Ranchers are required to renew permits every decade to graze livestock on the Western United States’ public lands, offering a critical opportunity for government agencies to assess and mitigate environmental damage. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service, stewards of vast tracts of public domain, are legally mandated to review each permit, with the authority to impose additional conditions or, in rare instances, deny renewal. However, a 2014 congressional mandate allows for automatic permit renewal if these reviews are not completed within the statutory timeframe, significantly diminishing oversight of livestock’s environmental impact.

An analysis of agency data revealed a dramatic increase in grazing authorizations on BLM lands without prior environmental review. In 2013, the BLM approved grazing on 47% of its eligible lands without such reviews; by 2023, this figure had surged to approximately 75%. A similar trend has been observed on Forest Service lands, where environmental reviews for grazing permits have sharply declined, according to a study by the Western Watersheds Project. This erosion of oversight coincides with a substantial decrease in the number of federal employees responsible for conducting these crucial environmental assessments and land-health evaluations.

Data from the Office of Personnel Management indicates that the BLM’s rangeland management staff decreased by 39% between 2020 and 2024. Compounding this issue, agency records show that roughly one in ten rangeland staffers departed the agency in the months following the 2024 election until June, a trend attributed to the previous administration’s policies. This reduction in on-the-ground monitoring can lead to unpermitted grazing, overstocking, and prolonged grazing periods, all of which exacerbate environmental degradation.

The consequences of inadequate oversight are far-reaching. Overgrazing can facilitate the spread of invasive plant species by dispersing seeds and disturbing soil, outcompeting native flora and increasing wildfire susceptibility. When livestock strip vegetation near water sources, sediment enters waterways, damaging critical fish nurseries. Furthermore, the absence of adequate staff to amend permits means missed opportunities to reduce herd sizes and, consequently, mitigate the emission of climate-warming methane from livestock. Once a permit is renewed, whether with or without a review, rectifying these environmental harms becomes considerably more challenging for another ten years.

Interviews with ten current and former BLM rangeland management employees revealed a pervasive feeling of pressure to ease restrictions on ranchers. These staffers reported instances of downplaying environmental damage in permit reviews and land-health assessments, with several speaking on condition of anonymity due to their continued government employment. One employee characterized the agency’s oversight as often failing to reflect the true state of the land, stating, "Sometimes the truth was spoken, but, more often than not, it was not the truth."

In response, an agency spokesperson affirmed the BLM’s commitment to "transparency, sound science, and public participation as it administers grazing permits and considers updates to grazing regulations." However, the previous administration’s policy of placing all BLM contracts and agreements of value under the purview of political appointees, rather than career civil servants, further complicated the process. Recent budget cuts have also impacted essential data collection and restoration efforts, with funding slashed for an app that assists ranchers in gathering soil and vegetation data, for contractors managing grazing permit data, for farmers cultivating restoration seeds, and for soil research in the Southwest. Cancellations of these programs were justified with notations such as, "Does not believe this action is needed to meet the administration priorities." The White House referred questions to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which emphasized that "ranching is often a multi-generation practice that serves to keep working landscapes intact, while also preserving open space, and benefiting recreation, wildlife, and watersheds." The Forest Service did not respond to requests for comment.

To understand the tangible effects of this diminished oversight, investigative teams toured federal grazing allotments in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, and Nevada, documenting evidence of unpermitted grazing and habitat degradation by livestock in each state. In Arizona alone, issues were observed across multiple national conservation areas, a national monument, and a national forest. At the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, southeast of Tucson, a BLM allotment of approximately 35,000 acres, authorized for up to 1,500 cattle, recently had its permits reauthorized until 2035 without an environmental review. During a visit in late April, a vital riparian corridor, critical habitat for five threatened or endangered species, showed clear signs of livestock intrusion. A thin barbed-wire fence intended to exclude cattle lay collapsed, and the creekbed was heavily impacted by hoof prints, cow feces, and even a partially submerged cow carcass.

"Looks like a sewer," remarked Chris Bugbee, a wildlife ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, surveying the damage. "This one hurts. There is no excuse." This observation starkly contrasted with a 2024 BLM land-health assessment for the same allotment, which declared, "ALL STANDARDS MET." A trail camera bearing the agency’s insignia was found pointed toward the creek, though a public records request for its data has yet to be fulfilled. The ownership of the cattle remains unclear, as no ranchers paid grazing fees for this allotment last year, according to BLM data. Representatives from the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association did not respond to requests for comment. Bugbee’s team has documented significant damage from livestock along 2,400 miles of streams in the Southwest designated as critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act over the past eight years, with half of these waterways showing substantial harm.

The livestock industry, however, maintains that grazing can provide ecological benefits. Proponents point to studies suggesting that grazing can enhance soil’s capacity to sequester carbon dioxide and, when managed effectively, improve habitat health and biodiversity. Frank Shirts Jr., who operates a large sheep enterprise on Forest Service land, asserts that sheep are beneficial for consuming invasive weeds and brush, thereby creating natural firebreaks. Retta Bruegger, a range ecologist at Colorado State University, notes that certain ecosystems, particularly those with higher precipitation, can sustain more intensive grazing. In regions where flora evolved alongside large grazers, livestock can fulfill "a very important ecosystem function." Bruegger advocates for focusing on improving individual producers’ practices rather than questioning the fundamental role of grazing, stating, "We should be asking, ‘Are there individual producers who need to be doing a better job?’ instead of asking, ‘Should there be grazing or no grazing?’" She emphasizes that addressing these questions necessitates adequate staffing for land monitoring.

The history of grazing on public lands in the West reveals a complex regulatory evolution. Following a century of intensive grazing that degraded vast areas, a 1974 court ruling subjected grazing permits to environmental reviews, and a subsequent law in 1976 mandated these reviews occur every decade. For years, a backlog of permit reviews grew due to insufficient agency staffing to cover the 240 million acres managed by the BLM and Forest Service. Around the year 2000, Congress began granting temporary waivers for these reviews. Western Republicans, with the backing of the livestock industry, championed making these waivers permanent. The measure was ultimately incorporated into a must-pass defense spending bill and received bipartisan approval in December 2014, a provision now widely referred to by conservationists as "the loophole."

Ironically, many within the livestock industry express frustration with the current system. Automatic permit renewals, they argue, prevent ranchers from updating their grazing practices to adapt to changing environmental conditions or implement more sustainable methods. Chris Jasmine, manager of biodiversity and rangelands for Nevada Gold Mines, which operates eleven ranches in northern Nevada, stated, "It just locks people into grazing the same place, the same time, year after year." A comprehensive review process ideally involves teams of BLM experts, including rangeland specialists, hydrologists, botanists, soil scientists, and wildlife biologists, assessing the health of grazing allotments. However, the current staffing crisis leaves vast tracts of land unexamined. The BLM oversees 155 million acres of public land available for grazing, yet land-health assessments have not been completed for over 35 million acres, nearly a quarter of its total acreage.

Furthermore, where assessments have been conducted, the findings are concerning. The BLM has identified livestock as the cause of degraded conditions on at least 38 million acres, an area roughly equivalent to half the size of New Mexico. Close to two-thirds of the land previously deemed in good condition had not been reassessed in over a decade. The situation is exacerbated by the agency’s practice of frequently skipping permit reviews on land already in poor condition; 82% of BLM acreage previously found to be degraded by livestock was reauthorized for grazing without a review. Several BLM employees indicated that directives from superiors encouraged focusing studies on healthier lands while avoiding more problematic or controversial allotments, which often attract litigation from environmental groups and local stockmen’s associations. Automatic renewals circumvent these potentially lengthy legal battles, with one staffer describing it as "using a bureaucratic loophole" that allowed "ongoing degradation of habitat." Bugbee lamented the state of these degraded parcels, likening them to a "mowed lawn" and emphasizing, "This can’t be the future of public lands."

