The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed a new rule in March called “Conservation and Landscape Health” and opened a 75-day comment period. The BLM recently extended that deadline to July 5. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and Public Lands Council (PLC) launched a grassroots campaign opposing the rule, as it has the potential to limit access to grazing on public lands and set the doors open for radical environmentalists, against the ranching community, to advance their agendas.
“Over the last several generations, ranchers have been at the front of the line helping the BLM conserve wildlife habitat, reduce wildfire risk, support balanced multiple use and reduce on-range conflicts,” says Kaitlynn Glover, PLC executive director. “We urge the BLM not to compromise that relationship by forging ahead with a rule that will undoubtedly result in ranchers and other multiple-use groups being forced from the landscape over time. PLC launched this grassroots campaign to remind the BLM that grazing is an essential use of our public lands, and ranchers are an essential partner in achieving lasting conservation outcomes.”
One aim of the proposed rule is to change the definition of conservation and place it in the category of “multiple use,” side by side with the current uses of recreation, mining, grazing and others under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Under the new rule, “conservation leases” would be created. The leases could be issued to individuals, businesses, non-government organizations and tribal governments for the purpose of restoration, land enhancement and mitigation.
In the official proposed rule it states, “These [conservation] leases would be available to entities seeking to restore public lands or provide mitigation for a particular action. They would not override valid existing rights or preclude other, subsequent authorizations, so long as those subsequent authorizations are compatible with the conservation use.”
The NCBA and PLC have deep concerns about these changes and procedures. Both organizations feel the rule and actions under it could lead to exploitation and added litigation toward the BLM, due to a lack of analysis as directed by the National Environmental Policy Act. It also places future grazing and other multiple uses in danger, violating the multiple-use mandate. NCBA and PLC hold the opinion that in the end, the rule will undermine conservation efforts in the long run and place increased administrative burdens while not utilizing conservation programs and funds like the BLM Foundation and other partnerships that are already in place.
“Conservation on its face sounds good. It gets people’s attention, but like everything in Washington D.C., you need to look under the hood; you need to kick the tires and see what it’s really made of,” said NCBA CEO, Colin Woodall, in a Beltway Beef podcast. “And in this case, this is not conservation to help the land; this is conservation in a way that would restrict our access, and that’s why we are fighting back really hard.”
The BLM says in order to fulfill its purpose, it must stay proactive to provide added opportunities to promote better landscapes as increased disturbances such as invasive species, drought, wildfire and increased habitat fragmentation are all impacting the health and resilience of public lands.
“The proposed Public Lands Rule is essential to our work, to ensuring we can respond to changes on the landscape,” said Tracy Stone-Manning, BLM director, in a statement concerning the comment period extension. “We appreciate the useful public input we’ve already received through five public meetings and the first 75 days of the comment period. This extension will allow us to continue to work with the public to make sure that the final rule is durable and effective.”
Those wishing to comment on the rule can do so by visiting the Regulations.gov website.
Information on the grassroots campaign and how to participate can be found by filling out this form.
