Governor Herbert testifies before the Natural Resource Committee on the necessity of transferring our public lands 5/21/13

Original video found on the Natural Resource Committee website.

Conspiracy Theory? or Reality?

This article was first published on http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13490-judge-blasts-federal-conspiracy-ranch-family-vindicated-%E2%80%94-again

Judge Blasts Federal Conspiracy; Ranch Family Vindicated — Again!

Written by  William F. Jasper

l

Between the beginning of June and the end of August, an amazing drama unfolded in the courtroom of Robert C. Jones, chief judge of the United States District Court of Nevada. It should have received front-page billing across the country, but has been completely ignored by the major media.

In a June 6 bench statement, Judge Jones charged federal officials of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with violating previous court judgments and engaging in a decades-long conspiracy against Nevada rancher Wayne Hage and his family. Judge Jones described the agencies’ actions against the Hages as “abhorrent,” and also noted that he had asked the local U.S. attorney to attend the hearing for consideration of criminal prosecution of BLM field manager Tom Seley and USFS ranger Steve Williams for contempt of court. However, the judge suggested that it may be necessary for the Department of Justice to appoint an outside prosecutor, since the local U.S. attorney may already be compromised. He instructed the U.S. Attorney’s office: “I will require them to account back to me in six months — within six months, as to any action they’ve taken.”

On August 31, following a weeklong show-cause hearing for contempt charges, Judge Jones issued a blistering bench statement accusing USFS officials of lying to the court, attempting to mislead the court, abusing agency regulatory powers, and engaging in a pattern of threats and intimidation to coerce witnesses. The judge charged that Seley and Williams had used illegal means in an attempt “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.” Judge Jones, in effect, “fired” Seley and Williams. “Mr. Seley can no longer be an administrator in this BLM district. I don’t trust him to be unbiased. Nor can he supervise anybody in this district,” the judge stated in his order from the bench.

First, back to Judge Jones’ June 6 bench ruling. “So I’m finding and concluding as a matter of law,” said the judge, “that the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t — and it’s in the public interest, if I don’t restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

Seley and Williams attempted to extort money out of third-party ranchers who had leased cattle to Wayne N. Hage. They issued trespass notices for which they demanded payments, and in one instance coerced a $15,000 settlement.

“Especially the collection from innocent others of thousands of dollars for trespass notices is abhorrent to the Court,” the judge stated, “and I express on the record my offense of my own conscience in that conduct. That’s not just simply following the law and pursuing your management right, it evidences an actual intent to destroy their water rights.”

In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of “racketeering” under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, extortion, mail fraud, and fraud.

The August show-cause hearing gave further evidence the abuses that so offended the court were not limited to localized actions by Seley and Williams. The USFS and BLM sent a high-powered lineup of officials from Washington, D.C., and state and regional offices to defend their policies, practices, and employees. But Judge Jones was not buffaloed. He subjected them to intense questioning and made witness credibility findings in which USFS Region 4 Director Harv Forsgren was found to be lying to the court, and the Nevada head of the USFS, Jeanne Higgins, was found not entirely truthful. After those findings, several other named federal officials did not testify. Judge Jones also let it be known that some of the named officials — particularly Seley and Williams — may be personally liable for thousands of dollars in fines and damages.

Longtime readers of The New American will recognize this case; we have been reporting on the Hage v. U.S. property rights case for many years. We have featured interviews with, and articles by, Wayne Hage. For many years, Wayne Hage — cowboy, author, scholar, patriot, patriarch, Christian gentleman — fought an epic and lonely battle against a conspiracy of lawless bureaucrats who operated under the color of law. He repeatedly won judgments in court, only to see them ignored or appealed in an endless appeals process by the offending bureaucrats, who had access to unlimited taxpayer funds — including Hage’s own taxes. Wayne Hage died in 2006, but his family has carried on his fight.

The outrage expressed by Judge Jones should be echoed by all Americans — and should be directed at members of Congress to exercise their duties to restrain, penalize, and/or abolish the federal agencies that are involved in abusive, criminal, and unconstitutional actions against the American people.

Infuriating

Yesterday, on our Facebook page, we posted this important story about the Federal Government withholding $53M of WY's money from them.  I am posting it again here, in hopes that people will wake up to the fact that the Federal Government does not play by "the rules".  It is time to stand up as states and claim the jurisdictional rights that are already ours!

The original story can be read at http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2013/03/27/news/01top_03-27-13.txt

Feds hold on to $53M owed to Wyoming

Mead blasts Department of the Interior's newly announced decision to keep mineral royalties

By Trevor Brown
tbrown@wyomingnews.com

CHEYENNE -- Gov. Matt Mead denounced a recent decision by the federal government to withhold $53 million in mineral royalties payments owed to the state.

The U.S. Department of the Interior notified state officials Monday that it is withholding the funds as a result of the federal sequestration.

The move would cost the state about $10.6 million each month for the period of March through July. And more cuts could be required in August or September.

