In late 2019, a seemingly localized dispute between two Montana ranchers and the U.S. Forest Service ignited, revealing the intricate and often contentious relationship between federal land management and the powerful ranching industry across the American West. The incident began when Forest Service staff, tasked with overseeing the vast federal lands where the ranchers held a permit to graze their cattle, documented multiple instances of non-compliance. Over the course of September that year, agency personnel found the cattle roaming in unauthorized locations on four separate occasions. Further investigations revealed dilapidated fences, crucial for controlling livestock movement, and salt licks — essential mineral supplements for cattle — positioned too close to sensitive creeks and springs, inadvertently luring animals into delicate riparian habitats. These areas are critical for biodiversity, water quality, and the overall health of Western ecosystems, making their protection a priority for federal agencies.

After numerous attempts at communication, including calls, texts, and formal letters, the Forest Service issued a "notice of noncompliance" to the ranchers. This official document, obtained through public records requests, asserted that the ranchers had engaged in a "willful and intentional violation" of their grazing permit, a serious accusation that carried the implicit threat of permit revocation if future infractions occurred. While these Montana ranchers were not among the largest or most politically connected operators within the public lands grazing system, their challenge to federal oversight quickly escalated, drawing in significant external support.

Believing they had been unfairly treated, the ranchers embarked on a campaign to have the warning rescinded. "The Forest Service needs to work with us and understand that grazing on the Forest is not black and white," they argued in a communication to the agency. Conversely, the acting district ranger maintained that his staff had "gone above and beyond" to assist the ranchers in adhering to the established rules, highlighting the fundamental disconnect in perspectives between regulators and permit holders.

The ranchers’ appeal soon found receptive ears in Washington. With the assistance of a former Forest Service employee, they contacted their congressional representatives in early 2020. Staffers for then-Representative Greg Gianforte and Senator Steve Daines, both Montana Republicans, swiftly engaged, initiating a prolonged year-long exchange with Forest Service officials. This intervention underscored a pervasive dynamic in Western land management: a rapid escalation of local regulatory matters into the national political arena. An internal 2021 email from a Forest Service official candidly expressed frustration, noting that when ranchers "hear something they don’t like," they often bypass local channels, running "to the forest supervisor and the senator’s office to get what they want."

Public-lands ranching remains one of the most extensive land uses across many Western states, particularly in Montana, where the cattle population significantly outnumbers its human residents. This economic and cultural prominence translates into considerable political responsiveness from elected officials at all levels. Ranchers, whether cited for violations or resisting new regulations, frequently enlist a network of allies. This includes pro-grazing lawyers, powerful trade group lobbyists, and sympathetic politicians ranging from county commissioners to state legislators and U.S. senators like Daines. These influential figures, some of whom have ascended to key positions within recent presidential administrations, consistently advocate for looser environmental rules and, in certain cases, for reduced consequences for those who breach existing regulations.

Multiple current and former employees of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service have anonymously corroborated that the potent political alliances forged by some ranchers pose a significant impediment to the consistent enforcement of grazing regulations. When faced with such political pushback, regulators often feel compelled to yield. "If we do anything anti-grazing, there’s at least a decent chance of politicians being involved," explained one BLM employee, requesting anonymity due to fears of retaliation. "We want to avoid that, so we don’t do anything that would bring that about." This sentiment highlights a chilling effect on regulatory action, where the specter of political intervention can override environmental concerns.

Mary Jo Rugwell, a former director of the BLM’s Wyoming state office, acknowledged that while the majority of ranchers operating under public-lands grazing permits adhere to regulations, a subset proves "truly problematic." These individuals, she noted, "break the rules and go above and around you to try to get what they want or think they deserve," often leveraging their connections to "folks that are in power." Since 2020, congressional members from both political parties have sent over 20 communications to the BLM and Forest Service concerning grazing issues, according to agency logs obtained through public records requests. Beyond Daines and Gianforte, this list includes figures like Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), former Representative Yvette Herrell (R-N.M.), former Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah). Their inquiries ranged from "Request for Flexibility with Grazing Permits" to concerns about the "Public Lands Rule Impact on Ranchers and Rural Communities," illustrating the broad political sensitivity of federal grazing policies.

