Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor for review. The changes, according to sources familiar with the process, would reduce the authority of agencies to penalize ranchers for environmental violations and streamline the process for renewing permits. Environmentalists fear that these revisions could further damage public lands and wildlife habitats.
The public lands grazing program has long been a controversial issue, with environmentalists and advocates for public lands criticizing it as a giveaway to wealthy ranchers at the expense of the environment and taxpayers. The program’s defenders argue that it provides economic benefits to rural communities and helps maintain the Western way of life.
The Trump administration’s efforts to expand the program come at a time when public lands are facing increasing pressures from development, climate change, and other threats. The administration has also rolled back environmental regulations and protections for public lands, further exacerbating the impacts of grazing on these landscapes.
As the debate over the future of the public lands grazing program continues, the fate of these iconic landscapes hangs in the balance. Will they continue to be exploited for the benefit of a few wealthy individuals, or will they be managed in a way that protects their ecological integrity for future generations? Only time will tell. Simplot is the largest single permit holder for public lands grazing in the West, with more than 1.1 million acres leased from the BLM and the Forest Service. In 2019, Simplot paid just $1.35 per cow and calf pair per month to graze on federal land, while the market rate for grazing private land in the region was more than $10.
Critics say that such low fees deprive taxpayers of revenue and give ranchers an unfair advantage over their peers who graze on private land. “It’s corporate welfare,” said Mary O’Brien, a biologist with the environmental group WildEarth Guardians, which has sued the BLM and Forest Service over grazing practices. “What they’re doing is taking resources that belong to all Americans and selling them at a discount to a few favored individuals.”
Proponents of public lands ranching dispute that characterization. Ethan Lane, vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, declined to discuss the specifics of the White House’s beef industry plan but said that the success of the livestock industry depends on the health of the land. “We’re talking about a land base that is the backbone of the American beef industry,” Lane said. “It’s a critical asset that is used to provide food and fiber to this country and around the world.”
The Biden administration could reverse some of the decisions made by the previous administration, including the White House’s plan to boost subsidies for public lands ranchers. When asked about the White House’s beef industry plan, the Agriculture Department said it was reviewing the policies and programs of the previous administration, including those related to public lands grazing.
For now, the fate of public lands grazing is uncertain. But as long as the federal government continues to subsidize the livestock industry, the debate over who benefits and who pays will persist.
Simplot, a major agricultural company, has benefited significantly from subsidized forage, paying $2.4 million below market rate to graze nearly 150,000 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) on federal lands last year. This information was revealed through an analysis of data from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service. Despite multiple attempts to reach out for comment, the company did not respond.
Across the industry, ranchers paid a total of $21 million to the BLM and Forest Service for forage, which was $284 million below the market rate in the previous year. This discrepancy highlights the significant financial advantage that ranchers, including large corporations like Simplot, gain from grazing on public lands.
One Colorado rancher, Fales, emphasized the economic benefits of accessing cheaper forage on federal lands. He explained that private leases are typically more productive than public lands, which is why grazing there is less expensive. Additionally, ranchers who lease public lands are required to bear the costs of maintaining infrastructure like fences and water tanks, beyond what the land management agencies fund.
Despite the financial advantages for ranchers, the full cost to taxpayers, including the environmental impact of grazing on public lands, remains unknown. With a reduction in the number of rangeland managers due to downsizing in the federal workforce, it has become increasingly challenging for agencies to monitor environmental damage caused by excessive grazing. Each rangeland manager is now responsible for an average of 716 square miles, making it impossible to inspect the entire territory annually.
Furthermore, the benefits of running cattle on public lands extend beyond financial gains for many large ranchers. Billionaire owners like Rupert Murdoch, who recently purchased the Beaverhead Ranch for $200 million, use their vast properties for both commercial cattle operations and conservation efforts. These ultrawealthy families own cattle ranches for various reasons, including financial incentives such as big property tax breaks and federal tax deductions for business expenses related to ranching.
In the case of Murdoch’s Beaverhead Ranch, which includes significant public land leased from the Forest Service and BLM, taxpayers help underwrite grazing operations. The ranch paid less than $25,000, which was 95 percent below the market rate, to graze on federal lands last year. However, environmental concerns have been raised regarding the impact of grazing on some BLM allotments leased by the ranch.
