Grazing Strategy Indices for Range Quality Assurance

The agenda for each workshop features:

Nevada Range Management School components including the Grazing Response Index (GRI) WSARE Extension Team

An overview of the ranch and how the livestock use the range – Rancher

A discussion of the ranch’s interest in applying GRI – from a use area or pasture to the whole ranch – All

Work with maps, air photos & actual use data to apply GRI to this past year’s grazing management -- All

List the plant communities in the use area or pasture (perhaps only riparian and upland)

Identify the beginning, end and peak of the growing season for each plant community (the growth curve) and use this to decide when forage grows fast and slow

Record the dates of use for each plant community

Estimate intensity of use if possible

Identify the period of previous use

Use these data to score each plant community using GRI

Discuss how the GRI score could be improved in a future year – Rancher and All

Discuss whether the GRI appropriately scores the strategies this ranch uses for long-term success – plant communities, soil, and riparian (rotation of use, litter management, shrubs, habitat structure, distribution, etc.) – Rancher and All

Discuss whether the GRI appropriately scores the strategies this ranch uses for long-term success – animal production (range nutrition, breeding, grazing out vs. feeding, labor, etc.) – Rancher and All

Discuss whether a modified index would better capture the strategies for this pasture or ranch and serve to ensure flexibility with responsibility – Rancher and All

Discuss whether this approach has been helpful and what else could have made it more useful – Rancher and All

Thank you all for your time in doing the doodle poll and in attending the Workshop

Workshop sponsored by the USDA (NIFA) funded Western Sustainable Agriculture Education and Research Professional Development Grant, Smith Creek Ranch, and UNR Cooperative Extension

Convening of the Stewardship Ranchers and Visitation Teams
Lake House at Maggie Creek Ranch, March 29, 2018
Based on their experience at five Grazing Strategy Indices for Range Quality Assurance ranch workshops and their personal/professional knowledge, ten individuals representing livestock producers, Cooperative Extension, other agencies, and the Intermountain Joint Venture spent the day discussing a series of questions addressing the GRI tool and possible modifications that would make the approach more useful.
Dr. Sherm Swanson, an Extension Riparian Specialist and Rangeland Ecology and Management scientist and educator, opened the meeting by explaining that he was looking forward to the interaction and discussion about the Grazing Response Index (GRI) workshops that had been completed over the past several months.
Over the past century, broad discussions have occurred between academia, ranchers, and others addressing different avenues for improving management of America’s rangelands. More locally, over the past 10 to 15 years, Nevada’s range management school has served as one avenue for continual conversation, learning, and education for improving range management strategies and approaches. Rangeland managers continue to face major challenges (i.e., wildfires, cheatgrass, invasive species) that require a rethinking of past and current management strategies and approaches. How can our time be best spent to learn what needs to be done to successfully reach our rangeland management objectives?
The intent of today’s discussion is to determine how the relatively simple GRI concept, which is based on basic range management principles (e.g., plant physiology and plant growth and grazing) and was taught in range management schools for many years, could be applied or combined with other strategies for grazing management. It is recognized that the GRI concept as presented is not perfect and does not address all issues everywhere.
Introductions
Dr. Swanson welcomed and thanked everyone for taking time to participate in today’s meeting. Dr. Swanson noted that four of the five ranches that sponsored GRI workshops were represented at the meeting. In addition, the Maggie Creek Ranch was recognized and thanked for their willingness to host today’s meeting. Each person was asked to introduce themselves and describe their relationship to the GRI process.
Dave Voth - Mr. Voth works for the Nevada Department of Agriculture as a liaison between the Department, ranchers, and other agencies.
Brad Schultz - Mr. Schultz works for the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension (UNCE) and is based out of Winnemucca, Nevada. Mr. Schultz has been involved with public land grazing issues for the past 30 years and is an instructor at Nevada’s rangeland management school.
Dino Stauffer - Mr. Stauffer is involved in the day-to-day livestock and pasture management for the Humboldt Ranch and is representing Mr. Jesse Braatz at today’s meeting.
Maggie Gentert - Ms. Gentert from the Winecup-Gamble Ranch works on irrigated meadows to fatten cattle. She participated in the GRI workshop hosted by the Winecup-Gamble Ranch and is representing Mr. James Rogers at today’s meeting.
Steve Foster - Mr. Foster works for the UNCE based out of Lovelock, Nevada. Mr. Foster also serves as Nevada’s representative to the Western Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education (WSARE), which funded the grant for the GRI effort. Mr. Foster is also involved with Nevada’s rangeland management school.
Gary McCuin - Mr. McCuin works for the UNCE based out of Eureka, Nevada and has a lifelong involvement with rangeland management.
Sam Lossing - Mr. Lossing is the Smith Creek Ranch manager.
Jon Griggs - Mr. Griggs is the Maggie Creek Ranch manager.
Duane Coombs - Mr. Coombs is the Sagebrush Conservation Specialist for the Intermountain Joint Venture principally focusing on implementation of sagebrush habitat in the Great Basin and the Rocky Mountain region. Mr. Coombs became involved in the Joint Venture effort to ensure the rangeland producers’ voice was heard. Prior to his involvement with the Intermountain Joint Venture, he was the Smith Creek Ranch Manager.
Jason Molsby – Cow boss Cottonwood Ranch. Some of the questions asked or discussed below were also asked and discussed with Jason Molsby on June 12 since neither he nor anyone else was able to represent the Cottonwood Ranch at the March 29 meeting. Jason’s thoughts are inserted below as if he had been there. Unfortunately, this did not allow Jason to be part of the broader discussion, including the follow on questions. It also did not allow others to respond to his thoughts.
Primary Discussion
Considering the variability of Nevada rangelands, there is need for planning tools when developing livestock grazing strategies. Application of GRI is one tool meeting this need. Eight major questions (below) were used to stimulate the meeting’s discussions. When addressing the primary questions, twelve other questions were raised and discussed by the participants. There were fifteen additional questions identified but there was insufficient time and/or group energy to address these too at the meeting.
1. As you recall the GRI focused workshop on your ranch (or the workshop you attended), what are the top take-home messages?
2. Do you use GRI on your operation and, if not, would you consider using it in the future? Why or why not?
3. What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of GRI?
4. What, if anything, would you change, add, or delete from GRI?
5. All of you have identified that mixing up the timing of grazing among years is a strategy used on your ranch. Would it be useful to have an index for this?
6. Are there any barriers to implementing your ideal management strategy or GRI on your operation?
7. If you were to use the GRI or some other similar index for rating the management in a given year, what is the best size land unit to apply it to on your ranch?
8. Part of the motivation for this WSARE GRI conversation is an observation that at least for riparian areas, or pastures with riparian areas, the movement of livestock is very common in examples of success. What tools that facilitate movement of animals (and cleaned pastures or use areas) would be most useful to teach or facilitate by rangeland educators or management agencies? (water development, supplementation strategies, stockmanship, fencing technologies)?

1. As you recall the GRI focused workshop on your ranch (or the workshop you attended), what are the top take-home messages?
Mr. Griggs noted that the Maggie Creek Ranch is applying the GRI approach as they enter the grazing season. While the ranch continues its efforts to fully understand the approach, it is viewed as a good planning tool and to “set their eyes” to conditions on the ground. Mr. Griggs is hesitant to share the GRI approach with his contacts in the federal land management agencies, which will be done on a case-by-case basis, with those who he has developed a trust relationship. Mr. Griggs does not see the approach being instilled as a federal land management agency policy but considers it a tool that everyone can use.
Mr. Lossing agreed with Mr. Griggs in terms of the GRI tool being useful but is curious to see how the tool will be implemented in some areas. He believes the tool will not work as well in some areas.
As the workshops were conducted, Mr. McCuin has gradually changed his mind concerning the GRI approach. The beauty of the tool is that it is a simple tool for a very complex process. It is simple (but not simplistic) as compared to the utilization standards used by the federal agencies, which, he feels are simplistic and will never answer questions to a complex system. Mr. McCuin fears that when given to the federal agencies, they will make the simple GRI tool a simplistic tool. Mr. McCuin hopes that the GRI tool never get institutionalized by statue or regulation. There is value in the tool in the right places for planning to help management and to stimulate observations.
Mr. Foster wasn’t familiar with the GRI tool prior to the ranch workshops but agreed with Mr. McCuin that it is a simple tool not much different than the red vs. green approach used by the Humboldt Ranch to keep track of their livestock during certain times of the year and how long the animals are in one location. Mr. Foster doesn’t think the GRI tool is made to fit everything that is done on the ranch. Don’t make it more than it is.
Ms. Gentert noted that the Winecup-Gamble Ranch has used the past four years of data to generate GRI scores for their pastures. GRI is a valuable planning tool to (1) recognize when a pasture is trending in a downward fashion and (2) to determine how the grazing strategy can be changed to reverse that trend. GRI is also seen as a valuable tool to communicate with people who are not part of the ranching community and have a need or interest in understanding what the ranch is doing. It is a simple number (index) which is not too complicated to understand. There will be a temptation to make the tool more complex, but, if that is done, the tool will lose its value. As data is entered the tool, Mr. Rogers also incorporates his personal on-the-ground knowledge (i.e., rain received at a certain time). The power of the score is in the story as it is shared with others. A person must be able to explain their philosophy, how the tool was modified to fit the ranch’s situation by describing what was tracked and incorporated into the tool, and how the number generated is relevant to tracking the ranch’s trend over time. It is equally important to understand that the number generated will not be comparable to similar numbers developed for other ranches. It is important that the tool stays simple and concise.
Mr. Stauffer likes the idea of being able to monitor pasture health (i.e., tracking cattle movement, time and timing of grazing). GRI is a valuable tool for allowing a person to “set your eye” as mentioned by Mr. Griggs. Mr. Stauffer explained that he has been in northern Nevada for less than a year and recognizes that rangeland in northern Nevada is much different than rangeland in the western edge of the Nebraska sand hills. When working in Nebraska, Mr. Stauffer used a spread sheet from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln that included a “sand hills defoliation index”, which is like the GRI index. The “sand hills defoliation index” ranged from -7 to 8 based on several different components.
Mr. Stauffer asked if there should be indexes for other parameters (i.e., cheatgrass). Mr. Stauffer noted that if other items or parameters are incorporated into the GRI tool, it could make using the tool more complicated. It would be best not to incorporate other factors into the GRI tool. The GRI tool should be kept simple to use and understand, but Mr. Stauffer recognized the need for indices for other things (i.e., cheatgrass). Mr. Stauffer noted that if the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) doesn’t recognize cheatgrass as a usable forage, they won’t want to do anything with it. However, from the Humboldt Ranch’s perspective, cheatgrass is a usable forage that can be grazed during the dormant season to reduce fine fuels and its associated seed bank. Developing other indices may have the potential to simplify many aspects of a grazing plan.
Mr. Schultz agreed that GRI is a simple tool for a complex situation. The key will be to determine when and where to apply the tool as well as knowing and adhering to its limitations. Don’t make the tool do more than it can do (or less than it can do). Adhering to the tool’s parameters (the three or four aspects of grazing most critical for maintaining the plant community) is more important than anything else. If there are other issues, find other tools or approaches to address them.
Mr. Voth thought GRI is a great tool but is just one tool in the toolbox. Mr. Voth didn’t view GRI as an immediate planning tool but more of a tool to check your eyes as to what you see on the ground.

