Content uploaded by Adriana Sulak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adriana Sulak
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
Lynn Huntsinger (huntsinger@berkeley.edu) is Professor in the Department of Environmental
Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley; Dr Huntsinger is a
rangeland ecologist whose work focuses on the conservation and management of rangelands
and ranching. Larry C. Forero (lcforero@ucdavis. edu) is a Livestock and Farm Advisor, Shasta
County UC Cooperative Extension, Redding,California. Dr Forero works with rangeland
landowners, teaches, and conducts research on land conservation and ranch economics in the
northern Sacramento Valley of California. Adriana Sulak (sulak@nature.berkeley.edu) is a post-
doctoral researcher, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University
of California, Berkeley. Dr Sulak’s research is focused on land conservation, collaborative
management, and working landscapes.
© Practical Action Publishing, 2010, www.practicalactionpublishing.org
doi: 10.3362/2041-7136.2010.002, ISSN: 2041-7128 (print) ISSN 2041-7136 (online)
Transhumance and pastoralist
resilience in the Western United States
LYNN HUNTSINGER, LARRY C. FORERO, and
ADRIANA SULAK
Two case studies and a review of the literature show that ranches in the western
United States manifest characteristics of pastoral systems, including transhumance,
subject to forces akin to those driving a loss of pastoral mobility worldwide. Ranches
typically depend on montane summer range where tenure is shared, insecure, and
declining. Distinguishing between ranchers and pastoralists must rely less on any
single feature, or a point on a continuum, than on the relative abundance and co-
herence of a mutually reinforcing complex of pastoral features that shift in relative
visibility as pastoral systems, inherently fl exible and opportunistic, adapt to envi-
ronmental, political, demographic and economic variability.
Keywords: Forest Service, USA, grazing, ranching, pastoral mobility, tenure
Introduction
Commercial cattle ranching in the United States offers an archetype against
which traditional pastoralism can be broadly contrasted. It has been used
internationally as a template for ‘development’ of non-Western pastoral so-
cieties that has resulted in the destruction of traditional systems and the loss
of natural resources. With origins in the political and economic forces that
drove the conquest and settlement of the arid lands of the western conti-
nent, American cattle production is now an industry stratifi ed into multiple
layers including retail, processing, feedlot and ranch or farm. On ranches,
brood herds commonly owned by households are grazed on rangelands and
produce calves that are sold into the next, more often corporate, layer of the
production system.
Two California case studies and a review of the literature reveal that, at
the ranch level, characteristics of traditional pastoral societies are manifest,
10 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
including transhumance that is subject to forces and confl icts similar to
those driving the loss of pastoral mobility worldwide. Greater restrictions on
transhumance can be attributed to insecurity of land tenure, and changes
in land use and vegetation, often undergirded by a narrative of ecological
degradation. We will argue that many of the characteristics, and problems, of
transhumant ranchers, including a decline in mobility, resonate with those
of more traditional pastoral societies, and that the origins of this decline and
some of the possible mitigations are also similar. Defi nitions of pastoralists
often invoke mobility, both as response to environment and shaper of cul-
ture, and it remains to be seen whether the other ‘pastoral characteristics’ of
ranchers will survive its loss.
Government-owned summer range is part of the production cycle of more
than 5,000 transhumant ranchers in the US Archival research and two fi eld
studies allow us to examine who transhumance ranchers are, the pastoral
characteristics that it may be argued they maintain, and the factors affecting
transhumance and hence pastoral practice in the western US. We begin with
a brief history of the development of cattle transhumance in the American
West, examine the concept of cattle ranchers as ‘pastoralists’, outline general
trends in the management of summer range by the US Forest Service, and
then, for ground-truthing, turn to two California case studies of ranchers us-
ing Forest Service summer range.
Development of transhumance in the Western United States
Transhumance in what is now the United States began with Spanish, Mexi-
can, and Native American livestock in the south-west. At its most simplifi ed
characterization, much of the West is lowland desert broken up by moun-
tain ranges that are snowy in the winter and rich in meadows and water
in the summer. Complementing the winter supply of palatable grasses and
shrubs on the deserts, the mountains provide the richest forage of the year,
summer range that stimulates milk production and fattens lambs and calves.
The Navajo obtained sheep and other livestock from Spanish colonists in the
seventeenth century, and were able to incorporate a mobile herding lifestyle
into their traditional culture, making use of highlands and lowlands season-
ally (Bailey 1980). At the same time and for the next 200 years, Spanish and
Mexican land grants, thousands of hectares in size, were given to individuals
and communities and traditionally included valleys and uplands for grazing
in seasonal patterns.
In the mid-19th century when Arizona and New Mexico were annexed by
the US, and settlers were moving rapidly into the arid western territories,
American land allocation policies were implemented. Community and indi-
vidual grants fell to clever entrepreneurs and lawyers, to the federal govern-
ment for back taxes, or rarely, remained in the hands of grantees. In most if
not all cases the high elevation ranges wound up in the hands of national
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 11
land management agencies (de Buys 1985). Ranchers throughout the West
adopted traditional south-western patterns of transhumance or created pat-
terns of their own, moving stock from arid lowlands in the winter to mon-
tane meadows in the summer. Periodic droughts encouraged stock driving
into the mountains, creating and reinforcing transhumance patterns.
Restrictions on land claim sizes, and deferment of the cost of owning large
areas of rough country, left most western montane and desert range in the
nationally held ‘public domain’. A strategy of ‘control of the range by control
of the water’ emerged. Settlers focused on acquiring lowland areas with ar-
able lands and water, grazing their livestock on the surrounding open range.
In ranching communities, informal rules and practices evolved that helped
control grazing, including legal fencing of private home properties, illegal
fencing of public domain range, grazing agreements among members of a
community, and extra-legal threats and pressures to fend off outside intrud-
ers (Nelson 1995). Sayre describes an informal 19th century rule in Arizona
that the owner of a water source had the rights to graze the public domain
halfway to the next water source (2002). Common gathers where livestock
were sorted, with reciprocal labour and herding, and brands to monitor cattle
ownership, refl ected a nascent pastoral culture as well as hispano infl uence
(Farquhar 1930). In 1885, the US Congress compelled the removal of fenc-
ing on public lands, enforcing the open access character of the resource at
the time and contributing to battles over pasture use with ‘outsiders’ such as
widely roaming shepherds and speculative cattle enterprises (Nelson 1995).
In the late nineteenth century, an infl ux of speculative money, funded by
industrial wealth and family fortune, often from distant shores, drove the
rapid development of a commercial livestock industry based on access to
low-cost, uncontrolled land, with few ties to local communities. Profi teering
from running cattle crashed toward the end of the century with overstocked
ranges, inadequate and badly placed fences, and a few brutal winters. The
government asserted control over this range in the early twentieth century.
Most summer range was reserved out of the public domain into the National
Forests, and now is under the jurisdiction of the United States Forest Service
(USFS). Most lowland ranges eventually came under the jurisdiction of the
United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM). First priority for alloca-
tion of government rangeland, or ‘public lands’, went to those owning land
with a home ranch nearby. ‘Grazing allotments’, areas of land individuated
to households whenever possible, were then allocated and a fee set for graz-
ing on a per head basis. Emphasis on ownership of nearby private property
meant that transhumant and sedentary cattle producers had the advantage
over shepherds and others who did not own proximate land.
Throughout the West, though ranches are of course a function of the cul-
ture of settlers and the details of the local environment (Starrs 1998), a typi-
cal cattle ranch evolved to have a ranch house and private ‘deeded acres’
located on water or a water development (Figure 1). On the deeded land is
found irrigated pasture, used in some parts of the livestock production cycle,
12 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
hay fi elds, and sometimes, crops. The summer ranges, if the ranch has them,
are up in the mountains at elevations from 1,000 to 3,000 metres and under
the jurisdiction of the Forest Service or sometimes, timber companies and
other public and private ownerships. Lowland ranges, desert, steppe, or in
California, Mediterranean annual grassland, if not under the jurisdiction of
the BLM, may belong to Native American tribes, the military, public utilities,
states, and local districts and municipalities.
