Issues of concern to people who live in the west: property rights, water rights, endangered species, livestock grazing, energy production, wilderness and western agriculture. Plus a few items on western history, western literature and the sport of rodeo... Frank DuBois served as the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003. DuBois is a former legislative assistant to a U.S. Senator, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior, and is the founder of the DuBois Rodeo Scholarship.
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Court rules to strip Wyoming wolves of federal protections
Wolves in Wyoming should be stripped of Endangered Species Act protections and management given to the state rather than the U.S. government, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday, a decision that opens the door for hunting of the animals.
U.S. wildlife managers in 2012 determined that wolves in Wyoming had rebounded from the threat of extinction and that the state plan to oversee the creatures was adequate to ensure their survival.
But conservation groups sued, contending the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had acted in an arbitrary and unlawful fashion in finding Wyoming’s plan acceptable. They argued the state would fail to maintain the animals at certain population levels and would subject a portion of them to being shot on sight.
A U.S. district judge sided with environmentalists in a 2014 decision and the several hundred wolves in Wyoming were once again placed under federal safeguards.
The state, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and others appealed that ruling and, on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia reversed the lower court, finding that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had indeed “exercised its judgment in a reasonable way” in concluding that Wyoming’s management plan would provide wolves with sufficient protections...more
Montana Land Reliance keeps 1 million acres from subdivision
Rick Berg’s Norwegian great-grandfather settled in the Lennep Valley in the late 1880s. He became a butcher, supplying the area's miners and railroad workers, then later homesteaded and ranched sheep. In the 1950s, the ranch he founded converted to cattle. Today, Rick’s daughter and her husband are the fifth generation to operate the place. They run their Angus cattle on 10,000 acres of private and state land, much as Rick and his wife, Gayle, did in the 1980s and 90s.
The only real difference between now and a century ago is the property holds a conservation easement that ensures it will remain intact and undeveloped in perpetuity.
“To think what my great-grandfather, grandfather, father and I did to create this beautiful block of land, I wanted to preserve the integrity of the land everybody worked so hard to put together,” Berg said. “Nothing inspires me more than to see large, beautiful, uncluttered spaces.”
Berg’s conservation easement is through the Montana Land Reliance (MLR), a private, non-profit land trust. He is one of more than 800 landowners – many of them working farmers and ranchers – who have partnered with the organization to permanently protect agricultural land, fish and wildlife habitat and open space since it began nearly four decades ago. Land trusts like MLR protect land through conservation easements, voluntary legal agreements with landowners that put limits on how the land can be used in order to conserve it. Landowners retain their property titles, which forever keep the conservation easement, even after the property is sold. The donation of an easement qualifies as a charitable contribution, so in exchange most landowners receive significant income, estate and gift tax reductions...more
I'm fully supportive of the Berg's doing what they wish with their private property. That is their right as a property owner. I do not believe, however, that others should be forced to subsidize their decision.
Let's say that I make a different decision for my property; that I'm not presumptuous enough to believe I know today what is best for my family/heirs 50 or 100 years from now, and trust they will manage the property in a manner that is most beneficial to them, and I chose to not limit or restrict their options. In that case, the government punishes me with income, estate and other taxes. If I had made the same decisions as the Bergs, my decision would be subsidized, or free from the aforementioned taxes.
I don't believe the government should subsidize one person's decision and punish another person's opposite decision on the future of their property. Leave us free to make our own property decisions without government interference.
I'm fully supportive of the Berg's doing what they wish with their private property. That is their right as a property owner. I do not believe, however, that others should be forced to subsidize their decision.
Let's say that I make a different decision for my property; that I'm not presumptuous enough to believe I know today what is best for my family/heirs 50 or 100 years from now, and trust they will manage the property in a manner that is most beneficial to them, and I chose to not limit or restrict their options. In that case, the government punishes me with income, estate and other taxes. If I had made the same decisions as the Bergs, my decision would be subsidized, or free from the aforementioned taxes.
I don't believe the government should subsidize one person's decision and punish another person's opposite decision on the future of their property. Leave us free to make our own property decisions without government interference.
Jaguar photographed in southern Arizona’s Cochise County
The third jaguar documented in southern Arizona since 2012 was photographed by a Bureau of Land Management trail camera in Cochise County. The image was taken on Nov. 16, 2016, in the Dos Cabezas Mountains 60 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border; the camera data was only recently retrieved. This is the only jaguar photographed by this BLM-deployed camera since it was installed in August 2016. The camera remains on site. A
Five Arizona Game and Fish Department scientists have independently completed an analysis of the photo, comparing the jaguar’s spot patterns to other jaguars sighted previously in Arizona. They concluded that this animal has not been previously identified. The sex of the jaguar cannot be determined by the photo.
“Since 2012, an increase in trail camera monitoring of mountainous habitat in southern Arizona has provided increased documentation and a better understanding of jaguar presence and habitat preferences,” said Steve Spangle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Arizona field supervisor. “This supports the phenomenon that jaguars seeking territories outside of competitive breeding areas in Mexico continue to occasion Arizona.”...more
10 Ridiculous Recent Food-Marketing Lawsuits
Class-action lawsuits over food marketing practices have skyrocketed in the past decade, from around 20 at the federal level in 2008 to 118 such suits filed in 2015 and 171 last year. Yet far from signaling a wave of action in the consumer interest, these suits are often a sort of legal spam, mass-filed by attorneys and firms that specialize in the practice and collect significant fees for their work while plaintiffs might make out with a few product vouchers. And not only do they deal in frivolous issues far-removed from consumer safety or justice, they also threaten to drive up product prices and drive small companies out of business. According to ILR, a nonprofit research affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, this "surge" of class action food-marketing litigation is
largely driven by "a small cadre of class action lawyers" and a small
number of U.S. law firms. "There are now hundreds of active food class
actions in the federal courts and more in state courts," states ILR's
new report, The Food Court: Trends in Food and Beverage Class Action Litigation.
"A few are so laughable that courts have quickly thrown them out. Some
are withdrawn or dismissed, typically as a result of a private
settlement." But "many more are litigated for years," culminating in
"multi-million dollar settlements that line the pockets of lawyers, but
provide little or no benefit to consumers." Want an example? According to ILR's research, 50 class-action suits were
filed in 2016 over Parmesan-cheese bottles labeled "100% grated
Parmesan cheese" that also contain a small amount (2-4 percent) of
cellulose, a natural, FDA-approved food-additive that keeps cheese from
clumping and is listed on label Ingredient sections. Here are nine more
complaints from ILR's catalogue of food-marketing cases gone wild:...more
Horses In D.C. Recall A Riding President
On Thursday, a sturdy horse clip-clopped down C Street NW in Washington, carrying new Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to work for his first day on the job. Zinke, flanked by U.S. Park Police officers, wore a cowboy hat and boots. Tonto, his forelock tossing in the breeze, was a steady mount.
The image was captivating — in part because it was so incongruous with the 21st century urban surroundings. But that commute once was routine. For Theodore Roosevelt, the horse-besotted president whom Zinke has said he admires, riding down Washington streets was an everyday affair.
The 26th president once canceled a Cabinet meeting on a warm spring day so that he and his horse could be photographed jumping. Most days, he galloped through Rock Creek Park, mounted on Bleistein or Renown, sometimes rocketing over barriers he’d erected: a stone wall, a bank with a ditch, a 5-foot-7-inch hurdle. Roosevelt didn’t change clothes for his daily ride. He just walked out of the office, put on spurs, a hat and riding gloves, and mounted up. He fretted over how Washington was expanding, because urban growth meant fewer places to ride.
And Roosevelt had lots of animals to ride: He kept the largest string of horses at the White House since Chester Arthur in the 1880s. As is well known, Roosevelt had a lifelong love for horses, from days on his childhood pony to life with his Rough Riders. And in his stable in Washington, in addition to Bleistein and Renown, were his old polo pony Black Diamond, carriage horses Judge and General, two saddle horses and young son Archie’s pony, Algonquin.
