Economic, social, and cultural aspects of livestock ...Carol Raish is an Anthropologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, NM. She ... generous financial assistance

Economic, Social, and Cultural Aspectsof Livestock Ranching on the Españolaand Canjilon Ranger Districts of theSanta Fe and Carson National Forests:A Pilot Study

Carol Raish

Alice M. McSweeney

United States

Departmentof Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky MountainResearch Station

General TechnicalReport RMRS-GTR-113

September 2003

Abstract

Raish, Carol; McSweeney, Alice M. 2003. Economic, social, and cultural aspects of livestock ranch-

ing 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 prelimi-

nary 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 effective-

ness 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 fami-

lies and communities. It explores the ways in which ranching maintains traditional values and con-

nects 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 Re-

search 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 yourmailing information in label form through one of the following media.

Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail [email protected] site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing address Publications DistributionRocky Mountain Research Station240 West Prospect RoadFort 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 criti-

cal 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 coun-

sel. 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 Techni-

cian 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 question-

naire 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 all-

around 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 Aspectsof Livestock Ranching on the Españolaand Canjilon Ranger Districts of theSanta 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 islong standing, enduring across many generations. Live-stock ownership and ranch life are powerful forces thatbind families and communities, continuing a heritagethat began with Spanish colonization. Owing to thehistory of land use and ownership in the region, manycontemporary ranchers rely to a considerable degreeon public land to graze their animals. Rules and regu-lations governing use of these lands have the potentialto significantly affect the viability and survival of lo-cal livestock operations.

Controversy continues over the use of Federal landsand land management agencies in northern NewMexico, as well as in the Western United States as awhole, which often arises from agency officials’ im-perfect understanding of local sociocultural values andattitudes toward land use. Although Forest Service per-mittee relations have improved in recent years, prob-lems still exist. This is exemplified in northern NewMexico where distinctive custom, culture, and tradi-tion contribute to misunderstanding and conflict.

This pilot study is the first part of a longer term re-search program that will address the problem by gath-ering information on contemporary land managementand use issues among ranchers with Federal grazingpermits. This study, limited to two Ranger Districts ofthe Santa Fe and Carson National Forests, developspreliminary results and tests survey methods that willbe used in the next phase of the research with all per-mittees on the two Forests. The work is intended toassist managers in addressing land management anduse issues now and in the future. It will also be valuableas a public education tool because many residents of theState, especially those newly migrated to both urban andrural areas, are unfamiliar with the primarily Hispanicculture and traditions of northern New Mexico.

Acknowledging the importance of small livestockoperations to area families and communities is crucialfor understanding their way of life and resolving dis-putes over public land and resource use. The study fo-cuses on gathering information on both the economicand noneconomic contributions of livestock ownershipto local families and communities. It explores the ex-tent to which the use of public land for grazing andother purposes provides opportunities for communityinteraction and maintenance of traditional culture.

Those permittees with whom we spoke consider theranching way of life vital to maintaining their culturalheritage and traditional values, as well as to passingthose values on to future generations. There is a strongsense of responsibility to land, livestock, family, andcommunity, with land often viewed as part of the fam-ily, not as something to sell. Keeping land in the fam-ily and upholding traditional values are regarded morehighly than material possessions or monetary gain.

Changing attitudes and values among the generalpublic have the potential to negatively impact the ruralranching way of life in northern New Mexico, with itsties to traditional lands and heritage. The effects ofpopulation growth and urbanization on land values,property taxes, water availability, and attitudes con-cerning ranching and other traditional rural economicactivities require in-depth study. These trends add tothe difficulties the permittees discussed with us con-cerning “making ends meet” and keeping their landsin agricultural use. This becomes increasingly diffi-cult as neighboring lands are sold and subdivided. Theranchers struggle with the problems, challenges, andbenefits of working on both private and public landand fear losing their permits, ranches, and rural cul-tural traditions, which are so heavily dependent uponland 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 to-ward land and livestock enmeshed in family values.Livestock ownership and ranch life are powerful forcesthat bind communities and families. Continuing thisway of life on ancestral lands serves to preserve theculture 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 neces-sary source for livestock grazing. A substantial amountof these lands were formerly granted to or used by lo-cal communities and the ancestors of current permit-tees. Regulations and management decisionsconcerning these lands significantly affect the opera-tion of ranching throughout the area.

SanJuanMtns.

CanjilonPk

SanAntonio

Mtn.

TresPiedras

N

TierraAramilla

Canjilon

Lindrith

Cuba

Ojo Caliente

Embudo

San

gre

deM

tns.

Chr

isto

Abiquiu

Coyote Canones

CerroPedernal

El Rito

Questa

Taos

Elizabethtown

OcateTrampas

San JuanChicoma

PkJemez

SandiaMtns.

Mtns.

Espanola ChimayoSanta Cruz

Pojoaque

TruchasMora

Ft. Union

WatrousSapello

Rociada

Las Vegas

Gallina River

PecosRiver

Rio Pueblo

Pecos

Pecos

Glorieta

Tesuque

Nambe

Yapashi

Jemez

CityTownPuebloPuebloRuins

Isleta

Cochiti

Coyote

SanFelipe

SantaAna

Miles0 5 10 15 20 25

0 10 20 30 40KilometersManzanoMtns.

SanIdelonso

SantaClaraPuye

LosAlamos

Galisteo

Rio

Gra

nde

Rio

Pue

rco

Rio

Rio

Mora River

Gra

ndeChama

San Miguel

Albuquerque

Santo Domingo

Nac

imie

nto

Mtn

s.

Santa Fe

Sandia

Taos

Taos PkBaldy Pk

PicurisPk

JicaritaPk

Wheeler Pk

HermitPk

LakePk

Truchas Pk

Picuris

Chama

Colorado

New Mexico

107 Wo

107 Wo 106 Wo 105 Wo

106 Wo 37o

Dulce

N

NN

NN

36o36o

35o35o

Map Area

NewMexico

~

Figure 1—North-central NewMexico, adapted from de Buys(1985).


Today controversy continues over the role of Fed-eral lands and land management agencies in the West-ern United States, where considerable amounts of landare under Federal control. The State of New Mexico isno 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 con-trolled. Together, the USDI Bureau of Land Manage-ment (BLM) and the USDA Forest Service (USFS)manage 52 percent of the land in Rio Arriba County and53 percent in Taos County (Eastman and others 2000).

Much of the debate over Federal land use occursbecause land managing agencies have not adequatelyemphasized and monitored sociocultural attitudes to-ward land valuation and use. The Española/Canjilonstudy addresses this problem by exploring contempo-rary land management, valuation, and use issues withintheir cultural context among ranchers with Federalgrazing permits (permittees) on National Forest landsin northern New Mexico.

Understanding the importance of livestock opera-tions to area families and communities is crucial tocomprehending and resolving disputes over public landand resource use. This study examines the economic,social, and cultural aspects and contributions of thegenerally small livestock operations on the Españolaand Canjilon Ranger Districts of the Santa Fe andCarson National Forests of northern New Mexico. Forthis 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 extrasmall. The number of animal units (AUs) is about 1.35times the number of mature cows on a cow/calf ranch.An AUY is the amount of forage consumed by 1 AU in1 year (Torell and others 1998).

The study focuses on gathering information on boththe economic and noneconomic contributions of live-stock ownership to local families and communities. Inother purposes allows communities to maintain socialcohesion and traditional culture. Local attitudes towardland management agencies and policies are examined.Some comparisons to previously collected informationfrom the general area are also made.

Research on the two Districts serves as a pilot studyto test the research design and data collection methodsthat will be used in a larger study planned to includelivestock operations and grazing permittees on allRanger Districts of the two Forests (Raish 1999). Re-sults from the present study are used to evaluate andrefine research questions for the larger study bydeveloping new topics and questions, and by deleting

inappropriate topics. Although this pilot study providesvaluable information to assist managers in addressingland management and use issues, it represents onlythose who were interviewed for this initial portion ofthe project. These data cannot be generalized to non-participating permittees from the two Districts, to thetwo Forests, or to northern New Mexico as a whole.Methodological aspects of the study are discussed indetail in a separate section of this report.