Part of the original mandate of the BLM and the USFS was the furtherance
of settlement and development of the West by protecting resources for set-
tler use, including timber and rangeland. Allotment grazing permits stipulate
grazing periods, numbers allowed, and so on – all adjudicated by local agency
representatives and ultimately subject to the vagaries of national politics. The
Forest Service controls approximately 78 million ha (http://www.fs.fed.us/
aboutus/), and the BLM controls 106 million ha in the western US (http://
www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm) (Figure 2). As examples, California, with good
water supplies, more arable land, swamp restoration lands, and Mexican and
Spanish land grants, is approximately 50 per cent private land, while the
Figure 1. A desert steppe ranch in Western Nevada. High elevation range is leased from the
Forest Service, desert steppe from the BLM. The 700 private hectares are used as irrigated
pasture, hay fi elds, and crop lands. The ranch haystack is visible in the mid-ground, as is
the barn and ranch compound that includes stone corrals, housing for the owners, and
a bunkhouse for workers. Throughout the desert steppe country, patches of trees often
signify a ranch, past or present. Ranches are often located near or on alluvial fans where
subsurface water can be tapped, or rises naturally to the surface to create, as in this case, a
‘sub-irrigated’ meadow.
Photo: P. Starrs
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 13
adjacent state of Nevada, with extensive, highly arid, cold desert steppe, is
more than 90 per cent government land. One arguable simplifi cation would
be to say that the cost of owning rangeland far outstrips its value in more of
Nevada than in California.
Having ‘enough forage on the home ranch to support the herd when not on
the public lands’, was a criterion for the original allotment of grazing permits
Figure 2. Public lands in the United States. White areas are privately owned
Source: Adapted from the National Atlas of the United States, March 5, 2003,
http://nationalatlas.gov
14 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
to ranchers, a system very similar to that described by Netting (1981) for a
Swiss Alpine community’s allocation of commons grazing rights. Other simi-
larities to this and other transhumant systems can be seen: families, members
of the family, or hired hands travel up to the mountains in the summer and
stay in a ‘line camp’, which is generally a summer cabin or sometimes a tent
on Forest Service land. Rinschede (1984) does a thorough job of describing
American transhumance in various western regions (Figure 3).
Transhumance in the West is a journey not just from biome to biome,
but also from ownership to ownership, each with its attendant formal and
informal rules. It also is a journey from autonomy to tenancy, as the ranch-
er, in journeying to upland range, acquires a huge federal bureaucracy for
a landlord. The rancher has no authority to determine when or how these
ranges are grazed, or to carry out land or vegetation management practices
without government permission. The complex patterns of landownership in
Figure 3. Transects of transhumance by livestock producers in Wyoming (upper), and in
California (lower).
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 15
the western US, as well as equally complex policies for land allocation, and
human ingenuity in dealing with both, mean that there are also ranches that
do not use public lands, and that do not engage in off-ranch mobility. The
ranches that are the focus of this study use Forest Service rangelands for part
of a transhumant cycle of production and are in the majority family-owned
operations of limited profi tability (Gentner and Tanaka 2002), some of which
have persisted from early homesteads and land grants in previous centuries.
Typically they graze 200–300 cows.
Ranchers as pastoralists
In 2004 the African Conservation Centre initiated a project ‘seeking to unite
two groups with unexpectedly similar problems and goals from across the
globe to allow them to learn from their common yet never before shared
experiences’ (Klinkenborg 2001). The project sponsored a trip of Maasai
herdsman to the south-western United States to visit with the ranchers of the
Malpai Borderlands Group, a grassroots group dedicated to preserving ranch-
ing culture and rangeland productivity on public and private range.
The biggest problems faced by both groups are pasture deterioration and
land subdivision. Despite obvious major differences, they shared a common
sense that their culture, traditional management, and use of the natural en-
vironment is widely misunderstood. All were deeply concerned about land
tenure, including the loss of rangelands to alternative land uses, develop-
ment, and political forces that called for exclusion of grazing from traditional
pastures (ACC 2006).
Pastoralists have been defi ned in numerous ways, most having to do with
a mode of life centred on extensive livestock production, and characterized
by some form of mobility, including transhumance (Fernandez-Gimenez and
Le Febre 2006). One defi nition states that pastoralist households are those
with at least 50 per cent of their gross income from livestock or livestock-
related activities (Swift 1988). For Khazanov, the development of a unique,
livestock-oriented society, distinguished from farming societies, is important
(1994). For others, an economy based on subsistence is crucial (Galaty 2004).
Control over land as well as animals, and commodifi ed inputs and outputs,
are key components distinguishing ranching from pastoralism in Ingold’s
view (1980). Ingold described ranching and pastoral culture as opposing
forces, with ranching destructive of indigenous cultures. Sayre points to a
continuum between the two, concluding that where pastoralism ends and
ranching begins has not been well addressed (2002). Sheridan (2007) opts for
the use of the 19th century term ‘grazier’ to refer to ranchers using rangelands
to graze their stock.
In fact, even the most traditional pastoralists are changing, challenging
fi xed or narrow notions of what pastoralism is, as they begin to supplement
their subsistence economies with market enterprises, and opt on occasion to
16 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
purchase livestock feeds or acquire land (Davies 2008). Transhumant ranchers
in the western US are not subsistence oriented, are integrated with the larger
society, own at least some private land, and buy and sell feeds and animals in
the marketplace. Many make less than 50 per cent of their household income
from ranching, though the amenity values and social status associated with
ranching can be seen as ‘non-commodity’ products. Despite these differences,
it can be argued that transhumant ranchers do share many of the attributes
that have been identifi ed as characteristics of traditional pastoralists.
Though American ranches are oriented to market sales, many remain
household enterprises that do not generate surplus income. Despite some
huge ranches and corporate owners, there are still signifi cant numbers of
families with small herds – the average beef cow herd in the US is 40 head,
but operations with 100 or more beef cows comprise only nine per cent of all
beef operations and 51 per cent of the beef cow inventory (USDA-ERS 2005).
Ranchers have, for at least several decades, been price takers rather than price
setters, because of competition from calf producers using low-cost agricul-
tural residues and alternate forage sources, the economic domination of the
feeding and packing operations, and the tendency of ranchers to subsidize
ranches with off-ranch income (Smith and Martin 1972, Torell et al. 2000).
Available national statistics about ranching are complicated by the defi ni-
tion of ‘ranch’, which in agricultural surveys can be anyone with livestock.
Focusing on transhumant ranchers helps distinguish backyard steer keepers,
and farmers with a few cattle on the side, from a family whose lifestyle, like
that of traditional pastoralists, is more deeply engaged with a herd of stock.
However, statistics about this group are not formally collected. Studies that
have singled out rangeland graziers have shown that US ranchers gain much
social capital from ranching, and that this is consistent throughout the West
and over time. They highly value being ranchers, including living on the
ranch, environmental amenities, leaving the ranch to their children, and
their autonomy in the production of livestock (Bartlett et al. 1989, Gentner
and Tanaka 2002, Grigsby 1980, Huntsinger et al. 1997, Liffmann et al. 2000,
Rowe et al. 2001, Smith and Martin 1972, Sulak et al. 2004, Torell et al. 2001).
Despite the opportunity to increase cash fl ow by selling land or changing
professions, ranchers are often characterized as clinging rather stubbornly to
what some see as an outmoded way of life. A common statement attributed
to cowhands and ranchers is that one reason they like ranching is that ‘the
work is different every day’, because ranchers perform diverse tasks, includ-
ing accounting, construction, herding, marketing of livestock, land and eco-
system management, and game management. Autonomy in decision-making
is often mentioned as characteristic of pastoralists (Blench 2001).
Like pastoralists, ranchers are known to have distinctive traditions that
vary by region and primary herd type (Marshall and Ahlborn 1981, Grigsby
1980, Yung and Belsky 2007, Rowan and White 1994, Starrs and Huntsing-
er 1998), similar to pastoralists around the globe. Ranching subcultures of
shared practices, ideologies, dress, behaviours, and regional histories, etc, are
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 17
well described (Jordan 1981, Starrs 1998, Marshall and Ahlborn 1981). In
terms of social organization, ranchers in the US have always been ‘embedded
in the surrounding sedentary culture’ (Barfi eld 1993) and part of the national
politic. A general belief that society is somewhat hostile toward them and
their activities, and a mistrust of governmental authority (Liffmann et al.
