To Ranch Or Not to Ranch: Home on the Urban Range?

To ranch or not to ranch: Home on the urban range?

Item Type text; Article

Authors Liffmann, R. H.; Huntsinger, L.; Forero, L. C.

Citation Liffmann, R. H., Huntsinger, L., & Forero, L. C. (2000). To ranch or not to ranch: Home on the urban range?. Journal of Range Management, 53(4), 362-370.

DOI 10.2307/4003745

Publisher Society for Range Management

Journal Journal of Range Management

Download date 30/09/2021 01:32:49

Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Version Final published version

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/643775 J. Range Manage. 53:362–370 JULY 2000 To ranch or not to ranch: Home on the urban range?

ROBIN H. LIFFMANN, LYNN HUNTSINGER, AND LARRY C. FORERO

Authors are graduate student researcher and associate professor, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. 94720; and University of California Cooperative Extension Livestock Farm Advisor, Shasta County.

Abstract Resumen

California ranchers in urban Alameda and Contra Costa Rancheros californianos fueron estudiados, en los condado Counties, and in rural Tehama County, were surveyed to exam- urbanos de Alameda y Contra Costa y en el rural de Tehama, ine effects of increasing development, land use change, and attri- para conocer los efectos de la urbanización, y de los cambios en tion of the ranching community on their commitment to ranch- el uso del suelo, en relación con el temor de los rancheros a que ing, and to assess land conservation program acceptability. ello suponga una disminución o pérdida de la comunidad Questions were about practices, reasons for ranching, and what ranchera. También se analizaron sus opiniones acerca del con- influences ranching’s future. Ranchers share much in common. tenido de diversos programas sobre la conservación de los usos Most enjoy ranching, “feeling close to the earth,” living in a posibles del suelo y la tenencia del mismo. El contenido de las “good place for family life,” and the camaraderie in the ranching preguntas versó sobre las prácticas de los rancheros, las razones community. They regularly carry out range improvements. Most que tenían para continuar con su modo de vida y qué aspectos, believe that society is becoming “hostile to ranching.” A dislike según ellos, pueden influir en el futuro de su existencia. El son- for outsider intervention and land use control prevails. Urban deo refleja bastante unaimidad en las opiniones de los rancheros. ranchers cared significantly less about the fate of their ranch if En la mayoría de los casos les gusta ranchear, “sentire que están sold, and feared local land use planning much more. Rural pisando la tierra”, “vivir en en buen lugar para la vida familiar” ranchers overwhelmingly wanted their ranch to remain a pro- y disfrutar del compañerismo dentro de la comunidad. Trabajan ductive ranch even if sold. No new ranchers appeared in the juntos en el desarrollo de proyectos para la mejora del campo y urban sample for the last 10 years. As urbanization proceeds, we de los terrenos de pastoreo. Muchos opinan que en la sociedad, suggest that a point is reached where ranchers recognize the en general, existe cierta aversión hacia los rancheros y su modo social, ecological, and economic landscape as urban and see it as de vida. Entre los rancheros predomina un sentimiento de decep- no longer suitable for ranching. Expecting to sell for develop- ción hacia los forasteros y con los intentos de intervención exteri- ment, and/or expecting zoning to change to allow it, becomes the or para controlar los usos del terreno. Los rancheros urbanos no rational view. Land conservation efforts, including relatively muestran tanta preocupación sobre las consecuencias de las ven- acceptable though as yet not widespread conservation easement tas de sus ranchos, sin embargo temen más que el gobierno les programs, should begin before that happens. limite los usos de la tierra o la oportunidad de vender sus propiedads. Los rancheros rurales, de manera contundente, desean que sus ranchos continúen siendo productivos, aunque sean vendidos. Ningún ranchero urbano nuevo, perteneciente a Key Words: land use change, land trusts, rangeland conversion, los últimos diez años, aparece en el grupo encuestado. Con el ranch values proceso de urbanización avanzando, nosotros sugerimos que se llegue a un punto donde los rancheros reconozcan el entorno Ranchers own most of California’s highly productive low ele- social ecológico y económico de su rancho dentro de un paisaje vation annual rangelands, an estimated 8.1 million ha of oak urbano y no lo vean como la continuación del rancho. La expec- woodland and annual grassland (Ewing et al. 1988). Studies of tativa de vender su propiedad para el desarrollo, y/o esperar un oak woodlands statewide have shown they are two-thirds owned cambio en las leyes que permita tal desarrollo, es un punto de vista lógico. Los esfuerzos encaminados a la conservación de la by livestock producers with holdings larger than 8 ha, and about tierra,, incluyendo programas que aunque no muy extendidos three-fourths grazed (Huntsinger et al. 1997, Holzman 1993, todavía sean aceptables para muchos rancheros, deberían ser Bolsinger 1988). Annual rangelands produce an average of 700 puestos en marcha antes de que el proceso de ventas de parcelas kg/ha of biomass each year under conservative stocking, and pro- o urbanización del campo ocurra. vide watershed, wildlife habitat, and open space. Although such benefits are now earning broad acknowledgment, rangelands are at growing risk of residential development, or conversion to high value products such as wine grapes. Urban out-growth is becoming more common throughout the West (Wright 1993a). Research was funded in part by the Agricultural Experiment Station. The This paper compares results of a survey of ranchers in a highly authors wish to thank Rebecca Richards and Sheila Barry for their help in developing the questionnaire for the study, and Paul F. Starrs and our anonymous review- urban area of California and a mostly rural, but growing, area. ers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. The goal was to examine how increased expectations of develop- Muchos gracias to Antonio Ceballos and Pablo Estrellas of the University of ment and the attrition of the ranching community that comes with Salamanca for translating the abstract into Spanish. a more urban landscape affects a rancher’s commitment to ranch- Manuscript accepted 10 Nov. 1999. ing, and to help assess what sorts of land conservation programs

