Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Congress toughens anti-fraud Indian-crafts law
Zuni silversmith Tony Eriacho stands behind tables of American Indian jewelry and crafts that are not what they seem. He picks up a necklace of Indian-style fetish animals made in the Philippines; dangles an earring with colored stones made of plastic; explains that what looks like solid turquoise is glued-together dust of turquoise and other rocks; uses a magnet to pick up beads supposedly made of silver, but they aren't magnetic. What bothers Eriacho isn't just that these objects look like something they're not. It's that too often, they're fraudulently marketed as authentic, a violation of federal law. Falsely suggesting goods are Indian- or Alaska Native-made could be harder to get away with now that Congress has approved changes to the 1990 Indian Arts and Crafts Act. The revisions, approved in July as part of the Tribal Law and Order Act, allow all federal law enforcement officers, not just the FBI, to investigate suspected violations. That includes officers working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Parks Service and U.S. Customs and Border Protection...more
Trew: English filled with nicknames in everyday life
America seems to always have had a passion for nicknames. Most of our heros have nicknames and obituaries nearly always list the deceased persons nickname so friends will recognize them. Sometimes we do not know the real names of closest friends. This habit also extends to objects. For example, for years I did not recognize the word camera. We called it a Kodak. As shaving progressed from a straight razor they called it, "shaving with a Gillette or Schick" not a safety razor. We did not vacuum the carpet we "Hoovered the rug." Women benefitted greatly with the invention of the Singer sewing machine. Consequently, all "sewed with a Singer." Isaac Singer once received a protest from a labor union against his invention wanting him to stop production. He answered saying, "You want me to stop producing the only thing that will keep a woman quiet for an hour?"...more
Song Of The Day #411
Ranch Radio will take a look at 1964 this week.
We'll begin by offering the #1 and #2 songs on the country charts that year: Once A Day by Connie Smith and My Heart Skips A Beat by Buck Owens.
We'll begin by offering the #1 and #2 songs on the country charts that year: Once A Day by Connie Smith and My Heart Skips A Beat by Buck Owens.
Wilderness: Expansion and (Lawful) Beneficiary Use
By Stephen L. Wilmeth
New Mexico Senators Bingaman and Udall introduced S.1689, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, in part on the basis of economic growth for southern New Mexico. Senator Bingaman is quoted in a Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces ad campaign that was funded by sources outside the local community that “(public lands) . . . provide significant economic benefit and help attract good companies and jobs to our state.”
It is obvious the senators have relied on models of economic forecasting that require a defined set of circumstances, along with a certain class of higher income residents in order to predict that outcome. If that wasn’t the case, they would be compelled to remind their constituency that pure wilderness economics have combined to make the most wilderness dependent county in the nation, New Mexico’s Catron County, arguably one of the top five most poverty stricken counties in the United States.
This Dona Ana County debate has turned out to be a watershed event. It became a quest for the newly elevated senior senator from New Mexico to create a legacy without the moderating influence and wisdom of now retired New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici. When Mr. Domenici was approached by the EarthFirst! influenced New Mexico Wilderness Alliance to introduce legislation, he demanded that such legislation have community support. When no consensus could be reached the legislation was stalled, and, unfortunately, Mr. Domenici retired. The door was then opened for Senator Bingaman to elevate his own agenda. He not only bought the entire package of ideas for wilderness, he expanded the footprint of the plan to extend outside of Wilderness Study Areas with National Conservation Areas and a heretofore undisclosed Limited Access Area along with at least one withdrawal adjacent to the Texas border.
For the record, business leadership in the community support Mr. Bingaman’s bill to the tune of some 220 coalition members while the larger business community’s coalition against the effort number over 800. From Mr. Domenici’s demand that the community find consensus, any objective explanation of why the entire package was expanded without any discussion remains shrouded with skepticism and mistrust. It certainly wasn’t based on community support. The outcome begs for an assessment of who is really behind wilderness and, why is there such a push to expand wilderness designations.
It is interesting to read Aldo Leopold, the original Father of Game Management, and, more recently, the unofficially appointed Father of the American Wilderness Movement from the perspective of an environmentalist versus “a steward too poor to pay for his sport”. Leopold suggested that up to 10% of lands be set aside by the insightful steward for the purpose of land withdrawal ethics, or, as we know it today, wilderness. When the impact of that statement is contemplated, the Leopold benchmark is probably supported by more stewards than anybody would guess. For example, even in California’s most intensively cultivated farm land that figure consistently runs six to ten percent of lands in “out ground”. That figure is made even more meaningful because that habitat is protected through access limitations.
Private lands ranchers can argue that they consistently expand that mark by their rotation strategies. They are doing it in the exact character of stewardship that Leopold described in his writings. They are doing it because of their insight into the rhythms and the cycles they have become so much a part of in their tenure on the land.
What about the federal government? The United States owns about 29% of the land within its territorial boundaries. A total of 23% of that total land is now in wilderness status. That total alone constitutes seven percent of the land mass within the boundaries of the United States. When the realization that the majority of lands owned by the United States exist west of the 100th Meridian, the story starts to emerge that the benchmark is already surpassed, and, in places in the West, it has no resemblance to the ethical suggestion made by Leopold.
When the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, Howard Zahniser, testified to the Senate in 1961, he promised that the “outside maximum” expansion of the wilderness system would never exceed 50 million acres. Today, that number stands at 152.8 million acres of designated wilderness and lands being protected for future wilderness consideration. That expansion is not simply a function of the public’s demand to establish more wildernesses. It is coming from the unseen wilderness management policies of the federal land agencies and their counterparts in universities.
