RANCHING and STATE SCHOOL LAND in CIMARRON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Jacqueline Vadjunec Oklahoma State University, Jacqueline.Vadjunec@Okstate.Edu

Home , Oklahoma Panhandle

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Great Plains Studies, Center for Social Sciences

2010 RANCHING AND STATE SCHOOL LAND IN CIMARRON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Jacqueline Vadjunec Oklahoma State University, [email protected]

Rebecca Sheehan Oklahoma State University

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch Part of the American Studies Commons

Vadjunec, Jacqueline and Sheehan, Rebecca, "RANCHING AND STATE SCHOOL LAND IN CIMARRON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA" (2010). Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences. 1111. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch/1111

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Great Plains Studies, Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Great Plains Research 20 (Fall 2010):163–77 © 2010 Copyright by the Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

RANCHING AND STATE SCHOOL LAND IN CIMARRON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Jacqueline Vadjunec and Rebecca Sheehan

Department of Geography 337 Murray Hall Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 [email protected]

ABSTRACT—Ranchers in Cimarron County, Oklahoma, have turned to leasing school trust land to sustain and sometimes expand their operations. Changes in the land tenure process have undergone profound transformations in the last 20 years, greatly impacting land use in the region. Coupled with an almost decade-long drought, land managers pursuing seemingly “traditional” agricultural practices call upon increasingly complicated, mixed private and public tenure options in order to make ends meet. Using a political ecology framework, we examine conflicting relationships between school land, the state, and local land managers as well as the sustainability of cattle ranching on school trust land in Cimarron County, Oklahoma. We conclude that school trust land needs to be re-envisioned in order to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number of people as well as to uphold traditional rights and livelihoods of those in Cimarron County.

Key Words: land tenure change, Oklahoma Panhandle, political ecology, ranching, school trust land

INTRODUCTION

The socioeconomic and environmental implications state-owned land leased “for the production of income of a highly variable climate, as evidenced by recurrent for the support and maintenance of the common schools drought events in Oklahoma’s Panhandle, and subsequent and the schools of higher education” (CLO 2010). This agricultural change make land-use issues surrounding represents almost one-third of all school trust land in these events significant not only to the region but also Oklahoma (Oklahoma Ad Valorem Forum 2006). As increasingly to the national and international global en- ranches have decreased in number and increased in size vironmental change communities (IPCC 2000; Turner since the 1930s (Lowitt 2006), ranchers have turned 2002; UN 2006; GLP 2005). Above and beyond the im- to leasing school trust land to sustain and/or expand pact of drought or any other environmental catalyst in a operations. Often, rented sections of school trust land region, land degradation is intimately linked to the land have been in a lessee’s family for generations. However, tenure system in use (Ostrom 1990; Gibson et al. 2000). changes in the tenure process have undergone profound This study addresses sustainability issues regarding land transformations in the last 20 years, greatly impacting tenure, drought, and environmental degradation on school land use in the region. Furthermore, in the summer of trust land in Oklahoma’s Cimarron County (Fig. 1). Ci- 2008, as the result of extensive drought, many families marron County is the second-largest producer of cattle were required to abandon school trust land (Whited in Oklahoma, and public land leases play a major role in 2008). Land managers pursuing seemingly “traditional” ranchers’ livelihood strategies. According to Grossman agricultural practices call upon increasingly compli- (2000:126), over 40% of all American farmland is leased. cated, mixed private and public tenure options in order Leased school trust land is therefore crucial to successful to make ends meet. Here, we use a political ecology agriculture in the United States. framework to explore the complex and often conflict- Over 20% of the land in Cimarron County, or ap- ing relationship between school trust land, the state, proximately 235,000 acres, is school trust land, which is and local land managers in the region. Additionally, we examine the sustainability of cattle ranching on school Manuscript received for review, September 2009; accepted for publication, trust land in Cimarron County, Oklahoma. February 2010 .

163 164 Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 2, 2010

Figure 1 . Study area . Source: Jess C . Porter, used with permission .

LITERATURE REVIEW of environmental problems by focusing on the complex and often conflicting qualities of user groups at the lo- Political Ecology cal level, placed within a broader political and economic system (Zimmerer and Bassett 2003; Biersack 2006). A subdiscipline of both geography and anthropology, political ecology seeks to understand land degradation by Role of Property and Resource Management combining ecological concerns within a broader political economy (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987; Black 1990). Po- Political ecology draws heavily upon resource man- litical ecology approaches do not take either environment agement found in common property theory, both incor- or environmental issues for granted. “Environment,” porating and challenging its ideas. In the “commons” instead of being a concrete apolitical entity, is inherently literature, common-pool (environmental) resources such “politicized.” Political ecology therefore emphasizes as tropical forests, national grasslands, the air, and the deeper explanations in understanding environmental oceans are generally seen as public goods (McKean degradation through a critical and questioning eye. Envi- 2000). Common-pool resources generally have two main ronmental issues are also seen as social justice issues that characteristics: they are subtractable (their resources can may arise when “haves” and “have-nots” struggle over be depleted) and habitually difficult to control (Gibson et access to and control over resources, or as a result of con- al. 2000:6). Furthermore, the sheer size and vast spatial servation, governance, and development policy failures dimension, or broad geographic distribution, of common- (Robbins 2004). Here also, the very idea of degradation pool resources make them generally difficult to control itself may be questioned, as agencies in power may use and monitor, and thus make them at least partially open- environmental discourse and policy as a means to control access in nature as well as susceptible to abuse. Often, marginalized, oppressed, or seemingly powerless groups common-pool resources are better managed under a (Peet and Watts 1996; Rocheleau et al. 1996; Watts 2000). common-property, joint system of resource management Frontiers are regarded as some of the most contested areas where proper management requires ongoing commitment on earth and consequently are highly vulnerable to envi- from a collective of individuals at both local and state ronmental degradation (Schmink and Wood 1992). Politi- levels. In some cases, degradation may not be perceptible cal ecology recognizes the winners and losers inherent in until the damage done is seemingly irreversible, as in the development process, seeking at its core sustainability past cases of aquifer depletions or grassland degradation. through both social and environmental justice (Hecht and Thus, subtractability, market forces, and their complex Cockburn 1990). The use of political ecological approach- nature make the control of such resources highly vulner- es in land-use studies provides alternative understandings able to environmental degradation.

