All in the Name of
Environmental Protection
How the Feds and Eco-Elitists Take Private Land
for Fun and Profit
By Tom DeWeese
Those who have read George Orwell's classic book, "Animal
Farm" will be familiar with the phrase "everyone is equal,
but some are more equal than others." The line was used by the
ruling pigs in the story to justify why they were giving themselves
special privileges over the other animals. It was necessary, you
see, that the leaders have the best - the better to deal with the
pressing issues of State.
Citizens of communist countries (the political and economic force
Orwell sought to parody) fully understand the reality of the phrase.
They well know how communist leaders grow rich, take the best homes
and ride in chauffeured limousines. Meanwhile, their
"equal" fellow citizens shiver on cold winter nights,
lacking fuel for the stove, their cupboards bare as a result of the
failed policies of corrupt government control over the private
sector.
But it is tragic to know that in some parts of the United States,
Americans, too, are learning of the injustice that can result from
government agents having far too much power over those subjected to
their whims. In rural areas, many homeowners have been fighting a
losing battle to hang onto their personal piece of the American
dream. There, government agents wage a war of attrition to wear them
down and force them off property that many times has been in the
family for generations. The agents close off access roads to the
property; they determine that simple home repairs are actually new,
illegal, development; and they join with powerful, rich private
interest groups to insure that elected government representatives
create the needed regulations to increase the intimidation.
It's all necessary, you see, because such lands must be saved
from the ravages of the predators called homeowners - for the sake
of protecting the environment.
But if one looks a little closer, one might just find that a new
human predator has moved into occupy the now-liberated land. They
are environmentalists, happily homesteading on once-private
property. After being liberated by government agents, the property
is supposed to be off-limits to development or private use. But
those with power are free to break the rules. Who would enforce
them?
So elitist environmental warriors can be found arm in arm with
the federal storm troopers, deep in the woods, out of sight of the
prying eyes of the public. Deeds to the land can now be placed in
green hands. Illegal development can now be constructed. Roads can
be accessed. And a good time can be had by all. When powerful
interest groups team up with federal enforcers to protect the
"common good," mutual profit and personal gain know no
bounds.
Apparently, when an elite declares itself the protector of the
environment, they really must be more equal than others. Don't
bother rubbing your eyes if it appears that the environmentalists
are beginning to morph into little green pigs.
Land Management for the Good of the Environment
"We will be good neighbors. We will practice good science.
We will promote multiple use."
Former BLM Director Pat Shea
Linda (Smith) Franklin is a fifth generation native of Mattole
Valley, in Humbolt County, California. The area is one of the most
remote in California, where residents live daily with the wrath of
nature constantly at their door step. Typical of the pioneer stock
that settled the west, the residents are rugged, honest and believe
a man's word is his bond.
Franklin's father, the late Paul Smith, prospered in the area. In
1959, he held the grazing leases at Big Flat in the King Range. In
1960, with permission from the local office of the federal Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Smith built a road from his ranch to his
holdings on the beach at Spanish Flat. For 22 years, Smith
personally maintained the road, receiving no financial assistance
from the government. Acquired with the forty acres of land at
Spanish Flat was an old one room log cabin. In 1961 Smith built an
additional two room cabin onto the front of the existing one, and
the family maintained the cabin for over 35 years. There, Franklin
and her husband spent their honeymoon. There, many a weary hiker
spent a safe night. The doors were never locked.
In 1970, by an act of the U.S. Congress, the area was designated
as part of the "King Range National Conservation Area."
Under the plan, the Congress charged the BLM with the task of
writing and implementing a land management plan. The plan was
completed in 1974 and while it prohibited new, private development
on the lands of the designated conservation area, it also clearly
protected the private property rights of those already living there.
In addition, property owners would be allowed to continue to use and
maintain "habitable" cabins that existed prior to 1970.
The trouble began when a new management plan was developed in
1990. Local residents, including Linda Franklin, served on the BLM
Core Planning Team for the Management Plan. She traveled thousands
of miles while attending regular monthly, then bi-monthly meetings
to develop a plan that would serve the needs of the majority of the
public, as well as protect private property rights. Compromises were
made on both sides and an agreement was reached and submitted to the
BLM for inclusion in its Management Plan. But when the BLM released
its final plan there was literally no resemblance to the planning
team's document. Apparently, the BLM had simply cast aside the Core
Planning Team's recommendations and, instead, implemented one of its
own.
The BLM's new Management Plan severely diverted from the original
Act of Congress that had established the King Range National
Conservation Area. The Act had prohibited the use of condemnation
proceedings or eminent domain except for rights of way. And the BLM
was to purchase lands from "willing" sellers only. But
there was a major flaw in the original Act because it failed to
anticipate the BLM using coercive practices to encourage
"unwilling" sellers to change their minds. Another flaw
allowed the BLM to manage private as well as public lands. The
original purpose of that clause was to prevent the private
development of beach front condos, casinos or private resorts. It
was not intended to prevent landowners from building their own homes
or repairing their private roads. These two flaws now turned up in
the new BLM Management Plan of 1990. The war against land owners was
on.
