The House Committee on Natural Resources’ hearing on H.R. 3397, sponsored by Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah) to require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw the proposed conservation rule was tense. Tense also describes most conversations among cattlemen in states were permittees graze public lands, including this one. The BLM’s Conservation and Landscape Health proposed rule lacks the congressional oversight dictated by the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). If the rule goes into effect, it will be the first time FLPMA would be rewritten without congressional action, exactly what the Act is designed to prevent.

FLPMA is the BLM’s “organic act” that establishes the agency’s multiple-use and sustained yield mandate to serve present and future generations. This proposed rule flies in the face of FLPMA by elevating conservation to a use and removing extraction – grazing, oil and gas, minerals, etc. – from public lands and thereby removing opportunity for sustainable yield from those lands.

Sigrid Johannes, director of the Public Lands Council, said the Conservation Land Use Rule is a major change to multiple use land management and one that would normally carry a 12-month scoping period with extensive opportunities for stakeholder engagement.

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

This rule has been rushed through a short comment period and only three public meetings have been held, none of which offered comments or questions from attendees. Further, the meetings were in Denver, Reno and Albuquerque, far from the majority of permittees across the western states. This was glaring enough South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem testified nearly 98% of BLM surface lands in South Dakota are grazed by permittees; her state hosts 76 actively producing oil and gas leases that cover 36,762 acres; and the acres managed by the BLM provide recreation opportunities. Noem said the proposed rule overemphasizes conservation rather than the economic needs of Americans; lacks an economic analysis, fails to provide data to indicated better outcomes for conservation practices if implemented; and the BLM claims the rule does not have a “significant economic effect” or that it does not affect “a significant amount of small entities,” a claim Noem called ridiculous.

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon said, “This proposed rule was rushed forward without material input from Wyoming or other states,” Gordon said. “It did not have the benefit of the views of impacted public land users. The proposed rule mischaracterizes conservation, seeks to preempt wildlife management from the States, and oversteps the Bureau’s statutory authority. The best solution is to rescind the rule.”

One of the major facts – not talking points, but facts – is that livestock grazing is conservation. Period. Well-managed grazing reduces invasive species, cultivates healthy rangelands, maintains wildlife habitat, serves as fire mitigation, and grazing on public lands is closely monitored.

Johannes said the title of the proposed rule is disingenuous, as the livestock community is certainly committed to conservation. One of the fears of the grazing community is “the BLM has created a system under their so-called conservation leasing system where it’s up to third parties to come in and say what they think is a use that is compatible with conservation.” There are gobs of anti-livestock and anti-agriculture groups licking their chops anticipating the chance to claim the cessation of grazing is the best conservation practice.

Not only that, if public lands are placed in conservation leases, that could mean all multiple uses are precluded from that land. This includes hiking, photography, hunting, bird watching, and the like.

J.J. Goicoechea, former Nevada state veterinarian and current director of the Nevada Department of Agriculture said in a hearing the agency has failed to define what is considered a “compatible” use or an “incompatible” use with an underlying conservation lease.

“While the BLM has previously stated they believe grazing is a conservation tool, the rule contains no text that would make the industry confident that this rule is not targeted to remove grazing access. Further, the rule makes clear that uses like hunting, fishing, and recreation, when done with a commercial component – like outfitting, guiding, and other conservation activities – would not be defined as a “casual use” and could be precluded due to the presence of a conservation lease. In sum, the BLM has proposed a system that will be rife for abuse and litigation without consistent standards and application.”

Rife is right.

This rule is likely to spell disaster if users are forced off the land. From an agricultural standpoint, this could drive protein prices far above the reach of families on a budget and put families out of business. The process has been rushed, sneaky, and is a thinly veiled attempt to remove the uses the Biden administration finds unpleasant from public lands.

The PLC requested a 150-day extension of the comment period based on the scope of the rule. BLM announced a 15-day extension, with all public comment due prior to July 5.

Rachel Gabel writes about agriculture and rural issues. She is assistant editor of The Fence Post Magazine, the region’s preeminent agriculture publication. Gabel is a daughter of the state’s oil and gas industry and a member of one of the state’s 12,000 cattle-raising families, and she has authored children’s books used in hundreds of classrooms to teach students about agriculture.