Sheriff Baca Won't Renew Forest Service Agreement

Sierra County Sheriff Joe Baca has joined a growing number of elected sheriffs from across the West by sending a message to federal officials about undermining state and local rights regarding law enforcement. Baca, a former lieutenant in the New Mexico Army National Guard and an Afghanistan veteran, told Sierra County Commissioners earlier this month his office will not renew an annual $16,000 contract with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The ongoing cooperative agreement between the two agencies to compensate the sheriff’s department for patrolling and enforcing laws in the Gila National Forest was due for renewal this past fall. Baca’s decision places him in agreement with other western sheriffs opposed to proposed Forest Service rules they interpret as giving USFS law enforcement officers more “police powers,” which they claim is contrary to citizens’ rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. According to Sierra County Tax Assessor Keith Whitney, the Forest Service manages approximately 378,700 acres (a portion of the more than 3- million acre Gila National Forest) in Sierra County. The Western States Sheriffs Association (WSSA) received official notice of the U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement proposed rule changes to the code of federal regulation 36 (CFR) 262, 261 and 212 on July 15, 2011 . The WSSA released a position paper opposing these rules in September 2011. The portion of the new rules the WSSA opposes reads “The proposed revisions to 36 CFRs 262, 261, and 212 make the Forest Service regulations more consistent with other land management agencies; clarify the agency’s authority and give it enforcement measures and means commensurate with state law; and update regulations regarding payments for evidence, rewards, and impounding abandoned property.” “The Forest Service has added stipulations that we do not agree with,” Baca told The Sentinel. “We (sheriffs) have jurisdiction in the forest anyway if the land is within our county, and I won’t take money for doing what I already get paid to do by the residents of Sierra County.” Baca said he refuses to have federal authorities dictate what he can and cannot do in Sierra County, while Region 3 USFS officials contend the agency is merely updating rules that allow the existing agency law enforcement to be more effective when enforcing laws on public lands and ensuring public safety. The Gila National Forest is presently in the final stages of approving its Travel Management Plan to determine what roads will remain open to motor vehicles, motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles in the Gila and other national forests, and the agency’s adjusted law enforcement powers are contained in these proposed plans. The Gila draft proposals for road closures in the forest include (1) taking no action, which would leave 4,604 miles of roads open to public use; (2) implementing a preferred alternative, which would leave 3,323 miles open; and (3) allowing 2,332 miles to 4,266 miles of open roads. The final decision for road closures was originally scheduled to be announced in mid-2011, but has been delayed until spring 2012. During a series of public meetings last spring where significant local opposition was expressed to any forest road closures, Sheriff Baca announced his department would not enforce federal regulations preventing citizens from accessing public lands. Sierra County’s sheriff is not alone when it comes to local law enforcement officials who claim it is their job to protect the citizens who elected them, even if it means conflicts with federal Forest Service authorities. Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County, Ore., after hearing complaints from local citizens about Forest Service law enforcement officials, told the agency it has no authority in any county and he would protect citizens using the forest. In 2011 Gilbertson drafted a 10-page report, “Unraveling Federal Jurisdiction Within A State,” which has become the resource manual for sheriffs in counties facing road closures, National Monument designations and other federal actions perceived as limiting citizen access to public lands. Last year, another Oregon sheriff, Glenn E. Palmer of Grant County, refused to renew his county’s cooperative law enforcement agreement with the Forest Service. “ I have sent at least two requests to the U.S. Forest Service asking for information that pertains to where the U.S. Forest Service gets it Constitutional authority to have law enforcement officers within Grant County,” Sheriff Palmer wrote. “Your jurisdiction, as I see it, is limited in nature to the Federal Building in John Day (Ore.). Within the confines of Grant County, the duties and responsibility of law enforcement will rest with the County Sheriff and his designees.” And in March 2011, the Denver Post reported a feud between Montezuma County Sheriff Dennis Spruell and the Forest Service over road closures in the San Juan National Forest. When 155 miles of the forest’s estimated 700 miles of “unauthorized motorized routes” near Dolores were made off limits to ORV use, Spruell threatened to cut locks on gates and ticket Forest Service agents enforcing the closures. Like his counterparts in other states, Sheriff Baca is confident his refusal to renew the law enforcement agreement with the Gila National Forest was justified. “It might make some people mad, but I want to do what’s right, not what’s required by the Forest Service, or violating the U.S. Constitution or state statutes,” Baca said. Robin Poague, the USFS Region 3 law enforcement special agent responsible for national forests in Arizona and New Mexico, said the agency has jurisdiction over forest lands, and its road closure proposals are not meant to undermine the authority of county law enforcement “We want to work with the sheriffs, and respect their role, and these rewrites of the regulations will give us the opportunity for better enforcement cooperation,” Poague told The Sentinel this week. Poague said the USFS has long-held arrest authority (on forest lands) under the law, but the “timely rewrites” are meant to “conserve resources, enhance public safety, and enhance cooperation” between the sheriffs and agency. However, an official statement from the Western States Sheriffs Association indicates that group respectfully disagrees. “(The proposed rule changes) “exhibit an absolute disregard for the sovereignty of the individual States, show a disregard for the authority of the Office of Sheriff, and a continued inability of the Forest Service to understand the mission and function of its law.”