Rick Danvir, a longtime wildlife manager on a large Utah ranch, offered a nuanced perspective, suggesting that the BLM faces pressure not solely from ranchers and their allies but also from litigious environmental organizations opposing public-lands grazing. "Everyone is always kicking them," he observed, describing an agency often forced into a defensive posture, wary of legal challenges. However, the internal agency communications regarding the Montana dispute vividly illustrate the direct impact of political intervention. Daines’ office maintained a steady stream of emails to Forest Service officials from March 2020 through February 2021, demanding granular information about the agency’s interactions with the ranchers. In April 2021, a Daines staffer even arrived unannounced at a meeting between the ranchers and the Forest Service, though they were turned away due to the absence of an appropriate agency official. These persistent interventions demonstrably influenced the agency’s handling of the case.

While constituent services are a legitimate and vital aspect of every elected representative’s duties, local Forest Service officials involved in the Montana dispute explicitly recognized that the external political pressure was compelling them to afford special treatment to these ranchers. One Forest Service official lamented in 2020, "If this issue was solely between the (ranger district) and the permittee, we should administer the permit and end the discussion there." However, the official continued, "Unfortunately, we have regional, state and national oversight from others that deters us from administering the permit like we would for others. It is very unfair to the top notch operators that call/coordinate/manage consistently." The official concluded, highlighting the political compromise: "what the (ranchers) perceive as picking on them, for political reasons, has become a mandate that we make accommodations outside the terms of a mediated permit. So be it." Another agency official expressed similar frustration, noting the "sour taste to think I am expected to hold all other permittees to the terms of their permits/forest plan/forest handbook … yet be told to continually let it go with another."

By June 2020, the acting district ranger expressed a willingness to "cut (the ranchers) some slack" in hopes of improving relations. Despite this, agency records show the ranchers were once again found in violation of their permit in December 2020, with evidence of overgrazing that posed risks to vegetation health and soil integrity. Yet, the agency opted not to issue another formal notice of noncompliance. By late 2022, the Montana ranchers had accumulated four consecutive years of permit violations, clearly warranting another formal notice. However, agency staff, anticipating further political conflict and internal strife, hesitated to take action, effectively allowing continued non-compliance. Although the Forest Service documented widespread signs of overuse on the ranchers’ grazing land, it declined to officially recommend another citation in its year-end report for 2022, choosing to avoid "the drama" that an official enforcement action would invariably provoke. A spokesperson for Senator Daines, in a statement, affirmed that the senator "advocates tirelessly on behalf of his constituents to federal agencies" and "was glad to be able to advocate" for the ranchers in this specific case. The Forest Service, the ranchers, and Gianforte’s office did not respond to requests for comment, leaving the ecological impact of these accommodations largely unaddressed.

The political landscape for public lands grazing appears set for further shifts, particularly with the incoming presidential administration positioning itself as a powerful ally for ranchers advocating against what they term government overreach. This stance is reflected in key appointments and policy reversals. The administration has appointed Karen Budd-Falen, a self-described "cowboy lawyer" with a background deeply intertwined with ranching and a history of challenging federal land management agencies, to a high-level post at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Budd-Falen, who comes from a prominent ranching family and holds a stake in a large Wyoming cattle ranch, has a long record of litigation against the federal government over grazing regulations. In one notable case, she controversially employed the anti-corruption RICO law, typically reserved for organized crime, to sue individual BLM staffers over their enforcement actions, though she ultimately lost at the Supreme Court in 2007. Her past advocacy also includes representing a coalition of New Mexico farmers and stockmen in a legal filing supporting Utah’s unsuccessful 2024 lawsuit to gain control over millions of acres of federal land within its borders, underscoring her commitment to reducing federal authority.

Similarly, the administration nominated Michael Boren, a tech entrepreneur and rancher, as Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a critical role overseeing the Forest Service. Boren has a contentious history with the Forest Service, which manages a national recreation area surrounding his 480-acre ranch in Idaho. A company he controlled notably received a cease-and-desist letter from the agency in 2024 for allegedly clearing national forest land and constructing a private cabin on it. Despite these past conflicts, Boren was confirmed to his USDA position in October, signaling a clear direction for federal land management.