A variety of factors influence the level of successful ing in the development of the U.S. frontier. Next, we management of common property arrangements, such explore the evolution of school trust land in the region as the size and characteristics of the land users, their from the past to its present contestation. Lastly, we invested social capital, their level of agreement with discuss implications for the environmental, economic, the rules, perceptions regarding fairness and equality in and social sustainability of the region. terms of perceived costs and benefits of proper resource management, and the nature of outside pressures such METHODS as market and political conditions (Hall 1997; Gibson et al. 2000; Ostrom 2005). Neither common property nor Because of Cimarron County’s complexity in both private property systems, however, should be viewed as landscape and its governance, we employed a variety superior; various works demonstrate the pros and cons of research methods, triangulating data to verify our of both in regard to land change (see Turner et al. 1993; findings as we proceeded with analysis. We relied upon Mendelsohn 1994; Tucker 1999; Ostrom and Nagendra archival research and primary and secondary resources 2006). Furthermore, several studies illustrate that the from government agencies such as the U.S. Department majority of property systems are neither purely private of Agriculture (USDA), the National Resource Council nor common but are instead mixed, dynamic, and fluc- (NRC), and the U.S. Census Bureau in order to construct tuating between the two (Rocheleau and Edmunds 1997; the historical evolution of state school land and its use Geisler and Daneker 2000). In our case, the school trust in Cimarron County. Our research also involved col- land of Cimarron County can be viewed as a complex, lecting historic legal documents and archival data from mixed tenure system, incorporating components of Oklahoma’s state capital library, the Allen Wright Me- private management on public lands. As Souder and morial Library, which has significant archival holdings Fairfax (2000:91) explain, it is an concerning state school land, including sales and lease information managed by the Oklahoma Commissioners oversimplification to conclude that the state of the Land Office (CLO). trust lands can be thought of as falling be- In order to construct current land-use issues in Ci- tween private approaches to ownership and marron County, we drew upon local, state and regional public concepts. The trust lands are, quite spe- news, as well as CLO reports. We supplemented this cifically, the oldest approach to public owner- data with 20 semi-structured, open-ended interviews ship in U.S. history, and significantly different and oral histories, which were conducted with tra- from either bare public or bare private title. ditional cattle farmers in Cimarron County in areas dominated by school trust land. In the spring of 2008, Given the unique character of school trust land, as the research team collected 10 oral histories from both well as the considerable role it plays in terms of local, men and women through the Oklahoma State Univer- regional, and national farming (Grossman 2000), it sity Library’s “Oklahoma Oral History Project.” In the is important to gain a comprehensive understanding summer of 2008, our research team returned, collecting of how historical and contemporary factors shape 10 more oral histories. We recorded the oral histories school trust land’s use and continual evolution. Ideas via video and/or audio, as well as note taking, and later of “trust,” “reciprocity,” and being “of the people” transcribed them. Oral histories took one to three hours contribute to the management of public school trust to complete and focused mainly on issues surround- land, representing an influential component of its ing land tenure, migration, land use, drought, and land sustainability (Souder and Fairfax 2000:94). Yet, in management issues in Cimarron County. In the summer Cimarron County, governance is currently highly of 2009, we returned again, updating and verifying in- contested between land managers and the state. Given formation with many of the same individuals. Further- that perceptions matter, conflict between stakeholders more, key-informant interviews were also conducted at often leads to the increasing social marginalization of the county level in Boise City with officials from the some land users as well as increased environmental county government, the U.S. Department of Agriculture degradation (Bassett 1988; Peluso 1992). In what fol- (USDA), and the National Resource Council (NRC). lows, we first discuss our research methodology and Oklahoma State University’s Institutional Review provide background on the study site. We then discuss Board approved all research regarding human subjects the cultural and historical importance of cattle ranch- before our research team began the study.

Context most portions of their range” (The Nature Conservancy 2009). The county is a landscape of transitions, where Historically known as No Man’s Land, the Oklahoma cropland in the southeast changes to cattle country com- Panhandle (approximately 6,000 square miles) emerged prised of grassland and mesa country in the northwest. in 1845 when Texas was admitted to the Union as a slaveholding state. Slaveholding areas could not extend north RESULTS AND DISCUSSION of 36 degrees, 30 minutes north latitude, and Congress mandated that the southern borders of Colorado and Historic Importance of Cattle Ranching Kansas and New Mexico’s northern border be set at 37 degrees. Meanwhile, the area east of the Panhandle was Cattle drives and ranching have long been a part of identified as Indian Territory (Healy and Dosh-Healy the Anglo-Saxon heritage of the Oklahoma Panhandle. 1992; Lowitt 2006). Thus, the small strip of land that re- Particularly in the area of northwest Cimarron County, mained went ungoverned until 1890 when through “mani- the land has provided good grasses for cattle ranching fest destiny” the United States added it to the Oklahoma but little else. It has served as grazing land and tem- Territory (Weeks 1996; Wynn 2004). Oklahoma became porary range for cattle before they were fattened, mar- a state in 1907, merging what had been Indian Territory keted, or moved farther north (Hodge 1937; Gress 2000). and Oklahoma Territory, including the Oklahoma Pan- Throughout most of the 19th century, no one technically handle. The Oklahoma Panhandle, comprising Beaver, owned the land or grass. Ranchers and cattlemen owned Texas, and Cimarron counties, was soon transformed into only their camps and cattle, and possessed certain range an important cattle- and wheat-producing region for the rights developed on a first-come, first-served basis and United States (Egan 2006; Lowitt 2006). by means of mental boundaries and support from cattle- Drought is a normal part of Oklahoma’s climate, and men associations (Webb 1931). Cattlemen associations in Cimarron County is susceptible to extremes both in tem- effect became the governing bodies concerning land use perature and precipitation. Six major drought events have and land rights, acquiring authority to deal with rustlers occurred in the Panhandle in the last 100 years: 1890s, (cow thieves), grass pirates (unauthorized grazing), water 1909–18, 1930–40 (the Dust Bowl), 1952–58, 1962–72, rights, unbranded cattle, fencing, quarantine regulations, and 2000–present (Oklahoma Climatological Survey inspection of trail herds, and the time and manner of 2006). The Oklahoma Water Resources Board claims that roundups (Dale 1965:76). The charge of American mani- Oklahoma may be in the beginning stages of a dry cycle at fest destiny to push westward, homesteading under the least equal to that experienced during the first half of the auspices of the special virtues and destiny of the Ameri- twentieth century (Tortorelli 2007). Cimarron County, can people, however, brought settlers to the area (Weeks with the driest climate in Oklahoma, has been the epicen- 1997; Nugent 1999). Near the end of the 19th century, ter of what the U.S. National Drought Mitigation Center ranching became incorporated as part of this agrarian calls an “exceptional” drought—the most severe drought ideal of independent landowning individuals. The U.S. category (Lindsey 2008). During intense drought, native government allowed squatter homesteaders to legally grasses for grazing become insufficient to support cattle, enter the Panhandle as early as 1886, but because the land pushing many ranchers to sell more cattle than they had not been surveyed, settlers could only (unofficially) intended to sell, sometimes selling the entire herd, thus claim squatter’s rights (Gress 2000). driving market prices down. Even conservation reserve When the 1890 Organic Act admitted No Man’s Land lands may be affected because the forage they produce to Oklahoma Territory, squatter settlements extended may be used for feed in emergency (e.g., drought) situa- about 90 miles into the Panhandle from its eastern edge, tions. This practice may hinder vegetative recuperation approximately 80 miles away from Cimarron County and therefore promote soil erosion (Hays 2008). (Baird 1994). In 1889 the land run on the unassigned lands Though the three Panhandle counties have similar motivated over 10,000 squatters to leave the Panhandle in challenges concerning land use, Cimarron County holds hopes of securing land with clear title. This exodus left distinct challenges because of its varied landscapes, bio- about 3,000 people, mostly cattlemen, in the Panhandle. diversity, and semiarid climate. Cimarron County’s land- When in 1891 the government completed surveying the scape is unique in the Panhandle, because it is where “the Panhandle for homesteading, settlers came, but not as they Rocky Mountains meet the short grass prairie . . . [and] had when other territorial lands opened for settlement. In where many species are at the easternmost or western- part this may have been due to officials not amending

