Open Range Ranchers in AZ GOTTA GO!!! By Randy N. Warner

Ranchers Abusing Dogs

The “open range” law is unjust, biased and probably completely unconstitutional. The application of this “law” is responsible for many abuses, but one in particular would bother most fair minded people - abuse of pet dogs!

Some ranchers shoot pet dogs for their own amusement and then claim that the small dog was threatening their 1200 lb cow -- the truth is that, in most cases, the cattle were not even around and the dog was shot simply for the sport of it!

These incidents are not confined to Navajo County (where I live), but extend to places like Ashfork and Alpine - I expect these cases can be found throughout our State (wherever there are abusive ranchers). Several property owners in the Concho area have been victimized by one particular sadistic rancher (from Snowflake), but the “law enforcement” does nothing about it. You can be fined for not having your dog on a leash, but cattle run wild - does this make any sense!?

This is only one of the many injustices perpetrated on innocent citizens by the application
of the “open range” law. Some ranchers probably have pets themselves and would be appalled that some of their fellow ranchers could be so mean. Cattle ranchers (the bad apples) can get away with this practice only as long as this obsolete, antiquated so called “law” remains on the books -- repeal the “open range” law and we will all be better off!

Please direct comments to 911cd@cox.net and see www.cowcrap.org or 928-536-4345.

--Kent Knudson

'LOSER' Bill Blake of the Cedar Hills area in AZ shows dichotomy in reality! With an I.Q. of, maybe 67- 68 ( and I'm being VERY generous) he's smart enough to screw his neighbors AND slither between the government's rulings!! (WHAT AN IDIOT!!) Read about how ranching turns good people into ''ranchers''!!

Supporters against open range laws --

Anyone with an opinion against open range “laws” should put their thoughts into a brief
one or two paragraph statement for possible inclusion in an Associated Press article that
will likely appear early next month. This statement could mention any of several issues
such as the following --

(1) Ranchers take our property rights (which is unconstitutional)

(2) We must pay to fence cattle out (unconstitutional - equal justice)

(3) Ranchers are allowed to shoot dogs with only flimsy reasons at best

(4) Motorists are expected to pay for cattle involved in traffic accidents
(even when the motorist is killed)

(5) Ranchers get outright subsidies for doing something so lame as grazing
fewer cattle -- thereby stressing the state budget

(6) Land used for grazing is taxed at a much lower rate than ungrazed land
(something like $25 vs $1000 per 160 acres)

(7) Cattle ranchers control the justice system in some locations
(Navajo County, AZ for example)

(8) Ranchers are allowed to be irresponsible with their cattle
(they should at least be held to the same standards as parents)

(9) Cattle destroy the environment

(10) Cattle ranching is an inefficient way to provide food for people --
(other cattle products such as leather can be provided by factory operations)

etc., etc. --------

Following is a very articulate example of what I am talking about (provided by one of our supporters). You can send comments to me or pass them straight through to Angie Wagner at the Associated Press.

She can be reached at 702-219-0956 (cell phone) or
by email at aewagner@ap.org

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Publisher Jack Herzberg
P.O. Box 81
Chilcoot CA 96105-0081

Reno: (775) 747-5254

Crocker Mountain: (530) 832-1776

May 8, 2003

The notion that cattlemen have some right to trespass with impunity on the lands of others has been a mistaken notion since the nineteenth century, in this country, with the rulings in the cases of Lazarus v. Phelps 152 US 81 and Smith v. Bevins et al. 56 F 352. Justice Marshal wrote as late as 1982 in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. et al. 458 US 419 that "The power to exclude has traditionally been considered one of the most treasured strands in an owner's bundle of property rights." And Justice Rehnquist wrote in Kaiser Aetna et al. v. United States 444 US 164 in 1979 that "The Government contends that...the owner has somehow lost one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property--the right to exclude others…we hold that the `right to exclude,' so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right, falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation." No state or local government entity has the ability to infringe upon this right to exclude. Dozens more rulings have come down strengthening this right. No fence law can stand against an owner’s right to exclude 158 ALR 375.

Sincerely,
Jack W. Herzberg

THE ABOVE PHOTOS ARE NO LONGER SAFE OR REGULATED AREAS OF OUR NATION THANKS TO RANCHERS AND THEIR TRIGGER HAPPY 'GAMES'

Downside of Open Range

Once upon a time, when there were relatively few settlers, the concept
of open range made some sense. No fences and cattle drives enabled ranchers to get the cattle to market. In the 21st century, open range has outlived it’s usefulness.

(1) While government strains to provide services, cattle ranchers receive subsidies and excessive tax breaks.

(2) Property owners are expected to fence cattle out of their private property so that the poor rancher (who stands to benefit, of course)
will not have to bear this expense.

(3) There are many cases of ranchers killing and even butchering dogs
for no justifiable reason.

