October 16, 1954 Football Program, UOP vs. Colorado A and M

https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/ua-football/1145/thumbnail.jp

The Changing Scene in the American West: Water Policy Implications

11 p. ; 28 cmhttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies/1094/thumbnail.jp

Global Warming: National and International Policy Directions

9 leaves ; 28 cmhttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies/1097/thumbnail.jp

Towards Integrated Environmental Management: A Reconnaissance of State Statutes

15 p. ; 28 cmhttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies/1060/thumbnail.jp

The Governmental Context for Natural Resources Development in Indian Country

22 p. ; 28 cmhttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies/1114/thumbnail.jp

Producers’ perceptions of large carnivores and nonlethal methods to protect livestock from depredation: findings from a multistate federal initiative

We examined livestock producers’ perceptions of wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, and mountain lions, as well as their experiences with using nonlethal methods to protect livestock from depredation. All producers in the study received nonlethal predator management assistance in 2020 from USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (“WS”) pursuant to a federally funded initiative focused on the use of nonlethal methods to protect livestock. Such methods included assistance from range riders (i.e., individuals who monitor livestock and carnivores), fladry (i.e., flags hung from rope that serve as a repellent), and other audio/visual deterrents (e.g., Foxlights). The producers did not specifically seek nonlethal assistance from WS; rather, they sought assistance from WS with controlling depredation of livestock, and WS personnel determined that nonlethal methods were an appropriate fit for the circumstances. In some cases, lethal methods may have been used prior to, following, or in combination with, nonlethal methods on a producer’s operation. In addition, producers may have employed other nonlethal methods themselves, including fencing and livestock guardian animals. Our objectives were to understand the producers’ (1) experiences with, and attitudes toward, the four carnivores of interest; (2) perceptions of the effectiveness of all management methods (lethal and nonlethal) used their operations in 2020; and (3) levels of interest in using nonlethal methods, both before and after receiving assistance from WS in 2020. Data were collected using a self-administered, mail-back questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent to all producers in 10 US states1 who received nonlethal predator management assistance from WS in 2020 (n = 89). We received 40 responses (45% response rate), nearly three-quarters of which were from Montana (n = 13), Minnesota (n = 10), and Wisconsin (n = 6). A majority of respondents produced cattle (n = 28), followed by horses/mules (n = 11), sheep/goats (n = 6), honeybees (n = 3), and chickens (n = 2). Ten respondents produced multiple livestock types

Reheating constraints and consistency relations of the Starobinsky model and some of its generalizations

Building on the success of the Starobinsky model in describing the inflationary period of the universe, we investigate two simple generalizations of this model and their constraints imposed by the reheating epoch. The first generalization takes the form $R^{2p}$, while the second is the $\alpha$-Starobinsky model. We first focus on the case where $p=1$ or equivalently, $\alpha=1$, which corresponds to the original Starobinsky model. We derive exact consistency relations between observables and cosmological quantities, without neglecting any terms, and impose the reheating condition $0 < \omega_{re} < 0.25$, where $\omega_{re}$ is the equation of state parameter at the end of reheating. This allows us to obtain new bounds for $n_s$ and $r$ that satisfy this condition and apply them to other observables and cosmological quantities. We repeat this process for the cases where $p \neq 1$ and $\alpha \neq 1$ and find that these generalizations only result in minor modifications of the Starobinsky model, including the potential and the bounds on observables and cosmological quantities.Comment: 17 pages, 2 figure