2. Do you use GRI on your operation and, if not, would you consider using it in the future? Why or why not?
Mr. Voth noted that as an employee of the Department of Agriculture, he doesn’t have a grazing operation, but felt the value of the GRI tool would be realized when a grazing operation proposes to reuse an area (pasture) at that same time as when it was previously used, which could be several years later.
Mr. Schultz has always used the concepts of timing, frequency, and duration over the course of his rangeland management career. He may not have applied numeric values to those concepts but has integrated the concepts when assessing rangelands.
Mr. Stauffer thinks GRI has value as a drought mitigation planning tool. In arid or semi-arid environments, a person is either preparing for, entering, or coming out of a drought. When pressed to explain his thought further, Mr. Stauffer noted that one component of the “sand hills defoliation index” was precipitation. Timing of precipitation could be considered in addition to GRI to help a person “set their eye” or to consider how related episodic events (timing of precipitation, temperature, soil condition) jointly effects vegetative (grass) growth. Mr. Schultz noted that in addition to the GRI index it might be important to consider other ancillary data/information to maximize the usefulness of the GRI tool. The three aspects considered in the GRI tool (timing, frequency, and duration) work well; however, to utilize the tool to its maximum potential, other ancillary information should be integrated or at least considered.
Ms. Gentert asked if such ancillary information was included or considered in the western Nebraska index and, if so, how was that data gathered and provided to the producer. Mr. Stauffer noted that the ancillary information was primarily received from the nearest weather station, which may (or may not) provide accurate site-specific information. Mr. Stauffer used a small rain gauge at his house to measure precipitation received. The value a person gets out of a tool is directly related to the amount of effort they put into the tool. It may take more time and/or effort to collect ancillary information, but the value and usability of the information will also increase. Having growing condition information helps a person to interpret the observed results as well as determining when the growing season began and ended. Such information over the long-term could be used to refine the duration of the pasture’s average rest period.
Ms. Gentert noted that Winecup-Gamble Ranch is excited about using the GRI index as a communication tool to ensure everyone is on the same page or to, at least, understand what the ranch is accomplishing. When an approach such as GRI is created that allows people to produce similar end products, it is exciting to see people moving in the same direction. When asked, Ms. Gentert noted the ranch has an internal meeting scheduled to discuss the workshop.
Mr. Foster noted that his personal and working experience wasn’t applicable to managing large complex grazing operations; therefore, he didn’t have anything additional to add.
Recognizing the variability of the actual growing season from year to year, Mr. Coombs noted the GRI tool has been used to ensure a piece of country is not grazed by livestock at the same time every year. Mr. Coombs also noted that year-round grazing by wild horses has been an issue.
Mr. McCuin views the primary benefit of GRI is planning and analyzing what occurs on the rangeland. Due to its simplicity, GRI could be helpful when explaining a ranch’s grazing management strategy to others such as the federal land management agencies. Mr. McCuin still is uncertain if GRI can be directly applicable to a specific operation. GRI is useful, but caution should be used in its implementation.
Ms. Schultz addressed a concern expressed by many in the room regarding the applicability of GRI everywhere. Mr. Schultz suggested the basic concepts of GRI are applicable to every grazing situation; however, if used as a short-term tool alone, GRI will never reach its potential and may be misused. GRI must be integrated as a short- and long-term tool to (1) fully understand what is occurring on the rangeland and (2) to make appropriate grazing management decisions.
Mr. McCuin provided an example where, at the Winecup-Gamble Ranch, a pasture’s GRI rating was great, but based on long-term monitoring, the pasture’s condition was declining. The decline in condition was attributed to what the ranch was not able to do to affect a positive condition in that pasture. When supplemented with ancillary information (e.g., chronological livestock use dates), GRI could be a useful tool to demonstrate or communicate that the plant’s and/or animal’s needs were not being met.
As outlined by Mr. Coombs, Mr. Lossing emphasized that the Smith Creek Ranch has and continues to use GRI concepts to formulate their grazing management strategies, but without developing the numerical index. He is curious to see if the numerical ratings will validate what the ranch has been doing on the ground. There is no substitute for being out on the ground with the livestock assessing conditions.
Mr. Schultz noted that there is always a need to evaluate the numerical rating to determine if you believe it truly represents the on-the-ground situation. In responding to Mr. Schultz’s comment, Mr. Lossing noted that his initial hesitancy with GRI was trying to boil down something that was too complex. Mr. Lossing believes the answer to that question is “yes”. One cannot use GRI information alone without having on-the-ground knowledge to fully understand what is occurring on the ground. A person must integrate their personal observations and knowledge of the ground, its use, and GRI information to understand what is occurring and determine future strategies.
Mr. Lossing agreed with Mr. McCuin and Ms. Gentert as to the value of GRI as a communication tool in telling the ranch’s story. Ms. Gentert noted that the Winecup-Gamble Ranch has gone back to integrate their data over the past four years into the GRI tool, which, in most cases, has validated the ranch’s management strategies and areas of concern.
Mr. Griggs provided a real-life example where a pasture had been used last year, which he would have normally rested this year, but was considering using the pasture this year due to the on-the-ground situation when livestock were removed. The GRI tool validated Mr. Grigg’s assessment of the pasture and the proposal for using the pasture again this year.
In working with policy makers in BLM’s Washington Office, Mr. Coombs has recognized the importance of providing agencies with valid numerical ratings when supporting (or expressing concern) with different concepts. When justifying the need for funding, the agency must approach the Interior Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives with a valid proof of concept containing validated numerical figures; rather than a feeling or personal knowledge.
Mr. Griggs noted that long-term trend is important to him as a ranch manager. GRI provides the tool to quantify long-term trend and validate his personal observations. GRI also helps Mr. Griggs to focus on desirable plants. Dr. Swanson noted that after the Smith Creek Ranch workshop, he realized the key species concept needed to be introduced into the GRI process. The key species concept is not currently written into the GRI process but is part of the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. All workshops after the Smith Creek Ranch workshop did address the key species concept. When asked, the meeting’s participants were supportive of focusing on key species as part of the GRI process. Mr. Stauffer noted that he would like to see key species addressed but suggested the focus be on key plant communities, which he defined as the vegetative species around the key species. [In editing these notes, Swanson noted that this may be addressed by the key area concept also discussed in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook (Swanson et al. 2018)]. Mr. Schultz suggested using the word “acceptable” instead of key. Mr. Schultz noted that there are many parameters that can affect the abundance of key species. Mr. Schultz asked what else might be acceptable and that we’d be willing to live with because it holds the soil in place or provides forage or habitat. Mr. Schultz suggested the need to look at those two things in combination. [This is consistent with the key species concept as described in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook (Swanson et al, 2018)].
Mr. Molsby commented on 6/12 - At times key species are helpful, but on our place the key species are not the desirable forage. E.g. bluebunch wheatgrass is only used in the winter if the cows are pushed to it. Many other grasses are preferred, e.g. rice grass, streambank wheatgrass and western wheatgrass.
Mr. McCuin suggested focusing on key species is like focusing on sage grouse as one wildlife species that has importance above all else. You can’t manage for one species in absence of everything else. Mr. Lossing noted that the discussion during the Smith Creek Ranch workshop focused on what species were present; not species should or could be there. The discussion did not address key species as defined in an ecological site description.
Mr Molsby commented on 6/12 - Would use it in a heartbeat if I could give him a card to provide hints and had a card to record data. Put it in the Red book, so like the winter pasture opportunity was perfect, but what was the score? Provide helpful hints and make it easy.
Ms. Swanson noted that GRI is not designed to be used on shrub species. An attempt was made at the Smith Creek Ranch workshop to address shrubs (willows) in riparian areas, but that effort was later abandoned. It was felt that the result would be site domination by willows.
If GRI is not the appropriate tool to address shrub species, Dr. Swanson asked “What should we be doing with shrubs?” Mr. McCuin questioned why GRI would not work on shrubs if a plant’s growing phenology is known. When asked, Mr. Schultz noted that he hasn’t put much thought into the use of GRI for shrub species. The topic would require much more thought as there are sprouting and non-sprouting species, shrubs having longer growing seasons (as compared to herbaceous species), and the number of different shrub species. It was felt the use of GRI would have to be considered on a species by species basis due to the differences between species. Mr. Schultz felt the GRI concepts would be applicable; however, how GRI would be applied would be different.
Mr. Molsby commented on 6/12 - No idea, only bitterbrush is hit hard.
Mr. Griggs introduced a new topic - using GRI for cheatgrass where a negative GRI score would be a good thing. Dr. Swanson noted that such an approach was made during the Cottonwood Ranch GRI workshop. Mr. Schultz noted that there are few areas that are a cheatgrass monoculture. Most areas have a combination of species including cheatgrass. Hypothetically, an area could be dominated by cheatgrass but still have other perennial species present. In such areas, GRI could be used to demonstrate that grazing is not the causal factor precluding establishment of additional perennial species. If grazing is not the issue, there must be another influence (i.e., cheatgrass) preventing perennial establishment. In this hypothetical situation, adjustment of livestock grazing would not affect establishment of perennial species.
Mr. Griggs noted that based on his experience if livestock are extensively consuming willows most other species have already been grazed (or over grazed). Mr. Schultz noted that willows are a grazing tolerant plant, but, like most other species, is not tolerant to season-long grazing.
Mr. McCuin summarized that GRI as it has been rolled out is principally a measure for perennial herbaceous species. While the concepts or principals behind GRI could apply for other species, it would be necessary to determine the season of use, number of defoliations, frequency of use, etc., for that species or plant community.
Ms. Gentert inquired as to the value of using key species and suggested this discussion was going down a “rabbit hole” involving numerous variables and was moving in a direction of taking a simple tool and making it so complex that it could not be managed or used and may not even be relevant. Mr. Gentert noted the key species discussion that occurred during the Winecup-Gamble GRI workshop was an interesting intellectual exercise, but, at the end of the day, half of the audience was lost. Managing to that level of detail would be near impossible. For GRI to be relevant today, it must be kept simple.
[Swanson post script - Ironically, key species concepts are intended to simplify management thinking by assuming that logically targeted key species will reflect the most important objective or be an indication of overall success of many species in a community. For GRI scoring it may simplify thinking about the growing season or growth curve that is most relevant. It also helps to focus discussions on the perennials versus cheatgrass. However, people rating GRI would have to be able to easily recognize the key species. It this is not the case; a group such as larger perennial bunch grasses could be used].
Dr. Swanson suggested that by simplifying GRI to focus on a key species may have, in fact, made the process more complex because the range riders are accustomed to viewing an area as forage, not by species. Ms. Gentert suggested the range riders look at a broader picture (i.e., where the livestock are located, when they should be moved, animal body condition, how to move livestock through a gate, etc.) Use of GRI needs to be part of the overall picture but cannot be the primary focus. Incorporation of GRI into the overall process must be manageable; otherwise, it will not be successful.
Mr. Coombs agreed with Ms. Gentert. Range riders who live and work with livestock every day notice changes – cows will act differently as other parameters - moisture, forage condition, livestock body condition, etc. – change and are considered when making/changing grazing management decisions. GRI will give ranch managers the information necessary to defend the actions/work of the range riders.
Ms. Gentert suggested that in the end, we’re managing the rest, not the grazing. Livestock use different parts of a pasture differently. Pastures are not utilized uniformly. They will over use one area while not using another area at all. At the end of the day, a pasture is managed to ensure all areas have sufficient time to recover. We’re managing how long the pasture is rested, which is a factor we can control.
Dr. Swanson noted that movement of livestock and other factors not part of GRI were discussed at the various workshops. GRI addresses frequency, intensity, and opportunity.