For a while, the Roosevelts also had a horse named Wyoming, which had been a gift from the people of Cheyenne and Douglas, two cities in that state. Wyoming knew tricks; he could drop to his knees to salute the president.
The stables for all of these were in a vine-covered brick building that stood just southwest of the White House, beside the Army and Navy Building and opposite the Corcoran Gallery. The Roosevelt horses ate hay grown on the grounds of the Washington Monument...more
Friday, March 03, 2017
Solution to Mexican wolf issue is a new appellate court
by U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake
Cattle ranching is an essential part
of our cultural heritage in Arizona, and it continues to play an
important role in our state economy. Unfortunately, onerous regulations
are making it harder for ranchers to stay in business.
I
continue to hear from land users about the federal government’s general
lack of coordination and cooperation with local stakeholders. For
ranchers, a top concern is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
mishandling of the Mexican gray wolf recovery effort.
Species
management is always a delicate balancing act, and it requires
extensive consultation with the stakeholders that are most affected by
changes to local ecosystems.
To
address the declining numbers of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New
Mexico, the wolf was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species
Act in 1976. The Fish and Wildlife Service went on to finalize the
Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Plan to return viable populations back to the
wolf’s historic range.
This
plan set a recovery goal of 100 wolves, a target that was exceeded in
2014. However, instead of celebrating the recovery plan’s success by
delisting the wolf and returning management to the states, the federal
government decided to move the goal posts.
It
continues to manage the Mexican gray wolf under onerous Endangered
Species Act requirements, harming ranchers and other rural Arizona
stakeholders in the process.
This
is a case study in what’s wrong with the Endangered Species Act. I
agree that we should ensure viable species populations, but the law was
never intended for species to be listed in perpetuity.
Since
the Endangered Species Act was signed into law, more than 2,000 species
have been listed as threatened or endangered. Yet in more than 40
years, less than one percent of these species have ever been removed
from the list.
This isn’t
because of the law’s failure to recover species; rather, it’s due to a
bureaucratic reluctance to return species management to the states.
To
establish a realistic path forward to delist the Mexican gray wolf that
respects Arizona property owners, I introduced the Mexican Gray Wolf
Recovery Plan Act. This legislation will require the Fish and Wildlife
Service to work with state and local stakeholders in drafting an updated
recovery plan that doesn’t adversely impact livestock, wild game or
recreation.
The bill would
reflect the reality that 90 percent of the wolf’s historic range is in
Mexico, meaning that states like Arizona won’t be forced to shoulder an
unfair burden of the recovery effort.
And since this legislation deals with wolves, I figured it should have some teeth.
Under
the bill, achieving the recovery goal would trigger an automatic
delisting, returning management of Mexican gray wolves to the states. If
the Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t comply with the updated recovery
plan, state wildlife agencies would be empowered to assume management of
wolf populations in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.
Nearly 20 percent of US cattle herd in areas with tough drought conditions
Roughly one-fifth of the U.S. cattle inventory is within areas facing drought, including dire conditions that have led some livestock producers to sell off herds early due to the lack of hay.
Some ranchers in parched areas of the Central Plains and Southern regions have relocated cattle herds to lands with greener pastures or where water is more available.
"We're just hoping for the rain to come and make it to the next cycle," said Monte Tucker, who runs a farming and ranching operation in Sweetwater, Oklahoma.
A Great Plains drought from 2011-2013 led to a herd liquidation phase of the cattle cycle, eventually resulting in the lowest U.S. cattle levels since the early 1950s. Cattle prices rose to lofty levels after the cow supply fell but the herd rebuilding phase has been underway for several years, pressuring prices.
As a result, cow-calf producers such as Tucker — those operators breeding cattle with plans to sell the offspring to feedlots — are getting squeezed with lower prices than they were getting just a few years ago. He also grows wheat and said the business is generally tougher for farmers due to the rising costs of equipment, fertilizers and other needed agricultural inputs...more
Enviro reaction to Zinke - Heinrich & Udall vote 'yes' ?
The Senate on Wednesday voted to confirm Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) to head the Department of the Interior. The 68-31 vote included yeas from 16 Democrats and one Independent, Sen. Angus King of Maine...Ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) added:
“I’m not convinced that Congressman Zinke will be able to moderate the
Trump administration’s extreme views on exploiting our public lands. I’m
not sure he will be able to stand up to the president and protect the
public interest … required to manage our public lands for the benefit of
all Americans—not just the oil, gas, and mining companies and their commercial interests.” With Zinke as Interior Secretary, said 350.org executive director May
Boeve, “Once again, the Trump administration is stacking their cards in
favor of the fossil fuel industry.” “Zinke is another climate science-denier with ties to Big Oil who
won’t lift a finger for real climate action. His agenda will put
communities in danger and, if the coal moratorium is lifted, would spell
disaster for the climate,” she continued. Conservation group Center for Biological Diversity also noted in a statement Wednesday: "During his two years in Congress, Zinke earned just a 3 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters and voted against protections for endangered species 100 percent of the time, including opposing safeguards for the African elephant, gray wolf, sage grouse, and American burying beetle." Friends of the Earth is calling on
constituents to hold Zinke-confirming senators’ feet to the fire and
say to them: “You are now responsible for the actions that Ryan Zinke
will take as Secretary of the Interior. I plan to hold you accountable.”...more
Some major conservation groups also opposed Zinke's nomination:
Sierra Club chief Michael Brune said in a statement that “the confirmation of Rep. Zinke as Interior Secretary jeopardizes the future of our great outdoors, and the people, wildlife, and economies that depend on them."
Natural Resource Defense Council says Zinke is 'Unfit for Duty': "The problem is that Zinke has established a poor record during his brief career in Congress when it comes to voting in support of all that. We shouldn’t be taking a chance when we put someone in charge of federal lands, and the Senate should reject Zinke’s nomination."
Heinrich and Udall are usually in lock-step with the enviros. They have voted against some of the other Trump nominees. One must ask the question: Why would they buck the majority in their own party and their supporters in the environmental community to vote in favor of Zinke's nomination?
Could this be the reason?
After meeting with Zinke in January, Udall issued a statement which read. in part,
"... I don't believe that Congressman Zinke will push to change the status of New Mexico's monuments."
I guess we'll be finding out in the coming months. For that, see Will OMDP national monument survive the Trump administration? by Diana Alba Soular, which provides a thorough and objective overview of the topic. There was only one thing missing, and I'm surprised the law professor she interviewed didn't mention it.
According to the National Park Service website, Presidents have diminished the size of national monuments 14 times. The acreages involved have ranged from 5 acres to 313,280 acres. The Presidents who have exercised their authority under the Antiquities Act to diminish the size of a national monument are Coolidge, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Taft, Truman & Wilson.
Some major conservation groups also opposed Zinke's nomination:
Sierra Club chief Michael Brune said in a statement that “the confirmation of Rep. Zinke as Interior Secretary jeopardizes the future of our great outdoors, and the people, wildlife, and economies that depend on them."
Natural Resource Defense Council says Zinke is 'Unfit for Duty': "The problem is that Zinke has established a poor record during his brief career in Congress when it comes to voting in support of all that. We shouldn’t be taking a chance when we put someone in charge of federal lands, and the Senate should reject Zinke’s nomination."
Heinrich and Udall are usually in lock-step with the enviros. They have voted against some of the other Trump nominees. One must ask the question: Why would they buck the majority in their own party and their supporters in the environmental community to vote in favor of Zinke's nomination?
Could this be the reason?
After meeting with Zinke in January, Udall issued a statement which read. in part,
"... I don't believe that Congressman Zinke will push to change the status of New Mexico's monuments."
I guess we'll be finding out in the coming months. For that, see Will OMDP national monument survive the Trump administration? by Diana Alba Soular, which provides a thorough and objective overview of the topic. There was only one thing missing, and I'm surprised the law professor she interviewed didn't mention it.
According to the National Park Service website, Presidents have diminished the size of national monuments 14 times. The acreages involved have ranged from 5 acres to 313,280 acres. The Presidents who have exercised their authority under the Antiquities Act to diminish the size of a national monument are Coolidge, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Taft, Truman & Wilson.