To understand the problems and issues of livestockgrazing on public lands in New Mexico, it is necessaryto explore the historical background of land valuation,use, and ownership in the area. Because contemporaryproblems and controversies often have their roots inthe past, this orientation clarifies the role of historicalpractices and events in shaping current practices, is-sues, and disputes. In the remainder of this section wediscuss not only the history of the area, but in somecases how that history helped mold our methods forthe current and future phases of our research.

Spanish and Mexican Periods

Many of the small livestock operations in northernNew Mexico are owned by Hispano families, regionalresidents since well before United States conquest in1848.

The Hispano ranching tradition began with Spanishcolonization in 1598 but did not become fully devel-oped until after the reconquest of 1692 through 1696(Earls 1985; Simmons 1979; Wozniak 1995). WhenJuan de Oñate colonized what is now New Mexico in1598, he brought European domesticated plants andanimals, including cattle, sheep, goats, and horses(Baxter 1987; Hammond and Rey 1953). In additionto their domesticates, the Spanish introduced new tech-nologies and subsistence strategies into the existingNative American agricultural system. The settlerschanged indigenous farming practices, which had re-lied on extensive floodwater farming using water con-trol and soil retention techniques, to more intensiveirrigation agriculture from major watercourses (Earls1985; Wozniak 1995).

During the 1600s, Pueblo Indian populations in theregion declined mainly because of introduced diseasesand famine, caused by a series of severe droughts anddestruction of food stores by raids from nomadic In-dian groups. As the Puebloan population declined, thetribute and labor requirements of the colonists becameincreasingly onerous. These conditions, along withforced relocations and missionization, led to the PuebloRevolt of 1680. During this rebellion, the vast majority


of the Spanish were forced out of the Upper Rio Grandefor 12 years. The settlers returned between 1692 and1696 when Diego de Vargas initiated and completedthe Spanish reconquest of New Mexico (Simmons1979).

Hispano populations rose throughout the 1700s toapproximately 25,000 by the later part of the century.Even so, the significant population declines of thePuebloan groups left a sufficient amount of land forboth groups to farm and ranch along the main water-ways and their tributaries (Simmons 1979). After thereconquest, the economic, political, and religious sys-tems of New Mexico were different from the prerevoltsystems. The new generation of Spanish colonists wereaccomplished agriculturalists and stock raisers whogenerally worked their own land and maintained rela-tively cordial relations with the Pueblo Indian groupsas both used the land in similar ways (Simmons 1979).The descendants of these people are the Hispanic vil-lagers and farmers of northern New Mexico.

During the Spanish Colonial (1598 to 1821) andMexican (1821 to 1848) periods, land ownership anduse were confirmed by land grants from the SpanishCrown or Mexican government. There were varioustypes of land grants, but community grants, in whichgroups of settlers used portions of the grant in com-mon, are of particular interest because they are a ma-jor land ownership issue in the area today (Eastmanand others 1971; Harper and others 1943). Within com-munity grants, settlers received individually ownedbuilding sites and agricultural plots of irrigated land,which were often quite small, averaging from 5 to 10acres (Van Ness 1987). They tended to grow evensmaller as they were divided for purposes of inherit-ance. The farmers also used the village grazing lands,timberlands, and community pastures as common lands(Eastman and others 1971). Because kinsmen oftenworked their fields cooperatively and herded their ani-mals together, they were able to subsist on the small-sized, scattered agricultural plots.

Throughout the Colonial period, a subsistence, agro-pastoral economy based in small, scattered villagesexisted along the Rio Grande and its tributaries. Raidsfrom nomadic Apache, Navajo, Ute, and Comanchelimited range expansion and travel for commerce andtrade (Clark 1987; Van Ness 1987). Thus, the villag-ers’ main goal was production for local subsistence,not competition in a commercial market. The commu-nity of Cañones (Kutsche and Van Ness 1981; Van Ness1987) provides a good description of ranching andfarming in the Hispanic villages. Both animal and plantproduction formed parts of a mixed farming system,with sheep and goats most frequently used as food.

Livestock were used for plowing, threshing, transport-ing produce, and manuring fields. The community stockwere individually owned but cooperatively grazed.They were moved into the higher elevation pasturesduring the spring and summer and returned to the vil-lage after the harvest to graze and manure the stubblefields.

Livestock numbers were not great for the first 2 cen-turies after the conquest. In these early years sheep weremore numerous than cattle, in part due to sale and lossof the latter to nomadic Indian groups (Gonzales 1969).In the early 1800s, the number of sheep increased asthe Spanish population expanded eastward onto theplains, across the Sandia and Manzano Mountains, andwestward from the Rio Grande Valley. This movementcoincided with the growing trade in wool and sheepduring the Mexican period (Eastman and others 2000).

Although concentrations of sheep and cattle nearvillages produced some scattered areas of overuse dur-ing Spanish Colonial times (Baxter 1987; Scurlock1995), herds were generally small in proportion to theland base (Rothman 1989). Thus, relatively small popu-lations of subsistence farmers and their animals suc-cessfully used the resources of the region during thelong period of Spanish control (Raish 2000).

Areas of overutilization increased during the Mexi-can period as commercial sheep production increased(Scurlock 1995). However, the large majority of op-erations remained small and subsistence-oriented dur-ing this period. As an example, Rothman (1989)describes use of the Pajarito Plateau west of Santa Fein the following way. Throughout the 1800s, local His-panic and Pueblo residents of the nearby valleys usedthe plateau as common property, bringing their smallherds to the plateau for summer grazing. They alsoharvested from the abundant timber resources for per-sonal use and small-scale business ventures and plantedsome summer crops. The small size and noncommercialnature of these operations ensured that sufficient grassand forest resources remained for all who needed them.

American Period

Both patterns of land ownership and use changedsubstantially after United States conquest of the regionduring the Mexican-American War of 1846 through1848. Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, theUnited States agreed to recognize the property rightsof the resident Hispano population. To obtain valid landtitles according to U.S. law, however, land granteeshad to petition for title confirmation, at first throughthe Surveyor General to the Congress and after 1891


to the Court of Private Land Claims (Griswold delCastillo 1990). To accomplish this, claimants often hadto hire an attorney, file their claim, and locate requiredsupporting documents. As stated by Eastman(1991:103): “...landholders were turned into claimantswho had to incur a substantial expense to have theirproperty respected.” Money was scarce in the subsis-tence economy of the region, so many landholderssigned over portions of their land to pay legal fees.Thus, even successful claimants lost substantialamounts of land because legal fees often accounted forfrom one-third to one-half of the land involved (Eastman1991). In addition, many land claims were rejected; ap-proximately 24 percent of the acres claimed in NewMexico were confirmed compared to about 73 percent inCalifornia (Ebright 1987, discussed in Raish 2000).

The Surveyor General and the Court of Private LandClaims refused to confirm grants for various reasons.Boundaries were sometimes vague, original titles mayhave been lost, and communal ownership of pastureand woodlands ran counter to 19th century Americanconcepts of private ownership (Eastman and others1971). Often, the court confirmed house lands and ir-rigated farmland but did not confirm community pas-tures and woodlands, also part of the grant, which hadalways provided the Hispano villagers with their maingrazing and fuel wood resources. Lands from uncon-firmed claims became part of the public domain.