Closing the Door on the King Range
"The government does recognize deeded right-of-way, but they
deem what right-of-way is, and if they deem you shall crawl on your
knees then you shall crawl on your knees."
Charlotte Hawks, land acquisition specialist, BLM
Beginning in the late 1980's and early 1990's, federal agencies
involved in land management began to take on a new mission - land
acquisition. Where once their job was to manage public property, now
the focus turned to expanding public domain over as much private
land as possible. It began in the most rural areas, and has only
recently begun to spread to more populated areas. The King Range
National Conservation Reserve was one of the first to fall victim to
the federal land grab.
A telling example of the change in the BLM's policy direction can
be seen in a series of letters to Paul Smith and later to Linda
Smith Franklin, dealing with the issue of the right-of-way for the
access road to their property. A letter from the BLM to Smith dated
November 10, 1960 states, "You do not need a permit to use and
repair the existing ranch access roads over BLM lands in the Kings
Peak area. There is no specific law providing for such a permit or
easment and no law or regulation prohibiting the use and repair of
BLM roads in the area for ranch access, prospecting and mining
purposes."
Again in 1980, in response to another Smith inquiry pertaining to
access to the road, the BLM wrote, "In checking into this
matter with the Ukiah District, we find that your concerns over the
use of the road have been resolved, and a right-of-way issued."
Again the BLM was working with the property owners and acknowledging
that there was no hindrance in the use of the road.
But somewhere along the way, things changed. In a letter to Linda
Smith Franklin, dated November 19, 1997, the BLM answered a similar
inquiry, saying, "The Bureau of Land Management has no record,
documentation or corporate knowledge of having issued a right-of-way
to Paul Smith."
Limiting or closing access roads into the conservation area has
apparently become a common practice by the BLM in an attempt to
pressure property owners to give up their land and become
"willing" sellers to the BLM. There are many more
incidences of such coercive BLM practices.
ITEM: In 1989, a property owner, a Leonard Pietila, planned to
build a private home on his property located in the King Range
Preserve. In accordance with the law and with proper procedure,
Mr. Pietila applied for and obtained a building permit from the
Humbolt County Building Department. Once obtained, lumber was
delivered to the property in preparation for the building. Without
warning, Mr. Pietila received a registered letter from the BLM
indicating that his property was being condemned for use not
compatible with the BLM area plan. By the time Mr. Pietila
received the notice, the BLM legal machine had moved into full
operational mode. There was literally nothing Mr. Pietila could do
but wrangle with the BLM for a better price from the government
for the taking of his land. Mr. Pietila had become a
"willing" seller.
Neighboring property owners looked upon the condemnation of
Pietila's land with shock and a realization that the harsh BLM
action had been taken as a warning to the rest of them. They were
now afraid to do anything to their property that might prompt
similar action. They were afraid to repair an access road, or bring
in a small tractor to bury water lines, or make repairs on homes.
All normal, daily actions could now be construed to be "a
violation of the management plan."
ITEM: Prior to the passage of the King Range National
Conservation Act, Paul Smith purposely sold two ten acre parcels
of land for the primary purpose of establishing a market value
before the BLM took over control of the land. It was a defensive
measure to protect his investment if land values were affected
adversely by BLM land management.
Before the Conservation Act was passed, the first parcel was sold
to a Mr. Moon who intended to build a cabin on the land. The Smiths
even built a pad for the house that Moon intended to build. But Moon
was blocked from building the cabin because he didn't complete it
before the Act went into affect. As a result, the property had
literally no value. He was forced to sell it to the BLM. Was Mr.
Moon a "willing" seller - or was his land held hostage
until he agreed to sell it to the BLM?
ITEM: The second Smith parcel was sold to the Goss family.
Again they intended to build a cabin, and again they were blocked
because nothing could be built after 1970. Goss has resisted
selling the property to the BLM. He has tried to find something,
anything, that can be done with the land in order to recover his
investment. But there is simply nothing Goss can do with the ten
acres that is not in violation of the BLM management plan. He has
been denied normal economic appreciation of the property due to
the management plan - and because of that plan, Goss has no choice
but to sell it to the BLM. Does that make Goss a
"willing" seller?
ITEM: Leland Hadley is 78 years old. At one time he owned all
of a section called Big Flat. The BLM has prevented him from
building a structure on his land. New BLM proposals will cut off
his access road and force him to walk into his property. That
would require him to walk through terrain consisting of a quarter
mile on a steep incline, about three miles of sand and a half mile
over a dry stream bed. How long will it take Leland Hadley, life
long resident of the King Range, to become a "willing"
seller?
