In the wake of the 2014 armed standoff in Nevada incited by public lands rancher Cliven Bundy, some ranchers have made excuses for him by claiming that the conflict was caused by the way the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service are managing our public lands.
These federal land management agencies are forcing ranchers off public lands, they claim, because the multiple use doctrine has been distorted by the courts in response to frivolous lawsuits filed by environmentalists. But in order for that complaint to be true, the concept of multiple use would have to mean that all uses should be allowed on all public lands – and that’s not the law.
The multiple use doctrine these agencies are supposed to follow when managing our public lands was established by the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. This law only applied to Forest Service lands, but the doctrine was subsequently applied to BLM lands with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Multiple is legally defined as the:
“harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.”
In other words, all activities shouldn’t be permitted on all public lands and the objective of public lands management isn’t necessarily the maximization of commodity production – it’s to establish the appropriate mix of uses in the best interests of the general public. That’s just common sense.
Whatever successes regarding public lands management that environmentalists have enjoyed in the federal courts have occurred because the agencies weren’t following the law. In the bad old days, there was scarcely a piece of public land in the West that didn’t suffer from having a cow on it. Lawsuits by environmental groups have forced federal land management agencies to reduce or terminate livestock grazing in places where it was an inappropriate use – such as hot deserts, endangered species habitat, fragile alpine meadows, and streamside riparian areas.
In fact, it’s ironic that so many of the stories about Mr. Bundy have shown his cattle standing in the middle of the Virgin River. It’s a good example of his poor land stewardship, and why the federal government needs to continue to regulate public lands ranchers.
Updates
In November 2024 new Arizona Farm Bureau president John Boelts talked about his goals for the organization. In regards to public lands ranching he reportedly said:
“You have a lot of special interests who aren’t very interested in folks producing food and fiber in this country, and they’d rather see forest land and state land turn back to wildlands and not have them be working lands, and the pendulum swung the other direction in the last 40 to 50 years. It’s definitely time for us to swing it back in the other direction.”