There is a potential lawsuit in Wyoming about temporarily opening grazing allotments on the BT, apparently to support ranchers that lost forage due to wildfires.
Here’s a link to the Cowboy State Daily story. Not surprisingly, the Cowboy State Daily’s Wyoming counterpart has an op-ed about the situation..from a Sierra Club worker.
Here’s Rodeo Professor’s take:
Cattle and livestock grazing have been happening in the Bridger Teton National Forest for well over a century, especially in the Upper Green River. The Green River Drift is a historic cattle drive route in use since 1896, literally one of the America’s oldest traditional cattle drives (even listed on the National Register of Historic Places). Multigenerational families have been keeping the American cultural practice of cowboying and grazing on public land alive here for over 130 years. American law (called “MUSYA” or the Multiple Use Sustainable Yield Act) says that National Forests must equally balance recreation, grazing, timber, watershed, and fish/wildlife. This has been the case in our National Forests since they were created. It’s a uniquely American land management institution and we should be proud of it.
The coalition of NGOs are planning to use the Endangered Species Act to sue the Bridger Teton for “not doing all its paperwork properly.” So instead of managing trails and fuels, many will be focused on fighting endless lawsuits in court.
The truth is that the BT did conduct a thorough Review of Environmental Compliance Docs to determine whether it could temporarily allow cows to graze in Elk Ridge to let other pasture rest for a season or two after a very large fire.
Using the original Environmental Assessment the Forest Service decided a 1-2 season temporary grazing permit fell within the scope of using the preexisting assessments (so new consultations with Fish and Wildlife to study grizzly conflict and take would be necessary). They did do a voluntary consultation with Fish and Wildlife on whether this existing compliance framework was suitable for short term grazing permits (2026) and FWS said yes. If the grazing exceeds 1-2 years, the BT will conduct a more thorough NEPA and a newer environmental impact assessment. As part of the 2026 consultation with FWS, the Forest Service will keep livestock numbers the same, seasons/use, kind of livestock, and implement grizzly conservation measures. Depicting the BT as being reckless towards grizzly management is just a fiction created by the NGOs to sue.
The Forest Service Biologists also conducted a Biological Assessment showing grazing will not have impacts on grizzlies. If you’ve never met a Forest Service biologist, they’re not rubber stamping grazing. They’re wildlife lovers, if they say there’s no impact to grizzlies, I trust them. Beyond all these assessments the state agency is involved. Game and Fish will trap and relocate grizzlies in conflict with cattle long before any lethal management tools are ever used.
Here’s his or hers or their (the Rodeo Professor, I don’t know) take on the op-ed.
At one time, I wondered what the actual Sierra Club grazing policy was, and if it was equivalent to the “no commercial timber” policy. It turns out that it is.. with an interesting caveats:
(4) The Sierra Club recognizes that restrictions on grazing may have negative impacts on the cultural and economic stability of some communities. These impacts are apt to be most severe in Native American, minority and low-income communities. We are committed to developing partnerships with community members to identify and implement strategies to protect both traditional communities and the ecological integrity of public lands, without sacrificing either.
(5) The Sierra Club is committed to helping ease the economic burden on small family ranch operations with federal public lands allotments that would be affected by termination or reduction of their grazing leases.
Since the policy was approved in 2000, I wonder if anyone knows of examples of the strategies in #4, and how the SC has implemented #5. I wonder if there’s a report out there somewhere on how well this policy is working and if any changes are appropriate. Such a report might not be public.
I have lots of history with the S Sierra Club Grazing Team. Lots to tell. Call me at 805.236.1422 …
Todd Shuman, Chair of the SCGT, 2019-Aug 2021, and still a member of the Team
It’s notable that there is no mention that these areas previously had grazing leases that were bought out, meaning that lessees received compensation, and the agency agreed that the areas would be closed to grazing permanently.
And the laughable statement is the one that states that if there is any problems with grizzly bothering cattle, the bears would be trapped and relocated. Seriously? A native wildlife species that has occupied these lands for many millennia should be trapped and relocated to make way for an exotic inbred domesticated mongrel from India? Trapping grizzly is not a benign practice, and can be fatal to a bear.
The hubris of stock growers is unbelievable.
When grizzly harass cattle on private land, they are relocated to public lands. Public lands should be a refuge for native wildlife, not a place where they must endure the presence of invasive species whose “rights” supersede those of native species. Any FS biologist who condones such policy is simply preserving their job.
Glenn, humans have had a long and cherished history with domestic cattle- according to Google AI
They have been on the North American continent (again, according to AI) since 1493. You may not like them and think that they shouldn’t be on federal land, that’s not what the law says (MUSYA), and hopefully wildlife biologists are following the law.
Interesting side-note: as recently as my European grandparents (of course I am old) Europeans lived under the same roof as their cattle.
“Cattle and humans lived under the same roof—in structures known as byre-dwellings or housebarns—for roughly 3,500 to 4,000 years in Europe, starting experimentally in the Middle Bronze Age (around 1800 BCE) and lasting in some remote rural regions well into the 19th and early 20th centuries.” I thought this was also interesting history ..
What good will that do? Lack of forage all over the state. Eat it now and won’t have any available later.
