Rangelands, Volume 39, Number 1 (2017)
ABOUT THE COLLECTIONS
Welcome to the Rangelands archives. The archives provide public access, in a "rolling window" agreement with the Society for Range Management, to Rangelands (1979-present) from v.1 up to two years from the present year.
The most recent issues of Rangelands are available with membership in the Society for Range Management (SRM). Membership in SRM is a means to access current information and dialogue on rangeland management.
Your institution may also have access to current issues through library or institutional subscriptions.
Contact the University Libraries Journal Team with questions about these journals.
Cattle and Carnivore Coexistence in Alberta: The Role of Compensation ProgramsIn Alberta, Canada beef producers share the landscape with large carnivores where interactions can lead to negative outcomes. We had 672 Alberta beef producers complete an online survey in spring 2014 to access the occurrence and outcomes of cattle-carnivore interactions. We found that a majority (64%) reported losses from carnivore depredation. The average rate of calf depredation was reported at 2%, but the rate was highly variable between producers (ranging from 0 to 25% calf loss annually). The direct annual economic loss to depredation for survey respondents was $2 million. This can be extrapolated with a number of assumptions provincially to $22 million. Alberta's Wildlife Predator Compensation Program (WPCP) paid out an average of $220,584 annually from 2011-2013. The WPCP was under-utilized, 64% of producers did not report to the program, and did not adequately address financial burden experienced by producers from 2011 – 2013. Producers identified a series of challenges with the WPCP including the excessive burden of proof and the effort to value ratio being too low. We provide recommendations to improve the WPCP based on a literature review and our survey findings. © 2016 The Author(s)
Plant Species Diversity, Drought, and a Grazing System on the Arizona StripMaintaining plant diversity under livestock grazing and long droughts is a challenge in arid rangelands. Maintaining the plant diversity can and has been done through rotation grazing and movement of cattle from pasture to pasture at a trigger point. The trigger point is utilization levels of between 40% and 50% of annual growth of forage plants. © 2016 The Society for Range Management
Vegetation Restoration on the Pecos River in East Central New Mexico: Lessons LearnedIn this article, I share river restoration techniques for land owners whose ranch property boundaries extend to the middle of a river. These lessons learned may help other ranchers save money and time if they should decide to tackle similar river restoration projects. Restoration techniques include fencing, vegetation replanting, and addressing the challenges encountered from floods, droughts, and stray cattle. Dramatic changes in vegetation composition occur more quickly than originally planned. © 2016 The Society for Range Management
Seventy-Five Years of Vegetation Treatments on Public Rangelands in the Great Basin of North AmericaLand treatments occurring over millions of hectares of public rangelands in the Great Basin over the last 75 years represent one of the largest vegetation manipulation and restoration efforts in the world. The ability to use legacy data from land treatments in adaptive management and ecological research has improved with the creation of the Land Treatment Digital Library (LTDL), a spatially explicit database of land treatments conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The LTDL contains information on over 9,000 confirmed land treatments in the Great Basin, composed of seedings (58%), vegetation control treatments (24%), and other types of vegetation or soil manipulations (18%). The potential application of land treatment legacy data for adaptive management or for retrospective analyses of effects of land management actions on physical, hydrological, and ecological patterns and processes is considerable and just beginning to be realized. © 2016
Does Size Matter? Animal Units and Animal Unit MonthsSociety for Range Management, 2017-02The concepts of animal units, animal unit months, and animal unit equivalents have long been used as standards for range management planning, estimating stocking rates, reporting actual use, assessing grazing fees, ranch appraisal, and other purposes. Increasing size of cattle on rangelands has led some to suggest that the definition of animal units and animal unit months requires revision. Range managers need to understand these concepts and arbitrarily changing them would lead to confusion. The Rangeland Assessment and Monitoring Committee reviewed this issue and concluded that the existing definitions are adequate to accommodate increasing size of cattle. © 2016 The Society for Range Management