Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to develop, within 18 months, a strategy to use livestock grazing as a wildfire risk reduction tool on National Forest System lands and public lands. The strategy must consider targeted grazing in the wildland-urban interface, use of vacant allotments during disasters, temporary permits for fuels and invasive grass control (including cheatgrass), postfire recovery grazing, use of technologies like virtual fencing, workforce development, and consultation with states, tribes, local governments, utilities, firefighting agencies, and stakeholders.
Environmental protection versus using grazing as a fuel-reduction tool
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill directs federal land management Secretaries to develop a wildfire‑risk reduction strategy using livestock grazing and identifies a broad set of considerations and stakeholders, but it stops short of providing funding, implementation rules, or accountability measures.
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to develop, within 18 months, a strategy to use livestock grazing as a wildfire risk reduction tool on National Forest System lands and public lands.
The strategy must consider targeted grazing in the wildland-urban interface, use of vacant allotments during disasters, temporary permits for fuels and invasive grass control (including cheatgrass), postfire recovery grazing, use of technologies like virtual fencing, workforce development, and consultation with states, tribes, local governments, utilities, firefighting agencies, and stakeholders.
The Act does not change existing grazing programs.
Narrow administrative focus and limited fiscal impact increase chances, but public-lands grazing controversy and stakeholder pushback reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill directs federal land management Secretaries to develop a wildfire‑risk reduction strategy using livestock grazing and identifies a broad set of considerations and stakeholders, but it stops short of providing funding, implementation rules, or accountability measures.
Environmental protection versus using grazing as a fuel-reduction tool
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Environmental protection versus using grazing as a fuel-reduction tool
Likely cautiously supportive of wildfire-risk reduction goals but wary about expanding grazing on public lands without strict safeguards.
Will focus on protecting habitat, water, and species, and insist on science-based monitoring, tribal consultation, and environmental review.
Views the bill as a pragmatic, evidence-driven attempt to add a tool for wildfire risk reduction using existing resources.
Supports pilots and measurable outcomes while seeking clarity on funding, coordination, and environmental safeguards.
Likely supportive because it leverages ranching, local permittees, and market actors to reduce wildfire risk and invasive grasses.
Will favor preserving grazing rights and minimizing new federal red tape.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow administrative focus and limited fiscal impact increase chances, but public-lands grazing controversy and stakeholder pushback reduce likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Environmental protection versus using grazing as a fuel-reduction tool
Narrow administrative focus and limited fiscal impact increase chances, but public-lands grazing controversy and stakeholder pushback reduc…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill directs federal land management Secretaries to develop a wildfire‑risk reduction strategy using livestock grazing and identifies a broad set of considerations and sta…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.