2000, Yung and Belsky 2007) is widespread, as is the belief that they know
how to manage their stock and land better than outsiders, and that outsiders
do not understand them.
Other characteristics of US ranchers are also considered broadly pastoral:
reciprocal social relations and dependence on peers (Yung and Belsky 2007,
Ellickson 1991, Liffmann et al. 2000, Grigsby 1976, 1980) are familiar at-
tributes of rangeland ranchers. While ranchers value their ‘independence’
(Grigsby 1980), it is commonly acknowledged that peer pressure is the most
effective way to infl uence rancher behaviour, that they get most of their
information and advice from other ranchers, resolve disputes among them-
selves rather than turn to legal options (Ellickson 1991), follow informal
rules unique to their community (Yung and Belsky 2007) and rely on each
other for help at certain points in the production cycle. They celebrate their
interdependence with gatherings centred on events like branding of calves.
Driven by the rangeland aridity and climatic unpredictability that defi nes
rangelands globally, American ranchers, like pastoralists, engage in ecologi-
cal opportunism and need fl exibility and reliability in forage sources (White
and Conley 2007, Gripne 2005, Rowe et al. 2001, Sayre 2001, Starrs 1998).
Ranchers are reliability-seeking (Roe et al. 1998) in that they have access to
and make use of diverse forms of forage and feed, lobby for programmes that
protect prices and provide feed during drought, and maintain information
networks that monitor market conditions closely. Like pastoralists, US ranch-
ers have also been described as risk averse (Grigsby 1980). Many consider the
value of their property, and land appreciation, an important fi nancial ‘back
up’ and source of emergency cash, because they can sell off small parcels
from time to time for a fi nancial boost or to liquidate at retirement. On the
other hand, at the herd level they have traded the stability of mixed herds
for the effi ciency of uniform production, with most ranchers relying on cattle
alone.
Like pastoralists around the world, ranchers rely on extensive grazing land.
US ranchers almost always own some private land, fi tting them to some de-
gree into Ingold’s categorization of ranchers as those with control over their
land. However, the transhumant ranchers of this study use public range for
a signifi cant part of their production cycle, and although it is theoretically
‘allotted’ to them, in fact over much of that land their tenure is insecure,
shared, and declining. As we will demonstrate in the case studies, many of
these ranchers also use land leased from governmental or private entities dur-
ing the rest of the year.
On public land ranges US ranchers have been subjected to some of the
same pressures to individuate grazing as pastoralists in traditional societies.
18 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
One resonant example of this mobility-restricting approach happened as
part of The Vale Rangeland Rehabilitation Program in eastern Oregon. This
domestic rangeland development project was initiated in 1962 (Huntsinger
and Heady 1988) with heavy government investment via the Bureau of
Land Management. Ranchers in this area had a history of using large gov-
ernment allotments in common. A premise of the development programme
was that many of these areas should be fenced into individual allotments.
Considerable investment was made in water developments, as many subdi-
visions had no natural water. Ultimately, an aircraft had to be leased to fl y
the area to make sure that the propane-driven wells and pipeline systems
were functioning, because in at least one case numerous cattle died when
a well ceased operating. The entire system became more labour and energy
intensive. The same phenomenon is known elsewhere, especially when land
re-allocation takes once-large land areas and divides them up for individual
landowners who then need to maximize production on land insuffi cient to
buffer drought and other unpredictable changes in productivity.
Individuated or not, ranchers share grazing allotments with other public
users, including hunters and recreationists. Agencies like the Forest Service are
generally not obligated to allow grazing to any particular level, and in many
cases have found other uses for the land. Rules for the timing and amount of
grazing lack fl exibility. Ranchers using government land must work with bu-
reaucratic entities that they may have more or less skill at negotiating with,
and must contend with competing public interests in public lands. This can
lead to agency-stipulated grazing management, timing, and rest periods that
are driven by goals that have little to do with what is thought necessary for
grazing ecology or supporting ranch households.
In the US the major land management agencies each have their own pro-
cesses and requirements for the management and monitoring of grazing while
stock are on their lands. In addition, ranchers, agency, and public tend to have
quite different perceptions of rangeland conditions (Huntsinger and Heady
1988), and even within the agencies themselves there is a lack of consensus
about livestock grazing, particularly as young, urban-educated recruits replace
retirees with a more rural background (Richards and Huntsinger 1994). In-
creasing public interest in using rangelands for recreation and nature reserves
has stimulated policy change and grazing reductions. Meanwhile, the ideas of
traditional graziers about how land and vegetation should be managed have
been largely ignored, a common problem for pastoralists globally.
Forest Service management in the Western United States
The Forest Service (USFS) controls most of the montane summer range in
the western US Changes in USFS goals and practices over time have been
researched at great length, and it is not our intention to repeat those fi nd-
ings here (Rowley 1985, Nelson 1995, Young and Sparks 1985). However, it
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 19
is important to note that what was once seen as a land reservation for the
protection of resources to further the economic development of the West is
now seen by many as land set aside for recreation and nature preservation.
As Blench (2001) comments in his overview of contemporary pastoralism,
‘the marginal lands that have previously been the province of pastoralists are
increasingly coming into focus as reserves of biodiversity. Their very inacces-
sibility has permitted the survival of species eliminated in high-density agri-
cultural areas’. In the US, as this reconstruction has evolved, land uses that
result in market products seem to have become synonymous in the minds
of many with exploitation and abuse. Agency goals have shifted away from
managing for production of commodities such as livestock and timber. The
efforts of advocacy groups to remove grazing from public lands ebb and fl ow
as a part of the political landscape.
Attempts to make management of government ranges scientifi c in the 20th
century (Nelson 1995, Fernandez-Gimenez and Sayre 2003) have also led
to reductions in grazing on USFS land. The application of theories of equi-
librium ecosystem dynamics to the assessment and monitoring of govern-
ment rangelands, which implies that removing grazing can reverse ecological
changes brought about by grazing, drove reductions and the pursuit of a
fi xed ‘carrying capacity’. The ecological impacts of North American livestock
grazing, given its relatively recent origins, is beyond our scope. However, the
reductions in grazing that have followed the development of a dominant
narrative about grazing as degrader of ecosystems, and the mixed results eco-
logically, economically, and socially, resonate with the pastoralist experience
elsewhere (Davis 2007, Ellis and Swift 1988). As is the case in many pastoral
systems (Behnke and Scoones 1991), disequilibrium dynamics are now be-
lieved to be a more appropriate framework for the management of the range-
lands of the arid west, yet the infrastructure and institutions for carrying out
such management remain poorly developed.
In 1992, an average Forest Service grazing permit allowed a rancher to use
about 4,300 ha to graze a little over 1,000 ‘animal-unit-months’ (AUMs or
head-months) of forage (GAO 1993). As the typical transhumance ranch has
200 to 300 head, a likely scenario would be grazing 333 cows for a three
month summer season, using around 4 ha to support each cow for a month.
A standardized but rough measurement, an AUM is the amount of forage
consumed by a typical cow (or cow with small calf) in one month, or about
750–850 lbs, depending on forage characteristics. A 300 cow ranch would
need 3600 AUMs to feed the herd year-round. In a survey of ranchers using
public lands throughout the West, Gentner and Tanaka (2002) found that
all except those owning large ranches primarily for status and recreational
reasons (sometimes termed ‘trophy ranches’) reported that a mean of ap-
proximately 47 per cent of their income came from using summer range. The
relative scarcity of summer range, and its superior quality to many lowland
ranges, can make its value disproportionately high.
