A poverty of compassion

The War on the Poor.

It has a nice ring to it, rhyming as it does, and all. But this isn’t just a catchy phrase, it is too often reality, both in government and in daily practice. People appear to have taken Jesus’ commandment about “the least of us” to mean: “Do the least you can for them. Oh, and be sure to blame them for their plight. Because it’s totally what I would do.”

The push to drug-test welfare recipients (as in, poor families, not corporations and banks who swell their bellies at the public teat) has long been a prime example.

Pushing people to give up both privacy and presumption of innocence in exchange for food, housing and medical care doesn’t come from nowhere; it certainly doesn’t come from understanding the phrase “There but for the grace of God go I.”

It comes from distrust of the less fortunate. It comes from a point of moral superiority. It comes from the belief that poverty is a sin, if not an outright crime. It comes from righteous indignation, as in: “I have to be drug-tested to work to pay for the benefits that poor slob down the road gets.”

As I have noted in previous columns, that mindset misses the entire point: That, because of the presumption of innocence and probable-cause rights, no one should be drug-tested without cause, employed or not, unless that person is directly responsible for the physical safety of the public. (When you sign up to be a cop, an airline pilot or a bus driver, you know you are being entrusted with the care of others. When you sign up to be a janitor, a secretary or waiter, the level of trust is not the same and does not rise to having to set aside some of your civil rights.)

Not to mention, we all live subsidized lives. If you would not suggest a drug test for anyone who drives on a public road; utilizes a public sewer system, or has ever had to call upon police and fire services…maybe don’t be so gung-ho to insist that others first prove their worth.

Sadly, neither corporate America nor the American government seems willing to let go of the idea that the poor must pass a litmus test before being extended the milk of human kindness.

City after city has banned or attempted to ban panhandling or “aggressive” panhandling. Some cities have tried to restrict where the poor may gather and for how long, and have even gone after little old men who have the audacity to try to feed the poor in such places. A particularly ugly social-media meme draws an analogy between prohibitions on feeding wild animals and helping poor people — doing so will just make “them” dependent on handouts. Newsflash to all the “good” Christians and other “good” people who have posted that meme: People are not wild animals. They are not stray animals. After all, you would probably feed a hungry kitten, and I would think there’s something broken inside you if you don’t.

We come now to the latest iteration of the way poor people are viewed. Brave, brave, brave Kansas Republicans are putting a stop to all those cruises “teh poorz” apparently take. And from blowing their princely sums of public money in casinos, gettin’ all tatted up, going to a strip club, or withdrawing more than $25 a day.

The above are among the welfare restrictions Kansas wants to impose under HB 2258. Think about it. On one hand, you could argue Kansas just doesn’t want to see its money wasted; that, as Kansas Sen. Michael O’Donnell said, “We’re just trying to make sure those benefits are used the way they were intended.”

But the things the rules would prohibit are telling. And what they tell is that Kansas assumes that poor people are stupid enough to pee away all their money on frivolities, and, of course, unsavory enough to have such vices. Because if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be poor to begin with!

Not to mention, the whole “we need to be vigilant when it comes to the public purse” is absurd coming from Kansas. The state’s governor signed off on an income-tax plan that has drained its budget. The tax cuts have since been blamed as “the most significant factor in the continuing decline in overall state general-fund revenues … not the bogeyman excuses cooked up by (Sam) Brownback or any of his boosters,” Yael T. Abouhalkah wrote in a February column for the Kansas City Star.

What was Kansans’ response to the blazing incompetence of Gov. Sam Brownback? Elect him again! Brownback’s response? Double down! Because, you know, it is the welfare recipients that are crushing state finances and not his abysmal fiscal policy.

I do not suggest that all poor people are victims. I do not suggest that no poor people are lazy, or that there are no welfare cheats. There probably is even one recipient or two that has blown money on a tattoo.

It’s just that this is the exception, not the rule. We believe otherwise because we want to think we are better than others. We cling to the idea of the “worthy poor” and the “unworthy poor,” putting most poor people into the latter camp. This makes it much easier to look the other way when people are struggling.

For one party to co-opt this dark streak in human nature creates a chasm where there ought to be none: a moral nation takes care of its poor and hungry. It does not invent reasons to shirk that responsibility and it does not advance lies about all poor people being reckless, stupid ne’er do-wells who cannot be trusted not to swan about on cruise ships and visit gambling dens, courtesy the public’s largesse. Or even, per the Kansas restrictions, go to the movies. Oh, the hedonism of wanting to spend 10 bucks on two hours of escapism! Those dirty poor people need to be acutely aware of their miserable circumstances at all times! Or there will be no incentive to pull themselves up by their bootstraps — since lack of will and effort is the only reason, ever, for poverty.

Perhaps the party that wants so desperately to make America into a Bible-based theocracy ought to first prove it can follow the Good Book. (Which, by the way, does not say: “God helps those who help themselves.”) See: Just about every word of Jesus Christ.

Or, the oft-misquoted 1 Timothy 6:10: “For the love of money is the root of all evil…” The “love of ” bit is an important piece that is often left out, giving the incorrect idea that money, in and of itself, is evil without the application of human agency. Also, the verse concludes: “… which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

Even the Old Testament has plenty to say on the subject:

“He that despises his neighbor sins; but he that has mercy on the poor, happy is he.” — Proverbs 14:21.

“He that oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker; but he that honors Him has mercy on the poor.” — Proverbs 14:31.

Nowhere do these verses speak of the “worthiness” of the poor. Indeed, a general Christian interpretation of the Bible as a whole is that no one is actually worthy of mercy, but we can all receive it of Christ — and that His servants have a responsibility to emulate Him to the extent humanly possible. He fed 5,000 at one go. You can pony up some Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

When it comes to an indictment of the War on the Poor, there’s none finer than the Word of God. Not that I expect Kansas Republicans and like-minded souls to listen.

Katharhynn Heidelberg is an award-winning journalist in Montrose, Colo.

Published in Katharhynn Heidelberg

Respecting our veterans

The cruel war was over – oh, the triumph was so sweet!

We watched the troops returning, through our tears;

There was triumph, triumph, triumph down the scarlet glittering street,

And you scarce could hear the music for the cheers.

And you scarce could see the house-tops for the flags that flew between;

The bells were pealing madly to the sky;

And everyone was shouting for the Soldiers of the Queen,

And the glory of an age was passing by.

 

And then there came a shadow, swift and sudden, dark and drear;

The bells were silent, not an echo stirred.

The flags were drooping sullenly, the men forgot to cheer;

We waited, and we never spoke a word.

The sky grew darker, darker, till from out the gloomy rack

There came a voice that checked the heart with dread:

“Tear down, tear down your bunting now, and hang up sable black;

They are coming – it’s the Army of the Dead.”

 

They were coming, they were coming, gaunt and ghastly, sad and slow;

They were coming, all the crimson wrecks of pride;

With faces seared, and cheeks red smeared, and haunting eyes of woe,

And clotted holes the khaki couldn’t hide.

Oh, the clammy brow of anguish! the livid, foam-flecked lips!

The reeling ranks of ruin swept along!

The limb that trailed, the hand that failed, the bloody finger tips!

And oh, the dreary rhythm of their song!

 

“They left us on the veldt-side, but we felt we couldn’t stop

On this, our England’s crowning festal day;

We’re the men of Magersfontein, we’re the men of Spion Kop,

Colenso — we’re the men who had to pay.

We’re the men who paid the blood-price. Shall the grave be all our gain?

You owe us. Long and heavy is the score.

Then cheer us for our glory now, and cheer us for our pain,

And cheer us as ye never cheered before.”

 

The folks were white and stricken, and each tongue seemed weighted with lead;

Each heart was clutched in hollow hand of ice;

And every eye was staring at the horror of the dead,

The pity of the men who paid the price.

They were come, were come to mock us, in the first flush of our peace;

Through writhing lips their teeth were all agleam;

They were coming in their thousands — oh, would they never cease!

I closed my eyes, and then – it was a dream. There was triumph, triumph, triumph down the scarlet gleaming street;

The town was mad; a man was like a boy.

A thousand flags were flaming where the sky and city meet;

A thousand bells were thundering the joy.

There was music, mirth and sunshine; but some eyes shone with regret;

And while we stun with cheers our homing braves,

O God, in Thy great mercy, let us nevermore Forget

The graves they left behind, the bitter graves. — Robert Service

We’re a patriotic nation, by golly. We get angry when foreigners say a bad word about the United States. We solemnly lay our hands over our hearts when the Pledge of Allegiance is recited before every meeting. We bristle if anyone dares talk about burning the American flag.

Yet we defile two holidays that should be among our most sacred – Memorial Day and Veterans Day – by allowing them to be celebrated with Giant Discount Mattress, Tire, and Auto Sales! – to quote the advertisements in newspapers and on TV. One would think that on these days, out of all the days of the year, when families mourn and a few citizens give respect to flag, country and our youth’s sacrifices, the mammon-seekers could close.

In the 1930s and during World War II, we came together and formed, out of a terrible Depression, the greatest country and government in the world. We were willing to sacrifice 100,000 of our youth in two corporate wars and today we are trying to shake ourselves loose with dignity from another fiasco perpetrated by oil cartels.

We left our Korean and Vietnam veterans on the streets with few if any means of putting their lives back together. Over a long time, the populace finally became aware that we had a great problem, yet Congress and the corporations refused to provide adequate funding to help our veterans. VA medical care remains a disgrace and there is far too little treatment for the depression and PTSD our warriors suffer as well.

Shame on us.

Not of this can be remedied with a snap of the fingers, but one place to start might be in rethinking Memorial Day and Veterans Day. I as a veteran take great offense at the way these have been commercialized.

I know I am shouting into the wind, but I do it nonetheless. As you read this old poem, maybe it will open your eyes. Let’s honorably respect the survivors of war and the families of those lost or suffering. Boycott the sales and let the corporations know why you’re doing so. In so doing, you will honor our veterans.

Galen Larson writes from Montezuma County, Colo.

Published in Galen Larson

Fluidity at The Farm

Local photographer Barbara Grist is presenting an exhibition through May 31 at The Farm Bistro, 34 W. Main St., Cortez. This exhibition by showcases photographs from her “Fluidity” series, presenting photographic interpretations of water and light in two series on the west wall. The “Blue Series” is from Lake Powell at Glen Canyon, and the “Gold Series” is from the artist’s travels to Todos Santos, Baja Sur, Mexico.

Grist uses a printing process that infuses her photographic images onto thin sheets of aluminum with new dye-sublimation computerized printing. “This helps to keep the reflective quality of the subject and better showcase the full image,” she says.

FLUIDITY IMAGES BY BARBARA GRIST

These are among the photographs by Barbara Grist on display through May 31 in Cortez. Above “Ebb and Flow”; below, “Aquaessence.” Both are on aluminum.

The Farm Bistro has exhibited many local area artists over the past six years and continues to treat patrons to interior walls covered with creative artworks by a variety of local talent. Grist has exhibited her photographs locally and regionally since 1991. She’s won several awards for her images in national shows and continues to exhibit experimental works that stretch both her talents and the perceptions of the viewer, as this show does.

Two works in the exhibit are of particular interest: The Lake Powell triptych “Eventides Palette 1” (with each of the three panels about 18 by 24 inches), and the smaller “Ebb & Flow” from Todos Santos. Both works use the aluminum photo substrate printing method to best effect mirroring the patterns and sheen of unsettled water and warm sandstone or shoreline sands.

It is a welcome pleasure to see quality art by local artists at small venues in Cortez. Too many of the efforts of local Cortez artists are bypassed by the viewing public on their rush to Durango or the nearby national parks. “Fluidity” is a visually satisfying show and worth seeing. While you’re there, don’t miss the captivating large-format agrarian photographs by Deste Relyea on display on the east walls.

Published in Arts & Entertainment, May 2015

Letting go: Author Craig Childs says we can’t save everything from the past

craig-childs

Best-selling author Craig Childs speaks at the Sunflower Theatre in Cortez on March 26. Photo courtesy of KSJD

What should we do with pieces of the past? Do they belong to that past, to the present, or to the future? Should they be preserved or allowed to deteriorate and disappear?

Best-selling author Craig Childs raised those questions March 26 during a talk at the Sunflower Theatre, a new performing- arts venue in downtown Cortez. The sold-out event was a fundraiser for both the theatre and Friends of Cedar Mesa, a nonprofit in southern Utah.

The author of more than a dozen books about archaeology and the natural world, including “House of Rain,” “Finders Keepers,” “The Secret Knowledge of Water,” and most recently, “Apocalyptic Planet,” Childs now lives in San Miguel County, Colo., near Lone Cone and Norwood. He said the trip down Lizard Head Pass into Montezuma County is “powerful” to him because of landmarks such as Mesa Verde and the Sleeping Ute. The landscape is rich with ghosts, he said, and he enjoys thinking of all the stories that linger.

“How do we live with these ghosts?” he asked. “Because they’re all around us. I could feel it coming down here today.”

Living with ghosts – or, more particularly, with the artifacts they’ve left behind – has always been a thorny question in the Four Corners. It’s one that Childs addressed in “Finders Keepers,” and he revisited it during his talk in Cortez.

Although he describes himself as a “groupie to archaeologists,” he has qualms about the idea of excavating ancient sites and removing their contents, taking them to museums to be displayed or merely stored and studied. (It should be noted that modern-day archaeology is less intrusive than it used to be, and excavation can be done with non-invasive instruments that leave sites intact.)

He described being surrounded by pre-Columbian vessels during a visit to the Peabody Museum at Harvard. The curator told him they needed more space in order to display new things, and that the ceramics were going to be taken down and sent to smaller facilities around the Boston area. Childs found himself wondering, “Why are we gathering every little thing?”

People today, he said, act “as if history was all over” and we have reached the apex of human development. “We’re going to gather everything up as if this were the pinnacle of time. It’s not.”

Rather, he said, we are part of a continuum, and our stories will eventually blend with those of the people who came before us and be lost as new people create new stories.

In Vancouver, British Columbia, he said, he found an old building with broken windows, hardly better than a garage, hidden in the woods. Inside were stacked ancient totem poles owned by a museum. Again, he wondered, “What’s the plan here?”

He described a display at another museum in which two artifacts were housed carefully in a case in a drawer, each resting separately in a padded container. He asked the curator if he could pick them up and lay them across each other, because that was how they had been found when excavated, and the curator let him do it, but then they were returned to the drawer, contrary to their ancient ceremonial layout.

“The ceremony is now about Styrofoam and how they fit in a drawer,” Childs said. Museums are beautiful, he added, but at some point you wonder, what are we still trying to understand?

When he finds an artifact on one of his frequent expeditions into the desert, Childs prefers to leave it in place. This concept of the “outdoor museum” is one that has been discussed and advocated by many, including local author Fred Blackburn. However, it has its detractors.

An archaeologist in Phoenix told Childs that he was basically a vandal because he leaves important artifacts on site, “to be destroyed, stolen, whatever.”

“I get what he’s saying,” Childs said. “We’re trying to hold on because we lose so much. We lose stuff all the time. How many ancient sites will be lost in the next 10 years to bulldozers?”

And yet it isn’t possible to retain everything from the past. Childs said he likes the idea of things eventually vanishing, because that’s part of the natural process. “How long can you hold on to history?”

That’s a view that is shared by some Native tribes. For instance, when a petroglyph panel on Battleship Rock in Mesa Verde National Park was scorched during a wildfire more than a decade ago, the park consulted with tribal representatives about what to do. They said to leave it alone rather than attempt to restore it. The fire was part of nature.

Leaving artifacts on site to eventually break down and return to the earth is, of course, a far cry from looting sites and removing the artifacts for personal gain. Childs showed photos of intact Puebloan vessels illegally looted from two burial sites that were found among a Durango collector’s holdings. While it seems bizarre to him that people do such things, Childs said, he also understands the oldtimers in the area who say that artifacts were “like shells on a beach” across the Four Corners when they were young and that people used to carry shovels when they went on picnics.

“I totally understand that,” Childs said. “I still see a beautiful potsherd and the first thing I think is ‘mine’.”

But it’s best to leave things in their landscape, where the story they tell is part of a complete picture. He reminded the audience that most whole, intact jars are taken from burial sites, because any such jars left on the ground have likely been broken over the centuries.

“Why are we digging up burials to take objects that we will hold on to for the brief moment of our lives, when that thing has been in the ground for centuries?” Childs asked. “It’s us saying, ‘This is about us, now’.”

And what happens to the artifacts after they are removed? he added. “Collectors say, ‘Oh, our children are going to have this,’ but what’s the plan?. . .

“Once they’re out of the ground, the story changes. What is the right thing to do once you pull it out of the ground?”

There is no perfect answer to these questions, Childs said, and every policy has its drawbacks.

He told of finding a beautiful red seed jar beneath a boulder while hiking in the wilds of southern Utah a dozen years ago. He and his hiking companions debated furiously over whether to leave it – Childs’ idea – or notify authorities so it could be preserved. Eventually they left it.

Eleven years later, the public-radio program Radiolab persuaded them to hike back to the site to ascertain what had become of the jar. The story has an ironic ending that speaks to the inevitability of change. (It can be heard at http://www. radiolab.org/story/seed-jar/ )

Childs said to understand history, people need to get outdoors and move across the landscape to see how ancient peoples would have seen it. He embraces the idea that “time and space are the same – there is no difference between the ground underneath you and the time that has passed across that ground.”

The land around us is constantly telling stories. “Do you believe in time machines?” he asked. “For me, this is the time machine. . . this being able to move across the landscape, stepping through a thousand years in one instant.”

A time machine is not something with gears and bells, he said, “it’s your feet, your hands.”

Perhaps in keeping with the sentiment of walking across an area, Childs, in answer to a question, addressed the proposal to create a “Greater Canyonlands National Monument” surrounding Canyonlands National Park, something that has been pushed by conservationists as well as the outdoor-recreation industry.

Childs said Canyonlands is his “center” and that he has been a minor part of the movement to provide a “halo” of protection around it. There is a possibility of tar-sands development on some of that terrain, he said, and he would like to see the landscape kept from such destructive energy extraction.

However, he said, people need to realize that they are the ones driving the demand for more of these resources.

“We don’t want you to drill here – but we want a lot more oil, and cheaper,” he said. He’s finally decided that cutting off some areas from development will reduce the supply and force society to find alternatives to petroleum-based fuels.

Published in April 2015 Tagged

Gridlock over travel: A proposed permit system on two Canyonlands roads meets resistance

A National Park Service proposal to implement a permit system on two popular roads in Canyonlands sank like a rock when it was floated before the San Juan County, Utah, commissioners at their March 24 meeting.

Kate Cannon, superintendent of the Southeast Utah Group (which includes Canyonlands and Arches national parks and two monuments) and Kevin Moore, chief ranger for Canyonlands and Arches, told the commissioners that the agency would like to begin requiring permits for all motor-vehicle and bicycle day use on the White Rim Road in the Island-in- the-Sky District and the Elephant Hill Road in the Needles District.

Permits for the backcountry campsites accessed via the roads – eight sites for Elephant Hill, 20 for White Rim – would be issued separately and would not count toward the day-use numbers. Commercial guides also would not be under the system. The permits would be free for now.

A comment period on the proposal is open through April 14.

Cannon said the proposal is designed to preserve the primitive and uncrowded nature of a trip along those routes. People come to Canyonlands just to drive the narrow four-wheel-drive roads through the stunning red-rock landscape, she said.

“We want to keep them narrow because that is part of the experience,” she said. However, problems can arise if long lines of Jeeps are backed up, because there are few places to pull over without.

“One of the problems we have on both of these roads is large groups of vehicles,” Cannon said. “We recently had a dozen vehicles lining up to go over Elephant Hill, so the person waiting to go down has to wait for all those vehicles to go up.” This doesn’t happen often, she said, but it’s a problem when it does.

Cannon said the park would like to set a daily limit of 24 day-use vehicles and 12 bicycles on Elephant Hill, and 50 day-use vehicle permits and 50 bicycle permits for the White Rim Road. Motorcycles count as vehicles.

Each motor vehicle and individual bicycle would need a permit.

However, the commissioners took a dim view of that idea.

Commissioner Rebecca Benally said Charlie DeLorme, the county’s economic- development director, travels internationally to promote tourism in the county. “If we’re going to limit it by day passes and permits, that’s almost like limiting the economic development and tourism,” she said.

Cannon said the number of day-use permits is set at a level that would allow for significant growth over current use, and it could be tweaked if necessary. The highest single number of vehicles the park has ever had going over Elephant Hill at one time was 44, she said, and that included commercial tours and overnight campers, who are counted separately.

“The number of day users was probably under 20, and we’re proposing 24 vehicles per day,” Cannon said. “That was one day. We have a very, very long season and all those other days had significantly less use.” She said 24 motor-vehicle day passes for Elephant Hill would probably represent a doubling of current average use, based on traffic counters in the park, which are somewhat unreliable.

“This is what happened in Salt Creek,” warned Commissioner Bruce Adams, referring to a waterway in the Needles District that was historically used as a vehicle route to scenic Angel Arch. But the park closed it to motorized users, and the county sued. After a protracted and expensive court battle, the park’s decision was upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We went to a permitted use in Salt Creek, then the next thing we know, Salt Creek is closed to motorized vehicles,” Adams said.

Cannon said that happened because the Park Service was sued by groups arguing that motorized use was damaging the fragile riparian area.

“So then we get sued on Elephant Hill and it’s closed,” Adams predicted. “I think that would be as terrible as not being able to go to Angel Arch. If Canyonlands becomes a hiker and biker park only, I think that would be horrible.”

“I agree,” Cannon said.

She said a permit system will not discourage visitation; in fact, it will likely have the opposite effect.

“More people come to the national parks than come to the whole suite of public lands around us,” she noted. “The things we require reservations for become the most popular things that we have. I think there is something about a reservation that causes people to value the experience more.”

But Commission Chair Phil Lyman said when state parks get increased visitation, they respond by accommodat ing it. “They put up more yurts, expand their campgrounds,” he said. “I would like to see the park accommodate the people that want to come and if there’s thousands of people, that’s why they go to a park.”

But Cannon said unlimited travel on those two short roads would destroy the very qualities that make them attractive.

“It’s sort of the nature of my job to balance use and protection of what brings that use,” she said.

She added, “The more people we get, the more we have to take measures like this in order to preclude getting to the point where we lose what we are required to protect. It’s a conundrum.”

Years ago, Cannon said, when the park implemented the permit system for the backcountry campsites off those two roads, “it gave people a highly sought-after experience of relative tranquility and uncrowdedness.”

But Lyman said for locals, it is frustrating to face these sorts of restrictions. “You start to get the impression that this county belongs to the feds and it’s fruitless to try to recreate in your own back yard.”

“What we are trying to do in Canyonlands is keep the qualities that bring people here to visit it,” Cannon countered. “Without managing use, we will lose some of the things. . . like the nature of that road, simple and small, kind of a frontier, primitive feeling – that is what people love about the place.”

DeLorme, who was present at the meeting, said he has concerns about limits, but they are not always a detriment.

“Any time I hear ‘limits’ I freak out a little bit,” he said. However, he said publicity about a site in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has greatly increased visitation to nearby places, despite a permit system that has been implemented for that one area. “It actually turned out positive for the business community in Kanab,” he said.

Cannon said the term “limit” is somewhat misleading. “This initial limit has been set at twice of what our usual visitation is to either of those places, so I don’t think it can currently be called a limit.

“But I think we need to set some kind of a bar so we can measure the effect and see whether we’ve got the number right.”

However, Benally was clearly opposed to any permit system or limits and said they are particularly upsetting to her because she is Native American.

“I just want to enlighten you,” she told Cannon. “As a Native American person, we’re directly under government regulations and policies that are so layered, at times those policies just put you in a ball to where you can’t even do anything, so the amount of restrictions – permitting is restriction, however you see it, that’s what it is.”

She said all her life she has experienced the feeling “where government has a thumb-hold on everything we do.”

“We can hardly improve roads because we have this series of mandates we have to meet. . . I understand what you think you’re doing here, you’re trying to plan ahead, but I don’t think you have the right approach to do it,” she told Cannon.

Benally said the park’s best approach would be fewer restrictions and more education of visitors and to leave a “legacy of understanding.”

“To put up one more policy, one more regulation, one more mandate really doesn’t solve anything. I can tell you that from experience. . . .

“I really feel bad for the local residents of San Juan County, where everything is just being so restricted that after awhile we’re going to have to ask permission for every little thing that we do. . . As Native American people we have to live with that every day. . . and then we have to turn around and try and ask for a little bit of freedom and it always ends up in lawsuits or whatever, so in your prediction and what you’re trying to do, to me the best way is to try and educate the people. . . .

“Having been there, having that experience, it’s not a good place to be,” Benally said.

“Thank you, commissioner,” Cannon said. “I do understand.”

Lyman and Cannon agreed further talks would be beneficial.

This article is based on the official audio recording of the county commission’s meeting

Published in April 2015 Tagged

A change in direction: After hiring a new director, the Cortez Cultural Center board is optimistic

CULTURAL CENTER GIFT SHOP

The redesigned cultural center has a fresh, spacious look. Photo by Sonja Horoshko

The Cortez Cultural Center has undergone another shakeup, one of many in its troubled history, but its board of directors is confident that they are moving in the right direction as they address tough issues surrounding their mission, finances, and leadership.

Jeff Weinmeister, who served for 11 months as deputy director under Donna Steward, became the fifth executive director in four years at the cultural center. He replaced Steward, who turned in her resignation March 16.

The center has been plagued by financial, programming and cultural challenges for more than a decade. (See http:// fourcornersfreepress.com/?p=1033)

Weinmeister comes to Cortez after boosting his career in public relations and business while working at Disney Corporation and the International Olympics Committee during the Salt Lake City Winter Games.

He was born and raised in Windsor, Colo., a rural community northeast of Denver, population 18,000. Even though Cortez is less than half the population of his hometown and not located near any urban centers, Weinmeister sees a great opportunity here. The center is poised, with his help, to tap into the cultural-tourism market and improve participation in the center’s activities.

Weinmaster said the past 11 months have brought changes that are the result of strategic workshops held by the board.

“They updated the mission statement and Steward redesigned the logo, added the tag line,” and marketed their re-dedication to the mission. Now he believes the center is prepared to ratchet up interest and support.

“I am in a unique position to implement programs and development that will attract tourism, benefit the center and the community,” he said in a recent interview, “but I am also sensitive to the needs of the arts in the community. I play the euphonium.”

That sweet-voiced cello of the marching bands is king of the wind instruments, and extremely important in music by composers such as John Phillip Sousa. Weinmaster went to college on a music scholarship, but changed focus, he said, when he became interested in business.

In an effort to address community concerns, board president Lee Bergman invited focus groups to his home last fall, said Weinmeister, “including artists, donors, and non-donors, to get their vision, their take on the center’s place in the community.”

The work and responsibilities he has inherited from Steward are the result of those efforts. He hopes the progress will continue.

Although Weinmeister said new programs coming soon to the center are a secret at press time – he intends to announce them in May – he hinted at their content, saying, “What we are introducing now will address the tourism market.”

‘Turning a ship around’

The cultural center is housed in an historic department-store building at 25 N. Market St. It has served the community for 27 years. It was formed out of a desire to provide educational programming through its affiliation with the University of Colorado. Originally named the CU Center, it received funding from the university until the affiliation ended and the Cortez Cultural Center was reborn with a broader mission that included cultural components and the arts.

The shift from academia offered the local center an opportunity to expand its mixture of events to include a birdwatching festival, marathon run, the Hawkins Preserve (an archaeological site south of town) and Native American dancing on the plaza for tourists during the summer months, all programs that still exist.

Three years ago the center was embroiled in struggles with its finances and vision, while critics said it needed to make changes. In October 2013, then- Director Shawn Collins announced that the iconic center was facing a budgeting shortfall of $10,000 to $15,000, due primarily to a drop in sales in the gift shop. Collins said, “The center’s directors are facing the reality of it.”

Since then, and especially during the last year, more change has come. The cultural center has addressed past issues about mission priorities that could change funding resources and expand revenue.

The announcement from Steward that she had resigned caused unease among some in the community, including many artists. “A donor once asked me what I was prioritizing. I answered, ‘I am changing the culture of the cultural center,’” she told the Free Press. “In my opinion the payoff came when the people we served were persuaded to believe in the cultural center, especially to bring the arts community back after they had been so turned away.”

According to Steward, the task she faced when she assumed leadership almost a year ago was formidable, “like turning a whole ship around at sea.” A few months before her appointment, she had accepted a position on the board of directors. Soon after, Anne Beech, director at that time, resigned.

Steward applied with a clear understanding that the position was risky and underfunded, but she felt her New York City background in marketing, public relations and the visual arts would help. The board hired her and simultaneously, without informing her, hired Weinmeister as deputy director to handle the financial responsibilities.

At that time the center felt gothic, she said, “with little modern influence or cultural awareness of the ‘other.’ In fact, I was embarrassed by the board’s persistent resistance to address real cultural issues and explained that to the board of directors. I was hoping we could attract more multi-cultural board members in order to learn from and address our programming with more informed and enlightened sensitivity.”

‘No indication’

On Friday, March 13, Steward was called into a meeting with Bergman and the treasurer of the board, Duncan Rose. According to Steward, she was told that the board had found that she had not lived up to anything she’d promised almost a year earlier. She was told her job performance was not acceptable.

“I had no indication that the board was thinking this. All was well 30 minutes before the meeting and suddenly I was being told I didn’t do the job and was unprofessional. I thought my board was in agreement with all the decisions I had made to accelerate the changes and market the cultural center and the new programs. I couldn’t be more surprised.”

At the regular board meeting the following Monday, Steward asked the board directly if they supported her work. “No one replied that they did. I then presented my resignation.”

She wrote a letter to the public explaining, “…I did my best to serve the Center and make wise choices with our limited resources. I strongly disagree with the board’s decision and with their evaluation of my performance and I told them so. My volunteers were told that I left to ‘pursue other opportunities’ and nothing could be further from the truth….”

According to Steward, she had worked to resolve the goals developed by the board, including outreach to the fine-arts community. The life-drawing class was something she knew would draw artists to the center. “It is a time when artists can hone their skills, and meanwhile exchange ideas. It is a way to create communication and support the arts community,” she explained.

The popular studio time was offered on Thursday evenings. Following Steward’s resignation, the next session was cancelled.

Weinmeister apologized for the short notice of the cancellation, saying he knows attendance was increasing. “We will be resuming the classes on Tuesdays and will let people know in advance,” he added. A press release to that effect confirmed that the life-drawing session would resume Tuesday, April 7, at 6:30 p.m. at no charge to the artists.

Board makeup

In a small, hard-working community such as Cortez it is difficult to find people with the time and interest to serve on a board. The cultural center’s board is no exception. Board makeup is a thorny subject for some community members, particularly regarding the lack of Native American representation, but it is not always easy to find people willing to serve.

The senior member of the existing cultural board is Diane Cherbak, who has been on the board for five years. The other members have been seated for shorter periods of time. Their talents and backgrounds are impressive.

Cherbak was a flight program manager for Lockheed, Bergman was president of a chemical company, while Randy Bangert holds a Ph.D. in ecology, Duncan Rose is a former county manager in Tallahassee, Fla., and Teddy Lewis is an addiction counselor, art therapist and artist.

Bergman declined repeated requests to be interviewed by the Free Press.

Early last summer, Cortez City Councilman Jim Price, then a new member on the center’s board, was actively eliciting public support and interest in the work of the center, which receives some funding from the city. But three months after Price accepted the board position, he resigned. “Another lady and I were tasked with getting more exposure on Facebook,” he said. “I spent over $250 of my own money and got over a thousand new likes at the site. A board member resisted [our efforts] throughout and insinuated that I couldn’t be trusted and so I resigned.”

Price posted Steward’s letter to the public on his Facebook page. “I thought Donna did a remarkable job,” he said. “The board of directors put a lot on her and she shouldered it like a trooper.”

Fresh energy

The center’s main floor houses a gift shop, museum and a gallery/public space. Steward’s interest in redesigning the space reflected many comments she heard when she took over the directorship last year.

One concern was the size of the gift shop, at that time easily 50 percent of the square footage. “We came up with a workable design compromise and a lot of paint,” Steward said. “The point was, I promised to make the place welcoming.”

Dedicated gift-shop floor space now is around 30 percent, and has moved to the south side of the room at the main entrance. The museum uses another chunk of the space, lining the east and north walls with display cases and shelves, and the exhibit walls in the back of the spacious room are now clearly visible from the entrance.

The windows are clean and bright, and a large banner displaying the logo hangs in one. The whole space breathes with fresh energy.

Three years ago, according to then-director Collins, the center’s general operating budget was close to $235,000, much of it garnered from fundraisers, such as the Sweetheart Ball, and Ladies Night, both held at the Elks Club. The projected net income in 2012 from the gift shop was just over $1,000.

Today, however, the general operating budget has shrunk. Weinmeister was unable to project the net income from the gift shop, but said the total operating budget for the cultural center is about $180,000, with close to 5 percent of that coming from a City of Cortez grant.

Varied offerings

During the past 11 months the center’s Facebook account and web site have been updated. Event announcements like those posted for last September show how variety is increasing. An evening slideshow on wild orchids was presented by photographer and naturalist Bill Lemons followed later in the month by collaboration with the Dolores River Anglers’ chapter of Trout Unlimited. They sponsored a “Basics of Fly Fishing” weekend workshop that included classroom sessions and streamside coaching.

The list of events reflects a real effort to develop an audience and offerings that will attract local participation.

“It’s the responsibility of the center to recognize that its work creates tendrils into the community,” said Steward.

“Our efforts to understand this, to reach new audiences, were paying off. Turning it over was like turning mulch. We were persuading people to trust the center again.

Published in April 2015

A delay for ‘The Grand Bargain’: March 27 deadline passes; work continues on Utah lands bill

March 27 came and went without the expected unveiling of a draft bill for managing eastern Utah’s treasured public lands, but the deadline for inclusion in “The Grand Bargain,” as the legislation is being called, has been extended.

Utah Congressmen Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz postponed the deadline to complete negotiations on their sweeping public-lands initiative in order to get the most input possible from stakeholders before the initiative is introduced as a bill in Congress late this spring. If the cobbled-together final proposal from Utah is successful in determining the best application of federal land designations, it could become the model for future land-use processes.

Nearly three years ago Bishop and Chaffetz invited Utah’s eastern counties to craft proposals for managing the federal lands in their purview, and a slew of public meetings began throughout the participating counties: San Juan, Daggett, Uintah, Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Grand and Summit, all bordering Colorado. Although the discussions have been lively and often contentious, the stakeholders know if they can’t reach a consensus, President Obama could unilaterally declare much of the land in question a national monument.

The process has intensified since March 27. All of the counties still needed time to polish details. In the cases of San Juan County, a deal with all vested parties hadn’t been reached.

Over 90 percent of all U.S. federal land is located in the Western states, and Utahans are particularly sensitive to federal regulations and restrictions on access and uses of the scenic country in their backyards. Mineral and natural-resource extraction companies, recreation businesses, ranchers and farmers, environmental groups, conservation organizations, and Native tribes have been asked to submit to their county commissioners proposals for uses and designations on public lands in each locale.

The effort is intended to result in a workable lands bill that will resolve at last some long-hanging questions about energy extraction, wilderness designations, and other thorny issues.

An ambitious effort

The initiative’s complexity and the size of the land at stake, possibly over 18 million acres, combined with the sheer number and range of diverse stakeholders has earned the effort the moniker, “The Grand Bargain.” The idea is that everyone could get some of what they propose, but obviously not all.

If it works, it will be an impressive success, but some critics say that the chances for a consensus may be slim.

The responses from the counties involved are very uneven, said Bill Hedden, executive director of the Grand Canyon Trust, which is considered a stakeholder in all the counties. “Where people were amenable to negotiations, there was hope,” he said.

“The Daggett County commissioners were very pleased with the outcome we all negotiated there. After that we felt confident we could negotiate in Uintah. Emery and Grand were on the horizon,” Hedden said.

“We had lots of input in Summit, but our discussions with Emery were empty – they’re not interested in changing a thing since 2009. Carbon County is a non-starter and there is less protection in their proposal today than in 1995 and San Juan County is just not talking, just saying, ‘We’ll do our own thing.’ These have been intensive negotiations. We had hoped for nuanced outcomes in the final agreements.”

Early in February the congressional delegation recognized that the sluggish process needed a jolt, explained Fred Ferguson, Chaffetz’s chief of staff, in a telephone interview, “so we set a deadline. Our goal was to get a draft document by March 27. But there has not been enough vetting with the stakeholders.

“Now that the House is in recess we have two weeks to hone in on what’s important in the bill. Consensus is possible,” Ferguson said. “We should have a discussion draft by the end of the month ready for comment on Bishop’s website.”

San Juan County has the most diverse population of the counties involved. Half of its residents are Native citizens actively participating through Utah Diné Bikéyah, a not-for-profit organization that was selected to represent the Navajo Nation with the support of the Navajo government. The group has identified traditional uses and defined sacred sites in and around Cedar Mesa, a vast, scenic area rich in cultural resources. Cultural mapping was a big part of the preparation of the Diné Bikéyah proposal; as an example, through interviews with elders the group was told stories of Zuni migration from Grand Canyon to their present homeland. None of the 1.9 million acres proposed for by Diné Bikéyah for a Bear’s Ears National Conservation Area/National Monument is on reservation land.

A Nabik’íyáti’ yes vote

On March 12, legislation co-sponsored by Navajo Nation council delegates Walter Phelps and Davis Filfred was introduced to the council’s Nabik’íyáti’ Committee, of which all 24 delegates are members. It called for comments, discussion and a vote over support of the Utah Diné Bikéyah Bear’s Ears proposal.

The designations in the proposal are aimed at forever protecting Native rights and interests on federal lands, traditional uses of the lands and their cultural, natural, scenic and archaeological values. According to the legislative description, the Bear’s Ears region is the ancestral home of the Diné and many other Southwestern Native American nations and includes the birthplace of historic Navajo leader Manuelito.

The legislation states that it includes a collaborative management role for the Navajo Nation and other tribal governments “to ensure that traditional stewardship practices, wisdom and cultural activities are elevated in the future management of this cultural landscape. Utah Navajo communities have been involved in developing and advancing the proposal to protect an area they depend upon for food, medicine, firewood and their spiritual well-being.”

At the end of the council’s discussion, the vote was unanimous to support the Bear’s Ears NCA / National Monument. It was the final action on the legislation.

Bear’s Ears is a great initiative, Phelps told the Free Press. “The bill which Congressman Bishop wants to push is one option. The other option is that President Obama could do it by executive order. I do understand there are competing interests involved so I’m sure they are all doing their best to lobby members both for and against.

“It almost seems that Obama’s executive process is much more promising than the legislative process,” he added.

Support for Bear’s Ears

Multi-tribal interest in the lands initiative is strong. Mary Jane Yazzie, an elder from the White Mesa Ute Mountain Ute tribe, recently joined the Diné Bikéyah board. “It is very helpful as we try to include and coordinate tribal interests,” said Gavin Noyes, executive director for Diné Bikéyah.

Noyes explained that the group has been to Washington, D.C., to lobby for its proposal, most recently in December. Meanwhile, resolutions from other federally recognized tribes have been issued in support of the proposal, including Hualapai, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in Texas, the Hopi and the All Indian Pueblo Council of Governors.

He accepts the extension. “All negotiating processes present challenging deadlines. They get bumped back and in this case the county’s [San Juan] not ready and there’s a lot of misinformation about the Bear’s Ears proposal, especially about the amount of acres proposed as national conservation area vs. the size of the wilderness designations.”

The Diné Bikéyah board is reaching out to interested, concerned people, he said. “It’s important to look at the facts and get involved. For instance, the Bear’s Ears proposal is designed to protect Native American cultural uses, especially access to hunting and gathering. It includes a variety of layers of protection for archaeology sites in some areas, wildlife and habitat in other areas, and access for firewood collection and cultural use in others.”

Noyes admitted it’s difficult to attend meetings in such a vast county, but the easiest way to participate, he said, is to join the Utah Diné Bikéyah website mailing list and comment online.

“Bear’s Ears is designed to block all bulldozers from entering these public lands. The proposal will not, however, keep people, cows, guns, or even sagebrush rebels out, and the overall intent is to keep these lands as they are today. Bear’s Ears will be accessed by the same roads that go to the same places as they do now.”

Coming to the table

Negotiations over individual proposals are intense. According to council delegate Filfred, who represents five Utah Chapters, Aneth Chapter reopened the discussion about the Bear’s Ears proposal at its March chapter meeting. The topic was their support of the Navajo Council Legislation regarding Bear’s Ears NCA. A few community members were lobbying to rescind the chapter’s support of the legislation.

“They talked about it, but I explained that they already held many public meetings and talked about it at great length before the resolution was passed at the chapter level in support of the Bear’s Ears legislation. After that it went to the Navajo Council Nabik’íyáti’ committee,” Filfred said by telephone. “That was done. It passed the Navajo council. There is no more action on it. It is a done deal.”

In an April 3 press release from the Navajo Council, delegate Phelps explained, “The initiative to protect the Bear’s Ears area was initiated by local Utah Navajos; however, the combined collective interest of tribes [will] only make the proposal more viable. We look forward to making positive progress with leaders in Washington.”

In separate interviews, Ferguson and Noyes voiced hope that when the commissioners convene San Juan County stakeholders during April, all parties can engage in meaningful discussion around values and collaborations. Ferguson added that the congressional delegation is working with the San Juan County commissioners to try to find a way to merge the differing proposals.

“The pieces are there and proposals have been advanced,” Ferguson said. “We’re trying to give more time to help facilitate the package, something to share, something better than it currently is. Navajo is a very important piece of the county. After all, 50 percent of the population is Navajo or Native. If we get it right in San Juan County, we can get it right elsewhere.”

The discussion draft will be developed through an open and transparent process, he said. “We still want to hear from people and when it goes to formal legislation in Washington, D.C., then that’s the ultimate public process. It will be scrutinized by a lot of people.”

A San Juan County stakeholders meeting on the Utah Lands Initiative proposal is set for Wednesday, April 8, at 3 p.m. in the Arts and Events Center at Utah State University Eastern, Blanding, Utah.

Published in April 2015 Tagged ,

Should federal lands be turned over to the states? The Montezuma County Commission says yes

FEDERAL-STATE-LANDS

Illustration by Travis Kelly

At the end of the day on March 16, the Montezuma County commissioners took a quick vote on a proposed expenditure.

The amount of money was relatively small – $1,000 – and the topic wasn’t even listed on the agenda.

But the 2-0 vote by commissioners James Lambert and Larry Don Suckla (Keenan Ertel was absent) made a clear and significant statement: Montezuma County is in favor of turning federal public lands over to the states.

In voting to pay dues to the American Lands Council, the county has aligned itself with a movement that appears to be gaining steam.

In 2012, Utah legislators passed, and the governor signed, a bill demanding that more than 20 million acres of federal lands within the state be handed over, or the state will sue.

Late in March, the U.S. Senate, on a 51-49 vote, supported a budget-resolution amendment calling for all federal lands other than national parks and monuments to be sold or given away. Earlier, the House of Representatives had overwhelmingly approved a resolution endorsing the idea of reducing the federal estate and “giving states and localities more control over the resources within their boundaries.”

Both resolutions were nonbinding, so their passage was symbolic, but it’s an indication of the politicians’ sentiment.

Suckla told the Free Press the county joined the American Lands Council because “they’re an advocate for states having the right, if they so choose, to have federal lands transferred over to state jurisdiction.”

Suckla said he believes states could provide better management of public land.

“The federal government manages it from Washington, and all forests and BLM lands are different and need to be managed accordingly,” he said. “So if it was managed by the states vs. Washington, D.C., it would have to get more local input and I believe it would be managed better.”

On its website, the American Lands Council says the lands transfer would exclude existing national parks and monuments, wilderness areas, Indian reservations, and military installations.

But many critics are alarmed by the idea of dissolving the nation’s system of national forests and BLM holdings. They call it a thinly cloaked measure to allow oil and gas interests and timber companies to steamroll over resource protections.

According to an article posted at thinkprogress. org, legislative efforts advocating the lands transfer are “quietly drafted and promoted” by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit funded by a slew of corporations including Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, and Peabody Energy. ALEC reportedly also has worked on draft legislation to modify the Antiquities Act and Endangered Species Act, and to stop the federal government from regulating hydraulic fracturing.

‘Locked gates’

“Our public lands are part of our American heritage,” said U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico, in a conference call with members of the press on March 25. He said if Congress sold off public lands, it would lead to “a proliferation of locked gates and no-trespassing signs” and “would devastate our traditions. . . that are central to Western culture.”

In his years in the House and Senate, he said, “I have never witnessed such a comprehensive assault on our public lands as we have seen in the last year or so, but our public lands are not for sale.”

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, also spoke during the conference call, saying that public lands are “part of the fabric of our country and our country’s history” and calling for Congress to renew the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a federal program that funds preservation and management of special areas.

But Suckla said putting public lands in the hands of each state would streamline development and provide management more precisely attuned to the needs of each particular area.

“With local input, which we haven’t been given, things could move faster,” he said. “If the county had control of [a proposed bike] trail from Dolores to House Creek [a site on McPhee Reservoir], it would already have been built.”

Furthermore, he said, by the time Forest Service or BLM managers do become familiar with the local area, they are likely to transfer elsewhere.

“When they finally learn our forest, they move them to a different forest, so there’s no long-term employment with the leaders of the BLM and Forest Service,” Suckla said. “You get somebody from a different type of forest with a different type of trees and they try to manage our forest like the type they came from. A lot of times that doesn’t work.

“It’s not the fault of the local officials for the Forest Service and BLM. I happen to really like them. It’s that they are directed from Washington and their hands are tied.”

‘Opposing any effort’

The idea of giving federal public lands to the states has arisen periodically over the years, fueled by frustration on the part of Western counties that have huge chunks of federally managed territory within their boundaries. In Montezuma County, for instance, about 37 percent of the land is federal public land; an additional 33 percent is the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation.

The state of Utah is 66.5 percent federally owned, according to the Congressional Research Service, and Colorado is 36.2 percent federal. Some 28 percent of the land in the United States belongs to the federal government, much of that in the West.

Proponents of a state takeover argue that promises were made by Congress in the 1800s that federal control of these lands was to be only temporary. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the concept of congressional authority over federal land, and the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel has said that the state’s 2012 bill calling for a public-land giveaway has “a high probability of being declared unconstitutional.”

Utah is a hub of anti-federal sentiment, and it’s not coincidental that the American Lands Council was created by one of that state’s legislators, Rep. Ken Ivory, along with Elko, Nev., County Commissioner Demar Dahl.

Ivory is the director of the council, for which he was reportedly paid $40,000 in 2012, and his wife is also a paid employee as communications director.

The Salt Lake Tribune has raised the issue of whether Ivory, in pushing this single issue, is acting as a lobbyist and whether that poses an ethical conflict with his work as a state legislator.

The American Lands Council pulls in at least $219,000 a year from its county memberships, according to a list posted online by the Center for Western Priorities, a nonpartisan nonprofit. There are also municipal, business, and individual memberships.

At least 20 of Utah’s 29 counties have joined the council. In Colorado, Montrose and Mesa counties had joined prior to Montezuma, according to the list. However, Garfield County decided against it. The Grand Junction Sentinel reported that one Garfield commissioner voiced concern that transferring federal lands to the state could mean voters could then decide their management through ballot initiatives amending the state Constitution, and another commissioner worried the state might sell off some of the lands. On March 25, the San Miguel County, Colo., commissioners unanimously passed a resolution opposing a lands transfer – “publicly stating the value of public lands to the county’s economy, recreation heritage and quality of life; and opposing any effort to claim, take over, litigate for or sell off federal public lands within San Miguel County.”

“Federal money and expertise to suppress wildfires is essential to protecting our communities, infrastructure and public lands,” the resolution also states. It says collaborative approaches “are more likely to produce effective management than would ownership or management of public lands by the state of Colorado.”

Suckla told the Free Press that the state would not be able to sell the lands it received, and the American Lands Council’s website likewise says the lands would not be sold, adding, “The lands will continue to be managed for multiple use, i.e., sustainable yield and protection of resources, hunting and fishing, and recreational access.”

However, there is no information on how the states, many of them financially strapped, would be prevented from selling lands in order to balance their budgets.

The idea of a massive lands transfer raises other questions, too:

  • Would the states charge fees to access some of their new lands? If so, would people have to pay a separate fee in every state?
  • Would grazing be allowed to continue? Proponents say yes, but the model of land ownership in Eastern states they often cite doesn’t include much publiclands grazing.
  • Would this mean there could never be any more new national parks or monuments?
  • Would the non-Western states be compensated for having helped pay to manage these public lands over the decades?

A voice mail left at the lands council’s office by the Free Press seeking more information on its plans and activities was never returned.

‘European-style estates’

On March 23, Montezuma County resident Wade Foster came before the commissioners to criticize the idea of a lands transfer.

In Colorado, he pointed out, “. . .we need to run a lottery just to keep our little state parks open.” He continued, “The federal public lands are currently funded by the whole of the United States, and they are still stretched pretty thin. States just don’t have the resources to keep these lands as well preserved and as lightly used, and as open to the use of the whole public, as they have been under the authority of the federal government.”

Given that, he said, the long-term goal of those pushing such a transfer must be “de facto privatization.”

“Imagine European-style estates at the head of the Dolores, based on longterm leases from the state of Colorado,” he said. “Imagine some very large industrial concern with very deep pockets leasing up large sections of headwaters lands, and then beginning long-term lawsuits claiming water rights.”

Foster said he does not want to see Montezuma County’s logo displayed on the council’s website.

“The ability to claim us as supporters and display us on their website has to be the only reason we were urged to pay to join, as opposed to them just sending us a representative to explain their position,” he said. “They do not really need our money, as they are largely funded by such groups as The American Legislative Exchange Council, which is in turn funded by very large industrial and commercial interests.”

However, another county resident, Dave Dove, then praised the commissioners’ decision to join the group. “The federal agencies are very poor managers of public lands,” he said. “They are doing an outrageously horrible job of protecting them.”

Foster’s concerns were echoed by Diane Wren, co-founder of Osprey Packs, the Cortez-based outdoor-gear company, in a guest column in the Montrose Daily Press. “Over 70 percent of voters in Colorado think our national public lands should remain open for the enjoyment of all Americans, and we agree – our land is part of our shared outdoor heritage, and part of what makes this country so great,” she wrote.

“Simply put, these land grabs are bad for our families, and bad for business. On behalf of Osprey and all of our employees, we urge our elected officials to address these efforts to transfer or sell off our public lands with loud and swift opposition.”

$238 million for one fire

Many critics have raised the question of whether the states can afford to maintain vast swaths of public land and roads. Just the cost of dealing with wildfires could be astronomical. It cost $238 million to fight the 2002 Hayman fire, the state’s largest, according to the Denver Post.

But Suckla told the Free Press the states should be able to afford the costs, especially assuming that the federal mineral estate now owned by the BLM was transferred to the states as well. The BLM owns sub-surface mineral rights under not just public land, but many private lands.

“The [mineral] royalties the federal government receives in Montezuma County average $30 million a year,” Suckla said, “yet our local Forest Service and BLM don’t have enough money to even manage the weeds on the forest. If the land belonged to the state, the state would get the $30 million.” Then, he said, Montezuma County might get up to $10 million instead of the $2 million it generally receives as its share of the royalties. Montezuma County has already been pressing to take over management of some recreational areas at McPhee Reservoir, currently managed by the Forest Service. The county originally sought control of the main boat ramp, the House Creek site and an area called Sage Hen, but has since decided it doesn’t want the main boat ramp.

The county has been frustrated by the glacial pace of Forest Service-managed efforts to get a breakwater built at the reservoir and find a new operator to develop a marina after one burned in 2002.

The commissioners believe McPhee is an example of the inefficiencies of federal management and are certain the county could do a much better job developing recreation at the lake.

Analyses vary over whether the states would prove better managers than the federal government. Back in 1997, an analysis done for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank founded by Koch Industries, concluded, “state governments are no better managers than are federal bureaucrats. They are just as economically inefficient, ecologically shortsighted, and politically driven as their federal counterparts.”

It said one reason federal governance of public lands may be so controversial is that it is just more visible than state land management.

But the analysis also found that “the belief that states would be more inclined to privatize public land is generally unsupported.”

The report recommended “getting politics out of land management to the greatest extent possible” and suggested the creation of public land trusts.

This latest push to get rid of federal public lands will probably fizzle out, as previous efforts have done, but it has prompted considerable discussion over land management and local input.

Suckla admitted he doesn’t actually expect that Colorado legislators would vote to take control of federal lands even if given the opportunity.

“But,” he added, “I believe that Utah would, and what a grand experiment to let Utah go ahead and do it and see what happens.”

Published in April 2015 Tagged

Me the People

The television ad comes on, “Come and enjoy YOUR National Forest”! Hey, let’s do it, after all it is mine, the government said so! Truth and reality check, it is not your forest! How can 320 million people all own the same piece of land? The so-called “public lands” actually are lands of the State of Colorado, which have been and are currently being controlled by the federal government. The concept of “We the People” owning the forest is merely a political deception!

It seems that here in Colorado, as in most of the West, there are few things that stir the emotions as much as a person’s “perceived right” to access and enjoy his and her public lands in the manner they each want. Along with that perception, they seem to think the federal government is to provide for them their right to the Pursuit of Happiness. For most of us, to go up into the mountains and see the beauty of God’s creation, hear the wind in trees and the birds singing is a time of happiness. But is it the state, county, or federal government’s responsibility to ensure that opportunity is provided for you and me?

Too often it is said, “I moved here for the open space and quiet beauty, I don’t want my view spoiled with a new barn, or an oil & gas well being allowed to ruin my view and investment.” That is the beginning of the changing of a community of WE the People that work, raise families, worship and recreate together, into just an amalgam of ME the People. I want things to be like I want them!

The Forest Service and BLM, operating under federal rules and regulations drafted by singleinterest activist groups, divide the local populations into numerous ME the Peoples. Most do not realize that they have been duped and are being used by the activists to ultimately remove all the individual- use interests from the “public” lands for the re-wilding of America.

A good example of this is the Travel Management Plans being forced upon all the western national forests. The forests hold public meetings asking, “What do YOU want in the forest plan”? Interestingly, it is the constitutional and legal authority and responsibility of the County Commissions to answer that question, not the 1 percent of special interests in the general public.

As might be guessed, the answers are: Listen to ME, I want the forest to always look pristine; listen to ME, I want to hike on nice trails in quiet; listen to ME, I want more biking trails without motorized equipment ruining my experience; listen to ME, I want to drive the old roads for hunting and enjoyment; listen to ME, I don’t want to hear chain saws cutting those poor trees; listen to ME, I don’t want cows in the forest and trails, oh yuck, don’t step in that; Listen to ME, I want more water for river floating and maybe save some something; Listen to ME, and ME, and the beat goes on. All that really matters is Ol’ number one getting what he wants!

We do not hear, “Listen to ME, the FOREST, I’m dying from ignorance, misplaced and false love, lack of care, nurturing and use!” Little do the people realize that the so-called public lands and resources, the roads, trails, ponds, reservoirs, historic sites they like to use and visit would not even be there, had it not been for WE the People emulating nature by doing jobs of logging, mining and ranching operations over the past 140 years. Those people working, managing and using the resources built this county and the economy that has enabled us today to be able to recreate and enjoy the lands and resources that were formed as a result. For each ME to get what they want, another ME has to give up theirs! The idea that they are “saving” the forests for the future is a fallacy they have been duped into believing by the pseudo environmental activists. Are WE the People willing to share access and uses and encourage managers to improve the health of the forests to provide for increased jobs, economy, water, agriculture, wildlife, fishing and recreation?

The “public” lands have systematically been removing valid access and use for WE the People. Did you know that 72 percent of the San Juan Forest is no longer accessible except by horse or on foot and there is no management to protect and improve the watershed or wildlife habitat and recreation? On the remaining 28 percent, motorized access and recreation on old existing roads is being reduced by 90 percent.

Did you know that over 5,000 acres of Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, promoted as a hiking/exploring area, has restricted even hikers by forcing them to stay on designated trails? Hunting is still permitted, but the hunter must stay on the designated trails. Wonder how they have trained the deer and mountain lions to do this?

On the public lands, WE the people have been reduced to just one ME the people.

How can good management and use for all be reinstated? The stewardship of the lands and resources of the state rests with each county using the County Land Use Plans, as they are the ones charged with the health, safety and welfare of the county and its people.

Dexter Gill is a retired forest manager, having worked for private industry, three Western state forestry agencies, and the Navajo Nation forestry department. He writes from Lewis, Colo.

Published in Dexter Gill

Cortez woman sentenced in tax-fraud case

A Cortez woman who embezzled funds from Empire Electric has been sentenced to 12 months in federal prison.
Lisa Kay Balderrama, 50, was sentenced earlier this week by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Marcia S. Krieger to serve 12 months in federal prison for filing a false tax return, United States Attorney John Walsh and IRS Criminal Investigation Acting Special Agent in Charge Steven A. Osborne announced in a press release.
Following her prison sentence, Balderrama was ordered to serve 1 year on supervised release.
Balderrama was also ordered by Chief Judge Krieger to pay $64,477 in restitution to the IRS. The defendant was ordered to report to a Bureau of Prisons facility within 48 hours of designation.
Balderrama waived her right to indictment, and thus was charged by Information on October 20, 2014.  She pled guilty before Chief Judge Krieger on December 4, 2014.
According to information contained in the stipulated facts of the plea agreement as well as the Information, Balderrama began working for Empire Electric Association in Cortez in December 2005 as a customer services representative. At the end of October 2012, accounting employees for Empire noted that the manual check register was not reconciling with internal bookkeeping and that the two were off by over $200,000. These employees brought this to Balderrama’s attention, questioning whether certain deposits had been made. Balderrama convinced the other employees that deposits had gone into the bank, that everything was okay, and that she would find the discrepancy.
In mid-December 2012, the defendant was again questioned about the discrepancy and about a $277,000 electronic transaction she had posted on October 22, 2012. The following Monday, Balderrama reported to work and confessed to her superiors that she had stolen approximately $280,000 from Empire Electric. The investigation revealed that from approximately 2009 through 2012, Balderrama stole money from customers who paid cash for their electric bills.  Empire’s accountant conducted an investigation into their books and found that $277,035 in adjustments had been made to 184 accounts in order to cover the shortages due to Balderrama’s thefts.
Balderrama failed to report a combined total income of $277,035 on her tax returns in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The tax loss to the IRS which resulted from Balderrama’s false statements totaled $64,477.
“As the defendant Balderrama learned in this case, regardless of the source of income, if you don’t pay taxes on it, you will be held criminally accountable,” said U.S. Attorney John Walsh in a release. “With tax day approaching, this case serves as a reminder that we all report our taxable income, and pay any taxes due.”
“As we approach the end of tax filing season, this is a reminder that all taxpayers should file complete and accurate tax returns or they will be held accountable; all income regardless of the source is taxable,” said Steven A. Osborne, Acting Special Agent In Charge for IRS Criminal Investigation, Denver Field Office.
This case was investigated by Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation and the Cortez City Police Department.
Balderrama is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Dondi Osborne in the Colorado U.S. Attorney’s Durango Branch Office.

Published in April 2015

Murder in canyon country: Eighty years ago, a sensational double homicide rocked the Four Corners

Eighty years ago, a sensational double homicide rocked the Four Corners

HARRY GOULDING

Harry Goulding

Harry Goulding was a man who recognized opportunity when he saw it, and he saw it in the fall of 1921 when he first clapped eyes on Monument Valley. A Durango native, Goulding persuaded his wife Leone, whom everyone called Mike, to join him in opening a trading post in scenic Rock Door Canyon in 1925. What began as a dream in a canvas tent set amid the valley’s iconic buttes and mesas quickly grew into a thriving business run from a two-story sandstone building the Gouldings finished constructing in 1928.

Then came the 1930s, and a staggering one-two punch of drought and Depression. Worse yet for Mike and Harry, the Navajo reservation was extended northward in 1933 to include the socalled Paiute Strip, that portion of Utah territory lying south of the San Juan River. Because Goulding’s Trading Post had been built on a school section whose ownership remained with the State of Utah, Mike and Harry were allowed to stay. The flock of 1,500 sheep they’d amassed in their years of trading with their Navajo neighbors, however, would definitely have to go.

Some might argue that Harry’s decision to wait out the Depression by driving his sheep north of the San Juan onto grazing allotments already claimed by various Blanding-area cattle interests was the spark that, two years later, would ignite in a paroxysm of violence and recrimination. Others would point to events that were already unfolding over a thousand miles to the east, in the Red River Valley that forms the serpentine border between Oklahoma and Texas. However you look at it, the seeds had been sown for a classic range war to blossom in a land of high hopes and limited resources.

Lucile Garrett was born on October 10, 1920 in Wilburton, Okla. After her mother’s death in 1924, little Lottie, as the quiet girl was known, passed through various foster homes and then ultimately, at age eleven, into the custody of her father Dillard Garrett, a rootless laborer and sometimes moonshiner laid low by the Great Depression.

In May of 1934, homeless and hungry, father and daughter found themselves camped by a roadside near Hugo, Oklahoma where they were befriended by James Clinton Palmer, age 35, a charismatic psychopath and serial pedophile who’d just been released from the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan. The three agreed to join their meager estates, moving first to Palmer’s campsite at Roebuck Lake and then, at Palmer’s insistence, to a small rental house near the Palmer family farm outside of Peerless, Texas.

Bent on the seduction of 13-year old Lottie, Palmer lured Dillard Garrett to a shallow ravine near the Palmer farm and there murdered him with an ax, burning his clothing and stashing his headless torso in a cave. Palmer and Lottie then decamped for New Mexico, and later for Colorado, ostensibly to join up with Garrett who, Palmer told Lottie, had earlier fled in a stolen automobile.

While in Durango, Palmer informed Lottie that a letter from Garrett awaited her at the post office in Bayfield. The typewritten missive admonished Lottie to stay with Palmer, promising that father and daughter would soon be reunited in Missouri. The envelope, however, bore a Durango postmark, and what Lottie came to suspect was Palmer’s own handwriting.

First orphaned and now pregnant, Lottie accompanied Palmer to Utah, where Palmer drank and gambled and generally wore out his welcome in each of the small Mormon communities of Monticello, Blanding, and Bluff through which they passed. Then in the summer of 1934, the mismatched couple, now calling themselves Jimmy and Johnny Rae Palmer, or sometimes Montgomery, crossed the San Juan River on horseback into Monument Valley and there found employment tending the sheep of trading post impresario Harry Goulding.

DUGOUT SITE USED BY JAMES CLINTON PALMER

The site of the dugout used by psychopath James Clinton Palmer in John’s Canyon in Utah. Palmer befriended a 13-year-old girl and took her with him after murdering her father. Courtesy photo.

Finding the forage and water in the Valley of the Gods inadequate for the flock, Palmer repeatedly drove the Goulding sheep into nearby John’s Canyon, the winter range of Blanding cattlemen William and Harrison Oliver.

Bill Oliver, still a formidable presence at age 77, was a former sheriff of San Juan County legendary for his role in Posey’s War, considered the last Indian conflict of the American West. When the Olivers and their cattle returned to John’s Canyon in the fall of 1934 to find 1,500 head of Goulding sheep grazing on their allotment, tempers quickly flared.

Back in Texas, a group of boys out rabbit-hunting near Peerless made a grisly discovery on December 29, 1934: a headless human skeleton in an isolated ravine. Unable to make a positive identification of what were clearly the remains of a homicide victim, the Hopkins County sheriff ordered that the skeleton be placed on public display at the courthouse in Sulphur Springs.

With the onset of winter weather, and notwithstanding his frequent clashes with the irascible Texas sheepherder, Bill Oliver took pity on the pregnant girl and invited Palmer and Lottie to move into an old oil company shack inside John’s Canyon. Soon thereafter, complications with her pregnancy forced Lottie to return to Goulding’s Trading Post, where she remained from Thanksgiving until Dec. 11, landing finally in the care of a midwife in Monticello.

Her baby boy, whom she named James Dee Palmer, was born prematurely on December 31, 1934, and died seven days later.

During Lottie’s absence, Palmer had constructed a crude dugout shelter inside John’s Canyon, and it was to this dismal habitat that Lottie returned in mid-January of 1935. Then on February 28, 1935, just as Palmer and Lottie were re-entering the canyon in their wagon, they encountered Bill Oliver on horseback, once again evicting the trespassing sheep. Palmer and Oliver exchanged angry words, and when Oliver lashed at Palmer with a rope, Palmer drew his pistol and shot Oliver from his horse. He then took his rifle from the wagon and emptied it into the dying lawman before dragging Oliver’s body to the San Juan River gorge and shoving it over the cliff. Oliver’s grandson, Norris “Jake” Shumway, age 24, was also in the canyon that day, and either went into hiding following his grandfather’s murder or else remained blissfully ignorant of the event. That evening, Shumway carved what would prove to be his own epitaph – N.S. FEB 28 1935 – into a sandstone boulder near his campsite. The next day, March 1, 1935, Palmer found Shumway, shot him dead, and then decapitated his corpse with an ax before likewise pushing it over the cliff.

Lottie and Palmer loaded their effects into Harrison Oliver’s Model A Ford and fled John’s Canyon for Goulding’s Trading Post, where they arrived the next morning on three flattened tires. They procured at gunpoint all the Gouldings’ cash as well as their 1931 Chevrolet, in which the pair hastily decamped toward Flagstaff and then eastward into Texas.

Even with a Utah posse close on his heels, Palmer couldn’t resist the temptation to pick up three young hitchhikers in Wichita Falls, Texas. Two of them he deposited in Bowie while the third, Helen Smith, was still with Lottie and Palmer when they reached the Palmer farm in Peerless on the evening of March 4, 1935.

When asked by his father what he was doing back in Texas, Palmer explained that he was “hot in Utah,” to which his father replied, “You’re no hotter in Utah than you are here” as, indeed, a Hopkins County grand jury had indicted Palmer for Dillard Garrett’s decapitation murder only a month earlier.

Palmer, Lottie, and young Helen Smith immediately lit out for Oklahoma on back country roads, only to have the Goulding car drown out in a stream crossing. They were captured by police the following morning.

While Palmer freely admitted the John’s Canyon murders, he denied any role in Garrett’s death, and further denied that the skeleton found in December was that of Lottie’s father. His “skeleton murder” trial was a national sensation that began on April 9, 1935 and ended four days later in conviction. Lottie Garrett, appearing as the prosecution’s star witness, recounted her harrowing ordeal and identified the skeleton, by reason of a crooked finger, as being that of her father.

Palmer was sentenced to serve 99 years in the Texas State Penitentiary at Huntsville, where he died on January 13, 1969. He was never prosecuted for the Oliver-Shumway murders. Although he became eligible for parole toward the end of his sentence, Palmer chose not to pursue his freedom because the death penalty, he knew, still awaited him in Utah.

For her part in the affair, Lucile Garrett was tried and convicted of associating with a known criminal and was remanded on May 23, 1935 – almost a year to the day from her first meeting with Palmer – to the custody of the Texas “Girls’ Training School in Gainesville until her twenty-first birthday.

As for Harry Goulding, the Oliver- Shumway murders marked the end of his cordial relations with his neighbors to the north, many of whom accused him of having recruited the Texas gunman, while others blamed him for delays in reporting the crime and for aiding the killer’s escape. Goulding biographer Samuel Moon would later write that Harry “never defended himself to the people of Blanding, and forty years later he would not speak to me on the record about his part in the Jimmy Palmer affair. True to his western values, he believed that a man should be judged by his actions, not by his words, and that his life would have to speak for him.”

Joseph Greaves lives in Cortez. “Hard Twisted” (Bloomsbury), his 2012 novelization of Lottie Garrett’s bleak odyssey, was hailed as a “taut and intriguing thriller” (London Sunday Times) and “a gritty, gripping read, and one that begs to be put on film” (Los Angeles Times), and was a finalist for the Oklahoma Book Award in Fiction. You can visit him at www.chuckgreaves.com.


 On Everett Ruess

On the same day – March 7, 1935 – that the San Juan Record first reported the Oliver-Shumway murders in a banner headline screaming “DOUBLE MURDER SHOCKS COUNTY,” it also reported, in the adjoining column on page one, the disappearance of a young, unnamed artist who had last been seen in November of 1934 near the Escalante River, where “[p]lanes were used to try and locate the artist’s camp and succeeded in finding what they thought to be the pack burrow [sic] which he used. No camp or other sign of the lost man have yet been found.”

That missing artist was none other than Everett Ruess, whose disappearance in the Utah wilderness remains one of the enduring mysteries of the twentieth century. Ruess’s trademark NEMO graffito was later found carved into the wall of an Anasazi granary near Grand Gulch, on the northern bank of the San Juan River, some forty-five miles due east of Ruess’s last known location at Davis Gulch.

That discovery puts Everett Ruess less than twenty miles from Jimmy Palmer’s dugout in John’s Canyon, and has Ruess heading in Palmer’s direction at a time (December, 1934) when Palmer was known to have been alone, heavily armed, and dangerously psychotic.

Although reams have been written about the life of Everett Ruess, by notables ranging from John Nichols to Wallace Stegner, no historian has, to my knowledge, yet posited a connection between the disappearance of the man Stegner called an “atavistic wanderer of the wastelands” and the nearby presence of a man who would, a few months later, reveal himself to the world as a ruthless and predatory killer with a penchant for disposing of his victims’ bodies.

Food for thought, it seems to me.

C.J.G.

Published in March 2015

Paying our dues

Isn’t it strange how some words that mean similar things can sound very different when used? For instance, “dues” and “taxes.”

Dues are, of course, money paid to a club, organization, or church as required to support that worthy project. We accept their necessity. Why, then, are we so upset when we are requested to pay dues (taxes) to support this great club known as the United States of America, this democratic republic looked up to and emulated by many around the world? Why has the word “taxes” come to sound like a dirty word?

Taxes pay for those many things we expect from a cohesive, workable, prosperous community benefiting all. We should stand up and be proud to pay our dues, just as our youth are when they raise their hand, take that one step forward, and proudly commit to defend our liberty and theirs with lives and limbs. To shirk that obligation is considered tantamount to treason.

Yet we are encouraged to disparage, scorn, and loathe our obligation for paying the taxes that support our nation – not just its military, but its great highway system, bridges, and dams; its judiciary, Congress, the regulatory agencies that keep our food safe to eat and our water safe to drink; its transportation-safety systems, airports, Homeland Security; and on and on.

When there is a terrible flood, a hurricane, tornado, or wildfire, who do the states and communities turn to for aid? The federal government. Who gives out money through price supports, subsidies, and more to farmers to ensure that they can stay in business? Again, the federal government. And where does that money come from? Our taxes.

So how did this negativity arise? No one enjoys paying taxes, but we all get something in return. And taxes have to be mandatory; as with any group that makes a pledge there are always those who would never pay their dues otherwise.

Oddly enough, it is the very ones that have gained so much from this country’s bountiful raw materials and the hard labor of its masses that have inundated us with propaganda decrying this contribution. We are not yet the perfect nation we would like to be. We have some dark shadows in our past but are trying to overcome them. Still, we are far and away better with our freedoms than many other countries.

But the corporations and their CEOs and some of our elected officials have no qualms about demeaning this nation’s methods of financing its essential machinery. They employ all legal resources to not pay their fair share. They make statements that don’t hold water that THEY make or create the jobs. As far as I can see, it is We the People who do it, as consumers who create employment and the products sold by these businesses and corporations. No consumer workforce, no consumers with the means to purchase merchandise, no business.

Oh, the waste, you say, that’s what bothers you. Well, there is waste in every big business, yet few complain about that. The thing is to get rid of those that don’t invest wisely. This is up to the CEOs and We the People are the CEOs. We elect these wasters. We vote for these overpaid slackers, then forget to guide them, and leave it to the lobbyists.

Have you ever tried to contact a politician? You only get to converse with an aide. If they do hold a town meeting they come late, jump on the stage, give a fast rundown of what they are doing for that particular audience, and get out of there. Now, with a lobbyist, it is a sit-down, wine-and-steak-and bullshit session with some insider information given out as to stock-market investments. And we dolts keep electing these welfare recipients living off our dues.

We the Stupid People have elected a slew of incompetent politicians on the premise of reducing taxes. What is it we’re willing to give up? – education, health care, freeways, prisons, police forces, or a well-trained military with weaponry? All this costs money.

In the only real war we fought in my lifetime, World War II, the government had to sell war bonds, as the coffers were in need of cash. The oligarchy and corporations didn’t volunteer their services – a ship a day and plane a minute did not come cheap. And We the People stepped forward. When the war effort demanded more financing, We the People bought more bonds and the corporations that churned out the ships, planes and tanks made even larger profits.

We didn’t and still haven’t paid enough dues to care for those who came back from Vietnam to take them off the streets and care for their ills (shame on us!). We have now squandered a budget surplus and borrowed money from China to fight another oligarchy and corporate debacle. Yet a number of corporations are still profiting from it. Then they have the gall to not pay their dues. Halliburton, KBR, and others too numerous to mention – I won’t go into the overages and cons these corporations have charged us.

Yet everywhere you go, you hear politicians talking as if the only thing standing in the way of this country becoming great is the taxes we pay. That’s utterly nonsensical.

Just consider a discussion at a recent meeting of our local county commission: They were shocked to hear that funds had been cut in half for doing inspections to keep invasive mussels out of McPhee Reservoir (and all its connecting streams, canals, and pipes). They asked how this could be and were told, that’s what happens when people want to shrink the budget.

Pay attention, do some research and thinking, and be proud to pay taxes (which are, by the way, lower than in a lot of other industrialized democracies).

After all, it’s our military that pays with life and limb to keep us all safe and free. We just have to come up with some spare change.

Thought for the day: Without color there is no art.

Galen Larson writes from Montezuma County, Colo.

Published in Galen Larson

Stirring the gender bucket pink

What do you get when you cross a feminist with the color pink?

If you were to study my life, that answer would vary based on where you would find me during the continuum of the 42 years I have lived.

If you take my relationship to the color pink and put it in one big pot, and then you stir 10 times with realizations from given moments in time, you wind up with a colorful story and a realization that a color is not a gender.

Here is that story.

“Congratulations on the birth of your baby girl,” my father heard, and immediately he ran out and bought me a pink blanket. He had two boys, and now he was having a girl, and surely I needed to be wrapped in a nice, soft color.

The first house I ever remember living in is a pink house with red trim.

My parents, wanting to encourage creative and independent thinking, asked me to pick out my own color for my room. I chose a hot-pink swatch, and soon afterward, my room was painted accordingly.

During my junior year of college, I took a women’s study course. I learned about gender programming and how it often began before a child is even born. Girls are often placed in pink nurseries with pink bedding, with other pastel colors as complements. This is to encourage nurturing and kindness.

Boys, on the other hand, are placed in brightly colored nurseries, with toys that encourage fine and gross motor development.

If you follow this gender programming over the long haul, you end up with women who are teachers, nurses, and librarians, and you end up with men who are mechanical engineers, software developers, and computer programmers.

I slowly started weeding all pink out of my wardrobe. I had lived near large metropolitan areas enough to get hooked on the old and reliable mainstay of having black clothing in a variety of different styles. Black slowly crept in and replaced all the pink in my wardrobe. The only sprinkles of pink I had were accent colors on scarves or maybe some small studded earrings.

“You are going to have a girl,” I heard the doctor say. I immediately went to work creating a gender-neutral nursery. I picked bright colors that encouraged fine and gross motor development. I wanted any “gender programming” that would happen to be taken away. If I were able to provide a completely gender-neutral environment for my daughter, then any urge or draw she would have toward traditionally feminine ways would be innate.

Despite the gender-neutral environment, my daughter ended up loving Cinderella, Snow White, Ariel, and almost every traditionally feminine story that has been created. I came up with catch phrases for her to repeat, such as “princesses are fine to like, but they don’t need to be rescued.” I didn’t much care for her having any Barbies to play with, as the unrealistic body image that many women have stems partly from playing with unrealistic toys. But then my daughter ended up having a very small bone structure and extremely slender … just like Barbie.

And she loved pink.

Years passed with no pink in my life. I made no conscious decision to remove it, but I eradicated it from nearly everything I owned. I think I would have bought a pink shirt for any man in my life. But there was no way I was buying a pink shirt for myself.

Then I read an article called “The Power of Color” by Thelma van der Werff in a magazine called “The Best of Law of Attraction” this past January. I delighted in reading about colors and how I could shift and combine them in my wardrobe to try to elicit responses and states. When I got to “soft pink,” I was surprised.

“Soft pink is actually one of the strongest colors, and it can show the true nature of someone. In color therapy, soft pink is associated with unconditional love. Unconditional love is the strongest love there is: It surpasses judgment and criticism.”

And then I had to scratch my head and ask myself, “Did my eradication of all pink in my wardrobe and belongings mean that I got rid of unconditional love in my life?”

And my answer was surprising.

“Yes, it did.”

Mostly, pink was replaced with black, a color that communicates the message “do not come too close; just let me do my own thing,” according to van der Werff.

I am at a unique juncture in my life where I have time, but little money. I wanted to rapidly add pink to my wardrobe to see how I felt. I ended up going to the Salvation Army to buy a few pieces.

Immediately, I enjoyed the feel of the color. And I ended up with an endless amount of compliments from friends and acquaintances.

Those gender-neutral nurseries I made, and in the end I made two of them, were missing something. What would it look like to go back and add both traditionally male and traditionally female aspects to these rooms? Instead of omissions, what about inclusions?

In the end, I am concluding that pink is not a gender. It is a color. If you look at it as unconditional love, both boys and girls, men and women, benefit from having it in their wardrobe and around them.

To answer my original question, “What do you get when you cross a feminist with the color pink?”

My answer is: “A feminist.”

Cindy McCombe is the president of Ability- Catcher, a company with the goal of humanizing the way the world thinks and treats individuals with differing abilities. She lives in San Diego, Calif.

Published in Cindy McCombe

Dolores River NCA idea encounters turbulence: Montezuma County opposes the proposal, but others say it would protect water, values

Montezuma County opposes the proposal, but others say it would protect water, values

LOWER DOLORES NCA PROPOSAL

A national conservation area has been proposed along the Lower Dolores River. Photo by Gail Binkly

Worried about water and wary of anything involving the federal government, the Montezuma County commissioners and the San Juan Basin Farm Bureau have come out in opposition to the creation of a national conservation area along the Lower Dolores River.

Following a discussion on Feb. 9, the commissioners voted 3-0 to take a stance against legislation creating an NCA, even though a draft of such legislation has not been finalized or made public yet. “When you start opening the door to having designations, I’m kind of like the rancher that stood up over the rim of the Dolores and looked down on the Dolores and said, ‘What’s wrong with it right now? What’s wrong with it the way it is?’,” said commission Chairman Keenan Ertel told the Free Press.

But others say creating an NCA might be the best way to keep the Dolores River Canyon from a more-restrictive designation such as a national monument, and to protect the river’s precious water and the area’s traditional uses.

“I’m not going to say the NCA’s the perfect answer, but I’ve been involved because I believe that we need something to protect the values – all of them,” said Al Heaton, a member of the working group that has been developing the legislation since 2010. “I’m a rancher and I have grazing rights down the river and trail rights on the river, so I have my issues that I’m on there for, and other people have their issues.

“We’re trying to craft something that will work and cover all those issues.”

Protecting water rights

The creation of an NCA was the consensus plan reached by a grassroots group called the Lower Dolores Working Group that began meeting in December 2008. The LDWG – made up of more than 40 people representing a broad spectrum of interests including counties, environmentalists, ranchers, private property owners, and water boards – was concerned about the fact that much of the Dolores River from McPhee Dam to Bedrock, Colo., had been classified by the San Juan Public Lands Office in its latest management plan as “suitable” to become a wild and scenic river, a federal designation that carries with it a federal reserved water right.

Although a wild and scenic river generally can’t be designated without an act of Congress, once a river segment is called “suitable,” it must be protected so as to preserve the values that make it special.

After a year and a half of discussion, the LDWG agreed that an NCA would be the best way to protect water rights on the river. Their idea was that the NCA – which would be created through locally crafted legislation– would include a statement releasing the Lower Dolores from any future consideration as a wild and scenic river. Potentially involving more than 90 miles of river running through four counties, the NCA would have management provisions tailored to suit the area, including statements intended to protect water and private property rights.

The LDWG appointed a smaller group called the Legislative Subcommittee to work on the legislation. [Disclosure: Free Press editor Gail Binkly has taken minutes for the LDWG and Legislative Subcommittee.]

Another issue of concern to locals was the status of three declining native fish species that live in the river, any one of which could be listed as endangered in the future. Locals worried that such a listing could result in a taking of water to protect the fish.

An advisory group called the Implementation Team was formed in July 2011 to suggest ways to increase native-fish populations – for example, by slightly changing the timing of spring spills from the dam to enhance fish spawning. The Implementation Team was designed to continue working regardless of what happened to the NCA legislation.

In opposition

But on Feb. 9, after hearing from several locals opposed to the NCA – including Linda Odell of the San Juan Basin Farm Bureau; Don Schwindt of the Dolores Water Conservancy District Board; and Drew Gordanier of the Southwestern Colorado Livestock Association – – the commissioners decided to stand against it as well.

“I believe it’s time for Montezuma County to come out in opposition to the NCA,” said Commissioner Larry Don Suckla.

Odell presented a statement from the Farm Bureau that was strongly supported by the others who spoke against the NCA. (The statement in its entirety can be viewed at www.montezumacounty. org.)

In the statement, the Farm Bureau expressed a concern that the NCA proposal, however well-intentioned, might become something that could ultimately erode existing water rights in the river.

Although the NCA proposal states there will be no water rights associated with it, the Farm Bureau said, the language lacks “enough specificity to avoid strong future disagreements.”

It states that the NCA would create a requirement to increase base flows in the Lower Dolores to 36,500 acre-feet while prohibiting major new dams and largescale water developments.

“It will add significant uncertainty to our community desire for water use protection,” the statement says.

“We must carefully try and understand that actions we take today may have unintended consequences. . . often driven by political or judicial actions initiated by folks with interests different than our interests. . .

“We do not want to negotiate water away in our proactive response that we would not expect to lose if we just remain defensive.”

Schwindt, who has been involved in water issues for many years, told the commissioners that locals have made it clear they don’t want additional water going down the river to help fish.

“This community taxed itself because it didn’t want water to go downstream,” he said.

Suckla, who represents Montezuma County on the Legislative Subcommittee, said he had become concerned at its Feb. 2 meeting when he was given a draft memorandum listing the members of the Implementation Team that works on water and fish issues.

He questioned why the nonprofit American Whitewater was on the 15-member team “since they don’t own any land” that would be affected by the proposal. He noted that the team includes representatives of the Bureau of Land Management (which owns much of the land through which the Lower Dolores flows), Bureau of Reclamation (which manages McPhee Dam), Colorado Parks and Wildlife, San Juan Citizens Alliance (an environmental group), Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Nature Conservancy (another environmental group).

“In my opinion, the list is so unfair for the citizens of Montezuma County,” Suckla said. He said only five members of the group would “stick together” to protect water rights: Montezuma, Dolores, and Montrose counties, the Dolores Water Conservancy District and the Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company. “Where is the Farm Bureau, the mining industry?” he asked.

Taking more time

However, Bruce Smart and Walt Henes, members of the DWCD board, said more time should be taken to study the NCA idea.

Smart warned that without a serious effort to protect native fish, there could be a “slippery slope” leading to an endangered- species listing that would result in the loss of water rights. “What other things are out there besides the NCA [to protect water]?” he asked.

He said the 36,500 acre-foot figure mentioned by the Farm Bureau was not developed by the Implementation Team but is called for in documents created years ago. “If the NCA goes away, that doesn’t go away,” he said.

Although the Dolores Project was built for irrigation and municipalities, some consideration was also given to boating interests and a fishery. There is a designated “fish pool” in McPhee that currently stands at 31,800 acre-feet. Biologists have for years recommended that it be increased to 36,500 acre-feet to benefit the fish.

“The NCA is best in the long run,” Smart said. “We have to protect ourselves somehow.”

Following the meeting, Smart told the Free Press the DWCD board is continuing to look at the NCA proposal to see if it could be made workable. “It’s a tough decision,” he said.

Henes also told the Free Press that he believes the DWCD board should take more time to study the draft legislation thoroughly. “All of us are concerned about what happens to our water,” he said. The NCA may be the best way to protect water rights in the river, but the board will have to make that decision, he said.

‘At this for years’

Ertel, however, told the Free Press that he believes the commission was right in voting to oppose the NCA even before the draft legislation was released.

“My greatest fear is that there are people that want water out of our reservoir and they want to put it to uses that weren’t involved in the original building of the Dolores Project and the McPhee Dam,” he said. “They want to believe there’s extra water in that reservoir and they want to get it down the stream. I am just not of that ilk.”

Heaton told the Free Press the issues are complex and he believes people need to fully understand them before they come to a decision.

“I think our primary issue is a lack of understanding,” Heaton said. The document that Suckla was concerned about, Heaton said, was a draft of a memorandum of agreement regarding the Implementation Team, not part of the legislation.

“All that was, was an agreement among different entities – water entities, county commissioners, environmental groups, fish people – to work together,” Heaton said. “It was a working draft. That was really no part of the legislation, but it was understood to be part of the legislation. I just think we’ve got to spend some time educating.

“We’re in a working group and I can understand some of the public apprehension because we’ve been at this for years. You would think we should have something done, and we’re close to having something.

I think if we can get enough out in the open for people to look at, it will help. Whenever people feel like you’re crafting something in the dark and all of a sudden it’s going to be shoved down their throats – I can understand that fear and I can appreciate it.

“We’re a pretty diverse group of people trying to look at something that will benefit and protect the values of the community. Those values go from the environmental side to the farm and ag and water side, and all of these are part of this community.”

Monumental worries

Some locals support the idea of an NCA because they are concerned that President Obama might create a national monument on the Dolores at the end of his term if nothing is done to protect it otherwise.

In February, Obama designated a new national monument in Colorado, the 21,500-acre Browns Canyon National Monument along the Arkansas River between Buena Vista and Salida.

In 2000, President Bill Clinton proclaimed the 164,000-acre Canyons of the Ancients National Monument west of Cortez after locals successfully shot down an effort to create an NCA there.

But Ertel does not believe that is a likely possibility.

“I think all of that is pure conjecture,” Ertel told the Free Press. “I don’t know that that Lower Dolores between the McPhee Dam and the San Miguel conjunction – I don’t see that as becoming a national monument.”

‘Not our first bump’

For now, the Legislative Subcommittee will continue working to bring the legislative proposal to key groups such as the DWCD and Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company, along with the broader public, according to Marsha Porter-Norton, facilitator for the Legislative Subcommittee and LDWG.

She said people should expect to see the draft legislation within a month or so.

“The legislation will be coming forth to community stakeholders for vetting as soon as possible, hopefully within two to four weeks,” she said.

“Then those who are most affected can look at a piece of legislation along with anything that relates to the legislation.

“The Legislative Subcommittee has always had a perspective that their role was to listen to people and that’s what they will continue to do. If there are concerns or substantive issues around water or otherwise, the committee will listen to those.

“The Legislative Subcommittee remains very open to hearing concerns and I believe is very open to trying to work out issues raised at the community level.”

Heaton agreed that for now the group will keep plugging away. “Absolutely,” he said. “We’ve got a lot of years in this and this is certainly not our first bump in the road.

“We’ve strived really hard to stay together as a team and continue to work through different issues, even though we’ve had some pretty opposing opinions,” he said.

“All I know to do is continue to work forward. Of course, the commissioners are a very important part of this and if they feel that they don’t want it to go forward, they’re a pretty strong voice.”

Heaton said he would prefer taking the legislative approach to the possibility of a national monument.

“I believe legislation should come from the ground up and the community and then go up to Washington. I believe that is the preferred process.

“We as humans always fear change. I can be as bad as anybody and say, ‘Just leave it alone, I like it the way it is,’ but that might not be how it would stay,” Heaton said.

“So if I can help put something in place that would protect my values while protecting some of the other values that people see, then that is what I would strive to do.”


Local groups involved in river talks

Dolores River Dialogue — The DRD is a diverse grassroots coalition whose purpose, according to its statement, “is to explore management opportunities, build support for and take action to improve the ecological conditions downstream of McPhee Reservoir while honoring water rights, protecting agricultural and municipal water supplies, and the continued enjoyment of rafting and fishing.” It meets one or two times a year.

Lower Dolores Working Group – After the Lower Dolores River was found preliminarily suitable for wild and scenic river status, the LDWG was formed to see whether an alternative management strategy could protect river values without WSR designation. The group – which includes representatives from three counties, Dove Creek, Dolores, Cortez, water managers and waterrights holders, private-property and grazing-rights owners, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, energy interests; government agencies, conservationists, boaters; and others – began meeting in December 2008. In March 2010 it decided that a national conservation area was a preferred alternative to the river being suitable for wild and scenic river status. It appointed a Legislative Subcommittee to work out the details.

Legislative Subcommittee – This small group has been meeting for four years to work on the details and framework of the NCA legislation. It includes representatives of Montezuma and Dolores counties, the Dolores Water Conservancy District and Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company, grazing and private-property rights, recreation, and environmental interests. The proposed NCA, which would require congressional action, is intended to remove wild and scenic river suitability from the Dolores and to protect important recreational, ecological and other values.

Implementation Team – This advisory group that includes representatives of boating and fishing interests, the Dolores Water Conservancy District, Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, environmental interests, and more has been meeting since 2011. The group works on water and fish issues and makes recommendations to the Bureau of Reclamation and DWCD about ways to aid native-fish populations in the Lower Dolores.

Published in March 2015 Tagged

Fit as a Fiddle-Faddle

My stomach hurts. It hurts so much that every move I make causes suffering. Rolling over in bed is now something I wish to avoid.

Why, Suzanne? What is wrong? You ask with deep concern mixed with a little bit of fear…

No cause for concern, at least on your end. What has happened is that I have discovered that I have muscles in my abdomen, muscles that have gone unused for a very long time. Muscles that are having a very rude awakening now that I have decided to get my flabby ass to the gym.

Getting fit could be the death of me.

Last time I went to the gym I took a Walkman with me, so needless to say, it’s been a while. Instead, I’ve been a Runner: a running fool, to be exact. But with my recent move towards 50, I have noticed a swift decline in my poor, battered body’s willingness to absorb the incessant pounding, and recovery is much slower.

The reality is, I’ve never had to “recover” before and now I do. During my last trip to Florida, I ran eight miles on the beach and had to nap for two hours afterwards. My mother’s comment: “If it takes that much out of you, why are you doing it?”

Because it makes me feel good?

So I slowed down and began walking – oldlady exercise. Due to the cold weather and my deep shame at not longer being an athlete, I slowed my walking to a stop and began spending a lot more time reading.

I’ve been reading The Classics to justify this behavior.

And then one day I found myself wearing yoga pants and a flowy top out in public, thinking, “I could dress like this every day – it’s so comfortable.”

Houston, we have a problem.

So, remembering that I had actually loved the gym before, I decided to go again. I didn’t tell anyone that I was going – so sure that I would then have to tell people that it was a huge fail.

After getting dressed, I entered the workout room with a plan – get on the elliptical machine, which I remembered with great fondness from the Walkman years, warm up, then move on to weights.

I was so confident about ellipsis that the thought of it being a challenge never crossed my mind.

I grabbed a People, put in my ear buds, tuned in to Fort Knox Five and began stepping.

And…you actually have to press

START.

And…I couldn’t really see the START button, having left my bifocals in the locker room.

And…that clearly meant no People magazine, so I threw that on the floor.

I began. It felt familiar. It felt good. So good that I decided I would really challenge myself, really work up a sweat. I increased it to Level 2.

Hell, yeah.

I’m going. I’m rocking out. I’m reading the news on the three television screens in front of me.

I’m yelling at the Fox newscaster.

Oops.

Suddenly, my ass is sticking out all cattywhumpus and my arms and legs are flailing. The beat of the music and my own personal tempo suddenly don’t jive and I lose the groove and am bent in half trying to get it back.

So I stop and get off, pretending that I really need a drink.

Never mind the fact that I have a water bottle with me.

Splash some water on my face – make it look like I’m sweating – and back onto the machine.

I figure out that the only way I can keep my rhythm is to close my eyes. If I open them, I get distracted, and then lose my footing again. This eye-closing serves a dual purpose. When I can see, I obsessively watch everyone else, enviously comparing myself and then quickly shifting my gaze when they look up and catch my eye. Unfortunately, I do it so often that I know I’ve already gained the reputation of The Creepy Gal Who Stares From the Elliptical.

After my strenuous 3 mph in-place hike, I move on to the weight machines. The one that I have been eyeballing with fear and trepidation is the abs one. Problem is, there’s a guy who has been hogging it the whole time I’ve been warming up. Apparently that’s the only reason that he came to the gym.

He holds court – sitting there in-between reps, charming the ladies and being one of the guys. I think he doesn’t realize that they are actually just hanging around waiting for him to remove himself.

He finally does and I race over there, raise the seat, like, 100 notches, and reduce the weight, like 100 pounds.

Like a toddler, as soon as he sees me settle in with his toy, he wants it back. So he hovers.

I twist my body and extend my leg out at a 90-degree angle so that he can’t see that I’ve set the weight to a whopping 10 pounds.

I feel my muscles working with each rep. Feel the strength increasing with each crunch. I suddenly think, “If lifting makes my arms bigger and bulkier, then will these crunches make my stomach bigger and bulkier too?”

Or will it just firm up my muffin top?

So between the guy tapping his foot three inches away from me, and the strain my abdominal muscles are feeling, and the deep shame I feel at my wienie-ness, and my fear of an extended gut, I move on.

I go to the bathroom. I hit the water fountain. I head to the big machine that has all kinds of bells and whistles. And I realize that I have no idea of what to do with all of those bells and whistles, so I move on.

Eventually I make it back down to the locker room, take a shower and admire my huge muscles in front of the mirror. I picture myself in Florida, strolling along the beach, waves lapping at my feet, biceps rippling in the wind, rock-hard roll sticking out from between my tankini pieces, with an ass like J. Lo’s.

Then I put those bifocals back on, don my stretch pants and Mumu, and head on home for a nap.

Suzanne Strazza writes from Mancos, Colo.

Published in Suzanne Strazza

Collateral damage

It was called “collateral damage,” as though giving the random killing of human beings such a vaguely scientific name somehow took away its awful truth – that truth being our government was quite willing to take innocent Iraqi lives as a prelude to George W’s invasion of their country.

After all, Iraq was in the Middle East and some Arabs were responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center and therefore attacking Saddam Hussein (remember him?) was justified and the “softening up” of Baghdad through high-altitude bombing was necessary to make it safer for our troops to build a fledgling democracy that in the long run would be an example eagerly followed by all those other counties there with hard-to-pronounce names that were also somewhat responsible for the shocking attack on the most prominent symbol of capitalism in America.

And never mind that most of the airplane hijackers were Saudis, as was Osama Bin Laden (remember him?) and that Bush and their king were great buddies who held hands while strolling around his Texas ranch. Why, we were his biggest oil customer and he – well, he would certainly never countenance what had been done to us, the most important country in the Free World.

And never mind that his country was – and still is – one of the most regressive on the planet when it comes to equal rights and so on – those essential ingredients of democracy that would become common once we made an example out of Iraq. And forget that picture of Saddam and Donald Rumsfeld (remember him?) – by then Bush’s Secretary of War, uhh Defense – shaking hands and smiling back when Saddam was waging war on Iran, using poison gas forbidden by the international code of war and fashioned from ingredients sold to him by American corporations. That was when Saddam was our friend, before he went bad, and Iran was our straw boogieman and, well, it’s complicated, but foreign policy experts could explain it to you, and the important thing to remember is that George W. stood on the rubble of the Trade Center and vowed to make someone pay, and by God, you’re either for us or against us and if you’re going to object to a little thing like “collateral damage” and allow refusing to never mind the Iraqis had nothing to do with it stand in the way of our revenge and at the same time transform the Middle East into a Paradise of democracies much like our own, well, then . . . you are so ignorant and stupid that you just don’t appreciate what we were trying to do and it really is unfortunate that during a month of bombing Baghdad a few simple-minded souls went to the Great Oasis in the Sky a little early. It was all for a good cause and anyway, cheap Iraqi oil would pay for the whole thing and the common folks who survive will welcome the invasion with cheers and rose petals once we’ve established a peaceful place where the Sunni and the Shiites get along and mass murders in the streets aren’t an everyday occurrence.

It would only take a few months anyway, maybe a couple years at the longest.

Does anyone else remember those halcyon days, those naïve times when it was for most of us easier to believe this horseshit than speak out against it and be seen as unpatriotic subversives who wanted to ignore 9/11?

Yeah, it’s still kind of painful to remember, isn’t it, even as the 9/11 fervor subsides to the point it only gets a token mention on network news and it’s on to new adventures for us world saviors. And drones are taking the place of flesh-and-blood soldiers.

I bring it up only to draw some tire some parallel between what Bush (and all the rest of us taxpayers) did then and what ISIS is doing now, only on a much more personal and graphic level, then showing its results – beheadings and burnings of Americans and their allies – via the Internet for anyone who cares to watch (not necessarily those who care).

Not, of course, to defend what these truly hideous monsters are doing in the name of religion or revenge or whatever. There is no justification, none, for killing an idealistic young woman working to help survivors of the latest war in Syria or reporters trying to keep everyone up to speed on such atrocities.

Just as there was no moral justification for killing young Iraqi mothers on their way to market or their kids walking to school who would never eat that strange-sounding food she was planning to buy for their dinner.

But seeing an airplane pilot burned to death in a cage is far more uncomfortable and nauseating than it was watching our “smart bombs” target a building from thousands of feet in the air. (Another bullseye!)

The killing of one heroic individual makes you hurt all over. The killing of a bunch of anonymous civilians is so difficult to grasp, we can just ignore it. It wasn’t murder. It was collateral damage.

By the way, it doesn’t look like those idyllic democracies will be developing anytime soon after all. And when’s the last time you pumped a gallon of cheap Iraqi gasoline into your tank?

Me, neither.

(A depressing footnote: A recent poll by CBS News found that nearly two-thirds of Americans are willing to put more “boots on the ground” in Iraq to confront ISIS, and there is growing talk of attempting to retake Mosul, that country’s second-largest city from which the U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers recently fled, from the terrorist group in April or May.)

David Long, an award-winning journalist, writes from Cortez, Colo.

Published in David Long, March 2015

There’s no place like… : Habitat for Humanity has three new houses in Cortez to provide to families

Habitat for Humanity has three new houses in Cortez to provide to families

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HOMES IN CORTEZ

These are two of the three Habitat for Humanity homes awaiting new families. Anyone interested in applying for them must attend one of three meetings to be held in March in Cortez, Mancos, and Dolores. Photo by David Long.

Anyone who’s taken a Psych 101 course has probably been introduced to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, usually illustrated as a pyramid, with the apex representing self-actualization, the most desirable status attained by only a small portion of us humans.

But at the base of the pyramid are those needs that must be met before any others – including love, friendship and self-respect – can even be pursued.

And, of course, shelter – a roof over our heads and a place to rest them when weary – is right there along with food, water and air.

The idea of a family being without decent housing in the world’s wealthiest nation can be seen as an aberration, something easily dismissed as the breadwinners’ own fault – a direct result of sloth or other character flaws. But this is often no truer than most mindless clichés.

Fortunately, there are also folks who understand that when someone lacks a stable home with adequate amenities, it makes attaining any other goals much more difficult.

Habitat for Humanity of Montezuma County, a non-profit group consisting largely of volunteers, is dedicated to helping families with substandard housing help themselves in acquiring better accommodations or making improvements on their existing residences.

And the emphasis is definitely on families helping themselves, according to program director Barbara Stagg, recently hired to oversee the process through which applicants are recruited and vetted, after which Habitat’s board of directors chooses deserving families. She said in her 30 years of working with non-profits, this board is “much more hands-on” than any other she’s dealt with.

Board member Greg Kemp recalled that getting the local group accepted as part of the international Habitat organization, which became well-known worldwide through the participation of such luminaries as former President Jimmy Carter, meant traveling a long and winding road that took over two years, and included the efforts of the late Henry Cone, who along with board member Mitchell Toms had served on Habitat boards in other states.

Kemp said the satisfaction he gets from his involvement is twofold.

“Quite frankly, I enjoy home-improvement work,” Kemp said, “and being able to assist those who either cannot do it or can’t afford to hire someone to do it is very satisfying.” And sprucing up a run-down house make the whole neighborhood spiffier.

The fledgling program, which got its official blessing in 2008, has grown its revenues by opening a thrift store on South Broadway two years ago (66786 S. Highway 160/491), the brilliant blue building next to Belt Salvage. A vast variety of donated goods – furniture, books, large and small appliances and building materials and hardware – is available there, an ideal place to find that window, plumbing fitting, odd screw, or hard-to-find part for your own building project.

Stagg said the Habitat program is not a giveaway program where someone is handed the front-door key to a new or restored home and told “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Birthday.”

Low-income families who qualify by passing a rigorous background check and demonstrating the means to make monthly mortgage payments are offered a chance to do just that. However, such families generally would not meet a bank’s standards to qualify for a mortgage and aren’t required to make a cash down payment such as a for-profit lending institution would require.

But wait, that isn’t all! as they say on late-night TV ads.

As well as making monthly payments on their homes, those chosen must invest up to 400 hours of “sweat equity” by actually doing some of the building – on their own house or another that is part of the program.

That could include anything from painting the interior, finishing its floors, scrunching into a crawl space and wrestling with wires or pipes, or any sort of manual labor that completing construction on a home requires.

Stagg stressed that the definition of “family” is not confined to the traditional husband/wife/2.3 kids.

“All income-eligible Montezuma County residents can apply for Habitat’s programs.” Stagg said, “regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, disability or family status.” In other words, minorities, including gay and lesbian couples with children, along with older couples with a disabled adult son or daughter, immigrants or any stable group of people living together as a family unit, are eligible for consideration.

Applicants must be of good moral character and show the ability to meet the monthly mortgage payments, which include no interest.

Annual household income to qualify for the home-purchasing program ranges from just under $20,000 to a little over $30,000 for a family of three and gradually increases according to family size.

At last, Habitat is now ready to provide three new houses in Cortez to families chosen from those who attend one of three upcoming meetings and participate in the selection process. The homes have finished exteriors, and the plumbing and wiring are mostly installed, although there is still some interior work needed to make these cozy if modest (1300 square feet or so) dwellings into places to sink roots from which all sorts of good things can grow.

Stagg emphasized that anyone interested in participating must attend one of the three meetings to be held this month in Cortez, Mancos, and Dolores. Only those who attend the entire information sessions will receive applications.

The locations, times and dates of those meetings are:

  • Dolores – Monday, March 16, at 6 p.m., Dolores Public Library at 1002 Railroad
  • Cortez – Tuesday, March 17, at 6 p.m. at St. Barnabas Episcopal Church, 110 W. North St. (Free child care is available for this meeting.)
  • Mancos — Monday, March 23, at 6 p.m., Mancos Public Library, 211 W. First St.

Attendees must be signed in by 6:15 p.m. and stay for the entire 90-minute session.

Along with work on the new and rehabilitated residences for those chosen to participate in the program, Habitat also performs minor exterior repairs on the homes of the infirm and elderly, or other people unable to effect such improvements themselves – a program aptly named a Brush of Kindness.

Donors and volunteers are definitely needed to help Habitat. Donations can include money (100 percent goes to the mission), building materials, tools, furniture and fixtures, household decor items, antiques and collectibles. Bring donated items to the Habitat Sales Center on South Broadway.

Volunteers are needed to staff the sales center Wednesdays through Saturdays. Volunteers are also needed for hands-on help for “A Brush With Kindness Projects” and for rehab on unused houses in Montezuma County.

Anyone interested in volunteering or making a donation, or who wants to apply for a Habitat home, should contact Stagg, 970-565-8312, office@habitatmontezuma. org.

Published in March 2015

Public-lands restrictions may affect wood-cutting

The Utah Diné Bikéyah proposal for public lands in eastern Utah will include recommendations for large chunks of wilderness both inside and outside of its proposed 1.9-million-acre Bears Ears National Conservation Area.

But while those possible wilderness designations are intended to protect sites important to Native Americans for herb-gathering, ceremonial purposes, and cultural significance, some concern has arisen about how they would affect the gathering of firewood.

Many residents of the Utah portion of the Navajo Nation heat their homes entirely with wood, much of it gathered from Cedar Mesa, a 470-square-mile plateau in San Juan County, Utah. The mesa, an archaeologically rich area managed by the Bureau of Land Management, is already the site of a number of wilderness study areas, and an undefined amount of it would be formally designated as wilderness under Diné Bikéyah’s proposal.

“The amount of acres and exact locations [of wilderness] still need to be defined by our board,” said Gavin Noyes, executive director of Diné Bikéyah. “The existing wilderness study areas are already about one-third to one-half of the NCA we propose.”

Motorized and mechanized vehicles and equipment are not permitted in designated wilderness. Exceptions are made for emergencies such as wildfires where other alternatives do not exist.

Nick Sandberg, San Juan County’s liaison to state and federal agencies, told the Free Press the wilderness designations proposed by Diné Bikéyah would indeed impact wood-gathering.

“There seems to be some misunderstanding about the huge expanses of wilderness included in the Diné Bikéyah proposal and what that would mean,” Sandberg said. “Collecting firewood [by motorized means off-road] would not be allowable in those areas. That eliminates chainsaws and trucks.

“It would be very impractical to harvest much wood by hand and on horse for any large number of residential needs. Commissioner [Rebecca] Benally [who represents District 3, a largely Navajo district] seems to understand that and I think Diné Bikéyah is possibly rethinking the wilderness designations.”

BLM national monuments and national conservation areas do allow motorized access and wood and plant harvest in designated areas, depending on the management plan for each area.

A WSA is a roadless area of 5,000 acres or more that has been inventoried and found to have wilderness characteristics but that has not been designated by Congress as wilderness. The BLM manages WSAs to protect their value as wilderness until Congress decides whether or not to designate them. Some WSAs are managed exactly the same as wilderness areas, but in others, activities may be allowed that are generally prohibited in wilderness. In a WSA, access by motor vehicles may be allowed on routes existing at the time of the WSA inventory.

“The BLM already manages existing wilderness study areas as if they are wilderness and that won’t change,” Noyes said.

Cedar Mesa contains numerous roads, from paved highways to two-tracks. Conflict exists over the definition of a road. For the BLM, a road is a route regularly maintained. For San Juan County, it can be a non-maintained two-track.

The BLM and Forest Service no longer allow driving off-road on public lands, but in San Juan County the BLM generally does not penalize people for driving on old two-tracks that it may not consider actual roads. The two-track issue is yet to be resolved and could pose a problem for future access on Cedar Mesa.

Brian Quigley, assistant manager of the BLM Monticello Field Office, said there are 389,444 acres of WSA in San Juan County. “We manage any conflicts by educating the public about the regulations, including that they can’t drive off designated routes. Sometimes some fencing around archaeological sites is needed and law enforcement.

“We just finished producing a video in the Navajo language for Diné who are seeking a wood permit. It will be posted on our web site soon.”

If a WSA changes to wilderness, the management plan can be adjusted. There is some flexibility, said Quigley. “It has lots of public input at the time it is written.”

New wilderness designations would mean no new road construction, Noyes said, but current road access would remain open.

There is conflict over some areas, he admitted. “The BLM manages that [conflict] between wood-cutting and other interests, such as archaeological sites, within their guideline manuals. We are working with them.

“As an example, in the past the BLM would burn big slash piles of piñon and juniper cleared from the forests, but last summer we worked with them to bring the wood to a central treatment site, where it was distributed to Navajo residents for free.

“It was successful and represented a big shift in the collection process cutting out the long drive to get a permit as well as individual impact on the land.”

He said Diné Bikéyah’s goal this summer is to get Navajo crews working with groups like the Southwest Conservation Corps, based in Durango, Colo. Their projects include measuring woodland inventory, valuable data for understanding the impact of wood-cutting and identifying resources available for harvest.

The map of the Diné Bikéyah proposal appears to suggest a new type of management to protect special places but allow for firewood-collection.

It includes the following statement in its key to designations:

“Nahodishgish/Wilderness Units – Many roadless areas inside the Bear’s Ears National Conservation Area are proposed as ‘places to be left alone’ by the Navajo Nation. This category will mean either Wilderness or a new kind of management designation to accommodate firewood-collection in some cultural-use areas.”

 

Published in March 2015

Making their voices heard: As San Juan County, Utah, mulls public-lands management, a grassroots Navajo group weighs in with proposals of its own

As San Juan County, Utah, mulls public-lands management, a grassroots Navajo group weighs in with proposals of its own

Faced with the possibility of new national monuments popping up in their state through presidential proclamation, Utah lawmakers have been working to cobble together a legislative alternative for managing millions of acres of public land in a way that will satisfy everyone from environmentalists to energy interests to traditional users.

That enormously difficult task is even more complicated in San Juan County in southeastern Utah, where more than 50 percent of the population is Native American, mostly Diné, members of the Navajo Nation.

That population – whose interests were neglected for many years by federal, state, and local entities – is an especially critical player in the negotiations over managing the area’s federal public lands, which are rich in scenery, mineral resources, cultural resources, and historic importance.

But the land-management proposal developed by a group chosen to represent the Navajo Nation in the negotiations has met with some resistance from the San Juan County Commission and has prompted concern over its possible impacts to wood-gathering done by many Diné living in the county. (See sidebar.)

The plan by Utah Diné Bikéyah, a grassroots nonprofit whose name means “Navajo homeland,” calls for the creation of a 1.9-million-acre national conservation area, one-third to one-half of which could be wilderness, plus some wilderness designations outside the NCA. The proposed designations are intended to protect sites sacred to Native Americans, including Cedar Mesa, White Canyon, Dark Canyon, Nokai Dome, Abajo Peak, Ruin Park, portions of the San Juan River and Comb Ridge.

“Contrary to the beliefs of many, southeastern Utah was not an empty place waiting to be inhabited by settlers or discovered as a playground for recreationists, but rather it has been and will remain a part of our homeland in this country,” said Willie Grayeyes, chair of the Diné Bikéyah board, in a Jan. 22, 2014, address at the state capitol in Salt Lake City.

“Our history with European settlers has not been a positive experience, to say the very least. Our great-grandmothers and grandfathers were force-marched from these lands; their hogans burned and so many of our people died. Unfortunately, it did not end there. . .

“Today, we come hoping that a time of healing is possibly upon us. A time of healing created by this land planning and our own Diné Bikéyah National Conservation Area.”

A deluge of input

Three years ago, Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, a Republican, proposed the Utah Public Lands Initiative, an ambitious effort to find consensus on many long-hanging issues surrounding public-lands management. Seven counties in eastern Utah are involved: San Juan, Carbon, Daggett, Emery, Grand, Summit and Uintah.

Since then, state leaders, conservation groups, industry representatives, nongovernmental organizations, and the public have negotiated agreements designed to lead to greater certainty about how public land will be used and managed in Utah.

More than a thousand meetings reportedly were held to gather input from every possible interest group. More than 120 groups have weighed in on the 60- some proposals under consideration by the congressional delegation.

The draft bill is slated to be unveiled March 27.

“We have examined over 60 proposals, including the Utah Diné Bikéyah proposal,” said Fred Fergeson, chief of staff for Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, co-sponsor of the public-lands bill, in a phone interview. “All of them are the result of gathering input and examining the uses of the people. In the end the bill will reflect something for everybody.

“We are encouraged by the discussions and joint cooperation on the local level. . . .

“Our schedule to unveil the draft on March 27 is on target. We intend to keep the process moving along while Congressman Bishop is the chairman of the [House] Natural Resources Committee. This process shifts the paradigm of land-use designation in Utah and will serve as a model for the rest of the country.”

Possible monuments

What has set this initiative apart from past efforts to craft public-lands legislation for Utah is Bishop’s insistence that the concerns of all stakeholders be considered, coupled with a sense of urgency created by the possibility that President Obama will designate one or more Utah national monuments at the end of his term.

Obama has been especially pressured to designate a “Greater Canyonlands National Monument” that would include millions of acres in the vicinity of Canyonlands National Park.

In 2010, an Interior Department memo was leaked (it was later publicly released) listing sites that are “good candidates” for monument designation, including Utah’s San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa – although the memo also states, “further evaluations should be completed prior to any final decision, including an assessment of public and Congressional support.”

Obama is expected to hold off on creating the monuments if the public lands initiative succeeds instead.

“While some may disagree with certain provisions…most understand the need for balance and compromise as part of the process,” Bishop wrote in a 2014 update on the project. “We are confident that a deal can be reached and that Utah’s land management paradigm can be greatly enhanced and local economies boosted.”

The sweeping proposal is expected to cover 18 million acres of federal lands and 1.6 million acres of wilderness study areas in the state.

Prior to Bishop’s initiative, the Diné had been working on land-management planning in response to an effort launched by then-Sen. Bob Bennett in 2010. At that time, the Utah Diné began interviewing elders and medicine men at the seven chapter houses located in southern Utah Navajo land, commonly referred to as the Utah Navajo Strip, to gather information on how the Native people use the land and value its resources.

Meanwhile, the Navajo Division of Natural Resources entered into a memorandum of understanding with Diné Bikéyah to represent Diné community interests and be included in all discussions and meetings pertaining to the land-use proposals. The group’s board is made up of residents of the Utah Navajo Strip, all Navajo, although its executive director is not Native American.

Twenty percent of the land base in San Juan County, about 1 million acres, is sovereign Navajo land, where residents live near the federal lands that are used by the people for gathering firewood and medicinal herbs, hunting, and ceremonial purposes. The Navajo Nation and the San Juan County Commission agreed to undertake a joint planning process to develop recommendations for land designations within the county

By April 2013 Diné Bikéyah’s proposal was ready. It was presented under its original title, Diné Bikéyah National Conservation Area, to the San Juan County commissioners and the Utah Congressional delegation. Although the title has changed to Bear’s Ears National Conservation Area, it still represents the Navajo vision and formal position.

Awaiting a reply

In an email reply to a Free Press query asking how the plan has been received by San Juan County, Commissioner Rebecca Benally, a Navajo who represents the Utah Navajo Strip, wrote, “Diné Bikéyah has not shared their proposal, seems it varies each meeting.”

In response to a question regarding the state of the county proposal, she added, “The San Juan County proposal is in 1st draft.”

But according to Gavin Noyes, executive director of Utah Diné Bikéyah, the group has presented the Bear’s Ears National Conservation Area proposal several times since the April 2013 meeting.

“We have shown them all the files and information and explained the proposal for the conservation area,” Noyes said. “The Utah congressional delegation asked us to joint-plan the proposal with the San Juan County commissioners and we have not heard a reply from them or seen any proposal. We are actively engaged with the Utah congressional delegation and the legislative process, too. We want to make sure the Native plan is included.”

According to San Juan County Commissioner Bruce Adams, the county has not reached a decision on the specific proposal it will support.

“We’ve had lots of council work meetings with Diné Bikéyah and looked at plans submitted by lots of users and interest groups,” Adams told the Free Press. “I hope we can remain fluid now. Nothing has been decided firmly yet. We’re not going to finish this overnight. The commission intends to remain inclusive of Diné Bikéyah and all the Utah people in our county.”

A-B-C

Nick Sandberg, San Juan County’s liaison to state and federal agencies, said in a telephone interview that he has attended the Diné Bikéyah presentations.

“The maps and the explanations are accessible, but the co-management plan has yet to be worked out,” Sandberg said. “The county is very interested in it. The wilderness designation proposed by Diné Bikéyah is probably too large. I am hopeful we can negotiate some boundary changes in those areas.”

The county commissioners appointed a citizens’ advisory group, the San Juan County Lands Council, to come up with recommendations for a land-use proposal. They came up with three alternative plans, dubbed A, B, and C.

“I do not know what Commissioner Benally means by ‘stage 1,’ but the advisory group has presented the plans at six open-house meetings located throughout the county for the commission and the citizens to consider,” Sandberg said. “They say they are trying to collaborate with the Navajo Nation but there has not been a lot of feedback and that there is still an interest in meeting with Diné Bikéyah and other Native groups.

Grayeyes disagreed with that assessment. “The [commission’s advisory group] presented their A-B-C proposals to the community without ours,” he said. “We got them to present ours, but it was afterward. It had no specifics.”

Adams said the group is a “committee made up of employees of the county and grazers, miners, four-wheeler groups, native people and others. We took the three proposals out to the public for comment. Nothing’s been decided yet.”

According to Sandberg, the commission appointed an additional lands team composed of courthouse staff. “It is more a technical team. I was part of that. They asked us to look over the proposals and, although we looked at them all, we concentrated on the three from the lands council appointed by the commission [A, B, and C], the Diné Bikéyah and the San Juan Alliance. These five were the locally generated proposals. B is the one that received the most comment from the public.”

The technical team presented findings from the public meetings to the commission on Feb. 17. The county is very interested in the Navajo co-management plan, Sandberg said.

“But the Diné Bikéyah map still needs to be defined and the wilderness quantified,” he said. “It includes two definitions of wilderness. The Navajo definition, as it is put forward in the key on the maps, Nahodihgish/Wilderness, may define allowances for activities that are different from a ‘Wilderness Act’ wilderness.”

A successful outcome

The San Juan County website hosts several proposals and accompanying maps, under the heading “Eastern Utah Lands Bill” on the home page.

Twenty-three stakeholder groups have submitted comments to the county. The only Native representation on the list is Diné Bikéyah. The remaining groups represent mostly environmental and recreational interests, and two strongly conservative points of view, including the San Juan Alliance, which states on its web site that it is a “group of concerned citizens who stand for State and County jurisdiction over present federal lands. The group proposes abolition of wilderness study areas and no designation of wilderness, national conservation area, national monument, national park or any other designation which would limit public access to the land. They seek to continue extracting materials and resources while conserving the natural beauty of the land.”

Prior to March 27, Noyes said, the Diné Bikéyah board will have to decide what should be designated wilderness and what will be part of the proposed NCA. “Those decisions are based on the data we collect from the people. In November 2014 we hosted eight town-hall meetings. It was incredible to witness the Navajo people testifying about how they use and value the land,” Noyes said.

“Our proposal is designed to protect the ancestral heritage and land uses through cultural input, to make sure the values are protected.”

As negotiations with the county and congressional representatives continue, Diné Bikéyah remains optimistic a successful outcome is possible. They do not know how much of their plan the commissioners will accept, Noyes said.

“We need to be actively engaged with the local level and the congressional delegation. It seems harder on the county level, but the local chapter houses have all passed resolutions in support of the Bear’s Ears National Conservation Area. Diné Bikéyah is working to make sure everybody knows what the Navajo people are asking for.”

‘Too big’

Adams says the complex process takes time.

“There are lots of users in our county, including the Navajo, White Mesa Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Paiutes,”Adams said. “We want what they want – that they can use the land as they have traditionally, but we don’t support their proposal the way it is right now. It’s too big. There’s too much wilderness, and they can’t rewrite the federal Wilderness Act —as someone is advising them incorrectly— to use the land in the way that only they want. It’s just not going to happen.”

The co-management plan suggested in the Diné Bikéyah proposal is a feature that can be melded with the other proposals to produce a refined alternative before the March 27 deadline, says Sandberg.

“The result could be something of a placeholder in Bishop’s lands bill so we can hopefully go on with the process.”

In the event the negotiations fail, both the Navajo Nation and Diné Bikéyah have agreed to press for a BLM-managed national monument for the area in question.

“We can promote this through our government-to-government relationship and our elected officials,” said Grayeyes.

“We have been to Washington to talk with the Council on Environmental Quality – the doorstep to the president. They seem to be very accepting of our [land use] proposal.”

“Everybody, including DB, would prefer the collaborative, legislative route,” Noyes said, “but if the Native interests are not included, we will ask President Obama to take action.”

Published in March 2015 Tagged

The sad legacy we are leaving

In the Good Book there is a verse called Acts 17:26. “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”

It seems to me this man-made interpretation left out an important word: to dwell in harmony.

Does one suppose this word was left out on purpose to see if this animal with a brain could manage to do that without instructions? If so, we apparently are not capable of it. We continue to wage wars prompted by misinterpreting the storied sayings of self-proclaimed prophets through visions, dreams, hallucinations, or revelations. A story told often enough to the ignorant becomes a belief and/or fact. For years because of how I have chosen to live my life, I had wondered if there was a category I fit in (not that I was greatly troubled not to have a definition). Recently I stumbled onto my category or place in the universe, or whatever (the new saying of our youth in answer to an unanswerable question).

I have with pride learned that I belong in the category of a deist, as explained in the dictionary: a believer in science and the environment rather than religious authority.

Deists believe that no God intervenes in the functioning of the natural world. Instead, it follows the laws of nature and physics.

That means that no one is going to rescue us from the damage we are doing to the earth. If we continue to walk the thin rope over the chasm, a wrong step can result in irremediable damage to this small sphere of mud.

It is ironic that we have no compunction about controlling the population of all other animals, by sport or breeding. We recognize that, whether in pasture or nature, their habitat can only support so many without starvation and disease, nature’s brutal way of culling the species.

But wars, disease, and famine have not relieved the pressure placed on this planet by the human footprint. Science is telling us we have a problem, but we continue to ignore the warnings. We keep referring to the monetary debt we will leave our children, but that will be an infinitesimal burden in comparison to the environmental debt we will leave them in the form of lack of space, water, and food; rampant global warming; and loss of the rich diversity of life we were given in the beginning. This problem of population growth will bring about a carnage like never before.

Ah, but we won’t be here! That is true, but knowing beforehand that things don’t have to be this way for our descendants yet ignoring this is inexcusable to a thinking mind. Even the knuckle-draggers did better by us. At least they didn’t ravage the life-giving environment as we have.

To continue the competitive quest for mammon does not go with the spirit. We have been told by the prophets that profit from our endeavor is not the will of the skymaster. Yet we continue exploiting labor provided by the masses. History gives no mention of payment to those who built the pyramids, but it does mention lashes for lacking performance. So if we humanoids continue to ruin the earth through our greed, we should expect to be punished in some way, whether by God or nature.

It would be far better to change our ways. We can still hold to our belief in the hereafter and lying down in green pastures. But we should endeavor to live with love, kindness and a knowledgeable hand, giving care to the paradise given to us. Life is not hard to live when you give.

Riddle for the month: I don’t think I am better than anyone else. But I don’t know anyone better.

Galen Larson writes from Montezuma County, Colo.

Published in Galen Larson

Hunter is outspoken in last P&Z meeting

Tim Hunter did not go quietly.

During his final meeting as a member of the Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission on Dec. 18, the Mancos-area builder and vice chair of Planning and Zoning was a vocal participant.

Hunter, who joined P&Z as an alternate in September 2006, has been one of its most active and outspoken members since becoming a full member in January 2009. He had hoped to reapply for the board after his second term ended in December 2014. However, the county commissioners decided not to fill his seat but instead to have a smaller board.

Bylaws allow the P&Z board to have anywhere from five to seven members. Typically it has had seven, although it had six at the end of 2012. In January 2014, the commissioners appointed two new members, Michael Gaddy and Mike Rosso, after one person left, bringing it up to seven again.

P&Z is strictly an advisory board, screening land-use changes and permit applications before they go the commissioners. The board also raises issues for consideration by the commission and considers possible changes to the land-use code.

P&Z had seven members as recently as last September, but then Gala Pock was dismissed after she told a Kinder Morgan employee to “go to hell” during a break in a meeting, a remark she conceded had been over the top.

On Dec. 15, the commissioners said they believed the board – now at five – has a sufficiently diverse representation of interests, and specifically cited the construction and energy industries. Current members are Chairman Dennis Atwater, a retired attorney; Kelly Belt of Belt Salvage; Gaddy, a constitutionalist; Rosso, a builder; and Bob Clayton, a former employee of Kinder Morgan who is currently working as a consultant for Empire Electric in its negotiations with KM over supplying power to its massive Cow Canyon expansion.

The commissioners said a smaller board would be more efficient.

P&Z was at odds with the county commissioners during the last couple of years, as the commissioners sought to make changes to the Dolores River Valley Plan, a special section in the land-use code. The commissioners asked P&Z four times to recommend changes to the river-valley plan, only to have P&Z come back with the answer that they didn’t believe changes were needed.

Hunter got into hot water in the summer of 2013 when, in a letter to the editor in local papers, he criticized the commissioners for granting a variance for a gazebo built on the Dolores River in violation of the 100- foot setback contained in the river-valley plan. At that time, the commissioners voted 2-1 against a motion to throw Hunter off P&Z.

On Dec. 18, after the P&Z board discussed and approved permits for two Kinder Morgan projects, they heard from Atwater, the chairman, regarding some draft language he has been working on at the county commissioners’ request for possible adoption into the county land-use code.

The language concerns private vs. public land ownership, water rights, and access to federal public lands.

Hunter, who serves on the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Southwest Basin Roundtable, took issue with one statement in Atwater’s draft language about water rights that said, “Because Colorado is a prior- appropriation State, case law has asserted that there are no navigable rivers in Colorado, Stockman v. Leddy, 55 Colo. 24 129 P, 220 (1912).”

Hunter said the matter was not nearly so simple, and this one case does not necessarily make it clear that the issue of “navigable rivers” has been decided for the state.

Then, when Atwater handed out a multipage document containing rough-draft language regarding access, roads, and rightsof- way on public lands, Hunter again took issue with some of it.

Atwater said the county commissioners have “plenary [absolute] authority over county roads and RS 2477 roads” (historic routes created under an 1866 mining law). Hunter disagreed with some of Atwater’s interpretations regarding access, and said some of the case law Atwater was citing concerned only private inholdings on public lands.

“The mere passage of a vehicle is not sufficient to make RS 2477 claims,” Hunter said. He said unless an RS 2477 claim has been recorded or a public lawsuit was filed by a public entity to make such a claim, a road is not considered an RS 2477 route.

Atwater, continuing through the draft language, read a statement that it is against the law for any federal employee to close an RS 2477 road.

“If it has been deemed an RS 2477 road,” Hunter interjected. “The local commissioners have to go through the paperwork.”

The group also briefly discussed federal ownership of public lands and the Property Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which states, “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the Unit.”

Hunter read a dictionary definition of “dispose” and noted that nothing in the definition said “dispose” meant “sell.” Some constitutionalists have asserted that that federal government should sell or give away its public lands.

Atwater, reading further, said a road is a road unless and until it’s vacated through a county process. He explained that all of this draft language about access is to constitute a new chapter in the land-use code.

Other material in the draft language discusses “unconstitutionally held property” and refusal to recognize federal authority.

Atwater said a new proposed travel-management plan for the Rico-West Dolores area of the San Juan National Forest is restricting use by all-terrain and off-highway vehicles to just a small portion of the year.

“I had a conversation with the DA [district attorney] about that last night,” Gaddy said.

Atwater said the issue should be put in front of the county commissioners. “This isn’t a riproaring recreational issue” but an issue of utility access and safety, he said.

Hunter disagreed. “There’s a lot of confusion over access vs. motorized access and there’s a big difference,” he said. “We have access to all our public lands. We don’t necessarily have motorized access and there’s a big difference.”

“A lot of handicapped people would disagree with you,” Gaddy said.

“There are times in life when you have to recognize your abilities or disabilities,” Hunter said. “I can’t go everywhere I would like to go. That doesn’t mean I should grab a helicopter and land on top of Sharkstooth [Peak] because I want to go there and disturb everything.”

He said many senior citizens make an effort to go places on public lands via horseback or on foot.

Gaddy asked what would happen to someone who had had a heart transplant. “Are we going to say he can’t access our trails and roads?”

“That doesn’t mean everybody should be able to take their motorcycle to the top of Sharkstooth,” Hunter said.

“I’m not talking about Sharkstooth,” Gaddy responded. “What about the person who wants to go sit beside a stream?”

“There’s an awful lot of that access already available,” Hunter said. “It doesn’t have to be everywhere. We’re loving our public lands to death to the point where they’re not going to be worth going to see.”

Atwater said nobody had suggested opening everything up. He asked the members of the group to read the draft language for future discussion.

Hunter, noting that this was his last meeting, then asked to read a statement. [For his complete comments, see below.]

“I’m wary of the latest directives that the county commissioners have set for this board regarding issues with public lands,” he said. “Proximity does not equal ownership.”

He said federal lands are owned “by ALL of the citizens of the U.S.” and that “cooperation and coordination,” which the county commissioners have called for in their dealings with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, “takes both sides coming to the table.”

In closing, Hunter asked his fellow board members, “Try not to be swayed by vocal minorities from either side of an issue. Please use good science, good stewardship, ethics and good judgment in the decisions that you make while a part of this board.”

Hunter added that he was disappointed that the commissioners have decided to reduce the size of P&Z because “having more people involved, with a variety of opinions and education, is a valuable thing.”

“I can’t disagree with that,” Gaddy said as the meeting was adjourned.


Hunter’s remarks to P&Z

“I’m wary of the latest directives that the county commissioners have set for this board regarding issues with public lands.

“Proximity does not equal ownership.

“The large amount of federal lands in this county means that we have a greater responsibility to the rest of this great nation to act in good faith and stewardship towards those lands. Federal lands are owned by ALL of the citizens of the U.S.

“Federal agencies were set in place by Congress to manage those lands with a vision of what’s best for ALL Americans by using science, economics, and local experience.

“Cooperation and coordination takes Both sides coming to the table and I think our county commissioners have historically shirked their responsibilities’ in that respect, which has led to some of the current confrontational attitudes.

“Planning is in my opinion the most important local governmental responsibility.

“Shortsightedness in land-use planning cheats the citizens of this county.

“Try not to be swayed by vocal minorities from either side of an issue.

“Please use good science, good stewardship, ethics and good judgment in the decisions that you make while a part of this board.”

Published in January 2015

Polishing a diamond in the rough: Montezuma County is confident it can revitalize recreation at McPhee

Montezuma County is confident it can revitalize recreation at McPhee

REVITALIZING MCPHEE RESERVOIR

An overview of McPhee shows receding water levels and an absence
of boaters. Photo by Wendy Mimiaga

From an overlook behind the Anasazi Heritage Center, McPhee Reservoir glistens like a rough-cut jewel in a solitary setting.

The beauty of the view is what first strikes the observer. Next, and perhaps even more striking, is the observation that the lake is largely empty of boats or other craft – no matter the time of year.

Many people have likened the manmade lake, which has 4,470 surface acres and some 50 miles of shoreline, to an unpolished gem, a recreational and economic opportunity that is mostly undeveloped.

For years, local leaders have dreamed of finding a way to draw more visitors to boost the economy, but those dreams have not been realized. Three marina operators have tried and failed in past decades, and in 2002 the marina burned in an apparent arson fire. It hasn’t been rebuilt.

Now, frustrated by the situation, the Montezuma County Commissioners are seeking to take over recreation management at the lake from the Forest Service, which owns the land surrounding the reservoir. The county has been meeting with representatives of the Forest Service, Region 9 Economic Development District, Sen. Michael Bennet’s and Rep. Scott Tipton’s offices, and other entities to discuss the possibility of a county takeover.

Entrepreneur Stan Folsom, who recently operated the marina at Vallecito Reservoir east of Durango, is eager to install one at McPhee.

“It is a tragic void in our area to not have McPhee in use,” Folsom wrote in a letter in the Dolores Star.

On Jan. 27, the Forest Service published a bidding opportunity with a Feb. 27 deadline for a marina operator to manage a commercial marina at the reservoir and “provide at their own cost docks (boat slips), fueling facilities, boat rentals and general merchandise services.”

The second largest body of water in the state of Colorado, McPhee Reservoir stretches west and north from the town of Dolores, nestled amid piñon-juniper forests and scenic red-rock cliffs. It seems like an ideal venue for watersport enthusiasts.

“The reservoir is the centerpiece of an astounding array of all-season recreation opportunities in the Dolores area,” said a 2004 feasibility study done by the Abonmarche Group, a Michigan consulting firm specializing in marinas. “It is connected to the Dolores River, a wild river of consummate beauty; the nearest marina is about two hours away on the Navajo Reservoir. . . ; somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million tourists visit the area attractions each year; hundreds of thousands of motorists pass through Cortez on Highway 160 each year. . .”

Early planners envisioned a bright future for McPhee. A 1982 recreation plan completed by the Bureau of Reclamation (which operates the reservoir itself) and Forest Service predicted 2,600 people a day (78,000 a month) would use McPhee in the summer, an estimate that proved wildly over-optimistic. There are only an estimated 7,000 launches per year from the McPhee boat ramp and another 1,000 at House Creek.

In 1988, a group that had been invited to bid on providing a marina at McPhee declined to do so.

“The figures for visitations (projected use) of the reservoir are too high. We have no idea where these projections came from. . .,” the Earthscape Group wrote the Forest Service. Earthscape cited a litany of problems with the reservoir, including a profit-making season of just 10 weeks, lack of contract protection from low lake levels or poisoned fish, a steep and narrow boat ramp, and the main boat ramp’s distance from Dolores (9 miles).

Earthscape was particularly critical of the campsites, which are more than a mile uphill from the water. “An idea of hell might be to be placed in a tin box trailer, on a south-facing slope, in a PJ forest, on a hot day in late June while the gnats eat you alive,” the letter said.

“We believe that any concessioner who attempts to develop a marina. . . would lose everything,” Earthscape concluded.

Over the next decade, that prediction proved prophetic.

In the mid-2000s, after the last operator had pulled out, the marina had burned, and the breakwater had been dismantled, a grassroots group called the McPhee Recreation Plan Committee began meeting to discuss how to revitalize the reservoir. Its creation was prompted by a visit from members of the Colorado Governor’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade in October 2002. A tour took them to the lake overlook behind the Heritage Center, and the visitors reportedly were puzzled about why no one was on the lake. With $29,000 in funding from the state and Forest Service, the committee met for about two years and commissioned the 2004 Abonmarche Report.

That document was very positive about the potential for McPhee if full boating access were provided, but emphasized that “small reservoir marinas cannot be financed and operated for reasonable profit by the private sector.”

It estimated that the reservoir and surrounding land needed approximately $10 million in recreation infrastructure” to bring them up to date.

The McPhee Recreation Plan Committee ultimately recommended that Colorado State Parks take over managing recreation at the lake, but after much study, that agency eventually decided it would not be financially feasible.

Speeding things up

But Montezuma County Commissioner Larry Don Suckla recently told the Free Press that he believes conditions have changed and a private entrepreneur could be successful.

“I do,” he said. “For instance, I talked to a man in Dove Creek who has a sailboat and he said if you had 60 slips like Stan [Folsom] is talking about, I really believe those slips could be filled.

“Somebody like that who has a sailboat that is very hard to transport could leave it there on the lake and if they wanted to go out there and stay the night on their boat it would already be there.

“I believe there are a lot of boats in this county.”

Suckla pointed to Groundhog Lake, a small reservoir north of Dolores owned by Montezuma Valley Irrigation and operated by a private contractor, as an example of what could be done at McPhee.

“There are people up at that lake from all over – their license plates are from all over in the summertime.

“It’s been a success story in my opinion. . . . they just do a lot of positive things up there.

“So I don’t see why the same thing can’t happen at McPhee.”

The county has grown impatient with the slow pace at which the Forest Service – an agency sometimes accused of being afflicted with “analysis paralysis” – can make plans and implement them.

“For me, the reason for doing this is so that we could speed up recreational opportunities at the lake,” Suckla said. “It’s not to take over everything the Forest Service is doing – it’s just to maybe ease the burden on them because they’re having a tough time with their budget.

“The county isn’t wanting to do this to make money – and this is just one commissioner talking – and it would be just fine if it would break even in the end and yet it would increase recreational opportunities at the lake and benefit the county with the trickle-down effect (of money being spent at local businesses).

Suckla said development of watersport recreation could ultimately be a component of making the county a destination for a variety of outdoor recreationists.

Plans to expand Phil’s World, an increasingly popular mountain-biking area near Cortez and a trail system that will run from Cortez to Mancos, along with the half-million annual visitors to Mesa Verde National Park, have the potential to dramatically increase the tourist traffic and commercial benefits in the county.

Taking title

There are two ways the county could take over recreation at the lake. The Forest Service and county could enter into a memorandum of understanding for the county to become the manager, or the county could seek to be given title outright to certain portions of McPhee, something that would require an act of Congress.

“They have talked about both (MOU or title),” said Derek Padilla, district ranger for the Dolores Ranger District. “If it’s just a management agreement, any activities they would want to implement would be subject to federal processes and policies so it doesn’t get them what they want – to be able to make decisions and implement them in a faster time frame. So the only feasible option to meet their needs may be to give them title.”

Failures in the past

But others who have tried to find ways to encourage recreational development at McPhee have found a number of obstacles in their path – including aging infrastructure, less-than-ideal locations of boat ramps, and competition from bigger reservoirs in the region such as Lake Powell in Arizona and Navajo Lake on the New Mexico border.

The failures of past marina operators have been blamed on a host of factors, including Forest Service regulations that some people say made it difficult to make a profit.

“I’ve heard a variety of reasons why they weren’t successful,” said Padilla, who was not present at that time. “Some say it was due to Forest Service regulation and policy because we delayed authorizing the operator to open, that was why the first two failed. Or the other side I heard was that those two ventures built too big and based on the amount of visitation they actually received they weren’t able to recoup the investment they put into it.

“I don’t know what is the correct story. I don’t know what the actual cause is.”

The Abonmarche report stated, “The original marina operations on McPhee Lake failed because they overestimated available boating markets at the time and made some key errors in marina planning and design.”

McPhee has two concrete boat ramps, one at a site west of the town of Dolores off Highway 184 and Road 25 and one at House Creek, a dozen miles northwest of the town. One of the ongoing points of debate is where the marina should be located. It has always been at the main location off 184, but Folsom believes it would be better-placed at House Creek, which has a protected cove.

Wherever it is to be, the site will need a new breakwater, a structure that provides protection from the choppy waters of the lake where boats can put in.

But, as with everything else to do with McPhee, the process of installing the new structure has seemed to take place in slow motion.

‘Under-designed’

In 2005 the Forest Service and county began collaborating to get a breakwater built. The county pursued grants from the state and hired a company to develop a design.

The Forest Service felt the first breakwater was “under-designed,” according to Padilla. “We needed a breakwater that was structurally sound.”

Redesigning it took quite a few years, with a lot of “back and forth” among the agency, the county, and the company. “It wasn’t a very timely effort, unfortunately,” Padilla said.

“Then, when they actually started installing it, we came to the realization the elevations of the lake bed the company had based their designs on weren’t actually the elevations of the lake.”

Padilla said he isn’t sure how the error occurred. “You put weights on the bottom of the lake and the cabling that attaches to the breakwater itself, and that holds it in place. Depending how deep the lake is and how the slope is determines how the cable should be,” he said.

“They based it on a pretty steep slope. Your nearest weight to the shore was a shorter cable and as it went out it got longer. When they originally designed the breakwater we were having normal to above-average water elevations. The lake was full. But when we actually started to put the breakwater in now the levels were to the lowest ever. They observed it was actually flat. No slope. Some of the breakwater would be on top of the ground and some in the water. So they had to go back and come up with new calculations. That took a while.”

Now, at last, the breakwater is ready to be installed. However, the county and Folsom believe it should be moved to House Creek.

Padilla isn’t so sure. “They see it as a more sensible location and I don’t disagree, but that will require we do an analysis, which can take six to 24 months.

“We don’t know [whether the breakwater would work there]. We would have to have a review of the current design and see, based on the lake elevation over there. I don’t want to get into a situation where we just pull the thing over there and it doesn’t work and something ends up happening that could be drastic. When you’re dealing with people and bodies of water, that’s not the time to experiment.”

Marianne Mate, who was mayor of Dolores from 2002 to 2006 and has been involved in much of the marina and breakwater planning, is likewise uncertain. “I think the House Creek idea is not a great idea because it’s a really long way around to get there,” she said. “A lot more day use happens at the main site. On the weekends those parking lots are full from bottom to top.”

Mate has worked long and hard over the years to try to improve McPhee, but it’s been an uphill battle.

At one point she even traveled to Washington, D.C., with one of the thencounty commissioners to try to get $1 million or more to improve the infrastructure, but nothing came of it.

She worked with the county as a consultant for about a year and a half to get funding to build the new breakwater. She said at that time the county, which paid for the design and the large tires that went into the breakwater, signed an MOU with the Forest Service providing that when the breakwater was put in, the agency would take over its management.

Raw sewage

But the current county commissioners are critical of the way the agency has managed McPhee and aren’t eager to see it remain under its management. One action that angered the county was the removal of flush toilets and a fish-cleaning station from the main site. Padilla explained that the Forest Service, which has had its budget cut by 35 percent in recent years, did not have the money to repair the infrastructure required to keep those facilities operating.

“We had a pump station below there that, when the toilet flushes or the fish station was used, it went into pipes and pumped them uphill to the top to our water treatment facility, but we were having issues. It was 30 years old, failing on a regular basis. The potential for a catastrophic failure that would have released raw sewage into the lake was pretty high. We were out of options for repairing the pumps because they weren’t made any more and not even the pipes were available.

“We decided to put in those vault toilets that we have all over the forest. We left running water so people can wash off and things like that.

“The county sees that as a reduction in amenities, but we wouldn’t have been able to afford putting in a new system to get that sewage back up to the top.”

Suckla said the county wants to take over only three small sites at the lake: the main site at Road 25, House Creek, and Sage Hen, a – wide-open area off Road X that has been closed by the Forest Service because of ongoing vandalism.

He pointed out Congress acted in the past to deed Joe Rowell Park to Dolores.

McPhee recreation comes with a long list of needs. The infrastructure (excluding roads) at the McPhee and House Creek sites is valued at $5.6 million. The Forest Service estimates that $2.9 million of work will need to be done on the roads within five years.

The water-distribution systems are “aging with persistent leaks,” according to the Forest Service, and buildings, pavement, and campsite spurs are “in marginal condition at all sites.”

The campground at McPhee was designed in the 1980s when recreational vehicles were much smaller. “Over time where we can, we have been updating some of the sites to accommodate these larger RVs, but we have a lot more to do,” Padilla said. Combining three or four sites into two can accommodate larger RVs, he said, but “it would be a very expensive project.”

Suckla said he knows the county might have to invest money to bring the areas up to snuff. “I’m sure there would be some financial obligation, but I’m not sure what that would be.”

Suckla said he believes private efforts to operate a marina at McPhee failed because of ever-increasing federal regulations. “In the end their original business plans didn’t include all those extras, so they couldn’t make it.

“So I think it doesn’t have to be that fancy at first – just get the marina out there floating and get the environmental assessment done to make sure the marina won’t hurt the fish, and just start off small and grow as the need may be.”

Published in February 2015 Tagged

Lost in translation: A fluency requirement has left the Navajo presidency in limbo

A fluency requirement has left the Navajo presidency in limbo

The Navajo Nation presidential election scheduled for last Nov. 4 may – or may not – happen before August.

The office, the qualifications to run, and the procedures to elect a new president are the center of a whirlwind of debate that sometimes turns to anger and accusations of disenfranchisement. In a season of special sessions, litigation and counter-litigation, Supreme Court hearings and emergency council legislation, decisions central to the future of the Diné people have been decided by the toss of a coin or whispered behind-the-scene deals.

At times the government seems on the brink of chaos, but then it settles into focused debates, righting processes that a week before were at full stalemate and the next week can be lodged in court.

It is now the early February 2015. The deadline originally ordered by the Navajo Supreme Court for holding the election has passed into history.

The voting process was derailed when Chris Deschene, second-place winner in the August 2014 presidential primary, was disqualified. (See Free Press, October and December 2014.)

Before the general election could be held, Hank Whitethorne and Dale E. Tsotie, both candidates in the primary, petitioned the Navajo Office of Hearings and Appeals challenging Deschene’s fluency in the Navajo language. Fluency is a requirement to run for the office and Deschene had checked “yes,” to assert that he was indeed fluent, on the application when he filed his papers in spring of 2014.

Office of Hearings and Appeals Chief Presiding Officer Ritchie Nez found in favor of the petitioners. Deschene was removed from the ballot, replaced by the third-place primary finisher Russell Begaye, who will be running against former two-time Navajo President Joe Shirley, who came in first.

Native tongue

Deschene appealed to the Navajo Supreme Court. He lost and the court ordered the Board of Election Supervisors to remove his name from the ballot and replace it with Begaye’s. The court requested a special election be scheduled for president before Dec. 23, 2014.

The Supreme Court decision supporting the OHA did not sit well with Deschene’s supporters.

Fluency in Navajo was made a requirement for the presidency because language is seen as central to retaining and conveying the culture of the Diné. Just as Americans would find it strange to have a president who was not an English- speaker, traditional Navajos believe their president should speak their own tongue.

But a growing number of dissidents, particularly youth, say the fluency requirement limits access to government positions for Navajo people who do not speak or are not fluent in their Native language – a growing percentage. The critics say this encourages Navajo youth to be disenfranchised.

The resulting firestorm of debate has singed every branch of the government and made it impossible to hold an election in December or January.

Further complicating matters, in mid- December the OHA disclosed that Ritchie Nez, OHA chief hearing officer, had failed to get a law license from New Mexico, Arizona or Utah within a year of his appointment to office as required.

Within days Nez resigned.

Deschene then filed another grievance with the OHA to vacate Nez’s decision on the fluency requirement. But Deschene was denied again. Hearing Officer Joe Aquirre said that the rules of civil procedure are not applicable because the OHA is independent of the courts. He also affirmed Nez’s decisions because the requirement to be a member of the state bar is not the law, although it is written into the Navajo Nation Code.

Deschene again was told he would not be on the ballot for the presidential special election.

While Begaye and Shirley were attempting to mount campaigns for the special election – now presumably to be held within the next six weeks – the Navajo Council began to take up legislation that would set the date and time of the election and also address the fluency requirement for presidential candidates.

Ring in the new

With the fall session over, and the council membership about to change with the incoming mix of new and incumbent delegates, a special council session was convened on Dec. 30 to introduce emergency legislation and debate the election schedule in January and the funding for it.

During the hearings disqualifying Deschene, Supreme Court Justice Herb Yazzie also found the Board of Election Supervisors in contempt of court, and removed director Edison Wauneka, for not following the orders of the OHA and the Supreme Court to schedule a new special-election date and print new ballots with the two candidates, Begaye and Shirley.

By now, there was no board in place to make the decisions regarding the special election date and its funding and procedures.

In an effort to set the election on a straight course under the purview of the council, Delegate Leonard Tsosie introduced two pieces of emergency legislation to the 22nd council.

The first, CD-80-14, stated its purpose was to address a matter of Navajo voter disenfranchisement; and provide for a special run-off election and a special general election for the president.

The second, CD-81-14 requested the council pardon the Navajo Board of Election Supervisors from any violations of law in the performance of their work in presiding over the 2014 election, including indirect civil-contempt findings, and reinstating the named individuals to their offices on the Navajo Board of Election Supervisors.

Both measures were passed late in the special session and dates were added for the special primary and final election of the president. It was also made clear that all 17 candidates that ran last year would have an opportunity to run again and their filing fees would be waived. New candidates would pay the filing fees.

Nothing was said about the requirements for the office.

President Shelly’s signature would be needed within 10 working days if the legislation was to become law. That decision would be made just a few days prior to the inauguration of the new 23rd council.

Bargaining power

While rumors spread that Shelly would veto the legislations another key question came into focus. Who would become interim president until a new president was elected and inaugurated?

Guidelines for the decision are found only in the Navajo Code. There is no Navajo Constitution. Both Shelly and the council found code sections supporting their positions.

Shelly petitioned the Supreme Court to support his position that Navajo law recognizes him as interim president until a new president is elected.

The council, in turn, petitioned the Supreme Court to end Shelly’s term on Jan. 13 at noon when the inauguration takes place and support their interpretation of the law which gave them authority to appoint an interim president from among the council delegates.

With both petitions before the high court, Shelly began negotiations with council delegates over the two pieces of legislation and his position as interim president on the table. In the end, a deal was struck between Shelly and the 22nd council, represented by then-Speaker Pro Tem LoRenzo Bates, Council Delegate Leonard Tsosie and two incoming council delegates, Otto Tso and Amber Crotty, who, when they signed the agreement on Jan 9, had not been sworn into office.

That same day, Shelly approved CD- 80-14 providing for a special election and CD-81-14 pardoning the Board of Elections Supervisors and reinstating them.

The deal was announced on Jan. 10 prior to Supreme Court approval of a petition filed by Shelly and the council to withdraw the initial petitions because a deal had been made.

The court made it clear that it took no position on the legality of the agreement or its compliance with law and factual and legal conclusions. In addition, the court conveyed that the agreement between Shelly and the council and the Supreme Court’s decision had no effect on the prior decision of the court to extend the deadline to hold a special presidential election 60 days beyond the first deadline, Dec. 23, and hold the election before the end of January.

Shelly was then sworn in as president in a private, closed-door ceremony. The inauguration of the council delegates was held at noon on Jan. 13 and the new Navajo Nation 23rd council convened its first special session that afternoon.

Coin tosses and cedes

After introductions and statements the council considered legislation that would settle the question of who was to become the new speaker pro tem for two weeks until the winter session, scheduled Jan. 26-30. Delegates Bates and Kee Allen Begay were nominated. The resulting vote was a tie, 12-12.

Council decided a coin toss would settle the vote. Bates won.

Two weeks later, when the new winter session was called to order, the first order of business was to elect a speaker from the council who would serve for two years. On Jan. 26, council opened with a debate about how to proceed, but finally settled into another primary race with seven candidates. The initial vote whittled the choice to two, delegates Bates and Alton Shepard. When the vote was called again, it was again 12-12.

There is no code that covers how to break this tie. It is left to the council to set a course of action, but none seemed appropriate, including a coin toss.

After a lengthy debate a consensus was reached that the two candidates work on an outcome together. But there was no meeting. Instead, Shepard addressed the council.

According to journalist Marley Shebala’s blog, he said, “I have principles and values and appreciate your willingness to come together. And I am young and so I am willing to concede in the spirit of unity. I hope that my decision will be an example to others.”

Shebala stated that the people in the gallery and the council gave Shepard a standing ovation.

Speaker Bates hails from the northern agency, and represents Nenahnezad, Newcomb, San Juan, Tiis Tsoh Sikaad, Tsé Daa K’aan and Upper Fruitland chapters. He has run unsuccessfully for the office twice before. He hopes that the council can come together and work to improve the tribe.

Council to reconvene

Tsosie and Whitethorne have filed a new motion seeking an election ASAP with Shirley and Begaye the only candidates. On Jan. 16, the court voided the election deadline it had previously ordered when it set a briefing schedule for the new motion. If the court finds in favor of the petitioners, the special election could be held between Shirley and Begaye as early as mid-March.

However, the court also offered Begaye and Shirley an opportunity to file a motion on their own behalf before Feb. 5, the last day of the briefing schedule.

In a press release issued late Jan. 27, Speaker Bates announced that the Navajo Nation Council will remain in recess from its winter session and reconvene at 10 a.m. on Jan. 29. “The Council has some pressing issues to address concerning the proposed New Mexico Gaming Compact which require immediate attention,” stated Bates.

The council will send a delegation to meet with officials on Tuesday in Santa Fe, N.M.

Council members received several reports and acted on several bills on the opening day of the winter session before recessing on Jan. 26.

 

Published in February 2015 Tagged

Guitar man: Love of rock music inspired Bill Riegel to become a renowned luthier

Love of rock music inspired Bill Riegel to become a renowned luthier

BILL RIEGEL

Bill Riegel in his workshed studio. A recent custom art guitar made from a vintage Colorado license plate found at Belt Salvage awaits the final touches before it’s sold on ebay. Photo by Sonja Horoshko

The electric guitar, created in the early 1950s, may have been the most powerful middle-class U.S. export of the 20th century. Not only did it generate a market for a new variation on a traditional acoustic instrument, it opened the doors to musical freedom and cultural integration.

Use of the electric guitar began in urban clubs, then quickly spread to suburban basements and garages.

As rock ’n’ roll was born, so was the movement that shared the message over the U.S. airwaves. Unrestrained content and American genres – blues, gospel, country and folk – blended with the powerful electrified sound of the new solid-body instruments manufactured by U.S. companies such as Danelectro and Fender. The new music spread across mainstream America and out of the country, stimulating a revolution in popular music. The wildly popular genre created a competitive market for affordable, mass-produced American-made variations of the instrument and the amplification supporting it on stage.

Bill Riegel of Dolores, Colo., was listening to it all in Pennsylvania, where he was born. “I was a teenager and the great musicians were there,” he says. “I heard the blues in Philly and when the Beatles were getting big, my dad got me a guitar. Everywhere my family moved the musicians were there. I got to hear them. But I was interested in race cars then, not in playing guitar.”

Still, the music affected him deeply. He lived rock ’n’ roll history on the East Coast, and tells stories of the musicians he knows. Riegel is modern, yet he speaks easily in the many music vernaculars that describe groups and singers, celebrities, tunes, equipment and context – how it was to be there decades ago when music’s power was unleashed and began to impact social change in the U.S.

It was these rich experiences that would shape his life and later career as an electro-age luthier capable of repairing the finest Fender Stratocaster or the most humble four-string acoustic guitar.

By the time Riegel finally made his way to Las Vegas he was an experienced auto mechanic, using his skills to repair hot rods and slot machines. He also hung out with friends at sleazy bars, he says. It was where the music was happening, “the heyday of rock ’n’ roll.” It was also where his career repairing instruments began, as professional musicians learned of his mechanical skill.

A box with strings

Since then, and his subsequent 1994 move to Dolores, his reputation has grown. Demand for his services keeps him busy in his studio shed adapting, repairing, inventing, re-creating and resurrecting instruments for clients who live and work throughout the U.S.

Guitars hang in a long row on the wall above a slot machine and some vintage amplifiers. His appreciation of the craftsmanship and the musicality of each one is apparent when he lifts down his favorites to explain a small detail, a fine repair, or an odd adaption.

He has his favorite manufacturers, too. According to Riegel, Danelectro is one of the foundation companies of the embryonic rock ’n’ roll technology. “They’ve been around since the late ’40s producing tube amplifiers for Montgomery Ward and Sears and Roebuck,” he explains. He keeps an eye out in ga rage sales and thrift stores for 20-30 tube amplifier / speakers because the sound is in demand again today. “They’re getting harder to find, though, now, that the word is out.”

A recent check on ebay shows a “buy it now” price for a Danelectro, Special Model, Tube Amplifier for $895 and yet another 1964 Danelectro Vintage Tube Amplifier for $3,199.99.

Rock ’n’ roll shed

The approach to Riegel’s working studio, now located closer to Cortez, feels like a throwback visit to Grandpa’s work shed. But cross the threshold and you are surrounded by working music history scattered throughout the well-organized space. Big shallow dishes holding tuning pegs sit beneath the wall of finished guitars waiting to be picked up by clients. A Fender telecaster headstock hangs near a solid-core electric body and a new handmade copper dobro model shines on the work bench, soup-pot lid – the potential resonator – resting upside down on top.

Everywhere are instruments stripped of strings and necks, curved body-part patterns, materials like masonite and sheet metal, 2-by-4s, clamps, tools, pickup kits, bridges, strings and all the equipment needed to construct an experimental guitar or repair a beloved vintage acoustic, the stuff dreams are made of if you’re a rock ’n’ roll fanatic.

Rich Talbot, bass player in the local band Big Money and the Corporate Citizens, owns a few Riegel guitars. “He’s a creative genius,” Talbot says. “I don’t know where his ideas come from but his guitars keep a whole lot of us going and impact our musical inspiration. If you like what you’re playing on, it is inspiring.”

Riegel’s reputation as a modern luthier is equal to his renown as a rock ’n’ roll historian. He knows the history of the instruments, companies, musicians and sound equipment and is also an accomplished musician – not on guitar, as his father had hoped, but on harmonica.

“I never practiced enough to play the guitar well. It involved a lot of time to play those chords, but the black musicians in Vegas taught me harp. They told me to play one note at a time. That fit. I could practice one note at a time. Learn it.”

Today he’s a well-known player with local bands. According to Louie Martinez, percussionist for the classic rock ’n’ roll group Not Quite Dry, “This summer I got a first-hand experience to actually play music with Bill. He joined in on harp. He’s one hell of a player. I feel that he should be commended for all of his work, his knowledge, awesome abilities and his works of guitar art. I take my friends there to meet him. He deserves a lot of respect.”

Martinez appreciates Riegel’s craftsmanship. “I don’t play one of Bill’s guitars, I’m a drummer. But I recently took my banjo to him to have him work on it. As always, he did an amazing job on it.”

Riegel said he used the sheet metal in an old refrigerator to make his first guitar from scratch. “It was like the next generation of metal guitars,” he says. “Now, I see some piece of scrap and I just want to pick it up and do something with it.”

He picks up his latest art guitar from the work bench, plugs it in the amplifier, plays some slide notes on the strings. Sound explodes in the space. It is surprising because the instrument body is small, the size of a vintage Colorado license plate he found at Belt Salvage, south of Cortez. A week later it’s listed on ebay and sells in a few days, described as “A license plate guitar handmade by me, 6 String Lap Style, Short Scale, Volume, Tone, Pick up, Sounds Good. Decorated with a vintage Colorado License plate. Great little conversation-starter. Works great. Shipping is flat rate $30, but I will refund the difference if it is less.”

The material he needs for the traditional fine wood guitars and headstocks he fabricates is getting harder to find and afford. Like most luthiers today, he sources materials from creative places, like the old maple headboard he used a few years back. “It had been around a long time. It was dry and quality. To harvest it today means finding wood in California or sometimes the rain forests,” he explains.

In January, the Moetones and Big Money and the Corporate Citizens played a fundraising gig at the Phil Hall in Shiprock, N.M. The Riegel guitars were there. The Moetones had two on stage.

Although Talbot didn’t play his that night, he says his favorite Riegel is a Fender Strat and Mustang double-neck, short scale. “The Mustang neck was 2 ½ inches longer than the Strat, yet somehow Riegel figured it out,” Talbot says. “It’s a fantastic instrument. Bill’s an incredible fabricator. He built the body and attached the necks and I turn down offers on it all the time. His work just fits in my hand. Never seen anything like it.”

Custom work

Sometimes people have a request that pushes Riegel’s limits. Recently a local musician asked him to make a guitar out of a Jeep grill. “He loves his Jeep. I don’t know how I’ll do it, but I always do. It’s always a challenge.”

It was important to Riegel’s creative process to expand on some of the traditional approaches used by European luthiers. No idea is turned away in his shed. The equipment evolves as the sound requirements evolve. That’s Riegel’s comfort zone.

However, he admits he’s reserved about the Steampunk movement. “I’ve made some Steampunk guitars. They started on the coast, and showed the in fluence of steam generators, brass, copper gauges. I sold a few at Rocky Mountain One Stop, some in Cali and Vegas, but today lots of the Steampunk are covered in useless gears and just about anything to make it suggest the Victorian era, steam power, Jules Verne, anything.”

Steampunk has been around since the ’80s. Some critics contend that the genre is only a fantasy of recycled culture, mash-up history and design, the antithesis of “form follows function,” or purpose beyond decoration.

“The extra stuff ’s just not there for any reason,” adds Riegel, “It’s not me.”

The human hand plays the instrument. Riegel says he never forgets that. “The musician makes the music. I don’t think a guy has to have a million-dollar guitar to make good music.

“A lot of the luthiers have no respect for the work I do. Besides doing classic repair work I really like just going back to the old days when the instruments were mass-produced and available to everyone through department stores.”

Inclusiveness, equality and accessibility are key to the genres he loves. His guitars have that rock ’n’ roll and blues energy built in.

Talbot describes Riegel as more than a technical artist. “He’s an enigma. You go over to his shed with something that needs fixing and the talk can turn to anything. His depth of understanding of any subject is always there.”

Riegel disappears into a side room of his shed, returning with the inside wheels of a slot machine.

“I repaired them in Vegas. See these notches? They determine your odds, in multiples – ten here, a hundred here and thousands in the last wheel. The guy that invented them didn’t intend for them to have more notches, or the odds banked against the player by adding more notches, but it happened.”

With that thought, Riegel plants the seeds of change. What music will come from his guitars? Who will play them as they get passed along? Will musicians be seeking craftspeople to repair his body of work?

In any of these scenarios, musicians in the Four Corners will be able to say, as he has said, “I was there when he made this. Here’s what he did.”

Published in February 2015

Sport or slaughter? A Cortez coyote hunt raises hackles, but supporters say the animals are fair game

A Cortez coyote hunt raises hackles, but supporters say the animals are fair game

A coyote-killing contest in the Cortez area has prompted a social-media furor as well as an online petition calling for an end to such competitions.

The Jan. 25 contest – originally dubbed the Blondies Trophy Room Second Annual Coyote Slam – had been sponsored by the hunting-themed downtown bar and eatery, but the establishment pulled its sponsorship after a barrage of criticism on Facebook.

CORTEZ COYOTE HUNT

Courtesy photo Colorado Parks and Wildlife

“It has come to our attention that we have offended many people in our community of Montezuma County with our involvement with an organized predator hunt,” read a statement posted on Blondies’ Facebook page. “Although predator hunting is completely legal and promoted by many states in the great nation and supported by many ranchers, farmers and other community members. We have decided not to host this event because a torn community can benefit nobody. . . If you personally don’t believe hunting is not for you or your way of life, then its simple don’t participate. . . Blondies values every patron regardless of their beliefs in life.”

The contest was held anyway at a location south of Cortez and drew 21 two-person teams who killed a total of 10 coyotes, according to a Facebook post on the “Four Corners Predator Callers” page.

The winners, who were not identified, shot two animals.

Sparking controversy

Few issues inspire more passionate feelings than those related to animal welfare. Locals on both sides of the debate were reluctant to speak to the press for fear of retaliation.

However, one contest organizer (called “Bob,” not his real name, in this article) agreed to speak to the Free Press on condition that his name not be published. He said the Facebook page for Four Corners Predator Callers, which promoted the event, received “probably 30 or 40 hate-mail messages” in a single week – “some pretty nasty, threatening things.” He said they came from people around the country and even overseas rather than from locals.

He said after Blondies decided not to sponsor the event, he stepped in because he didn’t like the idea of opposition stopping the contest.

“I’m for people expressing their point of view, but when it infringes on our rights, I don’t like that,” he said.

Wildlife-killing derbies – which commonly target coyotes and prairie dogs but sometimes wolves, bobcats, foxes, crows, and other creatures – are popular across the United States and legal almost everywhere. However, in December of last year, California’s Fish and Game Commission voted to make it illegal to offer any incentive or prize for killing predators. It was the first state to ban such competitions, according to the Associated Press.

CORTEZ COYOTE HUNT

Courtesy photo Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Shooting the animals remains legal, just not doing so in a contest.

In New Mexico, where a reported 20 or more coyote-killing derbies took place in 2014, a bipartisan bill has been introduced in the state legislature that would ban such contests.

The events have drawn considerable negative publicity. One competition, sponsored by a Las Lunas gun-store owner, brought down 60 coyotes in a single weekend.

Another, in December 2014, resulted in someone dumping 39 coyote carcasses around the outskirts of Las Cruces.

Opponents of such contests say they are a repugnant throwback to the days when Americans’ attitude toward wild animals was to kill nearly everything in sight. They say they do not constitute legitimate wildlife management because they don’t target particular animals such as a coyote that is eating someone’s lambs. Contests show disrespect to wildlife and the environment, opponents say, and encourage bloodlust and waste.

Supporters say the contests offer a chance to test their hunting skills in a social setting, that they are a rural tradition, an enjoyable pastime, and a boon to farmers and ranchers plagued by coyotes or prairie dogs. They see opponents as hypocrites who have no problem with pigs and cattle being slaughtered for food but become enraged over hunting.

Contests face mounting opposition in a number of states. Last fall, a lawsuit filed by several conservation and wildlife nonprofits prompted the Bureau of Land Management to cancel a permit for a “predator derby” targeting wolves, coyotes, and other species near Salmon, Idaho. The event had been slated to take place on public land three days a year for five years.

In Oregon, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Project Coyote, and a private citizen filed a lawsuit against the organizer of an annual coyote-hunting contest, claiming it and a related betting competition amounted to illegal gambling. The event’s organizer settled the suit by agreeing never to host another such contest in Oregon.

Contests are popular

Colorado’s derbies seem to have drawn less media attention, but they take place on a regular basis. For instance, the sixth annual “Heart of the Plains” coyote- killing contest in tiny Hugo was held in December 2014 and drew 27 teams who shot a total of 68 animals, according to that event’s Facebook page, which features photos of rows of furry bodies.

Predator hunts (rather than prairie dog- shooting contests) seem to be growing in popularity. Contestants use devices to lure the animals with noises that mimic the sound of prey in distress, such as a wounded rabbit, or pups yipping in fear.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesman Joe Lewandowski said the state has few regulations regarding such contests, although, “We don’t sponsor or condone or encourage these sort of things.”

Coyotes may be hunted year-round in Colorado with either a small-game or a furbearer license, and private landowners may kill them, without a license, on their land if the animals are threatening livestock or pets. But Colorado, unlike most states, limits the number of animals that can be taken during competitions.

“In a contest-type situation, our only stipulation is that one person can’t take more five animals per contest,” Lewandowski said.

There is no requirement about what must be done with the carcasses. “If you’re hunting a deer, you can’t just cut the head off and keep the rack,” Lewandowski noted. However, with a coyote, he said, “People can shoot it and leave it. You don’t have to use any of the parts. People don’t eat coyote meat – at least no one I know does.”

‘Wrong on so many levels’

CORTEZ COYOTE HUNT

Courtesy photo Colorado Parks and Wildlife

The Cortez contest prompted a Front Range woman, Jules Elise, to start a petition at change.org calling for an end to such events. “These contests are barbaric, unethical, and wrong on so many levels,” the petition states, asking signers to email the Colorado Wildlife Commission that wildlife-hunting contests “are not an acceptable method of wildlife management.”

“When people hear about these issues, they say, ‘Somebody should do something about this’ and then it doesn’t go any further, so I thought, ‘Why not me?’ ” Elise said in a phone interview. She said she hopes the petition – which at press time had more than 10,000 signatures – would at least lead to more oversight of wildlife-hunting contests.

“A lot of times there is not a CPW official there checking to see if everything is legal,” she said. “People come from out of state – a lot of people go from state to state; this is one of their hobbies. It doesn’t seem like there is anybody there to enforce any regulations. There is nobody to enforce if people have licenses or if they’re killing only on private land.”

However, Lewandowski said if a competition takes place on private land, there are few regulations to enforce. Private landowners do not need a license to shoot coyotes on their property, and they can also designate “agents” to do so.

“If people are going to hunt coyotes, we encourage them to have a license. That being said, a landowner can have agents to control coyotes on a piece of property. If you are a landowner’s agent you don’t need a license, but people need to be careful about that. You do need permission from the landowner [to hunt on private land].” Lewandowski said the landowner must be willing to vouch for the agents and must make sure people know where they are so they don’t hunt on someone else’s private property.

Bob, the organizer of the Cortez shoot, said a CPW officer did come to the check-in site to make sure everything was in order. Bob made competitors sign a waiver saying they would abide by all Colorado laws. He said no one restricted the contestants from hunting on public lands as well as private because that is legal.

He said photos from other hunts may have given a misimpression of what the local contest was like. “People are seeing these pictures on the Internet of hundreds of coyotes piled up. That’s not how it is at all. We had 21 teams, 42 people, and 10 coyotes were harvested.

“The same amount of coyotes would have been killed whether we did the hunt or not. All those same people, they go every weekend [and hunt coyotes]. We just wanted to gather together and do it as an event.”

He said hunting coyotes is not easy. “They’re very intelligent and very smart. It’s a sport. It’s a challenge.”

Bob said it’s only in recent years that such contests have become controversial, largely because of exposure on social media. “The volunteer fire department in Dove Creek has put one on for as long as I can remember. I heard they had 60 teams last year. It’s never been that big of an issue until everything got on Facebook and everybody has the opportunity across the world to comment.“

He said he knows that many people find the photos of piled carcasses offensive, so he chose not to post them on Four Corners Predator Callers. “We don’t need any more negative stuff.” However, he said, it’s natural for hunters to want to show off their successes.

But Elise, who posted a photo of heaped-up bodies with her online petition, said even though that photo didn’t come from the Cortez hunt, it was a real photo of a derby in Elko, Nev. “They got five coyotes last year in Cortez, 10 this year. Will there be 20 next year?” she asked. “The more hunters you get, the more coyotes you will probably kill.”

‘Animals Nobody Loves’

Coyotes are common throughout the United States; the extirpation of wolves from most of the landscape is believed to have enabled the proliferation of these smaller canines. The image of a howling coyote is an icon in the Southwest, yet canis latrans is reviled by many ranchers and farmers for killing calves, lambs, and poultry. Some estimates say that coyotes are responsible for half of all cattle losses caused by predation nationwide, valued in the millions of dollars.

Coyotes are one of a few wild species that have become comfortable living near humans and have ventured into urban and suburban areas, just as humans have moved into their territory. They rarely attack people and when they do, the wounds are generally minor; however, particularly if people feed them, coyotes can become bold and aggressive. They can and do eat pets.

Internet sites promoting coyote killing frequently refer to the practice as necessary to protect livestock, deer, even people. Yet it’s not clear that hunting coyotes does much, if anything, to keep their numbers down. Over the past century and a half, coyotes by the millions have been poisoned, trapped, shot from air and land, run down by dogs, and gassed in their dens, but the clever, adaptable creatures survive.

“There are few cases where a human hand has been laid more heavily on a wild creature,” wrote author Ronald Rood in a 1971 book titled “Animals Nobody Loves.” However, he continued, the coyote “appears to thrive on everything man has thrown at it. It is one of the few predatory animals on the face of our earth that is actually extending its range.”

“One of the first things we all learn in biology class is that coyotes are a very resilient species and if they are killed, they usually produce more,” Lewandowski said. “Wolves were basically extirpated in the United States and the same was tried with coyotes over the years without any effect.

“Coyotes are now found in every county in the lower 48.”

He said CPW is not monitoring the effects of contests or hunting on coyotes because the agency “is confident that the coyote population is very healthy.” “A one-off contest like this is not going to have any population- level effect,” he said. Elise likewise said concerted efforts to slaughter coyotes just increase their population because the animals respond by producing more pups. A stable pack will include an alpha male and female who are the only ones breeding. If they are killed, the younger animals will all start to breed.

One hint that this counter-intuitive claim could be valid came in 2011, when a funding shortfall for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program (which kills problem species) resulted in two months less of their coyote- killing work in Montana. That year, the number of domestic sheep that coyotes killed dropped by 1,900, according to The Wildlife News, an environmental publication.

“What [a contest] does to disrupt the pack is catastrophic,” Elise said, “and it causes an increase in the coyote population in the area. it’s not sound wildlife management and there should be regulations on that.”

She added that if people were to actually succeed in removing most coyotes, there would be an increase in rabbits and rodents, common coyote prey. “Rodents carry far more disease than coyotes do,” she said.

Lewandowski said he can’t say whether mice or other rodents might increase if coyotes were reduced to very low numbers. “There is no way to answer that. It’s pure speculation,” he said.

Ecosystem instability?

But a 1995 research paper titled, “Effects of Coyote Control on Their Prey: A Review,” looked at the results of several studies done in areas where coyotes had been removed. It concluded that where coyotes were consistently culled from the environment, there were “population- level changes” in the numbers of rodents after nine months or more.

For instance, a three-year study in western Texas done on four 12,000-acre sites found that after coyote numbers were cut in half, the diversity of rodent species decreased – but rodent density and biomass surged, as did the percentage of kangaroo rats and the density of jackrabbits (which jumped threefold). The researcher said this could actually increase competition with livestock for forage and lead to “instability within the ecosystem.”

Coyote-hunters say the animals are becoming so numerous, they are harming deer and elk populations, but research does not show a conclusive effect. Biologists say predators can benefit overall herd health because they cull sick and weak animals. Information on CPW’s web site cites predation as one of a dozen different factors affecting deer population. It also says reducing predators tends to work only in the short term.

A six-year study in Idaho published in 2011 found that removing coyotes did not significantly increase the mule-deer population.

And a study on a small site in Texas found that reducing coyote numbers increased the survival of white-tailed deer fawns, but after five years the deer population crashed because of lack of food. That researcher concluded that that “coyote predation can be an important factor in white-tailed deer herd stability.”

‘Like feral hogs’

Bob said he’s heard of such research, but he remains skeptical. “I’m not a scientist and I know there’s a lot of people that have been saying that [coyotes breed more when hunted], but I don’t see how you could leave them unchecked.

“I have a piece of property north of Dove Creek, about 800 acres, and the amount of coyotes is unreal. Everywhere you go there’s tracks.”

He said coyotes are definitely having an effect on deer and elk.

“In the last year or two, the elk and deer have not been there. The coyotes push the deer and elk out and that has a huge impact on hunting, which brings in a lot of money every year for the community.”

Colorado’s coyote population is so plentiful, he said, “We could hold a tournament every weekend here and not affect them. They’re like feral hogs in Texas – people are having to exterminate those.”

Bob said he plans on having more derbies and will definitely hold one next year. “Until there’s a law that says we can’t, it’s something we enjoy and are going to do despite the criticism. We don’t feel like we’re doing anything wrong. It’s something that we love to do. And I believe it helps the ranchers and the other wildlife.”

He said he respects people’s right to oppose the hunts, but, “It’s hard for us to hear somebody in Denver saying our way of life is wrong when they live in the city.”

But Elise said she understands the issues surrounding predators and rural life. “The person who notified me of the coyote-hunting contest lives in Cortez, so I am aware of the local issues and the ramifications.

“As a shareholder in Colorado wildlife, I feel like I should have equal say over how the wildlife are treated and used in Colorado.”

Elise said her petition is not an attempt to end hunting. “This is not anti-hunting or anti-gun. This is about unethical hunting. Most hunters that I’ve talked to are against hunting competitions because even they feel it is unethical when you have an event where mass amount of animals are killed.

“This is 2015. We aren’t shooting bison out of train windows any more and we shouldn’t be doing these contests, either.”

Bob said he can envision a day when animal-killing derbies will be outlawed. “The wildlife official who came out here told me they’ve been meeting about this, so it’s being discussed at the state level.

“People like me are very competitive. The competition is what brings the people to these hunts. It would be sad if we couldn’t get together and have these things.”

Published in February 2015 Tagged

A tale of two hamsters

Every year, in the frenzy of getting holiday gifts out to family and friends, and dreading standing in line at the Post Office, I think of this day. It may be the most significant Christmas memory this family will ever share. It is definitely a story worth telling again:

Price of a baby hamster: $8

Price of dinner for two at the Kennebec: $75

Price of taking mangled, chewed up Hamster to the vet: OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Just before Christmas, trapped in our house, watching the snow fall and fall and fall and fall, four young boys played. While we stared dreamily at the packed car, wondering if we would ever be able to leave for our Idaho vacation, human brothers and hamster brothers played in a wooden, rodent– sized Disneyland. Giving up on driving out of town for the day, I called the four boys out to breakfast. Two sets of human brothers came to the kitchen table while one set of hamster brothers realized that they had ended up in the same cage.

Pandemonium erupted.

Bowen noticed that his friend had left the bedroom door open (a major no-no in a house with cats and hamsters), and ran in to close it. Just as he reached for the doorknob, he heard the angry lion-like roars of Sam, attempting to slaughter his smaller, runt-brother, Frodo.

Bowen began screaming and crying, apoplectic with fear. Everett and the other brother pair raced into the bedroom wondering what the panic was all about. There was blood spurting, fur flying and teeth gnashing. Children were howling, cats circling like sharks and the dog hid under the couch.

We managed to get Frodo out of the cage. He was still alive, but there was a lot of blood and not much fur. His right eye looked like it might fall out of its socket and his left leg was about to drop off.

Bowen, the animal lover in the family, wailed that not only was Frodo going to die, but that it was all his fault because he was the one who, in a distracted moment, put Frodo in the cage with his bully big brother Sam.

Yes, we have read “Lord of the Rings,” and no, the irony of the fact that OUR Sam and Frodo detested each other was not lost on us.

We recently had lost a dog, a kitten and two hermit crabs. Over time we had lost many more pets than that. This had taken a grave toll on the kids and the idea of another death was incomprehensible.

I called Don Schwartz, aka The Saint. He actually said that on a busy day, two days before Christmas, that he would accept Frodo as a new patient.

We took Frodo into Don’s office, cold, shaking and traumatized. The Hamster was too.

Stephanie and Don took a look at the poor little guy and slowly shook their heads.

“He has to be sedated”

“Go for it.”

“I need to know how much he weighs so that I don’t overdo it.”

Well, duh, weigh the guy.

Oh, except the scale is made for dogs and horses, not hamsters. Little Frodo didn’t even register on it.

Next thing we know, I am in the post office, bloody hamster in hand, pushing through the line of pajama-clad folks who were lined up for the last chance to get presents to their final destinations by Christmas day.

“Excuse me, Don told me that I needed to get my hamster weighed over here, can I cut in front of you?”

Yes, I was in Mayberry.

The very kind gal behind the desk put him on an Express Envelope while faces I know from the school and the library looked on. “5 ounces!”

Murmurs of ohhh and poor little guy rippled through the room.

“Do you want to put him into the Express Envelope to carry him?”

“No, thanks, I’ll just stick him back in my pocket.”

Can you imagine at this point how much Frodo must have wished that Sam had killed him?

Back to the vet for a sedative and a haircut. Just as Don was preparing to shave him bald, I sent everyone else on an errand so that I could say to Don that, “If this (was) ridiculous, then let’s just stop all the nonsense and let the rodent die.”

“I saw your son’s face. I am going to save this little guy, by God, if it’s the last thing I do.” Or something along those lines.

Once all of his fur was shaved off, we saw the damage that Sam had done. There was not one teensy little bit of skin that was not broken and chewed upon. Don bathed him, warmed him up and shot him full of antibiotics. The boys came back and Bowen looked as if he had single handedly tortured and killed his very best friend. When he found out that Frodo would live, he nearly fainted with relief.

It was this look that made me want to kiss Don Schwartz’s feet.

We brought Frodo home, definitively called off the trip to Idaho and began the process of nursing little Frodo back to health.

He was a bit scary-looking. The thing that makes a hamster cute is that he is fuzzy. Frodo only had a lion’s mane around his head. From the neck down, he was just chewed up and scabby. So not cute.

We brought him out for Show and Tell when we had friends over for Christmas dinner.

They didn’t laugh.

We showed him off to the kids’ friends and sent photos to our family.

One month and $102 later, he was healthy and well. He limped a little and his right eye looked a bit like a pirate. We had gotten over our collective anger towards Sam but each of us had a special place in our hearts for the priceless Frodo.

Suzanne Strazza is an award-winning writer from Mancos, Colo.

Published in Suzanne Strazza

Forest lands: What are they for?

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth; and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.” — Genesis 1:11-12.

“The Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.” — Genesis 2: 15

Man blew it, so, “Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you shall eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.” — Genesis 3:17b-19. So, “therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.” — Genesis 3:23.

Right from the beginning, man was charged with cultivating, using, maintaining the vegetation of the earth. The palatable vegetation was for food for man and beast, the woody vegetation was for shelter and fuel.

Jumping forward many thousands of years, we still have vegetation to eat and trees for shelter and fuel, even after many “climate changes,” wars and natural disasters. Amazing, isn’t it? Man obviously does not have the ability to damage the natural environment and climate like some would like us to believe. During all these millennia, man was using and cultivating the vegetation including the trees, with the result of there being more trees in the United States today than there was over 200 years ago. The forests we see today are the result of heavy use, cultivating and keeping them productive.

Next, let’s jump forward to statehood for the western states. Beginning with California, the western states forest lands were used as “political controls” over the states by the eastern states Congress, in violation of the Constitution and doctrine of “equal footing” in the formation of the states. That led to the next step. The federal government further illegally confiscated the forests of the western states, to declare them “National Forests.” In the 1897 Organic Act, it stated what the forests were to be for: “to improve and protect the forest, or to secure favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber.” Even though the taking of the forests from the states was illegal, it was still consistent with our Creator’s instructions to the first man, to cultivate and keep it! It was also made clear that the forest resources of water, timber, minerals were for the local area use and governed by state laws.

Next leap began with the United States becoming more affluent than most of the world. More people did not have to work by the sweat of their brow to eat, and had leisure time to relax and decide how other people should live. Recreation and relaxation to please one’s self was now paramount.

Many of those decided that the now “public forests and lands” should be set aside for their specific and personal enjoyment. Some decided that livestock should no longer be allowed in the forests. Others began the “woodsman, spare that tree” movement. These all spawned the faux environmental actions to set aside areas as “wilderness,” “roadless,” “scenic rivers” and “parks” where use, cultivation and management to improve and protect the resources were banned! This was expedited by the 1976 new National Forest Management Act and the Federal Lands Planning Management Act. These acts along with other faux environment acts such as National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) have enabled the self-serving activists to stop and change the purpose and use of the forests to one of NO cultivation, NO keeping and maintaining, NO protection, NO use by man.

In just the last 45 years, the faux environmental activists have changed the thousands of years of directed purpose of the forests from cultivation, use and maintaining to one of non-use and waste. We are starting to pay the price for this change each year in seeing thousands of acres of forest burn and die from insects and diseases, rivers and springs producing less water, jobs and economies going down. All the result of a few self-serving activists thinking they knew better than the One that created the forests and gave man the direction for their use and management.

A well-maintained and cultivated forest provides timber for housing, forage for livestock and wildlife, water for springs and streams. The work of maintaining the forest, provides jobs and economy, recreation and visual enjoyment. A poorly or non-managed forest is susceptible to insect attack, wildfire, lacks forage for wildlife and livestock, intercepts snow and rain.

What are the forests for? To produce wood products, water, forage, wildlife for our use and enjoyment, not to set aside to waste away.

Dexter Gill is a retired forest manager, having worked for private industry, three Western state forestry agencies, and the Navajo Nation forestry department. He writes from Lewis, Colo.

Published in Dexter Gill

Hands across the water: A diverse coalition achieves long-sought protection for the Hermosa area

A diverse coalition achieves long-sought protection for the Hermosa area

Angling is one of the many recreational uses for which the Hermosa Creek area north of Durangis is beloved. Courtesy photo

Angling is one of the many recreational uses for which the Hermosa Creek area north of Durango is beloved. Courtesy photo

Hundreds of people came together Dec. 19 in Durango to celebrate both the protection of a special area and a rare example of bipartisanship and collaboration.

The ebullient crowd thronged into the Powerhouse Science Center to hail the long-worked- for passage of the Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act, which preserves approximately 108,000 acres of the San Juan National Forest north of Durango.

The act was included as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. President Obama signed it into law later that afternoon.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D), who introduced the legislation in the Senate, and Rep. Scott Tipton (R), who introduced it in the House, attended the gathering. (Colorado Sen. Mark Udall also co-sponsored the bill.)

U.S. REP. SCOTT TIPTON AND SENATOR MICHAEL BENNET

U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, left, and Sen. Michael Bennet, both of Colorado, sponsored the Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act in their respective houses of Congress. Here, they share a moment during a Dec. 19 celebration of the act’s passage in Durango. Photo by Gail Binkly.

Bennet called the act “a result that is just extraordinary, especially at a time when the Congress is as dysfunctional as it is. . . This is the way legislation ought to be done, from the ground up, not the top down.”

He added that the effort showed that “democracy is still alive somewhere in the United States” and told the group, “If we could just ship your example to Washington, D.C., there would be nothing we wouldn’t be able to solve.”

Tipton likewise hailed the achievement, telling the crowd, “None of this could have happened without the support we have at the local level.”

He added, “It shows that when we work in that collaborative process, we can actually make things happen.”

Over the last 50 years, there were periodic efforts to protect the Hermosa watershed, said Ed Zink, a member of the group that worked on the latest such effort. All of them shared the same premises, he said: “The Hermosa is special, the water is the most valuable resource, the public wanted both industry and recreation, just keep it the way it is.”

But nothing concrete resulted from those efforts until the fifth and final one was launched, he said, when everything seemed to come together. In 2006, the San Juan Citizens Alliance, a Durango-based environmental nonprofit, approached the Southwestern Water Conservation District to suggest a joint effort to look at management of a half-dozen river basins in Southwest Colorado. Those rivers, or portions of them, had been listed as “suitable” for a federal Wild and Scenic River designation by the San Juan National Forest in its new management plan, something that caused discomfort among area water-users and water districts.

The citizens alliance and SWCD formed a steering committee and launched a public process – open to all interested parties – to study the basins with an eye to their management, beginning with Hermosa Creek.

Funding came from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Trout Unlimited, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, and the National Forest Foundation, in addition to the citizens alliance and water district.

Even in winter, Hermosa Creek sees a great deal of recreational use, as this trail attests. Courtesy photo

Even in winter, Hermosa Creek sees a great deal of recreational use, as
this trail attests. Courtesy photo

Nearly 100 people showed up to the first meeting of the Hermosa Creek Workgroup in April 2008. (Full disclosure: Reporter Gail Binkly took minutes for some of the meetings.)

“Everyone immediately realized how much the Hermosa area is beloved for many different reasons,” said the workgroup’s facilitator, Marsha Porter-Norton, at the Dec. 19 gathering. She said the group eventually agreed on three themes: the need for permanent protection of the entire watershed (something unique in legislation), the promotion of excellent water quality in the creek, and the need to balance those goals with water development, economic development, and recreational uses.

The workgroup began by developing a values statement summarizing what was special about the area: “The Hermosa Creek Area is exceptional because it is a large, intact (unfragmented) natural watershed containing diverse ecosystems, including fish, plants and wildlife, over a broad elevation range, and supports a variety of multiple uses, including recreation and grazing, in the vicinity of a large town.”

The workgroup met regularly for close to two years, hammering out compromises that could be acceptable to hikers and mountain bikers, logging and mining interests, grazing permit holders, motorized users, hunters and anglers, wildlife advocates, other recreation groups, local governments, the ski area, and supporters of future water planning and development.

“Everybody’s opinion counted,” Porter- Norton emphasized. “Everybody was heard. That took some time. . . People treated each other with respect. The perspective was, ‘How can I make this work?’, not, ‘How can I shoot down somebody else’s idea?’”

Once the broad workgroup had reached consensus on its goals, a smaller drafting committee wrote a final report, which led to their crafting specifics for the legislation. The composition of that committee reflected the workgroup’s diversity: Jimbo Buickerood of the San Juan Citizens Alliance; Chuck Wanner and Mely Whiting of Trout Unlimited; Steve Fearn and Bruce Whitehead, Southwestern Water Conservation District; Jeff Widen, The Wilderness Society, John Whitney of Senator Bennet’s office; Thurman Wilson, a retired employee with the San Juan National Forest; and Zink, a rancher, outfitter, and recreationist in the Hermosa area.

That drafting committee met 20 or more times before completing a package of recommended measures that Bennet and Udall agreed to take forward. The Hermosa landscape and the collaborative effort were featured in a segment of the public-television series, “This American Land.”

Buickerood told the Free Press there were two points at which the fate of the entire effort seemed to hang in the balance.

One was when the drafting committee was working to take the larger group’s consensus and “craft that into just the perfect balance to reflect what the group wanted,” a very delicate task.

The other, he said, came this fall, after the bill was introduced. The House Natural Resources Committee altered some major provisions, for instance, allowing extractive development in more areas than the community had agreed to.

“It was very different from the original legislation proposed by Senator Bennet and Congressman Tipton,” Buickerood said. “It was manipulated by House committee staff in very significant ways.”

The community “responded quite vigorously,” he noted, saying in letters to the editor and in contacts with their representatives that “this is not what we spent years talking about, agreeing upon, and drafting.”

Tipton and Bennet then were able to restore the legislation to something that reflected the community’s original intent.

“Tipton really got it,” Buickerood said. “He heard people were concerned and his staff worked closely with Bennet’s staff to get it back to the original purpose.”

The act designates approximately 70,650 acres as a special management area. Within this SMA, historic uses will be honored, and there are areas where future potential logging and grazing may be allowed. Also, a possible dam site identified by the State of Colorado through its Statewide Water Supply Initiative process remains in place.

Some 43,000 un-roaded acres within the 70,000 would be protected from future roadbuilding.

Another 38,000 acres of the most rugged portion of the watershed is set aside as a wilderness area, where no roads, motorized or mechanized uses, mineral development or logging are allowed.

Other provisions in the bill include:

  • The conveyance of 82 acres of BLM land to La Plata County for eventual use as an events center;
  • The release of the western half of the West Needles Wilderness Study Area on Molas Pass, allowing the area, a popular snowmobiling site, to become the Molas Park Recreation Area. The other piece of the WSA was transferred from BLM management to the Forest Service and will retain its WSA status.
  • Mineral withdrawals (meaning no further mineral and energy extraction) for Animas Mountain, Perins Peak, Horse Gulch and the area around Lake Nighthorse.

Left hanging, however, is the question of whether Hermosa Creek should be proposed for federal designation as a Wild and Scenic River. That issue is still being mulled by the River Protection Workgroup Steering Committee.

San Juan County (Colo.) Commissioner Scott Fetchenhier said the act resolved a major issue for his county.

“The BLM was going to take a huge loop of the Molas [Snowmobile] Loop from us because it couldn’t go through a Wilderness Study Area,” he said. “It would have been a huge impact to Silverton’s economy.

“I asked them, ‘How can we change this?’ They said it took an act of Congress.” So it was added to the bill.

Fetchenhier said the act’s passage was a remarkable achievement.

“The fact we have set aside 100,000 acres of land when there is so much pressure [for development] is an amazing thing,” he said.

“It’s given me faith in my government again that we can cooperate on a federal level and make things happen.”

“We have done a remarkable thing,” agreed Zink in closing. He momentarily choked up. “I’m kind of emotional about this,” he said.

Clearly, he wasn’t the only one.

Published in January 2015

(Past) time to start caring

“I don’t care.”

The phrase was being heard quite a bit, and in a number of ways in December, when the U.S. Senate released a long-hidden executive summary of the CIA’s use of torture.

A sampling of the “reasoning” on display:

“Here is why I don’t care” — accompanied by an image of a man falling from the Twin Towers on Sept. 11.

“I don’t care, because I would rather be dunked than beheaded, like ISIS does.” (Translation: At least we’re not as bad as a rogue terror state!)

“I don’t care, because they had it coming.”

“I don’t care, because it kept us safe.”

Well, I don’t care either — I don’t care who we tortured; why we did it; how vile those who were tortured happened to be, or if it produced any meaningful intelligence. It. Was. Wrong.

Astonishingly, that simple point is getting lost in the shuffle: We don’t have come up with reasons to oppose torture, because torture is simply immoral. (Even when you insist on calling it “enhanced interrogation.”)

The reaction is shades of the past, when Dana Priest exposed the CIA’s use of “black sites” — torture chambers in countries outside the reach of the Geneva Convention, to which the Bush/Cheney regime contracted the dirty work of “interrogating” prisoners. Then, as now, much of the outrage has been directed against the people who exposed the practice and/or objected to it, rather than at the practice itself. It’s as if the grown-ups are outnumbered by hordes of petulant footstampers whose idea of loving our country is to plug their ears and scream: “I love Mommy and Mommy can do no wrong! If you criticize Mommy, then you don’t love her and you are bad!”

People are welcome to be as puerile and morally lax as they wish; the problem arises when they are allowed to hijack the discussion and transform what should be national horror at the use of torture into a debate about when it is somehow OK. (Answer: Never.) Discussion then is replaced with noise, and energy that might be expended halting torture and holding people accountable is diverted.

But say you have been swayed by the talking heads who feel the urge to trot out Dick Cheney as if he is the moral yardstick of our nation and not, say, a soulless, vicious, protean opportunist.

Well, according to the torture report summary, the CIA didn’t just engage in “rectal feeding,” depriving prisoners of sleep, waterboarding and other horrors (including those that were once inflicted on American POWs in other countries).

The agency lied its tail off about what it was doing, and the extent of it. The torture program was “mismanaged and not subject to adequate oversight,” according to the New York Times; there was little accountability for officers who violated policy; the torturers had no experience in real interrogations; the CIA kept Congress itself in the dark and obstructed what oversight that did exist. More than a dozen prisoners were wrongfully held.

Oh — and it didn’t work. That didn’t stop the agency from falsely claiming that the tactics did work, or from leaking select information to the media in order to advance that falsehood. Torture did not keep us safe. So we’ve got a dark blot on our national conscience, and for what?

A sane person would at least take this as an opportunity to stop other abuses in their tracks. (Drone program, anyone?) At a minimum, we would roundly applaud the Senate for bringing the summary to light, and we would specifically praise outgoing Sen. Mark Udall, instead of debating whether it should have been released. We would at least be highly concerned by the CIA’s duplicity and manipulation. We wouldn’t give Dick Cheney a forum for his psychopathic worldview, let alone celebrate it.

We would listen to Sen. John McCain, who said the CIA “not only failed their purpose — to secure actionable intelligence to prevent future attacks on the U.S. and our allies — but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.”

He added: “I believe the American people have a right — indeed, a responsibility — to know what was done in their name and how they comported with our most important values.”

We are entitled to the truth, even if it causes us difficulties, McCain said.

“They (the American people) must know when the values that define our nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret.

“They must be able to make informed judgments about whether those policies and the personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values; whether they served a greater good or whether, as I believe, they stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good.”

I would add that we also must be willing to do so.

But we’re not.

Instead, we — more than half of us, according to one December poll — effectively say: “I don’t care.”

Katharhynn Heidelberg is an award-winning journalist in Montrose, Colo.

Published in Katharhynn Heidelberg

Kinder Morgan’s farm could be a boon

Wow – what a headline! Kinder Morgan asks to farm local land. That appeared in the Nov. 17 Cortez Journal. The article was mostly about water delivery and pipelines, but at the end, it mentioned that Kinder Morgan had asked the Bureau of Reclamation if they can farm a 580-acre tract they purchased recently in the Cow Canyon area that has rights to Dolores Project irrigation water.

Now, that’s what I call a good neighbor – putting something back into the soil instead of just extracting things from it, and making good use of water. Not to mention that, if properly done, such a large farm could provide jobs for young and older people with the added benefit of attracting tourists and giving our Southwestern Community College another inducement to offer courses in agriculture.

Plus, the more we here in Montezuma County utilize our water for the farming industry, the harder it should be for the Front Range to steal it from us. Water is the lifeblood of small communities on Colorado’s Western Slope – without it they will become ghost towns. Never forget: Water, like oil, flows to money.

Where I was raised, a farm of that magnitude generally was able to support large families who were leaders in the local community, had a substantial bank account and contributed greatly to the economy. In my travels I have seen farms like this all over, sometimes just a small piece of land set aside for garden products, orchards, and chickens, some much bigger. One, right in the middle of an oil-and-gasproducing area near Bakersfield, Calif., employed about 50 people.

I lived in Phoenix in the late 1950s. At that time on Baseline Road there were acres of flowers of every kind. People came from all over to buy seeds and bouquets and photograph the area.

I’ll just mention a number of enterprises that 500 acres with water could support – a small herd of cattle (milch and beef); sheep and goats for meat, wool, milk and cheese; fruit trees, berries, vegetables, hops for beer, greenhouses, flowers, chickens, turkeys, hogs, ducks, geese – all providing jobs, jobs, jobs and local products. Local meats could be sold to local restaurants.

There could even be a gift shop and/or an educational aspect – a program to bring to our children the knowledge of how and where their food comes from. As small farmers joined in and raised crops needed to expand the enterprise, processing facilities for animals and fowl could be developed.

There could be a museum, petting zoo, bookstore. There is no end to the business that could feed off of agriculture.

However, you only get to the Super Bowl with teamwork, something that seems to be sorely lacking in this area. If we work together, though, the possibilities for broadening our horizons could be endless.

Remember, depending heavily on one source of income is downright foolish, like using only one chicken to fill one’s basket. When she quits laying, you’re left without any way to fill that basket until you’ve raised another chicken.

Recently I saw a segment on a PBS news program about an enterprising young Mexican who bought one acre and sold the products he raised from a roadside stand. Now, within just a few years, he is purchasing 200 acres. I guess he didn’t subscribe to the philosophy, “It won’t work and it can’t be done.” He was an opportunist who could see a need and worked to fill it.

Sometimes the American Way is shown to us most clearly by immigrants. That may be a bitter pill to swallow, but so are some of the medicines our doctors prescribe to restore our personal health. I hate to say it but this county is sick with a combination of weak leadership and a weak economy. We need to take our medicine.

This would not only make Kinder Morgan a better neighbor, it would put Cortez and Montezuma County on the map. All this would cost Kinder Morgan very little. The time is now as the drive for healthful food and knowing your farmer is here.

Galen Larson writes from Montezuma County, Colo.

Published in Galen Larson

Research into marijuana’s benefits for PTSD lacks one ingredient: pot

PAGE, Ariz. – Dr. Susan A. Sisley’s plan to study whether marijuana use can be beneficial for treating post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans was in danger of going up in smoke.

Then, on Dec. 17, the Colorado Board of Health awarded her preliminary approval for a $2 million grant so her research can continue. Sisley, who specializes in internal medicine and psychiatry, was first given a green light for the only FDA-approved marijuana study four years ago. However, her study still lacks one essential ingredient.

Marijuana.

Under federal law, marijuana for research purposes can only be acquired through the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), which is under the umbrella of the Department of Health and Human Services.

“They keep telling me they have no marijuana to sell me,” Sisley said, in a phone interview. NIDA suggested they might have marijuana available in March or April, Sisley added.

The delay she is experiencing comes from a combination of reasons, including lawenforcement agencies’ opposition to marijuana use and the powerful pharmaceutical lobbies, she said.

And politics.

Sisley was fired from her alma mater, Northern Arizona University, earlier this year. NAU refused to let Sisley do her research on campus.

The Colorado grant means Sisley’s study can continue – without the need for an Arizona university to house the project.

Sisley began her interest in this study after several of her patients – military veterans with PTSD – told her that they were finding some benefits by using marijuana.

“Five or six years ago, veterans began mentioning using marijuana. At the beginning I was against [marijuana use]. I chastised them for using it,” Sisley said. But with other PTSD medications – such as Zoloft and Paxil – having side effects, such as sexual dysfunction, she began to reconsider her view. “Instead of condemning them for using marijuana, I began to listen to them,” Sisley said.

With more and more patients attesting to the benefits they found with marijuana usage, Sisley decided this research needed to be done if there was a possibility of improving the quality of life for America’s veterans.

Sisley’s study would involve a triple-blind, randomized control trial; half of the 76 patients would receive their marijuana strains at an Arizona location and the remaining at Johns Hopkins University.

“Twenty-two veterans a day commit suicide,” Sisley said. “We have to do something.”

The Food and Drug Administration is not the blockade to her study, Sisley explained. The FDA approved her project in April of 2011.

“Then I ran into a ridiculous mountain of red tape,” she said. Included were a plethora of regulations that other drug studies – including those on heroin – were not subjected to, Sisley said.

In March, Sisley received a final approval for her study. She has spent the last eight months waiting for NIDA to sell her marijuana.

Her work hasn’t been without personal cost. Earlier this year she was terminated from NAU when her proposed marijuana study began to garner more attention, and she butted heads with lawmakers. She has been accused of being a “Pied Piper,” advocating marijuana use.

“It just shows you how deep the politics run on this,” she said. “Politics trumps science.”

Sisley is determined to keep part of the research in Arizona, citing her commitment to the state’s veterans. There is a possibility that Arizona State University will offer Sisley a position there, though nothing definite has emerged, Sisley said.

In any case, a private donor has offered her lab space in Scottsdale.

NIDA and the Drug Enforcement Agency do not look favorably on marijuana studies, Sisley said. They generally only give the green light to studies designed to show the harmful effects of marijuana, Sisley said.

“The question is, why should they be opposed to science?” Sisley said.

Published in January 2015

Gambling prompted embezzlement, records say

A gambling addiction led a Cortez woman to embezzle approximately $280,000 from the Empire Electric Association over a threeyear period, according to court documents.

In December 2014, Lisa Balderrama pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate David West in Durango to one charge of making false statements on a tax return.

Balderrama started work for Empire Electric in its Cortez office in December 2005 as a customer-services representative who processed customer payments, according to the plea agreement.

But at the end of October 2012, accounting employees with Empire found a discrepancy of more than $200,000 between the manual check register and internal bookkeeping. They questioned Balderrama, who assured them that everything was fine and she would find the discrepancy.

She was questioned again in December 2012 and said she had found the discrepancy and would explain it the following day; however, the next day she called in sick.

Then, the following Monday, she “reported to work and confessed to her superior that she had been stealing from Empire Electric,” the plea agreement states.

Balderrama reportedly said she had been stealing money when customers paid their bills in cash, tweaking the books to hide the discrepancies. She said she “had a gambling problem and had spent most of the money on gambling.” In 2006, she won $200,000 in the Colorado Lottery, according to the plea agreement.

Witnesses at six local convenience stores identified Balderrama as having frequently purchased lottery tickets from them, the document states.

Her husband said he was unaware of the thefts, as she handled all their finances. An accounting firm hired by Empire found that Balderrama’s actions involved “a fairly traditional lapping scheme where one customer’s payment was posted to another customer’s account to conceal theft of payments received in currency.”

Balderrama subsequently confessed to Cortez Police and resigned from Empire. She was charged on Oct. 20, 2014, and pleaded guilty before Magistrate Judge West on Dec. 2.

She reportedly failed to report a combined total income of $277,035 on her tax returns in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, resulting in $64,477 in unpaid federal taxes. Under the plea agreement, she is to pay restitution of that amount.

“Empire appreciates the work the U.S. Attorney’s office has done in obtaining the plea agreement and looks forward to assisting the 22nd Judicial District Attorney’s office in Cortez in its criminal investigation and prosecution,” Empire Electric said in a press release.

“Empire’s own internal investigation and an independent forensic investigation identified areas that needed improvement in the Empire accounting department, and those areas were promptly addressed.”

All losses incurred by Empire were reimbursed by its insurance carrier, according to the release. “No Empire member or customer has been injured by Balderrama’s actions,” it stated. “Balderrama’s actions will not result in any increase in rates or fees for Empire members or customers.”

Balderrama is tentatively scheduled to be sentenced in U.S. District Court in Durango in March or April, 2015. She could be sentenced from 12 to 41 months in prison and fined from $3,000 to $300,000.

Published in January 2015

County trims mill levy, eyes fee

Property owners got an early Christmas gift – or perhaps more of a frugal stocking stuffer – on Dec. 15 when the Montezuma County Commission voted unanimously to cut the mill levy for the Law Enforcement Authority from 1.45 to 1.20 mills.

The tax, which is levied only on properties in the unincorporated portions of the county, was approved by voters in 2007 after being promoted by then-Sheriff Gerald Wallace as a means of providing more patrolling in the remote areas of the sprawling county and raises for underpaid deputies.

Under Colorado’s TABOR law, tax hikes by any government entity must be approved by voters, but can be reduced through board action alone. And funds that grow beyond their intended purpose must be refunded to the voters under TABOR unless an exception, commonly known as “de-Brucing,” is included in the legislation when passed.

In this case, the LEA did include a “de- Brucing” measure, according to county attorney John Baxter, which meant the county got to keep any funds accumulating from the tax.

Specifically, the funds were to be used to acquire five patrol vehicles and hire more deputies for under-patrolled areas and to give all certified deputies – Montezuma County’s are among the lowest-paid in the state – raises to make their salaries more equitable.

When it was passed, the tax was expected to generate some $500,000 annually and Wallace kept the uses of the monies strictly separate from the overall department budget.

But over time, and with changes in sheriffs, the LEA funds became more a part of the overall budget. This became an issue early in 2014, when Sheriff Dennis Spruell asked the commissioners (who have separate roles overseeing and approving the spending of the LEA funds) for permission to use LEA money to help pay for a five-year leasing arrangement to acquire 18 new patrol vehicles. After reviewing the ordinance, Baxter said the wording was broad enough to cover the use of the funds for most any legitimate purpose.

However, the LEA fund has, in the words of Commissioner Larry Don Suckla, “ballooned” to become a larger part of the annual sheriff ’s budget than originally foreseen, growing from about $380,000 its first year to about $800,000 last year, largely because of increases in property values.

The reduction is expected to shave about $200,000 from the fund annually.

The reduction for the average taxpayer won’t be much – about $2 on a $100,000 property, according to Assessor Scott Davis – but the move can be seen as more symbolic, possibly a sign of things to come.

For instance, the commission has discussed at length reducing and/or eliminating the road-impact fee levied on new construction – from single-family units to commercial buildings and subdivisions, with the fee varying according to how far the buildings are from a state highway. The idea is that growth generates traffic, and the one-time fee contributes to road maintenance.

However, Suckla cited several other counties that impose no such fee. He has repeatedly pointed out that all new construction adds to the county’s property-tax revenues.

The LEA fund will still collect enough revenue to fulfill its original intent, and to help cover the annual payment on the vehicle lease agreement, the commissioners said.

Commission Chairman Keenan Ertel said he wanted “to make sure the sheriff is providing five more deputies and vehicles patrolling the more-remote parts of the county.

“I see a lot of deputies on state highways more than on the county roads.,” Ertel said. “I want to see [the LEA funds] used for more patrolling on the unincorporated parts of the county and I’m not sure that’s being done.”

Steve Nowlin, who will take over as sheriff in mid-January, said in a phone interview that while there had been discussion of the LEA fund during a meeting between him and the commissioners last February, he had had no further conversation about cutting back the fund since then, and was unaware of the reduction in the LEA tax until contacted by the Free Press.

“They said [in February] they would be making some type of decision [regarding the LEA], but they never talked to me directly,” Nowlin said. “I had told them back in February that it just needed to be managed right, but it should never go away.

“[The LEA] pays for five deputies’ salaries plus 30 percent of the certified officers’ salaries,” Nowlin said, “It wasn’t managed right – I agree with that completely, but that wasn’t me. The bottom line is that I’ll just have to work with whatever that [LEA revenue] is – and that’s okay.”

On a tangential note, Nowlin said he would not have committed the sheriff ’s office to a five-year leasing deal for the 18 SUV-type vehicles that were delivered to the department earlier this year after Spruell urged the commissioners to approve the arrangement as the best solution to replacing an aging fleet.

“I would have never done that – we’re stuck with those 18 vehicles for five years,” Nowlin said. “How can I go and ask for any replacement vehicles when that’s already happened and we’re still paying for them?”

Suckla told the Free Press that even with the reduction, the LEA would still be taking in over $600,000, sufficient for its original intent. “There will still be enough money to do those things.”

Suckla said he’e like to see more patrolling on Road G through McElmo Canyon.

“There has been person after person killed on McElmo Road,” he said. “That is an extremely dangerous road and we need more patrol there.” Just last month, two people died and others were seriously injured in a two-car alcohol-related collision on CR G.

“I don’t know Steve [Nowlin] at all and I’d hate to start off on the wrong foot with the man,” Suckla said, “but the way I looked at it was there was $300,000 extra in the bank and it was going to continually add [that much] and so all we did was take away the extra money.

“It started off with a good intent, but they didn’t realize it was going to balloon to how much it has.”

The commissioners all expressed support for the deputies. Suckla said, “I want the patrolmen to have more money if they deserve it,” and Commissioner Steve Chappell pointed out that criminals would run rampant if it weren’t for the officers who put their lives on the line every day.

However, in an interview, Chappell remembered the February discussion with Nowlin differently than Nowlin did. “When he was running he made a political point to us in a meeting – we were talking about the LEA fund and how it was building up an amount of savings and he made the statement that he didn’t need the LEA fund in his budget,” Chappell chuckled. “He can’t deny that and if he does he has three commissioners and a lawyer [as witnesses] to his statement.”

But Chappell added, “We’re fine with Nowlin and I’m sure he’ll do a good job. There will be plenty of money with the mill levy that we’ve left there – the 1.2 mills – to make the payments on those cars.”

Still, Chappell expressed reservations about how much patrolling was being done in remote areas. “I’m 17 miles out – very seldom do I see a deputy, so if there are five cars out there, they are not very visible.’

Published in January 2015

College students find water quality high in the Dolores

How clean is the water in the Dolores River north of the town of Dolores? Very clean, according to six Fort Lewis College students who studied the river as part of a junior-level course.

During their fall-semester 2014 class, “ENVS 395: Environmental Colloquium,” the students chose the river and the rivervalley plan for their research project. The class was taught by Janneli Miller, a former resident of Dolores. (Full disclosure: Miller is a Free Press freelance contributor.)

The students wanted to study whether the Dolores River Valley Plan – special land-use measures designed to protect the valley’s water quality – was the best plan to serve and protect the interests of Montezuma County residents, and whether the river can withstand further development.

They presented their findings Dec. 10 at the college.

To gauge the river’s water quality, they tested for e. coli, a type of bacteria that can indicate fecal contamination, explained Madison Rafferty, one of the students, during the presentation. They did testing at 10 sites on both public and private land, from the Lightenburger Ranch north of Dolores to the bridge in the town and at one site below the bridge. The testing actually entailed three samples for each site (one above, one below, and one at the site) for a total of 30 samples. These were taken to a lab at the college and analyzed.

The sampling found anywhere from 1 to 7 colony-forming units (CFUs) of e. coli per 100 milliliters of water in the various samples. EPA standards say that anything up to 126 cfu/100 mL is acceptable.

Two possible conclusions could be drawn from that, the students said in their research paper: “that the river is being sufficiently protected [by the river-valley plan] and that has helped the water stay free of fecal contamination or also that the river is healthy enough to withstand further development.”

Kale Casasanto-Zimmerman, another of the students, said in contrast, sampling done by others on the Animas River has found “some alarming levels of e. coli.”

“I think the Animas River is seeing the negative effects of being so built-up,” he said at the Dec. 10 presentation.

The students also surveyed 135 Montezuma County residents, most via an online survey but 12 in person, to find out their attitudes about the Dolores River Valley Plan. The county commissioners voted in July to abandon the key provision in the plan, which was a program of transferable development rights that limited density to roughly one residence per 10 acres in the valley but allowed landowners to sell and trade development rights to achieve higher densities in certain places.

The survey was not scientifically representative of the county population, but gave some indication of the views of people interested in the river valley, most of them from Dolores or the valley itself.

It found that most of those answering the question (82 vs. 19) did know that the county commissioners had eliminated the TDR program.

In answer to another question, 65 of 131 respondents were against further development in the valley, 48 favored limited development, 8 felt “conflicted,” 5 favored more development, and 5 had no opinion.

“In summary, a majority of residents are either totally against development or in favor of limited and regulated development,” the students wrote in their paper. “Many people who are informed on the issue wish to see it handled proactively and want a stronger policy to be put in place.”

The survey found that among those who wanted to see some future development, “There was a wide range of opinions; however one main thing that stuck out was. . . the idea of ‘smart’ development. Smart development means that there is little to no harmful impact on the environment and if any development is done it is done in a sustainable way.”

The other students in the project were Dakota Deters, Derek Ems, Jack Galaktionoff and Elizabeth Thomas.

Published in January 2015

Plaintiffs drop lawsuit over river plan

One chapter in an ongoing dispute over managing growth in the Dolores River Valley came to an end in December, as plaintiffs dropped a lawsuit challenging a decision made by the Montezuma County commissioners.

DOLORES RIVER TDR LAWSUIT DROPPED

Management of growth in the Dolores River has been a controversial issue over the past two years. In July 2014, the county commissioners voted 2-1 to abandon a decade-old system of transferable development rights that had been implemented in the river valley upstream from the town of Dolores. That decision was challenged in a lawsuit, but the suit was recently dropped. Photo by Wendy Mimiaga

On July 7, 2014, the commissioners had voted 2-1 to jettison a chapter of the county land-use code that established a system of transferable development rights, or TDRs, within the Dolores River Valley. Their decision came after a lengthy public hearing in which the vast majority of those who spoke said they supported the TDR system as a means of limiting growth in the valley.

A TDR system allows landowners to sell development rights without actually selling their land. In the Dolores River Valley, landowners had approximately one TDR for every 10 acres they owned (this formula could be affected by other factors such as whether they were within the floodplain and how steep the slope of their land was).

In August, two county landowners and a new nonprofit group called Protect Montezuma County Water sued the commissioners over the vote to end TDRs.

Now, the decision to end the lawsuit means the commissioners can move ahead with reimbursing river-valley landowners who had paid to have their TDRs platted.

It puts an end to a decade-old system that had been implemented upon the recommendation of a citizens’ working group that met over a two-year period to study ways to protect water quality and riparian health in the valley.

And, although the commissioners left intact the 10-acre minimum lot size in the river valley, the decision effectively doubles potential density, because two residential structures are now allowed per 10 acres instead of the one allowed under the TDR system.

Members of Protect Montezuma County Water were tight-lipped about the reasons they chose to drop the suit. Greg Kemp, one of the two individual landowners who were plaintiffs, told the Free Press only, “I will say on a personal level that I am very disappointed.”

Erin Johnson, attorney for the plaintiffs, said, “The group determined that continuing to pursue the lawsuit wouldn’t be the best way to pursue their objectives.”

She said the group plans to remain intact and to watch further developments regarding the river valley.

“They are staying organized to monitor issues in the county affecting water quality,” she said.

The suit had a two-pronged approach. It charged that the county had violated state law by acting in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner and that the board had “abused its discretion, and exceeded its jurisdiction in voting to eliminate TDRS in a fashion that does not indicate understanding of the purpose and function of TDRs. No findings of fact or a basis of other credible information to support the decision of the BOCC was given.”

The complaint stated that the board “never stated any defect with the TDRs system, other than it confused them.”

“No written findings were made by the Board; no discussion was made of the specific reason for or need to eliminate the TDR that could not have [been] addressed through amendments provided by the planning department,” the complaint further stated.

The other basis for the complaint was a charge that by eliminating the TDR system, the board had unconstitutionally committed a “taking” of a private property right without compensation because, “The TDRs created a property interest that was available for purchase by any person or entity, to develop or hold for speculation, for example sale to a third party developer.”

Then-Commissioner Steve Chappell had been the most eager to abandon the TDR system, voicing concerns that it was confusing to landowners and that it had not been effective because no TDRs had ever changed hands in the 10 years the system was in place.

TDR systems have been implemented in numerous locations around the country, with varying results.

According to different sites on the Internet, it is not uncommon for a TDR program to take a long time before it is fully implemented and utilized, and in times when the real-estate market is sluggish, TDRs are not likely to be exchanged.

Marin County, Calif., adopted TDRs in 1981, but only one TDR project has been approved there, according to the web site smartpreservation.net.

“Even though the demand for new development in Marin County is high,” the web site states, “the pace of development is relatively slow, about 0.3 percent per year; this may be due to the fact that prime sites have already been developed, leaving parcels with steep slopes and other development difficulties.” This may explain in part why only one TDR project has been approved, the site said.

A 2012 paper written by Margaret Walls, research director and senior fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan nonprofit that does environmental research, described one of the country’s most successful TDR systems, in Calvert County, Md.

“It has had an active private market for TDRs and as a result has permanently preserved a large amount of farm and forest lands,” Walls stated in the paper.

Titled, “Markets for Development Rights: Lessons Learned From Three Decades of a TDR Program,” the paper said many other TDR programs are relatively inactive in comparison to Calvert County’s robust one.

“Even when TDR programs are well designed, however, there can be problems that arise,” Wall wrote. “Thin markets may be an issue, especially because the programs are typically implemented in a single jurisdiction, which limits the number of buyers and sellers. . . .

“Probably the biggest hurdle for TDRs is the administrative burden for local governments. TDR programs can be relatively complex to manage. . . .

“If these problems can be overcome and the TDR program and accompanying zoning regulations set up to achieve an active private market for development rights, then TDRs have much to recommend them. . .but as with many market-based approaches to environmental and natural resource problems, the devil is in the details.”

Published in January 2015 Tagged

Sage-grouse fight continues

Western agricultural and development interests are firing back at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over its listing of the Gunnison sage grouse as a federally threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

In December, they got major support from Congress, which passed an omnibus spending bill that includes a rider banning federal funding to implement the listing on the ground. It also bans funding for a possible listing of the greater sage grouse.

The bill states:

“None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to write or issue pursuant to Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973:

  • A proposed rule for greater sage-grouse;
  • A proposed rule for the Columbia basin distinct population segment of greater sage grouse;
  • A final rule for the bi-state distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse; or
  • A final rule for Gunnison sage-grouse.”

The Gunnison sage grouse is a small, ground-dwelling bird that numbers about 4,000, most of them in Gunnison County, Colo. A half-dozen other very small populations are scattered around Southwest Colorado and Southeast Utah, including Dolores and San Miguel counties in Colorado and San Juan County in Utah.

The greater sage grouse, the largest grouse in North America, has a much larger population that exists across portions of 11 states. However, its numbers are shrinking.

Both species of grouse are known for the flamboyant, bobbing displays the males make in spring, jigging up and down and burbling while displaying large colorful sacs on their breast.

Both species depend on large, unbroken tracts of sagebrush to survive. Threats to their existence include the conversion of sagebrush habitat to subdivisions, agriculture, or oil and gas-drilling; predation by raptors, ravens, domestic dogs and cats, and more; drought; the encroachment of nonnative grasses such as cheatgrass; and wildfires.

In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which implements the Endangered Species Act, determined that the greater sage grouse was “warranted” for listing under the ESA but that such an action was precluded by higher-priority listings. As part of a 2011 court settlement, the service agreed to make an initial determination by September 2015 on whether to propose the species for listing.

Although the 2015 Omnibus Appropriations Bill prevents the service from publishing a proposed listing rule for sage grouse, the agency is still obligated to determine whether the greater sage grouse warrants protection under the ESA, according to information on the service’s web site. Therefore, the service is proceeding to collect data and conduct an analysis in order to reach a decision.

Ranchers and representatives of oil and gas companies are especially nervous about how the listings of either bird would affect their operations. The listings could put hurdles in the form of mitigation requirements, permits, and paperwork in the way of grazing, energy extraction, and other projects proposed on critical habitat for the species.

The decision to eliminate funding for sage-grouse listings was decried by environmental and conservation groups, such as the Western Watersheds Project, Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, the National Audubon Society and the American Bird Conservancy.

“These are shocking actions that shamelessly circumvent science-driven wildlife protection laws,” said Steve Holmer, senior policy advisor of American Bird Conservancy, in a press release. “This seems to be a case of ‘when the going gets tough’ to conserve threatened birds, just bend the law to suit.”

But agricultural groups including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public Lands Council hailed the legislation.

“Listing the sage grouse would take the most successful natural-resource stewards, ranchers, off the land,” the beef association said in a release.

“The passage by both the House and Senate is a clear message that Congress supports our industry and is willing to put a stop the overzealous Administration and their attempt to take production agriculture off the land.”

Meanwhile, the state of Colorado and others have filed notice of intent to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service over the Gunnison sage grouse listing.

In a letter dated Dec. 12 and signed by Lisa A. Reynolds, assistant attorney general for Colorado, the state said that the Fish and Wildlife Service “improperly analyzed the required factors to make its determination that the Gunnison sage-grouse is threatened; failed to rely on the best available science; and failed to give adequate weight to the extensive conservation efforts undertaken by state and local governments and private landowners.” So far, the state has spent close to $40 million on “voluntary conservation programs, land acquisition, research, monitoring activities, habitat treatments, translocation, and predator control programs” to try to conserve the Gunnison sage grouse and its habitat, the notice stated.

Roughly three-quarters of habitat occupied by the grouse already has some level of protection, the notice stated, and “Colorado has been a leader in Gunnison sage-grouse research and conservation efforts throughout the species’ range.”

The letter stated that the decision to list the grouse as threatened violated the ESA because the agency had failed to properly analyze five factors it is required to analyze when it makes a listing, the state charged, and as a result it “overestimated the degree of threat to the vast majority of the Gunnison sage-grouse population, which is located in the Gunnison basin.”

Conservation groups had sued the service after it decided in 2006 that the Gunnison sage grouse did not qualify for endangeredspecies protection, and in 2010 the agency decided it was warranted for listing but precluded by other higher-priority listings. At that time it became a “candidate” species. A court decision regarding such candidate species forced the agency to reconsider its decision and it proposed listing the bird as endangered, but later scaled that back to threatened.

Gunnison County filed a notice of intent to sue on Dec. 22, and many of the remaining 11 counties affected by the listing, including Dolores County, are considering joining in.

No critical habitat for the bird was designated in Montezuma County, but the commissioners did pass an ordinance banning “non-native” endangered or threatened species from being brought to the county

Published in January 2015 Tagged

The name-change blues

When I was born in Durango, Colo., on May 6, 1972, my father named me “Cynthia Marie McCombe.” The “Cynthia” part of my name, which means “moon goddess,” was given to me as a sweet remembrance of an older girl he had a crush on when he was a kid. I didn’t know what to think when I heard that, and it actually rather annoyed me. It is only recently that I have come to terms with that.

My mother’s middle name is “Marie, “and it was passed down to me as a Catholic tradition—it was short for “Mary.” And I learned later on while working in Halifax, Nova Scotia, from a friendly person who carried the last name of “Luscomb” that “McCombe” means “of the mountain.” Combine them and you have “Moon goddess Mary of the mountain.”

Now after 42 years, I have built a lot of my identity around my name. I have wondered on occasion how many times I have signed my name, said it, and heard it. In fact, my whole identity is so wrapped up in my name that when I thought of altering parts of it, I stopped short, feeling I would lose an important anchor to the person I was at birth.

But my two marriages threw a monkey wrench into the situation.

The first go-around, I was starting my 30s and had had some career successes, so I was not about to give up my name and become merely Cindy Black [not my ex’s actual name]. Among other achievements, I was the first editor of the Kodak.com website and delighted in launching global websites for various countries on behalf of this then-giant in photography. Also, I wanted to have children, and I could not imagine my name not being a part of theirs. But my husband wanted me to take his name, so I settled for hyphenation – Cindy McCombe-Black. I didn’t much care for that solution, but I had seen only a few women strong enough to keep their birth name, and I had seen almost none do it when there were children involved.

When that marriage ended after six years and two children, I was slow to give up my hyphenated name. It was not due to my attachment to “McCombe-Black” per se, it was because I wanted my name to be related to my children’s names, as they were both called Black. Why hadn’t I pushed to have my maiden name be their middle name? (My first husband, ironically, had this exact structure to HIS name.)

So I continued with my hyphenated name for legal purposes, but informally I went by Cindy McCombe. And that worked well until I got married a second time, in my 40s.

My second husband declared that hyphenated names were pretentious and he didn’t want me to carry one. I was considering having another child with him, and the same issues crept up. So I added his last name to my last name without a hyphen — having two last names, Cindy McCombe Johnson [again, not his real name]. But I never quite changed from McCombe-Black. It was like walking down the sidewalk with one foot on the curb and one on the pavement. This was sort of an awkward waddle, a clear indication that I had caved and wasn’t motivated to fix or resolve something that seemed to have no right answer anymore. This past year, that marriage ended, too.

Not only is changing your name difficult to do psychologically, it can be very difficult to do legally. At one point after the dissolution of my first marriage, I went to the Social Security office to restore my maiden name. I waited for two hours. When my number was called, I found out that I could not proceed yet, as I did not have an official seal on my divorce papers.

When my divorce became “official,” I’d received an email confirmation with an attachment of the final paperwork. Obviously, my inkjet printer did not print out the documents with a seal on them. I had paid all this money to a lawyer, and now I had to go back and take the papers to some courthouse and pay to have them stamped in order to change my name? It was absurd.

The second time I went to restore my name, I was routed to a Social Security office that had recently stopped processing name changes. Luckily, I had the wherewithal to ask a clerk there if I could have the name change form to fill out and was directed to a sign on the wall that listed which offices still processed name changes. I had to drive a long way to an “approved” name-change Social Security office after I filled out the paperwork, but eventually I got it done.

The four hours I spent that day changing my name at both a Social Security office and also the DMV made me wonder: Why aren’t there more models of women not giving up their names when they marry? I have felt disconnected from my name for more than a decade now.

When it came to deciding what my name should be for the remainder of my life, I did a lot of soul-searching. I thought about choosing a new middle name, for instance, because I am no longer Catholic, and there are non-Catholic names that resonate with me more than “Marie.” However, I decided to keep it, as I like the fact that it’s part of my mother’s name.

In the end, I decided to go back to “Cynthia Marie McCombe,” the name on my birth certificate. Restoring my name was actually a restoration of my identity. I have always been a strong woman, and I felt that my inability to stand up for my desire to keep my name and have it be part of my children’s names was a sign of cowardice. Despite the efforts of feminists, women are trained to please men. This means swallowing much of who we are, and my squelching my desire to keep my name—not once, but twice—is a classic example.

In the end, my children are still called “Black.” They don’t have any part of my name in their names. This is painful to me, but I know how prevalent my influence is in their lives. Still, I will always wish that their names reflected that.

Cindy McCombe is the president of Ability- Catcher, a company with the goal of humanizing the way the world thinks and treats individuals with differing abilities. She lives in San Diego, Calif.

Published in Cindy McCombe

‘An Honest Liar’: The story of James Randi

Recently I learned about a new documentary concerning James Randi, called “An Honest Liar.” Unfortunately, it won’t be out until early spring. What a shame, because though I’m no movie buff, here was one I wanted to watch.

You see, I grew up watching the “The Amazing Randi” doing incredible stunts on TV during the ’60s and ’70s, then in the ’80s I started paying attention to his other career, that of the stinky eye ferreting out frauds.

That started earlier. As Randi grew better as a magician, he got sick of seeing others using his same tricks not to entertain, but to gain the confidence of innocents in order to steal from them. His lifelong crusade began in 1964 with a $1,000 challenge for anyone who could offer proof of the paranormal. The prize later went to $10,000, then to a cool million dollars.

The media attention around his crusade was intense and it trickled down to young adults such as myself. You know, we of the happy hippie generation, still in the afterglow of discovering and experiencing a miraculous world all around us. Spiritual and chemical energy infused everything and there was so much to take in and wonder about. The metaphysical seemed interwoven with everything and now science was starting to find supporting evidence.

Then came Randi, to remind those of us who would listen, about skepticism and turning a critical eye on amazing claims. While these exposures were sobering for many, they enraged just as many who resisted having their bubbles burst. It’s telling that over a thousand claimants have taken and failed Randi’s “challenge,” yet spiritual/psychic con artists are raking in as much as ever.

Still, for many, Randi’s interviews were teaching moments of rational critical thinking and he taught many how to recognize bunk. Such skills helped me navigate a world filled with too many predators hiding behind the smiling mask of the con artist.

But all that’s known to me from snippets – various articles I’ve read. I actually didn’t know much about the man himself. So, reading the synopsis of this documentary, I knew I wanted to see it.

Life is full of surprises. As serendipity would have it, I was reading the program the very afternoon of the evening “An Honest Liar” was being screened in Yountville, Calif.

Now, I’m just a working stiff, in the area because of a lucky short job I landed, and headed home the next morning. The last thought on my mind was attending a fancy Napa Valley Film Festival, yet that’s where I found myself. Sipping on some Cabernet Sauvignon that proclaimed to me: Now you see? Taste me… look at me… swirl me and breathe me in… take your time, savor the moment. Now, wise guy… you see why some don’t mind dropping a Ben Franklin for a bottle if they can?

With that boisterous glass of wine in hand, I was ready as “An Honest Liar” began with a review of Randi’s career and fun old TV clips. The film recalled the unmasking of Uri Geller, the “psychic” spoon-bender who was investigated by some gullible scientists that judged him legitimate, making him a media sensation until Randi exposed his tricks.

There was also Reverend Popoff, the minister with miraculous telepathic “gifts” (provided by his wife transmitting information, gleaned off the prayer cards visitors filled out, into Popoff ’s “hearing aid”). Using that information, he mesmerized his flock and proceeded to “heal” his hapless victims and rake in the donations.

It got fascinating when we learned of the various fictitious psychics Randi created. They managed to fool the world despite Randi liberally sprinkling hints. When Randi wasn’t all hell and brimstone on frauds, he found time to help Alice Cooper create some hell and brimstone on the stage.

Then came the plot twists, for those of us who haven’t kept up with Randi’s amazing life. There was the surprise of Randi coming out in 2010 and publicly revealing his 25-year partnership with Jose Alvarez, a fascinating survivor and amazing fellow in his own right.

Then, while still absorbing all that, we’re hit with an even more startling revelation, unfolding in real time, heightened by the dead seriousness of jail time and worse.

After the film was finished, we were treated to a Q&A with Tyler Measom and Justin Weinstein, the co-directors. They surprised us by announcing a couple visitors, Randi and Alvarez in the flesh.

Watching Randi walk down the aisle, I couldn’t help but think that he looks like Charles Darwin in his later years. That’s fitting, though Harry Houdini would probably deserve it more, considering he’s the granddaddy of debunkers of spiritualists and con artists, as Randi acknowledges.

Taking questions, Randi responded to one with something I’d already jotted down as the single best line in the documentary, “People need to believe.” Later, I had a chance to speak with him and asked: “OK, people need to believe – what can we do with that? Where do we go from there?”

He looked at me with those deep intense eyes, shrugged and shook his head for a beat, then perked up: “Teach the young ones,” and invited me to check out the James Randi Educational Foundation.

After watching the documentary, I came to appreciate that Randi had given me more than skills to deal with con artists. He’d helped me learn that I was my own toughest challenge – falling in love with my own notions and refusing to acknowledge my blind spots, being afraid to be proven wrong. Fabricating bubbles of contrived reality in order to justify rejecting contrary evidence, no matter how valid.

Such failings are our worst enemies.

And what of our allies? There’s the passion to keep learning about this incredible world I inhabit for a short moment. Appreciating that no matter how much I think I may already know, there’s more to learn. Besides, I could be wrong and need to remain willing to honestly listen to and digest new information – then base my belief on the strength of the evidence presented – not on my tender ego or desires. If I’m wrong it’s a learning opportunity and not an excuse to lash out against the bearer of better information.

In closing, what I thought would be an entertaining, informative movie about one of the most interesting characters of my time turned into a journey of discovery and reflection for me. “An Honest Liar” gets my thumbs-up recommendation, with or without an accompanying glass of fine wine.

Living near Durango, Colo., Peter Miesler maintains a blog dedicated to sharing scientific information and challenging climate-science contrarians at http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com.

Published in Peter Miesler

Cleanliness is next to … how does that go?

I belong to a writing group. We get together each week to share our creativity, which is often inspired by a prompt that someone has chosen to throw at us. Last week, this was one of those prompts:

Ten reasons to not shower for a week

A week? What’s the big deal? Four or five days is pretty much par for the course. What’s another day or two? You’re like, asleep for half that time anyway, right? And once you smell, you smell, so then it’s not like it’s suddenly going to get bad. When it begins to wake you up at night, then it’s time to start thinking about a bath. Caveat: The hot-flash thing has been a bit of a game changer.

I hate wet hair. I can cope, sort of, on the beach or the river, but other than that? No, thank you. It’s like a huge, heavy gloop of cold slime weighing down my head and slowly dripping down my neck and the sides of my face. Plus, my hair follicles are overactive and the sheer amount of what’s on top takes a full day to dry, two days if it’s pulled back. Which leads to …

The message that is sent when a gal pulls out a hairdryer: High Maintenance. I proudly own two hair dryers and 0 hairbrushes or combs, so I can’t be that HM. Right? Please understand that blow-drying my hair is a task strictly of necessity and not one of vanity. A fact to which most people that have seen my hair, especially freshly washed, can attest. And yes, I am still uncomfortable being the girl with the hair dryer.

Once, I pulled out my Conair in front of a boy prefaced by a bunch of embarrassed excuses and self-deprecation, “owning” this high level of vanity. He just said, “Hmmmmmmmm.”

I rest my case.

Sometimes not bathing is a truly liberating experience that brings an unexpected sense of freedom from caring about what others think. My stench brings with it the fondest memories of my adventuring days of living out of my backpack in beautiful places and not bathing for 30 days at a pop. I felt strong and self-confident and badass. So really, what’s a week?

Then, there is the internal struggle that I…struggle…with, that often takes the joy out of showering: to shave or not to shave. If I am wet, it’s a given that I will wash my hair because the only thing worse than the slithering slime on my head is when that slime is dirty. The more insidious hair is that which lies within my pits. For years, I never took a blade to that tender area and was actually quite proud of what I perceived to be my raw, earthen sexiness. But then one day, my 7-year-old asked me to remove my glorious fuzz because it was “embarrassing.” My mother had been saying the same to me for years, but who’s actually going to change something because of their mom’s mortification? It’s different when it’s your child.

So now, if I lather my underarms to wash them I then feel a moral obligation to shave them too and sometimes I really just can’t be bothered so it’s easier to not shower and wear long sleeves.

Then there’s the argument that I won’t shower more often because of my indefatigable environmental ethic. But that’s actually a crock and the truth is, I’m just…

…too damn lazy. Besides the shaving and the hair-drying, if I can stay in bed for a few extra minutes rather than facing all of those annoyances, then that’s what I’m going to do.

There is the fact that I am forever “about to go for a run.” Why would I waste shampoo and water if I am going to go get sweaty and stinky right away? And why bother doing it afterwards when I could use that time to eat instead and I know that I am just going to run again tomorrow. And it just doesn’t really make a difference that I am barely running two times a week. At most. In my head I am still “about to go” so I might as well wait.

And I can’t think about showering and efficiency without thinking about my parents’ friends, The G’s, who had more money than God and traveled the world staying in places like the Grand Hotel Du Cap-Ferrat. Although they could each have journeyed with a Louis Vuitton steamer trunk full of couture, they chose, instead to go light and fast, which meant that they showered in their clothes to get them clean.

I shit you not.

And here is my big secret about my relationship with the shower (no, this is not about to get rated X): I have a particular penchant for hiding in the shower when in need of some peace and quiet. It works best with a walk-in with a bench but I can still make it work in a claw-foot. NOTE: This is best done without the water running. Usually I am clothed, although it’s not a necessity. Sometimes I will talk on the phone (which reminds me of another of my mother’s friends who talked on her Mickey Mouse phone in her closet in her boudoir when her children drove her batty.) Sometimes I just sit quietly and stare out the window. So then I wonder, “Why go in there and get all naked and wet and then cold and have to perform all of those self-care tasks and worry about desertification, when I can hang out, guilt-free, and think the very deep thoughts that I tend to think?”

So there are my 10 reasons for/thoughts upon not showering or bathing for a week.

I must say, if the prompt had been, “10 reasons to shower more than once a week,” I’d have had trouble coming up with No. 1.

Suzanne Strazza is an award-winning writer from Mancos, Colo.

Published in Suzanne Strazza

Going down with the ship

Well, the blue dog Democrats deserted their constituents and gave away our country to the very people that put us in this mess in the first place. Why the news media calls them “blue dogs” beats me. Blue used to mean Democratic, and dogs are loyal animals who follow their leader. These guys ran like rats deserting a sinking ship, and sold out their leader to try to keep their personal welfare positions.

And, folks, we are fast going down with the new leadership. Affordable health care will disappear if the Republican Supreme Court has its way. The new national anthem, “No Climate Change on the Blue, Cloudless Horizon” sung by the anti-scientists will get second and third verses. (“Oh, say can you see, any snowflakes on me?” and so on)

Parks and national forests will be privatized. (Put a $5 bill in that telescope and see smog banks as far away as Los Angeles!) No more free entry onto vast swaths of public lands, no more trails open to all. Instead of “This land is my land, this land is your land,” the song will be changed to “This land is their land – this land belongs to LLC’s.” The corporations will do with it as they please and only the wealthiest will be allowed to access it.

Food stamps will be given out only to those who already have minimum-wage jobs. No matter if you’re looking and can’t find one, if you don’t have a job you’ll be told to tighten your belt.

No more unions, no voice for labor, and no regulations on anything that will hamper business. If your air bag explodes, just duck and cover your face! We don’t want to interfere with the bottom line.

And what’s a little e. coli among friends? The price of Clorox will go up as we are forced to wash our meat, fish, and produce before cooking. (Assuming, of course, one can afford such luxuries as meat and Clorox!) Fast-food chains will be able to use insects, worms, and grubs to supplement the beef in those hamburgers – why should regulators try to stop them, they’re all digestible protein, after all?

But don’t let that bug you. It could be worse. All food from corn, potatoes, parsley and cabbage will be grown with GMO seeds and our food sources will be controlled by giant ag conglomerates subsidized by the taxpayers.

We will need to purchase expensive water filters for our homes, as the Clean Water Act will be a thing of the past. Water from small rural rivers and desert areas will be claimed by those with the most money and piped to giant cities, whose population will explode as small towns become ghost towns.

Health insurance will be only for those with top-dollar corporate jobs (and if they have a bad accident or expensive illness their policies may be cancelled – sorry). Everyone else will have to go to the emergency room once they get sick enough. Dying quickly will soon become the cheapest heath insurance.

Only landowners will be allowed to vote. Suspicious folks caught walking around without papers to identify their citizenship could be fined or sentenced to pick up trash from our deteriorating highways.

The bright side is we may get some beautiful sunsets due to smog from the coal-fired power plants that will flourish under Republican control. Like the Chinese, we’ll go around with paper filters over our mouths whenever we’re outdoors.

Endangered species? Ha! There will be no more endangered species, because they’ll all have gone extinct.

No more laws mandating 40-hour weeks with vacations and overtime pay. After all, people working 16 hours a day make good citizens, because they’re too tired to cause mischief. No more minimum wage, let the free market decide. No more pensions and Social Security – that’s socialism, after all. A penny saved is a penny earned, so invest it in a corporate bank and if your savings disappear when it goes bankrupt because of fraud, sorry, your fault, investor beware.

Don’t worry about housing – your employer will be your landlord as well as the owner of the stores where you purchase food and clothing. Be on time, work hard, don’t talk back, and you will be able to keep your 15-foot-by-15-foot home with a bed in the wall. No pets, but you may feed the mice. And if you marry, you get a slightly bigger domicile.

Your children will be taught from a uniform set of textbooks that reinforce the doctrines that America is perfect and can do no wrong, corporations are wonderful, Jesus was a free-enterprise capitalist, slavery was a myth, and anyone who happens to be poor is wholly to blame because of their sloth.

At 18 your kids will automatically do a stint in the military to protect the oligarchy’s holdings around the world.

That’s the vision the Republicans have for us. Thank you, gutless Democrats, for helping to bring this to pass. Instead of touting Obama’s genuine accomplishments, you ran from him as well as your own principles, trying to sound like Republicans. No wonder so few people voted – they couldn’t tell the difference between the candidates.

This election shows that racism is not dead and even after 145 years we haven’t freed the slaves. No matter what your color, if you can’t house and feed your family on your wages, you are not free.

Galen Larson writes freely (so far) from Montezuma County, Colo.

Published in Galen Larson