Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
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 1-5051-100101-132 next last

1 posted on 02/10/2004 12:38:40 AM PST by JustPiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gubamyster; Pro-Bush; FairOpinion; FITZ; moehoward; Nea Wood; Joe Hadenuf; sangoo; ...
Ping
2 posted on 02/10/2004 12:39:00 AM PST by JustPiper (Al-Qaeda has no return address - Close Our Borders !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BagCamAddict; ganeshpuri89; pokerbuddy0; cgk; Sabertooth; Donna Lee Nardo; Angelus Errare; ...
Ping
3 posted on 02/10/2004 12:39:33 AM PST by JustPiper (Al-Qaeda has no return address - Close Our Borders !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
Big gubmint and envirowhackos.

Someone will eventually say "enough" and get waco'ed for it.



4 posted on 02/10/2004 12:45:35 AM PST by Stopislamnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
Hey, you can trust the government, just ask an Indian!
5 posted on 02/10/2004 12:48:25 AM PST by thecabal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
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.

Here's to hoping, folks - let the hard-in-the-head and soft-in-the-ass bureaucrats in Washington know that 'flyover country' will give them a bloody nose if they don't respect who sent 'em there in the first place.

6 posted on 02/10/2004 12:49:11 AM PST by Viking2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
An amazing story. I hope he wins.
7 posted on 02/10/2004 12:49:46 AM PST by Capitalist Eric (Arrogance is permitted on my computer... but it will be graded for wits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
What is the meaning of Federal land exactly? How is it justified? Nationalization by the back door? If you do not comply, you lose your business or we take it?

I find it hard to see individuals labeled as criminals for grazing productive cows around while government doctrine and legalese seems to have the upper hand. Is this a case of "Give me liberty or give me death?"

I do not see anything harmful or illegal that this man is doing. Cue me in, Feds.
8 posted on 02/10/2004 12:57:06 AM PST by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thecabal
Hey, you can trust the government, just ask an Indian!

Or a PC usettled white man today, as a matter of fact.

9 posted on 02/10/2004 12:58:27 AM PST by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
Here is a link the the official site of the Wildlands Project, it is mostly a bunch of BS marketing speak:
Wildlands Project

Here is a site which I found that shows the agenda of the Wildlands Project, which is to lock away at least 50% of the land in the US from any human contact:
Wildlands Project Revealed

Here's a little map to show you what they want to do:

The brown area is where humans would be allowed and the green area would be off-limits to humans.

This crap comes from the UN Agenda 21, a plan to strip sovereignty away from the member nation-states, especially the USA:
Agenda 21

I recommend Googling for "Agenda 21" for more info.

10 posted on 02/10/2004 1:01:14 AM PST by thecabal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002
Ranchers settlement vs. gov... hmmmm I'd say Ranchers win since cops are not about settling themselves in lands, but hired to answer questions to judges as to matters of land and settlement disputes.

I find it ludicrous that the gov cops there impose questions on the rancher. This would call for a peaceful standoff until the gov answers questions to a judge and ranchers do to.

What stupid court would allow such order without hearing both sides is beyond understanding... but what can I say, we live in the age of arbitrary restraining orders and trust in cops who ask questions and answer for suspects to judges...Sig Heil!

No, the reality of the conflict is going to take another dimension here. Ultimately I gather a terror war weary US military with willing militias will be the ultimate arbiter. America is headed for a military government, I do not see it any other way. Corrupt cushy cops are not going to get their tax revenues that way.
11 posted on 02/10/2004 1:03:56 AM PST by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thecabal
Earth worshipers, murderers of men and souls, lovers of unimpeachable agendas 21 and the like and doctrines... sick!
12 posted on 02/10/2004 1:05:59 AM PST by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
The Feds simply have no legal claim here. Their reasoning is bullsh**, there is no claim to ownership based on any contractual compensation in exchange for a purchased asset as per the UCC and the Constitution.