(4) Abusive law enforcement sides with ranchers against property owners
and even self defense is not allowed if the offender is a rancher’s cow on your private property.

(5) Ranchers are allowed to be irresponsible with their cattle, allowing them to go anywhere completely unsupervised (they should at least be held to the same standards as parents)

(6) Motorists are expected to pay for cattle involved in traffic accidents
(when the motorist is killed, the estate pays!)

(7) Cattle ruin the environment and are an inefficient use of our resources (it takes 1,000 gallons of water to grow one pound of beef)!

(8) Approx. 97% of beef cattle come from factory operations, leaving only 3% to be raised on the “open range.” Arizona, for example, produces less than 1% of the beef in
this country meaning open range Arizona beef account for less than ..03% -- a reasonable person would have to admit that this is minuscule and hardly worth the trouble.

(9) The law of the land in these united states is the Constitution and Bill of Rights (all just laws derive from this source). Open range laws intended to benefit a special interest group (cattle ranchers) to the detriment of others is unconstitutional (equal justice under the law).

As you can see, there is more to the open range issue than the historical account would indicate. I do support one “wild west” practice -- hanging
for cattle rustlers -- wonder if the movie will be authentic enough to show this aspect of open range!

--Kent Knudson
{Cage cattle, NOT people!!}
photoguy@cybertrails.com
928-536-4345

Cage cattle, NOT people!!

Some people think that a “law” is permanent and unchangeable. If this was the case, such high profile issues as slavery, women’s voting rights and even public smoking would still
be with us.

The evidence is clear, laws can be changed. In this country and around the world our legal system is held up as a paragon of perfection. In reality it is very far from it.

In Navajo County, AZ some of our citizens are being terrorized (yes - terrorized) by an unjust law that is a throwback to the 1800’s (“open range” laws)! Law enforcement is out
of control when innocent citizens can be arrested, jailed and charged with a felony as a
result of defending themselves against a herd of wild cattle trespassing on their own
private property. Did you know that you can lose your voting rights after a felony conviction!?

There are approx. 900 cattlemen in AZ while the total population of the state is about 5 million - that is well over 5,000 to 1. Why then are cattlemen allowed to benefit from laws that adversely affect innocent citizens? You probably think that AZ is a major beef producer to justify the “special treatment” that cattlemen receive. Well, the reality is that AZ produces less than 1% of the nation’s supply - it would barely be missed!

If the “open range” grazing laws are to be repealed, citizens must speak out against them. We are presently in the 21st century with AZ laws that are pre Civil War! Most other western states have repealed these laws and it is time for AZ to join the mainstream of America. This will only happen if Arizonans speak out on this issue. Remember, there are 5,000 of us to every 1 of them. How could “open range” laws withstand the tide of public opinion if even one in 100 of concerned citizens would speak out?

Kent Knudson (928-536-4345)(photuguy@cybertrails.com)
--{The law is a ass, a idiot -- Dickens from Oliver Twist}--

THE BEAUTIFUL LAND ABOVE HAS TURNED INTO A 'KILLING ZONE' FOR HUMANS AND ANIMALS ALIKE MAYBE WE SHOULD SHOW THEM WHAT THEIR FUTURE HOLDS IF THEY INSIST ON CONTINUING THIS UNNECESSARY KILLING OF DOGS.

Cattle, Justice & Property Rights

I don’t really believe that all cattlemen are completely irresponsible just because the only one that I know is that way.

Cattlemen seem to think that they own the whole world and it is only by their rules that the rest of us can use the roads and even our own private property. No cattleman helped to pay the mortgage payments on my property and they didn’t even chip in when we
fenced the place.

Some citizens even buy cattleguards without any help from the cattlemen.

I’ve been told that cattle are stupid, but I think it’s the cattlemen that are stupid. If a child
went out in the road, would you say the child was stupid - of course not - it would be the parents (for not providing proper supervision).

If it is uneconomical for cattlemen to provide proper supervision, it is not then the community’s responsibility. Cattle should and must be fenced in and not fenced out!!

We still have some rights in this country in spite of what has been going on lately. The Bill
of Rights specifies some of our rights - it doesn’t say anything about sacrificing our rights for another’s economic gain!

The Bill of Rights further gives me the right to defend myself and my property as I see fit.
If when I do defend myself, I am thrown in jail like a common criminal, then my rights have been seriously trampled - yes, I’m the guy who accidentally killed a cow while defending myself on my own private property and was thrown in jail and charged with a felony by
this crooked system.

In Navajo County the cops are in bed with the cattlemen and the Snowflake Justice Court
is nothing but an oxymoron. It is even possible that the AZ Dept. of Agriculture is a party
to this stuff.

You cattlemen all know who your bad apple is, so why don’t you do something about
him - or is your whole barrel rotten?