Mead criticized the decision, saying the department is unfairly passing the federal cuts on to the state.

"When (Wyoming) reduced its budget by over 6 percent, it did not achieve its reductions by withholding mineral revenue due under state leases," he said in a statement. "That would be taking someone else's property.

“Similarly, the Department of the Interior should not be able to meet its budget reduction by taking mineral revenues, which belong to the states under the law.”

Renny MacKay, a spokesman for Mead, said the funds were profiled, meaning it was money that was expected to come in when lawmakers put together the 2013-14 biennium budget.

“We don’t know how this will impact the budget until we get all the revenue (numbers) in,” he said. “But what we do know is that this is $53 million that was owed to us that we won’t get now.”

To put the potential $53 million reduction in context, the 6 percent budget cuts lawmakers approved earlier in the year will result in $61 million in reductions for the coming fiscal year.

Mead said he is working with state Attorney General Greg Phillips and Wyoming’s congressional delegation to see what resources are available to them.

Federal law requires Wyoming to receive 50 percent of the revenue from mineral leasing on federal lands.

But Gregory J. Gould, director of the Department of the Interior’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue, wrote to the state that the cuts are needed as a result of the automatic budget cuts that began to go into effect March 1.

Department of the Interior officials did not respond to calls seeking comment Tuesday afternoon.

State Treasurer Mark Gordon said he too will fight to prevent the reduction from going through.

“The opportunity to take a lot more of what the states are properly owed proved to be too tempting to the federal government,” he said in statement. “We are using every means necessary to make sure our state is made whole.”

Mead also lashed out at the Department of the Interior for giving the state little notice in making the announcement.

“This is no way to achieve adequate notice or give our state an opportunity to respond before the action is under way,” he said. “As far as communications go, this method of passing along significant information that greatly impacts Wyoming gets a grade of F-minus or worse. It is not acceptable.”

If the state is unable to stop the federal government from withholding the funds, it will be the second major budget hit from the federal government in the past year.

Congress passed a bill last July that stripped Wyoming of more than $700 million in Abandoned Mine Land funds that the state had expected to receive over the next decade.

State and congressional leaders similarly vowed at that time to fight the federal cuts. However, they have been unsuccessful thus far in doing so.

Commissioner Doug Heaton Explains...

Well over ten years ago, an astute Mark Habbeshaw foresaw the efforts of an ever expanding federal government to claim jurisdiction and then close access to public lands through road closures.  Mark almost single handedly waged a war to stop the intrusion.  He organized a working group to study solutions and finally ran for and won a commission seat from which he eventually filed suit claiming jurisdiction over roads by quiet title under Revised Statute 2477 authority (RS2477).  Subsequent County Commissions have persisted in and expanded the effort to include virtually all of the roads in Kane County.  Those arguments have been before the court for years and finally we got our first decision granting quiet title to a majority of the roads claimed in the original suit.

Two years ago the State of Utah decided to join the effort and filed suits on behalf of the remaining counties that have similar roads.   The pending litigation includes many thousands of roads and promises to go on for years unless this precedent setting decision paves a way for a satisfactory negotiated settlement. 

The impact of this decision is ground breaking.  It validates the assertion that local jurisdictions that RS2477 claims are valid and affirms both jurisdiction and ownership of the roads claimed, setting precedent for the rest of the state and the nation to follow. 

Environmental groups have opposed this action, knowing that an absence of roads is a prerequisite for wilderness designation which appears to be their predominant goal.  They are offended that commercial concerns including mining, timber harvest, grazing and mineral and oil extraction are allowed to take place on the "public lands".  The primary tools to stop those activities have been wilderness designation, environmental regulation and endangered species critical habitat.  Road closure is a major objective in their agenda to preclude the public from access to the lands. 

The trap for the public is that preservationist propaganda fails to mention the fact that should they accomplished their objective, those who wish to enjoy what they they have contributed to preserve will find it inaccessible by vehicle. Unless they are young and vigorous enough to hike 50 miles they will have to "view" the scenic wild-lands from the perimeter.  Comparing the vast areas proposed for preservation versus our ability to see only limited distances that experience will prove disappointing.  We even lose the ability to enjoy pictures of it as commercial photography is also prohibited.  It kind of violates the principles of the American Disabilities Act doesn't it.

We are excited to announce that the Court has now ruled that we can keep and maintain these roads for public use.  It is a great victory for those who desire to enjoy these lands and for those who depend on the resources that must be accessed by road.  The decision not only grants title and jurisdiction, but also provides access widths for maintenance where required.

You Have Questions? We Have Answers?

The Most Frequently Asked Questions

As we continue forward to educate people throughout America about the History of our Public Lands and the sovereignty of our states, established in the U.S. Constitution, we often hear the same questions over and over again. Today, let me address the most commonly asked questions we receive concerning the Transfer of Public Lands Act.

 1.    What is going to be done about existing rights?

• All valid existing rights including grazing, mining, timber, water, recreational access, and others will continue to be recognized.

