Progress report for SW22-934
Project Information
Wildlife-livestock conflicts such as depredation by predators challenge the livelihoods of livestock producers (hereafter, ranchers). Protecting livestock from predators is a complex endeavor, and successful predator conflict mitigation practices require both an analysis of the efficacy of various practices and collaborative information sharing across invested stakeholders. Ranchers typically use an integrated management approach - deploying mitigation practices to reduce depredation risks and lethal techniques when mitigation practices fail and lethal control is authorized. Mitigation practices include human presence (e.g., range riders), deterrents (e.g., fladry), livestock management, and habitat manipulation, but there is limited scientific information on which practices are most effective and under what scenarios they succeed or fail. Ranchers also lack adequate resources to apply mitigation practices or share knowledge gained by experience. Through a diverse partnership of ranchers, scientists, conservation groups, and agencies with decades of experience with landowner collaborative strategies and predator conflict mitigation practices, we will research the effectiveness of range riding across western landscapes with grizzly bears and wolves, host opportunities for ranchers to exchange information about mitigation practices, and disseminate information from our research and exchanges via scientific papers, extension articles, and traditional and novel education and outreach programming.
We focus on range riding because this practice is of high utility to ranchers, yet riding strategies vary widely. How and what works best is unclear, inhibiting adoption by more ranchers. Our research will describe and quantify the types and efficacy of range riding strategies, while rancher-to-rancher exchanges will provide opportunities for foundational knowledge from years of rancher experience to be distributed more broadly. Published products will add scientific credibility to the findings and reinforce learning from exchanges through multiple and highly accessible outlets. By offering diverse outreach venues, we will facilitate new and improved use of predator conflict mitigation practices and add new users; we anticipate ranchers already using these practices to fine-tune their application for increased efficacy, while others will incorporate these practices into their management for the first time. Results of our study will create adaptive and integrative predator conflict mitigation practices disseminated to 600+ ranchers across 7+ states.
We will use an iterative process to ensure successful implementation to improve sustainable agricultural practices. Information will be continuously communicated among team members about the research, outreach, and rancher-to-rancher exchanges, which will result in incremental changes in coproduction processes and in how the practices are implemented by ranchers. This project will create transformative change in agricultural sustainability by supporting a community of practice to research range riding across diverse social and ecological contexts in different grazing scenarios. Importantly, this framework will then be applied to other mitigation practices and develop mechanisms for sustainable funding of such practices through NRCS administered Farm Bill programs. By continuously coordinating with NRCS personnel and ranchers about how our research can be applied to decision-making surrounding funding for ranchers, this proposed work has the potential to establish best practices for predator conflict mitigation that significantly improve sustainable agricultural production through incentivizing the adoption of proactive strategies.
- Improve ranch profitability through range riding, a predator conflict mitigation practice that is highly adaptable across diverse ranching operations.
- Coproduce research to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of different range riding strategies across at least seven western states.
- Incorporate data collected by researchers, ranchers, and local landowner groups to accomplish a robust evaluation of conflict reduction strategies.
- Expand and integrate effective range riding strategies with adaptive conflict mitigation programs through rancher-to-rancher knowledge exchanges to support an enhanced quality of life for ranchers, livestock, and wildlife.
- Elevate conservation planning and natural resources management within predator-occupied regions through co-interpretation and dissemination of project results on range riding and other conflict mitigation practices.
- Synthesize research using metrics relevant to livestock production to indicate the value of range riding and other conflict mitigation practices to ranchers.
- Provide data to NRCS to inform the development of new or modified conservation practices to incentivize broad adoption of conflict mitigation techniques.
- Disseminate and amplify the collective experience and knowledge gained through this project by providing highly relevant content through a combination of traditional outreach programming (workshops, seminars) and novel outreach products, including audio, print, and digital platforms.
Cooperators
- - Technical Advisor
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
Research
The goal of the project is to reduce the financial and social burden of expanding predator populations through evaluation of range riding practices and information sharing among ranchers about their experience with all predator conflict mitigation practices, leading to more resilient ranches and connected landscapes.
This will be accomplished through four objectives:
- Improve ranch profitability through range riding, a predator conflict mitigation practice that is highly adaptable across diverse ranching operations;
- Expand and integrate effective range riding strategies with adaptive conflict mitigation programs through rancher-to-rancher knowledge exchanges to support an enhanced quality of life for ranchers, livestock, and wildlife.
- Elevate conservation planning and natural resources management within predator occupied regions through co-interpretation and dissemination of project results on range riding and other conflict mitigation practices; and
- Disseminate and amplify the collective experience and knowledge gained through this project by providing highly relevant content through a combination of traditional outreach programming (workshops, seminars) and novel outreach products, including audio, print, and digital platforms.
Objective 1 focuses on research, while objectives 2-4 are primarily concerned with education and outreach, so they are described in detail in the educational section below. However, all the results and information we learn from reaching our research objective will be applied to the educational objectives. We will work to ensure the information is accurate and readily available to incorporate into objectives 2-4 using an iterative process. As we gain information from objective 1, we will incorporate it into the outreach materials, disseminate it at workshops, and discuss it at rancher-to-rancher exchanges. We will then get feedback from ranchers and other stakeholders through this process as to the clarity of information, the relevancy of these findings to their practices, and what other information is needed.
There are several steps to accomplishing our research objective. First, we will meet with individual ranchers and landowner groups. As part of our existing Conservation on Workinglands Conservation Innovation Grant for the past year, (CoW-CIG) we ran focus groups that met monthly or more frequently with ranchers from across the West to understand what value riding provided to them, how best to measure that value, and what methods would be useful and feasible to measure that value. Our existing funding allows us to examine the influence of varied rider strategies on 1) annual depredation rates, 2) historical indirect losses, and 3) chemical indicators of stress in cattle herds in an effort to improve rancher profitability through reducing conflict, enhancing stewardship through an improved understanding of how a rider can reduce cattle stress that leads to indirect losses, and improving overall quality of life for ranchers and their communities by helping to empower operational decision-making.
More specifically our primary research objectives (1-2) and hypotheses (ai - ii):
- Identify whether varied range riding activity alters behavioral indicators of stress in cattle;
- As rider intensity, time spent within proximity of the herd, and time riding at dusk, dawn, or at night increase,
- seasonal herd vigilance will decrease, and
- average time spent in high-quality foraging areas will increase.
- As rider intensity, time spent within proximity of the herd, and time riding at dusk, dawn, or at night increase,
- Conduct unstructured interviews with livestock producers to capture the unique operational, environmental, and economic context driving decision making on husbandry techniques like range riding, and to capture the unique challenges of livestock production as related to predator conflict.
Objective 1: To examine the influence of varied rider activity on cattle behavior, we have been, and will continue to collect several data streams during the spring 2023 and 2024 grazing seasons across three operations - one in Washington, and two in Montana. These include data on rider activity, habitat features and forage quality/quantity, predator spatial use, and cattle behavioral activity. All of these operations have active wolf and grizzly bear populations.