3. What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of GRI?
Mr. Griggs felt many of the strengths of GRI have been addressed. GRI can be used to set a person’s eye and can be agreed upon and used by all. Weaknesses include the number of potential “rabbit trails” that could be followed as expressed earlier by Ms. Gentert.
Mr. Lossing thought a strength of GRI is telling its story telling aspect of what is occurring on the ground. It is important not to associate a negative GRI score with something wrong on the ground. A negative score for cheatgrass is a good thing.
One strength of the GRI approach for Mr. McCuin is that it is simple, which also could be considered a weakness. To correctly understand and interpret its outputs, it is important to understand what goes into the GRI process. To those knowledgeable of range management, the GRI process, its inputs, etc.; the outputs can be obvious; however, to someone without a range management background, the outputs are not so obvious and could be misinterpreted.
Mr. Coombs noted strengths of GRI include serving as a reporting tool, a high-level planning tool, and a tool to defend actions taken on the ground.
Mr. Foster felt strengths of GRI include it makes people think about basic principles of livestock grazing and can be a useful communication tool.
Ms. Gentert agreed that numerical GRI ratings or indices can help people (especially those not using the tool on a regular basis) to gain a basic understanding of what is occurring on the ground. Ms. Gentert feels empowered when using the tool to rank more critically because it is possible to make up for a low ranking in one year by adjusting management in future years.
Mr. Molsby commented on 6/12 - We could do the monitoring as I was leaving the pasture on my horse. And, it would tell me which indicator was bad or good.
Mr. Stauffer agreed that a strength of GRI is its simplicity. There isn’t one tool that can account for all actions or factors considered by land managers.
In earlier discussions, reference was made to ranch hands getting lost or overwhelmed when other facets are introduced into the GRI concept. Mr. Stauffer began thinking it might be helpful to have different levels of GRI - one of which could be geared toward ranch hands who work with the livestock daily. Factors they might consider could include livestock body condition and consistency of the animal’s excretion (tells a person something about the forage consumed), which could be relayed to the ranch manager for inclusion into a GRI calculation. This “division of labor” would (1) involve more people in the GRI approach and (2) possibly increase the number of variables that could be considered.
Dr. Swanson noted that after completing the GRI workshops, he has been concerned with using rest from grazing as a tool for maintaining rangeland health (litter, cheatgrass, fire, fuels, etc.), which could be a double-edged sword in terms of animal nutrition. Dr. Swanson asked if there was a “signal” in the animal’s excretion when the animals are turned into a rested pasture. Mr. Stauffer indicated that goals and objectives for livestock would play a part in responding to Dr. Swanson’s question. From an animal nutrition standpoint, Mr. Stauffer may ask if cows are grazed differently as compared to yearlings. From a rangeland health standpoint, vegetative plants may require reaching seed production before livestock are introduced to trample seed into the ground. A balance between livestock objectives and the need for rangeland health must be considered. Mr. Stauffer provided a hypothetical example where an area is grazed which is followed by a period of rest suitable to allow plants to reach seed maturity, after which livestock are reintroduced to trample seed and litter into the ground.
Mr. McCuin interjected that it may be possible to achieve a balance between an animal’s nutritional needs (body condition) utilizing rangeland vegetation but there may be a cost for achieving that balance. If a person can balance the animal’s nutrition needs to the nutritional value provided by rangeland vegetation from season to season, both the range and the animal will benefit. However, if the balance between the animal’s nutritional needs and the seasonal forage value of the rangeland plant cannot be maintained, there will be a cost in terms of animal nutritional supplementation or other adverse impacts to the rangeland’s health.
Mr. Schultz stressed that everything must address the goals and objectives for management, which, for public lands, are developed and agreed to by the livestock producer and the federal land management agency. Typically, goals are broader in scope (30,000 feet) and long-term as compared to objectives that are typically short- to mid-term in scope. GRI is typically an assessment at the 15,000-foot level. Goals and objectives principally address three functional groups – deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses, shallow-rooted perennial bunchgrasses, and perennial forbs. Individuals on the ground each day (ranch managers and hands) should be allowed to manage daily activities based on established triggers to achieve their goals and objectives. Use of GRI at the 15,000-foot level allows the person on the ground to focus their efforts and attention on the factors that are important. It is necessary to integrate and examine monitoring information (GRI, animal body condition, etc.) collected over a multi-year period to fully understand the impact of livestock grazing in a pasture or unit of land. Expanding GRI to include key species or other components takes the concept beyond what is easily understood by the average laymen. Rather than a “division of labor” as described previously, there is a “division of knowledge and understanding” as to what a person needs to know and accomplish to achieve the established goals and objectives and to be part of the GRI process.
Mr. Voth thought a strength of GRI was its focus on appropriate recovery versus rest. A weakness of GRI involves the scoring when using use areas as opposed to large fields, which seem like totally different things. Mr. Voth wasn’t sure everyone is using use areas that this time. Dr. Swanson asked how Mr. Voth differentiated between appropriate recovery and rest. Mr. Voth described appropriate recovery as the time required for the plant to recover versus an arbitrary time before livestock are reintroduced to the area (rest).
Mr. Coombs noted that the recovery time can vary depending on weather and precipitation conditions. At times it can be no longer than a week; whereas, in other years, it can be half the growing season. Dr. Swanson asked if Mr. Coombs was describing the growing season rather than the recovery period. Mr. Coombs indicated that if we look at when livestock are in a pasture during the growing season, it will affect the GRI scoring. In drier years, there is no recovery period; whereas, in years with adequate moisture, the plants have time to recover. In Nevada, when livestock are introduced into a pasture, it is a gamble if the plants will have sufficient time to recover. In drier years, there may not be any recovery, or a pasture might receive rest but no recovery.
If it does not become a judgmental tool (i.e., a negative score being a negative thing), Mr. Coombs believes there is value (strength) in using GRI as an analysis tool to document what occurred on the ground and to identify actions that could/should be taken in the future.
Mr. Schultz noted that a well-managed bunchgrass plant in an arid environment is adaptive to harsh conditions. It has evolved/adapted to withstand several years of harsh or bad conditions. Mr. Schultz suggested the need to define the difference between recovery and rest. He defined recovery as the time required to get to a healthy plant (i.e., having the time to set the plant bud with enough stored energy to get through the next dormant period with sufficient energy reserves to overcome a grazing mistake that year). Anything beyond what the plant needs to recover is considered rest.
Mr Molsby commented on 6/12 – The strength is that it is easy and teachable - can do when fresh in mind will know which areas livestock have been in and which were hit twice. A weakness might be that maybe it is not scientific if based on observation.
Dr. Swanson noted that recovery is a significant part of the growing season for the plant to grow as described by Mr. Schultz. Rest would be an entire growing season without grazing. Mr. Schultz suggested not identifying a time when defining rest. He suggested a period of nonuse beyond what the plant needs to regrow the following year. Mr. McCuin noted that the rest/recovery process will work if there are a sufficient number of areas where livestock could be placed. However, if a producer doesn’t have sufficient space, it may only be possible to give a plant one season of rest out of two or three years. Another uncontrollable variable is having sufficient moisture during periods of rest and/or recovery.
Mr. Griggs noted that recovery as discussed should include the plant’s reproduction. Dr. Swanson added that reproduction could occur either through seed or production of a new tiller. Mr. McCuin noted that Nevada grasses tend to be larger or healthier by tillering, but don’t increase in number or frequency. It is important to have both forms of reproduction.
Dr. Swanson noted his perception that there is less reproduction through seed production and more occurring by vegetative (tillering) reproduction on long-lived plants such as native bunchgrasses. Mr. Schultz noted that a properly managed bunchgrass can live for 40 to 60 years if not longer. It is not necessary to have new seed added every year to maintain a plant community. Under a typical grazing management approach (take half – leave half), seed stalks will be present every year assuming there is adequate moisture. Mr. Schultz does not see reproduction through seed versus tillering a major issue or concern on most rangelands today. If there is an extended drought, it might become more of a concern. Mr. Stauffer asked if Mr. Schultz was assuming there was optimal root health in the bunchgrass plants when making his statements. Mr. Schultz indicated that he was assuming the plant had an adequate amount of root mass.

4. What, if anything, would you change, add, or delete from GRI?
Mr. Voth liked the “division of labor” approach suggested by Mr. Stauffer earlier. GRI should be used as a management tool, which a person could modified as necessary to fit their specific situation, like what the Winecup-Gamble Ranch has done.
Mr. Schultz agreed GRI could be modified to fit the needs of the user. If more information is needed to properly interpret a management situation, GRI could be modified to reach that outcome. If you don’t need that, don’t make it any more complex than necessary.
Mr. Stauffer believes the tool is great and would echo the statements made by Mr. Voth and Mr. Schultz. Take the core of the process and modify it as necessary to fit your specific operation. Mr. Stauffer suggested developing a summary page that could be used to tell the story (i.e., summary page outlining results for the year and possible changes for the upcoming year, which could be presented to ranch hands and/or agency personnel).
Ms. Gentert indicated that the Winecup-Gamble Ranch is working to determine if GRI is a growing season tool (where the growing season is only 30 to 60 days), and, if so, how should the other 10 months of the year (dormant season grazing) should be incorporated or addressed, which has a different grazing strategy (as compared to grazing during the growing season). Dr. Swanson asked if the Winecup-Gamble Ranch was suggesting leaving GRI as is and developing a separate tool to address dormant season grazing. Ms. Gentert indicated that the Winecup-Gamble is proposing to modify GRI to fit their operation which will include dormant season grazing. It is unclear as to how dormant season grazing will be ranked in this system.
Mr. Coombs indicated that if GRI is to be a useful tool in Nevada. How the dormant grazing season will be addressed is important. It is possible for a pasture to receive a favorable GRI score for the growing season but be grazed severely during the dormant season. Mr. Voth suggested GRI be combined with a residual dry matter reading. Ms. Gentert suggested the dormant season grazing may already be considered because opportunity receives more weight as compared to intensity. Not grazing in the growing season would result in a positive score as compared to grazing more intensely than normal which would receive a negative score.
Mr. Schultz indicated that GRI is a growing season phenomenon. After the growing season, other parameters such residual stubble height, litter, etc., should be used. There should be different tools for different times of the year. Mr. Coombs asked if there might be a way to integrate different tools for addressing different times of the year. Mr. Schultz suggested reviewing the goals and objectives (e.g., 4-inch stubble height in riparian areas for a wildlife value) to identify the monitoring data needed to be collected to achieve that goal or objective for the dormant grazing season. Leave GRI as a growing season phenomenon. Not grazing during the dormant season does nothing for GRI so don’t try to incorporate dormant season grazing into GRI.
Ms. Gentert proposed a hypothetical scenario where a pasture is grazed during the dormant season, which would not receive a positive GRI opportunity ranking unless it went through a growing season for recovery before grazing were reintroduced. Mr. Schultz suggested the dormant season grazing was not relevant to GRI or understanding the grazing effect on the plant. GRI is focused on growing season plant physiology and its interaction with livestock. Ms. Gentert noted that if a pasture is grazed once every three years during the growing season, only three GRI data points would be collected over a 10-year period. From a GRI perspective, the pasture would have received two years of rest during a three-year period. Ms. Gentert asked what GRI score that pasture would receive during the two years of rest. Mr. Schultz indicated the pasture would receive the highest GRI score (+4).
Mr. Schultz suggested that applying GRI outside of the growing season would result in the same mistake made with utilization. Like GRI, utilization is a growing season phenomenon. During the dormant season, the concern is with the amount of residual vegetation. Post-growing (dormant) season is a residual vegetation phenomenon. Dr. Swanson noted an article published by Baily and Brown that indicated rotational grazing should not be a concern in desert pastures which, if stocked for season-long continuous grazing, the amount of use during the growing season is so small on average the plants that they should have time to regrow during the growing season. Dr. Swanson believes this type of thinking is what lead the agencies to have a “stocking rate” focus. In areas where there was insufficient fencing to implement a rotational grazing strategy, the agency’s focus was on “stocking rates”, which lead to the use of the term “over-grazing.” Over-grazing is now in the range management vocabulary, particularly when critics of the range profession see areas that are or appear to be used hard.
Mr. Coombs suggested that GRI works well for things it is designed to address; however, in desert rangeland systems, there is a need to address the dormant season grazing. Mr. Coombs provided an example where a livestock permit did not allow grazing during the growing season, so, under GRI, those areas would always receive a score of +4. Unfortunately, the area was heavily grazed during every dormant season. There needs to be a way to address this type of situation.
Mr. Coombs suggested that if GRI is used as a communication tool, it may also become a tool for policy. It was at this point it was determined that the discussion had taken another “rabbit trail” and was refocused to Question 4.
Mr. McCuin summarized that GRI is adequate as a growing season tool. There is a possibility of losing its effectiveness if GRI is expanded to include other parameters. The tool should be allowed to be modified or adapted to fit specific ranch needs if the basic principles of the tool are maintained.
Mr. Griggs agreed the GRI tool should not be modified and he would have to put additional thought behind today’s discussion associated with rest versus recovery discussion.
Mr. Molsby commented on 6/12 - I can’t think of anything. It does encompass everything I know of that’s important.

