top of page



  • Request for Sage-grouse Habitat Restoration Projects The Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation (OSC) and Sage-Grouse Actions Team (Actions Team) are accepting proposals for sage-grouse habitat restoration projects. There will be $600,000 available for funding projects contingent on approval by the legislature for state Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) to implement actions outlined in the Governor’s Sage-grouse Management Plan (2021 Idaho Plan) . The Actions Team works with partners to secure and leverage additional funding to support sage-grouse conservation in Idaho. Read more HERE
  • On January 17th, the Securities and Exchange Commission withdrew the proposed rule to approve the creation of "Natural Asset Companies" on Wall Street. This is a MAJOR VICTORY!!  You can read SEC withdrawal notice here.
  • GOP AGs denounce trading ‘natural asset companies’ on stock exchange. The proposal currently before the SEC would allow the stock exchange to list companies with missions to improve ecosystems through management, maintenance or restoration of public or privately owned lands. The companies would then evaluate the health of the lands and put a dollar value on the resulting benefits, like clean air or wildlife habitat. View the press release here, from E&E. The SEC quietly introduced the rule in September 2023, with an unusually short 21-day public comment period. However, on Dec. 28, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission published a notice in the Federal Register reopening comments on the NAC proposed rule. The new comment deadline is January 18. Comments can be submitted at to the SEC website at
  • Decarbonizing the West Initiative
  • THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AT 50 A Record of Falsified Recoveries Underscores a Lack of Scientific Integrity in the Federal Program
  • Stock exchange touts new type of company to control land
  • BLM proposes change on closures and restrictions. The Bureau of Land Management is taking public input on proposed updates to regulations for announcing temporary closures or restrictions on public land uses. View the full news release here, from Bureau of Land Management
  • When it comes to Ground Beef and newer meat substitutes, it’s good to know the facts. Based on the Nutrition Facts
    panel comparisons, did you know that 93% lean ground beef is lower in calories, fat, sat fat and sodium and higher
    in high-quality protein than meat substitutes? Beef is an authentic source of high quality protein and 10 essential
    nutrients, including Protein, Iron, Zinc, and B-Vitamins that are essential to good health. Learn more HERE
  • OFF Act Two very different perspectives:


R-CALF Perspective


OFF Act Sets New Standards for Government

In his May 12, 2023, opinion, “Fight the Animal Rights Groups Infiltrating Our Industry,” NCBA President Todd Wilkinson stated he was fed up. Wilkinson weaved a tale of deception, unholy alliances, infiltration, and hijacking. And then he asserted the current beef checkoff program promotes “our wholesome American beef.” He might need to calm down a little. Everyone knows the current beef checkoff program can’t (or won’t) promote American beef in our domestic market. His organization’s stance was revealed in the lawsuit the NCBA filed against mandatory country of origin labeling. In that lawsuit, the NCBA stated, “In short, beef is beef, whether the cattle were born in Montana, Manitoba, or Mazatlán.”

Perhaps we all need to calm down and examine what exactly the OFF Act (Opportunities for Fairness in Farming Act), S.557 and H.R.1249, will do and what it won’t do:

  • It will prohibit checkoff programs from contracting with any organization that lobbies on ag policy.

  • It will prohibit employees and agents of checkoff boards from engaging in activities that may involve a conflict of interest.

  • It will establish uniform standards for checkoff programs that prohibit anticompetitive activity, unfair or deceptive acts, or any act or practice that may be disparaging to another ag commodity or product.

  • It will require transparency through the publication of checkoff program budgets and expenditures.

  • It will require periodic audits of compliance with the act by the USDA Inspector General.

However, the OFF Act won’t end any checkoff program. Though it will put an end to the practices of using checkoff tax monies to pay for lobbying, promoting the self-interests of employees, and running down other products. It will also put an end to the lack of transparency in checkoff program budgets and expenditures. This will ensure that the tax dollars collected from producers are used only for the intended purposes of the program. It is difficult to understand why, after approximately one billion dollars has been collected from producers since the program’s inception, anyone would think that the compliance audits required under the OFF Act are too much to ask.

