In the dead of winter, few people are thinking about mosquitoes. The 2004 season ended, at least in Southwest Colorado, on a positive note, with experts happy that the West Nile Virus did not strike more drastically than it might have.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2004 Colorado reported 276 human cases of West Nile and three deaths, down dramatically from 2003, when the state had 2,947 cases and 63 human deaths.

In Montezuma County, there were four cases of West Nile in humans. La Plata County had 18 cases, Dolores County none. By far the county hardest-hit was Mesa, with 125 cases. “I think we’re all breathing a little sigh of relief,” said Jason Carruth, district manager of the Montezuma Mosquito Control District.

But spring is just a few short months away, and the mosquito eggs are out there, waiting to hatch and launch a new generation of whining, biting pests.

And once again, controversy will swirl over the best methods of com-bating these creatures. When is aerial spraying appropriate? Are the pesticides used in fogging as safe as they’re claimed to be, or do they contribute to a toxic environment that causes human health problems? On the other hand, does the very real risk of West Nile Virus outweigh the subtler risks of the chemicals?

Related to nerve gas

Settlers struggling to tame the buggy swamps of the East Coast and the South during the nation’s early days would doubtless have welcomed any form of effective mosquito control. It may be difficult to imagine now, but malaria, which is carried by mosquitoes, was common in parts of the United States up until the 1940s. The disease killed or sickened countless thousands of people and did not really disappear until the development of DDT, a long-lasting, highly effective pesticide that was later banned because of apparent links to dwindling bird populations. (See sidebar.)

Mosquitoes can transmit other is-eases, however. There are some 2,800 mosquito species worldwide, some of which carry illnesses such as dengue and yellow fever. In Colorado, three viruses have traditionally been carried by mosquitoes: Western equine encephalitis, St. Louis encephalitis, and California encephalitis (a viral group). The arrival of West Nile Virus in the United States in 1999 added new urgency to the debate over mosquito control. The virus, first identified in 1937 in Uganda, appeared on the East Coast of the U.S., but now is present in at least 47 states. In the East, it’s carried mainly by a mosquito species called culex pippiens; in the West, mainly by culex tarsalis.

The virus can sicken a host of animals, including horses, llamas, cattle, sheep, skunks, harbor seals and bird species from whooping cranes to hummingbirds. It reportedly killed 300 alligators at a Florida farm. It also strikes humans – though it should be noted that most of the people bitten by infected mosquitoes will not experience any noticeable symptoms. In 2004, the United States had a reported 2,432 human cases, 87 of them fatal. Throughout the early part of the 20th Century, people used a variety of clumsy methods to battle mosquitoes, such as draining wetlands wholesale and pouring oil on ponds. But pesticides used after the DDT ban proved effective in keeping mosquito populations in check. One of the most common is malathion, an organophosphate distantly related to nerve gas.

Most residents of rural areas in the West are familiar with the mosquito-control trucks that emit clouds of the foul-smelling chemical. Malathion is an “adulticide,” meaning it kills adult mosquitoes. Although many people find its smell obnoxious (it vaguely resembles cat urine), the pesticide is relatively safe, experts contend.

Malathion is a general-use pesticide, effective on insects from flies to lice to crop pests. It’s highly toxic to honey-bees, though pesticide-applicators try to spray it after dark when bees aren’t about. It’s also toxic to many fish and amphibians. Whether it’s a human carcinogen is uncertain, but the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, says organophosphate are the pesticides most likely to cause cases of acute poisoning in humans.

Many mosquito districts have switched to permethrin, a synthetic version of a pesticide present in chrysanthemums. Permethrin’s better odor is probably the major reason, but permethrin is also considered less toxic, although it is still harmful to fish and bees and at high levels can cause impaired breathing, headache, nausea, and convulsions in humans.

“Permethrin is less toxic, but frankly malathion is not any more toxic than table salt,” said Joe Conlon, technical adviser to the American Mosquito Control Association, a non-profit trade association with about 1,700 members. “There’s a hundredfold safety factor built in – you would have to use 10 times what’s recommended” to suffer ill effects.

