Clueless Oversight Promotes Damaging Livestock Practices

Washington, DC— A recent House hearing onfederal landsgrazing has been criticized for its lack of factual oversight, according to testimony from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The hearing avoided an objective assessment of the impacts of commerciallivestockon 150 million acres of rangelands across 13 Western states.

The event, titled “The Essential Role ofLivestockGrazing on Federal Lands and Its Importance to Rural America,” featured Brad Little, a cattle rancher and Lieutenant Governor of Idaho, and Stefanie Smallhouse, President of the Arizona Farm Bureau, as lead witnesses. Notably, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which oversees most federal lands livestock grazing, was not included.

PEER's testimony highlightedBLMdata, obtained through litigation, revealing significant issues:

• By 2015, over one-third of assessed acres failed to meet BLM’s Standards for Rangeland Health, affecting water, vegetation, and soil quality, as well as wildlife support—totaling 40 million acres, roughly the size of Washington State.
• More than 70% of range health failures were due to livestock overgrazing in allotments covering over 30 million acres, an area comparable to New York State.

“Commerciallivestockgrazing is unquestionably the largest factor driving deteriorating conditions on America’s rangelands,” stated PEER Advocacy Director Kirsten Stade. “The destructive effects on land and water quality from commercial grazing are missing from this ‘Don’t Worry, Be Happy’ hearing.”

Adding fiscal insult to ecological injury, PEER pointed out that the commercial grazing fee has been reduced for two consecutive years. It is now $1.41 per animal unit month, compared to $9 per AUM for private land in Arizona and $41 in Nebraska, with a state average of $22.70 per AUM.

“Not only are federal grazing fees ridiculously low, but they do not come close to covering the costs taxpayers bear for the program,” added Stade. “The heavy taxpayer subsidy is one reasonfederal landsgrazing deserves to be called ‘Welfare Ranching.’”

PEER's testimony also highlighted widespread illegal grazing onBLMlands and the agency’s reluctance to monitor or address grazing trespass. A PEER survey ofBLMstaff suggested the agency lacks sufficient personnel to effectively manage grazing allotments. Additionally, fear of political backlash detersBLMfrom analyzing actual conditions on its vast rangelands.

“No federal program is in more need of oversight or less likely to receive it,” Stade concluded.