making pest-control decisions, especially since some species are actually beneficial (feeding on noxious weeds) and many others are economically neutral. Similarly, the species of plants at risk to grasshoppers, the condition of the range, and the potential for forage production later in the growing season are also important factors to con- sider before making a decision to commit money and resources to grasshopper control. Herbivores, including grasshoppers, have an impact on the energetics of ecosystems, especially in regard to recycling nutrients through the system (Chew, 1974; Kitchell et al., 1979; Peft-usewicz and Gordzinski, 1975; Lightfoot and NVhitford, 1990). ViWle the clipping and consumption of forage mentioned above is considered damaging to livestock grazing, on the other hand, it can be considered as a means of returning nutrients to the soil, providing food for insectivorous species, and even promoting some plant growth. 'Me consequences of grasshopper damage to plants vary considerably across modern social and economic lines. For urban and suburban residents, grasshoppers can be numerous, annoying, essentially uncontrollable pests that reduce the aesthetic appeal of flower gardens and other ornamentals. In particularly bad years, grass- hoppers may destroy home vegetable or flower gardens or make plant protection so difficult, expensive, and -  time consuming as to discourage gardening as a hobby. In their vendettas against grasshoppers, gardeners may misidentify grasshopper problems, use inappropriate -  grasshopper control materials or ineffective techniques atinappropriatetimes, orbefrustratedby neighbors who do little or nothing to combat the problem. However, in nearly all of these cases, urban and -  suburban gardeners are hobbyists who obtain their food, fiber, and income from other sources. For farmers and ranchers who depend almost totally on their land's -  productivity to stay in business, grasshoppers can be as economically devastating today as they ever were. How- ever, control options considered by the fanner or rancher today are highly dependent on the bal ance between costs of the various options and the return on that investment. To a very limited extent, farmers can reduce crop risk to grasshoppers by controlling weeds in and around their fields. T'hey may be able to treat nearby breeding or hatching areas with insecticides or to create temporary insecticidal barriers around fields to combat crawling young grasshoppers. Even then, the success of such a program may vary widely from one year to the next or one season to the next depending upon pest species composition, timeof year,pestdensity,location, weather patterns, and other situations. Frequently, once pest grasshoppers become winged adults, farmers are often not able to kill the pests either efficiently enough or fast enough to save their crops. In many respects, ranchers today have fewer effective and economical options that they can exercise for grass- hopper management The relatively low productivity and dollar value of western rangeland and the compara- tively large acreage needed to support an animal are key factors for consideration in ft management decision- making process. When forage production is low because of drought or overgrazing, small numbers of grasshop- pers per grazing unit can be intolerable. Further, if livestock prices are also low, the rancher often is not able to afford pest treatments and suffers additional direct and indirect consequences as a result. At the least, the rancher may have to gather and move livestock to new pastures or provide supplemental feed. 'Mese actions probably will result in reduced weight gains by the affected livestock from stress and/or simple lack of food; supplemental feeding may severely deplete winter food stores while also costing the rancher additional money to distribute the feed. In more severe situations, ranchers may unintention- ally overgraze their pastures while hoping that range conditions will change;'In the process, they may exhaust winter feed resources. Livestock may have to be gath- ered and sold quickly, often at substantial losses. Fur- ther, heavily damaged pastures are often subject to soil erosion or invasion and establishment of undesirable weeds and increases in "weedy" grasshopper popula- tions. If these problems are not substantial enough, ranchers who consider applying insecticides for grasshopper con- trol cannot be assured that this option will provide the immediate relief that they and their livestock need; further, there is no guarantee that this relief, if realized, will last longer than the year of application. In recent years, range scientists have attempted to make the decision-making process more quantitative and more reliable for ranchers and other land managers. Grasshopper damage potential, mortality rates, cherni- cal control effectiveness, forage production, control costs, grasshopper identification, and specific consump- tion rates are all parts of the modern formulae (NVhite, 1974; Hewitt et al., 1974; Torell et al., 1987). With some of these modem formulae, what initially may appear to be a grasshopper plague based on simple density esti- mates may not be economically or ecologically feasible or justifiable to treat (Torell et al., 1987). Estimation of Grasshopper Densities Ranchers, pest management consultants, and special- ists with various federal and state agencies survey n-til- lions of acres of rangeland annually for grasshoppers. Because of the vast areas covered by these surveys and the relatively low productivity offered by rangeland, accurate yet efficient sampling methods are essential,