DIAMOND BAR CATTLE COMPANY

PRESS RELEASE
Lif Strand (505) 773-4897 lif@catroncounty.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CATRON COUNTY COMMISSION SAYS ENVIRONMENTALISTS RESPONSIBLE FOR DIAMOND BAR FIGHT

March 22, 2004 RESERVE, NM - In the wake of the arrest of Kit Laney of the Diamond Bar Ranch, the Catron County Commission has chosen to speak out for the first time on the actions of the U.S. Forest Service and the effects of those actions upon the county at large.

The history of the Laney situation provides a key to understanding Catron County's position. Kit and Sherry Laney invested their life savings, their inheritance and lives on a cattle ranch that was largely dependent upon a U.S. Forest Service grazing permit. Originally the Forest Service made promises, commitments and agreements in writing with the Laneys, who would not have invested in the Diamond Bar without those commitments. Due to pressures brought to bear on the USFS by environmental groups, the Forest Service later reneged on those promises, reducing cattle numbers on the Diamond Bar to the point of financially ruining the Laneys.

In the past 10 years Catron County ranchers have lost grazing rights for over 25,000 head of cattle, causing the county to lose over one million dollars per year in revenues. This, combined with the virtual extermination of any forest thinning has devastated Catron County, causing not only financial ruin, but loss of custom and cultures.

"For the past 20 years the U.S. Forest Service has been held hostage by extreme environmental groups in the name of protection of the environment, whereas ranchers are the actual stewards of the land and have been for generations," said Rufus Choate, commissioner for District 1. "These groups who claim to be champions of the environment are slowly destroying our public lands."

In the past two years alone well over 200,000 acres have been destroyed by catastrophic wildfires in Catron County. These fires, with temperatures of over 2000° F, sterilize the soil, destroy habitat for wildlife and endangered species, pollute streams and watersheds, and take a century to come back. Fires have reached catastrophic proportions because environmentalists have halted forest restoration work in Catron County, filing lawsuits against the very forest restoration programs that would save the forests.

"Environmentalist are trying to make our public lands one use only ­ their use," said Ed Wehrheim, chairman of the commission. "The Catron County Commission feels that the Laneys and other Catron County ranchers are victims of this power struggle between environmental groups and the American public that has the right to use these lands. "

Catron County intends to take every legal means possible to defend multiple use of public lands.

"We are the true environmentalist here," Wehrheim said. "We are here to protect the environment now and for generations to come."

###

Lif Strand
for Catron County Commission
(505) 773-4897
lif@catroncounty.org

Letter to the Editor March 18, 2004

KIT LANEY VS. USFS

Having been present at the arraignment hearing for rancher Kit Laney on March 16, prompts me to focus on some important points in this lengthy legal battle, missed by the press.

USFS Special Agent Douglas Charles Roe, who testified against rancher Kit Laney, stated that he was hired by the USFS in November 2003 and was assigned as case agent on the Diamond Bar Ranch. He also stated that he had never spoken to Kit Laney and when asked if he knew the history of this case, Roe said he had been given the 1996 court case to read. Roe also testified that he had never been in the area where the alleged assault happened. In court, he used three photographs which depict the area, but these were sent to him via email. Clearly said, he was not present when the alleged assault took place. Everything he knew about it was told to him by USFS LEOs (United States Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers) Christopher Boehm, DeWayne Ross, and Patrol Captain Mike Reamer. Listening to some of Roe's phrases like; "I can't tell you right now, I think it was officer Reamer..." made eveyone present wonder about the legitimacy of his testimony.

According to Webster's dictionary a witness is; "someone who has personal knowledge or direct cognizance: see for oneself." On more than one occasion, Jane Greek, a federal public defender, who represented Kit Laney in the absence of his attorney, objected to what sounded like an embellished tale by Roe. Twice, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Molzen asked Roe; "How do you know that?"

