Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
The PASTURES Act prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior from penalizing livestock owners for grazing on certain Federal lands where no fence exists. It requires the relevant Secretary to pay for construction and maintenance of fences on those covered Federal lands. "Covered lands" are National Forest System lands, Fish and Wildlife Service lands, or public lands that bordered private property, had grazing permitted by permit or lease on or after enactment, and were later prohibited.
Left emphasizes environmental and taxpayer cost; right emphasizes rancher protections
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive change and defines relevant terms, but provides limited operational detail, no funding authorization, and minimal safeguards or accountability provisions.
The PASTURES Act prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior from penalizing livestock owners for grazing on certain Federal lands where no fence exists.
It requires the relevant Secretary to pay for construction and maintenance of fences on those covered Federal lands. "Covered lands" are National Forest System lands, Fish and Wildlife Service lands, or public lands that bordered private property, had grazing permitted by permit or lease on or after enactment, and were later prohibited.
The bill defines applicable grazing permits, livestock, and relevant terms by reference to existing statutes and regulations.
Narrow, administrable change helps supporters, but fiscal obligations and limits on agency enforcement reduce broader acceptability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive change and defines relevant terms, but provides limited operational detail, no funding authorization, and minimal safeguards or accountability provisions.
Left emphasizes environmental and taxpayer cost; right emphasizes rancher protections
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes environmental and taxpayer cost; right emphasizes rancher protections
Likely views the bill skeptically because it limits federal land management flexibility and shifts costs to taxpayers.
Concerns will center on environmental harms, habitat protection, and reduced agency ability to enforce closures meant for conservation or restoration.
Supporters' claims about rancher protections will be weighed against ecological and public-cost tradeoffs.
Views the bill as addressing a real problem for ranchers but raising tradeoffs about costs and federal management authority.
Will want cost estimates, clear scope, and guardrails to prevent environmental harm.
Support is possible if fiscal and ecological safeguards are added.
Likely favors the bill as a protection for ranchers and property-rights interests and a check on agency enforcement.
Sees federal payment for fences as reasonable if agencies restrict grazing after permitting it.
Emphasizes reducing regulatory burdens and protecting agricultural livelihoods.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administrable change helps supporters, but fiscal obligations and limits on agency enforcement reduce broader acceptability.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes environmental and taxpayer cost; right emphasizes rancher protections
Narrow, administrable change helps supporters, but fiscal obligations and limits on agency enforcement reduce broader acceptability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive change and defines relevant terms, but provides limited operational detail, no funding authorization, and minimal safeguards or ac…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.