20 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
It is diffi cult to follow changes in forage allocated for grazing by the Forest
Service over time because documentation is diffi cult to fi nd and assessment
methods and boundaries have changed several times. For this reason the data
presented are patchy. Historians of grazing on the National Forests (Rowley
1985) assert that grazing began to be monitored around 1905, and increased
rapidly to its highest known point with pressures to increase agricultural pro-
duction during WWI. The sharpest declines in stocking occurred from 1920
to 1950, followed by a slower decline up to the present. Duration of use has
also declined over time. Between 1980, after reasonably comparable records
are easily available, and 2005, forage consumed by cattle from the National
Forests declined from 7.7 million to 4.6 million animal unit months, a de-
cline of nearly 40 per cent, and the number of livestock owners reported to
be using Forest Service lands (including sheep and horse graziers and some
redundancy) declined from more than 16 thousand to less than 7 thousand,
a decline of nearly 64 per cent (modifi ed from Thomas, 2004). Data avail-
able for 1994–2005 shows a slight decline in the ‘permitted’ use of the land,
and a far greater reduction in actual, or ‘authorized use’ (Figure 4) (USDA-FS
1994–2005) for all livestock graziers. This is largely due to drought, accord-
ing to agency offi cials (GAO 2004), but may also refl ect reductions due to
temporary management or improvement activities on the allotment, or due
to ‘voluntary non-use’, where a grazier voluntarily, for a variety of reasons,
decides not to graze in the mountains in a particular year.
California case studies
Results of two California case studies of ranchers using Forest Service range
provide an opportunity to corroborate and extend national-level trends in
transhumant ranching using fi eld-based site-specifi c research. The overall ob-
jective of the case studies was to evaluate linkages between the Forest Service
and private lands in the region, because of conservation interest in the pri-
vate lands.
Figure 4. Forage use allowed by permit versus actually authorized and consumed, US
National Forests, 1994–2005
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 21
The characteristics of ranchers, ranches, and USFS management changes
described for western transhumant ranchers apply to California. One differ-
ence that could factor into this discussion is that on the western side of the
major mountain range used for transhumance, lowland ranges have a Medi-
terranean climate, and ranchers tend to own more lowland private range than
do ranchers east of the Sierra Nevada. Ranchers in California are less likely
to use BLM range. In this region also, because of the mild climate and bur-
geoning coastal urban centres, there is strong pressure for urban or suburban
development. However, exurban sprawl is affecting huge areas of the West.
Comparative studies have shown that Californian rancher attitudes, values,
production practices, and economies are quite consistent with the rest of the
West today (Sulak et al. 2004, Rowe et al. 2001, Bartlett et al. 1989).
In California, a major stimulus to transhumance was the Gold Rush in
1849, when thousands of prospectors took up residence in the Sierra. Famil-
iarity with the mountains and a series of droughts, combined with the devel-
opment of lowland pastures for crop production, fostered the development
of transhumance grazing among ranchers (Burcham 1982). Competition for
level crop lands gradually limited ranching to the foothills and Sierra there-
after (Burcham 1982). One author asserts that sheep began to be driven into
the Sierra in 1864, in response to devastating drought, and that before that
time, forage in the Central Valley area was suffi cient (Gómez-Ibáñez 1967,
10). He points out that the well-known explorers Henry Brewer and Clar-
ence King fi rst noted the presence of livestock in the Sierra in 1864 (p. 36).
Today, there are a total of about 700,000 brood cows in California (USDA-
NASS 2005), most of them on rangelands for at least part of the year. About
71,000 of them use Forest Service rangelands under approximately 400 per-
mits (USDA-FS 2005).
Case study I: West central Sierra foothills of California
This survey research project was conducted in 2001–2 (Sulak and Hunt-
singer 2002, 2007, Sulak 2007), and assessed some of the forces affecting
transhumant graziers. Ranchers in the west central Sierra foothills using
National Forest (USFS) lands for summer range were interviewed (Figures 5
and 3), along with their neighbours who did not conduct transhumance.
Ranchers in the case study (n=37) had an average 692 ha of privately-
owned oak woodlands at elevations ranging from sea level to 1,000 me-
tres in the Sierra foothills. Forage supplies were an issue for them in both
summer and winter. In almost every case, the private ranch alone could
not support the herd through the winter, so ranchers supplemented their
lowland range with leases from private owners, public utilities and other
public owners, as well as by feeding hay. One transhumant interviewee used
eleven different leases. Speculative ownerships in the lowland woodlands
and forest fringe typically use grazing to reduce fi re hazard and to qualify for
agricultural tax relief while properties await development. This arrangement
22 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
provides a tenuous supply of leasing opportunities to local ranchers. Ranch-
ers commented that it was getting harder every year to fi nd the full calendar
of forage needed, with some choosing to ship animals over 300 miles north
to Oregon for summer pasture.
Vegetation management differed between Forest Service and private ranges,
with consequences for forage production. A common management activity
undertaken by more than half of the ranchers on their own property was brush
control or clearing to keep woodlands open for grazing. Deliberate and ‘con-
trolled’ burning was employed when possible. In contrast, these activities were
Figure 5. Transhumance in California and case study locations
Sierra
Nevada
Foothills
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 23
rarely undertaken on public range. Comparing USFS summer range to other
kinds of leased summer range, brush control was three times more likely to be
undertaken on non-USFS summer range. Instead, on the USFS range fencing
creeks and ponds to keep cattle out was a signifi cantly more frequent activity,
occurring twice as often on public summer range as on private summer range.
The fencing of riparian areas has been an agency priority for about two decades
nationwide, based on the narrative that livestock always pollute streams, cause
erosion and damage riparian vegetation.
In similar fashion, starting about 1900 and until the 1980s, a default
policy of fi re suppression was followed on USFS lands. Lightning-caused,
agricultural and indigenous burning, prevalent in much of the West in the
nineteenth century, was suppressed. The regular fi res graziers used to keep
land open for grazing were criminalized and halted. Invasion of woody spe-
cies, including trees, has become commonplace on such lands and the re-
sultant catastrophic wildfi res are well-documented (McKelvey et al. 1996).
Interviewed ranchers reported that vegetation change was making it harder
for them to use the range and reducing available forage, and contributed to
the reduction in allowed use of ranges. Ranchers practising transhumance
Table 1. Sierra Nevada Case study I: Transhumant versus non-transhumant ranchers
(study area is shown in Figure 5).
% transhumance % ranchers X2
ranchers with without USFS
USFS grazing grazing permits
permits (n=23) (n=14)
My family began ranching in the Sierra foothills
before 1900 74 43 .06
I want to pass this ranch on to my children 65 36 .08
An important reason that I ranch is that the ranch
has been in my family for generations and I
maintain it to carry on that tradition 74 39 .04
Family considerations have an important impact on
my ability to use summer range 70 21 .01
I believe that ranching is a good way to make money 9 7 ns
I like ranch work 87 43 .00
Confl icts with other land users have an important
impact on my ability to use summer range 44 7 .00
Changes in vegetation have an important impact
on my ability to use summer range 52 14 .04
My management has been infl uenced by vegetation
change 74 21 .00
The development of surrounding land is highly important
in my management goals, decisions and practices 65 31 .05
In considering whether or not to sell my ranch, increas-
ing public regulations are an important consideration 46 30 ns
24 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
using public lands were three times as likely to experience vegetation
changes that reduced grazing capacity than were ranchers in the same area
that did not practise transhumance (Table 1).
Another factor affecting the ability of ranchers to use summer range in
the Sierra is land use change and residential development. More than half
of the interviewed ranchers reported that they experienced confl icts with
homeowners, and 43 per cent reported that roads and buildings make their
access to summer range more diffi cult. Many resorted to using trucks to
transport their animals to the high country. Transhumance practitioners
were much more frequently affected by confl icts with other land users
(Table 1). Loss of agricultural infrastructure is also important – a lack of
nearby markets, veterinary services, or neighbours to help at crucial times
in the production cycle affected transhumants more than others. The devel-
opment of private lands surrounding the public lands adds further pressure
for livestock exclusion as well – as surrounding lands are converted to hous-
ing and roads, there is even less habitat for local wildlife. This increases the
need for public lands to serve as refugia for these species, and pressure to re-
duce grazing despite the fact that due to historical land allocation patterns,
the public lands may be of innately lower wildlife habitat quality. Ranchers
had seen many ranches nearby go to development, and said that as more
and more were gone, they felt more likely to sell out too.
In addition to the surveyed ranchers, four ranchers who had given up a
grazing permit since 1955 were interviewed. Two said a death in the family
was the cause, because there was too much work to do without the deceased,
and because of the added costs of estate disagreements. Inheritance issues
have been previously identifi ed as a crucial factor in ranch survival in the
Sierra (Johnson 1997). Other reasons were increases in the fees charged on
intermixed private lands, increased regulations and riparian fencing, loss of
foraging areas between the home ranch and mountains for the cattle drive,
and loss of a private lease used in conjunction with the public allotment. To
compensate they had purchased more land, sometimes at a distant location.
One reduced cattle numbers. Unfortunately ranchers that had quit ranching
altogether were not locatable.
Rancher interviewees did not think they had many alternatives if they lost
the ability to use the summer ranges entirely. Most wished to purchase or
lease more land to replace their grazing allotments if possible, but they also
said that they would be very likely to reduce their herd size. Ranchers attrib-
uted 40 to 50 per cent of their income to their summer range. If their grazing
allotments were lost or reduced, most believed that any strategy for coping
would result in less income. About 35 per cent reported that they would seri-
ously consider selling all or part of their ranches if they lost access to summer
forage on federal lands. Even so, the ranchers interviewed were committed to
ranching on the land they owned for as long as possible.
Further comparing transhumance practitioners to those without USFS
summer range showed that along with mobility as a pastoral characteristic,
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 25
they had a longer ranching history and a stronger commitment to and affec-
tion for the lifestyle than non-transhumant ranchers (Table 1). Some ranch-
ers explained that because it was necessary for some family members to work
off the ranch to support the ranch, it was sometimes diffi cult to spend as
much time in the mountains as they needed to – hence the response about
‘family considerations’ (Table 1). Despite all this, three-fourths of all ranchers
in the study believed that ranching could be saved in their area.
Case study II: North Sacramento Valley
This research also examined the connections between Forest Service range-
lands and private ranches (Forero 2002). The Shasta Trinity National Forest is
on north end of the Sacramento Valley in California (Figure 5), where there
is less development pressure than in case study I. Grazing patterns are similar,
with ranchers using the USFS for summer grazing and annual grasslands and
oak woodlands in the winter. Painstaking analysis of historic Forest Service
(USFS) records enumerates the decline in grazing on the forest, a decline re-
sulting from changes in available rangeland area, shortened grazing seasons,
vegetation change and reductions in stocking rate as management emphasis
has shifted away from livestock production (Figure 6). The grazing area is less
than half of what was available for grazing in the early 20th century, as trees
and shrubs have thickened, and a dam has put some areas underwater. Forest
Service policies have also reduced grazing over time, partly as a result of the
Figure 6. Numbers of cattle and ranchers using the Shasta-Trinity National Forest,
California, 1906–2006 (Forero 2002).
200
250
300
350
15000
20000
25000
Ranchers
o
f Cattle
Number of Cattle
Number of Ranchers
0
50
100
150
0
5000
10000
1906
1911
1916
1921
1926
1931
1936
1941
1946
1951
1956
1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
2006
Number of
Number
o
26 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
development of strategies to protect endangered species and improve ‘range
condition’. Archival records, historic maps and in-depth interviews with 15
current and 12 former ranchers using the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in
the North Sacramento Valley of California were used to examine the causes
of the decline in grazing on the forest (Forero 2002). Livestock grazing is now
less than 10 per cent of what it was at its peak in 1920, refl ecting the West-
wide patterns in USFS forage allocations that have already been described.
Currently, there are 18 permittees grazing the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
The current boundaries of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest encompass
roughly 850,000 ha. Elevation ranges from about 300 to over 4,000 m. Ac-
cording to the 1995 Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Man-
agement Plan there are 26 allotments on the forest. Livestock grazing these
allotments include 2,350 head of cattle, 45 horses and 2,120 sheep. In the last
two decades, several allotments have become vacant or abandoned.
Archival records show that from the outset in 1906, when the Forest Ser-
vice began administrating grazing on the National Forests, USFS personnel
on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest actively pursued three major manage-
ment initiatives that severely affected a pattern of transhumance that had
existed in situ for decades: establishing grazing seasons, limiting livestock
numbers and eliminating fi re. Comparison of historic grazing atlases with
the 1995 Shasta-Trinity Forest Plan reveal how vegetation management po-
lices like fi re suppression, managing for timber and reduced livestock graz-
ing have changed vegetation. Interviewees said that woody vegetation has
become denser and lands suitable for grazing rarer, an observation supported
for signifi cant parts of the Forest by a broad-scale comparison of historic and
contemporary maps. Examining individual allotments, suitable range and
stocking rate have declined severely. Canopy closure, and loss of forage sup-
ply, has been a signifi cant factor.
As early as the very beginning of Forest Service grazing on the forest, rang-
ers reported that the vegetation was thickening and becoming less suitable
for grazing. An in-depth analysis of vegetation change data on one allotment
revealed a reduction in per-acre forage harvested of more than 50 per cent
from 1916 to 1996. The 1909 Summary of Grazing Condition on the Trinity
National Forest reported the following:
The grazing areas on the Trinity are gradually coming to a timber growth
and in some situations very rapidly…At lower elevations on the south
and west slopes the young pines are, in a great many places, fi lling up the
thinly wooded slopes…The forage crop throughout the forest is improv-
ing but the grazing land is on the decrease. Some of the stockmen take a
very discouraging view of this.
Drift fences on this Forest would not seem to be of suffi cient benefi t to
the Service to warrant construction at Government (sic) expense. The
stockman show a reluctance to cooperate on fences of this character….
very few of them are able fi nancially to put much outlay into fences, as
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 27
there is very little profi t to most of the grazers [sic] on the Forest from
their bands. Careless methods are responsible for this in some degree.
With but few exceptions, however, the very small number to which each
must be limited makes it only an assistance toward a living and not a
business (USDA-FS 1909, 4).
Ranchers in the area burned to clear vegetation until the practice was out-
lawed throughout the West early in the twentieth century. Dick Hamilton
(1999), a rancher and logger in Trinity County, recalled being on the Trinity
Divide in the early 1960s and observing large fi re-scarred ponderosa pine, lit-
tle woody understory, and a forest fl oor dominated by grass. Stillwater Land
and Cattle was a signifi cant grazer between 1906 and 1920. At their peak,
they were grazing over 1,000 cows across several allotments in the Squaw
Creek area. Stillwater eventually lost their grazing permit over differences in
fi re-use philosophy. The USFS waged an active and constant campaign to pre-
vent fi re, accidental or otherwise. Fighting and preventing fi re even became
confl ated with patriotism during the First World War (Pyne 1997). In 1918
the Shasta Trinity Forest Supervisor sent letters to local stockmen quoting
President Wilson as follows:
Preventable fi re is more than a private misfortune. It is a public derelic-
tion. At a time like this of emergency and manifest necessity for the
conservation of national resources, it is more than ever a matter of deep
and pressing consequences that every means should be taken to prevent
this evil (New York Times 1918).
The Forest Supervisor goes on to impute that the fact that WWI was going
on made the crime of burning especially heinous. He states that it took the
equivalent of 400 men working every day for four months to suppress man-
caused fi res, and these men were needed at the front. It was therefore the
patriotic duty of the stockman to prevent fi re (Morrow 1918).
Comparison of allotment maps throughout the management tenure of the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest document that acreage allocated to grazing was
reduced in 1946 and in 1964 because of the construction of two major dams
and reservoirs. However, some ranchers gave up their permits voluntarily.
Claude Baker stated in a letter circa 1952 that with increasing restrictions on
how much and where he could graze, the costs of using his lease were simply
too high, stating that ‘it is with regrets that I give up my permit this year as
I have come to those mountains for 40 years’. When current permit holders
where asked why they might give up their grazing leases, the top two reasons
were economics (40 per cent) and regulations (48 per cent).
Ranchers interviewed owned an average of around 600 ha of private prop-
erty and owned about 135 cattle. On average, they considered themselves
the third generation of ranchers in their families, and had owned their land
since before the Forest Service came into being. A strong majority indicated
that even if they only broke even on their ranching, they would continue to
ranch, and fi nd augmenting household income streams.
28 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
When former permit holders were asked why they actually quit grazing
on the Forest, answers were more diverse. Around a quarter ceased grazing
the Forest for personal reasons, including family health issues, a death in
the family, or economic reasons that did not have to do with the grazing
permit (Table 2). Several former permit holders also noted poor livestock per-
formance as among the reasons they ceased to graze National Forest Lands.
