[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTHERN NEW
MEXICO
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
AUGUST 15, 1998, ESPANOLA, NEW MEXICO
__________
Serial No. 105-107
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-104 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa
RICK HILL, Montana ---------- ----------
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado ---------- ----------
Doug Crandall, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Jeff Petrich, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held August 15, 1998..................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Redmond, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico........................................ 5
Statements of witnesses:
Allen, Sylvia, Arizona-New Mexico Field Director, People for
the USA.................................................... 40
Bandy, Paul.................................................. 49
Braden, Dennis............................................... 52
Chacon, Charlie,............................................. 42
Chacon, Claudio.............................................. 50
Chacon, Gerald, District Director, Permittee, Cooperative
Extension Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico.................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 79
Cisneros, Porfirio........................................... 53
Cordova, David............................................... 39
Cordova, Max, President, Truchas Land Grant Association,
Chimayo, New Mexico........................................ 7
Cowan, Caren, Executive Secretary, New Mexico Cattle Growers,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.................................... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 87
De Vargas, Ike, La Madera, New Mexico........................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Eppers, Bud.................................................. 48
Estrada, Gabe, Rancher, Las Vegas, New Mexico................ 28
Hall, Jimmie, President, Production Credit Association of New
Mexico..................................................... 41
Horning, John, Executive Director, Forest Guardians, Santa
Fe, New Mexico............................................. 25
Klinekole, Bruce, Mescalero Apache Cattle Growers
Association, Mescalero, New Mexico......................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 86
Luce, Robert, General Counsel, Rio Grande Forest Products,
Inc., Espanola, New Mexico................................. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 80
Lucero, Richard, Mayor, Espanola, New Mexico................. 1
Martinez, Palemon, Secretary, Northern New Mexico Stockmen's
Association................................................ 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 90
Moore, William............................................... 44
Morales, Moises.............................................. 50
Posey, R. C.................................................. 52
Reed, Warren................................................. 46
Sanchez, David............................................... 43
Sanford, Brian............................................... 47
Smith, Carl.................................................. 46
Torrez, Ernest............................................... 45
Vigil, Jake M., Tres Piedras Carson National Forest District,
El Rito, New Mexico........................................ 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 86
Wright, Bill................................................. 42
Additional material supplied:
Estrada, Gabriel and Ray Crespin, Beaver Allotment
Permittees, prepared statement of.......................... 92
HEARING ON FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN
NORTHERN NEW MEXICO
----------
AUGUST 15, 1998
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources,
Espanola, New Mexico
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in the
Mission de San Gabriel, Number One Calle de los Espanolas,
Espanola, New Mexico, Hon. Helen Chenoweth (chairman of the
Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD LUCERO, MAYOR, ESPANOLA, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Lucero. Good afternoon. I think this is too loud. I
will try not to use it.
In northern New Mexico, bienvenidos. Mi casa es tu casa.
Welcome to our northern New Mexico. Our home is your home.
This is an official hearing before the Subcommittee of
Congress for Forest and Forest Health before Chairwoman Helen
Chenoweth and Congressman Redmond of New Mexico.
I am the mayor of the city of Espanola, and I want to
welcome all of you to our city, welcome you to this building,
and I want to tell you a little bit about it. This building was
built to commemorate 200 years of two cultures meeting 400
years ago at the junction of the Rio Grande and the Chama River
here in the Espanola Valley, a continuance of 400 years of
these two cultures and other cultures living and working
together in these valleys of Northern New Mexico.
If we study history, and we should, for whoever doesn't
know his past never has a future, and that is what we are here
to talk about, that past and that future, 400 years ago
settlers, colonizers, came to these valleys of northern New
Mexico because of what they had been told by many other
explorers that had come prior to them about the very beautiful
valleys of northern New Mexico; about the beautiful small and
large rivers of these northern New Mexico valleys; of the
beautiful people that lived here; and of the beautiful forests
that they had here to make their living.
So a group of colonizers come up the Rio Grande from
Zacatecas, Mexico, in what is now known as the Camino Real, the
Royal Highway, from that point to here, to San Juan Pueblo. If
we would have been here to greet them, we would have seen them
bringing up cat-
tle and sheep and goats and oxen. They brought them to share
with the pueblo people of these valleys and to make their
living from these domestic animals. If we would have been here
a little longer, we would have seen them sharing with the
pueblo people the many things that we have shared together for
these 400 years.
And we would have gone with them to the forest, and we
would have cut wood to bring it down here to keep warm in the
winter and to make our living. And we would have surely learned
the many herbs, the many plants in those forests that we still
bring down today as remedies for us. As a matter of fact, I
took some this morning.
So, therefore, today we have a lot to talk about and so
little time to say it. But we thank Mrs. Chenoweth for her
stand on the importance of the Forest Service continuing to
serve the people and not to lock them up.
[Applause.]
Mr. Lucero. For if the Congress of the United States was to
lock up the forests and the many grazing lands of New Mexico,
then you don't just take away from us a way in which to make
our living today, but you would take away from us history,
culture, a way of life of two great cultures that have lived
together here for over 400 years. And we will not tolerate nor
give up those rights that we have to our natural forests, to
our land that has been ours for these 400 years.
[Applause.]
Mr. Lucero. And the territory of New Mexico, which composed
in those years a little bit of Texas, a little of Colorado, a
little of Utah, all of Arizona, all of New Mexico, part of
Nevada, part of California, made the territory of New Mexico,
and from this territory of 400 years we have survived many,
many parts of this Nation's history.
And the people of this territory of New Mexico have served
in all of the wars of the United States of America beginning
with the Revolutionary War, and we are proud of that. And why
does anybody have the right, after we have fought for it so
long, to take it away from us now? It is not right. It is not
proper.
[Applause.]
Mr. Lucero. My grandfather took me to the forest many times
with the sheep, and there we shared not just the fact that we
took sheep to the forest, but we shared a camaraderie that has
lived and will live with me forever. Who has the right to take
that away from their sons? Who has the right to take that away
from the grandfather that wants to give it to his grandsons and
grandchildren? That is not right, it can never happen.
So, therefore, we have for 400 years made our life from
these lands that were ours originally and the pueblo people of
New Mexico. We must always demand that they be ours so that we
can go to the forest. We can go for many reasons to make our
livelihood in logging, to bring our wood for the winter, pick
pinon as we have for many centuries, and--I will tell you a
good one now--and go pick Chimaha. And if anybody wants to know
what Chimaha is, let me know, and I will tell you after the
meeting.
But this is what we share, and this monument is to that
history, and it will stand solid demanding that this history
will never be taken away from us, and that this history will
continue for many centuries to come.
[Applause.]
Mr. Lucero. So with those opening remarks, could we stand
and pledge allegiance to the flag.
[Pledge of Allegiance.]
Mr. Lucero. Last night on his way back from Albuquerque,
one of our great judges of New Mexico was killed in an auto
accident, Steve Herrera, and I would like to ask you for a
moment of silence in his memory.
[Moment of silence.]
Mr. Lucero. And so we come to the moment that many of us
have been looking forward to for a long time, to be able to
present to a lady, a very, very beautiful and important lady in
the Congress of the United States, who chairs this
Subcommittee, that I have a great honor to introduce her to you
and present her to you, Congresswoman, the Chairperson of the
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health. It is an honor to
introduce to you Helen Chenoweth.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Believe me, it is my honor to be
with you today in this reproduction of this very historic
building. I have a sense of spirit of Americanism here that I
rarely sense, and it is indeed a special honor for me to be
able to join you today.
So with that, we will just start the business right now.
The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health will now come to
order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
Forest Service management of national forests in northern New
Mexico. Under rule 4(G) of the Committee rules, any oral
opening statements at hearings are usually limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, and this will allow us to
get to you sooner.
I do want to depart from the usual custom, though, and I
yield to Congressman Redmond. I don't think there will be any
objection.
I am Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth from Idaho, and today's
hearing will focus on Forest Service Management of the National
Forests here in northern New Mexico. The Subcommittee is here
today at the request of Congressman Bill Redmond. He is aware
of my commitment to see that the Forest Service manages the
National Forest properly and of my deep interest in listening
to constituents who are affected by Forest Service policies.
We are here today to learn firsthand from ranchers, loggers
and other Forest Service land users about the challenges they
face on a daily basis. The ``one size fits all'' approach to
legislating does not take into account the unique cultural and
natural characteristics of this area, those characteristics
that we just heard about in such poignant terms. Today's
testimony will help respond to these unique challenges facing
this area as we deal with forestry, grazing and endangered
species legislation in the future.
In reading about northern New Mexico and talking to Bill
Redmond, I am fascinated that many people in this area ranch on
land which originated with land grants that are 400 years old.
For my own curiosity, I would like a show of hands of those in
the audi-
ence who are heirs to Mexican or Spanish land grants. Would you
please hold up your hands?
[Audience members raise hands.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. My goodness. Very interesting. It seems
very obvious to me that people who have been good stewards of
property for over 400 years have a great deal to teach the
Federal Government about land management.
I also understand that many citizens in this area do not
have access to natural gas and heat and cook in their homes
with firewood. I would like a show of hands of everyone in the
audience that heats their homes or cooks with firewood.
[Audience members raise hands.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. My goodness. Very interesting.
At today's hearing I am particularly interested in learning
more about how the endangered species status listing of the
Mexican spotted owl has affected residents of this area. Also,
I hope to learn more about the process by which the Forest
Service settled lawsuits by radical environmentalists outside
the courtroom. And it is of particular interest to me, were
ranchers and loggers involved in the negotiations? What impact
have these settlements had on public land users and on local
communities?
Today's hearings will consist of two panels. Each witness
will be given 5 minutes to give your testimony, and Congressman
Redmond will explain the way we work the mikes here.
Questioning will begin after everyone on the panel has
completed their testimony.
After our two panels have finished, the Subcommittee will
begin an open microphone session. Everyone who is interested in
speaking at these sessions should sign in on the sheet located
in the back of the room. Speakers will be allotted 2 minutes
during this session.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follos:]
Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho
Good Afternoon. I am Congressman Helen Chenoweth from
Idaho. Today's hearing will focus on Forest Service management
of the National Forests here in Northern New Mexico. The
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health is here today at the
request of Congressman Bill Redmond. He is aware of my
commitment to see that the Forest Service manages the national
forests properly and of my deep interest in listening to
constituents who are affected by Forest Service policies. We
are here today to learn, first-hand, from ranchers, loggers and
other Forest Service land-users about the challenges they face
on a daily basis. The ``one size fits all'' approach to
legislating does not take into account the unique cultural and
natural characteristics of this area. Today's testimony will
help respond to the unique challenges facing this area as we
deal with forestry, grazing and endangered species legislation
in the future.
In reading about northern New Mexico and talking to Bill
Redmond, I am fascinated that many people in this area ranch on
land which originated with land grants that are 400 hundred
years old. For my own curiosity, I would like a show of hands
of those in the audience who are heirs to Mexican and Spanish
land grants.
It seems so obvious to me that people who have been good
stewards of property for 400 years have a great deal to teach
the Federal Government about land management.
I also understand that many citizens in this area do not
have access to natural gas and heat and cook in their homes
with firewood. I would like a show of hands of everyone in the
audience that heats their home or cooks with firewood.
At today's hearing I am particularly interested in learning
more about how the endangered species status listing of the
Mexican Spotted Owl has affected residents of this area. Also,
I hope to learn more about the process by which the Forest
Service settled lawsuits by radical environmentalists outside
the courtroom. Were ranchers and loggers involved in these
negotiations? What impacts have these settlements had on public
land users and local communities?
Today's hearing will consist of two panels. Each witness
will be given five minutes to give your testimony. Questioning
will begin after everyone on the panel has completed their
testimony.
After our two panels have finished, the Subcommittee will
begin an open microphone session. Everyone who is interested in
speaking at this session should sign-in on the sheet located in
the back of the room. Speakers will be allotted two minutes
during this session.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I now yield to your Congressman Bill
Redmond for his opening statement.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL REDMOND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Redmond. Thank you, Congresswoman Chenoweth, for coming
to New Mexico today, northern New Mexico, and I want to thank
you, Mayor Richard Lucero, for being such a gracious host. I
don't think there is another person in all of northern New
Mexico who is as gracious as Mayor Lucero. Let's give him a
round of applause.
[Applause.]
Mr. Redmond. Two years ago we lost about 30,000 acres in
the Jemez Mountains with the Dome fire, and most recently, just
a couple of months ago, just weeks ago, we lost thousands of
acres again in the Jemez Forest, a fire endangering the
watershed for Santa Clara Pueblo, which is right up the road,
and it is very obvious to everyone, and it is evidence to all,
that it is time that we come to the table to discuss the
futures of our forests as they relate to the community.
I believe the quality of life in the forest is directly
linked to the quality of life in the community, and I believe
we should look at our past to see how we have been stewards of
the forests in northern New Mexico and leave the management of
the forest to the continuation of our culture in northern New
Mexico.
I believe that we should be very supportive of la tierra,
and so the purpose of this is to hear from as many people as
possible as to what suggested direction we take for the health
of our forest, and without further ado I want to explain to you
the light system.
Here on the table in front of me right at Max Cordova's
left hand--this is a demon that was invented in Washington, DC.
It looks like a traffic light, and that is exactly what it is.
Since this is an official hearing, we have to abide by the
Rules of the House of Representatives. We can't bend the rules
out here in the field. So instead of flying you all to
Washington, I believe Washington should come to you, and this
is what we have done.
[Applause.]
Mr. Redmond. So the protocol is as each of you are giving
your testimony, while the light is green, you can keep talking
and feel very comfortable that you have ample time left. As
soon as the light turns yellow, you have 60 seconds to complete
your testimony, and then when the light turns red, Erik from my
office will come and yank you out of the chair and kick you out
the front door. So since some of you know Erik, you don't want
that to happen. But the red light means that officially you
cannot continue to speak.
And then afterwards we will have an open microphone, but
for the official testimony part, we do have to go according to
the rules of the green, yellow and red lights. OK, thank you.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Congressman.
I would now like to introduce our first panel: Ike de
Vargas from La Madera, New Mexico; Max Cordova, president of
Truchas Land Grant Association, from Chimayo, New Mexico;
Gerald Chacon, district director and permittee, Cooperative
Extension Service, from Santa Fe, New Mexico; Rob Luce, general
counsel, Rio Grande Forest Products, from Espanola, New Mexico;
and Bruce Klinekole, Mescalero Apache Cattle Growers
Association, from Mescalero, New Mexico. Welcome, everyone.
As explained in our first hearing, it is the intention of
the Chair to put all outside witnesses under oath. This is a
formality of the Committee that is meant to ensure open and
honest discussion and should not affect the testimony given by
the witnesses. I believe that all of the witnesses were
informed of this procedure before the hearing today, and they
have each been provided a copy of the Committee rules.
And so if you will all stand with me and raise your right
hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now we will begin with Mr. De Vargas.
STATEMENT OF IKE DE VARGAS, LA MADERA, NEW MEXICO
Mr. De Vargas. Thank you, Chairwoman Chenoweth. Thank you,
Congressman Redmond. I am very happy to be here and be able to
testify before this Committee. I am particularly thankful to
Congressman Redmond's position that Washington should come out
to the people. I guess it doesn't surprise me a bit, because
during the period of time when we were litigating over the
amount of timber sale and the units, Congressman Redmond went
over there to some of our property, and he looked at the forest
and saw what we were talking about. So thank you very much for
that Congressman.
I am a member of a small logging and milling outfit out of
Villacito. The Villacito is a tract of land that was created by
Congress under the state yield forest land grant back in 1944.
The unit itself was created by the Secretary of the Interior in
1947.
Ostensibly it was to benefit the local people by providing
the continuous and steady flow of timber products. We in 1994
formed our co-ops and decided to start working in other areas
and try to help our local economy. We had a lot of problems
with the Forest Service from the outset. There was a great deal
of resistance to a small company getting a toll booth in our
area, and so we did it anyway. It was difficult.
The way we got our financing was that the Forest Service
promised us in a written letter that we would have 50 years at
least of timber. That was marketable and bankable for banks. So
shortly thereafter we got shut down, and we were unable to work
for a considerable amount of time. Needless to say we had
already been loaned the money. We already had a debt load we
had to deliver. It was extremely difficult given that us rural
people were not wealthy and just working out of guts basically.
The way the Endangered Species Act--specifically the
spotted owl, the Mexican spotted owl thing was especially
wrangling to us because we knew there were no animals of that
nature here. They hadn't been here historically. In fact, a
study was made in the 1830's that lasted 7 years in which in
the northern part of New Mexico only five spotted owls were
sighted. They were not even sighted, there were three sighted.
One of them was killed to study by biologists, and none have
been seen since.
So we were very perplexed that the entire region, entire
area, would be designated as critical habitat for the spotted
owl. It didn't seem appropriate because, if we are going to set
aside habitat for nonexistent owls, then we can set aside land
for anything, elephants maybe or tigers. Any endangered species
could probably be introduced in here, and if it doesn't get
designation of critical habitat, it is going to be done
arbitrarily and capriciously.
We have situations where the courts have ruled that the
Forest Service cannot proceed to enforce agreements with the
environment groups. They do it anyway. The Forest Service has
not been a good neighbor to northern New Mexico for a long
time. It is just recently that they have been starting to think
about working with us as a result of the controversy regarding
the land management years. The people are extremely resentful.
I would like to make one comment. There was a newspaper
article in which some Congressman wrote requesting to find out
from the Forest Service who was involved in environmental
groups being referred to as a McCarthy Act. The environmental
groups have ostracized other environmentalists that have had
the temerity to stand up for the community, and there are quite
a few of them.
It is amazing how bad a rap the entire environmental
community has gotten because of a few fringe groups that insist
on imposing their agenda on a people that have lived on the
land for so long and for so long to be proven to be good
stewards of that land.
[Applause.]
Mr. De Vargas. Having said that, I would just like to say
one more thing to Congressman Redmond. Thank you very much for
taking a serious look at the land grant question. That land
grant question is a question of justice for the people of
northern New Mexico. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. De Vargas. The time goes so
fast. We'll be back to you asking questions though.
[The prepared statement of Mr. De Vargas may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Max Cordova.
STATEMENT OF MAX CORDOVA, PRESIDENT, TRUCHAS LAND GRANT
ASSOCIATION, CHIMAYO, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Cordova. Madam Chairwoman, Congressman Bill Redmond,
thank you very much for the opportunity to come and speak to
you as a public witness here. I am Max Cordova of the Truchas
Land Grant in Truchas, New Mexico. Our land grant was given to
us by the Government of Spain in 1754, the Government of New
Mexico in 1829, and most recently the Government of the United
States in 1892.
This land grant and others were guaranteed under the Treaty
of Guadalupe de Hidalgo. Problems we are facing today is that
most of our successful land is now under Forest Service
management. Our right to this land is--I have documented in a
paper that is documented in archive paper 771 that goes back to
March of 1754. That paper speaks of us having access to public
land and to the forests and to the water.
In 1998, we are still very forest-dependent. Some of the
problems that we are facing today are unemployment; diminished
access to Forest Service land for fishing, for grazing for
hunting, personal use, building materials and firewood.
One of the biggest problems we are facing is poverty in the
area. Because of the poverty that we have in the area, it is my
belief that the Forest Service must walk hand in hand with us
in any policy they undertake.
The uniqueness of our land and our people is clearly
captured in the Region III policy for managing lands in
northern New Mexico. Sadly to say, this policy has yet to be
implemented in northern New Mexico.
The Mexican spotted owl, the Forest Service management
policies are having a serious affect on the health and welfare
of our communities.
In 1995, an 18-month injunction was--we went through an 18-
month injunction as a result of a lawsuit against the Forest
Service for firewood that we needed to cook our food and to
heat our homes. To add insult to injury, an agreement was
reached by these two entities, an agreement that left us out
completely of the agreement.
It is our belief that any plan that the Forest Service
brings should consider traditional and historical uses, because
the people have many ties to the land.
The unwillingness of the Forest Service to implement these
grants are happening because of the fear of lawsuits by
environmental groups. This is seriously hurting forest
restoration of our communities.
The Endangered Species Act, it is our opinion, also needs
to be revisited, not with the idea to weaken the Act, but to
strengthen the Act. Too often land-based communities are
victims of well-intentioned policies that fail to use them as
part of the ecosystem.
Second, science. Science needs to be applied to the Forest
Service. Right now the biggest thing that is recommended is
lighting a match to it. Is this really the best that we can
come up with as we restore the Forest Service lands?
In closing I would like to say that I would like to bring
the land grant issue into focus, because we are being blamed
for many wrongs in New Mexico by the Forest Service. Recently a
Forest Service supervisor from Santa Fe National Forest pointed
out in a national syndicated column that three forest service
ranger stations and many Forest Service signs have been burned
or bombed. In the same breath, he seemed to infer that land
grant people were responsible for these cowardly acts.
Although I admit to you that the actions of the Forest
Service to take away Forest Service resources from the people
has caused much dissent in northern New Mexico, but I believe
that we all want the same thing: Healthy forests, clean and
abundant water, and viable rural economies, and the fuel to
heat our homes and to continue to service.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cordova may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Gerald Chacon.
