Steering Committee

Randi Spivak
American Lands
726 7th Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 547-9029 voice
(202) 547-9213 fax

Martin Taylor
Center for Biological Diversity
PO Box 710
Tucson, AZ 85702
(520) 623-5252 x 307 voice
(520) 623-9797 fax

Katie Fite
Committee for Idaho's High Desert
PO Box 2863
Boise, ID 83701
(208) 429-1679 voice and fax

John Horning
Forest Guardians
312 Montezuma, Suite A
Santa Fe, NM 87501
(505) 988-9126 x 153 voice
(505) 989-8623 fax

Bill Marlett
Oregon Natural Desert Association
16 NW Kansas Street
Bend, OR 97701
(541) 330-2638 voice
(541) 385-3370 fax

Jon Marvel
Western Watersheds Project
PO Box 1770
Hailey, ID 83333
(208) 788-2290 voice
(208) 788-2298 fax


Andy Kerr
c/o The Larch Company
1213 Iowa Street
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 201-0053 voice
(541) 201-0065 fax


June 3, 2002

Aaron Harp, Director
University of Idaho
Caldwell Research and Extension Center
16952 S. Tenth Avenue
Caldwell, ID 83607-8249

Dear Mr. Harp:

We read with great interest about your proposal to do a report on our public lands grazing permit retirement concept. We welcome your study and hope that you will consider the following issues and information in the report.

COST OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT. What is the economic cost to the government of public lands grazing? We hope you will include all costs including the preparation of allotment management plans, Environmental Impact Statements, and other documentation that is required before livestock grazing occurs. Many have argued (Donahue 1999, Jacobs 1991) that costs of managing livestock on public lands vastly exceed revenues.

IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE. What are the wildlife values precluded by continued livestock production? In other words, is the presence of livestock preempting greater production of native wildlife on these public lands?

For instance, one cow consumes the same amount of forage as 1.5 elk and 5 deer. How many more elk, deer, or antelope, or even prairie dogs would be produced on our public lands in the absence of forage competition with livestock? Elk, for instance, have high value to hunters, wildlife watchers, and as prey for other charismatic wildlife like wolves and grizzlies. How many more wolves, for example, could be supported by the additional elk?

Another way of saying this is, what is the economic value of reallocating the forage now consumed by livestock to native herbivores like elk, bighorn sheep, and other species? Every economic study done comparing elk, deer, trout, waterfowl, wolves and even songbirds to livestock demonstrates that native wildlife has a higher economic value (Duffield et al 1994, Campbell 1970, Loomis et al. 1989, Duffield 1989).

The single biggest factor affecting hunting opportunities is competition between livestock and wildlife for forage and water. For instance, a study of antelope and domestic livestock in New Mexico showed that pronghorn diets overlapped 39% with domestic sheep and 16% with cattle (Howard et al. 1990) And Mackie (1970) reported forage competition between deer, elk and livestock in Montana's Missouri Breaks. Similar findings of dietary overlap of deer and elk with livestock were reported in Oregon (Miller and Vavra. 1982) and Alberta (Teller 1994).

Moreover, the mere presence of domestic livestock often causes a shift in habitat use by native species. Often these shifts place native ungulates in less suitable habitats with a resulting decline in vigor and survival. For instance, mule deer were found to shift their habitat use in response to livestock (Lott et al. 1991). Elk in Montana also moved out of
pastures that were actively grazed by cattle (Frisina, M.R. 1992). Elk and mule deer in Arizona also decreased after cattle were introduced (Wallace and Krausman 1987). And both deer and elk shifted use from preferred habitats in Alberta after livestock were introduced into the area (Teller 1994).

Many gamebirds are also negatively affected by livestock production. For instance, sage grouse populations are in decline throughout the West due to a host of problems created by livestock production (Connelly et. al. 2000). Loss of hiding cover in heavily grazed rangelands exposes nesting grouse and other species like quail and sandhill crane to higher predation rates (Gregg et. al 1994, Brown 1982, Littlefield and Paullin 1990). Grazing of wet meadows used by grouse chicks reduces food availability and increases losses to predators. And fences used to contain livestock become perching sites for avian raptors that prey on grouse. Haying operations, along with grazing, negatively impacts many ground nesting bird species (Kirsh et al. 1978). Waterfowl production also suffers as a result of grazing and haying operations, which reduce hiding cover and result in higher nest failures (Greenwood et. al. 1988, Gilbert et al. 1996).