Nearly 1,000 Yellowstone bison killed this season
Wildlife officials estimate nearly 1,000 Yellowstone National Park bison have been killed this season.
The park and state severely limit bison migrations into Montana under a 2000 agreement intended to guard against such transmissions.The agreement set a population goal of 3,000 bison inside the park.
There were an estimated 5,500 animals at last count. To reduce that number, park officials planned to kill up to 1,300 bison this winter. The herd is culled through public hunting and shipping some bison to slaughter. Slaughtered bison become meat for various Native American tribes. Officials say roughly 650 bison have been caught for slaughter so fan and about 400 have been shipped. Bison cannot be hunted in the park, but instead are caught when they migrate into the Gardiner basin. KTVH
The park and state severely limit bison migrations into Montana under a 2000 agreement intended to guard against such transmissions.The agreement set a population goal of 3,000 bison inside the park.
There were an estimated 5,500 animals at last count. To reduce that number, park officials planned to kill up to 1,300 bison this winter. The herd is culled through public hunting and shipping some bison to slaughter. Slaughtered bison become meat for various Native American tribes. Officials say roughly 650 bison have been caught for slaughter so fan and about 400 have been shipped. Bison cannot be hunted in the park, but instead are caught when they migrate into the Gardiner basin. KTVH
Ranch Ranch Radio Song Of The Day #1794
Today we have 2 bluegrass greats, together. Larry Cordle & Del McCoury treat us with The Bigger The Fool (The Harder They Fall). The tune is on Cordle's 2013 CD All-Star Duets. Cordle wrote and recorded the great song Murder On Music Row, which was later covered by George Strait & Alan Jackson.
https://youtu.be/Agn4_mn54Pk
https://youtu.be/Agn4_mn54Pk
Thursday, March 02, 2017
The new interior secretary just rode into work on a horse
Arriving on horseback Thursday, newly minted Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke pledged he would devote more resources to national parks, boost the morale of department employees and bolster the sovereignty of American Indian tribes. Zinke — who was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday by a 68-to-31 vote — rode with a nine-person mounted police escort to the Interior Department’s downtown headquarters on Tonto, an Irish sport horse. The horse, a bay roan gelding standing just over 17 hands tall, is normally kept in stables on the Mall and is owned by the U.S. Park Police. While the Park Police serve as the interior secretary’s regular security detail, officers are typically not mounted. A fifth-generation Montanan, Zinke also sent an email to the department’s 70,000 employees telling them that he had spent years working on public lands issues and was dedicated to protecting America’s natural heritage. “I approach this job in the same way that Boy Scouts taught me so long ago: leave the campsite in better condition than I found it,” he wrote in a missive that was later posted on Medium. “I’m an unapologetic admirer and disciple of Teddy Roosevelt. I believe in traditional mixed use ‘conservation ethics’ doctrine laid out by [Gifford] Pinchot, but realize that there are special places where man is more an observer than a participant, as outlined by [John] Muir.” Although Zinke received much more bipartisan support than most of President Trump’s other Cabinet nominees, he also faces challenges mediating between some of Interior’s traditional supporters and conservative Republicans eager to make changes to how public lands are managed. Utah Republicans, for example, have asked Trump to unilaterally revoke national monument status for Bears Ears, a tribal site in southeastern Utah that Obama designated less than a month before leaving office...more
Malheur II – Ammon Bundy Testifies
I had previously posted excerpts from this version of Bundy's testimony. This reporter , had a much different take...
...By the time the prosecution questioned the witness, they seemed to be highly agitated. They fired several questions at Bundy intended to confuse his answers, however, he seemed confident and prepared for them. Questions that Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight asked during cross examination included asking him if the Hammond’s had distanced themselves from “the refuge occupation and you?” Bundy was clear when he answered “No. They were threatened.” Knight showed a video of protesters firing guns at the boat launch at the refuge and asked him, “That’s an expression of a peaceful assembly?” “Correct,” was Bundy’s answer. Knight made the mistake of asking Ammon if Ryan Payne led the group in the video at the boat launch. Bundy said, “No, I believe it was your undercover FBI guy that did that.” Knight also asked if he thought it was a “Win, Win, Win for the 16 employees that could not go to work in their offices because of your actions?” Bundy simply told him Yes. Knight continued to get upset, “No one can work!” “It is sometimes inconvenient to petition your government,” Bundy replied. Each time the prosecutor would read quotes from the transcript of Bundy’s previous testimony, it seemed to get thrown back at him. “I would love for the jury to hear the whole audio,” Bundy said at one point. The next witness was former Harney County Fire Chief Chris Briels. Briels had tendered his resignation when he caught the FBI being less-than-honest while in Burns last year. He was, basically, told to mind his own business by County Judge Steve Grasty. Briels was also very effective with the jury, connecting with them with a few snarky comments. At one point, Briels was asked what he first intended to do when he originally went to the Refuge. He told the court he “wanted to chew Ammon Bundy’s butt.” This produced snickers throughout the audience and jury. Judge Anna Brown had to stop this immediately and threatened anyone that laughed again to be thrown out of the courtroom for the duration of the trial. The government was not having their best day, but, the defendants were smiling.
...By the time the prosecution questioned the witness, they seemed to be highly agitated. They fired several questions at Bundy intended to confuse his answers, however, he seemed confident and prepared for them. Questions that Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight asked during cross examination included asking him if the Hammond’s had distanced themselves from “the refuge occupation and you?” Bundy was clear when he answered “No. They were threatened.” Knight showed a video of protesters firing guns at the boat launch at the refuge and asked him, “That’s an expression of a peaceful assembly?” “Correct,” was Bundy’s answer. Knight made the mistake of asking Ammon if Ryan Payne led the group in the video at the boat launch. Bundy said, “No, I believe it was your undercover FBI guy that did that.” Knight also asked if he thought it was a “Win, Win, Win for the 16 employees that could not go to work in their offices because of your actions?” Bundy simply told him Yes. Knight continued to get upset, “No one can work!” “It is sometimes inconvenient to petition your government,” Bundy replied. Each time the prosecutor would read quotes from the transcript of Bundy’s previous testimony, it seemed to get thrown back at him. “I would love for the jury to hear the whole audio,” Bundy said at one point. The next witness was former Harney County Fire Chief Chris Briels. Briels had tendered his resignation when he caught the FBI being less-than-honest while in Burns last year. He was, basically, told to mind his own business by County Judge Steve Grasty. Briels was also very effective with the jury, connecting with them with a few snarky comments. At one point, Briels was asked what he first intended to do when he originally went to the Refuge. He told the court he “wanted to chew Ammon Bundy’s butt.” This produced snickers throughout the audience and jury. Judge Anna Brown had to stop this immediately and threatened anyone that laughed again to be thrown out of the courtroom for the duration of the trial. The government was not having their best day, but, the defendants were smiling.
Ohio carjacking duo stymied by stick shift
Cleveland police say an 18-year-old serial carjacker was arrested after his accomplice couldn't drive a stick shift – even with some coaching from the victim.
Cleveland.com reports (http://bit.ly/2mxdhUz ) Damari Wayne was charged with robbery. Police say he committed three armed carjackings between Feb. 11 and Feb. 21.
Police say Wayne and a 17-year-old boy attempted to steal a 23-year-old man's car on Feb. 21. The younger teen got in the driver's seat but was unable to operate the vehicle. That's when police say the duo turned the gun on their victim while he tried to explain how to use the gears.
The duo eventually got frustrated and ran off with the man's cellphone, which police used to pinpoint their location...more
I think this is hilarious. Just imagine you are that 17-year-old. The adrenaline is flowing. Your heart is pumping. After forcing your entry you hurriedly reach to put the vehicle in drive and...oh shit...the shift won't move...and everytime you try to move it it makes a terrible, loud grinding noise...which is causing attention you don't want...hee,hee...you screamingly demand instructions from the victim...clutch, what the hell is a clutch?...ha,ha...I can just imagine the lurching that went on before they freaked out and ran away!
You urban-dwellers don't need a fancy anti-theft device, or one of those gps trackers. No sir, all you need is a stick shift!
