anyone know when the cattle in Reg 3 have to be in by?

[labguy]

Well said, some seem to think that if there is a blade of grass left they haven't gotten their money's worth.

Curious with your particular statements in your examples. Was this observed on a particularly dry year or is it an annual happening?

We have areas of "sacrifice" on our range area. Look like hell IMO but the areas are minute in comparison with total sq. kms. One side of a meadow can be grazed and the other side untouched. It has been our observation that if cattle don't graze these swamps fairly well, next year's old bottom will force them to eat less of the plant. This progresses until they won't touch the area at all. We are have had such onerous restrictions from spring burning to essentially achieve the same effect as overgrazing the previous year and deal with brush encroachment that things look significantly different than they did 30 years ago.

Garbage left behind by anyone just raises the hair on the back of my neck, we have sure progressed as a species hey?

Your second last line has two interchangeable words. It works both ways Sir.

Regards.

It does indeed......or at least should......work both ways. I've seen way too many examples of slovenly hunters too.

[horshur]

Cattle on the range have varying degrees of affect. When they are moved before the grass/browse gets so low it will support nothing, that's a reasonable use of the land.

When they are left to the point that every single piece of edible vegetation is denuded so that nothing could survive......then that's not so reasonable.

Ive backpacked into the headwaters of Juniper creek in the Ashnola after sheep where there was no place to even lay your sleeping bag down for all the cow crap. The beautiful, clean looking, rushing creek was befouled with shit and piss making it impossible to drink.

The headwaters/marshland where the creek begins was stomped into oblivion by thousands of cattle hoofprints.......nothing left of the riparian buffer but mud and cow shit.

The grass and browse was so low it wouldn't support a gopher. The cowboys had left garbage all over the place.

If ranchers want support from the hunting community they need to be better stewards of the land and show some respect for the what ultimately belongs to everybody.

To the ranchers that do a good job of managing the range....thank you.

Cows been there more then a hundred and fifty years and you can still hunt sheep..think about that.

[boxhitch]

Wow, may be because its late and I'm grumpy being up all night, or just the fact that after 2-3 years of utter BS I'm actually getting completely sick of this BS that continues to plague "us".

In any case, this thread is a glaring example of how truly screwed we all are moving forward.

fortunately its only a small portion that are keeping this running downhill in this thread, gotta keep that in mind
The watchers are just shaking our/their heads

[Ryo]

Lots of info out there if you're willing to look:
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/vi...=usupress_pubs
skip to chapter six for a level-headed summary of the relationship between mule deer and livestock. I have academic library privileges, so if anybody would like me to dig up the citations that the author draws on, I'm happy to do that.

Austin's discussion of the relationship between mule deer and elk, and mule deer and whitetail deer, later in the same chapter, are also worth reading, since those discussions come up periodically too.

[gcreek]

Lots of info out there if you're willing to look:
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/vi...=usupress_pubs
skip to chapter six for a level-headed summary of the relationship between mule deer and livestock. I have academic library privileges, so if anybody would like me to dig up the citations that the author draws on, I'm happy to do that.

Austin's discussion of the relationship between mule deer and elk, and mule deer and whitetail deer, later in the same chapter, are also worth reading, since those discussions come up periodically too.

Pretty much common sense. I will admit I just skimmed it. Is there a part pertaining to complete removal of livestock? Utah also has a wild horse issue in the Sheeprock Mtn . area. Just some quick comments for the time I have.

[Ryo]

Gcreek, Yes, he describes a few scenarios where grazing is removed. The result differ based on a few factors according to the author. This passage outlines one of the more interesting scenarios: (take notes that pdfs do not like to be copy-pasted - lots of typos - better to refer to the original)

"On areas protected from livestock grazing, the in uence of deerbrowsing on plant community changes is also observable. For example,in one of the earliest grazing research experiments, range professor ArtSmith at Utah State University compared adjacent ranges at the lower elevation of the mountain brush zone used by mule deer during winter innorthern Utah (Smith 1949). One range was heavily grazed by livestockin spring and summer, while the second had been protected from live-stock during the previous 11 years. Perennial forbs and grasses were moreabundant on the range protected from livestock, but shrubs, primarilybig sagebrush, were much less abundant due to heavy deer browsing. etrend of decreasing shrubs on the range protected from livestock grazingcontinued through 1982 (Austin and Urness 199, and as observed in2000 the range protected from livestock grazing was devoid of all shrubs.In about 60 years a highly productive deer winter range was reduced toone of very limited value for big game simply because of the lack of live-stock grazing. Research in Colorado and other states reported similarresults (Riodan 1970; omas 1970; McKean and Bartmann 1971). " p.65-66

[gcreek]

Gcreek, Yes, he describes a few scenarios where grazing is removed. The result differ based on a few factors according to the author. This passage outlines one of the more interesting scenarios: (take notes that pdfs do not like to be copy-pasted - lots of typos - better to refer to the original)

"On areas protected from livestock grazing, the in uence of deerbrowsing on plant community changes is also observable. For example,in one of the earliest grazing research experiments, range professor ArtSmith at Utah State University compared adjacent ranges at the lower elevation of the mountain brush zone used by mule deer during winter innorthern Utah (Smith 1949). One range was heavily grazed by livestockin spring and summer, while the second had been protected from live-stock during the previous 11 years. Perennial forbs and grasses were moreabundant on the range protected from livestock, but shrubs, primarilybig sagebrush, were much less abundant due to heavy deer browsing. etrend of decreasing shrubs on the range protected from livestock grazingcontinued through 1982 (Austin and Urness 199, and as observed in2000 the range protected from livestock grazing was devoid of all shrubs.In about 60 years a highly productive deer winter range was reduced toone of very limited value for big game simply because of the lack of live-stock grazing. Research in Colorado and other states reported similarresults (Riodan 1970; omas 1970; McKean and Bartmann 1971). " p.65-66

Almost exactly what my anecdotal meandering stated.