STATEMENT OF GERALD CHACON, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, PERMITTEE,
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Chacon. Thank you, Representative Chenoweth. Welcome to
New Mexico.
This year marked the 400th anniversary of livestock
production in northern New Mexico. My own family has
continuously raised livestock on our private and surrounding
lands for at least the last 168 years that we are aware of.
Each of you must clearly understand, and I am sure you are
very well aware, that most of the Carson National Forest and
the Santa Fe National Forest were all part of Spanish and
Mexican land grants. Our people have always been land-based
livestock producers with a successful history of livestock
production going back to ancestral Spain. Look on any Forest
Service map in northern New Mexico, and nearly every mountain,
stream, and spring and pasture are Spanish names and places.
Today, as in our past, we have a proud history of serving
the community and working with government, even when that same
governance took community lands for the establishment of public
domain. Still today title to much of the forest land is not
clear.
There are currently just over 2,000 families grazing on
U.S. forest and BLM land in northern New Mexico. These
permittees run on the average of less than 50 head. Eighty-
seven percent of these families are Hispanic. There are 327
families using public land for grazing in Rio Arriba County
alone.
These public lands sustain 60 percent of these ranchers'
livestock forage needs each year. Total gross receipts from all
livestock in this county range between $7.8 and $14.7 million.
This industry is very significant for a county whose population
already has a 10.7 percent unemployment rate and where 23.5
percent of the families live below the national poverty level.
There are 3.5 million total acres in this county, with 1.3
million U.S. Forest Service land, 50,000 acres of BLM land, and
647,000 acres of Indian tribal land, and 108,000 acres of State
land.
The majority of resources available for our economic well-
being come from the public lands. Access to those resources are
key to our communities' and cultures' ability to survive. The
processes that would allow continued access are largely
threatened by misinterpretation and misuse of laws and policies
originally intended to preserve and protect the environment of
these lands.
The single most disruptive force in our rural communities
today is the misuse of the Endangered Species Act and the
scores of pro-
cedures that are required to enact it. The legal interpretation
of this once well-supported law have succeeded in driving
wedges between environmental organizations, ranchers, loggers,
miners, recreation industry and the U.S. Forest Service. More
recently, cities, towns and county commissions have been forced
to defend themselves and their constituents from the never-
ending problems the Endangered Species Act creates for them.
Growing numbers of credible science organizations and
institutions seriously criticize its overall effectiveness.
Identifiable errors in the determination of what is endangered
and threatened have been identified. Wrongful determinations of
endangered and threatened status have been exposed, and some of
the records of recovery from the Act itself is seriously
questioned by the science community.
The immensity of problems and opportunities for legal
wrangling are too large to even comprehend or to ever solve.
Land-based people are doomed to a life in the courtroom. We
desperately need your help to develop law and action plans that
recover species with the involvement of land-based people, not
in spite of them.
Law and policy interpretations that remove people from the
land are sure to fail in the long run. Laws that put people
against people cannot heal the environment or the economic
status of rural communities. Law and policy of agencies which
takes rights, property, punishes, fines and incarcerates are
sure to fail in the long run. Rather, incentives for land-based
people to participate willfully in conservation efforts have
historically proved most effective.
One only has to look at what has been done working
cooperatively to recover game. Ducks, geese, wild turkeys, elk,
buffalo and many others, some of which were nearly extinct, now
thrive.
We have the science, the money and the will of the people
to accomplish anything we set our collective minds to do. The
government and the people should not expend all of our
financial, mental and physical resources to fight each other in
the courtroom. I choose to think we are smarter than that, and
when given a useful and balanced opportunity to find a way, we
will find a win for the national resources and a win for
people.
We need your help to balance the scale of opportunity.
Rural northern New Mexicans cannot outspend national
environmental organizations within the endless streams of
financial and legal resources. Poor science, laws without
clarity and policy interpreted by the whim of any individual
without consideration for people will only worsen our
situation.
The more than $2 billion spent by agencies since 1990 for
recovery would have gone a long way to diversify forest
habitats had we allowed for sustained timber harvest, thinned
overcrowded forests, developed watering for livestock and
wildlife, used prescribed burns, controlled brushy species and
otherwise enhanced wildlife habitat. Currently we lose 1
percent of our forest ecosystem grasslands each year due to
encroachment of trees in the Santa Fe and Carson National
Forest. Catastrophic fires consume forest resources and budgets
of the agencies who fight them.
Paperwork, hearings, budget, documentation, notification
are the business of government agencies these days. No longer
is range science, forestry, soil science, wildlife science and
recreation the business of the Forest Service.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chacon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chacon may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Rob Luce.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT LUCE, GENERAL COUNSEL, RIO GRANDE FOREST
PRODUCTS, INC., ESPANOLA, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Luce. Madam Chairwoman, Congressman Redmond, my name is
Robert Luce. I am here today representing Rio Grande Forest
Products, which is located here in Espanola.
On behalf of Rio Grande, we would like to thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony today on such a critical
issue, but especially for bringing Washington to Espanola. It
is very, very difficult for us to take our message back, and we
appreciate all of your efforts and thank you very much for that
opportunity.
Rio Grande operates the largest sawmill in the State of New
Mexico. The mill has been located here in Espanola for over 20
years. We employ approximately 100 people and estimate that
over 1,000 families are dependent upon Rio Grande in some way,
either through logging, delivering logs or whatever.
The logs we process are harvested from public and private
lands as well as tribal lands. We do not endorse so-called
clear-cutting. We do not strip the land of every manufacturable
tree. All of our logging operations are managed by three
graduate and professional foresters.
The best way for all of us to evaluate whether our current
policy is actually working or not is to actually go out into
the forest and look. Unfortunately we can't do that today, so I
did the next best thing. I brought some photographs for you.
What I would like to do is show you the difference between a
well-managed forest that is occurring on private land versus
what we are seeing in the Federal arena.
The first photographs that I have for you, photograph No. 1
was taken at White Mountain Apache Reservation. This shows a
stand of ponderosa pine with overstory, a vigorous stand of
young pine regenerated between the seed trees. Broadcast
burning removes the competitive vegetation and allows young
trees and native grass to establish and thrive.
If you look in photograph No. 2, this is what we are seeing
on unmanaged land: Typical young stands of blackjack ponderosa
pine, dense crown closure preventing grass seedlings and
growth. The smaller trees in the background would carry
wildfire from crown to crown. Notice in the bottom portion of
the photograph that there is no grass and no seedlings growing.
Fort Apache has been managing the forest since the 1950's.
At that time they estimated 1 billion board feet of timber in
the early 1950's. For the past 30 years they have cut 30 to 50
million board feet of timber annually. The BIA estimates today
are 100 billion board feet after 30 years of cutting.
The controlled burning and the selected harvesting has
reduced the risk of fire there, and when you contrast that
situation with the next photos, especially photo No. 4, which
is the Hondo Complex fire near Questa, the result is the
possibility to have regeneration and growth for years, not lose
valuable timber and prevent forest fires like occurred at
Hondo.
So the challenge for us today is to decide which way we
want to go. Do we want to manage our forest as like has
occurred at White River, or do we want to continue on with no
thinning, no controlled burning and then suffer the
consequences of the situation that occurred at Hondo and some
of the other fires we have had recently.
To make matters worse, at Hondo--I want to make sure I get
these numbers correct for you--the Forest Service estimates
that 7,700 acres of timber was burned in that fire. Carson
National Forest estimates approximately 4.1 million feet of
timber was lost. After 2 years, there have been six small
salvage sales prepared and less than 10 percent of that volume,
and only three have been sold and one of the salvages
harvested. Our mistakes in letting trees burn and letting
national forest burn is by then prohibiting people from
salvaging that timber that otherwise is rotting and becoming
bug-infested.
I am used to these little clocks here.
In closing what I would like to do is challenge each of to
you take these photographs back to Washington and have your
colleagues look at the pictures and have them answer these two
questions: Does our current land management policy protect the
living forest, or does it actually promote the waste of the
renewable resource; and second, has the current land management
policy reduced the risks of wildfire, or has it actually
increased the risks of environmental degradation.
We believe there is a better way. Our view is to follow the
example that is being set by the White Mountain Apache Tribe
and other privately managed forests if we are truly interested
in doing the best possible job of managing several timberlands
and Forest Service for everyone. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Luce.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Luce may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Bruce Klinekole.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE KLINEKOLE, MESCALERO APACHE CATTLE GROWERS
ASSOCIATION, MESCALERO, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Klinekole. Before I want to say to my brothers behind
me, I don't want to turn my back on you, but this is the way
they set us up.
First of all, I want to welcome you, Congressman and
Chairwoman, to New Mexico from all Native Americans here in New
Mexico.
Again, touching on Mr. Rob Luce's valid point, this is what
we are doing on the Mescalero Reservation in the southern part
of New Mexico. We are doing the same thing with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the Department of Interior.
We do kind of touch on Mr. Luce's comment on clear-cuts. We
do that when we have a lot of diseased trees in order to cut
back. That is the only time we have that. We have crews that
thin out and come right behind it to thin out and put grass
seed back on top of that.
On our reservation in Mescalero, which is located in south
central New Mexico, we have close to 4,000 head of cattle we
run on our reservation. We have big game hunts. We have every
kind of animal on our reservation, even the spotted owl. We
contend with those, too.
But kind of touching on other things, we do prescribe burn
during the wintertime. We don't burn during the summer. We run
pipelines, we develop a lot of our springs, and we run
pipelines and storage tanks for all of our cattle. When all of
these animals are moving around the forest, it breaks up the
forest up and moves the ground around, and here comes the
grass. We have real lush, grassy vegetation.
That photo number 1, that is the way our forest looks in
Mescalero compared to the one to the south of us as well as to
the north of us. The forest land is so crowded, there is
nothing under it. The squirrels and chipmunks have nothing to
run on, they have nothing to play on except the dry dirt.
Compared to what we have in the first photo there, that is
basically what we have because we have thinning crews. We have
two or three crews that go out and thin the trees out.
As far as the tree cutting, we are planning for the future.
We cut little trees here and there, but we don't cut them all
down. We leave the big trees. We leave different ones in
different places, and we also cut our mature trees. Those that
are prone to lightning we cut down because they are
structurally too big, and we need to cut them down.
Again, mentioning our prescribed burns, you mentioned
prescribed burns. Before we burn an area, we let our Tribal
Council and tribal people know. We go in there and let the
people cut everything that is in there, whatever they want;
juniper, oak, whatever they want, they go in there and cut it,
and then we come in with another crew, and they pile all the
brush up, and then we burn it. But this is to make clear for
grazing land for wildlife as well as our cattle.
So again, we sell fence posts. We put the firewood back
into our homes. I would say maybe 65 percent of our people in
Mescalero burn on the ground and pine. So we use the land.
One of the things I wanted to touch on is every year we
have a coming of age ceremony, and almost approximately 500
trees are cut down for personal use. Each one of these trees
are prayed for by medicine men as well as me. When my daughter
was coming of age, we prayed for these trees. We are saying,
Creator, thank you for these trees. And then when we cut them
down, we put that back; not give it back to the people, to the
Creator. We have to give it back to him to hide from the wind,
to hide from the rain. So that is why we say thank you.
Again, the forest, as you know, as everybody knows, it
takes a long time to regenerate, but we are planning our
situation to where when my great-great-grandchildren are here,
hopefully they will see I have planted many, many trees.
And in summary, I would say, again, our wildlife and cattle
live in harmony with each other.
And, Mr. Mayor, I want to comment on one little thing you
said. We need to make time. He said we don't have time. We need
to make time so we can talk about our problems and let us hear
what is going on.
I invite you all to come down to Mescalero. The only thing
is you have to have reservations.
[Laughter and applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Bruce. That was
outstanding testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Klinekole may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The way we do things in these congressional
hearings, I will yield first to Mr. Redmond for his questions.
Mr. Redmond. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I am going to go down the line here with some questions we
have developed in listening to your testimony.
Mr. Vargas, could you tell us a little more about the
Forest Service letter that insured 50 years of use of the
forest and how that came about to be denied?
Mr. Vargas. Well, it was kind of strange because they first
would not allow us to become designated operators in order to
buy timber. At that time we were logging, subcontracting lumber
for Duke City Lumber.
The Forest allowed for the local people to get so many
board feet of actual lumber per year for their own operations.
They had a pretext that if we didn't have an existing sawmill,
we couldn't be designated as saw timber operators. It was
simply a pretext to keep us out of the forest. We had to
litigate that with the Forest Service.
Mr. Redmond. Thank you, Ike.
Max, on the Region III policy, managing national forest
land in northern New Mexico, how much can the Forest Service
improve the policy?
Mr. Cordova. We feel it is a good policy and it speaks to
the people of northern New Mexico. Right now the policy is, we
are told--is philosophical in that is doesn't have any teeth to
it. Basically what we would like to see is that the Forest
Service use this as the oil for managing the lands we have here
in northern New Mexico.
It is a good policy. It has a future, but it hasn't been
implemented.
Mr. Redmond. OK. When Chairwoman Chenoweth and I go back to
Washington, what can we recommend to put teeth in the policy?
Mr. Cordova. Well, for one thing, we would like to see it
be a part of the Region III Forest Service plan. You really
have to look at the policy to understand what it is really
saying. It speaks of conditions, it speaks of vision, and it
speaks also of consequences if it is not implemented, and I
think those consequences are what have us at this hearing
today.
Mr. Redmond. Can you identify some of those consequences?
Mr. Cordova. One of the things the policy does is it speaks
of the people as being a resource, also to be considered a
resource in the land.
It also speaks that the Forest Service must direct its
efforts into preservation of the Spanish American and Native
American cultures. The policy basically is--it is a good
policy. It needs to be implemented. The policy was done in
1968, 1972, and here we are 1998, and it is still not being
implemented by the Forest Service.
Mr. Redmond. Thank you.
Mr. Chacon, what would you specifically recommend to
improve forest health?
Mr. Chacon. Very simply there are a number of different
practices that we know are very useful in terms of correcting
the problems we have with forest health, and that is many of
the things that were addressed here by all of the individuals
on this panel, primarily allowing for a sustained type of
timber harvest.
We have to thin many of the smaller stands of timber, in
order to relieve the amount of fuel and provide for materials
and things that are necessary for people to make a living here.
The other thing that we have here that is a major problem
in this particular area, we have some brushy species, and in
order to reduce the fire, historically we have to get a brush
management plan established specifically for the big sagebrush,
gamble oak, primarily the ones that are causing significant
problems for us and are part of the--what are causing the
reduction of the amount of grasslands we have in our forests.
We have to restore a portion of our forest to a grassland as
was historically the way it was.
Mr. Redmond. Do you have anything more you want to say?
Mr. Chacon. Basically the other thing is over the last 20
years or so, people have been removed from me being able to get
input to the Forest Service for what needs to happen in their
surrounding communities. The Forest Service can't have an
advisory committee because of Federal law that prevents those
sorts of things, so we have to dance around the issues of
having advisory access to the Forest Service that would help us
to address some of these things.
So we really need to get the communities involved in the
management of public lands as we had a couple of decades ago.
We don't have community forests the way we did in the past.
The people know what to do. They have lots of ideas. We do
need recurring funds in order to invest back in the land. We
only get one-fourth of our grazing fee comes back to the
district in order to do range improvements, and it is hardly a
pittance of dollars that can't go far enough in terms of what
needs to be done; a higher portion of that or other benefits in
order to have a working amount of money so that we can do some
things on the land and not just let it sit.
Mr. Redmond. One of the things that you pointed out was not
enough access for review and for input. Would you--let me see a
show of hands of people who would like to see something like
this, an annual review of policy so the people have more access
to the policy as it is written in Washington?
[Audience members raise hands.]
Mr. Redmond. Mr. Klinekole, a couple of questions. Thank
you for the invitation. We will make reservations before we
come.
Mr. Klinekole. We have an 800 number.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Redmond. Some would argue that because tribal lands are
not regulated to the same degree as public lands, that you are
not subjected to such programs as the ESA and Clean Water Act.
Do you believe there will be a time when environment leaders
will seek to control tribal lands?
Mr. Klinekole. I hope not. We have a trust responsibility
with the Government of the United States of America, and it is
too sad to say that we were--I hate to say this--but we were
here, and then to have the U.S. Government go against trees
which were given to us in the 1800's, and then they put us on
little allotments on little reservations.
Ulysses S. Grant, who gave us the reservation back in 1855,
he didn't know it, but he gave us a little bit of heaven. We
have a lot of pastures, a lot of timber, we have a lot of
water, we have snow, we have every kind of recreation that you
can imagine, even a casino. I hope and pray that this doesn't
happen to us Native Americans.
Again, getting back to something, that it is the trust
responsibility. Everybody else is having problems with their
lands, their private property. I feel for them. But me as a
Native American, I feel very sad, especially for my great-
grandchildren, if someday they can see that this used to be
ours, but now this is not ours no more. This belongs to people
who came from across the ocean, you know.
And that is what makes me sad. I hope that this does not
happen, but it could. It is around the corner. We can't dodge
it, but with your help and, Chairwoman, with your help, I am
sure maybe we can resolve this in a good way. Like I say, we
have to make time.
Mr. Redmond. I was just wondering, looking at the photos
and hearing your testimony, in your dealings with the Forest
Service officials and employees, and they look at how you
manage compared to how other lands are managed, do they ever
wish they could manage the lands the way that you manage the
lands, or do they talk to you about, gee, we wish you would
come to Santa Fe and show us how to do that?
Mr. Klinekole. Well, one thing I have to kind of say is I
do not directly work with the Forest Service, I mean with the
tribal lands. I live on the reservation. We have a good
communication on our reservations. We know what is going on. We
can see it. When there is a problem, we have that right to talk
up. We don't petition. We come together and we talk about
things, and we say, this is not right, and we take it to the
Tribal Council, and they talk it over, and we go back.
Again, this is not United States Forest Service. We are
talking about the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of
Interior that we deal with. We are different. But again, we
have had really good luck with that particular division or
Department of Interior, Babbitt--is that Babbitt? We have been
having good luck with him lately.
But again, the people are agency foresters who are on the
reservation. They are hired by the council, they are outside
people, they are Anglos and they are Spanish. They are not
Indian. There are only two or three Native Americans right now
on the Forestry who are in that particular field now, who are
graduating college.
But in the long run, hopefully we can get enough Native
Americans in there where we can run our own reservation the way
we want to. Hopefully the U.S. Government will not take that
land away from us. That is all we own right now. That is the
only territory we have got.
So we have to hold on to what we have got. If there is any
discrepancy as to why we can't take care of the land, I don't
know how they can say we don't deserve that land when we take
care of it. We do the best we can. We develop our springs. We
provide fences for our cattle to graze in different sections.
We have cut the timber as to what is needed.
Again, getting to back to what my fellow brothers here have
said, our fire reduction is way down, because when you have
little kindlings, it just keeps getting higher and higher, and
when you have grass on the bottom, there is really nothing
there to worry about. We take care of that. We have a very,
very low fire danger. We don't have that problem of crowning
anymore because of the things we have done with the forest. We
worked them.
I hope that answered your questions.
Mr. Redmond. OK, thank you.
That concludes my questions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Klinekole, what do you think the
environmentalists with whom you are involved in the reservation
lands--do they comment to you; do they make it public?
Mr. Klinekole. No, we have not had any problems. We don't
see them very much there. Like I said, you have to have a
reservation. In a way that is a joke, but it is true. We don't
let anybody on our reservation. You just don't go on the
reservation when you feel like it. You have to go through the
council and ask permission, and you are escorted in because
that is our land.
So, therefore, we do not allow any environmentalists on our
land. This is again what we want.
[Applause.]
Mr. Klinekole. This is what Ulysses S. Grant, back in 1855,
provided us with this little heaven down there in south central
New Mexico.
Again, to answer your question, I sincerely hope and pray
that this is kept like it is because that is all we have. We
don't have the land that we used to, the Mescalero Apache.
Again, we used to go from Arizona all the way up through Las
Cruces, all the way down to Texas and all the way down
Arkansas. That was our homelands. But now we are just put on a
little reservation, which is a beautiful place. No problem. We
have enough land try to work with anyway.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Klinekole, how have the Mescalero
Apaches dealt with the Endangered Species Act? How in the world
could you deal with a Mexican spotted owl without the
imposition of the Endangered Species Act? How do you do it?
Mr. Klinekole. This book here is--and I am sure it is
available--it is called the Mescalero Timber Trust. I was
looking at it when I was in my van a while ago, kind of
documenting things, because it is made for our future
generations. It tells a history of all of our people as well as
all the sawmills, as well as all the cutting that we have done
from the 1800's to now--well, I take that back, back to 1981
when this book was published. When this book was published in
1981, you look at the index, there is no such things as a
Mexican spotted owl.
[Applause.]
Mr. Klinekole. The only thing that is listed in the index
is the Mexican pine, and they talk about the Mexican ponderosa
pine in this book, and that is the only thing they talk about.
So when did this Mexican spotted owl come onto our reservation?