Disease transmission is another problem. Many bighorn sheep herds in the West are decimated by disease transmitted from domestic livestock (Goodson. 1982, Berger 1990, Krausman et al. 1996). Indeed, the presence of domestic livestock is the major factor that precludes the restoration of wild sheep to many former, but potentially suitable ranges throughout the West.

WEEDS AND COWS. Livestock are considered a major factor in the spread of weeds. What is the cost to the public of controlling weeds? What are the costs to ecosystem values, such as reduced forage for wildlife because of the spread of exotic plant species (Belsky and Gelbard. 2000, LeJeune and Seastedt 2001)? Trampling of biocrusts by livestock can also facilitate weed colonization and spread (Belnap et. al 2001). What are the ecological and economic costs?

EFFECTS ON FIRE REGIMES. Livestock, by trampling soils and reducing the competitive pressures of grass plants, facilitate an increase in trees. High stocking rates are implicated in structural changes in western forest ecosystems that are causing higher fire suppression costs. (Baker, and Ehle 2001,Cave and Patten 1984, Rummell 1951).

RIPARIAN DAMAGE AND COSTS. Because livestock are known to damage riparian areas, significant funds are being used to mitigate this damage, including fencing of streams, development of water sources, and so forth. Proposed solutions like fencing riparian zones are exceedingly costly and have other ecological consequences as well (Platts and Wagstaff 1984). What are these costs?

Sport and commercial fisheries are also affected by livestock production. Livestock trampling of streamside riparian habitat has greatly altered aquatic habitats (Chaney et al. 1990, Kauffman and. Krueger. 1984) reducing their carrying capacity for native fish. Livestock grazing is responsible for major declines in fish populations throughout the West, in particular species sought after by anglers such as trout and salmon (Li, et al. 1994, Dudley and Emburgy 1995, Duff 1977, Platts 1981, Shepard 1992). Comparisons of trout populations in ungrazed streams have demonstratively higher numbers of trout than grazed sections (Marcuson 1997, Keller and Burnham 1982).

In addition to these direct impacts to fish habitat from livestock trampling and grazing, livestock production accounts for the greatest water withdrawals in the West (Reisner and Bates 1990). Irrigation, particularly of hay and alfalfa, is the largest consumer of water in the West and one of the major factors in the decline of native fish due to stream dewatering (Minckley and Deacon 1990, Moyle and Williams 1990). Loss of fish in irrigation ditches is also significant problem (Good and Kronberg 1986). Needless to say, dewatering not only causes a decline in water quality with higher temperatures and greater concentration of pollutants, but also eliminates spawning and feeding habitat for fish.

Trampling and degradation of riparian zones and watersheds also contributes to greater flooding (Campbell, 1970, Chaney 1990). What are these costs?

RECREATIONAL CONFLICTS. What are the effects of livestock production on recreation? Many backpackers, hikers, bird watchers, anglers, and others tend to avoid places that are actively being grazed. What is the economic cost of this potentially lost income to local communities?

BASE RATE OF RANCH CONVERSION. What is the base rate of ranch subdivision in the West? One can't assume that all ranches that are subdivided following permit retirement would be the result of permit retirement without some estimate of the baseline rate. Right now nearly all subdivisions occur on former agricultural lands of some kind, despite having access to public lands grazing allotments. According to one study in California, ranchers make more money through real estate appreciation than from raising livestock (Huntsinger 2002). This is one reason why ranchers are often anxious to sell to developers. So what is this base rate of conversion?

WATER QUALITY AND QUANITIES. What are the effects and costs on water quality and quantity? Trampling of soils and compaction reduces water infiltration and increases run-off. Cow manure and urine pollutes streams (Strand and Merritt. l999, J. Carter 2001).

Livestock forage production (e.g. hay) is the major consumer of western water in every state (Reiser and Bates 1990). Yet the cost of providing this water is heavily subsidized Reiser and Bates 1990, Myers and Kent 1998) in multiple ways, including the cost of water storage impoundments and delivery systems. Even the electricity used to power irrigation systems is often subsidized (Myers and Kent 1998)

EFFECTS OF LIVESTOCK WATER DEVELOPMENT ON MOLLUSKS. Development of springs as water sources for livestock is a common practice on public lands. What effect does this have on native snails, amphibians, and other species dependent on these water sources for their habitat (Frest and Johannes 1995)?