The new administration has swiftly moved to dismantle Biden-era reforms designed to strengthen environmental protections for public rangelands. In September, the administration proposed rescinding the Public Lands Rule, a regulation finalized in May 2024. This rule aimed to elevate the protection and restoration of wildlife habitat and clean water to an equal standing with traditional extractive uses such as oil drilling, mining, and grazing on federal lands. It would have facilitated the leasing of BLM land for conservation purposes by individuals, organizations, tribes, and state agencies, and sought to enhance the BLM’s process for evaluating the environmental impact of grazing and other economic activities. Under the previous administration, the BLM had also issued a memo prioritizing environmental reviews for grazing lands that were ecologically degraded or situated within sensitive wildlife habitats. The current administration effectively nullified that memo this year, signaling a significant shift away from a conservation-focused approach. The Interior Department and BLM, in a statement, asserted that "any policy decisions are made in accordance with federal law and are designed to balance economic opportunity with conservation responsibilities across the nation’s public lands."

Beyond policy reversals, the administration is undertaking a broad initiative to open vacant federal grazing lands to ranchers, positioning "grazing as a central element of federal land management." Nationally, an estimated 24 million acres of grazing land are currently listed as vacant. These allotments are often temporarily without livestock for crucial ecological reasons, such as recovering from wildfires, insufficient water or forage to sustainably support cattle, or awaiting the removal of invasive species. Despite these environmental considerations, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, in May, gave staff a mere two weeks to compile lists of unused grazing allotments that could be rapidly restocked with livestock, according to internal communications. This policy aligns with the advocacy of organizations like the Public Lands Council, which in a 2024 policy paper explicitly called for federal agencies to swiftly fill vacant allotments. A USDA spokesperson maintained that "vacant grazing allotments have always been open and available to permitted grazing," but critics argue that accelerating the refilling of these lands without adequate ecological assessment could exacerbate environmental degradation and hinder natural recovery processes, particularly in the face of increasing drought and wildfire frequency in the West.

The political influence of ranching interests is not a new phenomenon; presidential administrations dating back decades have encountered fierce opposition when attempting to raise grazing fees or bolster environmental regulations. In the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration famously retreated from a proposal to increase grazing fees amidst widespread anger from public-lands ranchers and their Republican allies in Congress. Many within the industry perceived then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt’s proposed reforms as an existential threat to their livelihoods. "The government is trying to take our livelihood, our rights and our dignity," one rancher declared at a hearing on Babbitt’s ultimately failed initiative. "We can’t live with it."

While ranching industry groups do not command the lobbying budgets of sectors like pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, or defense contracting, their perspective resonates powerfully in Washington. J.R. Simplot Co., identified as the largest holder of BLM grazing permits, spent approximately $610,000 lobbying Congress from 2020 through 2025. This year, the company notably hired the Bernhardt Group, a firm launched by David Bernhardt, who served as Secretary of the Interior during the first Trump administration and now sits on the board of Trump’s media company, highlighting the revolving door between industry and government. Smaller permittees often turn to influential trade groups like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), which boasts affiliates in 40 states. In recent years, the NCBA and its allies have launched legal challenges against the Environmental Protection Agency over Biden-era water regulations and the Interior Department regarding endangered species protections for the lesser prairie chicken. A federal judge in August vacated protections for the imperiled species following a request from the administration, which has also moved to roll back the water regulations central to the NCBA’s EPA lawsuit. The NCBA, which represents both public-lands ranchers and the broader beef industry, expended nearly $2 million on lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C., over the past five years and contributed more than $2 million to federal candidates and political action committees in the last two election cycles, with over 90% of those contributions directed to Republicans during the 2024 cycle. The association vociferously opposed the Public Lands Rule, and alongside other groups, filed a lawsuit to halt its implementation even before the administration moved to rescind it. Mark Eisele, then-president of the NCBA, characterized the rule as "a stepping stone to removing livestock grazing from our nation’s public lands." Nada Culver, a former deputy director of the BLM during the Biden administration, emphasized that the political influence of ranchers extends beyond their relatively modest lobbying and campaign donations. "It is tied to their cultural power," she explained. "They are icons of the American West."

The support for ranchers often extends to state and local officials, including legislators, county commissioners, and sheriffs, who frequently intervene on behalf of permittees facing issues with the Forest Service or BLM. In June 2019, during a protracted dispute between a group of ranchers and employees of Utah’s Fishlake National Forest, a forest supervisor recounted a chilling encounter. After informing a rancher he would receive a citation for failing to sign his permit and properly identify his cattle, the rancher "became really angry, said there were two ways this could go, and he wasn’t going to court because the courts are all stacked in our favor." The supervisor further noted in an email documenting the conversation, "He then said if anyone in his family got hurt by this, remember I have a family and they can get hurt too." The supervisor asked if his family was being threatened, to which the rancher responded that his family had worked hard for their holdings and wouldn’t have them taken away. The rancher declined to comment on the incident.

