Management decisions based on utilization--is it really management?

Land management agencies have become imbued with the idea that measurement of utilization will provide all the information needed to manage the range resources. We contend that nothing could be farther from the truth. As our society has become more complex, we often tend to simplify complex concepts. Utilization is one of those concepts. The use of utilization data to adjust management programs, particularly with a simple mathematical formula, is an oversimplification of resource management. Costello (1957) noted, "Oversimplification leads to poor interpretation and poor interpretation leads to poor management." Early range managers put a lot of stock in measuring utilization. Studies by Sampson and Malstem (1926) emphasized the importance of intensity and frequency of grazing that might be allowed if plant cover and forage production were to be maintained or improved. This was in spite of Sampson's earlier (1913) support of specialized grazing systems. At about the same time, the U.S. Forest Service intensified utilization standards research. Because of a perceived urgent need for plant utilization information on National Forest ranges, a request from the Administrative Division of Range Management to the Division of Range Research for a special study on utilization standards led to the development of a cooperative western-wide project on the subject (Division of Range Research, Forest Service 1944). The project was initiated in 1936 under the supervision of Dr. Robert S. Campbell. The charge given to Dr. Campbell was to formulate sound utilization standards and simple practical methods of measuring degree of forage utilization (Campbell 1937). Campbell stated that "continued productivity or gradual death of a good forage grass may depend upon a difference in foliage removal of as little as 10%." Consequently, a measurement of utilization more accurate than experienced judgement appeared to be important. Campbell's (1937) premise that the productivity of grass may depend on a difference in foliage removal of as little as 1 0% does not seem to be valid. Harris (1954) found that utilization of bluebunch wheatgrass varied from a high 69% to a low of 38% over a ten-year period, without detriment to the stand. Utilization levels of crested wheatgrass under light use at Point Springs in southern Idaho in the spring (Sharp 1970) averaged 54%, but varied from 31% to 79% between 1957 and 1969. Utilization in the moderate use pasture varied from 28% to 82% and in the