I don't know when this came in, you know. We don't know.
Again, this thing is written from the 1800's to 1981, and
it does not mention no environmental group, it does not mention
nobody, no spotted owl, so I don't know where it came from.
Thank you, Ike, for that.
I got that off Ike because he mentioned it. As far as he
knows, he doesn't remember seeing any Mexican spotted owl
either.
But anyway, getting back to that, if we do find any spotted
owls, our foresters, we have a buffer zone of 100 acres just to
contend so we won't be in violation of anything, but we do--
that is the only thing we have. We have around the habitat of
the spotted owl of 100 acres, that is all.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you know of any books that were
published before 1980 that mention the Mexican spotted owl?
Mr. Klinekole. I can't.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do any of you know of references published
before 1980?
Mr. Vargas. There was a study done in 1940, I believe, it
was a specific study on spotted owls, and they found them in
Salinas, New Mexico, and Arizona, and they found two pairs, two
of them in the Jemez Mountains. They heard one in Santa Fe, and
they saw two in Taos. They killed one of them, and they did
some studies. And they went back and they didn't find them, and
so the conclusion was they were basically out of their range,
they were just passing through. None of them have been found. I
have a copy of it. I would be happy to mail it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would be very interested if you would
like to do it.
Mr. Vargas. I would like to mail it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
Bruce, before we leave you, do you have anything else you
would like to add?
Mr. Klinekole. There was a poster that my friend--I am
sorry, I have forgotten his name, I am real bad with names.
That is how come they put this here in front of you. Anyway he
had a little poster of Sitting Bull and of something that
pertained that you promised us many things, and now you are
trying to take it away; is that right?
Mrs. Chenoweth. That's right. ``The government has made us
many promises.'' Sitting Bull said this to a joint session of
the U.S. House and Senate. Sitting Bull said it as he addressed
that joint session. ``The government has made us many promises
and never kept but one. You promised to take our land, and you
took it.''
Mr. Klinekole. I think that's my last comment, and I thank
you for showing me that. I remember seeing, but I forgot all
about it. There are some things that I see and hear, and this
little guy up here can't comprehend them. And I thank everybody
for being patient of what I have said, and hopefully I left
with a good feeling with everybody. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Ike, I have some questions for you, and then I will work my
way back to Rob Luce.
You mentioned that there was one spotted owl that was
killed, and that is the only one that has been brought forth in
this area?
Mr. Vargas. That has been captured and killed, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Have there been any sightings, or I guess
they hoot from one another, and so there have been hearings and
not sightings; is that right?
Mr. Vargas. That is correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Have there been any sightings at all?
Mr. Vargas. Not that I am aware of.
One of the things that really bothers me about these
endangered species, the hysteria that surrounds it, is that
sometime back when we were logging the Villa Grande timber
sale, there was a big to-do about the peregrine falcon being an
endangered species, and if we see one, we are going to shut
down your timber sale and so forth. It was very funny because
about a week after that, I read a newspaper where there was a
peregrine falcon nesting on the 10th floor in Kansas City, and
now we are talking about--I guess maybe they could move out of
Kansas City and make room for a habitat for peregrine falcons
there, but those are the kinds of things that just don't make
sense to us around here.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It doesn't.
In your written testimony you talk about the assault on the
customs and cultures and the traditions of this area by the
extreme environmental groups. You made a comment in your oral
statement that the extremists are giving environmental groups a
bad name.
Mr. Vargas. Well, I didn't finish that part of my
testimony. I was trying to get to something that happened.
There have been a number of what I consider to be true
environmentalists, people like ourselves that have people in
the equation. Some of these people have stepped forward and
been very severely attacked by these fringe groups. One of the
environmental folks that I wanted to mention, he is Professor
Wilkerson from the Colorado School of Law, and he wrote a paper
taking a stand demanding that Hispanic people who are forest-
dependent have more access, so forests should be made to their
benefit. He was immediately attacked nationwide by
environmental centers and the National Wildlife Federation, and
they tried to get him kicked off of that Board.
So when I read that article about McCarthyism, they were
leaking the confidential forest documents to the
environmentalists, it was very strange to me because I have
seen the attacks they have launched against their own people
simply because they don't agree with them.
There is no democracy in environment, in the extreme
environmental community, none at all. You cannot speak up, or
you will be maligned. There is a lady in here who is also a
nationally known environmentalist, and if she wants to speak,
she can do so herself, but they sent e-mail all across the
country accusing her of having a financial interest in our
logging company here in Villacitos. It is just a whole lot of
lies and vicious attacks that are engaged in by these groups.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do those environmentalists have a long
history of living and working in this area?
Mr. Vargas. Some do. Some do. As a matter of fact, some of
the most rabid environmentalists that are now raised in Santa
Fe actually lived in our villages here in northern New Mexico.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How do they differ from the indigenous
people that you have discussed in your oral and written
testimony?
Mr. Vargas. I think that most of them consider themselves
to be superior to the locals. I believe that one of the reasons
that they don't want to see large trees cut is because they
consider them to be giants in the forest, and since they
consider themselves to be giants among men, they want to
preserve them.
That is kind of what I see coming from these people. They
are very elitist. They look down on the locals. They think they
are ignorant and dumb, and that is kind of the attitude most of
these people have toward the locals.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you sense they are very tolerant with
the people?
Mr. Vargas. I don't sense any tolerance whatsoever. In
fact, when one of these environmentalists from the Forest
Guardians was asked how he dealt with the Endangered Species
Act and in the context of the cultural diversity in northern
New Mexico, his response was that biocentrism and ecology have
a higher level than any culture or any custom.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Biocentricity of the ecology, can you
define that?
Mr. Vargas. No, I can't.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Ike. I really appreciate your
contribution.
Max Cordova, your testimony pleads for people to be self-
reliant. With the national forest and tribal lands producing
more timber, what type of economic opportunities would be
created to make citizens more self-reliant, and also could you
state for the record the average annual income of these
citizens in this county?
Mr. Cordova. When I look at the Forest Service, I look at
the national forest, I look at opportunities to create economic
development for our communities through all of the resources
that the Forest Service has.
One of the most interesting problems that I see is that in
Santa Fe, for example, they use more fuel wood for aesthetic
value than we do to heat our homes, especially in Santa Fe
where they have natural gas and electricity and a lot of those
things.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Aesthetic values like?
Mr. Cordova. Keep a little fireplace to create the
atmosphere. Not necessary for----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ambiance.
Mr. Cordova. Yes. I do people's income taxes, and I am
always surprised at how people survive. Our income, the income
of most of the people that I do taxes for, is under $12,000.
Mrs. Chenoweth. $12,000?
Mr. Cordova. There are some people living on incomes much
lower than that, around $7,000. So as you can see, they can't
afford butane, for example. The Federal Government has a
program called Energy Assistance, and the people usually get a
little bit of help in paying their electric bills or being able
to buy a load of wood or stuff like that.
When we were engaged with environmental, one of the things
they said was we needed better stoves, more weather ventilation
and solar. It is fine and dandy, because where is it going to
come from? I feel that we need to engage with the Federal
Government and State government and the Forest Service in doing
those things like putting more insulation in our homes.
Some of our stoves are pretty old, maybe 20 to 40 years
old, but our idea is don't tell us what the problem is, help us
find a solution to it. It doesn't take anybody to point out
problems. It takes special people to find solutions. That is
the only thing we ask. We ask to help us find solutions, Forest
Service, environment groups and communities also.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Solve their own problems rather than the
problems created for them.
Mr. Cordova. Oh, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Cordova.
Mr. Chacon, besides Mexican spotted owl, what other
endangered species are causing conflicts in rural communities?
Mr. Chacon. The major concern we have is the willow
flycatcher. There is concern, and it is about to impact several
different allotments where willow flycatchers' habitat has been
discovered and are listed. And essentially what is liable to
happen is the removal of livestock from some of those areas.
There has been some allotments in Taos County to the--just to
the nearest neighbor here in Rio Arriba County, that will be
directly affected by this, so resolution to the problem has not
been discovered yet as to what will happen, but certainly if
they are restricted from these areas here, certainly that will
impact those, and the cattle are going to have to be removed.
Mrs. Chenoweth. One of you, either Mr. Cordova or you,
Gerald, have done some studying on the history of this area and
history of law relating to this area where the Congress has
dealt very specifically in the past with your rights, the
rights that came into being even before New Mexico became a
State. Do you have a pencil? I want you to note a Supreme Court
decision entitled Sunol v. Hepburn. It was decided by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1850.
If you take that case and then start working up, it is a
fascinating history, and there is so much strength that you do
have in the law. The only problem is these people are being
harassed enormously, and the resources are drying up, and they
cannot compete with the Federal Government, who has a never-
ending resource of litigation and Federal lawyers they like to
keep employed.
But I understand that. I understand your rights to
petition. There are more and more Congressmen like your
Congressman, Bill Redmond, who understand that. We are working
together, and we are working very, very hard to be able to
right the wrongs that have been made not by the law, not even
necessarily by the Congress, but by assertion and lack of
regard for your private property rights, rights that are
antecedent.
So that is why that Supreme Court decision is so very
interesting, and so work with that as a linchpin both up and
back.
Rob Luce, it is so good to see you. It is so good to see
another Idahoan. You know, it always amazes me that--what is
absolutely clear and accurate to anyone, the difference between
a well-managed forest and a forest that isn't managed at all,
and how much better the forest health is in a well-managed
forest, how people work better in well-managed forests than
that forest that was not cared for.
Why do we keep seeing such a disconnect? In your
experience, Rob, in working with the environmental community in
this area, why do you think we see such a disconnect in reason
and logic, what sight tells us?
Mr. Luce. Well, for me it is difficult to see, because the
contrast is so striking. What I have come up against--and I can
use an example in southern Colorado to perhaps at least
illustrate what is happening, but may not answer the question.
We have a major private logging operation that is occurring
near San Luis. Regularly that particular operation gets visited
by a number of different environmental groups. Sometimes the
encounters are not much more than sign-holding and name-
calling, and other times it has escalated.
My feeling is that the people that are protesting and that
have difficulty with that particular sale are not informed as
to what is going on, and that they are under the impression
from somewhere that clear-cutting is occurring, that mudslides
and water degradation follow, and that logging needs to be
stopped there.
We have attempted to use photographs. We have made
offerings to take certain groups up there on the mountain to
see what is going on. But it appears to me to be a situation
where photographs and the actual physical site doesn't seem to
matter. The fringe groups are ignoring science and won't even
listen to their own experts that this is good logging and good
forest practices. Apparently they are bent on the idea that
they would rather see brown dirt after brown dirt and mudslide
after mudslide.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Rob, you mentioned that the Apache
Reservation had an annual harvest of 450 to 100 million board
feet, estimates of standing timber voluntarily of 100 billion
board feet. How can this be in such an arid area as this?
Mr. Luce. It is being managed well, to essentially log for
30 years and end up with what you started with.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So they are logging according to what we
are supposed to be logging, and the 90 percent of mortality,
correct?
Mr. Luce. Correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And brings the sustained yield to what we
see evidenced there, correct?
Mr. Luce. That is also occurring in Mescalero there.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Good work.
Well, gentlemen, I have learned a lot from you, and I know
I've kept you a long time, but this is important, and we will
be able to analyze it.
I would like to turn the mike back over to Congressman
Redmond.
Mr. Redmond. One of the things that I couldn't help but
notice sitting in this historic building is that we have
representatives from all three racial and ethnic groups working
in harmony, and, Mayor, when we unveiled the stamp here 4 or 5
months ago, this is what we prayed for, a stamp of bringing all
three cultures to address the issues we all face together. So I
want to thank you all.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your
contributions.
I want to call to the witness table Jake Vigil, Tres
Piedras Carson National Forest District of El Rito, New Mexico;
John Horning, Executive Director, Forest Guardians, from Santa
Fe, New Mexico; Kieran Suckling, Executive Director for the
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, Arizona; Caren
Cowan, Executive Secretary, New Mexico Cattle Growers,
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Gabe Estrada, rancher from Las Vegas,
New Mexico; Palemon Martinez, Secretary, Northern New Mexico
Stockmen's Association, from Valdez, New Mexico.
Is Kieran Suckling here?
So with that, if the witnesses will please stand and raise
your right hands to be sworn.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Jake Vigil, I understand you are going
to give your testimony in Spanish?
Mr. Vigil. It is not that I don't know English, but I would
like to speak in Spanish, if you allow me to give it. It will
be interpreted.
STATEMENT OF JAKE M. VIGIL, TRES PIEDRAS CARSON NATIONAL FOREST
DISTRICT, EL RITO, NEW MEXICO
[Testimony was given in Spanish; English translation
follows.]
Mr. Vigil. Good afternoon. My name is Jake M. Vigil. I am
representing the Tio Gordito Cattle Association. I want to
thank the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health and
Chairperson Chenoweth for allowing me the opportunity to
testify to this oversight hearing. I would also like to thank
Congressman Bill Redmond for bringing this important hearing to
Espanola, New Mexico. It is my hope some good will come from my
testimony.
Make no mistake, I love the forest dearly. I do not want to
see it harmed in any way. At the same time, I do not want to
see the destruction of our culture and customs.
Please forgive me, I am not an educated man. All of my life
has been spent on making a living in the Carson National Forest
in the Tres Piedras District raising sheep and cattle with my
father.
It is important you understand that I know the forest and I
know it very well. My family, the Vigils, settled Medanales in
the early 1600's and tamed the tierra cimarrone, or wild lands.
As a young boy my father would take me to the high sierras for
summer to herd sheep. Those were the happiest days of my life.
Sadly, over the years I have noticed a decline in the health of
the forest, not because of sheep and cattle--years ago we
grazed more livestock than they do today. But because of
inappropriate Forest Service policies and the implementation of
so-called environmental reforms, my beloved land is suffering.
We have bent over backward to work with the Forest Service.
This year we have already given up 23 days of grazing time on
our permits due to what was referred to as production decline.
We may possibly lose up to another 30 to 60 days at the end of
the season due to a policy called 40-60 utilization. This is a
policy, derived from a formula dreamed up by the Forest Service
and environmentalists behind closed doors, that dictates
utilization of 40 percent of the forage, and 60 percent is left
behind. Because of this ridiculous policy, 42 families will be
affected, and 3,000 head of cattle will be forcibly removed
from the Carson National Forest.
What I find interesting is that years ago we ran more
livestock, and the forest looked better than it does today. I
believe it is due to the fact that Forest Service has invested
so much money fighting the environmentalists in court, and so
little is left for range improvements. I can hardly blame the
Forest Service for making deals with environmentalists. It is
obviously cheaper to strike a deal than it is to fight someone
in court. Unfortunately, the cheap way out is not good for
forest health, and it will ultimately mean the end of the
Hispano culture.
With me today are five pictures I want you to see. One will
detail a grazed area, and the other is a nongrazed area. All of
the pictures are taken from my ranch: Number 1 is a boundary
fence between my Forest Service permit and private land. The
one on the left side has never been grazed, and the right has
had livestock on it since 1958. You will notice the right has
many more different plants, while the left is nothing but
sagebrush.
Number 2 and 3 are areas adjacent to each other. You will
notice the abundant vegetation in photograph 2, while the space
represented in photograph 3 could never support any livestock
or wildlife or livestock whatsoever.
Picture number 4 demonstrates the vegetation left behind
when we left this pasture in July 28, 1998. Number 5 is an area
cattle and wildlife never go because of the canopy under which
nothing grows.
I am always amazed that never once has an environmentalist
consulted me or my neighbors, and certainly never has one asked
to see our ranches. I might add, none of us has ever been
invited to one of their meetings.
Environmentalists have the financial resources to try and
make the forests into some idea of what they think the forests
should look like. They do not realize grazing and logging are
good for the land. As far as I am concerned, radical
environmental groups are racist and are out to rid the forests
of these Hispano by destroying our livelihood. The Forest
Service, with approval from environ-
mental groups, spends millions of dollars each year to recover
artifacts and restore ruins. I guess a culture has to be dead
for 1,000 years before we try to save it.
Again, thank you for your invitation. I hope I have done
some good.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Vigil, I do want to say please forgive
me for not pronouncing your name properly. Being an English
person that I am and Welsh, I just speak English and understand
it better. But I do understand your heart, and that testimony
and those pictures just spoke volumes to me. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vigil may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Horning, before you testify, I want to
thank the Forest Guardians for participating in this hearing
rather than boycotting it. I really do appreciate you and have
a great deal of respect for the fact that you would come and
give your testimony. It indicates to me that you do have a
desire to try to work things out, and so I look forward to your
testimony, Mr. Horning.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HORNING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOREST
GUARDIANS, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Horning. Thank you, Chairwoman Chenoweth,
Representative Redmond, good afternoon. My name is John
Horning. I am a resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and I direct
Forest Guardians Watershed Protection Program.
I have lived in Santa Fe and worked for Forest Guardians
for 4 years. Like many people all over the Western United
States, I am not originally from the West, I am not originally
from New Mexico. I moved here from somewhere else. But
regardless of where I am from, I am a deedholder, just like all
of us, to the public land of New Mexico.
Although much of New Mexico is arid, we are still blessed
with hundreds of miles of backwood streams and rivers. The Rio
Guadalupe, the Rio Chalupas, these are some of the streams of
northern New Mexico. I have walked and seen literally hundreds
of river miles all over the State.
These streams and the forests that grow along them,
riparian habitat, although they represent only about 1 percent
of the land, are critical for all of us. The habitat grazing
plan severely damaged these lands, degraded watersheds and
rivers and clean water, and harmed fish and wildlife in the
underlying areas for the willow flycatcher, the yellow cuckoo
bird, the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, the lesser prairie
chicken, the sage grouse. The list could go on and on. These
are the animals that are on the brink of extinction primarily
as a result of years and years of livestock grazing.
I don't want to dwell on this fact, but I will share one
quote that is significant not because it highlights this long-
standing problem, but because it highlights another more
serious problem that I will address momentarily. This is from a
report in the early 1990's: There are still millions of acres
of land and thousands of miles of stream courses that remain in
an unsatisfactory condition. Extreme site areas, instead of
being lush grasses in the hot, dry desert, hot, dry climate,
are void of vegetation and frequently as dry as the upbrink.
This quote is from a report that never saw the light of
day, suppressed because the Forest Service and/or the Livestock
Industry conspired to hide the bitter and ugly truth in it.
For those of you who may wonder why Forest Guardians has
resorted and continues to resort to litigation to address
livestock grazing on public lands, the answer has to do with
Federal land management and that they continually ignore their
responsibility to manage the land with the interest of all of
the American public in mind. The answer to why we resort to
litigation is also in part because of Congressman Don Young's
well-publicized recent letter to Forest Service officials and
because of hearings like today. Both of these events
communicate to the ranching community in particular that it can
exist outside and above the law.
These events conspire to put the Western wildstock even
more out of touch with the boundaries of the American public
who want wildlife and clean water to be the highest priority of
public lands. Hearings like these do nothing but communicate to
the livestock industry the inevitable fact that it must change
and accept that it will have a smaller piece and sometimes no
piece of the pie on public lands. Instead they will search to
reinforce the livestock industry pattern of denial that grazing
creates environment and ecological problems.
Although the ranchers all over the West love to blame the
environmental community for their financial woes, the bottom
line is the moneys have always been small in the ranching
business, even with a long list of Federal subsidies.
The real forces of changes are declining beef prices,
declining consumer demand for beef and a real estate market
that makes it questionable to raise livestock. As a result of
these realities primarily, and not because of environmental
organizations, many permittees are looking for ways to get out
of the business.
I know that you may have many questions about recent
litigation and its effects on permittees and how that came
about. I will reserve any testimony about those matters and
other matters for questions. I am definitely open to any sort
of questions that anyone might have. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Horning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horning may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Caren Cowan.
STATEMENT OF CAREN COWAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NEW MEXICO
CATTLE GROWERS, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
Ms. Cowan. Thank you, Chairwoman Chenoweth. We appreciate
the opportunity, and we appreciate you taking the time out of
your schedule to be here.
My name is Caren Cowan. I am the executive secretary of New
Mexico Cattle Growers Association. I was asked here to address
the settlement agreement and litigation that Mr. Horning just
referred to. I feel I am in a unique position to discuss that
because I was the contact between the permittees and our
attorneys, and I was involved intimately in what went on.
The Forest Service has said a lot of things about how the
Livestock Growers Association chose not to enter into
negotiations. That is a flat lie, and they can't even get their
story straight. In this Washington Times article from
yesterday, and I would appreciate it if the whole article was
inserted into the record, Dave Stewart, the Forest Service's
Acting Regional Director for Rangeland Management, said that
``as for excluding the ranchers who held the grazing permits,
it wasn't necessary to include them because they weren't
directly involved in the lawsuit.'' So he here admitted that we
weren't included in what went on. So for them to say we refused
to participate, as I say, is an outright lie, and we are amazed
that a Federal agency would take this kind of attack.
