DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation Grazing - Frequently Asked Questions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservation Grazing - Frequently Asked Questions Conservation Grazing - Frequently Asked Questions Why are you fencing off the Forest? Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust are creating conservation grazing blocks as part of the ERDF Wild Towns Project. The aim of the project is to enhance greenspaces for biodiversity within Cinderford and six other Gloucestershire towns. Several important species, reliant upon open areas have declined due to the changing management practices over time, when historically there would have been more grazing animals and traditional coppice practices to maintain structural diversity of the vegetation. If left unchecked, the subsequent vegetation re-growth will try to reach its climax vegetation community and will eventually become woodland. In order to maintain the open habitat structure, traditional, hardy animal breeds will be used for conservation grazing on the sites. These breeds have been produced to thrive on rough, native vegetation that wouldn’t be palatable to more modern commercially farmed livestock. Native breeds of livestock will browse the emerging scrub, keeping it supressed and thus maintaining open habitat and structural diversity. Albeit in low stocking densities, the livestock will also create bare areas of ground which provide important habitat for species such as woodlark and adders. With modern day legislation, it is important that animal welfare is top of the agenda. With this in mind, the only feasible way of managing the different types of livestock required to maintain the open habitat is through carefully planned livestock fencing, suitable for all livestock types. The fencing is designed to keep livestock within the grazing compartments but to maintain the open feel to the landscape. Will the public still have access to the site? Yes. The design of the fencing is aimed to make people feel part of the open habitat landscape. Pedestrian access points will be sited around the fence line, so that people are not impeded from accessing the landscape from multiple locations. When stock isn’t grazing the site, the gates will be left open to allow free movement of people, wildlife. At Bilson Green sewage works, there is no public access as it is privately owned. What about cycling, walking, pony trekking through the site? The fencing at Awre’s Glow will be formed of two blocks either side of the forest roads so that people walking, riding or cycling will not be impeded by the fencing When will the fencing be installed? The fencing will be installed through the winter months, being completed by the end of March 2020. Why can’t you fit cattle grids so that there are no obstructions? The introduction of conservation grazing within the Forest of Dean is a relatively new concept for all of the partners involved. It is imperative that all systems put in place are as secure as they can be whilst we learn about the livestock and how they behave on the sites. In the first instance, having secure gates gives us peace of mind regarding the security and welfare of the livestock whilst they get used to their new environment. As we learn animal behaviour in this area of the forest, we can start experimenting with different systems and processes within a controlled environment and monitor how the livestock react. It is hoped that we will eventually be able to introduce items like cattle grids, and potentially invisible electric fencing systems which will give more flexibility and reduce maintenance costs of fencing. The implementation of these alternative features would only be considered if deemed appropriate to animal and public welfare and if funding can be sourced. What about the visual impact? We understand peoples concern with regards to the visual impact the installation of fencing may have in what is otherwise an open landscape, and every care has been taken to minimise this. The compartments will have access points and gates will be left open while there is no livestock within the compartments. What about the free movement of wildlife? The fence line will be monitored both prior and following its installation. We will identify where there are wildlife tracks/runs which dissect the fence line and look to install deer jumps and gaps in the fence line that would allow wildlife to pass but prevent cattle leaving the compartments. We are using standard stock netting which won’t impede most wildlife. This will also be fitted with a narrow-gauge mesh along the top of it which will allow deer to jump it safely. This specification is one that we have had success within other areas of the forest. What about the danger to wildlife? The most risk for wildlife relating to stock fencing are the dangers associated with large mammals being trapped and caught in the wire. Some instances of jumping deer being caught in the barbed wire strands at the top of the fence have resulted in us modifying the design and taking appropriate measure to mitigate for this. The design of the fence line has been approved by all stakeholders and has been modified to have only one strand of barbed wire at the top, which is ‘pig ringed’ to the top of the stock netting. The barbed wire is necessary to deter cattle and ponies from leaning on the fence line and