362 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 53(4), July 2000 are most acceptable. Ranchers were asked servation in the United States (Alterman prices far exceeding their value as live- about their management practices, their 1997, Gale 1992). However decisions of stock operations for reasons that included reasons for ranching, and what they think private landowners in fact play a pivotal “love of the land,” and “love of rural val- is likely to influence the future of ranching. role in determining future land use (Platt ues.” Hargrave (1993) found that Sierran 1991, Johnston and Bryant 1987). ranchers persist despite economic hardship Rangeland Conversion Patterns Principal factors influencing the sequence and development pressure because they Drawn by open space, affordable hous- and form of development have been sum- enjoy the tradition and way of life, and ing, and rural lifestyles, a growing popula- marized by Kaiser and Weiss (1970) as: want their children to ranch if they so tion is stimulating conversion of California (1) contextual factors—socio-economic choose. Based on similar findings, ranches rangelands to new uses, transforming the characteristics, including land policies have been described as units of consump- landscape through development. A study dealing with municipal infrastructure and tion rather than production (Grigsby 1980, of Sierran foothill oak woodlands and services and land use regulations; (2) 1976). grasslands found ranchers a shrinking pro- property factors—such as location and Comparison of urban and rural ranchers portion of ownerships. Estate taxes, con- physical characteristics of the property; allows identification of “transitional flicts between multiple heirs, and lucrative and (3) decision agent factors—the players effects” that influence rancher decisions, purchase offers encourage ranchers to sell in the development process and their such as rising land speculation, an increase land to developers, and much land is being goals, expectations, and motivations. in conflicts with community and neigh- purchased and held for development by Obviously, these factors are hardly inde- bors, and loss of the “critical mass” of corporate and individual speculators pendent, but this research focuses on the ranchers necessary to maintain agricultural (Johnson 1998). In his economic case third factor, the decision agent or support services and markets (Huntsinger study in the Sierra foothills, Hargrave landowner. According to Furuseth and and Hopkinson 1996, Hart 1991a, 1991b, (1993) found ranching unprofitable when Pierce (1982), “if one wishes to influence Heimlich and Anderson 1987, Lisansky the opportunity costs of investment were successfully the location and pattern of and Clark 1987, Berry and Plaut 1978). considered—the only economic justifica- land conversion, then one must understand Rising land speculation can create an envi- tion for ranching was to hold land for the principal decision-makers and the link- ronment that encourages a feeling of increased real estate value. Smethurst ages that exist among them.” impermanence; landowners expect to sell (1997) concluded that the Sierra foothills out for non-agricultural uses (Berry and were “being transformed to an absentee- Rancher Decisionmaking Plaut 1978). The term “impermanence owned landscape, where natural resources The importance of rancher decisionmak- syndrome” describes the reduced land and such as water, timberland, and recreational ing has been noted by a number of property management, and accompanying assets are owned by those living outside researchers (Hart 1991a, 1991b, 1976; lack of investment in farming or ranching the region. Residential development has Berry and Plaut 1978), and is best that may result when returns anticipated increased, while ranching, farming, and summed by Johnson (1998): "a single from development far outweigh the returns hardwood rangeland have declined.” ranch-owner's decision may spell the fate possible from agriculture (Heimlich and In 1965, in response to loss of agricultur- of many thousands of acres. Landowner Anderson 1987). If sometimes unrealistic, al land, the California Land Conservation decisions affect more than their own prop- price expectations can reduce landowner Act was passed, commonly referred to as erty, as nearby properties are also influ- participation in conservation efforts such the Williamson Act. Participant landown- enced through the fragmentation of land as the Williamson Act (McClaran et al. ers, including more than half of use, weakening of the agricultural infra- 1985). Some researchers have argued that California’s rangeland owners (Huntsinger structure, changing land values, and the reduced dependence on income from agri- et al. 1997, McClaran et al. 1985), enroll in creation of new growth nodes in previous- cultural production will also contribute to a 10-year rolling land conservation con- ly undeveloped areas.” a lack of investment and management tract with their county in exchange for tax Numerous studies note that social fac- activity by the landowner (Fortmann and relief. However, McClaran et al. (1985) tors, values, and attitudes, and not just Huntsinger 1989). found this effective only in areas where profits strongly affect the decisions of Conflicts over odors, noise, stray live- development pressure was not yet high. range livestock producers. In a 1995 sur- stock, human trespass, vandalism, and pet Accessibility and distance from a vey, the majority of California oak wood- predation may result in formal litigation or desired destination, such as a city center or land ranchers reported that “living near restriction of agricultural activities airport, are commonly held to explain pat- natural beauty” was an important reason to through ordinances or zoning (Lisansky terns of urban growth and development ranch (Huntsinger et al. 1997). Similar and Clark 1987, Conklin and Lesher (Furuseth and Pierce 1982). Land conver- results have been found elsewhere in the 1977). Ranchers, used to resolving dis- sion pressure does appear greatest on the western U.S. (Smith and Martin 1972). putes through peer relations (Ellickson urban fringe (Hart 1991a, McClaran et al. “Ranch fundamentalism,” an idealization 1991), face an influx of newcomers with 1985), but the decision process for land of the independent ranching lifestyle, and different, often litigious, ideas about conversion includes political, institutional the benefits of ranching to family life, recourse, multiplying misunderstanding and behavioral factors in addition to prox- have been described by economists and and cementing conflict. Mutual coopera- imity (Furuseth and Pierce 1982). The others as motivating decisions to keep tion or reciprocity and resolution of con- public generally assumes that government- ranching despite the low profits character- flicts through peer relations, are common instituted land use regulations at local and istic of the industry at the producer level and successful traits among pastoralists regional levels control rangeland conver- (Bartlett et al. 1989, Smith and Martin world-wide (Roe et al. 1998, Sandford sion. Researchers have recently pointed 1972, Martin and Jefferies 1966). Smith 1983). Ranching has traditionally relied on out that urban growth limits and sprawl and Martin (1972) reported that Arizona the cooperation and participation of neigh- controls are a neglected key to rural con- ranchers resisted selling ranches at market bors in rounding up herds, brandings, and