However, he noted, “malathion has baggage because it’s an organophosphate. It’s related to German nerve gases. But that’s kind of silly, because it’s several generations of chemistry removed. In point of fact, it’s been used for 40 years and we’ve never had any problems with it.”

Not everyone agrees. Rebecca Thomas, owner of a three-acre tract in La Plata County with a small organic garden, said she is greatly concerned about the spray-in of chemical pesticides. Thomas said she is very sensitive to chemical exposure. Her grandfather owned a chemical company that manufactured fungicides, herbicides and pesticides; her father worked there. He came home reeking of chemicals, including malathion. Thomas said her brother eventually died of an environmental illness related to chemical exposure. Since she was 17, she likewise has been sensitive to chemicals, she said. One day she woke up aching; “the next morning, I couldn’t walk,” she said. “I went to the hospital and had different tests.” The only thing for which she tested positive was chemical poisoning, particularly for organophosphate.

‘Life on Planet Earth’

Thomas tries to avoid all chemical exposure, but can’t entirely. She suffers periodic bouts of tingling, numbness, paralysis, and aching. For years she has fought with the Florida (Colo.) Mosquito Control District about spraying done in her area that drifts onto her property. Although the district now uses permethrin, she said, tests have found traces of malathion in her soil – “it’s still in the soil after years, which is scary,” she said.

Thomas said she understands the fear of West Nile, but that people need to realize that pesticides have deleterious effects, too. “I don’t want anyone to suffer from anything,” she said, “but this is life on Planet Earth.” She believes people ignore the potential health effects of chemicals if they can’t be felt immediately. She also believes West Nile prevention should focus on educating people about avoiding exposure to mosquitoes. “I’m not saying people shouldn’t have their homes sprayed, but I don’t think I should have to be sprayed with chemicals.”

Susan Cowan of Dolores has a diametrically opposed view. “I’ll take every-body else’s spray,” she said. “Give me the extra. I’m not really an environmentalist, I’m sorry.” Cowan was bitten by a mosquito in September 2003 while she was dining out in Cortez. Two weeks later, she came down with what she thought was a bad case of the flu. When it lingered, she went to her doctor and tested positive for West Nile.

Although this was well over a year ago, Cowan said, “I never really got over it.” Cowan, who is in her 40s, still has days when she is forced to stay in bed, suffering from sweats, occasional fever, and deep muscle pain. “I call it my layers of pain,” she said. “When you were healthy your whole life and now you get tired from grocery-shopping, it affects you mentally. I get very frustrated.”

‘If it flies, it dies’

Mosquito-management is handled by thousands of different entities nationwide – municipalities, counties, or special taxing districts. Each mosquito-control district has to judge how to balance concerns about pesticide spraying with how many mosquitoes people will tolerate.

“It’s not a matter of, if it flies, it dies,” Conlon said. “There is a certain algorithm to follow in mosquito control. It’s all based on surveys to find out what species you have, how many. When you find larvae, you can eliminate their habitat, which is most effective, but often you can’t do that if it’s a wetland. Maybe you can remove vegetation around the borders of the water to eliminate hiding places for larvae from dragonflies and indigenous fish.

“But if you can’t modify the habitat, you go to larvicides.”

The Montezuma Mosquito Control District, a special district completely separate from the county, switched its approach in 1998 from lots of spraying of malathion to what’s known as “integrated pest management,” which means a more biologically balanced approach.

The district contracted with Colorado Mosquito Control, a Brighton-based company, to manage its efforts. Like many other districts nationwide, Montezuma now concentrates on controlling mosquitoes in their larval stage, before they develop wings and start biting. (It’s only the females that bite, of course; they need blood to develop their eggs. The males feed on nectar and actually pollinate plants.) The primary product used is Bti, a naturally occurring soil bacterium that is virtually non-toxic to animals, birds and fish and readily breaks down in the environment. It works by blocking a receptor in the gut of mosquito larvae, preventing them from feeding.

