Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feds seize family's ranch
WND ^ | 2-10-04 | Henry Lamb

Posted on 02/10/2004 12:38:39 AM PST by JustPiper

PRIVATE IMPROPERTY Property owners fight government 'land grab'

When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other.

Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property.

Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived.

Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service.

Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a "brand law" that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board.

Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they "cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute."

His memo also says "I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county."

Last hope for ranchers?

Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States.

Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution.

The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas.

Laney's ancestors began the "Laney Cattle Company" there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, "prior appropriation" of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the "rights" to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water.

Laney's ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government.

In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney's ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights.

Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered "public land."

Specifically, "It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land," according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co.

Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain.

Forest Service stepped in

When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes.

The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an "allotment."

The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment.

Laney's ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a "license" required by the federal government.

Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations.

Problems from outset

Laney's problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985.

The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch.

The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement.

When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land.

Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s.

They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government.

They believe the government's original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land.

Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney's reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights.

Ridding the West of ranchers

For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states.

Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus.

The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to "core wilderness areas," off-limits to humans.

Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor.

Bill Clinton's election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government.

Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project.

Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol'-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives.

Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government's willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project.

The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage "submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands" which the federal government had claimed to be federal land.

Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a "takings" has occurred, for which the government must pay "just compensation."

The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the "chain of title," to the land, grazing and water rights.

Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the "exhaustive chain of title" is each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build.

He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government's squeezing and to push back.

These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.

TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: alphabets; feds; henrylamb; landgrab; laney; propertyrights; ranchers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-132 last
To: JustPiper
And why can't their cattle graze there...?

Meat is bad, cattle are bad. Meat must be stopped! National Insanity.

101 posted on 02/15/2004 10:12:24 PM PST by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Thanks, I did.
102 posted on 02/15/2004 11:42:42 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: lockjaw02
Animal rights activists often don't realize that mother nature can be so cruel and unforgiving and that land can only support so much. Sometimes it's better to have a few die with a bullet than to have whole packs slowly starve to death over the course of a winter because there are too many for the food supplies to support. Such conditions can create more than just a nuisance, but can also increase dangers of fatal altercations with humans.

The animal rights nuts I have been dealing with thinks it okay for them to kill everything off because eventually it will come back. Thats how they feel about fire too.
103 posted on 02/15/2004 11:49:37 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
Got the mail. Thanks.
104 posted on 02/16/2004 12:37:20 AM PST by B4Ranch ( Dear Mr. President, Sir, Are you listening to the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
Yes, prey populations would come back long after the wolves decimate it and start dying out themselves due to starvation. It's a vicious cycle.

You should just tell these folks to they should also consider reintroducing wolves to the Appalachians, Catskills, and Berkshires to help control deer populations there with natural predators and see how they feel once their family pets and people get on the menu.

I didn't see any comments on fires and I don't know your specific position, but fires are a different matter. Smaller controlled fires help burn off underbrush and excess fuel, which helps protect against bigger fires burning out of control and ravaging larger areas of land. Controlled logging helps do the same, but the eco-nuts are irrationally against everything with a human touch. In the east we typically sell off trees off properties periodically to loggers, cut roads, and clear underbrush. To let it all go wild is inviting large scale disaster.
105 posted on 02/16/2004 9:59:22 AM PST by lockjaw02 ("Man's capacity for self-deception is unlimited." --George H Tausch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: lockjaw02
I was talking about out of control fires on unthinned, and unlogged land.

I agree controlled burns are important as well as logging, and thinning for a healthy forest and healthy wildlife.

Reminds me of the conversation I had with a professor, (who is paid by our resource based tax dollars) at the University of Idaho. He told me humans were murderers because we salvage the dead, burned timber that many important bugs, and beetles need to live on.
106 posted on 02/16/2004 10:10:51 AM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium; B4Ranch
"Someone on FR has been arguing with me about the subject of wolves, using Ted Turners organization as her reliable source...."

We need to get organized here and publish a list of the trolls in our midst, so that we can freeze them out of the debate. This can be done by freep-mailing to those on our enviro/Property rights lists so that all know who they are, and refrain from giving them a foot in the door.

107 posted on 02/16/2004 4:32:26 PM PST by editor-surveyor ( . Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend; everyone

Here's the latest from the Forest Service on the matter....