Following the hoopla of the Wilderness Act passage in 1964 and extending to 1994, wilderness visitation expanded 86%. With that expansion and the concern that the wilderness experience itself was starting to harm the wilderness areas, numerous regulations were imposed including limits on visitation.
Permitted entry was started, and history will show that that system of management was a primary cause of impact proliferation and crowding in theretofore lightly used areas. Displaced visitors were redirected to more vulnerable areas and dissatisfaction among visitors and wilderness advocates alike increased.
By 1974, the concept of “recreational carrying capacity” had been advanced. Wilderness scholars were worried about their own assessment of a wilderness experience and started a process to attempt to quantify limits. It was suggested that it wasn’t a matter of “if” but “when” and “how much” limits must be placed on visitor use of wilderness. Additionally, if wilderness use was going to parallel previous utility measures, the only alternative was and is to add more wildernesses to the system. That would be the only way that wildness, “the relative lack of intentional human manipulation” and naturalness, “the relative lack of human influence” could be balanced. The first theorem of modern wilderness science, expansionism, was established. Expansion remains the byword of that position today.
If it is a man’s world, what men use it? Statistics suggest that Hispanic and Latinos as a whole hover around the three percent use mark, Black Americans at consistently less than one percent, and all other categories except the dominant use category run about three percent. It is the one dominant use group, the group made up of white Americans that truly use wilderness. About 96% of all wilderness visitations are made by white Americans and males can be expected to spend about 42% more days per year visiting wilderness areas than females. The second fact of American wilderness use can now be established. Wilderness is the domain of white American men.
And who are those white men? Fully 66% of them have incomes of $75,000 or more per year and nearly 11% of them have incomes of $150,000 or more. By all measures those incomes reach into the affluent levels of society. So, adding to the fact that wilderness is the domain of men, those men are also affluent, white, and more than half of them are older than 40 years of age. Affluent, white men over the age of 40 . . . hardly fits the profile of the typical cross section of Dona Ana County residents does it?
From a practical matter there is logic in this finding. It is only an affluent person who can afford to take the time, afford the equipment, or pay the price of an outfitter to take an extended trip into the wilderness. It isn’t a family on an afternoon jaunt after church, and it isn’t the typical resident of Dona Ana County, so using the patronizing play on words that S.1689 is a benefit for all and will be for years to come is disingenuous. Those words are fundamentally dishonest and misleading.
This debate and the growing awareness of the agenda of the environmental movement will not stop with the passage or the extension of any pending status of S.1689. What will come out of this debate, however, should make Dona Ana County residents more cognizant of the external influences that have made this debate so divisive. Both of the New Mexico senators need to explain their actions and the aggressive intent to expand the scope of this legislation from its original draft. Where Mr. Bingaman could have found community unity, he elected to forgo it with a much more ambitious wilderness plan. Constituents are left wondering why he made that choice. Was it driven by the prevailing environmental agenda that he chose to support or was it driven by thinking S.1689 would secure a personal legacy?
It had to be one or the other because it wasn’t driven by the single factor upon which the community was in full agreement. The original premise of the debate . . . the protection of the Organ Mountains . . . is literally lost out there in the wilderness. That issue is the political high ground of this debate, and that is where an insightful leader would have concentrated. Perhaps that is the real story that has emerged.
In the meantime, the long term usage of the pending wilderness as set forth in S.1689 has been forecasted from data and statistics claimed and provided by those who have pushed the proposal. Maybe Bend, Oregon and Cedar City, Utah can make wilderness a component of economic well being of the community, but our New Mexico examples where communities must depend solely on wilderness for their economic well-being are utter failures. It won’t be because of wilderness that Las Cruces will grow and prosper. That is as much a myth as the representation of who will use the wilderness areas. The real data is contrary to the representations of the proponents, and Dona Ana residents should be aware that hidden little secret exists out there in the wilderness world.
This legislation isn’t for the common citizen. It is for someone and something else.
Stephen L. Wilmeth is a rancher from southern New Mexico. He has long been a student of Aldo Leopold, but has a far different interpretation of his concepts than the prevailing environmental representations. His belief in Leopold’s stance on stewardship comes from the fact that Leopold was first and last a farmer. It would have been with that personal commitment to conservation that Leopold would have understood what he wrote when he described the true stewards of the land. Environmentalists today stand in juxtaposition to that understanding of stewardship. Many will already argue that the misinformed have become the misdirected.
New Mexico Senators Bingaman and Udall introduced S.1689, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, in part on the basis of economic growth for southern New Mexico. Senator Bingaman is quoted in a Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces ad campaign that was funded by sources outside the local community that “(public lands) . . . provide significant economic benefit and help attract good companies and jobs to our state.”
It is obvious the senators have relied on models of economic forecasting that require a defined set of circumstances, along with a certain class of higher income residents in order to predict that outcome. If that wasn’t the case, they would be compelled to remind their constituency that pure wilderness economics have combined to make the most wilderness dependent county in the nation, New Mexico’s Catron County, arguably one of the top five most poverty stricken counties in the United States.