Range Rider Data
In grazing seasons 2022, 2023, and 2024, participating range riders completed rider data sheets. We encouraged daily data collection but to accommodate time constraints of range riders, we also allowed for weekly data collection (Nickerson_Daily_Rider, Nickerson_Weekly_Rider). Several riders in Washington and Montana also recorded their riding tracks in a GPS unit. Range riders were trained each spring on data collection for both GPS units and data sheets that were provided at the start of the season. Range Rider GPS tracks will be used to compare rider landscape use and proximity to cattle location data (recorded by the rider) and carnivore location data when available. Rider data sheets provide data on 1) rider intensity (frequency and duration of rides, and how often a rider uses management in the field while riding such as moving cattle, fixing fence, etc.), 2) time within proximity versus away from the herd (and activity when away), 3) time of day or night riding, and 4) observations while monitoring the herd and of carnivore activity. Combined, these data comprehensively define rider intensity, use of the landscape, timing, and monitoring.
Environmental Data
Environmental data will be collected this fall and next spring through our producer partners and existing open-sourced data such as ArcGIS Pro, MODIS, Western Regional Climate Centers, and through data-sharing agreements with wildlife agencies. Examples of needed data include seasonal drought conditions, forage quality and quantity, water sources, whether herds are receiving supplemental feed, and alternative native prey densities. These variables of interest and covariates will be used to isolate the influence of varied rider behavior on herd behavioral stress from other potential stressors like heat, cold, illness, and distance to water.
Predator Data
We collected data on predator locations using three methods: 1) rider observations recorded via rider data sheets (see attachments), 2) data provided by wildlife agencies through data sharing agreements, and 3) game camera grids deployed on grazing allotments/pastures (already purchased). On each operation, we deployed 30 cameras in three grids of 10 cameras. Grid locations were selected based on areas of high use by cattle and were moved over the course of the season to match the timing of when cattle were moved to new grazing areas. Together, all three methods will provide a more robust understanding of predator presence than each could provide alone.
Cattle Behavioral Data
To explore the influence of riding on behavioral indicators of stress in livestock, and the potential influence of behavioral stress on weaning weights, reproduction, and illness, we have been measuring two metrics: 1) cattle vigilance, and 2) cattle landscape use behavior. Vigilance is the amount of time cattle spend moving or on the lookout for predators rather than eating, ruminating, or resting, all of which contribute to weight gain, reproductive success, and reduced illness [7]. We collected cattle vigilance data from camera trap photos of cattle captured via our existing camera trap grids (10 cameras per grid), and via rider observations recorded on rider data sheets. At the end of the season, all cattle photos will be categorized as either vigilant (head up above shoulders and not chewing, running) or not vigilant (head down at or below shoulders feeding, head up above shoulders chewing, walking, or lying down/resting/ ruminating). Because cattle are often in groups, we count the total number of individuals in each photograph and the proportion of cows, our cattle of interest, that are vigilant/not vigilant. Photos from last season (2022) are being coded now. Rider data sheets from last season are also being thematically analyzed for cattle behavior and given a similar scoring of vigilant or not vigilant. Thus, at the end of the season, each of the three herds will have 31 date-specific vigilance scores – a scoring for each game camera deployed, and a scoring from each recorded rider data sheet. Scorings will then be averaged to a daily vigilance score.
To collect livestock landscape use data, we deployed VHF collars and ear tags on three operations during this grazing season. VHF collars have allowed the riders to more easily locate and record cattle locations on rider data sheets, which will not only allow for improved cattle location data, but also a comparison between riders with, and without VHF assistance. We prioritized collaring lead cows at the three operations, with a minimum of 20% of each herd receiving a collar or ear tag. Cattle were collared at the start of the season with help from ranchers, riders, and their employees. Cattle location data will be used to evaluate the quality and quantity of forage available in areas where herds are spending most of their time. Furthermore, this information will be compared to the varied behavior of riders and predators to understand if riders reduce predator-induced stress in cattle, therefore improving foraging behavior that leads to higher weaning weights.
To map high-priority grazing areas at each of the three operations, we will use ArcGIS Pro and MODIS to map out areas of high forage quality (NDVI), forage quantity (NPP), and acceptable distance to water over all utilized allotments and pastures. We will then bring these maps to our producer and rider partners for confirmation and adjustment if needed. Where possible, priority areas will reflect seasonal changes in green-up based on the dates that livestock were present.
By modeling both herd vigilance and herd landscape use/foraging behavior as a function of varied rider activity and varied predator activity, these data will allow us to answer the following research questions:
- Does varied rider activity influence the proximity of predators to cattle?
- Does varied rider activity influence vigilance in cattle?
- Does varied rider activity influence the quality of foraging areas used by cattle?
Cattle Chemical Data:
On seven ranches our first season (2022) and 13 in 2023, we collected hair samples from cow tails for cortisol and thyroid function analyses. We sampled at least 20% of the herd in both the spring and fall efforts. Fall samples from 2022 and spring samples from 2023 have yet to be analyzed by the Smithsonian, but spring 2022 cortisol samples from four of our ranches showed a wide range in cortisol levels across herds (see attachment). For this reason, we changed our sampling protocol to at least 20% of the herd from 10% to capture more inter- and intra-herd diversity.
By incorporating cattle behavioral analysis into our range riding methods, the potential influence of a rider on indirect losses can be more accurately determined, since it is likely that behavioral stress responses to predation risk have a larger influence on weaning weights, reproduction, and illness than chemical responses to stress alone. The analysis of both behavioral and chemical responses are needed to accurately model herd stress, and the methods outlined above will allow us to measure whether riders can improve cattle foraging time, resting time, and the quality of forage used by a herd.
Objective 2: As mentioned above, conflict reduction tools are often created and evaluated without the direct involvement of ranchers. This can result in tools being researched at inappropriate temporal or spatial scales, or testing within a limited scope that does not account for the diverse, complex, and sometimes limiting relationships between an operation’s social, ecological, and economic dynamics. In turn, this can result in tools or solutions that are not feasible to deploy or maintain, are cost prohibitive, or simply ineffective in certain contexts. The coproduction of our research questions and methods have ensured that our temporal and spatial scales are sufficiently diverse, but capturing qualitative data will be critical to ensuring our findings are representative of diverse landowner needs and circumstances.
To capture this complexity, we conducted unstructured interviews (Interview Questions CIG) with the majority of our 30+ rancher and range rider partners operating in Washington, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, California, New Mexico, and Arizona - including all ranchers from the existing CoW-CIG, and the three additional ranchers involved in the research outlined above for Objective 1. (see Results and Discussion). All operations have active wolf populations, and operations in Washington and Montana also have active grizzly bear populations. Interview questions asked ranchers to reflect on range riding as a tool, to describe their range riding-related husbandry practices and operational protocols, identify production limitations that may influence the effectiveness of a range rider, and describe anticipated challenges to accurately analyzing range riding’s potential. Ranchers were encouraged to lead conversations in whatever direction they would like, and interviews were recorded. Because of a stop-work order from Montana State University based on their interpretation of federal orders on our remaining grant, we are currently seeking funding for two part time technicians to help Ph.D. student Rae Nickerson transcribe and code interviews this spring using inductive thematic analysis (Marshall & Rossman, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2006). Inductive thematic analysis is a qualitative data analysis technique where themes are derived from the data themselves as opposed to being predetermined, then categorized after data collection (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We will categorize and code distinct responses until saturation of categories is met, and response frequencies achieved. Interview findings will be crucial to capturing the diverse and complex relationships driving rancher decision-making on the operation and provide the needed descriptions for the development of future technical and financial support programs like those provided by NRCS.