What they DON'T tell you there, is that after they had to send a memo out to their employees stating that anyone caught taking Diamond Bar cattle would be subject to fine, imprisonment or both, none of their fine employees wanted to stick their necks out to do the gather.

Also, the closure they speak of, never happened to begin with.

They also don't say that the 2 contractors they had to do the gather, backed out when they found out about the fine, imprisonment or both....and they aren't going to be able to get anyone from close by to do it. We hear that they have 2 applicants from Utah and 1 from Canada, but have no idea if it's the truth, or the truth according to the Forest Service.

There are a few things in the works right now, that I'm not at liberty to share at this time, but hopefully, the next time I make it to town, there will be more update to give ya'll.

Thanks for your well-wishes!
108 posted on 02/17/2004 4:22:39 PM PST by Ranchwife ("You Just Can't See Him From The Road" Chris LeDoux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
Another rancher who feels a sense of entitlement. Welfare ranching is being reigned in. Here is the other side of the story. Notice how the Laneys have changed their tune since 1985 and notice that they admit to only owning grazing rights and not property rights. This is not a property right issue.
109 posted on 02/17/2004 5:53:06 PM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
You need to get your head out of the cowpie - Understanding "Fee Lands" and Vested Water Rights ^ -- 'Property' as related to 'Public Lands'.
110 posted on 02/17/2004 6:48:31 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Ranchwife; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
Latest update on the Diamond Bar Ranch.
111 posted on 02/17/2004 7:24:15 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Pay for what you use. Basic Business 101.
112 posted on 02/17/2004 7:31:46 PM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
Vested Title and Vested Water Rights apparently are phrases which you do not quite understand. I suggest you do a bit of study before making foolish statements.
113 posted on 02/17/2004 7:45:08 PM PST by B4Ranch ( Dear Mr. President, Sir, Are you listening to the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; RGSpincich
I suggest you do a bit of study before making foolish statements

A good start:

Stewards of the Range

Hage v. United States:

"Although the government's position was that Hage did not have any property rights and was simply privileged to graze on the federal lands, the court ruled differently. In its final opinion on the status of the property rights, it determined that Hage owned significant property rights on the federal lands, importantly the water rights, ditch rights of way, and access to those rights."

In a later ruling, after the government argued that the court should dismiss the case because Hage no longer held a valid grazing permit and could not use his property, the court again ruled against the government. It concluded that failure to hold a grazing permit did not extinguish the value of his property rights, which may be compensable
114 posted on 02/17/2004 8:36:52 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: everyone
I can't speak for all states, but here in New Mexico, long ago, it was decided that the water rights belong to the rancher...along with that, all the range a cow can use in the time between visiting the watering places. A cow can cover a good deal of country in the day or two between the times she needs a drink of water.

Hence, if the water and grazing rights belong to the rancher, the Forest Service really has no say about what happens.

Incidentally, for your information, the Forest Service was established to do two things, and two things only. They were set up to provide a constant supply of timber for the people, and to provide a constant supply of water for the people. In our observations, they have not only overstepped their authority, but have completely abandoned the two reasons they exist in the first place. Not only have more forests been shut to logging, mainly from the pressure of the "so-called environmentalists" that don't care any more about the Spotted Owl than they do the Mexican Gray Wolf; but because the Forest Service have allowed these forests to become overgrown due to their mis-management, it has also drastically reduced the flow of our water, since it takes more water to support more trees.

And I'd like to challenge whoever it was that mentioned "welfare ranching" in this discussion, to come spend a while, doing a little "welfare ranching". I think they'll find that ranchers work very hard, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for the most part....I think they'll change their tune about "welfare ranching" drastically!
115 posted on 02/18/2004 12:07:54 AM PST by Ranchwife ("You Just Can't See Him From The Road" Chris LeDoux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
116 posted on 02/18/2004 3:09:48 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
This is one difference between my Republicans (who won't do anything because they are a bunch of sissies) and the Libertarians (who'll never win one office because they are a bunch of fools).
117 posted on 02/18/2004 3:25:55 AM PST by graycamel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Bump for preservation of the West!
118 posted on 02/18/2004 11:08:02 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ranchwife; nunya bidness; isasis; SierraWasp; AuntB; Carry_Okie; Jeff Head; JustAmy; amom
Victory ping!!! And Thank the Lord for a good outcome at this time!