5. All of you have identified that mixing up the timing of grazing among years is a strategy used on your ranch. Would it be useful to have an index for this?
Mr. Molsby commented on 6/12 - Yes, for sure I guess. This has made more of a difference on these places than anything. We have the opportunity to go to a 450 or 500 day recovery.
Mr. Voth asked if incorporating mixing up the timing of grazing among years would result with a higher GRI score.
Mr. Schultz suggested that the GRI scoring mechanism would have to be changed. Dr. Swanson noted if a pasture were grazed following rest-rotation grazing system (rested one year and used the next), the GRI rating during the rest year would be comparatively high as compared to the score received when the pasture was grazed during the growing season. If the pasture were grazed during different parts of the growing season, a different GRI rating would be received each year. Grazing the pasture at the same time every year should result in the same GRI rating.
Mr. Schultz suggested leaving the GRI tool as is and allow the livestock producer to determine the best grazing strategy for their operation.
Mr. Stauffer suggested placing some type of side comment by the score that would help the producer determine where and when the livestock grazed to ensure the same area is not grazed at the same time the following year. The side comment would not be part of the GRI score but something to be used in conjunction with the score.
One potential issue with using the side comment approach as suggested by Mr. Stauffer is how such information would be used when presenting GRI data to other parties such as land management agencies or Congress. If a producer took other actions that resulted in a positive GRI score, how to they receive the appropriate credit?
Mr. Stauffer provided a hypothetical scenario to identify another issue associated with mixing up the timing of grazing. If a riparian area is heavily used in Year 1, it will not receive additional use until the beginning of Year 3 (18 months) during which the plants would recover from the grazing use in Year 1. If a secondary party (e.g. the land management agency) were to view a riparian area shortly after the Year 1 grazing, they would be concerned. Unless the secondary party revisits the site prior to introduction of livestock at the beginning of Year 3, they will not be able to appreciate the recovery made by the plants during the 18-month recovery period.
Mr. Griggs indicated that it has been his experience over the past 10 years in working with groups is the tendency of most people is to focus on one picture or visit to a specific site such as the riparian area identified in Mr. Stauffer’s scenario above. Having a tool such as GRI that provides a broader (5 year) picture would be of value. Dr. Swanson asked if Mr. Griggs would like to have some of the points in the GRI 5-year score be for the rotation of the use period. Mr. Griggs replied with “no” indicating that he would like to maintain the GRI tool as presented. From Mr. Grigg’s standpoint, the critical time is the growing season. What is done during the dormant season is important and can be measured by other means (e.g., animal body condition). Mr. Griggs would like to keep GRI simple and focused on the important part of the year.
In addition to the growing season/dormant season issue, Dr. Swanson indicated there is also an early growing season/late growing season issue where plants respond differently to grazing. There are individuals using the early versus late growing season issue as parameters for livestock use, but it is not part of the GRI was presented. Dr. Swanson suggested GRI could be modified by adding another point where +1 would be awarded if the area were used during a different time of the year, -1 if the area is used at the same time of year as previously used, or 0 if the current grazing use is somewhat different that previous grazing use. Responding to Dr. Swanson’s suggestion, Mr. Schultz asked if an area was used the first two weeks of the growing season every year, would they receive a -1 score for that element despite the plants being able to recover over the remaining part of the growing season when there is no grazing. While some plants might be negatively impacted by grazing during that time of the year (first two weeks), Dr. Swanson noted that the importance of the early part of the grazing season may be over-emphasized and suggested plant growth made late in the growing season may be more important in terms of the plant’s carbohydrate storage.
Dr. Swanson asked a follow-up question if it would useful to have an additional index that could be used if part of the grazing strategy was to mix up the timing of grazing. Mr. McCuin stated Dr. Swanson’s follow-up question in a different manner – Is it useful to have everything indexed or should the approach be to utilize a limited number of useful indices in combination with generally accepted grazing principles. It is not possible to numerate every part of grazing because there is as much art to grazing management as there is science.
Mr. Griggs asked if this issue might be addressed to some extent in the GRI’s “opportunity” score. When asked to clarify his statement, Mr. Griggs indicated the “opportunity” score did not address mixing up of the timing of livestock grazing, but he did not need a score when using an area either during the early or late spring period. The “opportunity” score addresses the plant’s opportunity.
Mr. Coombs noted that the “opportunity” score also addresses a point raised by Ms. Gentert concerning how a pasture is used depends on when livestock are introduced to the pasture. By changing the timing of livestock use, we’re also changing the animal’s behavior. Dr. Swanson agreed that at different times of the year, livestock will use different parts of a pasture, consume different plants, and plants are doing different things at different times of the year. These changes can occur within a relatively short time period.
Mr. McCuin restressed that GRI is a growing season tool and use of pastures at different times of the year is not strictly a growing season phenomenon.
Mr. Schultz noted that any grazing operation will have a series of questions that it would like to have answered. The questions will be different for each operation. When a question is developed, one should ask is this important to know – does it matter.
Mr. Coombs asked if such an approach could be incorporated into the GRI template, which would allow each operator to consider the “opportunity” score based on the specifics and differences of each grazing operation. Mr. Coombs suggested the possibility of having a “wild card” box that would address site specific management concerns with local knowledge. Mr. McCuin asked if such an approach needed to be part of the GRI template or could it be a separate description of how GRI was used and other rationale for actions taken to meet the ranch’s goals and objectives. Mr. McCuin doesn’t believe everything needs to be numerated.
Mr. Molsby commented on 6/12 - In a grazing plan this is what we think about, when was it hit last, the size of the area, and the time of the year determine when we will move. We may not get a good score on frequency. The most critical things a grazing strategy must consider/answer/ respond to are change in the time of use, not being in there for long durations and ample rest periods are all important.
Dr. Swanson summarized that through the five workshops and the feedback received today, the primary message is “Don’t change GRI”. GRI is working and should not be made more complicated by adding other parameters. Dr. Swanson agreed with Mr. McCuin in terms of everything doesn’t need to be numerated but asked if there is anything else that might benefit from being indexed.
Mr. McCuin stated that many ranches are stockpiling feed for the next year, which is indirectly captured in the GRI process. Mr. Coombs suggested an interesting idea where part of the GRI score could capture consideration of local knowledge, which would require input from the producer. Mr. Coombs noted that this requirement could also be a double-edged sword.
Dr. Swanson indicated that during the peer review process for the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook a suggestion was made to incorporate a flow chart that points out that many sources of information inform rangeland managers about what they can and should accomplish (laws, policy, budgets, historic data and photos, assessments and inventories, ecological site descriptions, public issues and values, science, and lessons from monitoring). From this there is usually too much to address and so the focus should be on management priorities.
Priorities lead to development of resource objectives that are relevant to the management strategies being implemented. Resource objectives lead to long-term “effectiveness” monitoring; whereas, short-term “implementation” monitoring (e.g. utilization, season of use, etc.) is derived from management strategies.
Management strategies should identify what works (and doesn’t work) in accomplishing resource objectives. In lieu of a standard monitoring protocol, this approach encourages a cooperative permittee monitoring approach developed by the producer and the land management agency (if public lands are involved) that is tailored to accomplishing those strategies and objectives important to the local situation.
Both types of monitoring data (short- and long-term) are analyzed to determine the effectiveness of management and policy strategies as well as projects. Based on the results of analyzing the data, objectives, management strategies, and policies are adapted (modified) as needed.
Ms. Gentert stated that if GRI is only a growing season index, she believes it to be irrelevant. For one or two months of the year, the only way to manage is to vary livestock use of an area every year, which controls the amount of time for plant recovery. An index is not necessary to implement a management strategy that minimizes damage by varying the length of time for recovery. The larger, more important story is the year-long grazing management strategy that demonstrates how livestock are moved through pastures on an annual basis to off-set the impacts of growing season grazing the rest of the year with every pasture receiving a score. Years where an area receives growing season grazing will receive a lower score. Being able to severely over-graze an area during the dormant season while receiving a +4 GRI score completely invalidates the system. A good rangeland manager would not give themselves a +4 GRI score for severely over-grazing a pasture during the dormant season.
Mr. Griggs described a hypothetical scenario in which there are two pastures – one with a utilization level of 75 percent and a GRI score of +4; whereas, the second pasture has a utilization level of 50 percent and a GRI score of -1. Mr. Griggs asked Mr. Schultz why there was a difference. Mr. Schultz indicated that he would first need to understand the rancher’s goals and objectives.
In response to Mr. Griggs’ question, Mr. Schultz provided another hypothetical situation where during a wet year a riparian meadow grows grass that is four feet tall. Under the “take half/leave half” grazing strategy, two feet of grass remain after livestock have been removed from the meadow at the end of the growing season. Where management of sage grouse is the primary objective, leaving two feet of grass is not favorable. If, in the same scenario, the residual vegetation height is four to six inches translating to 80 or 90 percent utilization, the meadow is more useable by sage grouse.
Mr. Griggs noted that a pasture that is over-utilized and has an acceptable GRI score is a much different situation than a pasture that is over-utilized with a poor GRI score. Mr. McCuin indicated that if a pasture is over-grazed repeatedly over time (e.g. 6 years out of 10), there will be an adverse impact. Mr. Griggs indicated that with a positive GRI score, he recognizes that livestock were able to stay off the pasture during the growing season, however, the pasture was grazed harder than normal during the dormant season. He believes he would be able to utilize the pasture during the next growing season or the pasture could be used at some point in the future without an extended period of rest. Mr. Griggs indicated that is how he is using the GRI approach.
Mr. Schultz asked Mr. Griggs how he (Mr. Griggs) defined “over-utilization”. Mr. Griggs agreed that the term “over-utilization” is a subjective term. Mr. Schultz emphasized that it comes down to a person’s goals and objectives, what are the competing uses, etc. Using a native grass hay meadow scenario, Mr. Schultz noted that the meadows grow to seed maturity at which time they are harvested (hayed) to a residual height of four inches. Based on the utilization standard, the meadows are being over-utilized every year, which has been done for the past 80 years, and yet they are still productive. Mr. Griggs indicated that under that scenario, he would have a positive GRI score every year, which was the point he was trying to make. Timing of the utilization is important.
Mr. McCuin noted that in real life things always don’t go as planned. If things go wrong (e.g., over utilization or utilization at the wrong time from a plant’s physiological standpoint) every year, there is a problem with the grazing management strategy that must be addressed. Mr. Griggs agreed with Mr. McCuin. If a pasture is over-utilized and has a negative GRI score every year, the grazing management strategy is not working and should be changed.
Mr. McCuin indicated that he continually hears that the western sagebrush ecosystem is fragile, which he doesn’t believe is true. The western sagebrush ecosystem has been used hard for over 130 years. We believe we’re doing a better job now (as compared to the past) and we may have reached a threshold with fire and invasive species where we need to be paying more attention. Things can go wrong over the course of one or two years and the ecosystem is able to recover. Mr. Schultz referenced journals from the early 1800s that document bison severely over-grazing the plains in eastern Idaho during the winter year after year. Today, those plains remain very productive.
Ms. Gentert asked Mr. Griggs if he was using the GRI tool to ensure he is not repeating the same grazing pattern over and over. But, he is not intentionally using the tool to understand how he is doing based on monitoring data. He is using the tool as a planning tool looking forward, but not as feedback system looking back. Mr. Griggs indicated that he is using the GRI tool for both – looking forward as well as looking back.
Ms. Gentert suggested that stating grazing use during the dormant season doesn’t have an effect is over-simplifying the GRI process (intensity, frequency, and opportunity) because a person is setting up their grazing strategy for the next spring. If a person grazes a pasture in the fall, they probably will not graze the same pasture in the spring because there would not be any residual forage and there will be need for the plant to recover from the grazing. Even with a pasture in the dormant season, Ms. Gentert thinks about how many animals were in the pasture, how long were the animals in the pasture, and how much forage was utilized, etc. Ms. Gentert would like to be able to quantify that use even if it occurs during the dormant season.
Mr. Schultz suggested that livestock grazing during the dormant season is another tool to reach the objectives for that area during that part of the year. Mr. Schultz used his native hay scenario to make his point. If an area has two feet of residual vegetation where three or four inches is sufficient to meet management objectives. From an energy flow (physiology) perspective removing the excess forage is not negative. Mr. Schultz stressed that GRI is a growing season tool; whereas, there are other tools more suited or appropriate for the dormant season. It would be necessary to integrate the two types of tools to consider an entire operation, but it may not be necessary to blend the two tools into one.
Mr. Lossing indicated that in his mind he has been trying to blend the two tools together. The rancher needs to be out on the ground with the livestock, which plays into the fact that rangeland management is as much of an art as it is a science. He (Mr. Lossing) is trying to understand or develop a communication tool to use to educate people who are not out on the ground. Mr. Schultz suggested that there is not one tool but a need for a combination of tools, such as the riparian Multiple Indicator Monitoring protocol. Over the course of the year, it will take different tools each examining different parameters over time.
Mr. Griggs noted that a pasture typically gets one day of monitoring from the land management agency typically at the end of the grazing season, which may or may not tell what occurred during the growing season. What happened during the growing season is important to the producer when determining when a pasture can be used again.
Dr. Swanson brought the discussion back to his original question by summarizing that it is important to monitor the effectiveness of the plan or strategy and asking the question “In addition to GRI, are there any strategies that should be indexed?” Dr. Swanson noted that GRI created a simple score that could be used as a communication tool for things that are important. From this discussion, Dr. Swanson is hearing that there are other things that are equally important when the grass is not growing (dormant season). One of the things raised during the GRI workshops was to not graze in the same place at the same year after year. Is there a need for having a separate index for that? Is it important to have an index for utilization or residual dry matter for the dormant season use? Mr. Schultz did not believe an index for such information was necessary if the information is available from other sources. Mr. McCuin asked if it was necessary to have a number for everything. Mr. McCuin is supportive of GRI and suggested there may be other things that could be indexed but asked if we want or even need to do that.
Ms. Gentert suggested that as a communication tool having a number for some parameters would be useful. It was noted that often a range of numbers would be appropriate; rather than a single number. Mr. Voth indicated that he would prefer the people in the room develop other appropriate indices; rather than have someone else do it.
Dr. Swanson asked a follow-up question relating to rest (or too much rest). GRI as currently used does not associate an issue with complete rest or too many years of complete rest. Is preventing too much rest a strategy that should be included in an index or not? Mr. Schultz suggested that question is an operation-specific question.
Dr. Swanson asked the question in a slight different fashion – Is there too much rest in our country? In responding to the question, Mr. Lossing noted that ranches purchased by organizations such as The Nature Conservancy immediately came to his mind. Once purchased, livestock are typically removed. While livestock producers understand the need for some grazing to improve or maintain a plant’s health, this may not be known or understood by such organizations. Mr. Lossing wasn’t sure if this question should be part of the GRI process.
Mr. Griggs noted that for most Nevada ranches, too much rest works itself out. GRI could serve as a “wake up” call for some. Analyzing GRI scores by pasture allows the producer to see where there may be issues that need to be addressed. Mr. Coombs suggested that GRI might be completed at a higher scale (e.g., ranch) versus a pasture scale to get a true picture of an operation’s performance. Mr. Griggs did not necessarily agree that GRI should be completed at a higher (ranch) scale.
Mr. Schultz stressed the importance of analyzing GRI scores over the short- and long-term. In any one year, a pasture may have a lower score, but, over time, the pasture may be used appropriately for vegetative growth. A pasture with three or four years of +4 GRI score could be also be viewed as missed opportunities. From a climatic perspective, Mr. Schultz suggested the three wet years in the early 1980s may not have necessarily been a good thing. Such years are as much of a disturbance in an arid environment as an extreme drought. Dr. Swanson noted that immediately following periods of above normal moisture (wet years), northern Nevada has experienced years of high wildfire activity (i.e., 1985, 1995, 2012).
Dr. Swanson again asked if there was a mechanism (e.g. numerical rating, index, etc.) to document if too much rest, increased litter accumulation and cheatgrass results in extreme fire danger. Mr. Schultz indicated that Dr. Swanson’s statement may be true in some areas but suggested the primary issue may be too much sagebrush; rather than too much rest. In defense of his statement, Mr. Schultz referenced sagebrush dominated areas that once burned resulted in bunchgrass communities post fire. It may not be a rest issue but a vegetative structure issue.
From a grazing management standpoint across Nevada, the simple message that resonates with Dr. Swanson is that GRI is telling rangeland managers that livestock need to be moved more often. Movement of animals shortens the period of use, which results in better “frequency” and “opportunity” scores that result in better plant health. Another part of the management situation is the federal agency’s perception that the issue is over grazing, which has resulted in a reduction of grazing preference (animal unit months) that led to increased rest, fuels, and fire. Dr. Swanson suggested the answer lies not only in more grazing but in management structured toward goals and objectives that include less rest, less residual fine fuels, more strategic placement of fuel breaks, etc. GRI could serve as the tool to communicate that issue and strategy.
Mr. Schultz suggested the issue of too much rest is the wrong message to send. Instead, the message should address needed versus unneeded rest; rather than too much rest. Mr. Schultz noted that some level of recovery is needed for plants to recover from growing season grazing. Any rest above what is needed for recovery is unnecessary. The focus of the message should be placed on the needs of the plant.
Ms. Gentert noted that the Winecup-Gamble Ranch uses too much rest as an emergency fund. In a dry year when sufficient precipitation is not received for plant growth, pastures that have been rested can be used to meet the animal’s forage needs. The value of the forage may not be very high and require supplements, but the ranch would not need to sell livestock. There is a fine line managing to prevent fire and managing forage for emergency situations.
Mr. Schultz noted that there is rest that is necessary from a (1) plant health perspective and (2) operational perspective as described by Ms. Gentert. Ranching and grazing management comes with risk and management of that risk, which is different for each operation. Dr. Swanson asked if the Winecup-Gamble operation had a strategy for separating locations of stockpiled forage to prevent them from being consumed by fire. Ms. Gentert noted that currently the pastures with stockpiled forage are together for logistical reasons.
Mr. Stauffer noted that they use sheep to develop fire breaks. Each operation has opportunities for such practices if there is flexibility in the grazing operation. Dr. Swanson noted that he received an e-mail from Mr. Greg Simmonds suggesting a major issue on the Humboldt Ranch was the amount of rest resulting in the accumulation of fine fuels. Mr. Stauffer acknowledged the amount of fuels that are available despite the ranch’s effort to reduce such fuels by various means.
Mr. Molsby commented on 6/12 - Continued rest in one pasture would be foolish. It Would break everybody. Too much rest is a problem, not a problem here, but a problem on other ranches.
Dr. Swanson indicated that he began this conversation addressing other indices based on feedback from colleagues indicating that GRI wasn’t applicable everywhere and perhaps other indices could capture the power of the communication tool. Based on the conversation today, Dr. Swanson is hearing that there isn’t need for numerical indices for other important parameters.
Mr. Foster noted that the group discussed GRI but had not addressed the continued need for monitoring. Mr. Foster believes monitoring is important if not only to support GRI scores. Continued monitoring would address areas or parameters that are not addressed by GRI.
Mr. Stauffer noted that he appreciated the color maps discussed during the Humboldt Ranch GRI workshop. A single number may not necessarily mean something to someone who doesn’t understand the GRI concept. Whereas, the colored map is a visual display of where livestock were at different times of the year and serves as a powerful communication tool. A sample of the colored map was passed around the room.
Dr. Swanson summarized that the amount of rest was a topic of discussion at both the Humboldt Ranch and Winecup-Gamble Ranch GRI workshops. Growing season recovery is important because it is the only time when plants are actively growing. Not grazing a pasture for an entire year or longer results in extensive rest, which raises the question of too much rest. Recognition was given to the importance of stockpiling forage for drought years without having to either buy extra feed or sell animals. However, there is the issue of excessive fuels, which needs to be balanced with the operational needs of the ranch.
Mr. McCuin noted that there isn’t a broad brush that can be used to paint over all issues. Mr. Griggs suggested grazing to minimize or eliminate fine fuels is difficult because livestock are not selective consumers. When grazing cheatgrass early in the year, more desirable plants are also consumed. Using livestock to create fuel breaks may be a more constructive conversation concerning fire as compared to discussing over rest and under cows.
Mr. McCuin indicated that in other areas of the state, the issue is the amount of brush which is impacting the amount of grass available in the understory. Fire in these areas may result in more cheatgrass, but right now there is a need for less brush and more grass.