Then add the extortion and racketeering by the enviros to deny all use of the land, and you essentially have a RICO case...if the courts would have the balls to enforce it.

This of course is entirely based on the ESA and nothing else, a law that is nothing but the vaguest of legal bullsh** and nothing more than a blank check to allow the govt to do anything it wants with any piece of land it targets.
13 posted on 02/10/2004 1:59:33 AM PST by Free Vulcan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
right up your alley...
14 posted on 02/10/2004 3:33:35 AM PST by ovrtaxt ( Of course, my parasitic twin has a completely different opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
What is the meaning of Federal land exactly? How is it justified?

One theory once bandied about is that it will one day be used as compensation for debts owed to foreign governments. Pretty conspiratorial, but anything's possible.

15 posted on 02/10/2004 3:36:02 AM PST by ovrtaxt ( Of course, my parasitic twin has a completely different opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
Two party cabal lead by the Neocons conforming the USA to the UN agenda...the Federal leviathon...
16 posted on 02/10/2004 5:39:58 AM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper; JackelopeBreeder; B4Ranch; Spiff; F16Fighter; Marine Inspector; Sabertooth
"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."

The Feds will pull another Waco here if nobody steps in to help these people. As stated in the article, this capturing of private lands well deeded and documented didn't start until the Clinton gang took over.

Here we have an invasion by Mexico on our Southern border and ranchers who have owned property for over 120 years is now being confiscated by the federal government.

On one hand we are giving away our border and on the other hand we are taking away private property that has been legally claimed for generations.

And the feds want these lands for "wildlife" conservation.

Hmmm..

17 posted on 02/10/2004 5:42:02 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S. borders - Controlled by CORRUPT Politicians and Slave-Labor Employers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt; JudgemAll
"One theory once bandied about is that it will one day be used as compensation for debts owed to foreign governments. Pretty conspiratorial, but anything's possible."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Property Rights

The United Nations Wants to Take Your Land!
"Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."

- United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976



18 posted on 02/10/2004 5:45:44 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S. borders - Controlled by CORRUPT Politicians and Slave-Labor Employers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thecabal
Rights to private property are under attack by socialists as never before. The Clinonazis made shameful headway by stripping families' ability to earn a living.

The agenda has been on the march since the the Jimmy Carter years. Watermellons are throughout our governments in and out of blackrobes.

Treaties with long established, independent nations were violated under force of arms just as current real and private property are seized by feds under threat of force of arms.

What 5th Amendment "takings" clause?

If we see a sudden Ice Age , we shall have all lands nationalized.
19 posted on 02/10/2004 6:00:34 AM PST by SevenDaysInMay (Federal judges and justices serve for periods of good behavior, not life. Article III sec. 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SevenDaysInMay
"If we see a sudden Ice Age , we shall have all lands nationalized."

Don't look now . .

Climate Collapse

20 posted on 02/10/2004 6:38:07 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S. borders - Controlled by CORRUPT Politicians and Slave-Labor Employers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
ping
21 posted on 02/10/2004 7:17:07 AM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe; Jeff Head
Jarbridge and K-Falls again.
22 posted on 02/10/2004 7:41:16 AM PST by B4Ranch ( Dear Mr. President, Sir, Are you listening to the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Capitalist Eric
Hey Rascal, Good morning to ya
23 posted on 02/10/2004 7:41:58 AM PST by B4Ranch ( Dear Mr. President, Sir, Are you listening to the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
They pick them off like snipers. One by one, and move on to the next victim.
24 posted on 02/10/2004 7:48:03 AM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
The Laney's need not worry..."The adults are in charge now".< /sarcasm >
25 posted on 02/10/2004 7:58:51 AM PST by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
What is the meaning of Federal land exactly?

Well SOMETHING has to backup the dollar.

