Proposed Grazing Rule - Published 5 12 26

The Uintah County Farm Bureau supports the proposed grazing rule changes, particularly the increased flexibility for permits and the ease of using Non-Use status. They suggest an additional modification to allow for the transfer of Non-Use status between different persons.

The Montana Association of State Grazing Districts (MASGD) supports the proposed grazing regulations, praising the removal of "conservation use" to align with statutory authority and the inclusion of "production-oriented livestock" language. They advocate for streamlined permit processes, landscape-scale health assessments, and increased flexibility for producers while requesting specific clarifications on AUM suspensions and the inclusion of on-the-ground knowledge in assessments.

The Montana Public Lands Council (MPLC) supports the proposed revisions to the Grazing Administration Regulations, praising the inclusion of "production-oriented livestock" definitions, increased flexibility for grazers, and the modernized land health framework. They also advocate for specific refinements regarding enforcement of nonwillful violations and the expansion of targeted grazing for wildfire management.

The Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA) supports the proposed grazing administration regulations, praising the modernization of rangeland health assessments, expanded access for beginning ranchers, and streamlined administrative processes. They request specific clarifications regarding the protection of active AUMs, the handling of nonwillful violations, and the notification process for interested parties.

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.

The National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) supports the BLM's proposed grazing rule but urges the agency to strengthen and clearly define coordination with local conservation districts and other local partners. They argue that local knowledge is essential for accurate land health assessments, wildfire management, and the implementation of practical, site-specific conservation practices.

The Montana Farm Bureau Federation supports the proposed updates to the BLM's Grazing Administration Rules, praising the move toward science-based land management and more flexible, outcome-based grazing practices. They specifically advocate for clarified definitions regarding "beginning ranchers," "production-oriented livestock," and "active use" to better reflect modern ranching realities and ensure rural economic stability.

JRB, LLC, a multi-generational ranching entity, supports the BLM's proposed rule to revise grazing regulations, citing the need for greater operational flexibility to respond to changing ecological conditions. They advocate for more modern management practices, including easier adjustments to grazing dates and livestock types, while also requesting clarity on land health standards for other programs.

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.

The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) supports the BLM's proposed revisions to grazing regulations that improve management efficiency, respect state water authority, and allow for outcome-based grazing. However, they oppose the specific requirement to restrict grazing permits to "production-oriented livestock," arguing it exceeds the BLM's statutory authority under the Taylor Grazing Act.