Agency staff cited numerous factors contributing to environmental decline. For instance, after a wildfire, the BLM typically aims to keep livestock off the land for two years to facilitate ecosystem recovery. However, ranchers frequently negotiate for earlier returns to public pastures, a practice described by Steve Ellis, a former high-ranking official with both the BLM and Forest Service, as a persistent pressure within the bureau. Government support for ranchers can also inadvertently contribute to degradation. Land management agencies sometimes seed invasive grasses that benefit livestock, and the killing of predators like wolves and cougars—essential components of healthy ecosystems—is often undertaken to protect ranchers’ economic interests. BLM employees also reported instances where staff documented the presence of threatened and endangered species, which would necessitate stricter environmental controls, only for this information to be removed from reports by agency managers. One staffer described the reviews as "rubber stamping," with higher-ranking officials refusing to include information acknowledging poor conditions in official documentation.

The involvement of ranchers in fieldwork to assess grazing impacts also presents a conflict of interest, often resulting in diluted reviews and assessments, according to agency staff. Conversely, the livestock industry criticizes the assessment process for its perceived inflexibility. Erin Spaur, executive vice president of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, described it as an inflexible "one-size-fits-all approach" that fails to adequately account for diverse ecosystems. Dennis Willis, who spent over three decades with the BLM, including in rangeland management, characterized the situation as stemming from "huge cultural problems within the agency" and "a real fear of dealing with grazing problems."

Some ranchers acknowledge the environmental impacts of their industry but argue that increased flexibility, rather than stricter oversight, would empower them to be better land stewards. Jasmine of Nevada Gold Mines believes that responsible ranching can coexist with environmental health. He highlighted the recovery of Maggie Creek in Nevada, a tributary to the Humboldt River, which showed dramatic improvement after ranchers implemented rotational grazing in the 1990s to allow the streambed more rest. He credits a BLM biologist with initiating projects that aided this revival, emphasizing, "It’s a renewable resource. That grass that they’re eating right now will come back next year and the year after that if managed properly. It’s about not eating the same plants in the same place year after year after year." Nevada Gold Mines also promotes its commitment to protecting local species, undertaking sage grouse restoration projects, and collaborating with the BLM on targeted grazing to manage vegetation and create firebreaks.

However, the economic realities differ significantly for smaller ranchers. Nevada Gold Mines, a venture backed by companies with substantial financial resources, can afford to keep cattle off land for extended recovery periods. Smaller operations, facing slim profit margins, often find it economically advantageous to graze federal lands due to lower costs compared to state or private lands. For years, some politicians and environmental organizations have proposed buying out grazing permits from ranchers to retire them, thereby protecting degraded or sensitive habitats and preserving them for wildlife. While some ranchers have accepted these offers, the industry broadly remains hesitant to relinquish grazing permits. In October, U.S. Representative Adam Smith introduced a bill to further support voluntary permit retirement, framing it as "a pragmatic solution that supports local economies, protects biodiversity, and saves taxpayer dollars by reducing the cost of administering grazing programs."

Louis Wertz, a spokesperson for the Western Landowners Alliance, noted that conservation-minded ranchers within his group strive to remain economically viable while fostering vibrant ecosystems that provide clean water and air. However, he acknowledged the difficulty of meeting demands for both low-cost food production and complete environmental harmlessness, stating, "Over the last 150 years in the United States, we have chosen cheapness at the expense of environmental quality." Wertz also echoed concerns about understaffing at federal land management agencies, which hinders ranchers’ ability to adapt their management strategies, even when they desire to do so. "It is important that there be accountability for producers on the landscape," Wertz said, "but there should also be flexibility so producers can be economically successful and so they can do what is right for the landscape."