Action Plan for the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP): The Case for the United States, Canada, and Mexico

The GAP analysis (A Case of Benign Neglect: Knowledge gaps about sustainability in rangelands and pastoralism) points to several gaps that are relevant to the US, Canada and Mexico. North American rangelands span the ecological continuum of polar to hot deserts and arid to humid climates that exhibit highly variable ecological and forage production potential across time and space. Although there is a great deal of rangeland research, extension, and inventory capacity in all three countries, a weak link is the dissemination of information to North American pastoralists (conventionally referred to as ranchers or producers). Although the extension system in the US and Canada are similar, there are distinct differences. Public lands in the US are managed at the national level by federal agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service) while private land management assistance is provided by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. In Canada, Crown land is managed by departments within each province and there is no national extension service. In Mexico, the majority of the lands are managed by local communities or ejidos, 15% are privately owned and managed and the remaining 5% is government owned. The three countries support national research organizations and have a well-developed system of colleges and universities that have range management or related disciplines containing staff that specialize in teaching and/or research (and cooperative extension at land grant universities within the US). All three countries must attempt to bridge gaps between an urban industrial society that is increasingly disconnected from extensive agricultural production on rangelands. Promoting ecological goods and services provided by rangelands is a relatively new paradigm for US, Canadian and Mexican research and extension. During the IYRP, the focus in the US, Canada and Mexico is likely to be in 2 directions; providing North American pastoralists/ranchers with the social license to continue to ranch or farm while educating the massive urban population about the sustainability, multiple uses, and benefits of ecological services produced on rangelands and native grasslands

Predator and Heterospecific Stimuli Alter Behavior in Cattle

Wild and domestic ungulates modify their behavior in the presence of olfactory and visual cues of predators but investigations have not exposed a domestic species to a series of cues representing various predators and other ungulate herbivores.We used wolf (Canis lupus), mountain lion (Puma concolor), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) stimuli (olfactory and visual), and a control (no stimuli) to experimentally test for differences in behavior of cattle (Bos taurus) raised in Arizona. We measured (1) vigilance, (2) foraging rates, (3) giving up density (GUD) of high quality foods and (4) time spent in high quality forage locations in response to location of stimuli treatments. In general, we found a consistent pattern in that wolf and deer treatments caused disparate results in all 4 response variables. Wolf stimuli significantly increased cattle vigilance and decreased cattle foraging rates; conversely, deer stimuli significantly increased cattle foraging rate and increased cattle use of high quality forage areas containing stimuli. Mountain lion stimuli did not significantly impact any of the 4 response variables. Our findings suggest that domestic herbivores react to predatory stimuli, can differentiate between stimuli representing two predatory species, and suggest that cattle may reduce antipredatory behaviour when near heterospecifics

A Perspective on Livestock–Wolf Interactions on Western Rangelands

The reintroduction of wolves into their historical ranges in the North American Rocky Mountains and areas of the southwestern United States is possibly one of the most ambitious ecosystem restoration efforts of the recent past. This initiative has been controversial and has stimulated considerable debate among concerned stakeholders about the feasibility of harmonizing multiple land-use demands when preservation of a large predator becomes a central management goal. In many areas, ranching has taken center stage of this debate as ranchers and land managers seek to develop sustainable ways to manage livestock on landscapes with wolves. The challenges associated with wolf restoration programs vary regionally and depend on a myriad of interacting factors. Wolf population size and consequent regulatory and legal frameworks; site-specific, biophysical features; and local traditions, perceptions, and attitudes of urban vs. ranching communities are only a few of the issues driving the diversity of situations. Because of this complexity, “silver-bullet” approaches are unlikely to provide answers that will satisfy all stakeholders in all locations. In this context, our article seeks to 1) provide a science-based perspective to inform the wolf–livestock ongoing debate; and 2) suggest research approaches that could lead to locally relevant solutions. Of paramount importance is better understanding of direct and indirect effects of wolves on livestock, and development of effective methods for minimizing impacts while maintaining ecologically relevant wolf populations on the landscape. We argue that progress (i.e., optimizing coexistence or minimizing conflict) is most likely if multiple tools and techniques are used in a context-dependent fashion and integrated into a science based operation supported by producers