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 53(4), July 2000 363 other activities requiring many people for Methods upper reaches of California’s Sacramento a short period of time (Starrs 1998). Valley, about 200 km north and inland of Helping neighbors who help you has the San Francisco Bay counties of Range livestock producers in 2 areas, social and practical benefits that cement a Alameda and Contra Costa (Fig. 1)(Table Tehama County, and Alameda/Contra Costa cohesive ranching community. The transi- 1). Hilly chaparral, oak woodland, and Counties, were surveyed by mail. Samples tion from a rural to urban landscape frac- annual grass rangelands make up most of were randomly selected from a compilation tures the social, economic, and ecological Tehama, bordered on the west by the coast of U.C. Extension’s Farm Advisor list, structure of the ranching community, con- range, and on the east by Sierra Nevadan Natural Resource Conservation Service tributing to rancher decisions to sell land lava rock ranges and coniferous forests. A (NRCS) list, and an emergency feed pro- for development. predominately agricultural county, crop- gram list. The questionnaire was edited and lands and much of the irrigated grazing pretested working with natural resource land follow the Sacramento River flowing Rangeland Conservation Options management professionals, and ranchers not north to south through the valley floor. In popular “environmentalist” writings, selected for sampling, within and outside The urban areas of Red Bluff and Corning ranching is often constructed as an the study areas. exploitative, environmentally destructive contain around 37% of the county’s activity motivated by greedy and neglect- 52,000 people, and lie within the Interstate Study Areas ful livestock operators (Jacobs 1991, 5 (I-5) corridor paralleling the river. Tehama County and the combined Wuerthner 1990). In recent years, ranching Average population density for the county Alameda and Contra Costa Counties has been reconceived by elements in the was .07 per ha in 1994 (Table 1). Tehama (ACC) are similar in resources, with live- conservation movement as an apt way of County planners consider agriculture of stock forage mostly of Mediterranean-type conserving open space and wildlife habitat, prime importance, though industrial, com- annual grasses. Both study areas have particularly through the establishment of mercial and residential development is strong agricultural components in their land trusts and conservation easements encouraged along the I-5 corridor on land county General Plans and participate in (Huntsinger and Hopkinson 1996, Wright unsuitable for crops. Ranching is consid- the Williamson Act. 1993a, 1993b, 1994). Diverse groups ered by county planners to be flexible and Tehama County is 764,000 ha in the including the California Cattlemen’s suitable for marginal lands (Tehama Association, the Nature Conservancy, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and a variety of local organi- zations have supported such programs. Determining the best strategies and the acceptability of various programs requires knowledge of rancher values and motives. Land use planning and zoning may reduce rangeland conversion, but are sub- ject to fluid political and economic objec- tives. They have proven useful for tem- porarily slowing development until more permanent conservation strategies can be employed, such as conservation easements (Hart 1991b). Property rights include a variety of rights, such as mineral rights, grazing rights, rights to develop, and rights to sell, each of which can be sold or con- tracted separately (Raymond 1997, Huntsinger and Hopkinson 1996, Daniels 1991). Property owners can sell or donate the right to develop land in perpetuity as part of creating a conservation easement. Easement sales can compensate for loss of land value or buy out heirs; donation or sale of easements can reduce taxes. Other rights, including the right to sell, are retained as defined in the easement agree- ment, and the land remains private and in production. Voluntary, incentive-based programs such as conservation easements and land trusts depend on willing landowner cooperation, and according to Wright (1994), work best in areas where people are committed to conserving a way of life. But in regions of rapid growth and rising land values, does this commitment wane? Fig. 1. Tehama, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties, Calif.

364 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 53(4), July 2000 Table 1. Characteristics of Tehama and Alameda–Contra Costa Counties, California. Results

