framework of time or in relevance to

present day life. To others, the treaty and resulting land

loss are pertinent topics impressed upon them by fathers and grandfathers. One grandson said his feelings

are hard to describe except as a “silent rage.” A few

declined to comment on the basis of the subject’s controversial nature. Several ranchers simply stated that

the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had

“never been honored” from the beginning. One of the

more emphatic responses stands out as exemplified by

the following comments: “There is discrimination by

the Federal government against the native communities ... [They] throw bones to divide and conquer, to

control the people. The U.S. government is going to

run out of places to run and hide ... How can the U.S.

step in to help other countries and [at the same time]

mistreat its own people?”

As one of the ranchers discussed with us, there were

some mistakes made when New Mexico became a Territory and then a State. “The people here,” he told us,

“did not have an understanding of the system nor the

economic means to avoid exploitation. They lacked

information on U.S. law.” To make matters worse, the

information they did receive was passed on in a language that was foreign to many of them. There was a

treaty between the U.S. and Mexico, but “the U.S. government failed to protect the rights” of its new subjects. The people we spoke with have strong feelings

on the subject and generally indicated support for the

various efforts that have been and are being introduced

into Congress to reexamine the problems and issues

surrounding implementation of the treaty.

Views and Attitudes Toward Owning Land—The

ranchers were asked to give their opinions concerning

who has the right to own land and make decisions concerning its use (interview question 3). Many had a difficult time responding to this request. It seemed obvious

to them that he who has the means has the right to

purchase and own land in this country. “The right to

own land is protected by the US Constitution,” said

one. “This is the United States,” another answered.

“Everybody has the right to own land. We may not

like it, but that’s the way it is.” A few of the responses

were prefaced with the idea that land once purchased

becomes the property of the buyer, to be dealt with as

the owner so chooses as long as the law is not broken

in the process.

Many of the ranchers expressed the responsibility

of a landowner to care for the land in their possession.

One rancher believes that people have a right to own

land plus a duty to respect it. He also comments on the

responsibility he feels toward “public lands,” even

though he realizes it is government-owned land on

which he only has a lease. Another said, “People are

responsible to keep the land as it is as opposed to using or destroying it for personal gain. For example,

building houses in mountain areas limits the habitat

for wildlife. Everybody wants views. When there is a

conflict between humans and animals, the animals always lose.”

For generations these lands have been used for agriculture. The tendency for ranch land to be sold and

subdivided rather than to continue as agricultural land

is a great concern for many. It takes just one ranch to

sell for the process to begin, with one ranch sale affecting the next, with land being divided and taxes increasing, and with mounting demands on the limited

water supply. The ranchers noted that some of the new

people 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 transforms what was once viewed as

quaint to the perception of a less than desirable appearance of poverty. The potential for change brought

about by this attraction of place is what one rancher

meant to convey when he said, “A place this beautiful

is a curse!”

According to the ranchers, other cultures enter the

picture as new people move into the community. Some

come to change things; some fit in. People who share

their traditions or values are all right, they say, but there

are others with the money to buy whatever they want,

whose intentions are to subdivide the land for profit.

“The problem is people coming in to change the traditions of the place. Some of these new people are

friendly and blend in; others look down on you.” Many

of the newcomers do not understand the rural way of
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 29

life, complaining about the use of wood as fuel or about

the presence of livestock. “People want to move in here

and change everything. They come here because they

like our way of living. Then they want to change things.”

It is not easy for these people to continue in the old

way of life with the outside world moving ever closer.

A rancher sums up by saying, “Those willing to work

and willing to learn are the ones who should own land.

You should give members of the community first

chance to buy lands. It’s not just a case of land passed

on. You must also teach the children the way of life

and how to care for the land. Once you lose your identity, your culture, and language, you are nothing.”

We attempted to capture these and related sentiments

in a series of 12 statements, which participants were

asked to rate according to their level of agreement:

strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree (question 41–52; appendix C, tables 40–51).

These statements were derived from land attitude questions that proved useful in studies undertaken by

Eastman and others (1971). Many respondents added

qualifying remarks that provide valuable insight into

their views and attitudes and are included in the following discussion. Participant comments also provided

feedback on statements that were poorly worded, confusing, or perceived as irrelevant. These will be revised

or deleted for the larger study.

The pride of owning and personally working land

that has been in the family for generations, and the

desire to retain that land, were almost universally

agreed upon. This was demonstrated by responses of

strongly agree or agree to questions 41 (over 98 percent), 43 (almost 89 percent), and 45 (over 98 percent)

(appendix C, tables 40, 42, and 44). When presented

with the statement that passing on land to one’s children is the best means of providing for their future,

nearly 84 percent were in agreement (strongly agree

or agree), with minimal dissent (question 52; appendix C, table 51). However, much consideration was

given to individual circumstances, attempting to

balance what would be best for the land as well as what

would be best for the children. One rancher said he

could agree to a certain extent, explaining that passing

on land would be best “only if the child were interested in the business and able to manage it.”

Although the ranchers stressed the importance of

land for their children’s future, 57 percent also agreed

with the alternate statement that having money in the

bank or other types of investment was the best means

of providing for their children’s future (question48;

appendix C, table 47). This contradiction reflects an

awareness of the role and importance of money in contemporary society, as well as the fact that some

respondents could not realistically choose between the

two statements. This may be the reason that 21 percent gave a neutral response to the statement. Having both land and money are evidently seen as

interdependent.

The many qualifying remarks elicited by this statement reflect a strong regard for family values as well

as a practical outlook on life and may help to explain

the discrepancy. In their comments regarding the importance of money, alternatives were presented such

as education, good family values, land, and livestock.

Despite practical concerns, such as inheritance taxes

on real estate or the possibility that, without sufficient

money, land might have to be sold to put the children

through college, the theme of their comments remained

consistent that “money isn’t everything; values are

important.” One told us that it was more important to

teach children how to earn money running the ranch

rather than to give them money. A practical point of

view was stressed that both land and money are necessary in combination and also the idea that if land were

not passed along, the children would have to start over.

“A person can borrow against the land, but once the

land is gone, the price [of that land] will only go up.

Money disappears rapidly; land is the most important

because they’re not making any more of it.”

The importance of land also appeared in the way

ranchers view its role in community life, as well as in

family life. This is expressed by responses to the statements concerning land ownership and management. A

recurrent theme of these discussions focuses on a

landowner’s responsibility to neighbors and community. Even though nearly 89 percent of those we interviewed agreed with the statement that a person should

be able to manage his or her land however he or she

chooses (question 51; appendix C, table 50), their comments on the statement demonstrate an attempt to balance community responsibility with freedom of

ownership. Some of their considerations include being in agreement with the people around you, managing your land as you see fit as long as neighbors and

land are not harmed, and maintaining rural traditions.

The idea of having to sell land was met with little

enthusiasm, as summed up by the comment, “[You]

shouldn’t sell any land, its too hard to come by these

days.” Nonetheless, the pros and cons of selling land

locally or to “outsiders” were discussed in two of the

statements. When asked if an owner should make it a

top priority to sell to someone within the local community (question 50; appendix C, table 49), 75 percent

agreed. Several felt that land should be kept within the

community so traditions would be maintained. Others

were concerned that selling land outside the community
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

might result in suburban development, rising taxes, and

loss of agricultural land.

Almost 67 percent were unwilling to make price the

top consideration in selling land (question 46; appendix C, table 45). Comments on the statement indicated

that considerable deliberation went into balancing the

good of the family with the good of the community.

Such thoughts encompassed the desire to sell to someone who would not develop the land, but also the need

to think of the good of the family (in terms of getting a

good price for the land). A couple of people expressed

it as wanting the most for your money but realizing

that sometimes the person with the most money is not

best for the land. Most alluded to selling to family and

neighbors before “outsiders.” There was concern that

sale to nonlocals could lead to “people coming in [to a

community] and wanting to tell locals how to manage

the land when locals have managed it well for years.”

An attempt was made to explore further landowners’ feelings of responsibility to community by seeing

if they preferred to hire workers from the locality over

workers from other areas (question 44 and 49; appendix C, tables 43 and 48). In support and loyalty to community, much was said in favor of using local workers.

About 71 percent agreed that landowners should make

it a top priority to hire local workers, while almost onequarter chose to remain neutral on the subject. Discussion on this topic was instructive, surfacing issues other

than a simple desire to offer employment to local community members. The majority of those who commented mentioned that although they would like to hire

local people, competent, willing, and affordable workers could be hard to find here as elsewhere throughout

the United States. “[One] must be realistic when it

comes to business,” avoiding decisions that are detrimental to the business and the livestock.

Perhaps reflecting the apparent difficulty of finding

workers within the community, of the 59 respondents

who answered the question, 56 percent agreed to a related statement that landowners should hire the most

qualified workers without regard to where they come

from (question 49; appendix C, table 48). About 15

percent were neutral on the subject, and almost 29 percent disagreed. This statement also elicited discussion

on the importance of hiring qualified, dependable

people and further remarks on the difficulty of finding

local workers. On the other hand, several observed that

landowners should hire local kids to give them the

opportunity to learn ranching or that local people would

be the most qualified. Countering the notion of hiring

workers at all, reference was made to the old-fashioned

custom of neighbors pitching in to help each other.

Another dimension of land use that was explored

involves the integral role of public land in ranching

operations. Some 97 percent agreed with the statement

that public land should be managed with greatest consideration for long-time, traditional users (question 47;

appendix C, table 46). The remainder were neutral;

none disagreed. They expressed their desire to care for

the land and the importance of that grazing land to their

livelihood in their comments on the statement.

The contrasting view that public land should be

managed with equal consideration for the use and enjoyment of all U.S. citizens (question 42; appendix C,

table 41) was met with 50 percent agreement and 36

percent disagreement by the 58 people who responded.

This was apparently a difficult question to answer because it embodies the mandate of the Multiple Use Act,

with which most respondents are familiar. Thus, it

would be like disagreeing with the law, which may have

prompted the 50 percent agreement response. However, there were stipulations (along with the agreements) that users should respect and preserve the land,

not vandalize, destroy, or damage it. In earlier work,

McSweeney (1995) also found that the northern ranchers show an attachment to the Federal lands that extend beyond the boundaries of their ranches. They

spoke of these lands as being part of their history, expressing a responsibility toward the forestland almost

as though it belonged to them.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 31

The continuing controversy over the role of Federal

lands and land management agencies in northern New

Mexico, as well as in the Western United States as a

whole, often relates to imperfect understanding of sociocultural values and attitudes toward land use on the

part of public agency officials. Although Forest Service-permittee relations have improved in recent years,

problems still exist. This often appears to be the case

in northern New Mexico where distinctive custom,

culture, and tradition, in addition to a history of U.S.

conquest, contribute to misunderstanding and conflict.

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

for understanding their way of life and resolving disputes over public land and resource use.

The pilot study begins to address this issue by gathering information on contemporary land management,

valuation, and use issues among ranchers with Federal

grazing permits on National Forest lands in northern

New Mexico. The study focuses on gathering information on both the economic and noneconomic contributions of livestock ownership to local families and

communities. It explores the extent to which the use of

public land for grazing and other purposes provides

opportunities for community interaction and maintenance of traditional culture. The work is intended to

assist managers in addressing land management and

use issues now and in the future. It will also be valuable as a public education tool because many residents

of the State, especially those newly migrated to both

urban and rural areas, are unfamiliar with the primarily Hispanic culture and traditions of northern New

Mexico.

The ranching tradition in northern New Mexico is

one of depth and generations. The vast majority of grazing permittees on the two Districts we studied were

born in the area into families who have been ranching

in the region long before the advent of public lands.

Those we spoke with consider the ranching way of life

vital to maintaining their cultural heritage and traditional values, as well as to passing those values on to

future generations. Ranches and land ownership are

integral components of family and community life that

feature prominently in the present and future plans of

their owners. Many of the ranchers have structured their

careers or taken special jobs so that they could remain

in the area to be near their land and cattle, some even

passing up promotions to remain near the ranch or of

returning home when their families needed help running the livestock operation. The large majority plan

to run their ranches as their main activity after retiring

from other jobs and would like to be fully supported

by the cattle venture.

Keeping land in the family and upholding traditional

values are regarded more highly than material possessions or monetary gain. The tremendous social, cultural, and economic importance of these operations

argues for future research designed to move the study

of these types of agricultural enterprises out of the realm

of purely economic study into disciplines that can assess the full range of their contributions.

Changing attitudes and values among the general

public have the potential to negatively impact the traditional rural ranching way of life in northern New

Mexico. For example, the effects of population growth

and urbanization on land values, property taxes, water

availability, and attitudes concerning ranching and other

traditional rural economic activities require in-depth

study. These trends add to the difficulties the permittees discussed with us concerning “making ends meet”

and keeping their lands in agricultural use. This becomes increasingly difficult as neighboring lands are

sold and subdivided.

The ranchers struggle with the problems, challenges,

and benefits of working on both private and public land,

and they fear losing their permits, ranches, and rural

cultural traditions. The work and attitudes of these

people demonstrate their concern for the welfare of both

private and public land and their deep commitment to

family, community, and heritage. The continuity of their

long enduring traditions is inextricably linked to the

history, heritage, culture, and future of the State.

Summary and Conclusions
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

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.

Babbie, Earl. 1990. Survey research methods. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Babbie, Earl. 1995. The practice of social research. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

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.

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.

Brown, B.; Stewart D. M. 2002. (E-mail message to C. Raish).

March 29. Message on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Albuquerque Lab, Albuquerque, NM.

Case, D. 1997. (Personal communication to C. Raish).

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: AD 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. AES Bull. 577. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State

University.

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. AES Bull. 407. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State

University.

Eastman, Clyde; King, J. Phillip; Meadows, Nicholas A. 1997.

Acequias, small farms, and the good life. Culture and

Agriculture. 19(1/2): 14–23.

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.

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.

Forrest, Suzanne. 1989. The preservation of the village: New

Mexico’s Hispanics and the New Deal. Albuquerque, NM:

University of New Mexico Press.

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. Rep.

35. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University. Range

Improvement Task Force, Agricultural Experiment Station,

Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and

Home Economics.

Fowler, J. M.; Torell, L. A. 1985. Financial status of the range

livestock industry; the New Mexico example. RITF Report 20.

Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University. Range

Improvement Task Force.

General Accounting Office. January 2001. Treaty of Guadalupe

Hidalgo: definition and list of community land grants in New

Mexico (GAO-01-951). Washington, DC: U.S. General

Accounting Office (202-512-6000).

Gentner, B. J.; Tanaka, J. A. 2002. Classifying Federal public land

grazing permittees. Journal of Range Management. 55(1): 2–

11

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. AES Bull. 280. Las

Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University.

Griswold del Castillo, R. 1990. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo:

a legacy of conflict. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma

Press.

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. Manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region,

Albuquerque, NM.

Hassell, M. J. 1981. Northern New Mexico policy review and

action plan. Memo on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM.

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, Southwestern

Region, Albuquerque, NM.

References
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 33

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.

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. Albuquerque, NM:

University of New Mexico Press.

Leonard, O. E.; Loomis, C. P. 1941. Culture of a contemporary

rural community: El Cerrito, New Mexico. Rural Life Studies

No. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

Liefer, J. A. 1970. Attitudes toward land ownership and usage in

north-central New Mexico. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State

University. Thesis.

McSweeney, Alice M. 1995. Views on land and nature:

conversations with northern New Mexico ranchers. Las Cruces,

NM: New Mexico State University. M.S. Thesis.

Morris, W., ed. 1978. American heritage dictionary of the English

language. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Raish, Carol. 1992. Domestic animals and stability in pre-state

farming societies. BAR International Series 579. Oxford,

England: Tempus Reparatum (Oxbow Books).

Raish, Carol. 1997. Northern New Mexico and the USDA Forest

Service. Presented in the second international conference on

natural resources and cultural heritage: partnerships without

borders; 1997 November 17–20; Tempe: Arizona State

University.

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 Agriculture, 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.

Rothman, Hal. 1989. Cultural and environmental change on the

Pajarito Plateau. New Mexico Historical Review. 64(2): 185–211.

Ruyle, George B.; Tronstad, Russell; Hadley, Diana W.; Heilman,

Philip; King, David A. 2000. Commercial livestock operations

in Arizona. In: Jemison, Roy; Raish, Carol, eds. Livestock

management in the American Southwest: ecology, society, and

economics.Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science: 379–417.

Sanchez, G. I. 1940. Forgotten people: a study of New Mexicans.

Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

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.

Smallidge, Sam. 2002. (E-mail message to C. Raish). April 9.

Message on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque Lab,

Albuquerque, NM.

Spradley, James P. 1979. The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth,

TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich College Publishers.

Swadesh, F. L. 1974. Los primeros pobladores: Hispanic

Americans of the Ute frontier. Notre Dame, IN: University of

Notre Dame Press.

Torell, L. A.; Hawkes, J. M.; Stromei, T. D. 1998. Range livestock

cost and return estimates for New Mexico, 1996. NMSU. AES

Res. Rep. 726. Las Cruces: New Mexico State University.

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: University of New Mexico Press:

141–214.

Weigle, M. 1975. Hispanic villages of northern New Mexico, Part

I (a 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.

West, Patrick C. 1982. Natural resource bureaucracy and rural

poverty: a study in the political sociology of natural resources.

Mon. No. 2. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of

Natural Resources, Natural Resources Sociology Research Lab.

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.

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.
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Appendix A
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 35
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 37
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 39
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 41
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 43
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 45

Appendix B
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 47
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 49

Appendix C

Table 1—Permittee length of residence (PLENRES – Ques. 1).

PERMITTEE LENGTH NUMBER OF VALID

OF RESIDENCE* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 0 0 0

02 0 0 0

03 0 0 0

04 2 3.2 3.2

05 60 96.8 96.8

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) 0-5 years

(02) 6-10 years

(03) 11-20 years

(04) Over 20 years but less than entire life

(05) Entire Life

Table 2—Family length of residence (FLENRES – Ques. 2).

FAMILY LENGTH NUMBER OF VALID

OF RESIDENCE* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 1 1.6 1.6

02 3 4.8 4.8

03 5 8.1 8.1

04 20 32.3 32.3

05 9 14.5 14.5

06 9 14.5 14.5

07 5 8.1 8.1

08 4 6.5 6.5

09 5 8.1 8.1

10 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(03)-(10) Grandparents and earlier = 93.6%; (04)-(10) Great-grandparents and earlier = 85.6%

*Key

(01) One (generation), I came here as an adult.