When Jane Greek asked that Kit Laney's attorney, who was on stand-by, be heard via telephone conference call, U.S. Attorney John Crews acting on behalf of the USFS stated that this is against the law. Really? What about bringing someone into court as a witness who was not present, did not see anything, and did not hear anything? Isn't that against the law? During a recess, I learned that USFS LEOs can be witnesses based on hearsay evidence. Interesting. You are the average Joe, have been on the job for only four months, are armed with (according to Roe's testimony) a Glock pistol, a rifle, extra ammo, a baton, pepper spray, and other necessary law enforcement items, you have no clue as to the legal circumstances of this 18 year long case, yet you feel entirely confidant and are allowed to testify in Federal Court.

This is without a doubt a travesty of justice. Not just the most recent alleged assault charge, but the entire legal history of the Diamond Bar Ranch.

The incredible recent actions by the USFS need to be made public. Private landowners within the Gila National Forest are requested to have a permit issued by the USFS to go to their private homes on private land. I have been repeatedly denied a permit to visit my friends who live in that area. A week ago, I was denied access to the Gila National Forest, in spite of me stating to the Public Information Officer, that I have been taking European visitors to the area for many years and want to do so at this time. Even the County Sheriff was recently challenged by a USFS Ranger to get a permit in order to go into the Gila National Forest , which is public land.

It is high time that we rein in these runaway government agencies who appoint themselves lords of the land and at the same time judge, jury, and executioner. I have not yet been able to find a congressional mandate for the USFS to have law enforcement authority.

Unbeknownst to most people, this case started on a cool September evening in 1986. At the time I was staying at the Diamond Bar Ranch headquarters in Black Canyon. The USFS had just informed the Laneys that Road 61 would be closed. It was Kit Laney who asked us to stay calm about the whole situation and to work it out within the given legal framework. Therefore, people put together a petition, which in turn was presented to the USFS and the road stayed open. It was four years ago that I witnessed the hospitality extended to USFS personnel by the Laneys. The USFS was working on a land survey near Black Canyon. It was a hot summer day when two USFS employees were invited in for lemonade and ice tea. I sat at the table with them. In 18 years time, Kit Laney had ample opportunity to "get into it" with USFS personnel, yet he always stayed respectful.

Based on doing business with Kit Laney I know that his number one concern is the welfare of his cattle, especially his calves. A few days ago, a neighboring rancher who lives within a short distance of the corrals, set up by the USFS on the Diamond Bar allotment, told the Laneys of the endless bawling of corraled mother cows. Kit suspected that newborn calves had been separated from their mothers and he went to check on his cattle, which then led to his arrest on Sunday March 14. The contractor hired by the USFS is only getting paid for every cow he rounds up. Without a doubt, newborn calves that are unable to walk long distances in the rough terrain of the Gila, are left behind.

So Kit is a superb cowman - what about Kit, the person? In 1999, my daughter at the age of 13 asked to go and ride, work cattle, and camp out with him, I did not hesitate for one moment to let her go because you cannot find a more decent, caring, and honest man than Kit Laney.

Then why, you wonder, is one of the leading NM newspapers headlines screaming: "Jail, no bail, for rancher?" Kit Laney was denied bail on Monday March 16 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Molzen because he is not a murderer, a rapist, nor a drug dealer. Kit Laney, who up to this point had an unblemished record, was in court on one count of assault and had no witness, since Mr. Bojangles (his horse) does not talk. In court, Kit did not speak on his behalf and was faced with a fake government witness. Therefore, everyone present, including the judge, heard only one side of the story.

Our courts will set bond for any hardcore criminal, yet will not set bond for the honest man who bucks, rightfully so, the illegal intrusion by the Federal Government.

Monika Helbling, PO Box 634, Pie Town NM 87827, 505 772 2550, rabbitbrushranch@yahoo.com

Rancher requests Greenlee's help

By John Kamin, assistant editor

Martinez and Hickey ranches owner Dan Martinez and his legal adviser, Wray Schildnecht, asked the Greenlee County Board of Supervisors to help him uphold state law on March 16.

Martinez gave a presentation to explain his position in a debate with the U.S. Forest Service over who really owns portions of the two properties. He owns the Martinez and Hickey ranches and grazes on the allotments. The U.S. Forest Service's grazing allotment fees and reductions in the number of cattle allowed on the allotment are part of the reason for the debate.