Percent Percent Tehama Alameda- ACC Respondents in the 2 study areas were Tehama study area Contra Costa study area similar demographically: the majority were owner-operators, male, of mean age Total land area (ha) 764,000 100.0 378,000 100.0 BLM (ha) 21,000 2.7 800 .2 50, with some college education, and third USFS (ha) 158,000 20.6 0 0.0 or more generation rancher (Table 2). Other public (ha) 23,000 3.01 31,500 8.3 Most had a family or individual cow-calf All public (ha) 202,000 26.2 32,300 8.5 operation, sometimes in combination with 1993 irrigated range (ha) 9,106 1.2 1,939 .5 stocker production. Only a few ranchers 1993 non–irrigated range (ha) 376,371 49.3 155,587 41.2 had only sheep or a combination of cattle Population in 1994 51,903 2,148,157 and sheep, with significantly less sheep Population density 0.07/ha 5.70/ha ranchers in Alameda-Contra Costa (ACC) Value ag products in 1993 $100,365,200 $125,533,750 than in Tehama (Table 2). Value beef cattle/calves in 1993 $11,682,000 $11,478,000.00 There were more Tehama than ACC Production $ per ha in 1993 (Irrigated) $191.50 $220.00 ranchers in the lower income brackets, and Production $ per ha in 1993 (Dry) $17.30 $37.00 ACC ranchers had more often obtained Sources: Contra Costa Department of Agriculture 1993, Tehama County Department of Agriculture 1993, U.S. Dept. of college degrees (Table 2). American per Commerce 1992 and 1994, Ewing et al. 1988. capita personal income figures (1993 dol- lars) show a mean of $25,433 for ACC County Planning Dept. 1990, G. Robson, designed by Dillman (1978) to achieve a and $14,276 for Tehama, a 56% difference Planning Director, Tehama Co., pers. high response rate. Eligible survey respon- between the study sites (Calif. Dept. of comm. 1995). Between 1984 and 1994, dents had to meet 2 specific criteria: they Finance 1996). Significantly more Tehama urban acreage increased by 522 ha in grazed livestock on rangeland or pasture ranchers earned 75% or more of their Tehama (FMMP 1996). in the study areas and they were the main income from ranching, while significantly Alameda and Contra Costa Counties are decision-maker. Eligible and usable ques- more ACC ranchers earned less than 25% adjacent and stretch from the eastern shore tionnaires were returned by 132 out of 178 of their income from ranching (Table 2). of San Francisco Bay to the western edge Tehama County respondents for a Alameda and Contra Costa County of the Sacramento Valley. Their combined response rate of 74%, and by 113 out of ranchers had owned their land significant- 377,634 ha (Table 1) incorporates densely 204 Alameda-Contra Costa County ly longer. More than two-thirds of all populated, urbanized development and respondents for a response rate of 55%. respondents had owned their land for 25 or less populated agricultural area, where a The questionnaire was 19 pages long in more years, but close to half of ACC fami- marine influence and mild winters support booklet format, with 48 questions and lies had owned their land for at least 50 some of the most productive annual grass groups of questions. Grouped questions years, and more than a quarter for 100 rangeland in the State (Forero et al. 1992). were focused on a topic area, including rea- years plus. None of the ACC sample had With about half the rangeland of Tehama, sons to quit or to stay in ranching, threats to owned their land for less than 10 years Alameda and Contra Costa produce about ranching, characteristics of the ranching (Table 2). Two-thirds of all respondents the same value of beef cattle and calves operation, management practices, manage- had land enrolled in the Williamson Act, (Table 1). The average population density ment goals, and standard demographic and 4% had land in a conservation ease- of 5.7 per ha (Table 1) is spatially concen- characteristics. In general, responses were ment. In ACC, ranches were in signifi- trated in the western and north central sec- measured on Likert-type scales, with the cantly closer proximity to current or tions of the counties (Landis et al. 1993). respondent circling the number from 1 to 5 planned development (Table 2). But the coast range oak woodlands and that represented how important an item was Overwhelmingly, ranchers found other grasslands that comprise the eastern agri- to the rancher in his or her decisions about ranchers, and University of California cultural area are undergoing intense devel- ranching, or how frequently a practice was Cooperative Extension, to be useful infor- opment pressures and skyrocketing land used. For example, respondents were asked mation sources. Other common sources values (Forero et al. 1992). The General to rate how important several “reasons to were pharmaceutical companies and veteri- Plan of Alameda County has an Urban keep ranching” were to them. In response narians, the local Farm Bureau, and the Growth Boundary, and Contra Costa to the question of how important “feeling National Cattleman’s Association (Table 2). County has a designated Urban Limit Line close to the earth” is as a reason to keep Most rangeland grazing in both sites (ULL), that delimit areas suitable for ranching, the respondent could circle 1 of took place on private rather than public urban development versus areas suitable the following responses: (1) not at all impor - land. Tehama ranchers grazed larger prop- for long-term protection of natural ta n t , (2) not very important, (3) fairly impor - erties than ACC ranchers. About a third of resources, agriculture, and open space t a n t , (4) very important, or (5) does not Tehama ranchers had livestock graze part 2 (ACPD 1994, CCCCDD 1991). Between ap p l y . The Chi-square (X ) statistic was used of the year outside the county, compared 1984 and 1994, urban acreage increased to test for significant differences in categori- to less than a quarter of ACC ranchers by 10,222 ha in Alameda and Contra cal responses between ranchers in the 2 study (Table 2). Costa counties (FMMP 1996). areas, while Student’s t-test was used to com- pare grouped continuous variables such as respondent age or how many years the ranch Goals, Practices, and Management Rancher Survey Improving livestock quality and increas- In the winter of 1993/94, ranchers were was owned (Spicer 1972). Differences of P <.1 are discussed as significant. ing production, as well as improving the surveyed by mail using the questionnaire quality and quantity of forage, and style and 4-wave mailing technique improving soil stability and wildlife habi-

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT53(4), July 2000 365 Table 2. Demographics and ranch ownership in Tehama and Table 3. Ranching goals and practices, Tehama and Alameda–Contra Costa Counties, California, 1994. Alameda–Contra Costa Counties, California, 1994.

Tehama Alameda/Contra Tehama Alameda/Contra Ranchers Costa Ranchers The following are important goals Ranchers Costa Ranchers 1 2 (n=132) (n=113) P(X ) for my ranch: (n=132)1 (n=113) P(X2) ------(%)------(%)------Some college or higher 75 61 .02 Improving wildlife habitat 78 69 .12 3rd + generation rancher 60 60 .99 Increasing forage 95 97 .66 Gross income: Improving soil stability 94 90 .23 less than $25,000 18 6 .01 Increasing livestock production 89 91 .44 25,000 – 74,999 61 56 .54 more than $75,000 21 38 .01 Protect scenic values 78 67 .05 Percent income from ranch: Diversify operation 41 37 .52 75% – 100% 33 23 .07 Reduce need for pesticides 25% or less 30 52 .00 and herbicides 79 68 .05 Mean years owned land: 39 63 .00 Improve livestock quality 99 98 .91 Owned land < 10 yrs 13 0 .00 Type of ranch operation: Have carried out the following cow–calf only 45 35 .10 practices in last 5 years: cow–calf and stocker 21 25 .46 Prescribed or controlled burn 34 25 .12 sheep only 11 5 .08 Herbicides 35 36 .82 sheep and cattle 11 4 .04 Chaining or thinning 32 28 .43 Raises food crops 41 32 .20 Browsing by goats or others 18 18 .90 Raises horses 28 39 .08 Controlled grazing 65 73 .20 Goes hunting or fishing on ranch 52 29 .00 Deferred or rest rotation 53 37 .02 Uses own irrigated pasture or meadow 84 35 .00 Continuous year–round grazing 12 40 .00 Grazes in more than one county 32 18 .02 Seeding rangeland 40 43 .60 Grazes some public land 30 35 .40 Fencing riparian areas 23 15 .06 Enrolled in Williamson Act 67 69 .71 Commercial fertilizers 44 24 .01 Land in conservation easement 4 4 .92 Manure application 39 26 .09 Grazes more than 809 ha of Mulching with ungrazed forage 65 57 .17 own property 22 10 .02 Electric fencing 38 39 .87 Grazes 1–20 ha of own property 25 30 .40 Developed springs 24 64 .00 Distance from development Put in water tanks or troughs 70 90 .00 ranch is part of one 0 4 .00 Laid water pipe 46 71 .00 8 km or less 58 81 .00 Stabilized streambanks 40 30 .13 UC Cooperative Extension Overall satisfied with is a useful source of information 92 81 .02 Other ranchers are a good source range condition 87 86 .96 of information 97 95 .51 Used volunteer labor by neighbors 85 87 .50 1n varies slightly by question. 1n varies slightly by question. 2t–test is used on continuous data. tat, were important management goals for dents at least occasionally used neighbor passing more than 10 times, significantly most ranchers (Table 3). More than two- volunteer labor, and around half of those more often than in Tehama (Table 4). thirds of all ranchers described reducing reported that neighbors help regularly. Trespassing was felt by more than two- the need for insecticides and herbicides Just over a third of the ACC respondents thirds of all respondents to be a threat to and protecting or improving scenic values used deferred or rest rotation grazing sys- ranching, though significantly more so in as important goals, but Tehama respon- tems, while 40% grazed year-round (Table Tehama (Table 6). More than half of dents rated the importance significantly 3). In Tehama, however, half of the respondents reported finding other peo- higher. Diversifying their operation to pro- respondents used deferred or rest rotation ple’s cattle on their property at least twice duce non-livestock products was not an systems, and only 12% grazed year-round within two years. Almost all would important goal for most (Table 3). on Tehama’s hot summer grasslands respond by rounding the livestock up and Over a five-year period 90% or more of where seasonal use is the norm. Of returning them to their owner or, by calling all ranchers carried out at least 1 range Tehama ranchers grazing year-round, all or talking to the owner about it (Table 4). improvement practice, including seeding, used irrigated pasture except 2 who had Ranchers agreed public lands grazing is thinning or chaining woody vegetation, thousands of ha of rangeland with water important for U.S. livestock production prescribed burning, stabilizing stream- improvements. There was no significant and local economies. Most believed pri- banks, developing springs, building ponds, difference in the use of mulch manage- vate lands are better managed, particularly putting erosion control structures in ment, the practice of leaving specified lev- in Tehama where most public ownership streams, and/or using fertilizers (Table 3). els of dry grass/residue behind. Regardless is federal. Most did not agree that low Tehama ranchers were significantly more of the grazing system used, most respon- public fees penalize private land ranchers likely to use fertilizer, and to fence and dents were satisfied with ranch range con- (Table 4). manage riparian areas separately. There dition (Table 3). were more springs developed, water pipes Half of Tehama and ACC ranchers Motives for Ranching found people trespassing 2 to 10 times laid, and tanks or troughs placed by ACC An overwhelming 90% or more of ranchers. More than 80% of all respon- over a 2-year period of time. And, in ACC, almost a third found people tres- respondents in both study sites indicated

