-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
In grasslands across the American West, four-legged fire prevention crews are busy at work, helping keep wildfire risk under control. These cattle, goats and sheep stomp down tall grasses as they munch their way through plants that could otherwise burn, lowering the risk of catastrophic fires.
When livestock are intentionally used for wildfire control like this, the practice is known as targeted grazing. And it’s gaining attention as severe wildfire seasons push firefighters and public land budgets to the brink.
Strategically removing trees, shrubs and grasses can help alter the trajectory of future wildfires, but it is complex and expensive work that often involves intentional burning, herbicides and heavy machinery to thin forests or create fuel breaks.
Livestock can do some of this work instead, simply by grazing in the right places.
Current leaders of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are pushing for more targeted grazing in national forests and on other public lands as part of the 2025 Grazing Action Plan and its accompanying directives.
As rangeland scientists who study how to effectively use livestock grazing to manage wildfire fuels and invasive plants, we see potential but also limitations to this strategy.
Targeted pyrograzing can help manage wildfire risk well in certain contexts.
Most wildfires burn in grass and shrublands that livestock can help maintain. Beef cattle, for example, consumed about 600 pounds of vegetation per acre across nearly 34 million acres in California alone in 2017. In places such as Santa Clara County, grazing is now a formal part of wildfire management plans.
The goal is not necessarily to prevent wildfire altogether but to reduce flammable vegetation enough to avoid fueling catastrophic wildfires.
Removing hazardous fuels through livestock grazing and trampling can help slow a fire’s spread so firefighters can stop the fire before it enters communities or reduce its intensity so ecosystems are able to rebound afterward.
In some cases, grazing can be more practical or cost-effective than other fire risk reduction methods.
For example, intentional burning is dangerous where there is so much vegetation that fires would burn too hot and fast to control. In other places, it isn’t feasible to spray herbicides across large areas or bring in heavy equipment to clear vegetation in remote locations.
But goats, sheep and cattle can eat their way across remote or steep terrain with little trouble.
We’ve spoken with savvy land managers who are also using livestock grazing to remove vegetation before carrying out intentional burns to make conditions safer for those fires. We’ve heard from others who are planning to use grazing before spraying herbicide to treat flammable invasive grasses to make it more effective.
A quarter of the U.S. Forest Service’s ranger districts in the Pacific Northwest, Intermountain and Pacific Southwest have used some kind of targeted grazing to manage fire risk. When we surveyed more than 1,000 U.S. Forest Service staff members, we found a majority think targeted grazing can be at least moderately effective to help with wildfire risk management, and more than two-thirds rated past projects as moderately to extremely effective.
Using targeted grazing at the scale needed to address widespread wildfire risk across federal lands would be difficult, and it won’t work everywhere.
To effectively reduce wildfire fuel with grazing, ranchers often need to bring livestock to certain areas at different times of year, haul water so livestock can work in areas without natural water sources or keep livestock in areas for longer than would be ideal for their weight gain.
Those factors cost ranchers money and can require shifts in their operation that aren’t practical. Or in certain contexts, animals simply may be unable to graze enough to achieve the desired reduction in wildfire risk.
Just 5% of Forest Service staff in the survey we conducted in 2025 reported that they were very likely or extremely likely to use targeted grazing in the next few years. Their answers were driven by how effective they believed targeted grazing could be, but also whether they felt they would have time to plan and manage it.
In particular, we found they were concerned about a lack of monitoring to ensure projects have the intended effect. Their ratings were also strongly connected to whether they felt that ranchers who already graze livestock on public lands could actually implement targeted grazing. And very few staff thought it would be feasible for the agency to pay ranchers to conduct targeted grazing as a vegetation treatment.
As the Grazing Action Plan pushes federal agencies to expand the use of targeted grazing, work is underway to evaluate where it could be effective. Some uncertainties remain, including around the question of paying ranchers and herders to perform targeted grazing as the practice scales up. Environmental groups have sued over the plan, arguing that it would put wildlife at risk and is simply an excuse to open more land for ranchers.
Although grazing is not appropriate everywhere, our research finds good examples of U.S. Forest Service staff incorporating livestock grazing into fire and fuels planning.