To maintain other project objectives and goals, during the 2023 and 2024 grazing seasons, Rae Nickerson and her technicians continued to meet regularly with producer and rider partners to co-collect data and maintain relationships. Fieldwork started in January and ended in November, and Rae’s team spent most of that time living and working with producers and range riders in the field. We have also continued to meet regularly with our producer and rider partners, although less formally (often on the phone), to ensure that our coproduced findings are being co-interpreted.
Lastly, our team maintained regular communication with our rider and producer partners during the 2023 and 2024 seasons to ensure our research methods measured metrics relevant to livestock production, and our products communicate coproduced findings in a way that is relevant to livestock production (see Products for our Range Rider Toolkit coproduced with our partners at Western Landowners Alliance).
Over time, as operations, participating producers, predator populations, and extenuating circumstances have evolved over the last 3 years, so have our research objectives to accommodate. To note, the primary research objectives to help achieve our project’s consistent goal are:
- Evaluate the effectiveness of different intensities and styles of riding at reducing behavioral and chemical indicators of stress in grazing livestock.
- Through interviews with ranchers, provide the context and detail necessary to understand decision making around range riding as it relates to operational management and protocols, ecosystem resiliency, and economic sustainability.
- Coproduce these findings through incorporating data collected by researchers, ranchers, and landowner groups to create a robust evaluation of range riding.
- Co-interpret and disseminate our coproduced findings on range riding with ranchers and landowner groups, wildlife management agencies, and policy makers.
- Ensure our research methods measure metrics relevant to livestock production, and our products communicate coproduced findings in a way that is relevant to livestock production.
Objective 1: In 2022 we collected data from 210 game cameras across seven ranches, and 390 cameras on 13 different ranches in 2023 and 2024. Spring and fall cattle hair samples from 2022 (n = 256) and 2023 (1723) were analyzed by the Smithsonian winter 2024, and the remaining 2024 season samples (n = about 1500 – 2000, some still to be collected from producers) will be analyzed this spring when the Smithsonian hires a spring technician. Once we receive the results, chemical analysis and comparison to behavioral and physiological markers of stress in cattle will be completed by Rae Nickerson by summer 2026 (see Research Outcomes for a preliminary analysis).
While attempting to code our game camera photos after our first season, we realized quickly that we did not have the resources (both financial and human power) to code our images by hand. Coding would have taken us over 11,000 hours of work. To remediate this situation, we reached out to researchers at the University of Michigan working on a new AI software built to code lab videos for animal behavior called LabGym (Hu et al., 2023). Collaboratively, we have been adjusting this software to also work for photos, and we hope to write a methods paper together over the next few years. The software edits and updates for our purposes were completed this winter when Rae was home from the field, and now we are coding our photos to train the software in species and behavioral recognition before running LabGy,m which should take about a month. We hope to have all photos coded and categorized by LabGym by May 2025, and vigilance analysis completed by summer 2026.
In 2023, we collected cattle location data by deploying 219 collars/ear tags across four ranches. We had a collar/tag failure rate of about 30% by the time units were removed in October and November of 2023. However, we found from communication with range riders that finding cows with at least 20% herd coverage was more than sufficient (continuously hearing 3-6 cows at once). For that reason, we only collared 10% of each herd in 2024 to simplify our process and stay within the number of remaining functional units. We deployed about 150 VHF collars/tags on three of the same ranches last year, adding a new producer in Washington state. We did not place collars on cattle in Oregon last year. Collars and tags were removed during the October and November months with a similar failure rate of about 40%. About 20% of the remaining rider data sheets (with cattle VHF location information data) are still being mailed to us by producers and range riders.
We will co-create forage quality/quantity maps with producers this spring before the 2026 grazing season. Trying to sit producers down to look at maps during the grazing season last season was too challenging, and folks were unavailable over the holidays. With these maps, we will be able to look at whether carnivore and rider activity altered the quality of foraging areas used by cattle. We hope to have all mapping and forage quality analysis done by summer 2026.
Exploratory analyses on cattle hair samples:
To study how (1) predator activity and (2) rider activity influence chemical indicators of stress in livestock, we trimmed the tails of at least 30% of each participating herd – once in the spring immediately before livestock were turned-out onto grazing allotments, and once in the fall right after the herd returned from allotment at the end of the grazing season. Our spring season samples represent a “baseline” measure of herd stress, and we only analyzed one spring sample per herd, although we trimmed each spring to clear new growth before the grazing season started. Alternatively, our fall season samples only represent grazing season-specific stress. Therefore, each herd has one baseline spring sample and a fall/grazing season sample for each grazing season they participated in the study.
We conducted a preliminary analysis on cow hair samples collected during the 2023 season (spring and fall) from three ranches: ranch O (n = 162), A (n = 27), and I (n = 33). We examined ranches that were geographically and operationally similar because we expect several environmental and operational covariates to also influence stress markers in cattle (Heimbürge et al., 2019; Moya et al., 2013; Bristow & Holmes, 2007). We wanted to test whether there was a significant statistical difference between cortisol and thyroid levels across (1) spring and fall samples, and (2) ranches. Using a two-way ANOVA, we found a significant effect of ranch on cortisol levels (p < 0.001), and of season on cortisol levels dependent on ranch (p = 0.02), but there was no significant effect of season on cortisol levels (p = 0.94). Calculating for effect size, we found that ranch explained approximately 20% of the variance on cortisol concentration, compared to less than 1% variance explained by season.
We then ran a Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference test for ranch, season, and the interaction of ranch and season. We found that there was no significant difference between ranch I and ranch A, (p = 0.27), a significant difference between ranch O and ranch A (p < 0.001) with ranch O having higher cortisol concentrations, and a significant difference between ranch O and ranch I (p < 0.001) with ranch O again having higher concentrations. Season remained non-significant (p = 0.95). Looking at the interaction between ranch and season, we found that ranch O consistently has higher cortisol concentrations than ranch I in both autumn and spring (p < 0.001 for both seasons), and higher concentrations than ranch A only in autumn (p < 0.001).
Figure 1.
We then ran a Kruskal-Wallis to test for the significance of ranch and season on our thyroid data. We found that season did not have a significant effect (p = 0.34, chi-squared = 6.06) but ranch had a significant effect (p = 0.05, chi-squared = 0.90). We then ran a Dunn test and found that thyroid levels were significantly different between ranch A and ranch I (p = 0.02), and ranch O and ranch I (p = 0.02), but not between ranch O and ranch A (p = 0.43).
Figure 2.
To compare differences in cortisol concentrations across seasons for each ranch, we ran paired t-tests. On ranch O, there was no significant difference for cortisol levels between seasons (p = 0.23, t-statistic = -1.22) with a mean difference of -0.04ng/ml between spring and fall. On ranch A, the seasonal difference was significant (p < 0.01, t-statistic = 3.65) with a mean difference of 0.25ng/ml between spring and fall. On ranch I, there was no significant difference (p = 0.95, test-statistic = 0.07) with a mean difference of 0.00 between spring and fall.