causing it to sag, thus reducing its effectiveness. ‘Pig ringing’ the barbed wire to the stock netting, avoids deer being able to tourniquet their legs in the wire, if they fail to fully jump the fence line, but also ensures an effective stock proof fence. In order to maintain the height of the fence line, one strand of barbed wire is located at the bottom of the stock netting. This will deter wild boar from trying to squeeze underneath but allow access of small mammals. What about the public’s safety around dangerous stock? We are aware that incidences can and do happen between livestock and the general public and take care to put processes in place to mitigate against such occurrences so far as is reasonably possible. Before animals go on to a site, we conduct a site risk assessment specific to the grazing animals. If a risk is flagged as being too high, we will either take action to manage the risk or make a decision not to proceed with the grazing in that instance. We also produce emergency action plans, which detail the processes should an incident on the site happen so that all relevant parties are prepared and informed. Whilst we want the public to continue to visit and enjoy the sites when grazing animals our present, we need to manage the risk accordingly. At the offset we will put up signage at all access points on to the site to notify people that grazing animals are present, and to inform them of the do’s and don’ts whilst they are there. This includes discouraging feeding, which is often the main issue surrounding problems between livestock and people. It is important to make the public aware that the animals are not pets, but that they are semi-domesticated grazing animals which are suited to the habitats and grazing that they are occupying. The stocking densities of livestock on the sites will be quite low and in most circumstance the livestock will move away from the public areas if disturbed. We will not be keeping high risk animals on the site such as cows with calves, bulls or stallions. How long will the fence line be in place for and its ongoing maintenance? The fencing will be in place for a minimum of seven years. This is in line with the agreement between Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, Forestry England (Awre’s Glow), Forest of Dean District Council (Church Bank, Cinderford) and Severn Trent Water (Bilson Green). A management plan will also be written with these organisations to ensure that appropriate management in is place following on from the project. Why can’t a different, less invasive type of fencing be used? The fencing needs to be appropriate for securing livestock types which include cattle with the potential grazing of ponies and sheep at a later date. The three livestock types all graze/browse differently and encourage a diversity of vegetation type and structure. In order to secure the livestock, we have had to adopt a design which is appropriate for all. The eventual use of sheep to graze the sites is the determining factor in having to install stock netting which is more visually obvious. It is important that a proven method of stock control has been adopted whilst we condition the livestock to the sites. Other options such as invisible fencing have been explored but we have found that they still require an hard external perimeter fence whilst the livestock become ‘trained’ to the invisible boundaries. The livestock would be required to wear collars which deliver an electric shock when they wander close to the buried boundary wire, and this in itself poses animal welfare concerns. On a traditional farmstead, if animals do escape the enclosure they predominantly end up in an adjacent closure where recapture is relatively straight forward. In the Forest environment, we need to avoid the potential for them to escape into the wider woodland where re-capture would be much more difficult and potentially dangerous. How’s the fencing being funded and what is the cost? The fencing is being funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) along with our many funding partners. The ERDF Wild Towns Project is made possible through match funding. Various councils and organisations have donated money for the creation of certain pieces of work ranging from constructed wetlands, to bridges and paths.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conservation Grazing.Pdf
    MINNESOTA WETLAND RESTORATION GUIDE CONSERVATION GRAZING TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Document No.: WRG 6A-5 Publication Date: 1/30/2014 Table of Contents Introduction Application Other Considerations Costs Additional References INTRODUCTION Grazing by bison, elk and deer was historically a natural occurrence in grassland and shrubland plant communities in Minnesota. This grazing tended to be nomadic in nature and its intensity depended on the type of grazers, herd sizes, climate conditions, fire frequency, and the composition and structure of individual plant communities. Today conservation grazing is conducted by a variety of species including cattle, bison, horses, sheep, and goats to target specific invasive plants, or to replicate the grassland plant community structure and diversity that historically resulted from grazing. When grazing is conducted to control invasive species the intensity and duration of grazing is carefully monitored to ensure that target species are managed