Ebright (1987), Griswold del Castillo (1990), andEastman (1991) argue that, in many cases, the U.S.government did not honor the intent of the treaty andrelated documents that land grants in the ceded territo-ries should be recognized. The government adoptedan approach that some consider legalistic and restric-tive toward land claims in the State (Griswold delCastillo 1990). Although fraudulent claims definitelyshould have been rejected, many potentially legitimateclaims were also rejected, often on the basis of docu-mentation that was incomplete or inconsistent. Claimsfrom residents who had occupied their land for gen-erations were denied because of lost or inconsistentdocuments (Eastman 1991). Villagers also lost consid-erable amounts of confirmed land because they couldnot pay property taxes under the American system ofmonetary tax payments, which differed in significantways from prior systems of payment in agriculturalproducts. Unscrupulous land speculation by bothAnglos and Hispanos, which was often upheld by thecourts, also resulted in land loss (de Buys 1985, dis-cussed in Raish 2000).

Land grant loss remains an issue of bitter contro-versy to this day, with initiatives presented at regularintervals to Congress recommending further study of

the problem. Most recently, the General AccountingOffice (GAO) has undertaken a study of communityland grants in New Mexico (GAO 2001) at the requestof several members of the New Mexico Congressionaldelegation. It remains to be seen what, if any, actionwill result from this effort.

Today much of the former grant land in northernNew Mexico is managed by Federal agencies, prima-rily the USDA Forest Service (USFS). Many of theselands came into Federal control after being degradedin one form or another by large commercial ranchingor timbering operations that occurred after alienationfrom the original Hispano owners (Eastman and oth-ers 1971; Rothman 1989). Nonlocal corporate inter-ests generally owned these enterprises (Wildeman andBrock 2000). When the commercial operations wereno longer profitable, the land was often sold to thegovernment. In this way, the Carson and Santa Fe Na-tional Forests include all or portions of various formerland grants that were mainly used as community rangeand woodland by local villages (de Buys 1985; Eastmanand others 1971; Gonzales 1969). Of these Forests, 22consist of confirmed Spanish and Mexican land grantswith additional land coming from claimed but uncon-firmed grants (de Buys 1985; Hurst 1972). Currently,many local ranchers have grazing permits on the twoForests, but since they are often descendants of formergrantees, many resent government restrictions and pay-ment to use land they consider part of their ancestralheritage.

The Forest Service began to address problems ofland condition in the early part of the 20th century. Be-ginning in the 1920s and accelerating from the 1940sthrough the 1960s, livestock ranching on the two For-ests changed significantly as the economy changed andthe Forest Service introduced range improvement pro-grams, many of which were thought by local stock rais-ers to be harsh and poorly explained. There was acontinuous decline in the number of grazing permitsand the number of animals permitted. On the Carsonand Santa Fe National Forests there were 2,200 indi-viduals holding permits in 1940, which by 1970 hadbeen reduced to fewer than 1,000 (de Buys 1985).

With declines in the numbers of animals permittedto graze on the two Forests, the small subsistence ranch-ers suffered increasing limitations on their herd sizesover the years. One community had herd reductions of60 percent , while the ranchers of another lost permitsfor 1,000 cattle in a period of a few years (de Buys1985). Free-use permits, issued for animals such as milkcows and draft horses, were phased out by 1980. Alsoduring this period, there were massive declines in thenumbers of sheep and goats under permit. By 1980,


there were no goats on either Forest and no sheep onthe Santa Fe (de Buys 1985; Van Ness 1987).

These significant changes came about both as a re-sult of Forest Service direction and changing economicconditions, as the region shifted from a subsistence-based to a cash-based economy. Land losses and herdsize cutbacks undoubtedly pushed many people intothe cash-based economy of wage work (West 1982).Over the years there was a notable trend toward per-mit consolidation, which led to fewer permittees withlarger herds. Although there were definite issues ofrangeland health, the livelihoods of many villagers wereaffected by reductions in permittee numbers, sheeppermit reductions, loss of free-use permits, and restric-tions on goats. This is reflected in statements from theresidents of Cañones that Forest Service administra-tion favored large-scale ranching and was often notcompatible with the subsistence needs of local com-munities (Kutsche and Van Ness 1981).

Our discussions with local community leadersshowed that an examination of the contemporary roleof ranching in northern New Mexico requires an as-sessment of the economic impact of these prior reduc-tions in AUMs. One suggestion was to compare currenteconomic conditions and an economic situation thatmight exist had animal numbers not been reduced. Thismatter is important because, if land base and animalnumbers had not been reduced, the economy of north-ern New Mexico might today be quite different. Withretention of former animal numbers and a sufficientland base, ranches might currently operate at a higherlevel of production. There might be less necessity forsecondary employment, allowing more time and ef-fort to be devoted to the livestock operation. An in-crease in profits would provide the freedom andincentive to carry out innovations and improvements,leading to greater credibility and financial returns tosupport industries and the community as a whole. Datato model such a scenario do not currently exist. Futurephases of the research will be directed toward obtain-ing this information, if feasible.

Discontent over Federal grazing policies, lost grantlands, and general economic decline in the region ledto protest movements in the 1960s.The most wellknown of the protest groups, the Alianza Federal deMercedes (later called the Alianza Federal de los Pueb-los Libres or simply the Alianza), was led by Reies

López Tijerina. A series of incidents involving the groupincluded an attempt at a so-called “citizens arrest” atthe courthouse in Tierra Amarilla that led to violence.There was also a takeover of the Echo Amphitheater camp-ground, which brought national attention and news cov-erage. Two of the main goals of the group’s actions wereto bring the problem of land grant loss to national atten-tion and to address grievances concerning managementof grazing on the National Forests (deBuys 1985).

The violence of these protests caused the ForestService to reexamine its policies in northern NewMexico, resulting in The People of Northern NewMexico and the National Forests, commonly knownas the Hassell Report (Hassell 1968). The unpublishedreport recommended 99 measures, of which 26 relatedto grazing, to improve economic and environmentalconditions in the area. Some measures were imple-mented, and some progress was made. In addition, theForest Service developed a special policy for manag-ing the National Forests of northern New Mexico.

The Southwestern Policy on Managing NationalForest Lands in the Northern Part of New Mexico, orthe Northern New Mexico Policy, was oriented tostressing the importance of valuing the Hispanic andIndian cultures of the Southwest (Hurst 1972). Policyimplementation, which was periodically reviewed, wasbased on the recommendations of the Hassell Report(1968). After the last review in 1981, the agency de-cided that a separate policy statement was no longerneeded and that further implementation would bethrough regional and Forest mission statements and plans(Hassell 1981). Difficulties with implementing recommen-dations of the policy are discussed by Raish (1997).

Problems remain in the area, and many of the situa-tions discussed in the Hassell Report (1968) have notimproved. Severe poverty, disappearance of traditionallife ways, and environmental degradation are still ma-jor concerns. Unfortunately, the authors have found thatmany Forest Service employees some three decadeslater are unaware of the Hassell Report (1968) and theconditions that led to its development. Although therehave been recent efforts to develop regional culturalawareness programs and hire managerial level employ-ees from the region, a need remains for training in thecultural traditions and social values of northern NewMexico. Significant misunderstandings persist, and thepotential for conflict remains.


Study Site Selection

The present study is designed to provide much-needed information concerning the culture and eco-nomic practices of the region for agency employees,policymakers, and the general public. Two Ranger Dis-tricts were chosen for the initial study, Española on theSanta Fe National Forest and Canjilon on the CarsonNational Forest. The Española Ranger District wasselected first for this initial study because it is a goodexample of livestock operations in northern NewMexico and, in particular, on the Santa Fe and CarsonNational Forests. After discussions with range staff,the study was broadened to include the Canjilon RangerDistrict of the Carson National Forest to give repre-sentation to that Forest also (D. Case, personal com-munication, 1997). Although carefully selected, thesetwo Districts cannot be assumed to represent the twoForests or the general area in any statistical sense.

At the time of research design development, therewere nine active grazing allotments on the EspañolaRanger District, ranging from approximately 7,000 to73,000 acres. On the Santa Fe Forest as a whole, allot-ments typically range from approximately 4,000 to100,000 acres. Virtually all the Española allotmentshave more than one permittee, ranging from twothrough 16. Of the active allotments on the Santa Fe,70 percent have more than one permittee, with a rangeof two through 20. Of the 17 listed grazing associa-tions on the Santa Fe, six occur on the Española Dis-trict.