366 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 53(4), July 2000 Table 4. Management issues, Tehama and Alameda–Contra Costa Counties, California, 1994. your ranch, how desirable, if at all, would it be to you to see the following happen as Tehama Alameda/Contra a result of your choice of buyer?” More What they would do if found someone else’s Ranchers Costa Ranchers 1 2 than three-quarters of Tehama ranchers livestock on property: (n=132) (n=113) P(X ) wanted the ranch to remain private and ------(%)------used for livestock grazing, while over a Shoot the animals 2 0 third of ACC respondents indicated that it Call the Brand Inspector 2 0 didn’t matter to them (Table 7). Half of Round them up and return them 39 39 Call or talk to the owner by phone 56 53 .58 ACC respondents indicated that it is desir- Report them to the sheriff 2 0 able to have the ranch developed for resi- Do nothing 0 0 dential use or that it makes no difference, Found people trespassing or stray cattle on their whereas more than two-thirds of Tehama land in last 2 years: respondents declared this an undesirable People trespassing: outcome. Finally, a quarter of ACC 2 – 10 times 55 51 .57 respondents were indifferent to whether more than 10 times 23 31 .05 their ranch is sold to a public owner or to a Stray cattle: non-profit organization, while most 2 – 10 times 58 53 .39 more than 10 times 17 22 .30 Tehama respondents found these 2 options undesirable (Table 7). Agrees with the following about grazing on public lands: Is important for U.S. sheep and cattle production 93 94 .64 Is degrading the land 11 3 .02 Low fees penalize ranchers on private lands 39 45 .33 Discussion and Conclusions Is important to local economies 89 84 .33 Private lands are better managed 82 68 .02 Ranchers in predominately agricultural 1 n varies slightly by question. Tehama County and in rapidly developing Alameda and Contra Costa Counties were that “feeling close to the earth” and having ACC respondents rated local land use more alike than dissimilar in attributes, “a good place to raise a family” are impor- planning a serious threat, while signifi- values and motives, land management tant reasons to continue ranching. But cantly more Tehama ranchers found van- practices, and attitudes toward land use Tehama ranchers placed significantly dalism or theft, trespassing, and state and change. However, significant differences greater importance on working and visit- federal water quality standards seriously between the 2 study sites illustrate urban- ing with friends and neighbors as a moti- threatening to ranching (Table 6). ization’s effects on ranching. vation to ranch (Table 5). Ranches in both sites were mostly fami- Commonly held reasons to quit ranching Attitudes Toward Land Use Change ly-oriented, privately-owned livestock included ‘being over-regulated,’ ranked Significant differences between study operations run by third or greater genera- important by over 80% of all respondents, sites were found in the response to the tion ranchers with at least some college ‘society’s hostility towards ranching,’ also question, “If you should decide to sell education. Although gender roles are out- denoted important by two-thirds of ACC and Tehama ranchers, and leaving to Table 5. Rancher motivations, Tehama and Alameda–Contra Costa Counties, California, 1994. ‘improve current investment returns,’ indicated important by over half of all respon- Tehama Alameda/Contra dents. However, significantly more Agrees the following is a good reason to Ranchers Costa Ranchers Tehama respondents considered ‘the next keep ranching: (n=132)1 (n=113) P(X2) generation not wanting to ranch’ an ------(%)------important reason to stop ranching, and Selling the ranch is hard 17 39 .00 said that one reason they keep ranching is Like working with friends, relatives 66 47 .00 because of the ‘chance to work and visit Getting another job is hard 25 12 .00 with friends, neighbors and/or relatives.’ It allows me to feel close to the earth 92 90 .41 A ranch is a good place for family life 98 94 .50 Significantly more Tehama respondents Ranching is profitable 62 57 .46 also agreed that a reason to keep ranching I want my children to ranch 54 46 .24 is that it is hard to find another job, and Ranching is what I have always done 55 51 .51 that finding another job is a good reason to Keeping the ranch is a good investment 47 53 .36 quit (Table 5). Reported by most ranchers as serious or Agrees the following is a good reason to quit ranching: To find another job 34 19 .02 extreme “threats to ranching” in general My kids don't want to ranch 39 26 .04 were state or federal wilderness designa- Over–regulation 91 83 .07 tions, statewide or regional planning, the Society is hostile to ranching 73 65 .18 Endangered Species Act, animal rights, To improve investment returns 58 50 .27 closure of open range, efforts to increase To sell or lease ranch in a better market 35 40 .50 recreational access to public lands, “envi- I don't want my children to ranch 19 20 .90 My kids have moved away 20 18 .74 ronmentalism,” trespassing, efforts to raise To move closer to services 18 16 .55 grazing fees on public lands, and urbaniza- My friends have moved away 11 14 .56 tion of California. Overwhelmingly more 1n varies slightly by question.