(02) Two, my parents came here.

(03) Three, my grandparents came here.

(04) Four, my great-grandparents came here.

(05) Five, my great-great grandparents came here.

(06) Six, or seven, or more, my great-great-great grandparents came here.

(07) No generational count, family came in 1800s.

(08) No generational count, family came in 1700s.

(09) No generational count, family came in with Oñate, with Reconquest, or in 1600s.

(10) No generational count, family is American Indian.
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 3—Primary language spoken in household (LANG – Ques. 3).

PRIMARY LANGUAGE NUMBER OF VALID

SPOKEN IN HOUSEHOLD* HOUSEHOLDS PERCENT PERCENT

01 21 33.9 33.9

02 8 12.9 12.9

03 32 51.6 51.6

04 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) Spanish

(02) English

(03) Both

(04) Other

Table 4—Age range of permittee (AGE – Ques. 4).

AGE RANGE NUMBER OF VALID

OF PERMITTEE* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 1 1.6 1.6

02 16 25.8 25.8

03 30 48.4 48.4

04 15 24.2 24.2

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) 20-35

(02) 36-49

(03) 50-65

(04) Over 65

Table 5—Permittee’s highest level of education (PERMED – Ques. 5).

PERMITTEE’S

HIGHEST LEVEL NUMBER OF VALID

OF EDUCATION* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 6 9.7 9.7

02 33 53.2 53.2

03 9 14.5 14.5

04 7 11.3 11.3

05 7 11.3 11.3

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) Grade School

(02) High School

(03) Some College

(04) College Degree

(05) Graduate School
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 51

Table 6—Permittee’s spouse’s highest level of education (SPOUSED – Ques. 6).

SPOUSE’S HIGHEST

LEVEL OF NUMBER OF ADJUSTED

EDUCATION* SPOUSES PERCENT PERCENT+

01 3 4.8 5.4

02 28 45.2 50.0

03 16 25.8 28.6

04 7 11.3 12.5

05 2 3.2 3.6

15 6 9.7

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.1

*Key

(01) Grade School

(02) High School

(03) Some College

(04) College Degree

(05) Graduate School

(15) No Spouse, Spouse Deceased, Permittee Divorced

+Based on the 56 spouses reporting education information (62 minus 6 = 56), which deletes

category 15

Table 7—Permittee’s job description (PERMJOB – Ques. 7).

PERMITTEE’S JOB NUMBER OF VALID

DESCRIPTION* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 5 8.1 8.1

02 4 6.5 6.5

03 17 27.4 27.4

04 4 6.5 6.5

05 26 41.9 41.9

06 000

07 3 4.8 4.8

08 2 3.2 3.2

09 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(01) and (09) Full-time rancher/farmer or retired from full-time ranching/farming = 9.7%

*Key

(01) A. Self-employed as a full-time rancher or farmer

(02) B. Self-employed other than as a rancher or farmer

(03) C. Employed full-time outside the home or ranch

(04) D. Employed part-time outside the home or ranch

(05) E. Retired (Retired from outside job, now employed full-time or part-time as a rancher).

(06) F. Other (Please describe.)

(07) Retired from outside job, but still works part-time outside home or ranch and part-time

as rancher.

(08) Self-employed as a full-time rancher with self-employed part-time work outside of ranch.

(09) Retired from full-time ranching.
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 8—Permittee’s job category (PJOBCAT – Ques. 8).

PERMITTEE’S NUMBER OF VALID

JOB CATEGORY* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 5 8.1 10.0

02 7 11.3 14.0

03 0 0 0

04 7 11.3 14.0

05 13 21.0 26.0

06 5 8.1 10.0

07 0 0 0

08 8 12.9 16.0

09 4 6.5 8.0

10 1 1.6 2.0

TOTAL 50 80.6 100.0

MISSING 12 19.4

TOTAL 62 100.0

*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

(07) Artist/Artisan

(08) Agricultural

(09) Law Enforcement/Fire Depart./Security Officer, etc./Security Access Specialist

(10) Laborer/Maintenance

Table 9—Total hours per week worked outside the home or ranch-permittee

(PWORKHRS – Ques. 9).

TOTAL HRS. WORKED

PER WEEK OUTSIDE NUMBER OF VALID

HOME OR RANCH* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 0 0 0

02 2 3.2 3.3

03 14 22.6 23.3

04 10 16.1 16.7

05 5 8.1 8.3

06 1 1.6 1.7

07 1 1.6 1.7

99 27 43.5 45.0

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0

(03)-(04) Work 40 or more hours per week off the ranch = 40%; (99) Retired = 45%

*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) Do not work outside the home or ranch

(06) Seasonal work

(07) Hours vary

(99) Retired from outside work
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 53

Table 10—Permittee’s spouse’s job (SPOUSJOB – Ques. 10).

PERMITTEE’S NUMBER OF ADJUSTED

SPOUSE’S JOB* SPOUSES PERCENT PERCENT+

01 0 0 0

02 5 8.1 9.4

03 20 32.2 37.7

04 8 12.9 15.1

05 12 19.4 22.6

06 0 0 0

07 7 11.3 13.2

08 1 1.6 1.9

15 9 14.5

TOTAL 62 100.0 99.9

*Key

(01) A. Self-employed as a full-time rancher or farmer

(02) B. Self-employed other than as a rancher or farmer

(03) C. Employed full-time outside the home or ranch

(04) D. Employed part-time outside the home or ranch

(05) E. Retired (Retired from outside job, now employed full-time or part-time as a rancher).

(06) F. Other (Please describe).

(07) G. Does not work outside the home or ranch.

(08) H. Self-employed as rancher and assists with family business.

(15) No Spouse, Spouse Deceased, Permittee Divorced

+Based on the 53 spouses reporting job information (62 minus 9 = 53), which deletes category 15

Table 11—Permittee’s spouse’s job category (SJOBCAT – Ques. 11).

PERMITTEE’S SPOUSE’S NUMBER OF ADJUSTED

JOB CATEGORY* SPOUSES PERCENT PERCENT+

01 4 6.5 8.9

02 4 6.5 8.9

03 5 8.1 11.1

04 7 11.3 15.6

05 10 16.1 22.2

06 0 0 0

07 1 1.6 2.2

08 5 8.1 11.1

09 6 9.7 13.3

10 1 1.6 2.2

11 2 3.2 4.4

15 9 14.5

TOTAL 54 87.1 99.9

MISSING 8 12.9

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) Professional/Scientific/Managerial

(02) Education System/Teacher/Principal, etc./School Superintendent/School Administrator

(03) Health Care Professional

(04) Business Owner/Manager/Assists with Family Business

(05) Skilled Trade/Technical/Clerical

(06) Heavy Equipment Operator/ Truck Driver/Van Driver

(07) Artist/Artisan

(08) Daycare Provider/Home Care Provider

(09) Homemaker

(10) Law Enforcement/Fire Dept./Security Officer/Security Specialist

(11) Housekeeping/Maintenance

(15) No Spouse, Spouse Deceased, Permittee Divorced

+Based on the 45 spouses reporting jobs classifiable as to type (62 minus 17 = 45), which deletes categories15 and “missing”
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 12—Total hours per week worked outside the home or ranch-spouse (SWORKHRS – Ques. 12).

TOTAL HRS. WORKED PER

WEEK OUTSIDE HOME OR NUMBER OF ADJUSTED

RANCH-SPOUSE* SPOUSES PERCENT PERCENT+

01 1 1.6 1.9

02 7 11.3 13.5

03 21 33.9 40.4

04 2 3.2 3.8

05 6 9.7 11.5

06 0 0 0

07 1 1.6 1.9

08 1 1.6 1.9

15 9 14.5

99 13 21.0 25.0

TOTAL 61 98.4 99.9

MISSING 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

Combined categories: 57.7% work 20 hours or more outside the home or ranch, 25% are retired, 5.7% work under 20 hours/

have varying hours/do paid work at home, 11.5% do not work outside the home

*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) Do not work outside the home or ranch

(06) Seasonal work

(07) Hours vary

(08) Does paid work at home and part-time outside home – 40 hours total

(15) No Spouse, Spouse Deceased, Permittee Divorced

(99) Retired from outside work

+Based on the 52 spouses reporting employment hours (62 minus 10 = 52), which deletes categories 15 and “missing”

Table 13—Permittee views on remaining in the same community without owning livestock (COMRES– Ques. 13).

COMMUNITY RESIDENCE NUMBER OF VALID

(WITHOUT LIVESTOCK)* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 13 21.0 21.3

02 24 38.7 39.3

03 3 4.8 4.9

04 1 1.6 1.6

05 5 8.1 8.2

06 2 3.2 3.3

07 4 6.5 6.6

08 1 1.6 1.6

09 2 3.2 3.3

10 4 6.5 6.6

11 2 3.2 3.3

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

(01)-(05) and (10)-(11) Would live in the same community even if did not have livestock = 85.2%

*Key

(01) Yes, or Yes, I like it here.

(02) Yes, this is my home. My family and I have always lived here/or wanted to return home.