In fact, why would this be too much to ask of any government program? It could be said that the OFF Act is simply Congress reasserting its constitutional authority over the conduct of its agencies and the programs they administer and oversee. Americans would do well to demand that Congress require this “of, by, and for the people”-type conduct of every agency within our government.

But Wilkinson used the oldest trick in the book, which is: if you can’t win the argument, change the conversation. He alleges that some supporters of the OFF Act want to end beef’s place on the menu, but the OFF Act doesn’t end anything except corruption and conflicts of interest. The enactment of the OFF Act will stop the siphoning of promotion, education, and research money away from those who use it as a lobbying slush fund. Thus, the OFF Act will result in more effective and efficient promotion of beef’s healthy place in the human diet and its critical role in preserving our environment. Of course, the OFF Act would end NCBA’s death grip on the lion’s share of beef checkoff funds – funds that cross-subsidize its beef industry lobbying organization.

It is time for members of Congress to listen to those they truly represent, the people whose passion and time is centered on their fields and pastures, not the avenues inside the Beltway. Although the voices of the status quo may be the loudest and most convenient for Congress to hear as they’re right down the street, the condition of our nation and our food security continues to deteriorate. Evidence of this decay is the fact that a bill like the OFF Act which sets new standards for government that will restore transparency to and the ethical and auditable use of checkoff tax dollars and require that use to be free of conflicts of interest and lobbying abuse is so controversial. What are the opponents of the OFF Act trying to hide? Why are the loudest opponents of the OFF Act the ones who benefit financially from the current checkoff system?

Fate is in our hands, please stand up and call your elected Senators and Representatives and request inclusion of the OFF Act within the 2023 Farm Bill.

NCBA Perspective


Tell the U.S. Senate to Vote NO on the OFF Act


Senator Mike Lee has introduced the OFF Act as an amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill, legislation that funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other key agencies. The OFF Act is a direct attack on checkoff programs including the Beef Checkoff. 

Tell your U.S. Senator you OPPOSE the amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill which includes the OFF Act.


This bill (Agriculture Appropriations) funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is considered “must-pass” legislation, meaning that there is higher pressure on members of Congress to pass the appropriations package, fund the government, and avoid a shutdown.

If the OFF Act were to pass, cattle producers would lose their voice over the Beef Checkoff leaving increasingly consolidated retailers to fill the void. These retailers will be beholden to ESG investors, activist groups, and others who are unfriendly to our way of life.


NCBA has prepared a grassroots letter - please take a moment to sign as soon as possible. This action is expected to see a vote early next week. 


Send a letter to U.S. Senators to protect the Beef Checkoff




​Conservation and Landscape Health


Letter from Attorney General Labrador opposing new BLM rule

Raúl R. Labrador

For Immediate Release
July 18, 2023
Media Contact: Emily Kleinworth

AG Labrador Leads Eight States Authoring Letter Opposing New BLM Rule


Boise, ID – On June 20th, Attorney General Labrador led eight states and authored a letter to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) opposing its proposed "Conservation and Landscape Health" rule.

The new rule proposed by the Bureau of Land Management allegedly enhances provisions for the agency to "protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat, and make wise management decisions based on science and data." The new rule would allow the agency to lease land for "conservation use." 

The proposed rule attempts to create agency authority where none exists. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Congress did not grant executive branch agencies the power to define new uses under the statute. 

The letter sent to the Bureau of Land Management makes clear that the BLM not only lacks the authority under the Federal Land Policy Management Act, but that the proposed rule violates existing case law and would cause detrimental harm to the State of Idaho. 