Of the 55 people with Forest Service permits on theEspañola District, 30 (55 percent) have permitted headnumbers from one to 25, 11 have 26 to 50 (20 per-cent), and 14 have 51 to 100 (25 percent). Españolaexemplifies the common allotment pattern of the north-ern New Mexican Forests, typified by small herd sizes,shared allotments, and organized grazing associations(Raish 1999). This pattern is consistent with the gen-eral area, having small and extra small cattle opera-tions (as defined earlier) comprising 87 percent of theranches in Rio Arriba County and 96 percent in TaosCounty (Eastman and others 2000). Multiple-permitallotments (referred to as community allotments), small

herd sizes per permittee, and grazing associations ofpermittees show continuing communal range use innorthern New Mexico.

The Canjilon Ranger District, with its 57 permit-tees, was recommended for study by range staff on theCarson. At the time of data collection in 1999, Canjilonhad 10 active grazing allotments ranging from approxi-mately 300 to 43,000 acres. Five of the allotments (50percent) have more than one permittee (ranging fromtwo through 25), with five having one permittee. TheDistrict’s grazing associations occur on the allotmentswith the most permittees. The majority of herds rangefrom four to 250 animals with six operations having100 or more head of cattle (sheep operations are largerand are discussed in following sections of this report).The largest herds per permittee occur on the allotmentswith only one permittee. Of the 71 allotments on theCarson, 40 percent have more than one permittee, rang-ing from two through 25. There are 24 grazing asso-ciations on the Carson (Raish 1999). Canjilon providescontrast with Española, having more single-permitteeallotments with larger herd sizes, while still havingmany of the relatively small-sized livestock operationstypical of northern New Mexico (Raish 1999).

Information on range figures from the Santa Fe andCarson National Forests was obtained from range datatables provided by Jerry Elson, Range and WildlifeStaff (retired) on the Santa Fe National Forest; SylviaValdez, Resource Assistant on the Santa Fe NationalForest; Don Case, Range, Wildlife, Fish, Soil, Air, andWater Staff (retired) on the Carson National Forest;and Lorraine Montoya, Resource Assistant on theCarson National Forest.

Data Collection

Development of the Questionnaire and DiscussionQuestions—Following the format of prior studies inthe region (Eastman and others 1971, 1979; Gray 1974),data collection is organized around a written question-naire, supplemented by a personal interview (appen-dix A). The questions are grouped to elicit the followingcategories of information:

Methods


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 house-hold economy.

d. Contribution of the livestock operation to maintain-ing the cultural and traditional values of the family.

e. Contribution of the livestock operation to the family’sparticipation in the social network of the community.

The questionnaire consists of 52 questions dividedinto seven sections. Two sections request demographicinformation and descriptive information on livestockoperations. Questions on age, education, employment,primary language spoken in the household, and yearsof residence in the area provide demographic data. In-formation on livestock operations consists of questionsconcerning the number of years the permittee and hisor her family have owned livestock and have had For-est Service or Bureau of Land Management grazingpermits. The number and type of animals owned arealso requested. A third section deals with costs andbenefits of owning livestock with questions focusedon the costs of the livestock operation and on the eco-nomic contribution of the livestock to family income.In addition, use of the animals and their by-productsfor household consumption and exchange with rela-tives and neighbors is included.

The remaining four sections emphasize social andcultural contributions of livestock ownership, includ-ing the reasons for owning livestock, community ac-tivities related to owning livestock, a rancher’spreferred means of saving money, uses of the moneyearned from the livestock operation, and plans to usethe livestock operation as a retirement activity. Ques-tions also elicit information on the role of livestockownership in selecting a place of residence, the socialand business activities that result from livestock own-ership, and whether a permittee grazes cattle with rela-tives or neighbors or both.

A section on family goals requests respondents toprioritize statements concerning increasing family in-come, increasing the quality of life, maintaining tradi-tional lifestyles and values, and having greater respectwithin the community. Another question asks respon-dents to prioritize family goals for the livestock opera-tion, such as making more money from the operation,increasing the family’s quality of life, avoiding beingforced out of ranching, and increasing the size of theoperation. The section on land ownership and useattitudes contains questions concerning the merits of

hiring local versus nonlocal workers, selling land tolocal versus nonlocal buyers, and managing Federallands primarily for the benefit of local residents or forusers and tourists from other parts of the country. Otherquestions deal with ranchers’ willingness to sell inher-ited land and their views on what factors constitute landownership.

Consultation with expert researchers in the field, aswell as published information on prior research andinformation-gathering strategies, are used to assesscontent and face validity of the questionnaire questions(Babbie 1990, 1995; Eastman and Gray 1987; Eastmanand others 1971, 1979; Fowler and others 1994; Liefer1970). Drs. Clyde Eastman (retired) and John Fowler,Department of Agricultural Economics, New MexicoState University, reviewed a draft of the questionnaireand suggested revisions, which were made. With theirpermission, relevant questions from prior surveysundertaken in their research are incorporated intothe present questionnaire. Dr. Don Case, ForestRange, Wildlife, Fish, Soil, Air, and Water StaffOfficer (retired) on the Carson National Forest, whoholds a Ph.D. degree in rural sociology, also re-viewed the questionnaire. In addition, the followingForest Service range personnel examined and com-mented on the instrument: David Stewart, RangeAdministration, Southwest Regional Office; GeorgeMartinez, Rural Community Assistance ProgramManager, Southwest Regional Office; Jerry Elson,Range and Wildlife Staff Officer (retired), Santa FeNational Forest; David Manzanares, Range andWatershed Staff, Española Ranger District, Santa FeNational Forest (currently with the Natural Re-sources Conservation Service); and Cipriano Maez,Range Technician, Canjilon Ranger District, CarsonNational Forest.

Reliability of the questionnaire is increased by theuse of questions/measures that have proved reliable inprior studies. Reliability will also be assessed by usingthe present study on the two Ranger Districts as a ba-sis of comparison to the responses from the plannedlarger study to be conducted on all Ranger Districts ofthe two Forests (discussed in Babbie 1990, 1995). Therationale for selecting all the permittees from theEspañola and Canjilon Districts as an alternate popu-lation with similar characteristics for the pilot study isdiscussed in the previous section. Because all permit-tees from the two Districts are offered the opportunityto participate in the pilot, and all permittees from thetwo Forests will be offered the opportunity to partici-pate in the proposed larger study, there is no need totest a sampling design.


The pilot is being used to assess the clarity and in-ternal consistency of the questions, as well as their rel-evance and complexity (Babbie 1990, 1995). Many ofthe questions have been used in prior studies and haveproved useful and reliable (Babbie 1990, 1995;Eastman and others 1971, 1979; Fowler and others1994; Liefer 1970). Reviewers have already com-mented on these issues in their examinations of draftinstruments. Their suggestions have been implemented.These issues are discussed in greater detail in follow-ing sections of this report.

The six discussion, or personal interview, questionsconstitute an informal, more ethnographically orientedportion of the study (Spradley 1979). They are designedto allow respondents to discuss their own views, feel-ings, and problems. Respondents can provide otherinformation if they wish, focus on only one or twoquestions, or skip a question or parts of a question. Noresponses to these questions are examined using sta-tistical data manipulation techniques; they are not usedin a formal attitude survey or assessment. These ques-tions are intended to give a personalized picture of theranchers and their varying views and concerns, serv-ing as a background for the formal study.

Questionnaire and Discussion Question Administra-tion—For approximately 1 year prior to beginning datacollection, Raish spoke with Forest and District per-sonnel, community members, and grazing permitteesat association meetings discussing the proposed projectand soliciting input from those who would be involved.At the time of data collection, there were 55 permit-tees with active grazing allotments on the EspañolaDistrict and 57 on the Canjilon District for a total of112. All permittees were offered the opportunity toparticipate in the project.

