By John Berlau
At the same time there has been so much talk of government nationalization of troubled big banks, a bill quickly snaking through Congress would allow the feds to expropriate cars, bicycles and other “vehicles and equipment” of everyone from amateur collectors of rocks to kids going on scavenger hunts.
In the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which passed the Senate (S. 22) in January and is up for a vote in the House as early as this Wednesday, a “forfeiture” provision would let the government confiscate “all vehicles and equipment of any person” who disturbs a rock or a bone from federal land that meets the bill’s broad definition of “paleontological resource.” The seizures could take place even before a person and even if the person didn’t know they were taking or digging up a “paleontological resource.” And the bill specifically allows the “transfer of seized resources” to “federal or non-federal” institutions, giving the government and some private actors great incentive to egg on the takings.
Groups representing those from scientists to rock collectors to other fossil enthusiasts have warned of ominous consequences that could criminalize the exploration and learning about natural history ironically in the name of protecting nature. According to Tracie Bennitt, president of the Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences, the bill’s language is so vague and the penalties such as forfeiture so severe that it could allow the government to “put scientists in jail and confiscate university vans.” In a letter on the bill to members of Congress, Bennitt warns, “We can visualize now a group of students unknowingly crossing over an invisible line and ending up handcuffed and prosecuted.”
The area of concern is Subtitle D of the bill called the “Paleontological Resources Preservation Act.” The provisions in this subtitle make it illegal to “excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface or attempt to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface any paleontological resources located on Federal land” without special permission from the government.
A “paleontological resource” is broadly defined in the bill as “any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms, preserved in or on the earth’s crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life on earth.” Penalities for violations include up to five years in jail, and, as previously stated, all vehicles and equipment “used in connection with the violation” are subject even before trial “to civil forfeiture, or upon conviction, to criminal forfeiture.”
Among the problems, critics explain, is that the language is so broad that merely picking up rocks under this bill could be found guilty of “excavating” or “removing” a “paleontological resource.” There are numerous rocks, stones, and other objects of nature that contain fossilized imprints and, in the bill’s language, “are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life on earth.” In fact, it is likely the most rocks that people pick up would meet this definition.
So people from mining companies to amateur geologists known as “rockhounds” to children gathering stones on field trips could be at risk for unintentionally violating this bill should it become law. The law does purport to allow an exception for a “resonable amount” of “casual collecting,” but then practically negates that excepion by saying that the “reasonable amount” shall be enitirely “determined by the Secretary” of Interior or Agriculture.
In an analysis of a similar bill in previous session of Congress, the policy group Partnership for America noted this scenario, “If a person were to be out hiking and picked up a rock as a souvenir, an enforcement officer who discovers this situation, at his or her discretion, could seize the equipment and the vehicle in use by the person or family at the time of the ‘offense.’” The analysis concluded, “The legislation may sound benign on its surface, yet it could have very dire unintended consequences for mining companies, rock hounds (geology enthusiasts) and average citizens who enjoy our national forests.”
One of those consequences is the civil forfeiture provision in Section 6308, which would leave those accused without their cars or other property until the trial was completed — basically the property would be guilty until proven innocent. As described by the Partnership for America analysis: “Even if a person eventually prevails in their case should they be prosecuted under this Act, their family would be without the use of the equipment and vehicle until the case is adjudicated, which could be months or even years, creating an extreme hardship in many cases. The government would likely try to obtain a guilty plea in exchange for a reduced penalty or the return of some of the personal property, which many innocent citizens would accept to avoid the cost and inconvenience of a trial.”
In fact, civil forfeiture had been so abused in drug cases — with reports of cops driving around Porsches of suspected drug offenders –that a group of conservative and liberal congressmen drafted a bill to reform the process. The late House Judiciary Committe Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill. and then-Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., joined with Rep. (and current Judiciary Committee Chairman) John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., to sponsor the Asset Forfeiture Reform Act that was signed into law in 2000. The law increased the government’s burden of proof before it could engage in the pre-trial confiscation of the property of the accused.
Describing the situation before the law was passed, Hyde wrote in his Cato Institute book Forfeiting Our Property Rights, “Civil asset forfeiture has allowed police to view all of America as some giant national K-Mart, where prices are not just lower, but non-existent — a sort of law enforcement ‘pick-and-don’t-pay.”
But the pending Omnibus bill would unfortunatley take U.S. civil liberties a big step back to the situation before the 2000 reforms passed. And as Bennitt of the Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences points out in her letter, it also creates the vaguely defined crime of “submit[ting] any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any paleontological resource excavated or removed from Federal land.”
But in geology, false records can be unintentional and are often unavoidable. As Bennitt notes, honest errors in labeling fossils are almost inevitable even for the top museums. She writes: “Paleontology is a field that is not set in stone. What you find and label in the field may not be what you find as preparation is undertaken in the lab.”
She adds that “penalties for misidentification of fossils will place every museum in jeopardy,” because “there is not one museum that is free from labeling errors on specimens” in some of its exhibits or collections.
Bennitt concludes that the bill would have the perverse effect of limiting scientific inquiry and knowledge of natural history. She notes that “museums and universities collecting on public land do not have the time, money or staff to collect everything they see. These specimens end up as dust as they erode away.” Amateur and professional fossil collectors have helped scientists piece together natural history, and this bill may lock thier skill out of the process.
At a time when the federal government should be busy catching and jailing the Madoffs, Stanfords, and other alleged fraudsters who swindled Americans out of billions, it seems a particular waste of time to hunt down nature enthusiasts who may have inadvertently disturbed a “palentological resource.” And it would indeed be a tragedy if a rock hunter’s bike or car were “nationalized” before the first bad bank was even laid a finger on.
The House will like be voting this week on the bill as S. 22, the exact same “Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009″ that passed the Senate with these provisions. Some reports have the bill being scheduled for a Wednesday vote, but it may also be Thursday or Friday. If it passed the House, it will likely go straight for signature to President Obama, so this may be the last chance to get changes to the bill.
To express your views to your Representative or Senator in Congress, you can call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or 225-3121. Ask the operator to connect you to the office of your member of Congress.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
BLM Taps Californian Mike Pool as Acting National Director
News Release
Mike Pool, California state director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), has been tapped to serve as the agency's acting national director in Washington D.C., effective March 1.
Pool, 55, a career veteran, has served more than 34 years with BLM, starting at the field office level and working his way up through a variety of assignments in Alaska, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington D.C., and the Department of the Interior.
He has been California state director since 2000, overseeing 15.1 million acres of public lands in California and another 1.5 million in northwestern Nevada. In the new acting position, he will oversee 256 million surface acres – more than any other federal agency. Most of this public land is located in 12 western states, including Alaska.
He replaces current BLM Acting Director Ron Wenker, who will return to his current position as BLM's Nevada state director. Pool will remain in the new assignment pending selection of a permanent director by new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. In California, Pool's Associate State Director Jim Abbott will serve as acting California state director.
"I'm honored by the new assignment and look forward to assisting the new administration care for the public lands under BLM's jurisdiction," he said. The 55-year-old Pool, an Arizona native raised in New Mexico, holds a B.S. in wildlife science from New Mexico State University.
-BLM-
Mike Pool, California state director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), has been tapped to serve as the agency's acting national director in Washington D.C., effective March 1.
Pool, 55, a career veteran, has served more than 34 years with BLM, starting at the field office level and working his way up through a variety of assignments in Alaska, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington D.C., and the Department of the Interior.
He has been California state director since 2000, overseeing 15.1 million acres of public lands in California and another 1.5 million in northwestern Nevada. In the new acting position, he will oversee 256 million surface acres – more than any other federal agency. Most of this public land is located in 12 western states, including Alaska.
He replaces current BLM Acting Director Ron Wenker, who will return to his current position as BLM's Nevada state director. Pool will remain in the new assignment pending selection of a permanent director by new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. In California, Pool's Associate State Director Jim Abbott will serve as acting California state director.
"I'm honored by the new assignment and look forward to assisting the new administration care for the public lands under BLM's jurisdiction," he said. The 55-year-old Pool, an Arizona native raised in New Mexico, holds a B.S. in wildlife science from New Mexico State University.
-BLM-
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Clean Water Act and Nonpoint Source Pollution: Implications for Western Agriculture
By Loretta Singletary
Extension Educator, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
Introduction
Nevada is the driest state in the nation. Total average annual precipitation is approximately nine inches per year. Surface water in Nevada is limited and provides approximately 60 percent of the state's total water supply. The remaining 40 percent of water supplies are provided by ground water. Some areas in Nevada depend upon ground water supplies for 100 percent of their water.
Over the past few decades there has been a significant increase in litigation surrounding western water resources, including Nevada's watersheds. Agriculture has been named as a defendant in several cases. Those involved in agriculture need to acknowledge that water, a primary input in the production process, has become a highly valued and increasingly scarce resource. And, federal legislation prioritizes the improvement and protection of water quality involving water resources nationwide.
Farmers and ranchers must understand water issues surrounding agricultural activities and social concerns involving water bodies located near their operations.
The first step in accomplishing this level of awareness is to understand federal and state laws regulating water quality, implementation of laws and pollutants identified as harmful to water bodies. This fact sheet explains the provisions outlined in the Clean Water Act that specifically address nonpoint source pollution and implications for agriculture.
The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates water quality for the U.S. pertaining to surface waters such as rivers, streams and lakes as well as groundwater, wetlands, and urban runoff. Originally the CWA focused on point sources of water pollution but was amended in 1987 to provide for nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control.
Point sources of pollution are identifiable, confined means for transporting and discharging pollutants, such as channels, ditches, conduits and tunnels. Municipal treatment facilities, manufacturing industries and large animal confinement operations are examples of potential point sources of pollution. In contrast, NPS pollution is the scattered discharge of natural and manmade pollutants into the natural environment. As defined by the CWA,
NPS pollution derives from diffuse, unregulated sources that typically include agriculture, urban and construction runoff over large areas. And, a defining feature of NPS pollution is that runoff contains pollutant materials that enter surface waters or ground water at rates greater than naturally occurring levels.
Water quality experts suggest that agricultural activity is a leading contributor to NPS pollution. Types of agricultural sources include cropland, feedlots, irrigation and drainage, livestock grazing, modifications of river/stream channels, construction, and livestock waste management.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the authority appointed to implement CWA legislation. For the greater majority of Nevada, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) implements provisions of the CWA focusing on the area that lies outside of its four designated wastewater management areas surrounding the urbanized areas of Carson City, Lake Tahoe Basin, Truckee Meadows and Washoe and Clark Counties.
Of particular interest to farmers and ranchers, are Sections 303 and 319 of the CWA. Section 303 requires states to establish water quality standards based on beneficial uses for a given water segment as well as existing information pertaining to that segment. Waters that do not meet established standards are placed on a list (Section 303 (d) list) of impaired, threatened waters. States must then assure that numeric limits are established for the individual pollutants impairing listed waters and that these limits are not exceeded. The established limits are referred to as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Section 319 of the CWA supports planning and education efforts to control NPS at the watershed level. It requires each state to develop a NPS Management Plan to improve the quality of impaired or threatened waters. In Nevada, NPS water management activities are primarily voluntary at this time, rather than regulatory, and emphasize education to raise public awareness and voluntary participation to improve water quality.
Understanding Beneficial Use
Beneficial use refers to water use that produces gains or benefits. In Nevada, beneficial uses historically include agricultural usage, such as irrigation and livestock watering. In addition to agricultural uses, beneficial uses currently include recreation, support of aquatic life, wildlife propagation, municipal drinking supply and industrial uses.
The amount of pollutants necessary to impair beneficial use depends on the existing or designated use of the waters in question. For example, streams used for human drinking supplies require stricter standards than water used to irrigate crops. Beneficial use must be consistent with federal and state law and are based on the following factors historical use, existing use, anticipated water use, public concerns, and requirements to prevent water quality deterioration.
Water quality standards require that appropriate water uses be specified, achieved and protected. The use and value of the water body must be identified in terms of its use as public water supply, recreational, industrial and agricultural purposes as well as to protect fish and wildlife.
When beneficial usage or water quality standards are established or revised in Nevada, the Nevada Environmental Commission must review and formally accept the proposed revisions. The commission represents several state agencies including Forestry, Mining, Agriculture, Health, Wildlife, and State Water Engineer. Additionally, the Governor appoints four citizen members who further address issues concerning agriculture, economic development, mining, and the environment. Nevada Division Environmental Protection provides public hearings to inform citizens of established or revised standards that are site specific to a water body. Citizens may comment at that time, either in writing or in person. Based on federal and state requirements, available water quality monitoring data, and public comment, the commission may decide to amend, adopt, or take no action concerning changes to established standards.
At this point, if dissatisfied with the commission's proposed decision, citizens may file a petition to review the procedures used by NDEP to establish or revise standards. The review is conducted and a judge of the State Supreme Court decides the outcome.
The public has a vested interest in the quality of our Nation's surface waters. The Clean Water Act requires States and authorized Tribes to hold public hearings on their water quality standards at least once every three years. Public hearings on water quality standards provide an opportunity for the public to become involved in the water quality standards setting process. Citizens may make recommendations on improvements or modifications in the standards during the public hearing process. Public hearings are a powerful vehicle through which citizens may make their concerns known to public officials.
Monitoring Water Quality
Originally, EPA was charged to regulate only point sources of water pollution. However, in 1987, the CWA was reauthorized to include effective NPS pollution control and water quality management programs nationwide. Currently, all states, including Nevada, are directed by EPA to monitor water bodies to assess NPS pollution; develop a statewide control program for NPS pollution; and implement Best Management Practices as means for pollution control.
Due to its diffuse nature, it is difficult to measure NPS pollution. In order to identify water bodies that are not in compliance with water quality standards, NDEP maintains a program that monitors over 100 sampling points in Nevada's 14 hydrographic regions and, every two years, provides a 303(d) list of impaired or threatened waters. In addition to these monitoring stations, intensive field studies of water quality are conducted on Nevada's major water systems including the Carson River, Colorado River Tributaries, Humboldt River,Truckee River, and Walker River.
Conclusions
NPS pollution is the scattered discharge of natural and manmade pollutants into the natural environment. As defined by the CWA, NPS pollution derives from diffuse, unregulated sources that typically include agriculture, urban and construction runoff. Water quality experts suggest that agricultural activity is a leading contributor to NPS pollution. Types of agricultural NPS may include: cropland, feedlots, irrigation and drainage, livestock grazing, changes to river and stream channels, construction, and waste management.
Due to its diffuse nature, it is difficult to take precise measurements of NPS pollution. In accordance with the CWA, Nevada has established water quality standards based on beneficial uses for its water bodies. NDEP maintains a program that monitors over 100 sampling points in Nevada's 14 hydrographic regions and, every two years, provides a 303(d) list of impaired or threatened waters. Each state is required to address listed waters by establishing TMDLs to specify measurable limits for individual pollutants and plan for pollution control of NPS at the watershed level.
Farmers and ranchers must learn about federal policy affecting water resource management, NPS and maintain an awareness of agricultural activities that could potentially impact water quality.
The first step in accomplishing this is to learn about federal and state laws regulating water quality and NPS programs in place to improve water quality controlling specifically for NPS pollutants.
Next, Best management Practices must be identified and implemented to control for potential NPS associated with agricultural activity.
References
* Donaldson, S. & M. Hefner. 2004. Water Quality Challenges Facing Our Community. Available online at: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/FSPubs/FS0444.pdf.
* Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2002. Nevada's 303(d) List. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Carson City, Nevada. Available online at: http://nevada.dis.state.nv.us/ndep/bwqp/303dlist.htm.
* Singletary, L. & J. Davison. 2003. Farm and Rangeland Water Quality Management: A Field Guide for Nevada's Agricultural Producers. Available online at: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/EBPubs/EB0301.pdf.
Extension Educator, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
Introduction
Nevada is the driest state in the nation. Total average annual precipitation is approximately nine inches per year. Surface water in Nevada is limited and provides approximately 60 percent of the state's total water supply. The remaining 40 percent of water supplies are provided by ground water. Some areas in Nevada depend upon ground water supplies for 100 percent of their water.
Over the past few decades there has been a significant increase in litigation surrounding western water resources, including Nevada's watersheds. Agriculture has been named as a defendant in several cases. Those involved in agriculture need to acknowledge that water, a primary input in the production process, has become a highly valued and increasingly scarce resource. And, federal legislation prioritizes the improvement and protection of water quality involving water resources nationwide.
Farmers and ranchers must understand water issues surrounding agricultural activities and social concerns involving water bodies located near their operations.
The first step in accomplishing this level of awareness is to understand federal and state laws regulating water quality, implementation of laws and pollutants identified as harmful to water bodies. This fact sheet explains the provisions outlined in the Clean Water Act that specifically address nonpoint source pollution and implications for agriculture.
The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates water quality for the U.S. pertaining to surface waters such as rivers, streams and lakes as well as groundwater, wetlands, and urban runoff. Originally the CWA focused on point sources of water pollution but was amended in 1987 to provide for nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control.
Point sources of pollution are identifiable, confined means for transporting and discharging pollutants, such as channels, ditches, conduits and tunnels. Municipal treatment facilities, manufacturing industries and large animal confinement operations are examples of potential point sources of pollution. In contrast, NPS pollution is the scattered discharge of natural and manmade pollutants into the natural environment. As defined by the CWA,
NPS pollution derives from diffuse, unregulated sources that typically include agriculture, urban and construction runoff over large areas. And, a defining feature of NPS pollution is that runoff contains pollutant materials that enter surface waters or ground water at rates greater than naturally occurring levels.
