Fromn the earliest days of the cattle business, some men were obsessed with the idea that the ra.n ge wvas overcrowded. Obviously, the fewer animals dependent upon a given amount of forage, the fatter they would get and the better would be their chances of going through a drought or a hard winter. JuLst when a range became overcrowded was, of course, impossible to determine. The importation or birth of one more animal detracted just so much from the chances of animals alrea.dy using the, range, and they vere that much more likely to graze the forage too closelv and kill it back. It wa.s to the interest of the cattlemen first on the ground, therefore, to prevent the bringing in of more animals and to increase the amount of range available. Eventua.lly, however, the great invasion of small ranchers and sheepmen turned the tide hopelessly against the range system. The old catt.lemen were then forced to turn to the protection of their interests, by providing feed in winter and by purchasing or leasing, when possible, large tracts of forage land. Thus they became accomplices in bringing about the end of the open range. Many were driven out of the game altogether, and most of those who remained were forced to reduce the size of their enterprises. It seems probable that some of the publicity given to the supposed overcrowding of the range, especially in the earlier period, was the result of the more or less conscious effort of the cattlemen already in possession to keep new herds off the range.' Often the cattlemen took more direct measures to exclude the newcomers. The power which, especially in the early years, the local cattlemen's associations exercised over the round-ups and the protection of brands, put these organizations in a, position to exercise effective control over the admission or exclusion of
Read full abstract
May 1, 1946
Virgil L Hurlburt 
Open Access
