DANIEL MARTINEZ---USFS

Dear Editor:

County Attorney Derek Rapier and Sheriff Steve Tucker appear to be missing the point as to why people feel they should have been more involved in the Martinez Ranch dispute. To fully understand why citizens of Greenlee County are so puzzled as to their lack of action, it is important to first look at the broad picture.

There is a clear trend occurring on the forest lands from Clifton to Alpine. Cattle have been removed first from the river areas, now from the upland areas; roads are being closed at an alarming rate; and the Forest Service is acquiring most of the private land in the area. Years ago, environmental groups targeted these lands as an area they would like to use strictly for wildlife, with emphasis on introduction of wolves, grizzly bears, and jaguars into the area.

While they cannot accomplish these goals in one swipe, radical environmental groups feel they can methodically accomplish their goal by chipping away and gaining one piece of their ultimate goal at a time (closing of one road at a time, removing grazing from one allotment at a time, etc.). Actions from local Forest Service officials over the past decade indicate a willingness to help the environmental groups attain their objectives.

The Martinez family has ranched and paid taxes in Greenlee County for 160 years. They are award-winning stewards of the land and have spent thousands of their hard-earned dollars on range improvements that help wildlife as well as livestock. Their operation has historically been considered a model for good management. They have received letters from former Forest Service officials commending their good management. They are considered ranchers that have always “played by the rules”.

It is no secret that any time you decide to “take on” the federal government you are going to have your hands full. So why have the Martinez’s drawn a line in the sand with the Forest Service? First, they too understand that Greenlee County has been targeted for a large endangered species refuge and want to help reverse the disturbing trend.

Second, they believe the Forest Service should be able to transfer their grazing permit from father to son without infringing on their private rights. They have refused to sign the waiver that they believe would endorse a reduction in their permit as well as take away rights associated with their allotment. The Martinez family is not claiming that they own the land, only that they have private property (rights) associated with the land. They will pay grazing fees when presented with a bill.

So where should Greenlee County get involved in all of this? Arguments can be made for or against county intervention on the very complex issue of the property rights claims. The courts will ultimately answer the property rights questions arising from the Martinez claims.

However, the issue of impounding and selling the Martinez cattle, is another matter. I believe there are numerous actions our Sheriff and County Attorney could have and should have attempted in an effort to stop this negative fiasco from occurring. Let me explain:

1. The agreement between the Forest Service and the Arizona Department of Agriculture created a double standard for the impoundment of livestock; the agreement allows the Forest Service to sell the cattle without a court order. Yet, a court order is required for the Arizona State Land Department to impound and sell livestock on Arizona State lands; a court order is also required before a financial institution can gather and sell cattle from a ranch that has defaulted on a loan. Why then, should the Forest Service be allowed to gather and sell cattle without a court order?

Our government is a system of checks and balances. The question arises, “When the State decided to make a political decision on this issue, why didn’t the County Attorney and Sheriff challenge the validity of the agreement and subsequent impoundment?” After 160 years of being good citizens of this county has the Martinez family not earned at least that much?

All property owners live in some degree of fear that the Federal government will someday find a reason to take his or her property. It certainly does not seem unreasonable to require a court order for the confiscation and selling of private property. The Sheriff and County Attorney could have easily taken a stand on behalf of the property owners in Greenlee County and told the Forest Service that no cattle would be taken from this county without a court order.

2. It appears that the gathering and attempted sale of the Martinez cattle is intended to bring down one of Greenlee County’s cornerstone families and to permanently dismember their livestock operation. There were avenues available to the Forest Service to avoid the impoundment, but they chose not to utilize them. Some options include:

-Forest Service grazing permits have been transferred from one owner to another in other Forest Districts without signing a waiver. (I recently talked to a rancher who has done it).
-The Forest Service can also allow a permittee to let another rancher run cattle on his/her allotment. An agreement to let the son run cattle on the father’s ranch could have been an option. This has occurred on one of the neighboring allotments.

Did our elected leaders (Sheriff and County Attorney) ever tell the Forest Service they would like to try to find a way to avoid the impoundment?

3. While they were gathering the cattle, the Forest Service closed the Rattlesnake Gap road. This occurred during deer hunting season. Why was the road closed? Shouldn’t that action have been challenged on behalf of the citizens of Greenlee County?

4. The Forest Service hired armed federal law enforcement to protect Forest Service employees and the contractors hired to gather the cattle. Why? The Martinez family has no history of violence. Many citizens have pointed out how intimidating it is to have these armed federal employees in our community. Shouldn’t the Sheriff have challenged that action to avoid such an ugly scene in our county.

Because they have the most power to represent our interests, we look to our elected officials to stand up on our behalf and protect our rights. The impoundment of the Martinez cattle is probably the most negative event to occur in Greenlee County in decades and could likely have been avoided with minimal intervention from county elected officials.

Our Sheriff and County Attorney are our most powerful county elected officials in these matters. Citizens in this area understand that challenging the federal government is a tough task, and we know we’re not going to win every battle. Property owners do however, want to know that if the federal government finds a reason to take their property, our county officials will do everything they can to protect them. The current feeling is that the lack of action by our County Attorney and Sheriff is helping the Forest Service in their apparent attempt to bring down the Martinez family. Effort is all we are asking for, but to this point it really has not been there.

Jeff Menges
Local Rancher