(03) Yes, I have always lived here. Can raise kids here without having them get into trouble.

(04) Yes, land keeps you in the community, wouldn’t want to leave for a job somewhere else.

(05) Yes, I live where I live to be near the land—have passed up jobs to stay and took a job (in the area) to stay near the ranch.

(06) Don’t know, would stay if I could find a job. Would have to find a job somewhere.

(07) No, there is no income without the livestock. I would have to go someplace else to make a good living/get a job.

(08) No, it is too crowded here – would move where it is not so crowded.

(09) Probably not, would live in the city – but couldn’t imagine living in city and not having animals. Want to live in the country.

(10) Yes, can’t imagine not having livestock and working the land. They are so important. What would I do if I didn’t have livestock?

(11) Yes, I want to live in the country, away from the traffic and violence of the city.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 55

Table 14—Number of grazing association meetings attended in a typical year

(ASSOCMTS– Ques. 14).

NUMBER OF GRAZING NUMBER OF VALID

ASSOCIATION MEETINGS* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 6 9.7 9.8

02 1 1.6 1.6

03 12 19.4 19.7

04 23 37.1 37.7

05 12 19.4 19.7

06 4 6.5 6.6

07 2 3.2 3.3

08 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

(03)-(07) Attend grazing association meetings = 87%

*Key

(01) Not in an association

(02) None

(03) 1-2

(04) 3-5

(05) 6-10

(06) More than 10

(07) Many meetings—no number given

(08) Not active now, used to be more involved

Table 15a—Number of brandings participated in per year (BRANDS – Ques. 15).

BRANDINGS

PARTICIPATED NUMBER OF VALID

IN PER YEAR* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 000

02 5 8.1 8.1

03 29 46.8 46.8

04 20 32.3 32.3

05 7 11.3 11.3

06 1 1.6 1.6

07 000

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) None

(02) Yes, attend the event—no number given

(03) 1-2

(04) 3-5

(05) 6-10

(06) More than 10

(07) Too many to mention
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 15b—Number of round-ups participated in per year (ROUNDS – Ques. 15).

ROUND-UPS

PARTICIPATED NUMBER OF VALID

IN PER YEAR* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 4 6.5 6.5

02 6 9.7 9.7

03 10 16.1 16.1

04 20 32.3 32.3

05 19 30.6 30.6

06 3 4.8 4.8

07 000

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(02)-(07) Attend/participate in round-ups = 93.5%

*Key

(01) None

(02) Yes, attend the event—no number given

(03) 1-2

(04) 3-5

(05) 6-10

(06) More than 10

(07) Too many to mention

Table15c—Number of matanzas participated in per year (MATANZAS – Ques. 15).

MATANZAS

 PARTICIPATED NUMBER OF VALID

IN PER YEAR* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 20 32.3 32.3

02 5 8.1 8.1

03 25 40.3 40.3

04 7 11.3 11.3

05 3 4.8 4.8

06 1 1.6 1.6

07 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(02)-(07) Attend/participate in matanzas = 67.7%

*Key

(01) None

(02) Yes, attend the event—no number given

(03) 1-2

(04) 3-5

(05) 6-10

(06) More than 10

(07) Too many to mention
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 57

Table 15e—Number of county fairs participated in per year (COFAIRS – Ques. 15).

COUNTY FAIRS

PARTICIPATED NUMBER OF VALID

IN PER YEAR* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 24 38.7 38.7

02 15 24.2 24.2

03 19 30.6 30.6

04 3 4.8 4.8

05 1 1.6 1.6

06 000

07 000

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(02)-(07) Attend/participate in county fairs = 61.3%

*Key

(01) None

(02) Yes, attend the event—no number given

(03) 1-2

(04) 3-5

(05) 6-10

(06) More than 10

(07) Too many to mention

Table 15d—Number of rodeos participated in per year (RODEOS – Ques. 15).

RODEOS

PARTICIPATED NUMBER OF VALID

IN PER YEAR* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 21 33.9 33.9

02 14 22.6 22.6

03 16 25.8 25.8

04 8 12.9 12.9

05 2 3.2 3.2

06 1 1.6 1.6

07 0 0 0

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(02)-(07) Attend/participate in rodeos = 66.1%

*Key

(01) None

(02) Yes, attend the event—no number given

(03) 1-2

(04) 3-5

(05) 6-10

(06) More than 10

(07) Too many to mention
58 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 15f—Number of other events participated in per year (OTHREVS – Ques. 15).

OTHER EVENTS

PARTICIPATED NUMBER OF VALID

IN PER YEAR* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 59 95.2 95.2

02 0 0 0

03 1 1.6 1.6

04 1 1.6 1.6

05 0 0 0

06 1 1.6 1.6

07 0 0 0

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) None

(02) Yes, attend the event—no number given

(03) 1-2

(04) 3-5

(05) 6-10

(06) More than 10

(07) Too many to mention

Table 16—Permittees and relatives who herd livestock together (RUNRELS – Ques. 16).

PERMITTEES HERD

LIVESTOCK WITH NUMBER OF VALID

RELATIVES’ LIVESTOCK* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 45 72.6 73.8

02 9 14.5 14.8

03 7 11.3 11.5

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

(01) and (03) Herd livestock together with relatives or with the help of relatives = 85.3%

*Key

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) No, but relatives often help out

Table 17—Permittees and neighbors who herd livestock together (RUNEIGHS – Ques. 17).

PERMITTEES HERD

LIVESTOCK WITH NUMBER OF VALID

NEIGHBORS’ LIVESTOCK* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 50 80.6 80.6

02 12 19.4 19.4

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) Yes

(02) No
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 59

Table 18—Number of years permittee has had livestock (YRSTOCKP – Ques.18).

NUMBER OF YEARS

PERMITTEE HAS NUMBER OF VALID

HAD LIVESTOCK* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 20 32.3 32.3

02 9 14.5 14.5

03 18 29.0 29.0

04 15 24.2 24.2

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

01) Virtually entire life, since childhood.

(02) Since teen years

(03) Since adulthood

(04) Since adulthood—took them over from family, father and/or grandfather, or still in business

with them.

Table 19—Years or generations that permittee’s family has had livestock (YRSTOCKF

– Ques. 19).

YEARS OR GENERATIONS

PERMITTEE’S FAMILY NUMBER OF VALID

HAS HAD LIVESTOCK* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 0 0 0

02 4 6.5 6.5

03 13 21.0 21.0

04 18 29.0 29.0

05 6 9.7 9.7

06 4 6.5 6.5

07 8 12.9 12.9

08 3 4.8 4.8

09 3 4.8 4.8

10 2 3.2 3.2

11 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 00.0

(03)-(11) Grandparents and earlier = 93.5%; (04)-(11) Great-grandparents and earlier = 72.5%

*Key

(01) One (generation), I am the first to have livestock.

(02) Two, my parents had livestock.

(03) Three, my grandparents had livestock.

(04) Four, my great-grandparents had livestock.

(05) Five, my great-great grandparents had livestock.

(06) Six or seven, 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, family has had livestock since Oñate’s time, the Reconquest, or the

1600s.

(10) No generational count, family has had livestock since “the beginning,” family has “always”

had livestock.

(11) Other.
60 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 20—Years or generations that permittee and family have grazed livestock on community grant lands (LAGRANTS– Ques. 20).

YEARS OR

GENERATIONS ON

COMMUNITY GRANT NUMBER OF VALID

LANDS* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 21 33.9 34.4

02 4 6.5 6.6

03 2 3.2 3.3

04 2 3.2 3.3

05 1 1.6 1.6

06 3 4.8 4.9

07 4 6.5 6.6

08 3 4.8 4.9

09 3 4.8 4.9

10 1 1.6 1.6

11 7 11.3 11.5

12 3 4.8 4.9

13 0 0 0

14 2 3.2 3.3

15 1 1.6 1.6

16 1 1.6 1.6

17 1 1.6 1.6

18 1 1.6 1.6

19 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

(01) Family does/did not use land grant lands = 34.4%; (02)-(13) and (15)-(16) Family uses land grant

lands now or has used them in the past = 57.5%

*Key

(01) Family does not/did not graze livestock on grant lands.

(02) Family used to graze livestock on grant lands, but not any more. Grant was lost, became public land,

or they sold out, etc.

(03) 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.

(04) Family grazes livestock on grant lands or lands that were grant lands but no length of time given.

(05) One (generation), permittee is the first in the family to lease grant lands.

(06) Two, parents grazed livestock grant lands, permittee does also.

Table 20. (Cont.)

(07) Three, grandparents grazed livestock on grant lands, permittee does also.

(08) Four, great-grandparents grazed livestock on grant lands, permittee does also.

(09) Five generations, great-great-grandparents grazed livestock on grant lands, permittee does also.

(10) Six generations, great-great-great-grandparents grazed livestock on grant lands, permittee does

also.

(11) No generational count, family has grazed livestock on grant lands since the 1800s.

(12) No generational count, family has grazed livestock on grant lands since the 1700s.

(13) No generational count, family has grazed livestock on grant lands since Oñate’s time or the 1600s.

(14) Unsure, have heard that family grazed livestock on grant lands in the past.

(15) Graze livestock in conjunction with the Pueblo.

