Irresponsible Grazing Policies

House Roll Call Vote 549

1997 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

242

Votes Against

182

Not Voting

9

Privately owned domestic livestock graze on approximately 250 million acres of public land. Excessive grazing by domestic cattle and sheep damages fish and wildlife habitat on our federal lands and is contributing to declines in wildlife populations, including desert tortoise, Sonoran pronghorn antelope, and numerous bird species. In addition, overgrazing destroys native vegetation, and the livestock pollute streams, cause erosion, and interfere with recreation activities.

Grazing regulation is currently administered by land managing agencies (primarily the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service) under broad statutory authority. Fees are limited by law and are adjusted by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. When President Clinton and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt attempted to reform grazing practices and fees in 1993, their efforts provoked a bitter fight with Congress, where they were blocked. Secretary Babbitt then attempted more modest reforms over the next two years. The legislation before the 105th Congress, H.R. 2493, prevents Secretary Babbitt, or future administrations, from achieving needed reforms by locking in current practices and fees by statute.

H.R. 2493, the so-called “Forage Improvement Act,” sponsored by Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Smith (R-OR), includes several changes to benefit ranching interests, but fails to improve rangeland management to protect federal fish, wildlife, and water resources. The bill revises the formula for calculating grazing fees each year, but fails to raise them to a level even close to market value — or even to a level to cover grazing administration costs. Under the formula in H.R. 2493, fees would be raised from the current $1.35 per adult cow per month to approximately $1.55 — far below the government’s administrative costs of $5.81 for permitting, monitoring, inspection, and enforcement. In addition, the bill would make it more difficult for federal agencies to monitor the condition of rangelands and to alter grazing practices where necessary to limit damage to the !and, and would lock in grazing at existing levels, even if it causes environmental damage.

On October 30, 1997, the House passed H.R. 2493, 242 – 182. NO is the pro-environment vote.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

78%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

51%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

28%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

34%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

22%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

23%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

19%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

38%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

76%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

85%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

44%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

50%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

69%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

73%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

72%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

82%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

47%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

14%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

10%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

31%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

58%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

75%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%