Water quality experts suggest that agricultural activity is a leading contributor to NPS pollution. Types of agricultural sources include cropland, feedlots, irrigation and drainage, livestock grazing, modifications of river/stream channels, construction, and livestock waste management.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the authority appointed to implement CWA legislation. For the greater majority of Nevada, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) implements provisions of the CWA focusing on the area that lies outside of its four designated wastewater management areas surrounding the urbanized areas of Carson City, Lake Tahoe Basin, Truckee Meadows and Washoe and Clark Counties.
Of particular interest to farmers and ranchers, are Sections 303 and 319 of the CWA. Section 303 requires states to establish water quality standards based on beneficial uses for a given water segment as well as existing information pertaining to that segment. Waters that do not meet established standards are placed on a list (Section 303 (d) list) of impaired, threatened waters. States must then assure that numeric limits are established for the individual pollutants impairing listed waters and that these limits are not exceeded. The established limits are referred to as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Section 319 of the CWA supports planning and education efforts to control NPS at the watershed level. It requires each state to develop a NPS Management Plan to improve the quality of impaired or threatened waters. In Nevada, NPS water management activities are primarily voluntary at this time, rather than regulatory, and emphasize education to raise public awareness and voluntary participation to improve water quality.
Understanding Beneficial Use
Beneficial use refers to water use that produces gains or benefits. In Nevada, beneficial uses historically include agricultural usage, such as irrigation and livestock watering. In addition to agricultural uses, beneficial uses currently include recreation, support of aquatic life, wildlife propagation, municipal drinking supply and industrial uses.
The amount of pollutants necessary to impair beneficial use depends on the existing or designated use of the waters in question. For example, streams used for human drinking supplies require stricter standards than water used to irrigate crops. Beneficial use must be consistent with federal and state law and are based on the following factors historical use, existing use, anticipated water use, public concerns, and requirements to prevent water quality deterioration.
Water quality standards require that appropriate water uses be specified, achieved and protected. The use and value of the water body must be identified in terms of its use as public water supply, recreational, industrial and agricultural purposes as well as to protect fish and wildlife.
When beneficial usage or water quality standards are established or revised in Nevada, the Nevada Environmental Commission must review and formally accept the proposed revisions. The commission represents several state agencies including Forestry, Mining, Agriculture, Health, Wildlife, and State Water Engineer. Additionally, the Governor appoints four citizen members who further address issues concerning agriculture, economic development, mining, and the environment. Nevada Division Environmental Protection provides public hearings to inform citizens of established or revised standards that are site specific to a water body. Citizens may comment at that time, either in writing or in person. Based on federal and state requirements, available water quality monitoring data, and public comment, the commission may decide to amend, adopt, or take no action concerning changes to established standards.
At this point, if dissatisfied with the commission's proposed decision, citizens may file a petition to review the procedures used by NDEP to establish or revise standards. The review is conducted and a judge of the State Supreme Court decides the outcome.
The public has a vested interest in the quality of our Nation's surface waters. The Clean Water Act requires States and authorized Tribes to hold public hearings on their water quality standards at least once every three years. Public hearings on water quality standards provide an opportunity for the public to become involved in the water quality standards setting process. Citizens may make recommendations on improvements or modifications in the standards during the public hearing process. Public hearings are a powerful vehicle through which citizens may make their concerns known to public officials.
Monitoring Water Quality
Originally, EPA was charged to regulate only point sources of water pollution. However, in 1987, the CWA was reauthorized to include effective NPS pollution control and water quality management programs nationwide. Currently, all states, including Nevada, are directed by EPA to monitor water bodies to assess NPS pollution; develop a statewide control program for NPS pollution; and implement Best Management Practices as means for pollution control.
Due to its diffuse nature, it is difficult to measure NPS pollution. In order to identify water bodies that are not in compliance with water quality standards, NDEP maintains a program that monitors over 100 sampling points in Nevada's 14 hydrographic regions and, every two years, provides a 303(d) list of impaired or threatened waters. In addition to these monitoring stations, intensive field studies of water quality are conducted on Nevada's major water systems including the Carson River, Colorado River Tributaries, Humboldt River,Truckee River, and Walker River.
Conclusions
NPS pollution is the scattered discharge of natural and manmade pollutants into the natural environment. As defined by the CWA, NPS pollution derives from diffuse, unregulated sources that typically include agriculture, urban and construction runoff. Water quality experts suggest that agricultural activity is a leading contributor to NPS pollution. Types of agricultural NPS may include: cropland, feedlots, irrigation and drainage, livestock grazing, changes to river and stream channels, construction, and waste management.
Due to its diffuse nature, it is difficult to take precise measurements of NPS pollution. In accordance with the CWA, Nevada has established water quality standards based on beneficial uses for its water bodies. NDEP maintains a program that monitors over 100 sampling points in Nevada's 14 hydrographic regions and, every two years, provides a 303(d) list of impaired or threatened waters. Each state is required to address listed waters by establishing TMDLs to specify measurable limits for individual pollutants and plan for pollution control of NPS at the watershed level.
Farmers and ranchers must learn about federal policy affecting water resource management, NPS and maintain an awareness of agricultural activities that could potentially impact water quality.
The first step in accomplishing this is to learn about federal and state laws regulating water quality and NPS programs in place to improve water quality controlling specifically for NPS pollutants.
Next, Best management Practices must be identified and implemented to control for potential NPS associated with agricultural activity.
References
* Donaldson, S. & M. Hefner. 2004. Water Quality Challenges Facing Our Community. Available online at: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/FSPubs/FS0444.pdf.
* Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2002. Nevada's 303(d) List. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Carson City, Nevada. Available online at: http://nevada.dis.state.nv.us/ndep/bwqp/303dlist.htm.
* Singletary, L. & J. Davison. 2003. Farm and Rangeland Water Quality Management: A Field Guide for Nevada's Agricultural Producers. Available online at: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/EBPubs/EB0301.pdf.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Wild horses, elk threaten to overcrowd rangelands
Wild horses have long reigned as icons of freedom and the open West. But a federal lawsuit filed in Portland last week challenges that notion and highlights U.S. officials' increasing struggle to control exploding herds.
Thousands of more wild mustangs and burros roam Western rangelands than the land can support, a federal report has found, and if nothing is done, the problem will only get worse.
At the same time, the number of unwanted animals in federal holding facilities -- including one in Oregon -- has tripled since 2000 as adoptions plummet. The cost of caring for the animals, the October report said, threatens to overwhelm the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program budget.
The issue landed in court after Loren and Piper Stout, an eastern Oregon ranching couple, were banned from grazing their cattle on land southeast of Dayville, a Grant County hamlet about 30 miles west of John Day.
The Stouts contend that their cattle were blamed for damage to rangelands that was actually caused by wild horses. Their suit against the U.S. Forest Service, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, seeks to force federal authorities to control wild horses on the 62,000-acre Murderers Creek allotment.
"They have let it get out of hand, and we are getting blamed for it," Loren Stout, 52, said of the government's management of wild mustangs. "Horses are real tough on resources, and they are out there 12 months of the year."
The couple grazed their cattle on the rugged allotment from 1996 until October 2007, when they were forced to remove the herd as the result of a complaint in federal court by the Oregon Natural Desert Association, a 1,200-member environmental group in Bend.
The association alleged that the Stouts' cattle threatened endangered steelhead in Deer Creek and Murderers Creek.
But the Stouts contend that the damage to stream banks and rangeland came from elk and wild horses. They say in their lawsuit that more than 500 wild horses may be roaming the allotment, well over the 100-mustang limit recommended in the Malheur National Forest management plan.
Not only that, the Stouts say, the Murderers Creek range and streams would be in better shape if their cattle still grazed there. Cowhands on horseback, they said, kept the mustangs and elk on the move, preventing them from overgrazing and trampling stream banks.
"The cattle are only on the range 12 weeks a year during the summer when the adult steelhead have left the stream and after steelhead fry have emerged," said Scott W. Horngren of Portland, the Stouts' attorney. "The horses and elk are on the range 24/7, all year."
The Forest Service "is trying to address this concern about steelhead by focusing on one user of the range" -- the Stouts' cattle -- Horngren said.
Instead, Loren Stout said, the government and environmentalists should look at all resource users, including mustangs and elk.
Forest Service spokesman Jeff Shinn of the Malheur National Forest in John Day acknowledged that the number of mustangs roaming the Murderers Creek range is "at least twice our appropriate management level."
"There are some definite impacts from the horses and elk," he said.
A recent government count by helicopter tallied 115 wild horses on the allotment, plus estimates of another 115 hidden by thick timber, Shinn said. A count by horseback riders three years ago found 430 wild mustangs, whose populations typically grow by 20 percent a year.
The Forest Service gathered 134 wild horses from the allotment in 2007-08 and another roundup of an undetermined number is set for this year, Shinn said.
Regardless of how many mustangs roam around Murderers Creek, few would dispute that growing herds are a problem.
The October federal report, issued by the U.S. General Accounting Office, said 33,100 mustangs and burros roam 29 million acres of BLM-managed land in 10 Western states -- 5,900 more than the land can sustain.
"There is no natural check on their populations," said Brent Fenty, spokesman for Bend's Oregon Natural Desert Association. "There are certainly too many horses on public lands throughout the West."
The report also tallied 30,088 horses and burros in 11 federal holding facilities, up from 9,807 eight years ago. The cost of running the sanctuaries climbed from $7 million in 2000 to $21 million in 2007, the report said.
Complicating matters, adoptions through the BLM's "adopt-a-horse program" fell a whopping 36 percent in 2007 compared with 1990s levels. The BLM blames, in part, rising hay and fuel costs.
In Oregon, the GAO estimated, 2,473 wild horses roam the high desert and forests. About 400 are penned at the BLM's Wild Horse Corrals near Burns, up from 175 in August, said Gary Rose, a BLM spokesman in Burns.
And the problem won't go away any time soon. If left alone, the GAO report said, U.S. mustang and burro populations will balloon to 50,000 by 2012.
The Stouts, meanwhile, hope their lawsuit helps them regain the right to graze cattle at Murderers Creek, which takes its name from an 1860s battle with Native Americans that killed eight prospectors, according to "Oregon Geographic Names."
About that time, Piper Stout's great-great-great-grandfather, John Hyde, came from Tennessee to homestead in Grant County.
"If somebody wants to come after us for something we're not doing," Loren Stout said last week, "let's get it on."
Richard Cockle; rcockle@oregonwireless.net
Thousands of more wild mustangs and burros roam Western rangelands than the land can support, a federal report has found, and if nothing is done, the problem will only get worse.
At the same time, the number of unwanted animals in federal holding facilities -- including one in Oregon -- has tripled since 2000 as adoptions plummet. The cost of caring for the animals, the October report said, threatens to overwhelm the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program budget.
The issue landed in court after Loren and Piper Stout, an eastern Oregon ranching couple, were banned from grazing their cattle on land southeast of Dayville, a Grant County hamlet about 30 miles west of John Day.
The Stouts contend that their cattle were blamed for damage to rangelands that was actually caused by wild horses. Their suit against the U.S. Forest Service, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, seeks to force federal authorities to control wild horses on the 62,000-acre Murderers Creek allotment.
"They have let it get out of hand, and we are getting blamed for it," Loren Stout, 52, said of the government's management of wild mustangs. "Horses are real tough on resources, and they are out there 12 months of the year."
The couple grazed their cattle on the rugged allotment from 1996 until October 2007, when they were forced to remove the herd as the result of a complaint in federal court by the Oregon Natural Desert Association, a 1,200-member environmental group in Bend.
The association alleged that the Stouts' cattle threatened endangered steelhead in Deer Creek and Murderers Creek.
But the Stouts contend that the damage to stream banks and rangeland came from elk and wild horses. They say in their lawsuit that more than 500 wild horses may be roaming the allotment, well over the 100-mustang limit recommended in the Malheur National Forest management plan.
Not only that, the Stouts say, the Murderers Creek range and streams would be in better shape if their cattle still grazed there. Cowhands on horseback, they said, kept the mustangs and elk on the move, preventing them from overgrazing and trampling stream banks.
"The cattle are only on the range 12 weeks a year during the summer when the adult steelhead have left the stream and after steelhead fry have emerged," said Scott W. Horngren of Portland, the Stouts' attorney. "The horses and elk are on the range 24/7, all year."
The Forest Service "is trying to address this concern about steelhead by focusing on one user of the range" -- the Stouts' cattle -- Horngren said.
Instead, Loren Stout said, the government and environmentalists should look at all resource users, including mustangs and elk.
Forest Service spokesman Jeff Shinn of the Malheur National Forest in John Day acknowledged that the number of mustangs roaming the Murderers Creek range is "at least twice our appropriate management level."
"There are some definite impacts from the horses and elk," he said.
A recent government count by helicopter tallied 115 wild horses on the allotment, plus estimates of another 115 hidden by thick timber, Shinn said. A count by horseback riders three years ago found 430 wild mustangs, whose populations typically grow by 20 percent a year.
The Forest Service gathered 134 wild horses from the allotment in 2007-08 and another roundup of an undetermined number is set for this year, Shinn said.
Regardless of how many mustangs roam around Murderers Creek, few would dispute that growing herds are a problem.
The October federal report, issued by the U.S. General Accounting Office, said 33,100 mustangs and burros roam 29 million acres of BLM-managed land in 10 Western states -- 5,900 more than the land can sustain.
"There is no natural check on their populations," said Brent Fenty, spokesman for Bend's Oregon Natural Desert Association. "There are certainly too many horses on public lands throughout the West."
The report also tallied 30,088 horses and burros in 11 federal holding facilities, up from 9,807 eight years ago. The cost of running the sanctuaries climbed from $7 million in 2000 to $21 million in 2007, the report said.
Complicating matters, adoptions through the BLM's "adopt-a-horse program" fell a whopping 36 percent in 2007 compared with 1990s levels. The BLM blames, in part, rising hay and fuel costs.
In Oregon, the GAO estimated, 2,473 wild horses roam the high desert and forests. About 400 are penned at the BLM's Wild Horse Corrals near Burns, up from 175 in August, said Gary Rose, a BLM spokesman in Burns.
And the problem won't go away any time soon. If left alone, the GAO report said, U.S. mustang and burro populations will balloon to 50,000 by 2012.
The Stouts, meanwhile, hope their lawsuit helps them regain the right to graze cattle at Murderers Creek, which takes its name from an 1860s battle with Native Americans that killed eight prospectors, according to "Oregon Geographic Names."
About that time, Piper Stout's great-great-great-grandfather, John Hyde, came from Tennessee to homestead in Grant County.
"If somebody wants to come after us for something we're not doing," Loren Stout said last week, "let's get it on."
Richard Cockle; rcockle@oregonwireless.net
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Lawmakers propose land office reforms
By Heath Haussamen 2/5/09 7:11 AM
In response to a controversy involving the State Land Office and a Las Cruces developer, three Doña Ana County lawmakers are proposing reforms that would increase transparency and accountability in the land commissioner’s dealings.
The proposals follow Attorney General Gary King’s finding fault last year with Land Commissioner Pat Lyons’ leasing of land on Las Cruces’ East Mesa to Philip Philippou so it could be developed. The AG’s formal opinion on The Vistas at Presidio land deal states that the lease agreement’s (pdf) method of compensating Philippou’s company is “not comprehended by and in conflict with” a statute that allows developers who improve land for the state to be compensated only for the appraised value of the improvements.
In the lease, the land office also agrees to compensate Philippou for other project costs and 40 percent of the change in value of the land as a result of the improvements.
The first bill in the package proposed by Reps. Nate Cote and Jeff Steinborn, and Sen. Steve Fischmann, all Las Cruces Democrats, directly deals with the issue identified in the AG opinion. Cote’s House Bill 607 and Fischmann’s Senate Bill 474 would make clear that developers can be compensated for tangible improvements to the land but nothing else.
The other bills in the package are:
• Steinborn’s House Bill 606, which would require the land office to issue development leases only following public notice and a competitive bidding process.
• Cote’s House Bill 610, which would require the land office to develop uniform systems for classifying accounts, budgeting and reporting.
• Steinborn’s House Bill 605, which would require local government review before the land office’s development leases take effect.
• Fischmann’s Senate Bill 475, which would require that the AG review development leases before they take effect.
Steinborn’s bill that requires the land office to follow a competitive bidding process is significant because, in the Las Cruces situation, Lyons bypassed his own bidding process — which he’s not currently required by law to use — and leased the thousands of acres of land in question to Philippou in December 2006. Months earlier, while the Republican Lyons was running for re-election, Philippou gave $20,500 to a political action committee run by lobbyists he employs. The PAC gave most of it to Lyons’ campaign, and the lobbyists gave another $3,600. After Lyons leased the land to Philippou, the developer gave another $6,000 to Lyons.
On a conference call about the bills on Wednesday, Steinborn called the Las Cruces situation “ground zero” for “problems” in the land office that affect the entire state because Lyons entered into similar agreements for land in Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Santa Fe and elsewhere. The AG has refused to back up his opinion with a lawsuit, and Lyons has effectively ignored it.
Cote said the legislation is an important response to the concerns of his constituents and others in the Las Cruces area, and it shouldn’t be viewed as an attempt to impede the work of the land office.