I think this is hilarious. Just imagine you are that 17-year-old. The adrenaline is flowing. Your heart is pumping. After forcing your entry you hurriedly reach to put the vehicle in drive and...oh shit...the shift won't move...and everytime you try to move it it makes a terrible, loud grinding noise...which is causing attention you don't want...hee,hee...you screamingly demand instructions from the victim...clutch, what the hell is a clutch?...ha,ha...I can just imagine the lurching that went on before they freaked out and ran away!
You urban-dwellers don't need a fancy anti-theft device, or one of those gps trackers. No sir, all you need is a stick shift!
Wednesday, March 01, 2017
Court rules Hage family must pay $587K for grazing cattle on federal land in Nevada
A U.S. District Court judge has ordered a Nevada ranching family engaged in a long-running dispute with federal agencies to pay $587,000 for grazing cattle on BLM and Forest Service lands without permission.
The order dated Feb. 27 from Gloria Navarro, chief judge of the Las Vegas District Court, also requires the son of the late Wayne Hage to remove any livestock from federal lands within 30 days. Within 45 days the Hage has to file a statement of compliance with the order or face contempt of court.
The order, which names Hage’s son, Wayne N. Hage, was the result of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision issued last year that overturned a lower court ruling in favor of the Hage family. The 9th circuit court directed the Las Vegas court to issue a new order complying with the appeals court findings in the decision.
That order was issued by Navarro on Monday.
Hage died in 2006, and the legal fight has been carried on by his family and son.
The order could bring an end a decades-long dispute that centered on the Hage family’s Pine Creek Ranch near Tonopah. The case is well known in the West and among property-rights advocates who continue to maintain that the federal government exercises a heavy hand in relations with those who make their livelihood off the land.
Navarro calculated the damages based on the number of cattle Hage grazed on the federal lands from 2004 to 2011. The Hage family also is permanently prohibited from putting their livestock on federal lands without permission. Wayne N. Hage said the decision was not a surprise.
“We were expecting it,” he said. “I think you are going to find a lot of joyous bureaucrats today.”
Hage said he does not have livestock on the lands in question, but he declined to say if he can pay the fine or how he may proceed legally, if at all.
Hage said Navarro’s order means the family’s stock watering rights are an illusion. The family has water rights on the land in dispute but they could not be accessed because their livestock was not allowed on the federal lands, he said.
“If it is not a taking then they have destroyed every stock water right in Nevada,” Hage said.
“The federal government is going after all kinds of property,” Hage said. “Not just our property rights. This is a bellweather that they don’t want private property rights out there. They are extinguishing them as fast as they can.”...more
Supreme Court Will Examine Whether a Wisconsin Family Needs Government Permission to Sell Their Land
After a decade of legal wrangling over the fate of their half-century old cabin, the Murr family will take their property rights dispute from the backwoods of western Wisconsin to the marble halls of the U.S. Supreme Court.
And what began as a regulatory battle over less than three acres of land has morphed into a legal case attracting interest from eight other states. The Supreme Court next month will hear oral arguments for Murr V. Wisconsin,
a case that originated all the way back in 2004, when Donna Murr and
her siblings tried to sell a parcel of land along the St. Croix River
that the family has owned since the 1960s. They couldn't do that, they
were told by St. Croix County and the state Department of Natural
Resources, because the parcel was not large enough to comply with
regulations regarding the distance between waterways and buildings. There's nothing built on the 1.25 acre parcel the Murrs were trying
to sell, but the family own a cabin that sits on an adjacent 1.25 acre
piece of land. They couldn't sell the vacant parcel without tearing down
the cabin on the other parcel, they were told. Even though the two pieces of land are separate—Donna Murr says the
family has paid taxes on them, separately, since buying the neighboring,
vacant parcel in the 1960s as an investment—the county and state say
they can combine the parcels for regulatory purposes because they have a
common owner, thanks to a state law passed in 1975. "We aren't going to be allowed to sell the second parcel, unless we
tore down the cabin next door. We were stunned," Murr said Tuesday on a
conference call with reporters. "We couldn't believe that the government
would happily take our property tax dollars for fifty years, and then
deny us the basic property rights here."...more
White House eyes plan to cut EPA staff by one-fifth, eliminating key programs
The Office of Management and Budget has suggested deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget that would reduce its staff by one-fifth in the first year and eliminate dozens of programs, according to details of a document reviewed by The Washington Post. Acknowledging that the steep cuts “will create many challenges,” the document adds, “it also can serve as catalyst for how the agency functions in the next 10 or 20 years or beyond. By looking ahead and focusing on clean water, clean air and other core responsibilities, rather than activities that are not required by law, EPA will be able to effectively achieve its mission.” The plan to slash EPA’s staff from its current level of 15,000 to 12,000, which could be accomplished in part through a buyout offer as well as layoffs, is one of several changes for which the new administration has asked agency staff for comment by close of business Wednesday. Multiple individuals briefed on the plan confirmed the request by OMB, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The proposal also dictates cutting the agency’s grants to states, including its air and water programs, by 30 percent, and eliminating 38 separate programs in their entirety. Programs designated for zero funding include grants to clean up brownfields, or abandoned industrial sites; a national electronic manifest system for hazardous waste; environmental justice programs; climate-change initiatives; and funding for native Alaskan villages.
The agency’s Office of Research and Development could face a cut of up to 42 percent, according to an individual apprised of the administration’s plans. The document eliminates funding altogether for the office’s “contribution to the U.S. Global Change Research Program,” a climate initiative that then-President George H.W. Bush launched in 1989...more
The article then has this:
That should be interesting to watch because I've never seen a federal regulatory program that had either a heart or a soul.
The article then has this:
S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), said in an email that the proposed cuts would devastate critical federal financial support for communities across the country.“These cuts, if enacted by Congress, will rip the heart and soul out of the national air pollution control program..."
That should be interesting to watch because I've never seen a federal regulatory program that had either a heart or a soul.
Draining the Regulatory Swamp - The Congressional Review Act is even better than we thought.
Nancy Pelosi says Republicans have accomplished nothing in 2017, and
no doubt she wishes that were true. But the House has already voted to
repeal 13 Obama-era regulations, and President Trump signed his third on Tuesday. Now the GOP should accelerate by fully utilizing the 1996 Congressional Review Act.
Republicans chose the damaging 13 rules based on a conventional reading of the CRA, which allows Congress to override regulations published within 60 legislative days, with simple (50-vote) majorities in both chambers. Yet the more scholars examine the law, which had only been used successfully once before this year, the clearer it is that the CRA gives Congress far more regulatory oversight than previously supposed.
Spearheading this review is the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Todd Gaziano—who helped write the 1996 act—and the Heritage Foundation’s Paul Larkin. Their legal findings, and a growing list of rules that might be subject to CRA, are on www.redtaperollback.com.
The pair argue, first, that the CRA defines “rule” broadly. The law relies on the definition in the Administrative Procedure Act, which includes any “agency statement” that is “designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.” This includes major and minor rules as well as “guidance”—letters that spell out an agency’s interpretation of a law.
...The second discovery is the law’s definition of when the clock starts on Congress’s time to review rules. The CRA’s opening lines require any agency promulgating a rule to present a “report” containing the rule’s text and definition. The CRA explains that Congress’s review period begins either on the date the rule is published in the Federal Register, or the date Congress receives the report—whichever comes later.
...A third discovery could be the most important. The opening words of the CRA read: “Before a rule can take effect” the federal agency in question must submit a Congressional report. No one has tested the legal limits of this provision, but a fair reading suggests the Trump Administration could declare any rule for which a report has not been submitted to be null and void.
Republicans chose the damaging 13 rules based on a conventional reading of the CRA, which allows Congress to override regulations published within 60 legislative days, with simple (50-vote) majorities in both chambers. Yet the more scholars examine the law, which had only been used successfully once before this year, the clearer it is that the CRA gives Congress far more regulatory oversight than previously supposed.
