Sunday, June 26, 2011

Wilmeth & The Westerner

Steve Wilmeth's column Scarcity of Values: The Promises of FLPMA as usual generated some interesting comments. Some of these comments, listed below, are deserving of response and also provide the opportunity to make some general comments about The Westerner, especially for newcomers.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

We have come to depend on DuBois and Wilmeth to come to a logical agreement so we can hang our hat on it and move forward. This stuff of disagreement on the spirit of the law must be resolved so we can remain united. Fix that!

Anonymous W.Howard said...

Good for Anonymous. This debate must have unity. There can be no disagreement that environmental values have been isolated from the rest. We can all agree on that. If that is the case there is meat in the argument. Start with that and go forward!

Anonymous Clinton B said...

It seems that almost all comments assume that statutes enacted following settlement of the West trump the rights which were granted under pre-existing federal and state laws during settlement. Wayne Hage proved in the Court of Federal Claims that that's not the case in Nevada and probably other states, Hage v US. I believe the court determined that Hage owned the forage around his private waters on federal land, and that final resolution in state and federal court will determine that no grazing permit is required by long-established ranches for the use of their adjudicated forage adjacent to their private waters within the borders of their respective rangeland.

When serving as the NM Ag Secretary I asked staff to put together a daily briefing on natural resource happenings in the West. I never really got what I wanted. When I retired in 2003, I discovered blogs and decided ok, I'll show them what a daily briefing looks like. That was the genesis of The Westerner in the fall of 2003. It was just a series of links to articles where I tried to paint a picture of the news in The West. Over time that has morphed into what you see today.

There wasn't any original writing until I started posting Julie Carter's weekly column. Then along came Wilmeth. Steve and I had been working together for almost four years on the Wilderness issue in Dona Ana County. Neither he nor I started out with the goal of him writing a weekly column for The Westerner. Thankfully, though, that's the way it has worked out. He's an excellent writer with a unique insight on the issues he covers and I'm pleased to have him become a regular feature on this blog.

As far as editing The Westerner, I decide what to link to and what to post. Please understand I don't agree with everything that appears here. You will find links to articles that lean to the left or that are biased for the enviros. Why? I'm a firm believer in know thine enemy. We need to be aware of the enviros' political strategy and philosophical arguments in order to be prepared. What makes this site different is I also link to articles that bring a conservative or libertarian take on the issues of importance to us.

I realize my comments on different posts are erratic. I spend 6 to 8 hours a day to bring you what I consider to be the most significant news items. In most instances I don't have the time to comment, and there are times I just don't have the inclination to do so.

So let's look at the comments in the Wilmeth article. Two folks thought Wilmeth and I should agree on everything in his article. Come on guys. Put two cowboys in a room and ask them to agree on everything about horses, cattle and women and see how far you'll get. The Westerner is a place where we can have free and open debate on the issues and I intend to keep it that way.

As for the comment on the Hage case I believe you are mistaken. The court ruled the Hage's had no rights to the surface. It ruled they did have certain water rights and that the government had prevented them from diverting the water and putting it to beneficial use. Thus, a taking had occurred.

Hope this fills you in on the philosophy surrounding this blog and I would welcome any comments.

11 comments:

W. Howard said...

I read DuBois comments about unity and drank a cup of coffee to think about them. I'll stand where I was. The analogy is the Civil War as Wilmeth writes this morning (by the way that was damn interesting!). Jackson and Longstreet may have disagreed on tactics, but they both agreed the South needed to win the conflict. That is what my comments were based upon. Disagree in the predawn meeting overlooking Fredricksburg, but not with the troops as the battle starts. That is what we expect and that is what we get too little of.

Anonymous again said...

My comments were what I believed were true. Two cowboys may not agree on the pick of the litter among horses, women, and whiskey, but two cowboys who represent us to the greater world need to agree that, as CATEGORIES, horses, women, and whiskey are amongst the five things in life they have no disagreement about!

Frank DuBois said...

My point was I wouldn't go to battle with the BLM based on Wilmeth's interpretation of historical in FLPMA.

Frank DuBois said...

Wilmeth and I agree on Categories, just not which horse to ride.

UpBeforeDawn said...

Good Lord a'mighty. DuBois said horses, cattle and women, not horses, women, and whiskey. Can't we agree on something?

ADavis said...

Ha,we have Upbeforedawn! Look at those comments. Horses are first in line! We have the right order of things!

N. Sperry said...

There are four New Mexicans this morning in Mr. DuBois' blog that are out on a limb for the security and the freedom of our future. That is what we can agree upon! DuBois, Carter, Cowan and Wilmeth and people like them who don't have to be doing this are voices that we have not had and that is our hope. I for one appreciate that.

Border Watcher said...

I have now read the FLPMA description of the eight values. There is no way that it can be argued that all eight have been represented equally. If anybody can find where any have been used to protect the tax payer base like ecological and environmental have been used against the base, I would like to see it. It ain't there. DuBois what horse are you talking about?

Tick said...

I debated whether or not a Texan should weigh in here. Since the only public lands around here are a tiny little state park down the road a piece I guess I won't. I guess I'll just go feed the horses.

Frank DuBois said...

Border Watcher, please go back and read my comments on 6/12. There you will find I said, “I’m in total agreement with Wilmeth’s thesis” but that where “we may part is in his interpretation of FLPMA and historical values.” I did not anywhere say the 8 values had been represented equally, and we all know that is not the case.

I had one reason for commenting on the historic value issue. It is my opinion that if a rancher appealed a grazing decision concerning his type of livestock, seasons of use or authorized use by claiming the BLM had violated the historic value phrase in FLPMA, he would lose. That was the reason I felt obligated to comment.

Frank DuBois said...

Now let’s get back to the comments of W. Howard and anonymous about reaching agreement or having unity that originally caused my interest. I would agree with your comments if this were a trade group, lobbying firm, etc. The Westerner is none of those. It is an internet publication attempting to educate readers on issues of importance to the West. The free flow of ideas and debate is encouraged. As editor, I had two choices. Either don’t publish the Wilmeth article because of my concern over one part of an otherwise excellent article, or publish it and comment. I chose the latter and given similar circumstances will probably do the same in the future.

I really appreciate everyone taking the time to comment. Please remember that just because something is linked to or posted on The Westerner doesn’t mean I’m in total agreement with each and every point in the item. If that were the criteria my comments would be the only ones posted!