There are only about six of the original owners left in the King
Range. One by one the BLM is picking them off. When the last one
goes, access to the entire area will be blocked off, and private
property will cease to exist. It will all be through
"voluntary" means, of course. All nice and legal. The
record will show they were all "willing sellers." All the
same, through government edict, people will cease to exist on the
King Range. Why?
Who Slammed the Door? Take A Look at the
Wildlands Project
"The project calls on the establishment of core wilderness
areas where human activity is prohibited, linked with biological
corridors."
The answer may be traced to an all-encompassing land management
environmental program called "The Wildlands Project." In
1992, the radical environmental journal, Wild Earth, published by
Earth First!, produced a special issue announcing what it called
"The Wildlands Project, Plotting A North American Wilderness
Recovery Strategy."
This radical plan calls for the "rewilding" of at least
50% of all the land in every state in the nation. In the
introduction to the plan, author Dave Forman writes, "(T)he
idea is simple. To stem the disappearance of wildlife and wilderness
we must allow the recovery of whole ecosystems and landscapes in
every region of North America. Allowing these systems to recover
requires a long-term master plan." Forman intended for the
"Wildlands Project" to be that master plan.
The project mapped out eco-regions and biosphere reserves that
intermingled. It didn't matter if private homes and farms, or even
whole towns were caught in the middle. The project called for
redistributing people, homes and towns out of the predetermined
biosphere reserves. The "Wildlands Project" also ignored
community, state and national boundaries. Forman wrote, "we
live to see the day when Grizzlies in (Mexico) have an unbroken
connection to Grizzlies in Alaska; when the Gray Wolf populations
are continuous from New Mexico to Greenland; when vast unbroken
forests and flowing plains again thrive and support pre-Columbian
populations of plants and animals..."
The "Wildlands Project" was co-developed by Foreman and
Dr. Reed Noss. Noss works with the Department of the Interior
developing federal eco-system management policies. With such a force
as Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt on the inside of the federal
policymaking structure, it didn't take long for major aspects of the
"Wildlands Project" to be found in federal land management
policy. In fact, a host of Clinton appointees, now in a position to
create policy, came from the ranks of the environmental movement.
Babbitt himself, was the former head of the League of Conservation
Voters. In addition, there was George Frampton, former head of the
Wilderness Society; Rafe Pomerance, former policy analyst for the
World Resources Institute; Brooks Yeager, former Vice President of
the National Audubon Society; Thomas Lovejoy, former officer of the
World Wide Fund for Nature; Jessica Tuchman Mathews, former Vice
President of the World Resources Institute; David Gardiner, former
legislative director for the Sierra Club; and John Leshy, former
official at the Natural Resources Defense Council. All were now in
positions to direct policy - and all were dedicated to the radical
"Wildlands Project" land management plan.
In addition, an entire network of environmental groups, including
most of those once led by the now-Clinton appointees, jumped into
action to build momentum for the plan, both on the national and
local levels. Add to the mix a host of willing politicians and
massive funding resources, and the "Wildlands Project"
became the driving force in federal land management policy. Many of
the environmental groups became "Wildlands Project"
affiliates, receiving grants to develop local, state and regional
plans to implement the project.
Such a radical policy change in federal land management clearly
explains why the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
took such a hard-nosed attitude in dealing with the property owners
in the King Range National Conservation Area. Obviously the plans
had changed from simply trying to conserve land while protecting the
property rights of those who lived there - to a deliberate plan to
move all people out of the region, as called for in the "Wildlands
Project."
The California Wilderness Coalition (CWC) is listed as a "Wildlands
Project" group, as is Jim Eaton, founder of the Coalition.
Eaton has served as California's representative to the Wilderness
Society. The Wilderness Society has called the King Range area the
"crown jewel of the BLM's proposed wilderness area."
California Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum is a
member of the Governing Council of the Wilderness Society. The
Wilderness Society is a member of the CWC. The CWC also works with
numerous "former" Earth First! organizations and
individuals, including Dave Foreman (co-founder of Earth First!).
Eight Members of Congress have worked with the CWC to shut down
motorized use of Black Sands Beach in the King Range National
Conservation Area. The eight include Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep.
Brad Sherman (D-CA), now-retired Rep.Vic Fazio (D-CA), Rep. Tom
Lantos (D-CA), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Ellen Tausher (D-CA),
Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). An article
in the January, 1999 edition of the Wilderness Record, published by
CWC, refers to the BLM closure of the Black Sands in the King Range.
Credit is given by CWC to the Sierra Club and the Environmental
Protection Information Center for successfully rallying support for
the BLM's closure of the beach to motorized vehicles. A large photo
of the Black Sands beach is shown in the story, with photo credit
given to the BLM.
