‘Massive' ranch — the size of the city of Denver — lists in New Mexico. Take a look
A 'massive' ranch listed in New Mexico has a bunch of unique and necessary features, the most impressive happens to be its size — which is, well, the size of Denver, Colorado. Wait — we take that back. It's actually bigger than the Mile High City.
The Atarque Ranch in Fence Lake, New Mexico, stretches over 109,300 acres in a secluded part of the state and is an 'extraordinary property seamlessly marries a thriving wildlife habitat with a fully operational livestock ranch,' according to a statement about the property.
The price tag also isn't minuscule. The ranch is listed for $68.5 million.
'There are abundant remnants of ancient Native American culture and early homesteaders throughout the property, reminding one of the longevity of the land itself,' the listing on Hall and Hall says.
'Light and noise pollution are not of concern in this area, and it offers some of the best night-view sheds anywhere in the country. The distinct landscape, views, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, privacy, and landlocked nature of the ranch make it one of the best large acreage ranches for sale.'
Features, per the listing, on the property include:
26 wellsA spring105 stock pondsRanch homeManager homeMobile homeShop Outbuildings'Livestock handling facilities'
Currently, the ranch is owned by the Yates families, who was named one of the richest families in 2015 by Forbes magazine, worth a total of $2.5 billion in oil and gas money then.
'After nearly 45 years of ownership, the Yates Family is offering their renowned Atarque Ranch, near Fence Lake, New Mexico, for sale,' the family said in the statement. 'The family seeks a new steward to preserve the ranch's natural beauty, wildlife, and significant Native American heritage, aligning with their evolving investment strategy.'
The listing is held by Jeff Buerger.
Fence Lake is about a 145-mile drive southwest from Albuquerque.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Rising cost of homeowners insurance has scared away millions of Americans
Rising cost of homeowners insurance has scared away millions of Americans Show Caption Hide Caption Smoke drifting into US from Canada wildfires could impact health Smoke from wildfires in Canada has drifted into Montana, the Dakotas, Minnesota, Midwestern and East Coast states, and as far south as Florida. As homeowners insurance becomes more expensive, many Americans are choosing to go without it – even as risks that are prevented, or at least mitigated, by insurance coverage increase. The Federal Reserve's Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households of 2024, released in May 2025, is the latest analysis to document the trend. Across the country, 7% of all homeowners in the survey of more than 12,000 respondents had no insurance, the report found, although there were some discrepancies based on geography. When asked why they didn't have homeowners insurance, 43% said they 'couldn't afford it', while another 19% said 'it is not worth the cost.' And respondents with fewer financial resources were among the most likely to go without insurance. Roughly 3 in 10 homeowners with income less than $25,000 or those whose only asset was their home went without. The Fed's findings track almost exactly with a report published in early 2024 by the nonprofit watchdog group Consumer Federation of America. Approximately 7.4% of American homeowners are uninsured, that report found, representing 6.1 million homes. "Homeowners earning under $50,000 per year are twice as likely to lack insurance compared to homeowners in general,' CFA's authors wrote, adding that 22% of Native American homeowners, 14% of Hispanic homeowners, and 11% of Black homeowners have no insurance. The findings are concerning, the report adds, because it means those owners 'are at risk of losing their homes in the face of ever-escalating climate disasters and storms.' See also: Climate risk will take trillion-dollar bite out of America's real estate, report finds More recent research suggests the threat may be even more stark. An analysis from data analytics provider First Street, released in May 2025, found a direct correlation between lack of insurance and foreclosures. But First Street's findings also demonstrate it's not just the uninsured homes that suffer, but the broader communities as a whole. When storms hit and homeowners fall into delinquency, there's less tax revenue for municipal services like transportation and less demand boosting the local economy. Homes may be abandoned or not kept up, and the value of even undamaged homes may increase more slowly or decline outright. Still, there are good reasons why millions of homeowners say insurance is too expensive for them. 2025 data from CFA shows that in 2024, a typical homeowner – with a midrange credit score and a house with a $350,000 replacement value – faced an average premium of $3,303 per year – $275 per month. Those numbers have been growing. First Street has shown that premiums started to surge around 2013. As of 2022, insurance costs made up more than 20% of the typical mortgage payment, roughly triple the 7-8% that they made up in the decade or so before 2013. More: Homeownership used to mean stable housing costs. That's a thing of the past. Since 2019, foreclosures have ticked up in tandem with the cost of insurance, First Street has shown. 'The one thing proven to prevent foreclosures is getting so expensive that it is causing foreclosures,' the group said. To combat the problem, CFA has a few recommendations. The group believes that requiring insurance companies to publicly release data on homeowners insurance underwriting, pricing, coverage, and claims every year would be a helpful start, by making the industry more transparent. CFA also recommends investing federal and state dollars in housing resiliency, and requiring that insurance companies charge lower premiums of homeowners who make climate risk reduction upgrades to their homes. 'The pace of rapidly rising premiums is increasingly unsustainable,' CFA said.