Before beginning data collection, Raish andMcSweeney mailed each permittee a cover letter (ap-pendix B) in English and Spanish explaining the projectalong with a copy of the questionnaire, so that peoplewould have an opportunity to review it. The reviewquestionnaire is in English, but our letter states thatthe questionnaire is available in Spanish and the dis-cussion or interview questions are also available inSpanish. We then called each permittee with a listedtelephone number to determine if he/she wished toparticipate in the project. We scheduled times andplaces at the convenience of the permittee to person-ally administer the questionnaire and discuss the inter-view questions for those who wished to participate.We chose to personally administer the questionnaireto maximize response rate, clarify questions, and

assess “problem” or inappropriate questions that shouldbe removed for the planned larger study. Prior discus-sions with community members and Forest Servicestaff also indicated that response to a mailed question-naire would probably be extremely low. Those permit-tees without listed telephone numbers were sent astamped, addressed envelope and a form to return tous indicating interest. Of the six with no listed tele-phone number, one participated in the project.

McSweeney and Raish administered the question-naire and conducted the interviews together in the vastmajority of cases with Raish going through the ques-tionnaire with the respondents. Owing to schedulingconflicts, Raish conducted a few of the sessions alone.We used this strategy to minimize possible problemscaused by different interviewers interpreting or clari-fying questions in different ways, which might leadto bias in responses. The entire questionnaire andinterview process generally lasted from 1.5 to 2.5hours. Our following discussion of ranch life is basedon the information we received from those who par-ticipated in the study and does not represent anyother permittees.

In all, 62 (55 percent) permittees from the two Dis-tricts participated in the project by completing ques-tionnaires. All but three of these also participated inpersonal interviews. The group consisted of 29 (53percent) from Española and 33 (58 percent) fromCanjilon. Nonrespondents included persons who de-clined to participate, those with listed telephone num-bers whom we were unable to reach after severalattempts, and those without listed telephone numbers whodid not respond to the written request to participate.

We are in the process of using the information fromthis initial study to revise and redesign both the ques-tionnaire and the discussion questions to improve clar-ity, relevance, and simplicity and eliminate redundancyin the information collection instruments for the pro-posed larger study. For example, project participantsanswered the majority of the questions in a straight-forward manner with little hesitation. Many of the ques-tions elicited supplementary comment, providingadditional information to the responses. As will benoted in subsequent discussions, a few questions didrequire some explanation and clarification on the partof the interviewers. One question in particular, involv-ing amounts of money spent on range improvements(30), proved too complex and time consuming to beanswered within the framework of the interview pro-cess. Thus, this question will not be discussed in thereport. Alternative means of obtaining this type of in-formation will be developed for the larger study.


Data Entry and Analysis

All interview notes from the discussion questionstaken by both McSweeney and Raish were transcribedand entered into the computer anonymously (preserv-ing the anonymity of the respondents) as were the ques-tionnaire responses. The questionnaire coding systemwas developed with an eye toward preserving as muchresponse variability as realistically possible and includ-ing clarifications and other information provided bythe ranchers during questionnaire administration. Raishcoded all responses to questionnaire items and enteredthem into the database. Although only one researchercoded all questionnaire responses and performed alldata entry, variability and errors can occur as the datarecording process proceeds. Thus, a 10 percent “grab”sample of six questionnaires was recoded to determineif code selections remained the same on the secondcoding. The sample consisted of three Española andthree Canjilon questionnaires including those fromearly, middle, and late in the data coding process. Therecoding identified nine of the 103 variables (derivedfrom the 52 questions) as showing coding problemson one or more of the sampled questionnaires. Thus,these problem variables were reexamined on all ques-tionnaires. In addition, all data entries were proofed

for typographical errors and other data entry mistakesof this nature.

Responses derived from the discussion questionsprovide a background for issues and concerns, present-ing the kind of personal, although anonymous, infor-mation that lends credence, reality, and a human faceto the more “numbers-oriented” data gathered from thequestionnaire. These discussion questions are identi-fied as interview questions with their number as theyappear throughout the report. The 52 questions on thequestionnaire cover attitudes and values as well as di-rect descriptive and demographic information. Thesequestions are also identified throughout the text by theircorresponding number.

The demographic data, information on livestock op-erations, and descriptions of the economic, social, andcultural contributions of livestock operations derivedfrom this study are summarized using basic descrip-tive statistics. These include percentages of occurrencefor the discrete variables (rounded to the nearest wholenumber within the text), with frequencies and measuresof central tendency and dispersion presented for the con-tinuous variables. Data tables containing this informationare located in appendix C. Preliminary comparisons be-tween selected responses from the present study and thosefrom earlier studies are made to assess possible changesin the role of livestock operations over time.


There is a considerable body of work that providesa valuable framework for assessing and understandingthe economic, social, and cultural role of livestockoperations in the communities of the north. BothMcSweeney (1995) and Atencio (2001) have inter-viewed ranchers concerning their views and attitudesabout the ranching way of life and its role in maintain-ing traditional culture and heritage. Anthropologicalcommunity studies (such as Kutsche and Van Ness1981), land grant studies (such as Briggs and Van Ness1987), and specific studies of livestock operations (suchas Eastman and Gray 1987; Fowler and others 1994)have been undertaken.

Since the 1970s, there has been increasing researchon land grants and land grant problems in New Mexico.These works describe land grant history, examine therole of community grant lands in village subsistencepractices, and explore the economic effects of landgrant loss. A summary discussion of land grant studiesordered by legal, historical, anthropological, or politi-cal orientation is given in Briggs and Van Ness (1987).Such studies provide the necessary background forunderstanding public land use disputes, given that muchof the Federal land is former grant land.

Various studies (discussed in Eastman and others2000) describe contemporary community organization,traditional culture, farming, and stock raising in north-central New Mexico, including the ways in which com-munities have responded to changing governments andpatterns of land ownership (Gonzales 1969; Knowlton1961, 1967; Kutsche 1983; Sanchez 1940; Swadesh1974; Van Ness 1976, 1987). Excellent community-specific studies include those of Leonard and Loomis(1941) on El Cerrito, and Kutsche and Van Ness (1981)on Cañones. Forrest (1989) examines the effects ofDepression Era and New Deal programs on the His-panic villages of the area. Part II of Weigle’s 1975 re-print of the 1935 Tewa Basin Study consists of anextensive bibliography of studies on Hispanic NewMexico (Weigle 1975).

The Tewa Basin Study itself “...was among the firstand most ambitious of government efforts to exploresociocultural and environmental variables,” providing“an indispensable foundation for any discussion of

social change and rural culture in northern NewMexico” (Weigle 1975:viii). The study provides infor-mation on 32 Hispanic communities of the area duringthe mid-1930s, including information on farming andraising livestock.

In addition to these studies, specific studies of ranch-ing operations have been conducted, primarily byeconomists, rural sociologists, and anthropologistsfrom New Mexico State University. Their work exam-ines the economic benefits of small farms and ranches,the attitudes and values of ranchers and farmers, andthe economics of community grazing on both privateand public lands (Eastman and Gray 1987; Eastmanand others 1971, 1979; Fowler and others 1994; Gray1974). Statewide agricultural economic research byFowler and associates (Fowler and others 1994; Fowlerand Torell 1985) also contains sections that pertain tothe northern region of the State.

As Eastman and others (2000) discuss, contempo-rary ranching operations in northern New Mexico aregenerally small. Even in prior years, when people weremore dependent upon agriculture, the majority of op-erations were small. Several descriptions of commu-nities in the 1930s drawn from the Tewa Basin Studyserve as good examples of this long-standing pattern(Weigle 1975). The village of Cundiyo was describedas having 21 families with 175 cattle, ranging fromone to 19 per family. Seventeen families owned 31horses. There were also 12 sheep and three goats in thevillage. Corn was the most important crop; other cropsincluded beans, chili, squash, and fruit. Each ownerworked his or her own land with neighbors cleaningirrigation ditches together and helping each other dur-ing planting, harvesting, and house building. No onehired outside help (Weigle 1975, discussed in Eastmanand others 2000).