[bearvalley]

Quite the thread....

Fair enough, are you willing to fill us in? (as in the general pop of this forum)

Hmmm, probably not?... #circlingyourwagons

I don't have time to write a book on wildlife politics, but if and when I ever do I guarantee some smug faces today won't be smiling.
There's a lot of make believe being portrayed to the public under the pretense of bettering wildlife.
I learned a long time ago that bullshit doesn't buy whiskey.
A few very manipulative people have gained themselves a following and with the backing of the sheep these manipulators are on a mission to carry through with either personal or career agendas using a delivery message vessel that was designed for another cause.
This statement is directed at more than one organization.
I will leave it at that for now.

Gcreek, Yes, he describes a few scenarios where grazing is removed. The result differ based on a few factors according to the author. This passage outlines one of the more interesting scenarios: (take notes that pdfs do not like to be copy-pasted - lots of typos - better to refer to the original)

"On areas protected from livestock grazing, the in uence of deerbrowsing on plant community changes is also observable. For example,in one of the earliest grazing research experiments, range professor ArtSmith at Utah State University compared adjacent ranges at the lower elevation of the mountain brush zone used by mule deer during winter innorthern Utah (Smith 1949). One range was heavily grazed by livestockin spring and summer, while the second had been protected from live-stock during the previous 11 years. Perennial forbs and grasses were moreabundant on the range protected from livestock, but shrubs, primarilybig sagebrush, were much less abundant due to heavy deer browsing. etrend of decreasing shrubs on the range protected from livestock grazingcontinued through 1982 (Austin and Urness 199, and as observed in2000 the range protected from livestock grazing was devoid of all shrubs.In about 60 years a highly productive deer winter range was reduced toone of very limited value for big game simply because of the lack of live-stock grazing. Research in Colorado and other states reported similarresults (Riodan 1970; omas 1970; McKean and Bartmann 1971). " p.65-66

Interesting study Ryo, unless my intellectual level is too low to absorb this information I would jump to the conclusion that with a complete shut down of livestock grazing on ungulate winter range the area eventually loses its value to winter ungulates.
If this is true some conservation groups better take a look at what they are doing.
Some fence removal might very well be warranted.

[gcreek]

Quite the thread....




I don't have time to write a book on wildlife politics, but if and when I ever do I guarantee some smug faces today won't be smiling.
There's a lot of make believe being portrayed to the public under the pretense of bettering wildlife.
I learned a long time ago that bullshit doesn't buy whiskey.
A few very manipulative people have gained themselves a following and with the backing of the sheep these manipulators are on a mission to carry through with either personal or career agendas using a delivery message vessel that was designed for another cause.
This statement is directed at more than one organization.
I will leave it at that for now.




Interesting study Ryo, unless my intellectual level is too low to absorb this information I would jump to the conclusion that with a complete shut down of livestock grazing on ungulate winter range the area eventually loses its value to winter ungulates.
If this is true some conservation groups better take a look at what they are doing.
Some fence removal might very well be warranted.

A few few deer in the headlights read this one Mike. Lol

[GoatGuy]

Gcreek, Yes, he describes a few scenarios where grazing is removed. The result differ based on a few factors according to the author. This passage outlines one of the more interesting scenarios: (take notes that pdfs do not like to be copy-pasted - lots of typos - better to refer to the original)

"On areas protected from livestock grazing, the in uence of deerbrowsing on plant community changes is also observable. For example,in one of the earliest grazing research experiments, range professor ArtSmith at Utah State University compared adjacent ranges at the lower elevation of the mountain brush zone used by mule deer during winter innorthern Utah (Smith 1949). One range was heavily grazed by livestockin spring and summer, while the second had been protected from live-stock during the previous 11 years. Perennial forbs and grasses were moreabundant on the range protected from livestock, but shrubs, primarilybig sagebrush, were much less abundant due to heavy deer browsing. etrend of decreasing shrubs on the range protected from livestock grazingcontinued through 1982 (Austin and Urness 199, and as observed in2000 the range protected from livestock grazing was devoid of all shrubs.In about 60 years a highly productive deer winter range was reduced toone of very limited value for big game simply because of the lack of live-stock grazing. Research in Colorado and other states reported similarresults (Riodan 1970; omas 1970; McKean and Bartmann 1971). " p.65-66

Effects also depend on ecosystem/grassland type. Some of the grasslands didn't evolve with heavy grazing pressure which can have an effect right through to soil quality over time. Others are held at succession stages which eliminate the production of shrubs.

Not sure if you have access to gov DB as well. Don Gayton one of the best grassland ecologists in BC, used to work @ FORREX. If you do check monitoring plots and exclosures by both range and habitat ecologists for more BC based primary data. There have also been cases of overgrazing (per land use man plan) by elk (EK trench review by FPB).

Generally speaking the litt says, just like everything else, moderation is the key. Using science to direct land use practices continues to be the best outlet, but sometimes decision-based evidence making is the preferred choice when evidence gets in the way of beliefs.