==Proposed addition of a criticism section== 

 :::== Criticism == 
 Managed intensive rotational grazing paints a wide brush over many different prescribed and adaptive managed grazing systems. Managers have found that rotational grazing systems can work for diverse management purposes, but scientific experiments have demonstrated that rotational grazing systems do not always necessarily work for specific ecological purposes.  This controversy stems from two main categorical differences in rotational grazing, prescribed management and adaptive management.  The performance of rangeland grazing strategies are similarly constrained by several ecological variables establishing that differences among them are dependent on the effectiveness of those management models. Depending on the management model, plant production has been shown to be equal or greater in continuous compared to rotational grazing in 87% of the experiments.D. D. Briske, J. D. Derner, J. R. Brown, S. D. Fuhlendorf, W. R. Teague, K. M. Havstad, R. L. Gillen, A. J. Ash, W. D. Willms, (2008) Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: Reconciliation of Perception and Experimental Evidence. Rangeland Ecology & Management: January 2008, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 3-17 Another limitation of land management systems is that economically and politically powerful users can easily quantify and argue their needs. It is harder to define the economic value of ecosystem services and, therefore, the ecosystems and people most dependent on them for their subsistence become voiceless and often neglected users.Nilsson, C., and B. Malm Renöfält. 2008. Linking flow regime and water quality in rivers: a challenge to adaptive catchment management. Ecology and Society 13(2): 18.