Posted on 02/04/2012 5:27:37 PM PST by girlangler
Etta Pettijohn
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.”
good article, but I couldn’t figure out what was making it so hard to read...Had to put on concentration hat, bingo, paragraphs are wonderful things....This article is well worth the read, normally I’d just give up....gg
We learn from our mistakes. Go for it. (and share what happened to enlighten us all.)
/johnny
I am glad to see more and more Sheriffs who “get it”.
Theirs is an office (not a department of anything) that draws it’s power straight from the Constitution. Can’t be said for ANY police department or Federal law enforcement department.
But fedgov has been ignoring the Constituion for a long time.
/johnny
Nobody responded in any post with the first thought that crossed my mind as I read the article, and that was “can you all say United Nations Agenda 21 everybody?”
This is just a part of the UN power grab that has been foretold for so long. It’s happening now, and these Sheriffs need our backing all the way.
Learn HTML
Pinging the Agenda 21 folks!
More on the sheriffs with spines! (See post 7 for the formatted version!)
If you want to be on or off the Agenda 21 ping list, please notify me by Freepmail. It is a relatively low volume list in which we have been exploring the UN Agenda21 and related topics. We have collected our studies with threads, links, and discussions on the Agenda 21 thread which can be found here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2738418/posts
Thanks for the ping TEXOKIE. See my post #25 just two prior to your ping. GMTA.
“I had several more examples of sheriffs (one in Indiana threatened to arrest EPA thugs) rebelling, but couldn’t put them in the article, as I had to focus on N.M.”
Please, girlangler, would you be willing to post links to those stories! Thanks!
Thanks for the ping TEXOKIE. See my post #25 just two prior to your ping. GMTA.
Excellent! This is what I love to hear.
These tyrannical road closures coming from the feds in DC make my blood boil. I'm extremely happy to see that locals are taking aqction here -- even if it means cutting the damn locks! Bravo!
Thanks for the ping, girlangler!
It’s a helluva story isn’t it?
Word is the ranger in question has been a ticking time-bomb every place he’s worked.
I’ve got some friends in his previous jurisdiction who are working to make his record of run-ins and near-blow-ups known not only to the authorities but also the public at large.
That’s some tough country up there near Roundup and I have to wonder if the hunter didn’t recognize this idiot ranger...otherwise somebody wouldn’t have walked away from the situation.
I also suspect that the ranger recognized the vehicle and the lady inside...she and her husband are apparently known as “anti-government” types, by the people who use such labels (pro-big-government types, in other words)...the ranger knew who they were and decided to strut his stuff.
Now they are stuck with the threat of prison and tons of legal bills while you and I are forced to pay his.
What a disgrace.
Point is, I respect you as a fellow FReeper but give the messenger a break.
I did IT work for 17 years in older tech and I still can't do a basic web page. Don't have the motivation or desire.
I'm nit pickin' about the 'learn HTML' post, alright. I'm not attacking you 'per se' but we all must remember the message.
Those sheriffs I've been reading about kick ass.
And my FRiend, I'm pretty 'anti-cop' based on my dealings in life.
Peace brother. I ride a Harley. It's not what you ride but IF you ride... ain't I right?
The most important thing is getting the information out. Especially check out his lessons learned on the summary page.
We keep pressure up on them, and we'll roll back the statists on this issue like we have on the 2nd Amendment issue.
/johnny
OREGON SHERIFF STANDS UP AGAINST THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE
I love it when County Sheriff's stand up against the feds.
Whatever... I always made sure I had a pocket full of quarters if going through Santa Fe during the HOG rally back in the early '80s. ;)
I rode a Honda 350 back then.
I'm too fragile to ride these days. And actually aware of it...
/johnny
Thanks Flycatcher, just reporting the news in the area I happen to be covering at this point. I love the West, and the spirit of the people here.
I've had the old CL350's IIRC which were basically a street bike with knobbys, raced hare scrambles and motocross in the 'early 80's' owned a stable of crotch rockets, but I love my old 85 softail custom with the old school 4 spd tranny.
Your comment reminds me of my old sarge that I used to go dirtbike riding with in Mississippi who is now 67 and tells me he's too old to ride.
I respect what you say about 'acknowledging it' but I'm too damn stubborn to give up just yet. I'm 50 and still ride dirtbikes too. Now when I break something (which I have) it does take a little longer to heal.
Sorry for the brag rant.
Sorry for going so far off topic.
Sheriffs exercising their Constitutional duty. That's a win in my book.
Peace.
Spent some time in SW NM a couple years back; all over the place, typical tourist stuff. Wonderful people, beautiful scenery!
Ping, in case you’re not on this list. I think you would find this one pretty interesting.
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.