“The public, the people of my district and New Mexicans, want government accountability,” Cote said.
Fischmann said it’s now clear that the land office “was somehow operating out of sync with what the public needs were,” but Steinborn said he hopes that, in spite of that, Lyons will support the reform proposals.
A spokeswoman for Lyons did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In response to a controversy involving the State Land Office and a Las Cruces developer, three Doña Ana County lawmakers are proposing reforms that would increase transparency and accountability in the land commissioner’s dealings.
The proposals follow Attorney General Gary King’s finding fault last year with Land Commissioner Pat Lyons’ leasing of land on Las Cruces’ East Mesa to Philip Philippou so it could be developed. The AG’s formal opinion on The Vistas at Presidio land deal states that the lease agreement’s (pdf) method of compensating Philippou’s company is “not comprehended by and in conflict with” a statute that allows developers who improve land for the state to be compensated only for the appraised value of the improvements.
In the lease, the land office also agrees to compensate Philippou for other project costs and 40 percent of the change in value of the land as a result of the improvements.
The first bill in the package proposed by Reps. Nate Cote and Jeff Steinborn, and Sen. Steve Fischmann, all Las Cruces Democrats, directly deals with the issue identified in the AG opinion. Cote’s House Bill 607 and Fischmann’s Senate Bill 474 would make clear that developers can be compensated for tangible improvements to the land but nothing else.
The other bills in the package are:
• Steinborn’s House Bill 606, which would require the land office to issue development leases only following public notice and a competitive bidding process.
• Cote’s House Bill 610, which would require the land office to develop uniform systems for classifying accounts, budgeting and reporting.
• Steinborn’s House Bill 605, which would require local government review before the land office’s development leases take effect.
• Fischmann’s Senate Bill 475, which would require that the AG review development leases before they take effect.
Steinborn’s bill that requires the land office to follow a competitive bidding process is significant because, in the Las Cruces situation, Lyons bypassed his own bidding process — which he’s not currently required by law to use — and leased the thousands of acres of land in question to Philippou in December 2006. Months earlier, while the Republican Lyons was running for re-election, Philippou gave $20,500 to a political action committee run by lobbyists he employs. The PAC gave most of it to Lyons’ campaign, and the lobbyists gave another $3,600. After Lyons leased the land to Philippou, the developer gave another $6,000 to Lyons.
On a conference call about the bills on Wednesday, Steinborn called the Las Cruces situation “ground zero” for “problems” in the land office that affect the entire state because Lyons entered into similar agreements for land in Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Santa Fe and elsewhere. The AG has refused to back up his opinion with a lawsuit, and Lyons has effectively ignored it.
Cote said the legislation is an important response to the concerns of his constituents and others in the Las Cruces area, and it shouldn’t be viewed as an attempt to impede the work of the land office.
“The public, the people of my district and New Mexicans, want government accountability,” Cote said.
Fischmann said it’s now clear that the land office “was somehow operating out of sync with what the public needs were,” but Steinborn said he hopes that, in spite of that, Lyons will support the reform proposals.
A spokeswoman for Lyons did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Monday, February 2, 2009
States fail in latest prairie dog report card
While groundhogs will get all the attention Monday, a report being issued by an environmental group says their cousins, the prairie dogs, are in dire straits across the West.
WildEarth Guardians says in its report to be released Monday that North America's five species of prairie dogs have lost more than 90 percent of their historical range because of habitat loss, shooting and poisoning.
It grades three federal land management agencies and a dozen states on their actions over the past year to protect prairie dogs and their habitat.
Not one received an A.
Most grades even dropped from the previous year, but Arizona improved to a B — the highest grade of all the states in prairie dog country. That state reintroduced 74 black-tailed prairie dogs to a small southeast parcel in October.
New Mexico, home to the Gunnison's prairie dog and black-tailed prairie dog, earned a D — the same as last year — because, the group said, state wildlife officials weren't actively conserving prairie dogs.
"It's hard to see the prairie dogs that are missing when you drive across the West because our modern society has no perception about what it was like before we started poisoning prairie dogs," said Lauren McCain, WildEarth Guardians' desert and grassland projects director.
McCain said prairie dogs are an important part of a grassland ecosystem. They are food for hawks, golden eagles, foxes and endangered black-footed ferrets, and their burrows offer shelter for a variety of other species.
McCain said all the animals need federal endangered species protections.
Of the five species, the Utah prairie dog is classified as threatened and the Mexican prairie dog as endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued preliminary findings that the black- and white-tailed prairie dogs may warrant federal protection, and the Gunnison's prairie dog is a candidate for protection in part of its range.
Until Arizona's reintroduction, the animals had not been seen in that state for nearly 50 years.
"We're really pleased with the success to the point where we're getting the process ready to start another reintroduction," said James Driscoll, an Arizona Game and Fish Department biologist.
Many people in the West, especially ranchers, consider prairie dogs varmints that destroy grass and cause erosion.
McCain said misperception has resulted in wasteful government programs. She said various agencies have financed and encouraged the poisoning of prairie dogs for years while other agencies pump millions of dollars into recovery efforts aimed at other species that rely on the prairie dog.
"We're hoping that the report card will highlight some of the these inconsistencies in government management of wildlife," McCain said. "These are species that we really do need to protect instead of wasting taxpayer dollars, which is a big concern for a lot of people."
Of the federal agencies, the Bureau of Land Management received the lowest grade: D-minus, the same as last year. The report accuses the agency of exempting energy development companies from complying with rules that would protect prairie dog colonies and habitat.
Bill Merhege, deputy state BLM director for lands and resources in New Mexico, said the agency takes numerous steps, such as moving well pads and roads to avoid prairie dog colonies and prohibiting prairie dog control on land it manages.
"We do what we can on public lands," Merhege said. "Unfortunately, with interspersed landownership, what you do on one section doesn't necessarily follow through on another."
The group graded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at C, up from D the previous year, while the U.S. Forest Service stayed at D.
The group gave an F grade to Kansas, Nebraska and North Dakota. Colorado, Montana, South Dakota and Utah got D grades, and Wyoming earned a D-plus.
WildEarth Guardians says in its report to be released Monday that North America's five species of prairie dogs have lost more than 90 percent of their historical range because of habitat loss, shooting and poisoning.
It grades three federal land management agencies and a dozen states on their actions over the past year to protect prairie dogs and their habitat.
Not one received an A.
Most grades even dropped from the previous year, but Arizona improved to a B — the highest grade of all the states in prairie dog country. That state reintroduced 74 black-tailed prairie dogs to a small southeast parcel in October.
New Mexico, home to the Gunnison's prairie dog and black-tailed prairie dog, earned a D — the same as last year — because, the group said, state wildlife officials weren't actively conserving prairie dogs.
"It's hard to see the prairie dogs that are missing when you drive across the West because our modern society has no perception about what it was like before we started poisoning prairie dogs," said Lauren McCain, WildEarth Guardians' desert and grassland projects director.
McCain said prairie dogs are an important part of a grassland ecosystem. They are food for hawks, golden eagles, foxes and endangered black-footed ferrets, and their burrows offer shelter for a variety of other species.
McCain said all the animals need federal endangered species protections.
Of the five species, the Utah prairie dog is classified as threatened and the Mexican prairie dog as endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued preliminary findings that the black- and white-tailed prairie dogs may warrant federal protection, and the Gunnison's prairie dog is a candidate for protection in part of its range.
Until Arizona's reintroduction, the animals had not been seen in that state for nearly 50 years.
"We're really pleased with the success to the point where we're getting the process ready to start another reintroduction," said James Driscoll, an Arizona Game and Fish Department biologist.
Many people in the West, especially ranchers, consider prairie dogs varmints that destroy grass and cause erosion.
McCain said misperception has resulted in wasteful government programs. She said various agencies have financed and encouraged the poisoning of prairie dogs for years while other agencies pump millions of dollars into recovery efforts aimed at other species that rely on the prairie dog.
"We're hoping that the report card will highlight some of the these inconsistencies in government management of wildlife," McCain said. "These are species that we really do need to protect instead of wasting taxpayer dollars, which is a big concern for a lot of people."
Of the federal agencies, the Bureau of Land Management received the lowest grade: D-minus, the same as last year. The report accuses the agency of exempting energy development companies from complying with rules that would protect prairie dog colonies and habitat.
Bill Merhege, deputy state BLM director for lands and resources in New Mexico, said the agency takes numerous steps, such as moving well pads and roads to avoid prairie dog colonies and prohibiting prairie dog control on land it manages.
"We do what we can on public lands," Merhege said. "Unfortunately, with interspersed landownership, what you do on one section doesn't necessarily follow through on another."
The group graded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at C, up from D the previous year, while the U.S. Forest Service stayed at D.
The group gave an F grade to Kansas, Nebraska and North Dakota. Colorado, Montana, South Dakota and Utah got D grades, and Wyoming earned a D-plus.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Officials, Catron residents discuss wolf program
At a gathering last week of ranchers, businessmen, Catron County residents, and representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service, several people spoke to the agency representatives about the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program and how it is impacting lives and businesses. The people met at Hugh B. and Margie McKeen’s property where the McKeens have proposed remediation on the San Francisco River.
To a question about possible changes to the wolf program, Benjamin Tuggle, regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southwest Region, said he is not in favor of changing any of the promises made in the environmental impact statement.
“We have to modify the protocol,' Tuggle said. “We have moved away from biology in the management of the wolves. We have to look at the carrying capacity, pack dynamics and enough land space.
“How will it change?' he asked rhetorically. “We will look at the biology. At the same time, we have to weave in the socio-economic factors. I know there is an impact on the rancher.'
He said his agency is working to get interdiction funding to reimburse cattle losses.
“My background is in biology,' Tuggle said, “but I have people and economics to work with. The law says biology, but not half-baked biology. Biology represents recovery. How can I work with you to help recovery? We cannot continue to lose wolves, but must move toward a sustainable population, however many that is.'
Alan Tackman, Catron County rancher, spoke with emotion and sometimes seemed on the verge of tears.
“One day I was pulling a trailer with cattle in the front and horses in the back, when wolves chased us,' Tackman said. “They aren’t wild. She came right up beside my truck. Female 923 stood looking at me. I told her I wasn’t going to feed her.'
Last year, Tackman reported losing 15 grown, productive cows, and 20 to 30 of his 150 calves last year. Between eight and 10 of the cows died due to wolf depredation and the others probably succumbed to bear attacks and eating toxic weeds.
“I was constantly finding dead stuff,' Tackman said. “The country is so rough that it would be two or three days before I would find the carcasses.'
In July, he also found five injured calves with bite marks corresponding to the width of wolf teeth. In August, the district ranger allowed him to move one-third of his cattle to a grazing permit 60 miles from his property.
At the time, he said, he was told by Matt Wunder of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish that the department did not care how many calves were killed, “they weren’t going to remove the wolves.'
Tackman was faced with the Dark Canyon Pack denning on his fence line and raising pups. To protect his cattle, he moved them from the area close to the den. As a result, the wolves moved to the neighboring ranch and that rancher had to move his cattle to his winter grazing area.
“So the wolves came back to us,' Tackman said. “The bottom line for us is that wolf depredation is costing me $20,000 a year.
“I’ve tried everything,' Tackman continued. “I kept the cows in with the calves. I rode the range and had additional range riders, but the wolves hunt at night. It’s a pretty hard thing to swallow. We don’t only have the Dark Canyon Pack, but the Luna Pack comes over. Both have killed on my pasture.'
He said one night the telemetry apparatus he has been issued to keep track of the collared wolves was indicating a wolf in the vicinity, but he could not spot it, until it came out of the corral.
“The wolves come to the pen every couple of days,' Tackman said. “They leave their calling card and it’s full of hair. It isn’t elk hair; it’s cow hair. All summer the wolf scat had cow hair in it.'
He said John Oakleaf of the recovery program has been honest with him, and Tackman praised the efforts of the ranger to help him relocate his cattle, but it “makes me want to cry. I’ve spent my whole adult life building my ranch.'
Tackman was approached by John Horning of WildEarth Guardians asking him to retire his permit and the organization would pay him for it.
“(My family and I) talked about retiring and selling the permit so we could keep living here,' Tackman said. “I called him back to tell him yes, and he said the organization couldn’t afford it.'
Although ostensibly Defenders of Wildlife has a reimbursement program for cattle losses due to wolf depredation, Tackman said he has been paid for one cow in 10 years.
“ I don’t even call anymore,' he said. “Build a wolf sanctuary or something, but don’t keep killing us.'
Tackman said three of his ranching neighbors have sold their land and moved away because of the wolf.
Bucky Allred, owner of the Blue Front Café in Glenwood, said that late last summer his daughter, Sarah, and a Blue Front Café employee, Dave Hathaway, saw what they believed was a wolf at the Catron County landfill. The next morning, she reported it to the Catron County wolf investigator, Jess Carey, who was in the field investigating a wolf kill.
The same day, Allred received a call from a biologist at the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish who said he was passing along a message that the site had been checked by a U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf officer. The report said he found only quail, skunk, and dog or coyote tracks.
Allred asked how the officer how found the site, because only his daughter and employee knew where the wolf had been seen. The biologist told Allred he had no idea and didn’t care. He was just passing on the message.
The next day, Carey was shown the place where the wolf had been sighted and he took six castings of a wolf track.
Allred told the Daily Press that he was trying to convey to Tuggle that the wolf officers didn’t care about the residents, their children or their pets.
“ They just have their marching papers and that’s all they care about,' he said.
He also reported that the Catron County wolf investigator has taken castings of wolf paw prints in residential areas.
“ With all due respect,' Allred said to Tuggle, “ I want to see you have to haul the wolves out.'
Allred said his business depends on tourists and hunters.
“You told us in meetings before the wolves were released into Catron County that tourists would come to see the wolves,' he said. “I haven’t met a single tourist for wolves. It makes it hard to do business, because the program is pushing away hunters, tourists and other forest-user groups I depend on for my living. The wolves will run us all off.
“I want the program out of here,' Allred continued. “ We want to participate with you with integrity, but my business is drying up, especially during hunting season.'
“ Three years ago, we believed you,' Tackman said. “ But help needs to be quick. Last summer was hell for me. The bottom line is: wolves kill.
“I saw 120 elks calving,' he said. “I saw the wolves move in. The elk left and the wolves moved into the cows and calves. I can’t blame the wolf. It’s going to eat.'
Another resident, Tim Klumker, said he has to baby sit his neighbor ’ s dogs whenever she leaves, because wolves have attacked the dogs.
Tackman said the reality is that if ranching takes place where there are wolves, the rancher is going to lose cows.
“ I guess the rabid environmentalists are going to win and that’s wrong,' he said.
Corbin Newman, U. S. Forest Service regional forester, asked Tackman if funding to pay for cattle losses due to wolf depredation would help.
“ I know some people won’t agree with me,' Tackman said, “ but I’ll raise cows to feed wolves. I’m doing it anyway.'
Alex Thal, who works with Western New Mexico University, pointed out that replacing beef cattle with cull cattle would replace all aspects of ranching management.
“ People raise cattle to feed people, not wolves,' Thal said.
Ed Wehrheim, Catron County Commission chairman, said he knows a woman who has to open her door with a gun and check to make sure no wolves are around before she lets her children out to play.
“ In Catron County, ranchers pay 48 percent of our taxes,' Wehrheim said. “We’re already losing revenue.'
Tuggle said any wolves hanging around people “ have to go, and part of my duty is recognizing that implementing the program has an impact on you.'
He said he had talked to the Jones family the day they were moving out after having sold their ranch.
“ I’m going to work not to have to talk to another family like that,' Tuggle said.
“ You’re talking about paying for cows like you’d pay for a bale of hay,' Margie McKeen said. “We’re small ranchers. We get attached to our cattle. We even name some of them.'
Klumker pointed out that the cattle raised in the area are acclimatized and to replace those lost sometimes requires buying several before finding ones that can live and produce well in the region.
When Tackman said the wolves feed primarily on elk and cattle, and “not the deer as it said in the EIS,' Tuggle changed course and said that was why the EIS needed to be changed.
Wehrheim asked what the relationship is between the USFWS and the NMDGF.
Tuggle said they are partners and try to work together as closely as possible.
“ Ultimately, when it comes to the removal of wolves, it’s my decision,' Tuggle said.
He said the three- strike rule of depredation by a wolf would continue, but “ with modifications. We may have to have a fourth strike, but we have to make the right call with ranchers. The wolf program is not a success if it’s impacting a rancher.'
Wehrheim pointed out that moisture has been abundant the past few years, with 80 percent of cattle reproducing and 50 percent elk reproduction, but in a drought, cattle reproduction will drop to 40 percent or even 20 percent and “all the ranchers will be out of business, because of the wolves.'
To a question posed about the Road Management Rule, Newman said he would return to the area to answer questions.
“It’s a national program,' Newman said. “ Richard ( Markley, Gila Forest supervisor) came to me and said we hadn’t spent enough time listening to people and he’s right. I am committed to hearing from you. Nothing is more basic to the national forest than having people accessing it and using it.'
He did warn that some roads would be closed and cross- country travel across the forest would be prohibited, but “you need to have the ability to use (all-terrain vehicles) in the course of your work.'
McKeen said he was “ humbled and gratified' by the representatives’ presence on his property, but asked for swift action to remedy what began as a small problem and increased to a large problem in the river.
