As we are dealing with protected areas, first we have to identify the category of this protected area, then we have to evaluate the state of vegetative cover type and distribution, then in accordance to the guideline we have and the evaluation produced we can decide to allow or prevent grazing.

Rangeland (Grazing) management is dependent of several factors such as:

- Period of protection.

- Location: number of range sites included.

- Percent of vegetation cover.

- Forage productivity.

- Time of grazing: during spring or autumn. It is plant type dependent.

- Livestock kind.

Then you can determine grazing time, animal kind, period and range site.

when we are talking about grazing in protected areas we have to distinguish between the different kinds of protected areas, if we are dealing with protected areas from category (Category 1a Strict Nature Reserve: protected area managed mainly for science,

Category 2 National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation,

Category 4 Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention ,

Category 6

Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems) grazing is restricted or very limited activity which depends on the manager and the evaluations he have, while the other forms of protected areas it is the point of stability the protected area have to permit grazing

I can contribute these experiences and observations from Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Mali: 1) Pastoralists in Afar- + Somali-Region/Ethiopia appreciate their newly fenced closure-areas because of fantastic regrowth and productivity. There seems to be a strong move into this strategy by the pastoralists themselves. 2) In most non-pastoralist-areas ot Ethiopia (esp. Tigray) uncontrolled animal-grazing is being reduced to a minimum due to the dramatic ecological damages. 3) In Timbuctu-Region/Mali the complete protection of fenced Sahel-lands led to fantastic re-vegetation based on the millions of old seeds in the grounds/soil, a breathtaking potential. The non-protection of most Sahel-lands lead to the known destruction in vegetation. 4) In Rwanda no free grazing is permitted, with wonderful impacts, and animal-husbandry is mainly based on keeping them in stables, enclosures near the homesteads and on a lot of Pennisetum purpureum, the highest yielding forage-crop of the world. 5) Tanzania has probably not yet a clear strategy and policy, but is definately moving towards NON-FREE-GRAZING. 5. On the long run and concluding from common sense and "animal-dignity" there will be a large land-area for controled and monitored animal-grazing under ecological and logical framing with professional management and in synthesis of a lot of experience-capital gained worldwide.

Thanks Bernhard, it is a basic action that when we are dealing with a protected areas we have to control all the factors that cause directly or indirectly the sustainability of this ecosystem, as you mention the positive results obtained from fencing, although the available species especially herbivores were still browsing inside the protected fenced area. for this reason one of the most active management practices which indeed need to be followed by an improvement plan which might be re-seeding the native plants

In either cases it is very important to measure stocking rate and then in accordance the manager must decide wither to permit grazing or no. Taking into account the objective of protection, stocking rate must taking into account biodiversity aspect and the possibility of browsing

Here in Croatia there is an iniciative in National Park Sjeverni Velebit to recover traditional livestock because of grazing which disappeared. Stated problem is that long-term grazing through history was one of the primary factors and stabilizer of environment state but when it disappeared, succession started and grasslands began to turn into forests destroying traditional cultural landscape and its biodiversity.

Neven I don't understand your statement, succession from rangeland and grassland to a forest (naturally) is a positive action which the succession in its real meaning, but if you mean the artificial forest cultivation (afforestation) it is really other story

In National Park Sjeverni Velebit there is a great proportion of forested land but for long time there were grasslands too. Because of traditional livestock grazing, grasslands evolved in unique ecosystems in which both natural (grassland animals, grass and flowering species, some of them are rare and endangered) and cultural factors (men and livestock) were important. Now when traditional livestock disappeared, grassland ecosystems became a subject of succesion and natural components of this ecosystems are disappearing reducing biodiversity to only forest species.

I know that elimination of grazing in rangeland will increase biodiversity. It seems to be not the same in forests (Neven Answer) what are the reasons?