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 53(4), July 2000 367 Table 6. Threats to ranching, Tehama and Alameda–Contra Costa Counties, California, 1994. ranchers intend to sell their land, and are not as concerned with the day to day Tehama Alameda/Contra ranching operation. Several answers indi- Ranchers Ranchers 1 2 cate this: they were less likely to care Agrees that the following is a threat to ranching: (n=132) (n=113) P(X ) about the fate of the ranch land if sold, the ------(%)------friendship of their neighbors, the interest Animal rights 86 82 .42 of their children in ranching, and water State & federal water quality standards 85 63 .00 quality regulations, and they were much Endangered Species Act 86 81 .37 Statewide/Regional Planning 79 82 .58 more threatened by land use regulations Local land use planning 54 82 .00 that affect ability to sell. Local land use Urbanization of California 87 77 .75 planning was rated a serious or extreme Raising grazing fees on public lands 63 71 .18 threat to ranching by almost 80% of ACC Vandalism and theft 76 59 .00 respondents, nearly 30% more than in Trespassing 78 66 .04 Tehama. Ranchers in ACC clearly have Environmentalism 87 88 .89 State or federal wilderness designations 81 78 .53 strong interest in maintaining the opportu- Closure of open range 74 73 .96 nity to develop land. Recreation access 64 62 .64 Ranchers in Alameda and Contra Costa Dogs 57 52 .46 Counties do seem to partially fit the Wild predators 57 46 .11 “impermanence syndrome.” For the 1n varies slightly by question. majority of ACC ranchers, selling the ranch for development either was not bad side the scope of this study, for almost all ilies, an important reason to continue or they simply did not care. Half of ACC the ranches, it was a male respondent who ranching. respondents, earning a quarter or less of described himself as the “main decision- Respondents in both ACC and Tehama their income from ranching, depended on maker.” Most participated in land conser- reported they felt threatened by vandalism outside income sources. Tehama ranchers vation through the Williamson Act, had or theft, and trespassing by people, which earned a greater portion of their income goals of improving livestock production are conflicts that build as urbanization from the ranch, and indicated dependence and wildlife habitat, and found the same proceeds. Although two-thirds of ACC on ranching as a job. But the survey did information sources useful, preferring respondents found these factors a threat not reveal the expected decrease in man- most to get information from other ranch- and they were more likely to experience agement activity in ACC compared with ers. Using volunteer labor and the work of multiple trespass events, significantly Tehama County, or major differences in friends and relatives was common prac- more Tehama ranchers felt threatened by goals. Important ACC management goals tice; peer relationships were relied on to these conflicts. One interpretation would included improving livestock quality, resolve conflicts, rather than involving be that since Alameda and Contra Costa increasing forage and livestock produc- outside authority. Ranchers share a love of Counties have been on the urban fringe for tion, and improving or maintaining soil the land and the camaraderie of the ranch- decades, some ACC ranchers have adapt- stability near streams. In fact, more than ing community, and their motivations ed to problems of trespass and vandalism. two-thirds of ACC ranchers made water reflect a long history and identification as Another interpretation, bearing on improvements on their ranches during a 5 stock-raising pastoralists. Almost all found whether the “impermanence syndrome” year drought that included the year of this the lifestyle, for themselves and their fam- explains the differences, is that ACC study, more so than Tehama ranchers, though water improvements are not as needed in Tehama where range is used Table 7. Desired outcomes of ranch sale, Tehama and Alameda–Contra Costa Counties, Calif. less often in summer. Burning, fencing, 1994. and fertilization were more common range improvements in Tehama. Water improve- Tehama Alameda/Contra ments typical in ACC could be seen as Ranchers Costa Ranchers Would be a good outcome of ranch sale: (n=132)1 (n=113) P(X2) stop-gap measures to protect the herd, an asset with no alternative value, rather than ------(%)------an investment in the productivity of land Stays a ranch used for livestock grazing 76 48 .00 The above makes no difference to me 20 36 .00 worth more as real estate. However, seed- Is developed for housing 6 23 .00 ing was done with the same frequency in The above makes no difference to me 16 26 .00 both study areas. This topic remains an The ranch stays private 81 55 .00 area for future research. The above makes no difference to me 17 38 .00 Several interviewed ACC ranchers indi- Goes to a public agency 2 3 .73 cated that they want to continue ranching, The above makes no difference to me 11 25 .00 Goes to a non–profit 4 13 .00 but plan to use ACC land sale profits to The above makes no difference to me 16 31 .00 buy a larger ranch in a rural community Is designated open space 16 22 .32 welcoming of ranching, and with lower The above makes no difference to me 21 19 .62 land prices. Two interviewed ACC ranch- Has no livestock grazing 3 3 .87 ers were buying ranches in Tehama The above makes no difference to me 16 23 .20 County. Hunting takes place on it 19 14 .28 The above makes no difference to me 38 38 .95 Moving elsewhere to start anew can be difficult. All surveyed ACC respondents 1n varies slightly by question.