“ All together we have to make a decision to look at protecting your private property rights and the Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat,' Tuggle said, “but I don’t see it as something that can’t be done.'
—MARY ALICE MURPHY
To a question about possible changes to the wolf program, Benjamin Tuggle, regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southwest Region, said he is not in favor of changing any of the promises made in the environmental impact statement.
“We have to modify the protocol,' Tuggle said. “We have moved away from biology in the management of the wolves. We have to look at the carrying capacity, pack dynamics and enough land space.
“How will it change?' he asked rhetorically. “We will look at the biology. At the same time, we have to weave in the socio-economic factors. I know there is an impact on the rancher.'
He said his agency is working to get interdiction funding to reimburse cattle losses.
“My background is in biology,' Tuggle said, “but I have people and economics to work with. The law says biology, but not half-baked biology. Biology represents recovery. How can I work with you to help recovery? We cannot continue to lose wolves, but must move toward a sustainable population, however many that is.'
Alan Tackman, Catron County rancher, spoke with emotion and sometimes seemed on the verge of tears.
“One day I was pulling a trailer with cattle in the front and horses in the back, when wolves chased us,' Tackman said. “They aren’t wild. She came right up beside my truck. Female 923 stood looking at me. I told her I wasn’t going to feed her.'
Last year, Tackman reported losing 15 grown, productive cows, and 20 to 30 of his 150 calves last year. Between eight and 10 of the cows died due to wolf depredation and the others probably succumbed to bear attacks and eating toxic weeds.
“I was constantly finding dead stuff,' Tackman said. “The country is so rough that it would be two or three days before I would find the carcasses.'
In July, he also found five injured calves with bite marks corresponding to the width of wolf teeth. In August, the district ranger allowed him to move one-third of his cattle to a grazing permit 60 miles from his property.
At the time, he said, he was told by Matt Wunder of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish that the department did not care how many calves were killed, “they weren’t going to remove the wolves.'
Tackman was faced with the Dark Canyon Pack denning on his fence line and raising pups. To protect his cattle, he moved them from the area close to the den. As a result, the wolves moved to the neighboring ranch and that rancher had to move his cattle to his winter grazing area.
“So the wolves came back to us,' Tackman said. “The bottom line for us is that wolf depredation is costing me $20,000 a year.
“I’ve tried everything,' Tackman continued. “I kept the cows in with the calves. I rode the range and had additional range riders, but the wolves hunt at night. It’s a pretty hard thing to swallow. We don’t only have the Dark Canyon Pack, but the Luna Pack comes over. Both have killed on my pasture.'
He said one night the telemetry apparatus he has been issued to keep track of the collared wolves was indicating a wolf in the vicinity, but he could not spot it, until it came out of the corral.
“The wolves come to the pen every couple of days,' Tackman said. “They leave their calling card and it’s full of hair. It isn’t elk hair; it’s cow hair. All summer the wolf scat had cow hair in it.'
He said John Oakleaf of the recovery program has been honest with him, and Tackman praised the efforts of the ranger to help him relocate his cattle, but it “makes me want to cry. I’ve spent my whole adult life building my ranch.'
Tackman was approached by John Horning of WildEarth Guardians asking him to retire his permit and the organization would pay him for it.
“(My family and I) talked about retiring and selling the permit so we could keep living here,' Tackman said. “I called him back to tell him yes, and he said the organization couldn’t afford it.'
Although ostensibly Defenders of Wildlife has a reimbursement program for cattle losses due to wolf depredation, Tackman said he has been paid for one cow in 10 years.
“ I don’t even call anymore,' he said. “Build a wolf sanctuary or something, but don’t keep killing us.'
Tackman said three of his ranching neighbors have sold their land and moved away because of the wolf.
Bucky Allred, owner of the Blue Front Café in Glenwood, said that late last summer his daughter, Sarah, and a Blue Front Café employee, Dave Hathaway, saw what they believed was a wolf at the Catron County landfill. The next morning, she reported it to the Catron County wolf investigator, Jess Carey, who was in the field investigating a wolf kill.
The same day, Allred received a call from a biologist at the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish who said he was passing along a message that the site had been checked by a U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf officer. The report said he found only quail, skunk, and dog or coyote tracks.
Allred asked how the officer how found the site, because only his daughter and employee knew where the wolf had been seen. The biologist told Allred he had no idea and didn’t care. He was just passing on the message.
The next day, Carey was shown the place where the wolf had been sighted and he took six castings of a wolf track.
Allred told the Daily Press that he was trying to convey to Tuggle that the wolf officers didn’t care about the residents, their children or their pets.
“ They just have their marching papers and that’s all they care about,' he said.
He also reported that the Catron County wolf investigator has taken castings of wolf paw prints in residential areas.
“ With all due respect,' Allred said to Tuggle, “ I want to see you have to haul the wolves out.'
Allred said his business depends on tourists and hunters.
“You told us in meetings before the wolves were released into Catron County that tourists would come to see the wolves,' he said. “I haven’t met a single tourist for wolves. It makes it hard to do business, because the program is pushing away hunters, tourists and other forest-user groups I depend on for my living. The wolves will run us all off.
“I want the program out of here,' Allred continued. “ We want to participate with you with integrity, but my business is drying up, especially during hunting season.'
“ Three years ago, we believed you,' Tackman said. “ But help needs to be quick. Last summer was hell for me. The bottom line is: wolves kill.
“I saw 120 elks calving,' he said. “I saw the wolves move in. The elk left and the wolves moved into the cows and calves. I can’t blame the wolf. It’s going to eat.'
Another resident, Tim Klumker, said he has to baby sit his neighbor ’ s dogs whenever she leaves, because wolves have attacked the dogs.
Tackman said the reality is that if ranching takes place where there are wolves, the rancher is going to lose cows.
“ I guess the rabid environmentalists are going to win and that’s wrong,' he said.
Corbin Newman, U. S. Forest Service regional forester, asked Tackman if funding to pay for cattle losses due to wolf depredation would help.
“ I know some people won’t agree with me,' Tackman said, “ but I’ll raise cows to feed wolves. I’m doing it anyway.'
Alex Thal, who works with Western New Mexico University, pointed out that replacing beef cattle with cull cattle would replace all aspects of ranching management.
“ People raise cattle to feed people, not wolves,' Thal said.
Ed Wehrheim, Catron County Commission chairman, said he knows a woman who has to open her door with a gun and check to make sure no wolves are around before she lets her children out to play.
“ In Catron County, ranchers pay 48 percent of our taxes,' Wehrheim said. “We’re already losing revenue.'
Tuggle said any wolves hanging around people “ have to go, and part of my duty is recognizing that implementing the program has an impact on you.'
He said he had talked to the Jones family the day they were moving out after having sold their ranch.
“ I’m going to work not to have to talk to another family like that,' Tuggle said.
“ You’re talking about paying for cows like you’d pay for a bale of hay,' Margie McKeen said. “We’re small ranchers. We get attached to our cattle. We even name some of them.'
Klumker pointed out that the cattle raised in the area are acclimatized and to replace those lost sometimes requires buying several before finding ones that can live and produce well in the region.
When Tackman said the wolves feed primarily on elk and cattle, and “not the deer as it said in the EIS,' Tuggle changed course and said that was why the EIS needed to be changed.
Wehrheim asked what the relationship is between the USFWS and the NMDGF.
Tuggle said they are partners and try to work together as closely as possible.
“ Ultimately, when it comes to the removal of wolves, it’s my decision,' Tuggle said.
He said the three- strike rule of depredation by a wolf would continue, but “ with modifications. We may have to have a fourth strike, but we have to make the right call with ranchers. The wolf program is not a success if it’s impacting a rancher.'
Wehrheim pointed out that moisture has been abundant the past few years, with 80 percent of cattle reproducing and 50 percent elk reproduction, but in a drought, cattle reproduction will drop to 40 percent or even 20 percent and “all the ranchers will be out of business, because of the wolves.'
To a question posed about the Road Management Rule, Newman said he would return to the area to answer questions.
“It’s a national program,' Newman said. “ Richard ( Markley, Gila Forest supervisor) came to me and said we hadn’t spent enough time listening to people and he’s right. I am committed to hearing from you. Nothing is more basic to the national forest than having people accessing it and using it.'
He did warn that some roads would be closed and cross- country travel across the forest would be prohibited, but “you need to have the ability to use (all-terrain vehicles) in the course of your work.'
McKeen said he was “ humbled and gratified' by the representatives’ presence on his property, but asked for swift action to remedy what began as a small problem and increased to a large problem in the river.
“ All together we have to make a decision to look at protecting your private property rights and the Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat,' Tuggle said, “but I don’t see it as something that can’t be done.'
—MARY ALICE MURPHY
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Status of lesser prairie chicken, sand dune lizard listing subject of discussion at Saturday meeting
CARLSBAD — An informational meeting for those interested in taking part in the recently signed agreements aimed at protecting the two threatened species in the region is scheduled for Saturday, Jan. 24, at the Brininstool Ranch south of Carlsbad.
The meeting will explain the Candidate Conservation Agreement and the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances signed in December to benefit the lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard. Both species are targeted — but not yet listed — as potentially endangered species.
The agreements are a way for state and federal regulatory agencies, industry and conservation groups to join together in the common goal of enacting a process to build awareness and help conserve the two declining species.
The Candidate Conservation Agreement applies to federal agencies and ranchers or energy companies that lease land from the federal government, while the agreement with assurances applies to private landowners, state agencies and entities leasing state lands.
The Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management, located in Carlsbad, is acting as the central point of contact for anyone interested in participating in the agreements. The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will work with the center to identify projects and mitigation measures for landowners and companies that participate in the agreements.
Landowners and land users will be given the opportunity to participate in the preservation of the species before they become federally listed and would receive special consideration in dealing with the consequences of subsequent federal regulations.
Saturday's meeting begins at 9 a.m. at the Brininstool Ranch and will explain the program and the participation process. To reach the ranch from Carlsbad, take U.S. 285 south approximately 10 miles to Highway 31. Turn left. Go approximately 10 miles to Highway 128. Turn right. Between mile markers 28 and 29, turn left (north) at the street sign. The Brininstool Ranch House is approximately four miles.
For more information, contact the center at (575) 885-3700.
The meeting will explain the Candidate Conservation Agreement and the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances signed in December to benefit the lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard. Both species are targeted — but not yet listed — as potentially endangered species.
The agreements are a way for state and federal regulatory agencies, industry and conservation groups to join together in the common goal of enacting a process to build awareness and help conserve the two declining species.
The Candidate Conservation Agreement applies to federal agencies and ranchers or energy companies that lease land from the federal government, while the agreement with assurances applies to private landowners, state agencies and entities leasing state lands.
The Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management, located in Carlsbad, is acting as the central point of contact for anyone interested in participating in the agreements. The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will work with the center to identify projects and mitigation measures for landowners and companies that participate in the agreements.
Landowners and land users will be given the opportunity to participate in the preservation of the species before they become federally listed and would receive special consideration in dealing with the consequences of subsequent federal regulations.
Saturday's meeting begins at 9 a.m. at the Brininstool Ranch and will explain the program and the participation process. To reach the ranch from Carlsbad, take U.S. 285 south approximately 10 miles to Highway 31. Turn left. Go approximately 10 miles to Highway 128. Turn right. Between mile markers 28 and 29, turn left (north) at the street sign. The Brininstool Ranch House is approximately four miles.
For more information, contact the center at (575) 885-3700.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Aldo Leopold Centennial Celebration 2009
Honors Keioikd's legacy in New Mesico by promoting Leopold's vision that an ethical relationship with the land is essential to a vibrant and healthy community. The theme of this yearlong celebration is the relevance of Leopold's Land Ethic to how we address today's pressing environmental issues and make policy decisions about our future. Our goal is to engage the citizens of our community in the meaningful commitment to promise our children the inheritance of a beautiful and healthy physical environment.
The Aldo Leopold Centennial Celebration began as the dream of a group of Albuquerque citizens who believed that careful consideration of Leopold’s legacy in the southwest could guide the citizenship toward a healthy, sustainable, and vibrant future. Initial conversations were small and intimate, but the widespread passion for Leopold’s work soon grew into a substantial grassroots effort involving individuals and organizations throughout New Mexico and Arizona.
Leopold himself believed in the power of a shared community effort. While he is rightly honored for beautiful articulation of the land ethic, he stated clearly that an ethic is not something an individual writes alone: “Nothing so important as an ethic is ever written,” he explained. “It evolves in the minds of a thinking community.” His was an invitation to all citizens to participate in careful thinking about our relationship with the land and how we might live as thoughtful, knowledgeable members of the biotic community.
The 2009 Aldo Leopold Centennial Celebration extends this invitation to all individuals and organizations throughout the region. Our hope is to evoke a rich and varied conversation among ecologists and architects, philosophers and accountants, poets and politicians, artists and conservationists, students and teachers. We believe that a yearlong, community-wide exploration of Leopold’s work has the potential to shape our future in profound ways and to change us, in both mind and heart.
With the support of the Aldo Leopold Foundation in Baraboo, Wisconsin, we are planning a wide variety of programs for the centennial anniversary of Leopold’s arrival in the southwest. Details of these can be found on the events page here. In particular, we hope you will join us the weekend of February 13th-15th for the kick-off event to our yearlong celebration: A Cultural Conversation: Aldo Leopold, the Southwest, and the Evolution of a Land Ethic for the Future.
In addition to our partnership with The Leopold Foundation, we have enjoyed the support of many individuals and organizations, whose contributions have made our work possible.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Anthony Anella
Co-chair
Robert Peters
Co-chair
Andrew Wooden
Bosque School
Sheryl Chard
Bosque School
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Larry Allen
Malpai Borderlands Group
Edgar Boles
Albuquerque Historic Preservation Planner
Jim Burbank
Voices of the American Land
Craig Chapman
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance
Stanley Damberger
Professor Emeritus of English
Jens Deichmann
Sustainability Education
Jay Lee Evans
Albuquerque Parks & Recreation Department
Ethan Epstein
Modrall Sperling Law Firm
Susan Flader
Aldo Leopold Foundation
William Fleming
UNM School of Architecture & Planning
Buddy Huffaker
Aldo Leopold Foundation
Verne Huser
Writer
Joanie Griffin
Griffin & Associates
Colleen Langan
Bernalillo County Open Space Division
Martin Martinez
Albuquerque Open Space Division
Ida Mazzoni
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library System
Cara McCulloch
New Mexico Architectural Foundation
Celia Merrill
Golden Apple Foundation of NM
Bruce Milne
UNM Sustainability Studies Program
Ramona Montoya
Pueblo of Isleta
Glenda Muirhead
Albuquerque Wildlife Federation
Yasmeen Najmi
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District
Linda Patterson
Albuquerque Wildlife Federation
Ray Powell
Jane Goodall Institute
Riann Powell
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library System
Suzanne Probart
Tree New Mexico
Matthew Schmader
Albuquerque Open Space Division
Jane Catherwood Sprague
Contemporary Art Society/Land Art
Robert Stamm
Bradbury & Stamm Construction
Dana Vackar Strang
Audubon New Mexico
Jean Szymanski
USDA Forest Service
Courtney White
Quivira Coalition
COORDINATORS
Dara Johnson
Coordinator
Sheryl Russell
Assistant
The Aldo Leopold Centennial Celebration began as the dream of a group of Albuquerque citizens who believed that careful consideration of Leopold’s legacy in the southwest could guide the citizenship toward a healthy, sustainable, and vibrant future. Initial conversations were small and intimate, but the widespread passion for Leopold’s work soon grew into a substantial grassroots effort involving individuals and organizations throughout New Mexico and Arizona.
Leopold himself believed in the power of a shared community effort. While he is rightly honored for beautiful articulation of the land ethic, he stated clearly that an ethic is not something an individual writes alone: “Nothing so important as an ethic is ever written,” he explained. “It evolves in the minds of a thinking community.” His was an invitation to all citizens to participate in careful thinking about our relationship with the land and how we might live as thoughtful, knowledgeable members of the biotic community.
The 2009 Aldo Leopold Centennial Celebration extends this invitation to all individuals and organizations throughout the region. Our hope is to evoke a rich and varied conversation among ecologists and architects, philosophers and accountants, poets and politicians, artists and conservationists, students and teachers. We believe that a yearlong, community-wide exploration of Leopold’s work has the potential to shape our future in profound ways and to change us, in both mind and heart.
With the support of the Aldo Leopold Foundation in Baraboo, Wisconsin, we are planning a wide variety of programs for the centennial anniversary of Leopold’s arrival in the southwest. Details of these can be found on the events page here. In particular, we hope you will join us the weekend of February 13th-15th for the kick-off event to our yearlong celebration: A Cultural Conversation: Aldo Leopold, the Southwest, and the Evolution of a Land Ethic for the Future.
