Research was conducted on the effects of rotational grazing (RG) compared to continuous grazing (CG) on the behavior of cattle grazing on rangelands. Different livestock den&tics in the RG treatments were created by varying the size of paddocks in a 4651a, U-paddock, cell deaigntd RG treatment stocked at a rate of 3.6 ha/cow/yr. Paddock sizes of 30 and lo-ha were used to simulate RG with 14 (RG-14) and 42-paddocks (RG-42), resptctivtly. The CG treatment consisted of a 24&ha pasture stocktd at 5.9 ha/cow/yr. Data were collected using vibracordtrs, ptdomtters and observation to estimate time (min/day) spent: intense grazing, starch grazing, trailing, or sleeping; distance walked (km/day), and individual animal space (m2/animrl) in grazing subherds. Total grazing time did not vary among grazing trtatmtnts, but the components of total grazing (i.e., inttnst and starch grazing) did vary among treatments. Cattle in the RG-14 paddocks spent less time search grazing compared to the ants in the other treatments presumably because the rotational grazed paddocks were more uniform because of less mixing of live and dead forage. Starch grazing was highest in the RG-42 paddocks which may be due to the high stock density in this treatment coupled with an attempt to maintain individual animal space. Grazing time tended to be longer the first day in a RG-14 paddock than the last. Time spent trailing and the distance walked increased as the frequency of rotation increased among the different treatments. Sleeping was similar among grazing treatments. Individual animal space within a grazing subhtrd decreased as the stock density increased because of the grazing treatment.Grazing management affects plant and animal production through the effect that it has on critical parameters at the plant animal interface. The animal's proximal response to managementinduced changes at this interface is a behavioral response. Restricted nutrient intake is probably the major factor limiting production from grazing animals (Hodgson 1982). However, behavior variables may be more sensitive to grazing management than nutrient intake because intake may be buffered by adaptive behavior. Understanding how livestock adjust their grazing behavior to variation in herbage standing crop and grazing management systems is essential to the development of a theoretical framework of the factors controlling intake of grazing animals (Demment et al. 1986).Cattle respond to grazing management and variations in herbage standing crop and structure by varying the time spent grazing, rate of biting, bite size, time spent at a feeding station, and time spent