Lower weaning weights, poorer reproductive performance, the need to run
more bulls, and a higher percentage of dry cows were all mentioned. One
producer reported threat to life and property was factored into their decision
to cease their public land grazing. Illicit drug operations and marijuana culti-
vation in remote locations have been implicated in cattle shootings and the
poaching of calves for human consumption.
Ranchers who no longer have grazing leases have had to fi nd summer for-
age elsewhere. Interviews revealed that for ten of them, their ranches become
smaller, with an average decline of 55 per cent in private land area. Ranches
with permits retained more land than those who gave up permits, with an
average decline of only 20 per cent. More former permit holders leased ad-
ditional private land, compared with the current permit holders. Those with
permits either increased their number of stock or remained stable, while
those without permits either remained stable or had less stock over time.
Two of the ranches that gave up their permits ceased operations.
Most permit holders stated that she or he had an average or better rela-
tionship with the USFS but feel the relationship could be improved through
better communication. The lack of communication between permittees and
the USFS is underscored by the fact the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, a set
of standards and guidelines for managing grazing and water resources, is the
framework used to manage the grazing programme on Shasta Trinity Forest
lands and yet had not been heard of by 80 per cent of the ranchers inter-
viewed. More than 85 per cent of all of the ranchers interviewed in this case
study agreed that ranching on public lands did not have much of a future.
Conclusions
If the similarities between pastoralists and ranchers are debatable, the reasons
for their loss of mobility are uncannily alike. Ranching history and literature,
and two fi eld studies, reveal six factors behind the decline in transhumance:
(1) a land management priority shift to recreation and nature preservation;
Table 2. Reasons former permit holders quit grazing on the Shasta Trinity National Forest
(n=12)
Economics Regulations Labour Personal reasons Not meeting Land trade
production goals
8% 17% 8% 25% 8% 17%
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 29
(2) regulations and management paradigms driven by the dominant society’s
perception of grazing and its relationship to the environment; (3) manage-
ment practices that have reduced rangeland forage production; (4) compet-
ing land uses; (5) family demographics and (6) the persistently marginal
economics of livestock grazing. Ranchers are leasing more private properties,
purchasing feed, transporting animals to other regions, selling stock, and sell-
ing ranches to compensate. Sometimes the need to work in town, or a lack
of interest by the younger generation (Brunson and Huntsinger 2008), limits
the ability of the household to participate in transhumance or travel into
the mountains to check on the herd. Transhumants have a longer history in
ranching and a stronger commitment to the lifestyle than other ranchers, and
yet are more strongly affected by vegetation change, regulation, and compe-
tition from other uses (Rowe et al. 2001). Transhumant ranchers West-wide
generally attribute more than 40 per cent of income to Forest Service range-
lands (Rowe et al. 2001, Bartlett et al. 1989, Gentner and Tanaka 2002).
Forest Service lands historically contributed to tenure stability on associ-
ated private lands by providing a relatively stable source of upland forage at a
reasonable cost. Today transhumant ranchers using USFS land cannot predict
the future productive capacity of ranching, because it could be curtailed at
any time by changes in access to USFS land. A rancher dependent on USFS
summer range, and in many cases, lowland public range, has limited control
over the means of production or the future of their mobility.
Some environmental groups opposed to grazing are offering ranchers di-
rect fi nancial compensation to stop grazing allotments via a ‘permit buyout’
programme. Buyout payments are typically well above what an economist
would calculate as the going rate. A nationwide analysis of the allotment
buyout programme found that the diffi culties of working with federal bu-
reaucratic processes and rules was a critical reason why ranchers were will-
ing to sell their permits, along with debt, an uncertain forage supply, and
confl icts with other users (Steinbach and Thomas 2007). As one example,
in the Grand Canyon area, the Conservation Fund paid a rancher to cease
grazing his public allotment. The rancher felt that confl icts with motorized
recreation made his use of the range unprofi table. He sold all his cattle and
plans either to convert to a ‘dude’ (touristic) ranch, or to sell his private land,
and use the sale proceeds and the buyout money to buy a ranch in a better
setting (Reese 2005).
The need to cope with the increased diffi culties of achieving traditional
mobility has spawned grassroots efforts to recover fl exibility and loss of access
to forage, including collaborative grazing, leasing, feeding, new patterns of
livestock movement, conservation contracting, the use of transitional lands
on an opportunistic basis, and stabilizing land tenure, exhibiting the fl ex-
ibility that is characteristic of pastoralists (Fernandez-Gimenez and Le Febre
2006). In one example, the Malpai Borderlands Group is collaborating with
conservation organizations and government agencies to increase stability of
land tenure through institutional innovation that makes the permanence of
30 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
conservation easements barring conversion of ranches dependent on con-
tinued public land access (Sayre 2005). Malpai and a variety of other groups
including California’s Central Coast Rangeland Coalition and New Mexico’s
Quivera Coalition are also working to demonstrate the ability to combine
livestock herding and biodiversity conservation.
In some areas, ranches are beginning to work together to move stock to
ranches with more forage during drought (Sayre 2007). Grassbanking is an-
other method used to compensate for losses in mobility (White and Conley
2007, Gripne 2005). One defi nition states that ‘a grassbank is a partnership
that leverages conservation practices across multiple ownerships based on
the exchange of forage for tangible conservation benefi ts’ (Gripne 2005). Pri-
vate ranches share forage, with one ranch or area of range that has conserva-
tion as a priority acting as a ‘bank’ for the other private enterprises, to be used
during drought or to relieve other rangelands of grazing for a set amount
of time. There are about 22 different grassbanking initiatives in the West
(Harper 2002).
Some new forms of mobility are heavily energy dependent. Trucks and
even planes are used to move animals seasonally and sometimes across large
distances. There is considerable movement between states and across biomes.
In an extreme example, about 17,000 young weaned cattle are shipped into
California each year from Hawaii. They graze on California rangelands, or
sometimes consume agricultural by-products, and then are shipped to anoth-
er state to be fed grain. Typically they enter the state in the fall as the winter
rains stimulate grass growth, and leave in the late spring as the grasses dry.
Between 60,000 and 90,000 brood cow herds go into and out of California
each year to graze on rangelands in the nearby states of Nevada, Idaho, and
Oregon (Shields and Matthews 2001, Ashcraft 2005 pers. com). More than
115,000 steers came into the state from Mexico in 2004.
Selling one ranch and using the proceeds to buy another ranch further
from urban expansion might be considered another form of mobility that
was augmented by the pre-2008 real estate boom (Torell and Kincade 1996).
This resolves numerous problems for the family: it provides capital that en-
ables resolution of heirship disputes and debt; it allows the family to reside
in an area with better infrastructure for ranch production and fewer confl icts
with urban dwellers; and it may allow the purchase of a larger, better ranch
(Liffmann et al. 2000).
There is more than just a forage base required for ranch production – a
‘critical mass’ is needed to maintain cultural and physical infrastructure
(Huntsinger and Hopkinson 1996). A feedback loop is created as ranches are
sold for development. Each ranch that disappears adds to the reasons for the
next ranch to sell out, in an increasing rate of ranching decline fed by the
growing impacts of suburban development. A tipping point has been posited
for when a critical mass of ranches is lost and ranching loses viability in
an area (Liffmann et al. 2000). Another way to describe this phenomenon
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 31
would be that a threshold is crossed when ranching community resilience is
exceeded.
Strategies recommended for strengthening the resilience of pastoralism
are similar to those promoted for ranches in the US. Surveying the status of
pastoralism world-wide (2001), Blench argues that the elements likely to en-
able the persistence of pastoralists are the ability to produce niche products,
integration of crop and livestock production, the development of interlock-
ing strategies to link conservation of wildlife with pastoral production, and
the expansion of low-volume tourism with pastoralists providing services.
The ‘working landscapes’ movement in American ranching is an initiative
that has grown greatly in the last decade, and stresses the compatibility of
livestock production and nature conservation. Production of ‘grass-fed’ beef
or other value-added products, provision of ecosystem services for society at
large and for paying visitors and maintenance of the ‘family farm’ are also
prominent goals.