368 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 53(4), July 2000 had owned their land for at least 10 years, nity, and local/neighbor to neighbor. At become more urban, increasing difficulties with a mean of over 60 years, a significant- the national or international level, policies with ranching combine with growing ly longer period of time than Tehama that improve prices to rangeland produc- expectations of lucrative land sales, and ranchers. An ACC ranch real estate spe- ers, consider the fate of ranch land under the ranching community becomes more cialist indicated that this lack of movement tax regimes, and encourage agencies to hostile to land use control. Escalating land out of ranching and no recruitment of new use an ecosystem management approach prices make the costs of incentive-based ranchers was due to several factors: that considers the surrounding landscape land conservation programs rise, and attri- 1. Within areas zoned for development, could be considered. tion of the ranching community threatens it can still take years to sell grazing At the landscape level, an important the economic and social viability of ranch- land because a myriad of interest goal is to manage the pattern and direction ing. Ideally, rangeland conservation pro- groups impose conditions on the of growth to maintain rural landscape grams should begin early, so that a viable sale. character and a ranching community criti- ranching community, and its attendant 2. Ranches located outside development cal mass to support markets and facilities infrastructure, can be maintained. boundaries and zoned for agricul- (Huntsinger and Hopkinson 1996, Hart For some relationships, a “tipping ture, recreation, or open space, are 1991b). Conservation easements and land point,” or threshold model may be a better still close to high value real estate use planning are common landscape level fit than a linear or curvilinear correlation. within the designated urban bound- approaches, but a stronger commitment to Future research might examine the possi- ary. The possibility of zoning urban planning would be of great benefit. bility that the relationship between urban- changes inflates ranch prices. This About a third of the ranchers in this study ization and the rancher’s inclination to may also lead ranchers to have unre- used some public lands, and the need for continue ranching might be best described alistic land price expectations, higher continued access to public grazing lands with a threshold model. Ranchers persist than the market will pay. makes relations with public land agencies and adapt for a time as rural lands suc- 3. The very factors that motivate ranch- crucial. Collaborative management pro- cumb to urban outgrowth and subdivision. ers to leave ACC, such as tight grams and mutual consultation and trust But consciously or otherwise, ranchers restrictions, increasing frustrations in with agencies may be critical to establish- recognize the importance of the social and conducting daily operations, and ing a sustainable ranching landscape. environmental landscape connections that anti-grazing sentiments, drive away At the local or community level, where enable ranching. There comes a point prospective ranchers. ranch and suburban or urban lands meet, when the landscape begins to be widely policy and regulatory arrangements should recognized as “urban” in character, rather Land Use Planning and Conservation minimize and control unwanted impacts. than rural. At this threshold, ranchers shift Incentives These include policies to control “nui- from thinking about ranching as a long Ranchers not only obtain social fulfill- sances,” “right to farm” ordinances, and term part of the landscape to a phenome- ment and livelihood from their land, they regulation of water and air quality. Just as non moribund in their locale. Committed also see it as an insurance policy and landscape level policies give local con- to ranching as a lifeway, they look else- retirement fund (Daniels 1991, Gobster flicts their character and magnitude, the where to continue it, less concerned with and Dickhut 1988). A decrease in land effectiveness and equity of policy for miti- the future of the functionally compromised value or an inability to sell some or all of gating unwanted impacts ultimately land they now occupy, and more con- their property undermines this security. In shapes very local, person to person, cerned for the short haul with maintaining the more urbanized setting with higher landowner to landowner interactions. their opportunity to liquidate. land prices and more conflicts, ranchers Local level problems with urban neighbors sometimes arise out of misunderstanding, were even less inclined to favor land use Literature Cited co n t r o l . lack of knowledge and information, and Compensatory incentives such as plain disagreement about land manage- landowner-negotiated conservation easement. Emphasis on mutual education, col- ACPD [Alameda County Planning ments that protect ranching as a land use laborative alliances, and other “ground Department]. 1994. East county area plan: a are voluntary and even offer a source of up” paths to mitigating conflicts are need- portion of the Alameda County general plan. Hayward, Calif. funds. Yet less than 5 percent of ranchers ed. In Marin County, California, as an example, environmentalists supported Alterman, R. 1997. The challenge of farmland had land in conservation easements. The preservation: lessons from a six-nation com- main land conservation policy tool widely county aid for needed water quality improvements on local dairy ranches, and parison. J. of the Amer. Planning Assoc. accepted by ranchers in both study sites is 63(2):220-243. the tax relief of the Williamson Act. Since this helped build a collaborative land con- Bartlett, E. T., R. G. Taylor, J. R. McKean, ranchers can pull out of the program after servation strategy for the county and J.G. Hof. 1989. Motivation of Colorado a 10 year period, they feel they are not (Huntsinger and Hopkinson 1996). When ranchers with federal grazing allotments. J. relinquishing future options. feasible, development of local markets for Range Manage. 42(6):454–457. ranch products may help (Hart 1991b). Berry, D. and T. Plaut. 1978. Retaining agri- This study supports earlier research that cultural activities under urban pressure: a Policy Approaches found lifestyle a major motivation for review of land use conflicts and policies. Retaining ranching, whether for open ranching despite urbanization’s effects, Policy Sci. 9(2): 153–178. space, historic preservation, or food and and despite the generally dismal profits to Bolsinger, C. L. 1988. The hardwoods of fiber production, takes policies and actions California's timberlands, woodlands, and livestock producers in recent decades. savannas. USDA, Forest Serv. Resour. Bull. that work in concert, if at different scales. Ranchers have strong environmental val- PNW 148, Portland, Oreg. This research offers some insight to ues, but dislike outside control, including California Dept. of Finance. 1996. California approaches needed at 3 different scales: environmental regulations. As landscapes statistical abstract. State of Calif, national/international, landscape/commu- Sacramento, Calif.