During the study, the village of El Rito comprised210 families. The average farm had 8 acres with sizesranging from 2 to 71 acres. Main crops were beans,wheat, and alfalfa. According to the study, the farmersand ranchers had more range for livestock than othercommunities in the area using both private grant landand permits on the Carson National Forest. Villagersowned 607 head of cattle and 500 horses. The largest

Prior Research


herd numbered 78 cattle and eight horses with the av-erage family having one team of horses and three headof cattle. Three ranchers had a total of 3,260 sheep,and one family owned 300 goats. The sheep grazedpart of the year on the Forest, while the goats rangedyearlong on the private grant land (Weigle 1975, dis-cussed in Eastman and others 2000).

The community of Truchas was divided into threescattered groupings of dwellings consisting of approxi-mately 200 families. The principal crop at the time ofthe study was wheat with other crops including peas,potatoes, and beans. The farmers also cultivated sub-stantial amounts of alfalfa and owned 200 head ofcattle, 200 horses, 50 sheep, and 1,100 goats. One manowned a herd of 200 goats. Cattle herds ranged fromone to 20 with an average of three head. Only about 60families owned cattle. Animals grazed on private grantland (Weigle 1975, discussed in Eastman and others 2000).

In 1967, Kutsche and Van Ness conducted ethno-graphic research in the village of Cañones, which atthat time had 30 households. The primary crops werealfalfa and pasture, along with grain and garden veg-etables. As the authors stated: “Since forage is so scarce,it is economic for landowners to devote most of theirirrigated land to their livestock, which requires rela-tively little labor, and to spend their own time earningwages elsewhere” (Kutsche and Van Ness 1981:36,discussed in Eastman and others 2000). Cattle weregrazed under permit on the National Forest during the5.5 months grazing season and were on private pas-ture and feed during the remainder of the year. Eigh-teen families had no cattle, while one had two cows,six had between five and eight, four had between 10and 20, and one had over 20. There were also 10 sheepand one goat in the village, and 10 families owned

27 horses. The 1967 study showed a trend away fromdependence on farm produce toward full-time outsideemployment combined with stock raising and a kitchengarden. This trend has increased in recent years as dem-onstrated by 1980 figures that showed a higher pro-portion of adult males commuting to work than inprevious years–four to Española and two to Los Alamos(Kutsche and Van Ness 1981).

Other research, also conducted primarily in the1970s and 1960s on small-scale cattle operations, dem-onstrated that although domesticated animals wereimportant components of household economy, most ofthe small operators no longer depended on their cropsand animals for their full support. They generally hadoutside jobs or were retired. The function of the live-stock herd was not purely economic. They were usedas a partial subsistence and back-up resource and as ameans of saving for hard times or special expenses.The animals also added to economic security by pro-viding meat no matter what the market price or thecondition of family finances (Eastman and Gray 1987).

In addition to the economic considerations, the ani-mals served important social and cultural functions.The small-scale producers stressed the importance ofthe good quality of life that ranching provided themand their families. They spoke in terms of preserving aworking relationship with the land that could be passedon with pride to their children. Owning animals wasimportant to them as a way of reaffirming ties to theirancestral lands and heritage. In many cases, the extrabuffer that the animals provided allowed the family tostay in the ancestral, rural community and continue atleast a part of the traditional lifestyle (Eastman andGray 1987). These trends continue in the region todayand are essentially the pattern found by this study.


Longevity of Residence and theRanching Tradition

Information derived from our interviews demon-strates the long tenure of local residents and their depthof knowledge concerning land ownership and use pat-terns in the region. Of those we spoke with, 97 percentwere born in northern New Mexico (question 1; ap-pendix C, table 1), 94 percent of the families had beenresidents of the area since their grandparents’ time orearlier (question 2; appendix C, table 2), and 86 per-cent reported great-grandparents or even earlier rela-tives living in the communities of the north, with manyhaving ancestors in the area in the 1700s and 1600s(appendix C, table 2). Commitment to remaining intheir local communities is strong among these ranch-ers, with 85 percent stating that they would remain inthe home community even if they no longer ownedlivestock (question 13; appendix C, table 13). How-ever, several commented that they could not imagine alife without livestock nor living in the city withoutanimals. Several said they had passed up jobs or pro-motions or had gone into certain lines of work to re-main near their ranches and land. Several alsocommented that they or other family members had re-turned home from elsewhere as soon as they had theopportunity. The desire to raise their children near theirland and heritage and away from the troubles of thecity was often repeated. The appeal of the small homecommunity and the rural life is strong.

The ranching tradition itself is also one of long du-ration, with 94 percent of the permittees reporting thatlivestock ownership and ranching go back in their fami-lies for at least several generations (to their grandpar-ents’ time), and 73 percent had ancestors in the ranchingbusiness, ranging from great-grandparents back to thetime of Oñate (question 18, 19; appendix C, tables 18and 19.). The longevity of the tradition is also demon-strated by the fact that slightly over 70 percent havehad their Forest Service grazing permits over 50 yearsand/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 thearea, many of the families are associated with activeor former land grants and are well versed in the historyand loss of these lands; 58 percent either currently useland grant lands for various resources, have used themin the past, or know that their family used land grantlands at some point in the past. Approximately one-third (34 percent) have never had any association withland grants. The remainder do not use such lands nowand are unsure if their families did in prior years (ques-tion 20; appendix C, table 20).

The contemporary ranching operations of the areathat have access to private grant lands use a combina-tion of privately owned or leased lands, grant lands,and public lands as their range. Those with no accessto private grants rely on privately owned or leased landsand public lands. Eastman and Gray (1987) andEastman (1991) note there are only 14 communitygrants remaining in private ownership with significantamounts of grazing land (owing to the previously dis-cussed loss of land grants and portions of grants). Landlosses seriously limit the grazing areas available tomany ranchers. As an example, the community ofCañones, near the Santa Fe National Forest, lost com-munity grant lands to speculators who finally sold theland to the Federal government in 1937. Thus, 89 per-cent of the Cañones valley is managed by the ForestService, and the town is surrounded on three sides byNational Forest (Van Ness 1987). Because of these landlosses, local stock owners are forced to rely on grazingpermits on the National Forest for their cattle.

Personal and Family Portraits

Almost half (48 percent) of the men and women whoshared their stories, information, and concerns rangedin age from 50 to 65, with about one-quarter in thecategory from 36 to 49 (26 percent) and one quarterover 65 (24 percent) (question 4; appendix C, table 4).

Ranchers and Ranching on the Española andCanjilon Ranger Districts


About 52 percent of the families use both Spanish andEnglish in the home, with 34 percent using Spanish asthe primary language and 13 percent using English.About 2 percent use Tewa as their primary language(question 3; appendix C, table 3). Many reported thatSpanish was the primary or only language used withinthe home when they were young, but now they useboth languages in the home and did so when their chil-dren were growing up. Several lamented that theyounger generation seem to prefer English. The preva-lence of television and the primary use of English inschools were seen as influences.

The importance of a good education was stressedrepeatedly by the permittees and was a top priority forthem with respect to their children. In fact, when re-sponding to a question concerning the importance ofpassing on land as a means of providing for theirchildren’s future, several voluntarily commented “aswell as providing them with a good education.” Some45 percent reported spending money earned from thelivestock operation on special expenses such as col-lege tuition for the children (question 33; appendix C,table 32c), and 90 percent of the respondents them-selves have a high school education or higher (53 per-cent high school, 15 percent some college, 11 percentcollege degree, 11 percent graduate school) (question5; appendix C, table 5). Of the spouses, 96 percent alsohave a high school education or higher (50 percent highschool, 29 percent some college, 13 percent collegedegree, 4 percent graduate school) (question 6; appen-dix C, table 6).