6. Are there any barriers to implementing your ideal management strategy or GRI on your operation?
Mr. Voth indicated that one barrier is getting buy-in from above and below. From below, it is hard to get people interested in managing at that level.
Mr. Schultz thought one barrier would be water distribution, which is an issue for every operation.
Mr. Stauffer has heard that government agency policies and regulations that limit flexibility could be a barrier to implementation of management strategies. In addition, there are personality challenges (apathy, no desire) that must be overcome.
Ms. Gentert thought having enough production on the ground to justify the cost of infrastructure (fencing, water, personnel, stockmanship, etc.) in an arid landscape might be a barrier. It is hard to justify those inputs in an arid landscape because they are not necessarily protecting or enhancing much. Even with those inputs, there may not be sufficient forage, which is hard to make the inputs pay off economically or emotionally for such little return.
The size of an operation spatially may limit opportunities for management flexibility.
Mr. Coombs indicated that GRI will provide a tool to demonstrate accountability for implementing flexibility and improving rangelands. Barriers are relevant depending on how much energy a person wants to expend in achieving them. One person’s barrier may be another person’s opportunity. Barriers are not always a bad thing.
Mr. Lossing thought that issues in the Carson City BLM District were more attributed to agency regulations and policies than personalities. Examples cited were wild horses and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Dr. Swanson noted that NEPA is not effective in stopping wrong actions as it is a process driven law. Because of the process, things cannot get done timely, which prevents changes from occurring or, at least occurring in a timely manner.
In addition to the barriers raised by others, Mr. McCuin suggested operational logistics (money, attitudes, etc.) will also be a barrier.
Mr Molsby commented on 6/12 - The forest permit has required us to use the old strategy because of lack of paperwork to do the grazing that we know works better. This has crippled the rest of the ranch. We have to be up there during the hot season. When everything was at its best, for the range and the cow herd, half was hot season use and half was use after weaning in October. in November some years, we hardly used it and it was good thing for the range and economically it was OK for the ranch.

7. If you were to use the GRI or some other similar index for rating the management in a given year, what is the best size land unit to apply it to on your ranch?
Mr. Griggs indicated that within the model used for the Maggie Creek Ranch the size of the unit was a pasture. There was movement of cattle within the pasture, but the overall score of the pasture helped him make the decision to use the pasture again the following year.
Mr. Schultz didn’t think there was a right answer to the question.
Mr. Coombs thought the size of the unit should be based on a management unit, which he defined as a pasture. To gain as much information as possible, Mr. Coombs thought GRI should be completed over an entire operation to compare the outputs (numbers) from year to year, which would demonstrate the variability of livestock movement and use without having a negative score in a pasture every year. Mr. Coombs clarified his approach as having an individual GRI score for each pasture, which are analyzed from an operational standpoint, like is done with the color coding maps at the Humboldt Ranch.
Dr. Swanson described the process used at the Smith Creek Ranch where Google Earth was used to draw polygons around parts of one fenced pasture.
Mr. Lossing indicated that it depends on the ranch. Some might use natural boundaries, which may create natural use areas within a pasture. In this example, if a single GRI score would have been prepared for the larger pasture, it would have been lower as compared to preparing a single GRI score for each separate use area.
Dr. Swanson went on to describe the situation where some pastures are too small to have separate use areas; whereas, like the Smith Creek Ranch, there are pastures containing several natural use areas. Dr. Swanson asked how large of tract of land on average should be considered. Mr. McCuin suggested the “average” size is whatever is meaningful to the operator and his operation, which will vary from ranch to ranch.
Dr. Swanson indicated that getting to a standard answer to his question would be a mistake, but he was curious what they thought when the question was asked. Mr. Lossing thought the answer would vary on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Griggs indicated that if you were using this as a tool to speak to your agency Rangeland Management Specialist, the answer would be the allotment. The agency does not differentiate below the allotment level.
Ms. Gentert noted that on the Winecup-Gamble Ranch a pasture can be subdivided (by natural barriers) into different use areas, but they cannot guarantee the livestock are only in one area at each time. There is too much movement between different use areas. She believes it would be a stretch to score the different use area individually as they do not have that much control of the livestock. Dr. Swanson noted that during the Winecup-Gamble Ranch GRI workshop, he regretted not having completed a GRI score for two other use areas of that pasture. While it is unknown if a different GRI score would have been developed, he suspects the scores would have been different for several reasons – (1) differences in utilization, (2) differences in plant communities, (3) differences in growing seasons, and (4) differences when the animals grazed the use area.
Dr. Swanson noted that as the size of the unit decreases, the GRI score typically increases. Dr. Swanson asked if there was anything about scale that comes to mind.
Mr. Stauffer believes it comes down to being on the range observing what the cows are doing and asking yourself “why are the cows doing what they’re doing?” and asking if there is anything else you might consider doing (additional water, fencing, etc.) to make the land size more functional for your operation to meet your goals and objectives.
Mr Molsby commented on 6/12 - Ours is the individual pastures 12-14 on BLM, on 15,000 acres.