Spearheading this review is the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Todd Gaziano—who helped write the 1996 act—and the Heritage Foundation’s Paul Larkin. Their legal findings, and a growing list of rules that might be subject to CRA, are on www.redtaperollback.com.
The pair argue, first, that the CRA defines “rule” broadly. The law relies on the definition in the Administrative Procedure Act, which includes any “agency statement” that is “designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.” This includes major and minor rules as well as “guidance”—letters that spell out an agency’s interpretation of a law.
...The second discovery is the law’s definition of when the clock starts on Congress’s time to review rules. The CRA’s opening lines require any agency promulgating a rule to present a “report” containing the rule’s text and definition. The CRA explains that Congress’s review period begins either on the date the rule is published in the Federal Register, or the date Congress receives the report—whichever comes later.
...A third discovery could be the most important. The opening words of the CRA read: “Before a rule can take effect” the federal agency in question must submit a Congressional report. No one has tested the legal limits of this provision, but a fair reading suggests the Trump Administration could declare any rule for which a report has not been submitted to be null and void.
Charles Sylvester responds to PLC
Colorado Cattlemen’s Association
8833 Ralston Road
Arvada, CO 80002-2239
Arvada, CO 80002-2239
Public Lands Council
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 300
Washington DC 20004
Dear CCA, PLC and NCBA,
It has just been brought to my attention that your organizations, the Public Lands Council (PLC), Colorado Cattlemen's
From my years of observation, I’d have to agree with your collective claim, “Public Lands Council is the only organization in
Washington, DC, who solely represents the 22,000 ranchers who operate on public lands.”
Please understand though, that as a Range Allotment Owner, PLC doesn’t represent me. And because I couldn’t find an entity that does protect Property Rights on Range Allotments, I helped co-found RAO.
RAO is only concerned about the Property Rights of Range Allotment Owners. PLC represents ranchers on public lands. These two needs are wholly different.
I like to exercise preventive maintenance by resolving situations before they get out of hand and end up in court. RAO is an essential form of preventive maintenance.
Due to the vast difference between RAO and PLC, it is my assessment that the PLC should be relieved they don’t have to add another department beyond their long-standing representation of the public on public lands.
Now you know why I enthusiastically co-founded the Range Allotment Owners Association.
Thank you in advance, for supporting my endeavor to protect my Property Rights on my
Range Allotments.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Sylvester
Ranch Owner and Retired General Manager of National Western Stock Show
Received via email
Also of interest is, Response to PLC’s & Its Lawyers’ Attack on the Range Allotment Owners Association — by Tim K. Smith
Ryan Zinke Confirmed As Secretary Of The Interior
Congressman Ryan Zinke's, R-Mont., nomination to serve as Secretary of the Interior under President Donald Trump easily cleared the Senate on Wednesday.
The Senate voted 68 to 31 in favor of the nomination, with seventeen Democrats joining with the Republicans in the chamber to confirm Zinke...more
Remarks by President Trump at Signing of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Executive Order
THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, everybody. We appreciate you being here. Thank you very much. First of all, I want to congratulate Scott Pruitt, who's here someplace. Where's Scott? (Applause.) So important. We're going to free up our country, and it's going be done in a very environmental and positive environmental way, I will tell you that, but create millions of jobs. So many jobs are delayed for so many years, and it's unfair to everybody. So I want congratulate Scott.
I want to thank everyone for being here today. We have a great group of farmers, homebuilders, and county commissioners. They're all represented. They're standing alongside of me. I’d also like to thank Jim Inhofe, who's been so terrific in so many different ways, beyond even this. So I want thank Jim and also the leadership in the Senate on the issue, a friend of mine -- a great friend of mine -- John Barrasso.
The EPA’s so-called “Waters of the United States” rule is one of the worst examples of federal regulation, and it has truly run amok, and is one of the rules most strongly opposed by farmers, ranchers and agricultural workers all across our land. It's prohibiting them from being allowed to do what they're supposed to be doing. It's been a disaster.
The Clean Water Act says that the EPA can regulate “navigable waters” -- meaning waters that truly affect interstate commerce. But a few years ago, the EPA decided that “navigable waters” can mean nearly every puddle or every ditch on a farmer's land, or anyplace else that they decide -- right? It was a massive power grab. The EPA’s regulators were putting people out of jobs by the hundreds of thousands, and regulations and permits started treating our wonderful small farmers and small businesses as if they were a major industrial polluter. They treated them horribly. Horribly.
If you want to build a new home, for example, you have to worry about getting hit with a huge fine if you fill in as much as a puddle -- just a puddle -- on your lot. I've seen it. In fact, when it was first shown to me, I said, no, you're kidding aren’t you? But they weren’t kidding.
In one case in a Wyoming, a rancher was fined $37,000 a day by the EPA for digging a small watering hole for his cattle. His land. These abuses were, and are, why such incredible opposition to this rule from the hundreds of organizations took place in all 50 states. It's a horrible, horrible rule. Has sort of a nice name, but everything else is bad. (Laughter.) I've been hearing about it for years and years. I didn’t know I'd necessarily be in this position to do something about it, but we've been hearing about it for years.
With today’s executive order, I’m directing the EPA to take action, paving the way for the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule.
So I want to thank everybody for being here. And I will sign wherever I'm supposed to sign. There we are. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
The EO is embedded below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Yd5M8kgeNtZWhVY2piTDNOMU0/view?usp=sharing
Sportsmen take aim at law enforcement bill
But he appears to be willing to listen to one interest group: sportsmen. On Feb. 2, Chaffetz credited pressure from hook-and-bullet groups for his decision to kill the public lands transfer bill he recently introduced, HR 621. And those groups hope he’ll listen again when it comes to companion bill HR 622, the Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act.
Sponsored by Chaffetz and cosponsored by several representatives from across the West, this bill presents a less direct threat: it would hand a difficult job — enforcing federal regulations on public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service — to local police. Sportsmen fear that this would undermine federal agencies’ ability to manage those 438 million acres, making the lands more vulnerable not only to abuse but to potential transfer as well. “It’s one more stake in the heart of public access to public lands,” says Whit Fosburgh, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership president and CEO.
For sportsmen, this is only the latest in a long history of conservation fights. “Sometimes people think hunters are new to this table,” says Land Tawney, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, “but we’ve been doing this for the last 120 years.” The intensity of recent threats to public lands, however, has led to greater awareness than ever, spurring widespread involvement from the sportsmen community. BHA’s membership, for example, has increased by 25 percent since the election, and has tripled over the last year. “A lot more folks are emboldened to speak up now,” says Fosburgh.
BHA recently coordinated a press conference on HR 622, giving both sportsmen and career law enforcement employees from the BLM and Forest Service a platform to voice their opposition. This came about because the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, seeing potential allies in the sportsmen community, reached out to BHA. Together, they decided to take action “while this thing is hot,” says Tawney...more
This is amazing to me. Their position is local law enforcement is competent to investigate murder and rape, but not recreation or wildlife infractions? They are capable to police neighborhoods and areas where you and I live and work but not the areas where these guys hunt? The position they are taking is really anti-law enforcement, as it is a real slap in the face to the 765,000 state and local officers in the U.S.
This is amazing to me. Their position is local law enforcement is competent to investigate murder and rape, but not recreation or wildlife infractions? They are capable to police neighborhoods and areas where you and I live and work but not the areas where these guys hunt? The position they are taking is really anti-law enforcement, as it is a real slap in the face to the 765,000 state and local officers in the U.S.
Environmental groups to defend monument expansion
Environmental groups have filed petitions to allow them to defend last month’s expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in federal court, saying they can’t rely on the federal agencies nor the Trump administration to defend their interests in keeping the expansion intact.
The motions request to allow the Soda Mountain Wilderness Council and other groups to intervene and legally argue against two lawsuits seeking to scuttle the 47,624-acre expansion of the monument signed by President Barack Obama in his last week in office.
The suits challenge Obama’s use of the federal Antiquities Act to expand the monument into about 40,000 acres of federal O&C Act lands originally set aside by Congress for sustained timber production as managed by the Bureau of Land Management. It includes a 1940 internal government review that concluded the Antiquities Act cannot be used to take O&C lands out of timber production. The environmental groups’ motions say their long history of advocating for monument lands may not be adequately protected in court because of the federal government’s “frequent reluctance” to protect O&C lands, “particularly following changes in political administration.”