Several of the papers we reviewed did not offer any clear defi nition of pas-
toralism. This is likely because many groups that would be widely accepted
as pastoralists now fall outside of strict, structural defi nitions created before
the widespread economic, population and environmental changes of the last
two decades. Distinguishing ranchers and pastoralists may rely less on any
single feature, or the identifi cation of a point on a continuum, but rather be
determined by the relative abundance and resilience of a complex of pasto-
ral features that shift, with some elements taken up, cast off, or altered, as
pastoral systems, inherently fl exible and opportunistic, adapt in response to
environmental, political and economic variability. To us it seems like deter-
mining whether or not ranchers ‘are pastoralists’ will depend largely on why
it is desirable in any particular situation to make the distinction. The loss
of pastoral mobility now experienced in the US may reduce the coherence
of the pastoral elements that are part of Western ranching, causing a loss of
many associated and mutually reinforcing pastoral characteristics, or ranch-
ers may succeed through further adaptation in maintaining many features of
pastoral practice and culture.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors for their
excellent suggestions, and the ranchers of California for their patience and
persistence. We would also like to thank the students of Berkeley’s ESPM 279
for their helpful review.
References
Ashcraft, M. (2005). Personal communication. California Department of Food and
Agriculture, Sacramento, CA.
32 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
ACC [African Conservation Centre] (2006). Nairobi, Kenya. The two cowboys: Malpai – Maasi.
http://www.conservationafrica.org/conservation-projects/project-details.php?pid=2.
Bailey, L.R. (1980). If You Take My Sheep: The Evolution and Confl icts of Navajo Pastoral-
ism, 1630–1868. Westernlore Publications, Pasadena, CA.
Baker, C. (1952). Letter from Claude Baker to USFS. National Archives-Pacifi c Sierra
Region Record Group, San Bruno, CA.
Barfi eld, T.J. (1993). The Nomadic Alternative. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Bartlett, E.T., R.G. Taylor, J.R. McKean and J.G. Hof. (1989). ‘Motivation of Colorado
Ranchers with Federal Grazing Allotments’, Journal of Range Management 42(6):454–457.
Behnke, R.H., and Scoones, I. (1991). Rethinking Range Ecology: Implications for Range-
land Management in Africa: Overview of Paper Presentations and Discussions at the Technical
Meeting on Savanna Development and Pasture Production,19–21 Nov. 1990. Common-
wealth Secretariat, Woburn, UK.
Blench, R. (2001). Pastoralists in the New Millennium. Animal Production and Health Pa-
per No. 150, FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2647e/y2647e00.htm#toc
Brunson, M.W. and Huntsinger, L. (2008). ‘Ranching as a Conservation Strategy: Can
Old Ranchers Save the New West?’, Rangeland Ecology & Management 61(2):137–47.
Burcham, L.T. (1982). California Range Land: an Historico-ecological Study of the Range
Resource of California. University of California, Davis, CA.
de Buys, W. (1985). Enchantment and Exploitation: The Life and Hard Times of a New
Mexico Mountain Range. University of New Mexico Press, New Mexico.
Davis, D. (2007). Resurrecting the Granary of Rome: Environmental History and French
Colonial Expansion in North Africa. Ohio University Press, Cleveland.
Davies, J. (2008). ‘Pastoralism and Pastoralists’,in People and Policy in Rangeland
Management – a Glossary of Key Concepts. Ford Foundation, Beijing.
Ellickson, R. (1991). Order Without Law: How Neighbours Settle Disputes. Harvard Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ellis, J.E., and D.M. Swift. (1988). ‘Stability of African Pastoral Ecosystems – Alternate Par-
adigms and Implications for Development’, Journal of Range Management 41:450–459.
Farquhar, F.P. ed. (1930). Up and Down California in 1860–1864: the Journal of William
H. Brewer. Yale University Press, New Haven, CN.
Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., and S. Le Febre. (2006). ‘Mobility in Pastoral systems: Dy-
namic Flux or Downward Trend?’ International Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology 13:341–362.
Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. and N.F. Sayre. (2003). ‘The Genesis of Range Science, with
Implications for Pastoral Development Policy’, pgs. 1976–1985 in Proceedings of the
VIIth International Rangeland Congress, eds.N. Allsopp, A.R. Palmer, S.J. Milton, K.P.
Kirkman, G.I.H. Kerley, C.R. Hurt, and C.J. Brown. 26 July–1 August 2003, Durban,
South Africa.
Forero, L.C. (2002). Grass, Graziers and Tenure: A Case Study on the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 33
GAO [U.S. Government Accounting Offi ce]. (1993). Rangeland Management: Profi le of
the Forest Service’s Grazing Allotments and Permits. RCED 93–141FS, U.S. Government
Printing Offi ce, Washington, D.C.
GAO [US Government Accounting Offi ce]. (2004) ‘Livestock Grazing: Federal ex-
penditures and receipts vary, depending on the agency and the purpose of the fee
charged.’ US Government Printing Offi ce, Washington, D.C. <http://www.gao.gov/
cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-869> [accessed 18 August 2009]
Galaty, J.G. (2004). ‘Pastoralism’, in Encyclopaedia of World Environmental History, eds S.
Kretch III, J. R. McNeill, and C. Merchant. Routledge Press, NY, pp. 984–988.
Gentner, B.J. and J.A. Tanaka. (2002). ‘Classifying Federal Public Land Grazing Permit-
tees’, Journal of Range Management 55(1):2–11.
Gómez-Ibáñez, D. A. (1967). The Rise and Decline of Transhumance in the United States.
Masters Thesis, University of Wisconsin.
Grigsby, T.L. (1976). Buckaroo Ranchers: Sociocultural Factors Related to Economic Per-
formance among Range Livestock Operators of Southeastern Oregon. PhD Dissertation,
University of Oregon, Eugene.
Grigsby, T.L. (1980). ‘Today’s Riders of the Purple Sage: Symbols, Values, and the
Cowboy Myth’, Rangelands 2:93–96.
Gripne, S.L. (2005). ‘Grass-banks: Bartering for Conservation’, Rangelands 27:24–28.
Hamilton, R. (1999). Personal Communication. Trinity Center, CA.
Harper, C. (2002). The Grass-bank Movement, (2001). The Conservation Fund, Arling-
ton, VA.
Huntsinger, L., L. Buttolph, and P. Hopkinson. (1997). ‘Ownership and management
changes on California hardwood rangelands: 1985 to 1992’, Journal of Range Manage-
ment 50:423–430.
Huntsinger, L. and H.F. Heady. (1988). ‘Perceptions of the Vale Program’, Chapter
7, pgs. 103–133. in The Vale Rangeland Rehabilitation Program: An Evaluation. ed. H.F.
Heady, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacifi c Northwest Research Station Resource
Bulletin PNW-RB-157, Portland, OR. pp. 103–133.
Huntsinger, L. and P. Hopkinson. (1996). ‘Viewpoint: Sustaining Rangeland Land-
scapes: A Social and Ecological Process’, Journal of Range Management 49(2):167–73.
Ingold, T. (1980). Hunters, Pastoralists and Ranchers: Reindeer Economies and their Trans-
formations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Johnson, S.G. (1997). ‘Factors Contributing to Land-Use Change in the Hardwood
Rangelands of Two Central Sierra Nevadan Counties’, in Symposium on Oak Woodlands:
Ecology, Management, and Urban Interface Issues, San Luis Obispo, CA March 19–22, eds.
N.H. Pillsbury, J.B. Verner, and W.D. Tietje. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, OR, 593–602.
Jordan, T.G. (1981). Trails to Texas. Southern Roots of Western Cattle Ranching. University
of Nebraska press: Lincoln and London.
Khazanov, A.M. (1994). Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
34 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
Klinkenborg, V. (2001). ‘A Meeting of Cattlemen from Two Cultures on the Mexican
Border’. African Conservation Centre, Conservation Features, Nairobi, Kenya. http://
www.conservationafrica.org/Malpai_Maasai.htm.
Liffmann, R. H., L. Huntsinger, and L.C. Forero. (2000). ‘To Ranch or Not to Ranch:
Home on the Urban Range?’ Journal of Range Management 53(4):362–70.