In addition to our partnership with The Leopold Foundation, we have enjoyed the support of many individuals and organizations, whose contributions have made our work possible.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Anthony Anella
Co-chair
Robert Peters
Co-chair
Andrew Wooden
Bosque School
Sheryl Chard
Bosque School
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Larry Allen
Malpai Borderlands Group
Edgar Boles
Albuquerque Historic Preservation Planner
Jim Burbank
Voices of the American Land
Craig Chapman
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance
Stanley Damberger
Professor Emeritus of English
Jens Deichmann
Sustainability Education
Jay Lee Evans
Albuquerque Parks & Recreation Department
Ethan Epstein
Modrall Sperling Law Firm
Susan Flader
Aldo Leopold Foundation
William Fleming
UNM School of Architecture & Planning
Buddy Huffaker
Aldo Leopold Foundation
Verne Huser
Writer
Joanie Griffin
Griffin & Associates
Colleen Langan
Bernalillo County Open Space Division
Martin Martinez
Albuquerque Open Space Division
Ida Mazzoni
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library System
Cara McCulloch
New Mexico Architectural Foundation
Celia Merrill
Golden Apple Foundation of NM
Bruce Milne
UNM Sustainability Studies Program
Ramona Montoya
Pueblo of Isleta
Glenda Muirhead
Albuquerque Wildlife Federation
Yasmeen Najmi
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District
Linda Patterson
Albuquerque Wildlife Federation
Ray Powell
Jane Goodall Institute
Riann Powell
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library System
Suzanne Probart
Tree New Mexico
Matthew Schmader
Albuquerque Open Space Division
Jane Catherwood Sprague
Contemporary Art Society/Land Art
Robert Stamm
Bradbury & Stamm Construction
Dana Vackar Strang
Audubon New Mexico
Jean Szymanski
USDA Forest Service
Courtney White
Quivira Coalition
COORDINATORS
Dara Johnson
Coordinator
Sheryl Russell
Assistant
Aldo Leopold Conference
February 13-14, 2009
National Hispanic Cultural Center
As the opening event in the Aldo Leopold Centennial Celebration 2009, this “cultural conversation” is intended to foster creative discussion about the Southwestern roots of Leopold’s land ethic, the roots of an environmental ethic in Hispanic and Native American traditions, and the historic and potential connections among them. The event is open to the public and welcomes participants from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds and perspectives.
The program will include keynote speaker Gary Paul Nabhan, a Lebanese-American scholar exploring the challenge of ethics in a time of global change, a look at the roots of a land ethic in the Southwest from Native American, Hispanic, and Leopold perspectives, and a series of four panel discussions on the following topics, each with panelists from varied cultural traditions and viewpoints.
The event is co-sponsored by the Aldo Leopold Foundation and the National Hispanic Cultural Center. Additional funding provided by the New Mexico Humanities Council through the We the People initiative of the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Center for Humans and Nature, the University of New Mexico, and the U.S. Forest Service.
PANELS
The Local & the Global
Aldo Leopold composed his landmark essay “The Land Ethic” in the late 1940s, at a time when environmental concern was becoming global in scope. The land ethic has since helped to undergird an emerging global environmental ethic, even while emphasizing the need for revitalizing local connections to, and within, our landscapes. This panel will explore connections between local and global conservation challenges playing out in the Southwest and beyond.
Sustainability Across the Landscape
Sustainability aims to build healthy long-term relationships between people and land across cultural boundaries and landscapes, from wildlands to working lands to suburban and urban neighborhoods. Our landscapes are interconnected by food, water, energy, and complex community and economic ties. This panel will examine the challenges of sustainability.
Community Engagement
Over the last two decades, community-based approaches to environmental stewardship have taken root in settings from rural to urban. This movement has deep roots in Leopold’s own work on watershed health in the Southwest and Midwest. This panel will explore community-based projects and their contributions to the still-evolving land ethic.
Climate Change & Culture
With the reality of anthropogenic climate change now setting in, we face a cultural challenge unprecedented in human history. In his early work in the Southwest, Leopold had some inkling of these large-scale, long-term environmental changes. His land ethic now provides an essential part of the broader ethical foundation we must all create as a “thinking community.” This panel will address this great challenge from historical, scientific, and philosophical perspectives.
Register
Click here to register online by credit card, or download a registration form that you can print and mail or fax to us. If you have registration questions, please contact Jeannine Richards at jeannine@aldoleopold.org or 608.355.0279 ex. 25.
Colloquium Speakers
Cyndie Abeyta
(Albuquerque)
Middle Rio Grande coordinator/hydrologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, working with community groups on restoration of the bosque.
Estevan Arellano
(Embudo, NM)
Poet-writer-photographer-farmer and community leader, with interest also in the history of the Luna family, into which Aldo Leopold married.
Richard Bartlett
(Dallas)
Vice Chairman of Mary Kay Inc. with interests in land conservation, environmental science and education and president of Thinking Like a Mountain Foundation.
Butch Blazer
(Santa Fe)
First Native American (Apache) state forester of New Mexico.
Anthony Anella
(Albuquerque)
Principal of Anthony Anella Architect AIA, dedicated to conservation-based design and planning, and chair of the Aldo Leopold Centennial Celebration.
Gregory Cajete
(Albuquerque)
Director of Native American Studies, University of New Mexico, and author of numerous books on Native Americans and environment.
Susan Flader
(Columbia, MO)
Professor emerita of U.S. western and environmental history, University of Missouri, Leopold scholar and board chair of the Aldo Leopold Foundation.
Albino Garcia
(Albuquerque South Valley)
Chicano/Native activist and founder of La Plazita Institute to pull at-risk youth off the street and into community, including working at Sanchez Farm.
Drum Hadley
(Douglas, AZ)
Rancher, poet and founder of the Malpais Borderlands Group.
Wenhui Hou
(Qingdao, PRC)
Professor emerita of history at Qingdao University, translated Leopold's Sand County Almanac into Chinese and has interpreted it widely for Chinese audiences.
Buddy Huffaker
(Baraboo, WI)
Executive director, Aldo Leopold Foundation.
Estella Leopold
(Seattle)
Professor of paleobotany emerita, University of Washington, and daughter of Aldo and Estella Leopold.
Ariel Lugo
(San Juan, Puerto Rico)
U.S. Forest Service ecologist and director of the International Institute for Tropical Forestry, with special interest in global climate change.
Bill McDonald
(Douglas, AZ)
Rancher and executive director of the Malpais Borderlands Group, a coalition of ranchers and scientists devoted to private land stewardship.
Curt Meine
(Prairie du Sac, WI)
Senior fellow, Aldo Leopold Foundation, and director of history and conservation biology, Center for Humans and Nature, Leopold biographer and author of numerous studies of Leopold.
Bruce Milne
(Albuquerque)
Professor of biology and director, University of New Mexico Sustainability Studies Program, with special interest in local food systems.
Ramona Montoya
(Isleta, N.M.)
Natural Resources Department, Pueblo of Isleta, and scholar of Native American studies and land resources.
Milford Muskett
(Seattle)
Navajo historian and professor of Intra-American studies, Shoreline Community College, Seattle, with interest in Navajo environmental ethics.
Gary Paul Nabhan
(Tucson, Ariz.)
Southwest Center, University of Arizona, Lebanese-American ecologist and author of several books comparing cultural and environmental traditions of the American Southwest and the Middle East.
Miguel Santistevan
(Taos, N.M.)
Agricultural ecologist, with special interest in native maize varieties and acequia systems.
Dan Shilling
(Phoenix)
Adjunct professor at Arizona State University and former director, Arizona Humanities Council, who has a special interest in civic tourism and community development.
Carlos Vasquez
(Albuquerque)
Director of History and Literary Arts, National Hispanic Cultural Center.
Sylvia Hood Washington
(Chicago)
African-American historian, School of Public Health, University of Illinois-Chicago, with special interests in public health and the urban environment.
Courtney White
(Santa Fe)
Co-founder and executive director of the Quivira Coalition, devoted to restoration of ecosystem health on working ranches and forests of the Southwest.
National Hispanic Cultural Center
As the opening event in the Aldo Leopold Centennial Celebration 2009, this “cultural conversation” is intended to foster creative discussion about the Southwestern roots of Leopold’s land ethic, the roots of an environmental ethic in Hispanic and Native American traditions, and the historic and potential connections among them. The event is open to the public and welcomes participants from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds and perspectives.
The program will include keynote speaker Gary Paul Nabhan, a Lebanese-American scholar exploring the challenge of ethics in a time of global change, a look at the roots of a land ethic in the Southwest from Native American, Hispanic, and Leopold perspectives, and a series of four panel discussions on the following topics, each with panelists from varied cultural traditions and viewpoints.
The event is co-sponsored by the Aldo Leopold Foundation and the National Hispanic Cultural Center. Additional funding provided by the New Mexico Humanities Council through the We the People initiative of the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Center for Humans and Nature, the University of New Mexico, and the U.S. Forest Service.
PANELS
The Local & the Global
Aldo Leopold composed his landmark essay “The Land Ethic” in the late 1940s, at a time when environmental concern was becoming global in scope. The land ethic has since helped to undergird an emerging global environmental ethic, even while emphasizing the need for revitalizing local connections to, and within, our landscapes. This panel will explore connections between local and global conservation challenges playing out in the Southwest and beyond.
Sustainability Across the Landscape
Sustainability aims to build healthy long-term relationships between people and land across cultural boundaries and landscapes, from wildlands to working lands to suburban and urban neighborhoods. Our landscapes are interconnected by food, water, energy, and complex community and economic ties. This panel will examine the challenges of sustainability.
Community Engagement
Over the last two decades, community-based approaches to environmental stewardship have taken root in settings from rural to urban. This movement has deep roots in Leopold’s own work on watershed health in the Southwest and Midwest. This panel will explore community-based projects and their contributions to the still-evolving land ethic.
Climate Change & Culture
With the reality of anthropogenic climate change now setting in, we face a cultural challenge unprecedented in human history. In his early work in the Southwest, Leopold had some inkling of these large-scale, long-term environmental changes. His land ethic now provides an essential part of the broader ethical foundation we must all create as a “thinking community.” This panel will address this great challenge from historical, scientific, and philosophical perspectives.
Register
Click here to register online by credit card, or download a registration form that you can print and mail or fax to us. If you have registration questions, please contact Jeannine Richards at jeannine@aldoleopold.org or 608.355.0279 ex. 25.
Colloquium Speakers
Cyndie Abeyta
(Albuquerque)
Middle Rio Grande coordinator/hydrologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, working with community groups on restoration of the bosque.
Estevan Arellano
(Embudo, NM)
Poet-writer-photographer-farmer and community leader, with interest also in the history of the Luna family, into which Aldo Leopold married.
Richard Bartlett
(Dallas)
Vice Chairman of Mary Kay Inc. with interests in land conservation, environmental science and education and president of Thinking Like a Mountain Foundation.
Butch Blazer
(Santa Fe)
First Native American (Apache) state forester of New Mexico.
Anthony Anella
(Albuquerque)
Principal of Anthony Anella Architect AIA, dedicated to conservation-based design and planning, and chair of the Aldo Leopold Centennial Celebration.
Gregory Cajete
(Albuquerque)
Director of Native American Studies, University of New Mexico, and author of numerous books on Native Americans and environment.
Susan Flader
(Columbia, MO)
Professor emerita of U.S. western and environmental history, University of Missouri, Leopold scholar and board chair of the Aldo Leopold Foundation.
Albino Garcia
(Albuquerque South Valley)
Chicano/Native activist and founder of La Plazita Institute to pull at-risk youth off the street and into community, including working at Sanchez Farm.
Drum Hadley
(Douglas, AZ)
Rancher, poet and founder of the Malpais Borderlands Group.
Wenhui Hou
(Qingdao, PRC)
Professor emerita of history at Qingdao University, translated Leopold's Sand County Almanac into Chinese and has interpreted it widely for Chinese audiences.
Buddy Huffaker
(Baraboo, WI)
Executive director, Aldo Leopold Foundation.
Estella Leopold
(Seattle)
Professor of paleobotany emerita, University of Washington, and daughter of Aldo and Estella Leopold.
Ariel Lugo
(San Juan, Puerto Rico)
U.S. Forest Service ecologist and director of the International Institute for Tropical Forestry, with special interest in global climate change.
Bill McDonald
(Douglas, AZ)
Rancher and executive director of the Malpais Borderlands Group, a coalition of ranchers and scientists devoted to private land stewardship.
Curt Meine
(Prairie du Sac, WI)
Senior fellow, Aldo Leopold Foundation, and director of history and conservation biology, Center for Humans and Nature, Leopold biographer and author of numerous studies of Leopold.
Bruce Milne
(Albuquerque)
Professor of biology and director, University of New Mexico Sustainability Studies Program, with special interest in local food systems.
Ramona Montoya
(Isleta, N.M.)
Natural Resources Department, Pueblo of Isleta, and scholar of Native American studies and land resources.
Milford Muskett
(Seattle)
Navajo historian and professor of Intra-American studies, Shoreline Community College, Seattle, with interest in Navajo environmental ethics.
Gary Paul Nabhan
(Tucson, Ariz.)
Southwest Center, University of Arizona, Lebanese-American ecologist and author of several books comparing cultural and environmental traditions of the American Southwest and the Middle East.
Miguel Santistevan
(Taos, N.M.)
Agricultural ecologist, with special interest in native maize varieties and acequia systems.
Dan Shilling
(Phoenix)
Adjunct professor at Arizona State University and former director, Arizona Humanities Council, who has a special interest in civic tourism and community development.
Carlos Vasquez
(Albuquerque)
Director of History and Literary Arts, National Hispanic Cultural Center.
Sylvia Hood Washington
(Chicago)
African-American historian, School of Public Health, University of Illinois-Chicago, with special interests in public health and the urban environment.
Courtney White
(Santa Fe)
Co-founder and executive director of the Quivira Coalition, devoted to restoration of ecosystem health on working ranches and forests of the Southwest.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Animal Rights Agenda Of America’s Next Regulatory Czar
Barack Obama’s pick for “regulatory czar,” Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein, may be the incoming president’s most popular appointment so far. Judging from his resume -- best-selling author, “pre-eminent legal scholar of our time,” and an endorsement from The Wall Street Journal -- we can almost understand why. Almost. Because as we’re telling the media today, there’s one troubling portion of the new Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator’s C.V. that has seems to have flown under everyone’s radar: Cass Sunstein is a radical animal rights activist.
Don’t believe us? Sunstein has made no secret of his devotion to the cause of establishing legal “rights” for livestock, wildlife, and pets. “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture,” Sunstein wrote in a 2002 working paper while at the University of Chicago Law school.
“Extensive regulation of the use of animals.” That's PETA-speak for using government to get everything PETA and the Humane Society of the United States can't get through gentle pressure or not-so-gentle coercion. Not exactly the kind of thing American ranchers, restaurateurs, hunters, and biomedical researchers (to say nothing of ordinary consumers) would like to hear from their next “regulatory czar.”
A version of the same paper also appeared as the introduction to Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a 2004 book that Sunstein co-edited with then-girlfriend Martha Nussbaum. In that book, Sunstein set out an ambitious plan to give animals the legal “right” to file lawsuits. We're not joking:
“[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”
It doesn't end there. Sunstein delivered a keynote speech at Harvard University’s 2007 “Facing Animals” conference. (Click here to watch the video; his speech starts around 39:00.) Keep in mind that as OIRA Administrator, Sunstein will have the political authority to implement a massive federal government overhaul. Consider this tidbit:
“We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”
Sunstein also argued in favor of “eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially.”
He concluded his Harvard speech by expressing his “more ambitious animating concern” that the current treatment of livestock and other animals should be considered “a form of unconscionable barbarity not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and mass extermination of human beings.” Sound familiar?
As the individual about to assume “the most important position that Americans know nothing about,” Sunstein owes the public an honest appraisal of his animal rights goals before taking office. Will the next four years be a dream-come-true for anti-meat, anti-hunting, and anti-everything-else radicals? Time will tell. For now, meat lovers might want to stock their freezers.
Don’t believe us? Sunstein has made no secret of his devotion to the cause of establishing legal “rights” for livestock, wildlife, and pets. “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture,” Sunstein wrote in a 2002 working paper while at the University of Chicago Law school.
“Extensive regulation of the use of animals.” That's PETA-speak for using government to get everything PETA and the Humane Society of the United States can't get through gentle pressure or not-so-gentle coercion. Not exactly the kind of thing American ranchers, restaurateurs, hunters, and biomedical researchers (to say nothing of ordinary consumers) would like to hear from their next “regulatory czar.”
A version of the same paper also appeared as the introduction to Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a 2004 book that Sunstein co-edited with then-girlfriend Martha Nussbaum. In that book, Sunstein set out an ambitious plan to give animals the legal “right” to file lawsuits. We're not joking:
“[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”
It doesn't end there. Sunstein delivered a keynote speech at Harvard University’s 2007 “Facing Animals” conference. (Click here to watch the video; his speech starts around 39:00.) Keep in mind that as OIRA Administrator, Sunstein will have the political authority to implement a massive federal government overhaul. Consider this tidbit:
“We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”
Sunstein also argued in favor of “eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially.”
He concluded his Harvard speech by expressing his “more ambitious animating concern” that the current treatment of livestock and other animals should be considered “a form of unconscionable barbarity not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and mass extermination of human beings.” Sound familiar?
As the individual about to assume “the most important position that Americans know nothing about,” Sunstein owes the public an honest appraisal of his animal rights goals before taking office. Will the next four years be a dream-come-true for anti-meat, anti-hunting, and anti-everything-else radicals? Time will tell. For now, meat lovers might want to stock their freezers.
Monday, January 12, 2009
NM Groups: State Should Lead the Nation in Greenhouse Gas Reduction
A group promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency has petitioned New Mexico’s Environmental Improvement Board to adopt new regulations to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. If passed, New Energy Economy believes the rules would place New Mexico at the front of U.S. states in fighting the effects of global warming and climate change pollution. The rules are designed to reduce dramatically greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade.
