Every ten years, ranchers operating on the Western United States’ public lands are required to renew permits that allow their livestock, including cattle and sheep, to graze. These renewals represent a critical juncture for federal agencies to assess and address the environmental impacts of this grazing. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service, the primary stewards of these public lands, are legally mandated to review each permit before making decisions on whether to impose additional conditions or, in rare instances, deny renewal. However, a 2014 congressional mandate fundamentally altered this process, stipulating that permits must be automatically renewed for another decade if the agencies fail to complete their reviews within the allotted timeframe. This legislative provision has significantly diminished the oversight applied to livestock grazing’s ecological footprint on public lands.

An in-depth analysis of agency data by ProPublica and High Country News revealed a stark increase in grazing authorizations without environmental review. In 2013, the BLM approved grazing on nearly half of its eligible lands without conducting such reviews; by 2023, this figure had climbed to approximately 75%. A parallel investigation by the Western Watersheds Project indicated a similar decline in environmental assessments for grazing lands managed by the Forest Service. This erosion of oversight has been accompanied by a substantial reduction in the federal workforce responsible for these crucial land-health assessments. These assessments are vital for determining whether grazing permits require modifications to safeguard natural resources across vast tracts of land.

The rangeland management staff within the BLM has experienced a significant decline, shrinking by 39% between 2020 and 2024, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management. Compounding this issue, approximately one in ten rangeland specialists reportedly departed the agency between November 2023 and June of the following year, a period coinciding with the Trump administration’s tenure. When agency personnel are unable to adequately monitor these lands, livestock may graze in unauthorized areas, in numbers exceeding permitted limits, or for extended durations. Such overgrazing can have cascading negative effects on ecosystems. It can facilitate the spread of invasive plant species by dispersing seeds and disturbing soil, thereby displacing native flora and increasing the risk of wildfires. When livestock strip vegetation from areas adjacent to creeks and streams, sediment runoff pollutes waterways, destroying critical habitats for fish. Furthermore, the absence of sufficient staff to amend permits means lost opportunities to reduce animal numbers on allotments, thereby limiting the emission of climate-warming methane produced by livestock. Once a permit is renewed, whether through a review or an automatic extension, rectifying these environmental harms becomes considerably more challenging for the subsequent decade.

Interviews with ten current and former BLM rangeland management employees revealed a pervasive sense of pressure to adopt a lenient approach towards ranchers. These individuals reported instances of downplaying environmental damage during permit reviews and land-health assessments. Several spoke on condition of anonymity due to their continued employment with the federal government. One BLM employee described the agency’s oversight as a situation where "sometimes the truth was spoken, but, more often than not, it was not the truth." In response, an agency spokesperson stated, "The BLM is committed to transparency, sound science, and public participation as it administers grazing permits and considers updates to grazing regulations."

The Trump administration enacted a significant shift by placing the approval authority for all BLM contracts and agreements of value in the hands of political appointees, rather than career civil servants. Recent reports indicate that funding was cut for an application designed to assist ranchers in collecting soil and vegetation data for permitting purposes, as well as for contractors managing data crucial for grazing permits, for farmers cultivating seeds used in restoration projects, and for soil research in the Southwest. These cancellations were justified with the notation, "Does not believe this action is needed to meet the administration priorities." The Forest Service did not provide a comment on these developments. The White House directed inquiries to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which issued a statement asserting, "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."

To better understand the consequences of this diminishing oversight, ProPublica and High Country News conducted tours of federal grazing allotments in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, and Nevada. In each state, evidence of either unpermitted grazing or habitat degradation attributable to livestock was observed. In Arizona alone, reporters documented such issues within two national conservation areas, a national monument, and a national forest.

At an allotment within the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, a vast expanse of desert grasslands and forested streams southeast of Tucson, the BLM permits up to 1,500 head of cattle to graze across approximately 35,000 acres. These permits were recently reauthorized until 2035, utilizing the exemption that allows for the bypass of environmental reviews. During a visit in late April, a stand of robust cottonwood trees offered shade to a narrow creek. This riparian corridor serves as a vital habitat for diverse wildlife, including birds, frogs, snakes, and ocelots, and is designated as critical habitat for five threatened or endangered species under federal law. Although cattle are prohibited from entering the creekbed, a thin barbed-wire fence intended to exclude them lay collapsed in the dirt. A native leopard frog was observed leaping from the creek bank, its launch point the distinct imprint of a cow hoof in hardened mud. The frog landed in water visibly fouled by cattle feces and the partially submerged remains of a deceased cow. A group of approximately half a dozen cattle then moved through the creek and up the steep bank, dislodging vegetation that stabilizes the soil and causing silt to cloud the water.

