DIAMOND BAR CATTLE COMPANY/ALBQ JOURNAL EDITORIAL & RESPONSE

Laney Saga Tainting Responsible Ranchers

Kit Laney bet the ranch on a flimsy legal claim to grazing rights -- without the benefit of a grazing permit. Now, as Forest Service officials prepare to round up his herd, Laney is trying to spook other ranchers.
"If they can take mine, they can sure as hell ... take what everyone else has." Laney told the New Mexico Livestock Board last week.
Laney isn't "everyone." In a business that has an inescapable element of public relations -- public-lands ranching -- Laney has been a PR disaster.
After the number of cattle on the mostly wilderness-area allotment in the Gila National Forest was effectively slashed, Laney let his permit lapse.
But he continued to graze the cattle under an obscure property-right theory that was rejected in U.S. District Court and by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The herd was removed from the allotment in 1997, but Laney brought the cattle back about a year ago, asserting a similarly obscure right.
One rancher at the meeting said the Forest Service "is our worst enemy." That's true -- if a rancher's allotment is not being properly managed, efforts to improve the publicly owned range are resisted and the rancher defies established procedures, like grazing permits.
Laney's attempts to paint himself as the first of many victims of the Forest Service tars the vast majority of ranchers who responsibly graze cattle on public lands.


LAURA SCHNEBERGER'S RESPONSE
3-11-04

Dear Editor,

The Albuquerque Journbal editorial, Laney Saga Tainting Responsible Ranchers; about Kit Laney's attitude being the problem in his dealings with the USFS is so far off the mark it isn't even funny.

Kit Laney isn't trying to scare other ranchers he was simply the first in this region to have to deal with the tyrannical and often vindictive behavior of certain employees of the USFS.

When a government agency can violate it's own word and it's own contracts time after time and get away with it, at an individuals expense, someone needs to stand up to them and say no more. In 1995 the USFS saw to it that the Laney's wouldn't have a home by taking away the livelihood attached to that home. While they were working on Kit and Sherry, Region 3 of the USFS went after the entire Tonto Basin in Arizona. Not a cowman remains in historic ranchland but their are a lot of empty homes. Then it was the Apache Sitgreeves. The Gila forest, in which the Laney's ranch, was subject to several dozen entire and partial allotment use removals, let's not forget the Goss's on the Sacramento or the Hispanic ranchers in the northern part of the state. In other words Kit hasn't scared anyone, they are already scared by what the Region 3 USFS is being allowed to systematically and arbitrarily do to them.

The only thing Kit did wrong in his original court cases, was employ an attorney that didn't specialize in the argument and how best to present it. Legally the argument was inadequate. Fundamentally, the Laney's are standing on terra firma, or should I say fee interest. They are correct about their of ownership property rights on federally administered land. Simplified example: If you own a car and park it in a federally owned parking lot, and the feds write a regulation allowing them to close the lot and take away access to your car, do you not have a right to challenge that regulation if, as in this case, congressional statute backs you up? I believe you have every right and shouldn't have to suffer the wrath of the agency simply because you are willing to fight for your rights. Where would this nation be if people failed to fight for their rights?

Over 100 years of congressional statute back the Laney's up over the fee interest land argument and so do a half a dozen state supreme court cases, not to mention US Vs. New Mexico 1978. The fundamental argument has already been won several times.

The author of the column states Kit lost in both the 1996 and 1997 cases, losing such a case is pretty easy to do when you are dealing with a new and untried situation and don't have the means to hire adequate representation. However, it isn't that simple. Take the time to read the actual rulings, they spell out the fact that the various judges thought the Laney's argument had many errors and they lost based on those errors. The Judges also state that under state law, they did own the water, but the courts were at a loss as to how the water tied to the grazing rights or fee interest. The Laney' were unable to connect the dots and the USFS made the argument that it was through the permitting system. At the time the Laney's attorneys were unable to answer the questions relating to that part of the argument. The Hage ruling, 6 years later, clarified the clear intent of congress in 100 years of statute. The USFS lands are subject to valid existing and vested rights. There are right of ways throughout the forest lands that the inholders have a vested right to use, not just for travel but also for agricultural and stockraising purposes. The Laney's needed to educate the Judges on those statutes and rulings. Federal courts do not have to answer questions that aren't asked, they do not have to look after the rights of the individuals in their courtrooms.
The Laney's lost both rulings by default. Mistakes are often made in this type of situation. That doesn't mean the people involved are criminals or even deserving of the treatment they receive.

Since that happened, the argument they should have used has been through the US Court of Claims and at least one federal district court and won hands down.
They have paved the way for the correct argument to go before the courts and when it does, ranchers in the southwest will finally have some stability. The USFS habit of stealing the private property rights of ranchers and other inholders on these lands to satisfy the big green money machine, will have to be broken.

The Laney's may or may not win this one but someone has to throw themselves on the grenade. That is how ranchers across the west see Kit and Sherry. They are helping to pave the way for every other rancher in the west to make the correct argument and they had backbone enough to do what it takes to call an enormous amount of attention to the injustices done to the people on these lands so that it may never happen again.
I am not tainted by being their neighbor and a rancher I am a better and a smarter person for having seen them through this mess. I feel as if God has placed me here during this crisis for a purpose beyond what I ever expected out of my life.
Anyone in this business that thinks otherwise has a lot to learn about the big picture and what is actually going on out on these lands and why ranchers all over the west are rising up and defending the Laney's.

Sincerely

Laura Schneberger