About 80% of the Cowboy State is in severe drought or worse — 45% is suffering extreme drought Ref: https://www.wyomingnews.com/rocketminer/extreme-drought-record-breaking-heat-confront-wyoming-ranchers-with-difficult-choices/article_429bf767-a51a-45f0-8abe-85513c9a4b11.html
That could be, but drought means low forage.. burnover means none this year.
“National Forests must equally balance recreation, grazing, timber, watershed, and fish/wildlife.”
Nonsense. The language below comes from the Forest Service Federal Register notice for the 2012 Planning Rule.
The statute defines ‘‘multiple use’’ broadly, calling for management of the various uses in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people (16 U.S.C. 531). Under this framework, courts have recognized that the MUSYA does not envision that every acre of National Forest System land be managed for every multiple use, and does envision some lands being used for less than all of the resources. As a consequence, the Agency has wide discretion to weigh and decide the proper uses within any area. (Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d, 1209, 1267–1268 (10th Cir. 2011); Perkins v. Bergland, 608 F.2d 803, 806– 807 (9th Cir. 1979); and City & Cnty. of Denver v. Bergland, 695 F.2d 465, 476 (10th Cir. 1982)).
It seems to me that “cows on feds are bad” is different from “not every acre for every thing” Which acres, where, to what extent, those are the uses that must be balanced or held in dynamic tension. My point was that the concept that grazing ( exotic animals) is not a legitimate use does not fit with MUSYA and more specifically, when FS biologists work, whatever their personal ideology, the law, not their personal ideologies should guide them.
Here is LTE that was submitted to the Pinedale Roundup that explains the situation more clearly than the “Rodeo Cowboy” …
Backroom dealing and dead bears
Posted Thursday, August 13, 2026 12:00 am
https://pinedaleroundup.com/stories/backroom-dealing-and-dead-bears,130420
John Carter, Bondurant, Wyo.
Dear Editor,
On Aug. 7, Yellowstone to Uintas Connection, Sage Steppe Wild, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council on Fish and Wildlife filed a Notice of Intent to sue the Bridger Teton National Forest.
This notice was filed to protect grizzly bears from a decision by the Bridger Teton National Forest that allows the livestock permittees from the Upper Green allotment to bring cattle into the vacant Elk Ridge Complex of allotments. The decision was based on the claim that the recent Dollar Lake Fire burned pastures in the Upper Green River allotment and caused a forage deficit.
The Elk Ridge allotments have a history of grizzly bear conflicts with livestock. In 2016, conservation organizations funded a voluntary buyout of the permittee, who had experienced problems with bear conflicts.
The permit was waived back to the Forest Service with the understanding that domestic sheep would not return in order to protect bighorn sheep, which are susceptible to disease carried by domestic sheep. The Forest Service acknowledged in a letter to the permittee that no cattle would be brought into those allotments until an analysis of capacity and infrastructure was conducted through a public process or Forest Plan revision.
Now, the Bridger Teton National Forest, the Sublette County Conservation District, the Nature Conservancy, and the livestock permittees who graze cattle in the Upper Green allotments decided to rest those burned pastures and graze the vacant Elk Ridge allotments. This was done in private without any public notice or input. One of those permittees is Albert Sommers, who is running to represent the people of Sublette County in the State Legislature. I asked him to oppose this, but nothing. Voters should ask Albert if he thinks it is appropriate for the government to engage in such a back-room deal.
Aside from the ethical issues, there are other problems.
The Forest Service said it would rest the burned pastures. Yet inspection of the burned areas shows that the areas used by cattle, that is, valleys and open areas, did not burn. The fire was mostly limited to forested areas the cattle don’t use. And yet the Forest Service still plans to graze those “burned” pastures as cattle are in them today.
Twenty years of monitoring by the Bridger Teton National Forest Range conservationists, the Sublette County Conservation District, and the permittees showed the average use in that period was 11% while allowable use is 50%. So, their data shows there is no deficit in forage. This says there is no need, for now, to graze the Elk Ridge allotments.
The Forest Service told the Fish and Wildlife Service that the burned pastures would be rested, i.e., not grazed by livestock. Yet they scheduled 1,245 cattle into the two pastures, which are being grazed today. That is not rest, so any decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on this false information invalidates any biological opinion they might produce.
It’s time for the Forest Service to respect the public trust, our wildlife, and their habitat, and stop this now.
John Carter, Bondurant, Wyo.
Not sure why the text that we should just trust the FS bio is bolded. Bios are people, some can be trusted and others cannot. Bios are not a decision maker and are subject to political pressure.
In my recent work on grazing as a senior agency wildlife bio, I’ve been told by forest leadership that ranchers have been directed to contact HQ if they feel regulations are affecting them in a negative way. There is no ability to push back on anything involving extractive interests in the name of wildlife. I have also personally witnessed a very shady situation with a wealthy connected rancher complaining to DC and getting special treatment that amounted to a massive subsidy of their operation. Please stop painting this with broad brushstrokes as a D vs R thing or an industry vs enviro thing. There is a deep state, it’s working for the producers and is very real. I have also worked on projects for which the white house receives a weekly briefing and those in my chain of command are on notice that their job is on the line. The staff bios are sickened by what they are doing.