TABLE 1 CIMARRON COUNTY FARM CHARACTERISTICS Number of Average farm size Average farm value (2007 equivalent) Year Population farms (acres) (USD) 1910 4,553 1,307 224 2,132 (46,892)*** 1930 5,408 887 1,203 16,594 (204,292) 1940 3,654 605 1,536 9,156 (134,017) 1950 4,589 616 1,788 49,674 (423,549) 1959/1960* 4,496 505 2,001 99,708 (701,923) 1969/1970* 4,145 600 1,811 165,819 (928,064) 1978 3,600 490 2,184 419,497 (1,319,690) 1982** 3,648 458 2,358 894,528 (1,898,306) 1987 3,891 458 2,197 517,319 (932,552) 1997 3,067 481 2,239 705,351 (908,021) 2007 2,664 557 1,875 939,651 Sources: USCA 1910, 1930, 1940, 1950, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau 1982, 1992, 2000; Forstall 1995; U.S. Census Bureau 1975, 2000, 2006, 2007, 2009a, 2009b. *Population from the U.S. Census of 1960 and 1970, estimated from USCA 1959, 1969. **Open bidding for school lands begins. ***Conversion calculator, 2007 dollars. Source: Friedman n.d.

the Homestead Act to allow settlers to acquire larger in the top 2% in the nation for cattle production (National landholdings, a requirement for economic survival in the Agricultural Statistics Service 2002; USCA 2007). While harsh, fragile, and limited environment of the Panhandle, wheat, sorghum, corn, and hay contribute approximately especially in Cimarron County. Here, the 160-acre tracts 18% of the market value in Cimarron County’s agricul- were merely a fraction of the land needed for economic tural productions, with over 39% of its land in irrigated survival. Though settlers could acquire an additional 160 cropland, the county’s main commodity is cattle, with acres if they planted trees, 320 acres still fell significantly over 58% of its land dedicated to pasture and rangeland short of needed land, particularly for ranching, so set- (USCA 2007). tlers turned to leasing land from the government (Gress 2000). Evolution of State School Land By 1910, Cimarron County’s population had sur- passed 4,500 and continued to increase until the 1930s When No Man’s Land became a part of Oklahoma Dust Bowl, which heavily reduced the county’s popula- Territory, its land tenure system became more compli- tion and number of farms (USCA 1940; Forstall 1995). By cated not only in terms of private land as explained above, 1950 the population recovered, but it decreased in every but also in terms of public lands. In a series of acts and subsequent census with continued projected population ordinances dating back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 decline (Forstall 1995; Wilson 2009). Additionally, since inspired by westward expansion and the need to sup- 1950, Cimarron County has been characterized by a gen- port a national government (including public education), eral decrease in the number of farms and an increase in the federal government made public provisions for land the average farm size (Table 1) (USCA 1950). settlement (Rainey 1937; Nugent 1999). In every Okla- In 2007 the main source of employment in the county homa surveyed township, which included 36 sections of came from farming (over 36%) (ODC 2009). Indeed, 640 acres each, sections 16 and 36 were to be set aside Cimarron County has remained predominantly rural, for the benefit of public schools. If these sections were sparsely populated, and agriculturally based. The county already homesteaded, then “in lieu of lands” had to be holds a significant place in the state and national econo- provisioned. Since the Panhandle was much less settled, mies, ranking second in the state for all agriculture and vast amounts of its lands were designated as “in lieu of

Figure 2 . Location of state school trust lands in Cimarron County . Source: Constructed by the authors using Cimarron County Plat maps, 2007 . lands” (Hodge 1937). That said, in the same year as the grazing purposes” (Hodge 1937:64). At statehood, Okla- Organic Act, the governor of Oklahoma proclaimed that homa had approximately 3.2 million acres in school trust “you men who have failed to locate on homesteads, settle land. Leasing to private individuals continued, but begin- on good quarters of school trust land, cultivate them as ning in late 1909, approximately 1.29 million acres were your own and when Oklahoma becomes a state you shall authorized for sale. Land sold was classified as Grazing own them as your homes” (Golobie 1904:5 quoted in B lands, which meant one person could purchase as much Gress 2000:89). These “last-chancers” hoped that Okla- as two sections and noncontiguous sections if necessary. homa would follow other states who sold school trust land By 1932, over 2 million acres had been sold (Hodge to those who had cultivated them. Eventually, Oklahoma 1937). Large quantities of land were sold in Cimarron would sell some of its school trust land to it citizens, County, but because so much land in the county had been but first, beginning in 1891, Oklahoma Territory leased designated as “in lieu of lands” for the school trust, large school land (Gress 2000). amounts of school trust land continued to exist (Gress The Enabling Act of 1906 provided additional school 2000). Sales increased for brief periods due to foreclo- trust land for the soon-to-be (1907) state of Oklahoma. sures during the Dust Bowl and World War II years, but The act designated sections 13 and 33 of townships or “in since then the sales of land have been small. Today the lieu of lands” for state educational institutions and public school trust fund, long managed by the Commissioners buildings. Once again, the Panhandle became the site for of the Land Office, holds 739,035 acres (25% of the origi- replacement lands in part because so little unoccupied nal school land) of which 233,780 acres are in Cimarron land remained in the rest of Oklahoma, but perhaps more County, comprising 20% of the county’s land (see Fig. 2) so because of the government’s need to quickly choose (Souder and Fairfax 1996:48; Oklahoma Ad Valorem Fo- new college lands before statehood, which was only rum 2006). This represents almost one-third of all school months away (Gress 2000). Thus, the new college grant lands in Oklahoma, far outweighing the second leading lands were almost exclusively in the Panhandle, and the county, Texas County, with 5.6% of its land in the trust majority of them in northwest Cimarron County, where (Oklahoma Ad Valorem Forum 2006). School trust land the “acreage is comparatively worthless for anything but has continued to be leased for “support and maintenance

© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Ranching and State School Land in Cimarron County, OK • Jacqueline Vadjunec and Rebecca Sheehan 169 of common schools and schools of higher education,” be- had a significant positive impact for the school trust fund ing used primarily for grazing and agricultural purposes (Souder and Fairfax 1996:109). The impacts for those (Souder and Fairfax 1996; CLO 2010). leasing school trust land in Cimarron County, however, In most cases the general leasing conditions for school have included negative cultural and economic changes trust land have included a term of five years, with no that are challenging a way of life and economic survival base property requirements, and subleasing was allowed. for families and small communities not only in Cimarron The lessee owned moveable improvements, and the state County but also in all of Oklahoma. owned any permanent improvements to the land. Signifi- cantly, the state made no credits or adjustments to leases Conflict and Contestation Regarding State for lessees’ provisions of services and improvements to School Land Today the land such as fencing, water improvements, noxious weed control, construction of buildings, and high admin- Analysis of our interview transcripts reveals several istration costs based on unique land requirements (Souder key themes regarding perceptions of the impact of open and Fairfax 1996:130). Lease amounts and initial bids bidding on school trust land. Mainly they are loss, chang- were determined by county-level government appraisers, ing land use and demographics, increased risk, changing but school trust land was leased in a way that gave favored ideas of stewardship, and complex relationships with the treatment to the lessee following a “traditional lessee- state. We explore these themes below in order to address oriented pattern: fees were low (3% of appraised value), their social, economic, and environmental implications. existing lessees had virtually absolute preference rights to renew the state leases” (Souder and Fairfax 1996:108), Loss. In 1982, when the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled meaning lessees either leased without bidding competi- that ranchers should not have preference to school trust tion or were allowed to meet the highest bid. Thus, though land nor should the Oklahoma legislature set maximum lease terms were only five years, the lessee could count lease prices (Oklahoma Education Association v. Nigh on that land for their cattle and/or agricultural operations 642 P.2d 230 [Okla. 1982]; The Economist 1997), the practically in perpetuity. Indeed, families have leased rather cozy, long-term relationship between the state and thousands of acres of school trust land for generations, so its lessees in the region changed indelibly. Because of the much so that the governor of Oklahoma’s encouragement open bidding policy, leasing prices have been driven be- in 1890 of ranchers and farmers to “cultivate [school trust yond what some ranchers can afford (in extreme instances land] as your own” developed into a reality even though changing from $3 to $23 per acre), forcing land users to most ranchers have always owned only a relatively small lose access to land that has long comprised significant amount of land compared to the land they must lease in portions of their ranches (Whited 2008) and sparking order to have viable ranch operations. animosity and conflict among some land managers. In The bidding system for school trust land, however, a semiarid region where stocking rates are one head of changed in 1982, when the Oklahoma Education As- cattle for 30 or more acres, most land managers we inter- sociation sued the State Land Board over its leasing viewed express genuine fear of being outbid. In an area practices and won. The court noted in its decision that where there are few livelihood alternatives and economic the preference-right system violated ideas associated opportunities, getting outbid can result in downsizing with “trust” principles (Souder and Fairfax 1996:108). one’s herd, having to liquidate it completely if one’s own Revisions to the lease system included full market ap- landholding is too small or degraded, and in extreme praisal fees and competitive bidding but failed to revise cases bankruptcy and foreclosure. As one rancher who any stipulations concerning services and improvements owns only a small section of 700 acres, and whose family to leased land by the lessee. Accordingly, beginning in leased one section of land for over 60 years, explains, “We the mid-1980s, revenues for surface land leases, including used to have 5,000 acres of state school land, and we got fees and lease amounts, increased 80% (Souder and Fair- outbid on that so we lost [it]. That kind of gave us incen- fax 1996). Surface state leases account for approximately tive to sell our cows and get out of the business” (anony- 5% of all yearly income for the school trust fund and 14% mous personal interview, spring 2008). Another rancher of all yearly distribution of funds; therefore, the increase succinctly explains the impact of getting outbid: “It’s kind in yearly revenues based on Oklahoma moving from a of hard to have a cattle ranch with no land. Pretty diffi- “custodial retention [of school land] in favor of lessees to cult” (anonymous personal interview, spring 2008). Land active management for the benefit of beneficiaries” has managers who have been outbid have limited options such

© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln 170 Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 2, 2010 as meeting the bid, selling the family farm, moving on, say, yes, I can pay more money, I can pay what- and/or starting a new business such as agritourism or a ever you’re wanting, and keep that family unit bed-and-breakfast in order to survive. together. A prime example: a man run my lease up this year. He was from Chandler, Texas. The Changing Land Use and Demographics. The new lease gentleman wanted that land just to hunt on. He system seeks to “maximize distributable income . . . and could care less. He’s going to be here in the fall enlarge the trust” (CLO 2009:4). As such, historical ties of the year, he could care less about Oklahoma. of families to school trust land in Cimarron County have And he wasn’t even a resident, the man didn’t been severed. Under the latest enterprise, money talks, even live in our state. He could care less about while tradition becomes less important. Where in the the schools, the community or anything. It’s past, renting preference went to families living on and kind of a sore spot with us (anonymous per- already working the land, now it goes to the highest bid- sonal interview, spring 2008). der. This has resulted in both changes to the demographic makeup of the lessees as well as the type of land use in the Cattle ranchers express strong ideas of community region. Out of 203 state lessees in 2007, approximately 32 empowerment and the importance of working together, were out-of-state lessees, leasing a total of approximately citing that local ranchers do not bid against other local 40,000 acres. Furthermore, 11 were out-of-county leases, ranchers for property that is already in use. They also leasing a total of approximately 8,000 acres (Cimarron perceive that land worked by someone is, indeed, their County Clerk’s Office 2007). This leads to a decrease of land. There is a notion of entitlement granted to the lessee, approximately 20% in available lands for local residents. even if they do not own the land. As one rancher explains, Increasingly, lessees do not live in the region; many hold neighbors “respect one another, and it’s part of their the leases for hunting and recreational purposes only, ranch, part of their livelihood. We honor that with one investing very little in terms of time and money in both another. I wouldn’t want them to lose theirs and hopefully the community and region. they wouldn’t want us to lose ours” (anonymous personal Generally, locals often perceive outsiders with suspi- interview, spring 2008). Yet another rancher states, “If cion. Many argue that outsiders are committed to neither we lost all of . . . [the school trust land] we had, we’d [all] the community nor the land (nor its proper management) be out of the business” (anonymous personal interview, to the same extent as are insiders. As one cattle rancher spring 2008). explains: Growing Risk and Changing Ideas of Stewardship. As far as the land leases and things, you know, The uncertainty that arises from the open bidding system that has really destroyed some long, long-time has made ranchers aware of growing socioeconomic and families that have lived here their entire lives. environmental risks, which are only exasperated with And due to the advertisement that, “Come to the current uncertain economic climate. For the school the Panhandle of Oklahoma and lease state trust land to be successfully managed, land managers land, for hunting property or camping and must be invested in taking care of the land. With their whatnot,” well, people don’t have the right con- future now uncertain (in five-year increments with no cept of what is going on, and so some of them preferential treatment given to the lessee), many land do bid these long-time ranchers off their prop- managers express difficulty caring for leased land like erty. When they do, they just ship their cattle, it was their own, as they have done in the past. As one they’re done. And they may be just like myself, rancher argues, fourth generation, and one day their life’s over. And so, I don’t agree with it. I think if the state We have taken care of it, and we still do take care needs more money for the schools they need to of it, because it’s right there mixed in with our approach the people that have been the caretak- deeded land and we take care of that. We build ers of it and say, “Times are changing, we need fences on it, we provide the post and the wire and to go up on the lease. And if you can lease [the whatever. If there’s no corrals, we put . . . [in] land at] that [price], [then] you can keep it.” corrals, we put up windmills and tanks. Well, ’Cause our money is just as good as anyone after they start doing this [open bidding], you’re else’s downstate. And give us first choice to a lot more cautious about doing these things,