26 posted on 02/10/2004 8:05:18 AM PST by Centurion2000 (Resolve to perform what you must; perform without fail that what you resolve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper; hellinahandcart; countrydummy; B4Ranch; cowpoke; redrock; blackie; Carry_Okie; madfly; ..
"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."

Bingo! Herein lies the root of the problem.

27 posted on 02/10/2004 8:05:18 AM PST by sauropod (I'm Happy, You're Happy, We're ALL Happy! I'm happier than a pig in excrement. Can't you just tell?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper; All
Case History: Hage v. United States

Rancher in prison for 'trespassing cows

July 4th, 2000 at Jarbidge, Nevada w/Jeff Head

"Smart Growth" is "Agenda 21"

Land Rights Advocates Allege Bush Administration Betrayal

FEDERAL BIOSPHERES ARE STILL ILLEGAL

Who Owns Our Biospheres And World Heritage Sites?

Federal land grabs transforming American society

28 posted on 02/10/2004 8:06:21 AM PST by B4Ranch ( Dear Mr. President, Sir, Are you listening to the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Memo to Self:

Buy more ammunition today

29 posted on 02/10/2004 10:51:49 AM PST by editor-surveyor ( . Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
"What is the meaning of Federal land exactly? How is it justified? Nationalization by the back door? If you do not comply, you lose your business or we take it? "

That's pretty much the size of it, Judge.

30 posted on 02/10/2004 10:52:27 AM PST by AuntB (http://www.PetitionOnLine.com/SSDC/petition.html (reform Social Security Disability))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AuntB; JudgemAll
"What is the meaning of Federal land exactly? How is it justified?"

From a constitutional standpoint, federal land cannot exist; the fed is forbidden to own land except for those reserves that were specified, and the District of Columbia. All public lands are owned by the states.

31 posted on 02/10/2004 11:03:32 AM PST by editor-surveyor ( . Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"From a constitutional standpoint,"

You are right of course, but it doesn't seem to matter.

32 posted on 02/10/2004 11:23:22 AM PST by AuntB (http://www.PetitionOnLine.com/SSDC/petition.html (reform Social Security Disability))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"What's a constitution?" common government employee question.
33 posted on 02/10/2004 11:28:19 AM PST by B4Ranch ( Dear Mr. President, Sir, Are you listening to the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"From a constitutional standpoint..." What's that? I say we divy up the federal land and give every american 10 acres, or is it 12 now.
34 posted on 02/10/2004 11:35:55 AM PST by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

BTTT
35 posted on 02/10/2004 6:51:58 PM PST by sarasmom (No war for oil=Give France/Russia/China etc oil ,and no war-or so Saddam thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
36 posted on 02/10/2004 9:26:23 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
I saw Wayne, and Helen (Chenoweth) Hage Saturday and she spoke about this case.:

One thing she said was that one better know what they are up against,and be willing to finish the fight that they start.

What I think is depressing is even on Freerepublic people often take the governments side on these issues.

How can we ever educate people about the war we are fighting out here?
37 posted on 02/10/2004 10:09:02 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
Very slowly. Much too slowly, I'm afraid. Too many prople think that because the Republicans are in office that everything to do with land grabbing stopped.

Not for one minute did it stop!

38 posted on 02/10/2004 10:47:05 PM PST by B4Ranch ( Dear Mr. President, Sir, Are you listening to the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Not for one minute did it stop!

You are right and part of it is coming straight from this administration. I really had high hopes for Gale Norton, but she isn't much better.

Too many prople think that because the Republicans are in office that everything to do with land grabbing stopped.

What I have encountered on FR is people who think we western people should stay off the federal lands.
39 posted on 02/10/2004 11:17:02 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
bad combo... government and a PC addled brain
40 posted on 02/10/2004 11:18:26 PM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
Any chance the crowd at Kalmath Falls will show up for this showdown?
41 posted on 02/10/2004 11:24:21 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
New Mexico is a little beyond my south of San Francisco (Santa Clara County) reach. Klamath Falls was doable, so I made the trek. I'm going to have to take a pass on this one.