Public lands grazing not only benefits ranching operations but can also advance unrelated businesses. For example, the Southern Nevada Water Authority acquired groundwater rights by purchasing land associated with public lands grazing permits. This strategic move allowed the utility to access new sources of water for the Las Vegas Valley, showcasing the diverse ways in which public lands can support various industries. Chris Jasmine, (bottom right) oversees a livestock operation for Nevada Gold Mines that grazes around 5,000 head of cattle on public and private lands.” data-credit=”Roberto ‘Bear’ Guerra / High Country News” srcset=”https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/aerial-cattle-hcn.jpg?quality=75&strip=all 1600w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/aerial-cattle-hcn.jpg?resize=1200%2C900&quality=75&strip=all 1200w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/aerial-cattle-hcn.jpg?resize=330%2C248&quality=75&strip=all 330w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/aerial-cattle-hcn.jpg?resize=768%2C576&quality=75&strip=all 768w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/aerial-cattle-hcn.jpg?resize=1536%2C1152&quality=75&strip=all 1536w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/aerial-cattle-hcn.jpg?resize=150%2C113&quality=75&strip=all 150w” sizes=”auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px” height=”1200″ width=”1600″ loading=”lazy” decoding=”async”>
The Bartas have amassed their livestock operation through a series of ranch acquisitions in Nevada. They own roughly 3,000 acres of private land, but the majority of their operation takes place on public rangelands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service. The Bartas have secured grazing permits for these lands — rights that allow them to run cattle on public lands for a fee.
In southern Nevada’s Spring Mountains, the Bartas’ cattle graze alongside bighorn sheep and desert tortoises, according to a Western Watersheds Project analysis of BLM data.
The Bartas are among a handful of private landowners who have benefited from the consolidation of the livestock industry and the subsidies that support it. While the Bartas’ operation is relatively small compared to others in the West, the family’s ability to access public lands for grazing has been key to their success.
The federal government heavily subsidizes public lands ranching through programs that provide below-market grazing fees, reimbursements for improvements made to public lands, and compensation for livestock killed by predators. Critics of these programs argue that they prop up an industry that is environmentally destructive and economically unsustainable.
The Bartas’ operation is just one example of how public lands ranching is entwined with other industries, like mining and pharmaceuticals. These alliances can create complex webs of influence that shape land-use policies and impact the environment. As the debate over public lands management continues, the role of these industries in shaping policy and practice will be a key point of contention.
Ultimately, the future of public lands ranching will depend on how policymakers balance the competing interests of industry, conservation, and public access. As the Bartas and other ranchers continue to graze their cattle on public lands, the debate over the environmental and economic impacts of public lands ranching will only intensify.
The water authority’s decision to continue its grazing operation is just one example of how public lands ranching intersects with other industries and interests. As the debate over public lands management continues, the role of these industries in shaping policy and practice will be a key point of contention.
In the meantime, ranchers like the Bartas will continue to graze their cattle on public lands, while critics argue that the practice is environmentally destructive and economically unsustainable. The future of public lands ranching remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: the debate over its impacts will only continue to grow in the coming years.
” data-credit=”Roberto ‘Bear’ Guerra / High Country News” srcset=”https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/mike-gamblin.jpg?quality=75&strip=all 1200w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/mike-gamblin.jpg?resize=330%2C220&quality=75&strip=all 330w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/mike-gamblin.jpg?resize=768%2C512&quality=75&strip=all 768w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/mike-gamblin.jpg?resize=150%2C100&quality=75&strip=all 150w” sizes=”auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px” height=”800″ width=”1200″ loading=”lazy” decoding=”async”>
Mike Camblin (left) and his wife, Danna (right), ranchers in northwest Colorado, use virtual fencing technology to move their cattle (below). Roberto ‘Bear’ Guerra / High Country News
Burgess suggests that the federal government could instead shift subsidies toward conservation programs, paying ranchers to restore damaged landscapes or convert grazing allotments to wildlife refuges. This would benefit ranchers and the landscape, he said, and could even be more cost-effective.
Mike and Danna Camblin, ranchers in northwest Colorado, have experimented with new technologies and practices, like virtual fencing, which allows them to move their cattle without physical barriers. They’re also using rotational grazing to improve the health of their pastures.
“We’re not locked in to, ‘This is the way it’s always been done,’” Danna Camblin said. “We can change that and do things differently.”
Paul Ruprecht, of the Western Watersheds Project, said his organization is working with ranchers like the Camblins to find solutions that benefit both the environment and the ranchers themselves.
“That’s the way of the future,” he said. “We’re going to have to figure out how to coexist.”
For Chris Jasmine, who oversees a livestock operation for Nevada Gold Mines, finding that balance is key. His operation grazes around 5,000 head of cattle on public and private lands, and he’s mindful of the impact they have on the landscape.
“We have to find that balance between the environment and the economy,” Jasmine said. “It’s not easy, but it’s necessary.”
As the debate over public land grazing continues, ranchers and conservationists are working together to find solutions that benefit both the land and the people who rely on it.
“We all have to be part of the solution,” Ruprecht said. “We can’t keep pointing fingers and blaming each other. We have to find a way to work together.”
Mike and Danna Camblin are ranchers in northwest Colorado who run a small cattle operation near the Yampa River. Like many small ranchers, they have faced challenges due to years of drought, forcing them to downsize their herd and rely on government support to stay afloat. Despite beef prices breaking records, profitability remains elusive without subsidies and access to federal grazing permits.