Figure 3.
Next, we ran the Wilcoxon tests for seasonality differences in thyroid levels for each ranch where “V” represents the magnitude of change in thyroid levels between spring and fall, but p-values represent whether that magnitude is significant regardless of the size of V. We found that ranch O had a significant difference in thyroid levels across seasons (p < 0.001, V = 13), as did ranch A (p < 0.001, V = 102). Ranch I did not have a significant difference (p = 0.78, V = 70).
Figure 4.
All research figures: WSARE Report_Figures
Discussion:
The results of our preliminary analysis showed a significant effect of ranch on cortisol and thyroid levels, but a non-significant effect of season on either. Ranch O had significantly higher cortisol levels than ranch I in spring and autumn, and ranch A only in autumn. The only significant difference in cortisol concentrations between spring and autumn was on ranch A, with a mean difference of 0.25ng/ml. Thyroid levels were significantly lower on ranch I compared to ranches A and O, and ranches O and A had significantly different thyroid levels between seasons, but not ranch I.
It's important to note that these preliminary results have yet to be analyzed with the many covariates that also influence cortisol and thyroid levels. “Ranch” and “Season” contain many potential individual drivers of chemical stress markers such as forage quality/quantity, predator activity, allotment size, supplementary feeding protocols, and more. The following discussion is purely exploratory, and our future analyses will incorporate all landscape, operational, and other covariates necessary to tease out the impact of predator and rider activity.
We did not expect to see a significant difference in cortisol and thyroid levels between seasons since grazing season growth from past years (including the cortisol and thyroid concentrations from those grazing seasons) would be included in the hair of our spring baseline samples. We did expect to see differences across ranches since, as mentioned above, several landscape and operational factors can influence cortisol and thyroid levels, including our predator and rider activity variables of interest.
We did not expect cortisol concentrations to be highest on the O ranch. Although strictly speculation at this point, ranch O has historically had fewer wolf conflicts than ranches A and I, so we expected to see lower concentrations. It is possible that because ranch O operates on allotments significantly larger than ranches A and I, cattle may need to travel farther distances for quality forage and water, and cortisol concentrations also increase from increased activity via the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, although more analysis is needed (Gerlach, 2015). It is also possible that cattle, like other mammals, adapt to constant and acute stressors, muting their cortisol response (Caceres et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2015). This may have resulted in lower cortisol concentrations on ranch A and I with historically more wolf conflicts. Whereas rare interactions may spike stress, and caused the higher levels observed at ranch O. This is why comparing our chemical data to our behavioral (vigilance) and physiological data (body scores and reproductive rates) will be crucial, as behavioral and physiological indicators of stress would still be high on ranches with predator pressure despite an adapted, muted cortisol response (Gy et al., 2002; Pryce et al., 2001).
The one ranch with higher cortisol concentrations in the spring compared to the fall was ranch A. Ranch A has constant wolf pressure year-round compared to ranches O and I where animals only experience predation pressure during the fall/grazing season. Since the baseline sample for ranch A includes cortisol levels from year-round predator pressure, this may explain why spring cortisol concentrations were higher than fall alone.
Thyroid levels are primarily an indicator of whether sufficient nutrition is available (Gy et al., 20022), and although one might expect nutrition to improve during the grazing season, all three of these herds receive supplementary feeding and mineral during the non-grazing season. Thyroid levels were lowest on ranch I which has historically had a significant amount of wolf conflict. Since both thyroid levels and cortisol concentrations were low, it’s possible that cows from ranch I are experiencing the muted cortisol response caused by acute and constant predator-induced stress, while still showing increased vigilance (to be examined), and decreased thyroid levels.
Both ranches O and A had significant seasonal differences in thyroid levels, where ranch A had higher levels in the spring, and ranch O had higher levels in the fall. We will need to explore operational and landscape covariates like supplementary feeding and mineral protocols and forage availability to better understand these results.
Objective 2: Due to the full-time nature of our fieldwork and our commitments to our peer-to-peer range rider workshops (see Education and Outreach Results), we are behind where we would like to be on our interview analysis. Although all 25 interviews with our willing/available producer are rider partners were completed last season, our workload increased significantly after we took on seven additional producers to our study during the summer of 2023. We were able to secure additional funding for technician wages and travel, but all funds ended up being needed for technician field work. Additionally, a stop-work order from Montana State University based on their interpretation of federal orders on our remaining grant has resulted in funds we planned on having no longer being available. Thus, we are currently seeking funding for two part time technicians to help Ph.D. student Rae Nickerson transcribe and code a large number of interviews this spring using inductive thematic analysis. If awarded requested funding, we hope to get technicians hired no later than April and transcription and analysis complete by June 2026. Rae will then write up the results by early fall 2026.
Objectives 3, 4, and 5:
Rae is still waiting on some 2024 data from producers (rider data sheets, cow tail hair samples, allotment boundaries, and seasonal final numbers). Rae will continue to collect these data via phone calls, emails, and mail this spring, aiming to finish analysis by this summer, and at least one academic publication and one Extension Guide by fall/winter 2026. Rae Nickerson will also use these communications over the phone and Zoom this spring and summer to wrap up analysis, coproduce results, and disseminate findings with the agricultural community, landowner groups, wildlife management agencies, researchers, and policy makers (see Education and Outreach for details on range rider workshops).
Citations:
- Bristow, D. J., & Holmes, D. S. (2007). Cortisol levels and anxiety-related behaviors in cattle. Physiology & Behavior, 90(4), 626–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.12.009
- Caceres, S., Moreno, J., Crespo, B., Silvan, G., & Illera, J. C. (2023). Physiological stress responses in cattle used in the Spanish rodeo. Animals, 13(16), 2654. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13162654
- Chen, Y., Arsenault, R., Napper, S., & Griebel, P. (2015). Models and methods to investigate acute stress responses in cattle. Animals, 5(4), 1268–1295. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani5040402
- Gerlach, B. M. (2014). The effects of exercise on beef cattle health, performance, and carcass quality; and the effects of extended aging, blade tenderization, and degree of doneness on beef aroma volatile formation (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University). K-REx. https://krex.k-state.edu/handle/2097/17229
- Gy, H., Kulcsár, M., & Rudas, P. (2002). Clinical endocrinology of thyroid gland function in ruminants. Veterinární Medicína, 47(7), 199–210.
- Heimbürge, S., Kanitz, E., & Otten, W. (2019). The use of hair cortisol for the assessment of stress in animals. General and Comparative Endocrinology, 270, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2018.09.016
- Hu, Y., Ferrario, C. R., Maitland, A. D., Ionides, R. B., Ghimire, A., Watson, B., ... & Ye, B. (2023). LabGym: Quantification of user-defined animal behaviors using learning-based holistic assessment. Cell Reports Methods, 3(3), 100461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmeth.2023.100461
- Moya, D., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. S., & Veira, D. M. (2013). Standardization of a noninvasive methodology to measure cortisol in hair of beef cattle. Livestock Science, 158(1–3), 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.10.007
- Gillund, P., Reksen, O., Gröhn, Y. T., & Karlberg, K. (2001). Body condition related to ketosis and reproductive performance in Norwegian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 84(6), 1390–1396. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70170-1
- Pryce, J. E., Coffey, M. P., & Simm, G. (2001). The relationship between body condition score and reproductive performance. Journal of Dairy Science, 84(6), 1508–1515. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70184-1
Research Outcomes
Objective 1: Recommendations for sustainable agriculture production and future research from our objective 1 findings will be available as soon as we finish coding and analyzing our data. Our exploratory cortisol concentration and thyroid levels analysis of ranches O, A, and I did not incorporate sufficient covariates to feel confident making recommendations or conclusions (see updated timeline for details).