A great opportunity for NM and surrounding state FReepers to strut their stuff!!!

42 posted on 02/11/2004 1:32:12 AM PST by Robert Drobot (God, family, country. All else is meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!!!
43 posted on 02/11/2004 3:04:45 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
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.

Those interested in RKBA and CCW take note, the rules can change whenever they want.

44 posted on 02/11/2004 6:26:07 AM PST by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
Catron, Grand and Sierra counties in New Mexico have some interesting history as well as being beautiful country. The ContinentaL Divide runs through there. The small city of Truth or Consequences in Sierra County, is down that way on I-25, between Albuquerque and Las Cruces.

And of course it has been chosen for the introduction of Mexican gray wolves by the State Game and Fish officials and at the Center for Biological Diversity. Whoever would have guessed it. LOL

I suppose you could get the true facts from John Cliff Snyder Sheriff, (505) 533-6222, CatronSO@gilanet.com Before everyone goes to pestering this man offering support, remember he's probably got a small staff is quite busy himself. Take it easy on the guy after all he's on OUR side of the fence.

45 posted on 02/11/2004 7:20:02 AM PST by B4Ranch ( Dear Mr. President, Sir, Are you listening to the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
I don't plan to get involved; after all we have Canadian Grey Wolves here in Idaho.

Which has become a huge crisis.

Someone on FR has been arguing with me about the subject of wolves, using Ted Turners organization as her reliable source. Many people think we are exaggerating, but this wolf introduction has been terrible for Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
46 posted on 02/11/2004 9:58:00 AM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming do not need elk herds nor do
they need cattle grazing on BLM land! The proper way to
control vegetation overgrowth is the way the Indians
did before we ever came to America. Hold a Holy Dance
and pray for lightening to strike the offensive areas.

That way you'll be able to smell the fire smoke all summer
long, breathe the ashes all summer long and get pnumonia in the winter.
Then you'll be dead by the next spring and it will all start over.

Bio-diversity is wonderful, America needs it. If you have
any doubts about this just ask the World Heritage
Foundation, the Sierra Club or the United Nations. All
of these large respected world organizations will agree
with everything I have posted here and we should contribute to them monthly.


/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm
/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm
/sarcasm /sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm
/sarcasm /sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm
/sarcasm/sarcasm /sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm

/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm
/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm
/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm

sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/
sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/
sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm
/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm
/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm

Sickening sarcasm........ reminds me of hearing our politicians give speeches, thinking we are ignorant.

47 posted on 02/11/2004 10:29:03 AM PST by B4Ranch ( Dear Mr. President, Sir, Are you listening to the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
What is really discouraging to me is when so many on this so-called conservative forum believe that way.
48 posted on 02/11/2004 10:53:02 AM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium; Jeff Head; Iconoclast2; Carry_Okie; SierraWasp; farmfriend; Libertina; nunya bidness; ..
Let me address the issue a little harder than some may want to hear, but I'll say it, because it's true.

I love what Jim Rob has done in creating FR and opportunity for conservative like minded people can meet, and intiate action when needed. Unfortunately, a certain amount of trolls, liberals, and some that are just plain stupid, slip through the cracks (not caught by a mod) and are now here at FR with a little poison to add to everybody's water, so to speak. It's a war zone here in America, and if people don't figure it out soon, the lib's are going to defeat us by our own inaction.

There are also some very serious American Patriots who reside here, and we may have to step up our efforts to whatever degree may be necessary.

Anyone formulating a game plan, feel free to freep mail me, not in a good position to have to ride, but then, might not get a choice on this one either.

Anyone on top of this please ping me as needed....
49 posted on 02/11/2004 12:26:38 PM 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 37 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper
Sounds like Laney has an uphill fight. Is there a fund to help?
50 posted on 02/11/2004 12:35:49 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-132 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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