"The proposed rule is an effort by the Biden administration to privatize conservation further. Public land leases drafted under the guise of 'conservation' would gobble up large swaths of land, transforming them into private playgrounds for the ultra-rich. Two-thirds of Idaho's land is Federal; allowing the Federal government to privatize this land would greatly impact our state," Attorney General Labrador said.

The State of Idaho, along with Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, South Carolina, and South Dakota, demand an immediate withdrawal of this rule. 

The State of Alaska sent a separate letter opposing this rule. Idaho is also a party to this letter.  

The Idaho letter can be found here. 

The Alaska letter can be found here


The BLM Conservation and Landscape Health rule poses a significant threat to the multiple use of public land and has the potential to greatly disrupt grazing on BLM lands. We need your help in providing comments to the BLM and asking them to withdraw the proposed rule.


The rule can be viewed here.

Let the BLM hear from you by submitting a comment to OPPOSE the Rule.

Comments are due by ***July 5th. 


Submit comments by going here  and either typing in your comment, or uploading a file. You can find a sample comment letter by going here and selecting "talking points."

View the ICA's Comments Here.

4 key points that you can include in your comments are:

·     The rule violates Congressional direction for multiple use under FLPMA by adding conservation as a new “use” without express Congressional authorization.   

·     The proposed rule does not put this new “use” “on par with other uses”, but gives conservation leases the power to eliminate multiple use on federal lands.   

·     BLM’s inappropriately narrow definition for “conservation” creates conflicts with other agencies, and other BLM interpretations, cementing the message that BLM does not believe that conservation and multiple use are compatible.  

·     BLM inaccurately asserts FLPMA directs the agency to “promote” the use of restrictive ACEC designations, despite purported commitments to rangeland objectives. 

What more can I do? 

BLM has repeatedly limited opportunities to engage with the public on the proposed rule: from no discussion or notice before the rule was published, to their avoidance of NEPA analysis, and now with the public "information" sessions rather than public meetings.

While our preference would be for the BLM to withdraw the role and conduct a transparent process, at the minimum the BLM must extend the comment period and hold engagement sessions that allow for public engagement and comment on the proposal.


Call your members of Congress.

·     Tell them to request the BLM to extend the comment period and hold a meeting in their state. Permittees in WA, OR, CA, ID, MT, ND, SD, WY, UT, and AZ shouldn't be left out of the process.


Tell your Senators to support S.1435.

The bill would require the BLM to withdraw this proposed rule due to any number of fatal flaws.

·     Thank you to Senators Barrasso (WY), Cramer (ND), Crapo (ID), Hoeven (ND), Lee (UT), Lummis (WY), Risch (ID), Romney (UT), Sullivan (AK), Fischer (NE), Murkowski (AK), and Mullin (OK) for cosponsoring the bill!


Tell your Representatives to support H.R.3397.

This is the House companion to the Senate bill and requires the withdrawal of the proposed rule.

·     Thank you to Reps. Curtis (UT), Fulcher (ID), Stewart (UT), Hageman (WY), Stauber (MN), Gosar (AZ), Newhouse (WA), Lamborn (CO), Moore (UT), Owens (UT), Bentz (OR), Amodei (NV), Rosendale (MT), and Zinke (MT) for cosponsoring the bill!


Call your governor.

Meetings held in urban centers like Denver, Reno, and Albuquerque prevent the kind of meaningful attendance and participation the BLM should be seeking as part of this rule. Governors in the following states should demand meetings - and discussion - in their states:

·     Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, California, Utah, Wyoming, and Arizona.


Call your county Board of Supervisors or County Commissioners.They should know how this rule will affect the economic drivers in their communities. 

Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden WOUTS Regulation
Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA Decision is Welcome Relief to Ag
Supreme Court ruling restores property rights, closes spigot on Clean Water Act abuses
  • Read Full decision HERE


Screenshot 2023-04-11 160705.jpg



It's worth noting that these house bills concerning property tax relief may not actually see the light of day, but we may see a new version that has a little of all of them in it from what we have heard. 


bottom of page