Proposed Grazing Rule - Published 5 12 26

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) supports the Bureau of Land Management's proposed rule to modernize grazing regulations, provided it remains grounded in sound science and meaningful public participation. They argue for maintaining flexibility for land managers, ensuring site-specific assessments are not replaced by landscape-scale ones, and preserving opportunities for public involvement in grazing decisions.

David Parsons, writing on behalf of The Rewilding Institute, opposes the proposed grazing rule because it prioritizes livestock production over ecological health and reduces public oversight. He argues that the rule improperly relaxes rangeland health standards, eliminates "interested public" consultation, and abuses the Categorical Exclusion process by failing to conduct a full environmental impact statement.

A coalition of three Oregon-based conservation and watershed organizations (Umpqua Watersheds, Umpqua Natural Leadership Science Hub, and Umpqua Bird Alliance) supports the proposed grazing rule but urges the BLM to strengthen it. They advocate for more rigorous landscape-scale assessments, enforceable water quality protections, mandatory reductions in grazing pressure when livestock contribute to land degradation, and increased transparency in public lands management.

Return to Freedom, a conservation organization, opposes the proposed grazing regulations because they remove BLM oversight of water quality, exclude resource advisory councils from input, and prioritize livestock grazing over other land uses. They argue the rules limit public participation and fail to adequately address land degradation caused by livestock.

The commenter opposes the proposed grazing rule, arguing that it reduces public participation, prioritizes livestock production over conservation, and weakens land health standards. They express concern that the rule will lead to overgrazing, damage to wildlife habitats, and a lack of accountability for environmental damage.

The Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE) opposes the proposed grazing rule, arguing that it curtails public participation, weakens water quality safeguards, and abandons ecological integrity standards. They specifically advocate for maintaining enforceable land-health standards for all land uses and retaining eligibility for conservation-use and native-species grazing.

Maddy Munson, representing Defenders of Wildlife and over 8,000 supporters, opposes the proposed grazing regulations because they would weaken land health standards and oversight. The commenter argues for more rigorous scientific assessment of public lands and expresses concern that poorly managed grazing could negatively impact wildlife and water quality.

Land Core, a 501(c)3 organization, supports the proposed grazing rule but argues it should more fully leverage the economic and soil health benefits of regenerative grazing. They recommend recognizing flexible, outcomes-based management, strengthening monitoring capacity, expanding staff training, and preserving stakeholder consultation channels.

The Arizona Trail Association opposes the proposed grazing rule, arguing that it will degrade ecological health, water sources, and recreational opportunities on public lands. They advocate for science-based grazing management, accountability for land damage, and the use of virtual fence technology.

The Western Watersheds Project, representing a large coalition of environmental and conservation organizations, opposes the proposed grazing rule. They argue that the rule favors the livestock industry at the expense of public interest and natural resources, violates several federal laws (including NEPA and the Endangered Species Act), and fails to adequately protect wilderness and wildlife habitats.