"The price of freedom is
eternal vigilance."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
Albert Einstein

Favorite freedom picture
thanks to

It's a great shot for artist representation:
Two figures representing Americans
watching a

~sunrise or sunset~
The sun represents freedom.
Where do you stand?

119 posted on 02/20/2004 8:22:38 AM PST by Issaquahking (U.N., greenies, etc. battling against the U.S. and Constitution one freedom at a time. Fight Back !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
Nothing like being reduced to the status of a slave.
120 posted on 02/20/2004 8:32:09 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
tly believe that water, etc. that is used by city dwellers isn't subsidized?? The only way to be "fair" to everyone is to cut off ALL services, subsidies. You have yours but you seem to want to deny anyone who doesn't live like you regardless of the agreements made to them by this government. Government employees get the biggest entitlements of any one in America.
121 posted on 02/20/2004 9:56:24 AM PST by AuntB (End all entitlements EXCEPT the military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
AH!! What happened to the beginning of my first sentence!~! It should say: Do you honestly believe......
122 posted on 02/20/2004 9:58:07 AM PST by AuntB (End all entitlements EXCEPT the military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; Carry_Okie; farmfriend; Issaquahking; forester; marsh2
Don't "freeze them out of the debate!" Pursuade them to see things differently! The definition of "rhetoric," is pursuasive speech!!!

Many of these folks are "almost pursuaded"(old hymn title) already. That's why they come on here arguing, because they aren't too sure they're correct in the first place. It's kinda like bowling... Set 'em up... Then bowl 'em over!!!

Conservatives never "win" anything by "shunning!" That's bad stategery!!! Socrates did it best by asking rhetorical questions in series, until a person "bought in," thinking the correct answer was their idea... all along!!! It works everytime it's tried...

123 posted on 02/20/2004 12:31:10 PM PST by SierraWasp (EnvironMentalism is NOW beyond the point of "Diminishing Returns!" GANG-GREEN is setting in!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; farmfriend; Issaquahking; forester; marsh2
Many of these folks are "almost pursuaded"

No, you missed the point!

I was talking about the professional trolls who will never be pursuaded. By carefully NOT replying to their bait, their impact can be reduced.

124 posted on 02/21/2004 11:55:49 AM PST by editor-surveyor ( . Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Ah so... very screwtable!!! (a little oriental lingo for ya there)
125 posted on 02/21/2004 12:31:51 PM PST by SierraWasp (EnvironMentalism is NOW beyond the point of "Diminishing Returns!" GANG-GREEN is setting in!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; SierraWasp
I was talking about the professional trolls who will never be pursuaded. By carefully NOT replying to their bait, their impact can be reduced.

I'm not sure many of these folks are professional trolls. I think many of them are just arguementative, or so set in their ways that they can't be reasoned with. Usually I can tell after a few posts whether these folks can be persuaded as the Waspman suggests, or are a waste of time.

I do agree with you that there are a few earthfirst and peta trolls around, but they usually don't last long here.

126 posted on 02/22/2004 9:22:54 AM PST by forester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: forester
I meant to ping you to this thread to see what you think
127 posted on 02/22/2004 9:49:32 AM PST by SierraWasp (EnvironMentalism is NOW beyond the point of "Diminishing Returns!" GANG-GREEN is setting in!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: everyone

A couple of weeks ago, the Forest Service moved onto the Diamond Bar, in force. There are LEO vehicles parked at MeOwn in rows three vehicles deep. They have automatic weapons, K-9 units, and just about every other imaginable evil you can think of.

After chasing my Husband and 13 year old Son (who were horseback, and driving 3 other horses from one private property to the other private property, on the road) with lights flashing, sirens blaring and repeatedly trying to get them off their horses, 1 regular LEO vehicle and 1 K-9 unit came to the house (on private property that's posted with No Trespassing signs) and confronted Kit.

The first thing the one apparently in charge (name tag merely said Nelson, no one knows if it's the first, middle or last name of this obnoxious LEO) said they don't want anyone to get hurt. All this, while wearing a gun. Nelson also said that we are only allowed to go from one private property to the other by the main road, never vearing from it or stopping anywhere or getting out of the vehicle unless on the private property.

Nelson also denied that the FS was taking possession of the 400 some odd cattle on the ranch, but neither can any of the family give care to them. They belong to Kit and Sherry until they are sold at auction.

