Public land policy and the market value of New Mexico ranches, 1979-94
Issue Date
1996-05-01Keywords
grazing permitsland policy
grazing tenancy
econometric models
public domain
land values
ranching
range management
New Mexico
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Torell, L. A., & Kincaid, M. E. (1996). Public land policy and the market value of New Mexico ranches, 1979-94. Journal of Range Management, 49(3), 270-276.Publisher
Society for Range ManagementJournal
Journal of Range ManagementDOI
10.2307/4002890Additional Links
https://rangelands.org/Abstract
Proposals outlined in Rangeland Reform '94 have been perceived to greatly alter grazing use on public lands. In addition to new rules and regulations, the grazing fee would double under this reform proposal. The debate about these controversial policies would be expected to affect the market value of public kind grazing permits. Regression models were developed using over 700 ranch sales to determine recent trends in market value for New Mexico ranches, including public land ranches. After 1988, nominal deeded ranch values were found to have increased by 3% per annum, but remained unchanged in 1992 constant dollars. This follows a 50% decline in real value from 1982-88. Ranches heavily dependent on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land for grazing capacity decreased in real value by about 1.8% per annum over the 1988-94 study period. The United States Forest Service (USFS) has recently had the most controversial land use polices and the highest average total grazing costs. This has been reflected in the market value of USFS ranches, with a continued decrease in permit value; USFS ranches in New Mexico have lost 75% of their real value since 1982. Doubling grazing fees on New Mexico state trust lands contributed to a downward trend in leasehold value. Somewhat surprising, given the higher grazing fee on state trust lands, these permits increased in market value in both real (1.7% per year) and nominal (5% per year) terms after controversy about state lands subsided and federal land policies became more controversial.Type
textArticle
Language
enISSN
0022-409Xae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.2307/4002890