Bti can be distributed in pellets or larger “dunks,” or mixed into a liquid formulation and sprayed. Workers travel the 300-square-mile district (which covers most of the county) looking for mosquito larvae in bodies of standing water. If they find them, they apply Bti.

Larvicides offer up to a month of mosquito control vs. a few hours for fogging with adulticides, according to experts. “You can spray and then more mosquitoes would emerge the next day,” from their pre-winged stage, Carruth said. “Then you’d have to spray again.”

Fogging is done when the adult mosquito population is found to be high. If Carruth gets a call from someone complaining about mosquitoes, he sends someone to set out a mosquito trap, a cylinder with netting that draws mosquitoes by emitting carbon dioxide. If 60 mosquitoes are caught in one night, he’ll order the area sprayed. “That’s actually on the low end,” he said. “In other areas they’ll wait for it to be 100.”

Since adopting the integrated approach, the Montezuma district has cut the amount of adult pesticide it uses from 50 drums a season to about three drums.

“You’re never going to make every-body happy,” Carruth said. “You’ve got people that want napalm if it gets rid of their bugs, and then you have people that don’t want you to step on an ant. But this is the best way to put as few toxins as possible into the environment and still kill mosquitoes.

You’re never going to kill them all. This is mosquito control, not mosquito eradication.

But some longtime residents of the county still put their faith in fogging. Benny Gordanier, a member of the Montezuma district board since 1976, would like to see more spraying himself. “We all argue about it,” he said. “I think they’re doing a good job. But I would like to see a little more spraying. I wish they were not so picky about where they spray.”

He said it’s difficult to juggle the demands of people who want more spray with those who ask not to be sprayed. “In town is the worst place.” But he believes in the integrated approach. “I really feel like we’re doing a better job than we used to,” Gordanier said.

Mosquito control remains hugely controversial in many places. In 2003 in Paonia, Colo., where spraying is highly unpopular, someone bombed the mosquito district’s warehouse, where malathion was stored. No one was injured. In La Plata County’s Animas Mosquito Control District, the May 2004 board election drew 725 voters and five candidates; the two victors were both write-ins.

The big picture

Environmentalists say it’s important to see the big picture. They believe the spread of West Nile may be exacerbated by global warming, which allows the mosquitoes to survive in more places; and by the decrease in bird diversity. Common birds such as crows, starlings and Canada geese seem to be more susceptible to infection, and their numbers are increasing, while many other birds are declining.

Carruth said he’ll start his spring program in April, spreading larvicide along the Dolores River. He said the district board wants to remain flexible in its approach, because it’s impossible to say that sort of year it will be. “We haven’t been able to really predict West Nile,” he said. “We don’t know what the heck it’s going to do.”

Conflicts involving poorly crafted, unclear covenants are fairly common among residents of new subdivisions in the Southwest, where idyllic rural developments continue to sprout like encroaching cheatgrass and spread like drought-fueled wildfires.

But since last spring, some heated disagreements between neighbors at Cedar Mesa Ranches, the county’s largest subdivision, near Mesa Verde National Park have approached what one disgruntled homeowner likened to a state of “war.”

The issues driving the conflicts are (1) exactly who, under the covenants, has the authority and responsibility to maintain the subdivision’s troublesome roads, (2) how to maintain them, and (3) whether some residents are in violation of one covenant that bans mobile homes, RVs, campers, tents, garages and “shacks” from being used as dwellings.

“I suggest you think long and hard about how you want the next few years to be,” homeowner Torin Andrews wrote in an e-mail sent to the Cedar Mesa Ranches Homeowners Association shortly after the conflict erupted last spring. “War or peace – it’s that simple.”

Things definitely haven’t been peaceful since, with the superficial calm of the bucolic community being overshadowed by a flurry of lawsuits, resignations from the HOA board, and harsh statements and hard feelings on both sides.

And it’s still far from over.

‘Boards like you’

Andrews, a Maryland attorney who lives part-time at Cedar Mesa, had asked the HOA for permission to pave the northern end of County Road 35, a steep dirt-and-gravel cul-de-sac that provides access to his house and those of two adjacent neighbors. (Although CR 35 is considered a public road by the county, it is not maintained by the county’s road department.)