Objective 2: Although interview analysis is not complete, we are seeing trends. Common themes from interviews with range riders and ranchers across the west include: 1) Being unable to afford a range rider if the costs were not somehow subsidized as they are for many producers by an agency (e.g., Washington State Department of Agriculture grant or Defenders of Wildlife), 2) being unsure if range riders are actually reducing conflict, but wanting to use a range rider for the additional benefits a range rider provides (communication across ranches, faster depredation detection, or catching other on-range issues like injury or illness), 3) that an effective range rider needs to have cattle experience, not just wildlife experience, and 4) that they have noticed reductions in both calf weights and cow reproduction since carnivore populations increased locally. When analysis is complete, we will be able to share these perceptions to help riders and range rider programs be more effective across varied operational, environmental, and economic contexts.
At our two peer-to-peer range rider workshops, the experiential knowledge of producers and riders were collected during panel discussions, breakout groups, and inter-stakeholder group discussion. Although yet to be analyzed, preliminary findings were meaningful. Regarding what skills/traits are needed by a rider to be effective, producers stated that riders need to (1) have a great work ethic and flexible schedule, (2) be trusted by the local community, (3) listen well, be curious to learn and keen to observe, (4) know the specific terrain and livestock herd (with recognition that this takes on average 1-2 full years), (5) have livestock skills and prioritize stockmanship, not just wildlife skills, (6) have excellent wildlife track and sign skills, (7) want to come back year after year, and the most requested skill/trait (8) good communication skills and the ability to maintain and build trust with a diverse set of stakeholders.
Common concerns included (1) how do we keep range rider programs funded so that good riders want to come back each year, (2) how do we familiarize riders with more than one allotment so they can cover for one another more effectively, but not in a way that prevents each rider from learning their herd and allotment, (3) how do we better deploy riders by knowing where conflict is/will be concentrated, (4) whether producers should be allowed to ride their own herds as part of a funded range rider program, (5) how do we provide work for riders off season, and (6) how do we find riders with the diverse skillset required to be effective?
Collectively, participants at each workshop defined good range riding and range rider programming as (1) happy livestock, (2) good pregnancy rates, (3) healthy and sustainable range forage, (4) riders who know their allotment and their herd so well that they can recognize problems quickly, (5) shared wolf/predator location information, (6) improved relationships, and (7) improved carcass detection rates. Aspects that participants believed would improve riding’s effectiveness included (1) access to thermal, (2) access to wolf collar data and/or VHF telemetry (mixed – some participants see access to wolf collar data as a distraction and not that useful), and (3) better property access (especially for agency riders). Both workshops agreed that how a rider should spend their time and what an “effective rider” looks like will always be context specific to each ranch/allotment, regardless of how we try to cookie-cutter define what a “range rider” is. Flexibility is key.
When asked what metrics should be used to distribute range riders across a landscape with many producers requesting riders and only so many riders (think NRCS ranking protocols/questions), participants collectively agreed that (1) history of conflict, (2) current conflict, (3) known wolf presence, and (4) rancher acceptance/willingness should be considered (not in order of importance). How many riders were needed to effectively cover what number of head/acres was a lingering question.
Participants agreed that some kind of range rider accreditation or training program was needed at a west-wide scale. This presented a challenge in both groups, as ranchers expressed concern about being passed more responsibility/burden related to carnivore conflict to “train” riders that will not be riding their allotments, while also recognizing that the best training would have to happen on allotment with the producer due to the context-dependent nature of range riding. A combination of off-site initial training through a training program followed by on-ranch training with the producer, ranch employee, or other riders was suggested. Partnering with universities, particularly Extension, was mentioned as a possible way forward for the initial accreditation/training program.
Objective 3, 4, and 5: Although still wrapping up data collection and analyses, we believe our findings will be drastically improved by having producer and rider partners coproducing research with us every step of the way of this project. We have created ample opportunities for co-interpretation and the dissemination of our preliminary findings and will continue to prioritize such moving forward (see Education and Outreach for details on, and survey responses from our Range Rider Toolkit, webinars, workshops, and trainings).
In late 2023, our collective efforts resulted in 22 million dollars becoming available through NRCS for range riding efforts in Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, and Arizona. Our broader CoW-CIG team has been working to make information available to landowners on how to qualify and apply for these funds (see Education and Outreach for more on our peer-to-peer range rider workshops).
Education and Outreach
Participation Summary:
Through the duration of this grant, we measured success through progress towards and achievement of the following grant deliverables including:
- Annual structured meeting;
- Regional workshops, clinics, and/or annual webinar series;
- New podcast and video series;
- Development of a “Toolkit” for Livestock Producers; and
- Multimedia distribution to sustain and amplify these activities.
Within the following section, we offer a summary of these proposed deliverables, methods of evaluation, and a brief summary of what has been achieved to date to be expanded within the results section.
1: We will hold an annual meeting for each year of the project and a final meeting at the end of the project as opportunities to present results and engage the broad spectrum of project participants (individual ranchers, landowner collaboratives, NRCS specialist, extension specialist, USDA-WS, and state wildlife agencies). Metrics: Participation - 200 stakeholders annually.
Annual Meeting: Held meetings in 2022, 2023 and 2024 that convened diverse stakeholders, engaging the broad spectrum of participants within the effort to research the effectiveness of range riding, share resources, and identify durable cost-sharing opportunities.
In 2025, the greater project team and partners will meet for a final time to review project results and celebrate outcomes and accomplishments.
2: We plan to conduct yearly regional workshops and several range riding clinics for the three years of the project. These workshops will focus on synthesizing the latest research and producer-led presentations around “lessons learned” from the field surrounding range riding practices and/or other predator conflict mitigation practices (Objective 2). Metric: Surveys, participation.
Eight regional workshops were held by partner organizations Western Landowners Alliance and The Heart of the Rockies in Arizona, Montana, Colorado, Oregon and Wyoming, focused on range riding and other nonlethal tools to reduce predator conflicts.
3: To increase the educational reach into communities, five additional tools have been noted as important components of the Extension toolbox: blogs, wikis, Facebook, YouTube, and podcasts [27]. Although the traditional forms of Extension program delivery will continue to play an important role, podcasts are poised to be one of the most effective forms of Extension education because information can be effectively distributed to global audiences without the need for in-person contact. Podcasts have a similar niche as webpages in that you only have to build it once, and the audience is limitless [26]. Metric: Building capacity and publishing/advertising season 1 of WWU
Within the first project year of this grant, the team was scheduled to release one season of the Working Wild U Podcast, as well as convene a media campaign to widely distribute the podcast. That season, ‘Wolves in the West’ was released end of 2022 and through the spring of 2023.
