of the plant on his land, it is little compared to the plant's former 

 abundance. One Peyotero indicated that in 1972, he and five 

 other workers harvested in Starr County about 19,000 Peyote 

 plants in eight hours' time; in early June, 1975, they harvested 

 only 200-300 from the same areas in the same amount of time 

 (Olivarez, 1975). 



Although Peyoteros and Indians agree that there is a decrease 

 in Peyote abundance in areas available for harvesting, estimates 

 vary considerably. Variations in appraisals are due to a number of 

 factors. First, Peyote is a small plant in a big country. Small areas 

 abundant in the plant, especially in thick brush country and some 

 distance from access roads, likely escape notice. One such small 

 area (approximately 200 square meters) was found in January, 

 1975, in northeastern Zapata County. From appearances, it is 

 likely that it had never before been harvested. Within six months 

 (January-June), over 10,000 Peyote plants had been harvested by 

 a Peyotero who indicated that there was still more plants there 

 (Lopez, 1975). Second, there is secrecy about the locations of 

 areas abundant in Peyote. Third, estimates are based on visible 

 plants, and thus are often inaccurate. 



Many areas alive with subterranean Peyote appear void of the 

 plant, such as after a recent harvest or drought. Yet, in time, the 

 perennial subterranean roots bud and produce more crowns 

 under favorable environmental conditions, especially rain, so 

 that areas appearing devoid of the plant may be viewed abun- 

 dantly at a later time. 



A Range Conservationist familiar with Starr County said: 

 "Since the rains, all kinds of Peyote are coming up, hundreds of 

 little ones in areas where I had never seen Peyote" (Willis, 1975). 

 Finally, there is the possibility of new areas of Peyote from seed 

 dispersal, but Indians and Peyoteros often harvest the plant when 

 it flowers from June to September, thus reducing the total seed 

 production of many populations in Texas. By harvesting flower- 

 ing plants, harvesters may have arrested the geographic spread of 

 the plant from seed, thus resulting in a greater dependence and a 

 greater harvesting pressure on existing plants. Indian and Peyo- 

 tero harvesters have become much more dependent on vegetative 

 reproduction from existing populations. 



82 