2.    Don’t these lands belong to all of us?

• No, these lands rightfully belong to the citizens of each respective Western State, just as lands in eastern states belong to the citizens of those states.  Ownership by a state will not reduce enjoyment of the lands by anyone.  Just as Americans all feel welcome to enjoy the beauty of the color in the Northeast in the fall, and the beaches of Florida in the winter, Americans will feel as welcome as ever, if not more so, to enjoy the experience of the Western States' snow, color country, and plentiful wildlife through protection and use of the resources.

 3.     How will this legislation benefit the state, education, economy?

• The west has hundreds of billions of dollars in abundant mineral resources.  Yet, Utah, for example, is perpetually last in the nation in per-pupil funding for education (by more than $2 billion annually).  This is because under federal control, access has been greatly denied for the multiple use of their public lands.  Responsibly utilizing these resources will grow the economy and the tax base providing the revenues needed to close the education funding gap and to fund essentials government services.

 4.    What about protections for wildlife and habitat?

• The management of wildlife and habitat will change - for the better.Through improvements to the range, wetlands and other wildlife habitat made possible by more cost effective operations, use of local knowledge of the land, and reliance on centuries-old sound stewardship principles, state and local agencies can provide more effective and responsive protection and management of game species and native species to the enjoyment of all Americans, invasive species can be better controlled, and wetlands vital to migratory birds better protected.

 5.     Will the lands be sold to the highest bidder?

• No. The lands will continue to be managed for multiple use, i.e., sustainable yield and protection of resources, hunting and fishing, and recreational access.  This bill also paves the way for the creation of a Public Lands Commission to responsibly manage the lands and will preserve the expectation of multiple use of the lands that have developed over the last 116 years since statehood.  After the Public Lands Commission has organized the management of the existing multiple use of the lands, any lands that may be sold, if any, must be approved and authorized through an open, public process in the best interests of the citizens of that state.

 6.     Doesn’t the state already get money from public land?

• The state currently receives a share of federal mineral receipts, and local governments receive a small amount from the federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes and Secure Rural Schools Program.  These programs are federal revenue sharing programs designed to partially compensate for the lack of opportunity to develop a sustainable full-spectrum economy from the federal lands.  It is expected that state ownership of the lands will provide sufficient compensation to the public for the use of the renewable and non-renewable resources of the state.  Comparable operations on state and federal lands show the states can not only provide for healthy landscapes and produce renewable and non-renewable resources compatibly, but do it for a small fraction of the cost.

 7.     Will I be able to hunt, fish, 4-wheel, hike, bike, etc.?

• Yes. As a responsible steward, the state will manage the public lands to enhance and improve recreational opportunities.

 8.     What will happen with tribal lands?

• Tribal lands are not affected by this bill.

 9.     What about grazing rights?

• Once fully in control of our range-lands, Western States, like Utah, will guarantee grazing rights, and will engage in proactive sustainable efforts to increase the yield of forage, increase the yield of clean water, and reduce the effects of wildlife and invasive species on the range through locally-driven, on-the-ground response.

 10.   Won’t this harm tourism and outdoor recreation?

• No, if anything it will enhance them because there will be better access and better protection of the truly sensitive areas that demand proactive protection practices.
• This bill will allow the West to maintain vibrant healthy landscapes and to find the best management practices to enhance or restore areas which have suffered greatly under the process-heavy federal bureaucracy.  States in the west have demonstrated that best management practices, coupled with sound fiscal policy, lead to healthy, vibrant landscapes at a fraction of the cost, by allowing the money to be spent on-the-ground, rather than in endless studies and useless litigation as required by federal regulation.
• Outdoor tourism thrives because healthy landscapes, abundant terrestrial, bird and aquatic wildlife and the opportunity to engage the outdoors, through one's own labors provide the experience people seek. Proper management of the land, water, forestry and wildlife resources by the state, coupled with guaranteed access to the recreational areas, and encouragement to private enterprise to provide recreational opportunities for those who desire it,will foster a healthy tourism industry.

 11.  What will happen to our forests?

• Local management and decision-making will result in healthier, more accessible, and more productive forests.

 12.  Haven’t we been down this road before?

• No, not this road.  This bill makes a distinct demand for the United States to honor its promise; the same promise it made to all the other newly created states - to dispose of all public lands in timely fashion upon achieving statehood.  It kept this promise with all states east of Colorado (and with Hawaii).  Are we not a state entitled to have the federal government honor this same promise to us, to our school children, and to future generations?

These FAQs can be found at www.arewenotastate.com and have been altered to represent all Western States.  Utah's HB148, The Transfer of Public Lands Act is the model being used for other states' similar bills, and therefore, is being used as the reference for the answers to these Frequently Asked Questions.

Road Closures in Colorado

Thanks to Better-Community-News for sharing this important story:

 Powderhouse Becomes Powder Keg

WESTERN COLORADO - About 45 angry residents gathered to protest the closure of Powderhouse Road in Pitkin Colorado. The sleepy town is a launching place for all kinds of outdoor tourist activities as well as a home to residents who grew up roaming the mountains on their ATVs and snowmobiles.

David Justice, who was at the event, said, "This road has been here longer than the forest service has even existed...They tore it up with rippers and heavy equipment. It's an outrage!"

District Ranger, John Murphy said, "The road had been scheduled for closure since 2010 due to the (5-year) travel management survey that was done for the Gunnison National Forest. The plan wanted (sic.) to create a very large, uninterrupted area for the wildlife."

When asked why the wildlife needed a "large, uninterrupted area," and what a "large, uninterrupted area" would accomplish for the wildlife, Ranger Murphy stated that he didn't know the benefits of such a closure (since he is not a wildlife specialist).

Murphy arrived in Pitkin after the travel management plan had been made. He said many groups participated in the travel plan survey. He listed the environmentalist and other special interest groups that have worked to take away motorized access to the public lands for decades, all of them are from out of the local area. Their input was the basis of the travel management plan that closed the roads.
                                                                                                                 Murphy said, "Very little input was received from the locals who use the trails. Most of them didn't even know the process was going on at the time. Now they're furious that they can't use the trails they've always been used."

Murphy said his neighbor, who had participated in the travel management process years prior, was irate at the process because they didn't listen to what the local citizens wanted, only to the special interest groups.

Murphy mentioned that he has received complaints that the use of the road has been used in the past to fight fires that could threaten the town. He also said that a citizen told him that the road had always been a part of their evacuation plans in the event of fire and that citizen was concerned that his escape route would be cut off.

Click here to read the entire story.

Well said, Kathleen. Well said.

This morning, after our weekly e-mail went out, I got an interesting response from someone.  It basically said, "American lands belong to all Americans, not just to those of a particular state."  It's not the first time we've heard that argument, but I find it interesting.
If the lands of my state belong to all of America, when is New York going to start sending us taxes for the right to come here and enjoy our mountains?  If the American lands belong to everyone in America, shouldn't we be pooling all America's property taxes together?  Or how about sharing all the taxes that come from every state's trust funds and distribute it evenly among all  the schools in America?  Utah, ranking last in the nation in per-pupil funding may only be all-too-anxious to adopt that strategy.  But you see, we can't.  Because public lands do not belong to every American.  They were given to each state at statehood, deeded to the Federal Government only for a temporary time, to allow them to dispose of (or sell) them in a timely manner to help fund our national debt  (see the History of our public lands).
Just as I was wondering how to respond to this obviously well-intentioned person, I received a copy of an article that appeared in today's Deseret News, written by Kathleen Clarke, our Director of Public Lands.
Kathleen's article very articulately spells out the situation that we find ourselves in here in Utah...a situation which many of our neighboring states find themselves in as we struggle to meet our state's financial responsibilities while being able to tax such a minuscule percentage of our land.
I am sharing her article here and hope you will share it with everyone on your contact list.  For we can only claim our rights when we know what they are.

My View: The need for a balanced public lands policy

By Kathleen Clarke

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 14 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

                                    

                                                                            

                        

                        A hiker takes in the view in Bell Canyon in the San Rafael Swell.  (Ravell Call, Ravell Call, Deseret News)

                    

                                        

In its 2012 general session, the Utah Legislature passed HB148: The Transfer of Public Lands Act. This bill charged the Constitutional Defense Council with the duty to study the many complex issues pertaining to the public lands and to report its findings to the Legislature. As director of the Governor's Public Lands Policy Coordination Office, I have overseen this ongoing study. 

                                    

My experience as the previous executive director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources and the national director of the United States Bureau of Land Management has given me a unique insight into public lands policy: Utah's public lands would be better managed, more productive and more accessible under state stewardship.

                                    

Current federal land policy and management is inefficient, ineffective and threatens the long-term use and enjoyment of the public lands. Washington gridlock has resulted in a system where rigid and often conflicting management policies shackle federal land managers and prevent them from actively managing the lands. 

                                    

Outmoded federal policies have resulted in forests that are vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire, insect infestation and disease. Our rangelands are deteriorating and restoration efforts are underfunded. While land is rich in timber and mineral resources, production efforts are either precluded entirely or greatly limited by regulations, endless administrative red tape and lawsuits brought by interest groups that oppose any use of the land. 

                                    

As long as the public lands remain under federal control, they will continue to deteriorate, and Utah and its citizens will be deprived of the many economic benefits to which we are entitled and so desperately need. I am confident that, in state hands, the public lands will be restored, protected and more productive. 

                                    

Utahns have always been good stewards of the land. We have a long track record of both environmental protection and fiscal responsibility. Utah has the expertise in existing agencies —including those within the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Agriculture and Food — to address the many complex and interrelated issues of public land management. Utahns know that people from around the world flock to our state for its unmatched beauty and incredible scenery, and to experience meaningful outdoor experiences. 