4: As we near project completion in year 3, we will synthesize results based on the evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of range riding and other predator conflict mitigation practices (Objective 1) and best management practices developed through rancher-to-rancher stakeholder learning at annual workshops (Objective 2). This synthesis will be used to design a user-friendly toolkit to guide and facilitate producer adoption of the most effective implementation approaches to predator conflict mitigation practices based on ranch-specific goals, capacities, and resource conditions. Metric: Completion of Guide.
Guided by livestock producers and other dedicated people working daily to reduce, manage, and mitigate predation risk on working wild landscapes, the range riding, carcass management and electric fencing toolkits highlight decades of experience compiled into three documents that make up the Producer Toolkit for Predation Risk Management. This Toolkit is a compilation of direct experience and knowledge of risk assessment, range riding, carcass management, and various types of electric fencing.
5: We will use multimedia to distribute information about outreach activities 1-4 to help amplify and scale outreach efforts in order to engage a larger community of predator conflict mitigation practice users and practitioners in an effort to improve the likelihood of adoption (Objectives 4). Metric: E Newsletters reaching 1,300 Subscribers, On Land Magazine Reaching 10,000 Land Stewards. Delivered through Gov Delivery Email (100,000 subscribers).
Ongoing
- Annual structured meeting: Metrics - Participation
Conflict Reduction Consortium (CRC) Annual Meeting: On October 11th - 12th, 2022 the CRC meeting was convened at the Buffalo Bill Center of the West in Cody, WY. There, 30 participants representing livestock producers groups, state and federal wildlife management agencies, NRCS staff, and researchers convened to chart a path forward for the CRC maintain it’s role as a radical-center messenger, expand policy work, and continue knowledge exchange essential to sharing best practices for practices to reduce conflicts such as range riding.
CRC Annual meeting
Participation: 30
Qualitative Insights: When participants were asked why the keep participating in the Conflict Reduction Consortium.
- “It is one of the few meeting places that makes progress on tough issues by bringing often conflicting or different views into a well-facilitated space.”
- “I think we accomplish a great amount of collaboration and outreach with CRC, and I hope that we can keep the momentum going, and I want to be a positive driver of that movement.”
- “It's a great opportunity for shared learning. I believe it's important [for people in academia, NGOs, and agencies] to be connected to people on the ground dealing with the issues first hand, and the CRC has been a great way to do that.”
- Working together is synergistic and ties the western ranchers together. I believe that the CRC can become the most effective west wide resource for finding and implementing conflict mitigation ideas.”
- “Because it is one of the few meeting places that makes progress on tough issues by bringing often conflicting or different views into a well-facilitated space. That rarely happens well outside of the CRC. It is inspiring.”
Together with developing a 3-5 year work-plan for the CRC, this meeting re-affirmed the importance of the community of practice, trust, and collective potential for this group to further policies and practices to support wildlife-livestock conflict reduction in the West.
Convening on Collaboration and Conflict Prevention: On June 14th and 15th, 2023, more than one hundred individuals representing landowners, agricultural producers, Tribes, state and federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations from across Montana and the West gathered in Missoula, Montana, to explore solutions that would increase funding, technical assistance, and coordination to prevent conflicts between carnivores and agricultural producers, while supporting the economic viability of working lands that provide important space for wildlife.
Conflict Prevention/Coordination meeting
Participants: 105
As a result of this meeting, momentum is building to further align state and Tribal agency capacities with federal technical and financial assistance to support coordinated landowner and agency-implemented conflict prevention practices to reduce conflicts between agricultural operations and wildlife for the long term.
Priority needs and opportunities highlighted by participants across the workshop included:
- Increased coordination across partners and agencies to foster collaboration, information sharing and learning, and the most efficient use of resources. This is best accomplished by somebody who is paid to fill that role, and most likely within an agency and thus capable of working peer-to-peer with the diversity of state, federal and Tribal agencies. That said, existing forums for working across watersheds such as the Locally-Led Conflict Reduction Partnership and the Conflict Reduction Consortium, are filling an important role and should continue.
- Increased public and private financial resources to lower the burden on those agricultural producers, Tribes, and locally-led partnerships who need to decrease their time fundraising for conflict prevention measures so they can increase their time implementing solutions. Sustainability of these funding resources is also essential to increase participation and succeed in achieving the long-term goals of working lands and healthy wildlife populations—both of which are critical to rural economies.
- Increased technical assistance to agricultural producers, Tribes, and community-based organizations interested in implementing conflict prevention measures. Technical assistance should include electric fencing technicians working with local landowners to secure attractants, support to set up and deliver carcass removal and composting programs, guard dog experts to inform landowners about options for using dogs to protect livestock and other attractants such as grain storage facilities, and range riders to increase monitoring of livestock on open range.
- Support from state and federal leaders as well as communities for investing in locally and Tribally-led programs. To succeed in preventing conflicts, it is critical that there is leadership and support from the top of government all the way down to individual community members and residents.
- Scientific monitoring and research to support the growing use of these tools, increase our understanding of best practices, and demonstrate success. In addition, social science research would increase our understanding of how producers and rural residents view these tools
We have received very positive feedback from landowners and producers regarding this worksop, which can be summarized via these quotes:
- “I just wanted to write you a note and thank you for the invitation to the workshop. I usually avoid that sort of thing, if I can, but must confess that I am glad that I attended. I learned some things, got a few new ideas, and got to see some people that I haven't seen in many years. If it comes around next year, I hope that I will be welcome to attend.”
- “This workshop just felt different. I can’t explain it, but I felt like everyone there was trying to address the same challenges, rather than trying to prove the other is wrong. It gives me hope that something good will come out of it.
Conflict on Working Lands Conservation Innovation Grant Annual Meeting and Celebration
Participants: 55
Envisioning new paths forward to expand upon the Conflict on Working Lands Conservation Innovation Grant (CoW-CIG), The Cow-CIG and Western SARE team gathered in Missoula Montana on February 27th and 28th 2024 to review lessons learned, celebrate successes, and brainstorm next steps to continue and expand partnerships to streamline research and delivery of predation risk management practices. 55 agency, NGO, rancher, and range rider partners attended both in person and over Zoom to provide feedback on the research/coproduction process of the CoW-CIG and Western SARE grants, education materials including the three documents that make up the producer toolkit and to help inform and design the scope of work for the funds awarded to Western Landowners Alliance (WLA) and Heart of the Rockies (part of the 22 million awarded through the RCPP), and continue building relationships/trust important for successful implementation of tools such as Range Riding.
Priority needs and opportunities highlighted by workshop participants include:
- Effective and efficient delivery of conflict prevention grants will require an increased level of coordination between all stakeholders – state and federal agencies, Tribes, producers, communities, and NGOs. This coordination is also critical to ensure that these new investments complement and are additive to the existing contributions of many supporting conflict prevention work.
- Explore and pursue additional state and federal funding sources for place-based collaborative groups providing important coordination for predation risk management practices
- Seek to simplify the process of collecting data from livestock producers, and ensure that we are using the data to solve issues faced by the landowners/support production.
- Pursue state-level coordinators where RCPP funds are implemented to build relationships and help to organize projects at the state level.
- Seek expanded funding for USDA-led conflict prevention, using the example of feral swine funding in the last Farm bill as a model for expanded investment.