“We’re just eager to see the monument expansion hold firm,” said Dave Willis, executive director of the Soda Mountain Wilderness Council. “It was smaller than scientists recommended. To lose all or any of it would be unfortunate for the plants and animals that depend upon it, as well as present and future generations.”...more
In Utah, Drone Harassment of Livestock Could Be a Crime
HB217, a bill sponsored by Rep. Scott Chew, was unanimously approved in the House on Tuesday. It now moves to the Utah Senate.
The legislation would make it a class B misdemeanor if a person knowingly uses an ATV, dog, or drone to harm or harass livestock. If the animal is killed or seriously injured and the person is a repeat offender, they would then be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.
That class A misdemeanor carries a $2,500 fine and a potential one-year stay in jail.
"We see people harassing livestock with all-terrain vehicles . . . People in four-wheelers have chased down and run over calves," Larry Lewis, a spokesperson for Utah's Department of Agriculture, told The Daily Beast...more
Ammon Bundy testifies about what drove him to hijack federal land in Oregon
Ammon Bundy, who was recently acquitted in the armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon, testified Tuesday that he felt "driven" to protest federal control of Western lands after learning that two Oregon ranchers were imprisoned for setting fires on public rangeland.
Bundy was brought to the federal courtroom in Portland from Las Vegas, where he is in custody awaiting trial on charges he led armed gunmen to block a federal cattle roundup near his father's Nevada ranch in 2014. In response to questions from defense attorney Andrew Kohlmetz, Bundy said that the seeds for the refuge takeover were planted in October 2015, when he first heard about Dwight and Steven Hammond, two ranchers from rural Oregon who were about to report to prison for a five-year sentence after being convicted of setting fires on public rangeland.
He was lying in bed when he read an article about their case and "when I read that article, it was like I was pushed out of that bed and I needed to learn more," he said. "I felt driven and I don't know how to quite explain it. ... I felt a drive, an urge, to find out all I can and to get myself familiar with what was going on." He spent all night reading about the case online, wrote a blog post and wrote a letter that was eventually sent to 28,000 people by e-mail, he testified.
Shackled and wearing a blue prison outfit, Bundy testified that he identified with the Oregon ranchers because he felt his own family had been targeted in a similar fashion by federal Bureau of Land Management agents who were trying to seize his father's cattle in a decades-long dispute over grazing rules and unpaid fees...more
Ammon Bundy Changes Testimony in Latest Takeover Trial
Cleared of charges related to the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Ammon Bundy on Tuesday testified on behalf of the second round of defendants that the occupation was planned well in advance of its Jan. 2, 2016 launch – the opposite of what he testified in his own trial.
For the first time, Bundy told the jury that he first discussed “taking a hard stand” by occupying the refuge on Dec. 16, 2015 – more than two weeks before the occupation. This past October, he testified that the occupation was spontaneous and said he first mentioned it during a meeting an hour before the Jan. 2, 2016, protest in support of local ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. Bundy told the jury in October that he held a meeting Jan. 2 at Ye Olde Castle, a tavern in Burns, and asked a group of about 30 supporters to join him in taking over the refuge later that day.
“I proposed to them that we go up to the refuge and that we basically take possession of it and give these lands back to the people,” he said on the witness stand during his trial.
But on Tuesday, he told the jury that was not the first time he had discussed the plan with his supporters.
“We also talked about it on the day after the formation of the Committee of Safety,” Bundy said. Bundy helped sympathetic locals found the committee on Dec. 15.
“I thought we had to go into the refuge and occupy it and that would wake everyone up to what was happening,” Bundy testified Tuesday. “We have a right to peacefully assemble and petition our government for a redress of grievances.”
Bundy said several committee members didn’t like the idea, so they tabled it. Knight pushed Bundy on Tuesday regarding the charges for which the
government failed to secure convictions in the first trial: conspiracy
to prevent federal employees from working. “So employees couldn’t work while you did your protest?” Knight asked. “It is inconvenient sometimes to petition your government for redress of grievances,” Bundy responded...more
Ranch Radio Song Of The Day #1793
We'll slow things down a bit with a pretty song by Faron Young: Tattle Tale Tears. The tune was recorded in Nashville on this day, March 1, 1952. And look who was in the studio with him for this session: Chet Atkins g, Jimmy Day sg, 'Lightnin' Chance b, Tommy Jackson f, and Floyd Cramer p.
https://youtu.be/Rurp3RrB2ZI
https://youtu.be/Rurp3RrB2ZI
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Trump: “It’s a horrible, horrible rule".
President Trump signed an order Tuesday directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to formally reconsider former President Barack Obama’s Clean Water Rule.
The executive order is an opening shot by Trump against the EPA, which was a frequent target of criticism from Republicans for alleged overreach under Obama’s tenure.
It’s the first step toward repealing the 2015 water rule, which asserted federal power over small waterways like wetlands and streams for the purposes of controlling pollution under the Clean Water Act. Trump promised on the campaign trail to repeal the regulation.
“It’s a horrible, horrible rule. Has sort of a nice name, but everything else is bad,” Trump said at a White House signing ceremony, surrounded by Vice President Pence, first lady Melania Trump and top opponents of the regulation, including newly installed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio.). “ Farmers, homebuilders and county commissioners were also present.
“The Clean Water Act says that the EPA can regulate navigable waters, meaning waters that truly affect interstate commerce. But a few years ago, the EPA decided that navigable waters can mean nearly every puddle or every ditch on a farmer’s land, or any place else that they decide,” Trump said before signing the order.
“It was a massive power grab. The EPA’s regulators are putting people out of jobs by the hundreds of thousands.”...more
North Dakota Pipeline Protesters Not Only Left Mountains of Garbage, They Also Abandoned Their Pets
The environmentalists came to North Dakota to protest the construction
of the Dakota Access Pipeline and lost. Now, as the cleanup of their
protest camp begins, authorities have found it to be a disaster zone.
There’s enough garbage and human waste to fill 2,500 pickup trucks.
With the ending of the winter months approaching, they fear the spring
flooding could wash this waste into the Missouri River, polluting it and
other waterways. Yet, efforts to prevent an environmental disaster
before the spring have hit another obstacle. Besides leaving heaps of
garbage, protesters have left their pets. Now, volunteers at a local
animal rescue group—Furry Friends—are conducting searches to make sure
there are no more missing animals (via West Dakota Fox):
A hectic week as law enforcement worked to clear the Oceti Sakowin protest camp. As officers moved in, and protesters moved out, garbage wasn't the only thing abandoned. Two dogs and six puppies were found and rescued at the main Dakota Access Pipeline Camp by Furry Friends Rockin Rescue. The rescue has been working hard to catch ALL the animals that were left behind at the camp, but Furry Friends Rockin Rescue isn't giving up on these abandoned pets.
Trump Repeals Waters of the U.S. Rule
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) applauds an executive
order issued today by President Trump that begins the process of
rescinding or rewriting a controversial Clean Water Act regulation that
would have given the government broad jurisdiction over land and water. The order directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a formal review of the Waters of
the United States (WOTUS) rule, which took effect Aug. 28, 2015, and
ostensibly was implemented to clarify the agency’s authority over
various waters. That jurisdiction – based on several U.S. Supreme Court
decisions – had included “navigable” waters and waters with a
significant hydrologic connection to navigable waters. But the
regulation broadened that to include, among other water bodies, upstream
waters and intermittent and ephemeral streams such as the kind farmers
use for drainage and irrigation. It also covered lands adjacent to such
waters...more
The New Trail of Tears - book review
By William Perry Pendley
"You don't need to travel to Beijing to see central planning at work," writes Naomi Schaefer Riley in The New Trail of Tears: How Washington Is Destroying American Indians (Encounter Books, 2016). "It's everywhere on [American Indian] reservations."
