GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: PERSPECTIVES IN THE BC
CATTLE RANCHING INDUSTRY
by

Mercedes (Sadie) Cox
B. Sc. Thompson Rivers University 2007
B. Jour Thompson Rivers University 2007
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
Master of Science
in
Environmental Science
Thompson Rivers University
Spring Convocation 2013

i

ii

ABSTRACT
A quantitative analysis of the BC cattle ranching community in light of global climate
change provides insight as to how stakeholder needs and observations can be included in
future planning. This analysis is an important first step towards an understanding of existing
capacity and identifying areas of focus. Over sixty percent of survey respondents believe that
human activities are increasing the rate at which global climate changes occur. Cattle ranchers
operating for less than 20 years were more likely to agree that human activities are increasing
the rate of global climate change on comparison to those operating more than 40 years. This
may be a reflection of the fact that the concept of climate change has gained more public
acceptance in the past two decades and would likely be perceived as a legitimate risk to an
operation by those in this category in comparison to those who have been operating for a long
period of time and tend to rely on experiential or embedded knowledge. Operation scale in
terms of head of cattle appears to influence perceptions of localized climate variation on
rangelands due to global climate change and changes in forage productivity and quality on a
regional scale. Regional analysis provided some areas of potential focus for programs that
would assist producers in further adapting to changes in climate. Movement towards building
adaptive capacity must be a collaborative effort. Including experiential and scientific knowledge
will be crucial to reducing the vulnerability of this sector and building adaptive capacity.

Keywords: climate change, vulnerability, adaptive capacity, range management, British
Columbia, livestock, policy.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was made possible by the support of the BC Cattlemen’s Association and
their membership, the Grasslands Conservation Council of BC, the National Sciences and
Research Engineering Council of Canada and the Future Forest Ecosystems Scientific Council.
The TRU Human Ethics Committee for granting permission for this project (Certificate of
Approval # 10-11-S4). I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis supervisor Lauchlan
Fraser for guidance and support over the course of this project. I am also indebted to my
committee members Wendy Gardner, Robert Androkovich and Mohammad Mahbobi for their
input and support in planning and completing this project. I also thank Don Noakes, Cameron
Carlyle and Robert Maciak for analytical support. Amber Greenall, George Penfold, Rick Tucker,
Lavona Liggins, Lisa Zabek and John Church reviewed and provided input during the survey
design process.

iv

DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to my family, friends and community members who continued
to endlessly support and inspire me, and—most of all—to the source of my motivation to
continue to learn and conserve—my son.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................vi
1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.0

Introduction: Climate change & BC Cattle Ranching ........................................................... 5

2.1

Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.2

Methods ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.1

Sample selection & survey delivery:........................................................................... 10

2.2.2

Survey design: ............................................................................................................. 12

2.2.3

Human Ethics Approval .............................................................................................. 13

2.3

Statistical Analysis .......................................................................................................... 13

2.4

Results ............................................................................................................................ 15

2.4.1

Population background data ...................................................................................... 16

2.4.2

Climate change characterization ................................................................................ 21

2.4.3

Management strategy responses: .............................................................................. 41

2.4.4

Information needs & preferences .............................................................................. 54

2.4.5

Respondent comments............................................................................................... 55

2.5

Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 57

3.

Conclusions & Future Directions........................................................................................... 64

4.

References ............................................................................................................................ 68

5.

Appendices............................................................................................................................ 74
5.1

Appendix I: Cattle inventories by province .................................................................... 74
vi

5.2

Appendix II: Survey cover letter ..................................................................................... 76

5.3

Appendix III: Cattle producer survey.............................................................................. 77

5.4

Appendix IV: Beef in BC article ....................................................................................... 87

5.5

Appendix V: Respondent comments.............................................................................. 88

5.6

Appendix VI: Experimental field study ........................................................................... 99

5.7

Appendix VI: Calibration of soil moisture probes ........................................................ 121

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.2-1: Regional classification of survey mailings................................................................. 11
Table 2.4-1: Frequency analysis of operation establishment ....................................................... 16
Table 2.4-2: Reported number of cattle per ranch....................................................................... 17
Table 2.4-3: Semi-annual average number of cattle and calves per farm from 2010 – 2012 ...... 17
Table 2.4-5: Willingness to invest in maintaining the health of the crown tenured land ............ 19
Table 2.4-6: Human activities & the rate at which global climate changes occur ....................... 21
Table 2.4-7: Factors associated with global climate change. .......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2.4-8: Changes in local climate on rangelands due to global climate change .................... 23
Table 2.4-9: Access to and availability of water ........................................................................... 23
Table 2.4-10: Change in forage productivity ................................................................................ 24
Table 2.4-11: Change in forage quality ......................................................................................... 24
Table 2.4-12: Impact of mountain pine beetle on ranching operation ........................................ 25
Table 2.4-13: Regional one-way ANOVA analyses of questions regarding climate change beliefs
and associated factors, categorized by region. ............................................................................ 27
Table 2.4-14: One-way ANOVA analyses of questions regarding climate change beliefs and
associated factors in relation to establishment time ................................................................... 31
Table 2.4-15: One-way ANOVA analyses of operation size (based on number of cattle) and
questions regarding climate change beliefs and associated factors. ........................................... 34
Table 2.4-16: Management changes in in response to changes in climate.................................. 41
Table 2.4-17: Estimated economic cost per acre associated with management changes
associated with global climate change.. ....................................................................................... 42
Table 2.4-18: Extent of any management changes made in response to global climate
change.Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2.4-19: Developed additional water sources/change the way water is accessed. ............. 45
Table 2.4-20: Changed the way water is used/shared. ................................................................ 45
Table 2.4-21: Changed the way water reaches operation (trucking water in)............................. 45
Table 2.4-23: Interest in the development of policy to address changes in management
strategies on Crown land associated with changes in climate ..................................................... 47
viii

Table 2.4-24: Two-way ANOVA regional analysis of incentives of potential policy preferences in
terms of management on Crown land.......................................................................................... 52
Table 2.4-25: Two-way ANOVA testing main effect between region and question asking
individuals to identify the major challenges currently facing operations. ................................... 53
Table 2.4-26: Interest in future climate change education .......................................................... 54
Table 3.0-1: Program options for building adaptive capacity for BC cattle ranchers ………..………61

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: The grazing management environment……………………………………………………..…………..4
Figure 2.4-1: Number of operations by region. ............................................................................ 18
Figure 2.4-2: Major challenges currently facing operations by region......................................... 20
Figure 2.4-3: Regional frequency of responses depicting differences in agreement between the
Thompson-Okanagan, Cariboo and Peace regions………………………………………………………………….28
Figure 2.4-4: Regional differences in mean in responses to the question statement: Human
activities are increasing the rate at which global climate changes occur…………………………………29
Figure 2.4-5: Regional differences in mean in responses to the question statement: Access to
and availability of water had decreased as a result of regional climate change.......................... 30
Figure 2.4-6: Differences in mean in responses to the question statement: Human activities are
increasing the rate at which global climate changes occur based on establishment time .......... 32
Figure 2.4-7: Differences in mean of regrouped responses to the question statement: Human
activities are increasing the rate at which global climate changes occur based on establishment
time………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..33
Figure 2.4-8: Differences in mean in responses to the question statement: Local climate on
rangelands is changing because of global climate change ........................................................... 35
Figure 2.4-9: Differences in mean of regrouped responses to the question statement: Local
climate on rangelands is changing because of global climate change……………………………………..36
Figure 2.4-10: Differences in mean in responses to the question statement: There has been a
change in forage productivity on rangelands you use because of global climate change ........... 37
Figure 2.4-11: Differences in mean of regrouped responses to the question statement: There
has been a change in forage productivity on rangelands you use because of global climate
change..........................................................................................................................................38
Figure 2.4-12: Differences in mean in responses to the question statement: There has been a
change in forage quality on rangelands you use because of global climate change…................. 39
Figure 2.4-13: Differences in mean of regrouped responses to the question statement: There
has been a change in forage quality on rangelands you use because of global climate change..40

x

Figure 2.4-14: Difference between more frequent management changes (scale 4-5) and the less
frequent (scale 1-2) according to region of British Columbia. ..................................................... 44
Figure 2.4-15: Frequency graph depicting responses regarding preferred incentives for
managing private land. ................................................................................................................. 47
Figure 2.4-16: Regional variation in preferred incentives ............................................................ 49
Figure 2.5-1: Graphic representation of the resources available for building adaptive capacity
for the BC cattle ranching industry .............................................................................................. 63
Figure 0.6.2-3: Experimental control plot containing 100% sagebrush prior to fall 2011
harvesting. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………105
Figure 0.6.3-1: 2010 soil moisture data. Data from 0% cover plot not shown………..………………107
Figure 5.6.3-2: 2010 Soil temperature data. Data from 0% cover plot not shown………………….108
Figure 5.6.3-3: 2011 soil moisture data. Data from 75% cover plot not shown. ....................... 109
Figure 5.6.3-4: 2011 soil temperature data. Data from 0% coverplot not shown. .................... 110

xi

1. INTRODUCTION
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that global climate change is
undeniable (IPCC 2007). Predictions for the next two decades include a warming of 2.0°C which
will induce many changes to the global climate system in combination with current rates of
greenhouse gas emissions. Regional predictions include changes in wind patterns, precipitation
and the prevalence of extreme weather events (IPCC 2007). These changes will undoubtedly
impact grazing livestock systems which are sensitive to variability in climate and persist under
different biogeoclimatic conditions.
Climate variability can often result in one of the three following “syndromes”:
desertification, woody encroachment and deforestation, and in combination represent a
significant factor of global environmental change (Asner et al. 2004). A small-scale study of the
possible impacts of woody encroachment on forage productivity in the grasslands on the
interior of BC was conducted as part of this project (Appendix VI). The rise in global
temperatures is expected to create an increase in drought, which will affect forage and crop
production and could potentially result in increased desertification through the combined
effect of lower rainfall, warmer temperatures and increased drought. These conditions will lead
to increased variability of forage availability and production, contributing to reduced industrial
and ecological sustainability (Nardone et al. 2010). The decreased abundance of forage for
grazing will lead to intensified grazing pressure. Consequences of the intensified pressure
include declining vigor and abundance of plants palatable to livestock and an increased
abundance of less desirable plants, decreased soil fertility and reduced soil water absorption
(Conner 1994).
Thornton et al. (2007) suggest the impacts of climate change will depend on the nature of
and exposure to climate hazards and be dependent on two types of vulnerability: biophysical
and social. They define biophysical vulnerability as the sensitivity of the natural environment to
hazards and social vulnerability as the sensitivity and adaptability of the human environment.
Vulnerability is also defined as the ”propensity of human and ecological systems to suffer harm
1

and their [relative] ability to respond to stresses imposed as a result of climate change effects”
by Adger et al. (2007). Factors influencing social vulnerability include edification, environmental
exposures, the distribution of resources, prior stresses and the involvement of social and
government institutions.
The IPCC (Parry et al. 2007) defines vulnerability as the:
degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with,
adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and
extremes […]a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a system is exposed, the sensitivity and
adaptive capacity of that system.

Adaptation then, is a response aiming to reduce overall vulnerability to climate change
and the capacity or potential to do so is referred to as social adaptive capacity (Ziervogel et al.
2006) and involves adjustments in both behaviour and in resources and technologies (Adger et
al. 2007). These adaptive adjustments in natural or human systems to current or expected
climatic variability either moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities (Parry et al. 2007).
According to Dolan et al. (2001) there are two types of adaptation to climate change. A reactive
adaptation occurs after the impacts of climate change have already been experienced, while
anticipatory adaptation is proactive and initiated before the full impact has been felt. Nardone
et al. (2010) provide an example of proactive adaptation, stating that livestock systems should
seize any opportunities derived from climate variation and attempt to minimize potential
threats. In the case of cattle ranching in BC, this could include taking advantage of the increased
number of growing degree days and planning for drought or extreme weather events.
Understanding the factors that influence management decisions in grazing systems is essential
in building successful adaptive capacity and reducing vulnerability (Fig. 1-1).
Reducing social and economic vulnerability and increasing political capacity will go a
long way in helping ranchers be more adaptable (Coles & Scott 2009). Flexibility in integrative
management policies and programs is crucial in ensuring diverse needs are met (Wall & Smit
2005). Climate change impacts and adaptation issues need to be relevant to local concerns
2

within both community and management planning. Planning instruments such as Official
Community Plans, local zoning, regional planning districts and the provincial Agricultural Land
Reserve (ALR) have the potential to be powerful tools, guiding the planning process (Walker &
Sydneysmith 2008).
A qualitative analysis of the BC cattle ranching community in light of global climate
change provides insight as to how stakeholder needs and observations can be included in
future planning. This analysis is an important first step towards an understanding of existing
capacity and identifying areas of focus. Stakeholder inclusion in the planning process will be
fundamental to the success of not only local and regional policy and programs but in
contributing to the overall success of capacity building. Producers with experiential knowledge
will be key players in reducing vulnerability by facilitating the education of the industry. This
collaborative process will facilitate the adaptation of agricultural and food systems to coping
with the short and long-term impacts of climate change.

3

Figure 1-1: The grazing management environment consists of interrelationships between
resources, activities and external influences and play a role in grazing management decisions
(from Stuth et al. 1991).

4

A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BC CATTLE PRODUCERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON
CLIMATE CHANGE
2.0 INTRODUCTION
In its Fourth Assessment Report on climate change, the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) stated that global climate change and warming is “unequivocal” as evidenced by
observations of increases in average global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of
snow and ice and rising sea levels (IPCC 2007). The term “climate change” refers to any
significant change in the state of the climate (e.g., changes in the mean and/or variability of its
properties) over an extended period of time (decades or longer), whether due to natural
variability or as a result of human activity (Parry et al. 2007; Ruddell et al. 2011).
Land classified as agricultural, which includes cropland, managed grassland and
permanent crops, occupy 40-50% of the Earth’s land surface (Parry et al. 2007; Smith et al.
2007), with managed grazing systems occupying more than 33 million square kilometres or 25%
of the global land surface. These systems endure under different biogeoclimatic conditions and
often result in one of the three following “syndromes”: desertification, woody encroachment,
and deforestation; in combination these syndromes represent a significant factor of global
environmental change (Asner et al. 2004). Rising global temperatures are expected to create an
increase in drought, which will affect forage and crop production, intensifying the process of
desertification in these systems, reducing the carrying capacity of rangelands and other
livestock systems. This could also increase the prevalence of other risk factors due to the
availability and cost of grain (Nardone et al. 2010), making these systems more vulnerable and
impairing their relative ability to adapt to changing conditions.
Considering that climate influences forage productivity (Antle 1996) and that global
climate change will likely have a significant effect on plant growth, it is important to predict the
effects of global climate change on forage productivity and forage quality and the impact global
climate change will have on livestock management. Fluctuation in climate conditions usually
results in variation in total yield of available forage, and thus, cattle production. This variability
5

poses challenges to those depending on grazing land to support livelihoods (Conner 1994;
Nardone et al. 2010). Crop and pasture growth in grazing-based livestock systems will be
negatively affected by lower rainfall and increased drought conditions and by the effect of
higher temperatures and solar radiation on animals (Nardone et al. 2010).
Agriculture is a major economic, social and cultural activity and remains highly sensitive
to climate variations in all its different forms and locations (Howden et al. 2007). Soil, water,
terrain and climate conditions provide both constraints and opportunities for agricultural
production (Wall & Smit 2005) and, as such, environmental conditions are often a dominant
source of the annual variability of regional production. Continued fluctuations in climate and
weather patterns induced by global climate change will undoubtedly impact the future
management of farming operations.
According to Zebarth et al. (2007), the general climate prediction for BC is for warmer
and wetter winters and warmer and drier summers. Drier summers would occur from the
combined effect of reduced precipitation and increased evaporation in some areas, resulting in
an increased water deficit. The expected impact of climate change varies regionally because of
the distinct nature of the climate and characteristics of each area. An increase is expected in
annual variation in temperature and precipitation and the probability of extreme weather
events—contributing to increased agricultural risk (Weber & Hauer 2003) and vulnerability.
There are few examples of adaptive range management strategies specific to climate
change. This can be partially attributed to an inadequate perception of climate change as a risk
to livelihoods. Perception of risk may be a function of proximal distance to a climate-related
threat such as heat waves, droughts and forest fires, and whether the threat is perceived as
endangering their way of life (Semenza et al. 2011). A recent study by Deressa et al. (2011) of
Ethiopian farmers suggests adaptation to climate change is a two-step process, first requiring
that an individual perceive climatic changes in order to achieve the second step, which is to
respond accordingly. Values and beliefs concerning climate change—and from them policy
norms and tolerances—can differ significantly according to the nature of economic and social
development (Brown 2012).