As far as putting people off the land, which Mr. Horning
just referred to, I brought a couple of letters, and I made
copies, if anybody's interested, from permittees who are being
put off the land. The Forest Service persists in telling the
media and public they are not putting people off the land, they
are doing it voluntarily. Sure, they are doing it voluntarily,
because they have been cut off water, and we are not cruel and
inhumane people. If we can't provide for our livestock, if we
can't provide the food and water they need, we are going to do
something else. So when you take our water away and then say
that we voluntarily moved, I think we are talking about another
lie.
I had one gentlemen call me late yesterday afternoon and
say, I can't come, but would you ask them what I am supposed to
do with 250 cattle that I have no place to go with come
September 15? We can't warehouse our livestock. We can't stack
them up for 30 or 40 days until we can find a place for them.
In addition, the way that the Forest Service is doing a lot
of these things, like Mr. Vigil referred to, they are
circumventing the people's rights. Instead of giving documents
that are appealable toward telling people, directing them to do
what the Forest Service deems necessary, they are going out and
giving them letters and asking them to voluntarily do things.
The permittees are unaware that if they voluntarily do those
things, they have given up their rights. They have no right to
appeal, and I feel it offensive that our Federal Government is
persisting in this kind of behavior.
You asked a while ago where the disconnect was between the
realities of the folks that we see and the land that we live on
and the radical environmentalists. The disconnect is what their
agenda is. The agenda has nothing to do with what is going on.
I guess statements that have been in the press lately clearly
state that Mr. Charion suggesting that one endangered species
was worth a thousand ranchers.
John Talberth from the Forest Guardians said on KAFE Radio
about a month ago that cattle are exotic pets and are nothing
of value to the State of New Mexico.
This morning I was in a forest health roundtable, and a
Sierra Club member said he would rather see forests burn than
logging and cattle grazing.
So let's see what the real agenda is, and we can compare it
to overall agenda as like the black helicopters in the news
this morning.
What is the agenda? I have a document here that states that
in mid-1997, the U.S. Forest Service presented to the Wildland
Project a conceptual proposal to reduce livestock and land
conflicts. What is a government agency doing submitting
anything to the Wildland Project? Where has Congress or anyone
condoned the Wildland Project agenda between any of these items
or regulations that our Congress has never dealt with? This is
something else we find offensive.
We look at the funding that is going on here. We have been
funding our litigation, and it has cost of tens of thousands of
dollars to have the Director of Range tell us that we weren't
included to participate in these hearings and litigation. We
are raising that money through bake sales, dances, and ropings.
The computer doesn't even know what a roping is when you
spellcheck through. But we found that the Pew Foundation has
dumped $675 million into the Southwest in the last 3 years for
litigation. We would like to know how much the Forest Guardians
and the Southwest Center will take after the settlement
agreement was reached in Tucson in the back room.
In conclusion, we keep hearing that ranchers haven't
changed. We had a meeting 2 months ago. Virtually the first
words out of her mouth were that you cowboys can't do things
the way you did 80 years ago. None of us do things the way we
used to 80 years ago. The Forest Service doesn't, and we don't.
I would submit to you that I am living proof that the
cowboys have changed. Eighty years ago, 50 years ago, 20 years
ago, 5 years ago there wouldn't have been somebody in a skirt
telling you about this today. Thank you.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cowan may be found at end of
hearing.]
Ms. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Gabe Estrada.
STATEMENT OF GABE ESTRADA, RANCHER, LAS VEGAS, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Estrada. I don't think she left anything for me to say.
Chairwoman Chenoweth, Congressman Redmond, we deeply thank
you for bringing Washington to New Mexico, northern New Mexico
specifically. I have been to Washington and have addressed
committees trying to tell our story of what happens on the
ground. And here we are really blessed today, and I am sure the
people behind us are happy to see that Washington came to us,
we didn't have to go to Washington. And we thank you both for
setting up the meeting and for being here and bearing with us
on the problems that face our northern New Mexico culture and
heritage, our born people.
[Applause.]
Mr. Estrada. One of the subjects that was mentioned was our
private property rights. I have to take my hat off to Mr.
Redmond. He replaced the person that went to Washington with a
perfect record that was a goose egg. Ray felt we didn't need
support. Yet as was mentioned before in the prior panel, most
or over 20 some percent of our grant lands are in Carson and
Santa Fe National Forests, and our people have rights to those
lands, not a privilege. We don't normally have rights to the
private land, but we have rights to the public land. We need to
have those rights preserved because that is what our people
stand for.
The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo has been abused. It is
probably sitting collecting dust under piles of other
documents. We cannot understand why the Clean Water Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act so precede the rights
of New Mexico, so precede the rights of Americans on these
issues that we have a right to.
These are Johnny-come-lately rights. We have been here for
400 years. Some of us have farmed that land, the same piece of
land, for all of these years and are still producing a crop. We
used to be forest. Or I guess our responsibility was to support
50 people as farmers because the towns and communities were
very small. Today, according to our census people, that figure
has two more zeros in back of it.
We are less than 2 percent of the population, and we still
have the best supply of food, the cheapest supply of food. The
environmentalists have done nothing to let us know that we are
producing good quality food on less land and that there is a
lot of spirits that are doing a lot of that work. They not only
put their working gloves on, but we had to take our chaps off
and go to work, and we are still doing a great job. And these
people behind me are proven fact and shining examples that all
of those bald heads are raising kids and grandkids and great-
grandkids, and we want that culture and heritage to stand
forever.
[Applause.]
The northern New Mexico policy was made back in 1969,
stating that because of the Carson and the Santa Fe National
Forest our lands were taken and fenced in, you might say, into
the forest land. So they gave supposedly special privileges to
the northern New Mexico people. It took 23 years for that
document to surface, and I am the one that found it by mistake
sitting in a file in the regional office that nobody had ever
told us about.
I have been a permittee for over 23 years when I found this
document and knew nothing about it. People made this treaty,
just like the Guadalupe Hidalgo, and somebody has made a very
good effort to keep it hidden and keep our rights. We have a
right to this. They aren't privileges.
People in the Forest Service have told us that it has been
a privilege for them to work for us, and people, I want you to
know that any public employee belongs to us. We don't belong to
them. This is our right and they work for us, and I think they
need to hear that over and over again so they will work for us.
We are talking about riparian areas. The environmental
community has griped, complained, filed lawsuits. Why don't
they take care of the whole body. We need to take care of our
water first and then take care of our riparian areas.
We have so many trees per acre that we need to do away
with. We can utilize them, we can turn them into cash, we can
turn them into houses, we can turn them into paper, do what is
needed to be done with them, but we need to do it.
The riparian areas that we are talking about that carry the
streams and flows are being reduced. This is the truth, and I
am glad somebody brought it to our attention, but it isn't the
cattle that have brought those riparian areas to a trickle. It
is the number of excessive trees because of Smoky the Bear
which suppressed so many fires that we cannot--we do not have
the moisture to grow 1,000 to 1,500 trees per acre.
There was a study made on pine and juniper down here by
Mountainair that our rainfall could only sustain, mind you,
Congresswoman, 200 trees per acre. A pinon, which is an
evergreen, we have over 500 per acre. We have over 1500 trees
per acre and the canopy cover in the forest that is killing
everything.
I made a comment to Dan Glickman, which I made is 16 years
ago, that the trees were killing our forests. We are just
having too many trees, suppressing too many fires. Today it is
reality. I think you heard from the gentleman sitting in my
chair. You heard from the gentleman from the Mescalero Apache
Reservation. We have to think and we have to cultivate the
forests. I don't care if it is wilderness outside of
wilderness, private or whatever. They cannot take care of
themselves because of the disease, decay, overcrowding, lack of
moisture. One glass of water wouldn't fill the stomachs of
everyone in this room, yet that is all the water we have for
trees and we need to take care of it.
The other thing that I think government is the steward of
this land. We are the guardians of the land. But we should come
first. I don't know of the hundreds of endangered species that
have been brought up here today. I don't know how to preserve
every bird. Where in the hell do we stop?
[Applause.]
I just wanted to close on this one. We have some great
programs, the Maintenance Program that was a long range program
to help district water for wildlife, for species, for
livestock, for human beings. That was killed by Congress. We
also had the SCS Program and that was a separate project
program. You could apply to build the preliminary for fencing,
you could apply for pinon, juniper. It was a very effective
program.
We need those various programs back, and all of this was
done to put the world--we still treat the land the same, we
still do the practices the same. All we need is around five
feet more of paperwork to do. Thank you. We really appreciate
you being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Estrada may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Palemon Martinez.
STATEMENT OF PALEMON MARTINEZ, SECRETARY, NORTHERN NEW MEXICO
STOCKMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Chairwoman Chenoweth and Congressman Redmond, your
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health in Espanola and
northern New Mexico is greatly appreciated. We are an area of
limited financial resources and this approach gives us an
opportunity to present our viewpoints. We also appreciate the
sensitivity of Congressman Bill Redmond to arrange this
hearing.
I am the Secretary-Treasurer of the Northern New Mexico
Stockmen's Association and a grazing permittee on two
allotments in north central New Mexico. My family has been
involved in farming and ranching since Spanish settlement in
this area and have dealt with agricultural and land management
since their inception. I have been a part of this all my life.
I would first like to point out an issue along with the
research document that can give you an excellent overview of
northern New Mexico and its historical and inherent problems.
Our Northern New Mexico Stockmen's Association, feeling the
various Federal initiatives, policies and regulations along
with the entry of the legally inclined and well-funded
environmental organizations, was prompted to consider, ``Do we
have any rights on the use of public land, rights we always
felt were inherent to our area and culture?'' We had to find
out. To do so, we contracted with Dr. Michael C. Meyer, Ph.D, a
noted University of Arizona historian in Southwestern and
Mexican history.
This year Dr. Meyer has completed his research entitled,
``The Contemporary Significance of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo to Land Use Issues in northern New Mexico.'' I have
copies of which I will make part of the record for you.
This is a revealing legal and historical perspective of the
common land uses under Spain and Mexican law and subsequently
under United States jurisdiction. We are providing a copy of
the research publication for the record.
I would like to make the following observations:
The text is informative, interesting and relevant to
discussion of northern New Mexico land use issues.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 raises some
fundamental issues of property protected for Mexican citizens
and their successors in interest in New Mexico as well as the
other treaty states.
If treaties, as provided by the U.S. Constitution, Article
VI, Section 2, are to be honored as if the treaties were the
Constitution itself, how then does the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo apply to the protection of property rights concerning
our contemporary land use issues? Can more recent Federal laws
such as Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and others
supersede the treaty protections, or are there other avenues?
How does Article V apply to property rights and takings issues
on either a historical or on current situations? Are these
treaty issues similar to those of Native Americans as protected
and researched by the U.S. Indian Claims Commission? We were
all considered Mexican citizens at the time of the signing of
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Do we merit the same
considerations?
To not belabor the research report, I would last call your
attention to the section on ``Conclusions and
Recommendations,'' pages 82-90. Although Congressman Redmond's
Land Grant bill addresses some of these issues, we recommend
Congressional review of the above cited recommendations as
relate to all the natural resources, land and water, along with
the significance to issues related to today's hearing.
We would like to call the Subcommittee's attention to
certain Federal Land Management Agency policies:
The U.S. Forest Service, Southwest Region, adopted a
northern New Mexico policy in 1969. This was done because of
our situation and uniqueness. We felt this was a positive
action and we recently recommended this policy continuation to
Southwest Regional Forester Towns, and was seemingly well
received. We understand this policy was also recommended by the
Carson and Santa Fe National Forests. We also heard that
although recommended, the legal reviews by higher level legal
staff rejected the policy and that policy could not be
different than elsewhere. What if we called it northern New
Mexico philosophy? The key is the approach and sensitivity to
custom and culture, as the case may be.
Grazing Advisory Committees were part of the operational
norm and were abolished. Every other institution operates under
similar fashion. We recommend reinstitution of these committees
to improve resource management. A worse evil is moving all
resource management to the courts. We believe that is the wrong
approach to the problems as well as to public land users. The
exception may be those direct beneficiaries who are on the
litigant payroll.
Range management improvements and conservation supported by
Congress and the USFS in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. This
was a needed effort with excellent results. We need those
programs reinstated. We believe there would be greater public
support for Federal fund expenditures for these programs than
for the legal arena.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony
before your Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Martinez.
The Chair yields to Mr. Redmond for his questions.
Mr. Redmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first question is to Mr. Estrada. You said you found a
document that would shed light on what--could you identify that
document for us, please?
Mr. Estrada. It is a northern New Mexico policy for the
Carson and Santa Fe National Forest. It should be on the top
handout in every Forest Service office in the country up here
in the North, but they kept it pretty well hidden.
Mr. Redmond. Can you give me the date on that document?
Mr. Estrada. 1969.
Mr. Redmond. I would like to ask Mr. Vigil, how has the 40-
60 utilization policy affected your operation and your family?
Mr. Vigil. It has affected us greatly. We were told we
might have to get out the first of September, and my living
room is not big enough to put them in there. If the Forest
Service would like to see the prices of cows right now. If I
get the same amount of cows next year, the replacement would be
extra dollars. So I don't have to take a pay loss. Do you get
what I am saying?
Mr. Redmond. What was the rationale for further limiting
the number of days?
Mr. Vigil. Well, the grass, as I showed you on that
picture, Picture 3, grass that was on that specific unit when
they made us move to our next unit. The next unit had 60 days
and now they said they are going to give us 30 days, so that
would put us the first of September. I haven't heard anything
in writing yet, but I probably will soon.
Mr. Redmond. I would like to see a show of hands of people
who are in the same situation as Mr. Vigil.
[Audience raises hands.]
Mr. Redmond. About a dozen or so. Of those of you who
raised your hands, would you write and document for us the
original agreement and then how many days you have lost, and
please forward that to my office? In a moment my staff people
will pass a card to you and I would like to submit that in the
record.
Mr. Vigil. This will have to be done soon now because it is
coming up here, it is a week or two away from it and what to
do? If we go to court, will they kick us out next year? We are
between a rock and a hard place.
Mr. Redmond. The Chairwoman and I will meet following this
meeting and we will discuss what the options are.
Mr. Vigil. Thank you.
Ms. Cowan. That is what they are--they have not been given
a formal decision document so they have nothing to appeal, they
have no way to protect their rights. So we have got to get the
formal decision document and not find them in--wait for that
documentation and the process to work, because if these guys do
what the Forest Service is telling them to do, they have lost
their rights.
Mr. Redmond. So this would be an example of circumventing
the rights of the permittees, as you mentioned earlier?
Ms. Cowan. Absolutely.
Mr. Redmond. Mr. Horning, could you give an example--I know
there are some in regard to the livestock being outside the law
in the use of Federal and U.S. Forest Service land?
Mr. Horning. Yes, trespass, grazing outside the terms and
conditions of permits. It happens all the time. Enclosures,
areas that were built to protect streams, wetland springs,
allowing cows or cows ending up in areas that are intended to
be excluded from grazing. In my experience, violations of the
terms and conditions of grazing permits are fairly routine.
Mr. Redmond. Well, one of the things I wanted to clarify,
and if you could--if you are unable to, maybe at a future time
could you submit documentation from Forest Guardians, but in
your tend of public lands, there is approximately a million and
a half acres in New Mexico, mostly northern New Mexico, that
were Hispanic land grants and honored by the New Mexico
government and also by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
In defining community use, the Spanish law was very clear
that you could use the term, the deed holders of the land, as
being the American public, from sea to shining sea. But in
Spanish law, the community land was very clearly defined to be
only those original grantee families.
So, for instance, you could be a member and share in the
public use of the Soleto land grant, but if you lived in
Soleto, you had no rights in the Anton Chico land grant. So in
one sense it was community, but it was community only to those
original families.
And, of course, this land is now in the hands of the
Federal Government. Does the Forest Guardians recognize the
distinction be-
tween, as you said, deed holder for the public, that in this
case the public is limited only to those original families?
Mr. Horning. Well, until I see something to the contrary,
it is our feeling that the public lands of northern New Mexico,
be they in the Carson or Santa Fe National Forests, are no
different from any public lands in the rest of the State. I
have seen nothing to contradict that. The dots on the map show
the land in northern New Mexico is the same color as on other
parts of the State. You know, they are national forests, so
until I see something that would make me believe that there is
a contradiction there, they are public land and that is how we
will continue to view them.
Mr. Redmond. Are you speaking on behalf of Forest Guardians
or on behalf of yourself?
Mr. Horning. We have no formal policy that is at least
written up. At that point I am speaking for myself.
Mr. Redmond. OK, that is all the questions I have.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The colors on the map? That is the sum
total of your understanding of this law? Come on, Mr. Horning.
[Applause.]
The colors on the map? You are a bright man, obviously you
are. Don't insult this Committee and this hearing. What is your
sum understanding of land grant issues?
Mr. Horning. What I was trying to convey is that it is a
fairly simple understanding. Public lands in northern New
Mexico, in my mind, are no different than the public lands of
other parts of the Southwest. There is a Federal Land
Management Agency that has been given the authority and
responsibility to manage other lands with the American public
in mind. And I have seen the northern New Mexico policy, I have
seen a draft that has changed and updated and was dated 1997,
but in my opinion, the lands of southern Colorado, northern New
Mexico are no different from the public lands of Idaho.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Have you ever heard of Kearney's Code (sic)
or have you ever read the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?
Mr. Horning. No, I have not.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You ought to read it sometime. I have read
it, but I can't speak it. Have you ever studied the Land Treaty
Act?
Mr. Horning. No, I have not.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Or the Taylor Grazing Act.
Mr. Horning. I studied the Taylor Grazing Act, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would really like it if you would study
that whole series of land law, because you see, I would like to
believe that you want to do more than create conflict, and I
could sense there was an awful lot of conflict from your frame
of reference to our ranchers and loggers and the people who
have been historically tied to this land. I would like to
believe that because I think you are a bright man.
Mr. Horning. Is that a question?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you study those laws? Would you take
time to look into the history of the land law of this area?
Mr. Horning. You know, I think the real important issue is
that I believe the land should be managed with an eye toward
protecting all creatures, with an eye toward insuring that
there be a clean and renewable and reliable source of water,
and right now that is not the case in northern New Mexico and
public lands.
That is what I am most concerned about. Until those issues
are resolved, we will continue to play an active role in the
management of public lands in northern New Mexico.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How long have you been here in this area?
Mr. Horning. As I said in my testimony, 4 years.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Where did you live before you came here?
Mr. Horning. Washington DC.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Who did you work for there?
Mr. Horning. I worked for the National Wildlife Federation.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Are you being paid by the Forest Guardians,
is that your employer, or the National Wildlife Federation?
Mr. Horning. No, I am employed by the Forest Guardians
currently, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Have you ever missed a paycheck?
Mr. Horning. Yes, actually I have. Despite what everyone
here might think, we don't make a lot of money.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to ask Mr. Vigil a question, and I
want you to hear what I am asking him because he mentioned in
his testimony that in the area that you have grazed, Mr. Vigil,
you used to have a lot more livestock?
Mr. Vigil. Yes, we did.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And you testified under oath that the
allotment was in better shape when there was more livestock
there. How could that be?
Mr. Vigil. Well, all of this moneys--last year--let me
brief you on this--last year I was told they only had $10,000
for their whole district in Carson. $10,000, mind you, that
doesn't even buy the gas for their vehicles that they have, but
yet they are doing all of this research or paperwork. These
guys have a lot of time. They keep grinding the paperwork out
and just take time and money and a lot of paperwork for these
guys, and all of these moneys are going for that purpose, to
fight these guys.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So it has actually caused a deterioration?
Mr. Vigil. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Horning, in the last panel we heard
that the White Mountain Apache Reservation has maintained
inventory on their land of 30 board feet inventory after 30
years of annual harvest of 50 board feet annually. Would you
call this a sustainable forest practice? Isn't that the most
desirable practice?
Mr. Horning. I have never seen the forest, never been in
the Mescalero reservation, except riding through it on roads. I
do know that the Mexican spotted owl occurs throughout the
Sacramento Mountains of southeast and central New Mexico, and
biologists who study it and who know the Mexican spotted owl
quite well are very concerned about logging practices on the
Mescalero Apache Reservation and how they are affecting the
viability of the Mexican spotted owl.
But like I said, I have never been to the reservation
except for driving through it, so it would really be
inappropriate for me to comment on whether or not the practices
there are sustainable. Like I said, there are concerns that
biologists have expressed about whether or not the Mexican
spotted owl is being adequately protected.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would have to venture to guess--I mean
that is honest testimony from you--that you don't--that you
shouldn't venture a guess, but I would have to guess that you
have a Master's or a Doctorate Degree?
Mr. Horning. No, I have a Bachelor of Arts Degree from a
school in Colorado. Bachelor of Arts in history.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Bachelor of Arts in history. What was your
major?
Mr. Horning. History, American history.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Interesting. So I think that the reading
assignment I gave you will interest you a lot. I am not going
to ask you for a term paper or a thesis, but I really hope I
can discuss this with you in the future, because it is a very
exiting piece of history, the land laws here. And I think what
a lot of people feel is that people who come in from the
outside come in with a hostility toward the people and the
culture who are here, and I think that these people here are
very----
[Applause.]