Reasons are that now we have in this national park two different types of ecosystem: grassland and forest with their corresponding species and ecological processes. If succesion will result in the disappearance of grasslands, then all grassland species and processes will disappear too and only forest ecosystem will remain in whole area of national park. Number of forest species won't increase with that, only amount of existing forest organisms will increase. This is loss in biodiversity.

elimination of grazing in rangeland will increase biodiversity is not the real state, elimination will result in breaking the life cycle the ecosystem have, in that the dependency of some species on the presence of others was improved but what extent the presence of grazers will affect the presence of the ecosystem itself. it is will known that the mature ecosystem is in a balance state as the resources it has were in a balance state, when any component break the balance state the rest will broken. grazers are one of the important component in the rangeland, but in the proper intensity and density and for that we have to measure the proper stocking rate as well as the proper grazing capacity for each range. the area which Neven mention in which there are two ecosystem the disappearance of grassland will for sure in the long term result in the disappear of the forest as the connection between these adjacent ecosystems disappear, in other words, the loss of the genetic resources in the edges in the area between the two ecosystems which have species from both. the disappearance of grassland species is much faster than the disappearance of the species in the forest as the life cycle of the individual plants differ, but at the end and a consequences of these disappearance activity both will be lost. the forest will lose firstly the most sensitive and short living species and then the perennials will disappear too as connectivity lost.

Biodiversity will never increase as grazing removed or eliminated, what is the case is the growth of what is called invaders as the local environment was changed and the competitors are removed, and in this case the invaders will compete the grown species and in the last stage of succession the invaders will dominate.

I appreciate your answers. May notes that the soil seed bank will be enhanced with protection but time needed is dependent in the degree of degradation. In case of forests and think light elimination caused by trees has a role in grasses disappear.

With protection seeds embedded in the soil will never grown as the environmental conditions are changes. As degradation increase we will face a problem of vegetative cover loss reaching the point where native plants are not the dominant plants grown and instead we will see the invaders grown

in case of forest and trees cuttings or removal, the case is that depending on the degree of land cover disappearance the succession takes place. Which is desertification

I think it is possible, If your decision dependent on range productivity and stocking rate calculations.

Protected terrestrial area means no interference by mankind. Such areas are governed by the nature. I have seen such protected areas in Canada. Really they have very strict laws. Good for nature.

My opinion is: who we conserve this protected terrestrial areas for? If we have a few dispersed such areas, and destroying other parts of our planet, those areas won't save anybody (and will probably dissapear due to indirect impacts).

We should seek for sustainable whole lifestyle, ways of educating people on this topics, and ways of change the priorities of the whole society.

En Chile no esta permitido el pastoreo de animales domésticos en áreas silvestres protegidas, solo de animales silvestres. Sin embargo, la investigación del pastoreo debe estar centrada en una integración de todos los componentes sin descuidar y poner en riego la permanencia de la regeneración.

Grazing is an important tool of managing rangelands, both protected and unprotected. Where exactly are the areas you are concerned about, and what is the environment (rainfall, vegetation structure, grazing and burning history?).

The decision to allow grazing will depend on your objectives. You may need bulk grazers to modify the vegetation structure and when indigenous grazers have been removed from the system through, for example, hunting, livestock can be an important substitute. Grazing will have an impact on plant diversity, but the impacts are difficult to generalise as there are so many factors at play.

Elimination of grazing will not necessarily increase biodiversity and in many instance can decrease it, in systems that have evolved with grazing.

You'll need to work with the livestock owners to generate a suitable livestock management plan that meets your and their objectives. So, for example, you can agree on where animals are allowed to graze at different times of the year, to avoid sensitive areas at sensitive times (wetlands in the wet season, for example, or sensitive hilly environments).

Tied to the grazing management strategy is your fire management strategy.  There is also the issue of disease (livestock diseases crossing to wildlife, and vice versa) as well as human-wildlife conflict (such as predators) and the possibility of increased exploitation of your protected resources by livestock owners.

So the answer to your question is (1) it depends on your objectives and (2) it depends on your environment. In general, I would say yes, you can, except for specific cases where it will contradict your objectives.

I think we should not permit grazing animals to move freely in protected terrestrial areas. However, if necessary to get rid of unnecessary vegetation, then a strategy should be laid down.