6

In their study comparing public opinion on climate change in the United States and
Canada, Borick et al. (2011) suggest that partisan affiliation also influences views of Canadians
on global warming, finding that Conservative Party supporters were significantly less likely than
supporters of all other parties to believe in global warming. Ruddell et al. (2011) propose these
perceptions are influenced by political affiliation because public opinion on climate change has
become a partisan issue. Borick et al. (2011) also found that climate change believers are
divided on the root causes of global warming, citing both human activity and natural causes.
Understanding opinions and perceptions about climate change will be a vital component in
developing and facilitating effective policy options. Social adaptive capacity can be enhanced or
inhibited by the character of decision-making relationships and policy planning as adaptation is
influenced by the institutional, social, economic and political environment in which individuals
operate. With two out of three Canadians believing that their province has already felt the
effects of global warming (Borick et al. 2011), the social and political climate is supportive of
developing mechanisms to increase adaptive capacity.
At the local level in BC, community planning is a key mechanism in increasing the
adaptive capacity of stakeholders to consider and integrate the effects of climate change
(Walker & Sydneysmith 2008; Thornton et al. 2009). Grounding support for adaptation and
mitigation initiatives within the context of shared experiences and knowledge and improving
public awareness would result in a more productive, less socially divisive model that blends
scientific and experiential knowledge, reshaping public opinion about climate change (Ruddell
et al. 2011). By the same token, the BC ranching community will be pivotal in successful and
effective planning of climate change adaptation strategies.
It is crucial that range management practices are adaptable (as defined in Howden et al.
2007) and are able to address climate change issues that impact all aspects of ranching.
Effective range management and associated policies need to consider changes in annual
temperature and precipitation patterns. Undertaking a qualitative analysis of the ranching
industry in light of climate change will provide a more comprehensive assessment of adaptive
capacity via the inclusion of stakeholder observation (Coles & Scott 2009). A collaborative

7

learning process would enable and facilitate the adaptation of agricultural and food systems to
coping with the impacts of climate change (Thornton et al. 2009).
Possible adaptive responses include technological (such as seeding more robust or
drought-tolerant crops), behavioural (such as changes in dietary choice), managerial (altering
farm management practices/livestock species), and policy options (planning and
infrastructure). Adaptation to climate change requires modifications to behaviour. Research
alone cannot effectively contribute to the improvement of adaptive capacity without a
comprehensive understanding of the context in which decisions about adaptation are made,
and the capacity of decision makers to change (Thornton et al. 2009; IPCC 2007; Nardone et al.
2010).

2.1 OBJECTIVES
After reviewing possible survey implementation strategies, it was decided a mailed
survey would be the best way to cover a large area, reaching all areas of British Columbia,
Canada where ranching occurs. To be consequential, the assessment needed to consider
possible differences between urban and rural communities in BC in terms of local policies,
growth patterns, planning issues and social attitudes.
The objectives of the survey were to determine:
i.

If ranchers believe that climate change is caused by human activities.

ii.

If region, operation size or establishment time influence whether individuals
attribute observed climatic changes on rangelands to climate change,

iii.

If range management changes made in response to changes in climate varies by
region, operation size or establishment time,

iv.

To identify areas of focus for future education efforts and the application of adaptive
range management strategies,

v.

To identify means to enhance or create opportunities for adaptive capacity within
the BC cattle industry.

8

It was expected that next to issues related to water quality and availability, feed prices
and market prices for beef would be identified by livestock producers as increasing their
vulnerability and influencing their relative ability to adapt to changes in climate. We also
expected to see regional differences in management adaptations and operational concerns.

9

2.2 METHODS
2.2.1 SAMPLE SELECTION & SURVEY DELIVERY:
A mailed survey was chosen as the best approach to survey delivery based on a number
of factors including economic viability, time and resource constraints. Although face to face
interviews conceivably allow for more in-depth discussion of the interview questions and for
clarification, this method would have considerably restricted sample size and breadth. The
survey was designed in a manner consistent with recommendations by professionals in the field
of survey methodology (Dillman 1983, 2000; Sanchez 1992; Puffer et al. 2004; Diaz de Rada
2005).
Many strategies, as described by Dillman (2000), Dillman et al. (2009), Kanuk &
Berenson (1975), and Sanchez (1992) were employed to reduce nonresponse survey error.
Surveys and cover letters were sent to 581 ranches, representing approximately half of the
British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association’s (BCCA) provincial membership. The surveys and
cover letters were mailed out in envelopes containing a postage-paid return envelope stamped
with a postage stamp. The membership was categorized into six regions and half of the
members within each area were randomly selected to receive the survey (Table 2.2-1).
Mailworks, a third-party mailing service, was employed to work with the BCCA’s membership
list and to add codes to the surveys to maintain confidentiality. The BCCA allowed the use of
their membership list for distribution on the condition that those selected to receive the survey
would be able to maintain anonymity. The concern was that recipients may not otherwise feel
comfortable responding or expressing an opinion regarding current government policy. In an
attempt to reduce nonresponse error and to address this concern, anonymity was maintained.
Coding was used to determine a recipient list for the reminder postcard and for
selecting three prize winners from the pool of respondents. The codes were also used in
statistical analysis to discern regional differences in responses. Full disclosure regarding the
coding was made clear to survey recipients on both the cover letter (Appendix II) and the
surveys.
10

Table 2.2-1: Classification of survey mailings categorized by region based on the BC Cattlemen’s
Association membership directory.
Region

Members in
Region

Number
Mailed

Peace
Central
Cariboo
Thompson-Okanagan
Kootenay
South Coast

180
352
179
334
93
21

90
176
90
167
47
11

A reminder postcard was mailed 14 days after the initial mailing. The cover letter and
post card also contained direct contact information (phone number and email address) of the
researcher. The postcard also included the web address of the online survey (Fig. 2.2-1).
A reward mechanism was employed as an incentive to complete the survey and increase
response rates. Two $50 prizes and one $100 prize were available to be won as store credit at a
local retailer of choice. Respondents were entered into the contest once completed
questionnaires were received. Research suggests employing reward mechanisms can
significantly increase response rates (Oppenheim 1992; Dillman 2000).
An online version of the survey was also created using SurveyMonkey and distributed to
members of the BC cattle ranching community through the BCCA via e-newsletters, the BCCA
website and the Beef in BC magazine (Appendix IV). The web address for the online survey was
included on the reminder postcards to provide an option for those who wished to complete the
survey online. This mixed-mode approach to surveys is still relatively new and has been met
with limited success depending on respondent demographics (Dillman et al. 2009).

11

Figure 2.2-1: Front (left) and back (right) of reminder postcard sent two weeks after initial
mailings to those who had not yet responded to the survey. Postcards were mailed by
Mailworks based on the codes tracking respondents.

2.2.2 SURVEY DESIGN:
The survey design focused on characterizing cattle producers’ present understanding of
climate change and the degree to which they have adapted management practices in response
to perceived changes in climate. Several steps were involved in the survey design including
successive drafts and revisions based on recommendations from cattle producers, range
management scientists and experienced survey designers. Once there was agreement that the
survey design and content met the goals of the study, the survey was forwarded to the BCCA
and select cattle ranchers for review and feedback regarding clarity and readability. Final
revisions and changes were made to the survey based on the comments received, keeping the
goals and objectives of the survey in mind.
Questions were grouped into four sections (climate change, management, background,
and outreach) and question response options remained consistent throughout the survey.
Possible recency (choosing the last response category) and primacy (choosing the first category)
effects and the effects of non-opinion filters (offering a middle alternative on agree/disagree
12

questions) were considered in the design, however, research suggests the overall impact of
these effect is overrated and not of concern in mail surveys (Dillman 1991). The final version of
the survey was comprised of four sections (Appendix III). Questions in the first section focused
on global climate change and attempted to capture how climate change is perceived and
defined by cattle producers. An attempt was also made to characterize the perceived nature of
climatic changes, global and regional, through the design of the questions in this section.
The second section focused on range management strategies in relation to global
climate change, and included questions about changes in range management strategies in
response to perceived changes in climate and what types of incentives would be considered in
the adaptive management of both private and Crown land. Information on the background of
the respondents was collected in the third section, which included regional and operational
questions. Respondents were also asked to identify the major challenges currently facing their
operations. The final section was intended to identify areas and opportunities for further
education and information and to elucidate the preferred medium of receiving this information.

2.2.3 HUMAN ETHICS APPROVAL
Permission from the TRU Human Ethics Committee was required prior to making
contact with potential survey respondents. Information that could possibly be used to identify
respondents was kept in a secure location and accessible only to researchers directly involved
in the project (Certificate of Approval # 10-11-S4).

2.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics were generated for all questions. Frequency plots for most questions
were also generated using regional data as the dependent variable and the question responses
as the independent response variable. Frequency analysis using the number of cattle and length
of time operating (i.e. operation size and establishment) as dependent variable with responses
13

to questions from section one as the independent variable. Contingency tables were generated
for multi-part questions. To explore whether establishment time of an operation affected
perspectives about climate change, the same questions were also compared to the number of
years an individual has been operating and the number of cattle per operation. The purpose
was to see if there was any effect of location, operation size or establishment on responses to
questions such as those pertaining to water and forage quality/availability, impact of the
mountain pine beetle, information needs and preferences.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out using background data gathered in
section three (region, number of cattle and length of time operating) as independent variables
and questions from section one of the survey as the dependant variable. An ANOVA was
performed with the original categories according to the available response options for region,
number of cattle and length of time operating and on regrouped data as data for operation size
and establishment time were regrouped to create categories of comparable size. Multipleresponse questions were analyzed using a univariate analysis of variance. Post hoc tests (Tukey
HSD and Games-Howell (if equal variance was not assumed)) for multiple comparisons were
used if significance was indicated by either an ANOVA or univariate analysis.

14

2.4 RESULTS
A total of 287 surveys were returned (including 23 blank) for a 49% return rate. A
number of surveys were excluded due to non-response bias (Ornstein 1998) where the survey
was returned either incomplete or contained invalid responses. Some surveys were only
partially completed but still contained usable data for some questions and that information was
included in the results. An additional 22 surveys were excluded from the analysis due to either
being improperly completed or the respondents self-identifying they were no longer actively
ranching. A total of 242 surveys (42% usable) were used in the final analysis (Table 2.4-1).
Only 13 individuals chose to complete the survey online. This was unsurprising and in
agreement with the findings of Dillman et al. (2009) that switching to a second mode of data
collection (i.e., following up a mailed survey with a different survey mode option) isn’t an
effective means of reducing nonresponse error for mailed surveys. The online survey results
were not included in the final analysis. All statistical analysis of the survey data was performed
using IBM SPSS software (Version 19).

Table 2.4-1: Regional response rate to survey based on 230 surveys.
Region

Number mailed

Number
returned

Regional
response rate

Peace
Central BC
Cariboo
Thompson-Okanagan
Kootenay
South Coast

90
176
90
167
47
11

32
64
53
57
33
2

36%
36%
59%
34%
70%
18%

The Kootenay region had the highest rate of survey return followed by the Cariboo and
an average return rate was achieved for the Peace, Central BC and the Thompson-Okanagan.

15

Only two surveys were returned from surveyed operations on the South Coast. These surveys
were excluded from regional statistical analysis (n < 5).

2.4.1 POPULATION BACKGROUND DATA
Factors such as location, size of operation, establishment (number of years operating),
land ownership (private vs. Crown lease), investment in Crown land (willingness to manage),
engagement in additional agricultural activities and current operational challenges all provide
some insight into this group of stakeholders.
Based on the BCCA membership list, the majority of operations are located in Central
BC, followed by the Thompson-Okanagan and Cariboo regions. Thirty five percent indicated
establishment of more than 40 years, with the longest operation being established for 147
years and twelve percent operating for 50 years (Table2.4-1). Average operating time for the
remaining categories is eight years.

Table 2.4-1: Frequency analysis summarizing responses regarding the length of time cattle
ranches have been in operation at current location.
Number of years operating
Response options
Less than 5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-25 years
26-30 years
31-35 years
36-40 years
More than 40 years
Total

Frequency
16
15
19
26
17
16
21
24
84
238

Percent
6.7
6.3
8.0
10.9
7.1
6.7
8.8
10.1
35.3
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
6.7
13.0
21.0
31.9
39.1
45.8
54.6
64.7
100.0

16

Participants were asked to indicate the category which most appropriately reflected
their current operation size in terms of number of cattle. Close to 60% reported operations with
100 head of cattle or less (Table 2.4-2), which reflects the fact that the provincial average of
cattle per ranch in B.C. is 95 (Table 2.4-3).

Table 2.4-2: Reported number of cattle per ranch.
Response
Frequency
options

Percent

0-50
50-100
100-200
200-250
250-500
over 500
Total

27.3
26.5
20.2
6.3
11.8
8.0
100.0

65
63
48
15
28
19
238

Cumulative
Percent
27.3
53.8
73.9
80.3
92.0
100.0

Table 2.4-3: Semi-annual average number of cattle and calves per farm from 2010 – 2012.
Average number of cattle per farm in BC as of January 2012 is 95, below the national average of
132. *Period I: data at January 1. Period II: data at July 1 (StatsCan table 003-0099).
Geography
British
Columbia
British
Columbia

Canada
Canada

Estimates

I 2010

II 2010

I 2011

II 2011

I 2012

Number of farms reporting cattle and calves

5820

5995

5655

5975

5660

89

109

92

109

95

99360

99550

96430

97115

95105

130

140

129

143

132

Average number of cattle and calves per
farm reporting
Number of farms reporting cattle and calves
Average number of cattle and calves per
farm reporting

17

Figure 2.4-1: Number of operations by region. Each bar represents the number of operations of
a given size based on the number of cattle.

There is a higher frequency of operations having between 0-100 head of cattle in
Central BC and over 500 head of cattle in the Thompson-Okanagan (Fig. 2.4-1). Operations
having between 100-200 cattle are most common in the Cariboo region, while those having
200-250 are most common in the Peace region. Participants were asked to indicate whether
they engaged in any other agricultural activity and, if so, to estimate the scale of that activity in
hectares. 38% of respondents stated they engaged in other agricultural activities. The most
common secondary activity was growing hay for silage or forage, either for use in the existing
operation or to supplement revenue (70%). Others had other livestock such as sheep, pigs and
goats and identified a range of activities such as timber sales, agritourism (horseback rides),
dairy cattle (for financial stability), egg production and Christmas tree farming.
Another representation of operation size was obtained by asking respondents to
provide an estimated acreage in terms of private, Crown tenure, common/shared pasture and
18

private lease land accessed for grazing (Table 2.4-4). Unfortunately, many respondents replied
by providing an estimated percentage of each category without providing a total area. As there
was no way to determine an estimated area from this information, these responses had to be
excluded from the analysis. Anecdotally, most indicated that Crown grazing tenures comprised
a significant proportion (85-100%) of the land used for operating.

Table 2.4-4: Estimated area of rangeland used by operations (n=150).
Response options

N

Private land
Crown land
Common/shared
Private lease

150
88
13
69

Minimum Maximum
(acres)
(acres)
10
1
0
30

30000
1000000
100000
50000

Mean

Std. Deviation

1232.91
35944.98
10041.31
1738.55

2789.15
115705.49
27584.94
6101.60

Table 2.4-5: Response to the question: “if you hold Crown tenure, please estimate how much
effort you are willing to invest in maintaining the health of the Crown-tenured land.”

Response options

Frequency

low investment
2
3
4
high investment
Total

24
24
41
30
27
146

Percent
16.4
16.4
28.1
20.5
18.5
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
16.4
32.9
61.0
81.5
100.0

Close to 50% of respondents were willing to make a significant investment in
maintaining Crown-tenured land, 28% were neutral and roughly 35% would make a low
investment (Table 2.4-5). Many respondents noted they already invest in maintaining the
rangelands they use, Crown or otherwise. Option 3 (neutral) was the most frequent option
chosen, but the majority of responses indicate willingness.
19

Market prices for cattle was identified as the most significant challenge facing cattle
ranching operations, followed by fuel and grain/hay costs (Fig. 2.4-2). These results differed
from the expected issues related to water quality and availability. Global climate change was
consistently identified in all regions as the least significant challenge. Some regional variation
exists in terms of grain/hay costs, water availability and family involvement/successional
planning.

Figure 2.4-2: Major challenges currently facing operations by region. 1 = least significant, 5 =
most significant.

20

2.4.2 CLIMATE CHANGE CHARACTERIZATION
One of the objectives of the survey was to determine the extent that cattle producers
believe in global climate change. This section of the survey focused on trying to characterize
that understanding by asking questions regarding what climate change is, asking respondents
to identify factors normally associated with global climate change, and factors that may affect
operations that are also associated with climate change (i.e.: water and forage
quality/availability). When asked whether they agreed with the statement that “Human
activities are increasing the rate at which global climate changes occur” more than 60% (n =
242) of respondents strongly agreed/agreed and 20% strongly disagreed/disagreed (Table 2.46).

Table 2.4-6: Response to question statement: “human activities are increasing the rate at which
global climate changes occur.”

Response options
strongly agree
somewhat agree
neutral
somewhat disagree
strongly disagree
Total

Frequency
53
102
37
28
22
242

Percent
21.9
42.1
15.3
11.6
9.1
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
21.9
64.0
79.3
90.9
100.0

21

Table 2.4-7: Response to question statements listing factors associated with global climate change.