The Camblins, like many small ranchers, have mixed feelings about government assistance in the industry. While it helps them stay afloat, it also ties them to subsidies that larger operators take advantage of. The Camblins emphasize environmental stewardship in their operation, monitoring soil and plant health and rotating their cattle to prevent overgrazing.
Technology plays a crucial role in the Camblins’ operation, with virtual fencing technology helping them move their cattle efficiently. Using collars that shock the cattle if they stray, the Camblins can rotate their herds without the need for physical fences. However, the cost of leasing the collars adds to their operational expenses.
Silvia Secchi, an economist who studies agriculture, suggests reimagining federal grazing subsidies to benefit smaller ranchers and the public. She proposes subsidizing co-ops for smaller ranchers, capping the size of operations that pay below market rates for forage, and ending disaster payments for climate change-induced droughts.
While ending public support for ranchers could have repercussions for rural communities and landscapes, Secchi and the Camblins agree that changes are needed to ensure a sustainable future for small ranchers. Mike Camblin acknowledges the risks involved but emphasizes the importance of finding a balance between government support and financial sustainability for small ranchers.
In conclusion, the challenges faced by small ranchers like the Camblins highlight the need for reform in federal grazing subsidies. By reimagining the system to benefit smaller operators and promote sustainability, the industry can thrive while protecting the environment and rural communities. The sun shone brightly in the clear blue sky as I made my way through the bustling city streets, the sounds of cars honking and people chatting filling the air. As I walked, I couldn’t help but notice the vibrant energy of the city, the way it seemed to pulse with life and possibility.
I had always been drawn to the city, with its tall buildings and bustling streets, its endless array of shops and restaurants. There was something about the constant movement and noise that made me feel alive, like I was part of something bigger than myself.
As I walked, I passed by street vendors selling fresh fruit and flowers, their colorful displays catching my eye. The smell of roasted nuts wafted through the air, mixing with the scent of freshly brewed coffee from a nearby cafe. I felt like I was in a different world, one that was both familiar and new at the same time.
I continued on my way, the rhythm of the city guiding my steps. I passed by groups of friends laughing and chatting, families out for a stroll, and couples holding hands as they walked. The city seemed to be alive with possibilities, with endless opportunities for connection and discovery.
As I turned a corner, I came across a bustling market filled with stalls selling everything from handmade jewelry to vintage clothing. The colors and textures of the items on display drew me in, and I found myself browsing through the various offerings, admiring the craftsmanship and creativity of the vendors.
I ended up buying a unique piece of jewelry from a local artisan, a delicate silver necklace that caught the light and sparkled as I moved. As I walked away from the market, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of contentment and fulfillment, as if I had found a piece of myself in the bustling city streets.
I continued on my way, the sights and sounds of the city swirling around me. I felt a sense of freedom and possibility, as if anything was possible in this vibrant, bustling place. And as I made my way back home, I knew that I would always be drawn to the energy and excitement of the city, to the endless opportunities for connection and discovery that it offered. The world of technology is constantly evolving, with new innovations being introduced every day. One of the most exciting developments in recent years is the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). AI is revolutionizing industries across the board, from healthcare to finance to transportation.
One of the key areas where AI is making a significant impact is in the field of customer service. Traditionally, customer service has been a labor-intensive process, requiring companies to employ large teams of agents to field customer inquiries and resolve issues. However, with the advent of AI-powered chatbots, companies are now able to streamline their customer service operations and provide faster, more efficient support to their customers.
Chatbots are computer programs that are designed to simulate human conversation. They use natural language processing and machine learning algorithms to understand and respond to customer queries in real-time. This means that customers can get the help they need without having to wait for a human agent to assist them.
One of the key benefits of using AI-powered chatbots for customer service is their ability to provide 24/7 support. Unlike human agents, chatbots don’t need to take breaks or sleep, which means they can be available to assist customers at any time of day or night. This is especially important for companies that operate across different time zones or have customers in different parts of the world.
Another advantage of using chatbots for customer service is their scalability. Unlike human agents, chatbots can handle an unlimited number of customer inquiries simultaneously, making them ideal for companies with high volumes of customer interactions. This means that companies can provide faster and more efficient support to their customers, leading to higher levels of customer satisfaction.
Additionally, chatbots can help companies reduce their customer service costs. By automating routine inquiries and tasks, companies can free up their human agents to focus on more complex and high-value interactions. This not only improves the overall efficiency of the customer service team but also reduces the company’s operational costs.
However, while chatbots offer many benefits for customer service, they are not without their limitations. One of the main challenges with using chatbots is ensuring that they are able to accurately understand and respond to customer queries. This requires companies to invest in training and fine-tuning their chatbots to ensure they provide accurate and helpful responses to customers.
Overall, AI-powered chatbots are revolutionizing the way companies provide customer service. By leveraging the power of artificial intelligence, companies can provide faster, more efficient, and more scalable support to their customers, leading to higher levels of customer satisfaction and loyalty. As technology continues to advance, we can expect to see even more innovative uses of AI in customer service in the years to come.
