Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feds confiscate rancher's cattle
WND ^ | March 11, 2004 | Henry Lamb

Posted on 03/12/2004 10:28:47 PM PST by farmfriend

Feds confiscate rancher's cattle

Family's multigenerational livelihood threatened by government's action

By Henry Lamb
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Picture this opening scene in a modern Western tragedy: Panning slowly across the southwestern New Mexico landscape, snow-capped mountains on the horizon, the Gila National Forest sprawling in the foreground, the camera begins to zoom in slowly on the ribbon of road that slices through the 147,000-acre Diamond Bar Ranch. A small cluster of horses comes into view. Two cowboys are leading-herding a few horses from one work center on the ranch to another, some 15 miles away.

The sounds of hooves and the forest, along with an occasional word between Dale Laney and his 14-year old son, Albert, are interrupted when a Forest Service law-enforcement vehicle bursts into the scene – blue lights flashing. Thus begins a modern drama that is being written daily by real-life characters fighting a range war that will either rein in federal power, or unleash that power to put an end to ranching in the West.

Forest Service law-enforcement officers demanded that the Laneys get off their horses and display a permit.

"A permit for what?" Dale asked.

Dale was told the road and the entire Diamond Bar Ranch had been closed by a Feb. 29 order from the Forest Service, and that he needed a permit to be on it.

Dale didn't have a permit. He had never needed a permit to move stock on a public road through his family's ranch. He told Albert to keep moving the horses.

Another Forest Service law-enforcement vehicle appeared, and then another, blue lights flashing, sirens wailing, bull-horns blasting, horses running in different directions – until the Laneys rounded them up and led them through a canyon to their destination.

According to Patrol Capt. Mike Reamer, 14 law-enforcement officers have been deployed to the Diamond Bar Ranch, armed with semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and sidearms.

Why did these officers feel the need to chase two cowboys on horseback with three law-enforcement vehicles?

Reamer said the officers were new to the area and didn't recognize the Laneys.

Why is the road closed in the first place?

Catron County Sheriff Cliff Snyder asked Forest Service official Steve Libby this question. He was told that the Forest Service was "concerned that outside people would come into the area and cause problems."

In a March 4 letter to District Ranger Annette Chavez, Snyder demanded written evidence of "any possible threats, hostile or adverse action of any kind to the Laneys, the Forest Service or any other citizen of Catron County."

The sheriff also said that he and the public at large are "beginning to believe that the law-enforcement officers' only reason for being in the area is for the purpose of harassing the Laneys."

The patrol captain told WorldNetDaily on Monday that there had been no evidence of outside agitators, nor any sign of interference from the Laneys, nor from any other local people.

There are about 400 head of cattle on the Diamond Bar Ranch and several horses used to tend the cattle. Kit Laney, owner of record, owns outright only 100 acres of the 147,000-acre ranch where the cattle graze. After the ranch was closed, Kit asked for a permit to go tend the livestock. The permit was denied. He is confined to the 100 acres he owns.

Four days after the closure, Kit attended a meeting of the New Mexico Livestock Board, which was discussing a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the Livestock Board regarding the confiscation and sale of the Laneys' cattle. On the way home, he was followed by law-enforcement officers, and once home, he was issued a citation for traveling on federal land without a permit.

According to Kit, a law-enforcement officer approached young Albert Laney, a passenger in Kit's vehicle, pointed his finger at Albert and said, "I'm a law-enforcement officer, and we're going to get you, too."

The patrol captain denied that this event occurred. "It was not in the report," he said.

As of Tuesday, the area was still closed, and Forest Service contractors had confiscated 12 head of cattle and moved them to a holding corral at another location in Catron County.

Before the cattle can be sold, the New Mexico Livestock Board will have to certify that the cattle are, in fact, the property of the seller and are being sold with the approval of the owner. This is the function of the Livestock Board, also known as the "Brand Board."

Kit Laney is the owner of the cattle, and he certainly has not given anyone permission to confiscate and sell his cattle. The MOU with the Forest Service is supposed to relieve the Livestock Board from its legal responsibility and hold the Forest Service harmless for what Kit believes to be cattle rustling by the contractor, at the behest of the Forest Service.

The legality of the MOU is being challenged by a broad coalition of individuals and organizations, led by Paragon Foundation of Alamogordo, N.M., on the grounds that it was executed by the executive director of the Livestock Board without authorization by the board, that the action was taken in violation of the "open meetings" law, and on a variety of other thorny legal issues.