8. Part of the motivation for this WSARE GRI conversation is an observation that at least for riparian areas, or pastures with riparian areas, the movement of livestock is very common in examples of success. What tools that facilitate movement of animals (and cleaned pastures or use areas) would be most useful to teach or facilitate by rangeland educators or management agencies? (water development, supplementation strategies, stockmanship, fencing technologies)?
Dr. Swanson asked if the next round of range management schools should be focused on how to help ranchers with “livestock movement” tools.
Mr. Voth suggested stockmanship should be addressed in the next round of range management schools. Stockmanship allows the producer to create and get to new use areas.
Mr. Schultz suggested that the Extension Service can teach the basic concepts of plant growth, but the permittees know the specifics of accomplishing livestock movement that better than anyone. Personally, Mr. Schultz would not feel comfortable teaching movement of animals.
Mr. McCuin doesn’t believe we should tell the producer how to do it. It is possible to suggest different tools, but it will be up to each individual operator to determine what works for them.
Mr. Schultz suggested that there are many different factors that go into a decision that he personally does not have knowledge to address. It is possible to suggest the general needs of the plants, stockmanship, use of supplements, etc.; however, beyond the basic concepts, the producer will need to determine what would fit their operation from a cost perspective, personnel, animal management goals, etc. Mr. Schultz believes he would lose whatever reputation and integrity he has today by trying to go down that road. Mr. Schutz would be willing to make the producers aware of various tools, but that is as far as he would be willing to go.
Mr. Stauffer agreed with Mr. Schultz’s approach. Mr. Stauffer noted a comment that he has heard across the country that the producer’s biggest strength is also their largest weakness, which is the independent nature of individual ranchers. Everyone will have their own thoughts about how to get something done. Mr. Stauffer agreed that tools should be identified but it will be up to the rancher to choose which tools work for their operation. Mr. Stauffer indicated that he likes the stockmanship tool but there is a labor and money issue associated with stockmanship.
Mr. Lossing thought the Cooperative Extension avenue is the proper avenue for identifying and teaching options or tools. It is important that producers as well as agency people understand the various options available. Mr. Lossing indicated that stockmanship allows him to be out with his livestock, understand their body condition score, etc.
Mr Molsby commented on 6/12 - Working to improving rangelands comes back to the producer. It ought to be self-inducing. The range and the animals are hand in hand. I wish everyone understood We all have the same goal. We don’t often get this win-win in life in general, but we get it here.
Dr. Swanson asked if there are some tools currently available that they would like to learn more about. Mr. Griggs indicated that it would be more useful to say, “we’re out here on your land; this is the potential of your land; and then come to an understanding of what the producer is trying to achieve”. In other words, are we working toward the full potential of the land or is there a working aspect of that potential that meets our needs? From that understanding, the next step would be to determine if you’re at that full potential or working aspect of the potential. If we’re not where we would like to be, that would be the time to introduce different tools or things that need to be changed to move toward the point where you want to be. Mr. Griggs used the Susie Creek model where there is a desire to change the hot season grazing. From that goal, you can begin discussing different tools available. It is important to proceed through those steps before you can begin discussing various tools. Mr. Griggs did not see value in discussing stockmanship if you don’t understand why you’re trying to do something on the creek.
Mr. Coombs agreed with Mr. Griggs as that is where he (Mr. Coombs) sees many ranching operations to be. Many operations continue to do the same thing that their fathers and/or grandfathers did. If all they’ve seen is the current condition of a riparian area, they might not understand that it could be something different. People typically want to do the right thing, but they first need to understand the potential of the land.
Mr. Molsby commented on 6/12 - Supplement is important, but most people know it. You can pull cows a long way. Water developments too. Cows will hit the creeks and having a water source somewhere else cows will go there to get good feed. After that it will come to a frequency problem on the creek.
Dr. Swanson paraphrased Mr. Griggs approach by stating “in the past, Extension has been teaching about how plants grow, which is fine; however, if something were to be included, it might be a discussion on learning what their land is capable of producing”. Mr. Griggs provided a real-life example where a neighbor told him that someone asked him (the neighbor) “why don’t you do what Jon did on Susie Creek?” The neighbor’s response was that his creek is just a small stream and doesn’t compare to Susie Creek. Mr. Griggs thought to himself (but didn’t tell his friend) that when he (Mr. Griggs) first saw Susie Creek for the first time, it was a small stream that dried up at certain times of the year. It obviously didn’t work for someone to tell his friend to do what Jon had done. Instead of telling someone to do what someone else did, it might have been more effective to follow the steps outlined earlier by Mr. Griggs. If his friend could have understood the potential of his stream, he might have been more interested or inclined to make the necessary changes.
From today’s conversation, Dr. Swanson believed there has been agreement about how plants grow and that the GRI is a tool addressing how to manage in relation to how plants grow. To do that across large landscapes will require more movement of livestock that will shorten the use period and lengthen the recovery period.
Dr. Swanson again asked what are the tools that would help producers recognize that this is not an impossible task, but a task for which there is a toolbox with tools that they know enough about to evaluate tradeoffs and chose the tools that work for their operation.
Mr. Griggs indicated that in this meeting, Dr. Swanson is “preaching to the choir”. If the people in the room are not implementing the tools, they at least know about the tools. Mr. Griggs believes the people who are not aware of the various tools are the same people who don’t know the potential of the land they own or manage.
Mr. Schultz asked if we might be confusing (1) movement among units and (2) distribution within units. Mr. Schultz believes it isn’t a problem with movement among units but a problem of distribution within a unit. Dr. Swanson agreed that distribution is an issue, which has been addressed in an article Dr. Swanson published with a couple colleagues. GRI suggests that within larger pastures, it may be more of an issue of using different parts of the pasture at different times, which addresses distribution but also shortens the use period, improves frequency, and improves opportunity for plant recovery.
Mr. McCuin indicated that he understands Dr. Swanson’s position in terms of moving livestock and agrees up to a point. Mr. McCuin indicated that when there are a limited number of people (two) on a ranch to perform the necessary work, there just isn’t enough manpower to provide the stockmanship required to frequently move livestock. Mr. McCuin agreed with Mr. Griggs statement that the best we can do is help a producer understand what things could look like (potential), but to achieve that potential one must have the flexibility as well as the financial and human resources, which isn’t always the case.
Dr. Swanson believes there is value in having knowledge of the tools that could help a producer reach their goals and objectives and the role of Cooperative Extension is about providing the next piece of information that our colleagues need to reach their objectives.
Mr. McCuin suggested that Dr. Swanson’s approach assumed that ranchers are not knowledgeable of various tools, which might not be the case. Certainly, there are some tools or knowledge with which they could use some help, but, we need to be careful not to assume they are not knowledgeable. There might be situations where the producer is knowledgeable, but he may need help in educating the agency Rangeland Management Specialist or a ranch owner about the various tools available.
Mr. Schultz suggested an alternative way of looking at the situation was to understand that every place has its optimum as well as a minimum. The question to be asked is “what is the best reality that we can achieve between the optimum and minimum and what would it take to achieve that?” Very few ranches as well as the federal government can reach the optimum and most operations want to do something better than the minimum. Somewhere between those two extremes is what will work best for everyone involved. There almost never is just one way to reach a result.
Dr. Swanson suggested that where there is opportunity to get to “better”, the next best investment will be the one that pays the most money for that next marginal dollar spent. You spend a dollar and you receive the best return on that dollar. The benefit received from a dollar spent will vary by operation. From each person’s collective wisdom, knowing their own ranch as well as the tours and other ranches that they’ve been on, what are the things that best connect with the expenditure of the next dollar across the community of people we’re trying to reach, which includes the federal agencies? Dr. Swanson likes the idea of everyone being in the same class together, ranchers and agency people teaching a class as well as being in the audience.
Mr. Coombs indicated that today’s discussion made him think about the pathway followed at the Smith Creek Ranch to the point where Mr. Lossing is today. In 1997, when Mr. Coombs began with Smith Creek Ranch, the ranch was in poor condition and close to losing approximately half of their federal grazing preference. With the loss of the federal preference, the ranch would not have been financially solvent. Looking back, Mr. Coombs recognized there were a suite of tools that were used to keep livestock off riparian areas and in the uplands. Despite that success, Mr. Coombs does not believe the right approach is to have ranchers telling other ranchers how to do things. There might be 10 ways of doing something, 8 of which will work just fine. Mr. Coombs suggested informing producers that GRI is a tool that will help them understand and/or communicate why you are where you are. And, with GRI, if you want to make some livestock grazing or policy changes, here are some options where Cooperative Extension can be of assistance.
Mr. McCuin stressed the importance of developing a working relationship with the federal land management agency personnel (Rangeland Management Specialist) to demonstrate that you’re interested in doing what’s best for the land as well as outlining the tools you believe would be successful.
Dr. Swanson suggested spending time on horseback is a good investment of time and money. Mr. Coombs summarized that since the end of World War II, the United States has changed from an agrarian society to a mechanized society. The basic business model of most ranches today is based around limited manpower and when it’s time to buy hay, everyone is devoted to that job. Mr. Coombs suggested that if we are ranchers, our priority is cows. If we’re hay farmers, our priority is hay. Mr. Coombs appeared to be stressing that it is not our place to tell producers what or how to do their business.
Mr. Schultz noted that regardless of the industry, there is a basic question – What do I need to do today to be better tomorrow than I was yesterday? Tomorrow needs to be economically viable, environmentally sound, and socially acceptable.
As you answer those questions, a person will gain the best learning and most knowledge to address the issue at hand.
Mr. Griggs suggested that to accomplish Mr. Schultz’s statement, everyone involved must be on the same page in terms what is best and/or what is environmentally sound.

9. Given the economic, environmental, and social context of today, how much should stockmanship (introduction, more knowledge about it, any knowledge about it, etc.) be a part of the curriculum for the range management school?
Mr. Foster indicated that the first step needs to be selling the idea to the ranchers. Based on his experience, for ranchers or farmers to adopt a new practice that practice must either make or save them money and/or time or make the job easier. As suggested by others, Mr. Foster supports development of modules for the range management school. A general module could be GRI addressing movement of livestock within use areas and suggesting different tools to accomplish that goal. Mr. Foster wouldn’t recommend taking the discussion any further than suggesting different tools. There might be opportunity to develop a module about different tools, which could be present if the opportunity presented itself.
Mr. Coombs suggested stockmanship could be an optional module that could be addressed if there is a demand for it. He would take it off the table in terms of the curriculum. Mr. Lossing suggested introducing all tools and wait for feedback to determine where there is interest.
Mr. McCuin suggested that the quickest way to get run off a ranch is to tell someone that they need to do better stockmanship. Another “non-starter” in terms of approaching ranchers is to present a template ranch and suggest their ranch should be run like the template. Putting the producer in an uncomfortable position, which takes them out of the picture is not a good approach. Dr. Swanson used the Gund Ranch experience as the example. Even though it was stated that the approach taken at the Gund Ranch won’t work everywhere, the agencies began to say everyone should do it that way.
Mr. Schultz suggested that the mission of the Cooperative Extension (To teach community-based, research-focused education) should be kept in mind. While we understand and recognize stockmanship as a good thing, we are not in the position to teach it. Stockmanship is a learned practice; rather than research-based. It is an artform. Stockmanship would be more readily accepted if presented by ranchers or the Farm Bureau; rather than Cooperative Extension in the range management school. It would be appropriate for Cooperative Extension to identify stockmanship as a possible tool available to the producer but teaching it would be outside of Cooperative Extension’s mission. Mr. Griggs suggested stockmanship should be viewed as continuing education.

10. Dr. Swanson noted that before a ranch management plan can be developed, a water management plan should be developed. Should water development or water development management/maintenance be part of the curriculum?

Given the politics surrounding water rights, Mr. McCuin believes the policy issues need to be resolved.
Mr. Schultz asked what would be the research-based education that could be taught concerning water or water management. Everyone knows water is important and affects livestock distribution. Dr. Swanson indicated that there is research on the amount of water needed by calves to be optimally productive. In addition, there is research as to the distance livestock will travel to water, which has not been accepted by some in the profession.
There is a concept embedded within GRI addressing how plants grow. To affect that concept on the ground, more animals use smaller areas for a shorter period before moving to another area. Before such a system is implement, water must be available. Mr. Schultz agreed that water is necessary to control animals. Dr. Swanson noted that there are different types of water sources and issues surrounding hydrology (ground water hydrology, surface water hydrology, riparian ecology and management, issues with water development affecting fish habitat, etc). There is science surrounding the questions between water and animals and impacts of water development methods. In addition, there are new products available.
Mr. Coombs believes addressing water as part of the range management curriculum is like stockmanship. While there is science behind the benefits and technology of developing water, there is another side of the coin involving project planning, obtaining agency/state approvals, and implementation of water projects.
There was a “rabbit trail” discussion addressing the effect of canopy cover on the amount of available water (rainfall reaching the ground, snowfall accumulation, etc.)
As most recognize, rangeland management is as much an art form as it is science. Dr. Swanson noted that rangeland management will always be an art based on partial science. There is far more science than any one person can understand or comprehend but there is not enough science to address all decisions that must be made by rangeland managers. Integrating science and art is scholarship, which is also part of the rangeland management equation. It cannot just be science-based knowledge.
Mr. Coombs indicated that the producer is uniquely qualified to be the scholar for their specific area (e.g., Jon Griggs for Maggie Creek Ranch, Sam Lossing for Smith Creek Ranch, etc.) because they know and understand their ranch better than anyone else.

11. How much should supplementation as a tool for influencing animal distribution and movement be a part of the curriculum for the range management school?
Mr. Coombs suggested the exact same conversation that occurred for water development could apply to the use of supplementation. Some ranches need to supplement while others do not. The producer on the ground is uniquely qualified to make those decisions. It was noted that placement of supplementation should be both strategic in location as well as timing of placement.
It was suggested use and placement of supplementation could be a short (15-minute) module.

12. How much should fencing technology be part of the curriculum for the range management school?
Mr. Griggs noted that fencing has worked for the Maggie Creek Ranch and is one of their most used tools. With that having been said, Mr. Griggs felt that fencing has been used too much as a crutch. Typically, fences located right on the green line of a riparian zone fail. Fencing is just another tool, not a panacea. The best fence keeps a cow from going where she didn’t want to go to begin with.
What are the top messages people need to hear about fence use and misuse? Mr. Coombs suggested taking the word “exclosure” out of our vocabulary and begin thinking in terms of riparian pastures, which are large enough to work.

13. If range/ranch people knew it, what would help them tune up their management to get better plant growth?
Mr. Griggs indicated that knowing the range’s potential would be the answer. The example provided by Mr. Griggs was a person who spent their whole life as well as the life of their parents in a cheatgrass dominated rangeland would not know or understand the potential of that land.
Mr. McCuin asked if the Ecological Site Description (ESD) workshops are meeting the need to understand the potential of a site. Mr. Griggs did not think the ESD workshops were meeting that need. One reason provided was the inability to understand the ESD concept in a short period of time and, to a limited extent, how it is presented. Just having an ESD is a start to understanding a site’s potential, but if a threshold has been crossed, the ESD might be irrelevant.
Mr. Griggs provided a hypothetical scenario of a conversation that might be helpful in addressing site potential.
“A producer is sitting at a table with their agency Rangeland Management Specialist and have reached an impasse in their discussion. In walks a Cooperative Extension person who is trusted by both the producer and agency person who indicates the potential of the site is X. We know that if you could do Y with your cows, we would get closer to X.”
Mr. Griggs indicated that the producer has the “hammer” (agency Rangeland Management Specialist) sitting across from him and there is a trusted individual in the room offering suggested changes (tools) that might help reach a positive outcome. Mr. Lossing added that the trusted individual would have to be careful not to say, “you need to do what this rancher did”, but if the producer could see and understand how a tool has worked in other situations, that would be helpful.
Dr. Swanson noted that if examples of where tools have made a difference and been feasible (economically, socially, and environmentally) were available, they could be used as a “opener” or “ice breaker” to understanding and/or exploring opportunities. Mr. Griggs indicated that using “before” and “after” photographs have been a powerful communication tool to demonstrate successful implementation of a tool, especially when the “before” picture is the same (or similar) to what the producer observes every day. Dr. Swanson added that use of “before” and “after” pictures is very effective when addressing riparian environments, but has been less effective for upland environments, which either don’t respond or respond very slowly.

14. In a follow-up question, Dr. Swanson asked if it would be useful in the range management school setting to use the following scenario:
“This piece of country has crossed an ecological threshold and we couldn’t make a cost-effective investment. However, we did invest in this other piece of country that was “at-risk” and had cost—effective opportunities that would make a difference.”
Mr. Griggs thought such an approach might work.
Mr. Stauffer thought that showing the economic value (higher weaning weights, run more livestock, etc.) resulting from better plant growth would be an incentive for a producer. Mr. Stauffer noted that there appears to be two target audiences – producers and government agencies. Creating a communication channel between those two parties is important. With the range management schools focusing principally on the producer, the producer will be in a better position to open a dialogue with the federal agency personnel.
Mr. Lossing noted that the average agency Rangeland Management Specialist doesn’t seem to understand that the producer must make a living from running livestock. With agency personnel attending the range management schools, it is important to emphasize that the producer must make a living while using the public lands. If the economics don’t work for the producer, they can’t make a living. The range management schools can incentivize the producer but must also make the agency people aware that the producer must make a living.
Mr. Schultz believes there is a more basic upfront question that must be addressed – for the most part, producers are doing most things correctly most of the time. Getting better plant growth may not involve the producer doing something different or better. In an 8 to 10-inch prescription zone with 22 percent sagebrush cover, it doesn’t matter what the producer does, you won’t get better plant growth. Something must be done to reduce the sagebrush cover.
In response to Mr. Schultz’s 22 percent sagebrush cover scenario, Dr. Swanson asked a follow-up question if there are other problems/issues that could be addressed to help the producer and/or agency personnel. Mr. McCuin indicated that it depends on the site potential as stressed by Mr. Griggs. In some areas with 22 percent sagebrush cover, ideally there should only be 10 percent cover which would allow for more perennial herbaceous and forbs. Just changing the grazing pattern won’t change the amount of brush. Something different would have to be done.
Based on Mr. McCuin’s comments, Mr. Coombs thought the State and Transition (S&T) models would be valuable in understanding a site’s potential. Using a combination of approaches (ESDs, “before” and “after” photographs, S&T models, etc.) to understand how potential applies in different areas. One of the major benefits derived from S&T models is the understanding that some tools or grazing management changes may not impact or affect a site. It’s not all about grazing management.
Dr. Swanson summarized his thoughts from this discussion. On one side of the coin there is a need for active vegetation management while on the other side of the coin is there is a thought that rest rotation (or deferred rotation) grazing management shortens periods of grazing to match the growing season. How much rangeland is still managed where grazing is an issue; not because of intentional mismanagement, but because we’ve been wrong? Perhaps future range management schools should address both issues – active vegetation management and grazing management. Active vegetation management hasn’t been addressed in past range management schools. There may be opportunity to discuss the suite of tools necessary to move between different phases in the S&T model.
Mr. Lossing described a recent conversation he had with an agency Wildlife Biologist about a mature decadent stand of sagebrush. Mr. Lossing asked if livestock had been removed from that area for 100 years, would the desirable herbaceous community (for sage grouse management) become established. The response was “no”. It was at that point, discussion of other tools that could make a difference in minimizing the mature sagebrush environment that would have been appropriate.
Mr. McCuin indicated that the question comes back to what ecological condition we want the country to be in. To date, we’ve focused on proper utilization when addressing movement of livestock; rather than focusing on the ecological condition and how can it be economically achieved. Livestock grazing is only one tool, but there are other tools outside of the producers control that may be necessary to affect change. The academic community has been set on late seral stage for so long that it is believed that the late seral stage is the end goal. The key question is what ecological condition is appropriate or best for multiple use management.

15. Dr. Swanson asked if grazing management should be put in the context of being one of many tools that should be used to achieve the objectives for the rangeland. Managing livestock properly needs to be part of the solution, but it will never solve all ecological issues.
Dr. Swanson described an experiment on the Cottonwood Ranch to teach cows how to eat sagebrush, which Dr. Swanson thought would be an exciting opportunity if successful. Cows could be used as a tool to reduce areas of heavily infested sagebrush while providing livestock with high protein forage during the winter. There is awareness that a tool is available, but we haven’t developed the tool well enough to apply it.
Mr. Stauffer noted that Derek Baily will be visiting the Humboldt Ranch to begin research on cattle that will graze steeper slopes for which the hypothesis is related to DNA.
16. How much should animal genetics, kind and class of livestock, animal selection and culling in terms of animal movement be a part of the curriculum for the range management school?
Mr. Shultz indicated that such an approach addresses finer management practices that may not be successful over time in today’s fluid environment. Mr. Griggs thought that if the question was approached from a genetics standpoint, it might be valuable; however, from a culling standpoint, he doesn’t have the luxury of culling for anything other than livestock who don’t produce.
Mr. Stauffer noted that the percentage of producers or operations where such an approach would be practical might be relatively small. Approaching the question from a genetic standpoint, an operation would be producing for a trait; rather than culling.
Mr. Coombs didn’t think such an approach would be feasible due to the vertical structure of the beef supply chain. If a producer takes a chance based on genetics, there is potential of losing when selling the calves. Rather than include it as a component of the range management school, it is something that must be decided on by the individual producer.
Mr. McCuin indicated that matching the livestock production cycle to the production cycle of the plant and the nutrition of the rangeland might be a more feasible approach. Being able to match the livestock production cycle with the plant’s nutritional cycle would be a major achievement, but very difficult to sell to the producer.
17. Dr. Swanson asked if there was value in continuing to push the need to match the livestock production cycle to the plant’s nutritional cycle?
To which Mr. Lossing suggested making a connection to the economic benefit would be a more productive approach.

18. If the range community knew it, what would help them to produce a better animal? What animal production subjects are important to teach?
Mr. McCuin suggested “acre versus production per acre”. Other ideas raised included lowering input while increasing production and running smaller cows allows a producer to run more cows, which, in turn, relates to selling more calves.

19. If ranchers knew it, what would help them be better business people?
Mr. Foster indicated that there are schools that teach how to be a profitable rancher. Mr. Foster didn’t believe some of the avenues being taught in those schools were sustainable over the long term. There may be a need to develop a balance between the economics and environmental needs. From a production and economic standpoint, it would be important to address the reality that agriculture operations especially ranching operations are a long-term proposition. The financial returns are not great but relate more to consistent returns over time.
Mr. Voth noted that when working with native rangelands, maintaining an ecologically sustainable rangeland is a long-term economic effort.
Mr. Coombs believes there is value in reminding people that society is reaching a point where there may be payment for ecological services (good stewardship which has a benefit to society.) Ranchers understand the values they provide to society; however, society may not recognize those benefits.

20. If there is the ideal mixed audience (ranchers and agency personnel), what is it that if we taught it, that would help agencies not be stupid and get in our way?
Mr. Stauffer suggested teaching federal agency employees about ranching. Mr. McCuin suggested modules for ranchers and well as modules for agency personnel about ranching (what livestock eat, the notion that cows need to be somewhere throughout the year, and that ranchers need to make a living) and that grazing is a tool.
Dr. Swanson noted that it is his perception that ranchers and agency personnel like to learn from ranchers. Ranchers are people that have made it work and have stories to tell about real on-the-ground long-term stories.
21. What is it that you would be willing to share as a story or message with the ideal mixed audience?
Mr. Foster suggested a rancher panel towards the end of the range management school to share ideas, explain things, share stories, etc.
Mr. Coombs suggested modifying the curriculum to allow producers to teach a module or something like GRI would be beneficial. There is value in peer-to-peer instruction. The range management school could serve as a forum for exchanging ideas and/or experiences (like the Producer’s Forum at Nevada Cattlemen’s Association meetings).
Mr. McCuin suggested picking a BLM district office annually to conduct a one-day Ranching 101 workshop where the predominance of teaching is completed by producers. The challenge will be determining the curriculum for the workshop. Mr. Lossing noted that he would not be passionate about teaching GRI but addressing an issue that they faced on the ranch explaining how it was successfully addressed, etc., would be possible.
Another possible approach for the Ranching 101 workshop would be to have a producer and an agency person address how they came together to successfully resolve an issue. The producer could address how it was implemented on the ground while the agency person could address how the paperwork and support was completed in the office.
Mr. McCuin indicated that most agency people don’t understand what is involved in the yearly cycle of a ranch. If agency personnel understood what needed to be done on a ranch throughout the year, they might better understand why something can (or can’t) be done exactly when the agency wants it done. Conversely, Mr. McCuin suggested the producers should understand what agency personnel face to get something approved or what they experience over the course of a year. Mr. Stauffer who has limited experience working with federal agencies believes understanding what occurs behind the scene in the federal agency would be valuable. Some issues may be related to personalities; however, policy and priorities may also play a role.
Mr. Griggs suggested that range science is relatively easy as compared to social science. The fastest way to get a rancher in a cardiac situation is to send them a register letter on Friday and make them wait until Monday before it can be picked up. Mr. Griggs indicated that everyone wants to be a range person, which doesn’t necessarily make someone a good “people” person. Although Mr. Griggs thinks ranchers should try, at times, it is hard to change. Perhaps agency personnel could benefit from understanding from how most ranchers are and how to work with ranchers.
Dr. Swanson noted that the origins of the range management school were founded in Colorado where Cooperative Extension, BLM, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the U. S. Forest Service played an equal role. Dr. Swanson asked if agency personnel should be tapped to teach part of the curriculum. Mr. Schultz noted that historically it has been necessary to replace an agency instructor every couple of years due to movement within the agency.

