As the western United States was homesteaded, livestock grazing could be a bloody business. The cattle and sheep wars were real, and as stockmen moved through the landscape with their herds, management was lacking, and justice tended to be swift. In 1934, the Taylor Grazing Act led to the creation of grazing districts.

The act was named for U.S. Rep. Edward Taylor, a Democrat from Colorado who practiced law and served in various districts from 1909 until his death in 1941. Taylor resided in Glenwood Springs and served from 1887 to 1889 as the referee of the district court adjudicating water rights along the Roaring Fork, Grand and White Rivers. He was dubbed the “father of water rights on the Western Slope.”

By the end of the 19th century, conservation policies were in place with regard to forests, but the grazing lands were wild. The Taylor Grazing Act brought about significant change when 173 million acres of public lands were organized into districts. Many western stockmen adamantly opposed the bill, fearing the loss of beneficial use that would ultimately lead to financial ruin. Conservationists, of course, supported the act.

According to “Cattlemen, Conservationists and the Taylor Grazing Act” by Joe Stout, Jr., it appears things haven’t changed all that much. Stout wrote to “the average American, the western stockmen were colorful and unique creatures, concerned mainly with cattle breeding, rodeos and ranches, bound by their environment, with little interest or knowledge beyond that. In truth, western stockmen have long been concerned with any facet of politics that directly affects them.”

Stout said, “scant vegetation, little rainfall and predatory animals all served to limit the cattleman’s profits” and the fight launched against the bill was fierce. Many groups that represented stockmen in various western states wanted the lands returned to the states.

According to Stout’s work, “the state of Arizona went on record against the Taylor bill, with Senator Harry Ashurst saying, ‘it ought at least, to be the policy of Congress not to destroy a State. You gave birth to Arizona some years ago. Now you propose to break her limbs, crack her skull, and starve her to death.’ “

The fear for Ashurst was the bill would work against the small stockmen, ultimately causing small herds to be swallowed up by larger graziers. The rallying cry was “Western society must protect the small stockmen at all costs.”

Originally, the lands were overseen by the Grazing Service of the Department of the Interior and local stockmen though, in 1946, the administration of public lands was moved to the Bureau of Land Management.

Stockmen wanting to graze public lands could secure a permit to do so for 10 years, which is renewable to provide consistency for the permittee. It also created consistency for the grazing lands without overstocking and range conditions improved, as did the conditions of watersheds. By the 1960s and 1970s, the ink had dried on the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. This brought a new focus on, according to the BLM, riparian areas, threatened and endangered species, sensitive plant species and cultural or historical objects.

That era saw an increase in tensions between livestock producers and federal land managers, and the 1970s saw the “Sagebrush Rebellion” following a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council against the secretary of the Interior. The council maintained that the public lands were overgrazed and the effect should be evaluated by environmental impact studies. Incarnations of the Sagebrush Rebellion cropped up again in the 1990s and again during the Obama administration. The overarching fight, though, was always for local control.

Then-Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm called the original Sagebrush Rebellion “a revolt against federal authority, and that its taproot grows deep in the century’s history. Beyond this, it is incoherent. Part hypocrisy, part demagoguery, partly the honest anger of honest people, it is a movement of confusion and hysteria and terrifyingly destructive potential. What it is no one fully understands. What it will do no one can tell.”

In 1980, Ronald Reagan, a presidential candidate at the time, famously supported the Sagebrush Rebels’ cause, saying, “count me in as a rebel.” When Reagan took office and appointed property-rights advocate James Watt as the secretary of the Interior, regulations eased, as did the rebellion.

The most recent incarnation resulted in the death of rancher LaVoy Finicum in what boiled down to a long fight between the Bundy Ranch and the BLM over grazing permits and fees.

Last week, the BLM issued a final decision on a bison grazing proposal involving seven allotments in Phillips County, Montana, acquired by an anti-cattle, environmental group called American Prairie. The decision allows for non-livestock bison grazing on six of the seven allotments. The Telegraph Creek, Box Elder, Flat Creek, White Rock, French Coulee, Garey Coulee and East Dry Fork allotments — a total of approximately 63,500 acres of BLM-administered lands — currently provide 7,969 animal unit-months of permitted use.

The decision has been hotly contested by ranchers and was immediately criticized by Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, who appears to appreciate the hands that feed him. In previous comments, Gianforte pointed out the allotments were formed in accordance with the Taylor Grazing Act and are “specifically established grazing districts and their use by livestock with an eye toward preventing resource deterioration, providing for the orderly use, improvement, and development of public grazing lands, and stabilizing the livestock industry dependent on the range. To this end, the secretary of the Department of the Interior was authorized to issue permits to graze livestock.”

Comments opposing the decision were provided not only by Gianforte, but also by leaders from the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Department of Agriculture and Department of Livestock. It appears to be the most recent in a long line of tone-deaf grazing decisions that leave stakeholders and the communities — as well as the consumers who depend upon them — in the cold.

The bottom line is the decision will ultimately hurt the livestock industry and the local economy that depends upon it. American Prairie’s goal is to create the largest nature reserve in the contiguous U.S. by purchasing ranches and taking them out of production. Just as is the case with the federal purchase of a large ranch in Wyoming, the local community and school district and small businesses will bear the cost of the decision.

Just as in the 1930s, it remains important to protect the country’s livestock industry against regulations and bad decisions, be it from the federal government or special-interest groups with more money than sense.

Rachel Gabel writes about agriculture and rural issues. She is assistant editor of The Fence Post Magazine, the region’s preeminent agriculture publication. Gabel is a daughter of the state’s oil and gas industry and a member of one of the state’s 12,000 cattle-raising families, and she has authored children’s books used in hundreds of classrooms to teach students about agriculture.