TABLE 2 SCHOOL TRUST FUNDS AND CONTRIBUTIONS BY COUNTY Top counties receiving Surface lease Amount public schools Amount spent per student school trust funds from contribution received from school trust funds enrolled surface leases (acres) (USD) (USD) Oklahoma 4,562 9,318,590 40.67 Tulsa 0 9,219,513 41.29 Cleveland 4,950 3,309,141 40.76 Comanche 29,733 1,872,245 43.55 Canadian 3,365 1,728,001 40.65 Rogers 0 1,204,644 42.64 Muskogee 0 1,135,085 41.36 Creek 0 1,095,084 44.65 Pottawatomie 17,093 1,072,976 43.26 Payne 21,588 844,631 41.63 Panhandle counties Texas 41,439 334,462 42.38 Beaver 28,038 96,052 43.38 Cimarron 233,780 38,728 43.51

Sources: CLO 2009; Oklahoma State Department of Education 2009.

because you’re thinking, if somebody comes in residents express conflicting ideas regarding the actual and gets this, we’ve put all this improvement on role of the state. The reason is two-fold: residents often here. They are supposed to either pay you for it feel ignored by the state but at the same time say that they or you have to remove it, but we’ve watched and want to be left alone. For example, residents of the area that does not seem to be working out real well repeatedly refer to themselves as the “stepchild” of Okla- (anonymous personal interview, spring 2008). homa, stating that they are often ignored or neglected even though they make a valuable contribution to the state Local ranchers perceive outside lessees to be the least in terms of the revenue from school trust land that they responsible land managers, arguing that outsiders have provide and their long-term commitment to such a histori- little or no attachment to the land, making little or no cally important and underpopulated region. investment in the future of the region. Local ranchers In 2008 the Commissioners of the Land Office reported complain of outsiders that come in for three to five years, record high revenues (CLO 2009:1), yet Cimarron County overgraze the land and then move on, leaving the degrad- Public Schools received the lowest amount of school funds ed land for the locals to rehabilitate. Locals call this “land compared to any other county in Oklahoma (Table 2) (CLO jockeying,” coming in from the outside, running up land 2009:21). Through the years, this has been the relationship prices, subleasing for profit, and then leaving after a short between Cimarron County Public Schools and the school time. Local ranchers complain that leasing land again trust fund. Though the distribution of funds per student after land jockeys have leased it often forces them to rest enrolled appears more equitable than not, costs associated the land for a period because of extreme land degradation. with facilities and other programs are difficult to determine Yet the local rancher must continue to pay the land rent. In on a per-student basis in terms of equitable allocation of contrast to outside lessees, local ranchers see themselves funds. Furthermore, the money from surface leases of as “environmentalists” who have an intimate attachment state trust land also goes to state universities and colleges, to and knowledge of the land. of which Cimarron County has none. County residents we interviewed perceive their funding to and from the school Complex Relationships with the State. Although almost trust fund as unfair, and press for investment in basic in- one-third of school trust land is in Cimarron County, frastructure such as roads and health care.

Additionally, in the summer of 2008, the state residents align themselves with Colorado, New Mexico, declared emergency drought conditions in Cimarron or Texas, where they tend to do more business, expressing County, ordering some lessees to take cattle off their land sentiments such as “we feel more a part of Amarillo, Tex- because of the lack of vegetation and the increased likeli- as, than Oklahoma, in terms of community” (anonymous hood of degradation subsequent to drought conditions personal interview, summer 2008). This reflects ideas of (Whited 2008). The economic devastation to residents in community that are situated at regional levels based on the county was not simultaneously addressed. In fact, the shared ideas and ways of living, lacking a state identity. state governor had never been to Cimarron County even One informant asserted, “We are called No Man’s Land though severe drought had been ongoing since at least for a reason,” intimating the inattention of the state, but 2000. Some frustrated residents advertised a $50 reward this statement also reflects many Cimarron County resi- in the Boise City News for anyone that could bring the dents’ desire for physical and social remoteness and self- governor to Cimarron County in order for him to see first- reliance (anonymous personal interview, summer 2009). hand the (economic) devastation ranchers (and farmers) were facing (York 2008). CONCLUSIONS The governor did finally visit Cimarron County on July 16, 2008 (Whited 2008), granting ranchers, in some In this study, we have used a political ecology frame- instances, critical grazing rights on federal lands in work to provide insights about the historical importance the Conservation Reserve Program. The region conse- of cattle ranching in Cimarron County, the evolution quently received federal disaster status, and those ranch- of state school land, and the highly contested nature of ers holding USDA insurance were to receive a partial school trust land today. We conclude by questioning the reimbursement for their losses, which were substantial. social, economic, and environmental sustainability of the However, funds were not dispersed until the end of 2009, current system of governance regarding school trust land and ranchers were therefore required to tough it out for in Cimarron County. a year before they could begin to see light at the end of Recognizing the important role that school trust land the tunnel. Although lessees abandoned their rented land plays in supporting public education, it is not our inten- (often being forced to do so), they were still required to tion to take sides in this debate between the actors most pay the outstanding lease on the land, as the rents were not directly involved. However, we raise a few critical points forgiven or reduced. This situation, compounded with the about the viability of the current system. Common prop- influx of cattle on the market in times of duress, caused erty theory tells us that perceptions matter. If land manag- ranchers great economic hardship. Key informants at ers do not perceive the system to be fair, if the system is both the USDA and National Resources Conservation not perceived as a win-win situation between land users Service (NRCS) offices stated significant losses in terms and land managers, or if land users do not perceive the of both cattle numbers and economic gains for 2008. potential benefits of conservation for the future, then they Furthermore, we know of at least two households that are less likely to invest in preserving the resource base to- have filed bankruptcy, others that have since sold out, day. With an uncertain future, a situation emerges where many that have significantly downsized, and others that it may make more sense for the land user to maximize are “just barely hanging on.” profits in the now, thereby possibly compromising future That said, residents report having little attachment environmental sustainability and creating a tragedy of to Oklahoma, stating that in part they “want to be left the commons in the making (Hardin 1968; Dawes 1973) alone.” In 2009 an NRCS official noted that many ranch- As drought conditions worsen, and land users perceive ers who lease school trust land in Cimarron County are growing risk, changing ideas of stewardship brought by not interested in the outside world and do not want the newcomers, and dwindling economic returns on their in- outside world to know about them. According to this of- vestment, they will be forced to adjust their land use and ficial, some ranchers believe that if they “are quiet,” they management decisions accordingly. This can have pro- “won’t be bothered.” Moreover, ranchers and residents we found potential implications on the future environmental interviewed repeatedly discussed the strong “pride” and sustainability of the system. “independence” of those that live in Cimarron County. Souder and Fairfax (2000:102) argue that school trust One rancher explained, “You just kind of exist and don’t land works in theory because the system is quintessen- feel a part of any state. It’s like [Cimarron County’s] its tially democratic; it balances economic risk and economic own country.” At the same time, some Cimarron County returns between both the lessee and the state, thus provid-

© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Ranching and State School Land in Cimarron County, OK • Jacqueline Vadjunec and Rebecca Sheehan 173 ing a win-win situation for all. Yet residents of Cimarron degradation, lessee improvements, and apportionment County do not perceive the new system to be fair. The of revenues. new system of open bidding has forced families off land In hindsight, the open bidding system put in place in that they have worked and managed for decades. From the 1982 should have occurred gradually where the bidding point of view of the long-term residents, it has driven up process slowly introduced elements of competitive bid- rent prices to the point that, in some instances, it is no lon- ding (increasing lease rates) that evolved through stake- ger feasible to practice traditional cattle ranching in the holder consensus concerning bidding policies. Though it region. In some cases, it has forced long-term residents is impossible to rewrite history, it is possible for bidding and responsible caretakers off lands that they perceive reform to occur that would allow ranchers to continue op- to be their land, in favor of outside residents who bring erations without the risk of going out of business because with them changing land uses and ideas of stewardship. of high lease rates and would ensure a higher return on As residents are squeezed out of the cattle business, we school lands. For example, the state could implement a question the future economic and social sustainability of policy similar to one in the past, in which preference is the system as well. given to existing lessees if they agree to a minimum bid Perhaps one can argue that cattle ranching, as cur- determined by the land manager’s determination of fair rently practiced, may no longer be either economically market value, or the state could give the lessee preference or environmentally sustainable (see Davis 2001; Man- rights with the opportunity to match the highest bid, as ning 2009), and that the processes currently underway is currently the case in other land trust states such as Ne- are a mere part of the natural progression of regional braska, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming (Culp development, but residents argue that they have been et al. 2005). Additionally, preference rights could be given good stewards of the land and dutiful residents of the to those individuals (and their families via inheritance) state. They stake a claim in the region as contributing who actually own the surrounding land, as is current citizens given their current and historic frontier roles in practice in Washington state (Culp et al. 2005:157). Such fulfilling both America’s manifest destiny and the sus- preference rights would solve many of the perceived tained development of the state. While recognizing the injustices that Cimarron County residents find with the important role that residents have played in the past, we current system. argue that residents have complicated their plight by the Out-of-state lessees should be limited in number and mixed signals they sometimes send regarding their own in purpose (Souder and Fairfax 1996). Currently, anyone expectations of the state and their role as citizens within from anywhere can lease school trust land for a large (but separate from) it. Kittredge (1996) explains that variety of purposes. Limiting the type of land use, such the growing antagonism between residents of the West as grazing, employing a multiple use management style, and the government is deeply rooted in nostalgic ideas such as grazing and hunting, and/or requiring that poten- of independence and the Old West, and he presses for a tial lessees possess the experience to operate the land for collective reimagining among residents and the govern- its specified purpose would benefit the school trust, as ment regarding the New West of the future. We therefore well as ensure proper environmental management and suggest that open dialog and a compromise between ranching practices (Souder and Fairfax 1996; Culp et al. stakeholders are greatly needed. 2005). Perhaps, too, some leases could stipulate a base In the 18th century the federal government designat- land requirement, not merely to benefit ranchers who ed public lands to benefit public schools and universities, have long had deeded land, but to maximize the potential yet these lands have developed not only as a beneficiary return on some lands. Furthermore, longer lease periods, to the school trust but also have became integral to entire between 10 to 15 years, such as in Utah, should be inves- ranching communities in Oklahoma’s Panhandle and tigated (Souder and Fairfax 1996; Culp et al. 2005:145). the state’s cattle industry. While recognizing that the What these suggestions point to is a more nuanced system intent of the law concerning these lands was to benefit of determining qualified lessees and land use. public education, we must also recognize the reality that Though Oklahoma has specific grazing management emerged, where state trust land has become integral to regulations, enforcing those regulations has proven to be both communities and industry. Thus, we offer initial extremely problematic. In Cimarron County, school trust recommendations for stakeholders to discuss together. land at times becomes denuded, taking years to recover These recommendations revolve around the bidding and making the leasing of those lands unappealing to process, out-of-state lessees, land use, environmental ranchers. Because oversight of regulation in practice is

