Intact sagebrush communities in the Great Basin are rapidly disappearing because of invasion of nonnative plants, large wildfires, and encroachment of pinyon and juniper woodlands. Land management options, including the use of prescribed fire, grazing, herbicides, or mechanical treatments, can reduce the potential for wildfire and restore plant communities. Public acceptance of management actions, and trust in agencies to carry out those actions, is a critical component of developing and implementing successful long-term land management plans. This study examines citizens' opinions and perceptions about rangeland management in the Great Basin. In fall 2006 we conducted a mail survey of randomly selected households in three urban and three rural regions of the Great Basin, receiving 1 345 valid responses for a 45% response rate. Overall, respondents perceived that the environment is moderately healthy; however, they do recognize threats to sagebrush ecosystems. Public acceptance is relatively high for the use of prescribed fire, grazing, felling woodland trees, and mowing shrubs, but low for herbicide treatment and chaining. Although respondents indicated high levels of acceptance for some management actions, they expressed relatively low levels of trust in land management agencies to implement these actions.
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.
Vol. 64 • No. 4