Michael White, president of New Mexico's 17,000-member Farm Bureau has urged the Livestock Board to adhere to state law and not bow to political pressure or to federal agencies.

"The New Mexico Livestock Board is facing monumental decisions in this case, and our statewide organization will be watching very carefully (for) any possible precedent-setting actions of this panel as these cattle are gathered by a private contractor hired by the Forest Service," White said.

Kit's attorney has prepared a "Constructive Notice" for the contractor, which spells out precisely the action the contractor and the Forest Service can expect the Laneys to take. Kit contends the MOU between the Livestock Board and the Forest Service is illegal, that removal of his cattle is an act of theft under state law, and that the contractor will be held personally liable for his actions, including damages for any losses caused by the confiscations.

Since some cattle have already been confiscated, Kit expects to file formal charges in the state judicial system as quickly as the paper work can be prepared.

In the movies, range wars are fought when the big guys want to overrun the little guys. In this modern-day range war, the only difference is that the big guys are not big ranchers, but big government, big environmental organizations and big politicians who are convinced that the cowboy era should be relegated to history books.

The Laneys, on the other hand, are the little guys, who want nothing more than to continue living where their ancestors settled in 1883, doing what their ancestors have done for more than a century. They have invested their life building their ranch to pass on to their children. The tragedy is that if the big guys succeed in taking the property and life work of several generations of Laneys, they can also take the property and life work of every other Western rancher whose livestock graze on so-called public land. If the Laneys can halt this confiscation and taking of private property, or force the government to pay for what they are taking, then, perhaps, the big guys will have to rethink whether they can afford the cost.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: environment; government; henrylamb; landgrab; laney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: pointsal
too many goofy lefties

I think that is why my dad retired from the USFS. He now drives the telecare bus. He loves it.

41 posted on 03/13/2004 8:31:06 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
If, as they say, the rancher was notified several times his lease was almost up and he needed to renew, I'm sure he would have done so, if they allowed him to.

They are claiming he didn't, but they are not saying they were willing to renew his lease.I'll bet he tried and they refused.
42 posted on 03/13/2004 8:43:33 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Once they take the ranch, if a illegal asked for it, the gov would probably give it to him.
43 posted on 03/13/2004 8:45:21 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
The UN wants it.
44 posted on 03/13/2004 8:46:01 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Hell the Feds OWN most of Alaska. We can't built roads to connect the towns in most places.. BTW Alaska is as big as the western United States.. a few cattle are not as important the land the feds OWN in the lower 48 too.. America is literally OWNED by the fed. and if that don't get you're attention THEY ARE ACQUIREING MORE TOO, year by year..

Very few threads on THIS subject.. talk about socialism, taxes, true, but they are actually consolidating America PHYSICALLY.. bit by bit, and chunk by chunk.. You can really see it here in Alaska... Communism <<- capitalism style, by hostile takeover..

45 posted on 03/13/2004 9:53:35 AM PST by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix
The crux of his argument is that he had "ownership" (of water rights)prior to the issuance of permits.

Didn't they also retain grazing, and other rights?
46 posted on 03/13/2004 11:13:42 AM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
No question about it. Wildlands project too.
47 posted on 03/13/2004 11:19:57 AM PST by sauropod (I intend to have Red Kerry choke on his past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
thanks for the ping. You know how I feel about this crap and that is putting it nicely.
48 posted on 03/13/2004 11:28:11 AM PST by countrydummy (http://chat.agitator.dynip.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: philetus
Personaly I think the Laneys *own* ALL the land they have been using because they settled it originaly & have been there using it ever since. I know that is not how it works. If they owned all of it they would have been paying property taxes instead of lease payments. They might have a leg to stand on if they had been paying taxes.

We have land that we bought & paid for, pay taxes on & now the fed gov has made it useless by calling it wetlands. You can't develop or even clear wetlands even if it is just a mudhole in the woods that doesn't drain well.
49 posted on 03/13/2004 11:56:59 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
According to Patrol Capt. Mike Reamer, 14 law-enforcement officers have been deployed to the Diamond Bar Ranch, armed with semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and sidearms.

Sounds to me like they're waging war on an American citizen.

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them...