Results from administered surveys indicated that attending livestock producers received tremendous value from this workshop.
- Of the seven producers queried, all indicated an overall “Excellent” rating for the meeting.
- When asked how likely they would use some aspect of the project a participant shared: “Will continue to develop relations with folks met and work on sharing resources and knowledge, especially with on-the-ground tool implementation.”
- Further, all participants responded “strongly agree” across the board on the questions the instructor(s): Stimulated me to learn, presented information that will help me, related program content to real-life situations, stimulated me to think how to use the information, demonstrated enthusiasm, and showed respect for all persons attending the program.
2. Regional workshops, clinics, and/or annual webinar series: Metrics: Capacity Built.
- Colorado (35 participants): Western Landowners Alliance worked as a bridging organization to connect producers in North Park Colorado who were experiencing consistent wolf conflicts for the first time in over 100 years, with Cat Urbigkit, a rancher, writer, and range riding expert. Cat shared her experience employing game cameras for carnivore monitoring to inform her grazing rotation patterning as well as to inform when and where to apply predator deterrents.
- Wyoming (30 participants): Comprising one portion of the CRC annual meeting, workshop attendees visited a ranch in the nearby South Fork of the Shoshone, and learned about problems and potential solutions for carnivore conflicts from the perspective of the ranch manager. Further, a panel highlighted landowner perspectives from managers and livestock producers in the greater Cody area, some of whom shared challenges and successes of managing range riding operations.
- Montana (105 Participants): During the convening on collaboration and conflict prevention, two panel sessions highlighted the role landowner and agricultural producer-led organizations are playing in conflict prevention while another session focused on Tribal and agency conflict prevention work, with an emphasis on existing and upcoming opportunities for increased involvement and investments. All three panels showcased the broad suite of partners that are working together to address carnivore conflict challenges through shared learning and implementing effective practices. Participants in the first panel discussed creative partnerships that have formed to reduce carnivore access to attractants, including through carcass pickup, electric fencing and mats, and bear-resistant garbage programs. Speakers in the second panel session highlighted traditional practices such as range riding and guard dogs that are being used to reduce conflicts on open range, spoke to the challenges of both starting and sustaining these practices, and raised the importance of working with producers to identify and address research needs.
- Arizona (66 participants): The Western Landowners Alliance and the Farm Bureau hosted a producer-only meeting in Springerville, Arizona focussed to identify problems as it relates to public lands grazing management and Mexican wolf-livestock conflicts. The producers attending quickly coalesced around a vision of establishing an expansive range riding program (10-20 range riders) throughout the Gila National Forest supported by a NRCS Regional Conservation Partnership Program. The application for this grant has been submitted and the project team will be hearing back about this opportunity in December. If secured, there will be a direct need for a series of range riding trainings and workshops in the region.
- Colorado (180 participants): Together with the Holy Cross Cattlemen's’ Association and partners, WLA hosted an evening of conversations and presentations in Rifle, Colorado, to help producers prepare for impending wolf reintroduction. This meeting, attended by over 180 livestock producers, offered an opportunity to connect with a panel of local livestock producers, learn from Northern Rockies land stewards experienced with living and working with wolves, and engage state and federal wildlife managers charged with managing wolves and reducing conflicts with livestock.
- Wyoming (50 participants) In November, WLA hosted a landowner resource event in Pinedale, Wyoming, to raise awareness about the importance of working lands and the tools that support them. Gathering around 50 people, the event featured a landowner panel where participants shared the challenges of maintaining working lands while reducing conflicts with carnivores and their experiences using various tools and programs. Following the landowner panel, agencies and WLA provided short presentations about the tools available through the USDA/WY Big Game Conservation Partnership, upcoming resource opportunities for conflict prevention, and invasive weed treatment opportunities.
- Oregon (60 participants) and Arizona (82 participants) peer-to-peer learning workshops, in partnership with Western Landowners Alliance, Ph.D. student Rae Nickerson organized and facilitated two peer-to-peer workshops in La Grande, Oregon and Eager, Arizona during autumn 2024. Rae brought a team of producer and rider panelists from her research to each workshop. Day one of these workshops included presentations and discussion on important range rider related content including a presentation from NRCS staff on how the new RCPP funds will be available and distributed. Day two was a wildlife track and sign certification opportunity offered to producers and range riders for free in partnership with Cyber Tracker North America. SARE surveys were collected by Western Landowners Alliance at both workshops. Our Range Rider Toolkit was shared broadly at all workshops.
- In January 2025, Rae provided training for range riders in Colorado hosted by Colorado Parks and Wildlife and Colorado Department of Agriculture. Over 100 producers and range riders attended, and a second, four-day training will be offered in April 2025. The Range Rider Toolkit was shared broadly.
- This May Rae, will organize and host two additional and free wildlife track and sign certification opportunities for riders and producers in northeast Washington. We expect around 30 participants total and will pass out SARE surveys at the end of each certification.
Arizona and Oregon Peer-to-Peer learning workshop evaluations
SARE surveys were collected at both of our peer-to-peer range rider workshops in La Grande, Oregon and Eager, Arizona last fall. Out of n=53 total survey respondents, 100% agreed that the event improved their awareness of the topics covered. Ninety-six percent agreed that the event provided new knowledge and was current, up to date, and relevant, and 70% that the event provided new skills. Seventy-two percent of those surveyed believed that the event modified their opinions and attitudes.
Seventy-two percent of respondents strongly agreed that the instructors presented information that would help them, and between 80 and 94% of respondents strongly agreed that the instructors stimulated them to learn, related program content to real-life situations, stimulated them to think about how to use the information presented, allowed for questions and interaction with participants, demonstrated enthusiasm, answered questions clearly, and showed respect for all persons attending the program.
Overall, the events received an 81% excellent rating with a 19% good rating. Respondents together reported that they will share what they learned from the workshops with at least 852 new people. Some of the reported “best” things about the sessions included (1) getting to know the different organizations and stakeholders in person, especially hearing their diverse experience, knowledge, and ideas, (2) the culture of respect, honesty, and team work maintained at the workshop through hard conversations and different perspectives/points of view, (3) having all agencies present with a stake in the game, (4) community development, (5) the panel discussions and break-out discussions, (6) provided hope and optimism that there can be effective solutions to the current conflict, (7) learning about new NRCS and other funding options for range riding and conflict, (8) networking with fellow producers and/or range riders, and (9) the collaboration and relationship building.
Constructive feedback for future events included (1) choosing a less busy time of year for producers, (2) to include more information on when range riding doesn’t work (under what contexts), and (3) to provide more workshops like these that are longer with more time for panel discussion, mingling, and questions.
Of the producers and landowners who took the survey (n=29), 76% said they were likely to adopt one or more of the practices mentioned, 56% said doing so would improve their operations diversification of strategies, 30% reported that using the practice would reduce the need for off farm purchasing (less relevant to range riding), 79% reported some aspect of the range riding would increase networking with other producers, and 63% reported that range riding would add value into their overall operation.