Table 1 shows a breakdown of the employment cat-egories for the 50 ranchers whose responses to ques-tion 8 (If employed outside the home or ranch, what isyour job title or description?) could be classified as tojob type. Preretirement job types are included for those

who are currently retired. Aside from those who re-ported their primary job as rancher/farmer (16 percent),the other most prevalent occupations were skilled trade/technician (26 percent), educator (14 percent), andbusiness owner or manager (14 percent) (question 8;appendix C, table 8). Forty-five of the spouses havejobs classifiable as to type, with 87 percent of thoseengaged in paid work, while 13 percent list themselvesas full-time homemakers. A wide range of jobs wasgiven with the most popular being clerical (22 percent),business owner/manager or those who assist with thefamily business (16 percent), health care professional(11 percent), and daycare or home care provider (11percent) (question 11; appendix C, table 11).

The ranchers reported working 40 or more hoursper week off the ranch in 40 percent of the cases. An-other 45 percent are now retired from prior off-ranchwork (question 9; appendix C, table 9). Almost 58 per-cent of the 52 spouses reporting employment hourswork at least 20 hours per week outside the home orranch, and 25 percent are retired from outside jobs;almost 6 percent work under 20 hours per week, havevarying hours, or do paid work at home (question 12;appendix C, table 12). The slight difference in percent-ages between the homemaker categories given for jobtype (13 percent) and work hours (12 percent) resultsfrom differences in the number of spouses reportinginformation for the two questions.

These figures confirm what studies from the 1960sand 1970s also showed—that the majority of smallranching operations in the north are not full-time op-erations (Eastman and Gray 1987; Kutsche and VanNess 1981). Our study shows that 85 percent of theranchers have other employment or are retired fromother employment. The majority of their spouses alsowork outside the home or are retired from outside jobs(83 percent). Information collected by Fowler and as-sociates in the early 1990s (Fowler and others 1994)showed that Statewide 75 percent of extra small andsmall ranches had people employed off the ranch, bring-ing in 44 percent of family income. Thus the trend to-ward off-ranch employment is Statewide as well asbeing common in the north-central area.

About 10 percent of the respondents describe them-selves as full-time ranchers and farmers or retired fromthis occupation (question 7; appendix C, table 7). Thiscategory is defined as fully supported by agriculturalwork as opposed to the previously mentioned 16 per-cent who report their primary, but not necessarily onlyjob, as rancher/farmer. Many of them told us they onlywork outside the ranch as a way to supplement theirincomes and remain in the ranching business. They lookforward to a time when they can afford to retire and

Table 1—Primary employment categories reported by per-mittees.

Employment category Number Percentage

Skilled tradesperson/technician 13 26Rancher/farmer 8 16Educator (school administrator, 7 14Superintendent, principal, teacher)Business owner/manager 7 14Other professional/scientist 5 10Heavy equipment operator/ 5 10Truck driverLaw enforcement officer/ 4 8Firefighter/security officerLaborer/maintenance worker 1 2

Total 50 100


devote all of their time to the ranch and livestock. Re-taining their livestock operations for their families andfuture generations is tremendously important. About94 percent put the majority of money earned from theranch back into the operation to maintain and improveit, and 92 percent plan to run their cattle operation as amajor activity after they retire from other jobs (ques-tion 33; appendix C, table 32e; question 36; appendixC, table 35).

Over 75 percent feel that they might not be able toafford, do not know whether they could afford, wouldhave problems affording, or would not have the landto run a livestock operation if they waited until retire-ment to begin ranching (question 37; appendix C, table36). Because they view ranching as a serious endeavor,many also questioned the idea of beginning a livestockoperation without the benefit of background, knowl-edge, and experience. A rancher told us that the landand livestock play a major part in his family’s life andhe is using income from his other job to maintain theranch and pay off his debts, looking forward to the daywhen he can retire and get on with ranching full time.

The people we spoke with view their ranching as acareer and an integral part of their lives, and many con-sider it their primary occupation. Often, working an-other job is more of a necessity than a choice. Therehas been an unfortunate tendency among some agri-cultural economists to classify small ranching opera-tions by value-laden terms such as “hobbyist” (forexample, Gentner and Tanaka 2002). Implying thatworking these ranches is merely a hobby can be pejo-rative and offensive to many, for whom small-scaleranching is part of a long-standing tradition that main-tains communities and cultural heritage. The classifi-cation “hobbyist” indicates ignorance of the broadersocial, cultural, and economic values of small-scaleranching (Barlett 1986; Eastman and others 2000).

In her work, Barlett (1986) reviews the prevalenceand historic importance of part-time farming world-wide. She is one of the first researchers to suggest thatchoosing part-time farming is a ra-tional economic decision that in-corporates, but does not solelydepend on, a complex package ofbenefits that may not be exclu-sively economic. The benefits fromthese operations in aggregate makea substantial contribution to na-tional well-being (Eastman andothers 2000). Our work with thepermittees shows that using theterms “part-time,” “hobbyist,” or“lifestyle farmer” in reference to

these ranchers is both inaccurate and misleading. It inno way encompasses the role and importance of ranchingin their lives or their contributions to their communities.

Ranching Operations

In many cases the ranching operations of the late1990s reflect a mixture of contemporary and traditionalaspects and forms. Eastman and others (2000) note thatthe overwhelming preponderance of cattle over sheepreflects contemporary work patterns as well as ForestService influence. A recent study of New Mexicoacequias (irrigation ditches) by Eastman and others(1997) found that the most common crops on the small,irrigated farms were alfalfa and pasture and that cattlewere the most common livestock. There are practicalreasons why this is so, especially for people who haveoff-farm employment. An alfalfa pasture and cattleoperation lend themselves well to evening and week-end care. Sheep operations, on the other hand, requiremore intensive labor and management and do not lendthemselves so well to part-time work. There are cur-rently no sheep operations on the Santa Fe and five onthe Carson, two of which fell within our study area.

Ranch Size—The majority of ranches throughout NewMexico are extra-small and small cow-calf operationswith from one to 99 head (table 2), as is the case inArizona and is consistent with national figures (Ruyleand others 2000). This size ranch constituted 70 per-cent of New Mexico’s 8,313 ranches in 1996. Othermajor types of ranches include yearling-stocker opera-tions and sheep operations (the following discussionof ranch types and characteristics in the State is basedon 1996 figures from Torell and others 1998, unlessotherwise cited). Cow-calf operations consist of a basecow herd, their calves, generally some yearlingheifers and steers, replacement heifers, and the bullsneeded to support the herd (Ruyle and others 2000).

Table 2—Comparison of cattle ranch sizes between northern New Mexico and theState as a whole, 1996 (adapted from Fowler 2000; Torell and others 1998).

North-central New Mexico All New MexicoRanchsize 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


Yearling operations, excluding cow-calf ranches thatpurchase some weaned calves when conditions are fa-vorable, typically buy calves to put on leased pasture.These animals are fed until they are large enough to besent to a feedlot (Fowler 2000). The majority of theState’s yearling operations are located in the northeast-ern, plains portion of the State, which comprises themost productive rangeland, allowing for larger opera-tions. This area produced 30 percent of the State’s beefcows and contained 28 percent of the livestock opera-tions in 1996.

Southeastern New Mexico, also a plains grasslandarea but with less precipitation than the northeast, ac-counted for 22 percent of the State’s ranches, produc-ing 23 percent of the beef cows and 38 percent of thesheep. The northwest is the other region of the Statewith large sheep operations, providing 36 percent ofthe State’s sheep, 20 percent of the beef cows, and con-taining 22 percent of the ranches. The southwesternregion of the State, including the Chihuahuan Desertof southwestern New Mexico, receives considerablyless precipitation than other areas and is less produc-tive. This area produced 12 percent of the beef cowsand contained 6 percent of the ranches.