Caren, what is the status of your group's litigation
against the Forest Service settlement agreement?
Ms. Cowan. We have a--I may be talking out of line since I
haven't seen the lawyers since yesterday. There should have
been a suit filed yesterday in individual permittees' names
against the settlement agreement because it violates a wide
variety of laws, including the Administrative Procedures Act in
addition to the Forest Service's own policy.
We have worked with permittees from both Arizona and New
Mexico since April to protect their rights to file the appeal,
and then asking for stays. All of the stays are being denied.
We expect that those appeals will be denied and so we have to
protect their interests and protect the rural families of New
Mexico.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Gabe Estrada, in responding to a request by my Chairman Don
Young, who asked that the Forest Service find out about which
environmental groups its employees belong to, Mr. Eric Nest
(sic) from New Mexico stated, if they have got this raging
conflict with regards to the response to ranching request, if
they have got this raging conflict of interest, they should
recuse themselves. The judges and Congressmen do it all the
time, why shouldn't they? How do you feel about this?
Mr. Estrada. First of all, Chairwoman, we have a deep
interest in our land. We live by the land. Our interest lies
deeper than a paycheck. You stop the paycheck to any Federal
Forest Service employee and see how deep their interest is.
They are gone. We have them inside the government. This is the
problem we have.
In our particular district, we had a lady that was brought
in from New York as a ranger. Her background was in recreation.
What business did she have in trying to manage range, forests
and all of the multiple resources that are in the Forest
Service's district?
Man, this lady, and I know there are a lot of ladies that
fall into and are totally qualified to do what they are doing.
I have one right on my right here. I have a lady of 50 years of
marriage sitting here that is one of the original settlers in
this country. There are a lot of qualified women, but we got
one that wasn't qualified.
We have had to go through the appeal process all the way to
the regional office. We won because of the lack of knowledge
that this person had. She denied and defied that grass was
vegetative cover. She wanted 85 percent canopy cover on every
inch of land.
These are the problems that we have and it isn't so much
that we are suffering. I think Mr. Vigil's testimony, he used
to have a lot more cattle, a lot more sheep, but those meadows
and those ranges have been closed in by trees to where now we
have to grow the grass up high in the air instead of having it
on the ground, covering the ground.
We need to get rid of our canopy cover. We need to thin
down trees, we need to make more quantity of water, and by
having grass on the ground, God made grass to be the filter of
water to filter these streams. These streams will purify
themselves, as you know, but we need the water to go in before
it can purify.
Our belief is that if we take care of the land, the land
will take care of us, and that is why we have wildflowers, and
that is the way we are bringing up our children, and the Forest
Service needs to hire the qualified people to do the job that
they are supposed to do. Don't send us unqualified people.
I don't mean for the Hispanic or woman to be placed in a
position to fail, ma'am, because they are not qualified for it.
It gives us a black eye, it gives everybody a black eye.
Consequently in our district for 4 years we have regressed 50
years back.
Just to give you an example, I cooperated with the Forest
Service and moved my permit from the area that produces water
for the city so that we could leave some fuel for Forest
Service prescribed burning. I went from 15 miles, getting to my
permit to 85 miles, stayed there, and it cost me a lot to do
so.
When I left, they didn't burn one tree or one inch.
Consequently, we have got more trees, more growth. We didn't
add anything to what is supposed to be a cooperative plan. But
the Forest Service people do with permits or used to do,
because of our agreement I hope to get us residents, they would
bring a sheet of paper and then they say OK, you start on May
1, you start with so many cattle, you have placed all here and
there, you maintain this fence, you give us a check for the
amount of money that is due and you come out on a certain date.
Is that a cooperative agreement? That is dictation. We stopped
that.
Then we sat down and we said this is what we need. We need
a recreation system, we need this, we need that. You control
the elk, which is a tremendously big problem in northern New
Mexico, and they just go ahead of our rotation system.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Estrada, let me ask you, are elk
indigenous to this area; were the elk here 400 years ago?
Mr. Estrada. I am not old, but I don't remember seeing elk
in those days.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That is another very interesting legal
question.
Mr. Estrada. Let me give you an example. A lot of people
don't know. I am on--my permit is 90 days. I can take a cow
that weighs 900 pounds, maybe lighter, but average weight of
900 pounds of cow. She will consume in the neighborhood of
3,600 pounds of fuel if she is there 130 days. An elk that
weighs 600, and my neighbors behind me know this, they stay on
the land 365 days a year. They are consuming 6,600 pounds, more
than double. And the Forest Service doesn't have any control on
the elk.
It is the New Mexico Fish and Game Department who sells
licenses and that is the only control they have. And out of
this room, if ten people kill an elk, that is too many. The
population is just overrunning everything and the few meadows
that are left in the forest are being overrun by wildlife.
They don't provide any salt. You should see the ground.
When a block of salt stays behind, when you move the cattle
out, they will eat the salt and eat the dirt where that salt
saturated into the dirt three feet deep. Not the
environmentalists, the Game Department, the Forest Service, the
permittees are the ones that are stewards of those elk also,
but we have no control over them either.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Estrada. Right now I am
going to yield back to Representative Redmond for any further
questions that he might have.
Mr. Redmond. I only have one question with regard to the
elk, Mr. Estrada. I am not an elk hunter, I will admit that.
Would it be possible for us to speak with the State wildlife
services who have the jurisdiction over the elk, and is it
feasible for us to adjust the policy to increase the number of
permits for the ranchers, the farmers so that that would
compensate them for the forests that they are losing?
Mr. Estrada. That would be a great beginning. That is only
the start. You take a limited resource farmer, Mr. Redmond, and
he has a small place, say 300 acres. Here he plants and
harvests and irrigates. These elk come at night and they clean
him up overnight and leave. He cannot sell a permit to you if
you wanted to buy one because that elk isn't on his property
when daylight comes. It came and rocked the land and took off
into the woods, and it is on the public lands. That is just the
beginning.
They need to sell two or three cow elk permits to
permittees who utilize the resources of elk meat, and thin it
down. Right now if you ask the Fish and Game people, they want
to allow five bulls--I mean, one bull for every five cows. That
is unthinkable. That is what is happening right now. We have so
many areas that nobody ever--they walk in, spend a week there,
walk out and they don't harvest any elk.
Mr. Redmond. I have no jurisdiction over the State of New
Mexico in terms of elk permits, but it seems to me that if it
appears that in certain areas of the State if there is
overpopulation of elk and if they are utilizing the forage that
individuals are paying for either through the permits or
through private land, it just seems to me there needs to be
some kind of compensation, where we can balance an
environmentally safe balance where we can thin the elk herd as
well and be fair with the local residents.
Mr. Estrada. That would be a great recommendation, but I
feel that the elk are not only destroying the deer population.
I have been in the Mora Valley where they had six or eight
barrels of hay and overnight herds of over 1,000 head just
level the stock fence and it is all done. So there is more cost
and damage. You can't hardly put up a fence to hold elk. They
will just make like an elephant and walk through it and go on
through.
Mr. Redmond. You said that was the beginning. Could you
recommend to me what a more in-depth elk policy would be?
Mr. Estrada. They need to issue out more licenses. Most of
the license that they have have been for male elk. I don't know
if they are bull or the other sports allow them to kill
females, but we need to reduce the population for the survival
of all of them. There are areas that in the springtime some
people go collecting antlers. I know a lot of them are still on
the bodies that died because of starvation. This is awful that
they have to die that way. If they were harvested, the rest of
the population could survive. But we need to thin them down
because of the forests.
Mr. Redmond. Thank you, Mr. Estrada.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to thank this panel for being here.
I have many, many more questions. We had a hearing in
Washington where we did ask questions about the lawsuit, and I
do want to stay in close touch with you in regard to how the
lawsuit is proceeding. I am personally very interested in that.
I have learned a lot from you and I want to thank you very
much, all of you, for being here.
And at this time now we will excuse this panel and now we
will go to the open mike.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I will call the witnesses to the
microphone, and if they are allotted 2 minutes for each
individual. The first five be prepared to come up.
The first one is David Cordova. The second one is Sylvia
Allen. The third one is Jimmie Hall. The fourth one is Bill
Wright. And the fifth one is Charlie Chacon.
STATEMENT OF DAVID CORDOVA
Mr. Cordova. Chairwoman, Councilman, I am from Truchas, New
Mexico. My father is Max Cordova, who just spoke before you
here today.
I want to tell you first my family history. We have been in
New Mexico for nine generations. The way me and my dad think of
the land is we think of the land as we are taking from the land
as far as we are in it right now. This is not something that we
think is going leave once we are gone. This is something that I
am going give to my kids, my grandkids and their kids are going
to have.
There is no way in the world--when we speak of
environmental--there is no way in the world that I think that
any one person can come into this room and tell you that they
are more environmental than we are.
I have hunted in the area. I killed my first elk when I was
10 years old. I broke my first horse in area. I see forests on
an everyday basis. I live for the forest. Basically we live in
the forest. For me it is not something as simple as looking at
a piece of paper and saying, oh, I think I am going to save the
forest today.
When there were forest fires in New Mexico about 3 years
ago, I was one of 60 to 70 volunteers from the community that
went up and fought the forest fire. We called environmental
groups and we asked them come up and help us fight the forest
fire. Not one person did. Not one helped out with water, not
one helped with food or drinks or anything.
We had a gentleman that was--he lost his leg in Vietnam.
That man is more environmental than what I think any
environmentalist from New York or California or anyplace else.
The New York Times has done some ads on Truchas, New
Mexico, and they have come in several times and some of the ads
have come out in the New York Times.
I saw an ad about 3 years ago from the Forest Guardians,
basically, that had a bunch of tree stumps, that is all they
had was a bunch of tree stumps, and they were appealing for
funding. And they said this is northern New Mexico. And what
that ad basically said is what we need for those people is we
need to save them from themselves because they don't know what
they are doing.
We have been here for hundreds of years and this land has
been the same. What has happened out there is people have gone
out there and ruined the rest of the United States in regards
to cities and whatever and what they are doing and then they
want to come to New Mexico because we haven't changed it. And
then they say they should save the land from themselves.
We don't want any help. We are not willingly going to go
out there and destroy our land. That is stupid. Where are we
going to be in 5 years? We care about the land. I am not being
paid anything to say that I am being paid for this land or
anything. I have affected some of the funding for some of these
people because I have gone out there and have gone and seen the
community point of view. And I think it is. I am getting tired
that nobody is listening to the community. We need to have
people listen to the community because the problem out here is
the people here. We are more environmental than a lot of other
people out there, and we need to be heard and listened to.
Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SYLVIA ALLEN, ARIZONA-NEW MEXICO FIELD DIRECTOR,
PEOPLE FOR THE USA
Ms. Allen. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and Congressman
Bill Redmond. Thank you for this opportunity. I am Sylvia
Allen, the Arizona and New Mexico Field Director for People for
the USA.
For over 7 years I have watched this big debate over the
Mexican spotted owl. I was at some of the first hearings that
were held. We packed the auditorium of over 3,000 people, and
everyone in that group asked that the Mexican spotted owl not
be listed.
Some of the questions that were asked that night is what
sort of science is being used to list the owl. When we asked
how many owls were here 20 years ago the representative said,
we don't know. When we asked how many owls are needed for a
viable population, they would say we don't know, and yet my own
family was harmed by this.
My brother was part-owner in Precise Pine and Timber. He
used to move over $20 million a year. Now they are just hanging
on with their fingernails. I want to submit to you his letter
and his company.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Ms. Allen. Also there used to be a lot of families that
used to work for his company, so you can understand what has
happened to some of these families. One is a young man who last
year wrote an article, educational paper, and he told about his
family and his heritage growing up in the woods. It is a
wonderful letter and I hope you will be able to read it.
The other one is a family who I have been friends with for
over 32 years. When this happened in 1995, and the forests were
shut down, many families were forced to have to move away or
find other jobs, and many did. He looked for work in Colorado
and Utah, and 11 months ago he was killed in a logging accident
in Utah. His family was put through so much stress when he
could have worked right in our own home state.
My opinion is that people, their very souls are being hurt.
When we can no longer plan, dream, work, imagine, use and be
able to make our livelihood in a way that we want to, I think
what is the most important question here is what is happening
to American's birthright, which is freedom? What are we doing
to that?
When we get together and we do forest round tables, and I
have done some of these, nobody ever stands up and talks about
the inalienable rights of the people, it is who owns the
contracts. And people who are there at those events, these are
not scientists, they are using emotions, misinformation, half
truths and lies. By the way, these were the people who were
hired by the Forest Service to do the owl surveys. Now this
shows you what kind of science we were dealing with. They were
not biologists.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to take care of a little bit of
business before I call on Jimmie Hall. I do want to say without
objection that Palemon Martinez' testimony is entered into the
record.
Very well then, Jimmie Hall.
STATEMENT OF JIMMIE HALL, PRESIDENT, PRODUCTION CREDIT
ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Representative
Redmond. My name is Jimmie Hall, and I am President of PCA of
New Mexico. It is a federally chartered association. We offer
credit to a lot of northern New Mexico.
I have become very concerned about the availability of
credit in rural New Mexico as a result of some of the Forest
Service actions. My bank customers use collateral, their
banking capacity and net worth of permittees. These three
things which make up the basis of a loan are at the mercy of
the Forest Service, who can come in and decide on a whim
overnight. So the permittees would lose the value not only in
their net worth but their ability to repay their loan.
I have read that the Forest Service has said repeatedly,
and I think some of those coming out of the Albuquerque office,
that we didn't or we haven't put anyone out of business. No,
they didn't, but they did reduce the annual units that the
permittee can no longer repay his loan. So who gets to
foreclose and wear a black hat? Me? I think not.
I have a permittee--I have several permittees that I lend
money to that is in the room. One of these permittees when he
refused to sign his Forest Service document was told--I think
he was told--but anyway he also had a loan owned by FHA. The
Forest Service immediately notified them and they began
foreclosure proceedings. I am not the black hat guy. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Bill Wright.
STATEMENT OF BILL WRIGHT
Mr. Wright. My name is Bill Wright. I am an independent
resource management consultant. I am here today because I was
asked to provide, advise, actually an assessment occurring in
northern New Mexico. I am also here by proxy for a rancher, Ned
Sanchez, who grazes livestock on allotment in the Spring Creek
allotment.
As of this week, on the Spring Creek allotment they were
advised by the Forest Service that their livestock will be
removed from Forest Service lands August 24. Now these people
have nowhere to go. This part of the grazing is an integral
part of their operation. They depend and they plan on these
days of grazing on the public lands as part of their operation.
So if this comes to pass, then they are going to----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Bill, I am sorry to interrupt you. What is
the reason they are leaving the public lands?
Mr. Wright. It goes back to the criteria of the 30 percent
use. The Forest is claiming that their livestock, they have
already assumed 30 to 40 percent of utilization. Even though
they have been practicing intensive management, they are not
inflexible as far as by numbers, using all of the pasture at
one time, many of these options should have been considered way
back at the beginning of the grazing season.
And the second issue I would like to discuss briefly was to
expound on this elk use. I used to be on the district ranch
staff on this very same grazing district from 1978 to 1987. I
have an in-depth knowledge that in fact the capacity that was
never allocated for elk back in the seventies is now not even
grazing pasture. An example, the 50 elk were present in 1971.
We have got 200 elk grazing in there today in 1998. However,
the Forest base remained consistent, so consequently there is a
discrepancy in terms of allocation.
The environmentalists are in a position that the Forest
Service is wrong. They need to abide by regulations to manage
their own property. The ranchers right now are the scapegoats.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Charlie Chacon.
STATEMENT OF CHARLIE CHACON
Mr. Chacon. I am very pleased you folks are here. I am very
indebted to you both. Thank you. My name is Charlie Chacon. I
am a permittee. I have one in Colorado and one here in the Kit
Carson.
I see a lot of the permittees here and a lot aren't
present, but nevertheless, I would like to touch on some of the
things that I think that need some bringing up. One of them is
water in the allotments. Regardless of whether it is BLM or
whether it is Forest, we are having no water, and that would do
us a lot of good not only to our personal holding but also to
elk.
The other thing, the brush control is out of hand. We have
so much brush that our cattle can't get to some of the pastures
that were available many years ago. I am old enough to know and
old enough to remember when they started fencing the forest
lands. This happened way back. Since then, I see that our lands
are going to waste because the uses are very limited.
And so there--and to answer Mr. Horning's comments about
the cattle are everywhere, that is a big lie. Our cattle are
tagged and they are counted before they go into these
allotments. So what he is saying, he is bringing it up on his
own.
That is all I have to say. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Oh, I have one more comment. These environmental groups,
all they are trying to do is starve us to death. What they are
trying to do also, if that don't succeed, they will put us in
big ovens like the Nazis did to the Jews, the people in
Germany.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The next five who will testify are David
Sanchez, William Moore, then Ernest Torrez, and then Carl Smith
and then Warren Reed.
STATEMENT OF DAVID SANCHEZ
Mr. Sanchez. Congressman and Chairwoman, I want to thank
you guys for taking the time in coming to the Espanola Valley,
to New Mexico to listen to our needs and problems. These
problems and needs are not new. These issues have been existing
since the first part of this century.
Unfortunately we have an element today that we didn't have
then, and I am referring to the environmental groups that
brought a lot of problems, stress, everything that they have
brought through their litigation and their slandering of our
way of life and the land out here.
I credit Mr. Horning, the likes of him, for being an
entrepreneur and finding a new way of making a living, but it
just doesn't fit in northern New Mexico and we wish he would
take it elsewhere.
[Applause.]
My grandfather was born in the Juan Jose Lovato Land Grant
which is just west here. Today it is under the management of
the Santa Fe National Forest. We still operate as permittees in
that land grant. It is Federal property under a set number of
AUM's and permits. Those determinations of carrying capacities
were made in the middle part of the century, and I say today
that they were very conservative, because we were only granted
a small few permits.
Today we have thousands of elk, approximate numbers of
50,000 in the area, and never did the agencies or we the people
envision that we were going to have this population explosion
of elk.
The Forest Service has basically held meeting incentives to
manage the land appropriately and do the right thing as many of
us have, and that the lands today are what they are because of
how we have taken care of them. But I think it is totally
unfair that we were only given a few small amount of permits
and yet they allow the Game Department of New Mexico carte
blanche to run as many elk as they like to on there with no
accountability on the impact it has to the resources.
This is unfair on how the land is being managed, the
responsibility. We have questioned the Forest Service, who is
responsible for the number of elk out there, and they say it is
the Game Department.
The only management that the Game Department has
illustrated to us is that they have bag limits. That is
inconsistent with carrying capacity and the resource. It
doesn't matter what species it is, it should be managed with
carrying capacity.
We are opposed to that double standard that we have been
treated the way we have been treated. There should be an
opportunity for more permits. The Forest Service can sustain
50,000 elk, I think they can allocate a few more permits so the
people can make a living in northern New Mexico.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, David Sanchez.
William Moore.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MOORE
Mr. Moore. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, it is
a pleasure. I want to tell you about what the Endangered
Species Act is and how it affected me. It halted all current
timber sales under litigation at the time, of which I had
multiple contracts for.
During that time, I had big deposits with the Forest
Service and interest on which I never received anything back as
I expected. Also, stress on my family and my father, too, and
stuff, and we were concerned about our future and where we were
going to go. I own a sawmill and a logging company and I still
do today.
I believe that the forest must be opened up and not allow
catastrophic fires to happen. Pretty much with this Endangered
Species Act, I have been brought to almost a complete halt. I
believe environmental stuff is really a large part of the
deficit sales here. This is a bunch of expense for no reason.
In my view, it is also affecting my net worth and my way of
life. My father and I built our sawmill together and we have
quite a working relationship together and a big family unit
that we enjoy, and that is our way of life. Trees are renewable
resource. There is already 3.2 million acres of wilderness area
in the State. How much area do we need to set aside for special
interests?
The local demand for products here is very strong, but we
have no way to get in on the National Forest. If you really
want to know how the trees are doing in the forest, call to
Albuquerque and get a copy of the inventory for Region III;
1910 and in 1987 they were prepared. The trees are holding very
well. There is no reason to shut down the industry whatsoever,
big or small.
We need everything, because the people that will work at
the big mills have their own individual needs also, and we are
not depleting the resource at all. We need a solid state of
material to run our family business with. How can our business
grow with constant litigation under the current laws which the
environmentalists take advantage of to shut us down.
We are being abused and the laws need to change, the
Endangered Species Act needs to be changed. People need to be
brought into the equation. We need economics and growth to meet
the needs of our people. Multiple use must be promoted just as
loggers are like farmers, just like agricultural pursuits are
their way of life.
It is needed, it is here and needs to keep going, and I
appreciate your help in this interest. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
Next we call on Ernest Torrez.
STATEMENT OF ERNEST TORREZ
Thank you, I appreciate this opportunity. My family is from
La Hada, New Mexico, which is near the Cuba area on the other
side of the mountains here.
I am on the Acequia Commission of our community, which is
something I didn't volunteer for. I was basically appointed by
family to represent family on this.
It is very difficult for me to speak of these kinds of
things because there is a passion that we have where I am from,
the land. We have passion to keep doing what we do, and the
family things are inseparable.