Almost 60% identified changes in annual precipitation as a factor, followed by 50%
identifying changes in annual temperature/change in frequency of severe weather events
(Table 2.4-7). Over 60% disagreed with the association between changes in the length and
timing of seasons and global climate change. Respondents were asked to identify other factors
they associated with global climate change. Only nine participants responded to this option,
citing volcanoes, earthquakes, changes in bird migration and in forest composition as factors. A
few participants also noted that cycling weather patterns is normal and not associated with
global climate change, selecting “strongly disagree” in the “other” category.
To differentiate between perspectives regarding global climate change and regional
changes in climate, participants were asked to select the degree to which they agreed with the
statement: Local climate on rangelands is changing because of global climate change. Over 50%
of respondents relate changes in local climate on rangelands to global climate change and close
to 20% are either neutral or disagree (Table 2.4-8). To ascertain what factors participants
associate with regional changes in climate, participants were asked to characterize changes in
access to/availability of water and forage quality/productivity on any rangelands used. This is

22

an important question as restricted access to water or a reduction in forage quality can have a
significant impact on the long-term feasibility of an operation.

Table 2.4-8: Response to question statement: “local climate on rangelands is changing because
of global climate change.”
Response options
strongly agree
somewhat agree
Neutral
somewhat disagree
strongly disagree
Total

Frequency

Percent

33
94
55
27
27
236

14.0
39.8
23.3
11.4
11.4
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
14.0
53.8
77.1
88.6
100.0

Table 2.4-9: Response to question statement: “access to and availability of water has decreased
as a result of regional climate change.”
Response options
strongly agree
somewhat agree
Neutral
somewhat disagree
strongly disagree
Total

Frequency

Percent

55
77
44
45
17
238

23.1
32.4
18.5
18.9
7.1
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
23.1
55.5
73.9
92.9
100.0

Over 50% agreed that access to and availability of water has decreased regionally while
26% disagreed (Table 2.4-9). 50% indicated a change in forage productivity associated with
regional changes in climate, close to 25% said there was no change (Table 2.4-10). Responses
regarding forage quality were only marginally different from each other with 35% agreeing,
34% being neutral and 32% disagreeing (Table 2.4-11).
23

Table 2.4-10: Response to question statement: “there has been a change in forage productivity
on rangelands you use because of regional climate change.”
Response options
strongly agree
somewhat agree
Neutral
somewhat disagree
strongly disagree
Total

Frequency

Percent

40
79
60
40
18
237

16.9
33.3
25.3
16.9
7.6
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
16.9
50.2
75.5
92.4
100.0

Table 2.4-11: Response to question statement: “there has been a change in forage quality on
rangelands you use because of regional climate change.”
Response options
strongly agree
somewhat agree
Neutral
somewhat disagree
strongly disagree
Total

Frequency

Percent

21
61
80
46
29
237

8.9
25.7
33.8
19.4
12.2
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
8.9
34.6
68.4
87.8
100.0

As climate change is associated with the spread of the mountain pine beetle throughout
BC (Drolet 2012), it was important to describe any impact the loss of any forest may have had
on rangelands as a result of the mountain pine beetle. The response options for this question
allowed for the indication of positive, negative or no impact (neutral). A follow-up question
asked respondents to expand on their category selection by briefly stating how their operation
was affected.

24

Table 2.4-12: Response to question statement: “the destruction of forests caused by the pine
beetle has impacted my ranching operation.”
Response options

Frequency

Percent

very positively
positively
Neutral
negatively
very negatively
Total

36
42
84
34
38
234

15.4
17.9
35.9
14.5
16.2
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
15.4
33.3
69.2
83.8
100.0

Statements indicating how mountain pine beetle has affected cattle ranching
operations: positively (33%), negatively (31%) and neutral (36%) (Table 2.4-12). Based on
regional data, these results are reflective of regional differences in biogeoclimatic zones and
forestry composition. Some positive impacts identified include greater access to
range/increased foraging areas, increased forage productivity and more fires to stimulate
rejuvenation. Most responses related to the “neutral” category were from regions unaffected
by mountain pine beetle. The following comment encapsulates most of the negative impacts
identified in this response section:

Value of timber is gone so can't be used as capital for improvements; destruction of
fences due to dead trees falling constantly; makes for poorer bush pasture - limits
movement of cattle due to downfall.

Other negative impacts include the loss of natural barriers (resulting in the need for more
fences), loss of shelter from the elements, increased wind, faster spring run-off (less water
retention), increased soil erosion, increased risk of forest fire and loss of income source via
lower stumpage rates or an inability to harvest and/or market dead/fallen trees.
25

26

Table 2.4-13: Five one-way ANOVA analyses of questions regarding climate change beliefs and
associated factors, categorized by region.
*South Coast region excluded from analysis (n = 2).

Do you think
human
activities are
increasing the
rate at which
global climate
changes
occur?

Regional
responses

Local
climate on
rangelands
is changing
because of
global
climate
change.

Access to and
availability of
water has
decreased as
a result of
regional
climate
change.

There has
been a
change in
forage
productivity
on
rangelands
you use
because of
regional
climate
change.

There has
been a
change in
forage
quality on
rangelands
you use
because of
regional
climate
change.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

3.389

.010*

1.429

.225

3.858

.005*

1.275

.280

1.502

Sig.

The
destruction
of forests
caused by
the pine
beetle has
impacted
my
ranching
operation.

F

.202 1.379

Sig.
.242

There were significant differences in beliefs in the Thompson-Okanagan region in terms
of human activity influencing the rate of global climate change and access to and the availability
of water (Table 2.4-13). Significant differences were observed in the one-way analysis of
variance comparison of regional response means to the question regarding whether human
activities are affecting the rate of global climate change (eta-squared = 0.05), whether access
and availability to water has decreased due to regional climate change (eta-squared = .059).
Post hoc Tukey HSD analysis results indicate a significant response variance regarding whether
human activities are increasing the rate at which global climate changes occur between the
Thompson-Okanagan, Cariboo and the Peace regions (Fig. 2.4-3).

27

Figure 2.4-3: Regional frequency of responses depicting differences in agreement between the
Thompson-Okanagan, Cariboo and Peace regions in response to the noted question.

28

Figure 2.4-4: Regional differences in mean in responses to the question statement: Human
activities are increasing the rate at which global climate changes occur. 1 = strongly agree – 5 =
strongly disagree. (a) indicates the mean responses from the Thompson-Okanagan were
significantly different from the mean response option in the Cariboo (b) and Peace (c). No other
significant differences were observed in the responses from other regions (ab). Error bars
indicate standard error of the mean for each category.

Significant difference in the mean of responses from the Thompson-Okanagan and
Peace regions regarding decreasing access to and the availability of water were indicated by
Tukey analysis (Fig. 2.4-5).

29

disagree

agree

Figure 2.4-5: Regional differences in mean in responses to the question statement: Access to
and availability of water has decreased as a result of regional climate change. 1 = strongly agree
– 5 = strongly disagree. (a) indicates the mean responses from the Thompson-Okanagan were
significantly different from the mean response option in the Peace (b) and the Cariboo (c). No
other significant differences were observed in the responses from Central BC or the Kootenays
(ab). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean for each category.

Analysis was also performed to investigate whether establishment time influenced
responses to the same set of questions. It was hypothesized that operators of well-established
cattle ranches would have greater observational capacity and be more aware of changes in
climate and would be more likely to attribute any variations to global climate change.

30

Table 2.4-14: Five one-way ANOVA analyses of questions regarding climate change beliefs and
associated factors in relation to establishment time (i.e.: number of years operating at current
location).
Do you think
human
activities are
increasing the
rate at which
global climate
changes
occur?

Number of
years
operating

Local
climate on
rangelands
is changing
because of
global
climate
change.

Access and
availability
to water
has
decreased
as a result
of regional
climate
change.

There has
been a
change in
forage
productivity
on
rangelands
you use
because of
regional
climate
change.

There has
been a
change in
forage
quality on
rangelands
you use
because of
regional
climate
change.

The
destruction
of forests
caused by
the pine
beetle has
impacted
my
ranching
operation.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

2.645

.009*

.991

.444

1.038

.408

.751

.646

.755

.643

.569

.803

A one-way analysis of variance showed that there was a difference in response
regarding whether participants believe human activities are increasing the rate of global
climate change based on the number of years they have been operating (Table 2.4-14). Post
hoc analysis indicated a significant difference (p > 0.05) between means for those respondents
ranching for 31-35 years and for more than 40 years (Fig. 2.4-6). Establishment time did not
appear to influence any other responses to perspectives about climate change.

31

Figure 2.4-6: Differences in mean in responses to the question statement: Human activities are
increasing the rate at which global climate changes occur based on establishment time. 1 =
strongly agree – 5 = strongly disagree. (a) indicates the mean responses from those operations
established for 40 years or more and (b) 31-35 years were significantly different from all other
categories (ab). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean for each category.

As the categories used in this analysis were unevenly distributed, the data was
regrouped into evenly distributed categories. Results from the regrouped analysis indicate the
results were significant to a p=0.10 with those operating less than 20 years being more likely to
agree with the statement in comparison to those operating for more than 40 years (Fig. 2.4-6).

32

Figure 2.4-7: Differences in mean in responses to the question statement: Human activities are
increasing the rate at which global climate changes occur based on establishment time. 1 =
strongly agree – 5 = strongly disagree. Those established for more than 40 years were more
likely to disagree with the statement.

The last factor considered was the scale of the operation in terms of head of cattle.
Results suggest that the scale of operation influenced perspectives regarding local climate on
rangelands and influenced responses to questions about perceived changes in forage
productivity and forage quality (Table 2.4-15).

33

Table 2.4-15: Five one-way ANOVA analyses of operation size (based on number of cattle) and
questions regarding climate change beliefs and associated factors.
Do you think Local climate
human
on rangelands
activities are is changing
increasing the because of
rate at which global climate
global climate
change.
changes
occur?

Number of
cattle

Access and
availability
to water
has
decreased
as a result
of regional
climate
change.

There has
been a
change in
forage
productivity
on
rangelands
you use
because of
regional
climate
change.

There has
been a
change in
forage
quality on
rangelands
you use
because of
regional
climate
change.

The
destruction
of forests
caused by
the pine
beetle has
impacted
my
ranching
operation.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

1.571

.169

3.654

.003*

1.029

.401

2.213

.050*

3.068

.011*

1.175

.322

One-way analysis of variance indicated a significant response difference regarding
whether local climate is changing on rangelands because of global climate change (etasquared=.032), if there has been a change is forage productivity (eta-squared=.046) and forage
quality (eta-squared=.063) because of regional climate change and the number of cattle per
operation (i.e. operation size) (Table 2.4-15). Post hoc analysis indicated a significant difference
at the 0.05 level in means of responses for the following categories (0-50 cattle, 100-200, 250500 and over 500 cattle) in relation to the statement that local climate on rangelands is
changing because of global climate change (Fig. 2.4-8).

34

Figure 2.4-8: Differences in mean in responses to the question statement: Local climate on
rangelands is changing because of global climate change. 1 = strongly agree – 5 = strongly
disagree. (a) indicates the mean responses from those operations with between 250-500 cattle,
(b) 100-200 cattle, (c) 0-50 cattle, and (d) over 500 cattle were significantly different from all
other categories (abcd). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean for each category.

As the categories used in this analysis were unevenly distributed, the data was
regrouped into more evenly distributed categories. The results from the regrouped ANOVA
indicated a significance of p=0.106 to the question statement: Local climate on rangelands is
changing because of global climate change, but post-hoc analysis indicated no significance (Fig.
2.4-9). Differences between the regrouped categories were found to be significant to p=0.118
between those with 0-50 and over 250 cattle(Fig. 2.4-11).

35

Figure 2.4-9: Differences in mean of regrouped responses to the question statement: Local
climate on rangelands is changing because of global climate change. 1 = strongly agree – 5 =
strongly disagree.

AVOVA indicated a significant difference in responses regarding changes in forage
productivity and forage quality for operations with 0-50 and 250-500 head of cattle (Fig. 2.4-10
& 2.4-12). Regrouped analysis of responses to the same questions (changes in forage
productivity and quality) indicated that no significant differences in responses regarding
changes in forage productivity (p=0.118) (Fig. 2.4-11) and a significant difference in responses
regarding changes in forage quality between those with 0-50 and over 250 cattle(p=0.048) (Fig.
2.4-13).

36

Figure 2.4-10: Differences in mean in responses to the question statement: There has been a
change in forage productivity on rangelands you use because of global climate change. 1 =
strongly agree – 5 = strongly disagree. (a) indicates the mean responses from those operations
with between 250-500 cattle and (b) 0-50 cattle were significantly different from all other
categories (ab). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean for each category.

37

Figure 2.4-11: Differences in mean in responses to the question statement: There has been a
change in forage productivity on rangelands you use because of global climate change. 1 =
strongly agree – 5 = strongly disagree.

38

Figure 2.4-12: Differences in mean in responses to the question statement: There has been a
change in forage quality on rangelands you use because of global climate change 1 = strongly
agree – 5 = strongly disagree. (a) indicates the mean responses from those operations with
between 250-500 cattle and (b) 0-50 cattle were significantly different from all other categories
(ab). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean for each category.

39

Figure 2.4-13: Differences in mean in responses to the question statement: There has been a
change in forage quality on rangelands you use because of global climate change 1 = strongly
agree – 5 = strongly disagree.

Multiple-response questions were analyzed using univariate analysis of variance. There
was no significant main effect between region and responses to statements regarding factors
commonly associated with climate change, and no significant interaction.

40

2.4.3 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY RESPONSES:
Further details on management changes made in response to factors associated with
climate change identified in the first section of the survey were expanded upon in the second
section of the survey. To try and determine if management changes were made based on
changes in climate (i.e.: weather variability), we also asked more general questions excluding
the term “global climate change”.

Table 2.4-16: Response to question statement: “have you changed the way you manage
rangelands in response to changes in climate?”
Response options

Frequency

Valid Percent

not at all
slightly changed
moderately
significantly changed
completely changed
Total

95
42
53
37
10
237

40.1
17.7
22.4
15.6
4.2
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
40.1
57.8
80.2
95.8
100.0

40% of respondents stated they have not changed the way they manage their
rangelands in response to changes in climate, 40% have made slight or moderate changes, 20%
completely or significantly changed management strategies (Table 2.4-16). Respondents were
instructed to skip the following questions regarding economic costs associated with
management changes and the extent/type of changes made if they responded “not at all” to
the question: “Have you changed the way you manage rangelands in response to changes in
climate?” Over 70% cited no-minimal costs in association with changes made in response to
global climate change, and roughly 13% estimated a cost of $25-$50 and $50-$200 (Table 2.417).

41

Table 2.4-17: Response to question statement: “estimate the economic cost per acre
associated with any management changes you have made to the way you manage any
rangelands you operate on that you would associate with global climate change.
Response options
no cost
0-$25
$25-$50
$50-$100
$100-$200
Total

Frequency

39
63
19
13
6
140

Percent

27.9
45.0
13.6
9.3
4.3
100.0

Respondents were asked to identify what management changes, if any, they had made,
selecting each option separately to reflect they extent of any changes made (Table 2.4-18).
Regional analysis of the responses clearly depicts differences in management changes (Fig. 2.414). Changes identified in the “Other” category option include leasing pasture, changing to a
yearling operation and operating according to the weather (i.e.: being adaptable). The most
frequent management change cited by those respondents who indicated they had changed the
way rangelands are managed is a seasonal change in the timing and movement of
cattle/change and in the frequency of the movement of cattle. Many also reduced stocking
rates/decreased operation scale. Relocating operations within or out of the province or
increasing operation scale/stocking rate was found to be less common.

42

43

Table 2.4-18: Responses to question statement asking respondents to select the option that best reflected the extent of any
management changes made in response to global climate change.

Figure 2.4-14: Difference between more frequent management changes (scale 4-5) and the less
frequent (scale 1-2) according to region of British Columbia. The regional comparison illustrates
differences in management strategies.

Individuals were asked if they had changed the way water was access/used in response
to a change in the availability and/or quality of water. Category options included developing
additional water sources (Table 2.4-19), sharing water sources (Table 2.4-20), trucking water in
(Table 2.4-21), managing hay pastures differently (Table 2.4-22) and “other”. The following
tables provide summaries of the responses to each of these categories.

44

Table 2.4-19: Developed additional water sources/change the way water is accessed.
Response options

Frequency

Percent

97
45
37
46
8
233

41.6
19.3
15.9
19.7
3.4
100.0

not at all
slightly changed
moderately
significantly changed
completely changed
Total

Table 2.4-20: Changed the way water is used/shared.
Response options

Frequency

Percent

not at all

169

75.1

slightly changed
moderately
significantly changed
completely changed
Total

18
18
14
6
225

8.0
8.0
6.2
2.7
100.0

Table 2.4-21: Changed the way water reaches operation (trucking water in).
Response options
not at all
slightly changed
moderately
significantly changed
completely changed
Total

Frequency

Percent

175
20
12
8
11
226

77.4
8.8
5.3
3.5
4.9
100.0

45

Table 2.4-22: Made irrigation/pasture management changes.
Response options
not at all
slightly changed
moderately
significantly changed
completely changed
Total

Frequency

Percent

77
52
48
34
19
230

33.5
22.6
20.9
14.8
8.3
100.0

Over 40% stated they did not develop additional water sources, 35% made slightmoderate changes and 20% significant changes and less than 5% completely changed the way
water is accessed. 75% did not start sharing water sources, 16% made slight-moderate changes
in sharing resources, 6% made significant changes and 3% completely changed. The majority of
respondents did not make any changes in regards to trucking water in (77%), 14% made slightmoderate changes and almost 9% significantly or completely changed in regards to how water
is accessed. Over 40% slightly-moderately changed the way hay pastures are managed
(irrigation changes), 34% made no changes, 15% significantly changed and 8% completely
changed.
One of the goals of the survey was to determine policy tools and government programs
that would best facilitate the future adaptive capacity of land managers. We asked whether
respondents would like to see the provincial government design policy to address changes in
management strategies on Crown land that are associated with changes in climate (Table 2.423).