Bruce Frederick, with the New Mexico Environmental Law Center, says global warming is already having a direct impact on the state, especially its fragile water supply.
"We are already having prolonged drought, reductions in snow melt, snow pack, reductions in precipitation, and average precipitation."
Frederick says the proposed regulations would have financial benefits, as well as environmental benefits.
"We think this will attract green businesses to the state, attract investment and also even attract federal dollars, ultimately."
A preliminary hearing on the environmental petition is scheduled in Santa Fe on April 6, and is open to the public. Some scientists, and others, argue reducing such pollution won't slow or stop what they call the natural process of climate change.
For more information, visit www.nmenvirolaw.org
Bruce Frederick, with the New Mexico Environmental Law Center, says global warming is already having a direct impact on the state, especially its fragile water supply.
"We are already having prolonged drought, reductions in snow melt, snow pack, reductions in precipitation, and average precipitation."
Frederick says the proposed regulations would have financial benefits, as well as environmental benefits.
"We think this will attract green businesses to the state, attract investment and also even attract federal dollars, ultimately."
A preliminary hearing on the environmental petition is scheduled in Santa Fe on April 6, and is open to the public. Some scientists, and others, argue reducing such pollution won't slow or stop what they call the natural process of climate change.
For more information, visit www.nmenvirolaw.org
Wilderness bill moves forward in the Senate
WASHINGTON — In a rare Sunday session, the Senate advanced legislation that would set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as wilderness. Majority Democrats assembled more than enough votes to overcome GOP stalling tactics in an early showdown for the new Congress.
Republicans complained that Democrats did not allow amendments on the massive bill, which calls for the largest expansion of wilderness protection in 25 years. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other Democrats said the bill — a holdover from last year — was carefully written and included measures sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats.
By a 66-12 vote, with only 59 needed to limit debate, lawmakers agreed to clear away procedural hurdles despite partisan wrangling that had threatened pledges by leaders to work cooperatively as the new Obama administration takes office.
Senate approval is expected later this week.
Supporters hope the House will follow suit.
"Today is a great day for America's public lands," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. "This big, bipartisan package of bills represents years of work by senators from many states, and both parties, in cooperation with local communities, to enhance places that make America so special."
The measure — actually a collection of about 160 bills — would confer the government's highest level of protection on land ranging from California's Sierra Nevada mountain range to Oregon's Mount Hood, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia. Land in Idaho's Owyhee canyons, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan and Zion National Park in Utah also would be designated as wilderness.
Besides new national wilderness designations, the bill would designate the childhood home of former President Bill Clinton in Hope, Ark., as a national historic site and expand protections for dozens of national parks, rivers and water resources.
In New Mexico, the bill:
• protects the Snowy River Cave, which is believed to be the longest continuous calcite formation in the world, near Fort Stanton.
• creates a 5,367-acre national monument in the Robledo Mountains in Doña Ana County to protect fossilized prehistoric animal tracks.
• provides for a settlement that recognizes about 600,000 acre-feet per year of water to the Navajo Nation for agricultural, municipal, industrial, domestic and stock watering purposes.
• authorizes $870 million for a Navajo-Gallup pipeline project that will also be paid by local communities and the state of New Mexico.
• authorizes up to $327 million to assist the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority in the construction of a pipeline from the Ute Reservoir to several communities.
Reid said about half the bills in the lands package were sponsored by Republicans. Most had been considered for more than a year.
"I am happy that after months of delay we will finally be moving forward," Reid said.
The bill's chief opponent, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., denounced what he called Democratic bullying tactics.
"I am disappointed the Senate majority leader has refused to allow senators the opportunity to improve, amend or eliminate any of the questionable provisions in his omnibus lands bill," Coburn told fellow senators.
"When the American people asked Congress to set a new tone, I don't believe refusing to listen to the concerns of others was what they had in mind," Coburn said. "The American people expect us hold open, civil and thorough debates on costly legislation, not ram through 1,300-page bills when few are watching."
Coburn and several other Republicans complained that bill was loaded with pet projects and prevented development of oil and gas on federal lands, which they said would deepen the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
Environmental groups said the bill set the right tone for the new Congress.
"By voting to protect mountains and pristine wildlands, Congress is starting out on the right foot," said Christy Goldfuss of Environment America, an advocacy group. "This Congress is serious about protecting the environment and the outstanding lands that Americans treasure."
Republicans complained that Democrats did not allow amendments on the massive bill, which calls for the largest expansion of wilderness protection in 25 years. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other Democrats said the bill — a holdover from last year — was carefully written and included measures sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats.
By a 66-12 vote, with only 59 needed to limit debate, lawmakers agreed to clear away procedural hurdles despite partisan wrangling that had threatened pledges by leaders to work cooperatively as the new Obama administration takes office.
Senate approval is expected later this week.
Supporters hope the House will follow suit.
"Today is a great day for America's public lands," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. "This big, bipartisan package of bills represents years of work by senators from many states, and both parties, in cooperation with local communities, to enhance places that make America so special."
The measure — actually a collection of about 160 bills — would confer the government's highest level of protection on land ranging from California's Sierra Nevada mountain range to Oregon's Mount Hood, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia. Land in Idaho's Owyhee canyons, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan and Zion National Park in Utah also would be designated as wilderness.
Besides new national wilderness designations, the bill would designate the childhood home of former President Bill Clinton in Hope, Ark., as a national historic site and expand protections for dozens of national parks, rivers and water resources.
In New Mexico, the bill:
• protects the Snowy River Cave, which is believed to be the longest continuous calcite formation in the world, near Fort Stanton.
• creates a 5,367-acre national monument in the Robledo Mountains in Doña Ana County to protect fossilized prehistoric animal tracks.
• provides for a settlement that recognizes about 600,000 acre-feet per year of water to the Navajo Nation for agricultural, municipal, industrial, domestic and stock watering purposes.
• authorizes $870 million for a Navajo-Gallup pipeline project that will also be paid by local communities and the state of New Mexico.
• authorizes up to $327 million to assist the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority in the construction of a pipeline from the Ute Reservoir to several communities.
Reid said about half the bills in the lands package were sponsored by Republicans. Most had been considered for more than a year.
"I am happy that after months of delay we will finally be moving forward," Reid said.
The bill's chief opponent, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., denounced what he called Democratic bullying tactics.
"I am disappointed the Senate majority leader has refused to allow senators the opportunity to improve, amend or eliminate any of the questionable provisions in his omnibus lands bill," Coburn told fellow senators.
"When the American people asked Congress to set a new tone, I don't believe refusing to listen to the concerns of others was what they had in mind," Coburn said. "The American people expect us hold open, civil and thorough debates on costly legislation, not ram through 1,300-page bills when few are watching."
Coburn and several other Republicans complained that bill was loaded with pet projects and prevented development of oil and gas on federal lands, which they said would deepen the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
Environmental groups said the bill set the right tone for the new Congress.
"By voting to protect mountains and pristine wildlands, Congress is starting out on the right foot," said Christy Goldfuss of Environment America, an advocacy group. "This Congress is serious about protecting the environment and the outstanding lands that Americans treasure."
Saturday, January 10, 2009
NM Trespassing Statutes
30-14-1. Criminal trespass.
A. Criminal trespass consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon posted private property without possessing written permission from the owner or person in control of the land. The provisions of this subsection do not apply if:
(1) the owner or person in control of the land has entered into an agreement with the department of game and fish granting access to the land to the general public for the purpose of taking any game animals, birds or fish by hunting or fishing; or
(2) a person is in possession of a landowner license given to him by the owner or person in control of the land that grants access to that particular private land for the purpose of taking any game animals, birds or fish by hunting or fishing.
B. Criminal trespass also consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon the unposted lands of another knowing that such consent to enter or remain is denied or withdrawn by the owner or occupant thereof. Notice of no consent to enter shall be deemed sufficient notice to the public and evidence to the courts, by the posting of the property at all vehicular access entry ways.
C. Criminal trespass also consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon lands owned, operated or controlled by the state or any of its political subdivisions knowing that consent to enter or remain is denied or withdrawn by the custodian thereof.
D. Any person who enters upon the lands of another without prior permission and injures, damages or destroys any part of the realty or its improvements, including buildings, structures, trees, shrubs or other natural features, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and he shall be liable to the owner, lessee or person in lawful possession for civil damages in an amount equal to double the value of the damage to the property injured or destroyed.
E. Whoever commits criminal trespass is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who violates the provisions of Subsection A, B or C of this section, when in connection with hunting, fishing or trapping activity, shall have his hunting or fishing license revoked by the state game commission for a period of not less than three years, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17-3-34 NMSA 1978.
F. Whoever knowingly removes, tampers with or destroys any "no trespass" sign is guilty of a petty misdemeanor; except when the damage to the sign amounts to more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to imprisonment in the county jail for a definite term less than one year or a fine not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or to both such imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge.
G. This section, as amended, shall be published in all issues of "Big Game Hunt Proclamation" as published by the department of game and fish.
30-14-1.1. Types of trespass; injury to realty; civil damages.
A. Any person who enters and remains on the lands of another after having been requested to leave is guilty of a misdemeanor.
B. Any person who enters upon the lands of another when such lands are posted against trespass at every roadway or apparent way of access is guilty of a misdemeanor.
C. Any person who drives a vehicle upon the lands of another except through a roadway or other apparent way of access, when such lands are fenced in any manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
D. In the event any person enters upon the lands of another without prior permission and injures, damages or destroys any part of the realty or its improvements, including buildings, structures, trees, shrubs or other natural features, he shall be liable to the owner, lessee or person in lawful possession for damages in an amount equal to double the amount of the appraised value of the damage of the property injured or destroyed.
30-14-6. No trespassing notice; sign contents; posting; requirement; prescribing a penalty for wrongful posting of public lands.
A. The owner, lessee or person lawfully in possession of real property in New Mexico, except property owned by the state or federal government, desiring to prevent trespass or entry onto the real property shall post notices parallel to and along the exterior boundaries of the property to be posted, at each roadway or other way of access in conspicuous places, and if the property is not fenced, such notices shall be posted every five hundred feet along the exterior boundaries of such land.
B. The notices posted shall prohibit all persons from trespassing or entering upon the property, without permission of the owner, lessee, person in lawful possession or his agent. The notices shall:
(1) be printed legibly in English;
(2) be at least one hundred forty-four square inches in size;
(3) contain the name and address of the person under whose authority the property is posted or the name and address of the person who is authorized to grant permission to enter the property;
(4) be placed at each roadway or apparent way of access onto the property, in addition to the posting of the boundaries; and
(5) where applicable, state any specific prohibition that the posting is directed against, such as "no trespassing," "no hunting," "no fishing," "no digging" or any other specific prohibition.
C. Any person who posts public lands contrary to state or federal law or regualtion [regulation] is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
17-3-34. Revocation of license, certificate or permit for violation of law; notice and hearing; judicial review.
A. If the holder of any license, certificate or permit persistently, flagrantly or knowingly violates or countenances the violation of any of the provisions of Chapter 17 NMSA 1978 or of any regulations referred to in Section 17-2-10 NMSA 1978, the license, certificate or permit shall be revoked by the state game commission after reasonable notice given the accused of the alleged violation and after the accused is afforded an opportunity to appear and show cause against the charges.
B. At the hearing, the state game commission shall cause a record of the hearing to be made and shall allow the person charged to examine witnesses testifying at the hearing. Any person whose license, certificate or permit has been revoked by the commission may appeal to the district court pursuant to the provisions of Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.
A. Criminal trespass consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon posted private property without possessing written permission from the owner or person in control of the land. The provisions of this subsection do not apply if:
(1) the owner or person in control of the land has entered into an agreement with the department of game and fish granting access to the land to the general public for the purpose of taking any game animals, birds or fish by hunting or fishing; or
(2) a person is in possession of a landowner license given to him by the owner or person in control of the land that grants access to that particular private land for the purpose of taking any game animals, birds or fish by hunting or fishing.
B. Criminal trespass also consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon the unposted lands of another knowing that such consent to enter or remain is denied or withdrawn by the owner or occupant thereof. Notice of no consent to enter shall be deemed sufficient notice to the public and evidence to the courts, by the posting of the property at all vehicular access entry ways.
C. Criminal trespass also consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon lands owned, operated or controlled by the state or any of its political subdivisions knowing that consent to enter or remain is denied or withdrawn by the custodian thereof.
D. Any person who enters upon the lands of another without prior permission and injures, damages or destroys any part of the realty or its improvements, including buildings, structures, trees, shrubs or other natural features, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and he shall be liable to the owner, lessee or person in lawful possession for civil damages in an amount equal to double the value of the damage to the property injured or destroyed.
E. Whoever commits criminal trespass is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who violates the provisions of Subsection A, B or C of this section, when in connection with hunting, fishing or trapping activity, shall have his hunting or fishing license revoked by the state game commission for a period of not less than three years, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17-3-34 NMSA 1978.
F. Whoever knowingly removes, tampers with or destroys any "no trespass" sign is guilty of a petty misdemeanor; except when the damage to the sign amounts to more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to imprisonment in the county jail for a definite term less than one year or a fine not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or to both such imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge.
G. This section, as amended, shall be published in all issues of "Big Game Hunt Proclamation" as published by the department of game and fish.
30-14-1.1. Types of trespass; injury to realty; civil damages.
A. Any person who enters and remains on the lands of another after having been requested to leave is guilty of a misdemeanor.
B. Any person who enters upon the lands of another when such lands are posted against trespass at every roadway or apparent way of access is guilty of a misdemeanor.
C. Any person who drives a vehicle upon the lands of another except through a roadway or other apparent way of access, when such lands are fenced in any manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
D. In the event any person enters upon the lands of another without prior permission and injures, damages or destroys any part of the realty or its improvements, including buildings, structures, trees, shrubs or other natural features, he shall be liable to the owner, lessee or person in lawful possession for damages in an amount equal to double the amount of the appraised value of the damage of the property injured or destroyed.
30-14-6. No trespassing notice; sign contents; posting; requirement; prescribing a penalty for wrongful posting of public lands.
A. The owner, lessee or person lawfully in possession of real property in New Mexico, except property owned by the state or federal government, desiring to prevent trespass or entry onto the real property shall post notices parallel to and along the exterior boundaries of the property to be posted, at each roadway or other way of access in conspicuous places, and if the property is not fenced, such notices shall be posted every five hundred feet along the exterior boundaries of such land.
B. The notices posted shall prohibit all persons from trespassing or entering upon the property, without permission of the owner, lessee, person in lawful possession or his agent. The notices shall:
(1) be printed legibly in English;
(2) be at least one hundred forty-four square inches in size;
(3) contain the name and address of the person under whose authority the property is posted or the name and address of the person who is authorized to grant permission to enter the property;
(4) be placed at each roadway or apparent way of access onto the property, in addition to the posting of the boundaries; and
(5) where applicable, state any specific prohibition that the posting is directed against, such as "no trespassing," "no hunting," "no fishing," "no digging" or any other specific prohibition.
C. Any person who posts public lands contrary to state or federal law or regualtion [regulation] is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
17-3-34. Revocation of license, certificate or permit for violation of law; notice and hearing; judicial review.
A. If the holder of any license, certificate or permit persistently, flagrantly or knowingly violates or countenances the violation of any of the provisions of Chapter 17 NMSA 1978 or of any regulations referred to in Section 17-2-10 NMSA 1978, the license, certificate or permit shall be revoked by the state game commission after reasonable notice given the accused of the alleged violation and after the accused is afforded an opportunity to appear and show cause against the charges.
B. At the hearing, the state game commission shall cause a record of the hearing to be made and shall allow the person charged to examine witnesses testifying at the hearing. Any person whose license, certificate or permit has been revoked by the commission may appeal to the district court pursuant to the provisions of Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.
Friday, January 9, 2009
ATV Regulations Must Work in Rough Terrain
The reforms under consideration for all-terrain-vehicle regulation look good on paper. Unfortunately, that's not where ATVs are operated. In the backcountry, many of the reforms could be as meaningless as a rancher's shout of “slow down!”Based on a report by the Game and Fish and the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources departments, legislators are considering a minimum age of 16 for ATV operators, speed limits of 20 mph on roads and 10 mph on trails, stiffer penalties for repeat violations, driver's license endorsements and field enforcement by Game and Fish officers.
The new measures would beef up a 2005 law that requires riders under 18 to wear a helmet and eye protection and to attend a safety class.
That was a good first step, but ATV deaths continue — with 35 percent of them involving youths under 16. Damage to the environment continues as well.
“This is a crisis,” says Sen. Dede Feldman, D-Albuquerque, one of the sponsors of the 2005 law.
To protect riders and environment, legislators need to picture what will work in the woods.
Asking far-flung Game and Fish officers to keep an eye out for violators would provide spotty enforcement at best. Better to organize super blitzes at strategic locations, with State Police acting as backup. Stiffer penalties mean little in themselves; tying them to points on a driver's license would add teeth.
Most ATV operators are responsible folks who want to continue enjoying the backcountry. They should be enlisted to support another of the report's recommendations: a citizens' hot line to report violations.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Off-roading recommendations presented to state lawmakers
ALBUQUERQUE — A handful of state agencies has developed recommendations aimed at resolving conflicts with off-road vehicle users and curbing damage to cultural and natural resources across New Mexico.