© 2010 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln 174 Great Plains Research Vol. 20 No. 2, 2010 limited, perhaps reducing or eliminating rent for over- thank the graduate students from Advanced GeoData grazed land would be financially beneficial to both the Collection for assistance in the field in the spring of 2008, state and the (new) lessee as well as environmentally Mike Larson, as well as Jess Porter, for providing us with appropriate (Culp et al. 2005). For instance, New Mexico intellectual insight, local experience, and cartographic provides financial incentives via discounted rates for expertise, and two anonymous reviewers for their infor- proper environmental management on state trust land mative critiques and helpful suggestions. Lastly, we are (Culp et al. 2005:124). Furthermore, heavier sanctions for grateful to Oklahoma State University’s College of Arts improper management of grazing lands should be created and Sciences for generously funding this research. to improve land sustainability. The policy regarding permanent improvements to REFERENCES school trust land needs to be revised. The current condi- tion, where the state owns all permanent improvements Baird, W.D. 1994. Agriculture in the Oklahoma Pan- to the land, deters not only ranching, environmental im- handle, 1898–1942. Chronicles of Oklahoma provements, and mitigations but also improvements that 72:116–35. increase the value and/or output of the land. For example, Bassett, T.J. 1988. The political ecology of peasant-herder as other states have done, Oklahoma could institute a conflicts in the Northern Ivory Coast.Annals of the cost-share program for permanent improvements or pay Association of American Geographers 78:453–72. the lessee for improvements once the lease has ended Biersack, A. 2006. Reimagining political ecology: cul- (Souder and Fairfax 1996; Culp et al. 2005). ture/power/history/nature. In Reimagining Political Though subject to its constitutionality (Culp et al. Ecology, ed. A. Beirsack and J.B. Greenberg, 3–40. 2005), one way to improve benefits to Cimarron County’s Duke University Press, Durham, NC. schools is consistent payment of real estate taxes on all Black, R. 1990. Regional political ecology in theory and school land. Currently, taxes are only sometimes paid by practice: A case study from northern Portugal. the state, providing the county inconsistent revenue from Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers school trust land (official from Cimarron County’s As- 15:35–47. sessor’s Office, pers. comm. 2009). Another possibility is Blaikie, P., and H.C. Brookfield. 1987.Land Degradation for the state to sell off more school trust land in ranching and Society. Methuen, London. areas (Sundermand and Spahr 2006), yet ranchers we Cimarron County Clerk’s Office. 2007. State School talked with explain that most ranchers could not afford to Lands Lease Information Listings. County Clerk’s purchase all the land they needed to operate their farms. Office, Boise City, OK. Fulfilling the recommendations above will be diffi- Cimarron County Records. 2008. The 2007 Cimarron cult; as Gary Gustafson, former president of the Western County Plat Book. County Records, Inc., Owasso, States Land Commissioner Association, explains, “Poli- OK. tics sometimes get in the way” (Lindsay 1995:1). Indeed, CLO (Commissioners of the Land Office). 2009. 2008 when Oklahoma changed to an open bidding system, Annual Report: Growing the Trust. CLO, Okla- years of political and community fallout ensued (Lindsay homa City. 1995). What must remain central is that ideas of property CLO (Commissioners of the Land Office). 2010. Home should be addressed in terms of both rights and obliga- page, http://www.clo.state.ok.us/ (accessed June 1, tions between actors (Singer 2000:17). State school land 2010). needs to be re-envisioned in order to ensure the greatest Culp, P.W., D.B. Conradi, and C.C. Tuell. 2005. Trust good for the greatest number of people, while at the same Lands in the American West: A Legal Overview time recognizing the traditional rights and livelihoods of and Policy Assessment, a Policy Assessment Report those families who have called No Man’s Land home for of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy/Sonoran In- almost a century. stitute Joint Venture on State Trust Lands. Sonoran Institute, Tucson. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dale, E.E. 1965. Cow Country. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. We thank Jennifer Paustenbaugh and Misty Smith for Davis, C. 2001. Politics and public rangeland policy. In inviting us to participate in the Oklahoma Oral History Western Public Lands and Environmental Politics, Project and providing us with logistical support. We also ed. C. Davis, 87–107. Westview Press, Boulder.

Dawes, R.M. 1973. The commons dilemma game. ORI Hecht, S., and A. Cockburn. 1990. Fate of the Forest: De- Research Bulletin 13:1–12. veloper, Destroyers, and Defenders of the Amazon. The Economist. 1997. For cattle or schools? Economist Routledge/Verso, London. 342, no. 8000 (January 18, 1997):27–30. Retrieved Hodge, Oliver. 1937. The administration and development from Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (ac- of the Oklahoma School Land Department. Mas- cessed January 10, 2009). ter’s thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman. Egan, T. 2006. The Worst Hard Time. Houghton Mifflin, IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). New York. 2000. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Forstall, R.L., ed. 1995. Oklahoma: Population of Coun- Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990, http:// Kittredge, W. 1996. Who Owns the West? Mercury www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/cen- House, San Francisco. counts/files/ok190090.txt (accessed June 29, 2008). Lindsay, D. 1995. Idaho grazing lands eyed as cash cow Friedman, M.S. n.d. The Inflation Calculator, http:// for schools. Education Week 14 (35):1. Professional www.westegg.com/inflation/index.html (accessed Development Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed August 10, 2009). December 20, 2009). Geisler, C., and G. Daneker, ed. 2000. Property and Val- Lindsey, R. 2008. Devastating Drought Settles on the ues: Alternatives to Public and Private Ownership. High Plains, NASA’s Earth Observatory, http://earth- Island Press, Washington, DC. observatory.nasa.gov/Features/OklahomaDrought/ Gibson, C.C., M.A. McKean, and E. Ostrom. 2000. Ex- (accessed August 9, 2009). plaining deforestation: The role of local institutions. Lowitt, R. 2006. American Outback. Texas Tech Univer- In People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, sity Press, Lubbock. and Governance, ed. C.C. Gibson, M.A. McKean, Manning, R. 2009. Rewilding the West: Restoration in a and E. Ostrom, 3–26. MIT Press, Cambridge. Prairie Landscape. University of California Press, GLP (Global Land Project). 2005. Science Plan and Berkeley. Implementation Strategy, IGBP Report 35/IHDP McKean, M.A. 2000. Common property: What is it, what Report 19. Stockholm, Sweden. is it good for, and what makes it work? In People Golobie, J. 1904. Which Is Better, Individual or State and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Gov- Ownership of School Lands? Oklahoma Printing ernance, ed. C.C. Gibson, M.A. McKean, and E. Company, Guthrie, OK. Ostrom, 27–56. MIT Press, Cambridge. Gress, G.M. 2000. From maverick lands to managed Mendelsohn, R. 1994. Property rights and tropical defor- lands: Ranching and school lands in Cimarron estation. Oxford Economics 46:750–56. County, Oklahoma. PhD diss., University of Okla- National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2002. homa, Norman. County Profile Cimarron, Oklahoma, http://www. Grossman, M.R. 2000. Leasehold interests and the separa- agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/County_ tion of ownership and control in U.S. farmland. In Profiles/Oklahoma/cp40025.PDF (accessed Janu- Geisler and Daneker, Property and Values, 119– 48. ary 7, 2009). Hall, A. 1997. Sustaining Amazonia: Grassroots Action The Nature Conservancy. 2009. Oklahoma Black Mesa for Productive Conservation. Manchester Univer- Nature Preserve, www.nature.org/wherewework/ sity Press, Manchester, UK. northamerica/states/oklahoma/preserves/blackmesa. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science html (accessed January 7, 2009). 162:1243–48. Nugent, Walter. 1999. Into the West. Vintage Books, New Hays, R. 2008. State FSA director Jim Reese responds to York. CRP dissatisfaction in the Panhandle. Oklahoma’s Oklahoma Ad Valorem. 2006. Forum 15 (2):4. Farm News Update, June 23, 2008, http://www. Oklahoma Climatological Survey, Climate Information oklahomafarmreport.com/Oklahoma_s_Farm_ Group. 2006. Oklahoma Drought Update, January News_Update_06232008.htm (accessed July 23, 26, 2006, http://climate.ok.gov/newsmedia/releases/ 2009). droughtupdate.pdf (accessed January 7, 2009). Healy, F.D., and D.L. Dosh-Healy. 1992. Introduction to Oklahoma Department of Commerce (ODC). 2009. County: They Called it Cimarron, ed. F.D. Healy and D.L. Cimarron Economy and Taxes, http://busdev3.odoc5. Dosh-Healy, 3–13. DDH Press, Tucson. odoc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=1470&_dad=

portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&cwr=68&cwp=DYN_ Journal of Real Estate, Finance, and Economics CP_ECONOMY_RPT_00&cwd=county%3A%20 33:345–62. cimarron&STATE_FIPS_CODE=02 (accessed August 9, Tortorelli, R.L. 2007. Hydrologic Drought of Water Year 2009). 2006: A Historical Context. Oklahoma Water Re- Oklahoma State Department of Education. 2009. Public sources Board, Oklahoma City. schools: Mailing list with student enrollment and Tucker. C.M. 1999. Private vs. common property forests: number of staff, http://sde.state.ok.us/Services/ Forest conditions and tenure in a Honduran com- Data/database.html (accessed August 15, 2009). munity. Human Ecology 27:201–30. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution Turner, B.L. II. 2002. Toward integrated land-change sci- of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cam- ence: Advances in 1.5 decades of sustained interna- bridge University Press. tional research on land-use and land-cover change. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. In Challenges of a Changing Earth: Proceedings Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. of the Global Change Open Science Conference, Ostrom, E., and H. Nagendra. 2006. Insights on linking Amsterdam, NL, 10–13 July 2001, ed. W. Steffen, forest, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, J. Jager, D. Carson, and C. Bradshaw, 269–72. and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany. Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 103:19224–231. Turner, B.L. II, G. Hyden, and R.W. Kates, ed. 1993. Peet, R., and M. Watts. 1996. Liberation Ecologies. Rout- Population Growth and Agricultural Change in ledge, London. Africa. Carter Lecture Series, Center for African Peluso, N.L. 1992. Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Studies, University of Florida. University Press of Control and Resistance in Java. University of Cali- Florida, Gainesville. fornia Press, Berkeley. UN (United Nations). 2006. The Millennium Development Rainey, G. 1937. No Man’s Land. George Rainey, Enid, Goals Report 2006. United Nations, New York. OK. USCA (U.S. Census of Agriculture). 1910, 1925, 1930, Robbins, P. 2004. Political Ecology. Blackwell Publish- 1940, 1950 http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publica- ing, Malden. tions/Historical_Publications/index.asp (accessed Rocheleau, D., and D. Edmunds. 1997. Women, men and July 14, 2009). trees: Gender, power and property in forest and agrar- USCA. 1945. Statistics by Counties, vol. 1, pt. 25: Okla- ian landscapes. World Development 25:1351–71. homa. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing- Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari. 1996. ton, DC. Gender and environment: A feminist political ecol- USCA. 1959, 1978, 1982. State and County Data, vol. 1, ogy perspective. In Feminist Political Ecology: pt. 36: Oklahoma. U.S. Government Printing Office, Global Issues and Local Experiences, ed. D. Ro- Washington, DC. cheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari, 3–26. USCA. 1969. Area Reports Seal Summary Data, pt. Routledge, London. 36: Oklahoma. U.S. Government Printing Office, Schmink, M., and C. Wood. 1992. Contested Frontiers in Washington, DC. Amazonia. New York: Columbia University Press. USCA. 1987, 1997. Oklahoma State and County Data: Singer, J.W. 2000. Property and social relations: from title Geographical Area Series, vol. 1, pt. 36: Oklahoma. to entitlement. In Geisler and Daneker, Property U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. and Values, 3–17. USCA. 2002, 2007. 2002 Census Publications, http:// Souder, J.A., and S.K. Fairfax. 1996. State Trust Lands: www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/index. History, Management, and Sustainable Use. Uni- asp (accessed July 14, 2009). versity Press of Kansas, Lawrence. U.S. Census Bureau. 1975. Historical Statistics of the Souder, J.A., and S.K. Fairfax. 2000. In lands we trusted: United States, Colonial Times to 1970. U.S. Depart- State lands as an alternative theory of public owner- ment of Commerce/U.S. Government Printing Of- ship and control. In Geisler and Daneker, Property fice, Washington, DC. and Values, 89–118. U.S. Census Bureau. 1982. Population Estimates and Sunderman, M.A., and R.W. Spahr. 2006. Management Population Distribution Branches. Preliminary Es- policy and estimated returns on School Trust Lands. timates of the Intercensal Population of Counties,

1970–1979, http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/ gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage_2002/CO- pre-1980/e7079co.txt (accessed August 10, 2009). EST2002-01/CO-EST2002-01-40.html (accessed U.S. Census Bureau. 1992. Population Estimates and August 10, 2009). Population Distribution Branches. Intercensal Yorks, S. 2008. Wanted OK Gov. Brad Henry. Guymon Estimates of the Resident Population of States Daily Herald, July 15, http://www.guymondaily and Counties, 1980–1989, http://www.census.gov/ herald.com/content/view/93938/1/ (accessed Au- popest/archives/1980s/e8089co.txt (accessed Au- gust 6, 2009). gust 10, 2009). Watts, M.J. 2000. Political ecology. In A Companion U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Population Division, Popu- to Economic Geography, ed. E. Sheppard and T. lation Estimates Program: County Population Barnes, 257–74. Blackwell Publishers, Malden. Estimates and Demographic Components of Popu- Webb, W. P. 1931. The Great Plains. Grossnet and Dun- lation Change: Annual Time Series, July 1, 1990 lap, New York. to July 1, 1999, http://www.census.gov/popest/ Weeks, W. 1997. Building the Continental Empire: Amer- archives/1990s/co-99-08/99C8_40.txt (accessed ican Expansion from the Revolution to the Civil August 10, 2009). War. Ivan R. Dee Publisher, Chicago. U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. State and County Quickfacts, Whited, K. 2008. Governor Henry and secretary of ag- http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40/40025. riculture Peach visit Cimarron County. Oklahoma html (accessed June 20, 2008). Conservation Conversation Newsletter 54:3. U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. Statistical Abstract of Wilson, S.W. 2009. Population Dynamics of the Great the United States: 2008. U.S. Department of Plains: 1950–2007. U.S. Census, Washington, DC. Commerce/U.S. Government Printing Office, Wynn, K. 2004. The state of Oklahoma. In The Uniting Washington, DC. States: The Story for Fifty United States, vol. 3: U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. County Population Esti- Oklahoma to Wyoming, ed. Benjamin F. Shearer, mates, Annual Estimates of the Resident Popula- 967–94. Greenwood Press, Santa Barbara. tion for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008, Zimmerer, K.S., and T.J. Bassett. 2003. Future directions http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/CO- in political ecology: Nature-society fusions and EST2007-01-40.xls (accessed August 10, 2009). scales of interaction. In Political Ecology: An Inte- U.S. Census Bureau. 2009b. Population Estimates by grative Approach to Geography and Environment- County, Oklahoma County Population Estimates: Development Studies, ed. K.S. Zimmerer and T.J. April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, http://www.census. Bassett, 274–95. Guilford Press, New York.