I can't really appreciate some of the references this
gentleman here, this Mr. Horning, has for anything. It boils my
blood to have him under the same roof with me, but that is the
way the rules of the game are played.
I have a document here. I wanted to bring this document,
``The Potential Economic Consequences of Designing Critical
Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow.'' It is pertinent to
this discussion for a lot of reasons. Fish and Wildlife is
deciding whether or not to designate the Rio Grande cutthroat
trout as endangered. It is going to put a knife--well, it is
going to start a war and then it is going to put a knife in
people's hearts.
This document says on page 115, ``All else remaining equal,
reductions in Socorro County have a greater likelihood of
affecting low-income groups, given the concentrations of
persistent poverty in the county.''
There is no regard here for the human equation. I guess
that is pretty obvious. It really--it concerns me, this
Endangered Species Act, because tomorrow is my son's birthday,
he is going to be 5 years old. This past June when I was
irrigating off the Acequia, he was in the mud just like I used
to be in the mud. He has got more hands-on biological knowledge
than Mr. Horning does. He can tell you what a salamander is, he
can tell you what a Rio Grande cutthroat is. By the way, we did
capture three of these semi-endangered and we had them for
lunch right out of the ditch.
What I am trying to bring forth here is how absurd the
absurdity of this law is and how much it is affecting families.
It is directly impacting families. We are not rich by any
means. We are rich in culture, maybe a few hundred acres of
private land, but it is going to go down the tube unless you
guys can tell your eastern, your Yankee counterparts in the
Congress that, don't tread on my family. We will suffer no
one's blood on our neck.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you Mr. Torrez. I would like to make
the documents a part of the record. What page was that on about
the water rights?
Mr. Torrez. I think it is 115.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Page 115. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Carl Smith.
STATEMENT OF CARL SMITH
My name is Carl Smith. I am a permittee from northern New
Mexico. Our family has been up here a lot more than 4 years.
Now, I have got a brother-in-law that was in the logging
business, a long time operation, that went under because of the
Mexican spotted owl. His operation went out of business several
years ago. His children have left the State, I think his wife
soon will, and I haven't seen any spotted owl yet.
I think this Endangered Species thing is a big charade. I
don't know how many spotted owls you have spotted in your
country since you put all the loggers out of work, but I
haven't heard one.
Now, we are facing the same problem with our grazing
situation. We want to take care of the land. We are firmly
committed to not causing deteriorating ranges, but we are
facing, for the first time, the new 40 percent forage
implementation rule which didn't sound too bad to us. We
understood we had been using 50 percent of the forest this last
year and know we are going to be using 40 percent.
Most of us wanted to see better conditions on the range so
we weren't all that opposed to it. What it amounts to is that
as soon as your cattle have eaten a little bit of grass and
drank a little water, though they may not have touched the
grass on that side, it is time to move. So now we are looking
at coming home, some of us after 1 month, some after 2 months,
after going on 10 days to 2 weeks late. We are buying hay, we
are doing everything we can think of to survive, but it will be
impossible for many operators to continue given this new plan
that the Forest Service has, and we feel unrepresented. We
don't know whether to believe what the Forest Service is
telling us. If they tell us we have got to do it, we don't know
whether we have got to do it.
I sure hope you can straighten this mess out. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
The Chair recognizes Warren Reed.
STATEMENT OF WARREN REED
Mr. Reed. I am beginning the fourth generation of grazing
in the Carson National Forest Service and private and public
land in northern New Mexico. I have the land, I hope to keep
it. I can't keep it under the present conditions. I have 9 days
from now until the 24th of August to decide what I am going to
do with what was mandated under the new provisions of the
Forest Use Act.
I submit that they either be sold or the process will take
away the heritage and land which we have. I think that the
decision that is made to come out on the 24th of August, it was
based on a couple of things. One is on the 10 to 12,000 acres
of land. There were two cages that were put there by the Forest
to measure the amount of forage that was gone. I would say that
is not enough to adequately measure all except the very small
area in which these cages were put.
I think also that we need to look at the fact that the
decision to move from the forest was probably made early in the
spring, not given a chance for the rain or the growth expected
as things and time passes.
Probably the biggest issue is can we take care of the
forest and work to better it, but we do need to have an input
and be able to stay for the length of time that our signed
agreement calls for. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The next five will be first Brian Sanford
and then Bud Eppers, Paul Bandy, Claudio Chacon, and Moises
Morales.
Brian Sanford, please come to the mike.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN SANFORD
Mr. Sanford. Thank you, Madam Chair, Representative
Redmond. I had the privilege of sitting in one of the only
chairs that was in the sun through that window.
Thank you for coming to New Mexico. I appreciate you coming
down here to hear the issues. My name is Brian Sanford, and I
am a Range Resource Specialist with the New Mexico Department
of Agriculture, which is the State agency representing
agriculture in New Mexico.
Today I am representing Secretary of Agriculture Frank
DuBois. He couldn't be here, he has got a very sick grandson,
but he also wants to extend his thanks for coming to hear the
issues of the constituents, your constituents, Representative
Redmond, and people who are very much concerned about these
issues.
I really have no oral comments for this Committee today;
however, I have brought the written testimony of Secretary
DuBois. I think that was given to your staff a couple of days
ago. If you have any questions on that, myself and other staff
are here to answer them.
The testimony concerns the general decisionmaking
atmosphere of the Forest Service that is occurring right now. A
lot of this is due to NEPA compliance. There is a very myriad
of issues.
Also the testimony concerns two very specific examples
which staffers from our department, myself as one of them, find
very interesting and they are specific to allotments. And I
hope that this kind of testimony helps to present the issues to
you.
If you do have any questions about that testimony, either
now or in the future, we would love to clarify and discuss them
with you. As I say, I yield the remainder of my time. Thank
you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Sanford, could you elaborate on the
testimony a little bit?
Mr Sanford. Sure. I guess overall, our testimony regards
the way in which the Forest Service has not collected data in
order to make their decisions. They have not insured that their
permitting process complies as such, and they haven't taken
action against grazing and timber. Those would be the two large
issues.
Also my professional opinion, they have allowed the Fish
and Wildlife not to tell them how many species and how much
habitat they need, but they have allowed the Fish and Wildlife
to tell them how to get it. So the Fish and Wildlife Service's
job is to tell them how many species they have in their habitat
in their forest, but it is the Forest Service's job to go out
and use the tools at their discretion. However, the Forest
Service's job is to dictate both.
Now a specific example concerns two allotments. However,
there are several individuals here from Spring Creek allotment
that are involved in this issue and so the issues are the same
throughout the State, the concerns are. I provided you with
planning the processes on the Gila, two specific permits which
are really in compliance, and that is why there is some very
interesting things going on down there that you can read about
in bullets highlighted within to try to educate you. And I can
go into those if you want me to or I can--our staff would love
the opportunity to visit with you, Representative Redmond and
yourself or your Committee, to try to begin to look at some
ways to solve these problems with these Federal agencies.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. That is very interesting, and we
will look forward to submitting more questions to you.
Mr. Sanford. All right, thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. If you would be sure and drop your
testimony off with the court reporter.
The Chair recognizes Bud Eppers.
STATEMENT OF BUD EPPERS
Mr. Eppers. Representative Redmond and Chairwoman
Chenoweth, welcome to New Mexico, the land of opportunity, the
land of enchantment and opportunity. We are here today to focus
this hearing on the issue of settlement agreements between the
Forest Service and the environmental organizations.
I think the record really needs to record that that
settlement agreement was never signed by a judge. It was an
agreement that was reached between the environmental
organization and the Federal agency, and they went out and told
the permittees, the Forest Service went out and told the
permittees that they had settled an agreement under which they
had to maintain fencing of riparian area, and this is not true.
I would ask for the record to reflect this and you all
check into it, because that settlement agreement was not signed
by a judge.
We talked about the sweetheart arrangements between the
environmental organizations, and I have been involved in
several pieces of legislation or litigation over the past
number of years, and I can tell you the sweetheart arrangements
between the Justice Department and the attorneys for the BLM
and Forest Service and the State at the regional levels have a
very close-knit situation.
The environmentalists would hold up a hoop and the Justice
Department and attorneys for the agency would try to jump
through it just as high as they can. In addition, then of
course they settle out of court and pay off the exorbitant
legal fees of the environmental organization. This is a heck of
a sweetheart deal, one that I think needs to be looked into
very carefully by your Committee and Congress as a whole.
My main focus was on mining millside on Forest Service land
that was broken into by Federal Forest Service personnel and
the State environmental department personnel. The individual
filed suit in court to have a trial by jury within the State of
New Mexico.
The Federal courts immediately, or the Federal judges
immediately had this case taken out of state court and put into
Federal court, denying this individual a right of trial by jury
as is provided by our Constitution.
In addition to that, they also in the Tenth Circuit Court,
they appealed this to the Tenth Circuit Court, and the Tenth
Circuit Court ruled or stated that it must be pointed out that
the Forest Service employees are aware that they are not
subject to perjury in the Tenth Circuit.
It appears as of 1991, the Tenth Circuit has determined
that those Federal employees who gave perjured testimony are
absolutely immune from Section 1986 actions in Bristol v.
Lahue, 1983. The Tenth Circuit found that the judgment and the
decision are absolutely immune from giving perjured testimony
and conspiring to give the same.
Congressman, you have the authority under the Constitution
to change this, and I would request that you all do so. Thank
you very much.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Eppers, I can assure you that I feel
very strongly about the judge who made that decision. That
never came through the Congress, and I am pleased at your great
understanding and irritation, and I am surprised you are not
angry about it, but it is something that we in the Congress
must deal with or we won't see a turnaround in the direction we
are going right now.
So thank you very much for your valuable testimony.
STATEMENT OF PAUL BANDY
Mr. Bandy. I want to thank you both for being here and I
want to congratulate you this hot afternoon. I am a rancher
from Aztec, New Mexico. I have cattle on BLM and Forest Service
and in Colorado, and I would like to comment today on something
that I haven't heard anybody make a comment on, and that is the
remarkable proliferation of species that is indicated by all of
this litigation and controversy.
My understanding is that ``species'' is a Latin word that
means ``kind,'' as in God created animals in their own time.
And if you look in the dictionary, it says that species is part
of a group of animals that can reproduce, that can have both
viable and fertile offspring.
Now, we had a willow flycatcher in Farmington last spring,
and we were talking to the Fish and Wildlife biologist about
the willow flycatcher, and it seems the southwest willow
flycatcher which we consider endangered is virtually not
related to the northern flycatcher, and of which there are
many.
I guess you have more flies in the north, although I have a
hard time believing that. But for some reason that this animal
we presume is endangered, experts cannot tell the difference
except by their song, that the flycatcher is not even
endangered here, though they might actually be part of the same
species, as confirmed by Mr. Webster.
I really find it remarkable that the administration has
time to help God with the creation of species and that this
really seems like a travesty not only against science but
against the English language.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much Paul.
Claudio Chacon.
STATEMENT OF CLAUDIO CHACON
Mr. Chacon. My name is Claudio Chacon, and I am a rancher
in northern New Mexico. I was co-founder of an association
which lies approximately 70 miles from here in the north.
Our problem is that we are adjacent to the Chama Wilderness
Area and also adjacent to the wilderness study area. The
wilderness study area, in my opinion, is a ploy to set aside
some lands so we couldn't use them anymore. We are being
adversely affected by the wilderness study area. We haven't
heard from the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service
at what point it is going to be culminated, and we would like
to see the study culminated so that we can again gain use of
the lands.
In my estimate, the study area doesn't meet the
destination. We have got developed properties that are in the
study area, there is developed roads on it, there is fields of
wheat grass, there is windmills, and all of this area is being
considered as part of the study area.
I would like to see or have an answer from somebody as to
when this is going to be finished so we can go ahead and start
using these properties. It is really hard to get used to
because of the restrictions on the study area. We try to do
some brush control, and we are told by the Bureau of Land
Management from Taos that we couldn't do chemical processes,
spike treatments on the land, and as a result we are losing
forage on the property.
Again, I would just like to find out when this is going to
end so we can have an idea. We are not getting an answer from
anybody. Also at the onset, when we were advised of this study,
it was not stated to what the limitations were going to be. We
didn't know and weren't advised that we weren't going to be
able to use these lands as we had anticipated.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much. Mr. Redmond just
indicated to me that his office specifically will offer to find
out the answer to your question.
Mr. Chacon. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF MOISES MORALES
Mr. Morales. Representative and Chairwoman, my name is
Moises Morales. I am a County Commissioner. I represent a tri-
culture county. I want to talk a little bit about the Guadalupe
Hidalgo and also about the Forest Service and the problems our
neighbors in the area are having.
The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1878 by the
two great nations and must be honored. And that is why,
Representative Redmond and Ms. Congresswoman, we want you to go
back to Congress and give us justice in this land grant issue.
I am very offended when we have people from Washington, DC,
that can't even clean up the Potomac River, to come over here
and tell us how to run our lives. This land here in Rio Arriba
County and northern Colorado is a healthy area that the people
can live with their families and all cultures have kept it
healthy.
These people that come from Washington, you know, if I
would go to Washington and you were conducting a hearing over
there, you wouldn't pay attention to me; you would pay
attention to the people in Washington. And I don't know how it
is in Idaho, but you would pay attention to Idaho. But today I
am asking you to pay attention to all of these people here in
Rio Arriba who have been almost destroyed by these
environmental groups of the government and by the Forest
Service. They are trying to get rid of all farmers and ranchers
in this part of the country, indigenous and all kinds of
cultures.
When I was growing up with my grandparents in northern New
Mexico, the Forest Service Fish and Game took the land away
from my grandfather because he did not know how to speak
English. He had four permits in the mountains. My grandfather--
I was too small or I would have stopped it. A week later they
brought that animal back rotten.
These same people have lied all along like they are lying
to these cattlemen that they are taking their permits away
from. In the 40's they took our winter pasture away. They told
our grandparents we are going to take your winter pasture away
to repair it and then we will give it back. That day has never
come. In the 50's they took away our mule, cow permits and this
has never stopped.
I mean we get involved in human rights, owls or whatever.
Everybody in Rio Arriba pays taxes. I am asking you people, go
back to college and change this before we have another Rio
Arriba Courthouse raid that happened in 1867 because of what
they were doing to our people. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mr. Redmond. Thank you for your comments, Moises. Just a
quick update. The land grant of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Act
of 1997, we were hoping to have it up to the floor for a vote
before the August recess. As a result of the two shootings at
the Capitol building, we lost over 20 hours of floor time and
so all of the preparation--we do have in our possession a
letter from the majority leader that the bill, H.R. 2538, will
come to a vote between now and the 15th. They have assured us
of a vote between now and the 15th of September, and at this
particular juncture it takes 218 votes to pass the land grant
bill. We have commitments from 225 Members of Congress who said
they will vote yes for it. So unless they change their minds,
God willing, between now and the 15th of September, for the
first time in history we will pass through the House of
Representatives both the lands grants.
Mrs. Chenoweth. We have three witnesses left, R. C. Posey,
Dennis Braden and Porfirio Cisneros.
STATEMENT OF R. C. POSEY
Mr. Posey. My name is R. C. Posey. I can't write very well.
It shows you how poor our schools are. Chairwoman, I really
appreciate you coming here. It has been a fantastic experience.
I am from the southern part of the State. I am a native New
Mexican from Alamogordo.
I am going to contact Congressman Skeen's office and
suggest he have a similar hearing in the southern part of the
State. I think it would be very informative for a lot of
people. Also where you talked about education a while ago, I
consider that people, even though they don't have college
degrees, they do have a doctorate in hard knocks, because they
are survivors, and if they weren't they wouldn't be here.
Three sets of my great grandparents moved to the Sacramento
Mountains in the 1880's. They came to graze their cattle, and
it is funny to me that they have had cattle in the forest land
for over 100 years and now all of a sudden they are causing
problems, and I just don't understand that.
As far as the spotted owl is concerned, they are doing a
lot of logging in the Sacramento on private land, and where
they are logging and kind of tearing up the land a bit, the
owls are moving in there because they can get the moths. Others
places the Forest Service is going in and feeding the owls. How
much money is that costing us?
Besides the logging and losing the logging, it is costing
us money to have these people go out and feed the owls. The
Forest Service recently had a meeting to talk about potential
thinning of the Forest Service down in the Sacramentos.
It is very interesting that they want to cut and burn trees
up to nine inches, nothing over nine inches. The sawmills can't
use anything under nine inches. Now where did that come from?
Very interesting.
I have also noticed that a lot of the data, a lot of the
things that the Forest Service and the environmental activists
and the animal rights activists, they base a lot of their
information on emotion only and no scientific data. As far as
the elk is concerned, I have been working with the State Game
Commission for over 2 years. It is a very good group. We have
been trying to work on elk and deer problems and also other
types of problems, and, Congressman Redmond, I would be glad to
talk to you after the meeting is over with about anything that
I am able to help in that regard.
Also for everyone's information, there will a State Game
Commission meeting Thursday and Friday in Albuquerque starting
at 9 at the Hyatt Regency. Everyone is invited to attend. At
the end of the meeting everyone has 3 minutes to speak on any
issue that you want to speak. I would encourage you to go.
If anyone has any questions or you can't go, get in touch
with me and I will be sure and bring it up. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you Mr. Posey.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS BRADEN
Mr. Braden. Madam Chairwoman, thank you. Thank you,
Congressman Redmond, for the activity you have shown in the
grass roots and home front and it is appreciated.
I have got a conundrum in that I am neither an eloquent
speaker and I put together more notes here than I could
probably do in a few minutes, so I am going to speak fast.
Mr. Horning and myself have something in common. It is that
we have both been in northern New Mexico 4 years. That is where
our commonness ends. I am west born and west raised. My
dependence and love and interest in public land and private
lands are concurrent with the majority of people in this room.
Most of my life I have been positive about the future of
public land ranching, and I thought that probably we would
maintain the use of the land. I think probably in the last 50
years the positive--I realize that we are playing with groups
that don't play legally or ethically or morally. Mr. Horning
made a comment about ranchers not being able to change. But
education of ranchers have risen just like with most other
industry. Either with citizen flow, grazing techniques that are
recognized at universities as well as agencies as scientific
data, these are ignored by the environmental communities. And
it is because they are not interested in better land
management. They are interested in abolishment of grazing.
Also, our interest is not participating with the
environmental sector. Congressman Bingaman just had a
roundtable this morning. It was under an environmental agenda
and environmental format. Fifty percent of the people that
participated in that were ranchers and 50 percent
environmentalists, so those were very interesting.
I have got to say, and I will hurry, one of the biggest
problems that I think that we see is that we are legislated to
and laws are passed from faceless people that will know neither
us, the situations that we are in or the land we are on.
One of the things that would be particular to this would be
the regionalized or localized Federal land management to where
the agency people had to look me or these colleagues in the eye
when they have policy or laws that affected us and they had to
live day-to-day with the same law that they passed.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Porfirio Cisneros.
STATEMENT OF PORFIRIO CISNEROS
Mr. Cazares. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Cody
Cazares and I will reading on behalf of Mr. Cisneros.
Porfirio Cisneros is the father of Floyd Cisneros, a
permittee on the Questa Ranger District of the Carson National
Forest. Floyd Cisneros was killed in a mechanical accident this
past week and had intended to testify or present information on
the problems he is facing on his sheep permit.
Porfirio Cisneros indicated his son was the current holder
of the sheep permit. Porfirio held the permit previously and
his father and grandfather before him. The family has held the
sheep permit more than a century and even today wants to
continue to operate as a sheep permit.
The problem appears to be that the U.S. Forest Service has
reduced the sheep permit from 235 to 135 head and now wants to
remove sheep from the allotment to accommodate stocking with
Big Horn sheep. He has been offered a change from sheep to
cattle at 27 head. Where--there is a question mark.
The Cisneros family does not want to change from sheep and
fears the action may result in a loss of their grazing permit.
The allotment area and beyond is best suited for sheep grazing.
The Cisneros family feels a need of assistance and protection
on what they feel is a long standing interest and right. On
behalf of the Cisneros family, I thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Now I would like to call our
esteemed Mayor for some final words before we close the
hearing. Mayor?
Mayor Lucero. Thank you very much for this great day. I
guess many of us learned so much today and it was great to be
here. One of the things that have not been pointed out that I
would like to point out is that over 75 percent of the land of
Rio Arriba County is controlled by the Federal Government. Only
25 percent of the land pays taxes, and then you people wonder
why we have over 10 percent unemployment.
If you took 75 percent of the land away from many other
areas, they would have over 10 percent unemployment also. It is
unfortunate that before, maybe 50 years ago, we all shared the
land and shared it so well. Then all of a sudden they began to
take our land away from us. Today we have to live in quarter
acre lots in a trailer house. These are the errors of the
original land of New Mexico because we have lost our lands.
Now what is left. This building here is all New Mexico. The
timbers above are New Mexico timbers. This is made of Mother
Earth, of bricks and mortar. Everything that you see here,
Madam chair, is New Mexico. This is the beauty of New Mexico.
This is what we are, this is what we love. We can't have this
taken way from us, but yet we seem to feel, as has been shown
today, that every day we lose more and more and more of our New
Mexico to more and more and more of the bureaucracy of
government.
So we want to give you on behalf of the people of northern
New Mexico a little bit of New Mexico so that you can take it
with you back to Washington and eventually to Idaho, a very,
very beautiful state, and the only other state that I would
live in other than New Mexico, it would be Idaho.
This is a pot of a black pot of the Santa Clara. Carved on
the pot is a forest, the forest of New Mexico. On the pot is
also carved an elk. The Bald Eagle of the United States of
America, the Bald Eagle of New Mexico. This is made of Mother
Earth, Mother Earth, New Mexico. As we all are made of Mother
Earth, New Mexico. So please take a little bit of New Mexico
back with you and come back soon so that we can show you the
land we love, the land that is us.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to stand
up to make my final comments. I just want to say it has been a
very memorable hearing. I have learned a lot. I have said that
a number of times. But I really know how you feel. I really
feel what you feel, and I don't ever want you to give up hope.
We have been through tough times before.
Our land, whether it is on your land down here, our land in
Idaho and the land across this Nation, our relatives together
have mixed our blood when we have had to fight and bleed for
this land.
So I really feel what you have said today. It means more to
me than just establishing a hearing record. The very
interesting issues that I want to look into specifically, and I
would like to be back in touch with Mr. Bill Wright with
regards to the issue of the history of the elk coming into this
area, this is not a species that is indigenous and I think
probably most lands rights predate the elk coming in. And there
is a very interesting question that comes up and that is if you
bring another species in that consumes your water rights and
consumes your forage rights, which you have a right to forage,
a private property use right in my opinion, and there are cases
that are continuing to be enforced, existing law that has built
itself like a strong pillar, but unfortunately, it is being
ignored right now.
Yes, these are tough times and I find that no wonder people
want to come to this area because the openness of the hearts
and the minds and the homes of you people. But people have not
always acted with regards to respect and been good guests and
been good newcomers here.
It grieves me to see the lack of respect and the
unwillingness to really understand the culture of this area.
People who aren't willing to understand, they are missing so
much. I do want you to know you are not alone in this fight at
all. We hear you and there has been a speeding freight train
that seems to have been running out of control down here. It
seems to have moved our country to the point where private
property rights are no longer regarded as they should be, and
the rights of the States to control their water and protect
people's water rights. It is not being regarded in the same
way.
But let me tell you, I can see from one end of this Nation
that people are waking up, and the days of the conflict
industry are numbered. They are numbered because they are
losing credibility. We welcome everyone's testimony. I
represent the people, and you, so I think we need to continue
to encourage that intellectually, integrity and honesty with
one another and just know that we are never going to quit.
We will never, never, never give up. Our land here in
America means too much to us, doesn't it?
Mr. Redmond. It has been a long afternoon, but I believe it
has been a fruitful afternoon. I think that this meeting is
decades late, but nevertheless Washington has come to Espanola.
I want to thank our gracious host, Mayor Lucero. Let's have a
round of applause for him.
[Applause.]
Richard, thank you. Thank you very much. I want to thank
the gentlewoman from Idaho for coming and for hearing, and not
only for hearing and seeing, but also for feeling the needs of
the people of northern New Mexico. I want to thank you.
[Applause.]
And I just want everybody to leave here assured, knowing in
your mind and your heart that Bill Redmond, your Congressman is
going to be there for you. (In Spanish.) Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me say the record will remain open for
10 days for any of you who wish to supplement your testimony
with any documentation that is pertinent to the body of your
testimony.
And please know that we may also be submitting questions to
you and we would like for you to answer those questions as
quickly as you possibly can.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Antonio DeVargas, La Madera, New Mexico
I am a lifelong resident of Northern New Mexico, was raised
in the village of La Madera by my grandparents and have earned
my living out of Forest Resources for 28 years. I joined the
United States Marine Corp in 1964 at the age of 17, and served
a tour of duty in Viet-Nam from 1965 to 1966. When I returned
from ``Nam'' in 1966 I found that a large number of war
resistors from all over the Country had hidden in our Forest
Communities, had been accepted by the people, and had acquired
land.
My grandparents and their parents and grandparents all were
born and raised in this same area and subsisted from the land.
In the early 1900s, the Forest service made it's presence felt
in our area. According to my grandfather, they went house to
house informing the people about their mission. They described
their mission as ``Managing the land to improve it for the
local people, and repeatedly reassured the people that they
were not going to own the land, only make it more productive
for their benefit and their heirs''. Shortly thereafter a large
timber harvesting operation was initiated that employed the
people in logging, milling, and the building of the railroad
line known as the ``Chili Line'' to extract the timber. My
grandfather worked on the rail road and in the logging
operation. My grandfather would describe the Forest Service and
other government employees as ``Americanos,'' he never spoke
English.
After my service in the Military I worked in different
States and finally came back in 1971 to work in the forest. I
earned my living as a trapper, a hunting and fishing guide, I
planted trees for the Forest Service and conducted thinning
operations for the same. I also did taxidermy work to
supplement my income. I have worked for private industry as a
logger from 1972 to the present, all in Northern New Mexico. I
have also been a fire fighter for 10 fire seasons in the
Western United States.
In the past 6 years I have been deeply involved in the
ongoing fights with groups who are intent on denying the local
people access to the use of the Forests. The battles have been
very bitter and very destructive to the villages and villagers
of Northern New Mexico. I suspect that all rural dwellers in
the western United States are under similar assault. The damage
that is being done is very deep in that it is causing the local
people to resent all newcomers and to view them as well as the
government as the enemy. This is very disturbing because there
are a lot of well meaning people who are being and will
continue to be hurt on both sides of the issue for a very long
time, and because if this trend continues, violence may be the
only recourse that the locals will believe they have. If this
happens, nobody wins and the greatest victim may be the very
forests that all are trying to protect.
My experience with this issue is that the groups that seek
to restrict access are really intent on displacing rural
dwelling people in order to take over the land and resources.
They think that people who live in rural areas have no
political clout because of our small numbers, and that being
raised in remote areas, our level of education and
sophistication needed to survive in urban areas renders us
ineffectual in terms of offering alternatives to their agenda.
It is a very cynical and insidious assault on an entire
people's custom, culture and traditional use of the land and
the resources for their survival. They claim to love the land
and that they only want to protect it, it is reminiscent of the
Forest Service telling our ancestors that they only want to
make the land more productive for the villagers when in fact a
land grab was then, and is now progress.
In regards to the health of the Forest, I personally do not
believe that it is in the level of distress that these groups
seem to think it is. Most of the people involved with these
groups are urban dwellers who have lost contact with the land,
have only limited book knowledge of the land, and have
absolutely no subsistence need for the land. They only wish to
make our homeland into their playland now that the rural
dwellers have made it safe for them and others who would
otherwise be terrified to venture into the wilderness without
clearly marked trails or a support system should they get lost.
They forget that the support system was set up by the very
people they wish to be rid of.
In terms of Forest health, I believe that thinning needs to
occur because the Forest is very overstocked. Much of the
thinning can occur as a result of sawtimber sales on a scale
that provides for the economic stability of the forest
dependent communities and still maintain the ecological
integrity of the Forest. As far as the Spotted Owl is
concerned, there are not any in this area and have not been
here historically. This issue is a red herring as are most of
the issues as they relate to endangered species. I have
discussed this issue with many of the elders in the surrounding
villages and they agree that the main change that is observable
in regards to wildlife is exploding populations of Elk and the
dwindling population of Mule Deer. This is not related to
either logging, woodhauling or grazing, it is merely an
indication of poor wildlife management on the part of the
Department of Game and Fish and the United States Forest
Service. When groups with an agenda of displacing rural people
point to an indication of overgrazing, it is always the fact
that we live in a dry State that makes it appear that way.
Obviously there will be a shortage of grasses when there is a
lack of precipitation and this becomes obvious as soon as the
rains come. The old people know this and are deeply resentful
when their livelihood is threatened by historical people who
evoke emotional responses from the masses of people in Urban
areas who know no better.
The impact on local people is extreme because most people
still use fire wood for heating and cooking. The local people
use wild herbs as well as pinon nuts as part of their diet, and
use the rocks, logs and gravel for building material for our
homes. Most of us supplement our diet with deer, rabbit,
grouse, turkey, fish and many other resources found in the
forests that surround us. Seventy percent of the land in our
rural villages are in hands of Federal Agencies, the State or
Indian Tribes and we are therefore extremely vulnerable to
shifting political winds that affect these Agencies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.020
Statement of Gerald L. Chacon, Rancher and Northern District Department
Head, New Mexico State University, Cooperative Extension Service
Representative Chenoweth, as Chair of the Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health, let me welcome you and your members
to Northern New Mexico and to the Espanola Valley. It is an
honor and privilege for me to testify before each of you on
what I consider to be one of the most important issues to have
ever faced rural New Mexicans--Forest Policy and Federal Laws
which govern uses of public lands.
This year marked the 400th anniversary of livestock
production in Northern New Mexico. My own family has
continuously raised livestock on our private and surrounding
lands for at least the last 168 years.
Each of you must clearly understand that nearly all of the
area now part of the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests in
Northern New Mexico were Spanish and Mexican Land Grants used
to graze livestock, obtain drinking and irrigation water, to
build homes, churches, and businesses which sustained our
communities and families. Our people have always been land-
based livestock producers with a successful history of
livestock production going back to ancestral Spain. Look on any
Forest Service map in northern New Mexico, nearly every
mountain, stream, spring and pasture are Spanish names and
places.
Today, as in our past, we have a proud history of serving
the community and working with government, even when that same
governance took community lands for the establishment of public
domain. Still today, title to much of the forest land is not
clear. Hopefully, you in Congress will allow communities to
finally have the opportunity to prove ownership under a more
fair process than what was historically given.
There are currently just over 2,000 families grazing on
U.S. Forest and BLM land in Northern New Mexico. These
permitters run on the average less than 50 head. Eighty seven
percent are Hispanic.
There are 327 families using public land for grazing in Rio
Arriba County alone.
Public lands sustains 60 percent of these ranchers
livestock forage needs each year. Total gross receipts from all
livestock in this county range between $7.8 and $14.7 million.
This industry is very significant for a county whose population
already has a 10.7 percent unemployment rate and where 23.5
percent of the families live below the national poverty level.
There are 3.5 million total acres in this county with 1.3
million U.S. Forest Service land and 50,000 BLM acres, 647,000
acres of Indian land and 108,000 State land acres.
The majority of resources available for our economic well
being come through public lands. Access to these resources is
key to our communities and cultures ability to survive.
The processes that would allow continued access are largely
threatened by misinterpretation and misuse of laws and policies
originally intended to preserve and protect the environment of
these lands.
There are currently 29 species of animals alone listed on
the State Threatened, Endangered Federal Threatened, Endangered
and Candidate List in this county alone. This, coupled with
NEPA, EIS, EA processes provides enough legal fodder to consume
every Federal and State Agency, municipal and county
government's budgets. This is currently the situation with U.S.
Forest Service and the pending lawsuits against them.
The single most disruptive force in our rural communities
today is the misuse of the Endangered Species Act and the
scores of procedures that are required to enact it. The legal
interpretations of this once well-supported law have succeeded
in driving wedges between Environmental organizations,
ranchers, loggers, miners, the recreation industry and the U.S.
Forest Service. More recently, cities, towns and county
commissions have been forced to defend themselves and their
constituents from the never ending problems the Endangered
Species Act creates for them. Growing numbers of credible
science organizations and institutions seriously criticize its
overall effectiveness. Identifiable errors in the determination
of what is endangered and threatened have been identified.
Wrongful determinations of endangered and threatened status
have been exposed. The loose and expansive nature of the
language in the listing criteria are very problematic. Further,
the record of recovery from the Act itself is seriously
questioned by more of the science community.
The immensity of problems and opportunities for legal
wrangling are too large to even comprehend or to ever solve.
Land-based people are doomed to a life in the courtroom.
We desperately need your help to develop law and action
plans that recover species with the involvement of land-based
people, not in spite of them. Law and policy interpretations
that remove people from the land are sure to fail in the long
run. Law that puts people against people cannot help heal the
environment or the economic status of rural communities. Law
and policy of agencies which takes rights, property, punishes,
fines and incarcerates is sure to fail in the long run.
Rather, incentives for land-based people to participate
willfully in conservation efforts have historically proved most
effective. No law or policy in and by itself ever accomplished
anything without the will and support of the people.
One only has to look at what has been done working
cooperatively to recover game species--ducks, geese, wild
turkeys, elk, buffalo and many others, some of which were
nearly extinct, now thrive.
We have the science, the money and the will of the people
to accomplish anything we set our collective minds to do. The
government and the people should not expend all our financial
mental and physical resource to fight each other in the
courtroom. I choose to think we are smarter than that, and when
given an equal and balanced opportunity to we will find a win
for natural resources and a win for people. We need your help
to balance the scale of opportunity. Rural Northern New
Mexicans cannot outspend national Environmental organizations
with endless streams of financial and legal resources. Poor
science, laws without clarity, and policy interpreted by the
whim of any individual without consideration for people, will
only further worsen our problems.
The more than $2 billion spent by agencies since 1989 for
recovery would have gone a long way to diversify forest
habitats had we allowed for sustained timber harvest, thinned
overcrowded forests, developed watering for livestock and
wildlife, used prescribed burns, controlled brushy species and
otherwise enhanced wildlife habitats. Currently we lose 1
percent of our forest ecosystem grasslands per year due to
encroachment of trees. Catastrophic fires consume forest
resources and the budgets of agencies who fight them. Our
efforts to control invasive brush in grasslands is constantly
derailed by budget, policy and the fear of agencies to use
proven, safe, and cost-effective herbicides.
Paperwork, hearings, budget, documentation, notification,
are the business of agencies. No longer is range science,
forestry, soil science, wildlife science and recreation the
business of the U.S. Forest Service.
I would like to conclude with the first paragraph of the
Extension Workers Creed. It is good food for thought for all of
us assembled here today.
``I believe in people and their hopes, their aspirations, and
their faith; in their right to make their own plans and arrive
at their own decisions; in their ability and power to enlarge
their lives and plan for the happiness of those they love.''
Thank you.
Addendum
Specific Recommendations:
1. Revise the Endangered Species Act to provide incentives
for conservation of species rather then punish people and
communities with listed species.
2. Develop provisions for a peer review process of the
nomination to prove status and necessary steps for recovery.
3. Provide recurring funds for local communities and
allotments to better maintain forest, range and water
improvements to enhance overall forest health--possibly from
Land and Conservation Fund.
Return all or most of all User Fees to the land to improve
and maintain forest health--keeping resources and communities
economically healthy will return more dollars to the U.S.
Treasury through taxes than User Fees.
------
Statement of Robert B. Luce, General Counsel, Rio Grande Forest
Products, INC., Espanola, New Mexico
Madam Chairman, Representative Redmond, and distinguished
guests, my name is Robert Luce. I represent Rio Grande Forest
Products, Espanola, New, Mexico. On behalf of Rio Grande, I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony on such a critical issue as forest health and forest
management in northern New Mexico. Frankly, it is good to have
representatives who are concerned enough to bring the eyes and
ears of Washington to Espanola.
Rio Grande operates the largest sawmill in the State of New
Mexico. The mill has been located in the Espanola valley for
more than 20 years. We are the second largest employer in the
valley with approximately 100 employees. With the addition of
loggers, and truckers that supply the mill with logs, we
estimate that there are more than 1,000 families in northern
New Mexico and southern Colorado that are directly dependent on
our mill for their economic survival.
We currently produce approximately 35 million board feet of
lumber per year, roughly enough wood to build 3,000 single
family homes on an annual basis. The logs we process are
harvested from public, tribal, and private lands utilizing the
best management practices available. We do not encourage or
endorse so-called ``clear cutting,'' and we do not strip the
land of every merchantable tree. All of our logging operations
are managed by three graduate, professional foresters working
in conjunction with other foresters employed by the U.S. Forest
Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and State of New Mexico
Department of Forestry. It is our policy to implement and
encourage harvesting standards and methods that leave an
adequately stocked residual stand of young, healthy timber that
promotes natural regeneration. This policy ensures that we will
have an adequate timber supply for future generations. We have
art ``eye to the future in New Mexico.''
We believe that the most objective way to evaluate forest
health and the effects of current Federal policy in New Mexico
is to actually visit the timber lands. That way, you can
compare the Federal timber lands with the private harvests that
have occurred in the same region. Unfortunately, we can't make
that type of trip today. So I have the next best thing for you
to consider--photographs.
The first three pictures that I will be showing you were
taken on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation which is owned by
the White Mountain Apache Tribe. This is an example of a well
managed private forest. Since 1918 the Tribe has continuously
harvested timber on 750,000 acres of forest land. In addition
to selective harvesting, the Tribe has initiated controlled
burns of 10,000 to 45,000 acres of timber land each year. As a
result of this type of management, mayor catastrophic fires
have occurred less frequently on the reservation as compared to
the national forests. This is primarily because ``fuel
ladders'' have been greatly reduced through systematic
harvesting and controlled burning.
The White Mountain Apache Tribe has sold approximately 50
to 100 million board feet of timber to the Tribal sawmill and
off-reservation sawmills on an annual basis for the past 30
years. In the 1950's the timber inventory on the reservation
was approximately 100 billion board feet. BLM's latest
inventory reveals that there is still approximately 100 billion
board feet of timber left standing on the reservation. In other
words, after more than 30+ years of active timber harvesting
and thinning operations, there has been no significant
reduction in the forest inventory at White Mountain. This is a
direct result of their well managed program of selective
harvesting, and salvage operations combined with an active
controlled burn program.
The second set of pictures is from the Hondo Complex Fire
which burned in June 1996 near the town of Questa, New Mexico.
Due to current Federal policies, there has been no systematic
logging, thinning, or controlled burning in this area as has
occurred on the White Mountain Reservation. The result is a
proliferation of ``fuel ladders'' and bug infestation. These
conditions provide an excellent source of ignition and allow
catastrophic fire runs like this one at Flag Mountain which
threatened the town of Questa. 7,700 acres of timber was burned
for no good reason. The Carson National Forest estimates
approximately 4.1 million board feet of commercial timber was
destroyed. Today, pockets of insects are breeding in the dead
timber. These insects will spread to adjacent healthy timber
stands, where they will thrive and kill healthy trees. Scrub
oak and under brush have replaced what was a mixed conifer
living forest. Now, over two years after the fire, only six
small salvage sales have been prepared--less than 10 percent of
the total salvage volume. Only three have been sold and only
one of the salvage sales has been harvested. In all likelihood,
most of the burned timber will be wasted and left to rot as a
timeless memorial to failed policy upon failed policy.
Now, is this a wise policy or should we follow the example
set by the Jicarilla Apaches in northern New Mexico and the
Southern Ute Tribe in southern Colorado. These Tribes lost
8,500 acres in the Mount Archuleta Complex burn in June of
1996. Less than 3 months after the ashes cooled, logging began
to salvage the burned timber. The two tribes removed over 15
million board feet of fire killed timber. As we speak
reforestation and erosion control measures are being
implemented to restore these areas and they are well on there
way to reforestation.
The last photograph that I would like to share with you is
of the Oso Complex fire that burned 15 miles west of Espanola
this last July. The Santa Clara Pueblo intends to sell
approximately 2 million board feet of salvage timber from the
Oso burn. Will the Santa Fe National Forest sell the remaining
three million board feet of salvage or will it repeat the same
mistake as occurred in the Carson National Forest following the
Hondo Fire?
In addition to wasting a renewable resource by increasing
the risk of wild fire, and bug infestation, current Federal
policy threatens the economic livelihood of those families in
northern New Mexico who are dependent on logging and the public
forests for survival. We need only look at small rural towns in
Idaho, Oregon, Wash-
ington and Montana to see the results of the current policy.
Just last week, Boise Cascade announced the closure of four
more sawmills in our region. Since 1989 over 300 sawmills, pulp
mills, and plywood plants have closed as a result of the
harvesting reductions that have occurred on Federal timber
lands. Over 35,000 employees have lost their jobs, and
thousands of workers have had to look elsewhere for work. There
is very little likelihood that these individuals will be
reemployed in their hometowns or for that matter in the wood
products industry in another area of the country.
So for us, there are two issues: jobs and the waste of a
renewable resource. Frankly, I would much rather see a well
managed forest, like the one at White Mountain Apache
Reservation than see the scorched hills of Hondo. As a company
we realize and understand that the national forests must be
managed responsibly so that this resource is available for
future generations. At the same time, however, we must not lose
sight of the fact that timber is a renewable resource. With
that in mind, and especially considering the tragedy at Hondo,
it is very hard to understand the rational underlying a Federal
policy that places a virtual moratorium on harvesting timber in
the national forests when the cost of such a policy is acres
upon acres of burned timber, thousands of lost jobs, not to
mention wasted lumber, and severe environmental degradation
from the mud slides and soil erosion that follow.