Clearly there is solid collusion among federal land management
policy makers at the Department of the Interior, federal policy
enforcers at the Bureau of Land Management, and the massive, highly
funded environmental establishment. Just as clearly, the "Wildlands
Project," and its radical goal to turn vast areas of North
American into wilderness, is official federal policy. That policy is
what has made the new federal land management program the largest
land grab in U.S. history. It is the answer to the question
constantly asked by landowners - "what do they want?" The
goals is the land, and no amount of compromise or reasoned argument
will slow them down. One by one, the landowners are forced to give
up and surrender their ground.
Some Are More Equal Than Others
"It may be that human nature is too strong to be countered.
Yet man is still a reasoning animal. Even if he perishes, he would
like to know, in his agony, what it was that doomed him."
Book review of Animal Farm
The rules enforced by the BLM in the King Range say there is to
be no new development after 1970. One resident, Mr. Pietila, had his
property condemned because he planned to build a new cabin after the
1970 deadline. The BLM refused to allow Linda Franklin to make
repairs to her access road. The BLM has made it clear - there will
be no new development, no new dwellings, no roads, no modernization
in the King Range. Period.
But fly over the Big Flat today and notice an uncommon sight. New
buildings -in fact, several buildings. How can that be? Where are
the BLM storm troopers? Where are the fines? Where is the
condemnation for these blatant violators of the environment? Where
is the usual organized outcry from the environmentalist network?
There's not a peep. Because a quick check of deeds will show this
land is owned by William Devall.
William Devall is a major player in the "Deep Ecology"
movement. Devall has direct connections with Earth First! that
expand over a decade. According to a book entitled "In a Dark
Wood" by Alston Chase, Devall was an original member of the
Board of Directors of the Earth First Foundation, which was
organized to raise funds for the movement. Currently Devall is
listed as an Editorial Advisor for Wild Earth, the publishing voice
of the "Wildlands Project." Devall is not only the
co-author of a book called Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature
Mattered, but he is also the editor of the Sierra Club's
publication, Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Forestry.
Devall, a former sociology professor at Humbolt State University,
is heavily involved in environmental issues. As such he presented
the wilderness proposal for an enlarged King Range Wilderness area.
That presentation was made in Humbolt County, at a public hearing on
the issue on May 8, 1985. It was at that same meeting where the
environmental impact statement for the BLM's King Range wilderness
review was under consideration. Clearly, Bill Devall is a major
player in helping to create BLM land management policy - especially
that based on the "Wildlands Project."
Now Devall is found to own property right in the middle of the
King Range area. According to attorney Bryan Gaynor, the original
buildings on the property burned in the 1930's. Says Gaynor,
"replacement of this structure was determined by the BLM to be
permitted under the Act. The destroyed structure was replaced by a
house of the same size and located on the same footprint as the
original building."
But this is not just a house, it is a private retreat with a
complex of buildings. There is a communal cooking building next to
the main lodge. All of the buildings in this private complex are
wood heated. In between the house and cook building is an elaborate,
heated hot tub building. Situated in front of the property, between
the buildings and the ocean, is an airplane landing strip. According
to attorney Gaynor, "...the Big Flat property is available to a
limited number of private groups each year who wish to use it in
conjunction with appropriate wilderness activities conducted on the
surrounding public lands." The buildings, he says are part of
the "Big Flat Conservation Trust."
County records show Devall as owner of private property, parcel
No. 107-184-07, located right in the middle of the King Range
National Conservation Area. All lands adjacent to and in the
immediate area of Devall's property are registered in county
documents as belonging to the United States of America - Bureau of
Land Management. Date of the sale of the land is March 5, 1990. Well
after the 1970 deadline for new or improved buildings.
How did Devall get the land? Why has the BLM allowed him an
exception when property owners who have lived in the region (some as
long as five generations) have been targeted for extinction? Why did
the BLM approve reconstruction of these buildings to benefit a
conservation trust when local homeowners fear BLM repercussions if
they simply want to repair a porch or roof to their existing homes?
As in George Orwell's Animal Farm, new tyranny replaces old in
the wake of revolutions, as power corrupts even the noblest of
causes. Now, with the hated property owners banished from their
lands, the little green pigs of the environmental movement, dance
and laugh and frolic on public lands they've made their own - at
public expense.
Much of the information and documentation for this article was
provided by Barry Clausen, North American Research, P.O. Box 311,
Cutten, CA 95534, funded in part by a grant from the American Policy
Center . Mr. Clausen is a professional investigator who spent over a
year undercover, investigating Earth First!. He is a consultant to
several companies on the subject of domestic environmental terrorism
and has testified on the issue before the United States Congress.
|
