American Policy Center » 2004

American Policy Center » 2004 » March

National Heritage Areas: Shortcomings of the CRS Report

March 30, 2004

By Cheryl K. Chumley

On several fronts, a Congressional Research Service study on National Heritage Areas is misleading, misguided or outright mistaken – the latter by omission, as report authors fail to point out the absurdities of a key and common phrase used to identify private lands for public oversight.

Absent from the report to Congress is mention of the term “nationally significant,” a most familiar means by which environmentalists and their non-government and political cohorts justify the taking of private properties. This is the exact term, for instance, that was used as grounds for recent House passage of the Highlands Conservation Act, a $100 million-plus piece of legislation that hurts private landowners by seeking public control of more than two million acres of property, ostensibly to protect the region’s “water, forest, wildlife, recreational, agricultural and cultural resources.”

This is also a term the National Park Service and various state and local entities have used since 1984 to ultimately declare 24 tracts of land encompassing 160,000 square miles as NHAs, needful of public oversight, preservation and management.

The only problem is nobody knows for sure what national significance means. So one fundamental issue to decide is whether Congress still plans to use this term. If not, then whatever new phrase is developed to justify the declaration of a NHA, and subsequent public oversight of the affected private properties, needs strict definition.

But if “nationally significant” remains the favored qualifier for declaring a NHA, the first order of business must be to outline the exact conditions under which a parcel of property can be found to affect the future well-being of the nation at-large to such a degree that the private landowner could not possibly maintain these conditions without oversight from public land and environmental entities.

Is Congress planning to continue use of the “nationally significant” term, and if not, what will instead establish a NHA?

This is the core of the debate with NHAs. This issue has gone unchallenged for far too long, resulting in the creation of 24 NHAs that – it could easily be argued – may not even be needed and leaving open the potential for further such illogical declarations. Without an indisputable means of determining, who’s to say?

Absent clear definition of what exactly constitutes national significance, cases could be made that parcels of property with birds’ nests or carrot patches are indeed areas of importance to the country-at-large in terms of wildlife and agriculture, and are therefore worthy of public management and oversight. This only sounds ridiculous; if the doors to private property encroachments weren’t meant to be left open to interpretation and special interest whim, why would the definition of national significance be so loose in the first place?

Unfortunately, CRS does not raise this crucial question – but it does point to another troubling facet of NHAs, one that by itself should be enough to halt in its tracks this decades-old method of placing private property under the control of public managers.

“There is no generic statute that establishes criteria for designating (National Heritage Areas) or provides standards for their funding and management,” CRS finds.

So the ludicrousness continues: It’s admitted no defined method exists for creating and managing a NHA.

In other words, National Heritage Areas can be declared by whatever means possible, because “no generic statute exists,” and most notably by assertion of “national significance,” which means whatever it means. What’s next – declaration of a National Heritage Area depends upon what the definition of ‘is’ is?

With more than 30 measures pending in Congress seeking establishment of new NHAs, the importance of such definitions is heightened because private property rights – the most fundamental of all God-given and constitutional guarantees – are at the mercy of the interpretations of self-serving environmentalists who will use whatever means necessary to control gigantic swaths of land for wildlife rather than human use.

So when CRS finds that “heritage areas are not federally owned, and a designation generally is not intended to lead to federal acquisition of lands,” those with concern for private property rights should see the red flag in use of the word “generally.”

This touted so-called benefit of NHAs is aimed at appeasing private property owners with either experience or knowledge of the heavy-handed tactics of federal land-greedy bureaucrats. The idea is that since NHAs are overseen by supposed friendly and gentle state, local and private entities, infringement from the federal government will not occur. But reality shows otherwise, as even CRS admits.

“In a few cases, Congress has authorized federal acquisition of land in heritage areas,” CRS finds. “For instance, Congress authorized creation of the Cane River Creole National Historical Park (in Louisiana) within the Cane River NHA.”

This national park encompasses two separate areas within the NHA, 42 acres and 18 acres, and is a prime example of why those who profess an utmost concern for private property rights should view with caution the loophole-ridden promises of heritage area advocates to keep the federal bureaus out of the property acquisition and management picture.

Another reason for wariness is the proven fallacy of the National Park Service’s purported role with NHAs.

“Heritage areas are among the types of areas that utilize aid from the National Park Service, but are not directly owned and managed by the agency,” CRS says.

The key word here is “directly.”

While it’s true the NPS does not hold the ultimate jurisdiction over management of NHAs, this federal bureaucracy does provide “various types of assistance” to the many non-government organizations, politicians and environmental groups who do oversee the areas, to include “administrative, financial, policy, technical and public information,” CRS finds. Is it really that difficult to comprehend that those who control the purse also control the strings?

CRS also says that NHAs are generally created when Congress “designates a management entity, usually non-federal, to coordinate the work of the partners. The management entity typically develops and implements a plan for managing the NHA, in collaboration with other parties. Once approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the management plan essentially becomes the blueprint for managing the heritage area.”

Why, if the nature of the NHA beast is to really keep property control in the hands of the states and locals, does the Secretary of Interior have to approve all land management plans? Coupled with the stated role of the NPS, and awareness of the ease with which these federal bureaucrats could, say, enter quid pro quo agreements with local officials, trading funding for stricter zoning and land-use laws, it’s not difficult to see how any so-called benefit of NHAs to private landowners is actually a thinly disguised travesty.

Think this couldn’t happen? It already has, during creation of the Augusta Canal National Area in Georgia in 1994 when the NPS refused to approve local management plans until zoning laws were tightened.

But that was 1994 and this is 2004, you say? A decade may have passed, but deceptive claims of concern for private land owners still prevail, and as proof one need only analyze a current NHA-related measure being waved in Congress as a surefire solution to this whole, oft-cumbersome, property protections debate.

Of an estimated 30 pending congressional NHA bills, only one has passed the House, H.R. 280. Titled the National Aviation Heritage Area Act, this measure is being touted by NHA advocates for its inclusion of private property protections that supposedly guarantee no privately owned lands “shall be preserved, conserved or promoted by the management plan for the heritage area until the owner receives written notification and gives written consent,” CRS reports.

H.R. 280 also theoretically gives landowners the right to remove their properties from consideration of NHA declaration “upon written request” and likewise requires “that any land acquired for a historical site be done by donation.”

The notion of land donor aside, which evokes comparisons with the falsely labeled “willing seller” who parts with property after facing horrendous pressure from environmentalists and self-serving government groups, the problem with these other property rights protections is they likely aren’t worth the paper upon which they’re written. That’s because the NPS – the agency, remember, that is tasked as a catalyst for the planning and funding of NHA lands – has a history of violating these same listed provisions, as evidenced during an early 1990s scheme to declare landmarks in Maine.

Then, the NPS broke its own agency policy of informing landowners in writing of any landmark declaration effort, and thereby deprived many of the chance to protest. Subsequent outrage was so intense that an investigation ensued and in 1992, the Interior Dept. concluded the NPS “may have violated the property rights of over 2,800 private landowners” in both Maine and across the nation because of its sloppy disregard for notifying owners when properties were targeted for landmark status, a Jan. 1992 edition of the Bangor Daily News reports.

So how exactly will these private land protections in H.R. 280, held as a happy compromise between NHA advocates and landowners, guarantee that NPS will not commit these atrocities against property owners yet again?

It doesn’t – and if this is the best protections NHAs can offer the private land owner, perhaps it’s time to abolish this bill, along with the other pending 29, and along with the entire spotty argument that heritage areas really reflect a true concern for property rights and are win-wins for environmentalists and those who own the lands environmentalists seek to control.

The American Policy Center is a privately funded, nonprofit, 501c(4) tax-exempt grassroots action and education foundation.

The Outrages of the Mexican Invasion

By Tom DeWeese

Illegal immigration is about much more than fighting terrorism. The fact is, illegal Mexican’s are pouring across our borders and as a result, American tax-paid services like education and healthcare are being pushed to the brink of collapse.

It is an incomprehensible arrogance exercised by both Mexican and American officials who, while promoting illegal immigration, see no problem in letting U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. Each new report of activities along the Mexican border appears to be more outrageous than the last.

The Mexican government of President Vincente Fox has basically demanded that the United States accept and care for citizens of his country who are sneaking in illegally. Fox has become increasingly vocal in demanding that the United States create an amnesty and work-visa programs to legalize more than three million illegal Mexicans now living in the United States.

In addition, apparently President Fox has decided to use his own version of Fidel Castro’s Muriel Boat Lift to rid his country of riff-raff he no longer wants. In 1978, Castro purged his prisons of murderers, thieves and drug dealers and put them in an armada of boats headed for America’s shore. The resulting crime wave flooded jails, overworked police and community budgets made living in Miami, Florida, almost unbearable for a time, and still inflicts the community’s culture. Much the same is now happening in Mexican border states, as crime rises and quality of life diminishes.

Meanwhile, American leaders seem to be encouraging such activity. As more than 10,000 illegal Mexicans flood into the nation every day, there is little concern on Capitol Hill and virtually no legislation pending to deal with the issue. Those like Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who vocally oppose the open border policy, are ignored. President Bush has again called for the amnesty that President Fox seeks. New U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Tony Garza, assured Mexico that reaching an accord legalizing the status of Mexican immigrants – without giving them citizenship – continues to be a top Bush Administration priority.

The Fox Administration now appears to be working a strategy to recruit local American officials that will all but dissolve the border between the two nations, even before Congress can take legislative action.

Consider these actions by the Mexican government inside the United States in just the past few months.

Item: The Mexican government has issued more than 800,000 slick, pocket-sized identification cards to both legal and illegal immigrants. Those cards are being distributed through Mexican consulates all over the United States.

The cards list the holder’s birth date, place of birth, U.S. address and encoded information to prevent fraudulent duplication. Over the past year, Mexican officials have been openly lobbying local police departments, banks and local government agencies in the United States to accept the cards, making it easier for the holders to get jobs, open bank accounts get government services. The strategy is to work the system from the bottom up, making the cards acceptable on the local level before Congress can pass any legislation concerning the activity. That way, Mexico believes, the Congress will have no choice but to simply rubber stamp approval of the practice.

As a result of Mexico’s efforts, today more than 800 U.S. police departments, 15 cities and 13 states now accept the cards as valid ID. At least 66 U.S. banks, led by Wells Fargo and Bank of America, have also agreed to accept the cards, opening tens of thousands of new bank accounts in states across the country, from California to Georgia.

Why would Mexico spearhead such a program, losing its own citizens? Mexico is reaping a bonanza as immigrants send more than $10 billion per year back to relatives at home. That figure equals what Mexico earns in annual tourism dollars.

Item: Mexican ambulance drivers are transporting hospital patients unable to pay for medical care in Mexico to facilities in the United States. They know that the federal Emergency Medical Act mandates that U.S. hospitals with emergency-room services treat anyone who presents themselves for care, including illegal aliens. The ambulances are driving through unguarded portions of the border with “little resistance” at the instruction of Mexican officials.

The cost is being paid by the American taxpayers in more ways than money. Medical service in affected communities is being severely damaged as hospitals absorb more than $200 million in unreimbursed costs. Some emergency rooms have shut down because they cannot afford to stay open. That means local tax-paying Americans are either denied medical care or have to wait in long lines for service as the illegals flood the facilities.

The costs are staggering. The Cochise County, Arizona Health Department spends as much as 30 percent of its annual $9 million budget on illegal aliens. The Copper Queen Hospital in Bisbee, Arizona, has spent $200,000 in uncompensated services out of a net operating budget of $300,000.

The University Medical Center in Tucson may lose as much as $10 million and the Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center, also in Tucson, has lost $1 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2002. Rural hospital facilities face losing the use of routine helicopter transportation for patients who need further treatment in big city facilities because the cost of transporting illegals is eating up the budgets. If that happens, the quality of healthcare in those rural areas would be diminished back to1980 levels.

In California, the losses are calculated to be about $79 million, with $74 million in Texas, $31 million in Arizona, and $6 million in New Mexico. All of these costs are dumped on American taxpayers simply because the Mexican government, void of protest from the U.S. government, has decided to raid the American cookie jar.

Item: Schools are suffering the same fate as medical care as illegal aliens fill classrooms, bloat budgets, and rob taxpayers of decent facilities for American children. Federal law and an incredible Supreme Court ruling ban schools from denying free education to illegal aliens.

Moreover, state run colleges and universities are being forced to allow illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition discounts that are supposed to be reserved for residents of that state. In California, a new law (Assembly Bill 540) allows undocumented high school graduates who have been in residence in California for three years to enroll in community colleges and the California State University and University of California systems without paying nonresident tuition. The government is even opposed to allowing schools to report illegal aliens or to deny them enrollment.

Item: Several cities have declared themselves “safe haven” for illegal aliens and refuse to enforce immigration laws. Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, New York City and even Falls Church, Virginia (in sight of the Pentagon), have all declared to be sanctuaries for illegal aliens. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that, “people who are undocumented do not have to worry about city government going to the federal government.” In other words, these city governments refuse to uphold federal law or defend American borders.

Item: On several occasions, heavily armed Mexican soldiers have actually crossed over into United Sates territory and fired on U.S. Border Patrol personnel. In one case, a Border Patrol helicopter over U.S. soil was fired upon by a 10-man unit of what appeared to be Mexican soldiers wearing tactical vests and carrying high-powered rifles. In another case, sixteen heavily armed Mexican soldiers in Humvee military vehicles chased American Border Patrol officers more than a mile into U.S. territory.

Why were the Mexican soldiers attacking U.S. agents? Border Patrol officials confirmed that the Juarez drug cartel has placed a bounty of $200,000 on U.S. lawmen.

Item: The U.S. Border Patrol is using tax dollars to advertise the establishment of eight “rescue beacons” along the border to help illegal aliens find they way. A strobe light is used to direct illegal aliens to the beacons to help with night crossings. During the day a reflective mirror guides the crossers.

The one minute commercials are expected to run in 2003 on TV stations in Mexico and in the border city of Yuma, Arizona. “Officials want to reach viewers in the interior parts of Mexico, where potential border crossers may know little about the treacherous terrain and nothing about the beacons,” the Associated Press reported.

Officials of the United States who are required to defend our borders and uphold the Constitution and the laws of the federal government have chosen instead to ignore the fact that we even have a border with Mexico. So great is the Mexican invasion that the U.S. government has decided to accept illegal aliens as a economic fact instead of trying to stop it.

Meanwhile American society is suffering. Our standard of living is diminishing. Taxpayers are being robbed of the services they pay for as their plight is dismissed by arrogant officials from both Mexico and the United States.

If the United States would at least support an effort to stop the flood of illegal aliens; if the U.S. Government would file a protest to the Mexican government to demand that they stop the ambulance drivers; if the U.S. Government would stop allowing the use of the Mexican-created ID cards; if the U.S. Government would stop forcing schools and other government services to give free rides to illegal aliens – then the onslaught would begin to subside. All of those things would be easy to do and require no addition money.

They horrible truth is that there is no movement on Capitol Hill, no elected leader to rally troops to demand such actions, even though recent polls show overwhelming support by Americans for stronger action against illegal immigrants. It is up to the American taxpayers to apply pressure on our elected officials to demand an end to these outrageous policies.

The only alternative is for each taxpayer to understand that for every two dollars they earn, one may have to be set aside to pay for our free-loading Mexican cousins to live in our country with all of our benefits, yet free of our laws and our taxes.

This is our land, not Mexico’s. It’s high time we told that to our own leaders and especially to the government of Mexico.

Testimony of Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D. Before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests "The Highlands Conservation Act" 366 Senate Dirksen Office Building March 24, 2004

Good afternoon, my name is Bonner Cohen. I am a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C. and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Policy Center in Warrenton, Virginia. I want to thank Chairman Craig and the other members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to comment on the “Highlands Conservation Act,” H.R. 1964.

I believe the legislation under consideration by this subcommittee is flawed in several key respects. At a fundamental level, it equates government ownership of land with conservation, an idea our Founding Fathers would have found amusing, to say the least. At least 40 percent of the land area of the United States is owned by government — federal, state, and local. Much of this land is poorly managed — from overgrown, disease-ridden national forests that routinely spawn catastrophic wildfires, to national parks that are in such a state of disrepair that the Park Service estimates it will take $5 billion and many years to undo the damage. To set aside more hard-earned taxpayer dollars for additional land acquisitions, in the name of conservation, is to ignore the disastrous environmental consequences of the already bloated public estate.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what the Highlands Conservation Act does. The bill will increase the size of the public estate in the Highlands region. In doing so, it will pose a severe threat to the rights and livelihoods of property owners in the targeted area. While the bill gives property owners the right to decline selling their lands, this “willing-seller” provision is illusory. In the real world, there is no such thing as a “willing seller.”

In the case of the Highlands Conservation Act, “non-federal entities,” also known as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), with a clear political agenda will identify lands for “management” and will oversee the ensuing conservation actions. Few landowners will be able to withstand the pressure of environmental groups working in concert with state and local governments, eager to acquire private lands with taxpayer money. As the public estate in the region grows, the value of adjacent private lands will diminish. And, as property values decline, landowners will have little choice but to sell their land at a fraction of its former worth.

Furthermore, the removal of private land from the tax roles will have a devastating effect on local revenues. Raising property taxes on the remaining private lands will be the only way local governments can make up the revenue short-fall. This, in turn, could force additional landowners to sell their property to the government.

We are told that the bill will cost $100 million, to be disbursed in $10 million increments between 2005 and 2014. But there is nothing in the bill that prevents Congress from continuing appropriations beyond 2014. Similarly, the scope of the bill is currently limited to some 2 million acres in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. But there is nothing in the legislation to keep the area from being expanded to include highland areas in, say, Maryland and Vermont. In fact, the bill grants the U.S. Forest Service the right to continue land assessments studies and provides $1 million toward that end. As such, the legislation is an open-ended invitation for government and its carefully selected “partners” to lock up more land.

Indeed, equally disturbing is the cozy relationship the Highlands Conservation Act envisages between government and certain NGOs. The governors of the four states currently covered under the bill will identify lands in the Highlands region for management, based on recommendations made by state and local environmental organizations. These suggestions will then be forwarded to officials at the Departments of Interior and Agriculture for review, who will submit final recommendations to Congress for the purpose of appropriating the 50 percent federal share of matching funds.

Once this process has been completed, the NGOs will set about overseeing and managing the lands they themselves played a large part in identifying. As a sign of just how cozy the relationship is between the NGOs and the various government entities involved in the Highlands Conservation Act, one of these groups, the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, is specifically cited in the bill.

Allowing these organizations — elected by no one and accountable to no one — to join forces with friendly state regulators supported by federal funds and impose land-use restrictions on unsuspecting property owners makes a travesty of representative democracy. While the bill keeps federal bureaucrats largely out of the land-management decisions, is simply replaces them with state regulators and allied environmental groups. To the landowner, this is a distinction without a difference.

At a time of skyrocketing budget deficits at the federal, state, and local level, using scarce taxpayer dollars to acquire more land — taking it out of productive use and removing it from the tax rolls — makes no economic sense. The key to an economically and environmentally vibrant rural America does not lie in government ownership of land. American agriculture leads the world not because the land is owned by the government and managed by politically favored NGOs, but because it is under the stewardship of farmers whose livelihoods depend on how they use and conserve their land.

The Highlands Conservation Act ignores this lesson. If enacted, it will be harmful for the people in the Highlands and their environment.

Thank you very much.

All in the Name of Environmental Protection…

How the Feds and Eco-Elitists Take Private Land for Fun and Profit

By Tom DeWeese

Those who have read George Orwell’s classic book, “Animal Farm” will be familiar with the phrase “everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.” The line was used by the ruling pigs in the story to justify why they were giving themselves special privileges over the other animals. It was necessary, you see, that the leaders have the best – the better to deal with the pressing issues of State.

Citizens of communist countries (the political and economic force Orwell sought to parody) fully understand the reality of the phrase. They well know how communist leaders grow rich, take the best homes and ride in chauffeured limousines. Meanwhile, their “equal” fellow citizens shiver on cold winter nights, lacking fuel for the stove, their cupboards bare as a result of the failed policies of corrupt government control over the private sector.

But it is tragic to know that in some parts of the United States, Americans, too, are learning of the injustice that can result from government agents having far too much power over those subjected to their whims. In rural areas, many homeowners have been fighting a losing battle to hang onto their personal piece of the American dream. There, government agents wage a war of attrition to wear them down and force them off property that many times has been in the family for generations. The agents close off access roads to the property; they determine that simple home repairs are actually new, illegal, development; and they join with powerful, rich private interest groups to insure that elected government representatives create the needed regulations to increase the intimidation.

It’s all necessary, you see, because such lands must be saved from the ravages of the predators called homeowners – for the sake of protecting the environment.

But if one looks a little closer, one might just find that a new human predator has moved into occupy the now-liberated land. They are environmentalists, happily homesteading on once-private property. After being liberated by government goons, the property is supposed to be off-limits to development or private use. But those with power are free to break the rules. Who would enforce them?

So elitist environmental warriors can be found arm in arm with the federal storm troopers, deep in the wood, out of sight of the prying eyes of the public. Deeds to the land can now be placed in green hands. Illegal development can now be constructed. Roads can be accessed. And a good time can be had by all. When powerful interest groups team up with federal enforcers to protect the “common good,” mutual profit and personal gain know no bounds.

Apparently, when an elite declares itself the protector of the environment, they really must be more equal than others. Don’t bother rubbing your eyes if it appears that the environmentalists are beginning to morph into little green pigs.

Land Management for the Good of the Environment

“We will be good neighbors. We will practice good science. We will promote multiple use.” Former BLM Director Pat Shea

Linda (Smith) Franklin is a fifth generation native of Mattole Valley, in Humbolt County, California. The area is one of the most remote in California, where residents live daily with the wrath of nature constantly at their door step. Typical of the pioneer stock that settled the west, the residents are rugged, honest and believe a man’s word is his bond.

Franklin’s father, the late Paul Smith, prospered in the area. In 1959, he held the grazing leases at Big Flat in the King Range. In 1960, with permission from the local office of the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Smith built a road from his ranch to his holdings on the beach at Spanish Flat. For 22 years, Smith personally maintained the road, receiving no financial assistance from the government. Acquired with the forty acres of land at Spanish Flat was an old one room log cabin. In 1961 Smith built an additional two room cabin onto the front of the existing one, and the family maintained the cabin for over 35 years. There, Franklin and her husband spent their honeymoon. There, many a weary hiker spent a safe night. The doors were never locked.

In 1970, by an act of the U.S. Congress, the area was designated as part of the “King Range National Conservation Area.” Under the plan, the Congress charged the BLM with the task of writing and implementing a land management plan. The plan was completed in 1974 and while it prohibited new, private development on the lands of the designated conservation area, it also clearly protected the private property rights of those already living there. In addition, property owners would be allowed to continue to use and maintain “habitable” cabins that existed prior to 1970.

The trouble began when a new management plan was developed in 1990. Local residents, including Linda Franklin, served on the BLM Core Planning Team for the Management Plan. She traveled thousands of miles while attending regular monthly, then bi-monthly meetings to develop a plan that would serve the needs of the majority of the public, as well as protect private property rights. Compromises were made on both sides and an agreement was reached and submitted to the BLM for inclusion in its Management Plan. But when the BLM released its final plan there was literally no resemblance to the planning team’s document. Apparently, the BLM had simply cast aside the Core Planning Team’s recommendations and, instead, implemented one of its own.

The BLM’s new Management Plan severely diverted from the original Act of Congress that had established the King Range National Conservation Area. The Act had prohibited the use of condemnation proceedings or eminent domain except for rights of way. And the BLM was to purchase lands from “willing” sellers only. But there was a major flaw in the original Act because it failed to anticipate the BLM using coercive practices to encourage “unwilling” sellers to change their minds. Another flaw allowed the BLM to manage private as well as public lands. The original purpose of that clause was to prevent the private development of beach front condos, casinos or private resorts. It was not intended to prevent landowners from building their own homes or repairing their private roads. These two flaws now turned up in the new BLM Management Plan of 1990. The war against land owners was on.

Closing the Door on the King Range

“The government does recognize deeded right-of-way, but they deem what right-of-way is, and if they deem you shall crawl on your knees then you shall crawl on your knees.” Charlotte Hawks, land acquisition specialist, BLM

Beginning in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, federal agencies involved in land management began to take on a new mission – land acquisition. Where once their job was to manage public property, now the focus turned to expanding public domain over as much private land as possible. It began in the most rural areas, and has only recently begun to spread to more populated areas. The King Range National Conservation Reserve was one of the first to fall victim to the federal land grab.

A telling example of the change in the BLM’s policy direction can be seen in a series of letters to Paul Smith and later to Linda Smith Franklin, dealing with the issue of the right-of-way for the access road to their property. A letter from the BLM to Smith dated November 10, 1960 states, “You do not need a permit to use and repair the existing ranch access roads over BLM lands in the Kings Peak area. There is no specific law providing for such a permit or easement and no law or regulation prohibiting the use and repair of BLM roads in the area for ranch access, prospecting and mining purposes.”

Again in 1980, in response to another Smith inquiry pertaining to access to the road, the BLM wrote, “In checking into this matter with the Ukiah District, we find that your concerns over the use of the road have been resolved, and a right-of-way issued.” Again the BLM was working with the property owners and acknowledging that there was no hindrance in the use of the road.

But somewhere along the way, things changed. In a letter to Linda Smith Franklin, dated November 19, 1997, the BLM answered a similar inquiry, saying, “The Bureau of Land Management has no record, documentation or corporate knowledge of having issued a right-of-way to Paul Smith.”

Limiting or closing access roads into the conservation area has apparently become a common practice by the BLM in an attempt to pressure property owners to give up their land and become “willing” sellers to the BLM. There are many more incidences of such coercive BLM practices.

ITEM: In 1989, a property owner, a Mr. Pietila, planned to build a private home on his property located in the King Range Preserve. In accordance with the law and with proper procedure, Mr. Pietila applied for and obtained a building permit from the Humbolt County Building Department. Once obtained, lumber was delivered to the property in preparation for the building. Without warning, Mr. Pietila received a registered letter from the BLM indicating that his property was being condemned for use not compatible with the BLM area plan. By the time Mr. Pietila received the notice, the BLM legal machine had moved into full operational mode. There was literally nothing Mr. Pietila could do but wrangle with the BLM for a better price from the government for the taking of his land. Mr. Pietila had become a “willing” seller.

Neighboring property owners looked upon the condemnation of Pietila’s land with shock and a realization that the harsh BLM action had been taken as a warning to the rest of them. They were now afraid to do anything to their property that might prompt similar action. They were afraid to repair an access road, or bring in a small tractor to bury water lines, or make repairs on homes. All normal, daily actions could now be construed to be “a violation of the management plan.”

ITEM: Prior to the passage of the King Range National Conservation Act, Paul Smith purposely sold two ten acre parcels of land for the primary purpose of establishing a market value before the BLM took over control of the land. It was a defensive measure to protect his investment if land values were affected adversely by BLM land management.

Before the Conservation Act was passed, the first parcel was sold to a Mr. Moon who intended to build a cabin on the land. The Smiths even built a pad for the house that Moon intended to build. But Moon was blocked from building the cabin because he didn’t complete it before the Act went into affect. As a result, the property had literally no value. He was forced to sell it to the BLM. Was Mr. Moon a “willing” seller – or was his land held hostage until he agreed to sell it to the BLM?

ITEM: The second Smith parcel was sold to the Goss family. Again they intended to build a cabin, and again they were blocked because nothing could be built after 1970. Goss has resisted selling the property to the BLM. He has tried to find something, anything, that can be done with the land in order to recover his investment. But there is simply nothing Goss can do with the ten acres that is not in violation of the BLM management plan. He has been denied normal economic appreciation of the property due to the management plan – and because of that plan, Goss has no choice but to sell it to the BLM. Does that make Goss a “willing” seller?

ITEM: Leland Hadley is 78 years old. At one time he owned all of a section called Big Flat. The BLM has prevented him from building a structure on his land. New BLM proposals will cut off his access road and force him to walk into his property. That would require him to walk through terrain consisting of a quarter mile on a steep incline, about three miles of sand and a half mile over a dry stream bed. How long will it take Leland Hadley, life long resident of the King Range, to become a “willing” seller?

There are only about six of the original owners left in the King Range. One by one the BLM is picking them off. When the last one goes, access to the entire area will be blocked off, and private property will cease to exist. It will all be through “voluntary” means, of course. All nice and legal. The record will show they were all “willing sellers.” All the same, through government edict, people will cease to exist on the King Range. Why?

Who Slammed the Door?
Take a Look at the Wildlands Project

“The project calls on the establishment of core wilderness areas where human activity is prohibited, linked with biological corridors.” Tom McDonnell

The answer may be traced to an all-encompassing land management environmental program called “The Wildlands Project.” In 1992, the radical environmental journal, Wild Earth, published by Earth First!, produced a special issue announcing what it called “The Wildlands Project, Plotting A North American Wilderness Recovery Strategy.”

This radical plan calls for the “rewilding” of at least 50% of all the land in every state in the nation. In the introduction to the plan, author Dave Forman writes, “(T)he idea is simple. To stem the disappearance of wildlife and wilderness we must allow the recovery of whole ecosystems and landscapes in every region of North America. Allowing these systems to recover requires a long-term master plan.” Forman intended for the “Wildlands Project” to be that master plan.

The project mapped out eco-regions and biosphere reserves that intermingled. It didn’t matter if private homes and farms, or even whole towns were caught in the middle. The project called for redistributing people, homes and towns out of the predetermined biosphere reserves. The “Wildlands Project” also ignored community, state and national boundaries. Forman wrote, “we live to see the day when Grizzlies in (Mexico) have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska; when the Gray Wolf populations are continuous from New Mexico to Greenland; when vast unbroken forests and flowing plains again thrive and support pre-Columbian populations of plants and animals…”

The “Wildlands Project” was co-developed by Foreman and Dr. Reed Noss. Noss works with the Department of the Interior developing federal eco-system management policies. With such a force as Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt on the inside of the federal policymaking structure, it didn’t talk long for major aspects of the “Wildlands Project” to be found in federal land management policy. In fact, a host of Clinton appointees, now in a position to create policy, came from the ranks of the environmental movement. Babbitt himself, was the former head of the League of Conservation Voters. In addition, there was George Frampton, former head of the Wilderness Society; Rafe Pomerance, former policy analyst for the World Resources Institute; Brooks Yeager, former Vice President of the National Audubon Society; Thomas Lovejoy, former officer of the World Wide Fund for Nature; Jessica Truchman Mathews, former Vice President of the World Resources Institute; David Gardiner, former legislative director for the Sierra Club; and John Leshy, former official at the Natural Resources Defense Council. All were now in positions to direct policy – and all were dedicated to the radical “Wildlands Project” land management plan.

In addition, an entire network of environmental groups, including most of those once led by the now-Clinton appointees, jumped into action to build momentum for the plan, both on the national and local levels. Add to the mix a host of willing politicians and massive funding resources, and the “Wildlands Project” became the driving force in federal land management policy. Many of the environmental groups became “Wildlands Project” affiliates, receiving grants to develop local, state and regional plans to implement the project.

Such a radical policy change in federal land management clearly explains why the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) took such a hard-nosed attitude in dealing with the property owners in the King Range National Conservation Area. Obviously the plans had changed from simply trying to conserve land while protecting the property rights of those who lived there – to a deliberate plan to move all people out of the region, as called for in the “Wildlands Project.”

The California Wilderness Coalition (CWC) is listed as a “Wildlands Project” group, as is Jim Eaton, founder of the Coalition. Eaton has served as California’s representative to the Wilderness Society. The Wilderness Society has called the King Range area the “crown jewel of the BLM’s proposed wilderness area.” California Senator Dianne Feinsten’s husband, Richard Blum is a member of the Governing Council of the Wilderness Society. The Wilderness Society is a member of the CWC. The CWC is working with numerous “former” Earth First! organizations and individuals, including Dave Foreman (co-founder of Earth First!).

Eight Members of Congress have worked with the CWC to shut down motorized use of Black Sands Beach in the King Range National Conservation Area. The eight include Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), Rep.Vic Fazio (D-CA), Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Ellen Tausher (D-CA), Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). An article in the January, 1999 edition of the Wilderness Record, published by CWC, refers to the BLM closure of the Black Sands in the King Range. Credit is given by CWC to the Sierra Club and the Environmental Protection Information Center for successfully rallying support for the BLM’s closure of the beach to motorized vehicles. A large photo of the Black Sands beach is shown in the story, with photo credit given to the BLM.

Clearly there is solid collusion among federal land management policy makers at the Department of the Interior, federal policy enforcers at the Bureau of Land Management, and the massive, highly funded environmental establishment. Just as clearly, the “Wildlands Project,” and its radical goal to turn vast areas of North American into wilderness, is official federal policy. That policy is what has made the new federal land management program the largest land grab in U.S. history. It is the answer to the question constantly asked by landowners – “what do they want?” The goals is the land, and no amount of compromise or reasoned argument will slow them down. One by one, the landowner are forced to give up and surrender their ground.

Some are More Equal Than Others

“It may be that human nature is too strong to be countered. Yet man is still a reasoning animal. Even if he perishes, he would like to know, in his agony, what it was that doomed him.” Book review of Animal Farm

The rules enforced by the BLM in the King Range say there is to be no new development after 1970. One resident, Mr. Pietila, had his property condemned because he planned to build a new cabin after the 1970 deadline. The BLM refused to allow Linda Franklin to make repairs to her access road. The BLM has made it clear – there will be no new development, no new dwellings, no roads, no modernization in the King Range. Period.

But fly over Black Sands Beach today and notice an uncommon sight. A new home. In fact, a new home with several buildings. How can that be? Where are the BLM storm troopers? Where are the fines? Where is the condemnation for these blatant violators of the environment? Where is the usual organized outcry from the environmentalist network? There’s not a peep. Because a quick check of deeds will show this land is owned by William Devall.

William Devall is the founder and head of the Foundation for Deep Ecology.

Devall has direct connections with Earth First! that expand over a decade. He was instrumental in helping to form the “Wildlands Project” and has been effective in gaining money for Earth First! through his foundation. Currently Devall is listed as an Editorial Advisor for Wild Earth, the publishing voice of the “Wildlands Project.” Devall is not only the co-author of a book called Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered, but also is the editor of the Sierra Club’s publication, Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Forestry.

Devall, a former sociology professor at Humbolt State University, is the Humbolt County contact person for Earth First!. As such, he presented the wilderness proposal for an enlarged Kings Range Wilderness area. That presentation was made at a public hearing on the issue on May 8, 1985. It was at that same meeting that the environmental impact statement for the BLM ’s King Range wilderness review was under consideration. Clearly, Bill Devall is a major player in creating and enforcing BLM land management policy – especially that based on the “Wildlands Project.”

Now Devall is found living on land right in the middle of the King Range area. Worse, he has built a home on land so sacred to environmentalists that the Wilderness Society called it the “crown jewel of the BLM’s proposed land management area.”

But Devall’s home is not just a house, it is a private retreat with a complex of buildings. There is a communal cooking building next to the main lodge. In between the buildings is an elaborate, heated hot tub building. All of Devall’s buildings are wood heated. Where does the wood come from? Is the King Range forest the source of Devall’s creature comforts? The complex is located right on the Black Sands Beach. And situated in front of the property, between the complex of buildings and the ocean, is an airplane landing strip.

County records show Devall as owner of private property, parcel No. 107-184-07, located right in the middle of the King Range National Conservation Area. All lands adjacent to and in the immediate area of Devall ’s property are registered in county documents as belonging to the United States of America – Bureau of Land Management. Date of the sale of the land is March 5, 1990. Well after the 1970 deadline for new or improved buildings.

How did Devall get the land? Why has the BLM allowed him an exception when property owners who have lived in the region (some as long as five generations) have been targeted for extinction? Even more puzzling is how Devall justifies building and living in an area where he has said man cannot coexist with nature?

As in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, new tyranny replaces old in the wake of revolutions, as power corrupts even the noblest of causes. So say the little green pigs to the besieged former property owners of the King Range, “of course we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.” Now, with the hated property owners banished from their lands, the little green pigs of the environmental movement, dance and laugh and frolic on public lands they’ ve made their own – at public expense.

* Much of the information and documentation for this article was provided by Barry Clausen, North American Research, P.O. Box 311, Cutten, CA 95534, funded in part by a grant from the American Policy Center . Mr. Clausen is a professional investigator who spent over a year undercover, investigating Earth First!. He is a consultant to several companies on the subject of domestic environmental terrorism and has testified on the issue before the United States Congress.

Huge Congressional Land Grab Goes Unnoticed by Public

CARA Act Provides Billions for Land Acquisition by States

“With attention focused on the primary elections, Americans remain unaware of legislation that is a direct attack on property rights, the keystone of the nation’s economy,” warns Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, an activist think tank. “Millions of acres now enjoyed by sportsmen, owned by farmers, ranchers, and property owners of every description will be forcibly acquired and put off limits to Americans.”

The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA-HR 701/S 25) creates a three billion dollar annual trust fund taken from royalties generated by offshore oil productions called outer continental shelf revenue. The fund was established to pay for damage caused to marine life, oceans and estuaries by oil exploration and extraction activities. “Congress is lining up for an all-out raid on these funds.”

“Now,” says DeWeese, “all fifty states are being offered an opportunity to access this money for purposes that have nothing whatever to do with the mitigation of any environmental problems. The result will be a huge pork barrel of land acquisition projects that will deny Americans access to vast areas of the nation. CARA threatens privately owned hunt clubs and other areas used by sports people of every description, from hunting and fishing, to camping, mountain climbing, skiing, snowmobiling, mountain biking, and other outdoor activities”

Using the power of eminent domain, States will have funds that will permit them to take away land owned by farmers, ranchers, and others. DeWeese noted that 139,000 acres of timberland leased to hunters for more than a century was purchased by New York State last year. “Hunting and snowmobiling was immediately prohibited.”

“If CARA is passed by the House and Senate, no one’s home or other property will be safe,” says DeWeese. Development for the housing needs of Americans will be thwarted. The legislation is sponsored by Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska), Billy Tauzin (R-Louisiana), and George Miller (D-California). “By spreading the money around while subverting its original

purpose, CARA encourages other members of Congress to support it. “The Center anticipates that Rep. Young will try to ram through CARA in the opening session of Congress.

“CARA is an attack on the Constitutional protection given property ownership, on the ability of this nation to overcome its dependency on foreign oil production, and on the millions of Americans who will wake up to discover they are denied access to the forests and wilderness areas of the nation.”

The Center urges its supporters and all Americans to write, fax, and email their Representatives and Senators regarding the need to defeat CARA.

Is American Law Enforcement Out-of-Control?

By Tom DeWeese

Amidst the renewed public concern over astonishing confessions by the FBI of the failure to reveal its use of incendiary weapons at Waco, a painful reality is beginning to take form: law enforcement may be a growing threat to the Constitutional liberties of all Americans. The main official in charge of protecting our liberties is Attorney General Janet Reno. She has failed and perhaps it is time to call for her removal from office.

Janet Reno’s rule at the Justice Department has overseen the destruction of the FBI’s once pristine reputation as the world’s number-one law enforcement agency. Reno is one of the top officials who must also be held responsible for the “militarization” of law enforcement. Reports are now being investigated that the FBI used members of the Army’s crack “Delta Force” in the siege at Waco. Such use is a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that forbids the use of U.S. military personnel in civil law-enforcement activities.

Under the Justice Department rule of Janet Reno, such concerns have been waived. Not only is the military being used in more civil actions, but civil law enforcement also is being beefed up with military equipment representing massive fire power, including: helicopter gun ships; automatic weapons; flash-bang grenades; special body armor; helmets; night vision goggles and high-tech listening equipment. A former police chief in New Haven, Connecticut says he was, “offered tanks, bazookas, anything I wanted.” It’s all justified as a way to protect us against terrorists and to fight the drug war.

The flaw in this argument is that there have only been two known incidents of terrorism, the Twin Towers bombing by Moslem fundamentalists and the Oklahoma City bombing by two dissidents. The drug war, as it has been fought, is increasingly regarded as a failure.

Meanwhile, reports are growing of law enforcement’s abuse of power at all levels of government, often involving military-style raids on private homes. Many, using illegal or questionable search and seizure practices result in property destruction, destroyed families, and even the deaths of innocent victims. It’s all happening on Janet Reno’s watch.

Most recently, a police SWAT team in Compton, California broke into a home about 11:00 p.m. on August 9, 1999. They killed a retired grandfather by shooting him twice in the back. They then handcuffed his widow to a chair as she sat wearing nothing but panties and a towel. Six others were taken into custody. None were charged with a crime. Police thought the house was being used as a mail drop by a drug ring. The charges were false.

In 1998, Houston police shot and killed Pedro Oregon Navarro during a drug raid of his house. Police were there because of a tip from a man arrested for public drunkenness. The drunk told police he would lead them to a drug dealer if they let him go. Without corroboration or a warrant, police raided Navarro’s home and shot him twelve times because Navarro went for a gun to defend himself during the 1:40a.m., military-style raid. Navarro wasn’t a drug dealer.

A few years ago, in Pennsylvania, agents burst through the door of the home of Harry and Theresa Lamplugh early in the morning and stuck machine guns in their faces. Without ever telling the Lamplughs why, or who they were, agents spent over six hours ransacking their home, taking personal papers and over $15,000 in possessions. No charges were ever filed against the Lamplughs. The case has been sealed and no property has ever been returned.

This is law enforcement out-of-control and most of it has happened under Janet Reno’s authority. Offending agents or local police officers in these and many other examples of abuse, have not been dismissed or demoted. Reno has taken no action to stop it.

Over the last several decades, Congress, too, has been providing legislation to introduce U.S. military equipment, intelligence, and training into civilian law enforcement. The result is a changed mindset by local police forces. “To Serve and Protect” had been the motto of local police across the nation. Today, a paramilitary attitude is replacing it. Police with such training begin to look at citizens as potential perpetrators instead of individuals with Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Instead of protecting the freedom of the community to live their lives and move about freely, the police force seeks to lockdown and restrict activity. It becomes a matter of course for local police forces to lobby their city councils for gun laws to disarm the citizens citing the safety of the cops who may want to come crashing into a victim’s home unannounced. It is the job of the military to use violent force to destroy its enemy. It is the job of a civilian police force to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of due process for citizens and get them into a court of law where locally elected judges and a jury of peers can decide a law breaker’s fate. If liberty is to be preserved, the two approaches don’t mix.

Congress continues to move in the wrong direction on the militarization of the police force. The current Defense Appropriations bill carries language that will strengthen military involvement in civil law enforcement, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Among other things, the bill allows military assistance to civilian law enforcement on a cost-free basis. Such provisions will only assure that requests for such assistance will become more commonplace. The war on drugs and terrorism is blinding our lawmakers to their first duty; the preservation of individual liberty. It must be stopped.

Janet Reno must be held accountable for the growing threat of civil law enforcement. Under her watch, the Justice Department is quickly becoming a tool for very unsavory and questionable forces in the nation. She is a threat to the First Amendment protecting the free expression of religion. She has ignored the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. She is a threat against the Fourth Amendment that guarantees that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated.” She has protected and prevented the investigation of violent elements in the nation. There are many problems with the nation’s law enforcement. The first step in fixing them must be the firing of Janet Reno.

Protesting Peter Singer

Animal Rights Agenda Threatens Human Rights

By Tom DeWeese

The protests against the presence of Peter Singer, known as the father of the Animal Rights Movement, teaching at Princeton University, raises questions once again about the true agenda of the animal rights movement.

Animal-rights advocates represent one of the most absurd, violent, destructive elements in our society. They use our emotions and compassion to sucker good-hearted Americans into their radical political agenda.

Animal rights advocates oppose animal welfare. Americans who love animals must understand that animal rights, as articulated by organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, will do away with wildlife management, veterinary medicine, and captive breeding. It will end medical testing, a research process responsible for today’s modern medical miracles. Here, in their own words, is what they stand for:

They Oppose Pet Ownership

“Pet Ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” — Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA

“(Pets) are slaves, even if well-kept slaves.” — PeTA’s Statement on Companion Animals

An Anti-Human Philosophy

“I don’t believe that people have the right to life. That’s a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” — Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder and national director of PeTA

“Man is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish, and unethical animal on earth.” — Michael Fox, vice president, Human Society of the United States

“Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” — Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA

“Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.” — Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA

“An (animal) experiment cannot be justified unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable.” — Peter Singer

Animal Rights Advocates are Opposed to Biomedical Research

Even if animal tests produced a cure (for AIDS), we’d be against it.” — Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA

“If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn’t make any difference to me.” — Chris Rose, director Last Chance for Animals

“If it (the abolition of animal research) means there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it. We have no basic right not to be harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to.” — Tom Regan, “America’s New Extremists:

What You Need to Know About the Animal Rights Movement.

No Concern for Animal Welfare

“We were not especially interested in animals. Neither of us had ever inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are.

We didn’t love animals.” — Peter Singer, known as the “father of animals rights.”

“The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the theory of animal welfare…Animal rights means dramatic social changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to call ourselves advocates of animal rights.” — Gary Francione, former general council, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA).

“Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare separated by irreconcilable differences…the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of animal rights.” — Gary Francione and Tom Regan. “The Case for Animal Rights”, In Defense of Animals, 1985.

All in the Name of Environmental Protection

How the Feds and Eco-Elitists Take Private Land for Fun and Profit

By Tom DeWeese

It’s all necessary, you see, because such lands must be saved from the ravages of the predators called homeowners – for the sake of protecting the environment.

But if one looks a little closer, one might just find that a new human predator has moved into occupy the now-liberated land. They are environmentalists, happily homesteading on once-private property. After being liberated by government agents, the property is supposed to be off-limits to development or private use. But those with power are free to break the rules. Who would enforce them?

So elitist environmental warriors can be found arm in arm with the federal storm troopers, deep in the woods, out of sight of the prying eyes of the public. Deeds to the land can now be placed in green hands. Illegal development can now be constructed. Roads can be accessed. And a good time can be had by all. When powerful interest groups team up with federal enforcers to protect the “common good,” mutual profit and personal gain know no bounds.

Land Management for the Good of the Environment

“We will be good neighbors. We will practice good science. We will promote multiple use.”

Former BLM Director Pat Shea

Closing the Door on the King Range

“The government does recognize deeded right-of-way, but they deem what right-of-way is, and if they deem you shall crawl on your knees then you shall crawl on your knees.”

Charlotte Hawks, land acquisition specialist, BLM

Beginning in the late 1980′s and early 1990′s, federal agencies involved in land management began to take on a new mission – land acquisition. Where once their job was to manage public property, now the focus turned to expanding public domain over as much private land as possible. It began in the most rural areas, and has only recently begun to spread to more populated areas. The King Range National Conservation Reserve was one of the first to fall victim to the federal land grab.

A telling example of the change in the BLM’s policy direction can be seen in a series of letters to Paul Smith and later to Linda Smith Franklin, dealing with the issue of the right-of-way for the access road to their property. A letter from the BLM to Smith dated November 10, 1960 states, “You do not need a permit to use and repair the existing ranch access roads over BLM lands in the Kings Peak area. There is no specific law providing for such a permit or easment and no law or regulation prohibiting the use and repair of BLM roads in the area for ranch access, prospecting and mining purposes.”

ITEM: In 1989, a property owner, a Leonard Pietila, planned to build a private home on his property located in the King Range Preserve. In accordance with the law and with proper procedure, Mr. Pietila applied for and obtained a building permit from the Humbolt County Building Department. Once obtained, lumber was delivered to the property in preparation for the building. Without warning, Mr. Pietila received a registered letter from the BLM indicating that his property was being condemned for use not compatible with the BLM area plan. By the time Mr. Pietila received the notice, the BLM legal machine had moved into full operational mode. There was literally nothing Mr. Pietila could do but wrangle with the BLM for a better price from the government for the taking of his land. Mr. Pietila had become a “willing” seller.

Who Slammed the Door? Take A Look at the Wildlands Project

“The project calls on the establishment of core wilderness areas where human activity is prohibited, linked with biological corridors.”

Tom McDonnell

The “Wildlands Project” was co-developed by Foreman and Dr. Reed Noss. Noss works with the Department of the Interior developing federal eco-system management policies. With such a force as Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt on the inside of the federal policymaking structure, it didn’t take long for major aspects of the “Wildlands Project” to be found in federal land management policy. In fact, a host of Clinton appointees, now in a position to create policy, came from the ranks of the environmental movement. Babbitt himself, was the former head of the League of Conservation Voters. In addition, there was George Frampton, former head of the Wilderness Society; Rafe Pomerance, former policy analyst for the World Resources Institute; Brooks Yeager, former Vice President of the National Audubon Society; Thomas Lovejoy, former officer of the World Wide Fund for Nature; Jessica Tuchman Mathews, former Vice President of the World Resources Institute; David Gardiner, former legislative director for the Sierra Club; and John Leshy, former official at the Natural Resources Defense Council. All were now in positions to direct policy – and all were dedicated to the radical “Wildlands Project” land management plan.

The California Wilderness Coalition (CWC) is listed as a “Wildlands Project” group, as is Jim Eaton, founder of the Coalition. Eaton has served as California’s representative to the Wilderness Society. The Wilderness Society has called the King Range area the “crown jewel of the BLM’s proposed wilderness area.” California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum is a member of the Governing Council of the Wilderness Society. The Wilderness Society is a member of the CWC. The CWC also works with numerous “former” Earth First! organizations and individuals, including Dave Foreman (co-founder of Earth First!).

Eight Members of Congress have worked with the CWC to shut down motorized use of Black Sands Beach in the King Range National Conservation Area. The eight include Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), now-retired Rep.Vic Fazio (D-CA), Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Ellen Tausher (D-CA), Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). An article in the January, 1999 edition of the Wilderness Record, published by CWC, refers to the BLM closure of the Black Sands in the King Range. Credit is given by CWC to the Sierra Club and the Environmental Protection Information Center for successfully rallying support for the BLM’s closure of the beach to motorized vehicles. A large photo of the Black Sands beach is shown in the story, with photo credit given to the BLM.

Some Are More Equal Than Others

“It may be that human nature is too strong to be countered. Yet man is still a reasoning animal. Even if he perishes, he would like to know, in his agony, what it was that doomed him.”

Book review of Animal Farm

But fly over the Big Flat today and notice an uncommon sight. New buildings -in fact, several buildings. How can that be? Where are the BLM storm troopers? Where are the fines? Where is the condemnation for these blatant violators of the environment? Where is the usual organized outcry from the environmentalist network? There’s not a peep. Because a quick check of deeds will show this land is owned by William Devall.

William Devall is a major player in the “Deep Ecology” movement. Devall has direct connections with Earth First! that expand over a decade. According to a book entitled “In a Dark Wood” by Alston Chase, Devall was an original member of the Board of Directors of the Earth First Foundation, which was organized to raise funds for the movement. Currently Devall is listed as an Editorial Advisor for Wild Earth, the publishing voice of the “Wildlands Project.” Devall is not only the co-author of a book called Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered, but he is also the editor of the Sierra Club’s publication, Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Forestry.

Devall, a former sociology professor at Humbolt State University, is heavily involved in environmental issues. As such he presented the wilderness proposal for an enlarged King Range Wilderness area. That presentation was made in Humbolt County, at a public hearing on the issue on May 8, 1985. It was at that same meeting where the environmental impact statement for the BLM’s King Range wilderness review was under consideration. Clearly, Bill Devall is a major player in helping to create BLM land management policy – especially that based on the “Wildlands Project.”

Now Devall is found to own property right in the middle of the King Range area. According to attorney Bryan Gaynor, the original buildings on the property burned in the 1930′s. Says Gaynor, “replacement of this structure was determined by the BLM to be permitted under the Act. The destroyed structure was replaced by a house of the same size and located on the same footprint as the original building.”

But this is not just a house, it is a private retreat with a complex of buildings. There is a communal cooking building next to the main lodge. All of the buildings in this private complex are wood heated. In between the house and cook building is an elaborate, heated hot tub building. Situated in front of the property, between the buildings and the ocean, is an airplane landing strip. According to attorney Gaynor, “…the Big Flat property is available to a limited number of private groups each year who wish to use it in conjunction with appropriate wilderness activities conducted on the surrounding public lands.” The buildings, he says are part of the “Big Flat Conservation Trust.”

County records show Devall as owner of private property, parcel No. 107-184-07, located right in the middle of the King Range National Conservation Area. All lands adjacent to and in the immediate area of Devall’s property are registered in county documents as belonging to the United States of America – Bureau of Land Management. Date of the sale of the land is March 5, 1990. Well after the 1970 deadline for new or improved buildings.

How did Devall get the land? Why has the BLM allowed him an exception when property owners who have lived in the region (some as long as five generations) have been targeted for extinction? Why did the BLM approve reconstruction of these buildings to benefit a conservation trust when local homeowners fear BLM repercussions if they simply want to repair a porch or roof to their existing homes?

As in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, new tyranny replaces old in the wake of revolutions, as power corrupts even the noblest of causes. Now, with the hated property owners banished from their lands, the little green pigs of the environmental movement, dance and laugh and frolic on public lands they’ve made their own – at public expense.

Much of the information and documentation for this article was provided by Barry Clausen, North American Research, P.O. Box 311, Cutten, CA 95534, funded in part by a grant from the American Policy Center . Mr. Clausen is a professional investigator who spent over a year undercover, investigating Earth First!. He is a consultant to several companies on the subject of domestic environmental terrorism and has testified on the issue before the United States Congress.

Americans Hoping To Rake In

by Joanna Waugh

In February 1997, President Clinton announced his American Heritage Rivers initiative — a program to pump federal money into urban riverfront projects. AHR is supposed to provide recreational opportunities while protecting natural resources, preserving local history and culture, and revitalizing local economies through sustainable development. In reality, this proposal is just another Great Society-type welfare program — for recreation. Clinton has promised American Heritage Rivers will not increase federal spending. He has instructed his Cabinet to squeeze federal agencies of every available dollar and to “re-direct resources” into AHR communities. Tight budgets, however, leave little money to play with. The President needs an alternative funding source, and a “grassroots” campaign to lobby Congress for it.

The first inkling of his plan came in April public input sessions conducted by the EPA, Forest Service, National Park Service, and Department of Agriculture. Tucked into the American Heritage Rivers information packet was promotional literature for a group called Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation (AHR). This so-called grassroots coalition of 150 organizations claims its mission is to, “renew and strengthen our nation’s investment in places that conserve our natural and cultural heritage and provide recreational opportunities for all Americans.” AHR intends to accomplish these goals by lobbying Congress for full Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations — $900 million a year. Land and Water Conservation Fund state grants are routinely used for local trails, ballfields, swimming pools, picnic areas, boat docks, etc. They are also used to acquire land. As one AHR member organization recently observed, “With [$900 million], this nation could preserve a lot of open space . . .” Clearly, federal agencies would pump enormous amounts of LWCF money into President Clinton’s river projects via the state grants.

Who will rake in, and how

A better moniker for Clinton’s “grassroots coalition” is Americans Hoping to Rake in. AHR is packed with groups that stand to gain, politically and financially, from increased Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. At the top of the financial gain list is the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association. It goes without saying that members of this organization will realize enormous profits if demand for their goods and services expands. Of particular interest to property rights advocates, however, are the land trusts. Two AHR members are the biggest nonprofit land trusts in America — The Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Land. In 1991, Washington Times correspondent, Warren Brookes, labeled TNC and TPL as “government advance men.” These two land trusts routinely acquire private property, then sell it to state and federal governments (who use LWCF funds) at a profit. The Trust for Public Land has been particularly arrogant. On August 14, 1980, it purchased an Oregon property at 11:22 A.M. that was sold one minute later to the U.S. Forest Service for a $194,000 profit. Three minutes later, TPL purchased another property that it “flipped” to USFS for $117,000 more than it paid. That is a profit (some taxpayers might call it obscene) of $311,000 in a matter of five minutes. Deals like this between TPL and USFS went on for years in Oregon, culminating in creation of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. (Friends of the Columbia Gorge is also a member of Americans Hoping to Rake in.)

Appalachian Mountain Club is another AHR partner. Originally chartered as a group focused on outdoor recreation and safety, the Club changed direction in 1990. It now advocates federal land acquisition and increased government control of private property. AMC chairs a twenty member coalition of green groups known as the Northern Forest Alliance (another group of Americans Hoping to Rake in) that is pushing for government acquisition of 26 million acres in the Northeast. How does AMC and the Northern Forest Alliance expect to gain from increased LWCF appropriations? Consider the Appalachian Mountain Club’s “special” relationship with the U.S. Forest Service. Under a free, special-use permit, the Club operates facilities within the White Mountain National Forest. The Forest Service allows AMC to use these facilities to expand its membership base and to present its political views, unopposed, to over half a million visitors each year. This “special use” of public property nets AMC $3.5 million per annum.

Right now, AMC and the Northern Forest Alliance are using recreational development of a canoe trail between Old Forge, New York and Fort Kent, Maine as a way to lock-up the land they seek. According to a Club press release, the canoe trail will help “the prospect of understanding and protecting the Northern Forest,” by “tak[ing] the grand notion of protecting the broad landscape to ground level.” This attitude is shared by another AHR member, the National Audubon Society. In 1990, Audubon lobbyist, Brock Evans, told AMC and the Alliance that the 26 million acres they coveted for federal acquisition “should all be in the public domain. Be unreasonable,” he advised. “You can do it. Let’s take it all back.”

“It’s alive!”

Americans Hoping to Rake in includes some familiar faces that must be mentioned. Western Ancient Forest Alliance’s executive director, Jim Jontz, sits on AHR’s legislative advocacy and strategy committee. This former congressman from the 5th Indiana District is well known to the Northwest timber industry. His spotted owl policies still reverberate throughout the State of Washington and Oregon. Alvin Rosenbaum, president of the National Center for Heritage Development, is also a member of AHR. He sits on its policy committee. It was Mr. Rosenbaum who, as National Coalition for Heritage Areas chair, first postulated the idea of circumventing Congress to achieve heritage goals. Finally, the Maryland Wildlands Committee serves on AHR’s legislative advocacy and strategy board. “Wildlands” is a radical policy that among several policies, advocates the creation and preservation of wildlife habitat corridors along rivers. American Heritage Rivers provisions that preserve riparian habitat dovetail perfectly with the Wildlands Project.

Those who stand to gain the most politically, however, are parks and recreation agencies. Fourteen of them, including the National Association of County Parks and Recreation Officials, are members of Americans Hoping to Rake in. One official, Patrick Sanger of the California Parks and Recreation Department, is AHR’s coordinator. He mails AHR membership and LWCF lobbying information from his Sacramento office. State recreation department officials like Mr. Sanger expect to expand their authority, and enjoy fatter budgets, if Congress allocates more money for Land and Water Conservation Fund grants. One AHR member — the State of Arizona — has, since 1965, received more that $44 million for 700 recreation projects.

State and local recreation projects are based on startling national studies. In Portage, Indiana for example, the 1990 U.S. Census counted 41,000 residents. The city possesses eight public parks and one golf course. A recently released report estimates the population will increase 1,000 people over the next five years. The report also recommends that Portage add fifty-seven basketball courts, six tennis courts, five soccer fields, and two new golf courses to meet “national standards.” The golf courses alone will require acquisition of 300 acres. Such a study gives rise to a pertinent question — if towns like Portage, Indiana require facilities in these outrageous numbers to accommodate the recreational needs of retired “baby-boomers,” what are the projected (and inflated?) needs of cities like Chicago and Los Angeles?

“It’s alive!”

In 1992, the National Park Service released a heritage partnerships program “concept paper” in which it had this to say about funding:

“Several approaches to funding the Heritage Partnership Program have been suggested. Chief among these was the implementation of a one cent per gallon fuel tax. Other suggestions . . . included separate on-line budget appropriations or increases in programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Historic Preservation Fund. There is also a potential for an amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act earmarking a third component of the fund for the Heritage Partnerships Program.”

Americans Hoping to Rake in are the storm troopers in this effort. They include recreation organizations (American Whitewater Affiliation, Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America, American Hiking Society, Partnership for National Trails System, International Mountain Bicycling Association); and green groups (Save the Redwoods League, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council; Sierra Club, Center for Marine Conservation, Wilderness Society, National Parks and Conservation Association, and World Wildlife Fund). President Clinton has enlisted these special interest groups to push his American Heritage Rivers project. Their actions, if successful, will breathe new life into the heritage program — a frankenstein that property rights advocates thought consumed by the fiery 104th Congress.

Johanna Waugh is an Executive Board Member of Stop Taking Our Property (STOP). For more information contact her at 500 Potowatomi Trail, Chesterton, IN 46304.

Green's Ignore Nature's Laws – In Order To Save Nature

Sir Isaac Newton once observed that “to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Environmentalist’s reaction to this revelation: Duh? The poor environmentalists, they are so confused. Apparently they also never learned that other great axiom “every action has consequence.” Or my favorite: “liar,liar, pants on fire.”

You see the Chicken Little’s are now adding to their arsenal of scare tactics with the warning that Global Warming is driving up temperatures and causing an increase in malaria, especially in South America.

But according to a report by Donald Roberts, Larry Laughlin, Paul Hsheih and Llewellyn Legters of the Uniformed University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland (Medscape), Global Warming is not the reason for the malaria increase. The increase is directly attributed to the banning of the chemical DDT – one of the first victims of radical environmentalism way back in the 1970′s.

The report shows how malaria in South America was under control and on the decrease from 1959 to 1978 as a result of using DDT to control mosquitoes. But that trend reversed from 1979 to the present, after DDT was banned. Now, the greens ignore the consequences and blame it on Global Warming.

Using similar “scientific logic” the greens are also pushing for draconian clean air standards by the EPA to protect children from asthma – but at the same time, they push to ban the inhailers so desperately needed by asthma victims – because they contain freon. No thought to the equal and opposite reaction for the children.

Sort of reminds one of another old axiom from Adolph Hitler, “tell a lie often enough