effectively, and that the integrity of the plant community is maintained. Most conservation grazing involves a short pulse of grazing followed by a long rest. Grazing can have benefits as well as negative impacts, so it is important to involve experienced professionals. Detailed grazing plans are an important component in the planning and implementation of prescribed grazing. Equipment that may be needed for grazing includes watering systems, electric, or barb”ed” wire fences around rotational grazing areas, moveable fencing to concentrate grazing and to ensure that areas are not overgrazed, and in some cases salt licks to concentrate animals (Tu et al. 2001). The following is a list of species commonly used for conservation grazing and their general characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Grazing Animals for Environmental Quality
    Management of grazing animals for environmental quality Etienne M. in Molina Alcaide E. (ed.), Ben Salem H. (ed.), Biala K. (ed.), Morand-Fehr P. (ed.). Sustainable grazing, nutritional utilization and quality of sheep and goat products Zaragoza : CIHEAM Options Méditerranéennes : Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens; n. 67 2005 pages 225-235 Article available on line / Article disponible en ligne à l’adresse : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ http://om.ciheam.org/article.php?IDPDF=6600046 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ To cite this article / Pour citer cet article -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Etienne M. Management of grazing animals for environmental quality. In : Molina Alcaide E. (ed.), Ben Salem H. (ed.), Biala K. (ed.), Morand-Fehr P. (ed.). Sustainable grazing, nutritional utilization and quality of sheep and goat products . Zaragoza : CIHEAM, 2005. p. 225-235 (Options Méditerranéennes : Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens; n. 67) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ http://www.ciheam.org/
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project Final Report
    UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project ATLAS ID GEF-00013971 TRAC-00013970 (formerly NEP/99/G35 and NEP/99/021) Final Report of the Terminal Evaluation Mission September 2006 Phillip Edwards (Team Leader) Rajendra Suwal Neeta Thapa ACRONYMS AND TERMS Exchange rate at the time of the TPE was US$1 to NR 71 (Nepali Rupees) ACA Anapurna Conservation Area ACAP Anapurna Conservation Area Project AHF American Himalayan Foundation APPA Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action BCP Biodiversity Conservation Plan CAMC Conservation Area Management Committee CAMOP Conservation Area Management Operation Plan CAMP Conservation Area Management Plan CAMR Conservation Area Management Regulation CBBMS Community Based Biodiversity Monitoring System CBO Community Based Organization CITES Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species CPM Co-Project Manager CRAC Community Resource Action Area Committee CRAJSC Community Resources Action Joint Sub-Committee CTF Community Trust Fund DAG Disadvantage Group DDC District Development Committee DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation EIA Environment Impact Assessment FIT Free Independent Tourist/Trekker GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographic Information System GON Government of Nepal Ha. Hectares HMG His Majesty’s Government HQ Head Quarters HRD Human Resource Development ICDP Integrated Conservation Development Program ICIMOD International Center for Integrated Mountain Development IEA Initial Environmental Assessment IGA Income
    [Show full text]
  • How to Manage Different Habitats Commons Factsheet No
    How to manage different habitats Commons Factsheet No. 08 www.naturalengland.co.uk How to manage different habitats Many commons and greens are beautiful places, rich in wildlife. Because commons have a long history of being used by people, the habitats they support are relatively natural but have been shaped by human activities over the millennia (e.g. unimproved grassland, heathland, woodlands). If they are to retain their wildlife and scenery the traditional uses must either be continued, or replicated some other way (see FS3 Why does our common need to be looked after?). This factsheet summarises the characteristic features of each habitat type, together with conservation aims and management techniques for habitats frequently found on commons. Different techniques Before deciding on particular management techniques, you will want to consider their The management of habitats can vary from potential impact on the species present, simple to complex. It can often be carried the landscape, the environment, features out by volunteers with hand tools or may of archaeological and historical interest, need people with specialised training and and public access and safety (see FS5 Is our equipment. Here, the main methods you common more special than we think?, FS4 Who might use are outlined and sources of further has an interest in the common? and FS8 What information signposted. Herbicide treatments future for our commons?). Remember to plan are not discussed, as these are best used only aftercare and monitoring (see FS17 Are we if there are no other realistic options, and getting it right?). you will want specialist advice and possibly contractors to carry out the work.