This Dona Ana County debate has turned out to be a watershed event. It became a quest for the newly elevated senior senator from New Mexico to create a legacy without the moderating influence and wisdom of now retired New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici. When Mr. Domenici was approached by the EarthFirst! influenced New Mexico Wilderness Alliance to introduce legislation, he demanded that such legislation have community support. When no consensus could be reached the legislation was stalled, and, unfortunately, Mr. Domenici retired. The door was then opened for Senator Bingaman to elevate his own agenda. He not only bought the entire package of ideas for wilderness, he expanded the footprint of the plan to extend outside of Wilderness Study Areas with National Conservation Areas and a heretofore undisclosed Limited Access Area along with at least one withdrawal adjacent to the Texas border.
For the record, business leadership in the community support Mr. Bingaman’s bill to the tune of some 220 coalition members while the larger business community’s coalition against the effort number over 800. From Mr. Domenici’s demand that the community find consensus, any objective explanation of why the entire package was expanded without any discussion remains shrouded with skepticism and mistrust. It certainly wasn’t based on community support. The outcome begs for an assessment of who is really behind wilderness and, why is there such a push to expand wilderness designations.
The United States owns about 29% of the land within its territorial boundaries. A total of 23% of that total land is now in wilderness status. That total alone constitutes seven percent of the land mass within the boundaries of the United States.It must be acknowledged that there is a growing awareness of the once underground environmental Rewilding Project that seeks to create wildlife corridors up and down the Cordilleran spine, but a more objective assessment of the current set of circumstances should first be presented by a recapitulation of what is being published in the literature. Two definitive issues stand out. The first is why additional wilderness is being sought and the second is who has actually been the beneficiary of wilderness designations (aside from grants and trust fund support extended to wilderness creation businesses and or campaign funds generated for cooperating legislators).
It is interesting to read Aldo Leopold, the original Father of Game Management, and, more recently, the unofficially appointed Father of the American Wilderness Movement from the perspective of an environmentalist versus “a steward too poor to pay for his sport”. Leopold suggested that up to 10% of lands be set aside by the insightful steward for the purpose of land withdrawal ethics, or, as we know it today, wilderness. When the impact of that statement is contemplated, the Leopold benchmark is probably supported by more stewards than anybody would guess. For example, even in California’s most intensively cultivated farm land that figure consistently runs six to ten percent of lands in “out ground”. That figure is made even more meaningful because that habitat is protected through access limitations.
Private lands ranchers can argue that they consistently expand that mark by their rotation strategies. They are doing it in the exact character of stewardship that Leopold described in his writings. They are doing it because of their insight into the rhythms and the cycles they have become so much a part of in their tenure on the land.
What about the federal government? The United States owns about 29% of the land within its territorial boundaries. A total of 23% of that total land is now in wilderness status. That total alone constitutes seven percent of the land mass within the boundaries of the United States. When the realization that the majority of lands owned by the United States exist west of the 100th Meridian, the story starts to emerge that the benchmark is already surpassed, and, in places in the West, it has no resemblance to the ethical suggestion made by Leopold.
When the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, Howard Zahniser, testified to the Senate in 1961, he promised that the “outside maximum” expansion of the wilderness system would never exceed 50 million acres. Today, that number stands at 152.8 million acres of designated wilderness and lands being protected for future wilderness consideration. That expansion is not simply a function of the public’s demand to establish more wildernesses. It is coming from the unseen wilderness management policies of the federal land agencies and their counterparts in universities.
Following the hoopla of the Wilderness Act passage in 1964 and extending to 1994, wilderness visitation expanded 86%. With that expansion and the concern that the wilderness experience itself was starting to harm the wilderness areas, numerous regulations were imposed including limits on visitation.
Permitted entry was started, and history will show that that system of management was a primary cause of impact proliferation and crowding in theretofore lightly used areas. Displaced visitors were redirected to more vulnerable areas and dissatisfaction among visitors and wilderness advocates alike increased.
By 1974, the concept of “recreational carrying capacity” had been advanced. Wilderness scholars were worried about their own assessment of a wilderness experience and started a process to attempt to quantify limits. It was suggested that it wasn’t a matter of “if” but “when” and “how much” limits must be placed on visitor use of wilderness. Additionally, if wilderness use was going to parallel previous utility measures, the only alternative was and is to add more wildernesses to the system. That would be the only way that wildness, “the relative lack of intentional human manipulation” and naturalness, “the relative lack of human influence” could be balanced. The first theorem of modern wilderness science, expansionism, was established. Expansion remains the byword of that position today.
When the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, Howard Zahniser, testified to the Senate in 1961, he promised that the “outside maximum” expansion of the wilderness system would never exceed 50 million acres. Today, that number stands at 152.8 million acres of designated wilderness and lands being protected for future wilderness consideration.So, if expansion is the salvation of the wilderness experience, who is the beneficiary? For that answer, facts and statistics must be reviewed. Mr. Bingaman wrote that his wilderness legislation “offers special opportunities for families to spend quality time together as they hunt, hike, ride horses and relax.” In reviewing the actual wilderness use statistics, 63.4% of all wilderness visits were made by men. In fact, that statistic remains consistent through time. Wilderness is not a family use destination. It is the domain of the male.
If it is a man’s world, what men use it? Statistics suggest that Hispanic and Latinos as a whole hover around the three percent use mark, Black Americans at consistently less than one percent, and all other categories except the dominant use category run about three percent. It is the one dominant use group, the group made up of white Americans that truly use wilderness. About 96% of all wilderness visitations are made by white Americans and males can be expected to spend about 42% more days per year visiting wilderness areas than females. The second fact of American wilderness use can now be established. Wilderness is the domain of white American men.
