Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09387

I would like to supplement Roam Free Nation’s comments with the official comments submitted by Western Watersheds Project. The proposed rule severely limits who can participate in grazing management decisions and dramatically reduces the number of actions that will actually require any public engagement at all. The new rules will make it nearly impossible for me to know about what's happening on the land and to participate in any planning process that might take place. Rather, if I express an interest in a particular area or value, the government should assume the responsibility and inform me about planned actions or changes to management that might impact my interests. Our interests in public lands are no less important than those of permit holders. I should have the same opportunity to know about, comment on, and protest or appeal management decisions. These proposed rules would create a system that favors one user group (ranchers) over everyone else. The proposed rule changes the role of Land Health Standards in grazing management. As a result, grazing management would reduce accountability when public lands are not meeting standards for healthy soils, vegetation, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Removing Land Health Standards from the grazing regulations will make it even more difficult to ensure that livestock grazing isn't causing damage to public lands, wildlife, recreation opportunities, water quality and other values that are important to me as a public lands user. The proposed rule allows the BLM up to three years to take any corrective action after determining that grazing is contributing to land health failures. If grazing is causing harm to public lands, wildlife habitat, streams, or other resources, the agency should act as quickly as possible to address the problem rather than allowing damage to continue for years. Land health should continue to be measured and evaluated at the allotment level so that the public can understand what's happening on the ground in specific places. While watershed level assessments are important too, under the new rule, my favorite camping, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing spots will be at risk even if the broad watershed is considered healthy. The proposed rule redefines grazing permits to only allow “production-oriented” livestock and removes longstanding references to conservation and stewardship from the grazing regulations. These changes shift the focus of public lands management toward maximizing livestock production rather than balancing grazing with other important public values. This approach is inconsistent with decades of law, policy, and precedent recognizing that public lands should be managed for multiple uses including wildlife habitat, clean water, recreation, cultural resources, and healthy ecosystems. We do not value public lands for their ability to provide the maximum amount of feed for livestock. Conservation is an important and legally required use of public lands and I support the use of public lands by humans that prioritize conservation and good stewardship over profit. Rather than restrict and make it harder for public land users — including native wildlife, such as bison and beavers —to help conserve and restore public lands, especially those that have been damaged by livestock overgrazing, the BLM should be welcoming and encouraging conservation-oriented management practices. These proposed changes will lead to even more overuse and overgrazing damaging the lands, waters, and wildlife that I care about as a public lands user and owner. The proposed rule emphasizes expanding grazing on public lands, even to areas that haven't been grazed for decades because of conflicts and past damage caused by livestock grazing. Many of these so-called vacant allotments are important habitat for Threatened, Endangered, and species of Concern, and also buffalo, elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, rare native plants, and other flora and fauna. The BLM’s proposed rule directs the agency to shortcut environmental review which will put decades of conservation gains at risk and harm these vital areas of public lands. I am concerned about the impacts of more destructive livestock grazing in the few places on public lands that aren't already grazed. These areas are important to buffalo, elk and other wildlife, who are vital to the health of the biological community. BLM already has a hard time managing the current level of overgrazing and it is having majorly negative environmental impacts. The agency should focus on improving current management and restoring more areas — to include native wildlife, such as buffalo — that have been damaged by livestock grazing. Cattle are an invasive species and have been proven to cause insurmountable damage to delicate western ecosystems. Increasing livestock’s presence and territory is a very bad idea. It contradicts the land ethic.