In this years-long Utah dispute, the ranchers received vocal support from a local sheriff, who at one point reportedly expressed willingness to jail Forest Service personnel. Minutes from a January 2016 meeting of the Piute County Commission record the sheriff stating "he will not allow this to be a Bundy situation," referencing the infamous 2014 armed standoff between rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM in Bunkerville, Nevada. "If that entails jailing the forest service he will do it!!!" While the sheriff later claimed his comments were taken out of context, the sentiment underscores the intense local resistance federal agencies can face.

In a few extreme instances, ranchers who violate grazing regulations have resorted to armed confrontations without losing the backing of elected officials. The Bundy family’s Bunkerville standoff serves as a potent example. After two decades of chronic trespassing on federal lands, the Bundys had accumulated approximately $1 million in grazing fines and unpaid fees. Cliven Bundy steadfastly maintained, without legal basis, that the U.S. government lacked jurisdiction over grazing on public lands in Nevada. When federal agents arrived with a court order to impound the family’s trespassing cattle, Bundy and a contingent of armed supporters engaged in a tense standoff, ultimately forcing the agents to retreat. "I’ll be damned if I’m going to honor a federal court that has no jurisdiction or authority or arresting power over we the people," Bundy famously told The New York Times in 2014. Throughout this prolonged conflict, the Bundy family garnered support from numerous political figures across the region. Nye County, Nevada, commissioners passed a resolution condemning "armed federal bureaucrats … operating outside their lawful delegated authority," and at least one commissioner traveled to Bunkerville to support the family. Michele Fiore, then a member of the Nevada Legislature, publicly backed the Bundys, and several members of the Arizona Legislature also journeyed to Nevada after the standoff to offer their solidarity. The Bundy family’s political ties have only strengthened since, with Celeste Maloy, Cliven Bundy’s niece, elected to represent Utah’s 2nd Congressional District in 2023. During her tenure, Maloy has advocated for the sale of federal lands and sponsored legislation designed to ease access for ranchers to vacant grazing allotments, particularly during periods of drought and extreme weather. Notably, Maloy received $20,000 in campaign contributions from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association during the 2024 election cycle. Maloy’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Wayne Werkmeister, a longtime BLM employee who spent most of his career overseeing federal grazing lands before retiring in 2022, candidly described the formidable challenges inherent in enforcing public-lands protections. "When you have everything stacked against you, when you’ve got political pressure on you, when you’ve got management who doesn’t want to hear it, when you’ve got a rancher who’s trying to prove himself, it’s nearly impossible," he reflected in an interview. He recounted a specific case in 2017 near Grand Junction, Colorado, where intensive on-the-ground research by him and his colleagues concluded that two ranchers were significantly damaging habitat across a 90,000-acre allotment grazed by roughly 500 cattle. Werkmeister initiated efforts to reduce the livestock numbers to allow the land to recover. In response, the ranchers hired former BLM employees to champion their cause, accusing the agency of "agenda driven bullying," and copied then-U.S. Senator Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican, on all correspondence with the BLM. Werkmeister found himself compelled to justify the agency’s actions to the senator’s aides.

In October 2018, Werkmeister’s office received a two-page letter from the Budd-Falen Law Offices, co-founded by Karen Budd-Falen, representing the two Colorado ranchers. The letter asserted, "The actions of the BLM in reducing livestock grazing on the West Salt Common Allotment could potentially and unnecessarily force them out of business." The firm also sent copies of the letter to local county commissioners, further amplifying the political pressure. Werkmeister recalled that his superiors promptly ordered him back into the field to collect more data, despite years of existing documentation by him and his colleagues detailing the allotment’s condition, precipitation patterns, and rancher use. The ranchers persistently disputed the agency’s findings. Ultimately, Werkmeister conceded he was never able to reduce grazing sufficiently to allow the allotment adequate time to recover. As recently as 2024, agency records indicate the BLM reapproved grazing there. The ranchers, their attorney, and Gardner did not respond to requests for comment. Werkmeister considers his inability to reverse the ecological decline of that parcel among his most profound failures. During a recent visit, he pointed to the denuded ground and stunted native bunchgrasses struggling amidst a pervasive expanse of invasive cheatgrass, starkly observing, "Overgrazed to the point of gone." This enduring environmental damage serves as a powerful testament to the complex and often politically charged struggle for sustainable land management in the American West.