ECONOMICS OF PUBLIC LANDS FORAGE. What is the economic contribution of public lands forage to the West's total economy? According to Power (1996) the amount of economic contribution made by public forage is insignificant in regional economies. The 1994 Rangeland Reform (USDA 1994) published by the federal government also noted that federal lands forage contributed little to overall livestock production and economics. So what contribution does the public AUMs make relative to the total contribution of livestock agriculture to the employment and income of the West?

Assuming there is no permit retirement program, what will happen to permittees over the long run in the absence of a program? In other words will ranching grow even less economically viable and more marginal in the future (Knight et al. 2002)?

What is the economic value of the permits turned to cash and reinvested? I.e., ranchers will be spending their money to reduce debt, invest in new land, or otherwise using that money for other economic endeavors.

SOIL EROSION AND BIOCRUSTS. What is the economic cost of soil erosion occurring as a result of livestock production? This should also include an analysis of soil nutrient losses due to trampling of bio-crusts which would otherwise contribute to soil nitrogen and other nutrients ( Anderson et al. 1982, Anderson et al 1981. Belnap. 1996, Belnap et al. 2001)

SPECIES ENDANGERMENT. Livestock production is the second leading cause of species endangerment in the US according to the USDA (1997a). How much are we spending to save species endangered by livestock production? What is the potential cost to ecosystem stability resulting from the loss of these species?

CONDOS AND COWS. In the so-called condos and cows debate, one assumption is that urbanization is affecting a significant amount of the West. However, a review of published data do not support this notion (USDA. 1997b, Vesterby and Krupa. 2001). Even in California, the most urbanized state in the West, agricultural land use vastly exceeds the amount of land urbanized and developed (California Natural Heritage Division 2002). Please explicitly provide the total acreage or physical footprint of urbanized areas in the West by state (information available through USDA web site and state GAP analyses) and compare this to the amount of land used to support livestock production, including lands used for grazing, haying, and so forth (Wuerthner 1994, Wuerthner 1997).

Agriculture uses many resources in the West including water, yet contributes little overall to the economy. For instance, in California, agriculture uses 85% of the water consumed in the state but only contributes to 3% of the economy (Myers and Kent 1998). This suggests that development actually contributes more to the regional economy than agriculture. Assuming some ranches are subdivided and built upon, what are the economic contributions of that development-if any-compared to the regional economy.

Much development and new housing in the West is driven by immigration of new residents (Vesterby and Krupa 2001). How can ranching do anything to prevent this immigration?

Throughout the West the growing of irrigated crops including hay and other forage for livestock is the major consumer of water (Reiser and Bates 1990). In general urbanization actually uses less water per "acre" of land developed than most agricultural operations. What is the effective water savings of reducing or eliminating livestock in terms of freeing up water for other uses such as preservation of fish or other wildlife?

What is the cost in property taxes to have ranching continue in the West? I.e., in most cases ranch lands are taxed as "agricultural property," a much lower rate than is paid by owners of other types of property. Other taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing the low tax rate of ranchers (Spahr and Sunderman 1996).

How many ranchers expect to sell their ranch for development? A recent article in the Journal of Range Management ( Petersen and Coppock 2001) found that about half of all permittees surveyed were planning to sell their property for development, and others were clearly thinking about it if the economics continued to be marginal-a likely scenario.

What is the geographical distribution of development? This is a critical point since not all parts of the West are vulnerable to rapid development. Most development occurs as growth on the outskirts of existing cities or the occasional resort area where jobs, housing and other amenities are easily obtained (Kolankiewicz and Beck. 2001, Wuerthner 1997).

What role does demand, thus rising land prices, have in driving development and subdivision? In other words, when land prices rise, prospective buyers cannot consider buying a ranch and paying off the mortgage by simply selling cows. This reduces the flexibility of the livestock industry to adjust to changing market demands. Even in California, which possesses the most valuable agricultural lands in the nation, marginal agricultural production cannot complete with urbanized land uses (California Dept. of Conservation. 2000, California Dept. of Food and Agriculture. 1998), so how can even less valuable western livestock operations compete against rising land values and development?