Etta Pettijohn

Baca, a former lieutenant in the New Mexico Army National Guard and an Afghanistan veteran, told Sierra County Commissioners earlier this month his office will not renew an annual $16,000 contract with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

The ongoing cooperative agreement between the two agencies to compensate the sheriff’s department for patrolling and enforcing laws in the Gila National Forest was due for renewal this past fall.

Baca’s decision places him in agreement with other western sheriffs opposed to proposed Forest Service rules they interpret as giving USFS law enforcement officers more “police powers,” which they claim is contrary to citizens’ rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

According to Sierra County Tax Assessor Keith Whitney, the Forest Service manages approximately 378,700 acres (a portion of the more than 3- million acre Gila National Forest) in Sierra County.

The Western States Sheriffs Association (WSSA) received official notice of the U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement proposed rule changes to the code of federal regulation 36 (CFR) 262, 261 and 212 on July 15, 2011 .

The WSSA released a position paper opposing these rules in September 2011. The portion of the new rules the WSSA opposes reads “The proposed revisions to 36 CFRs 262, 261, and 212 make the Forest Service regulations more consistent with other land management agencies; clarify the agency’s authority and give it enforcement measures and means commensurate with state law; and update regulations regarding payments for evidence, rewards, and impounding abandoned property.”

“The Forest Service has added stipulations that we do not agree with,” Baca told The Sentinel. “We (sheriffs) have jurisdiction in the forest anyway if the land is within our county, and I won’t take money for doing what I already get paid to do by the residents of Sierra County.”

Baca said he refuses to have federal authorities dictate what he can and cannot do in Sierra County, while Region 3 USFS officials contend the agency is merely updating rules that allow the existing agency law enforcement to be more effective when enforcing laws on public lands and ensuring public safety.

The Gila National Forest is presently in the final stages of approving its Travel Management Plan to determine what roads will remain open to motor vehicles, motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles in the Gila and other national forests, and the agency’s adjusted law enforcement powers are contained in these proposed plans.

The Gila draft proposals for road closures in the forest include (1) taking no action, which would leave 4,604 miles of roads open to public use; (2) implementing a preferred alternative, which would leave 3,323 miles open; and (3) allowing 2,332 miles to 4,266 miles of open roads.

The final decision for road closures was originally scheduled to be announced in mid-2011, but has been delayed until spring 2012. During a series of public meetings last spring where significant local opposition was expressed to any forest road closures, Sheriff Baca announced his department would not enforce federal regulations preventing citizens from accessing public lands.

Sierra County’s sheriff is not alone when it comes to local law enforcement officials who claim it is their job to protect the citizens who elected them, even if it means conflicts with federal Forest Service authorities. Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County, Ore., after hearing complaints from local citizens about Forest Service law enforcement officials, told the agency it has no authority in any county and he would protect citizens using the forest.

In 2011 Gilbertson drafted a 10-page report, “Unraveling Federal Jurisdiction Within A State,” which has become the resource manual for sheriffs in counties facing road closures, National Monument designations and other federal actions perceived as limiting citizen access to public lands. Last year, another Oregon sheriff, Glenn E. Palmer of Grant County, refused to renew his county’s cooperative law enforcement agreement with the Forest Service.

“ I have sent at least two requests to the U.S. Forest Service asking for information that pertains to where the U.S. Forest Service gets it Constitutional authority to have law enforcement officers within Grant County,” Sheriff Palmer wrote. “Your jurisdiction, as I see it, is limited in nature to the Federal Building in John Day (Ore.). Within the confines of Grant County, the duties and responsibility of law enforcement will rest with the County Sheriff and his designees.”

And in March 2011, the Denver Post reported a feud between Montezuma County Sheriff Dennis Spruell and the Forest Service over road closures in the San Juan National Forest. When 155 miles of the forest’s estimated 700 miles of “unauthorized motorized routes” near Dolores were made off limits to ORV use, Spruell threatened to cut locks on gates and ticket Forest Service agents enforcing the closures. Like his counterparts in other states, Sheriff Baca is confident his refusal to renew the law enforcement agreement with the Gila National Forest was justified.

“It might make some people mad, but I want to do what’s right, not what’s required by the Forest Service, or violating the U.S. Constitution or state statutes,” Baca said. Robin Poague, the USFS Region 3 law enforcement special agent responsible for national forests in Arizona and New Mexico, said the agency has jurisdiction over forest lands, and its road closure proposals are not meant to undermine the authority of county law enforcement “We want to work with the sheriffs, and respect their role, and these rewrites of the regulations will give us the opportunity for better enforcement cooperation,” Poague told The Sentinel this week.

Poague said the USFS has long-held arrest authority (on forest lands) under the law, but the “timely rewrites” are meant to “conserve resources, enhance public safety, and enhance cooperation” between the sheriffs and agency. However, an official statement from the Western States Sheriffs Association indicates that group respectfully disagrees. “(The proposed rule changes) “exhibit an absolute disregard for the sovereignty of the individual States, show a disregard for the authority of the Office of Sheriff, and a continued inability of the Forest Service to understand the mission and function of its law.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.