Proposed Grazing Rule - Published 5 12 26

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.

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition supports the BLM's proposed grazing rule but urges the agency to include specific protections for tribal buffalo restoration, voluntary grazing permit retirements, and water quality standards. They also advocate for maintaining early consultation with diverse stakeholders and establishing a regular schedule for landscape-scale assessments to ensure effective adaptive management.

A coalition of wildlife and conservation organizations supports the BLM's goal of modernizing grazing regulations but expresses concerns regarding specific provisions. They argue against narrowing the definition of "production-oriented livestock," eliminating "special grazing permits" for Indigenous animals, and reducing public participation or water quality standards in rangeland health assessments.

The National Bison Association (NBA) supports the BLM's proposed revisions to grazing administration regulations, particularly the modernization of processes and the inclusion of bison as an eligible species. They advocate for specific improvements including merit-based criteria for competing applications, "Digital-First Transparency" for public engagement, and science-based standards for bison management and land health.

The Southwest Montana Conservation Coalition supports the BLM's efforts to revise grazing regulations, emphasizing the importance of supporting the livestock industry and maintaining production-oriented use of public lands. They advocate for common-sense flexibility in grazing dates, targeted grazing for fire risk reduction, and protections for ranchers against unauthorized land use or environmental NGO interference.

David Rubin opposes the proposed grazing administration regulations, arguing that they would unfairly exclude Tribal bison herds from grazing leases. He contends that the rules would negatively impact Native American communities by disregarding the cultural, spiritual, and economic significance of bison.

Judith Bell opposes the proposed revision of grazing administration regulations because she believes it will negatively impact Tribal bison herds. She argues that bison are culturally and spiritually significant to Native Tribes and that the current proposal makes it unlikely for Tribal herds to be eligible for grazing leases.

Karen Lovequist opposes the proposed revision of grazing administration regulations, arguing that the rules would negatively impact Tribal bison herds. She emphasizes the cultural, spiritual, and economic importance of bison to Native Tribes and states that the proposal makes it unlikely for Tribal buffalo herds to be eligible for grazing leases.

Michael Reynolds opposes the proposed revision of grazing administration regulations, arguing that it will negatively impact Tribal bison herds and the health of the grasslands. He contends that bison are culturally and ecologically significant and that the new rules would unfairly disadvantage them compared to commercial cattle.

Richard Stern opposes the proposed revision of grazing administration regulations, arguing that the rules would negatively impact Tribal bison herds. He emphasizes the cultural, spiritual, and economic significance of bison to Native Tribes and states that the proposal would likely exclude Tribal buffalo herds from grazing leases.