Of the professionals and practitioners who took our survey (n=40), 80% reported that they would use some aspect of the training educationally or as a participant in the future, 86% said they would participate in making range riding an available resource, 74% reported they would use some aspect of the workshop as a professional development tool for their peers, and 95% reported that they would use some aspect of the workshop to improve the advice/counsel they provide to producers. When asked to describe how they are likely to use some aspect of these workshops for an educational purpose, the professional and practitioner responses included (1) at their job with the USFS, (2) with their peers and encourage participation at future events by other producers, (3) letting people know specifically about what resources are available for conflict mitigation, and (4) helping to educate non-ranchers on the intricacies of wolf-livestock conflict.
3. New podcast and video series; Metrics: Developed capacity and publishing and dissemination of season 1.
Listener survey data related to Season 1 of Working Wild U: Wolves in the West shows that we provided significant value to our target audiences: ranchers, wildlife managers, and urban wildlife enthusiasts, informing the discussion around wolves. The following metrics indicate the success of the first season
- The podcast achieved over 35,000 downloads to date in all 50 US states, with top states being CO, MT, CA, and WA, surpassing listenership goals
- 91% of people surveyed said the show improved their awareness of the topics covered and 89% of people surveyed said the show provided them with new knowledge.
- 83% of natural resource professionals and practitioners surveyed said they intend to use some aspect of this project as an educational resource and when advising others on this issue.
- 60% of people surveyed said the show modified their opinions and/or attitudes around these controversial topics and 44% of people surveyed said the show provided them with new skills to address similar issues.
- Multiple reporters and producers covering wolves, such as Kylie Mohr for the Deseret News, a film producer working on a documentary about wolves in the West, shared that they listened to the entire season as background for their coverage of the issue, which demonstrates the value of the show's radical center perspective on what is too often framed as a polarizing, lose-lose issue.
- We received the Gold Award from the Association of Natural Resource Professionals (ANRP), Podcast or Radio Category as part of the The Natural Resources University (NRU) Podcast Network.
- We also earned 74 five star reviews on Apple Podcasts (79 total reviews, 4.8/5 stars)
4. Development of a “Toolkit” for Livestock Producers;
The primary pathway for integrating the collective experience and knowledge of partners in this project was through the producer toolkit for conflict reduction. Guided by livestock producers and other dedicated people working on a daily basis to reduce, manage and mitigate predation risk on working wild landscapes, the toolkit highlights decades of experience compiled into three documents and is a compilation of direct experience and knowledge of risk assessment, range riding, carcass management, and various types of electric fencing.
Developed through Technical Advisory Committees, these documents were co-produced amongst livestock producers, researchers, and non-profit and state agency representatives. Each document provides a comprehensive overview of range riding, carcass management, and fencing, and conveys context specific application through the risk assessment framework as well as the six principles of predation risk management mentioned above. Of note, the Range Riding Toolkit provides a concise definition of the practice, (see Figure 2), as well as best practices for implementation– two important contributions that have not been well described in other producer-facing documents prior. The Carcass Management toolkit provides a novel contribution in categorizing and describing the four phases of carcass management: 1. Finding and securing a carcass; 2. Temporary or permanent ranch facility; 3. Transportation; and 4. Community carcass management facility. The Fencing Toolkit offers an overview of four widely used types of fence – turbo-fladry, electric night pens, 4 and 5-wire fences, and electric drive over “unwelcome mats” – as well as information to guide their context specific implementation. The documents also include case studies highlighting on-the ground application of each practice in different contexts throughout the West. In order to disseminate information and highlight the producers whose knowledge led the way for forming this document, the project team hosted a webinar attended by over 200 individuals from all seven states within the project area.
AIn addition, place-based collaborative groups provide a way to coordinate community-scale action to address wildlife-livestock conflicts, and processes to lift landowner and livestock producer needs, while finding areas of agreement and shared purpose to meet a variety of resource challenges. These groups, many of which are landowner-led, may include all or part of a particular community and offer a way to meaningfully engage state and federal wildlife agencies, non-profit organizations and other stakeholder groups within a community-level decision-making process. Informed by interviews and co-produced with existing place-based groups, This team developed the “Road-Map to Place Based Collaboration for Conflict Reduction”, a hands-on guide for developing landowner-led, place-based collaborative groups with a focus on reducing wildlife-livestock conflicts. While the regulatory context, stakeholders, wildlife, and landscape will vary, this 10-step guide outlines a process and provides examples to aid landowners and practitioners in developing community-led solutions to address wildlife-livestock conflicts. Four case studies provide on-the-ground examples of how place-based collaborative groups have formed and organized to address conflicts and support landowner and wildlife needs.
5. Multimedia distribution to sustain and amplify these activities.
Throughout the past years, we have engaged in communications and media campaigns to increase the profile of our education and outreach efforts through newsletters, print Magazines, and photos and videos communicated through social media.
Newsletters
- Western Landowners Alliance Working Wild Challenge newsletters highlighting stories, opportunities, and relevant news about what it means to manage working lands while sharing space with wildlife were sent to an average list of 3,500 people, with an average open rate of 44%. The industry standard open rate is only 28.5%, according to Google.
On Land Magazines
- The Western Landowners Alliance On Land magazine shares stories of land stewardship across the West and reaches over 3,000 individuals through subscription and store sales. This reach is furthered by On-land online
Working Wild University Social Media
- All social content for WWU S1 was designed to spark curiosity, directing viewers to listen to the full episode. By maintaining a regular cadence as episodes were being released, we were able to maintain an ongoing social buzz around the show which helped drive our listenership.
- WWU IG reels alone amassed 77,337 views in the past year, plus another 5,125 views on WWU-related posts on WLA IG
- WWU IG grew from 0 to 784 followers in the past year
- WWU TikTok amassed 11,881 views in the past year
For website locations for some of the provided information please see: WSARE Annual Progress Report_hyperlinks
Education and Outreach Outcomes
Through the first stages of this project we have learned the following lessons:
- Building communities of practice amongst diverse stakeholders in conflict reduction can help support information exchange
- Engagement of broad networks with effective, science and land-stewards centered communications can support increased knowledge of range riding and it’s application, and support cross-pollination of ideas within closet networks, building momentum for practice implementation.
- Landowners and livestock producers maintain knowledge of the land and stewardship practices that are not often captured in scientific research, or elevated for peer-to-peer learning. Incorporating this knowledge is both important for representative applied science, and for diffusion and implementation of practices such as range riding.
Lastly, success leads to success, using engaged producers that part of the project design from start to finish recruits more producers.
- Identification of predators sign and activity and ways to adopt to this
- Benefits of non-lethal conflict prevention tools for wildlife, livestock, and rangeland production in the presence of large carnivores
- Risk assessment and landscape stratification
- Conflict management and the Conservation Planning Process
- Best practices, considerations, and success stories of using range riding, fencing/fladry, and/or carcass management
- What does Range Riding encompass and is it right for you
- How predator species, native prey base, and other factors are influenced by range riding
- Best practices, considerations, and success stories of using Range Riding
Potential role and opportunity for NRCS in non-lethal large predator-livestock conflict prevention
Existing and current research on how these non-lethal tools benefit wildlife and livestock
Benefits of non-lethal conflict prevention tools for wildlife, livestock, and rangeland production in the presence of large carnivores
Conflict management and the Conservation Planning Process
Non-lethal tools and considerations surrounding mitigating conflict with wolves
Identification of predator sign and activity