                                    

No one in state government would permit the degradation of Utah's wondrous beauty. Under HB148, all national parks, all but one national monument, and all wilderness areas will remain under federal ownership and control. Other lands with similar qualities will also be protected. Lands with less aesthetic or recreational qualities that contain resources will become more accessible for development and revenue production. With ever improving technology, this can be done with minimal environmental impact. 

                                    

Multiple use will be the objective, and multiple users will all be given voice, including tourists; conservationists; hunters; fisherman and other outdoor recreationists; energy industries; farm and ranch interests; local governments; water districts; and other engaged stakeholders. 

                                    

HB148 is neither a "land grab" nor a "political stunt," as some have maliciously alleged. It is an earnest effort to draw attention to a federal lands policy that does not protect the land, does not pay for itself and does not meet the economic or energy challenges of today. There is no intent to sell transferred lands. Rather, these lands will be retained in state ownership and control so that they forever benefit not only the people who live, work and recreate on them, but all Utahns who look to government services to educate their children and enhance their lives. 

                                    

Utah has amazing public lands, and always will. Like my fellow Utahns, I care deeply about Utah's majestic mountains, still forests and quiet desert landscapes. This land is my home. The lands we all love and treasure won't be any less public when they are managed by the state. 

                                    

With proper examination and analysis, and a good faith dialogue, a more balanced lands policy can be achieved which will restore the public lands for the use and benefit of all.

                                    

Kathleen Clarke is the director of Public Lands Policy Coordination Office in the state of Utah.

    

Copyright 2012, Deseret News Publishing Company

Got 12 Minutes?

One of my favorite comedians, Brian Regan, once pointed out that on the back of a package of Pop Tarts, are two sets of instructions:  one for the toaster and one for the microwave.  Seriously?  Because one minute in the toaster just takes too long?  As Brian points out, if you only have the three seconds it takes to microwave a Pop Tart before you have to run out the door in the morning, you may want to loosen up your schedule...
But in reality, most of us, though hard at work most of the day, still find time to update our status on social media sites once or twice a day, "re-pin" a webpage, or catch the newest episode of our favorite show.   We all find a way to do the things we really want to do.
Everyday, people tell me, "I'm really worried about the direction our country is headed, but what can I do?"   They say it as if there is absolutely nothing that they can do to affect change.  And nothing could be further from the truth.
Today, I'm going to show you how you can take those random moments of time in your day to make a powerful difference in your community, and in our nation.  In only 12 minutes, you can be a catalyst for change.
This week's e-mail (entitled "Did You Know?") shares how in 12 minutes, you can contact all of your representatives and share your support for them as they move forward to protect our access, use and ownership of our lands.  In the e-mail, I promised you that it will only take 12 minutes of your time.  So I am going to do it for you, and I will time myself.  (Shoot.  The pressure's on...)  My stopwatch is next to me ready to go.  I promise...

Step One

Find 5 minutes to look through the Resource Tab at the American Lands Council website.  Pick a paragraph or two that you feel teaches an important principle worth sharing with your representative.

OK.  That took me exactly 4 min. 47 seconds.  (Cutting it close!)  It would have been faster, but my computer froze for a second.  Technology.  You can't live with it...you can't live without it.

Step Two
Spend 2 minutes finding the addresses of all of your elected officials.  Make sure to include our County Commissioners or Supervisors.  These can usually be easily found by Google-ing your county's website.

OK.  This was pretty easy to do.  Took me about 10 seconds to find each one.

Step Three 

Spend 5 minutes drafting a quick e-mail to all of your elected officials, lending your support and courage for them to do the heavy lifting of restoring our lands back to the people of the states.  A quick copy and paste of the paragraphs you chose in Step one, and you have just let your voice be heard.  You have helped to educate your representatives and let them know that you will stand with them as they make the tough stands and refuse to take "no" for an answer!

OK.  It took me longer than I thought it would as I had chosen a graphic to share and explain, and when I got to their websites, I could only use text.  So I had to start again.  But after spending about 3 minutes typing what I wanted to say, it was quick to send and then just copy into the next person's page.  Here is a copy of the e-mail I sent just now:

Dear Senator Hatch,

I was present this past Spring at the bill-signing for Utah's HB148 "The Transfer of Public Lands Act" where you spoke to the importance of requiring the Federal Government to return to the states the lands that it has held in trust, as is required in our state enabling act.  

In a recent court case, Hawaii vs. Office of Hawaiian Affairs (2009), the Supreme Court dealt with the preeminence between a state's enabling act and subsequent, inconsistent acts of Congress.  "The consequences of submission are instantaneous and it ignores the uniquely sovereign character of that event ...to suggest that subsequent events somehow can diminish what has already been bestowed."

Senator, while running for re-election, you promised several times to address this matter forcefully if re-elected to office.  I am writing to ask, now that the elections are over, what do you plan to do about it?