"If the Forest Service wants to impound my cattle and charge me with trespassing, they must follow the laws of the state," Martinez said. "They have to go to state court for that."

In February, Schildnecht told the Courier that Martinez "filed a Constructive Notice to the Forest Service, giving them notice that he owned the vested-fee interest and that it is private property under the jurisdiction of the state of Arizona."

A situation similar to the cattle removal with Kit and Sherry Laney in New Mexico could happen in Greenlee County if Martinez loses his grazing privileges. The removal was the result of a Dec. 18 decision by Federal Judge William P. Johnson.

According to a news release from the Center for Biological Diversity, Johnson "held the Diamond Bar and Laney Cattle companies, and their owners Kit and Sherry Laney, in contempt for violating the court's December 1996 livestock removal order."

During Tuesday's board meeting, Schildnecht referred to the Laney case and said the executive director of the New Mexico State Livestock Board signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Forest Service without consulting the rest of the board.

"The executive director did not have the authority to do that," he said. The memorandum allowed the Forest Service to remove and sell the Laney cattle. Before the removal started, Catron County Sheriff John Snyder said he would stop the removal because of his duty to uphold state laws conflicting with it. That is what Martinez would like the Greenlee County Sheriff's Department to do, if the situation occurs.

The Laneys lost grazing privileges in federal court last December, but Martinez and other ranching advocates are saying the case could be won in state court.

New Mexico State University Associate Professor Angus McIntosh said, "Most land in the U.S. exists in a split estate." He said laws that separate water rights, easements and mineral rights from the actual property itself are at the heart of this type of legal argument.

McIntosh used the stretch of Highway 70 east of Safford as an example. He pointed out that while the land was federally owned before the highway existed, the federal agency owning the land gave the state of Arizona an easement to build the highway on its land.

"Once Congress granted that easement, that easement became the property of the state," he said. "An easement is private property, even though it may cross over land that the federal government owns. . . The federal district court doesn't have the jursidiction to rule what is defined as property."

Martinez quoted the 1839 Wilcox v. Jackson ruling as saying "whensoever a tract of land shall have been once legally appropriated to any purpose, from that moment, the land thus appropriated becomes severed from the mass of public lands."

Greenlee County owns the rights of several roads that the Forest Service claims jurisdiction over (when they close the roads), he said.

Martinez noted that some of these rights are referred to as Vested Property Rights. These were granted to ranchers by federal adjudicators in the late 1800s and early 1900s to help settle land disputes. This included easements addressing grazing paths, water rights and more.

Schildnecht said the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (from the Laney case) never questioned this. Martinez said he has had these easements passed down through his family for several generations.

Forest Service Public Information Officer Andrea Martinez and other officials have told the Courier numerous times that the land in question is still owned and must be regulated by the Forest Service. The federal agency has held strong on its stance that it maintains jurisdiction over the grazing allotments and its right to revoke permits for the allotments or reduce the number of cattle on them.

Andrea Martinez also told the Courier about 250 cattle have been gathered as of last Friday.

An update on Kit Laney

Kit Laney was arrested for interfering with the duties of a federal law officer on March 14. U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement Officer Chris Boehm filed a complaint on March 15 that said Laney "forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated and interfered with Federal Law Enforcement Officers who were engaged in or on account of the performance of their official duties."

U.S. Magistrate Karen B. Molzen denied Laney's request to be released on a bail bond Tuesday.

McIntosh said, "The bottom line is that because the judge feels Kit ignored the previous court order to remove his cattle from the allotment, the judge did not believe he would abide by any bail conditions requiring him to stay away from the allotment. Therefore, he will not be released on bail. So, if he is released on bail, it will only be under third-party custody (house arrest with someone who lives a long way from National Forest) or they will keep him in jail until the FS (Forest Service) is done with their confiscation."

To contact John Kamin, call 428-2560 (ext. 240) or e-mail him at johnk@eacourier.com.