Chris Bugbee, a wildlife ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, described the scene as a "sewer" and expressed dismay, stating, "This one hurts. There is no excuse." Significantly, a 2024 BLM land-health assessment for this very allotment declared "ALL STANDARDS MET." In April, a camouflaged trail camera bearing the agency’s insignia was positioned overlooking the creek. A public records request for the images stored on the camera’s memory card was submitted in May, but the BLM had not yet fulfilled it. BLM data indicates that no ranchers paid fees for grazing on this allotment in the preceding year, making the ownership of the cattle unclear. The Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, which represents ranchers in the state, did not respond to requests for comment. Bugbee and his team have surveyed grazing impacts along streams and rivers in the Southwest designated as critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act for the past eight years. Their March report indicated that half of the 2,400 miles of streams they inspected showed "significant damage from livestock grazing."

The livestock industry, however, maintains that the presence of cattle can benefit many ecosystems. Proponents point to studies suggesting that grazing can enhance soil’s capacity to sequester carbon dioxide, thereby mitigating climate change. Other research indicates that when managed appropriately, grazing can improve habitat health and foster greater species diversity. Grazing also helps reduce vegetation that could fuel wildfires. Frank Shirts Jr., who operates the largest sheep enterprise on Forest Service land, highlighted that sheep consume invasive weeds and brush, effectively creating firebreaks. "These animals are fantastic," he remarked. Retta Bruegger, a range ecologist at Colorado State University, explained that certain ecosystems, particularly those with higher precipitation levels, can tolerate more intensive grazing. In regions where plant life has co-evolved with large grazers like cattle over extended periods, livestock can fulfill "a very important ecosystem function." Bruegger proposed that the focus should be on identifying "individual producers who need to be doing a better job?" rather than questioning the fundamental practice of grazing itself. Nevertheless, she emphasized that addressing these questions necessitates adequate staffing to monitor the land effectively.

The historical context of grazing on public lands reveals a significant shift in regulatory approach. Following a century of extensive grazing that led to widespread degradation of public lands, a 1974 court ruling established that grazing permits were subject to environmental reviews. Two years later, Congress codified this by mandating decennial reviews. Over time, a backlog of permit reviews accumulated due to insufficient staffing within federal land-management agencies responsible for overseeing approximately 240 million acres. Around the year 2000, Congress began granting temporary waivers allowing regulators to skip reviews. This practice, championed by Western Republicans with support from the livestock industry, was ultimately enshrined in law in December 2014, inserted into a defense spending bill. Some conservationists now refer to this provision simply as "the loophole."

Conversely, many within the livestock industry express frustration with the lack of reviews. When permits are automatically renewed, existing legal terms cannot be altered, thereby preventing ranchers from adapting their grazing practices. Chris Jasmine, manager of biodiversity and rangelands for Nevada Gold Mines, which manages eleven ranches in northern Nevada, stated, "It just locks people into grazing the same place, the same time, year after year." The intended process for informing permit renewals involves teams of BLM experts—including rangeland specialists, hydrologists, botanists, soil scientists, and wildlife biologists—assessing the health of grazing allotments. When this process functions as designed, these assessments are incorporated into permit reviews. However, the current staffing shortages leave vast areas of land without adequate scrutiny. The BLM oversees 155 million acres of public lands available for grazing, yet it lacks records of completing land-health assessments for over 35 million acres, representing nearly a quarter of its total acreage.