(16) Family has grazed livestock on grant lands forever, back to the ancestors.

(17) Don’t know.

(18) Not that I know of.

(19) Probably did, everyone did.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 61

Table 21a—Number of years permittee and family have held a grazing permit on Forest Service

land (FSPERM – Ques. 21).

NUMBER OF YEARS

PERMITTEE HAS HAD

A FOREST SERVICE NUMBER OF VALID

GRAZING PERMIT* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 0 0 0

02 0 0 0

03 22 35.5 35.5

04 4 6.5 6.5

05 6 9.7 9.7

06 2 3.2 3.2

07 4 6.5 6.5

08 3 4.8 4.8

09 3 4.8 4.8

10 4 6.5 6.5

11 3 4.8 4.8

12 4 6.5 6.5

13 5 8.1 8.1

14 2 3.2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(03)-(05) and (11)-(13) Have had the Forest Service permit over 50 years and/or received the permit from

their father or grandfather = 71.1%; (06) Have had the Forest Service permit less than 10 years

*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.

(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 or more

(14) Father or grandfather had a permit and lost it. Current permittee got another one.
62 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 21b—Number of years permittee and family have held a grazing permit on Bureau of

Land Mangement land (BLMPERM– Ques. 21).

NUMBER OF YEARS

PERMITTEE HAS HAD NUMBER OF VALID

A BLM GRAZING PERMIT* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 47 75.8 75.8

02 1 1.6 1.6

03 2 3.2 3.2

04 2 3.2 3.2

05 0 0 0

06 1 1.6 1.6

07 3 4.8 4.8

08 1 1.6 1.6

09 0 0 0

10 2 3.2 3.2

11 1 1.6 1.6

12 1 1.6 1.6

13 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) None

(02) Sublease on BLM land.

(03) Since permits began in the area.

(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

Table 22—Number of days permittee (or family) works on livestock operation in a typical year

(WRKDAYS – Ques. 22).

NUMBER OF DAYS

WORKED ON NUMBER OF VALID

LIVESTOCK OPERATION* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 43 69.4 69.4

02 1 1.6 1.6

03 4 6.5 6.5

04 1 1.6 1.6

05 1 1.6 1.6

06 4 6.5 6.5

07 2 3.2 3.2

08 2 3.2 3.2

09 1 1.6 1.6

10 1 1.6 1.6

11 1 1.6 1.6

12 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) Every day, all the time, 365 days a year.

(02) Every day in winter, every week-end in summer

(03) Every day in winter, two or three times a week in summer

(04) Every day in winter, twice a month (two weekends) in summer

(05) Less than one third of the year

(06) Around one third of the year

(07) Around one half of the year

(08) Around three quarters of the year

(09) Two or three times a week all summer

(10) Less than one-quarter of the year

(11) Goes to ranch most weekends

(12) Around two-thirds of the year
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 63

Table 23a—Number of cows owned (COWFREQS – Ques. 23).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

COWS PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

05 2 3.2 3.2

06 1 1.6 1.6

08 1 1.6 1.6

09 1 1.6 1.6

10 2 3.2 3.2

11 2 3.2 3.2

12 1 1.6 1.6

13 2 3.2 3.2

14 1 1.6 1.6

15 2 3.2 3.2

20 1 1.6 1.6

25 2 3.2 3.2

28 1 1.6 1.6

30 4 6.5 6.5

35 1 1.6 1.6

38 1 1.6 1.6

40 3 4.8 4.8

42 1 1.6 1.6

43 1 1.6 1.6

50 2 3.2 3.2

51 2 3.2 3.2

52 1 1.6 1.6

54 1 1.6 1.6

60 2 3.2 3.2

65 1 1.6 1.6

66 1 1.6 1.6

68 1 1.6 1.6

70 2 3.2 3.2

72 1 1.6 1.6

75 2 3.2 3.2

76 1 1.6 1.6

80 1 1.6 1.6

81 1 1.6 1.6

84 1 1.6 1.6

90 1 1.6 1.6

100 1 1.6 1.6

110 1 1.6 1.6

115 1 1.6 1.6

130 2 3.2 3.2

135 2 3.2 3.2

160 1 1.6 1.6

250 2 3.2 3.2

550 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0
64 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 23b—Number of bulls owned (BULLFREQS– Ques. 23).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

BULLS PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 3 4.8 5.2

01 13 21.0 22.4

02 10 16.1 17.2

03 8 12.9 13.8

04 10 16.1 17.2

05 4 6.5 6.9

06 2 3.2 3.4

07 3 4.8 5.2

08 1 1.6 1.7

10 1 1.6 1.7

14 1 1.6 1.7

15 1 1.6 1.7

30 1 1.6 1.7

TOTAL 58 93.5 100.0

MISSING 97 4 6.5

TOTAL 62 100.0

Table 23c—Number of yearlings owned (YEARFREQS– Ques. 23).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

YEARLINGS PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 20 32.3 32.3

01 1 1.6 1.6

02 3 4.8 4.8

03 5 8.1 8.1

05 3 4.8 4.8

06 4 6.5 6.5

07 1 1.6 1.6

08 4 6.5 6.5

10 5 8.1 8.1

11 1 1.6 1.6

12 2 3.2 3.2

15 2 3.2 3.2

18 2 3.2 3.2

20 5 8.1 8.1

35 3 4.8 4.8

100 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 65 Table 23d—Number of calves owned (CALFFREQS – Ques. 23).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

CALVES PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 1 1.6 1.6

02 2 3.2 3.3

03 1 1.6 1.6

04 1 1.6 1.6

05 1 1.6 1.6

06 1 1.6 1.6

07 1 1.6 1.6

08 3 4.8 4.9

10 3 4.8 4.9

12 2 3.2 3.3

13 1 1.6 1.6

17 1 1.6 1.6

19 2 3.2 3.3

20 2 3.2 3.3

24 1 1.6 1.6

25 1 1.6 1.6

27 1 1.6 1.6

30 1 1.6 1.6

32 2 3.2 3.3

33 1 1.6 1.6

35 2 3.2 3.3

36 1 1.6 1.6

40 1 1.6 1.6

42 1 1.6 1.6

45 5 8.1 8.2

50 2 3.2 3.3

51 1 1.6 1.6

55 2 3.2 3.3

60 2 3.2 3.3

63 1 1.6 1.6

64 1 1.6 1.6

68 1 1.6 1.6

70 1 1.6 1.6

80 2 3.2 3.3

95 1 1.6 1.6

100 1 1.6 1.6

101 1 1.6 1.6

105 1 1.6 1.6

124 1 1.6 1.6

125 1 1.6 1.6

130 1 1.6 1.6

150 1 1.6 1.6

495 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 971 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 Table 23e—Number of ewes owned (EWEFREQS – Ques. 23).

NUMBER NUMBER OF VALID

OF EWES PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 52 83.9 83.9

03 1 1.6 1.6

04 1 1.6 1.6

05 1 1.6 1.6

06 1 1.6 1.6

10 1 1.6 1.6

20 2 3.2 3.2

28 1 1.6 1.6

650 1 1.6 1.6

759 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0
66 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 23g—Number of lambs owned (LAMBFREQS– Ques. 23).

NUMBER NUMBER OF VALID

OF LAMBS PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 54 87.1 88.5

01 1 1.6 1.6

03 1 1.6 1.6

06 1 1.6 1.6

08 1 1.6 1.6

20 1 1.6 1.6

25 1 1.6 1.6

700 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 97 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

Table 23h—Number of horses owned (HORSEFREQS– Ques. 23).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

HORSES PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 2 3.2 3.2

01 3 4.8 4.8

02 14 22.6 22.6

03 12 19.4 19.4

04 9 14.5 14.5

05 10 16.1 16.1

06 5 8.1 8.1

07 4 6.5 6.5

08 1 1.6 1.6

10 1 1.6 1.6

15 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

Table 23f—Number of rams owned (RAMFREQS– Ques. 23).

NUMBER NUMBER OF VALID

OF RAMS PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 55 88.7 88.7

01 4 6.5 6.5

02 1 1.6 1.6

13 1 1.6 1.6

40 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 67

Table 24c—Number of calves lost during a typical year (CALFLOST – Ques. 24).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

CALVES LOST PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 14 22.6 23.3

01 4 6.5 6.7

02 11 17.7 18.3

03 11 17.7 18.3

04 6 9.7 10.0

05 5 8.1 8.3

06 2 3.2 3.3

07 2 3.2 3.3

08 1 1.6 1.7

10 3 4.8 5.0

12 1 1.6 1.7

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 97 1 1.6

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL MISSING 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0

Table 24b—Number of bulls lost during a typical year (BULLOST – Ques. 24).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

BULLS LOST PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 56 90.3 93.3

01 4 6.5 6.7

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 97 1 1.6

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL MISSING 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0

Table 24a—Number of cows lost during a typical year (COWLOST – Ques. 24).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

COWS LOST PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 19 30.6 31.7

01 5 8.1 8.3

02 17 27.4 28.3

03 4 6.5 6.7

04 6 9.7 10.0

05 5 8.1 8.3

06 2 3.2 3.3

08 1 1.6 1.7

10 1 1.6 1.7

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 97 1 1.6

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL MISSING 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0
68 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 24d—Number of ewes lost during a typical year (EWELOST – Ques. 24).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

EWES LOST PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 56 90.3 93.3

01 1 1.6 1.7

02 1 1.6 1.7

30 1 1.6 1.7

38 1 1.6 1.7

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 97 1 1.6

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL MISSING 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0

Table 24e—Number of lambs lost during a typical year (LAMBLOST– Ques. 24).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

LAMBS LOST PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 56 90.3 93.3

03 1 1.6 1.7

06 1 1.6 1.7

25 1 1.6 1.7

50 1 1.6 1.7

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 97 1 1.6

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL MISSING 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0

Table 24f—Number of cows or calves lost during a typical year (COCALOST–

Ques. 24).