Respectfully,

Rebecca Ivory

Good luck!  If everyone on our mailing list sent just ONE e-mail a week, the nation would be flooded with information, determination, and inspiration, to stand together and claim our rights as sovereign states.  And if you want to send a copy of your letter to me to share with others, I would love to hear from you.  Send it to:

Becky Ivory (Director of Communications for the ALC)

becky@americanlandscouncil.org

I hope to hear from you soon!...Let's say, in about 15 minutes?

Where Are We Today?

The elections are over and many people find themselves thinking, "Now what?"  Well, regardless of your political persuasion, the mission of the ALC has not changed.  We will continue to move forward to secure and defend the local control of land access, land use and land ownership, and help restore the sovereignty of our states.  

DO NOT BE DISCOURAGED!

The Supreme Court recent stated in the Affordable Care Act decision:

Federal Government … must show that a consti­tutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions. The same does not apply to the States, because the Con­stitution is not the source of their power. … The States thus can and do perform many of the vital functions of modern government—punishing street crime, running public schools, and zoning property for development, to name but a few—even though the Constitution’s text does not authorize any government to do so. Our cases refer to this general power of govern­ing, possessed by the States but not by the Federal Gov­ernment, as the “police power. … Because the police power is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’ daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed. The Framers thus ensured that powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” were held by gov­ernments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy. The independent power of the States also serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government: ‘By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.’ … In the typical case we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting ‘the simple expedi­ent of not yielding’ to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace the federal policies as their own. The States [by and through their political subdivisions] are separate and independent sovereigns. Some­times they have to act like it.”  

And THAT is exactly what we intend to do.

Fed Policy: If It's Not Broke -- Fix It Anyway ...

(AZ Daily Sun June , 2012)  You have to give the lawsuit-crazy environmental community credit for thinking big. Having already secured 4.7 million acres in northern Arizona and southern Utah for their limited idea of acceptable recreation and having success in their goal of reducing land management option, they now want to take away the very popular multiple-use area just north of Grand Canyon National Park all the way to the Utah border.

They propose the withdrawal of an additional 1.7 million acres into national monument status. The proposed area currently provides recreational opportunities to millions of people who are physically unable to put on a backpack and hike miles and miles as well as those who could but chose not to. It is also an area where multiple-use management has resulted in a wildlife-rich, biologically diverse ecosystem.

Currently, only 23 percent of the land in Arizona remains classified as multiple-use. The rest has a variety of restrictions as to use and Arizona has the third-highest wilderness acreage in the nation.

The proponents of this plan to reduce even further our remaining multiple-use lands list six reasons for their latest scheme to limit your use of your land.

They want to end old-growth logging, yet, in their own words, "The Kaibab Plateau remains a rare example of a fundamentally intact, mature southwestern ponderosa pine forest retaining the highest density of ancient trees outside of protected areas." Funny, this multiple-use area has been managed just right by their own admission, yet they want to limit the ability of most Americans to enjoy it and limit the management options that they state have worked so well.

They want to protect cultural sites, yet there are already numerous federal and state laws that do just that, with felony penalties and fines up to $100,000 for violating these laws.

Managing native wildlife is another of the proponent's goals. The Kaibab is world-renowned for its wildlife, but the proponents still want to destroy the collaborative approaches used by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Arizona Game & Fish Department that have worked so well for the past 80 years. The real bottom line is they want to expand wolves to the North Rim, an area that historically had few, if any, wolves.

They want to put wolves on the North Rim because the current effort at wolf reintroduction in eastern Arizona has gone so poorly. This effort has gone poorly because of other wolf re-introductions across the country that have been embroiled in decades of lawsuits, despite the fact that the wolves in these areas are doing just fine and have exceeded all recovery goals. The environmental groups cannot afford to see state Game & Fish agencies succeed in wolf management because that success threatens the cash cow these groups have enjoyed by pleading to their donors that they need their money to "save the wolf" even after the wolf had already recovered in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and the Great Lake States. The Southwest is their latest "save the wolf" cash cow.

Reducing road density is another goal. Guess these groups have not looked at the Travel Management Plans all the forests have adopted. These plans close not only the forests to off-road travel but they close hundreds of miles of roads as well.

Another goal is to end livestock grazing. Over the years, the Forest Service has adopted more restrictive grazing standards. In addition, the current draft forest plan includes even more responsive grazing regulations and guidelines.

Their last goal is to stop uranium mining. What? We have to take 1.7 million acres away from the American public to stop uranium mining? Don't think so. One million acres in the area has already been withdrawn from new uranium mining for the next 20 years.

To the proponents of this ill-conceived, self-serving effort to eliminate multiple-use management and rob millions of people of recreational opportunities, I suggest you come back in 20 years and we can look at it. Until then, go take a hike in your 4.7 million acres and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy our 1.7 million acres.

Trillions in Resources Locked Up: Education Suffers

(CNSNews.com May 11, 2012) - "The Green River Formation, a largely vacant area of mostly federal land that covers the territory where Colorado, Utah and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as all the rest the world’s proven reserves combined, an auditor from the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Thursday.

