Proposed Grazing Rule - Published 5 12 26

The Lincoln National Forest Allotment Owners Association opposes several aspects of the proposed grazing regulations, arguing that they conflict with the Taylor Grazing Act and infringe on grazing preferences and property rights. They specifically request changes to definitions of "interested public," land use priorities, and the rules regarding range improvements and "failure to use" provisions.

The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) supports the proposed grazing regulations, praising the goals of clarity, efficiency, and the recognition of the multiple use mandate. However, they request greater clarity in the implementation standards—specifically within the 1700 series—to ensure that multiple uses, particularly motorized recreation, are balanced and protected throughout the decision-making process.

R-CALF USA, a trade association representing independent cattle and sheep producers, supports the BLM's proposed grazing regulation revisions as a step toward improved rangeland health and management. They suggest specific improvements, including codifying a "no-net-loss" policy for Animal Unit Months (AUMs), updating regulatory language on security, and reinstating local Grazing District Advisory Boards.

The REALTORS® Land Institute (RLI) supports the BLM's proposed rule to modernize grazing administration, praising its focus on flexibility, administrative efficiency, and the multiple-use mission. They argue that the updates will improve resource management, reduce bureaucratic red tape for livestock producers, and support the long-term viability of rural ranching operations.

The Outdoor Recreation Roundtable Association (ORRA) opposes the expansion of the "land health" provisions in the proposed grazing rule, arguing it could negatively impact the outdoor recreation economy. They request that the BLM narrow the scope of the rulemaking to grazing administration and engage more directly with outdoor recreation stakeholders.

Paul Bottari, representing Bottari Ranch, LLC, supports the proposed grazing rule changes that aim to make grazing permits and administration more flexible. He argues that these changes will better support livestock operations as economic units while ensuring effective on-the-ground management of the rangeland resource.

Timothy Edward Duda opposes the proposed grazing rule, arguing that it limits public access to lands, favors wealthy interests over small ranchers, and excludes public participation from the decision-making process. He calls on the BLM to reconsider the rule to better reflect the interests of all taxpayers.

An individual commenter opposes the proposed grazing rule, arguing that it limits public access and enjoyment of BLM lands while favoring wealthy individuals and large corporations. They express concern that the rule excludes public input and will negatively impact smaller ranchers and environmental protections.

Timothy Edward Duda opposes the proposed grazing rule, arguing that it limits public access to lands, favors wealthy interests over small ranchers, and excludes public input from the decision-making process. He calls for the BLM to reconsider the rule to better serve all taxpayers.

Karin Lease opposes the proposed grazing rule, arguing that it will limit public access to BLM lands, hurt smaller ranchers, and exclude the public from the decision-making process. She advocates for a rulemaking process that considers all taxpayers rather than just wealthy individuals and large corporations.