Indirect Effects of Carnivores on Livestock Foraging Behavior and Production

Direct effects of predation (i.e., killing of animals) can result in significant economic losses to livestock producers. A recent publication by the USDA, Wildlife Services (2002) identified the following losses: (1) livestock losses attributed to predators, predominantly coyotes (Canis latrans), reach about $71 million annually; (2) cattle and calf losses to predators in the United States totaled 147,000 head during 2000. A National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) study valued these losses at$51.6 million; (3) sheep and lamb losses to predators in the United States totaled 273,000 in 1999. A NASS study valued these losses at $16.5 million; (4) In Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, the three major goat-producing states, 61,000 goats and kids were lost to predators in 1999. A NASS study valued these losses at$3.4 million. Although direct losses of livestock due to depredation are often conspicuous and economically significant, they likely underestimate the total loss to producers because they do not consider indirect effects of carnivores as a result of livestock being exposed to the threat of predation without being killed. Laundré et al. (2001) suggested that behavioral responses by prey species to impending predation might have more far-reaching consequences for ungulate behavioral ecology than the actual killing of individuals by predators. Potential negative, indirect impacts associated with the mere presence of predators include, but are not limited to, increased vigilance and reduced foraging efficiency by prey species, and being forced by predators to forage in suboptimal habitats that contain lower quality or quantity of nutrients, and higher levels of toxins. Moreover, overuse of and lowered carrying capacity in suboptimal habitats could contribute to resource degradation (e.g., overgrazing in marginal habitats, increased erosion and sedimentation) and lower producer profits due to declines in livestock production (e.g., weight gain, body condition, lamb or calf crop). Thus, indirect impacts of predation may have negative impacts on the ecological integrity of the land, as well as negative impacts on personal, local, and regional economies that depend on livestock production. However, there is little or no published information that addresses indirect effects of carnivores on domestic ungulates. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how the mere threat of predation might influence foraging efficiency and vigilance, diet and habitat selection, skin-gut responses, and social behavior in wild and domestic ungulate prey species. Because there is little or no published information on domestic ungulates concerning these subjects, we rely heavily on wild ungulate studies that have attempted to quantify or qualify the indirect effects of predation. Our aim is to use the wildlife literature as a springboard to stimulate discussion among producers, wildlife damage management professionals, and researchers regarding ways to quantify and address the indirect effects of carnivores on domestic ungulates. We first discuss the evidence from the wildlife literature that supports indirect effects of carnivores on wild ungulates, and then relate that evidence to its potential implications for domestic livestock foraging behavior and production

Book Review: Cows Eat Weeds: How to Turn Your Cows Into Weed Managers, Kathy Voth

Book Review: Cows Eat Weeds: How to Turn Your Cows Into Weed Managers, Kathy Voth. Livestock for Landscapes, Loveland, CO, USA (2010).The Rangelands archives are made available by the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact [email protected] for further information.Migrated from OJS platform March 202

Rangeland Management Before, During and After Drought

6 pp./ Originally published: 1999Rangeland and livestock management in the southwestern U.S. presents many formidable challenges. Environmental regulations, cattle prices, and drought are just a few factors that contribute to the management challenges of the range-livestock industry. Among them, drought may be the least controllable or predictable variable. This publication discusses how to prepare for drought in southwestern U.S. Topics include principles of drought and range-livestock management, management before drought, management during drought and management after drought. Reviewed 12/2016 - Originally published 07/199

Rangeland Management Before, During and After Drought

6 pp.Rangeland and livestock management in the southwestern U.S. presents many formidable challenges. Environmental regulations, cattle prices, and drought are just a few factors that contribute to the management challenges of the range-livestock industry. Among them, drought may be the least controllable or predictable variable. This publication discusses how to prepare for drought in southwestern U.S. Topics include principles of drought and range-livestock management, management before drought, management during drought and management after drought

A Brief History of How the Society for Range Management was Founded

On the Ground • About eight decades ago, The Society for Range Managements founders began to shape and refine their collective vision to create a science-based professional society that would serve as a platform for learning and collaboration on all aspects of rangeland management. • The inaugural meeting in 1948 led to the founding of the American Society of Range Management (ASRM), a new journal dedicated to range science and management (The Journal of Range Management), an initial ASRM committee structure, and decentralization of ASRM through the formation of local sections. • ASRM (now known as The Society for Range Management or SRM) has achieved many milestones and accomplishments since its founding. Although todays issues are different and morecomplex than in 1948, the basic leadership principles espoused by the founders provide a template for addressing the challenges that the rangeland profession faces in the 21st century.The Rangelands archives are made available by the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact [email protected] for further information.Migrated from OJS platform March 202

Integrated Weed Management: Strategies, Tactics, Decision Criteria, and the Importance of Partnerships

According to Sheley et al. (2011), "integrated pest management (IPM) is a long-standing, science-based, decision-making process that identifies and reduces risks from pests by using pest management strategies and tactics." Practitioners have commonly used IPM in intensive agricultural settings to develop strategic and tactical management technologies designed to prevent significant pest damage, while posing minimal risk to people, property, resources, and the environment