    [Show full text]
  • MANAGEMENT of Natura 2000 Habitats * Semi-Natural Dry Grasslands (Festuco- Brometalia) 6210
    Technical Report 2008 12/24 MANAGEMENT of Natura 2000 habitats * Semi-natural dry grasslands (Festuco- Brometalia) 6210 The European Commission (DG ENV B2) commissioned the Management of Natura 2000 habitats. 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates ( Festuco-Brometalia ) (*important orchid sites) This document was prepared in March 2008 by Barbara Calaciura and Oliviero Spinelli, Comunità Ambiente Comments, data or general information were generously provided by: Bruna Comino, ERSAF Regione Lombardia, Italy Daniela Zaghi, Comunità Ambiente, Italy Mats O.G. Eriksson, MK Natur- och Miljökonsult HB, Sweden Monika Janisova, Institute of Botany of Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic) Stefano Armiraglio, Museo di Scienze Naturali di Brescia, Italy Stefano Picchi, Comunità Ambiente, Italy Guy Beaufoy, EFNCP - European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, UK Gwyn Jones, EFNCP - European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, UK Coordination: Concha Olmeda, ATECMA & Daniela Zaghi, Comunità Ambiente 2008 European Communities ISBN 978-92-79-08326-6 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged Calaciura B & Spinelli O. 2008. Management of Natura 2000 habitats. 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates ( Festuco-Brometalia ) (*important orchid sites). European Commission This document, which has been prepared in the framework of a service contract (7030302/2006/453813/MAR/B2 "Natura 2000 preparatory actions: Management Models for Natura
    [Show full text]
  • Bryn Tip Local Nature Reserve
    BRYN TIP LOCAL NATURE RESERVE The village of Bryn is lucky enough to have its own Nature Reserve! The Reserve is popular with the residents of Bryn and visitors from further afield who come to walk their dogs, ride horses on the bridle way or take a gentle stroll whilst enjoying the wildlife and views of the surrounding countryside. The site has been used all year round and is also the starting point for the Bryn Heritage walk. This Reserve is home to hundreds of species of wildlife including flowers, fungi, invertebrates, birds, reptiles and mammals. The site was declared a Local Nature Reserve in order to protect the wildlife and preserve the landscape for people to enjoy long into the future. CONSERVATION GRAZING Over the last few years, the Countryside & Wildlife Team of the Local Authority have been working with contractors, and occasionally volunteers, to reduce the amount of invasive scrub on the site. This initial intensive management has allowed the grasses and flowering plants to flourish in those areas. However, unless the scrub is regularly managed it will become dense and eventually take over the grassland, making the site a lot less attractive to walk through. Similarly, the grassland is becoming rank and tussock and unless it is managed sensitively, much of the special wildlife will be lost. Using contractors and staff is not a sustainable long term approach for managing the Nature Reserve, even less so with the current and proposed budget cuts that the Local Authority is faced with. Conservation grazing is a more traditional, sustainable and less labour-intensive way of getting the grassland into good condition and keeping the scrub under control.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Transformations Program
    SUNY College Cortland Digital Commons @ Cortland Transformations College Archives 2014 2014 Transformations Program State University of New York at Cortland Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cortland.edu/transformationsprograms Recommended Citation State University of New York at Cortland, "2014 Transformations Program" (2014). Transformations. 25. https://digitalcommons.cortland.edu/transformationsprograms/25 This Program is brought to you for free and open access by the College Archives at Digital Commons @ Cortland. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transformations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Cortland. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRANSFORMATIONS A Student Research and Creativity Conference April 25, 2014 Portland Transformations: A Student Research and Creativity Conference April 25, 2014 Sperry Center SUNY Cortland Schedule of Events 12:30-1:20 p.m. Keynote Address Sperry Center, Room 105 "Multidisciplinary Solutions to 2T Century Environmental Challenges: Lessons from Sustainable Agriculture and Conservation Grazing" Gary S. Kleppel 73, Ph.D. Professor of Biological Sciences; Director of Biodiversity, Conservation & Policy Program University of Albany 1:30-2:30 p.m. Concurrent Sessions I 2:30-3 p.m. Poster Session A Sperry Center, 1st Floor Hallway 3-4 p.m. Concurrent Sessions II 4-4:30 p.m. Poster Session B Sperry Center, 1st Floor Hallway 4:30-5:30 p.m. Concurrent Sessions III Refreshments will be available 2:30-4:30 p.m. in Sperry Center, first floor food service area. PLEASE NOTE: Food and beverages are NOT allowed in classrooms. Cover design by Lauren Abbott, New Media Design major. Transformations: A Student Research and Creativity Conference is an event designed to highlight and encourage scholarship among SUNY Cortland students.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Conservation Translocation Perspectives: 2021. Case Studies from Around the Globe
    Global conservation Global conservation translocation perspectives: 2021 translocation perspectives: 2021 IUCN SSC Conservation Translocation Specialist Group Global conservation translocation perspectives: 2021 Case studies from around the globe Edited by Pritpal S. Soorae IUCN SSC Conservation Translocation Specialist Group (CTSG) i The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or any of the funding organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN. IUCN is pleased to acknowledge the support of its Framework Partners who provide core funding: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark; Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland; Government of France and the French Development Agency (AFD); the Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea; the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad); the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the United States Department of State. Published by: IUCN SSC Conservation Translocation Specialist Group, Environment Agency - Abu Dhabi & Calgary Zoo, Canada. Copyright: © 2021 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non- commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: Soorae, P. S.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Grazing Management to Maintain Or Restore Riparian Functions and Values on Rangelands 1 2 3 Sherman Swanson , Sandra Wyman , and Carol Evans
    Volume 2, 2015 pp. 1-28 ISSN: 2331-5512 Practical Grazing Management to Maintain or Restore Riparian Functions and Values on Rangelands 1 2 3 Sherman Swanson , Sandra Wyman , and Carol Evans Keywords: riparian vegetation, livestock grazing management, grazing strategies, grazing tools, stream, meadow, fish, wildlife habitat, water quality AGROVOC terms: controlled grazing, foraging, rangelands, riparian vegetation, riparian zones Abstract Successful rangeland management maintains or restores the ability of riparian plant communities to capture sediment and stabilize streambanks. Management actions are most effective when they are focused on the vegetated streambank closest to the active channel, the greenline, where vegetation most influences erosion, deposition, landform, and water quality. Effective grazing management plans balance grazing periods, especially those with more time for re-grazing, with opportunities for plant growth by adjusting grazing timing, duration, intensity, and/or variation of use and recovery. Emphasizing either: a) schedules of grazing and recovery, or b) limited utilization level within the same growing season, is a fundamental choice which drives management actions, grazing criteria, and methods for short-term monitoring. To meet resource objectives and allow riparian recovery, managers use many tools and practices that allow rather than impede recovery. Economic decisions are based on both evaluation of investments and ongoing or variable costs, themselves justified by reduced expenses, increased production, or improved resource values. Ongoing management adjusts actions using short-term monitoring focused on chosen strategies. Long-term monitoring refocuses management to target priority areas first for needed functions, and then for desired resource values. Once riparian functions are established, management enables further recovery and resilience and provides opportunities for a greater variety of grazing strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Lowland Raised Bogs