What role does global competition play in marginalizing western ranching operations, and thus contributing to the sale of the ranch?

What other recognized and proven means of reducing or preventing sprawl exist? For example, Oregon has strong land use laws that curb rural development and urban sprawl. Florida is currently attempting to purchase half of the private land in the state to protect its biological values and recreational opportunities ( Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection and Greenways Program. 2001). What proven alternatives are available for protecting rural and undeveloped private lands?

What might the future of ranching be in the face of growing concerns over the health impacts of eating meat? For example, the discovery of "mad cow disease" in Europe has brought about a significant reduction in meat consumption in Europe (Lyman 1998). New revelations about the negative effects of a meat diet occur on a regular basis, including both meat-borne pathogens and "lifestyle" illnesses such as obesity and colon cancer.

Are western livestock operations viable over the long-term? If open space protection is predicated on ranching, then any major economic change could seriously jeopardize this strategy.

If you have any questions, I may be reached at:

PO Box 3156
Eugene, OR 97403
541/684-7872 voice
541/684-7872 fax

Thank you for your consideration.


George Wuerthner
Western Representative, NPLGC

Anderson, D.C., K.T. Harper and S.R. Rushforth. 1982. Recovery of Cryptogamic Soil Crusts from Grazing on Utah Winter Ranges. Journal of Range Management 35(3): 355-359.

Anderson, J.E., and K.E. Holte. 1981. Vegetation Development Over 25 Years Without Grazing on Sagebrush-Dominated Rangeland in Southeastern Idaho. Journal of Range Management 34:25-29.

Baker, W.L. and D. Ehle. 2001. Uncertainty in surface-fire history: the case of ponderosa pine forests in the western United States. Can. J. For. Res. 31: 1205-1226.

Belnap, J. 1996. Soil Surfact Disturbances in Cold Deserts: Effects on Nitrogenase Activity in Cyanobacterial-Lichen Soil Crusts. Biology and Fertility of Soils 23: 362-367.

Belnap, Jayne, Julie Kaltenecker, David Eldridge, Steve Leonard, Roger Rosentreter and John Williams. 2001. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. BLM and USGS Tech. Reference 1730-2

Belsky, A.J., and J.L. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid West. ONDA website. Bend, OR.

Berger, J. 1990. Persistence of different-sized populations: an empirical assessment of rapid extinctions in bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology (4) 91-98.

Brown, R.L. 1982. Effects of livestock grazing on Means Quail in southeastern Arizona. J. of Range Management. 35(6) 727-732.

California Dept. of Conservation. 2000. California Farmland Conversion Report 1996-1998. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Pub. #FM 2000-01. Sacramento, CA.

California Natural Heritage Division 2002. An interactive atlas of terrestrial biodiversity and land management.

California Dept. of Food and Agriculture. 1998. California Agricultural Resource Directory. Sacramento, CA.

Campbell, H.J. 1970. Economic and social significant of upstream aquatic resources on the West Coast. Symposium Forest Land Uses and Stream Environments. Oregon State University 1970.

Chaney, E. W. Elmore and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on Western riparian areas. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.

Carter, John. 2001. Watersheds, livestock and water quality: A Case Study from the Cache National Forest, Utah and Idaho. Publication #99-01. Willow Creek Ecology, Login, Utah.

Cave, G. H., and D.T. Patten. 1984. Short-Term Vegetation Responses to Fire in the Upper Sonoran Desert. Journal of Range Management 37(6): 491-496.

Connelly, John W., Michael A. Shroeder, Alan R. Sands, and Clait E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.

Donuhue, D. 1999. The Western Range Revisited. U of Oklahoma, Norman.

Dudley, T. and M. Embury. 1995. Non-indigenous species in wilderness areas: The status and impacts of livestock and game species in designated wilderness in California. Pacific Institute for SIDES: Oakland, CA.

Duff, D.A. 1977. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic habitat in Big Creek, Utah. In: Proc. Of the workshop on livestock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. University of California Agric. Station, Sci. Spec. Public. 3301: Berkeley, CA.