In Idaho, we are working with ranchers to test using sheep to reduce highly flammable and invasive grasses. In some years, the sheep have reduced the amount of flammable invasive grass by more than 20% and even boosted the cover of native wildflowers. Other times, the invasive grass matures so early that it is difficult to get the sheep to the target areas at the right time.
We have documented the value when ranchers, herders, agency staff and scientists work together toward shared environmental goals. The U.S. would benefit from financial and technical investment in both agency staff and ranchers to plan and perform targeted grazing so the practice can become a tried-and-true part of America’s strategy to live with wildfire.
Briana Swette is a social-ecological systems scientist at Boise State University, where Kelly Hopping is an associate professor of human-environment systems. This article was produced in collaboration with the Conversation.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that targeted grazing, or pyrograzing, can lower the risk of catastrophic wildfires in grasslands and shrublands by having cattle, goats and sheep consume and trample fine fuels, slowing fire spread and reducing fire intensity so firefighters have a better chance of protecting communities and allowing ecosystems to recover. Similar work in California and the Great Basin has found that well-planned grazing programs can reduce flame length, slow the rate of spread and, in some cases, keep fires from escalating into large rangeland blazes[22][27][29][28].
Building on this, the piece suggests livestock can be a practical, cost-effective addition to the fire management toolbox, especially in steep, rocky or remote terrain where mechanical thinning, herbicides or prescribed burning are difficult, risky or expensive. Other reports echo this, describing targeted grazing as particularly useful in large or inaccessible landscapes and at the wildland–urban interface, where it can maintain fuel levels after controlled burns and help keep flame lengths below thresholds that allow firefighters to work safely[22][23][25].
The article emphasizes that targeted grazing can be integrated with other treatments, such as using livestock to knock back vegetation before prescribed burns or herbicide applications, making those tools safer and more effective. Research and extension materials similarly describe grazing as a way to create or maintain fuel breaks and to complement active restoration and other fuel treatments, by reducing fine fuels and invasive grasses that would otherwise undermine burn or planting projects[18][23][24].
The column notes that many U.S. Forest Service staff already see targeted grazing as at least moderately effective for wildfire risk reduction, with a substantial share rating past projects as moderately to extremely effective, and that a quarter of ranger districts in several Western regions have used the practice. Broader scientific and management literature reflects this cautious optimism, finding that targeted grazing can measurably reduce undesired vegetation, increase plant species richness in many cases, and, at landscape scales, lower burn probability when applied strategically in priority areas[8][11][21][28].
The article also highlights potential ecological co-benefits when grazing is timed and managed well, citing examples where sheep reduced highly flammable invasive grasses by more than 20% and sometimes increased native wildflower cover. Parallel studies and syntheses report that targeted grazing can reduce invasive grasses, disrupt invasion–fire feedbacks and, in some settings, improve wildlife habitat and plant community structure by cutting back dense, senesced vegetation and promoting more diverse or fire-resilient plant assemblages[14][18][20].
At the same time, the piece stresses that targeted grazing is not a universal solution and has significant logistical limits: ranchers must move animals at specific times, haul water to dry areas and sometimes keep livestock longer than is ideal for production, all of which add costs and operational complexity. Other practitioners and researchers underscore these constraints, noting that targeted grazing requires precise timing, careful stocking rates, close monitoring and, often, changes to traditional grazing practices, which can be difficult to sustain without additional financial and technical support[16][17][19].
Reflecting these challenges, the article reports that only a small fraction of Forest Service staff said they were very likely to use targeted grazing in coming years, citing concerns about limited time to plan, insufficient monitoring and doubts about whether ranchers can implement prescriptions at scale. External assessments likewise point to gaps in long-term monitoring, uncertainty about lasting ecological outcomes, and questions about who pays for fee-for-service grazing as major hurdles to making targeted grazing a “tried-and-true” national strategy[8][11][15].
The piece concludes that targeted grazing is best viewed as a context-dependent tool that can work well when agency staff, ranchers, herders and scientists collaborate closely, and calls for greater financial and technical investment so agencies and producers can plan, monitor and adapt grazing projects over time. Academic reviews and agency guidance similarly advocate adaptive frameworks that balance fuel reduction with ecological safeguards, emphasizing the need for site-specific prescriptions, robust monitoring and flexible management to keep grazing within environmentally sustainable limits[10][15][26].