46

Table 2.4-23: Response to question statement: “I would like to see provincial government
design policy to address changes in management strategies on Crown land that are associated
with changes in climate.”
Response options
not at all
somewhat
neutral
strongly
very strongly
Total

Frequency

53
43
81
41
22
240

Percent

22.1
17.9
33.8
17.1
9.2
100.0

Most individuals were neutral (34%) as to whether they would like to see policy changes
to address management changes related to variability in climate. 40% stated not at allsomewhat and over 25% stated they strongly-very strongly felt policy formation was needed.
The next two questions attempted to elucidate which incentive programs cattle
ranchers would consider for managing both private and Crown land. Response options for
incentive programs included carbon offsets, water management, grants, tax incentives and

ses regarding preferred incentives for managing private
d health monitoring programs are least preferred to water
ional variation in the mean responses regarding preference

rangeland health monitoring (Fig. 2.4-15 & 2.4-16).

47

48

49

Figure 2.4-16 left & right: Note the regional variation in preferred incentives in figure 2.12 a. Carbon offset and rangeland health
programs were again the least preferred option in terms of incentive programs for range management whereas grants and tax
incentives were most preferred when considering the management of Crown land (n=173). Right: Regional variation in the mean
responses regarding preference for different incentive programs.

A number of respondents wrote in the margins around the incentive questions, noting
they were unclear as to what carbon offsets were, or were opposed to them because they felt
the programs were designed to give an advantage to large industries. Figure 2.4-15 clearly
shows a difference in the water management category, with respondents being more
interested in these programs on their own land versus Crown land (Fig. 2.4-16). Figure 2.4-15
(right) indicates a regional difference in incentive program preference between the Cariboo and
the Kootenay in terms of water management programs. Regional preference for water
management, carbon offsets and rangeland health monitoring programs are depicted by the
mean responses in Fig. 2.4-16 (right).
There was also a difference in terms of question response rates between private land
(n=220, 91%) and Crown land (n=173, 71%). The possible reason for this is two-fold. Not all
respondents access Crown land for their operations and may have felt this question did not
apply to them. The second reason is based on anecdotal evidence from comments made in the
returned survey regarding the ineffectiveness of government programs and unwillingness to
trust that participating in these programs would be personally beneficial. Below are some
selected comments representative of the sample as a whole.

We don't use Crown land so can't speak for those who do. Rather than incentives for
global warming: guaranteed minimum price for cattle as opposed to incentives are
what we need. Make environmental farm plans, verified beef programs, age
verification etc. worth something.

I do not believe in carbon offsets - is designed to be a money transfer and if you
believe carbon should not be produced; it is still going to be produced. It is quite
obvious we are in a dry trend, but this kind of thing has happened throughout
history. If it continues we will need some other water development on Crown range.
The thing that is costing us the most on Crown range is the filling in of clear cuts
with trees, making it harder and more time consuming to find cattle when cleaning
out an area of cattle.

50

Government policy on addressing global climate change will have the greatest
impact on the ranching industry in a negative way. I.e.: carbon offsets, cap and
trade, all will increase costs with no net benefit or change to global climate change.

I intend to manage my Crown range anyway. We have been ranching in this location
since 1920 and raising cattle for approximately 80 years. Throughout this time there
have been dry spells, wet spells, grasshopper plagues and severe weather.

Regional analysis of potential policy preferences in terms of management on Crown and
private land garnered some interesting results. A two-way analysis of variance indicated a
regional difference in terms of preferred incentive for managing Crown land, but the interaction
effect was not significant. Post hoc analysis indicated no significant regional difference. No
significant regional difference was observed in terms of incentives for managing private land
(Table 2.4-24).

51

Table 2.4-24: Two-way ANOVA regional analysis of incentives of potential policy preferences in
terms of management on Crown land.
Dependent Variable: IncentivesCrownland
Type III Sum of
Source

Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Corrected Model

a

137.480

24

5.728

2.708

.000

Intercept

7402.814

1

7402.814

3499.092

.000

Region

22.967

4

5.742

2.714

.029

IncentivetypeCROWN

92.091

4

23.023

10.882

.000

Region *

17.070

16

1.067

.504

.946

Error

1734.823

820

2.116

Total

9860.000

845

Corrected Total

1872.303

844

IncentivetypeCROWN

a. R Squared = .073 (Adjusted R Squared = .046)

Regional analysis was also performed to investigate whether there was a difference in
responses to questions regarding economic costs associated with management changes
respondents made that they attributed to climate change. Results of one-way analysis of
variance indicated no significant regional difference in responses to this question. There was a
significant regional difference in terms of the biggest challenges currently facing operations
(Table 2.4-25).

52

Table 2.4-25: Two-way ANOVA testing main effect between region and question asking
individuals to identify the major challenges currently facing operations.
Dependent Variable: challenge response
Type III Sum of
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
Region
biggest challenge
Region * biggest challenge
Error
Total
Corrected Total

Squares
a
1223.292
4226.800
25.219
349.187
54.359
1846.410
19859.000
3069.702

Partial Eta
df
41
1
6
5
30
1355
1397
1396

Mean Square
29.836
4226.800
4.203
69.837
1.812
1.363

F
21.896
3101.864
3.085
51.251
1.330

Sig.
.000
.000
.005*
.000
.110

Squared
.399
.696
.013*
.159
.029*

a. R Squared = .399 (Adjusted R Squared = .380)

53

2.4.4 INFORMATION NEEDS & PREFERENCES
In terms of information needs, when asked if they would benefit from a better
understanding of what global climate change is, 38% felt they would not benefit, 38% felt they
would somewhat benefit, 24% felt they would significantly benefit (Table 2.4-26). Of those
identifying an interest in further information, the majority preferred mailed educational
material with a website being the second choice. No significant difference was found in a
regional analysis of responses regarding future information needs.

Table 2.4-26: Response to question statement: “I would benefit from a better understanding of
what global climate change is and how it could impact my region.”
Response options
not at all
not at all - somewhat
somewhat
somewhat-significantly
benefit
significantly benefit
Total

Frequency Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

52
38
90
28

22.0
16.1
38.1
11.9

22.0
38.1
76.3
88.1

28
236

11.9
100.0

100.0

54

2.4.5 RESPONDENT COMMENTS
The final page of the survey provided a space to accommodate any additional comments
regarding the effects of global climate change on the ranching industry. Almost half (49%) of
respondents took advantage of the opportunity to provide input and feedback. Additional
comments made in the margins of the returned surveys were grouped with the final comment
section as all pertained to perspectives about global climate change and the ranching industry.
A select sample of these comments is provided here, however a verbatim transcription of all
comments can be found in Appendix V. The anecdotal information provided via the comments
is interesting as it clearly encapsulates a divided opinion regarding climate change within the BC
cattle ranching industry.

There is a global climate change, no doubt, how much is really man-made? Petty
prices for cattle and some appreciated (financial help?) for ranchers would help
more than anything else. If a government wants cheap food for all, it must support
the producer. The producer is the key for quality of food and environment and life.

I don't believe global warming has affected climate change. In the winter of 1930-31
there was no snow; it was a reasonably mild winter. The winter of 1942-43 there
was hardly any snow and a very early spring. There has been winter when we
haven't had snow until the end of December and been winters when we've had snow
in October Through the years there has been wet years and dry years. I don't think
things have changed.

The so called climate change is just a cycle that has not been seen or recorded
before. To let government to be involved is going to allow another type of beating
stick to use on food producers. It is trumped up hype to allow big business to gain
another way of making money for themselves. As for carbon credits, this is a joke big corporations are allowed to buy credit from someone else and not correct their
own pollution.

Global warming started when the ice age stopped.

55

Global climate change is a hoax!

I believe that any policy change should come from people involved in the industry
(such as BCCA) and not the government. I perceive the government to have a biased
and limited knowledge of this problem.

56

2.5 DISCUSSION
The majority of respondents believe global climate change is occurring and is affecting
their livelihoods; however there is a need for further education about theories such as the
greenhouse effect, global warming and climate change. A large number of surveys were
returned with comments revealing a need for clarity concerning these concepts. It is critical
that effective future range management approaches include the communication and education
of important environmental concepts. Illumination of the meaning of each concept and how
they are interrelated factors and not separate entities or “catch phrases” of the time or
scientific “fads” is essential for future adaptive capacity.
The following survey comment provides an example of this misperception:
Global climate change has been occurring for the last 5 000 000 years.
You can't get the weather right three days in advance. What makes you
think you know what it's going to be like in the next month much less ten
years from now? What happened to global warming?

The tendency for climate change to be referred to as either global warming or described
in terms of changes in weather patterns was also identified by Reid et al. (2007) in their study
focusing on vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in agricultural operations in Ontario.
They found only seventeen percent associated climate change specifically with a change in
variability and extremes, and those respondents also expressed the greatest degree of concern
for climate change. In a survey of 622 individuals about perceived environmental, ecological or
societal impacts form climate change in the U.S. by Semenza et al. (2011), heat waves, average
temperature increase, flooding and more frequent storms were identified by 80-90% of
respondents. In my study, the two most common factors respondents associated with global
climate change were changes in annual precipitation and temperature, followed closely by a
change in frequency of severe weather events.
Based on respondent comments, a significant proportion of respondents in my study
made it clear they believe global climate change is a natural cycle, even if they did acknowledge
57

the fact that it is occurring. The influence of human activity on the perceived natural cycles was
not entirely discounted, nor was it seen as the main or even a significant causal factor. Borick et
al. (2011) also found that of those Canadians who believed in global warming, division between
attribution to anthropogenic or natural causes. Reid et al. (2007) found 21% of producers were
skeptical about the issue, maintaining the changes were due to natural cycles. As Antle (1996)
points out, this may be because when climate is stable, historical records can be interpreted as
static processes but when the climate is changing those distributions become nonstationary.
Climate changes caused by an accumulation of greenhouse gases are at a slower, imperceptible
pace to farmers and small annual changes would be of little consequence relative to normal
climatic variation. Many range managers may not attribute management changes to annual
variability in temperature and precipitation, but these changes equate to climate change
adaptation. Adaptations are made to the yearly variability, and long-term average conditions,
including extremes.
The finding that establishment time appears to influence whether operators believe
human activities are increasing the rate of global climate change supports this idea. Cattle
ranchers operating for less than 20 years were more likely to agree with the statement that
human activity increases the rate at which global climate changes occur in comparison to those
operating for more than 40 years. This may be a reflection of the fact that the concept of
climate change has gained more public acceptance in the past two decades and would likely be
perceived as a legitimate risk to an operation by those in this category in comparison to those
who have been operating for a long period of time and tend to rely on experiential or
embedded knowledge.
Knapp & Fernandez-Gimenez (2009) studied how ranchers in Colorado gain knowledge
and how this information is shared. They found that ranchers consistently relied on embedded
and experiential knowledge to inform management decisions. They define embedded
knowledge as that which “comes from living on the land and observing natural processes.” They
state that this knowledge often includes a limited understanding of “cycles that are longer than
a human lifetime, such as erosion processes, changes in hydrology, climate change, and
ecosystem resilience.” Although their participants perceived an extended drought period, they
58

were divided whether it was a result of climate change or part of a natural, cyclical process.
Maddison (2007) noted that the most important finding was that although experienced farmers
were more likely to perceive climate change, it was educated farmers that were more likely to
make one change to adapt to it.
Operation establishment did not appear to influence any other perceptions about
climate change. Based on this, I conclude that length of time of cattle ranching does not
significantly influence belief in or understanding of what climate change is, but affects the
perception regarding the influence that human activities have on the overall rate at which
global climate change occurs. Regional differences were observed in this perception between
the Peace and Thompson-Okanagan regions with producers in the Thompson-Okanagan being
more likely to agree that human activities are influencing the rate at which global climate
changes occur. Further demographic information regarding age, income and education level
etc., would be required to determine why this difference exists.
Interestingly, operation scale in terms of head of cattle appears to influence perceptions
of localized climate variation on rangelands due to global climate change and changes in forage
productivity and quality on a regional scale. Without further demographic information such as
revenue, number of employees, operation diversification or educational attainment, it is
difficult to determine conclusively what may be driving these observations. However, it is likely
that larger operations, (250-500 head of cattle) are more focused on economic factors that will
affect the vulnerability of their operations whereas smaller operations with 0-50 cattle are
more sensitive to changes in forage quality and availability. Larger operations often grow their
forage crops for silage and feed and do not rely as much on accessing natural grazing areas.
According to the BC Ministry of Agriculture the average feedlot has 400 head of cattle,
with many using grain for feed and not grazing land. Smaller operations, relying more heavily
on available range areas for natural forage are more vulnerable to variability and availability.
Larger operations (100 head and over) have per beef cow investment of $9000-$12,000,
whereas smaller operations (below 100 head) have per head investment of greater than

59

$15,000 (Henry 2003), meaning that livelihoods have the potential to be severely impacted by
fluctuations in forage quality and quantity.
While it can be difficult to determine whether management changes are made in response
to normal climate variability or the longer-term impacts of climate change, general adaptation
strategies that would vary according to local conditions and farming strategies can be
summarized as follows (Dolan et al. 2001; Howden et al.2007; IPCC 2007; AAFC 2010):
•

changing the timing of operations such as planting and harvesting

•

changing the timing of inputs such as irrigation and fertilization

•

altering tillage, crop selection or diversifying operations (forage and livestock)

•

changing size and scale of operations by re-locating, ceasing operations in some
locations, increasing or decreasing number of livestock

•

modifying stocking rates and timing of grazing to match pasture conditions

•

expanding financial security via crop insurance, bank loans or available government
programs

Managing for changes in the ability of available forage was identified by respondents as a
management change made in response to change in climate with almost sixty percent
indicating they had made some type of management change. This finding is in contrast to only
fifteen percent of 120 southwestern Ontario farm operators surveyed by Smit et al. over five
years (1996). Of these operations, changes or diversification of crop and/or enterprise was
frequent. Some operators expanded or reduced the size of their operation, adopted new
technology or altered the amount or type of inputs such as feed or fertilizers. We found similar
adaptation strategies by BC cattle ranchers with the most frequent management change being
a change in the timing and movement of cattle and a change and in the frequency of
movement. Many also reduced stocking rates/decreased operation scale. These strategies were
also found by Crawford & McNair (2012) in their survey of adaptation strategies by cattle
ranchers in Central BC.

60

Regional analysis provided some areas of potential focus for programs that would assist
producers in further adapting to changes in climate. Range managers in the Peace and Cariboo
regions would likely benefit from a program or a government-supported management program
focused on developing and maintaining access to sustainable sources of water. Producers in
these areas were much more likely to agree with the statement that access to and availability
of water has decreased as a result of global climate change in comparison to respondents in the
Thompson-Okanagan region. This may be a reflection of the fact the linear trend of increasing
global temperatures is greater at northern latitudes (IPCC, 2007). So although warmer
temperatures in the Peace might mean milder winters and longer growing seasons, it also
means a greater demand on existing water supplies. This conclusion is supported by the
findings of Crawford & McNair (2012) who state “access to water and future water supply is of
substantial concern for cattle producers in the interior.”
My findings also suggest that the Peace, Cariboo and Kootenay regions would likely
benefit from programs focused on mitigating the destruction of forests caused by the mountain
pine beetle. Such programs should consider including funding for fencing, reforestation or
harvesting. Crawford & McNair (2012) found that producers in Central BC have been
significantly impacted by changes in landscape and management practices in response to the
mountain pine beetle. Producers there noted altered patterns of hydrology have been
impacted by beetle kill and tree removal. These concerns were also shared by producers in the
Peace and Kootenay regions.
Other adaptive strategies include market-based policy options including carbon taxes
and cap-and-trade energy policy. Borick et al. (2011) found the majority of Canadians surveyed
in their study indicated support of a cap and trade energy policy, even if there was a monthly
cost implied. Most Americans opposed cap and trade and carbon tax policy programs in any of
the forms presented (i.e.: with and without individual costs). This study indicated little support
for carbon offsets for range management practices on either Crown or private land. However,
much of this opposition may be due to a lack of understanding of the programs and the general
view that the programs are designed to benefit large industry and not private business owners.
61

Further research into the perception of these two policy options would be valuable in informing
and implementing effective climate change policy. This would be a valuable endeavor as close
to sixty percent of those surveyed hold Crown grazing tenures. As up to 95% of land used for
grazing cattle is Crown-tenured, it is important to determine the degree of investment cattle
ranchers have in maintaining the health of Crown-tenured rangeland and possible options for
incentive programs such as carbon offsets.
Anecdotal information gathered from the open comments section offered further
insight to the perspectives and experiences of BC cattle ranchers. There is an overall sense of
frustration with lack of government policy and programming to address the changing needs of
the industry. This illustrates that the sensitivity of systems and relative adaptations are not just
to climate, but to social, economic and ecological systems. Ongoing evolution of responses and
adaptations and policy responses need to exhibit the same flexibility (Smit et al. 2000). Key
areas of focus should include the development of strategies for wildlife management, water
storage and management, restoration programs for areas affected by the mountain pine beetle
(Drolet 2012; Crawford & McNair 2012) and logging and agroforestry programs.
Formation of a collaborative learning process to support livestock producers will enable
the adaptive capacity of producers (Fig. 2.5-1) (Thornton et al. 2007; Crawford & McNair 2012)
and informed decision-making, providing a broader long-term framework for range
management planning. The information will be made accessible in ways most desired by the
survey respondents and distributed by Thompson Rivers University and the BC Cattlemen’s
Association. Some of the areas of focus for further education and information identified via
survey responses include the distinction between climate change, global warming, weather
patterns (local climate) and regional variations in relation to climate change, and carbon
tax/carbon storage credits.

