On the Ground • Drought reduces forage quantity and carrying capacity, but reductions in cow-calf performance measured by calf average daily gain (ADG) and weaning weight (WW) are less understood. • From 2011 to 2014, a period with very dry and very wet years, we assessed an adjusted 210 day WW and ADG for a total of 869 calves on two University of Wyoming ranches. • We found WW was up to 99 pounds (lb) lower, and ADG was up to 0.47 lb lower between the driest and wettest years. • For each one inch reduction in precipitation, WW are predicted to be 7 lb to 14 lb lower, ADG is expected to be 0.03 lb to 0.07 lb lower, and dollar per head values 12 to 27 lower, depending on calf sex and ranch location. • If drought occurs, or continues to escalate in frequency and severity, WW reductions, ADG reductions, and value per head reductions should be expected and documented for strategic planning and/or compensation programs.

On the Ground • Cattle with poor temperaments gain less weight in feedlots. However, how yearling steer temperament affects weight gain on rangelands is a knowledge gap for ranchers. • Flight speed, the speed at which cattle exit a chute after weighing, has been used to measure temperament in past feedlot studies (faster speed = poor temperament). We used flight speed scores in this study to measure yearling steer temperament at the beginning (mid-May) and end (early-October) of grazing seasons for 3 years: 2011–2013. • We hypothesized that steer weight gains on extensively managed semiarid rangeland with low stocking densities (~0.11–0.15 steers/ha) would not be influenced by temperament due to the muh lower animal densities and fewer handling events than experienced in feedlots. • No meaningful relationships were found between season-beginning or season-ending flight speed score and steer average daily gain, and flight speed scores were often lower at the end of the season. • Results suggest that ranchers operating stocker enterprises with extensive management and low stocking densities on rangelands can potentially be less selective for temperament when assembling herds.

On the Ground • Greater sage-grouse were found to be threatened or endangered with extinction in a preliminary assessment in 2010, with a final decision on an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing due in 2015. • ESA criteria regarding endangered status (in danger of extinction), threatened status (likely to become in danger of extinction), the foreseeable future (in which a species will become in danger of extinction), and a significant portion of a species range (without which a species will be in danger of extinction) are not definitive, rely on predictions, and are all concerned with species extinction, not simply population declines. • The 2010 ESA determination for sage-grouse relies on observations of declining populations, predictions from models with uncertain assumptions, incomplete population data, and anticipated habitat changes. Prediction of species extinction from this information can be considered speculation, and insufficient for an ESA listing. • Wildlife management without the encumbrances ofthe ESA and its associated litigation and regulation can be used to maintain and enhance species that are not in immediate danger of extinction, such as sage-grouse.