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Newsweek
To Bridge Generational Divides, Corporate America Needs To Invest in Soft Skills
We are living through the Fourth Industrial Revolution—and it's moving fast. AI, automation, and rapid digital transformation are reshaping businesses across all sectors. Corporate America is racing to navigate a digital-first world. As business leaders from retail to finance to professional services work to keep up with the shift, there's something that's easy to miss: the soft, or "durable" skills employees need to succeed are no longer optional—they're essential. LinkedIn's Global Talent Trends report showed that 89 percent of HR industry professionals said when a hire doesn't work out, it usually boils down to a lack of skills like emotional intelligence, clear communication, adaptability, and active listening. Forbes reported these as the top competencies employees will need in the next five years. This moment will require upskilling in more than tech. People entering and exiting a metro station are pictured. People entering and exiting a metro station are pictured. Getty Images And it's not just younger workers. Consider the workplace of today: Five years post-pandemic, work from home and remote approaches are scattershot. Some people have never worked in an office; some never wanted to leave. On average, up to five generations at a time are working together. Employees of all ages are finding it difficult to adjust to hybrid environments where communication and relationship-building matter more than ever. Expectations about work culture are different. And in an effort to build tech-savvy teams, much of today's new talent has been hired for very specific expertise, not for their people skills. It's no wonder, then, that a recent survey of corporate leaders found that there is a skills gap, with many young professionals struggling to communicate effectively, collaborate with teams, and problem-solve in real time. In an era where AI is expected to automate countless tasks, human skills—like emotional intelligence, adaptability, and leadership—are becoming even more essential. But these skills don't develop in a vacuum—we need to meet this challenge head-on. One emerging solution? Mentorship. Increasingly, corporations across sectors are investing in mentoring as a proven solution to close the skills gap and unlock our human potential. Mentorship is not just a nicety, but a viable strategy for building durable skills in both the mentee and the mentor. It's a data-backed, proven solution that creates a more equitable future and develops the talent pipeline. Macy's, for example, has invested in mentorship as a way to boost leadership skills—giving youth an opportunity to learn and practice with a mentor by their side. UPS has been a long-time investor in workplace mentoring, creating opportunities for young people to explore, learn, and develop skills from seasoned corporate leaders. The results are beneficial for all, especially knowing that they've created "life-changing career opportunities" created through their mentorship programs. Mentoring goes beyond helping youth find a good job; it's also a strategy for equipping and empowering the entrepreneurs of tomorrow, and a powerful force for personal, professional, and economic development. According to a recent study led by economist Alex Bell while at Harvard University, mentorship is one of the most cost-effective, high-impact ways to close socioeconomic gaps in society and to build the durable skills companies are seeking in the workplace. We also know that serving as a mentor gives employees at any age a chance to share their knowledge, sharpen their own communication, empathy, and leadership skills. It's a win-win: ensuring a more connected workforce today and a stronger pipeline for tomorrow. It's time for us to consider that mentorship has an impact as meaningful and scalable as apprenticeships, externships, and other upskilling programs. Mentorship benefits young people, businesses, and society. The data tells us that companies with mentorship programs have higher retention rates. Employees who participate in mentorship programs are more likely to stay with their companies, reducing turnover costs. They have stronger leadership pipelines. Mentorship helps develop the next generation of