62

Figure 2.5-1: Graphic representation of the resources available for building adaptive capacity
for the BC cattle ranching industry (adapted from Crawford & McNair 2012).

The phrase “climate change” is politically charged and consequently has perhaps lost
appeal with the ranching community demographic. Perhaps a more generic, or neutral term
could be developed in order to facilitate future discussions. Movement towards building
adaptive capacity must include the cooperative effort and support of members of the ranching
community, local government (municipalities and regional districts and communities, and the
provincial and federal government. Such a collaborative effort, including experiential and
scientific knowledge will be crucial to reducing the vulnerability of this sector and building
adaptive capacity.

63

3.

CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Establishing the capacity to adapt to changing environments and creating management

plans reflective of this capacity will be critical in aiding ranchers to inform local and provincial
governments of their needs. It will also help governments and local planners to form policy and
long-term plans illustrative of both the regional and larger-scale needs of the cattle ranching
industry.
Reducing vulnerability is a large component of enabling this capacity and needs to
include the development and implementation of educational tools to illuminate complex and
abstract concepts such as global climate change. The framework for these tools should be
based on communication strategies that draw upon people’s experiences and local knowledge
of the environment (Ruddell et al. 2011; Crawford & McNair 2012). As Walker & Sydneysmith
(2008) suggest, delivering information in a manner that resonates with the issues and concerns
of those receiving it—those directly responsible for implementing adaptation—is crucial.
The vulnerability of the beef cattle industry and agricultural producers will continue to
increase in relation to increasing climate variability on a provincial, national and global scale.
Creating an open dialogue to facilitate management strategies that will enable the capacity of
producers to adapt to global climate change will be crucial in addressing future food security
issues. The beef cattle industry in BC has the opportunity to lead by example and create the
framework for this process, providing a template for producers in all areas of the agricultural
sector.
Thorpe (2012) provides a comprehensive overview of recommended adaptations to
climate change in grassland management for the management of prairie ecosystems but these
can be applied to BC grazing systems. Just as the effects of climate change extend beyond local
or regional scales, adaptation strategies must do the same. To be effective, strategies should tie
into efforts on a national and even global level. Continuous improvements in technology will
precipitate this process and the ability to observe and predict climate changes. Brown & Thorpe
(2008) provide an example of technology contributing to our knowledge of how the local
effects of climate change can have global impacts. They state that reduced precipitation and
64

increased temperatures “can lead to overgrazing, which can cascade into regional
desertification [which can] cause increased wind erosion and dust that can be transported by
upper atmospheric winds where it can affect global weather patterns and impact human
health.”
However, research and technology alone will be ineffective without a thorough
understanding of the decision-making environment (Stuth et al. 1991) and the capacity to effect
change. Local knowledge, experience and skills in dealing with climate variability and assessing
risk provide invaluable information to future planning efforts. Advances in technology will allow
for more accurate climate predictions to enhance and develop adaptive capacity and
incorporate different communication and education tools (IPCC 2007; Brown & Thorpe 2008).
As Thornton et al. (2007) state, the first step is assessing adaptation options in grazing systems
that reduce vulnerability to people and the environment with the overall goal of “maintaining
or increasing food security, incomes and resilience while maintaining key ecosystem functions.”
They make the important distinction that capacity-building efforts need to focus on helping
producers deal with changes and variability that extend well beyond their current knowledge
and experience. The IPCC (2007) cite numerous examples where “social capital, social networks,
values, perceptions, customs, traditions and levels of cognition affect the capability of
communities to adapt to risks related to climate change.”
Thorpe (2012) identified short, medium and long-term management options for grazing
systems. Most short-term options are examples of reactive adaptation, in response to extreme
weather events. Medium-term options include more conservative approaches to stocking rates,
grazing and water management. Long-term options include revisions of range management
programs, policies and approaches, and more consistent grassland monitoring. There are many
programs, existing and in development, that have the potential to provide the framework for
this capacity-building process, both short and long-term. Table 3.0-1 lists program options
currently available to BC cattle ranchers and agricultural planners at various levels of
government and scope.

65

The two programs with perhaps the most potential are the federal Agri-Foresight
program—a tool designed identify potential future risks and develop strategies to manage
them and to take advantage of anticipated opportunities, and the BC Agriculture & Food
Climate Action Initiative. Knowledge and education continue to be the most powerful and
enabling tools in moving towards reducing vulnerability and building capacity. Second to
education, effective governance is a key mechanism for change. Locally, municipal and regional
governments need to consider the effects of climate change in community planning. At the
provincial level, the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) (Walker & Sydneysmith 2008) and
stakeholder groups such as the BCCA will be the most effective and powerful tool in working
with various levels of government to both inform policy and promote adaptive management
practices—especially those pertaining to water management.

66

Table 3.0-1: Program options for building adaptive capacity for BC cattle ranchers.

Agency

Program options
−

Federal government
(Agriculture Agri-Food Canada
internal programs)

−

−

Regional/municipal/provincial
government level

−
−
−
−
−
−

Provincial

Industrial cattle-ranching

Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP): program with the
objective of facilitating the agriculture, agri-food, and agri-based
products sector's ability to seize opportunities; respond to new and
emerging issues and pilot solutions.
AgriInsurance (production insurance)
AgriInvest
AgriRecovery
AgriStability
The BC Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative: results of project
will be applied to the On-Farm Adaptation Practices project and the
Regional Agricultural Adaptation Strategies project.
Agri-Geomatics programs and information systems

−

BC Agri-Environmental Risk Assessment (EFPs)/On-Farm Sustainable
Agricultural Practices (BMPs).

−

AgriStability provides support when the current year program margin
falls below 85% of reference margin.
Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP): objective of
facilitating the agriculture, agri-food, and agri-based products sector's
ability to seize opportunities, respond to new and emerging issues
and pilot solutions.

−

operations

−

Agri-Foresight (federal program): tool to help identify potential future
risks and develop strategies to manage them and to take advantage of
anticipated opportunities.

−
−
−

Prairie Shelterbelt Program (Peace River region)
Community Pasture Program
AgriStability provides support when the current year program margin
falls below 85% of reference margin.

All levels/agencies

Producers/landowners

The Sustainable Agriculture Environmental Systems (SAGES) initiative:
producers benefit through development and availability of new and
improved agricultural practices that address environmental challenges
such as climate variability and crop, livestock, and water management
in an economically sustainable manner.
National Agri-Environmental Health Analysis and Reporting Program
(NAHARP): provide science-based agri-environmental information that
may guide policy decisions.

67

4. REFERENCES
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC) (2010). Rangeland Management during drought.
Retrieved from: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/displayafficher.do?id=1326835115637&lang=eng.

Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O’Brien, J. Pulhin, …K. Takahashi (2007)
Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F.
Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 717-743.

Antle, John M. (1996). Methodological issues in assessing potential impacts of climate change
on agriculture. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 80(1), 67-85.

Asner, G. P., Elmore, A. J., Olander, L. P., Martin, R. E., & Harris, A. T. (2004). Grazing systems,
ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 29, 261-299.

Borick, C. P., E. LaChapelle, and B. Rabe. (2011). Climate compared: public opinion on climate
change in the United States and Canada. Issues in governance studies, 39, Brookings Institution.

Brown, Douglas M. (2012). Comparative Climate Change Policy and Federalism: An
Overview. Review of Policy Research 29(3), 322-333.

Brown, Joel R., and Jim Thorpe. (2008). Climate change and rangelands: responding rationally to
uncertainty. Rangelands 30(3), 3-6.

Coles, A. R., & Scott, C. A. (2009). Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change and variability
in semi-arid rural southeastern Arizona, USA. Natural Resources Forum , 33, 297-309.

68

Conner, J. Richard. (1994). Assessing the socioeconomic impacts of climate change on
grazinglands. Climatic change 28(1), 143-157.

Crawford, E. & Emily MacNair. (2012). BC Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation risk and
Opportunity assessment series. Cattle Production – Central Interior: A snapshot. BC Agriculture
& Food climate action initiative. Retrieved from:
http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Agriculture%20Report_0.pdf

De Rada, Vidal Díaz. (2005). Influence of questionnaire design on response to mail
surveys. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1), 61-78.

Dillman, D.A. (1983 ). Mail and other self-administered questionnaires. In Rossi, P.H., Wright,
J.D., and Anderson, A.B. (Eds.), Handbook of Survey Research (pp. 359-377). New York:
Academic Press.

Dillman, Don A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual review of
sociology, 225-249.

Dillman, Don A. (2000). Mail and telephone surveys: The tailored design method. New York.

Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J., & Messer, B. L. (2009).
Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone,
interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38(1), 1-18.

Dolan, A. H., Smit, B., Skinner, M. W., Bradshaw, B., Bryant, C. R., & Smit, B. (2001). Adaptation
to climate change in agriculture: evaluation of options. Occasional Paper, 26.

Drolet, J. (2012). Climate change, food security, and sustainable development: A study on
community-based responses and adaptations in British Columbia, Canada. Community
Development.

69

Deressa, T. T., R. M. Hassan, and C. Ringler. (2011). Perception of and adaptation to climate
change by farmers in the Nile basin of Ethiopia. The Journal of Agricultural Science 149(1), 23.

Henry, Grant. (2003). Beef Production: An Economic Profile. BC Ministry of Sustainable
Resource Management. Retrieved from:
www.al.gov.bc.ca/clad/strategic_land/blocks/cabinet/beef.pdf

Howden, S. M., Soussana, J. F., Tubiello, F. N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., & Meinke, H. (2007).
Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 104(50), 19691-19696.

IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

Kanuk, Leslie, and Conrad Berenson. (1975). Mail surveys and response rates: A literature
review. Journal of Marketing Research, 440-453.

Knapp, C. N., & Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2009). Knowledge in practice: documenting rancher
local knowledge in northwest Colorado. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 62(6), 500-509.

Maddison, David. (2007). The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4308. Retrieved from:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1005547

Nardone, A., Ronchi, B., Lacetera, N., Ranieri, M. S., & Bernabucci, U. (2010). Effects of climate
changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livestock Science, 130(1),
57-69.

Oppenheim, Abraham Naftali. (2000). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude
measurement. Continuum.

70

Ornstein, M. (1998). Quantitative analysis of survey data. Current Sociology, 46 (4), 1-13.
Parry M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds. (2007). Climate
Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 982pp.

Puffer, S., Porthouse, J., Birks, Y., Morton, V., & Torgerson, D. (2004). Increasing response rates
to postal questionnaires: a randomised trial of variations in design. Journal of Health Services
Research & Policy, 9(4), 213-217.

Reid, S., Smit, B., Caldwell, W., & Belliveau, S. (2007). Vulnerability and adaptation to climate
risks in Ontario agriculture. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(4), 609637.

Ruddell, D., Harlan, S. L., Grossman-Clarke, S., & Chowell, G. (2011). Scales of perception: public
awareness of regional and neighborhood climates. Climatic change 111(3) (2012), 581-607.

Sanchez, Maria Elena. (1992). Effects of questionnaire design on the quality of survey
data. Public Opinion Quarterly 56(2), 206-217.

Semenza, Jan C., George B. Ploubidis, and Linda A. George. (2011). Climate change and climate
variability: personal motivation for adaptation and mitigation. Environmental Health 10(1), 46.

Smit, B., D. McNabb, and J. Smithers. (1996). Agricultural adaptation to climatic
variation. Climatic Change 33(1), 7-29.

Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R. J., & Wandel, J. (2000). An anatomy of adaptation to climate change
and variability. Climatic Change, 45(1), 223-251.

Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar,… O. Sirotenko, (2007). Agriculture.
In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth
71

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson,
P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA.

Statistics Canada, (StatsCan) CANSIM, table 003-0032 and Catalogue no. 23-012-X. Retrieved
form: www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/prim50k-eng.htm

Stuth, J. W., J. R. Conner, and R. K. Heitschmidt. (1991). Grazing management: An ecological
perspective. Retrieved from:
www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/gmcourse/text/Chapter10.htm#decmak.

Thornton, P. K., Herrero, M., Freeman, H. A., Mwai, A. O., Rege, E., Jones, P. G., & McDermott, J.
(2007). Vulnerability, climate change and livestock–opportunities and challenges for the poor.
Retrieved from:
http://mahider.ilri.org/bitstream/handle/10568/2205/Vulnerability,%20Climate%20change%20
and%20Livestock%20%20%20Research%20Opportunities%20and.pdf?sequence=1

Thornton, P. K., Van de Steeg, J., Notenbaert, A., & Herrero, M. (2009). The impacts of climate
change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: A review of what we know
and what we need to know. Agricultural Systems, 101(3), 113-127.

Thorpe, Jeff. (2012).Adaptation to Climate Change in Management of Prairie Grasslands.
Saskatchewan Research Council. Retrieved from:
http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/128551E12%20Adaptation%20to%20ClimateChange%20in%20Grassland%20Management.pdf

Walker, I.J. and Sydneysmith, R. (2008): British Columbia; in From Impacts to Adaptation:
Canada in a Changing Climate, 2007, edited by D.S. Lemmen, F.J.Warren, J. Lacroix and E. Bush;
Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON, p. 329-386.

Wall, Ellen, and Barry Smit. (2005). Climate change adaptation in light of sustainable
agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 27(1), 113-123.

72

Weber, Marian, and Grant Hauer. (2003). A regional analysis of climate change impacts on
Canadian agriculture. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, 163-180.

Zebarth, B., Caprio, J., Broersma, K., Mills, P., & Smith, S. (1997). Effect of Climate Change on
Agriculture in British Columbia and the Yukon. Responding to global climate change in British
Columbia and Yukon, 1.
Ziervogel, Gina, Sukaina Bharwani, and Thomas E. Downing. (2006). Adapting to climate
variability: pumpkins, people and policy. Natural Resources Forum 30(4).Retrieved from:
http://web.csag.uct.ac.za/~gina/Gina_Ziervogels_publications/Projects_files/Ziervogel%20et%2
0al%20NARF%202006.pdf

73

5.

APPENDICES

5.1 APPENDIX I

Cattle inventories, by province

Cattle inventories, by province

(British Columbia)

(Canada)
As

of As of July

As

of As of July

January 1, 1,

January 1, 1,

2012

2012

2011

thousand head
B.C.

2011

thousand head
Canada

Cattle

540

650

Cattle

12,515.00

13,870.0
0

Bulls

12

13

Bulls

221.2

235.3

Milk cows

71.5

72

Milk cows

985.3

982

Beef cows

195

193

Beef cows

4,228.40

4,201.80

Dairy heifers

36

35

Dairy heifers

444.1

447.3

Beef heifers

42

58.3

Beef heifers

1,393.80

1,784.00

for 31.5

33

Beef heifers for 554.3

Beef

heifers

breeding
Beef

heifers

breeding
for 10.5

25.3

market
Steers

662.2

Beef heifers for 839.5

1,121.80

market
25

50

Steers

1,098.10

1,472.10

74

Calves

158.5

228.7

Calves

4,144.10

4,747.50

Notes:

Notes:

- Bull: An uncastrated male bovine

- Bull: An uncastrated male bovine

- Heifer: Female cow that has never borne

- Heifer: Female cow that has never

young

borne young

- Steer: A castrated male bovine

- Steer: A castrated male bovine

Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table

Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table

003-0032 and Catalogue no. 23-012-X (free).

003-0032 and Catalogue no. 23-012-X
(free).

Last modified: 2012-02-20.

Last modified: 2012-02-20.

75

5.2 APPENDIX II

«AddressBlock»

<<DATE>>

Dear «GreetingLine»,
In a few days you will receive a request to fill out a brief survey for an important
research project being conducted by Thompson Rivers University in partnership with the BC
Cattlemen’s Association. All BCCA members across BC will be receiving a survey in the mail
shortly after receiving this letter.
The survey aim is to find out if global climate change is having an impact on cattle ranching
operations in BC.
I am writing in advance to let you know ahead of time that you will be contacted for this
purpose. The study is an important one that will help the BCCA work towards creating
management strategies that address provincial and regional variations in climate that are
predicted to occur.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Your support of this project is important and
appreciated.