50 posted on 03/13/2004 1:40:27 PM PST by archy (Concrete shoes, cyanide, TNT! Done dirt cheap! Neckties, contracts, high voltage...Done dirt cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philetus
You are correct. The Wildlands Project and UN Convention on Biological Diversity Plans to Restore Biodiversity in the US Nationally and as in this case, the New Mexico Highlands.
51 posted on 03/13/2004 10:50:20 PM PST by endthematrix (To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix
New Mexico Highlands

Here, herds of pronghorn outpace the wind; cranes and ducks thunder like a living storm; on pine and fir-clad mountains, bighorn sheep, elk, and black bears roam; on dry desert floors abundant populations of reptiles make a living among the cacti while fish and flycatchers travel cottonwood-lined river corridors. This ruggedly beautiful country is where the Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, Chihuahuan Desert, and Great Basin meet, forming a continental crossroads for wildlife. Recently completed, the New Mexico Highlands Wildlands Network Design sets out a practical vision for keeping the region wild.

Sigh. Doesn't it just make you wish you were a sheep?

52 posted on 03/14/2004 9:05:12 AM PST by ohmage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ohmage
Are we secure yet?
You said it straight....Some tail wagging do gooder complaind his property (our Fed. forrest/lands) were being crap'd upon by someones cattle. Then some Judge steps in and puts in this .50cents worth. Now another farm/ramch that has been in exhistance for generations is all but gone. Thank you Uncle sam and your Judges.
53 posted on 03/14/2004 9:21:01 AM PST by JamesA (Stand up, stand together or die as one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Thanks for the heads up sauropod.

I had hoped that the current administration would have stepped on the agencies which are doing stuff like this but no such luck.

A lot of people reject the slippery slope argument. These western property rights issues support the argument.

Many of these ranchers have water and grazing rights on the land going way back even to Spanish land grants. After the land became federal property the feds offered to make improvements to the land with "free" federal money....build ponds, kill sagebrush, build fences and etc.

All the rancher had to do was pay a few bucks for a federal permit in return.

And then, gotcha.

After a generation or two buying a permit for the use of land you have a prior claim on is contingent upon the feds selling you a permit.

And so it goes.

Agenda 21 and the Rewilding of America proceed on schedule.

Regards

J.R.
54 posted on 03/14/2004 6:08:24 PM PST by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: passionfruit
"However, I don't understand why the rancher thinks he has rights to anything beyond his own 100 acres. Did he have some kind of special use permit?"

Go here to find out why he doesn't need any permit

55 posted on 03/14/2004 8:04:23 PM PST by editor-surveyor ( . Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: everyone
I just found this thread, and feel compelled to throw in my two cents worth.
The Dale that Henry Lamb mentions in the article is actually my husband and Kit Laney's brother, and the Albert is our 13 (not 14) year old son.
Albert did tell me that the "officer" told him that they are going to "get him too", and he doesn't lie. I'm perfectly confident that is exactly what the "officer" said.
Kit and Sherry never had any kids, the closest they could come was providing the parents with "grand puppies" as we all laughingly teased them about.
Kit and Sherry are both good people, both come from a long line of ranching families (they are both fourth generation ranchers, I'm a fifth generation rancher myself, but we don't quibble over the small details). They really do believe in what they're fighting for, as a lot of folks here do. The support they have received is awesome!
They did take their stock (about 1000 head of cattle) off the Diamond Bar in 1996, I believe, sold a lot of them off, leased a place down by Gila, NM, for 4 years, and then 2 different places up by Logan, NM for about 3 years, and ran the 300 or so head that was left. During this time, they applied for a grazing permit from the FS three times, and were turned down three times. Wilderness District Ranger Annette Chavez gave only the reason that they weren't considering stocking the Diamond Bar with cattle at that time. She also pointed out that the range was unsuitable for cattle. Kit and Sherry requested the Range Management Task Force from NMSU to come look over the ranch, and give their educated openion. They stated that the range was in excellent condition, and would easily support 1200 head.
I might be skeptical of why the FS wouldn't issue a new permit, if they hadn't done about the same thing to my dad in 1999....after that incident, I don't put anything past the dirty SOBs. They are a crooked bunch, and that's the best of them, in our observations.
56 posted on 03/21/2004 9:24:45 PM PST by Ranchwife ("You Just Can't See Him From The Road" Chris LeDoux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Much ado about an illegal.
57 posted on 03/21/2004 9:27:58 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 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