And who are those white men? Fully 66% of them have incomes of $75,000 or more per year and nearly 11% of them have incomes of $150,000 or more. By all measures those incomes reach into the affluent levels of society. So, adding to the fact that wilderness is the domain of men, those men are also affluent, white, and more than half of them are older than 40 years of age. Affluent, white men over the age of 40 . . . hardly fits the profile of the typical cross section of Dona Ana County residents does it?
From a practical matter there is logic in this finding. It is only an affluent person who can afford to take the time, afford the equipment, or pay the price of an outfitter to take an extended trip into the wilderness. It isn’t a family on an afternoon jaunt after church, and it isn’t the typical resident of Dona Ana County, so using the patronizing play on words that S.1689 is a benefit for all and will be for years to come is disingenuous. Those words are fundamentally dishonest and misleading.
This debate and the growing awareness of the agenda of the environmental movement will not stop with the passage or the extension of any pending status of S.1689. What will come out of this debate, however, should make Dona Ana County residents more cognizant of the external influences that have made this debate so divisive. Both of the New Mexico senators need to explain their actions and the aggressive intent to expand the scope of this legislation from its original draft. Where Mr. Bingaman could have found community unity, he elected to forgo it with a much more ambitious wilderness plan. Constituents are left wondering why he made that choice. Was it driven by the prevailing environmental agenda that he chose to support or was it driven by thinking S.1689 would secure a personal legacy?
It had to be one or the other because it wasn’t driven by the single factor upon which the community was in full agreement. The original premise of the debate . . . the protection of the Organ Mountains . . . is literally lost out there in the wilderness. That issue is the political high ground of this debate, and that is where an insightful leader would have concentrated. Perhaps that is the real story that has emerged.
In the meantime, the long term usage of the pending wilderness as set forth in S.1689 has been forecasted from data and statistics claimed and provided by those who have pushed the proposal. Maybe Bend, Oregon and Cedar City, Utah can make wilderness a component of economic well being of the community, but our New Mexico examples where communities must depend solely on wilderness for their economic well-being are utter failures. It won’t be because of wilderness that Las Cruces will grow and prosper. That is as much a myth as the representation of who will use the wilderness areas. The real data is contrary to the representations of the proponents, and Dona Ana residents should be aware that hidden little secret exists out there in the wilderness world.
This legislation isn’t for the common citizen. It is for someone and something else.
Stephen L. Wilmeth is a rancher from southern New Mexico. He has long been a student of Aldo Leopold, but has a far different interpretation of his concepts than the prevailing environmental representations. His belief in Leopold’s stance on stewardship comes from the fact that Leopold was first and last a farmer. It would have been with that personal commitment to conservation that Leopold would have understood what he wrote when he described the true stewards of the land. Environmentalists today stand in juxtaposition to that understanding of stewardship. Many will already argue that the misinformed have become the misdirected.
Juarez Newspaper Pleas With Drug Cartels
The El Diario de Juarez newspaper wrote an open letter to the city’s drug cartels Sunday asking for mercy. In the editorial, the paper asked the cartels to let the journalists do their jobs without the threat of being killed. Friends and family buried slain photographer Luis Carlos Santiago Orozco Sunday, after he was shot several times Thursday while sitting inside of a car outside of a Juarez shopping mall. Authorities have not linked the death to the drug cartel, but after having two journalists killed, in just two years, the newspaper is now pleading with the cartels through an editorial published Sunday. In addition to last week's incident, the paper cites the 2008 death of crime reporter Armando Rodriguez. He was gunned down in his car outside of his home. The newspaper says in it's editorial, it is clear the cartels are the city's authorities, especially since the Mexican government is not protecting journalists. The editorial said, "We ask you to explain what you want from us, what we should try to publish or not publish, so we know what to expect."...more
Mexico govt rejects call for truce in drug war
Mexico's government has scoffed at the idea of a truce in the country's raging drug war as a Ciudad Juarez newspaper pleaded with drug cartels after one of its photographers was slain. "It simply is not appropriate in any way shape or form, for any party to try to make agreements with, promote a truce with, or negotiate with criminals," said Alejandro Poire, spokesman for security matters for President Felipe Calderon. "We ask you to explain what you want from us, what you want us to publish or stop publishing," a cowed El Diario de Juarez wrote in a front-page editorial in calling for a truce. Unidentified gunmen attacked two El Diario photographers Thursday, shooting dead 21-year-old Luis Carlos Santiago and leaving Carlos Sanchez seriously wounded. Santiago was the second journalist from El Diario killed in less than two years...more
Arizona Lawmaker Questions Border Patrol Strategy
The deployment of Border Patrol agents in Arizona has led one of its members of Congress to question whether Border Patrol operations are as effective as they could be. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) initiated a request to congressional investigators at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) last month to examine the problem to determine if Border Patrol were neglecting rural areas, where illegal immigrants have continued to stream into the United States and where Arizona ranchers have seen escalating violence and property damage. "Despite the statements by some that our border is more secure than it ever has been, legitimate and serious questions have been raised by Southeastern Arizonans about the Border Patrol's deployment strategies," Giffords explained in a Sept. 15 statement on the request. "The men and women I represent need to know that our nation's limited border security resources are being used in the most effective way possible, especially in the rural parts of Cochise County. This is why we are asking for an independent review of Border Patrol deployment decisions." Giffords was joined by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, in requesting specifically that GAO take a look at how Border Patrol deploys agents across Arizona. They sought to compare this to how Border Patrol agents are deployed in other southwestern states...more
Cross-Border Tensions Are Seen at Governors’ Conference