Riley, a weekly columnist for the New York Post, provides a reality check for those whose nostalgic but erroneous image of American Indians derives from Chief Seattle's (falsified) "environmental" speech. It's a wake-up call for a Congress that in recent years enacted unconstitutional laws adversely affecting American Indians. Congress then salved its conscience by throwing money at circumstances that, at their roots, involve fundamental freedoms, and "get over it" tough love for a patriotic people — their willingness to fight and die in defense of their country is second to none — whose leaders seek perennial title as the most deserving of "victim cultures."
In the process, Riley provided a to-do list for the Trump administration.
Recognition of the problematic way modern Americans treat American Indians is old.
Stephen F. Haywood tells "shopworn" Ronald Reagan's 1975 tale, while campaigning in New Hampshire, of the tearful Bureau of Indian Affairs employee "[whose] Indian died." Reagan knew about the broken promises — after all, he won acclaim for killing a California dam that violated an agreement with a tiny tribe. ("We've broken too damn many treaties," he once said.)
Reagan went further by lamenting the government-fostered "primitive lifestyles" and urged that American Indians "join us." Earlier, Reagan's Interior Secretary Jim Watt decried their circumstances with, "If you want an example of the failure of socialism, don't go to Russia, come to America and go to the Indian reservations." Both drew only enmity.
In 1996, however, in Killing the White Man's Indian: The Reinvention of Native Americans at the End of the Twentieth Century, Fergus M. Bordewich furnished a fresh, factual, and freedom-based discussion of American Indians.
Now comes Riley's The New Trail of Tears, which credits Bordewich as well as Terry L. Anderson of the Property and Environmental Research Center. Anderson inspired and informed Riley, and Anderson's book Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations (Lexington Books, 2016) serves as a companion to The New Trail of Tears.
Riley sees the problems facing the 562 federally-recognized Indian nations and the 310 reservations that are home to roughly 1 million Indians, as "lack of economic opportunity, lack of education, and lack of equal protection under the law." It is not "the history of forced assimilation, war, and mass murder that have left American Indians in a deplorable state; it's the federal government's policies today [that are] a microcosm of everything that has gone wrong with modern liberalism."
End the "misguided paternalism," demands Riley, as well as the bloated bureaucracies. Reagan joked, but there is one Bureau of Indian Education employee for every 111 reservation Indians. Riley also says to end the profligate federal spending that in 2015, for example, gave the BIE $20,000 per pupil to provide the nation's worst public schools (the national average is $12,400 per pupil).
Today, Indian reservations in the western U.S. are, quoting Anderson, "islands of poverty in a sea of wealth," because individual American Indians are denied the "magical force" that is private property and thus suffer from what Hernando de Soto labeled "dead capital." The misery reaches the tribal level where layers of "federal oversight" make American Indians "the highest regulated race in the world."
William Perry Pendley is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, has argued cases before the Supreme Court and worked in the Department of the Interior during the Reagan administration. He is the author of "Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan's Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today."
"You don't need to travel to Beijing to see central planning at work," writes Naomi Schaefer Riley in The New Trail of Tears: How Washington Is Destroying American Indians (Encounter Books, 2016). "It's everywhere on [American Indian] reservations."
Riley, a weekly columnist for the New York Post, provides a reality check for those whose nostalgic but erroneous image of American Indians derives from Chief Seattle's (falsified) "environmental" speech. It's a wake-up call for a Congress that in recent years enacted unconstitutional laws adversely affecting American Indians. Congress then salved its conscience by throwing money at circumstances that, at their roots, involve fundamental freedoms, and "get over it" tough love for a patriotic people — their willingness to fight and die in defense of their country is second to none — whose leaders seek perennial title as the most deserving of "victim cultures."
In the process, Riley provided a to-do list for the Trump administration.
Recognition of the problematic way modern Americans treat American Indians is old.
Stephen F. Haywood tells "shopworn" Ronald Reagan's 1975 tale, while campaigning in New Hampshire, of the tearful Bureau of Indian Affairs employee "[whose] Indian died." Reagan knew about the broken promises — after all, he won acclaim for killing a California dam that violated an agreement with a tiny tribe. ("We've broken too damn many treaties," he once said.)
Reagan went further by lamenting the government-fostered "primitive lifestyles" and urged that American Indians "join us." Earlier, Reagan's Interior Secretary Jim Watt decried their circumstances with, "If you want an example of the failure of socialism, don't go to Russia, come to America and go to the Indian reservations." Both drew only enmity.
In 1996, however, in Killing the White Man's Indian: The Reinvention of Native Americans at the End of the Twentieth Century, Fergus M. Bordewich furnished a fresh, factual, and freedom-based discussion of American Indians.
Now comes Riley's The New Trail of Tears, which credits Bordewich as well as Terry L. Anderson of the Property and Environmental Research Center. Anderson inspired and informed Riley, and Anderson's book Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations (Lexington Books, 2016) serves as a companion to The New Trail of Tears.
Riley sees the problems facing the 562 federally-recognized Indian nations and the 310 reservations that are home to roughly 1 million Indians, as "lack of economic opportunity, lack of education, and lack of equal protection under the law." It is not "the history of forced assimilation, war, and mass murder that have left American Indians in a deplorable state; it's the federal government's policies today [that are] a microcosm of everything that has gone wrong with modern liberalism."
End the "misguided paternalism," demands Riley, as well as the bloated bureaucracies. Reagan joked, but there is one Bureau of Indian Education employee for every 111 reservation Indians. Riley also says to end the profligate federal spending that in 2015, for example, gave the BIE $20,000 per pupil to provide the nation's worst public schools (the national average is $12,400 per pupil).
Today, Indian reservations in the western U.S. are, quoting Anderson, "islands of poverty in a sea of wealth," because individual American Indians are denied the "magical force" that is private property and thus suffer from what Hernando de Soto labeled "dead capital." The misery reaches the tribal level where layers of "federal oversight" make American Indians "the highest regulated race in the world."
William Perry Pendley is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, has argued cases before the Supreme Court and worked in the Department of the Interior during the Reagan administration. He is the author of "Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan's Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today."
Trump’s Interior Pick Is One Step Closer To Confirmation
Ryan Zinke is one step closer to becoming President Donald Trump’s
secretary of the interior after the Senate moved Monday to end debate on
the former Republican congressman to head the department. The Senate’s 67-31 vote to end questioning
sets up 30 hours of debate on Zinke’s nomination followed by a mid-week
confirmation vote. Many Democrats believe they can work with Zinke,
even though his views on climate change are not entirely in line with
theirs; the former congressman believes climate change is an issue but
is uncertain about what is causing the change. He will oversee energy development on federal lands, the protection
of endangered species and the operation of the country’s national parks.
The Montana Republican’s opposition to divesting large swathes of
federal land runs contrary to many in his own party who want to shift ownership of federal land back to the states...more
Washington State Professor Finds Sky-high Opportunities for Drones in Agriculture
Many farmers and ranchers are already benefitting from drone technology, but the work of researchers like Dr. Lav Khot is showing that we’ve only scratched the surface of what this relatively new technology can do for agriculture.
Khot is involved with several projects that delve into how drones can help with many aspects of Washington’s diverse agriculture industry—from grapes, apples and cherries to winter wheat, potatoes, pinto beans and more.
One of the most prominent ways in which drones are used in agriculture is for thermal imaging. Multi-spectral sensors mounted on a drone can give users like Khot a good picture of how crops, specifically crop canopies, fare under different growing practices.
Two of the projects in which Khot is involved look at how crops react to different irrigation techniques.
Teaming up with his colleague Dr. R. Troy Peters, irrigation engineer and Extension specialist, Khot is evaluating which of two irrigation techniques—mid-elevation irrigation or low-elevation irrigation—is more suitable for a chosen site. With the low-elevation irrigation, the sprinklers are positioned close to the canopy so there are very few evaporation losses. According to Khot, drone-gathered multi-spectral and thermal imaging data is a good indicator of crop vigor and canopy stress as the team evaluates this cost-effective practice in potato and mint production.
