DuBois column

We’re talking Bundy jumping, Trump thumping and Monument molesting

Bundy jumping

While most of the media and D.C. Deep Thinkers have been reacting to Donald Trump’s surprising electoral victory, I’ve been having fun monitoring the left-enviro reaction to the surprising not guilty verdict in the Bundy Oregon case. That particular decision has generated such headlines as “The Bundy Acquittal Is Dangerous” and “A Shocking Outcome”.

Let me give you a flavor of what has been said.

Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said his agency "must send a strong message of deterrence to those who would seek to replicate the occupation or perpetuate the toxic myths that sustained it."

"This is an extremely disturbing verdict for anyone who cares about America's public lands, the rights of native people and their heritage, and a political system that refuses to be bullied by violence and racism," said Kierán Suckling, the Center for Biological Diversity's executive director. "The Bundy clan and their followers peddle a dangerous brand of radicalism aimed at taking over lands owned by all of us. I worry this verdict only emboldens the kind of intimidation and right-wing violence that underpins their movement." “The FBI’s treatment of the Bundy militia as Boy Scouts for 41 days hobbled the prosecution…”, Suckling said.

“We are deeply disappointed in today’s verdict, which puts our park rangers and scientists at further risk just for doing their jobs,” Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, said in a statement. “The outcome of today’s trial will undoubtedly embolden extremist groups.” 

“I fear this ruling will embolden other militants to use the threat of violence and I worry for the safety of employees at our public land- management agencies,” said John Horning, executive director of WildEarth Guardians, in a statement. “It is entirely possible there will be threats or intimidations from militants that believe such actions are justified by this verdict.”

 That’s just a few of the milder reactions. I can’t read them without grinning.

The Bundys were there because of federal overreach in the Hammond case and the Bundys were found not guilty as a result of overreach by the federal prosecutor. 

Trump thumping 

Talk about your double-whammy. Not long after the Bundys were found not guilty one Donald Trump was elected President. The same Trump who said he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement on global warming, revoke the “waters of the U.S.” rule and bring back the coal industry.

The enviros aren’t happy. Typical of their reaction are these statements by Heather Leibowitz, Director of Environment New York.

“At a time when children are being poisoned by lead in their drinking water and sewage and manure pollute our rivers, we need to strengthen our clean water protections and invest in clean water infrastructure.”

“At a time when sea levels are rising, temperature records are being smashed, and extreme weather events threaten Americans across the country, we need to rapidly shift to 100% renewable energy and away from dirty fossil fuels.”

“The American people did not vote for dirty air, dirty water or the destruction of our precious lands and wildlife…”

Yes, Trump’s election will mean children are poisoned and our lands and wildlife will be destroyed.

Time out for a good guffaw.

On a more serious note, the enviros are preparing for battle. They are planning an aggressive effort in the federal courts to defeat any of Trumps deregulation proposals.

“We will be full-blast in the courts to resist undermining any of our fundamental environmental laws where progress has been made through executive branch actions on the environment,” vowed Trip Van Noppen, president of the law firm Earthjustice. 

They do face one problem: So many of Obama’s environmental initiatives were implemented by Executive Orders or similar type actions and they will be vulnerable to executive action by Trump. The Imperial Presidency, those “stroke of the pen” actions may come back to haunt them. And yes, I can’t keep from smiling as I write this.

Monument molesting

Rep. Rob Bishop, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, has suggested that Trump should revoke many of the monuments proclaimed by Obama. The reaction has been quick. U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich says of any attempted roll backs, “they’re going to have to do it over my dead body.” Senator Udall and Rep. Lujan joined Heinrich in condemning the idea.

Rep. Steve Pearce, however, says, “The Antiquities Act requires that a President designate the smallest possible footprint in order to achieve the desired environmental preservation. American’s have witnessed the Obama Administration disregard that part of the law.” Pearce is calling on Trump to review the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks and other designations to reduce their footprint “to an acreage supported by existing federal law.”

Can the President actually revoke or revise a National Monument? It’s my understanding this has never been litigated. We do have a 1938 opinion by the U.S. Attorney General. That opinion says the Antiquities Act grants the President the authority to proclaim a National Monument, but the Act “does not…authorize the President to abolish national monuments...” However, the opinion also says the President has diminished the size of monuments under that part of the act which provides that the limits of the monuments “in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the care and management of the objects to be protected…” 

He can’t revoke but he can diminish. Sounds very much like what Rep. Pearce is proposing.

And I’m still grinning.

Till next time, be a nuisance to the devil and don’t forget to check that cinch.

 Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner.blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation

This column originally appeared in the December issue of The New Mexico Stockman and the December issue of The Livestock Market Digest.