There were hearty handshakes and friendly words, but the annual binational conference of border governors wound up here Monday as divided as it has ever been, as well as being a little short on governors. The final communiqué showed a common vision among the participants about cracking down on violence along the border between the United States and Mexico, changing immigration laws and promoting economic development in the border zone. But it was the no-shows that made clear that cross-border unity was seriously frayed. Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona was supposed to host the 28th annual conference in Phoenix, but all six Mexican border governors refused to attend in protest of the immigration crackdown she signed into law. After Ms. Brewer canceled her session, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stepped in to organize a conference of his own, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California as co-host. Ms. Brewer stayed away, as did a fellow Republican, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Then Mr. Schwarzenegger canceled because he was ill and sent his lieutenant governor, Abel Maldonado, a fellow Republican. That left Mr. Richardson as the lone United States governor in the discussions...more
Border-crossers report two more confrontations
The sheriff’s office says two more groups of undocumented migrants have reported being confronted by masked gunmen in remote areas of the local border region. They are the latest alleged victims in a string of similar incidents that authorities say are so difficult to investigate, they are not even sure if they are happening in Mexico or the United States. In the first incident, deputies met with two Mexican men at the Nogales Border Patrol Station on Monday after they told agents they had fled from masked men who fired a warning shot in the air, said Sgt. Jerry Maldonado of the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office. The men, aged approximately 21 and 25, told investigators that they had crossed illegally into the United States on foot when they came upon at least two men wearing black clothing and red bandanas over their faces. When the masked men gestured for the migrants to come near, they turned to flee as one of the men fired a rifle into the air. On Tuesday, two more undocumented immigrants detained by the U.S. Border Patrol told sheriff’s investigators that they were traveling in a group of seven people through an area west of Nogales the previous night when they were accosted. “They said two male subjects in camouflage clothing wearing ski masks ambushed them while they were getting something to eat,” Maldonado said. The reporting victims were both men, aged approximately 18 and 28, and one said he was robbed of about $200. “One of them says he was hit because he wouldn’t give up his rosary, and that he was threatened with a handgun,” Maldonado said...more
Monday, September 20, 2010
Las Cruces BLM office has issued border safety warnings to visitors
The Las Cruces office of the BLM has produced a brochure titled Borderland Safeguards which contains border "watchouts" for visitors to the federal lands. The "watchouts" deal mainly with dangers from drug smuggling and human trafficking on federal lands in the district.
The BLM's Eddy Guerrero said other BLM districts in California and Arizona with lands along the border with Mexico had produced similar brochures, but the Las Cruces District's version was prepared to "make it relevant to our situation in New Mexico."
Guerrero said the brochures had been available for over a year.
Some of the items on the "watchout" list are:
° Armed confrontations either by law enforcement and/or illegal entrants
° Small or large groups of people being transported either on foot or in a vehicle
° Accidental witnessing of (large) quantities of drug deals and drug transportation
° Aircraft trying to avoid detection and frequent law enforcement aircraft operations due to these illegal activities
° Locks and fences deliberately knocked down or cut
° Abandoned vehicles either intact or set on fire
° Wildfires caused by abandoned warming and cooking fires
° Trash and high concentrations of human fecal material in heavily used illegal entrants staging areas and routes
Upon request, Guerrero also provided a similar document which was prepared strictly for BLM personnel. The "safety concerns" and "watchouts" listed in that document contained those listed above plus such items as:
° Leaving your BLM vehicle unattended
° Let dispatch & law enforcement know your trip plan
° Large amounts of footprints---these may be headed to your work area
° High-speed driving and law enforcement pursuits in your work areas
° Undocumented Alien (UDA) traveling in vehicles, groups on foot
° New "UDA Layup Areas"
Since these documents have been available for more than a year, that means they were available before Senator Bingaman introduced S.1689, his wilderness bill. The "Fact Sheet" which accompanied the introduction of S.1689 says Bingaman consulted with the Las Cruces BLM Office.
This leads to some interesting questions: Was Bingaman's staff aware of these documents, and if so did they advise the Senator of their existence? Did Bingaman introduce the bill knowing of these concerns? Why would a U.S. Senator introduce a bill that would make the situation even worse?
Personally, I would find it hard to believe Bingaman's staff didn't know of these documents existence. You take it from there.
The BLM's Eddy Guerrero said other BLM districts in California and Arizona with lands along the border with Mexico had produced similar brochures, but the Las Cruces District's version was prepared to "make it relevant to our situation in New Mexico."
Guerrero said the brochures had been available for over a year.
Some of the items on the "watchout" list are:
° Armed confrontations either by law enforcement and/or illegal entrants
° Small or large groups of people being transported either on foot or in a vehicle
° Accidental witnessing of (large) quantities of drug deals and drug transportation
° Aircraft trying to avoid detection and frequent law enforcement aircraft operations due to these illegal activities
° Locks and fences deliberately knocked down or cut
° Abandoned vehicles either intact or set on fire
° Wildfires caused by abandoned warming and cooking fires
° Trash and high concentrations of human fecal material in heavily used illegal entrants staging areas and routes
Upon request, Guerrero also provided a similar document which was prepared strictly for BLM personnel. The "safety concerns" and "watchouts" listed in that document contained those listed above plus such items as:
° Leaving your BLM vehicle unattended
° Let dispatch & law enforcement know your trip plan
° Large amounts of footprints---these may be headed to your work area
° High-speed driving and law enforcement pursuits in your work areas
° Undocumented Alien (UDA) traveling in vehicles, groups on foot
° New "UDA Layup Areas"
Since these documents have been available for more than a year, that means they were available before Senator Bingaman introduced S.1689, his wilderness bill. The "Fact Sheet" which accompanied the introduction of S.1689 says Bingaman consulted with the Las Cruces BLM Office.
This leads to some interesting questions: Was Bingaman's staff aware of these documents, and if so did they advise the Senator of their existence? Did Bingaman introduce the bill knowing of these concerns? Why would a U.S. Senator introduce a bill that would make the situation even worse?
Personally, I would find it hard to believe Bingaman's staff didn't know of these documents existence. You take it from there.
Travel site discourages visits to Wilderness areas
Yesterday I received the following email from a Las Cruces resident:
Click on the link and see for yourself.
The Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces continues to lobby for wilderness designations in southern NM, and I continue to wonder why.
UPDATE: The link has been corrected.
I was looking online for local vacation spots, parks and recreation for my family and came across this website. When I clicked on Arizona this is the message I received:
Wilderness Areas of Southern Arizona
Drug and human smuggling activities have made Arizona's wilderness areas extremely unsafe. We no longer encourage you to visit them.
http://www.discoverseaz.com/Attractions/Wilderness.html
Click on the link and see for yourself.
The Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces continues to lobby for wilderness designations in southern NM, and I continue to wonder why.
UPDATE: The link has been corrected.
Optimism, worries amid new rush to tap oil in West
A well named Jake and a controversial drilling technique are fueling a Western oil rush, raising hopes for economic revival and questions about the environment - and who's going to share in the wealth. Not many wells have been drilled yet, but just about everything else is in place for an oil boom in eastern Wyoming, northern Colorado and western Nebraska, where the Niobrara Shale and its hard-to-tap crude lay nearly two miles underground. Preliminary work is under way to map underground geological formations to figure out the best places to drill. Oil prospectors are poring over courthouse records to see who holds mineral rights so they can negotiate deals. Companies large and small are betting millions that the Niobrara holds gobs of recoverable oil like the similar - and booming - Bakken Shale field in western North Dakota. With oil money leading the way, North Dakota has coasted through the recession with 3.6 percent unemployment, lowest of any state, and a budget surplus of over $500 million. Surely everyone is excited, right? Not exactly, not with so many questions still to be answered...more
Farm bureaus seek to quash lawsuit
The Utah Farm Bureau Federation has joined the fight against a lawsuit it warns would increase the cost of grazing permits and slow down permit approval. The group joined 11 other Western farm bureaus that want to intervene in the lawsuit. The Utah farm bureau says the suit threatens the economic viability of nearly 1,600 sheep and cattle ranchers with grazing permits in Utah. The case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is led by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Western Watersheds Project. The groups want the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service to raise grazing fees to accurately reflect the administrative and environmental costs associated with grazing on public lands. AP
BLM revising tribal consultation agreement
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is soliciting input from tribes, State Historic Preservation Offices and its field offices on revisions to an agreement governing activities on federal lands that could affect historic properties. The revisions clarify the BLM's responsibilities for consultation with tribes. "When examining proposals for activities on the public lands, we must be mindful of our unique relationship with the tribes and carefully consider their views and concerns," said BLM Director Bob Abbey. "Through consultation and with a spirit of mutual respect and understanding, we can help preserve treasured resources on public lands for generations to come." Revisions will be made to the programmatic agreement signed in 1997 between the BLM and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers to guide BLM's planning and decision making under the National Historic Preservation Act. Among other things, the draft revised programmatic agreement emphasizes the requirement for the BLM to consult with tribes in order to obtain their views on the potential effects of actions on resources of significance to tribes and resolution of any adverse effects stemming from those actions, according to the BLM...more
Displaced Community Tries to Reclaim Land
"This is the place where I wish I had grown up cause this is my heritage," said Wilson Moran, as he walked through the national wildlife refuge that was once his parents' neighborhood. Moran wants the federal government to give back land it seized from his parents just before he was born in 1942. They were part of Harris Neck, a small community founded by former slaves, making their livings by harvesting shellfish from Georgia's coastal wetlands. "This was their independence," Moran said. "This was their freedom. This was their life." A cracked runway serves as a reminder of the World War II army airfield that forced residents off their land. While government seizures for the war effort were common around the country, Harris Neck's former citizens believe their community was targeted because of race. "They wouldn't treat their own like that, so what else would it be?" said Rev. Robert Thorpe, who remembers being evicted from Harris Neck as a young boy. "They didn't treat us like human beings." Rev. Thorpe and others from this community are asking Congress to return the land. But Harris Neck is currently a 2,800 acre national wildlife refuge. And its managers say even moderate residential development would disrupt the fragile ecosystem they're trying to maintain...more
Meatpacker JBS beefs up employment in Weld County
For decades, the big cattle slaughterhouse on the north end of town was known as the Monfort plant. Then ConAgra. Then Swift & Co. The facility's current owner, JBS USA, doesn't have the same local history. But what it lacks in institutional tradition, it's making up for in sheer size and growth. Since acquiring Swift & Co. in 2007, Brazil-based meatpacking giant JBS has beefed up the Greeley operation to become the largest employer in Weld County with a workforce of 5,000. Visitors to the sprawling headquarters of JBS's U.S. unit in Greeley receive a quick corporate education via a video screen in the lobby that plays a continuous loop of JBS's vital statistics. Among the company's superlatives: Largest beef packer in the world. Largest meatpacker in the world. One of the three largest meatpackers in the U.S. Major cattle feedlot operator in the U.S. In the second quarter of 2010, JBS USA's beef operations had $3.3 billion in sales, up 14 percent from the prior year. Operating earnings increased 86 percent, to $194.9 million. Greeley is the hub of operations. But with the Swift purchase and other acquisitions, JBS has a national presence with 45 meat processing facilities and 11 feedlots that in total employ 70,000 workers. Since the Swift & Co. acquisition, JBS subsequently has purchased the beef processing operations of Smithfield Foods and acquired poultry processor Pilgrim's Pride. The acquisitions brought hundreds of new administrative workers to the Greeley headquarters. In addition, JBS established a trucking hub in Greeley with 419 drivers and support workers...more
Song Of The Day #410
It's Swingin' Monday on Ranch Radio.