The day after this happened, they stopped my Husband, Son and Kit on the main road, and tried to give them all tickets for trespassing on the forest. As they have no authority over civilians, Hubby drove away from them.

A few days later, Hubby and Sherry, his ex-SIL (who is still a partner in the ranch) were going to the other property, horseback, and came up on 7 riders: 2 LEOs, 1 FS employee, and 4 of the new contractor bunch. They were able to ride right up behind them, and no one had a clue they were there. When the LEOs discovered them, they rode back to tell them they couldn't be there, and had to go back to the private property right then, and not "interfere with the gathering of the cattle". Hubby and Sherry denied the order and the LEOs rode away, it was then that Hubby noticed the machine gun the one LEO had in his scabbard. No one of the rest of us ever goes armed like that, wonder what they thought they were gonna run into, some of the wolves they've admitted to turning out on us, or some of the Grizzlies they deny turning loose but have been seen around?

This past Wed, Zeno Kiehne and his young son, were able to obtain a permit from Wilderness District Ranger Annette Chavez, to come interview BIL for a small newspaper he runs here in Catron County. The permit was issued for the one day only, and he could go to the Black Canyon property and back, it stated that he could only be on the main road, couldn't stop anywhere or get out anywhere other than the private property.

The same day, our sheriff, Cliff Snyder served a constructive notice to the contractor hired to do the gather, informing him that he could and would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if any Diamond Bar Cattle were removed from the ranch. On the way out to meet Sheriff Snyder, Kit got a notice from the FS off his gate, stating that the FS had 23 head of cattle in possession and he could pay an exhorbitant amount to get them back, but they could not be put on the Gila or Apache NFs, nor on the Diamond Bar or Laney Allotments. Otherwise, they would be sold at auction in 5 days.

I'm not sure who Russell Ward is, but he was quoted in the newspaper as saying if they couldn't sell the Diamond Bar cattle, they would give them away. We can hardly wait to see if they're actually dumb enough to try that!

Night before last, the folks that are staying at the other private property on the ranch, came in and there was an urgent message for someone that was supposed to be at MeOwn, asking if they would deliver it to them there. The woman drove her personal vehicle to MeOwn, and asked if this person was there, two cowboy looking guys standing near the corral, pointed him out to her. They called him over, and when the LEOs saw what was going on, two of them grabbed him, bodily packing him into the building, drawing curtains, etc. One LEO came out, with a sandwich in one hand, and a gun in the other. No one is sure who he was. Steve Libby (FS personnel) came out and asked what was going on, and denied that anyone by that name was even there. When she stated that the two men had pointed him out, he backtracked like crazy, saying he'd deliver the message to him....but never even asked what the message was, and told her to go back to the private property.

The person the message was for, we found out later, is the contractor hired to impound the cattle. For some reason, the FS is very protective of him, even the FOIA is going to take at least 20 days to process. One week down, two to go.

Right now, we're asking anyone who can, to call Annette Chavez at 505 536-2250, and ask for a permit to come see us at the ranch. When the request is denied, which it will be, then ask for the reason in writing to be mailed, emailed, etc. to them, then forward it on to us at , , or PO Box 4, Luna, NM 87824. They will then be used to present in an argument concerning the infringment of our civil rights. We are basically under martial law over there, and there's not much we can do about it. The roadblocks are manned 24 hours a day, and the FS personnel are not nice about it either.

So, that's the latest from the Diamond Bar Ranch....thanks so much for all you guy's support! It really is appreciated by the whole family!!!!
128 posted on 03/12/2004 2:45:08 PM PST by Ranchwife ("You Just Can't See Him From The Road" Chris LeDoux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: everyone
Here's a link I thought you might might be interested in!
129 posted on 03/12/2004 2:54:06 PM PST by Ranchwife ("You Just Can't See Him From The Road" Chris LeDoux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: passionfruit
I hope this article answers some of your questions.
130 posted on 03/12/2004 10:47:04 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Thank you for the link. I've read it, and it does make sense.

As for the water rights, at least in California, they must be unused for five years before the government can nullify them.

131 posted on 03/12/2004 11:06:43 PM PST by passionfruit (passionate about my politics, and from the land of fruits and nuts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: passionfruit
As for the water rights, at least in California, they must be unused for five years before the government can nullify them.

Our government will find a way around it. Believe me.

132 posted on 03/13/2004 12:29:55 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-132 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson