U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

51–104 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

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, ESPAN ̃ OLA, 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
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

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

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa

————— —————

————— —————

DOUG CRANDALL, Staff Director

ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff

JEFF PETRICH, Minority Chief Counsel
(III)

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.,

Espan ̃ ola, New Mexico .................................................................................. 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 80

Lucero, Richard, Mayor, Espan ̃ ola, 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
Page

IV

Statements of witnesses—Continued

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
(1)

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,

Espan ̃ ola, New Mexico

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in the Mission de San Gabriel, Number One Calle de los Espan ̃ olas,

Espan ̃ ola, New Mexico, Hon. Helen Chenoweth (chairman of the

Subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD LUCERO, MAYOR, ESPAN ̃ OLA, 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 Espan ̃ ola, 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 Espan ̃ ola

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-
2

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
3

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-
4

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.
5

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 signin 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
6

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 Espan ̃ ola, 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.
7

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
8

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.
9

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-
10

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
11

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., ESPAN ̃ OLA, 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 Espan ̃ ola.

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 Espan ̃ ola. 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 Espan ̃ ola 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.
12

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.
13

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
14

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?
15

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.]
16

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.
17

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?
18

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.
19

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 todo 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
20

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?
21

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
22

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.
23

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 Espan ̃ ola, 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.
24

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-
25

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,
26

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
27

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.
28

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
29

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.
30

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 Espan ̃ ola 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.
31

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:
32

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
33

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-
34

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
35

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
36

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
37

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
38

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
39

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
40

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
41

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
42

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 indepth 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
43

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 Espan ̃ ola 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
44

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
45

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
46

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
47

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.
48

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.
49

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
50

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.
51

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.
52

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.
53

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 dayto-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
54

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.
55

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 Espan ̃ ola. 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.
56

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.]
57

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.
58

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.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79

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

Espan ̃ ola 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.
80

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., ESPAN ̃ OLA, NEW MEXICO

Madam Chairman, Representative Redmond, and distinguished guests, my name

is Robert Luce. I represent Rio Grande Forest Products, Espan ̃ ola, 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 Espan ̃ ola.

Rio Grande operates the largest sawmill in the State of New Mexico. The mill has

been located in the Espan ̃ ola 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.
81

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 Espan ̃ ola 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-
82

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.
83
84
85
86

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
87

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 Espan ̃ ola, 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
88

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
89

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.
90

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 Espan ̃ ola 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?
91

•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.
92
93
94