NUMBER OF

COWS OR NUMBER OF VALID

CALVES LOST PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 53 85.5 88.3

01 1 1.6 1.7

02 1 1.6 1.7

03 3 4.8 5.0

13 1 1.6 1.7

141 1 1.6 1.7

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 97 1 1.6

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL MISSING 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 69

Table 24g—Reason for loss of livestock (REASLOSS – Ques. 24).

REASON FOR LOSS NUMBER OF VALID

OF LIVESTOCK* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 5 8.1 8.2

02 4 6.5 6.6

03 2 3.2 3.3

04 0 0 0

05 2 3.2 3.3

06 1 1.6 1.6

07 9 14.5 14.8

08 1 1.6 1.6

09 5 8.1 8.2

10 5 8.1 8.2

11 7 11.3 11.5

12 2 3.2 3.3

13 1 1.6 1.6

14 4 6.5 6.6

15 1 1.6 1.6

16 1 1.6 1.6

17 1 1.6 1.6

18 1 1.6 1.6

19 2 3.2 3.3

20 1 1.6 1.6

21 3 4.8 4.9

22 1 1.6 1.6

23 1 1.6 1.6

24 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

(1), (05)-(07), (9), (11)-(13), (19), (21)-(23) Animals lost to theft or vandalism or killed by hunters = 63.9%; (02), (09)-(11), (13), (16)-(19), (21), (22) Animals lost to predation = 50.8%

*Key

(01) Theft, Vandalism

(02) Predation (Dogs, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, etc.)

(03) Natural Causes (Diseases or Accidents)

(04) Wandered Off

(05) Hunted (Killed by Hunters)

(06) Natural Causes, Hunted

(07) Natural Causes, Theft, Vandalism

(08) Poisonous Plants

(09) Theft, Predation

(10) Natural Causes, Predation

(11) Natural Causes, Theft, Predation

(12) Natural Causes, Theft, Poisonous Plants

(13) Theft, Predation, Poisonous Plants, Hunted

(14) Unknown

(15) Doesn’t know why animals being lost – not going to make assumptions

(16) Poisonous Plants, Predation, Natural Causes

(17) Natural Causes, Predation, Unknown Causes

(18) Predation, Poisonous Plants

(19) Theft, Predation, Unknown Causes

(20) None lost

(21) Natural Causes, Theft, Predation, Poisonous Plants

(22) Unknown Causes, Predation, Theft, Poisonous Plants

(23) Unknown Causes, Theft

(24) Natural Causes, unknown causes

NOTE: Accidents such as lightning strike or stuck in a bog are included with natural causes.
70 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 25—Number of animals butchered for use in a typical year (HSUSEFREQS – Ques. 25).

NUMBER OF

ANIMALS NUMBER OF VALID

BUTCHERED PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 5 8.1 8.1

01 10 16.1 16.1

02 23 37.1 37.1

03 10 16.1 16.1

04 8 12.9 12.9

05 1 1.6 1.6

06 2 3.2 3.2

07 0 0 0

08 2 3.2 3.2

09 0 0 0

10 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

Table 26—Animal byproducts used by permittee household during a typical year (BPRODS– Ques. 26).

ANIMAL BYPRODUCTS

USED BY HOUSEHOLD NUMBER OF VALID

DURING A TYPICAL YEAR* HOUSE-HOLDS PERCENT PERCENT

01 49 79.0 79.0

02 2 3.2 3.2

03 2 3.2 3.2

04 5 8.1 8.1

05 2 3.2 3.2

06 1 1.6 1.6

07 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) None

(02) Hides

(03) Wool

(04) Milk

(05) Hides and Milk

(06) Wool and Milk

(07) Wool and Hides

Table 27—Number of live animals given away in a typical year (LIVANFREQS – Ques. 27).

NUMBER OF LIVE NUMBER OF VALID

ANIMALS GIVEN AWAY PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 34 54.8 61.8

01 7 11.3 12.7

02 4 6.5 7.3

03 6 9.7 10.9

04 2 3.2 3.6

05 0 0 0

06 0 0 0

07 1 1.6 1.8

08 0 0 0

09 0 0 0

10 1 1.6 1.8

TOTAL 55 88.7 100

MISSING 97 7 11.3

TOTAL 62 100.0

(01)-(10) Those who report sharing live animals with family or friends = 38.1%; (01)-(04) Those who share

between 1 and 4 live animals = 34.5%; Those who share more than 4 live animals = 3.6%
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 71

Table 28—Amount of meat and byproducts given to family and friends in a typical

year (MPROD– Ques. 28).

AMOUNT OF MEAT

AND BYPRODUCTS

GIVEN TO FAMILY AND

FRIENDS IN A TYPICAL NUMBER OF VALID

YEAR* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 13 21.0 21.3

02 000

03 4 6.5 6.6

04 000

05 1 1.6 1.6

06 6 9.7 9.8

07 2 3.2 3.3

08 000

09 000

10 000

11 000

12 000

13 1 1.6 1.6

14 1 1.6 1.6

15 3 4.8 4.9

16 5 8.1 8.2

17 2 3.2 3.3

18 000

19 18 29.0 29.5

20 1 1.6 1.6

21 1 1.6 1.6

22 1 1.6 1.6

23 1 1.6 1.6

24 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) None

(02) A cow

(03) A side of beef

(04) A quarter of a beef

(05) A half calf butchered as meat

(06) 20-50 lbs of meat

(07) 51 to 100 lbs of meat

(08) 101-200 lbs of meat

(09) 201-300 lbs of meat

(10) 301-400 lbs of meat

(11) 401-500 lbs of meat

(12) More than 500 lbs of meat

(13) Several yearlings

(14) A few steaks

(15) Yes, give meat—no amount given

(16) Meat listed as discussed under live animals which are then butchered

(17) It depends/varies

(18) 6 calves butchered as meat

(19) Meat given to relatives counted under animals butchered for household use (Ques. 25).

(20) Butcher yearling and lambs

(21) Not meat, some byproducts

(22) Gives family members good deal on animals, then butchers

(23) Meat from 7 animals.

(24) Gives away meat, lamb, and pelts. Donates meat and animals.
72 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 29a—Number of animals traded for goods and services in a typical year

(BARTFREQS – Ques. 29).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

ANIMALS TRADED PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

00 40 64.5 72.7

01 7 11.3 12.7

02 2 3.2 3.6

03 3 4.8 5.5

04 0 0 0

05 2 3.2 3.6

06 0 0 0

07 0 0 0

08 1 1.6 1.8

TOTAL 55 88.7 100.0

MISSING 97 7 11.3

TOTAL 62 100.0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 73

Table 29b—Amount of animals and meat traded for other goods and services in a typical year (BARTMEAT – Ques. 29).

AMOUNT OF ANIMALS NUMBER OF VALID

OR MEAT BARTERED* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 50 80.6 83.3

02 0 0 0

03 0 0 0

04 1 1.6 1.7

05 0 0 0

06 0 0 0

07 0 0 0

08 1 1.6 1.7

09 0 0 0

10 0 0 0

11 0 0 0

12 0 0 0

13 0 0 0

14 0 0 0

15 0 0 0

16 0 0 0

17 0 0 0

18 0 0 0

19 1 1.6 1.7

20 5 8.1 8.3

21 1 1.6 1.7

22 1 1.6 1.7

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) None

(02) A cow

(03) A calf

(04) A side of beef

(05) A quarter of a beef

(06) A half calf butchered as meat

(07) A sheep

(08) A lamb

(09) Around 50 lbs of meat

(10) 60 to 100 lbs of meat

(11) 101-200 lbs of meat

(12) 201-300 lbs of meat

(13) 301-400 lbs of meat

(14) 401-500 lbs of meat

(15) More than 500 lbs of meat

(16) Several yearlings

(17) A few steaks

(18) Yes, trade meat—no amount given

(19) It varies/depends

(20) Usually trades live animals

(21) Barter meat from animals listed under direct count of animals bartered

(22) Gives a calf or meat
74 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 30—Costs of owning livestock (LVCOST– Ques. 31).

COSTS OF OWNING NUMBER OF VALID

LIVESTOCK* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 5 8.1 8.6

02 11 17.7 19.0

03 7 11.3 12.1

04 8 12.9 13.8

05 4 6.5 6.9

06 3 4.8 5.2

07 1 1.6 1.7

08 2 3.2 3.4

09 3 4.8 5.2

10 2 3.2 3.4

11 5 8.1 8.6

12 4 6.5 6.9

13 1 1.6 1.7

14 2 3.2 3.4

TOTAL 58 93.5 100.0

MISSING 97 1 1.6

MISSING 98 2 3.2

MISSING 99 1 1.6

TOTAL MISSING 4 6.5

TOTAL 62 100.0

*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) More than $50,000

(10) Very expensive, takes all the profits, (paying off loans now)

(11) Very expensive, hard to estimate, doesn’t know

(12) Sometimes costs more than the operation brings in

(13) Breaks even but gets good meat

(14) Listed various expenses, but no total figure

(97) Missing

(98) No response, declined to respond

(99) Unknown, don’t know, no opinion
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 75

Table 31—Percentage of permittee’s income that comes from livestock operation (INCPER– Ques. 32).

