The objective of this study was to test the combined effect of offstream water and trace mineral salt on cattle distribution in a riparian meadow and its adjacent uplands. From July 15 to August 26, 1996 and 1997, three treatments were each randomly assigned to one pasture in each of three blocks. Sixty cow/calf pairs were then randomly allotted to the grazed pastures. The treatments included 1) stream access and access to offstream water and trace-mineral salt (off-stream), 2) stream access and no access to offstream water or trace-mineral salt (no-offstream), and 3) ungrazed control. The response of cattle was measured through visual observations of cattle distribution, grazing activity and travel distance, cow/calf performance, and fecal deposit distribution. Distribution patterns of the cattle, measured as the distance of cattle from the stream, was characterized by a time of day x treatment x time in grazing period x year interaction (P < 0.05). No-offstream cattle began the day further from the stream than offstream cattle but consistently moved closer to the stream after the morning grazing period (0600 to 0900). Differences in distribution patterns between the two treatments were more pronounced early in the grazing period than late in the grazing period. Grazing activity, fecal deposit distribution, and travel distance of cattle were not affected by the presence of offstream water and trace-mineral salt. Cows and calves with offstream water and trace-mineral salt gained 11.5 kg and 0.14 kg/d more, respectively, than no-offstream cows and calves averaged across years (P < 0.05). Overall, cattle distribution patterns and cow/calf performance were influenced by the presence of offstream water and trace-mineral salt. Changes in distribution were most pronounced early in the grazing season.

No abstract

The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) was created in response to a request from the Office of Management and Budget that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) document the societal benefits anticipated to accrue from a major increase in conservation funding authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill. A comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of rangeland conservation practices cost-shared with private landowners was unable to evaluate conservation benefits because outcomes were seldom documented. Four interrelated suppositions are presented to examine the causes underlying minimal documentation of conservations outcomes. These suppositions are (1) the benefits of conservation practices are considered a certainty so that documentation in not required, (2) there is minimal knowledge exchange between the USDA-NRCS and research organizations, (3) and a paucity of conservation-relevant science, as well as (4) inadequate technical support for land owners following implementation of conservation practices. We then follow with recommendations to overcome potential barriers to documentation of conservation outcomes identified for each supposition. Collectively, this assessment indicates that the existing conservation practice standards are insufficient to effectively administer large conservation investments on rangelands and that modification of these standards alone will not achieve the goals explicitly stated by CEAP. We recommend that USDA-NRCS modify its conservation programs around a more comprehensive and integrative platform that is capable of implementing evidence-based conservation. Collaborative monitoring organized around landowner-agency-scientist partnerships would represent the focal point of a Conservation Program Assessment Network (CPAN). The primary network objective would be to establish missing information feedback loops between conservation practices and their agricultural and environmental outcomes to promote learning, adaptive management, and innovation. Network information would be archived and made available to guide other, related conservation programs in relevant ecoregions. Restructuring conservation programs as we recommend would (1) provide site specific information, learning, and accountability that has been requested by CEAP and (2) further advance balanced delivery of agricultural production and environmental quality goals.

No abstract

Growing wolf (Canis lupus L.) populations in the US Rocky Mountain Region have increased conflicts between livestock production and wolf conservation. Given that the costs of large carnivore conservation are disproportionately borne by local livestock producers, the United States uses compensation for wolf damage to reduce conflicts and mediate negative attitudes toward the predators. Current compensation programs, however, only consider the direct effects of wolf predation. Indirect effects, such as wolf effects on weaning weights, and conception rates, may also reduce profitability. By not including indirect wolf effects, compensation programs may systematically undercompensate ranchers. We use a stochastic budget model of a representative cow-calf ranch in northwest Wyoming to estimate the economic impact of both direct (death loss and injured calves) and indirect effects (decreased weaning weights, decreased conception rates, and increased cattle sickness) of wolf predation. Our results suggest that short-run (i.e., year-to-year) financial impacts of wolf indirect effects may be as large as or larger than the direct effects. Including indirect effects implies that the compensation ratio (i.e., number of calves compensated per confirmed depredation) necessary to fully offset the financial impacts of wolves would need to be two to three times larger than current 7:1 compensation ratio used in Wyoming.

This study identifies the characteristics and attitudes of public land ranchers. Data from a random survey of 2,000 U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management grazing permittees (53.5% response rate) were cluster analyzed and 8 distinct groups of ranchers were identified. Each cluster differed with respect to why they were in ranching and how they would respond to public land policy changes related to grazing fees, grazing reductions, and changes in grazing season. Profit motivation for being in ranching was found to be a relatively low objective for all 8 types of ranchers.

No abstract

No abstract