managers and executives, ensuring a steady flow of talent. And they have more effective teams. Employees with strong durable skills navigate workplace dynamics better, leading to higher collaboration and problem-solving. There's even a brand halo effect, with recent evidence showing development of soft skills as linked to a company's competitive advantage. Is mentorship worth it? Yes—it pays for itself. As the workforce continues to shift, the need for human-centered development strategies is becoming clearer. Mentorship—long known for its individual impact—is also a lever for strengthening teams, bridging generational divides, and preparing a more adaptable, resilient workforce. But scale requires intention. If we want to close skill gaps, improve opportunity, and meet the demands of a changing economy, it will take more than programs—it will take people, across every sector, stepping in. This is our moment to reimagine success—because the future of work won't be automated, it will be mentored. Ginneh Baugh is chief impact officer at Big Brothers, Big Sisters of America. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Associated Press
5 hours ago
- Associated Press
Study finds little agreement between Republicans and Democrats on media sources they trust
A new survey that probes the level of trust Democrats and Republicans have for news sources finds the business-oriented publications Forbes and The Wall Street Journal share an unusual distinction: They're the only two of 30 news sources that sympathizers for both parties told the Pew Research Center they're more likely to trust than distrust. Pew's survey, released Tuesday, illustrates how the country's political polarization has members of both parties in different media silos. Democrats trust more news sources than Republicans, and rarely do their tastes intersect. Of 30 news sources tested, people who said they were Republican or leaned Republican were more likely to say they trust eight of them. Democrats had more trust than distrust for 23 different sources. Forbes and The Wall Street Journal were the only two on both lists. There were only two news sources tested that more than three in 10 Republicans said they were likely to trust — Fox News Channel, with 56%, and the Joe Rogan podcast, with 31%. Meanwhile, 13 of the sources had trust levels of more than 30% among Democrats — the three broadcast news divisions, PBS, CNN, BBC, The New York Times, The Associated Press, MSNBC, National Public Radio, USA Today, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Rogan's podcast illustrated some of the sharp differences between the parties and why President Donald Trump's interview there proved influential during the last election. Forty percent of Democrats said they distrust Rogan's show as a source, while only 3% of Democrats trust it as a news source. Others said they didn't know enough about the show to offer an opinion. Nearly two of three Democrats said they distrust Fox News, but 19% said they trust it. Among Republicans, 21% said they distrust Fox. The survey finds that 23% of Republicans said they trust PBS, while 26% distrust PBS. Democrats trust PBS by a 59% to 4% margin. Trump, a Republican, is trying to eliminate most government spending for PBS, arguing that its news content shows a liberal bias. Pew's survey indicates Republicans are fairly evenly divided on that question. That's not the case for NPR, which is also on Trump's chopping block. Pew finds that more than twice as many Republicans distrust NPR than trust it, while Democrats trust NPR by a 47% to 3% margin. 'It's still a very polarized media ecosystem,' said Elisa Shearer, a senior researcher at Pew. 'It's too early to tell if there will be changes in the future.' A separate Pew survey from March found that 53% of Republicans expressed at least some trust in the information they get from national news organizations, up from 40% only six months earlier. But Shearer said it was tough to tell how much of that increase simply had to do with a new Republican administration taking charge. For the survey released on Tuesday, Pew said it questioned 9,482 U.S. adults in mid-March. PBS says Trump's effort to rescind funding for public media would disrupt an essential service provided to the American people. ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and