Different views on the topic
Environmental organizations have sued to block the Grazing Action Plan, arguing that it is less a fire-safety strategy than a vehicle to expand livestock production on public lands without adequate safeguards for wildlife. One lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity contends that the joint USDA–Interior plan, developed under a “Plan for American Ranchers and Consumers,” aims to reopen vacant grazing allotments and deregulate grazing across millions of acres, in violation of the Endangered Species Act’s consultation requirements with wildlife agencies[1][2][3][4].
These groups argue that expanding grazing under the plan threatens listed species and critical habitats, including aquatic species such as Oregon spotted frogs, Snake River Basin steelhead and bull trout, as well as birds like the Mexican spotted owl and Gunnison sage-grouse, by increasing trampling, streambank degradation and habitat fragmentation. The lawsuit also warns that more livestock on public lands could exacerbate lethal conflicts with predators such as grizzly bears and wolves, which are already killed in response to depredation, and asks the courts to vacate the plan and halt implementation until agencies fully comply with ESA consultation and consider less damaging alternatives[2][3][5].
Critics further maintain that the Grazing Action Plan and associated regulatory changes sidestep environmental review and public oversight by relying on broad programmatic decisions and, in some cases, categorical exclusions that reduce the need for detailed National Environmental Policy Act analysis and limit opportunities for public comment on specific grazing decisions. Legal analyses have highlighted proposed shifts by the Bureau of Land Management toward landscape-scale assessments and streamlined procedures that opponents see as weakening accountability while committing resources to expanded grazing before full environmental impacts are assessed[1][4][5].
Beyond the legal challenges, some ecologists and conservation writers argue that targeted grazing is being marketed as a “magical solution” to rangeland health and wildfire risk, while its practical limits and ecological downsides are downplayed. One prominent critique notes that controlling livestock so they eat only the target area is logistically difficult and costly, that available forage in targeted sites is often too limited to justify transport and labor, and that targeted grazing tends to operate effectively only on small areas, with little influence on landscape-scale fire under extreme weather when embers can easily jump fuel breaks[13].
Opponents also emphasize “collateral ecological damage,” arguing that confining livestock for targeted grazing can crush biological soil crusts that are crucial for desert and sagebrush ecosystems, facilitate the spread of invasive species like cheatgrass and fragment large intact sagebrush landscapes. A critique of proposed fuel-break networks warns that targeted grazing and mechanical treatments could increase the dominance of exotic plants, degrade or destroy native communities and soil crusts, and ultimately undermine the same ecosystems the fuel breaks are supposed to protect[10][13][12].
Environmental assessments and guidance documents raise additional concerns about where and how targeted grazing should occur, warning that hoof action on steep or loose soils can cause erosion and soil loss, that grazing during sensitive periods can harm rare plants and wildlife, and that poorly planned projects may inadvertently damage riparian zones or water quality. These documents recommend limiting targeted grazing to already degraded areas with substantial invasive grass cover, keeping animals away from streams and wetlands, and closely managing duration and timing—conditions that critics say are frequently not met on the ground[7][9][10].
Some scientists point to a long history of habitat degradation from conventional grazing in arid North American rangelands—through soil compaction, reduced vegetation and biodiversity loss—as a cautionary backdrop for any expansion of targeted grazing. While recognizing that targeted grazing is more controlled, reviews stress that the long-term ecological effects remain uncertain, especially regarding the balance between native and non-native species, the persistence of benefits after grazing stops and potential tradeoffs with restoration goals, including impacts on seeded native plants and sensitive wildlife[8][10][18].
A number of conservation advocates argue that, even where targeted grazing reduces fuels, it may not justify the broader expansion of livestock on public lands when other tools—such as prescribed fire, mechanical thinning or strategic non-grazing fuel breaks—can be used with fewer risks to wildlife and cultural resources. Past lawsuits over grazing in protected areas, such as Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, have underscored concerns that agencies have sometimes failed to conduct required environmental and cultural impact analyses and have allowed grazing to continue despite acknowledged damage to vegetation, riparian areas and archeological sites, reinforcing skepticism about new grazing initiatives framed as fuel treatments[5][6][13].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Greenline Housing Foundation has become something of a “first aid kit” for Eaton fire survivors, offering financial services that range from temporary housing grants to land banking that have helped some families fund their paths back home.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
