DuBois column

More government misconduct, wilderness testimony, a letter on grazing and a new rural tax

Government misconduct

My two most recent columns have covered the mistrial in the Bundy case and then the dismissal “with prejudice” of all charges against the Bundys. Recently, several court documents were unsealed for the first time. I reviewed the documents, which included several motions to dismiss and the transcript of Judge Gloria Navarro’s final decision. Given the media’s bias in favor of the prosecution I was concerned their reports had overstated the government misconduct due to their disappointment in the outcome. What I found was just the opposite.

For instance, the government’s justification for such a “highly militarized” approach to the cattle confiscation was the danger posed by Cliven Bundy and his family. I had previously written that an FBI threat assessment came to the opposite conclusion. Indeed, the recently disclosed documents show there were actually four such threat assessments completed. Those threat assessments were prepared by the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, the Southern Nevada Counterterrorism Task Force, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Gold Butte Cattle Impound Risk Assessment, and they all concluded the Bundys posed no danger and referred to Cliven Bundy’s history of seeking non-violent and legal means of addressing the issues, These documents, which had not been turned over to the defense, demonstrate the BLM’s entire plan of operation was based upon a lie.

One of the key defense theories was that some of the defendants were there to protest the government’s treatment of the Bundys. The government, however, charged that defendant Ryan Payne had made ‘false statements”, including his claim that government snipers were placed around the Bundy home. It was previously disclosed that the snipers did, in fact, exist. The new documents show that after finally admitting the existence of the snipers, the government argued that technically they weren’t really “snipers”, and besides they were not actually “deployed” and were only “training” in the area. Judge Navarro found this argument “disingenuous” and “a deliberate attempt to mislead and to obscure the truth”, especially since there were three separate FBI documents referring to them as snipers. Judge Navarro also said the Court had “serious questions” about why the FBI “inexplicably placed (or perhaps hid)” information about the placement of FBI snipers, “on a thumb drive, inside a vehicle, for over three years.” Sure sounds suspicious to me. How about you?                

Read through the judge’s decision and you will find phrases like “reckless disregard”, “flagrant prosecutorial misconduct”, “intentional abnegation of responsibility”, “willfully failed to disclose”, “conduct especially egregious”, and “grossly shocking” when describing government conduct and concluding that, “a universal sense of justice has been violated.”  Keep in mind this is by a judge who was sponsored by Senator Harry Reid, nominated by President Obama and who, prior to this, had sided with the government on almost every issue brought to the court.  

Wilderness testimony       

A subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources recently held a hearing on S. 441, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act. Sponsored by New Mexico Senators Udall & Heinrich, this legislation would designate eight new Wilderness areas on or near our border with Mexico.     

The New Mexico Cattle Growers Association submitted testimony in opposition to the bill. President Tom Sidwell said the grazing guidelines in the bill were, “written when most wilderness areas existed in the high country where the allotments had natural waters and were seasonal in nature.  The lands affected by this legislation occur in a desert ecosystem where the resource and ranching needs are far different.” Sidwell requested that, “Congress or an independent entity conduct a thorough review of the guidelines applicability to desert allotments and make recommendations for any warranted changes” and that no new desert areas be designated until the review was completed and revisions considered. Sidwell also expressed concern over the bill’s impact on the health and safety of rural residents in the area, stating, “The prohibition on motorized vehicles and mechanical equipment will place severe limitations on the Border Patrol and therefore threaten the safety of residents in the area. It defies common sense to create a ‘no law enforcement zone’ in this border country.”

President Sidwell also questioned the need for the legislation to protect these lands, stating, “By Presidential proclamation they are withdrawn from all forms of disposal, just like Wilderness. By that same proclamation they are withdrawn from all forms of mineral entry, just like Wilderness. There can be no new roads built, just like Wilderness. So we ask why impose this additional regulatory burden on the users of these lands?”

Also submitting testimony in opposition to the bill were the New Mexico Woolgrowers, the Western Heritage Alliance, the Dona Ana County Farm & Livestock Bureau, the Southwest Grazing Association, the Council of Border Conservation Districts, the Mesilla Valley Sportsmens Alliance, Joe Delk and ranchers Carol Cooper, Gary Thurm, Tom Mobley, Steve Wilmeth and Wesley Eaton.   

Monument language

In his report to President Trump concerning the review of national monuments, Secretary Zinke said he was contemplating changes to the grazing language in the two New Mexico national monuments under review. The New Mexico Cattle Growers has written to Secretary Zinke encouraging him to make such a change. Calling the grazing language in the Rio Grande del Norte and Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks national monuments “the most anti-grazing of any proclamations where grazing is still allowed”, President Sidwell recommended the language in the Basin and Range National Monument. That grazing language, said Sidwell, is “clear and precise that the designation does not affect the administration of livestock grazing, and results in livestock grazing being on an equal footing with other uses.”

A rural tax

The White House recently praised an Oregon program that charges participants 1.7 cents for each mile driven on state roads. Many say this is another sign that President Trump is open to a mileage tax to fund his infrastructure initiative. Rural residents, however, already spend a larger percentage of their income on transportation than the general population, and a tax of this type would increase that disparity. And guess who will benefit the most from this new revenue? That’s right, the relatively wealthier urban residents. This is the opposite of a Robin Hood Tax, it’s a Sheriff of Nottingham tax.   

Until 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 March issue of the New Mexico Stockman and the March issue of the Livestock Market Digest.