This is a HUGE question with about as many answers as there are specific habitats spread out around the country, and, obviously, in Canada, and other places. The original post here had to do with National Forests in the West, so I will confine myself to that question ( to include public lands managed by the BLM ).

Kind of reminds me of some Sierra Club meetings I went to where the subject of getting all cattle off all public lands as soon as possible came up and most S.C. people were vehemently opposed to any opposition to their point of view. Coming from a cattle ranching family ( way back when ) and being aware of cattle on public lands from an early age and a Western Heritage and lifestyle revolving around cattle on public lands, I guess it was natural for me to look for compromises.

I don't think it is appropriate for us, as fly fishermen or other outdoor recreationists, to try to disenfranchise people from their family history and traditions, UP TO A CERTAIN POINT.

The point that I made at the Sierra Club meetings, and a point that was at least listened to with some serious attention, even by the most vehement folks ( and it is not just my point but one that has been around for some time ) is that we have to respect those whose past is grounded in those traditions and whose future depends on the continuation of that lifestyle. That is, the "old timers" and those soon to join that group.

But there could be a cutoff point - those who are young enough to move to some other way of earning a living and adapting to a new lifestyle could be told that what their family had and has, i.e. permits to graze cattle on the public lands of the west, would not be available to them when the old timers in their families passed. It would be their choice, UP TO A CERTAIN POINT, to stay in that tradition and lifestyle, but they would do so with an expectation that it could end any day, with the passing of a generation, by the revocation of grazing permits.

Also, those who simply use the public lands to graze cattle as an investment or tax shelter could be given a reasonable amount of time to "rearrange" their investment portfolio before their grazing permits were revoked in perpetuity. If they wanted to and could afford to "cowboy" on their privately owned or leased lands, fine. As long as they took reasonable measures to protect the publicly owned waters from despoilation by their herds.

I haven't followed this subject closely for a number of years, and admittedly am not aware of any current initiatives one way or the other. Also, recognizing that this is one of those subjects that can get political in a big hurry, without anyone even trying to make it political ( and noting that Ladyfisher already tacitly approved the thread by joining the conversation ), the subject of privatization of the public lands and / or states claiming rights to them is a very difficult and complex one - although the law is well established and is almost certainly constutional. Initiatives in those areas could have a dramatic impact on the question that is the subject of this thread - lots less public land and lots more cattle.

John

P.S. The subject of grazing permits is another very controversial one among real stakeholders in that discussion. Permits do generate funds that benefit us as tax payers. Whether the cost of the permits is reasonable is one that has been debated for years.

Personally, considering how little beef is actually raised on the public lands and / or how little need there really is for that beef, I would prefer all grazing permits to be revoked as soon as possible, with due consideraton to the old timers and their dependents, not their descendants.