Another irrigation-related project uses drones to see how wine grapes respond to subsurface irrigation, in which water is applied at various levels to the root of the plant-30 centimeters down, 60 centimeters down and 90 centimeters down.
In addition, Khot is looking at how drone imaging can help winter wheat farmers decide whether to forge ahead or reseed their fields after an earlier-than-expected cold snap. Such a cold snap could cause a hard layer to form on the winter wheat seed, preventing plant emergence. Drone imaging can give winter wheat farmers a better view of where and how many of their winter wheat plants may be sprouting toward the end of the winter season, when the weather warms up...more
Agents detail 'daily' border fence battle, seek post-Obama 'restart'
In the tiny Arizona city of Douglas, a Border Patrol surveillance
camera is trained on a 10-foot-high fence with Mexico. After a few
seconds, footage shows a figure appearing out of nowhere and the fence
suddenly opens to allow a pickup truck through. A car follows, and they
speed off into adjoining neighborhoods while the makeshift gate slams
shut. The Wild West still has a foothold here, more than 100 years after gunslingers Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday called Douglas home. Only the outlaws are cartels and traffickers. And while President Trump is vowing to step up enforcement and seal off the southern border, agents in Border Patrol say they are still grappling with fallout from the Obama years – which they contend allowed security problems like this to fester.
“We weren’t allowed to do our job,” Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, the border agents’ union, told Fox News.
Judd said the agency is now seeking a “restart” after years of neglect.
In his last term, President Obama’s so-called ‘catch and release’ policies often allowed illegal immigrants to go free awaiting court dates, while most asylum seekers were accepted. The border itself continued to suffer as it has for years from gaps exploited by drug and human traffickers – like the breach seen in the exclusive November 2016 footage from Douglas, Ariz. That ‘gate’ was created by perpetrators on the Mexican side using a blowtorch to cut a metal panel and then affixing hinges and latches. Putty and paint are used to touch up the American side, making the gate almost indiscernible. Further, agents have grappled with a shift of resources from the field to the office. According to Judd, only 20 percent of the workforce was actually patrolling the border toward the end of the last administration due to extensive paperwork required to process asylum seekers and high attrition tied to low morale.
“We just cannot continue with the same management that we’ve had, which created our problems,” Judd said. “We expect the president to drain the swamp – ours should be the first one drained. We have to hit the restart button.”
Since taking office, Trump has ordered an end to “catch and release,” and the promise of reinforcements generally has boosted spirits inside the agency.
But even as the new president moves to empower agents, it takes a year to hire and fully train personnel -- so a ramped-up border force is still in the distant future, Judd said.
The Border Patrol currently has 19,700 agents, far below the allotted number of 21,370. Trump wants to hire another 5,000, which is what Judd said is needed...more
Why farmers and ranchers think the EPA Clean Water Rule goes too far
Industry and agriculture groups believe the new rule defines tributaries more broadly. They see this change as unnecessary overreach that makes it difficult to know what is regulated on their lands.
Western farms are laced with canals that provide critical irrigation water during the growing season. These canals and ditches divert water from streams and return the excess through a downstream return loop, which is fed by gravity. Because they are open and unlined, they also serve as water sources for wildlife, ecosystems and underground aquifers. And because they are connected to other water bodies, farmers fear they could be subject to federal regulation.
The only way to surface-irrigate in western valleys without affecting local water systems would be to lay thousands of miles of pressurized pipes, like those that carry water in cities. This approach would be impractical in many situations and incredibly expensive.
More generally, farmers and ranchers want to be able to make decisions about managing their land and water resources without ambiguity or time-consuming and expensive red tape. In spite of EPA assurances, they worry the Clean Water Rule could include agricultural ditches, canals and drainages in the definition of “tributary.”
They fear EPA will use vague language in the rule to expand its power to regulate these features and change the way they are currently operated. They also fear becoming targets for citizen-initiated lawsuits, which are allowed under the Clean Water Act. Moreover, they are skeptical the outcomes will significantly benefit the environment...more
Willie Nelson, Miranda Lambert lead star-studded Merle Haggard tribute
Merle Haggard would have turned 80 years old on Apr. 6. That day —
which is also the first anniversary of the country music legend's death —
his legacy will be celebrated during a tribute show at Bridgestone Arena. The star-studded lineup of "Sing Me Back Home: The Music of Merle Haggard"
currently includes Willie Nelson, Kenny Chesney, Miranda Lambert, John
Mellencamp, Dierks Bentley, Loretta Lynn, Hank Williams Jr., The Avett
Brothers, Alison Krauss, Ronnie Dunn, Warren Haynes, Jamey Johnson,
Kacey Musgraves, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Lucinda Williams, son Ben Haggard, John
Anderson, Connie Smith and Bobby Bare. More performers will be
announced in the coming weeks. Haggard, a man who influenced country music like few others, recorded
more than three dozen No. 1 hits over the course of his half-century
career. Many of his songs, including "Sing Me Back Home," "Mama Tried"
and "Today I Started Loving You Again" are some of country music's most
beloved and enduring classics...more
Ranch Radio Song Of The Day #1792
I've always liked this version of Crafton Blues by Jimmie Revard & His Oklahoma Playboys. Recorded in San Antonio 80 years ago (October 26, 1936).
https://youtu.be/tk-ThN38aS8
https://youtu.be/tk-ThN38aS8
Monday, February 27, 2017
Lincoln County urged to dig for answers about targeted land
Sometimes you just have to wonder about folks. I understand their opposition to the disposal of federal lands, but I do question their understanding of federal land law and policy, with which they ought to acquaint themselves before calling out public officials.
The article continues:
During the public forum portion of the Lincoln County Commission meeting last month, Tony Davis and his wife, Joyce Westerbur, asked if commissioners might be interested in finding out what and where the “more desirable land assets” for which Dunn proposes a trade are located. They wondered if the tracts were the same assets proposed for sale by the federal government by U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, in a bill he quickly withdrew when it hit a wall of opposition. In that bill, 813,531 acres for potential sale were listed in New Mexico, she pointed out, including 47,482 acres in Lincoln County in 500 parcels, estimated in 1997 at a value of $2.275 million. The sale would be part of a total 3.3 million acres of public land put on the block in the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada. New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.Let's get some facts out there before responding to these folks.
A section in the 1966 Agriculture Reform Act required the Secretary of Interior to file a report to Congress on lands "which may be suitable for sale or exchange..." The report was sent to Congress in May of 1997 and contained a list of lands already identified by BLM for sale or exchange in their existing land use plans. Section 202 of FLPMA directs the BLM to prepare land use plans, wherein they identify lands suitable for disposal by sale or exchange. Section 203 of FLPMA grants authority to sell lands so identified and Section 206 of FLPMA grants authority to dispose by exchange those lands. This is a process that goes on across the West and is independent of anything proposed by Congressman Chaffetz or Commissioner Dunn.
So was Dunn's spokesperson saying something "obviously false" in responding to the press? Of course not. Dunn's letter describes in general those lands he would offer up for exchange and identifies those lands in general which he would like to acquire in the exchange. He doesn't identify by legal description "specific" parcels or tracts of lands for either acquisition or disposal by exchange. And he is wise not to do so. To spend the time and effort to identify specific parcels when he doesn't even know if the feds will entertain such a proposal would be a huge waste of taxpayer funds.
Are these the same lands listed by Congressman Chaffetz in his legislation to dispose of certain lands? I certainly hope so. As previously stated, these lands have already been through the land use planning process, allowing for public input, and are available now for disposal by sale or exchange. If Dunn were to identify other lands, it would require an amendment to the existing plan, creating lengthy delays and more expense to any exchange.
One of the commentors, "asked commissioners to use their power to get answers from Dunn and possibly from U.S. Rep Steve Pearce, a Republican representing the 2nd Congressional District of New Mexico about the tracts location." That is totally unnecessary. They need to contact their local BLM office and request a copy of the land use plan, which will identify those lands suitable for disposal. Its all public information.
Finally, they state, “Lincoln county residents deserve transparency on this..."
Dunn posted a press release and a copy of his letter on the SLO website. I don't know how he could be more transparent than that. The press release and letter are embedded below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)