22. Are there publications that the Cooperative Extension range community could produce that would be helpful to the producers?
Mr. Coombs suggested the Sage Grouse Initiative model with their Science & Solution effort might be something to explore as a basic format.
Mr. Griggs indicated that he appreciates the Suggested Reading sent out by the Nevada Chapter of the Society for Range Management.
Mr. Schultz asked if anyone was familiar with the Yellow Book which is part of the Cattlemen’s Handbook. Mr. McCuin indicated that the Yellow Book contains valuable information; however, it has been around for a while. It was used heavily when it came out, but not so much now. Mr. Coombs suggested making the Yellow Book into a app accessible via the Internet or on cell phone.
Jason Molsby would like a short card for GRI.
Mr. Schultz noted that he has written several articles that have been published in the Progressive Rancher. He typically receives three times the number of calls from out-of-state producers as compared to in-state producers. Mr. Griggs noted that since Nevada is a heavily-dominated public land state, producers must be knowledgeable on issues such as sage grouse, range science, etc., which has “upped” their game.
Dr. Swanson noted that he once heard two criteria for a good research project were (1) tell me something that I don’t already know and (2) tell me something that if I knew it, it would change what I do as a manager, which led into Dr. Swanson’s next question.
23. What is it if you knew it that you don’t already know that would change what you do as a manager? What should we be learning about? Doing research about with our colleagues to create knowledge about?
Mr. Lossing relayed that attending his first Society for Range Management meeting was phenomenal because both agency people as well as producers were there to learn and were meeting in a different environment - not addressing specific on-the-ground issues. The range management schools can serve the same function but at a lower, more local level. Just getting people in the same room without having a specific issue to discuss or argue about is beneficial. Coming together to learn something new and/or developing new working relationships. Having stories such as “here is a year in the life of a rancher or a BLM employee” would be beneficial.
Dr. Swanson relayed that the most powerful learning experiences he has observed in the role as an Extension Specialist have been when people are working together to solve a problem. Not someone teaching something, but people in a circle trying to figure out a way forward that everyone can live with.

24. Should Extension be teaching by taking on a management challenge and assembling the people to address that challenge through a facilitated process?
Mr. Lossing suggested that it would be necessary to start with a “teaching” component addressing basic information and/or tools on an issue before entering a problem-solving approach.
Mr. Coombs thought the approach suggested by Mr. Lossing would be fascinating. Mr. Coombs relayed a discussion he had with Agee Smith (Cottonwood Ranch) where a limited time would be spent discussing some basic concepts, building sideboards, etc., after which the group would create a management plan for the ranch. After the session, the product would be taken to the appropriate government agency for consideration as a management option to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment. Dr. Swanson indicated that a similar approach is used in riparian grazing management courses.
Dr. Swanson noted that an oversight was made when releasing the second edition of the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook by not going out to the public to teach the second edition as was done with the first edition in 1984. The authors have discussed going back out to teach the third edition of the handbook and Dr. Swanson has had conversations with BLM’s Nevada State Office (Kathryn Dyer) on this topic. A model for teaching the handbook would involve a half-day session providing an overview of the different concepts, which would be followed by a real-life allotment scenario addressing objectives, what are we trying to accomplish (goals), current management, monitoring, and a field trip to examine key areas, their condition, and identify monitoring methods that could be implemented.
Mr. McCuin suggested that when the second edition of the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook was released, there was an effort to teach the contents, but the agencies wouldn’t implement the handbook. Dr. Swanson indicated that Mr. McCuin was specifically referencing the cooperative permittee monitoring component of the handbook. Dr. Swanson noted that there have been significant efforts made to gain agency buy-in on cooperative monitoring and hopes that that issue has been addressed.
Mr. Coombs suggested having agency employees as part of the teaching cadre so that they are engaged and committed to its implementation on the ground is one way of gaining agency commitment and support.
Mr. Stauffer was supportive of having agency personnel as part of the teaching cadre, which, again, puts some accountability for its implementation on the agency.
There was a brief discussion about how federal agencies determined the grazing preference. Mr. Stauffer asked how we can manage an allotment because the preference is an arbitrary number based on historical information or pulled from thin air. Mr. Coombs summarized his efforts to research how the grazing preference for the Smith Creek Ranch was determined.
In bringing the meeting to a close, Dr. Swanson expressed his appreciation for everyone taking the time to participate in the meeting and sharing their voice, wisdom, insights, humor, and stories. Dr. Swanson believes the information he received was exactly what he was expecting and hoping to receive.
After receiving the minutes for the meeting, Dr. Swanson will be working to extract the gems and information provided which will be consolidated into a coherent message that honors the wisdom everyone provided over the course of the day.
The meeting concluded at 3:05 pm after convening at 8:38 am.
The following acronyms were used during the meeting and listed in alphabetical order.
Acronym Meaning
BLM Bureau of Land Management
ESD Ecological Site Description
GRI Grazing Response Index
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
S&T State & Transition
UNCE University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
WSARE Western Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education

Available Questions Not Specifically Asked
The following is a list of the questions that were available for discussion but were not addressed due to time limitations. Some questions may have been addressed during the discussion or asked in a slight different manner. Some of the questions below have answers provided by Mr. Molsby on 6/12.
1. What criteria should be focus for grazing for the health and productivity of valuable wood plants?
2. Are there other indices or strategies you currently use, would like to use, or world like to have developed for grazing management?
3. What are the most critical things a grazing strategy must consider/answer/respond to?
4. What data recording tool would be most useful for noting the critical information at the right time? (paper map, map in app, red book, and spreadsheet in computer with named or numbered use areas, form for copying and storing in a notebook) -- App on the phone or notes on phone. Red book a good idea too.
5. What is the return on investment of the time your ranch invests in tracking grazing management? What guides your decisions about time investments? -- What guides your decisions about time investments? We want the best for the cows and the grass is the core of the ranch so we do the absolute best we can to manage the grass. Keep cows on good feed and cut the heads off those that can’t do the program.
6. GRI does not specify the plant communities or rangeland management situations for which it is appropriate and not appropriate. For which do you feel it has greatest applicability? Least?
7. Cheatgrass or the Great Basin Annual Rangelands is a challenge in many areas of Nevada and it is variable in the degree of persistence of perennials (resilience and resistance), production from year to year, and fire risk? If we were to index our management success for applying strategies for cheatgrass, what strategies would we index? -- I would use frequency, get it when coming up and keep doing it.
8. Utilization (related to GRI-intensity) is increasingly a guideline turning into a standard by public land management agencies. Does this get in the way of managing for plant or rangeland health? -- I think so. I think utilization would be second hand to the rest . If you hit it too hard, change something, but it is not all utilization. Would utilization be useful as a separate index or planning tool so that the desired level could be targeted for different situations? Or, is utilization needed within GRI or a revised GRI because it is related to the degree of plant stress?
9. Would utilization be useful as a separate index or planning tool so that the desired level could be targeted for different situations? Or, is utilization needed within GRI or a revised GRI because it is related to the degree of plant stress?
10. Does the growing season needed for recovery time before grazing again depend on the degree of stress during grazing? If so, how should this be evaluated? -- We try to provide more recovery after hard use. A full season. E.g. negative GRI score.
11. GRI implies that grazing by livestock occurs just once each year (from season long to a short period). Some have suggested that we should be grazing pastures more than once to enable forage selectivity and light short-duration grazing during growing seasons (hot seasons in riparian areas), and AUM consumption during periods of the year when plants are dormant. This might score well in GRI; is this idea practical? If so, where? -- I’ve thought about this a lot. For guys to graze right guys need to be able to move through the country and be able to come back. But this will be a hard sell. A lot of work. So if grazing fast in early spring and can come back guys may do this. But this is the fear. That the agencies will say you’ve been here this year.
12. There seems to be a continuum between: A. The thought that GRI or some index of strategies broader than just utilization would be a great asset to enable more flexible management among years with a level of accountability needed on public lands; and B. The thought that GRI should not be included in permit authorizations or other official paperwork because it will add a layer of bureaucracy and open the door to increased litigation. Thoughts? -- The reason I like is cause the RMS can’t make it out to us and having this is better than nothing at all.
13. GRI does not include a focus on animal production, ye there is some connection to range nutrition. Would it be useful to also note whether livestock were likely gaining, holding, or losing weight by using a given use area at the time and in the manner being evaluated? -- No. if managing the ground right the cattle will be fine. If not, something else is wrong.
14. Is it reasonable to attempt movement of wild horses as a strategy for rangeland health in herd management areas (territories)? If so, how?
15. Under what Nevada circumstances is lack of movement of livestock not a problem?

Patterned after the others, the Cottonwood Ranch Workshop was the latest example and had a similar agenda to this Reno Workshop

Training for Application

October 1, 2019 – Rancho San Rafael Regional Park Ranch House

1595 N. Sierra, Reno, NV

Trainers will be many of the authors:  

1. Swanson, B. Schultz, P. Novak-Echenique, K. Dyer, G. McCuin, J. Linebaugh, B. Perryman, P. Tueller, R. Jenkins, B. Scherrer, T. Vogel, D. Voth, R. Shane, M. Freese, and K.McGowan

8:30 – Overview of the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook and Adaptive Management                                                     

• Tools for Objectives
• Adaptive Management
• Short-term or Implementation Monitoring
• Long-Term or Effectiveness Monitoring
• Cooperative Permittee Monitoring
• Appendices

10:15 -- Application using Cooperative Permittee Monitoring Template case study

• Permittee Goals, needs, and Priorities
• Agency goals, needs and priorities
• Monitoring information available from the agency and Ranch
• The most important elements from documents that must be considered
• Elements that need to be updated?
• SMART objectives for the allotment or pasture
• Locations for key areas or landscape transects
• Key species and expected changes
• Long-term, effectiveness, monitoring needed
• Management strategies needing short-term, implementation monitoring
• Use of the information for adaptive management

Noon Break for Lunch

1:30 -- Assemble N. Red Rock Rd. Exit 78 off 395 for travel to rangeland focused discussion of selection of monitoring locations and methods based on objectives and strategies

4:30 Close out (We plan to be done in the field by 5:00)

The Handbook is at http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/sp_2018_03.aspx                               or contact Sherman Swanson at sswanson@cabnr.unr.edu for a PDF

Training for Riparian and Upland Application

Rafter 7 and Flying M Ranch

October 2, 2019 - Flying M Ranch Conference Center, 70 Pine Grove Rd.

17 miles south of Mason Valley on Pine Grove Rd. ½ mile east on Hilton Lane

10:30 -- Application using Cooperative Permittee Monitoring Template case study

• Permittee Goals, needs, and Priorities
• Agency goals, needs and priorities
• Monitoring information available from the agency and Ranch
• The most important elements from documents that must be considered
• Elements that need to be updated?
• SMART objectives for the allotment or pasture
• Locations for key areas or landscape transects
• Key species and expected changes
• Long-term, effectiveness, monitoring needed
• Management strategies needing short-term, implementation monitoring
• Use of the information for adaptive management

1:00 Field Riparian and rangeland focused discussion of selection of monitoring locations and methods based on objectives and strategies

3:30 Close out (We plan to be done in the field by 4:00)

The Workshops to date include:

Swanson, S., and P.Meiman 2019. Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook Training for Application. November  19-20, Cottonwood Ranch, NV

Swanson, S., D. Voth, P. Novak-Echenique, R. Jenkins, T. Vogel, and P. Tueller. 2019. Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook Training for Application. October 1, Reno, NV

Swanson, S., D. Voth, P. Novak-Echenique, T. Vogel and S. McCue. 2019. Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook Training for Application. May 15, Winnemucca NV

Swanson, S., D. Voth, P. Novak-Echenique, R. Jenkins, T. Vogel, B. Schultz, and D. G. McCuin, D. Cassinelli. 2018. Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook Training for Application. October 4, Paradise valley, NV

Swanson, S., G. McCuin, K. Dyer, C. Maser, and G. Uhalde. 2018. Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook Training for Application. September 21, Ely, NV

ROGER_factsheet

These publications are:

Swanson, Sherman and Dave Voth. 2019. Strategies for Grazing Management. College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources Extension Information Publication 19-02 5 pp.       This publication begins with the Grazing response Index and includes other strategies for accomplishing various rangeland management objectives. The need for this publication is because the 2018 Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook focuses implementation monitoring on Strategies.Strategies for grazing Management UNCE IP 19-02

Swanson, Sherman, Dave Voth, and Juan-Carlos Cervantes. 2019.  Planning for Plant Growth using the Grazing Response Index. College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources Extension Information Publication 19-03 6 pp.     This publication is to explain the GRI and in a publication that is readily available to Ranchers and others.Planning for Plant Growth using the GRI IP 19-03

Swanson, Sherman and Dave Voth. 2019. Grazing Response Index Tables for Use Areas. College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources Extension Information Publication 19-04 13 pp.    This publication is to emphasize that manageing grazing and scoring it with GRI will provide better results in smaller use areas within large pastures than in those larger pastures on average.Planning for Plant Growth using the GRI IP 19-03 GRI Tables for Use Areas UNCE IP 19-04

Swanson, Sherman and Dave Voth. 2019. Grazing Twice. College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources Extension Information Publication 19-05 10 pp.     This publication is about the growing season need for rapid movement of grazing animals and the opportunity to return in the dormant season to harvest AUMs and to graze fine fuels strategically for reducing fire risk.Grazing Twice IP 19-05-01