Andrews said he would bear the cost of the paving project, which he estimated to be about $20,000, and its upkeep. He recounted that his 10-ton motor home had nearly become mired in the road’s mud last winter even with chains on it, and that he also had trouble negotiating the road in his car.

However, the board rejected the proposal because his neighbors — Cindy Swann and Jackie McNeill on one side and Gail Mingesz on the other — believed concrete paving would make the steep incline more slippery during snowy conditions. The board had also been told that paved roads would be difficult and expensive to maintain. In his acerbic e-mail, which threatened a multimillion-dollar defamation suit, Andrews said that decision not to allow the paving, and derogatory statements allegedly made by board members about him, were mistakes made “by people who are too stupid and too arrogant to know they are stupid.” “But I shouldn’t complain,” he added. “It’s boards like you that help lawyers like me buy vacation homes.”

Nor was Andrews deterred from his paving project, stating in another e-mail, “I intend to pave the cul-de-sac whether the board approves or not unless I get credible facts that indicate this would not be good for the association.

“If you want to stop me, you will need a court order,” he said, “and to get that you’ll have to file a lawsuit.”

Which is exactly what the HOA did, obtaining a temporary restraining order Aug. 23 in district court that stopped Andrews from proceeding until the issue could be further explored. The following day Judge Sharon Hansen ordered the parties to mediate the dispute. Ultimately, a settlement was reached under which the HOA’s insurance company paid Andrews $4,000 for half of his estimated legal costs and the HOA agreed to Andrews paving only the center of the cul-de-sac so that the neighbors’ frontage will remain surfaced with road base.

But that was not the end of the legal wrangling.

‘Archenemies’

In legal actions that Andrews himself admitted were in direct response to the one taken against him, he filed complaints last October against both adjacent property owners for alleged covenant violations.

“We had a very good relationship prior to this whole mess coming on,” he told the Free Press in a recent interview. “Did they anger me at great length? Yes.

“If they were in violation of the covenants (before the legal battle began),” he said, “would I have declined to enforce the covenants against them? Yeah, maybe, because you want to live in harmony with your neighbors, but when that bon homie ends, suddenly you’re no longer neighbors — in fact, you’re archenemies — then you’ve got no reason to . . . not enforce the covenants.

“It’s not exactly like it’s retaliatory, it’s simply there’s no reason for me not to enforce my rights now, whereas before, I wouldn’t have done it mainly because I wanted to be neighborly. . .”

Claims and Counterclaims

One of those lawsuits alleged that Gail Mingesz was living in her garage while building her permanent home, and asked for monetary damages because of lowered property values. Mingesz has since moved into her house and that complaint is under mediation. Andrews told the Free Presshe is willing to drop the matter if he does not have to pay Mingesz’s legal costs, as she is requesting.

However, Andrews recently filed for a summary judgment in his lawsuit against defendants Swann and McNeill, which alleges that they are living in an RV on their property in violation of the covenants. (The RV has since been enclosed in a large structure, but Andrews wants it removed from the property.)

They in turn have filed a counter-claim accusing Andrews of violating the covenants by letting his dog roam free, erecting a non-complying fence, installing the wrong kind of outdoor lighting and committing other alleged infractions, all of which he denies. Swann and McNeill are also seeking to recoup the cost of their legal defense, claiming his lawsuit is “frivolous, groundless and vexatious.”

Andrews and Mingesz are entering into a mediation discussion later this month, but some other legal issues continue to ferment, including who actually owns and controls the roads in the subdivision — the property owners or the county.

Several of the Cedar Mesa landowners appeared before the Montezuma County commission on Dec. 6 asking for clarification and help in resolving that issue, but the board said it was essentially a private matter.

Terry Michael, former HOA board president, and Lisa Liljedahl, the current president, told the commissioners that the entire dispute had been complicated by a quit-claim deed that Andrews obtained from Dan Christmas of Redstone, the company that originally developed the subdivision.

Michael said that after the district judge ordered mediation take place between the warring parties, “we compromised and allowed him to get with some engineers to make a plan to pave the center of the street.

“Behind our backs while our settlement issues were going on, he made his own incorporation — he’s calling it the Cedar Mesa Ranches Lot Owners Association — then got a quit-claim deed from Redstone Development Company saying he owned the roads in the subdivision — this was all during the settlement period while we were negotiating with him.

“According to the assessor’s office, and they have a copy of this quit-claim deed, they said it’s bogus and they don’t know what to do with it.”

The map at the assessor’s office shows the roads have been deeded over to the county, he said, as redesigned unmaintained roads. Years ago the county adopted a policy of identifying public roadways it does not maintain with red signs, so that unsuspecting homebuyers would have some warning if the real estate agent neglected to mention the roads were unmaintained.

“So he says he owns them,” Michael said, “(and) we need a ruling from the county to say what these roads are.” Liljedahl concurred.

“Our members are extremely worried and they’d like a meaningful determination,” she told the commission.

“We’ve had our attorney check and he said they’re unmaintained county roads and that you hold the deed by virtue of this recording on the plat.

“Torin Andrews is disputing that and we need you to . . . tell us who these roads belong to.”

Michael said he was told by the county road department that the HOA is responsible for the roads in the subdivision. But, he added, Andrews said in an e-mail that “if we were to maintain the road, he would either sue us or have us arrested for trespassing.”

“So we need a legal determination of what this is all about (because) we’re going to have to continue to fight him in court, and we need evidence one way or the other,” Andrews told the commission.

Bob Slough, attorney for the commissioners, explained that a quit-claim deed only conveys something if the grantor owns it.

“In October of this year whether (Redstone) had any interest in the road I don’t know — they didn’t say they did (in the deed transfer),” Slough said. “They just said they were quit-claiming to this Cedar Mesa Lot Owners Association whatever interest they might have.

“That’s what a quit claim means, so if they didn’t own something when they signed this deed, then they didn’t convey anything.”

Andrews acknowledged to the Free Press that he had obtained the quit-claim deed and that he had just filed a lawsuit against the county to have the court decide who owns the roads. He said it was a very complicated matter, and that it has been difficult to find any case law pertaining to it. Not the county’s problem Montezuma County Commissioner Dewayne Findley told the Free Press the Cedar Mesa dispute is unusual in its intensity, but that people come before the county on a fairly frequent basis asking for help solving disagree-ments within subdivisions.

“What we do run into is people thinking that the county and the county planning department and the county attorney need to enforce covenants within a subdivision,” Findley said. “You get two neighbors in a dispute, and one says, ‘You need to make so-and-so do whatever, because this is what it says in the covenants.’ “But the position we’ve taken, on our attorney’s advice, is we don’t enter into battles over covenants. We don’t really enforce covenants.”

He said, unfortunately, many such disputes have to be resolved in court. “If you don’t have a strong homeowners’ association within a subdivision, it’s one neighbor against another. People don’t want to pay the money to go to court but sometimes that’s the only resolution.”

He advised anyone considering mov-ing into a rural area to make sure they understand who will maintain the roads. Roads with the red tags are not maintained by the county, he reiterated.

“We just allow them to be addressed with a county designation, but we didn’t build them and we don’t maintain them,” he said.

In the case of Cedar Mesa, Findley said, the commission’s understanding is that the roads are public roads, but not county-maintained roads.

He urged people to be careful and informed before buying any rural property. “If you go to Wal-Mart and purchase something, you want to know what you’re buying,” he said. “A home is a family’s biggest investment and they need to make sure they know what they’re getting into.”

(Other Cedar Mesa residents involved in these disputes were contacted by the Free Press, but refused to comment for this story because they were afraid of further lawsuits being filed against them.)

Most people have an idea of what polygamy (or plural marriage) is. Some even know the history of the Mormon Church and this lifestyle. What many do not understand are the implications for a small-town community into which a group of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who practice polygamy have moved.