    SCOTTISH INVERTEBRATE HABITAT MANAGEMENT Lowland raised bogs Wester Moss © Paul Kirkland / Butterfly Conservation Introduction Scottish records of the Bilberry pug moth (Pasiphila debiliata ) is from Kirkconnell Flow There has been a dramatic decline in the area of (Dumfries and Galloway) while the Bog sun- lowland raised bog habitat in the past 100 years. jumper spider ( Heliophanus dampfi ) is known The area of lowland raised bog in the UK only from two sites in the UK – one of which is retaining a largely undisturbed surface is Flanders Moss (Stirlingshire). In addition, there is estimated to have diminished by around 94% a possibility that the Bog chelifer ( Microbisium from an original 95,000 ha to 6,000 ha. In brevifemoratum ) is likely to occur in Scottish Scotland, it is estimated that the original 28,000 bogs—highlighting that there may yet be ha of lowland raised bog habitat has now unrecorded species in this important habitat diminished to a current 2,500 ha. Most of the (Legg, 2010). remaining lowland raised bog in Scotland is Support for management described in this located in the central and north-east lowlands. document is available through the Scotland Rural Historically the greatest decline has occurred Development Programme (SRDP) Rural through agricultural intensification, afforestation Development Contracts (RDC). A summary of and commercial peat extraction. Future decline is this support (at time of publication) can be found likely to be the result of the gradual desiccation of in this document. bogs, damaged by a range of drainage activities and/or a general lowering of groundwater tables. Lowland raised bogs support many rare and localised invertebrates, such as the Large heath butterfly (Coenonympha tullia ) and the 6 spotted pot beetle ( Cryptocephalus sexpunctatus ).
    [Show full text]
  • Grazing Management
    I. GRAZING MANAGEMENT The greatest diversity within California’s coastal grasslands can be seen in the forbs or wildflowers that BACKGROUND emerge in the spring following winter rains. Sites The vegetation of the Santa Cruz Mountains is comprised of a rich and with adequate management diverse assemblage of plant species. This wealth of diversity was most of non-native vegetation will evident within the grassland ecosystems that evolved under a variety of reward these efforts with disturbance pressures including fire and grazing by large herds of ungu- bountiful displays of colorful late animals, which are now mostly extinct. The flora that emerged has spring wildflowers. been described as one of the most diverse and species rich ecosystems in the United States. The arrival of early Spanish and Anglo settlers initiated a particularly dra- matic change in species composition of California grasslands, primarily as By some estimates, nearly a result of tilling the grasslands for agricultural crop production, reduction 80 percent of the vegetation of native grazing animals and introduction of cattle herds brought over cover within California from Europe and let loose on the new rangeland. This introduction of non- grasslands is exotic native plants and animals, coupled with the concurrent suppression of fire vegetation. on the landscape as the western United States was settled, resulted in the substantial replacement of the native grassland vegetation with a predom- inately exotic, annual flora. The exotic vegetation is often more competi- tive, productive, and prolific than the native plants within which it coexists, and tends to dominate and replace existing native grasses and wildflow- ers.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Treatments for Native Grassland Restoration 2013
    Evaluating Treatments for Native Grassland Restoration 2013 Evaluating Treatments for Native Grassland Restoration Jonathan Haufler, Scott Yeats, and Carolyn Mehl Ecosystem Management Research Institute P.O. Box 717, Seeley Lake, MT 59868. www.emri.org Conservation Innovation Grant NRCS 69-3A75-9-152 Evaluating Treatments for Native Grassland Restoration 2013 Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................ 3 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 3 Site Selection ............................................................................................................... 3 Treatments .................................................................................................................. 5 Prescribed Fire ......................................................................................................... 5 Prescribed Grazing .................................................................................................. 9 Prescribed Grazing and Prescribed Fire ................................................................ 14 Mechanical Shrub and Tree Removal ...................................................................
    [Show full text]