Marshall, H.W. and Ahlborn, R.E. (1981). Buckaroos in Paradise: Cowboy Life in Northern
Nevada. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
McKelvey, K.S., C.N. Skinner, C. Chang, D.C. Erman, S.J. Husari, D.J. Parsons, J.W.
van Wagtendonk, and C.P. Weatherspoon, C.P. (1996). ‘An Overview of Fire in the
Sierra Nevada’, in Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, fi nal report
to Congress Vol. II:Assessments and Scientifi c Basis for Management Options. Center for
Water and Wildland Resources Publication Number 37, University of California Davis,
1033–1040.
Morrow, J.O. (1918). Letter to Pete Hufford, Whitmore, CA. Forest Supervisor’s Offi ce,
United States Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Hufford Family Archives,
April 12. Red Bluff, CA.
Nelson, R.H. (1995). Public Lands and Private Rights. Rowman and Littlefi eld, Lanham,
MD.
Netting, R.M. (1981). Balancing on an Alp: Ecological Change and Continuity in a Swiss
Mountain Community. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
New York Times. (1918). Nation’s Heads Ask Fire Prevention; President Wilson Sends Mes-
sage Deploring Destruction of Resources in Wartime. Archives Nov. 3. http://query.nytimes.
com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A0CE4DF1239E13ABC4B53DFB7678383609EDE
Pyne, S.J. (1997). Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire. University
of Washington Press, Seattle.
Reese, A. (2005). The Big Buyout. High Country News April 4, Paonia, CO. http://www.
hcn. org/issues/295/15398
Richards, R.T., and L. Huntsinger. (1994). ‘Variation in BLM Employee Attitudes to-
ward Environmental Conditions on Rangelands. ’ Journal of Range Management 47(5):
365–368.
Rinschede, G. (1984). Die Wanderviehwirtschaft irn gebirgigen Westen der U.S. A. und ihre
Auswirkungen irn Naturraum [in German, Transhumance in the Western United States
and its Effects on Natural Areas]. Perfect Paperback F. Pustet, Regensburg.
Roe, E., L. Huntsinger, and K. Labnow. (1998). ‘High Reliability Pastoralism’, Journal of
Arid Environments 39(1):39–55.
Rowan, R.C., and L.D. White. (1994). ‘Regional Differences among Texas Rangeland
Operators’, Journal of Range Management 47:338–343.
Rowe, H. I., E.T. Bartlett, and L.E. Swanson Jr. (2001). ‘Ranching Motivations in Two
Colorado Counties’, Journal of Range Management 54(4):314–21.
Rowley, W.D. (1985). U.S. Forest Service Grazing and Rangelands: A History. Texas A&M
University Press. College Station.
Sayre, N.F. (2001). The New Ranch Handbook: A Guide to Restoring Western Rangelands.
Quivira Coalition, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1 January 2010
TRANSHUMANCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 35
Sayre, N.F. (2002). Ranching, Endangered Species, and Urbanization in the Southwest. Uni-
versity of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
Sayre, N.F. (2005). Working Wilderness: The Malpai Borderlands Group and the Future of the
Western Range. Rio Nuevo Publishers, Tucson.
Sayre, N.F. (2007). ‘A History of Working Landscapes: The Altar Valley, Arizona, USA’,
Rangelands 29: 41–45.
Sheridan, T.E. (2007). ‘Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl:
The Political Ecology of the New American West’, Annual Review of Anthropology
36:121–38.
Shields, D.A. and Mathews, K.H. (2001). Interstate Livestock Movements. Economic Research
Service Report. Economic Research Service Report USDA-LDP-M-108-01, Washington,
D.C. http://www. ers. usda. gov/Data/InterstateLivestockMovements/
Smith, A. H. and W.E. Martin. (1972). ‘Socioeconomic Behavior of Cattle Ranchers,
with Implications for Rural Community Development in the West’, American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 54(2):217–25.
Starrs, P.F. (1998). Let The Cowboy Ride: Cattle Ranching in the American West. Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Starrs, P.F. and Huntsinger, L. (1998). ‘The Cowboy and Buckaroo in American Ranch
Hand Styles’, Rangelands 20(5):36–40.
Steinbach, M. S. and Thomas, J.W. (2007). ‘Potential Outcomes and Consequences
of a Proposed Grazing Permit Buyout Program’, Rangeland Ecology & Management
60(1):36–44.
Sulak, A.M. (2007). Land Conservation and Environmental Policy: Public Land Grazing For
Private Land Conservation? PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Sulak, A. and Huntsinger, L. (2002). ‘Sierra Nevada Grazing in Transition: The Role of
Forest Service Grazing in the Foothill Ranches of California – A report to the Sierra
Nevada Alliance, the California Cattlemen’s Association, and the California Rangeland
Trust’. Sierra Nevada Alliance, California. http://www. sierranevadaalliance. org/publi-
cations/publication. shtml?type=pgm02
Sulak, A. and Huntsinger, L. (2007). ‘Public Lands Grazing in California: Untapped
Conservation Potential for Private Lands’, Rangelands 29(3):9–12.
Sulak, A., L. Huntsinger, E.T. Bartlett and H.I. Rowe. (2004). ‘Western Ranching: Loving
It or Leaving It’, in The Changing Faces Of Rangeland Users: Implications for Management
and Rangeland Sustainability, Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by Western Regional
Coordinating Committees WCC-40 (Range Ecology) and WCC-55 (Range Economics). Eds.
L.A. Torell, N. Rimbey, and C. Marlow. Society for Range Management Annual Meeting.
Jan. 24–30, Salt Lake City, Utah, pp. 19–32.
Swift, J. (1988). Major Issues in Pastoral Development with Special Emphasis on Selected
African Countries. Accession No: XF91:303143, FAO, Rome
Thomas, R. (2004). Forest Service Grazing Statistical Report – 1980 to 2002 Including Per-
cent of Decrease. http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles/forest_service_
grazing_statistic.htm
Torell, L.A., N.R. Rimbey, J.A. Tanaka, S.A. Bailey. (2001). ‘The Lack of Profi t Motive
for Ranching: Implications for Policy Analysis’, in Proceedings of the Current Issues in
Rangeland Resource Economics Symposium of the Western Regional Coordinating Committee
36 L. HUNTSINGER, L.C. FORERO AND A. SULAK
January 2010 Pastoralism Vol. 1 No. 1
on Rangeland Economics WCC-55, ed. L.A. Torell, E.T., Bartlett, R. Larrañaga. Society for
Range Management Annual Meeting Feb. 17–23, Kailua-Kona, HI. New Mexico State
University Research Report 737, Las Cruces, NM., pp. 47–58. http://ageconsearch.umn.
edu/handle/16629
Torell, A.L., and M.E. Kincaid. (1996). ‘Public Land Policy and the Market Value of New
Mexico Ranches, 1979–94. ’ Journal of Range Management 49(3): 270–276.
USDA-ERS [United States Department of Agriculture – Economic Research Service].
(2008). ‘Briefi ng Rooms Cattle: Background’, http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefi ng/cattle/
Background.htm
USDA-FS. (1994–2005). Grazing Statistical Summary. Government Printing Offi ce,
Washington, D.C.
USDA-FS [United States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service]. (1917. Telegram to
USFS Region 5 Forester regarding Stillwater Land and Cattle Company. Shasta National For-
est. Record Group 95, Agency Container No. 47874, Accession No. 95-55B960 National
Archives – Pacifi c Sierra Region, San Bruno, CA.
USDA-FS [United States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service]. (1909). Trinity Na-
tional Forest Grazing Conditions. Accession No. 96-25. Box No. 41981. Shasta National
Forest. Record Group 95. National Archives-Pacifi c Sierra Region. San Bruno, CA, p. 4.
USDA-NASS [United States Department of Agriculture –National Agricultural Statistical
Service] (2005). http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Statistical_Highlights/content.
htm
White, C., and Conley, C. (2007). ‘Grass-bank 2. 0’, Rangelands 29:27–30.
Young, J.A. and Sparks, B.A. (1985). Cattle in the Cold Desert. Utah State University
Press, Logan, Utah.
Yung, L. and J.M. Belsky. (2007). ‘Private Property Rights and Community Goods: Ne-
gotiating Landowner Cooperation Amid Changing Ownership on the Rocky Mountain
Front’, Society & Natural Resources 20(8):689–703.