I would welcome comments from anyone even cattlemen! My name is Kent Knudson
in Snowflake (Cedar Hills) - 536-4345 (e-mail photoguy@cybertrails.com).

{Cage cattle, not people!!}

Open Range -- -- -- -- contacts

All phone #s are 928 unless otherwise noted

Don Steuter 602-956-5057/ H Sierra Club
602-809-9160/ cell - important contact and continues to send interesting info -- he has some useful comments on this issue from an environmental perspective.

Martin Taylor 520-623-5252x307 Center for Biological Diversity is the main guy at the Center for Biological Diversity (in Tucson -- they have chapters all over the country) -- they have a plan to change things by buying up grazing leases.

Larry Walker 503-646-5674 BLM range conservationist - ret
Larry Walker is the head of RangeNet -- he is a retired BLM range conservationist and has some important points to make .

Jon Marvel 208-788-2290 Western Watersheds Project Jon Marvel is the head of the Western Watersheds Project. He is one of the most important activists in the country! He got started when some rancher trashed his land and now they (the ranchers) are regretting it.

Mark Salvo 503-757-4221/ cell American Lands Alliance Mark Salvo is with the American Lands Alliance (he is a Grasslands and Deserts Advocate) and recently moved to AZ from Portland, OR

Priscilla Pavatea 734-3701 Range Management Dir. (Hopi Priscilla, Johnny, Tony and Vanesa are all Native Americans in important positions in their tribes (I believe their titles are as indicated on page 1) -- they are all very friendly but busy.

Johnny Endfield 338-4346x206 Vice Chairman (Apache)

Tony Robbins 283-2252 Natural Resources Manager (Navajo)

Vanesa Charles 734-3283 PR Director (Hopi)

Mark Shaffer 602-478-2462/ cell Flagstaff Mark Shaffer is the reporter that wrote the AZ Republic story. He has some perspective on this issue from his childhood growing up in Texas John Baldwin 602-448-2829 Phoenix

Mike Riordan 480-945-4943 Scottsdale Mike Riordan has some good ideas and is quite articulate.

Dude Davenport 637-0027 Ash Fork Dude Davenport is a rancher in Ashfork and spends a lot of time putting up fences for people and only charges for the materials (as I understand). He found an interesting provision in the law that allowed only Caucasions to own land (how about that -- and
they say ignorance of the law is no excuse -- I don’t think so)!

White Mt Independent 536-2779 Show Low
-Lia Clark White Mountain Independent one of the only papers in the area that is not biased and against property owners and pro rancher. This paper did a recent “reader pole” and found that our side won by 68.8% to 31.2% (no one was undecided)!

Dean Mair is very knowledgeable on tax breaks for grazing and he would be good to talk to -- he has written a letter to the AZ Governor.

Norman Elmer 339-4009 Alpine Norman Elmer threatened to dig a hole for the cattle to fall into. Interesting response from local law enforcement.

Penny Leslie 537-3968 Concho Penny Leslie - owns a lot of land in the Concho area and elsewhere. Her main issue is a particular rancher abusing dogs (both hers and some neighbors). She is always getting new phone #s for me and she hands out a lot of information to people that are otherwise hard to communicate with because some of this area is quite remote. She is also working on a petition .

Gene Bull 536-2233 Cedar Hills Herb Mason 536-4830 Cedar Hills
Gene Bull and Herb Mason are two men who also suffered from Dee Johnson's acts.

Danny Fite 368-4209 Lakeside
Danny Fite had a previous experience with cows and he has been writing essays for the paper for the last month or so. He is a preacher and mentioned abortion in his first piece that got some dialogue going, but he has some other points that are fairly good and effective.

Randy Warner 767-4895 Dolan Springs, AZ
Randy Warner is the animal rights activist. He is trying to promote his humane education for students agenda and rightfully so. Visit his site. It is sizable, informative and controversial. 21stcares@citlink.net

Sandy Lowe 505-377-6940 Eagle Nest, NM Sandy Lowe is located in a small town near Taos, NM and has a very interesting story to tell.

Tammy Phillips 536-5043 Cedar Hills Tammy Phillips has an interesting story to tell

Paul D Hatch 288-3416 Joseph City Paul Hatch is a son of Vern Hatch, the man that Dee Johnson rustler most of the cattle from in 1985 (Vern has since died) -- Paul can give you a ranchers’ opinion of Dee Johnson. Also, he tells that Dee never paid the restitution ordered by the court (approx 17K). Ask about how the authorities tried to give Dee Johnson the opportunity to cover up his crime and it would have worked except for some detail.

Martha Hein 845-883-4495 Modena, NY She and her family were threatened with their lives and run out of their little town in AZ after suffering the loss of several pet dogs to the local rancher - ON THEIR PROPERTY.

Greg Schneider 925-736-5543 San Francisco Jack Herzberg 775-747-5254 Reno Greg Schneider and Jack Herzberg are very vocal supports.