The PASTURES Act limits the ability of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior to penalize livestock owners for grazing on federal lands where grazing was previously permitted but is now prohibited, unless a fence is present to prevent grazing. The Act also stipulates that the respective Secretary is responsible for all fencing expenses.
Harriet Hageman
Representative
WY
The PASTURES Act limits the ability of the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to penalize livestock owners for grazing on specific federal lands where grazing was previously allowed but is now prohibited, unless a fence is present to prevent such grazing. The relevant Secretary will be responsible for all costs associated with building and maintaining the fence. This applies to National Forest System lands, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands, and public lands bordering private property.
PASTURES Act: Feds Foot the Bill for Fencing Out Livestock on Some Public Lands, Limits Penalties for Ranchers
The "Protecting Agricultural Spaces Through Effective Ranching Strategies Act," or PASTURES Act, shifts the responsibility—and cost—of keeping livestock off certain federal lands from ranchers to the government. It also limits penalties for ranchers whose livestock stray onto these lands. Here's the breakdown:
Fencing In the Issue
The core of the PASTURES Act is about who pays for fencing and who gets penalized when livestock graze where they shouldn't. The bill specifically targets federal lands where grazing was allowed but is now prohibited. These "covered lands", as defined in SEC. 2, include National Forest System lands, lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and public lands bordering private property. If grazing was once permitted on these lands and is now banned, the government—not the rancher—is on the hook for building and maintaining fences to keep livestock out.
Who Pays, Who Strays?
Under this bill, if a rancher's cattle, bison, horses, sheep, or goats (all defined as "livestock" in SEC. 2) wander onto these "covered lands" and there's no fence, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior cannot penalize the rancher (SEC. 2). The financial burden of preventing livestock from entering these areas falls squarely on the federal government. This could mean a significant expense, depending on the acreage involved. It benefits ranchers, who no longer face fines, and potentially fencing companies, if the government contracts out the work.
Real-World Implications
Imagine a rancher who previously had a grazing permit for a piece of National Forest land. Now, grazing is prohibited, but there's no fence. Under the PASTURES Act, that rancher isn't liable if their cattle stray onto that land. The government has to build and maintain the fence. If they don't and the cattle wander, the rancher can't be fined. This could be a big deal for ranchers operating near these newly-restricted areas, reducing their costs and potential legal headaches. However, there are potential challenges. What constitutes an "adequate" fence? Who decides, and who ensures it's maintained? These details, while not explicitly stated in the bill, could be points of contention.
The Bigger Picture
While the PASTURES Act aims to clarify responsibilities and reduce burdens on ranchers, it also raises questions about land management and environmental protection. If fences aren't built or maintained effectively, it could lead to increased grazing on lands that are now supposed to be protected. The bill directly impacts how grazing is managed on federal lands, potentially shifting the balance between agricultural use and conservation efforts. It places the onus on federal agencies to prevent unwanted grazing, a task that could be both costly and logistically complex.