Range management, which deals v-ith the nature, production and use of the range forage resource, is obviously a field closely related to animal husbandry, the science of the breeding, production and management of the livestock which use the range resource. This close relationship makes it highly desirable for persons trained in either field to have more than a superficial acquaintance with the other. This applies not only to the “technical expert,” but also to the practicing stockman who must be proficient in both areas of knowledge to realize maximum long-term benefits from his business. It is in the light of the interdependence of these two technical fields that I wish to discuss briefly college training in range management, and the relationship with animal husbandry at this level. A glance at the current range management programs in our colleges reveals two striking facts. The first is their widespread and recent rapid rate of increase, and the second is the variety of locations within the college in which such training is given. At present a major in range management is offered at 16 institutions, all but one of which are located in the 17 western stat.es. Ten of the schools have developed their range curricula since ‘1940, and the oldest was established only in 1916. In addition, some 16 other colleges offer one or more courses in range management. Thus undergraduate and, in most cases, graduate instruction are now offered far more widely than was the case 10 or 15 years ago. In the institutions where range curricula are offered, there is great variety in the location of the range teaching staff. In many cases the range courses are given in the College of Forestry, either as a subject matter division or a distinct department. In other institutions the location is in the College of Agriculture as a separate department or as a subject matter division within or jointly with animal husbandry or agronomy. In view of this great variety in the organization of range management college staffs, it might be expected that there would be great diversity in the type of training provided. Actually, this is not the case. The matter of location appears to have no significant effect on the overall results, and relatively little on the course offerings themselves. Maintenance of high quality teaching personnel and freedom from excessive restriction by the department or college in which the range training is given appear to be much more important than the exact departmental location within the institution. In this connection it should be noted that the important point is the recognition of range management as a distinct scientific discipline, a full-fledged field of wildland management. While the exact scope of range management may be difficult to define to the satisfaction of all (Dyksterhuis, 1955) it is certainly %olt included in the fields of agronomy, animal husbandry or forest management. Full recognition of the status of range management as a profession, with a viewpoint geared to the long-term use of non-arable lands is essential for the development of a sound range curriculum as well as for the morale of the range teaching staff. A further aid to college range training is the existence of an active research program. To my mind, one of the most significant trends in range management during the past decade has been the marked increase in the scope of