In closing, I would encourage each of you to visit the
White Mountain Apache timber lands. They provide an excellent
example of what our national forests could and should look
like. Short of a personal visit you will have to rely on the
photographs. As you consider these pictures, we would challenge
you and the other members of the Committee on Resources to
answer these two questions:
1. Does our current land management policy protect the living
forest or does it actually promote the waste of a renewable
resource?
2. Has the current land management policy reduced the risk of
wild fire or has it actually increased the risk of
environmental degradation?
As you can see from the pictures, we believe that there is better
way. In our view, Federal policy should follow the example that is
being set by the White Mountain Apache Tribe and other privately
managed forests if we are truly interested in doing the best possible
job of manage Federal timber lands for everyone concerned.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.023
Statement of Bruce Klinekole,
My name is Bruce Klinekole. I am a Mescalero Apache and I live on
the Mescalero Reservation in South Central New Mexico. I am a member of
the Board of Directors for the Mescalero Apache Cattle Growers and of
the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association.
I have been asked to give testimony before you today on forest
health. First, let me thank you Congressman Redmond and Congresswoman
Helen Chenoweth for allowing me to come before you today and give input
on this very important subject.
As you are aware, forests around the nation are in poor health due
to lack of management. If you have visited the Lincoln National Forest
recently, you would notice that parts of the Lincoln are no exception.
This can be attributed to poor management practices on the Federal
level.
But if you visit the part of the Lincoln managed by the Mescalero
Apache, you will notice something different. You will see a healthy
forest, where wildlife and cattle thrive together, where timber is
harvested and where we worship our creator.
I would like to tell you about the steps we, on the Mescalero
Reservation, have taken to insure that the forests in our care are
preserved for generations to come--where we give back what we have
taken.
We are taught from a young age to respect the land we live on, to
use it wisely and to give back what we have taken. It is by simply
following these lessons that we have a section of forest that is in
better health than those around us. We do graze cattle, we do harvest
timber and do prescribed burns. I am here to tell you, when done
correctly, these practices provide a lush landscape where everyone and
everything benefit.
On the Mescalero Reservation we participate in selective tree
harvesting. We have done clear cuts before, but only when there is a
severe outbreak of diseased trees due to mistletoe or bark beetles.
After each timber harvest, many hours are spent cleaning up and
gathering the debris left. The debris is then burned during the winter
months, clearing the way for undercover to thrive.
Currently, a six-man crew from the Mescalero Reservation, trained
by our Branch of Forestry, is employed to check and mark trees in
accordance with the Agency Forester's Timber Management Plan. Thinning
crews are also employed to remove undesirable woody plants and trees
from areas to provide better sunlight to the ground cover. These areas
are eventually burned. Lush grasses sprout, providing grazing areas for
wildlife and cattle. When done correctly, prescribed burning, and
timber harvesting can have a most beneficial outcome.
Recently, we have been working in conjunction with the Department
of Agriculture on the Great Plains Conservation Plan. Under this ten
year plan, Mescalero Apache Cattle Growers' and Bureau of Indian
Affairs personnel laid pipelines and installed stock tanks for better
water distribution to wildlife and cattle in the area. We have also
worked on spring development. By developing springs in the area, we
have provided a cheaper water source for not only our livestock, but
for wildlife as well. We have also seen a decrease in soil erosion in
the area.
Our cattle producers also work to ensure the land is not
overgrazed. Cattle are moved around and fenced to different areas at
different points in time. We have seen a decline in soil erosion
because of these practices. We have seen our grasses grow.
If you should come down to the Mescalero Reservation, and our
portion of the Lincoln National Forest, you will notice how beautiful
our forest is. You will notice the wildlife and you will notice the
cattle. You will notice that the reservation forestland is not a
tinderbox waiting for the next lightening strike. You will notice a
well cared for landscape.
Understand that we have available to us the opinions of the Federal
Government and its agencies, but our tribal advisors and tribal council
have the final say in how we manage our land. We have chosen to manage
it wisely. We have chosen to instill conservation practices, such as
prescribed burning and responsible grazing and timber harvesting. We
have not only benefited from these practices, but have used the land
wisely, ensuring that it will be here for generations to come.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you. I
thank you for the opportunity to relate that if our forests are managed
properly; wildlife, forests and cattle can coexist.
______
Statement of Jake M. Vigil, President, Tio Gordito Cattle Association,
El Rito, New Mexico
Good afternoon, my name is Jake M. Vigil and I am representing the
Tio Gordito Cattle Association. I want to thank the Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health and Chairperson Chenoweth for allowing me the
opportunity to testify to this oversight hearing. I would also like to
thank Congressman Bill Redmond for bringing this important hearing to
Espanola, New Mexico. It is my hope some good will come from my
testimony. Make no mistake, I love the forest dearly, I do not want to
see it harmed in any way. At the same time, I do not want to see the
destruction of our culture and customs. Please forgive me, I am not an
educated man. All of my life has been spent making a living on the
Carson National Forest in the Tres Piedras District raising sheep and
cattle with my father. It is important you understand that I know the
forest, and I know it well. My family, the Vigil's settled Medanales in
the early 1600 hundreds and tamed the tierra cimarone, or wild lands.
As a young boy my father would take me to the high sierras for the
summer to herd sheep. Those were the happiest days of my life. Sadly,
over the years I have noticed a decline in the health of the forest.
Not because of sheep and cattle. Years ago we grazed more livestock
than they do today, but because of inappropriate forest service
policies and the implementation of so-called ``environmental reforms''
my beloved land is suffering.
We have bent over backwards to work with the Forest Service. This
year we have already given up 23 days of grazing time on our permits
due to what was referred to as ``production decline.'' We may possibly
lose up to another 30 to 60 days at the end of the season due to a
policy called ``40-60 utilization.'' This is a policy, derived from a
formula dreamed up by the Forest Service and environmentalists behind
closed doors, dictates utilization of 40 percent of the forage and 60
percent is left behind. Because of this ridiculous policy 42 families
will be affected and 3,000 head of cattle will be forcibly removed from
the Carson National Forest.
What I find interesting is that years ago we ran more livestock and
the forest looked better than it does today. I believe it is due to the
fact the Forest Service has invested so much money fighting the
environmentalists in court, and so little is left for range
improvements. I can hardly blame the Forest Service for making deals
with the environmentalists. It is obviously cheaper to strike up a deal
than it is to fight someone in court. Unfortunately, the ``cheap'' way
out is not good for forest health, and it will ultimately mean the end
of the Hispano culture.
With me today are five pictures I want you to see. One will detail
a grazed area, and the other is a picture of a non-grazed area. All of
the pictures are taken from my ranch: Number 1 is a boundary fence
between my forest service permit and private land. The one on the left
side has never been grazed and the right has had livestock on it since
1958. You will notice the right has many more different plants while
the left is nothing but sage brush.
Number two and three are areas adjacent to each other. You will
notice the abundant vegetation in photograph two, while the space
represented in photograph three could never support any livestock or
wildlife whatsoever.
Picture number four demonstrates the vegetation left behind when we
left this pasture in July 28, 1998. Number five is an area cattle and
wildlife never go because of the canopy under which nothing grows.
I am always amazed that never once has an environmentalist
consulted me, or my neighbors, and certainly never has one asked to see
our ranches. I might add, none of us have ever been invited to one of
their meetings.
Environmentalists have the financial resources to try and make the
forests into some idea of what they think the forests should look like.
They do not realize grazing and logging are good for the land. As far
as I am concerned, radical environmental groups are committing nothing
less than a form of ethnic cleansing and are out to rid the forests of
Hispanos by destroying our livelihood. The Forest Service, with
approval from environmental groups, spend millions of dollars each year
to recover artifacts and restore ruins. I guess a culture has to be
dead for a thousand years before we try to save it.
Again I thank you for your invitation. I hope I have done some
good.
______
Statement of Caren Cowan, New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association
Let me begin by thanking you, Chairman Chenoweth, and members of
the Committee for your interest in what is happening to rural families
and economies in the Southwest at the hands of the Federal Government
in concert with radical environmentalists. My name is Caren Cowan and I
am here today representing the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association.
During the past several months the Cattle Growers' have been the
coordinating group for the litigation that livestock producers have
been forced into between the radicals and the Federal Government. I
have been the individual responsible for communication between our
attorneys and livestock producers as decisions are made.
I have been asked to come here today to address the settlement
agreement entered into between the U.S. Forest Service and the Forest
Guardians. I stress the words ``settlement agreement'' because the
Forest Service and their friends persist in calling the agreement a
``stipulation.'' Our attorneys have taught us that a stipulation is an
agreement that is court sanctioned. The agreement we are talking about
is not now nor has it ever been court sanctioned. In fact, a Federal
district judged refused to sign off on the agreement because livestock
producers would not agree to it.
As you know in October 1997 the Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity filed a suit (the 666 case) against the Forest Service
alleging endangered species claims. In December 1997 the Forest
Guardians filed a similar suit (the 2562 case) but included clean water
and other claims. It is my understanding the Arizona Cattle Growers'
Association obtained intervener status in the 666 case.
In early 1998, I was contacted by both the Forest Service and the
Arizona Cattle Growers with urgent requests that the New Mexico Cattle
Growers' intervene in the 2562 case. My directors made the decision to
do so. At about the same time the Forest Service moved to join the two
cases. In early March I participated in a conference call on the cases
that included our attorneys, the Arizona Cattle Growers and their
attorneys, representatives of the U.S. Justice Department, Forest
Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and representatives of both
the radical green groups. Basically we listened to the greens and the
feds discuss how things would proceed under a grazing consultation
agreement reached between the Forest Service and Fish & Wildlife.
A few days later we learned the Forest Guardians filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction to immediately remove livestock from some 160
allotments in New Mexico and Arizona. Although we had not yet been
granted intervener status, our attorneys were allowed to prepare
responses, which were due the end of March.
About the first of April things began to pop. The cases were
joined. Both New Mexico Cattle Growers and Arizona Cattle Growers were
granted intervener status in the joined cases and the judge set a
hearing date a mere two weeks away on the motion for preliminary
injunction. Our attorneys immediately began preparing a case on behalf
of the permittees.
A few days into the process, our attorney called and reported that
she had been told by the Justice Department that it was not necessary
for the permittees to be concerned with defending themselves because
the government was confident of their case. I called the Forest Service
in Albuquerque and asked about the report. I was told that yes, the
Forest Service was working hard to defend themselves and the livestock
producers and they believed they had a good case.
For that reason, I was surprised when our attorney called about a
week before the scheduled hearing and said that a stipulation had been
proposed. She had participated in a telephone call with the radical
greens and the Justice Department and felt at that point that
negotiations were going nowhere. On the Friday afternoon prior to the
hearing, which was Good Friday, I again talked with our attorney.
Although conversations on the stipulation had continued, she still felt
no progress was being made.
I arrived in Tucson mid-morning on April 13 to finalize preparation
for the hearing and the picture had radically changed. Justice and the
radical greens had negotiated through Easter weekend and late on Sunday
night had come up with a draft stipulation. While our attorney was on
the phone for the negotiations, she felt she had virtually no impact on
what went on.
I looked at the draft stipulation and consulted with my directors.
There was no way we could agree to the stipulation. It would harm too
many permittees. Our attorney advised Justice of our decision and that
was the last we were consulted on anything.
The preliminary injunction hearing, which was to commence on the
following morning, was postponed until afternoon. At a little after
1:00 p.m. we finally received a copy of the final draft of the
stipulation. I was told that the Court received a copy at the same
time.
The magistrate judge began the hearing on the preliminary
injunction with no opening arguments. He did not appear to be aware
that there was a stipulation in the works. We listened to the radicals'
witnesses that afternoon and the following morning. The Justice
Department attorneys asked very few questions and none that appeared to
offer any protection of the livestock producers. Our attorneys were
allowed to cross-examine the witnesses.
After the green witnesses, the Justice Department put on a few
Forest Service witnesses who did nothing to defend their actions or the
livestock producers and who admitted that there actions in the proposed
stipulation would result in additional litigation.
The magistrate judge then called a recess and asked all the
attorneys into his chambers. The attorneys were told that the Federal
district judge had denied the stipulation because the livestock
producers would not be a party to it. Needless to say, we felt pretty
good about the decision.
That didn't last long. The radicals, the Forest Service and the
Justice Department representatives literally went into a back room and
came out with a settlement agreement they called a stipulation. This
agreement is actually worse than the draft that had been presented to
the Court.
The next morning that agreement was presented to the magistrate
judge who told the attorneys for the radicals and the Justice
Department to sign it. The lead attorney for Justice stated that she
was not authorized to sign such an agreement. The judge instructed her
to sign it anyway until such time as the proper authorities could sign
it. I have never seen anything but the agreement that was signed by the
Justice attorney in Tucson.
While we were still in Tucson our attorneys and the attorney for
the Arizona Cattle Growers filed a motion for a temporary restraining
order to delay the implementation of the agreement, which we believe
violates several Federal laws. The Court denied the restraining order,
but noted that if the Forest Service wanted fences built, they would
have to bear the cost.
There has been much speculation about when the Forest Service and/
or the Justice Department actually began negotiating the settlement
agreement they ultimately entered into. My first knowledge of it was
just a week prior to the Tucson hearing.
However, I learned that in the weeks prior to the Tucson hearing,
Forest Service personnel were on the ground in the Gila National Forest
instructing permittees to build fences and stay off riparian areas
without the required changes in annual operating plans (AOPs). Had
those fences been built, those permittees would have given up their
rights of appeal through the Forest Service's administrative policy or
for a remedy in the courts.
The Southwest Regional Forester has told our Congressional
representatives that livestock attorneys declined to participate in a
potential stipulation. That is simply not true. The livestock industry
refused to sign an agreement that could be fatal to rural families and
rural economies. When we refused to play the game, the government and
their buddies took their toys and went elsewhere.
In fact, I feel that the Forest Service is playing the old divide
and conquer game. As I told you, the New Mexico Cattle Growers and the
Arizona Cattle Growers were initially involved in this litigation.
Immediately after the Tucson hearing, Forest Service personnel flew to
Phoenix to meet with the Arizona Cattle Growers. While I don't know the
specifics of that meeting, I do know that after the meeting that
organization chose to withdraw from the proceedings.
I find it interesting that the Forest Service chose to fly to
Phoenix, at taxpayer expense, when they didn't drive the ten or twenty
blocks from their office to mine in Albuquerque.
The Forest Service has told Congress and the popular media that the
settlement agreement was just what they already had plans to do, that
the agreement merely formalized management practices that were already
being implemented through AOPs. If that is the case, why have so many
AOPs being amended since the agreement was put in place? If that is the
case, why is the Forest Service telling permittees that they have a
court order to make radical changes in operations?
The Forest Service is telling the popular media that they are not
forcing producers out of business. If that is the case why do I have
producers selling cattle at the bottom of a terrible cattle market?
The livestock industry spent tens of thousands of dollars to defend
permittees at the hearing in Tucson. Actions of the government kept us
from ever being able to present our side of the story.
Your full Committee was told last month by one of the radical
environmentalist's attorneys that they had the science to prove their
case. I don't believe the government has ever forced them to prove that
science. I for one would certainly like to see that science, and I know
that the folks I represent agree. Why isn't the government willing to
fight for our rights?
You have been told in previous hearings that the radical greens are
being funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the
East as well as in payments from the Federal Government when suits are
settled. We are on the ground are paying for our fight through bake
sales and dances and ropings.
The legal bills have continued to mount since the hearing in Tucson
as our attorneys have filed appeals of the changes in AOPs for
permittees in New Mexico and Arizona in order to preserve their rights
for continued court challenges.
One final point that I would like to note that it is especially
frustrating to hear from the Forest Service ``that you cowboys are
going to have change. You can't keep doing things like you did 80 (or
50 or 20 or 10) years ago.''
As you know, livestock permittees work in concert with the Forest
Service or the Bureau of Land Management. Annual operating plans are
done ANNUALLY. The permittees are only allowed to do what the
government says. My members tell me they have tried for years to get
the agencies to let them utilize new and innovative management
practices. They have been denied.
Livestock producers are just like everyone else in this world. We
want to do a better job and are continually educating ourselves on
better ways to do our jobs. We are a generational business. If we don't
take care of what we have, we have nothing to pass on.
In addition, I am living proof that the cowboys have and do change
their ways. I seriously doubt that 80 years or 20 years ago or 10 years
ago or even five years ago somebody in a skirt would have been
addressing about the plight of the cowboys.
Thank you for your time.
______
Statement of Palemon A. Martinez, Secretary-Treasurer, Northern New
Mexico Stockman's Assn., Valdez, New Mexico
Chairman Helen Chenoweth:
Your Subcommittee hearing on Forests and Forest Health in Espanola
and Northern New Mexico is greatly appreciated. We are an area of
limited financial resources and this approach gives us an opportunity
to present our viewpoints. We are also appreciative of the sensitivity
of Congressman Bill Redmond to arrange this hearing.
I am the Secretary-Treasurer of the Northern New Mexico Stockman's
Association and a grazing permittee on two Allotments in North Central
New Mexico. My family has been involved in farming and ranching since
Spanish settlement in this area and have dealt with Agricultural and
Land Management agencies since their inception. I have been a part of
this all my life.
I would first like to point out an issue along with a research
document that can give you an excellent overview of Northern New Mexico
and its historical and inherent problems. Our Northern New Mexico
Stockman's Association feeling the various Federal initiatives,
policies and regulations along with the entry of the legally inclined
and well funded environmental organizations was prompted to consider
``Do we have any rights on the use of Public land, rights we always
felt were inherent to our area and our culture?'' We had to find out.
To do so we contracted with Michael C. Meyer, Ph.D, a noted University
of Arizona Historian on Southwestern and Mexican history. This year Dr.
Meyer completed his research entitled, The Contemporary Signifcance of
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to Land Use Issues in Northern New
Monaco. This is a revealing legal and historical perspective of the
common land uses under Spain and Mexican Law and subsequently under
United States jurisdiction. We are providing you a copy of the Research
publication as we have provided to our New Mexico Congressional
Delegation. I would like to make the following observations:
The text is informative, interesting and relevant to
discussion of Northern New Mexico land use issues.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 raises some
fundamental issues of property protected for Mexican citizens
and their successors in interest in New Mexico as well as the
other Treaty States.
If Treaties as provided by the U.S. Constitution
Article VI, Section 2 are to be honored as if Treaties were the
constitution itself, how then does the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo apply to the protection of property rights concerning
our contemporary land use issues? Can more recent Federal Laws
such as Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and others
supercede the Treaty protections, or are there other avenues?
How does Article V apply to property rights and takings issues
on either a historical or on current situations? Are these
Treaty issues similar to those of Native Americans as Protected
and researched by the U.S. Indians Claims Commission? We were
all considered Mexican Citizens at the time of the signing of
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Do we merit the same
considerations?
To not belabor the Research Report, I would lastly
call your attention to the section on ``Conclusions and
Recommendations'' pages 82-90. Although Congressman Redmonds
Land Grant Bill addressed some of these issues, we recommend
Congressional review of the above cited recommendation as
relate to all the natural resources--Land and Water along with
significance to issues related to todays hearings.
We would like to call the Subcommittee's attention to certain
Federal Land Management Agency Policies:
The U.S. Forest Service Southwest Region adopted a
``Northern New Mexico Policy'' in 1969. This was done because
of the situation and uniqueness. We felt this was a positive
action and we recently recommended this policy continuation to
Regional Forester Towns, and was seemingly well received. We
understand that this Policy was also recommended by the Carson
and Santa Fe National Forests. We also heard that although
recommended, the legal reviews by higher level legal staff
rejected the ``POLICY'' and that ``POLICY'' could not be
different than elsewhere. WHAT IF WE CALLED IT ``NORTHERN NEW
MEXICO PHILOSOPHY''? The key is the approach and the
sensitivity to custom and culture as the case may be.
Grazing Advisory Committees were part of the
operational norm and were abolished. Every other institution
operates in similar fashion. We recommend reinstitution of
these committees to improve resource management. A worse evil
is moving all resource management to the courts. We believe
that is the wrong approach to the problems as well as to the
public land users. The exception may be those direct
beneficiaries who are on the litigant payroll.
Range management improvements and conservation
supported by Congress and the USFS in the 1950's, 1960's and
1970's. This was a needed effort with excellent results. We
needed those programs reinstated. We believe there would be
greater public support for Federal fund expenditures for these
programs than for the legal arena.
The Endangered Species Act may have appeared like a
needed and noble Act. The result has instead become a
nightmare, legal and scientific entanglement that will destroy
property rights, customs, cultures, bankrupt governments and
individuals and not produce the intended noble results. WE
RECOMMEND A REINVENTION OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. WE ALSO
RECOMMEND A REDIRECTION OF THE SPECIES RECOVERY DIRECTLY RATHER
THAN ON SENSELESS LITIGATION.
Lastly, we have experienced positive cooperative
efforts on Forests and Forest Health by grazing permitters,
U.S.D.A. Forest Service and other interested parties and would
suggest this approach would be more practical, effective and
productive.
Thank you four the opportunity to present this testimony before
your Subcommittee.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1104.026