Blindsided by BUREAUCRACY

Bureaucracy is defined as a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives. Under this premise, it would certainly seem that this is the system under which our country is currently run. Inaction and quagmire in Congress creates a vacuum under which agency officials can rule by regulation without the benefit of representative input. When the administration is friendly and receptive to our industry, we stand to benefit under this type of system, but when it is not, we most definitely pay. And now, we are paying.

If you have been following ICA actions for the past few years, you know that it has been a high priority of ours to see the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) grazing regulations revised. We thought this would happen during the Trump administration, and pursued multiple efforts to that end, but the rule never made it to the finish line. Our hopes of seeing a new grazing rule were dashed, but then BLM officials assured us that the effort would remain on track even with the change in administration. And so, our efforts continued in commenting and meeting with BLM and Department of Interior officials regarding our thoughts and concerns with BLM grazing management that could be improved with a new rule. We have been anxiously awaiting the release of the proposed rule which has been repeatedly promised to occur by the end of the summer. And so, we waited with bated breath and in good faith that the agency would keep its word, knowing that we may not like everything in the rule but hoping that it would provide some efficiencies and flexibilities in grazing management. But then…

From out of left field, with no advance notice or dialogue or even a hint of its development, the BLM preempted the grazing regulations revision with a release of a proposed rule in April that has the potential to utterly disrupt and dismantle grazing on BLM lands. The proposed Conservation and Landscape Health rule seeks to accomplish three main things, two of which pose significant threats to livestock grazing on BLM lands.

The first action is actually a move that our industry has supported and sought for in the grazing regulation revision. It would apply the fundamentals of land health and related standards and guidelines to all BLM-managed public lands and uses. For too long, grazing has borne the blame for the impact of other users and impacts on public land including recreation, wildlife, drought, wildfire, and more. This section will level the playing field and require all users across all BLM lands to adhere to the land-health standards and which should, in theory, remove unrealistic expectations placed on grazing permittees.

After the first proposal, the rule goes drastically downhill.

The second action is, to be frank, frightening. It states that “conservation is a use on par with other uses of the public lands under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s (FLPMA) multiple-use and sustained-yield framework… The proposed rule establishes a durable mechanism, conservation leases, to promote both protection and restoration on the public lands, while providing opportunities for engaging the public in the management of public lands for this purpose.” If your head is swimming after reading that, it should be. Yes, you read right. The BLM is proposing to establish conservation leases on federal land and allow the general public the say so on the lands to which the leases should be applied. This reads straight out of Western Watersheds Project’s playbook. But don’t worry, the rule assures us that “While BLM maintains this “rule does not prioritize conservation above other uses, it puts conservation on an equal footing with other uses”. I am sure that puts your mind at ease, doesn’t it? Even if we give the agency the benefit of the doubt that they are just trying to do what is best for the landscape, the rule sets the stage perfectly for opponents of public lands grazing to remove grazing in the name of conservation. We will continue to argue the fact that grazing is a use that promotes conservation for a variety of reasons and the two are certainly not mutually exclusive.