PERCENTAGE OF INCOME NUMBER OF VALID

FROM LIVESTOCK OPERATION* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 4 6.5 6.6

02 1 1.6 1.6

03 5 8.1 8.2

04 6 9.7 9.8

05 5 8.1 8.2

06 3 4.8 4.9

07 5 8.1 8.2

08 0 0 0

09 2 3.2 3.3

10 1 1.6 1.6

11 2 3.2 3.3

12 2 3.2 3.3

13 8 12.9 13.1

14 4 6.5 6.6

15 2 3.2 3.3

16 8 12.9 13.1

17 3 4.8 4.9

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

*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.

(15) Don’t really make money on the livestock operation; it is an investment and a tradition; like money in the bank.

(16) Gave a $ figure that cannot be connected to a %.

(17) Don’t make much money off it; paying off loans and putting money back into the operation.

(98). No response, declined to respond.

NOTE: Tabular material not used in analysis because of inconsistent responses stemming from wording problems in

the question.
76 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table32a—Money from livestock operations spent on basic living expenses (LIVEXPS– Ques. 33).

MONEY FROM LIVESTOCK

OPERATIONS SPENT ON NUMBER OF VALID

LIVING EXPENSES* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 36 58.1 58.1

02 26 41.9 41.9

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) Yes

(02) No

Table 32b—Money from livestock operations spent on emergencies (EMERGENS– Ques. 33).

MONEY FROM LIVESTOCK

OPERATIONS SPENT ON NUMBER OF VALID

EMERGENCIES* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 30 48.4 48.4

02 32 51.6 51.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) Yes

(02) No

Table 32c—Money from livestock operations spent on special expenses (SPEXPS– Ques. 33).

MONEY FROM LIVESTOCK

OPERATIONS SPENT ON NUMBER OF VALID

SPECIAL EXPENSES* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 28 45.2 45.2

02 34 54.8 54.8

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) Yes

(02) No

Table 32d—Money from livestock operations spent on household improvements (HSEIMPS– Ques. 33).

MONEY FROM LIVESTOCK

OPERATIONS SPENT ON NUMBER OF VALID

HOUSEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 28 45.2 45.2

02 34 54.8 54.8

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) Yes

(02) No
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 77

Table 32e—Money from livestock operations spent on improving the livestock operation (MORLVST–

Ques. 33).

MONEY FROM LIVESTOCK

OPERATIONS SPENT ON

IMPROVING LIVESTOCK NUMBER OF VALID

OPERATION* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 58 93.5 93.5

02 4 6.5 6.5

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) Yes

(02) No

Table 32f—Money from livestock operations spent on financial investments (INVESTS– Ques. 33).

MONEY FROM LIVESTOCK

OPERATIONS SPENT ON NUMBER OF VALID

FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 8 12.9 12.9

02 54 87.1 87.1

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) Yes

(02) No

Table 32g—Money from livestock operations spent on other expenses (OTHREXPS– Ques. 33).

MONEY FROM LIVESTOCK

OPERATIONS SPENT ON NUMBER OF VALID

OTHER EXPENSES* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 3 4.8 4.8

02 59 95.2 95.2

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

*Key

(01) Yes

(02) No
78 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 33—Permittee dependence on livestock for family income (LVDEPEND– Ques. 34).

MANNER IN WHICH

PERMITTEE DEPENDS

ON LIVESTOCK TO

CONTRIBUTE TO NUMBER OF VALID

FAMILY INCOME* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 6 9.7 9.8

02 17 27.4 27.9

03 2 3.2 3.3

04 21 33.9 34.4

05 4 6.5 6.6

06 1 1.6 1.6

07 1 1.6 1.6

08 1 1.6 1.6

09 1 1.6 1.6

10 4 6.5 6.6

11 2 3.2 3.3

12 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) A. We depend on our livestock (and farming) for our full income. We are full-time ranchers and

farmers.

(02) B. We depend on our livestock for part of our income. We are part-time ranchers, but would like

to be fully dependent on our livestock for family income.

(03) C. We depend on our livestock for part of our income, and would not want to depend on our

livestock for our full family income.

(04) D. We are retired, but still depend on our livestock for part of our income.

NOTE: The category “E. Other (Please describe.)” had the following responses:

(05) We do not depend on our livestock for family income; we use them for physical and mental wellbeing and to maintain traditions and family values, etc.

(06) We are retired but still put most of the livestock money back into the operation.

(07) The children use the livestock money for their expenses and for tuition, etc.

(08) We put the livestock money back into the operation because we have other income.

(09) We are full-time ranchers but do not depend on our livestock for our full income.

(10) We do not get income from the livestock.

(11) We do not get income from the livestock, keep them for butchering.

(12) We are retired from other professions but depend on livestock for majority of income.

(98) No response, declined to respond.

NOTE: Tabular material not used in analysis because of inconsistent responses stemming from wording

problems in the question.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 79

Table 34—Number of times livestock has been sold in the past 5 years to meet

emergency needs (SELLVSTK– Ques. 35).

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALID

LIVESTOCK SOLD* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 9 14.5 14.8

02 8 12.9 13.1

03 0 0 0

04 1 1.6 1.6

05 1 1.6 1.6

06 1 1.6 1.6

07 1 1.6 1.6

08 2 3.2 3.3

09 35 56.5 57.4

10 1 1.6 1.6

11 2 3.2 3.3

TOTAL 61 98.4

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

(05), (06), (08), and (09) Do not sell animals in emergencies = 63.9%

*Key

(01) 1 or 2 times

(02) 3-5 times

(03) 6-10 times

(04) More than 10 times

(05) Try hard not to sell animals in emergencies, use money from other sources.

(06) Not economically sensible to sell animals in emergencies, would be a poor choice to do

this.

(07) Other family members sometimes sell animals in emergencies.

(08) Don’t think so, have not had to do this.

(09) No, have not sold livestock.

(10) Have sold livestock all of the 5 years, no number given.

(11) Have sold livestock twice a year, though not an emergency.

(98) No response, declined to respond.

Table 35—Does permittee plan to manage livestock after retirement (RETIRE – Ques. 36).

PERMITTEE’S PLANS

FOR MANAGING

LIVESTOCK AFTER NUMBER OF VALID

RETIREMENT* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 49 79.0 79.0

02 3 4.8 4.8

03 8 12.9 12.9

04 1 1.6 1.6

05 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(01) and (03) Plan to continue managing their livestock after retirement; do not plan to retire from livestock

management = 91.9%

*Key

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Manage them now and plan to continue to do so, do not plan to retire (from ranching).

(04) Up to other family members who are partners in the operation.

(05) Not sure.
80 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 36—Can permittee afford to purchase livestock after retirement (RETMON– Ques. 37).

COULD PERMITTEE

PURCHASE LIVESTOCK NUMBER OF VALID

AFTER RETIREMENT* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 6 9.7 9.8

02 28 45.2 45.9

03 2 3.2 3.3

04 5 8.1 8.2

05 5 8.1 8.2

06 9 14.5 14.8

07 2 3.2 3.3

08 1 1.6 1.6

09 1 1.6 1.6

10 2 3.2 3.3

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 99 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(02), (04), (06), (07), and (10) Would not be able to afford, don’t know if they could afford, would have

problems affording, or would not have the land to run a livestock operation = 75.5%

*Key

(01) Yes

(02) No

(03) Possibly, if the price were right.

(04) Possibly not, would be very hard.

(05) Yes, but wouldn’t buy livestock because wouldn’t have the background, knowledge, desire, or land to

run a livestock operation.

(06) No, wouldn’t have the land.

(07) Don’t know

(08) Yes, but not as many

(09) Have to make the effort to afford it.

(10) Probably not, probably wouldn’t want to.

(99) Unknown, don’t know, no opinion.

Table 37—Permittee’s chosen means of saving or investing money (SAVINGS– Ques. 38).

CHOSEN MEANS NUMBER OF VALID

OF SAVING MONEY* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 7 11.3 11.3

02 28 45.2 45.2

03 15 24.2 24.2

04 1 1.6 1.6

05 1 1.6 1.6

06 6 9.7 9.7

07 2 3.2 3.2

08 1 1.6 1.6

09 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(02), (03), and (06) Buy land, improve the ranch, or do both = 79.1%; (04), (05), (07)-(09) Other investments = 9.6%

*Key

(01) A. Putting money in a savings account or other form of money 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

NOTE: The category “D. Other (Please describe.)” had the following responses:

(04) Investing money in a personal business

(05) Means of saving depends on the amount available

(06) B and C

(07) A, B, and C

(08) A and C

(09) Discussion of problems with all the means of saving.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 81

Table 38a—Order of general family goals: Priority order for having more income

and being able to buy more material goods (INCOME – Ques. 39).

