Tuesday, April 02, 2019

DuBois column - Senator Heinrich, legal rights for nature and inflatable dancers


Senator Heinrich, legal rights for nature and inflatable dancers

Heinrich Maneuver

President Trump has signed into law S. 47, the “John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act”, now Public Law No: 116-9. Tucked within this massive, 640-page, 105,634-word bill, you will find Section 1201 containing 3, 338 words that designate 10 Wilderness areas in  Dona Ana County, NM and in Section 1202 there are 820 words designating 2 Wilderness areas in northern NM.

Both of these sections were a result of legislation introduced by members of the NM Congressional Delegation. Were any of these legislative initiatives as stand-alone bills passed by the House of Representatives? No. Were they subject to debate on the Senate floor and passed by the Senate? No. Instead, they were rolled into this huge federal lands package.

If these are such wonderful bills that benefit the public, why are they unable to pass them as stand-alone bills? If they have such broad public support, why are they afraid to subject them to the scrutiny and debate of the regular, traditional legislative process?

What we are witnessing is a particular legislative tactic by Senator Heinrich. He introduces a bill, gets a committee hearing held and sometimes gets the committee to pass the bill. But rather than taking the bill to the Senate floor, he holds back and does nothing until an Omnibus bill of some type comes along, and then attaches his legislation to the larger packet of bills.

Remember the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness legislation? Remember the bill to transfer the Valles Caldera from a public trust to the Park Service? Those were attached to the National Defense Authorization Act in 2014, just like these Wilderness bills were attached to this federal lands package.

Let’s call it the Heinrich maneuver, and I’m confident he will choke us with it again in the future.

What I have raised questions about is process. The most important thing, though, is how this will affect people on the ground.

Wes Eaton, one of the younger ranchers affected by these wilderness designations puts it this way:

“It is a shame how our senators continue to stack multiple designations on these lands, we now have a Wilderness on top of a Monument, on top of an ACEC, on top of a WSA, on top of Multiple Use.  They claim they are opening up access to the public, if that was the case they would have left it as Multiple Use lands only.”

According to Eaton, the only things these designations accomplish, is to“… limit and restrict. Limit and restrict public recreation, the hunter’s access, the outdoorsman’s ability to go out and enjoy these lands.”

For ranchers like himself, Eaton says, “a wilderness designation will all but end the ability to maintain water wells for wildlife and cattle, maintain fences for grazing rest, and provide much needed brush control for the dominating invasive species that have taken away the grass lands this once was.”

Dudley Williams, who ranches south of Las Cruces, explains he now has four Wilderness areas on his place: Potrillo Mountain Wilderness of 105,000 acres, Aden Lava Flow Wilderness, of 27,000 acres, plus Cinder Cone Wilderness, of 17,000 acres and the Whitethorn Wilderness, of 9,600 acres, with the Potrillo just five miles from the Mexican border.  “The last two were never approved as WSA's”, says Williams, “but were snuck in as 2 of the first sneaky land grab actions of the Wilderness Alliance.”

Williams continued, “we are going to lose nearly all access to fence repairs and dirt tank maintenance and most likely have roads closed to some of our other watering improvements. The bill says cattle grazing will continue as before. How is that possible if our improvements deteriorate or disappear”?

“We cannot trust our politicians who are driven by special interest groups that preach untruths and twisted truths to get what they want”, says Williams. “In this case, the elimination of public land grazing. Not by stating it as such but by making it impossible to continue with all the road closures and restrictions.”

It’s not just process, it is people too, and many are being hurt by this radical, progressive, environmental agenda.

Should trees have standing?

In a 1972 Supreme Court case, the court ruled the Sierra Club did not have standing to sue the Forest Service over a particular Disney project, because the club itself did not receive injury over the Forest Service’s decision. In his dissent, Justice William O. Douglas raised the issue of nature having the right to sue. Douglas pointed out that, "A teaspoon of living earth contains 5 million bacteria, 20 million fungi, one million protozoa, and 200,000 algae. No living human can predict what vital miracles may be locked in this dab of life, this stupendous reservoir of genetic materials that have evolved continuously since the dawn of the earth.” Douglas went on to write, “Contemporary public concern for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation.”  

Believe it or not, this has actually been happening. In 2014 New Zealand gave legal rights to a forest, in 2017 Columbia granted rights to a river and India recognized two rivers as legal persons. Last year the Amazon rainforest received it’s own rights. Most recently, the citizens of Toledo passed a Lake Erie Bill of Rights, which recognizes the lake as a person with all the rights that pertain thereto. Sigal Samuel writes, “…this was the first rights-based legislation aimed at protecting a whole US ecosystem: the lake, its tributaries, and the many species that live off it.”

While our own rights are being diminished, those for animals and objects of nature are being expanded.  

Dancing with wolves

An Oregon rancher, Ted Birdseye, has lost five cows, a calf and a dog to wolves. To protect his remaining animals, Birdseye has employed a lime-green inflatable dancer, such as those seen in used-car lots. The inflatable dancer, along with a generator, were donated by the Defenders of Wildlife. The early results have been promising, although the rancher isn’t sure how effective it will be over the long term. Birdseye had previously tried electric fences, lights, flags, noisemakers and guard dogs in attempts to protect his livestock.

This victimized rancher is put in this position by those inflatable politicians who dance to the tune of the environmentalists.

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

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






No comments: