DuBois column

Fire preventers start a forest fire and no Constitution or Scripture allowed in Bundy trial

Dog Head Fire

The Forest Service recently published their official report on the 17,912-acre Dog Head Fire in the Cibola National Forest.  The fire was initially reported on June 14 of this year, declared contained on July 13, controlled on August 10 and out on September 12. Along the way, 12 single residences and 44 other structures were destroyed along with habitat for the Goshawk and the Spotted Owl.

The official cause of the fire, says the report, was human-caused and originated from a masticator, “a machine that shreds brush and trees into mulch to reduce forest fuels.” It was all part of the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Restoration Project to reduce the threat of wildfire.

So we have poor management, caused by a myriad of environmental laws which hamstring the agencies and drastically increase the chances of wildfire. Given the current political environment all the feds can do is fund these piddling little projects which, in this case, actually started the fire. We should be allowing commercial harvests, which are effective and provide for little or no cost to the taxpayer. When will Congress take action? Until they do, fires like this will continue to occur across the West, multiplying the loss of lives, resources and property, and the consumption of taxpayer dinero.

Bundy Trial

Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five co-defendants are charged with conspiring to impede U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Bureau of Land Management employees from doing their work at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge during the 41-day occupation.

So far, the judge has been ruling consistently for the feds.  She has denied Ryan Bundy’s motion to ditch his standby counsel, and sided with the U.S. Marshall to deny Ammon Bundy’s request to wear his cowboy boots in court. The judge has denied Ryan Bundy’s (who is representing himself) request to hand each juror a pocket-sized version of the Constitution. She has ruled the ownership of the Wildlife Refuge and the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Robert LaVoy Finicum by FBI agents are not to be mentioned and has threatened to fine Ammon Bundy’s attorney for referring to those issues. She has ruled for the U.S. Marshall to end the ability of Ammon to meet with his attorney and his brother Ryan, and that Ammon can only meet with his attorney through a screened window. Why? Because Ammon sent a message to his wife on his attorney’s computer and then showed “disrespect” when ordered to stop.

When Ammon Bundy took the stand, he testified his plan was to stake claim to the refuge property through the adverse possession principle because he didn't believe the federal government had authority to control it, citing the enclave clause of the U.S. Constitution. If anything, he expected federal officials to cite occupiers for trespass or issue an eviction, and send the matter to a civil court to address who has control over the land. "This is the issue,'' he testified. "This is the reason why we went into the refuge and did what we did.” He was also adamant that what they had done was "completely legal.''

The prosecutor objected to Bundy stating his view of the law.  The judge agreed, instructing the jury that what they heard was Bundy's opinion of the law and not to regard it as factual. The judge also instructed Bundy that he was not to read from the Constitution in his shirt pocket.

In explaining his actions, Bundy read from The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, telling the jurors that among the church teachings is the following: "It is our duty to go to the judge. It is our duty to go to the representative. It is our duty to go to the president and plead with them to stand up for what is wrong,'' he said. "It's our duty to give each of the officials the opportunity to do what's right." "We are not to act until that has been done,'' he said.

The prosecutor objected to the relevancy of the testimony.  The judge agreed and warned Bundy not to read scriptural passages to jurors.

No Constitution, no Scripture. 

And now you see the power of the U.S. Attorney’s office.  They pick what the charges are, which then determines which issues can be discussed in court. No wonder they have a conviction rate of 93 percent.  The trial also disclosed the FBI had 15 informants, including Mark McConnell, who was driving the vehicle in which Ammon Bundy was arrested.

There were a few light-hearted moments.

While cross-examining an FBI agent, defendant Ryan Bundy asked if pocket Constitutions depicted in a photo of one of the rooms in the refuge bunkhouse were seized as evidence. The agent said he didn't take them. "So you did not find anything of value in there?'' Bundy queried.

Things turned tumultuous though, when after closing arguments had been given and the jury had convened for three days, the jurors sent two hand-written questions to the judge.  One of the questions was, ““Can a juror, a former employee of the Bureau of Land Management, who opens their remarks in deliberations by stating ‘I am very biased …’ be considered an impartial judge in this case?”

The defendants’ attorneys argued a biased juror would violate the defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and thus a fair trial.  Judge Brown interviewed the juror in question and initially ruled the juror would stay.  The next day, however, she reversed her opinion and removed the juror. An alternate juror has been selected, but that means the jury deliberations must start over. "You need to start over with that alternate juror,'' the judge told the remaining jurors. The judge said they must "set aside the conclusions'' they've drawn and destroy any verdict forms they were given. "It's a new jury, a new day, a new start,” she said.

As it turned out - in spite of the feds having 15 informants, a friendly judge and such a high conviction rate - the jury found the Bundy brothers and the other five defendants not guilty.  It was Ammon Bundy’s 10 hours of testimony that likely won over jurors according to Lewis & Clark law professor Tung Yin. “It gave Ammon a chance to explain his side,” Yin said. “And apparently the jury seemed to agree. I think it’s really hard to see this as anything other than jury nullification.”

During his three days on the stand Ammon Bundy explained his views on the federal government and the Constitution.  He said their occupation of the refuge was a protest against federal control of millions of acres in the West and of their grievance against how the Hammonds were unfairly treated in their arson case. “This is much bigger than the Hammonds,” Ammon Bundy told the court. “Everything comes from the Earth and if [the government] can get control of the resources, they can get control of the people,” he said.  Bundy also described federal government officials as modern day Roman emperors attempting to rule over their subjects by restricting access to resource-rich territories.

Speaking of the jurors, Professor Yin said, “The fact that they acquitted on everything must be representative of some kind of mistrust of the government or a symbolic protest, or anger at the government.”

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

This article originally appeared in the November issue of The New Mexico Stockman and the November issue of The Livestock Market Digest.

NOTE: As I'm sure you've noticed this article was written while the Bundy trial was proceeding. Caren Cowan had kindly moved the deadline back several times. A final due date was given and luckily, that was the same day the jury issued a verdict.

DuBois column: Bundy Boondoggle

 

The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the mistrial in the Bundy case 

Bundy Boondoggle 

The saga of Cliven Bundy and his battles with the feds over livestock grazing go back many years. From a strictly administrative/legal basis, here is a quick summary: 

° In 1993, BLM sent Bundy a notice of trespass and an order to remove his cattle

° In 1998 a federal district court permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing livestock within the    Bunkerville allotment. Bundy filed an appeal and in 1999 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied his appeal and affirmed the lower court’s order.

° In 2011, BLM sent Bundy a notice of intent to roundup his cattle.

° In 2013 a federal district court ordered Bundy to remove his cattle within 45 days and authorized the feds to impound any cattle that were not removed. Bundy appealed and lost.

° In March of 2014, BLM issued a notice of intent to impound Bundy’s cattle, and on April 5, 2014 the roundup began. 

This was a large operation for the feds, as the court recently summarized: 

BLM made extensive preparations for “Operation Gold Butte Impound.” Coordinating with agents from the National Park Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation, BLM anticipated resistance from Bundy and his supporters. It planned to escort the contractors in and out of the area each day. BLM established a Listening Post/Observation Post (LP/OP) “strategically placed at elevated positions around the Bundy residence each evening” where agents were outfitted with binoculars, spotting scopes, night-vision goggles, and thermal-imaging devices. The LP/OP personnel were to have “agency-issued rifles with them at all times.” BLM also established a Tactical Operations Center (TOC), Forward Operating Base (FOB), a media site, and a “free speech area.”

I and many others have written about what transpired during the so-called standoff and there is no need to repeat it here, as our interest today is in the court case. Suffice it to say the feds backed down and left, handing a major victory to Bundy and his supporters. I vividly remember both the surprise and joy I personally experienced at this outcome. 

However, in March of 2016 a federal grand jury indicted nineteen individuals, including Cliven Bundy and his two sons, Ammon and Ryan, for a slate of federal crimes, including impeding federal officers, threatening federal officers, and extortion, as well as conspiracy to commit those crimes. Trial began on October 30, 2017, and that is when the government’s transgressions and abuses started coming to light. 

During the trial a bombshell memo from a BLM law enforcement officer to the Dept. of Justice was made public. In the memo, BLM Special Agent Larry C. Wooten stated, “I routinely observed, and the investigation revealed a widespread pattern of bad judgement, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff at the BLM’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security.” 

Wooten further stated these issues, “…made a mockery of our position of special trust and confidence, portrayed extreme unprofessional bias, adversely affected our agency’s mission and likely the trial regarding Cliven Bundy…” and “put our agency and specific law enforcement supervisors in potential legal, civil and administrative jeopardy.” 

Some of the actions taken by certain BLM officers are simply too crude to include in this publication. However, Wooten did report: 

º Conduct that was, “discriminatory, harassing and showed clear prejudice against the defendants, their supporters and Mormons.”

º Uncovered comments where BLM agents “bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy” and “grinding his face into the ground.”

º That BLM employees, “didn’t properly turn in the required discovery material (likely exculpatory evidence)”

º That one BLM Supervisor, “instigated the unprofessional monitoring of jail calls between defendants and their wives, without prosecutor or FBI consent.”

º That former BLM Special Agent-In-Charge Dan Love purposely ignored federal and state recommendations, “in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible.” 

BLM Agent Wooten also say his investigation found, “excessive use of force, civil rights and policy violations.” Further, Wooten says, “there was an improper cover-up in virtually every matter that a particular BLM SAC participated in, or oversaw.”  

It also became apparent that important evidence had been withheld by the feds. The presiding judge held a series of hearings in November of 2017. Based upon those hearings the judge found the following pieces of evidence were withheld from the defense: 

° Records about surveillance at the Bundy ranch

° Records about the presence of government snipers

° FBI logs about activity at the ranch in the days leading up to the standoff

° Law enforcement assessments dating to 2012 that found the Bundys posed no threat, and

° Internal affairs reports about misconduct by BLM agents   

In total, it came to 3,300 pages of evidence withheld. As a result the judge said this represented “outrageous” abuses and “flagrant misconduct” by the prosecutors. The judge declared “a universal sense of justice has been violated” and dismissed all charges against the Bundys “with prejudice”, meaning those charges cannot be brought again.  

Unbelievably, President Trump’s Justice Department appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal circuit in the nation.    

On August 6 of this year the Ninth Circuit rendered their decision and I’m pleased to report the government’s CYA appeal was not successful. 

The court affirmed the prosecution was guilty of “flagrant misconduct”, with such a finding necessary for charges to be dismissed “with prejudice.” 

The court affirmed that the withholding of information about the surveillance camera “was willful rather than merely inadvertent.” The court also stated, “Rather than looking into the request and locating the documents before trial began, the government chose to fight rather than respond to the request.” 

On the withholding of evidence concerning the government’s use of snipers, the court stated: “Of particular concern is the government’s handling of evidence related to the presence of snipers. This was a hot-button issue… The government said the Bundys’ claim of “snipers” was “false” and “deceitful,” yet the government’s own documents referred to its agents as “snipers.”…”In short, the government had to know the import that any evidence regarding snipers, or agents who looked and functioned like snipers, would have in this case. Nevertheless, it withheld a slate of information…” The court also found the government’s position this evidence was irrelevant to be “preposterous and reckless.” 

With respect to the threat assessments, the court said, “…the government failed to turn over beneficial information speaking to Bundy’s potential for violence. These documents could have helped bolster the defense’s claim that the government had engaged in an overmilitarized impound operation that the Bundys claim fueled their fears of being surrounded by snipers. But irrespective of the theory defendants were to put forward, these documents should have been released. They, at the very least, provided impeachment evidence because some of their findings contrasted with the 2014 threat assessment used as the basis for planning the impound operation, and they undermined the prosecution’s opening statement.” 

There is more, but in all instances the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision. 

There are still many questions concerning the design, implementation and costs of this government boondoggle. Shamefully, neither political party has seen fit to conduct a complete investigation and report on this operation. That failure increases the odds that similar abuses will occur in the future.  

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 September issues of The New Mexico Stockman and The Livestock Market Digest. 

Now look at the post below: its only been a few months since federal troops were sent to various big cities, and we already have a GAO report on their activity. No such report has ever been requested concerning the Bundy Standoff. Any one of the 535 members of congress could make such a request, but they haven't. Careful scrutiny for social justice, nada for range justice. 

DuBois column

All about the Bundys and will Obama slam New Mexico again

Beleaguered Bundys

      On February 10^th Cliven Bundy was travelling from Nevada to Oregon, where his two sons were being held in jail and four holdouts remained at the Malheur Wildlife refuge.  His travel was interrupted by SWAT teams at the Portland International Airport, where he was arrested at 10:10 p.mBundy, 69, was then booked into the Multnomah County jail at 10:54 p.m. on charges related to the 2014 standoff at his Nevada ranch.

      Cliven Bundy and four others have been charged with multiple counts of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, use of a gun in a crime of violence, assault of a federal officer, threatening a federal officer, obstruction of justice, interference with interstate commerce by extortion and interstate travel in the aid of extortion. Each of the 16 charges carries a minimum sentence of between five and 20 years and a $250,000 fine.

      The indictment has some interesting things to say about the vaunted BLM law enforcement officers, stating they committed key tactical errors including ceding the high ground to their opponents and underestimating the strength of their “attackers.”

      Fifty BLM rangers were guarding 400 cattle confiscated from Bundy and penned in a temporary corral at the bottom of a wash.  According to papers filed with the court, when the Bundy family and their supporters arrived to claim the cattle, the rangers found themselves in a life-threatening situation.

      The indictment states:

      "The officers at the (corral) gate were dangerously exposed.  They were in the open and low ground at the bottom of the wash, below highway bridges that towered more than 40 feet above them and surrounded on the sides by steep embankments of high ground.”
      "The terrain acted like a funnel with them at the bottom and no natural cover or concealment to protect them from the gunmen on the high ground, their only protection being their body armor and the vehicles they happened to drive to the gate."
      “…the officers had no choice and were forced to leave and abandon the cattle to Bundy and his co-conspirators…".
      I remember thinking at the time the DC Deep Thinkers had come to their senses and called off the dogs.  Not so.  They were simply out maneuvered by a superior force and made to retreat from the field.
      As a result of the Battle of Bunkerville in Nevada and the occupation of the wildlife refuge in Oregon, however, Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy are in jail and facing multiple charges.
      What do we make of all this?

      Peter Walker, a professor at the University of Oregon writes:

      “Those who value public lands - for economic, environmental, recreational and aesthetic values - owe a debt of gratitude to Harney County. A violent branch of the Sagebrush Rebellion came to town in Harney County, and the community told it to go away.”

      While Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil write in the Illinois Review:

      “Granted, the conflict that created the situation in Oregon is far from over.  The ranchers involved have accomplished their primary goal of having their concerns made public, although not to the extent of those who rioted, thrashed, and burned Ferguson or those who marched on the streets of large cities chanting “No justice! No peace! No racist police!” 

      And they conclude:

      “Unfortunately in calling attention to their plight, one rancher paid the ultimate price, his life, for doing so.  Will the authorities now be more open to initiating productive discussions to hear ranchers’ concerns?  The fate of the protestors arrested and taken into custody might be an indicator of what the future might hold for the Great Basin region of this nation.”

      Your humble observer thinks what may be happening on our side of the aisle is what has been going on with the enviro-left for many years. Radical elements take action that brings media and political attention to a particular issue, paving the way for more moderate partisans to offer compromise solutions. Time will tell if this is actually occurring, and if so, will it be as effective as the enviro-left model has been in influencing national policy.

Will Obama strike again?

      President Obama recently designated three new national monuments in California - Sand to Snow National Monument, Mojave Trails National Monument, and Castle Mountains National Monument –  totaling 1.8 million acres. “This president has misused and abused his executive power more than any of his predecessors in an attempt to distract from his true environmental legacy which will be one of mismanagement and undue economic hardship in rural communities,” said Brenda Richards, Public Lands Council President.  Further, the PLC is expecting another 10 million acres to be set aside in the waning days of the Obama administration.

      Areas in New Mexico may be on that list.  There have been several press accounts of a proposal to designate 120,000 acres as the La Bajada Mesa National Monument in northern New Mexico, and we should remember the BLM has suggested that 1.2 million acres be set aside in the Otero Mesa of southern New Mexico.

      "Everybody is coming to me with their wish list," says Interior Secretary Sally Jewel.

      You take your wish list to one person, who then takes it to one other person, who can grant you your wish.  Under this model, three people can determine how 640 million acres are managed.  No public hearings, no debate, no involvement of Congress. And this model is being heavily used by the current administration. You know, the same folks who promised "sound science" and transparency in the management of these lands.

      Let’s call it the Tres Amigos Treehugger Triangle, and any member of Congress who opposes significant revision of the Antiquities Act should be branded as supporting this three-person power trip.

      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.

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. 
 

DuBois column

We are occupied by the occupiers and Trump tramples on lands transfer

The Bundy Bunch

Is this a Bundy bungle or Bundy bravery?  I’ve been going back and forward on this for two weeks.

I wrote in November of last year about the injustice of the trials and sentencing of the Hammonds for burning 140 acres of federal land.  Steve Hammond and his son were tried, convicted and had served their prison terms.  However, the feds appealed, saying the ranchers had been prosecuted under an anti-terrorism law that mandated minimum sentences of five years.  The feds won and the Hammonds have headed back to prison, as terrorists.

We all know this is not really about fire.  After all, the feds offered to drop all 22 charges if the Hammonds would just sign over two thirds of their ranch to the government.  Think of the abuse here.

Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue said this “is an example of gross government overreach, and the public should be outraged.  He said the “verdict is also hypocritical given BLM’s own harm to public and private grazing lands, which goes without consequence.”  Bushue continued, “This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers, foresters, and others who rely on federal allotments and permits.”

To the extent the actions of the Bundys and the locals brought attention to this grave miscarriage of justice, so much the better.

Then came the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.  Still there were some positive, educational articles about the history of federal lands, the benefits of livestock grazing and so on.  Reporters were actually using terms like allotments, permits, etc.

When it became evident the occupiers were there to stay, the dam broke.  The Environmental Kingdom ruled by the envirocrats and the environmental groups felt threatened.  Stories started appearing about welfare ranchers, artificially low grazing fees, and even how ISIS supported the militia members who were occupying the refuge.  Individual members of the occupying group didn’t help themselves with some very stupid statements, and some were disclosed as convicted felons, and others lied about their personal history.

The media coverage had turned from favorable, to neutral to decidedly negative.  No longer are there discussions of why the feds own so much land in the West, the pros and cons of federal management and what alternatives there are to the current system.  Groups and their media buddies are using the militia occupation to tar other attempts, such as that promoted by the American Lands Council, to have an orderly transfer of many of these lands to state control.           

Some of the GOP candidates for President have weighed in on the issue.  Ted Cruz has urged the militia members to “stand down peacefully.”  "Everyone has a Constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds, but we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and threaten force and violence on others," Cruz said.  Marco Rubio says “you can’t be lawless.”  "We live in a republic. There are ways to change the laws of this country and the policies. If we get frustrated with it, that’s why we have elections,” Rubio says.  And Ben Carson says, "I think right now the government's handling it in the right way by not being confrontational."

New Mexico U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich has thrown in with the “law and order” enviros by calling for federal action.  In a letter to the Dept. of Justice he states he wants the rule of law restored by bringing “those responsible to justice.”  He further urges the Dept. to “use all of the resources at your disposal to fully prosecute anyone who has broken the law.”  On his Facebook page Heinrich says this whole episode by “armed radicals” is “only the latest example in a well-organized and well-funded campaign to seize and sell off public lands.”

As I write this, Ammon Bundy is talking to the FBI and is demanding the negotiations be in public view, while the feds want everything kept in secret.  Without knowing the final outcome, it’s hard to know how this will play out for the ranching community as a whole.  Will this be just another blip on feds growing control of the people and resources of the West, or will this be a turning point towards a more reasonable, responsible and balanced solution?

Stay tuned for Act III.

UPDATE:  Not long after this column was submitted the news broke of the tragic slaying of LaVoy Finicum and the capture of the Bundy Brothers.  Ammon Bundy has been arraigned and has issued a statement asking the remainder of the occupiers to stand down and go home.  I believe the question I asked above is more valid than ever and is a long way from being answered.  Act III, indeed, has begun.

Trump No, Cruz & Carson Yes on lands transfer

Donald Trump recently said he was totally against transferring federal lands to the states.  In an interview with the editor of Outdoor Life Trump had the following to say:

“I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land.… And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land.”

The idea the only way something can be “great” is for it to be owned by the feds is scary to me.  And besides, wouldn’t that also apply to Hotels & Casinos?

Ben Carson says, "I think it's ridiculous that the government owns so much land and that we should enact a program whereby we gradually begin to restore that land to the states," while acknowledging, "we can't do it all in one fell swoop because they wouldn't be able to afford it."

Ted Cruz says, "I think it is completely indefensible that the federal government is America's largest landlord."  “I believe we should transfer as much federal land as possible back to the states and ideally back to the people," said Cruz, making exceptions for national parks and military bases.  "If I am elected president, we have never had a president who is as vigorously committed to transferring as much federal land as humanely possible back to the states and back to the people," said Cruz.

Till next time, be a nuisance to the devil, and now more than ever, 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 New Mexico Stockman and the Livestock Market Digest.