GRASS CULTURE AND RANGE IMPROVEMENT 43 



Clarke and Tisdale (12) report similar results with silver sagebrush 

 in Canada. They state that repeated cutting greatly weakens the 

 plants and eventually kills them. 



Grubbing was effective in controlling the sagebrush at Woodward 

 but was too costly, requiring 28 man-hours per acre in heavy infesta- 

 tions. Burning appeared to be equally as damaging to the grass as 

 to the sage. Hanson (32) reports that burning was successful in 

 destroying black sagebrush in Colorado. Several ranchers near 

 Woodward reported success in controlling sand sagebrush by close 

 grazing with sheep and goats. 



CONTROL OF PRICKLYPEAR 



A comparison of the published statements of Bartlett in 1854 with 

 those of Smith (65) in 1899 indicates rather definitely that cumula- 

 tive effects of overgrazing and drought since 1885 are responsible 

 for the present serious infestations of pricklypear, mesquite (mesquite 

 bean), sagebrush, and other objectionable plants on range pastures in 

 the region. In reference to a number of specifically described locations 

 in western Texas, Bartlett, as quoted by Smith (65, p. 17), reported 

 as follows : 



The whole of this district consists of gently undulating plains, without timber 

 save along the margins of the streams, and is covered with the most luxuriant 

 grass. The indigenous prairie grass is tall, coarse, full of seed at the top, and 

 when young resembles wheat in the spring. But in grasses the glory of the 

 State is the mesquite, found only in western Texas. It yields a fine soft 

 sward, preserves its verdure in the winter, and beyond all comparison affords 

 the best wild pasture in the world. 



He made practically the same descriptions of other localities, stat- 

 ing that the chaparral only occupied the river valleys, and that be- 

 yond them were rolling grass-clad Plains with a few scattering groups 

 of cactus and low mesquite trees. 



After carefully examining the same areas in the late nineties, 

 Smith found that the same region was covered with brush and 

 cactus. 



Many stockmen who have noted the progress of this pest are of the opinion 

 that in another twenty years prickly pear will cover a large part of the now 

 open or fairly open grazing lands in the southern part of Texas, to the 

 detriment of all stock and land owners (65, pp. 16-11). 



This predicted condition has occurred to a surprising degree 

 (fig. 22) in parts of the region, particularly in eastern Colorado. 



Nongrazing without other means of control has not been effective 

 in subduing pricklypear, despite the supported assumption that pro- 

 longed overgrazing was responsible for the serious inroads of this 

 pest. During the 6 drought years of 1932-37 it increased noticeably 

 on nongrazecl plats at Hays, Kans. This may have been due partly 

 to drought which would affect the grasses and forbs much more 

 seriously than the cacti. Grubbing the plants below the crowns and 

 hauling them off the fields have greatly reduced the pricklypear from 

 pastures at Hays, Kans., Akron, Colo., and elsewhere in the region. 

 This operation is laborious in thick infestations but is usually effective, 

 fairly economical, and certainly advisable in controlling light infesta- 

 tions. It should be followed with some protection from grazing to 

 enable the associated grasses to recuperate and reoccupy the scalped 

 areas. Many spined opuntia (manyspine pricklypear) is more diffi- 