In instances where the BLM has conducted such assessments, it has identified livestock as the cause of degradation on at least 38 million acres, an area roughly equivalent to half the size of New Mexico. Furthermore, close to two-thirds of the land previously classified as being in good condition had not been inspected in over a decade. The situation is potentially more dire, as the agency has frequently waived permit reviews on lands already in poor condition. An analysis by ProPublica and High Country News found that 82% of BLM acreage previously identified as degraded by livestock was reauthorized for grazing without a review. Several BLM employees indicated that agency leadership often directs staff to study lands in better condition, while avoiding allotments in poorer health or those subject to more contentious public debate. Environmental groups and local stockmen’s associations are known for their readiness to litigate changes to permits, and automatic renewals serve to circumvent these protracted public disputes. One staffer described this as "using a bureaucratic loophole" that "allowed ongoing degradation of habitat." Bugbee of the Center for Biological Diversity lamented the state of parcels degraded by cattle, likening them to a "mowed lawn" and stating, "This can’t be the future of public lands."

Agency staff cited various reasons contributing to the environmental decline. For example, following a wildfire, the BLM typically aims to keep livestock off the affected land for two years to allow for ecosystem recovery. However, ranchers often negotiate for an earlier return to these public pastures, according to Steve Ellis, who held high-level positions in both the BLM and Forest Service throughout his career. "There was always pressure to get back on," Ellis recalled. "That’s not a new thing. It’s just part of working for the bureau." Government policies can also inadvertently contribute to environmental damage. Land-management agencies sometimes seed invasive grasses, which can benefit livestock. Additionally, state and federal agencies often cull predators such as wolves and cougars, species crucial for healthy ecosystems, ostensibly to protect ranchers’ economic interests. BLM employees also reported that in some permit reviews and land-health assessments, frontline staff noted the presence of threatened and endangered species, which would typically trigger more stringent environmental controls, only for agency managers to subsequently remove this information from their reports. One BLM staffer characterized these reviews as "rubber stamping," adding that higher-ranking personnel responsible for report content "wouldn’t let me stick anything into the official documentation that acknowledged things were in poor shape." A further complication arises from ranchers being routinely invited to participate in fieldwork to assess grazing impacts. Employees stated that this collaboration often resulted in diluted reviews and assessments.

The livestock industry, however, criticizes the assessment process for different reasons. Erin Spaur, executive vice president of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, described it as an inflexible "one-size-fits-all approach" that inadequately accounts for variations in ecosystems. Dennis Willis, who spent over three decades with the BLM, including managing rangelands, observed, "There are huge cultural problems within the agency. There’s a real fear of dealing with grazing problems."

Some ranchers acknowledge the environmental impacts of their industry but contend that increased flexibility, rather than stricter oversight, would enable them to become better stewards of the land. Jasmine, with Nevada Gold Mines, asserts that ranching can be practiced sustainably. He oversees the company’s extensive cattle operations, managing approximately 5,000 head. On a sunny July day near Carlin, Nevada, Jasmine guided visitors through a meadow of tall vegetation to showcase the recovery of Maggie Creek, a tributary to the Humboldt River. Historical photographs from the 1980s depict barren ground around the creek. Jasmine explained that when ranchers modified their herd rotation practices in the 1990s to allow the streambed more rest, the land began to rebound, attributing much of this success to a BLM biologist who initiated recovery projects. "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," Jasmine stated, emphasizing the importance of varied grazing patterns. He highlighted his company’s commitment to protecting locally significant species, its sage grouse restoration efforts, and its collaborative partnership with the BLM on targeted grazing initiatives to manage vegetation and create firebreaks. However, Nevada Gold Mines, a venture between two major corporations, operates with financial resources that enable it to sustain longer periods of land rest for recovery, a luxury not available to most smaller ranchers facing tight profit margins. The lower cost of grazing on federal lands compared to state or private lands makes it economically attractive to maximize utilization.

For years, some politicians and environmental organizations have proposed compensating ranchers to voluntarily retire their grazing permits, thereby permanently removing livestock from degraded or sensitive habitats and preserving these areas for wildlife. While some ranchers have accepted these offers, the industry as a whole has been hesitant to relinquish grazing permits. In October, U.S. Rep. Adam Smith introduced legislation aimed at promoting voluntary retirement of grazing permits, describing 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 organization seek to maintain their livelihoods while residing in "a place that is vibrant, full of life, provides clean water, has clean air." He acknowledged, however, that simultaneously achieving environmental sustainability and low-cost food production is "untenable," asserting that historical choices in the United States have prioritized cheapness at the expense of environmental quality. Wertz echoed the sentiment of agency staff, stating that while producer accountability is essential, there must also be "flexibility so producers can be economically successful and so they can do what is right for the landscape."