Sincerely,

Mercedes Cox
MSc Environmental Science Candidate

76

5.3 APPENDIX III

Results from this voluntary survey will be used to help the BC Cattlemen’s Association and the provincial government to
develop range management strategies that take into account regional climate variations and fluctuations related to global climate
change. Through understanding what cattle ranchers are experiencing, management plans can be tailored to specific regional
needs and concerns. This will lead to the development of more effective management strategies. We need to know what cattle
producers think about global warming caused by global climate change and how these changes may be affecting cattle ranching
operations.
As an added incentive, those who complete the survey will be entered to win one of three prizes. Participants will be eligible to win
a credit at their local farm supply store. There is one $100.00 prize and two $50.00 prizes available to be won!
YOUR ANSWERS ARE COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL BE RELEASED ONLY AS SUMMARIES IN WHICH NO INDIVIDUAL’S
ANSWERS CAN BE IDENTIFIED . C OMPLETION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL INDICATE CONSENT FOR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS
PROJECT.

S ECTION 1: GLOBAL C LIMATE C HANGE QUESTIONS

1. Do you think human activities are increasing the rate at which global climate changes occur? Please select the extent to
which you agree with the following statement. With 1 being strongly agree and 5 strongly disagree.
1

(strongly
agree)

2

3

(somewhat agree)

(neutral)

4

(somewhat
disagree)

5

(strongly disagree)

Human activities are increasing
rate of global climate change

2. The following is a list of factors commonly associated with global climate change. Please select the extent to which you agree with
each of the following statements. Choose each option separately with 1 being strongly agree and 5 strongly disagree.

77

1

2

3

(strongly agree)

(somewhat agree)

(neutral)

4

5

(somewhat

(strongly

disagree)

disagree)

Change in annual precipitation

Change in annual temperature

Change in length and timing of
seasons

Change in the frequency of severe
weather events

Other (please identify) ________

3. Please choose the extent to which you agree with the following statement: Local climate on rangelands is changing because of global
climate change. With 1 being strongly agree and 5 strongly disagree.
1

2

3

(strongly agree)

(somewhat agree)

(neutral)

4

5

(somewhat

(strongly

disagree)

disagree)

Local climate on rangelands is
changing because of global climate
change

4. Please choose the extent to which you agree with the following statement: There has been a change in forage productivity on
rangelands you use because of regional climate change. With 1 being strongly agree and 5 strongly disagree.
1

2

3

(strongly agree)

(somewhat agree)

(neutral)

4

5

(somewhat

(strongly

disagree)

disagree)

Change in forage productivity on
rangelands you use because of

78

regional climate change.

5. Please choose the extent to which you agree with the following statement: There has been a change in forage quality on rangelands
you use because of regional climate change. With 1 being strongly agree and 5 strongly disagree.
1

2

3

(strongly agree)

(somewhat agree)

(neutral)

4

5

(somewhat

(strongly

disagree)

disagree)

Change in forage quality on
rangelands you use because of
regional climate change.

6. Please choose the option that most closely reflects your agreement with the following statement: Access and availability to water has
decreased as a result of regional climate change. With 1 being strongly agree and 5 being strongly disagree.
1

2

3

(strongly agree)

(somewhat agree)

(neutral)

4

5

(somewhat

(strongly

disagree)

disagree)

Access and availability to water has
decreased as a result of regional
climate change.

7. Please choose the option that most closely reflects your agreement with the following statement: The destruction of forests caused
by the pine beetle has impacted my ranching operation. With 1 being very positively and 5 being very negatively.
1

2

(very positively)

(positively)

3

4

(neutral)

(negatively)

5

(very negatively)

Mountain pine beetle

Section 2: Range Management Strategies & Global Climate Change

79

1. Please select the option that best reflects the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements about the availability
of and/or quality of water. Select each option separately with 1 being not at all and 5 completely changed.
1

(not at all)

2

3

(slightly
changed)

(moderately)

4

5

(significantly

(completely

changed)

changed)

Developed additional water
sources

Shared water sources

Trucked water in

Managed hay pastures differently

Other (please identify)
__________

2. Please select the extent to which you agree with the following statement: I would like to see the provincial government design policy
to address changes in management strategies on Crown land that are associated with changes in climate. With 1 being not at all and 5
very strongly.
1

2

3

4

5

(not at all)

(somewhat)

(neutral)

(strongly)

(very strongly)

Government climate change policy

3. Please select the option which most closely reflects your answer to the following question: Have you changed the way you manage
rangelands in response to changes in climate? With 1 being not at all and 5 completely changed.
1

2

3

4

5

80

(not at all)

(slightly

(moderately)

changed)

(significantly changed)

(completely
changed)

Management change

If so, please briefly explain what changes you have made:
________________________________________________________________________

**If you selected (not at all) skip to Question 6.**

4. Please select the option that best estimates the economic cost per hectare associated with any management changes you have made
that you would associate with global climate change.
1

2

3

4

5

(no cost)

($0-$25)

($25-$50)

($50-$100)

($100-$200)

Management cost per hectare

81

5. If you have changed the way you manage your rangelands, please select the possible changes in relation to the extent of each
change. Select each option separately with 1 being the least change and 5 being the greatest change.
1

2

(least)

i.

Reduced stocking rate

ii.

Seasonal change in the timing of movement of cattle

iii.

Decreased scale of operation

iv.

Relocated operation out of province

v.

Increased stocking rate

vi.

Increased scale of operation

vii.

Relocated operation within province

viii.

Change in the frequency of the movement of cattle

ix.

Other (please explain) ________________

3

4

(no change)

5

(greatest)

6. Please identify what types of incentives you would consider in exchange for sustainably managing private rangelands you use. Rank
the options listed below in the order of most important to least important with 1 being least important.
1
(least)

2

3

4

5
(most)

Carbon offsets for grazing
management

Water management

82

Grants

Tax incentive program

Rangeland health monitoring
program

7. Please identify what types of incentives you would consider in exchange for sustainably managing Crown rangelands you use. Select
the options listed below in the order of least important to most important with 1 being least important.
1

2

3

4

(least)

5
(most)

Carbon offsets for grazing
management

Water management

Grants

Tax incentive program

Rangeland health monitoring
program

SECTION 3: BACKGROUND QUESTIONS
1. What region of the province do you currently operate a cattle ranch? Check more than one if applicable.
____ South Coast

____ Central BC

____ Thompson-Okanagan

____ Cariboo

____ Kootenay

____ Peace

2. What is the nearest community to you? _____________________________

83

3. How long has your ranch been operating at your current location?
___ Less than 5 years

___ 6-10 years

___ 11-15 years

___ 16 –20 years

___ 21-25 years

___ 26 –30 years

___ 31-35 years

___ 36-40 years

___ More than 40 years (please state time)

4. Approximately what amount of your ranching operation falls into each of the following land ownership categories? Write in the
estimated acreage.
Private ____

Crown (provincial) land ____

Common/shared pasture ____

Private lease ____

5. How many head of cattle do you manage on the land your ranch currently operates on?
___ 0-50

___ 50-100

___ 100-200

___ 200-250

___ 250-500

___ over 500

6. If you hold a Crown tenure, please estimate on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being low investment and 5 being high, how much effort are you
willing to invest in maintaining the health of the Crown tenured land?
1
(low)

2

3

4

5
(high)

Crown tenure land investment

7. What are the major challenges currently facing your ranching operation? Rank each by the level of significance to you with 1 being
least significant.

84

1

2

3

4

(least significant)

i.

Cattle Prices

ii.

Fuel Costs

iii.

Global Climate Change

iv.

Water Availability

v.

Grain/Hay Costs

vi.

Family involvement

5
(most significant)

/successional planning

8. Is your operation strictly cattle ranching or do you also engage in agricultural or crop producing activities? If so, please list the scale of
your other operations and what type of crops you grow.
ACTIVITY & SCALE (# OF HECTARES):_____________________________________

SECTION 4: INFORMATION NEEDS & PREFERENCES
1. Please choose the extent to which you agree with the following statement: I would benefit from a better understanding of what
global climate change is. With 1 being not at all and 5 very strongly.
1
(not at all)

2

3
(somewhat)

4

5
(significantly benefit)

Access to information about climate
change

2. If you think you would benefit from additional information about global climate change, how would you prefer to access this
information? Please select in order of preference with 1 being most preferred to 6 being least.
____ Mailed reading material

____ Video/DVD

85

____ Emailed material

____ Website

____ Informational workshop

____ Other (please explain) ___________

3. Please share any other thoughts or comments regarding the effects of global climate change on the ranching industry.

86

5.4 APPENDIX IV

87

5.5 APPENDIX V
5.5.1 RESPONDENT COMMENTS
*Note: comments have been edited for grammar and spelling, but not content.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•

•

•

•
•

I do not think anyone can change the climate. They can't even predict the weather.
If there actually is global warming it is not affecting us presently. Our problems are
weeds, wolves, and fuel taxes and regulations.
You have to adjust to it. What can you do for us?
If it is happening what do you think we can do about it?
I believe increased population in the Okanagan is affecting agriculture more than
climate change.
Thank you for showing some interest.
While weather changes it never has been exactly the same or the ice age would not have
melted. Who says weather must remain the same for decades? Instead we need to relate
to our surroundings and replace what we destroy. Has the reluctance to let forest fires
burn aided the beetle populations? Have logging practices been totally beneficial to
forest health? Has the ranching industry respected the grasslands and water sources?
etc...
This questionnaire did not separate range water needs and private land needs. Water
and forage on rangeland is adequate. But water requirements on private hay field are
definitely inadequate, although we have water rights dating back to the 1880s. Needs of
people who boat on Chimney/Felker Lakes seem more important to government!!!
Global climate change is a hoax!
I believe in climate change. Our weather is no colder or possible hotter than past?? It
seems we get our rains for hay and pasture at the wrong times!! In Central BC could it be
because of our dead pine??
Cooler, dryer spring/summers have lessened hay crops. But there is no rhyme or reason
as to why some fields are more productive than others. Wolves and cougar predation are
a huge issue in our area.
We feel the bug kill problem (depravation on trees) is a significant problem concerning
water. Climate change?? Logging, bug kill, has opened up opportunities for wolves to
invade non-traditional areas (ours and where our cattle range). Climate change—this is
of extreme importance to us. If we incur more losses in 2011 we will be in trouble.
Planning for changes in rangeland is critical for keeping ranching stable as possible.
Climate change in the area I live in has not manifested itself in global warming. On the
contrary it seems a cooling trend is occurring resulting in longer winters although
88

•

•

•

•

•
•

•

•
•
•

extreme cold is not common lately. Currently we are experiencing record snowpack
resulting in added operating costs. I do believe that greenhouse gases must be
controlled. So called "global warming" is a term used by those who would benefit from
using it, case in point, our provincial government imposes a carbon tax on already high
priced fuel. This has not and will not affect greenhouse gas emissions but serves to place
an added burden on farmers and ranchers.
What I have read makes me believe it has not been proven. "Great Global Warming
Swindle" debunks the whole thing. The 1600s had highest CO2 levels ever and was a
period of unprecedented prosperity. Our biggest range challenge is noxious weeds.
Drought is the most significant challenge currently facing operation (comment on
question 7). How do you know climate change is causing our problems and not climate
change that would normally occur?
We are not sure if global climate change is really affecting us adversely of not, in our
region things are about the same as usual. We have had cycles of weather patterns
before with dry years and wet years in groups of 5 or more years. Last year was good
moisture, years before were dry for 3 years.
I believe that any so called climate change is just a normal cycle and is not man made.
My operation has been lucky enough to have not suffered any climate related hardships
so far.
Let us deduct farming expenses just like all other businesses can!
As the population continues to grow and areas in North America that were desert are
now cities which requires an enormous amount of fresh water, I think there is going to
be pressure on agriculture in regards to water use. The question may be, will it be raising
and growing food going to be a priority or will it be industrial and residential growth.
Agriculture is not a priority in BC especially after what the beef industry has gone
through since 2003. It is difficult to comment on the effects of global climate change on
ranching industry, since the biggest effect has been how difficult it is to ranch in BC since
2003.
We did not notice much about climate change until the pine beetle forced the logging of
a massive amount of trees opening the land up to wind, erosion and fast run off. The
faster the government can replant the trees the better!
Too many unknowns at this time and I don't see how you can pin point such effects to
such a specific region as in this survey.
We are impacted more by altitude, much less frost.
There are other contributing factors that affect the ranching industry. BSE, high costs of
overhead, increasing accountability...Global climate change needs to be addressed on a
personal level by education because it will eventually affect all of us. We have read
conflicting information about climate change—some say our climate is history repeating
89

•
•

•

•
•
•

•
•

•
•

itself. We would be very interested in a website for additional information. Do ranchers
need to haul water to their cattle because of global climate change or because of a dry
cycle? Was there years of low snowfall, therefore not enough spring runoff to fill up the
potholes a hundred years ago? Present day ranchers cannot decrease their herds during
drought years because of high costs therefore they need to haul water or develop other
water sources or storage.
It is the least of my worries. No mention of ecological goods and services.
Global climate change has been occurring for the last 5 000 000 years. You can't get the
weather right three days in advance. What makes you think you know what it's going to
be like in the next month much less ten years from now? What happened to global
warming?
In this area there are thousands of acres that used to be farm land bought by outside
corporations to plant back into trees so they have carbon credits so that their factories
can keep pouring out pollution in other parts of the world. This carbon credit thing is a
joke!
I don't think anyone really knows what is going to happen. It will affect different areas at
different times.
It is BS. I believe it is only a weather cycle and it is a scare to create jobs, money and a
wealth transfer from rich countries to the poor.
Don't think global climate change on rangeland is any problem. More problems arise
from logging practices that have changed (more slash/debris left on clear cuts,
impacting grass grown) and off-road recreation increase.
Somewhat warmer winters are easier on the cattle.
Oil and gas have played a major role in destroying grazing land and we should be
compensated accordingly. The provincial government profits from this but do not put
anything back. I feel that the Peace country bank rolls the rest of the province and it's
about time we get something back.
I think global warming will be beneficial to our industry, though at a cost to the rest of
the world.
We are causing pollution but we don't cause weather to change but it is a way to make
money for the powers that be. 50 years ago the next ice age was coming, last year
global warming, now it is climate change, do you really know? We are going global
trade, global government so there is lots of global axes to grind and the grind stone is
working overtime. We, the cattle producers of BC or Canada, are so busy trying to make
a living that we really don't see what is going on in the world and if we did probably
there is not much that we as producers could do. Create the problem, and then offer the
solution. We are waiting for the solution. The problem has already been created.
90

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

•

•
•

Summer access to water and runoff for crops and winter there are low water reserves.
Costs to bring in both in money and energy.
Being a farmer, I am used to all kinds of weather. Nothing we have seen in the last 30
years makes me see a significant trend.
This would be a benefit if predictions were accurate. Experts predicted warmer and
wetter for this region but it has been cooler and drier. Climate has been changing for
millions of years. If climate change experts are correct things should be better for
ranching. Climate changes through cycles. 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and 2000 cooler. 1930s,
1950s, 1970s, 1990s warmer. In the early 1970s most climate change experts predicted
we were on the beginning of another ice age. In 1990s most of the same experts
predicted global warming. Now the predictions are for extreme weather. What can be
believed?
Believe most current events are the result of natural cycles, present day lakes used to be
hay meadows etc.
Moisture in the form of snow and rain is our biggest concern. Always has been that way.
Global warming started when the ice age stopped.
Greatest impact is on our hay crop volumes and quality due to dry farming and lack of
irrigation options. Next greatest is the huge impact of forest licence level of activity on
our range licence area
It seems that we either have drought conditions or too much moisture since the climate
change.
I do not believe in climate change it is a cycle that the globe is going through and
someone put a name on it—look back in history
It appears that every problem in the world today is blamed on climate change. I have yet
to see a government program for agriculture that helped and improved the economic
situation for farmers in BC.
I believe that any policy change should come from people involved in the industry (such
as BCCA) and not the government. I perceive the government to have a biased and
limited knowledge of this problem.
I am not at all sure human activity causes climate change or that climate change is bad
for me. After one year of drought we have had a wonderful year for moisture and
growth. I have no range but do notice range holders abuse range in favour of private
holdings. Reservoir/dam safety is applied inconsistently.
The climate will change always. They can't tell if it's warming or cooling. Quit chasing
fads and just do your job of adapting to what's played.
There are too many natural events occurring to blame entire notion of global warming
on human activity i.e.: volcanic activity, earthquakes, effects of solar activity—flares and
sunspots, historical events—dirty 30s, droughts of mid 1800s. Much of current forest
91

•

•

•
•

•
•

•
•

(pine beetle) is less than 300 years old except coastal interior wet belt. What happened
prior? There is a notion from urban populations that farming is a cause of global
warming. Need to pursue education that farmers/ranchers are stewards of environment.
Farming activities have to maintain land and water quality to be sustainable.
Suck it up. Look after yourself with best information and management practices. Don't
look to someone for a bailout or rescue. If climate won't support current practices,
change!
Changing weather patterns always affect farming and ranching but we just have to
adapt to the situations and be more diligent in our efforts to protect our water sources
and grazing lands. Fuel prices and the cost of producing hay and crops to feed our cattle
are far more challenging on a day to day basis.
Not sure if there are any effects of global climate change on the ranching industry in my
area except for drought, which also happened about 60 years ago.
Very concerned about loss of ecosystem restoration. Grasslands are suffering immensely
from forest ingrowth (15 percent per year). Grass is every bit as good for carbon
sequestration as trees if the grasslands (ranges) are properly managed. Overpopulation
of wildlife in the East Kootenays make proper management of range very difficult (they
don't know about rest/rotation). "Science" indicates the Earth has seen these climate
changes in the past but there seems little doubt that mankind's dependence on fossil
fuels is exasperating and perhaps speeding up the arrival of inevitable climate change or
"fluctuation"??
If there is global climate change the only effect on our ranching operation is the winters
seem to be a bit less cold, especially over the last 10 years.
Our life and livelihood is directly connected to the physical earth: the soil, the water, the
air, the rain. If anything is out of balance, so are we and our animals. There are many
things we can compensate for, and we've all gotten very creative over time but it's
frustrating to watch other humans purposely being destructive and then we have to deal
with the consequences. Climate is all about change; it's an integral part of nature. But
government and industry behaviour and policies have a huge impact on our responses to
that change. Ranchers are REAL environmentalists; we live close to the rhythm of earth
every single day. It is always first about maintaining good health and balance for us, not
the money so why don't others listen more to our voice?
I feel that climate change is history repeating itself. We were covered by ice at one
time—no cows then.
Not convinced about global climate change being the disaster that many people are
pushing. Cyclic change that lasts for ten to twenty five years has been occurring forever.
Have a look at the urban development where the historic weather readings are taken
thus increasing the recorded temperatures.
92

•
•

•

•

•
•

•

•
•

•

•

I feel global climate change is mostly natural and there is little man can do to change it.
Lack of normal snow fall for the last 8 to 10 years has caused water streams and water
holes to dry up by mid-summer. Fuel costs have made it uneconomical for moving cattle.
Lack of normal rainfall has a terrific effect on forest and grass growth.
Questions are too vague to determine any value from the answers. I would not want to
invest more ranch dollars into Crown range when all other users get free access with no
penalty for damage.
Our industry is not responsible for a lot of "emissions"! We care for the environment
much better than any other industry! I would like to see "pollution" addressed and also
(especially) have regulations regarding trespassing on farms and ranches and knowledge
to be given to urbanites about the POSITIVE side of ranching. We do all kinds of
environmental good through regulations and environmental farm plans that is not
credited to us! We should be reimbursed for our efforts to do things "right"! The carbon
tax should be refunded to farmers because we are producing food and we can't stay in
business much longer doing the "right thing" with the carbon tax!
Global climate change is not due to causes by humans.
Fires have destroyed range land and forests which changes the range management
practices. Cutting of the beetle trees have opened up the country to wind and severe
extremes in fast weather changes and patterns. Building dams and large lakes i.e.: "Site
C" has a horrible impact on climate change. Williston Lake and Kinbasket Lake changed
the weather patterns in the Prince George area over my lifetime.
20 year variance from norms does not necessarily equate with climate change. Also I do
not see how a 1/2 degree shift in temperatures annually can equate to every winter
since 1993 as being way above normal temperature to kill pine beetle.
The lack of moisture in our area for the last number of years and the lack of government
assistance to help i.e.: grants to fence hay yards. Crop insurance is diminishing to nil.
Have sold all our cows this year as it is no longer a viable operation due to low prices
since the mad cow outbreak. Prices are just getting back to where they were at the
outbreak and all other prices such as fuel and hydro have almost doubled and will put
the property up for sale.
We always need to respect mother earth and the environment around us. Humans may
have a small impact on climate change. The Arctic was a tropical zone thousands of
years ago and no man is going to stop the change in climate on earth when its time
comes again.
Global climate has also impacted wildlife migration and/or territories. Wolf predation is
an extremely increasing issue in our area. Our losses are significant and are pushing us
into the possibility of losing our Crown tenure due to loss of profitability.
93

•

•

•

•

•

•
•
•
•

•

The entire questionnaire appears to be predicated on global warming being a fact. I
seriously question this statement and still believe that we are just into yet another dry or
drought cycle in Western Canada.
The so called climate change is just a cycle that has not been seen or recorded before. To
let government to be involved is going to allow another type of beating stick to use on
food producers. It is trumped up hype to allow big business to gain another way of
making money for themselves. As for carbon credits, this is a joke—big corporations are
allowed to buy credit from someone else and not correct their own pollution.
In the past, our range area has had more adequate rain and snow. In the last ten to
fifteen years we have had on average less snowfall in the winters. The result is ponds
going dry and less water in springs and creeks. We have gone from abundant to barely
adequate water supply. It if continues to keep getting drier, it will have a major impact
on my operation.
Mountain pine beetle has been one of my main range concerns along with low cattle
prices to do range maintenance. I am not convinced the MPB epidemic is all due to
climate change.
Global warming and the ice age are all natural occurrences. Alberta had dinosaurs at
one time then the ice age came and they all froze. Now, we're in a warming trend again,
saying it is man caused is bull shit. Also it is said that cattle produce methane gas and
cause global warming. What about the millions of bison that roamed the prairies for
hundreds of years? The government is using global warming by man as an excuse to suck
more money out of everyone.
I like the Kootenay area. I don't wish to blame ranching or climate change for whatever.
Climate change, if you look at history, has changed more dramatically before humans
than it has since.
I feel it is too late to change global warming. We have to learn to adapt to the changes.
Info on strategies would help.
The first fifteen years I ranched here putting up the hay crop was never a problem. Since
then I have been totally rained out one year, followed by a semi drought the next year,
etc., etc., Last year was a 3/4 loss of hay, we had frost every night for all of June affecting the hay crop. Although we had two early rains they were too early to do any
good, the June frosts were followed by a complete drought resulting in only 1/4 hay
crop. Meanwhile the smoke from Pelican Lake wildfire is terrible. Looking back, 2010 was
the worst year I have ever experienced in my whole life. All that was followed by four
feet of snow.
Having lived in the area for nearly 80 years I've lived through wet years, dry years, cold
years and warm years so there hasn't been any great changes.
94

•
•
•

•

•
•
•

•

•

•

•

The amount of water that the oil and gas uses is a great concern to the agricultural
industry.
Pine beetle has impacted weather more than climate change.
Would like clarification of global warming—do you mean as it relates to man-made
effects, or to ongoing earth patterns such as natural causes i.e.: some winters are more
extreme than others?
I feel ranchers have a much better perspective and ideas re: land use than government
officials. Family has ranched in area for 24 years but at a different location. I feel this
whole global climate change thing is somewhat blown out of proportion. Yes we are
doing many harmful things to the environment but I think part of this warming is also
part of nature's natural cycles. We have to learn to change and adapt as ranchers have
been doing for years.
Carbon tax on fuel has done nothing but increase operating costs.
I think it is greatly overrated and some people or organizations are getting well paid to
do it.
The battle for our water and forage must continue. We must not let the recreation users
take us over. BC will become a total recreation province with no grass and no beef—no
hamburgers.
The global climate change has been in a constant state of change since the beginning of
the earth! Man is an insignificant player with an inflated sense of his control of the
weather and his planet.
I would rather see them work on improving markets and reducing input costs. I intend to
manage my Crown range anyway. We have been ranching in this location since 1920
and raising cattle for approx. 80 years. Throughout this time there have been dry spells,
wet spells, grasshopper plagues and severe weather events. There have been years when
the cows grazed out until after Christmas and years where it snowed at the end of
October and we had to start feeding them. 2008 and 2009 were two of those early
feeding years. Spring did not come any earlier either. This area has always had variable
weather. No two years are the same. I cannot say that the current dry spell is unusual.
This government has abandoned range. I have a degree in agriculture and spent my
career in range management; I don't need a monitoring program. My entire Crown
range lease burned this year. All of my fences were lost, cannot use! In many places
productivity of Crown range has significantly decreased. Ranges no longer support the
cows as they once did. Cattle numbers need to be permanently reduced in some areas.
There is very little water left on the Chilcotin plateau.
I don't believe global warming has affected climate change. In the winter of 1930-31
there was no snow; it was a reasonably mild winter. The winter of 1942-43 there was
hardly any snow and a very early spring. There has been winter when we haven't had
95

•

•
•
•

•

•
•
•

•

•

•

snow until the end of December and been winters when we've had snow in October.
Through the years there have been wet years and dry years. I don't think things have
changed.
In my area I do notice we have been in a drought situation the past 15 years. The
seasons are approx. one month earlier. We don't receive the warm spring rains in March,
summer is not as hot, fall is the same and winter is not as cold for long periods of time
and receives less snow. But mainly the problem is, if we don't receive inflation costs for
our product I guess all the questions won't matter. We won't be in the cattle business
anymore. That's the bottom line!
The world is always changing you can learn to adjust and carry on.
The only real change in this area is the winters are warmer. Summers wet or dry. On
average things seem to work out the same.
While I agree the climate is changing this could be a "normal" weather pattern. We don't
have enough years of climate info - say every 500 years. On the big scale I am sure the
increase is causing more change to the weather then all our human activities. In the
Southern Interior we saw a change to climate here after Mt. St. Helens erupted.
I believe climate change is an ongoing process of nature. It all depends on where and
when we are affected. These cycles can last for a few years or over thousands of years.
It's nature.
Population growth and use of land and water is a bigger problem than global warming!
Horse flies increasing. Too much sun on the plants.
We don't use Crown land so can't speak for those who do. Rather than incentives for
global warming—guaranteed minimum price for cattle as opposed to incentives are
what we need. Make environmental farm plans, verified beef programs, age verification
etc. worth something. Global warming is not going to make or break my operation at
this time.
Please note: we have an environmental farm plan, attend range school—these are
excellent programs and should be encouraged. Concern that severe weather events
(disasters) will increase in frequency and severity which will bring huge economic
impacts to us all, perhaps to the point where businesses that rely on the land/weather
will not be able to succeed.
Having been forced into semi-retirement by the BSE crisis, I don't think it is going to
matter to the industry because if the financial impacts of events over which you have no
control cannot be stopped there will be no industry to worry about.
Climate has always and continues to be dynamic. Fossil fuels are already becoming
limited and the globe will heal. We are along for the ride. Hopefully proposed solutions
will be applied globally as we can't afford more of what we see in fuel carbon tax, which
puts us at a global disadvantage. If this province is going to sustain its ranchers it needs
96

•

•

•

•

•
•
•

•

•

to bring back our quality of life and quiet enjoyment and provide us a playing field where
we are at peace doing what we do on the land base.
Cattle numbers down due to BSE. I do not believe in global warming as some would have
us believe. I do not believe in carbon offsets—is designed to be a money transfer and if
you believe carbon should not be produced, it is still going to be produced. It is quite
obvious we are in a dry trend, but this kind of thing has happened throughout history. If
it continues we will need some other water development on Crown range. The thing that
is costing us the most on Crown range is the filling in of clear cuts with trees, making it
harder and more time consuming to find cattle when cleaning out an area of cattle.
Government policy on addressing global climate change will have the greatest impact on
the ranching industry in a negative way. I.e.: carbon offsets, cap and trade, all will
increase costs with no net benefit or change to global climate change. Global climate
change is a natural evolution that has gone on since the beginning of time.
With an average precipitation of 18", there is no change in forage production. Climate
change is in progress since 1941 here in our area since 1958 - warmer winters, less snow
- strong fluctuations in precipitations. Effects of climate change are not a big concern for
our operation. Big concerns are: finance, irrigation systems (water we have), fuel and
fertilizer prices, beef prices and less government regulations.
There is a global climate change, no doubt, how much is really man-made? Petty prices
for cattle and some appreciated (financial help?) for ranchers would help more than
anything else. If a government wants cheap food for all, it must support the producer.
The producer is the key for quality of food and environment and life.
We do not use range land—not eligible—but we can see a definite change. Also poor
stewardship. Water is drying up faster; grass is not growing to feed animals.
Beaver Creek going dry and well is going dry.
This is an interesting topic and a useful survey. Global climate change is a real issue and
it will impact agriculture, particularly concerning water quality and quantity. In the East
Kootenay region, particularly in the Upper Columbia (Canal Flats to Spillimacheen)
mostly the crisis will be driven by recreational properties and municipalities.
Few seem to realize and accept that the immediate future and condition of our
rangelands are going to be much different and therefore more challenging to manage
than what we have been and are just now experiencing. Livestock access to water will
and must change for the overall benefits of both ecosystem and human health. Hopefully
the new Water Act for BC will ensure there is much better management of BC's water
resources in the future than there presently is.
Without access to water we won't be able to produce food. Please make sure people
understand a cow has to drink to become a steak.
97

•

Climate change is not the most significant threat to the cattle industry in BC. As the
president of our local association, I have heard many of my own concerns repeated:
Prices, conflict between urban and rural people, cost of farming and BC's terrible
agriculture policies are far more to blame than climate change. The rewriting of the
Water Act is a prime example. Agricultural water use is lumped in with industry while
First Nations are not lumped in with public water use. While First Nations are part of the
public, agriculture can't be lumped in with mining, logging or manufacturing or hydro. It
is food production for God's sake.

98

5.6 APPENDIX VI
5.6.1 INTRODUCTION
While climate change models indicate general range contraction of sagebrush in the
southern part of its range; this shrub is predicted to expand its northern range—including BC
(Parmesan & Yohe 2003; Root et al. 2003; Schafer et al. 2001). Encroachment of woody shrubs
can change surface albedo, evapotranspiration, runoff and fluxes of trace gases to the
atmosphere, altering the hydrology of grasslands (Polley 1996). It has also been suggested that
drought conditions reduce forage abundance, facilitating the establishment of sagebrush
(Harniss & Murray 1973). In areas where increased drought conditions are expected, the
removal of sagebrush has even greater implications as long-term studies suggest that
sagebrush control can increase water yield and the water recharge capacity of the soil (Sturges
1993). Monitoring the regrowth of sage for 30 years after a burn has strongly indicated there is
the need for sage management in order to maintain maximum forage qualities (Harniss &
Murray 1973). This sentiment is echoed by West et al. (1984) who studied the reestablishment
of forage grasses for 13 years after building an exclosure. They state that direct manipulations
of woody shrubs are mandatory if rapid return to grass dominance is desired in such
environments.
Increased control of sagebrush may be required under changing climate conditions
because both wildlife and livestock are dependent on sufficient forage production. Typically,
the expansion of sagebrush comes at the loss of other plant species—especially forage grasses
(Fowler 1986; Van Auken 2000). When sagebrush expands its range in BC, direct management
of grasslands may be required to meet the forage and grazing needs of both cattle and wildlife.
An adaptive management process will be required (Westoby et al. 1989) to adjust to the new
realities global climate change will produce. As Figure 1 indicates, grazing often contributes to
the increased success of woody seedlings by reducing the herbaceous layer. This, in
combination with the predicted impact of climate variation, has the potential to significantly
impact the amount of forage available for wildlife and livestock (Asner et al. 2004).

99

Figure 5.6.1-5-1: Processes contributing to woody encroachment in semi-arid systems. Climate
change is expected to lead to an increased success of woody seedlings, such as sagebrush
(From Asner et al. 2004).

The general predictions of climate change for the Thompson-Okanagan region is for
hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters. Similar patterns have been observed in the
Chihuahuan Desert systems of Arizona and New Mexico, an area similar to the low elevation
shrub grasslands of the BC Interior where shrub density increased three-fold over thirty years
(Brown et al. 1997).
Historical records indicate that sagebrush was present in the grasslands of interior of BC,
but were sparsely distributed and that many of the slopes now dominated by sagebrush were
once predominately grass. These records accounts also suggest that the removal of grasses
through foraging, especially in the lower grassland zones, facilitates the encroachment of
shrubs such as sagebrush (Tisdale 1947). The extent to which an increase in shrub cover
100

reduces the total amount of forage grasses is unknown. Laycock (1967) denotes that heavy
grazing in the late fall increases the amount of available forage by reducing sage abundance
while increasing the abundance of forbs and forage grasses and that heavy spring grazing has
the opposite effect and promotes the proliferation of sagebrush.
Warming of the climate is a contributing factor to the encroachment of woody shrub
species into grasslands (Van Auken 2000; Perfors et al. 2003; Zavaleta 2006; Asner et al. 2004)
and may influence the availability of suitable forage by decreasing the overall amount of grazing
land. Artemisia—Pseudoroegeneria bunchgrass ecosystem grasslands are essential for many
species; however, sagebrush competes with grasses that provide forage to wildlife and
livestock. Climate change, succession and disturbances have the potential to change the density
of sage. Future management of shrub encroachment is an example of a range management
practice that may need to be adopted in response to climate change.

5.6.1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES
Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) was manipulated in a field experiment in an attempt to
investigate whether sage abundance affects the amount of forage land available. As vegetative
composition on rangeland expected change in response to changes in climate, it is important to
understand how vegetative interactions may impact available grazing forage. This project will
attempt to answer the following questions:
i.

What are the vegetative changes that occur under different levels of sagebrush
cover?

ii.

How is plant community composition and forage productivity affected by different
levels of sagebrush abundance?

iii.

How is soil moisture and temperature affected by different levels of sagebrush
abundance?

