Posted on 05/12/2014 1:08:13 PM PDT by jazusamo
In what some are calling a replay of the standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, a New Mexico county board agreed Monday to instruct the sheriff to remove the Forest Service gates blocking thirsty cattle from reaching water, setting up a clash with federal agents over state water rights and endangered species.
The Otero County Commission voted 2-0, with one commissioner absent, to “immediately take steps to remove or open gates that are unlawfully denying citizens access to their private property rights.”
Ranchers became alarmed earlier this year when Forest Service officials refused to open gates allowing cattle in the drought-stricken region to reach a creek in the Lincoln National Forest. Local rangers have said that they are trying to protect the riparian area, which is considered habitat for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
The mouse is expected to be listed as an endangered species in June. The proposed listing, which would include as much as 193 miles of critical habitat in Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, comes after a 251-species settlement with WildEarth Guardians in 2011.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Well said...That is becoming more of a factor with federal and state forestry and land management agencies. Also many newer employees are environmentalists (some pretty radical) and some have been in agencies long enough to be in management positions.
Folks have to realize that the environmental groups don’t give a rip about the mountain lions, jumping mice, snail darters, spotted owls or any other “endangered” critter or plant. There simply are a means to an end, first of all, making money, and secondly preserving the environment in it’s “natural” state (”Our members use the area for spiritual renewal” is a phrase that comes to mind). Well, folks, that “natural state is going to burn - that’s natures way of keeping it “natural”. I have actually had “environmentalists” say they don’t care if it burns, just so long as no one is making a profit off the (in this case) timber.
“The argument falls flat when action is taken over an event (listed as endangered) that MIGHT happen. That is not in the scope of the regulations and thus outside their authority.”
No, it’s spelled out in the regulations. If it’s being considered, it must be treated as if it actually were listed until such time as it is turned down. We had “wilderness study areas” that were being “studied” for decades, waiting for congress to make a decision and we couldn’t do a thing with them.
If the worthless “jumping” mouse lives up to its name, it can “jump”out of the way of the cattle. The eco-nut FEDs are such asses.
Who no doubt get funding from the EPA...
"The USFS like the BLM have been infiltrated over many years with environmentalists that no longer manage the lands for the public good. They’re interested in furthering the radical enviros causes including stopping the use of natural resources and basically keeping everyone other than hikers off the lands."
And in fact, they don't really like hikers going in on THEIR land. Anyone who is 'the public' is an intruder in THEIR forest.
I worked for some months for the USFS...in the late 70s. Back then, rangers DID talk about opening up land for easy access, about logging, about grazing, about creating firebreaks and cutting areas at risk for fire. But THAT Forest Service is long, long gone.
Now the enviro-weenies have moved in, and the Gaia-worshippers control the USFS & BLM.
The Endangered Species Act has become a classic case of unintended consequences, although in truth there were people back then who warned what the outcome would be. It ought to be repealed today, but I can promise you both of my REPUBLICAN senators would fight tooth & nail to keep it!
Heh, or even that they claim a rodent is "endangered" in the first place. Geez by nature these critters reproduce like crazy in order to feed those higher up on the food chain.
You're right. Doesn't make sense even within their own evolutionary worldview. Where is their "pro-choice" god now?
When a manager of a trust has failed at that management, then they are to be removed and the trust is left for another to manage. The local counties, and state agencies.
These rules you state are an excuse. Coconino National Forest is one prime example. The people MANAGING that trust, think they actually OWN that land.
The Rapid River district in the UP of Michigan for the Hiawatha National Forest is another, where one of the USFS finest thought he could issue traffic tickets all over the area OUTSIDE of his jurisdiction. That creep now has a cushy job doing janitor work since the local and state police have had him removed from his former duties-after a long bout with locals over his arrogant activities. The man actually was lucky he wasnt shot.
Feds arrange for some group to sue them, and they throw the case, thus allowing some judge to order them to do something they had no real legal authority to do.
Agreed, the ESA has become a farce the enviros use to further their communist agenda of closing down both public and private lands. The act is way past its time to be repealed but like you say the chances of that happening are slim to none, in reality none because of being backed by politicians in both parties.
Not all of NM is Albuqueerque.
It’s one hand washing the other. The eco nuts sue the government, and their friends in the government don’t even contest the suit, so a federal judge gives the eco nuts anything they want by default.
The state and all electoral votes went to obummer. . So did my state. But I expect that from ny.
The point is if a state votes for a Dhimmicrat the least he can do is hold off his dogs.
Having spent a year working around the Mon National Forest, I am surprised that the local ranchers did not already have the keys to the gates. While I was with FIA, and had explicit permission to have keys to most gates, it was an open secret that most of the locals who went into the Forest on a regular basis had their own keys to the gates.
Environmental groups collect massive donations and use the money to sue the government and force them to do what they want. This started over 30 years ago and judges seem to side with environmentalists against ranchers, farmers, and recreational users. Earth First was heavily involved in the beginning, now I think many of these groups are subsets of EF and they don’t use the name because many are on to their bully tactics. I would bet somewhere in the Bundy mess environmentalists sued the government, likely more than once to protect those darn turtles. It is always a different group with a different issue but I think it all goes back to the original groups that had a slogan “cattle free by 93” meaning they wanted all cattle removed from public lands by 1993 and their ultimate goal was to remove all cattle from the earth.
It's stupid. Critters become extinct and just like climate change....man's interference had "0" to do with it.
You bet your sweet bippy they do.
Have had one since at least 1989 when they sent them after me because they didn't like the way I staked my mining claims.
Then, they just had wannabe Spec Ops guys that couldn't make the grade in the military, so they went bureaucrat enforcers, with M-16s and bolt action .308s.
Now they have tanks, drones and missiles.
here we go again. The ranchers have water rights. In the West, water rights are not arbitrary to the whims of some federal revenuer. Federal infringement of water rights has driven ranchers and growers in the Central Valley (Calif) out of business and is driving the free range cattle industry western-wide out of business. Think for a minute who owns these businesses and consider that these businesses (like car dealers several years ago) are being systemically attacked. Who’s doing the attacking?
Partially true. These federal agencies start with a law, then they make up things as they go along using regulations, rules, guidelines, policy they wrote and often what they are enforcing does not even resemble the law they started with.
I have followed enough of the ranching/BLM Forest Service issues to wonder why those representing ranchers don’t argue the point of the agencies getting so far from the actual laws passed by Congress. Probably because the ranchers they lean on don’t have the money to hire a decent attorney and often even defend themselves.
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.