This paper investigates the grazing management assessment reports authored by university researchers David Briske and Jerry Holechek that were critical of methods they had attributed to Allan Savory. Criticisms of the Briske and Holechek assessments are provided from three sources: rancher, researcher and writer, Chris Gill, Texas A&M university researcher (and Briske colleague) Richard Teague, and Allan Savory himself. It is shown that the grazing trials assessed by Briske and Holechek – typically fixed time rotations – were not representative of methodologies advocated by Savory or employed by Holistic Management practitioners. It is shown that the Briske and Holechek mischaracterized Savory’s work and that, in fact, the types of trials they reviewed are precisely the type that Savory himself discourages. Missing from their review, as explained by Gill, Teague, and Savory, are management approaches that incorporate ecological goals, that use a proper schema for densities and timing, and are fully adaptive to allow for maximum plant recovery as needed.