Justices Uphold Federal Grazing Curbs

Ranchers are worried that a Supreme Court ruling Monday upholding new rules for grazing on federal lands could turn their livelihood into just another piece of the West’s colorful history.

The justices unanimously ruled against ranchers and farmers and found that federal law gives the secretary of Interior “broad discretionary powers” to set grazing rules.

“We’re shocked. We’re deeply disappointed,” said Julie Quick, of the National Cattleman’s Beef Assn. in Washington.

More than 20,000 livestock producers have permits to graze their cattle and sheep on 170 million acres of federal range land in 13 states, including large parts of Nevada, Utah, Oregon and Wyoming.

Since 1934, such grazing has been regulated by the Interior Department. Those with permits got preference for renewal when the permit expired, and permit holders could own the fences they built on public land.

In 1995, the Interior Department announced revised rules intended to improve management and protection of federally owned land.

The changes included amending the permit process to conform with land-use plans and giving the government title to new fences and other permanent improvements built by permit holders.

The rules were challenged in federal court by the Public Lands Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn. and other groups.

A federal judge in Wyoming threw out the provisions, but the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated them.

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed with the 10th Circuit Court. The ruling did not address the issue of whether permits can be purchased for land conservation and not grazing. That was ruled illegal by the appeals court, and the Interior Department did not seek a review of the decision.

The ruling could sharply reduce the value of grazing permits, and that means banks might not recognize permits as collateral for loans, Quick said.

“Grazing permits could potentially be worthless,” she said.

All of the ruling’s ramifications are not immediately clear because many of the new regulations were suspended while the lawsuit worked its way through the courts, Quick said.

Ranchers worry what changes await.

“Ranchers are a dying breed, and this may be another nail in the coffin. But we ranchers are survivors,” said fifth-generation rancher Richard V. Nielson, who serves as the volunteer president of the Utah Cattleman’s Assn. Nielson runs 86 head of cattle in central Utah.

Jim Ekker, a rancher near Vernon south of Salt Lake City, said he’s concerned about how the new regulations may be interpreted.

“I think it’s certainly tightening the noose around the rancher,” he said. “A lot of those [regulations] could be used to just gradually force us right out of business.”

But conservationists, traditionally at odds with ranchers, are thrilled with the ruling.

“I think it’s a great day for conservation efforts on public lands. It appears that the Supreme Court was not swayed by the myth of the West and is looking at the lands from a conservationist point of view,” said Mike Reberg, spokesman for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

“I was delighted by this decision,” said Jon Marvel, president of the Idaho Watersheds Project in Hailey, Idaho.

“It helps undermine the idea is that cowboys are infallible,” he said.