The agencies presented the recommendations to state legislators during a packed meeting at the State Capitol on Wednesday. The hours-long meeting drew off-roaders, land owners and environmentalists, all passionate about their right to enjoy public land.
Democratic Sen. Phil Griego of San Jose said he plans to introduce legislation based on the recommendations and that developing an equitable way to manage off-road use is of great importance to New Mexico and the rest of the country.
"I know that in Colorado they're having the same kind of issues, and in Arizona they're having the same kind of issues," Griego said. "If you talk to any government official who deals with parks or mountains or wilderness areas, they're going to tell you these off-roaders are destroying the trails, they're destroying the forests, they're disrespecting the people who make a living off the land."
Battles among off-roaders, ranchers and environmentalists have heated up around the country as federal land management agencies try to decide what areas should be designated for travel by motorcycles, four-wheelers and other backcountry vehicles.
Ranchers have complained that their fences are being cut and their animals are being chased, but off-road recreation groups say the majority of off-roaders are being given a black eye by a small group of riders who disrespect the land.
In an effort to find a middle ground, New Mexico lawmakers charged the state Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, the Game and Fish Department and other agencies to come up with the recommendations before the legislative session that starts Jan. 20.
The recommendations — the result of 10 months of work — range from a hot line for reporting off-road violations to requiring off-roaders to get an added endorsement on their driver's licenses that would ensure they are educated on proper trail etiquette.
"What we're trying to do is pass a law that will allow them to use the trails but learn to respect the culture, learn to respect the environment and ride with some responsibility," Griego said.
The recommendations also call for the state Game and Fish Department to manage New Mexico's off-road vehicle recreation and for the state to coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management as they develop travel management plans for federal lands.
Reese Fullerton, deputy secretary of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources, said he plans to meet with off-roaders to hear any concerns about the recommendations. But, he added, he thinks off-road groups will step up to help the state watch for improper off-road vehicle recreation.
"There will be some battles but I think most people are responsible," Fullerton said.
A message seeking comment was left Wednesday with the New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Alliance. The group has accused Fullerton's agency of having an anti-off-road bias.
Fullerton said there are success stories in other states where officials have taken steps to manage off-road vehicle recreation through age limits, safety requirements and rider education mandates.
"This is a good time for New Mexico to be doing this," he said.
The agencies presented the recommendations to state legislators during a packed meeting at the State Capitol on Wednesday. The hours-long meeting drew off-roaders, land owners and environmentalists, all passionate about their right to enjoy public land.
Democratic Sen. Phil Griego of San Jose said he plans to introduce legislation based on the recommendations and that developing an equitable way to manage off-road use is of great importance to New Mexico and the rest of the country.
"I know that in Colorado they're having the same kind of issues, and in Arizona they're having the same kind of issues," Griego said. "If you talk to any government official who deals with parks or mountains or wilderness areas, they're going to tell you these off-roaders are destroying the trails, they're destroying the forests, they're disrespecting the people who make a living off the land."
Battles among off-roaders, ranchers and environmentalists have heated up around the country as federal land management agencies try to decide what areas should be designated for travel by motorcycles, four-wheelers and other backcountry vehicles.
Ranchers have complained that their fences are being cut and their animals are being chased, but off-road recreation groups say the majority of off-roaders are being given a black eye by a small group of riders who disrespect the land.
In an effort to find a middle ground, New Mexico lawmakers charged the state Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, the Game and Fish Department and other agencies to come up with the recommendations before the legislative session that starts Jan. 20.
The recommendations — the result of 10 months of work — range from a hot line for reporting off-road violations to requiring off-roaders to get an added endorsement on their driver's licenses that would ensure they are educated on proper trail etiquette.
"What we're trying to do is pass a law that will allow them to use the trails but learn to respect the culture, learn to respect the environment and ride with some responsibility," Griego said.
The recommendations also call for the state Game and Fish Department to manage New Mexico's off-road vehicle recreation and for the state to coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management as they develop travel management plans for federal lands.
Reese Fullerton, deputy secretary of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources, said he plans to meet with off-roaders to hear any concerns about the recommendations. But, he added, he thinks off-road groups will step up to help the state watch for improper off-road vehicle recreation.
"There will be some battles but I think most people are responsible," Fullerton said.
A message seeking comment was left Wednesday with the New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Alliance. The group has accused Fullerton's agency of having an anti-off-road bias.
Fullerton said there are success stories in other states where officials have taken steps to manage off-road vehicle recreation through age limits, safety requirements and rider education mandates.
"This is a good time for New Mexico to be doing this," he said.
Agents Have Suspect in Wolf Killing
Law enforcement agents with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have wrapped up their investigation of the Aug. 6 illegal killing of an endangered Mexican gray wolf and presented the results to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Nick Chavez, Albuquerque-based special agent in charge of the FWS Southwest Region law enforcement office, said Wednesday that federal agents have a suspect in the killing of the wolf.
The animal's corpse was recovered Aug. 15 on private land in the Gila Hot Springs area near the Gila Cliff Dwellings after a mortality signal was emitted Aug. 6 from its radio collar, according to a federal search warrant obtained this week by the Journal.
The wolf, the alpha male of the Laredo Pack, was one of seven lobos killed under suspicious circumstances in 2008 and under investigation by Fish and Wildlife.
If charges are filed, the case would be the first brought against someone in New Mexico for the illegal killing of a wolf — a violation of the Endangered Species Act punishable by up to a year in jail and fines up to $50,000 or a civil penalty of up to $25,000.
Only one poaching case has been successfully prosecuted in the 11-year history of the wolf reintroduction project. A 21-year-old Arizona man was sentenced in 2000 to four months in prison in that case.
About 31 wolves have been illegally killed since lobos were first released in southeast Arizona in early 1998.
Chavez declined to name the suspect, state how the wolf was killed, or detail where on the ranch the wolf was located. Norm Cairns, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Albuquerque, declined to comment on the case.
According to the search warrant, the wolf, designated AM 1008, and its mate were released in the McKenna Park area of the Gila Wilderness on June 24. By early July, the pair had traveled about 15 miles south to the Gila Hot Springs area, and wildlife technicians were dispatched to monitor the wolves and haze them away from residential areas.
Nick Chavez, Albuquerque-based special agent in charge of the FWS Southwest Region law enforcement office, said Wednesday that federal agents have a suspect in the killing of the wolf.
The animal's corpse was recovered Aug. 15 on private land in the Gila Hot Springs area near the Gila Cliff Dwellings after a mortality signal was emitted Aug. 6 from its radio collar, according to a federal search warrant obtained this week by the Journal.
The wolf, the alpha male of the Laredo Pack, was one of seven lobos killed under suspicious circumstances in 2008 and under investigation by Fish and Wildlife.
If charges are filed, the case would be the first brought against someone in New Mexico for the illegal killing of a wolf — a violation of the Endangered Species Act punishable by up to a year in jail and fines up to $50,000 or a civil penalty of up to $25,000.
Only one poaching case has been successfully prosecuted in the 11-year history of the wolf reintroduction project. A 21-year-old Arizona man was sentenced in 2000 to four months in prison in that case.
About 31 wolves have been illegally killed since lobos were first released in southeast Arizona in early 1998.
Chavez declined to name the suspect, state how the wolf was killed, or detail where on the ranch the wolf was located. Norm Cairns, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Albuquerque, declined to comment on the case.
According to the search warrant, the wolf, designated AM 1008, and its mate were released in the McKenna Park area of the Gila Wilderness on June 24. By early July, the pair had traveled about 15 miles south to the Gila Hot Springs area, and wildlife technicians were dispatched to monitor the wolves and haze them away from residential areas.
Rancher Versus Wolves
More than two dozen animals in Reed Point are dead after wolf attacks and one rancher is fed up.
"They can have as many wolves as they want in Alaska, Canada, Yellowstone Park, but don't bring them to the Svenson ranch, they're not needed here," said Sven Svenson.
He's a man who's running out of ideas and running out of ways to stop more of his animals from being killed by wolves on 10,000 acres of grazing land. "I've lost with the ones we just looked at this makes 27 head," said Svenson. "I'm sure there's stuff I haven't found yet. I won't know until I get a count in February."
Svenson and his two sons have tried just about everything. "We've gone out at night and looked around and we've set up all our non-lethal decoys, the guard dogs, the flashing lights, and the scare crows and it doesn't seem to faze them any," said Eric Svenson.
The family's also turned to Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks officials and also brought in federal trappers, so far they've killed one wolf, but another remains on the loose. The family remains hopeful they can get back to business on their ranch sooner rather than later.
Defenders of Wildlife are planning on reimbursing the Svensons for lost animals; however the organization is currently out of money. In March, the federal government de-listed wolves from the endangered species list. After several lawsuits they were put back on the list and officials predict the wolf to be taken off the list in the near future.
"They can have as many wolves as they want in Alaska, Canada, Yellowstone Park, but don't bring them to the Svenson ranch, they're not needed here," said Sven Svenson.
He's a man who's running out of ideas and running out of ways to stop more of his animals from being killed by wolves on 10,000 acres of grazing land. "I've lost with the ones we just looked at this makes 27 head," said Svenson. "I'm sure there's stuff I haven't found yet. I won't know until I get a count in February."
Svenson and his two sons have tried just about everything. "We've gone out at night and looked around and we've set up all our non-lethal decoys, the guard dogs, the flashing lights, and the scare crows and it doesn't seem to faze them any," said Eric Svenson.
The family's also turned to Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks officials and also brought in federal trappers, so far they've killed one wolf, but another remains on the loose. The family remains hopeful they can get back to business on their ranch sooner rather than later.
Defenders of Wildlife are planning on reimbursing the Svensons for lost animals; however the organization is currently out of money. In March, the federal government de-listed wolves from the endangered species list. After several lawsuits they were put back on the list and officials predict the wolf to be taken off the list in the near future.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
New Regulations Proposed for Valles Caldera
Being a cowboy probably never involved so much red tape.
Officials this month proposed new rules for the management of the livestock operation on the 89,000-acre Valles Caldera National Preserve, covering everything from where to locate a fence to how much grass cows can eat.
The regulations also have implications for outdoors enthusiasts and environmentalists concerned about the protection of and access to the preserve's jaw-dropping vistas and prized trout waters.
The proposed guidelines are contained in an environmental assessment that's open for public comment through Feb. 2.
It replaces a previous assessment completed in 2002 that allowed preserve managers to launch the annual grazing program on an interim basis.
Officials say the new, more comprehensive assessment gives managers more leeway in running the ranch. It empowers managers to decide how many head of cattle and miles of fencing are appropriate given preserve goals like turning a profit and protecting the environment.
"What we want is the flexibility to manage the resources," said preserve manager Dennis Trujillo.
Four plans for grazing are analyzed in the assessment. The one favored by managers would allocate up to 40 percent of the grasses and other forage produced annually for grazing by livestock and the approximately 2,500 elk that reside on the land most of the year.
Preserve scientist Bob Parmenter said 40 percent is the magic number to ensure the forage keeps growing.
While the 2002 assessment capped head of cattle at 2,000, the new proposal doesn't include any such limit. Still, Parmenter said the forage parameters will keep the number of livestock on the preserve from climbing much higher than that.
Managers expect the proposal would allow the removal of up to 12 miles of existing fencing and installation about 3.5 miles of new, more wildlife-friendly fence. The Valles Caldera Trust maintains more than 54 miles of perimeter and 64 miles of interior fence.
A second alternative considered in the assessment would allocate only 5 percent of forage to grazing. The option would allow for the removal of most of the interior fencing, allowing opportunities to traverse the preserve unimpeded by gates or fences.
Officials hope the plan will help reverse decades worth of high-intensity livestock operations while also achieving financial self-sustainability by 2015, as mandated by Congress when the preserve was created.
But the environmental group WildEarth Guardians has argued that the preserve's "sustainable" grazing practices only further deteriorate the land and water. Cattle can destroy stream bank vegetation and cause erosion, leaving waterways wider, shallower and warmer, to the detriment of trout.
The group this year submitted its own bid for the preserve's livestock program "for the privilege not to graze the preserve."
But the contract went to rancher Gary Morton for 1,960 steers, turning a small profit for the preserve.
The environmental assessment can be viewed at www.vallescaldera.gov.
Officials this month proposed new rules for the management of the livestock operation on the 89,000-acre Valles Caldera National Preserve, covering everything from where to locate a fence to how much grass cows can eat.
The regulations also have implications for outdoors enthusiasts and environmentalists concerned about the protection of and access to the preserve's jaw-dropping vistas and prized trout waters.
The proposed guidelines are contained in an environmental assessment that's open for public comment through Feb. 2.
It replaces a previous assessment completed in 2002 that allowed preserve managers to launch the annual grazing program on an interim basis.
Officials say the new, more comprehensive assessment gives managers more leeway in running the ranch. It empowers managers to decide how many head of cattle and miles of fencing are appropriate given preserve goals like turning a profit and protecting the environment.
"What we want is the flexibility to manage the resources," said preserve manager Dennis Trujillo.
Four plans for grazing are analyzed in the assessment. The one favored by managers would allocate up to 40 percent of the grasses and other forage produced annually for grazing by livestock and the approximately 2,500 elk that reside on the land most of the year.
Preserve scientist Bob Parmenter said 40 percent is the magic number to ensure the forage keeps growing.
While the 2002 assessment capped head of cattle at 2,000, the new proposal doesn't include any such limit. Still, Parmenter said the forage parameters will keep the number of livestock on the preserve from climbing much higher than that.
Managers expect the proposal would allow the removal of up to 12 miles of existing fencing and installation about 3.5 miles of new, more wildlife-friendly fence. The Valles Caldera Trust maintains more than 54 miles of perimeter and 64 miles of interior fence.
A second alternative considered in the assessment would allocate only 5 percent of forage to grazing. The option would allow for the removal of most of the interior fencing, allowing opportunities to traverse the preserve unimpeded by gates or fences.
Officials hope the plan will help reverse decades worth of high-intensity livestock operations while also achieving financial self-sustainability by 2015, as mandated by Congress when the preserve was created.
But the environmental group WildEarth Guardians has argued that the preserve's "sustainable" grazing practices only further deteriorate the land and water. Cattle can destroy stream bank vegetation and cause erosion, leaving waterways wider, shallower and warmer, to the detriment of trout.
The group this year submitted its own bid for the preserve's livestock program "for the privilege not to graze the preserve."
But the contract went to rancher Gary Morton for 1,960 steers, turning a small profit for the preserve.
The environmental assessment can be viewed at www.vallescaldera.gov.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Isn't it time to discuss options other than wilderness areas?
Alamogordo Daily News
Why hasn't the Daily News ever found room to describe outgoing Congressman Steve Pearce's bill, H.R. 6300?
In fact, I wonder how many people who are supporting the establishment of wilderness areas in Doña Ana County have actually obtained a copy of the bill and read it.
The "Election alters wilderness fight outlook" article written by Sun-News reporter Diana Alba in the Dec. 24 ADN states that, "People for Preserving Our Western Heritage" (PPOWH) was mainly supported by a group of Doña Ana County ranchers and off road vehicle users.
However, PPOWH drafted H.R. 6300 and stated in a three-page brochure that the proposed bill has been endorsed by 14 professional people that include New Mexico's Secretary of Agriculture, two retired NMSU presidents, a retired NMSU dean of the College of Agriculture, a retired Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service and 700 businesses and organizations from Doña Ana County and elsewhere.
According to the article, the local director of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance stated that opponents to wilderness areas haven't shown a shred of flexibility. Yet, H.R. 6300 is an exceptional model of flexibility and conciliation written by a group of ranchers who are willing to sit down with all the parties who are interested in preserving Doña Ana County open range land and mountains.
Why can't the Sun News and ADN end their obvious partiality toward wilderness lovers and report objectively on the alternative ways that have been introduced to safeguard open public land without locking it up in wilderness areas? Quoting a PPOWH brochure:
"The 'Doña Ana County Planned Growth, Open Space and Rangeland Preservation Act' has quickly earned significant community support. Individuals, businesses, and organizations have been very receptive to this balanced approach to preserving and protecting our federal lands."
H.R. 6300 shouldn't be allowed to die in the House Committees of Natural Resources because its sensible approach proves that to save open land doesn't mean it has been classified as wilderness which, in many instances throughout the western United States, has seriously disrupted or destroyed ranching peoples' livelihoods.
The bill gives protection to 301,418 acres of public federal lands in Doña Ana County by withdrawing them from sale and mining activities.
I fail to understand why wilderness advocates are distrusted over the preservation areas established in the bill being multiple use when the bill also states that the Department of the Interior would be required to establish land management rules for safeguarding environmentally sensitive areas, cultural sites and other sites with unique geology and paleontology.
Otero County residents should study H.R. 6300 and decide if we need similar legislation in the near future because wilderness advocates are displaying a marked interest in Otero Mesa.
Charles N. Dennett, Alamogordo
Why hasn't the Daily News ever found room to describe outgoing Congressman Steve Pearce's bill, H.R. 6300?
In fact, I wonder how many people who are supporting the establishment of wilderness areas in Doña Ana County have actually obtained a copy of the bill and read it.
The "Election alters wilderness fight outlook" article written by Sun-News reporter Diana Alba in the Dec. 24 ADN states that, "People for Preserving Our Western Heritage" (PPOWH) was mainly supported by a group of Doña Ana County ranchers and off road vehicle users.
