The question of whether ranchers could win against Biden’s land-use mandates centers on a complex and ongoing conflict between federal land management policies and the interests of ranching communities, especially in the Western United States. The Biden administration introduced the “Public Lands Rule,” which aimed to elevate conservation as an official use of public lands alongside traditional uses like grazing, mining, and energy development. This rule was part of a broader initiative to protect and restore public lands and waters over a 10-year period.
However, this rule faced strong opposition from ranchers and agricultural groups such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the Public Lands Council (PLC). These groups argued that the rule violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s (FLPMA) multiple-use mandate, which requires public lands to be managed for a variety of uses without prioritizing one over others. They contended that the Biden-era rule effectively treated conservation as a “no use” category, potentially sidelining grazing and other working land uses, threatening family ranching operations, and undermining the economic and cultural fabric of rural communities.
The opposition was not just rhetorical; it led to a lawsuit filed in 2024 challenging the rule’s legality. Ranchers and their advocates claimed the rule was developed without adequate input from those who have historically managed these lands and that it could lead to the removal of cattle grazing and other traditional uses from millions of acres of public lands. They also argued that the rule could disrupt ecosystem management practices that ranchers have contributed to, such as wildfire prevention through grazing.
In response to this backlash, the Trump administration, which succeeded Biden’s, moved to withdraw the Public Lands Rule. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced a public comment period on the withdrawal proposal, signaling a shift back toward prioritizing multiple uses of public lands, including grazing, energy development, and mining, without placing conservation on equal footing as the Biden rule had done. This move was celebrated by ranching groups and Western lawmakers who viewed it as restoring “common sense” and protecting the livelihoods of ranchers and rural communities.
The debate highlights a fundamental tension in public land management: balancing conservation goals with economic uses like ranching. Ranchers have a strong case grounded in legal mandates and longstanding land use traditions, and their organized opposition has already led to significant policy reversals. Whether they can ultimately “win” depends on ongoing political dynamics, legal rulings, and how future administrations choose to manage public lands.