In the north-central mountain area of the State, smallcow-calf operations made up 82 percent of the listed1,804 ranches in 1996. This area also had the fewestlarge (500 or more head) ranches of the various ranch-ing areas of the State,with large ranches making up 3percent of the total; Statewide, they accounted for 7percent of the total. In New Mexico 30 percent ofranches were considered to fall in the medium and largecategories with at least 100 head. In northern NewMexico, however, only 18 percent of the ranches fellwithin these size categories. Thus, northern NewMexico had considerably fewer medium-to-largeranches and more extra small and small ranches thanthe State as a whole (Fowler 2000; Torell and others1998).

This size pattern also occurs on the ranches we stud-ied on the two Districts (generally extra small and smallcow-calf operations with a few larger ranches). Herdsizes range anywhere from five to 550, with size de-termined by economics, available land, and grazingpermits (question 23; appendix C, table 23a). With thefew large and very small operations removed, herd sizesrange from eight to 160 (based on 56 of the 62 cases).The average herd size is 54 animals. There is one largeranch with over 500 head and 10 medium-sized rancheshaving at least 100 head (table 3). These 11 constitute18 percent of the total of 62, the same as the northernNew Mexico percentages for 1996 discussed previ-ously. As is the case for the area in general, 82 percent

of the ranches in our survey are classed as extra-smallor small with one to 99 head.

A few of the ranchers also have some sheep, rang-ing from three to 28, which they pasture on privateland. There are also two large commercial sheep op-erations, which graze under permit on the CanjilonDistrict. These two have between 650 and slightly morethan 750 head (question 23; appendix C, table 23a).Many people commented on the loss and decline ofsheep operations and how they missed their family’ssheep. Once the prevalent livestock of northern NewMexico, sheep were outnumbered by cattle in the lasthalf of the 20th century due in part to government in-fluence, increased threat of predation, and lack of timefor their more intensive management.

Livestock Management and Breed Selection—Pref-erences vary in livestock management techniquesamong the different ranching operations, often condi-tioned by terrain, tradition, or government regulations.A variety of grazing systems, the details of which arebeyond the scope of this discussion, are in use. Someof these incorporate traditional herding methods. Ac-cording to one rancher, “There have been changes inthe way people manage livestock from past years andchanges in society. People have gotten away fromtradition…Years back, there was a more personal wayof management using herders for the animals.” Hespoke of intermixing new animals with older animalsthat are accustomed to an area, thereby utilizing theanimals’ natural behavior patterns as a way to facili-tate herding management.

Listening to explanations of the various breeds oflivestock, and the particular characteristics of each, isreminiscent of a university lecture in animal science.The basis for breed choice demonstrates a well-thought-out 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 CanjilonRanger Districts.

Size category Number Percentage

Extra small(40 head or fewer) 28 45Small(41-99 head) 23 37Medium to large(100-499 head) 10 16Large(500 or more head) 1 2

Total 62 100


produce offspring that will sell. Breeds are chosen forqualities of disposition, low birth weight, weight gain,and maternal characteristics. Stockmen place greatimportance on the type of bull to ensure calving easefor the heifer or cow. A cow should possess good ma-ternal characteristics in order to provide the health andsafety of her calf. The right choice of breeds deter-mines how well the calf will develop and gain weightprior to weaning. Many ranchers feel that locally raisedcattle do better than cows from other places becausethe former are acclimated to their surroundings. As apermittee explained, these cows are “accustomed tothe ranch, find their way home better, survive better,and wander less.”

A variety of breeds have been introduced or devel-oped since the Spanish first brought cattle into NewMexico; many are represented in the herds of today.Although there are purebred cattle on a number ofranches, the trend in northern New Mexico is to thecrossbred herd. Economics, practical management, andconfidence in hybrid vigor may affect preference forthe latter. Permittees must consider specific environ-mental conditions related to potential health hazardsto avoid producing cattle that will be susceptible tohigh altitude diseases or problems resulting from ex-posure to intense sunlight. In addition, a breed of cattlethat requires more forage than the land can producewill be replaced by a more suitable breed.

Animal Losses—Discussions with the ranchers re-vealed great respect and affection for their animals.This is not surprising considering that the animals areinterconnected with family tradition and long associa-tion with the land. A few of the ranchers expressed thisas being “born with the livestock.”

Yearly losses of livestock represent both emotionaland economic hardships. “The lossof one cow is a big thing. One cow rep-resents a big investment.” Althoughlosses can vary tremendously from yearto year, permittees reported averagelosses of two cows (4 percent) per yearfrom an average herd size of 54 (table4; question 24; appendix C, table 24a). Reported cow losses for 1 year rangedfrom 0 to 10; calf losses ranged from0 to 12. Causes of these losses includethe death of mother or infant fromcomplications at birth, predation by wildanimals, disease,injuries, poisoningfrom toxic plants, lightning, or old age.Other reasons for loss include rustling,

malicious killings, and predation by packs of domes-tic dogs. While wild animals such as coyote, cougar,and bear represent a hazard on more remote allotmentson forest land, the domestic dog poses a greater threaton pastures located close to the home ranch or on al-lotments located adjacent to more populated, urban in-terface areas. Although the financial loss may be thesame, it seems easier to accept an animal’s death fromnatural causes or accident than to find one shot for tar-get practice.

About 64 percent of the permittees reported prob-lems with theft or vandalism on their allotments (ques-tion 24; appendix C, table 24g). Theft, a major causeof animal loss on forest allotments, is even worse inareas with greater access to roads. “So many peopleuse the forest that things just seem to walk off,” arancher told us. Another related how he lost four calvesout of 40 to poaching or rustling, all cases that he hasproven. Rustling has been a problem on allotments insouthern Colorado, too. A New Mexico rancher lost20 pairs there in 1 year. Although there seems to beless rustling in recent years according to our informants,this form of theft continues.

Vandalism is also a serious problem on the allot-ments. Ranchers describe coyotes as a “normal” prob-lem and are far more disturbed by the activities of the“two-legged coyotes.” For example, on one allotmenta calf was found with an arrow in its head. The calfhad to be sold for butchering. Another, in similar con-dition, appeared to have been used for target practice.Several permittees reported stories of cows and calvesthat were shot during early hunting season, when cattleare still on the forest.

Predation by wild animals or domestic dogs can alsobe 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 byNumber of owners a by owners owner groups

19 0 05 1 5

17 2 344 3 126 4 245 5 252 6 121 8 81 10 10

Total 60 130

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


ranchers in the State indicated that predation was aproblem for their livestock operations in 1991. In oursurvey, 51 percent of the respondents reported prob-lems with predation (question 24; appendix C, table24g). The smaller number found in our study may re-late to the fact that many fewer sheep operations wereincluded in our sample than were represented in theStatewide survey. Sheep and lambs are subject to ahigher predation rate than cattle.

In many of our discussions regarding predation,permittees contrasted the behavior of coyotes versusdomestic dogs. In the experience of one rancher, mostlosses of both cows and calves occur at calving timefrom attacks by dogs, coyotes being less of a problem.He told us that once a calf sucks from the cow, coyoteswould not bother with them. Another commented thatcoyotes are not a problem unless there are infant calves;coyotes are less likely to bother the larger calves. Therewas also a contrast drawn between the more remoteforest allotments and those closer to towns and grow-ing suburban areas, with domestic dog activity moreprevalent in the latter areas.

Poisonous plants were also mentioned as a cause ofanimal loss. Larkspur, a toxic plant that grows at highelevations on many allotments, is a serious problem.Avoiding it is a matter of timing. Larkspur is at its worstfrom late spring until around mid June. Therefore, ithelps to delay taking the cattle to those areas wherelarkspur occurs until after the plants have bloomed. Afew reported cows or calves found dead by a stream orwater hole. It is possible the cause was from ingestionof plants containing cyanide. Toxins or noxious plantsin purchased hay may also result in losses. In one un-usual case many cow deaths were attributed to haythought to be contaminated by elk urine. Whatever thereasons for loss, animal deaths have a serious i

Documents

Economic, social, and cultural aspects of livestock ...Carol Raish is an Anthropologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, NM. She ... generous financial assistance