The people of Montezuma County — Mancos in particular — soon may find out.

David Allred, an agent for the FLDS church out of Hildale, Utah, and its neighboring town Colorado City, Ariz., has purchased two parcels of land in the Summit Lake area, outside of Mancos.

The property, according to Allred, is to be used as a “hunting retreat.” According to the Cortez Journal, Allred purchased a 60-acre parcel of land at 15252 County Road 39 near Mancos last year. In October 2004, he purchased a nearby tract at 15976 CR 39 as president of the Sherwood Management Group, Inc.

Both properties sold for considerably high than market value, according to the Journal. Allred paid a reported $669,000 for the first Mancos parcel on County Road 39, which adjoins public land, is zoned for agricultural use, and is valued at an estimated $400,000. He paid $725,000 for the second tract, which has an estimated market value of $200,000.

The two parcels both have some existing buildings, one of which has been remodeled into a four-bedroom home.

About a year ago, Allred similarly purchased another parcel of land (much larger, at 1700 acres) in Eldorado, Texas, ostensibly also for a hunting retreat. Shortly thereafter, as the compound grew to include more than 10 buildings, church leaders admitted that it was actually going to be a retreat for church leaders who want to escape the watchful eye of the law.

Will the same thing happen in Mancos? So far, church officials, including Allred, have been unreachable. But should persons practicing plural marriage actually move onto the land near Mancos, it’s unclear what can and will be done about it.

Although bigamy and polygamy are illegal in the United States, law officers have often found it difficult to enforce the law in cases where violations are widespread.

According to Montezuma County Sheriff Joey Chavez, “Polygamy falls under bigamy. It is a Class 6 felony for any married person, male or female, to marry another or cohabitate with another.”

The Mormon Church outlawed polygamy more than 100 years ago as a compromise with the United States government when Utah sought statehood. But some members of the church defected and became “fundamentalists,” claiming that they are being true to the teachings of their prophet, Joseph Smith.

Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was a receiver of revelations from God. It was with his first such revelation that he was instructed to found the church.

On Nov. 27, 1832, Smith allegedly was told, “And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God.” Smith claimed that he was the one “mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand.”

Throughout of his time as leader of the church, Smith received more revelations, which his followers believed to be straight from the mouth of God. One revelation was Section 132 of the Doctrines and Covenants, pro-claiming the idea of multiple “wives and concubines.” Skeptics believe this was Smith’s way of justifying his sexual promiscuity, although true believers disagree.

According to Section 132, “Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins – from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph – which were to continue as long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.”

In other words, procreate, procreate, and procreate. In addition to taking many wives in order to have many children here on earth, members of the FLDS faith believe that being sealed in marriage on earth is to be sealed in marriage for eternity, thereby granting the ability and the opportunity to procreate forever.

The mainstream Mormon Church excommunicates any members who engage in polygamy. Yet there are literally tens of thousands who still believe in “The Principle” (as it is called) and practice it. It is estimated that 10,000 of these fundamentalists live in Hildale and Colorado City.

Soon, some may be in Mancos. One reason many find polygamy offensive is that the marriages among the FLDS church are alleged to often involve forcing young girls to marry much older men, sometimes their blood relatives. Critics of the church say women are not given a choice in their future.

Warren Jeffs, leader of the FLDS Church, has been named in three different lawsuits, one alleging that he sexually molested a boy, another involving his firing of a church member, the third claiming that he arbitrarily excommunicated young men because they would compete for wives with the older men of the church. Jeffs is also alleged to have exiled men who disputed his leadership and divided their wives and children up among his supporters.

During a recent appearance on MSNBC with Deborah Norville, two women who escaped polygamy in Colorado City-Hildale charged that children there are brainwashed, all dissension is squelched, and church teachings are blatantly racist. They further said that practitioners of plural marriage defraud the government by having men’s multiple wives file for welfare and food stamps, claiming to be single mothers.

The FLDS has a history of sporadic violence. In January 1988, the 14-mem-ber polygamist Singer-Swapp family, including eight children, holed up in a small ranch house in Marion, Utah. The standoff with federal agents ended in deadly gunfire that killed an officer. Thirteen days earlier, members of the family had bombed a nearby empty Mormon stake center. They left a note at the site declaring their sovereignty and independence from the United States and calling for a holy war against the state and federal government for its persecution of their family.

In another violent event, a woman named Brenda Lafferty and her daughter Erica, were killed by Brenda’s two brothers-in-law, Dan and Ron. Brenda was opposed to her husband Allen and his brothers’ adoption of fundamentalist beliefs. As Ron Lafferty became more deeply involved in the FLDS, he began having revelations, one of which allegedly said, in part, “…It is my will and commandment that ye remove the following individuals in order that My work might go for-ward. For they have become obstacles in my path…First, thy brother’s wife Brenda and her baby…” Shortly there-after, the Lafferty brothers carried out these directions.

But cracking down on polygamist groups has proven difficult. Fifty years ago, Arizona made a dramatic move to break up a sect on July 26, 1953, when Gov. Howard Pyle ordered a raid on Colorado City by several hundred peace officers.

After newspapers published photos of crying children being torn from their mother’s arms, however, there was a backlash against the raid. Eventually, most of the men who were arrested were returned to their homes and life went on as before.

In the past few years, publicity about abuses within the FLDS has prompted more law-enforcement attention, and some men have been arrested for welfare fraud or sexual abuse of child brides. But enforcing laws against bigamy remains a challenge.

Chavez said, “I have done everything that I can, including speaking to the sheriff in Texas, and we are staying on top of this group. Although we don’t want to cross the line to harassment if there is nothing illegal going on.”

So what will become of the “retreat” in Mancos? Will it, like the parcel in Texas, change purpose?

“There have been rumors about what may or may not be happening up there,” Chavez said, “but so far, we have no hard facts supporting any of these rumors. We have looked into and visited the complex near Mancos and so far there has been nothing to indicate illegal activity.”

Chavez said if anything suspicious occurs, his office is prepared to deal with it. “I can guarantee,” he stated, “if we suspect any criminal activity, we will pursue it.”

Much of this information came from Jon Krakauer’s book “Under the Banner of Heaven,” and from articles in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Congress has given final approval to a major expansion of a controversial system that charges citizens fees for entering public lands.

In a move that avoided public scrutiny and Congressional debate, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act was inserted at the 11th hour into the 3,000-page omnibus spending bill by Ohio Republican Ralph Regula. The act provides for access and other taxes at outdoor recreational areas on federal public lands. An annual-al “America the Beautiful” pass costing $85 to $100 would grant access to all such areas, or citizens could pay individual fees at each site.

The House and Senate, faced with a government shutdown if the bill were denied, approved the $388 billion FY 2005 spending package on Dec. 9. The bill’s final passage had been briefly delayed because of concern about another provision that was inserted without discussion. This one would have allowed certain members of Congress and their staff to view the personal IRS tax returns of citizens. Congress reconvened on Dec. 6 to fix that part of the spending package. Opponents of the fee measure had hoped to have it pulled as well from the omnibus bill, but failed in that effort.

However, they have not given up. Kitty Benzar, co-founder of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, said the group is planning to introduce legislation to repeal the act. Before it was attached as a rider, the measure had been making its way through Congress as a separate bill, HR 3283, for negotiations and compromise. Another bill in the Senate would have kept the Fee Demo program only in national parks. “We have good support and there have been good early signs that we can do this during the next session in January,” Benzar said. “We’re by no means beaten on this issue.”

Riders to legislation are common practice, but are widely criticized as violating the spirit of democracy because they allow proposed measure that are controversial to become law without discussion in open Congress and without a separate vote on the particular bill’s merits.

In this case, the fee measure leaves the public facing the possibility of more fees for entering lands that had previously been free of charge. It gives local land managers with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management the green light to justify fees for popular recreation areas in order to augment revenue lost from persistent yearly funding cuts. The recreation access tax replaces the Fee Demonstration Program which passed in 1996, also as a rider to a larger bill and also through the efforts of Regula, who has no federal public lands in his district but has said he wants to provide monies needed for maintenance and enhancement of habitat and facilities on federal lands. Fee Demo was a program to test how the public would accept entrance fees at certain chosen sites that had previously been free. It also provided that the sites, and some others already charging fees, could keep the revenues they collected instead of turning them over to the general fund.

Fee Demo became highly unpopular in many parts of the West. It was vehemently opposed by many local communities and governments. Considered too unpopular and ineffective, the fee at Yankee Boy Basin near Telluride, for example, was suspended and replaced by volunteer efforts to monitor and clean the area. La Plata, San Miguel and Montezuma county commissioners and the Colorado state legislature all passed resolutions opposing Fee Demo. The San Juan County, Utah, commissioners also passed a resolution opposing Fee Demo.

The new act repeals Fee Demo and replaces it with a program that applies nationwide rather than just to certain sites. It comes up for possible “sunset” in 10 years.

Under the new measure, failure to “pay to play” can result in criminal penalties for violators, even though Regula has downplayed this.

On his own web site (wwwc.house.gov/regula), Regula states, “This bill will not put people in jail for failure to pay the fee. It brings fee non-payment in line with other recreation offenses, such as littering and driving off road, which are classified as Class B Misdemeanors. Of course, no one is put in jail for these offenses. The bill only seeks to create uniformity within the law. As a practical matter, the fine (usually around $50) for fee nonpayment will stay the same.”

But jail time is possible, according to the bill’s final language.

According to the act: “The failure to pay a recreation fee established under this Act shall be punishable as a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.” That is a significant change, because under the previous Fee Demo program, not paying was considered an “infraction” with a $50 fine. Infractions, such as a parking ticket, do not go on a person’s criminal record, whereas misdemeanors do.

Criminal penalties do apply for failure to pay under the new law. While the first offense, according to the bill, cannot exceed $100, subsequent violations are considered misdemeanor offenses. For a Class A misdemeanor, penalties can be a fine of up to $100,000 and up to one year in jail; for Class B, the fine is up to $5,000 and up to six months in jail. There is no guidance for rangers on which misdemeanor class applies, so it is apparently up to their discretion after the second offense.

Both the registered owner of a vehicle and its occupants are jointly liable for penalties for non-payment, unless the registered owner can prove that the vehicle was used without his or her permission.

Regula has said the criminal penalties had been removed from the measure. Calls to Regula’s aides regarding the contradiction went unreturned. On his web site, Regula criticizes the press for making “inaccurate statements about the bill.”

The bill’s language is confusing and contradictory in places, according to Benzar. For example, the bill states that the government “shall not charge any standard amenity recreation fee or expanded amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service or Bureau of Reclamation lands or waterways under this Act for any of the following,” including:

• Parking or picnicking along roads or trail sides.
• General access except when it is authorized otherwise.
• Persons who are driving, walking, boating or horseback-riding through Federal recreational lands without using the facilities or services.
• Camping at undeveloped sites.
• Using overlooks and scenic pullouts.

Later the bill states that the federal government “may charge a standard amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters under the jurisdiction” of the BLM, Bureau of Reclamation or Forest Service if the sites are a National Conservation Area, National Monument, National Volcanic Monument, destination interpretative center or a category simply stated as ‘an area’.”

An area, according to the bill, must include “significant opportunities for outdoor recreation” and must contain designated, developed parking; a permanent toilet facility; a permanent trash receptacle; an interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk; picnic tables, and security services.

“That term ‘area’ is too vague and could be interpreted to be an entire forest, which would easily comply with all of those things needed for a fee,” Benzar said. “We anticipate some test cases.”

She said that under the new law, areas that currently charge fees under the previous, now-defunct Fee Demo program do not qualify, “so we encourage people to point out to rangers the areas that charge fees but do not have all of the necessary infrastructure under this new law.”

For example, Cedar Mesa in southeast Utah charges fees just to go for a hike at Grand Gulch but does not have a trash receptacle, according to employees there, which therefore would disqualify it from fees.