ORDER OF FAMILY NUMBER OF VALID

GOALS - INCOME* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 2 3.2 3.3

02 11 17.7 18.3

03 24 38.7 40.0

04 23 37.1 38.3

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 98 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

(98) No response, declined to respond

Table 38b—Order of general family goals: Priority order for having a better quality of life

(QUALITY– Ques. 39).

ORDER OF FAMILY GOALS NUMBER OF VALID

–QUALITY OF LIFE* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 33 53.2 55.0

02 22 35.5 36.7

03 5 8.1 8.3

04 0 0 0

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 98 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

(98) No response, declined to respond

Table 38c—Order of general family goals: Priority order for maintaining traditional values

(TRADVAL– Ques. 39).

ORDER OF FAMILY GOALS NUMBER OF VALID

–TRADITIONAL VALUES* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 25 40.3 41.0

02 24 38.7 39.3

03 10 16.1 16.4

04 2 3.2 3.3

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

(98) No response, declined to respond
82 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 38d—Order of general family goals: Priority order for having more respect in

the community (RESPECT– Ques. 39).

ORDER OF FAMILY NUMBER OF VALID

GOALS – RESPECT* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 1 1.6 1.6

02 3 4.8 5.0

03 21 33.9 35.0

04 35 56.5 58.3

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 98 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

(98) No response, declined to respond

Table 39a—Order of goals for livestock operation: Priority order for increasing overall income and material goods (PROFIT– Ques. 40).

ORDER OF GOALS

FOR LIVESTOCK NUMBER OF VALID

OPERATION– PROFIT* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 3 4.8 4.9

02 8 12.9 13.1

03 14 22.6 23.0

04 36 58.1 59.0

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

(98) No response, declined to respond

Table 39b—Order of goals for livestock operation: Priority order for maintaining family’s

quality of life resulting from owning livestock (FAMLIFE– Ques. 40).

ORDER OF GOALS

FOR LIVESTOCK

OPERATION– FAMILY NUMBER OF VALID

QUALITY OF LIFE* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 35 56.5 57.4

02 17 27.4 27.9

03 6 9.7 9.8

04 3 4.8 4.9

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

(98) No response, declined to respond
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 83

Table 39c—Order of goals for livestock operation: Priority order for avoiding being

forced out of livestock ownership (FORCEOUT – Ques. 40).

ORDER OF GOALS

FOR LIVESTOCK

OPERATION– AVOID NUMBER OF VALID

BEING FORCED OUT* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 20 32.3 32.8

02 21 33.9 34.4

03 14 22.6 23.0

04 6 9.7 9.8

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

(98) No response, declined to respond

Table 39d—Order of goals for livestock operation: Priority order for improving the

livestock operation by obtaining more land, better equipment, and more animals

(IMPROVOP– Ques. 40).

ORDER OF GOALS

FOR LIVESTOCK

OPERATION–

IMPROVEMENT OF NUMBER OF VALID

OPERATION* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 3 4.8 4.9

02 15 24.2 24.6

03 27 43.5 44.3

04 16 25.8 26.2

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key

(01) First

(02) Second

(03) Third

(04) Fourth

(98) No response, declined to respond
84 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 40—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “One of the greatest sources

of pride for a landowner is owning and working the same land all his/her life” (PRIDE

– Ques. 41).

PRIDE IN WORKING NUMBER OF VALID

THE LAND* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 47 75.8 77.0

02 13 21.0 21.3

03 1 1.6 1.6

04 0 0 0

05 0 0 0

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 97 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

(01) and (02) = 98.3%

*Key

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree

Table 41—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “Public lands, such as

national forest or BLM-managed lands, should be managed with equal consideration for the use and enjoyment of all U.S. citizens” (PLAND – Ques. 42).

MANAGEMENT OF NUMBER OF VALID

PUBLIC LANDS* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 11 17.7 19.0

02 18 29.0 31.0

03 8 12.9 13.8

04 15 24.2 25.9

05 6 9.7 10.3

TOTAL 58 93.5 100.0

MISSING 97 1 1.6

MISSING 98 3 4.8

MISSING TOTAL 4 6.5

TOTAL 62 100.0

(01) and (02) = 50%; (04) and (05) = 36.2%

*Key

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree

(98) No response, declined to respond
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 85

Table 42—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “Land that has been in the

family for generations should not be sold” (NOSEL – Ques. 43).

SALE OF NUMBER OF VALID

FAMILY LANDS* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 45 72.6 73.8

02 9 14.5 14.8

03 5 8.1 8.2

04 2 3.2 3.3

05 0 0 0

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

(01) and (02) = 88.6%

*Key

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree

(98) No response, declined to respond

Table 43—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “Landowners should make

it a top priority to hire local workers” (LOCAL – Ques. 44).

PRIORITY TO HIRE NUMBER OF VALID

LOCAL WORKERS* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 23 37.1 37.1

02 21 33.9 33.9

03 15 24.2 24.2

04 2 3.2 3.2

05 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(01) and (02) = 71%

*Key

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree
86 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 44—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “True landownership includes personally working the land (or having members of the family work it),

raising one’s own crops and livestock” (OWNER– Ques. 45).

PERSONALLY

WORKING THE NUMBER OF VALID

LAND* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 35 56.5 56.5

02 26 41.9 41.9

03 0 0 0

04 1 1.6 1.6

05 0 0 0

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(01) and (02) = 98.4%

*Key

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree

Table 45—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “When selling land, the

owner owes it to his/her family to sell to the person who offers the best price even

if that person is not from the local community” (PRICE– Ques. 46).

SELLING TO

SOMEONE FROM

OUTSIDE THE NUMBER OF VALID

COMMUNITY* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 1 1.6 1.7

02 6 9.7 10.0

03 13 21.0 21.7

04 23 37.1 38.3

05 17 27.4 28.3

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 98 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0

(04) and (05) = 66.6%

*Key

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree

(98) No response, declined to respond
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 87

Table 46—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “Public lands, such as national forest or BLM-managed lands, should be managed with greatest consideration for long-time, traditional users” (USERS – Ques. 47).

MANAGEMENT OF

PUBLIC LANDS FOR NUMBER OF VALID

TRADITIONAL USERS* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 40 64.5 64.5

02 20 32.3 32.3

03 2 3.2 3.2

04 0 0 0

05 0 0 0

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(01) and (02) = 96.8%

*Key

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree

Table 47—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “Having money in the bank

or other investments is the best means of providing for your children’s future”

(FUTUR – Ques. 48).

PROVIDING FOR NUMBER OF VALID

CHILDREN’S FUTURE* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 13 21.0 21.3

02 22 35.5 36.1

03 13 21.0 21.3

04 12 19.4 19.7

05 1 1.6 1.6

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

(01) and (02) = 57.4%

*Key

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree

(98) No response, declined to respond
88 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003.

Table 48—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “Landowners should hire the

most qualified workers without regard to where they come from” (LABOR– Ques. 49).

HIRING OF MOST NUMBER OF VALID

QUALIFIED WORKERS* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 6 9.7 10.2

02 27 43.5 45.8

03 9 14.5 15.3

04 17 27.4 28.8

05 0 0 0

TOTAL 59 95.2 100.0

MISSING 97 1 1.6

MISSING 98 2 3.2

MISSING TOTAL 3 4.8

TOTAL 62 100.0

*Key (01) and (02) = 56%

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree

(98) No response, declined to respond

Table 49—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “When selling land, the owner should

make it a top priority to sell to someone within the local community” (SALE– Ques. 50).

SALE OF LAND TO NUMBER OF VALID

LOCAL COMMUNITY* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 21 33.9 35.0

02 24 38.7 40.0

03 10 16.1 16.7

04 4 6.5 6.7

05 1 1.6 1.7

TOTAL 60 96.8 100.0

MISSING 98 2 3.2

TOTAL 62 100.0

(01) and (02) = 75%

*Key

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree

(98) No response, declined to respond
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003. 89

Table 50—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “The legal owner of a piece of

land should be able to manage it however he/she chooses” (LNMAN– Ques. 51).

LANDOWNER NUMBER OF VALID

MANAGEMENT RIGHTS* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 34 54.8 54.8

02 21 33.9 33.9

03 2 3.2 3.2

04 5 8.1 8.1

05 0 0 0

TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0

(01) and (02) = 88.7%

*Key

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree

Table 51—Permittee’s level of agreement with statement “Passing on land to your

children is the best means of providing for their future” (INHER– Ques. 52).

LAND IS BEST WAY

TO PROVIDE FOR NUMBER OF VALID

CHILDREN’S FUTURE* PERMITTEES PERCENT PERCENT

01 33 53.2 54.1

02 18 29.0 29.5

03 8 12.9 13.1

04 2 3.2 3.2

05 0 0 0

TOTAL 61 98.4 100.0

MISSING 98 1 1.6

TOTAL 62 100.0

(01) and (02) = 83.6%

*Key

(01) A. Strongly Agree

(02) B. Agree

(03) C. Neutral

(04) D. Disagree

(05) E. Strongly Disagree

(98) No response, declined to respond
Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A

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.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center, 2150

Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination

in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,

or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio-tape,

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice

or TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office

of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964

(voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper