Currently, I’m 2.5 months into my internship with the BLM in Burns, Oregon. I’ve learned life on the range is not easy; hot 80 degree days, chilly  30 degree nights (who can thermoregulate with these temperature fluctuations?), and a scarcity of water for miles. But perhaps more difficult than adapting to the physical struggles of living on the range, are  navigating the politics of managing them. Trigger words such as “sage grouse” and “crested-wheat grass” cause a passion of emotions according to who you talk to. Some believe that “the sage grouse agenda is going to cause the destruction of the range” or that “the BLM’s preference to seed with crested hasn’t created a market that makes natives affordable to  grow or purchase.” In reality, some of  these assumptions and accusations are from more of an emotional than scientific standpoint. As a result, this often causes conflicts between environmental groups, policy makers,and range managers.  Due to the nature of politics, influential lobbyists may direct law makers (who are not in the field) to issue (mandatory) ordinances that will not necessarily translate to effective management on the ground. The reality of land manager is that funding is limited and every penny matters if one wants to prevent a burned allotment from changing into a field of BRTE or medusa head (invasives). So, is it better to seed a monoculture of crested that will be able to establish itself and compete with invasives or to seed with native perennials that will likely be out-competed anyway?  In this way resources and funding are wasted in the name of compliance.