How am I gonna pick an uptempo song when I've been sick for three days?
Well, how about Three Days Straight by Ray Wylie Hubbard. He's ill too, although it's self inflicted.
The tune is on his 11 track CD Eternal and Lowdown
How am I gonna pick an uptempo song when I've been sick for three days?
Well, how about Three Days Straight by Ray Wylie Hubbard. He's ill too, although it's self inflicted.
The tune is on his 11 track CD Eternal and Lowdown
Sunday, September 19, 2010
New Template
Let me know what you think.
I'm not too hot on the birds, but they come with this version.
I've stretched the post section so you don't have to scroll down so far to see the posts. I looked at it on my wife's Netbook and it looks ok although it does make the print smaller.
I'm still playing around with the colors.
I'm not too hot on the birds, but they come with this version.
I've stretched the post section so you don't have to scroll down so far to see the posts. I looked at it on my wife's Netbook and it looks ok although it does make the print smaller.
I'm still playing around with the colors.
Cowgirl Sass & Savvy
Cowboy loving waysby Julie Carter
They weren't newlyweds by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, just days after this birthday event I'm going to tell you about, they celebrated their 35th anniversary.
Keeping that in mind, this tale will give a glimpse of the depth of love and tolerance honed over that period of longevity.
It was his bride's birthday and since her favorite thing was to go somewhere and see something notable, preferably historical, he offered a blank check in the "travel" department.
"Where would you like to go?" he asked, knowing she understood that didn't include destinations that required travel agents or airports.
She wasn't caught off guard with the request but truly didn't have a burning desire to visit anywhere in particular. So he decided for her. Also not a surprise.
"We'll go to East Texas," he announced helpfully. "Pick a town in East Texas."
The only town she could think of was Jefferson, selected because it had a rich history and would not require six months of travel time.
They loaded up and headed east, getting as far as Fort Worth. It was lunch time and since Joe T. Garcia's is, according to her, the best place in the world to eat, they stopped and did just that.
A $7 margarita for the birthday girl, reportedly with plenty of kick to it, sufficed as dessert and they soon were back on the road.
"Any place in Fort Worth you'd like to see?" he asked her.
She remembered the Fort Worth Water Gardens downtown and suggested that she would like to see that again.
"It is truly beautiful," she recalled. "A waterfall, a river, a stream, a pond, a cascade and anything else you can imagine doing with water.
It takes up an entire city block and you walk around in it and look at all the ways that water is distributed. It is fascinating."
Aiming to please, the cowboy headed the pickup that way.
He drove around the block a half dozen times looking for a place to park and finding none, he quickly lost interest in this particular destination.
His bride heard it coming as much as saw it. Knowing that when he's about to turn to a "silver-tongued devil," the timbre of his voice changes. So she takes a deep seat because what is next is always a "suggestion."
"You know baby, you have this wonderful memory, actually an amazing memory," he said with a glib smoothness to his words. "Since you have already seen this water display once before, how about you just remember it."
Parking problem solved, the loving couple is once again headed east.
"The east side of Fort Worth does not need seeing," she recalls. "The good news is that it was still daylight and we were relatively safe as long as we kept moving."
The redeeming factor for the trip through the seedier side of Fort Worth was summed up by the birthday girl.
Always looking for the positive aspect of things she said, "If we hadn't gone that way, I would never have known where the Bloody Knuckles Bar was."
Realizing that by now they were way in the hell on the other side of Fort Worth, they finally located the freeway. At first opportunity, they got back on it and began driving at freeway speeds to escape the adventure of the Bloody Knuckles neighborhood.
True to country-folk navigation, they ended up on the west side of Fort Worth again, at about the same point of arrival earlier in the day.
Taking matters into his own hands, the cowboy decided they'd just go on home. If he didn't tarry too long, he could still rope that evening.
Being married to a cowboy for 35 years will teach a gal how to say with a straight face, "It was a wonderful birthday."
Julie can be reached for comment at jcarter@tularosa.net. Visit her website at www.julie-carter.com
It's The Pitts: The Magic Ring
by Lee Pitts
One last time the widow leaned down to kiss her husband as he reclined in his casket at his church funeral. As her bulky necklace dangled over the edge of the coffin the dead man’s hand suddenly reached up as if to grab it. When the widow saw his hand levitate above his body she let out a scream that would have shattered glass.
Ghosts were not responsible for this bizarre phenomenon and I assure you that I am not under the spell of the occult. Let me explain.
Why they called the dead man “Governor” has always been open to conjecture. After all, to the best of everyone’s recollection he had never held a political office of any kind, let alone a governorship. (A previous felony or two may have prevented his candidacy.) He may have been called Governor because he had a “full-of-himself” politician’s bearing, or more likely, because he was about as honest as a WWF wrestling match. The Governor was the kind of guy who would steal a poor man’s shoes.