The GAO testimony said that the federal government was in “a unique position to influence the development of oil shale” because the Green River deposits were mostly beneath federal land."

If the federal government were to simply honor to today's western states the same promise it made and kept with all states east of Colorado to "extinguish title" (i.e., transfer title) to all public lands within a reasonable time from being admitted as a state, western states would likely not have the hardest time funding education nor would they be desperately dependent upon a fiscally unsustainable federal government for more than 30% of their state budgets.

"We Just Want To Manage Our Own Lands So We Can Live In Safety"

(Ruidoso Free Press July 3, 2012)  In between the compelling stories of people who lost their homes, local dignitaries delivered speeches citing the immediate need to return control over public lands to the local level. Acting Ruidoso Fire Chief Harlan Vincent opened the rally expressing thanks and gratitude to the first responders that risked their lives for the sake of homes and properties. “We all know the problem does not lie with those on the front lines, but with the policy makers on high,” Vincent said.

Smoked Bear, Ruidoso Acting Fire Chief Harlan Vincent , Congressman Steve Pearce and a group of Ruidoso Firemen presented the perils of long-term mismanagement of national forests and wilderness areas during Saturdays rally “For our Forest’s Health” held at Wingfield Park. Smoked Bear’s mission is to protect millions of animals from burning and to stop wildfires from polluting our nation by increasing grazing and logging to reduce wildfire fuel.

“It may not be true that all wildfires can be prevented, but they can be mitigated by maintaining the health of the forest through thinning and removal of ladder fuels. Fires will still come, but they need not be as destructive,” Vincent said.

Vincent further noted that the Little Bear Fire, as bad as it was, was not the bad one. “Grindstone Mesa, Upper Canyon and Perk Canyon, Brady, Ponderosa, are all dangerously overgrown and filled with dead or dying trees. A fire started in any one of those areas, spurred on by dry conditions and high winds, would bring this town to its knees in four to six hours.”

Lincoln County Commissioner Mark Doth presented a summary of the series of emergency county commission meeting called to dedicate more than $2million dedicated from the county for immediate recovery effort needs. “Today the fire is a painful memory, but the knowledge of the destruction burns bright in my mind. More than 44,000 acres, 273 homes and outbuildings were destroyed. Market value on the structures is right at $40 million and the loss to the County in terms of property tax and tourism will be huge. Based on the number of homes lost, this is now ranked as the number one disaster in New Mexico history, a title we would rather not have,” Doth said.
The rally concluded with Congressman Steve Pearce’s continued promise to stand with the citizens of New Mexico and other western states and to stand as one voice in Washington D.C. to regain local control over public lands with responsible management, the economic development of ethical logging, grazing and recreational use of western Forests and wilderness areas starting with the citizens of Lincoln County. “We just want to manage our own lands so we can live in safety and harmony with nature, that’s all were saying,” Pearce said.

 

Pollution: It's Spreading Like Wildfire!

(www.SmokedBear.com September 12, 2011) ExxonMobil, ranked as one of the world’s largest corporate polluters, produces just over 10 million pounds of toxic air pollution per year. During three summer months, a recent North American fire released 66 billion pounds of just one of the toxic chemicals it spewed. That is 6,600 times more pollution than ExxonMobil releases in an entire year!

Wildfires throughout North America are on the rise and out of control, particularly in western states. These fires are emitting more dangerous pollutants into the air than all the “tailpipes and smokestacks in the United States….” Recent studies show that wildfires cause pollutants to triple normal levels deemed safe for humans and animals. These shocking results come from a trend of new scientific studies, and underscore the need for a major change in wildfire management.

Another recent NCAR study looked at the amount of mercury pollution wildfires produce. The study explained that plants store mercury in their leaves and needles and when burned the needles and leaves release “nearly all the mercury they had stored—from 94% to 99%.” The study concluded that wildfires spewed mercury pollution into the air “at up to 800 tons per year…” Coal-fired plants, currently the main focus point of reducing mercury pollution, produce a substantially smaller 41 tons per year. This means that wildfires produce nearly 20 times more mercury pollution than U.S. coal-fired plants produce annually.

Wildfires are spewing pollutants into the air in quantities that are many times greater than all of America’s industrial pollution combined. This information about wildfire pollution is just the tip of the iceberg because researchers have only begun quantifying wildfire pollution in the last decade. Wildfires continue to be on the rise while ineffective rangeland management techniques remain in place. Yet, pollution reduction pressure persistently is focused at industry as industries have continued to reduce their pollution rates by leaps and bounds. A problem such as this calls for a change in Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service management procedures and regulations.

Allowing large amounts of fuel—vegetation—to grow on rangeland during spring and summer months mixed with uncontrolled lightning strikes is a recipe for disaster. To stop and decrease the growth of wildfire pollution the sources of fuel must be decreased. Jason Davison, a forage and alternative crops specialist at the University of Nevada Reno, called for new rangeland management techniques fifteen years ago. He promoted the reduction of rangeland fuel by using cows and sheep to feed on the excessive vegetation. Yet, grazing rights have continually been reduced and fires have continually increased.