101

5.6.2 METHODS
The field research was conducted over two years at a mid-elevation in the grasslands of
Lac du Bois Provincial Park (Fig. 5.6.2-1). Previous experiments in the area have examined the
use of fire and herbicide as mechanisms of sage removal to encourage forage production.
Climatic factors such as annual temperature and precipitation were considered and compared
to historical values. Changes in seasonal variations were compared to any changes in vegetative
cover of Artemisia tridentata and will be taken into consideration when attempting to
determine if these factors play a role in the pattern of sagebrush growth (Tisdale 1947). Zones
identified by Van Ryswyk et al. (1966) will be used as baseline comparison for areas of sage
growth.

Figure 5.6.2-1: Map of Lac du Bois grasslands Provincial Park showing park location and
boundaries (left) and (right) map showing approximate field study location in Agriculture
Canada research plot within Lac du Bois grasslands.

The selected study site (Fig. 5.6.2-1 (right) is an existing Agricultural Canada exclosure
previously used for sage removal research in the early-mid 1970s. A rotary mower was used
first to knock down the big plants then the area was boom sprayed with a herbicide (most likely
102

2-4-D), leaving behind the strips of sagebrush that were used for this study (Fig. 5.6.2-2). The
area was then used for a grazing trial with a small number of cows grazing for 2 days a week for
4 weeks. The trail was testing impact of grazing on April grazing versus May grazing, but no
significant results emerged (Rick Tucker, pers. comm).

Figure 5.6.2-2: Photo showing study area and the rows of sagebrush used for the field study
experiment.

Sagebrush was removed from plots in different densities and the response of forage
grasses, the plant community and soil characteristics were compared to control plots
containing sagebrush. All experimental plots (2m x 2m) were located near other grasslands
classified as Artemisia – Pseudoroegeneria bunchgrass ecosystem. At the site-level scale
sagebrush cover ranges from 0 to 100%. Sagebrush was removed from plots in the spring of
2010 in a manner that created a gradient of sagebrush cover. All plots were selected to have an
initial sage cover of as close to 100% as possible. Removal was done in a manner that reduced
cover consistently over the plot, maintaining the distribution of sagebrush size classes, and
minimizing disturbance to vegetation and soil surface. A treatment refers to the removal of 0
103

(control), 25, 50, 75 or 100 percent sagebrush. The gradient represents a range of sagebrush
cover as the level of shrub cover that will begin to influence forage grass production is
unknown. Higher densities of sage are necessary represents the potential amount of sagebrush
cover under future scenarios.

Table 5.6.2-1: Sagebrush removal guidelines
Percent
Removal
0

Grids removed (out of 16)
No Grids

25

1,3,7,16

50

4, 5,7,9,11,12,14,16

75

2,4, 5, 6,7,8,11,12,13,14,15,16

100

All Grids

The experiment consisted of six replications of each removal level, including a control
for a total of 30 plots. The perimeter of each plot was trenched to a depth of approximately 10
inches. The sage was then removed randomly from grids within the plot (Table 5.6.2-1) and the
same randomly selected grid squares was used for all replications (Fig. 5.6.2-3). Prior to
removal, existing sage and vegetative cover was noted as either present or absent within each
grid square. Presence/absence was noted again in the spring and fall 2011 prior to the final
removal of biomass.
The harvested material from each shrub was sorted into leaves and stems and dried at
65°C for 48 hours and weighed. In August of 2010 and 2011, the inner 1m2 plant community
was measured after the growing season using the Daubenmire® method (Daubenmire 1966).
The subplots were then harvested at ground level above-ground plant productivity in
November 2011. Soil moisture and temperature data was collected over the course of the study
104

using Onset Smart Temp Sensors and Soil Moisture Smart Sensors (S-SMB-M005 using a
ECH20® Dielectric Aquameter probe, Decagon Devices, Inc) connected to a HOBO® Micro
Station data logger, Onset Computer Corporation) in one of the six replications and manually in
all plots at the beginning and the end of the growing season using a hand-held thermometer
and soil moisture probe. Calculations and information regarding the calibration for the 10 cm
long probes can be found in Appendix VI.

Figure 5.6.2-3: Experimental control plot containing 100% sagebrush prior to fall 2011
harvesting.

105

5.6.3 RESULTS
As stated, all plots had as close to 100% sagebrush cover as possible to start (Table 5.6.3-1). The
sagebrush in the 0% cover treatment was removed at the beginning of the first year of the
study while the remaining values include growth from the summers of 2012 and 2011.

Table 5.6.3-1: Average amount (Kg) of total sagebrush in each type of treatment plot.
percent
cover

2010 average sage
biomass

2011 average sage
biomass

total average

25%
50%
75%
0%
100%

2252.63
1374.92
1293.25
4175.85
n/a

2974.61
3000.50
3836.31
n/a
4390.00

5227.24
4375.42
5129.56
4175.85
4390.00

Figures 5.6.3-1, 5.6.3-2, 5.6.3-3 and 5.6.3-4 display soil moisture and temperature
information collected from July-October in 2010 and March-November in 2011. 2010 figures do
not include data from soil moisture and temperature probes in the 0% cover plot due to
equipment malfunction. 2011 soil moisture data for 75% cover plot and temperature data for
0% cover plot missing due to rodents damage to the sensor wires. Data is shown temporally at
four time intervals: 00:00, 08:00, 10:00 and 15:00.

106

107

Figure 5.6.3-1: 2010 soil moisture data. Data from 0% cover plot not shown.

108

Figure 5.6.3-2: 2010 Soil temperature data. Data from 0% cover plot not shown.

109

Figure 5.6.3-3: 2011 soil moisture data. Data from 75% cover plot not shown.

110

Figure 5.6.3-4: 2011 soiltemperature data. Data from 0% coverplot not shown.

Analysis of variance and linear regression analysis was used to determine if sagebrush
density attributed to the variance in the amount of available forage (live biomass) and the
amount of total biomass (available forage + litter). Total sagebrush biomass, woody biomass
and sagebrush leaf biomass were considered. Results indicate that sagebrush density is a
significant indicator of total biomass (Table 5.6.3-2). R squared value (.245) indicates that total
sage biomass accounts for 25% of the variance in the total plot biomass (live + litter) (Fig. 5.6.35). Woody sage biomass accounts for less than 1% (Fig. 5.6.3-6). ANOVA results for total sage
biomass (Fig. 5.6.3-9) and total sagebrush leaf biomass (Fig. 5.6.3-8) and total woody biomass
vs. live litter (available forage), and total sagebrush biomass vs. total ground litter (Fig. 5.6.3-7)
were not significant.

Table 5.6.3-2: One-way ANOVA analysis of 2011 sagebrush biomass vs. total dead plant litter
and total 2011 leaf biomass vs. total live litter (available forage).

ANOVA
summary

Total 2011 sage
biomass vs. total
biomass (live +
litter)

Total 2011
woody sage
Total 2011 sage Total 2011 sage Total 2011 sage
biomass vs.
biomass vs. total leaf biomass vs. biomass vs. total
total live litter
ground litter
total live litter
live litter
(available
(excluding live) (available forage) (available forage)
forage)

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

9.081

.005*

.253

.619

2.762

.111

.067

.798

.237

.630

111

Figure 5.6.3-5: Regression plot showing R2values and linear distribution of the effect of total
sagebrush abundance on total biomass of understory herbaceous biomass.

Figure 5.6.3-6: Regression plots showing R2values and linear distribution of total woody
biomass and total live biomass (available forage) (g).
112

Figure 5.6.3-7: Total 2011 sage biomass accounts for 31% of the variability of the amount of
total ground litter (excluding live biomass).

Figure 5.6.3-8: 2011 sagebrush leaf biomass does not account for a significant amount of the
variability of total live biomass (available forage).
113

Figure 5.6.3-9: 2011 total sagebrush biomass does not account for a significant amount of the
variability of total live biomass (available forage).

An ANOVA of the mean Shannon-Weiner diversity index values for plant species did not
indicate a significant difference in species composition between plots or treatments (Tables
5.6.3-4 & 5.6.3-5). Figure 5.6.3-10 displays a summary of all Shannon-Weiner index values by
treatment for each plot.

114

Table 5.6.3-3: Descriptive statistics of Shannon-Weiner index values for each treatment.
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation Std. Error

0

6

1.1027

.11765

.04803

.9792

1.2261

.90

1.25

25

6

.7988

.34329

.14015

.4386

1.1591

.38

1.30

50

6

.7692

.47530

.19404

.2704

1.2680

.00

1.35

75

6

.6767

.17449

.07124

.4935

.8598

.43

.95

100

6

.8570

.30470

.12439

.5372

1.1768

.48

1.33

Total

30

.8409

.32273

.05892

.7204

.9614

.00

1.35

Lower Bound

Minimum Maximum

Upper Bound

Table 5.6.3-4: ANOVA for Shannon-Weiner index values.
Sum of Squares

Df

Mean Square

Between Groups

.616

4

.154

Within Groups

2.404

25

.096

Total

3.020

29

F
1.601

Sig.
.205

115

Figure 5.6.3-10: Plot summary of average Shannon-Weiner index values for each treatment.

116

5.6.4 DISCUSSION
The overall duration of this experiment was relatively short, making it difficult to
accurately measure any substantial changes in relative forage abundance in response to the
removal of sagebrush. Extending this study over a longer of period of time would allow the
system to reach a new equilibrium and state of community composition (Tisdale 1947; Peltzer
& Kochy 2001; Berlow et al. 2003; Huber-Sannwald & Pyke 2005). Allen-Diaz & Bartolome
(1998) recommend a sampling inventory on a five to ten-year cycle in order to accurately
detect transitions in species composition in sagebrush-grass communities. Longer experimental
time would also likely allow for a more exacting measurement of any changes in species
diversity using the Shannon-Weiner index.
My finding that total sagebrush density influences the amount of total herbaceous
understory is significant as this can in turn, influence abiotic factors such as soil temperature
and moisture (Berlow et al. 2003). An intermediate density of sagebrush may also allow for the
establishment of the seedling of forage grass seedlings as shrub presence offers shade and
protection from direct solar exposure (Huber-Sannwald & Pyke 2005). I would suggest that
future studies incorporate finer-scale methods of measuring plant growth and productivity such
as those employed by Cook & Lewis (1963).

117

5.6.5 REFERENCES

Asner, G. P., Elmore, A. J., Olander, L. P., Martin, R. E., & Harris, A. T. (2004). Grazing systems,
ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 29, 261-299.

Allen-Diaz, Barbara, and James W. Bartolome. (1998). Sagebrush-grass vegetation dynamics:
comparing classical and state-transition models. Ecological Applications 8(3), 795-804.

Berlow, Eric L., Carla M. D'Antonio, and Heather Swartz. (2003). Response of herbs to shrub
removal across natural and experimental variation in soil moisture. Ecological
Applications 13(5), 1375-1387.

Brown J.H., Valone T.J. and Curtin C.G. 1997. Reorganization of an arid ecosystem in response
to recent climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 94, 9729 – 9733.

Cook, C. Wayne, and Clifford E. Lewis. (1963). Competition between big sagebrush and seeded
grasses on foothill ranges in Utah. Journal of Range Management 16(5), 245-250.

Daubenmire, R. (1966). Vegetation: Identification of Typal Communities. Science 151(3708),
291-298.

Fowler N. (1986). The Role of Competition in Plant Communities in Arid and Semiarid Regions.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17, 89-110.

Harniss, R. O., & Murray, R. B. (1973). 30 Years of Vegetal Change following Burning of
Sagebrush-Grass Range. Journal of Range Management , 5, 322-325.

118

Huber‐Sannwald, Elisabeth, and David A. Pyke. (2005). Establishing native grasses in a big
sagebrush–dominated site: an intermediate restoration step. Restoration Ecology 13(2), 292301.

Laycock, W. A. (1967). How Heavy Grazing and Protection Affect Sagebrush-Grass Ranges.
Society for Range Management , 20 (4), 206-213.

Parmesan C. & Yohe G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across
natural systems. Nature 421, 37-42.

Peltzer, Duane A., and Martin Köchy. (2001). Competitive effects of grasses and woody plants in
mixed‐grass prairie. Journal of Ecology 89(4), 519-527.

Perfors, T., Harte, J., & Alter, S. E. (2003). Enhanced growth of sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)
in response to manipulated ecosystem warming. Global Change Biology , 9, 736-742.

Polley, W. H., Johnson, H. B., & Mayeux, H. S. (1996). Are Some of the Recent Changes in
Grassland Communities a Response to Rising CO2 Concentrations? In C. K. Bazzaz, Carbon
Dioxide, Populations, and Communities (pp. 177-1995). London: Academic Press, Inc.

Root T.L., Price J.T., Hall K.R., Schneider S.H., Rosenzweig C. & Pounds J.A. (2003). Fingerprints
of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421, 57-60.

Shafer S.L., Bartlein P.J. and Thompson R.S. (2001). Potential Changes in the Distributions of
Western North America Tree and Shrub Taxa under Future Climate Scenarios. Ecosystems 4,
200-215.

119

Sturges D.L. (1993). Soil-water and Vegetation Dynamics through 20 Years after Big Sagebrush
Control. Journal of Range Management 46, 161-169.

Tisdale, Edwin William. (1947). The grasslands of the southern interior of British
Columbia. Ecology 28(4), 346-382.

Tucker, Rick. Personal communication. December 2010.

Van Auken O.W. (2000). Shrub invasions of North American Semiarid Grasslands. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 31, 197 – 215.

Van Ryswyk, A. L., Alastair McLean, and L. S. Marchand.(1966). The climate, native vegetation,
and soils of some grasslands at different elevations in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of
Plant Science 46(1), 35-50.

West, N. E., Provenza, F. D., Johnson, P. S., & Owens, M. K. (1984). Vegetation Change after 13
Years of Livestock Grazing Exclusion on Sagebrush Semidesert in West Central Utah. Society for
Range Management , 37 (3), 262-264.

Westoby M., Walker B. and Noy-Meir I. (1989). Opportunistic management for rangelands not
at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42, 266- 274.

Zavaleta, Erika S. (2006). Shrub establishment under experimental global changes in a California
grassland. Plant Ecology 184(1), 53-63.

120

5.7 APPENDIX VI: CALIBRATION OF SOIL MOISTURE PROBES
INTRODUCTION
In the field experiments that manipulated water, temperature and clipping it was
necessary to probes to measure the effect of my treatments on soil moisture. However, data from
the probes contained a large number of negative values for volumetric water content (VWC) that,
by definition, should not be less than zero. An investigation of this problem suggested that this
issue was related to the soil type at my experimental site. A calibration procedure was found to
correct the problem (Campbell 2002). This appendix details the slight modification to this
procedure that was used and provides the correction necessary to properly report the soil
moisture data obtained from the experimental site.

METHODS
The same soil moisture probes (10 cm long, Soil Moisture Smart Sensor, S-SMB-M005
using a ECH20® Dielectric Aquameter probe, Decagon Devices, Inc. connected to a HOBO®
Micro Station data logger, Onset Computer Corporation) that were used in the field study were
used in this calibration.
Approximately 20 litres of soil was collected from the field site where the experiment
was done (Lac du Bois Grassland Provincial park within the bunchgrass grasslands of the interior
British Columbia, 6 km north of Kamloops, Canada (UTM E 680737 N 5625980; elevation 731
m a.s.l.). Soil was taken from eight separate soil pits 10 cm deep with the litter layer removed.
This was the same depth that the soil probes were installed during the experiment. The soil
samples were sifted through a coarse, 5 cm x 2 cm, screen to remove large rocks and break up
soil clumps, and then pooled.
The calibration procedure followed Campbell (2002) with a few modifications. The soil
was equally divided among 6 containers (40 cm x 27 cm x 17 cm) to fill the container with
approximately 10 cm of soil. Water was added to each of the containers to create a range of soil
moisture levels, 675 mL, 1150 mL or 1625 mL; two containers received each level of water
addition. The water was thoroughly mixed into the soil. Next, two soil moisture probes were
placed horizontally 3 cm below the soil surface in each container and the soil was pressed firmly

121

and evenly down. The soil moisture readings were recorded and two soil cores (2 cm radius, 3.5
cm deep) were removed from each container.
The soil cores were placed in jars with lids that had been weighed. The wet soil samples
were weighed, then dried for 1 week at 65ºC and then weighed again.
With this information the soil weight, water content, bulk density and VWC can all be
determined.
Dry soil weight = dry weight – jar weight

(1)

Wet soil weight = wet weight – jar weight

(2)

Water weight = wet soil weight – dry soil weight

(3)

Bulk density = soil weight / volume of soil core

(4)

VWC = water weight/ soil weight x bulk density

(5)

To calculate the calibration equation, the actual VWC of the samples determined through
the above procedure was plotted against the observed values from the soil moisture probes (using
the means of probes in each container). In Excel, a linear trend line was plotted through the data;
the equation of this line is the calibration equation.

RESULTS
The calibration procedure shows that the probes underestimate the actual VWC of the
soil. Field readings should be adjusted using the equation:
Actual VWC = 1.3885 x Observed VWC + 0.0798
2

An R value of 0.915 for this regression suggests that a linear calibration is sufficient.

REFERENCE
Campbell CS. 2002. Calibrating ECH2O soil moisture probes. Application note SMR110,
Decagon Devices, Inc.

122

Figure A1.1 Plot from excel of actual volumetric water content plotted against the measured
volumetric water content. The equation in the figure is the formula required to adjust field
readings.

123