However, PPOWH drafted H.R. 6300 and stated in a three-page brochure that the proposed bill has been endorsed by 14 professional people that include New Mexico's Secretary of Agriculture, two retired NMSU presidents, a retired NMSU dean of the College of Agriculture, a retired Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service and 700 businesses and organizations from Doña Ana County and elsewhere.
According to the article, the local director of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance stated that opponents to wilderness areas haven't shown a shred of flexibility. Yet, H.R. 6300 is an exceptional model of flexibility and conciliation written by a group of ranchers who are willing to sit down with all the parties who are interested in preserving Doña Ana County open range land and mountains.
Why can't the Sun News and ADN end their obvious partiality toward wilderness lovers and report objectively on the alternative ways that have been introduced to safeguard open public land without locking it up in wilderness areas? Quoting a PPOWH brochure:
"The 'Doña Ana County Planned Growth, Open Space and Rangeland Preservation Act' has quickly earned significant community support. Individuals, businesses, and organizations have been very receptive to this balanced approach to preserving and protecting our federal lands."
H.R. 6300 shouldn't be allowed to die in the House Committees of Natural Resources because its sensible approach proves that to save open land doesn't mean it has been classified as wilderness which, in many instances throughout the western United States, has seriously disrupted or destroyed ranching peoples' livelihoods.
The bill gives protection to 301,418 acres of public federal lands in Doña Ana County by withdrawing them from sale and mining activities.
I fail to understand why wilderness advocates are distrusted over the preservation areas established in the bill being multiple use when the bill also states that the Department of the Interior would be required to establish land management rules for safeguarding environmentally sensitive areas, cultural sites and other sites with unique geology and paleontology.
Otero County residents should study H.R. 6300 and decide if we need similar legislation in the near future because wilderness advocates are displaying a marked interest in Otero Mesa.
Charles N. Dennett, Alamogordo
Thursday, January 1, 2009
SB9 - Removing ag workers comp exemption
SENATE BILL 9
49th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2009
INTRODUCED BY
Cisco McSorley
FOR THE COURTS, CORRECTIONS AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE
AN ACT
RELATING TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION; REMOVING THE EXCLUSION FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS OF FARM AND RANCH LABORERS IF THE EMPLOYER EMPLOYS THREE OR MORE EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING AN AFFIRMATIVE ELECTION TO EXCLUDE FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYEES IN A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR REVOCATION OF AFFIRMATIVE ELECTIONS TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FROM THAT ACT; CLARIFYING DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OF A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS; DEFINING TERMS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. Section 52-1-6 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1990 (2nd S.S.), Chapter 2, Section 4) is amended to read:
"52-l-6. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT.--
A. The provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall apply to employers of three or more workers; provided that act shall apply to all employers engaged in activities required to be licensed under the provisions of the Construction Industries Licensing Act regardless of the number of employees. The provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall not apply to employers of private domestic servants [and farm and ranch laborers]. Language within brackets [ ] is deleted.
B. An election to be subject to the Workers' Compensation Act by employers of private domestic servants [or farm and ranch laborers], by persons for whom the services of qualified real estate salespersons are performed or by a partner or self-employed person may be made by filing, in the office of the director, either a sworn statement to the effect that the employer accepts the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act or an insurance or security undertaking as required by Section 52-l-4 NMSA l978.
C. Every worker shall be conclusively presumed to have accepted the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act if [his] the worker's employer is subject to the provisions of that act and has complied with its requirements, including insurance.
D. [Such] Compliance with the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, including the provisions for insurance, shall be [and construed to be] a surrender by the employer and the worker of their rights to any other method, form or amount of compensation or determination thereof or to any cause of action at law, suit in equity or statutory or common-law right to remedy or proceeding whatever for or on account of personal injuries or death of the worker other than [as] those actions, suits or rights provided in the Workers' Compensation Act and shall be an acceptance of all of the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act and shall bind the worker [himself] and, for compensation for [his] the worker's death, shall bind [his] the worker's personal representative, [his] surviving spouse and next of kin, as well as the employer and those conducting [his] the employer's business during bankruptcy or insolvency.
E. The Workers' Compensation Act provides exclusive remedies. No cause of action outside the Workers' Compensation Act shall be brought by an employee or dependent against the employer or [his] the employer's representative, including the insurer, guarantor or surety of any employer, for any matter relating to the occurrence of or payment for any injury or death covered by the Workers' Compensation Act. Nothing in the Workers' Compensation Act, however, shall affect [or be construed to affect] in any way the existence of or the mode of trial of any claim or cause of action that the worker has against any person other than [his] the worker's employer or another employee of [his] the worker's employer, including a management or supervisory employee, or the insurer, guarantor or surety of [his] the worker's employer."
Section 2. Section 52-1-7 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1975, Chapter 284, Section 4, as amended) is amended to read:
"52-1-7. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT TO CERTAIN EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES, [OR] SOLE PROPRIETORS OR FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYEES OF A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS.--
A. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Workers' Compensation Act, an executive employee of a professional or business corporation or limited liability company, employed by the professional or business corporation or limited liability company as a worker as defined in the Workers' Compensation Act, or a sole proprietor may affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act.
B. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Workers' Compensation Act, the employer of a family member employee in a family farming business may affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act for the family member employee.
[B. Each] C. An executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or employer of a family member employee of a family farming business desiring to affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act as permitted in Subsection A or B of this section may do so by filing an election in the office of the director. An employer of a family member employee of a family farming business shall deliver a copy of the affirmative election made pursuant to this section to the family member employee for whom the affirmative election is made.
[C. Each] D. An executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or employer of a family member employee of a family farming business desiring to revoke [his] an affirmative election made pursuant to this section not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act may do so by filing a revocation of the affirmative election with the workers' compensation insurer and in the office of the director. The revocation shall become effective thirty days after filing. An executive employee shall cause a copy of the revocation to be mailed to the board of directors of the professional or business corporation or limited liability company. An employer of a family member employee of a family farming business shall deliver a copy of the revocation of the affirmative election made pursuant to this section to the family member employee for whom the affirmative election was made.
[D.] E. The filing of an affirmative election not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall create a conclusive presumption that an executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or family member employee of a family farming business is not covered by the Workers' Compensation Act until the effective date of a revocation filed pursuant to this section. The filing of an affirmative election not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall apply to all corporations or limited liability companies in which the executive employee has a financial interest.
[E.] F. In determining the number of workers of an employer to determine who comes within the Workers' Compensation Act, an executive employee who has filed an affirmative election not to be subject to the Workers' Compensation Act shall be counted for determining the number of workers employed by [such] the employer.
G. In determining the number of workers of an employer to determine who comes within the Workers' Compensation Act, a family member employee of a family farming business shall not be counted by the employer.
[F.] H. For purposes of this section:
(1) "executive employee" means the [chairman] chair of the board, president, vice president, secretary, treasurer or other executive officer, if [he] that person owns ten percent or more of the outstanding stock, of the professional or business corporation or a ten percent ownership interest in the limited liability company; [and]
(2) "family farming business" means a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company or corporation in which all of the partners, members or shareholders are related within the third degree by blood or marriage and where the business cultivates the land for the production of agricultural crops, fruit or other horticultural products or the business is for the ownership, keeping or feeding of animals for the production of livestock or livestock products;
(3) "family member employee" means a spouse of an employer or an employee related to the employer within the third degree by blood or marriage;
(4) "within the third degree by blood or marriage" means related to the third degree of consanguinity or affinity and includes parents, grandparents, great- grandparents, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and spouses; and
[(2)] (5) "sole proprietor" means a single individual who owns all the assets of a business, is solely liable for its debts and employs in the business no person other than [himself] that individual."
Section 3. REPEAL.--Section 52-1-6.1 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1984, Chapter 127, Section 988.3) is repealed.
- 7 -
49th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2009
INTRODUCED BY
Cisco McSorley
FOR THE COURTS, CORRECTIONS AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE
AN ACT
RELATING TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION; REMOVING THE EXCLUSION FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS OF FARM AND RANCH LABORERS IF THE EMPLOYER EMPLOYS THREE OR MORE EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING AN AFFIRMATIVE ELECTION TO EXCLUDE FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYEES IN A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR REVOCATION OF AFFIRMATIVE ELECTIONS TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FROM THAT ACT; CLARIFYING DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OF A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS; DEFINING TERMS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. Section 52-1-6 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1990 (2nd S.S.), Chapter 2, Section 4) is amended to read:
"52-l-6. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT.--
A. The provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall apply to employers of three or more workers; provided that act shall apply to all employers engaged in activities required to be licensed under the provisions of the Construction Industries Licensing Act regardless of the number of employees. The provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall not apply to employers of private domestic servants [and farm and ranch laborers]. Language within brackets [ ] is deleted.
B. An election to be subject to the Workers' Compensation Act by employers of private domestic servants [or farm and ranch laborers], by persons for whom the services of qualified real estate salespersons are performed or by a partner or self-employed person may be made by filing, in the office of the director, either a sworn statement to the effect that the employer accepts the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act or an insurance or security undertaking as required by Section 52-l-4 NMSA l978.
C. Every worker shall be conclusively presumed to have accepted the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act if [his] the worker's employer is subject to the provisions of that act and has complied with its requirements, including insurance.
D. [Such] Compliance with the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, including the provisions for insurance, shall be [and construed to be] a surrender by the employer and the worker of their rights to any other method, form or amount of compensation or determination thereof or to any cause of action at law, suit in equity or statutory or common-law right to remedy or proceeding whatever for or on account of personal injuries or death of the worker other than [as] those actions, suits or rights provided in the Workers' Compensation Act and shall be an acceptance of all of the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act and shall bind the worker [himself] and, for compensation for [his] the worker's death, shall bind [his] the worker's personal representative, [his] surviving spouse and next of kin, as well as the employer and those conducting [his] the employer's business during bankruptcy or insolvency.
E. The Workers' Compensation Act provides exclusive remedies. No cause of action outside the Workers' Compensation Act shall be brought by an employee or dependent against the employer or [his] the employer's representative, including the insurer, guarantor or surety of any employer, for any matter relating to the occurrence of or payment for any injury or death covered by the Workers' Compensation Act. Nothing in the Workers' Compensation Act, however, shall affect [or be construed to affect] in any way the existence of or the mode of trial of any claim or cause of action that the worker has against any person other than [his] the worker's employer or another employee of [his] the worker's employer, including a management or supervisory employee, or the insurer, guarantor or surety of [his] the worker's employer."
Section 2. Section 52-1-7 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1975, Chapter 284, Section 4, as amended) is amended to read:
"52-1-7. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT TO CERTAIN EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES, [OR] SOLE PROPRIETORS OR FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYEES OF A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS.--
A. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Workers' Compensation Act, an executive employee of a professional or business corporation or limited liability company, employed by the professional or business corporation or limited liability company as a worker as defined in the Workers' Compensation Act, or a sole proprietor may affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act.
B. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Workers' Compensation Act, the employer of a family member employee in a family farming business may affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act for the family member employee.
[B. Each] C. An executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or employer of a family member employee of a family farming business desiring to affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act as permitted in Subsection A or B of this section may do so by filing an election in the office of the director. An employer of a family member employee of a family farming business shall deliver a copy of the affirmative election made pursuant to this section to the family member employee for whom the affirmative election is made.
[C. Each] D. An executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or employer of a family member employee of a family farming business desiring to revoke [his] an affirmative election made pursuant to this section not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act may do so by filing a revocation of the affirmative election with the workers' compensation insurer and in the office of the director. The revocation shall become effective thirty days after filing. An executive employee shall cause a copy of the revocation to be mailed to the board of directors of the professional or business corporation or limited liability company. An employer of a family member employee of a family farming business shall deliver a copy of the revocation of the affirmative election made pursuant to this section to the family member employee for whom the affirmative election was made.
[D.] E. The filing of an affirmative election not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall create a conclusive presumption that an executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or family member employee of a family farming business is not covered by the Workers' Compensation Act until the effective date of a revocation filed pursuant to this section. The filing of an affirmative election not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall apply to all corporations or limited liability companies in which the executive employee has a financial interest.
[E.] F. In determining the number of workers of an employer to determine who comes within the Workers' Compensation Act, an executive employee who has filed an affirmative election not to be subject to the Workers' Compensation Act shall be counted for determining the number of workers employed by [such] the employer.
G. In determining the number of workers of an employer to determine who comes within the Workers' Compensation Act, a family member employee of a family farming business shall not be counted by the employer.
[F.] H. For purposes of this section:
(1) "executive employee" means the [chairman] chair of the board, president, vice president, secretary, treasurer or other executive officer, if [he] that person owns ten percent or more of the outstanding stock, of the professional or business corporation or a ten percent ownership interest in the limited liability company; [and]
(2) "family farming business" means a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company or corporation in which all of the partners, members or shareholders are related within the third degree by blood or marriage and where the business cultivates the land for the production of agricultural crops, fruit or other horticultural products or the business is for the ownership, keeping or feeding of animals for the production of livestock or livestock products;
(3) "family member employee" means a spouse of an employer or an employee related to the employer within the third degree by blood or marriage;
(4) "within the third degree by blood or marriage" means related to the third degree of consanguinity or affinity and includes parents, grandparents, great- grandparents, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and spouses; and
[(2)] (5) "sole proprietor" means a single individual who owns all the assets of a business, is solely liable for its debts and employs in the business no person other than [himself] that individual."
Section 3. REPEAL.--Section 52-1-6.1 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1984, Chapter 127, Section 988.3) is repealed.
- 7 -
HJM 1 - NMSU Water Study
HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 1
49TH LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO -
FIRST SESSION, 2009
INTRODUCED BY
Paul C. Bandy
FOR THE WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
A JOINT MEMORIAL REQUESTING NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY TO REPORT RESULTS OF RESEARCH ON WATER CONSERVATION METHODS THAT REDUCE CONSUMPTIVE USE.
WHEREAS, the legislature has received testimony on the
need for water conservation; and
WHEREAS, agriculture is the single largest consumer of
water; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 461 was negotiated and enacted in
2007 to provide incentives for irrigators to conserve more
water; and
WHEREAS, implementation of Senate Bill 461 by the office
of the state engineer has not resulted in water savings as
intended; and
WHEREAS, the need to encourage conservation and respect
private property rights are inherently compatible; and
WHEREAS, existing state policy works contrary to that
goal; and
WHEREAS, New Mexico state university has continuing
research programs to test various water practices and their
impacts on consumptive use efficiencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO that New Mexico state university be
requested to report to the legislature the results of research
on water conservation methods that reduce consumptive use along
with any recommendations for legislation to the appropriate
interm committee by December 2009; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this memorial be
transmitted to the president of New Mexico state university.
49TH LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO -
FIRST SESSION, 2009
INTRODUCED BY
Paul C. Bandy
FOR THE WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
A JOINT MEMORIAL REQUESTING NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY TO REPORT RESULTS OF RESEARCH ON WATER CONSERVATION METHODS THAT REDUCE CONSUMPTIVE USE.
WHEREAS, the legislature has received testimony on the
need for water conservation; and
WHEREAS, agriculture is the single largest consumer of
water; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 461 was negotiated and enacted in
2007 to provide incentives for irrigators to conserve more
water; and
WHEREAS, implementation of Senate Bill 461 by the office
of the state engineer has not resulted in water savings as
intended; and
WHEREAS, the need to encourage conservation and respect
private property rights are inherently compatible; and
WHEREAS, existing state policy works contrary to that
goal; and
WHEREAS, New Mexico state university has continuing
research programs to test various water practices and their
impacts on consumptive use efficiencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO that New Mexico state university be
requested to report to the legislature the results of research
on water conservation methods that reduce consumptive use along
with any recommendations for legislation to the appropriate
interm committee by December 2009; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this memorial be
transmitted to the president of New Mexico state university.
HB 39 Land Grants
HOUSE BILL 39
49th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2009
INTRODUCED BY Paul C. Bandy
FOR THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE
AN ACT
RELATING TO PUBLIC LANDS; REQUIRING STATE AGENCIES TO INCLUDE LAND GRANTS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE USE OF CERTAIN LANDS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. STATE AGENCY LAND USE PLANNING--FORMER LAND GRANT LANDS.--A state agency that owns any interest in real property that is located within the boundaries of a land grant-merced shall include the board of trustees of that land grant-merced in the planning process for the use of the interest in real property if:
A. the location of the property is within the boundaries of the grant as shown in the United States patent to that land grant-merced; and
B. the land grant-merced is governed as a political subdivision of the state pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 49, Article 1 NMSA 1978 or statutes specific to the named land grant-merced.
49th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2009
INTRODUCED BY Paul C. Bandy
FOR THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE
AN ACT
RELATING TO PUBLIC LANDS; REQUIRING STATE AGENCIES TO INCLUDE LAND GRANTS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE USE OF CERTAIN LANDS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. STATE AGENCY LAND USE PLANNING--FORMER LAND GRANT LANDS.--A state agency that owns any interest in real property that is located within the boundaries of a land grant-merced shall include the board of trustees of that land grant-merced in the planning process for the use of the interest in real property if:
A. the location of the property is within the boundaries of the grant as shown in the United States patent to that land grant-merced; and
B. the land grant-merced is governed as a political subdivision of the state pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 49, Article 1 NMSA 1978 or statutes specific to the named land grant-merced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)