Smoked Bear is advocating a change in rangeland management in order to save animals, people, and the environment from the harmful effects of wildfires. Pollution is proven to be one of these harmful effects. Therefore, Smoked Bear and all those who are in support of saving animal and human life are now calling on a change in rangeland management in order to reduce wildfire pollution.  (Read more.)

Water: The Final Jurisdictional Frontier?

The USFS and the BLM appear to be launching an all out "war" on water rights in the west, with the help of any number of so-called environmental groups.  Access is being denied all over the west to use, repair, or maintain water rights and systems that have been in private use for generations.  Grazers are being told across the west that their permits will not be renewed unless they sign over their water rights to the U.S. Government.  Recently, the USDA announced new regulations to:

• restore the flow of waters into natural channels and floodplains by removing, replacing or modifying water control structures;
• restore lands and habitat to pre-disturbance conditions by removing debris and sediment conditions following natural or human-caused events; and
• restore, rehabilitate or stabilize lands occupied by non-National Forest System roads and trails to a more natural condition.

Given the history and the language of this regulation, it appears to be another frontal assault on local control of land and water access, use and ownership.  The time to act to secure local jurisdiction over these matters is now.  This is why the American Lands Council was recently formed -- to coordinate offensive actions to secure and defend local control over land and water access, use and ownership, before its too late ...

See this from the Westerner Blog:


Let's see, Tombstone can't repair the city's waterlines, this dam can't be repaired in Montana, and a Lincoln County, NM Commissioner who had just experienced a fire that started in a wilderness says:

“If you had asked me 10 years ago what I thought of the White Mountain Wilderness I would have told you I was in favor of it. The White Mountain Wilderness terrain is beautiful and unique, which should absolutely be protected. However, after years of drought, massive bug tree kill, and blown down trees, this area has become excessively under managed and highly prone to fire damage. Even though the Forest Service has proposed thinning and restoration projects in these forests, lawsuits and appeals by the Wild Earth Guardians, Center for Biological Diversity and others have totally hampered the ability of the Forest Service to manage it. The restrictions on roads and motorized vehicles, chainsaws, and grazing by livestock have also hurt the ability to manage this area. In my opinion, forests in the Southwest, especially those near an urban interface, should never be designated as wilderness areas. As long as the wilderness designation stands, we will not be able to control the area appropriately. This leaves us incredibly vulnerable to disastrous fire damage. We need to consider removing the wilderness designation from the White Mountain Wilderness.”---Mark Doth, Lincoln County Commissioner

PILT vs. Economic Self-Reliance and Education Equality

Wrongheaded to want to responsibly utilize abundant resources to adequately fund education and secure economic self-reliance of state and local communities?

That's what Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar seems to think about western states' efforts to secure local control of land access, land use and land ownership.

The federal government is $16 trillion in debt, with more than $60 trillion in accrued promises to pay Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits (unfunded obligations) for which they have no money, and yet is still OVERSPENDING at the rate of $1.5 trillion per year ($5 trillion per year deficit if you include the obligations for these entitlements).  That's wrongheaded!

Salt Lake Tribune, June 21, 2012 - "Rural Utah communities this year will get a share of $36 million from the federal government in an attempt to offset the large swaths of public lands that eat up their tax base."


While pleased that the federal funds are still flowing, some Utah leaders say they’re gearing up for the years to come when that revenue source may dry up.

"We’re already starting to prepare for what would be a tough budget situation if that were to happen — restructure our budget and financing to try and weather that if that takes place," said Kane County Commission Chairman Jim Matson, who fears budget cuts in Washington will slash rural aid.

Matson, like fellow rural commissioners, backs a plan by state officials to force the federal government to hand over public lands to state control, allowing them to develop some areas and boost revenue.

Salazar, mentioning Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, disagreed with Beehive State officials’ argument that the federal government should hand over public lands, noting that the state benefits greatly from the tourism, recreation, and oil and gas industries.

"The fact is that the lands in Utah, whether it’s Zion National Park or Arches or all of the oil and natural-gas development or mineral developments that take place, contributes in huge ways to the economy of the state of Utah," Salazar said. "So I think they’re just wrongheaded in their criticism."

Bishop, who’s working with Western colleagues to sustain PILT, chided Salazar and said that with 65 percent of Utah’s land controlled or managed by the federal government, tax revenue is hard to come by.

"This could be solved if the federal government would relinquish control over some of its 660 million acres of land," Bishop said. "Apparently wanting to fund public education and give children greater educational opportunities is ‘wrongheaded’ as Secretary Salazar put it." 

"Green Drivel"

Time to rethink the environmental policies that are contracting local control of land access, land use and land ownership?  See this candid and stunning retraction from the godfather of global warming science.

Toronto Sun, June 23, 2012 - "Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

The implications were extraordinary.

Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

Among his observations to the Guardian:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”