The Governor was built like a bucket of KFC and had more grease on him than the Grand Champion Steer at the Chicago International in 1952. He wore a 100x Silver Belly hat and his fancy boots were so shiny he could see himself in them. That is, if he could see over and around his quite significant tummy.
Now, after being on both ends of buying and selling cattle for decades I will be the first to admit that there is a fine line between thievery and what some folks will do to eke out a profit on a set of cattle. For example, in my opinion having a cowboy whoop and holler and wade into a set of steers just as they are about to enter the corrals so they have to be gathered again, is not criminal. Neither is a butcher keeping his thumb on the scale. After all, we are just talking small “steaks” here. (Pun intended.) Unethical actions? Sure they are. But not go-to-prison types of crime. Ditto salting a set of cattle and then letting them drink right before they are weighed.
Or leaving them on feed over night when they weren’t supposed to be. These are just tricks that buyers and sellers use to counteract the tricks you know the other guy is trying to cheat you with. But what the Governor did was criminal. He not only crossed over the line, he got so much chalk on his shiny boots that he obliterated the line between right and wrong.
The Governor was able to make old Fairbanks Morris work in his favor with the aid of a huge wedding ring he wore on his right hand. (That he wore it on the wrong hand should have been the first clue to his larcenous nature.) By holding his right hand over the beam of the scale, as he waited for it to settle, he could pull it up, and by keeping it under the beam, he could pull it down, depending on whether he was buying or selling cattle at the time. This was not magic, my friends, but pure physics. You see, in that grotesque ring he wore on the wrong hand was a very strong magnet.
The trick worked every time, although the Governor had to be careful what where he put his right hand at all times. Put it in a pocket and when you brought it out your car key’s and any old steel pennies would be attached to it. Get it too close to the steel cream pot at the coffee shop and it would soon be inching towards you.
Naturally, when the Governor died all three of his sons wanted to follow in their father’s crooked foot steps. But to do so they needed that ring. Wifey number three was unaware of the ring’s special powers and did not understand the strong “attraction” the three boys had for it. So she decided the only way to handle the situation was to bury the Governor’s ring right along with him. And that is how the very dead Governor reached out to his wife while reclining in his coffin. It’s also the primary reason why, ever since the ranching community witnessed that miracle in church, they have sent their cattle to the auction, instead of selling them off the ranch.
One last time the widow leaned down to kiss her husband as he reclined in his casket at his church funeral. As her bulky necklace dangled over the edge of the coffin the dead man’s hand suddenly reached up as if to grab it. When the widow saw his hand levitate above his body she let out a scream that would have shattered glass.
Ghosts were not responsible for this bizarre phenomenon and I assure you that I am not under the spell of the occult. Let me explain.
Why they called the dead man “Governor” has always been open to conjecture. After all, to the best of everyone’s recollection he had never held a political office of any kind, let alone a governorship. (A previous felony or two may have prevented his candidacy.) He may have been called Governor because he had a “full-of-himself” politician’s bearing, or more likely, because he was about as honest as a WWF wrestling match. The Governor was the kind of guy who would steal a poor man’s shoes.
The Governor was built like a bucket of KFC and had more grease on him than the Grand Champion Steer at the Chicago International in 1952. He wore a 100x Silver Belly hat and his fancy boots were so shiny he could see himself in them. That is, if he could see over and around his quite significant tummy.
Now, after being on both ends of buying and selling cattle for decades I will be the first to admit that there is a fine line between thievery and what some folks will do to eke out a profit on a set of cattle. For example, in my opinion having a cowboy whoop and holler and wade into a set of steers just as they are about to enter the corrals so they have to be gathered again, is not criminal. Neither is a butcher keeping his thumb on the scale. After all, we are just talking small “steaks” here. (Pun intended.) Unethical actions? Sure they are. But not go-to-prison types of crime. Ditto salting a set of cattle and then letting them drink right before they are weighed.
Or leaving them on feed over night when they weren’t supposed to be. These are just tricks that buyers and sellers use to counteract the tricks you know the other guy is trying to cheat you with. But what the Governor did was criminal. He not only crossed over the line, he got so much chalk on his shiny boots that he obliterated the line between right and wrong.
The Governor was able to make old Fairbanks Morris work in his favor with the aid of a huge wedding ring he wore on his right hand. (That he wore it on the wrong hand should have been the first clue to his larcenous nature.) By holding his right hand over the beam of the scale, as he waited for it to settle, he could pull it up, and by keeping it under the beam, he could pull it down, depending on whether he was buying or selling cattle at the time. This was not magic, my friends, but pure physics. You see, in that grotesque ring he wore on the wrong hand was a very strong magnet.
The trick worked every time, although the Governor had to be careful what where he put his right hand at all times. Put it in a pocket and when you brought it out your car key’s and any old steel pennies would be attached to it. Get it too close to the steel cream pot at the coffee shop and it would soon be inching towards you.
Naturally, when the Governor died all three of his sons wanted to follow in their father’s crooked foot steps. But to do so they needed that ring. Wifey number three was unaware of the ring’s special powers and did not understand the strong “attraction” the three boys had for it. So she decided the only way to handle the situation was to bury the Governor’s ring right along with him. And that is how the very dead Governor reached out to his wife while reclining in his coffin. It’s also the primary reason why, ever since the ranching community witnessed that miracle in church, they have sent their cattle to the auction, instead of selling them off the ranch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)