Duffield, J. 1989. Nelson property acquisition: social and economic impact assessment. Report to Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Duffield, J.W., T.C. Brown, S.D. Allen. 1994. Economic value of instream flow in Montana’s Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers. Research Paper RM-137 USDA Rocky Mountain For. And Rang. Exp. Sta. Fort Collins, CO.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Greenways Program. 2001. Tallahassee, FL.

Frest, T. J., & E. J. Johannes 1995. Interior Columbia Basin Mollusk Species of Special Concern. Final Report to Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Deixis Consultants, Seattle, Washington. xi + 362pp.

Frisima, M.R. 1992. Elk habitat use within a rest-rotation grazing system. Rangelands 14:93-96.

Gilbert, D.W., D.R. Anderson, J.K. Ringelman, M.R. Szymczak. 1996. Response of nesting ducks to habitat and management on the Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado. Wildl. Monog. 131: 1-44.

Good, W. and C. Kronberg. 1986. Salmonids entering the Hedge Ditch from the Bitterroot River, Summer 1984. Inland fisheries resources and irrigation diversions. Bitterroot Trout Study. Hamilton, Montana

Goodson, N.J. 1982. Effects of domestic sheep grazing on bighorn sheep: a review. Biennial Symposium of the North American Wild Sheep and Goat Council. 3:287-313.

Greenwood, R. J., A.B. Sargeant, D.H. Johnson, L.M. Cowardin, and T.L. Shaffer. Mallard nest success and recruitment in prairie Canada. Trans. 52nd. NA. Wildlife and Natural Resource Conf. Pg. 298-309.

Gregg, M.A., J. A. Crawford, M.S. Drut, and A.K. Delong. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. J. Wildlife Management. 58(1)1994.

Howard, V.W., J.L. Holechek, R.D. Pieper, K Green-Hammond, M. Cardenas and S.L. Beasom. 1990. Habitat requirements for pronghorn on rangelands impacted by livestock and net wire in eastcentral New Mexico. Ag. Ex.St. Bulletin 750. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

Huntsinger, L. 2002. End of the Trial: Ranching Transformation on the Pacific Slope. In Ranching west of the 100th Meridian, ed. By R. L. Knight, W.C. Gilgert, and E. Marston. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications. A review. J of Range Management. 37:430-437.

Keller C.R. and K.P. Burnham. 1982. Riparian fencing, grazing, and trout habitat preference on Summit Creek, Idaho. J. of Fisheries Management. 2:53-59.

Kirsh, L.M. H.F. Duebbert, and A.D. Kruse. 1978. Grazing and haying effects on habitats of upland nesting birds. Pg. 486-497. Trans. Of 43rd. NA Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute, WA. DC.

Knight R.L.,  W.C. Gilgert, and E. Marston. 2002. Ranching west of the 100th Meridian. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Kolankiewicz, Leon and Roy Beck. 2001. Weighing sprawl factors in large U.S. cities. Arlington, VA:  NumbersUSA.

Krausman, P.R., R. Valdez, and J.A. Bissonette. 1996. Bighorn sheep and livestock. In Rangeland Wildlife. Society for Range Management. Denver, CO.

Wagner, F. 1978. Livestock grazing and the livestock industry. In Wildlife in America. Council on Environmental Quality. Washington DC.

LeJeune, K.D. and T. R. Seastedt. 2001. Centaurea Species: the forb that won the West. Conservation Biology, pg. 1569-1574. Vol. 15(6).

Li, H.W. G.a. Lamberri, T.N. Persons, C.K. Tait, J.L. Li. And J.C. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin. Oregon. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 123: 627-640.

Littlefield, C.D. and D.G. Paullin. 1990. Effects of land management on nesting success of sandhill cranes in Oregon. Wildlife Soc. Bulletin. 18:63-65.

Loomis, J. D. Donnelly, and C.Sorg-Swanson. 1989. Comparing the economic value of forage on public lands for wildlife and livestock. J of Range Management. 42(2) 134-138.

Lott, R.E. J.W. Menke and J.G. Kie. 1991. Habitat shifts by mule deer: the influence of cattle grazing. J. of Wildlife Management. 55:16-26.

Lyman, H. 1998. Mad Cowboy. Scribner, NY.NY.

Mackie, R.J. 1970. Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri Breaks, Montana. Wildlife Monographs. 20. 79pp.

Marcuson. P.e. 1977. Overgrazed streambanks depress fishery production in Rock Creek, Montana. P. 143-156. In: Proc. Of the workshop on livestock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. University of California Agric. Station, Sci. Spec. Public. 3301: Berkeley, CA.

McIntosh, B.J. and P.R. Krausman. 1982. Elk and mule deer distribution after a cattle introduction in northern Arizona. Pages 545-552. In J.M. Peek and P.D. Dalke. Eds. Wildlife livestock relationships symposium proceedings 10. Univ. of Idaho. Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Station. Moscow.

Miller, R.F. and M. Vavra. 1982. Deer, elk, and cattle on northeastern Oregon rangelands. In: Wildlife-livestock relationships symposium. Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Station Bulletin. U of Idaho, Moscow.

Minckley, W.L. and J.E. Deacon. Eds. 1990. Battle against extinction: native fish management in the American West. University of Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona.

Moyle, P.B. and J.E. Williams. 1990. Biodiversity loss in the temperature zone: decline of the native fish fauna of California. Conservation Biology 4(3) 275-284.

Myers, N. and J. Kent. 1998. Perverse subsidies. Taxes undercutting our economics and environment alike. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Canada.

Petersen, Regina and D. Layne Coppock. 2001. Economies and demographics constrain investment in Utah private grazing lands. J. Range Management 54(2): 106-114.

Platts, W.S. 1981. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America: effects of livestock grazing. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Exp. Station, Gen Tech. Report PNW-124.

Platts, W.S. and F.J. Wagstaff. 1984. Fencing to control livestock grazing on riparian habitats along streams: Is it a viable alternative? North American Journal of Fisheries Management: 4-266-272.

Power, T.M.. 1996. Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Reisner, M. and S. Bates. 1990. Overtapped oasis: Reform or revolution for western water. Island Press. Covelo, CA.

Rowe, Helen I., Matt Shinderman, and E.T. Bartlett. 2001. Change on the range. Rangelands 23(2): 6-9.

Rummell, R.S. 1951. Some Effects of Livestock Grazing on Ponderosa Pine Forest and Range in Central Washington. Ecology 32:594-607.

Shepard, B. B. 1992. Grazing Allotment administration along streams supporting cutthroat trout in Montana. Rangelands 14(4) 1992.

Spahr, Ronald and Mark Sunderman. 1996. Property tax inequities on ranch and farm properties. U of Wyoming Economics Dept. Laramie, Wyoming.

Strand, M., and R.W. Merritt. l999. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Activities on Stream Insect Communities and the Riverine Environment. American Entomologist 45(1):13-29.

Stuber, R. J. 1985. Trout habitat., abundance, and fishing opportunities in fenced vs. unfenced riparian habitat along Sheep Creek, Colorado. Pp. 310-314. In: R.r. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, and others tech. Coords.), Riparian ecosystems an their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-102.

Teller, E. 1994. Cattle and cervid interactions in Alberta. Canadian Field Naturalist 108 (2)  pg. 186-194.

Vesterby M. and K. Krupa. 2001. Major Uses of Land in the United States. 1997. USDA, Economic Research Service. Builletin Number 973.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994. Rangeland Reform '94, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, D.C.

USDA. 1997 (a). America's private land, a geography of hope. Natural Resources Conservation Service. ISBN 0-16-049127-4. Supt. of Documents, Washington, DC.

USDA. 1997 (b). National Resources Inventory. (Revised Dec. 2000). Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Wallace, M.C. and P.R. Krausman. 1987. Elk, mule deer, and cattle habitats in central Arizona. J. of Range Management. 40:80-83.

Wuerthner, G. 1992. Wall Creek Game Range—A Dissenting View. Rangelands 14(1) 8-11.

Wuerthner, George. 1994. Subdivisions vs. Agriculture. Conservation Biology. Vol. 8 (3) 905-909.

Wuerthner, George. 1997. Subdivisions and extractive industries. Wild Earth, Fall issue.

Yeo, J.F., J.M. Peek, W.T. Wittinger, and C.T. Kvale. 1993. Influence of rest-rotation cattle grazing on mule deer and elk habitat use in east-central Idaho. J. of Range Management. 46:245-250.