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 53(4), July 2000 369 Conklin, H. E. and W.G. Lesher. 1977. Heimlich, R. E. and W. D. Anderson. 1987. Smethurst, D. P. 1997. Transforming the high Farm–value assessment as a means for reduc- Dynamics of land use change in urbanizing country: absentee ownership and environ- ing premature and excessive agricultural dis- areas: experience in the economic research mental change in the central Sierra Nevada. investment in urban fringes. Amer. J. Agr. service, p. 135–154. I n: William Lockeretz PhD Diss. Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Calif. Econ. 59(4):755–759. (ed.), Sustaining agriculture near cities. Soil Smith, A. and W.E. Martin. 1972. S o c i o- CCCCDD [Contra Costa County and Water Cons. Serv., Washington, D.C. economic behavior of cattle ranchers, with Community Development Department]. Holzman, B.A. 1993. Vegetation change in implications for rural community develop- 1991. Contra Costa county general plan 1990 California's blue oak (Quercus Douglasii) ment in the West. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 54(2): – 2005. Martinez, Calif. woodlands 1932–1992. Ph.D. Diss, Univ. of 217–225. Contra Costa County Department of Calif., Berkeley, Calif. Spicer, C.C. 1972. Calculation of power sums Agriculture. 1993. County Agricultural Huntsinger, L., and P. Hopkinson. 1996. of deviations about the mean. Appl. Stat. Commissioner’s Report. Viewpoint: Sustaining rangeland landscapes: 21(2):226–227. Daniels, T. L. 1991. The purchase of develop- a social and ecological process. J. Range Starrs, P. F. 1998. Let the cowboy ride: cattle ment rights: preserving agricultural land and Manage. 49(2):167–173. ranching in the American West. Johns open space. J. of the Amer. Planning Assoc. Huntsinger, L., L. Buttolph, and P. Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, Md. 57(4):421–431. Hopkinson. 1997. Ownership and manage- Tehama County Department of Agriculture. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone sur- ment changes on California hardwood range- 1 9 9 3 . County Agricultural Commissioner’s veys: the total design method. Wiley and lands: 1985 to 1992. J. Range Manage. 50(4): Report. Sons, New York, N.Y. 42 3 – 4 3 0 . Tehama County Planning Department. 1990. Ellickson, R. C. 1991. Order without law. Jacobs, L. R. 1991. Waste of the West: public Tehama County General Plan. Red Bluff, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. lands ranching. Author, Tucson, Ariz. Calif. Ewing, R.A., N. Tosta, R. Tuazon, L. Johnson, S. G. 1998. Oaks at the edge: land U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Huntsinger, R. Marose, K. Nielson, R. use change in the woodlands of the central the Census. 1992. California Census of Motroni, and S. Turan. 1988. C a l i f o r n i a ’ s Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. Diss., Univ. Agriculture. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, forests and rangelands: growing conflict over of Calif., Berkeley, Calif. Washington, D.C. changing uses. Calif. Dept. of For. and Fire Johnston, T. R. and C. Bryant. 1987. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Protection. Anchor Press, Sacramento, Calif. Agricultural adaptation: the prospects for the Census. 1994. County and city data book. FMMP [Farmland Mapping and Monitoring sustaining agriculture near cities, p. 9–21. In: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Program]. 1996. Farmland conversion report William Lockeretz (ed.), Sustaining agricul- Wright, J. B. 1993a. Conservation ease- 1992 to 1994. Calif. Dept. of Cons., ture near cities. Soil and Water Cons. Serv., ments––an analysis of donated development Sacramento, Calif. Washington, D.C. rights. J. Amer. Planning Assoc. 59(4): Forero, L., L. Huntsinger, and W. J. Kaiser, E. J. and S. F. Weiss. 1970. P u b l i c 487–493. Clawson. 1992. Land use change in three policy and the residential development Wright, J.B. 1993b. Rocky Mountain divide: San Francisco Bay Area counties: implica- process. J. of the Amer. Inst. of Planners. selling and saving the West. Univ. of Texas tions for ranching at the urban fringe. J. Soil 36(1):30–37. Press, Austin, Tex. and Water Cons. 47(6):475–480. Landis, J. D., T. Bradshaw, T. P. Hall., M. Wright, J.B. 1994. Designing and applying Fortmann, L.P. and L. Huntsinger. 1989. Teitz, E. Eagan, A. Pamuk, Q. Sheng, and conservation easements. J. Amer. Planning The effects of nonmetropolitan population D. Simpson. 1993. How shall we grow? Assoc. 60(3): 380–388. growth on resource management. Soc. and Alternative futures for the greater San Wuerthner, G. 1990. The price is wrong. Nat. Res. 2(1):9–22. Francisco Bay Region. California Policy Sierra 75(5): 38–43. Furuseth, O. and J. Pierce. 1982. Agricultural Sem. Res. Rep. Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, land in an urban society. Assoc. Amer. Geog. Calif. Monog., Washington, D.C. Lisansky, J. and G. Clark. 1987. Farmer–non- Gale, D.E. 1992. Eight state–sponsored growth farmer conflicts in the urban fringe: will management programs: a comparative analy- right–to–farm help? p. 219–230. In: William sis. J. Amer. Planning Assoc. 58(4):425–39. Lockeretz (ed.), Sustaining agriculture near Gobster and Dickhut, 1988. Factors influenc- cities. Soil and Water Cons. Serv., ing landowner acceptance of open space Washington, D.C. preservation methods. Soc. and Nat. Res. Martin, W. E., and G. L. Jefferies. 1966. 1(3):351–364. Relating ranch prices and grazing permit val- Grigsby, T. L. 1976. Buckaroo ranchers: ues to ranch productivity. Amer. J. of Agr. sociocultural factors related to economic per- Econ. 48(2):233–242. formance among range livestock operators of McClaran, M. P., J. Romm, and J. W. southeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Diss. Univ. of Bartolome. 1985. Differential farmland Ore, Eugene, Ore. assessment and land use planning relation- Grigsby, T. L. 1980. Today’s riders of the pur- ships in Tulare County, California. J. of Soil ple sage: symbols, values, and the cowboy and Water Cons. 40(2):252–255. myth. Rangelands 2(3):93–96. Platt, R. H. 1991. Land use control: geogra- Hargrave, T. 1993. The impact of a federal phy, law, and public policy. Prentice Hall, grazing fee increase on land use in El Dorado Englewood Cliffs, N.J. County, California. M.S. thesis. Univ. of Raymond, L. 1997. Viewpoint: Are grazing Calif., Berkeley, Calif. rights on public lands a form of private prop- Hart, J. F. 1976. Urban encroachment on rural erty? J. Range Manage. 50(4):431–438. areas. Geog. Rev. 66(1):1–17. Roe, E., Huntsinger, L., and Labnow, K. Hart, J. F. 1991a. The perimetropolitan bow 1998. High reliability pastoralism. J. Arid wave. Geog. Rev. 81(1): 35–51. Environ. 39(1):39–55 Hart, J. 1991b. Farming on the edge : saving Sandford, S. 1983. Management of pastoral family farms in Marin County, California. development in the Third World. Wiley, New Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, Calif. York, N.Y.

370 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 53(4), July 2000