Aug 16, 2012
By TIFFANY REVELLE
Updated: 08/16/2012 09:16:20 PM PDT
Ukiah Daily Journal
Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman will host a regional meeting of sheriffs from rural counties Saturday at the Redwood Empire Fairgrounds in Ukiah to discuss, among other issues facing rural counties, the need for better communication with federal agencies.
The meeting, scheduled from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., will be the sixth in a series of 2012 Support Rural America events, but the first one Allman will host. He said the need for transparency and communication, specifically with the U.S. Forest Service about issues concerning the Mendocino National Forest, is a chief concern.
“Bureaucratic policies are enforced like law in the Mendocino National Forest,” Allman said, adding that local USFS employees aren’t the issue. “We are asking for a little respect in what’s happening.”
Examples are road closures the USFS doesn’t notify the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office about. His deputies frequently respond to problems in the forest and find roads closed off, despite a promise from the USFS that it would keep the Sheriff’s Office informed of such closures, according to Allman
“In six years I’ve never been notified, and it’s disheartening,” he said. “I have the legal right to know when a road is going to be closed on federal lands, or when a cattle lease is being canceled.”
Locals’ contracts with the USFS for cattle grazing or timber production that are canceled, also without notice to the Sheriff’s Office, are a concern because they affect Mendocino
County’s economy and ultimately his department’s bottom line, according to Allman.The general lack of communication pushed him to spearhead Operation Full Court Press last summer, a cooperative effort between the six counties that share the Mendocino National Forest to rid the forest land of illegal drug grows
He recalled a 2010 Mendocino County Board of Supervisors meeting in the remote town of Covelo, where several speakers complained about public safety on federal forest land, three of whom said they had been shot at while in the forest.
“Federal properties deserve a little more attention,” Allman said, adding that the Sheriff’s Office is the “defacto” agency that responds to issues on the land. “The federal government was not doing what we thought was necessary to protect the national forest.”
Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey is expected to speak at the Saturday meeting, and, according to Allman, has similar communication issues with federal agencies.
Also expected to join Allman at the meeting are Tehama Sheriff Dave Hencratt and Del Norte Sheriff Dean Wilson. Oregon’s Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson will also attend.
But coordination with federal agencies isn’t the only concern the group addresses, according to Allman, nor is the only discussion concerning federal agencies negative. He acknowledged the USFS contributing money to his Operation Full Court Press, for example.
“We’re not members of an organization, and we’re not the Tea Party,” Allman said, responding to feedback he’d heard along those lines.
Sheriffs who attend the Support Rural America events include: Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey; Modoc County Sheriff Mike Poindexter; Trinity County Sheriff Bruce Haney; Tehama County Sheriff Dave Hencratt; Del Norte County Sheriff Dean Wilson; Plumas County Sheriff Greg Hagwood; Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Downey; Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko; Glenn County Sheriff Larry Jones; and in Oregon Sheriff Glenn E. Palmer from Grant County and Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson.
According to a statement from Support Rural America about the group and the upcoming meeting, “Each sheriff is committed to the oath taken after their election — to defend the Constitution and his citizens. Their rural economies are hurting and public safety issues have exploded, but the public funds to provide public services are diminished, because of poor economies. It has become a vicious circle.”
Allman participated in Trinity, Tehama and Del Norte county SRA events in May, June and July, and the events have drawn crowds of 600, according to the statement.
Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@pacific.net, on Twitter @TiffanyRevelle or at 468-3523.
Aug 14, 2012
See Gilbertson’s letter: http://www.usobserver.com/archive/sep-11/Gil-Federal-Jurisdiction.pdf
SOLUTIONS FOR RURAL AMERICA
Hosted By:
Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson
Saturday, September 22, 2012
1 to 4 p.m.
Josephine County Fairgrounds
1451 Fairgrounds Rd., Grants Pass, Oregon
Admission is FREE…Donations accepted!
Panel of Constitutional Sheriffs discussing critical issues and solutions regarding
property rights, water rights, mining, public land access and Federal and State Jurisdiction.
Q & A to follow…
Rae Copitka or Loma Wharton 541-637-5366
Jul 13, 2012
July 13, 2012
From Fred Kelly Grant
On July 2, Glen Martin wrote and published a post in the Huffington Post viciously attacking Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, in northern California. Martin accused Lopey of misrepresentation, using “incendiary rhetoric”, overstepping his authority “to an alarming degree”, and apparently coveting the title of “Emperor of Northern California”.
Martin, an environmentalist writer called his assault “Above the Law”. He is probably protected from the laws of slander and libel because the good Sheriff would now be considered a “public personality”. Otherwise, Martin would be at the precipice of having gone overboard as to the truth. Ironically, the post was published on the 2nd of July—-because the independence that emanated from the Resolution signed on that day allows and protects freedom of speech. As well as I know Sheriff Lopey, I know that he would not object to Palmer’s right to speak freely, even if inaccurately, and neither do I. What I object to is that such a formidable site as Huffington Post would publish such a story, with no chance for rebuttal being offered to the elected official attacked.
That fact demonstrates the danger of the internet, e.g., it allows publication of articles that have no semblance of truth, that have been written without any effort to learn the truth or written inaccurately with full knowledge of the truth. But, the Martin article also points out the awesome power of the internet, because it offers the medium for responding with the truth.
During the past two decades of work in helping local governments and elected officials use the “coordination” authority granted to them in federal laws passed by Congress, I have many times been counseled to ignore attacks like Martin’s. My friends, often wiser than I am in matters of political niceties, have contended that responses only prolong the impact of the attacks. But, in my old age, as I settle into retirement, I have decided to ignore that sage advice. I believe it is important to tell the public about the authority their local officials have to protect them against federal and state agency over-reach. The knowledge of “coordination” has helped wherever the process is used. If more people knew about it, understood it, and worked through organizations like Trademark America, the power of DC based agencies would diminish.
So, I choose to respond to Mr. Martin, and I hope that local officials and citizens who have benefited from local government exercise of “coordination” will also respond—with factual articles that help the general public understand that there is a way to diminish the awesome power that has been built up by the agencies themselves.
Sheriff Jon Lopey knows and understands the United States and California Constitutions. He understands the position of a sworn County Sheriff in California as the chief law enforcement officer for his jurisdiction. He knows that the primary duty of the Sheriff is to keep the peace, a peace that can be threatened when federal and state agencies take or infringe on private property rights, particularly when the exercise of those rights control whether or not a person can provide for himself or his family.
He knows also that the revenue base of the County has to remain strong if he is to have the funds needed to keep the peace and perform all other duties assigned him by law. The plans and management actions of the environmental and natural resource agencies greatly affect the County’s revenue base and economic stability. So, it is certainly within the Sheriff’s duties to help the County’s citizens protect their property rights, the exercise of which keeps them economically capable of paying their ad valorem taxes that produce revenue needed to provide vital County services.
Congress has recognized the importance of the Sheriff’s duties, and has directed federal agencies to “coordinate” with them. Congress defined the term “coordinate” in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 USC 1712, by directing the Secretary of Interior to “coordinate” with local elected officials to resolve inconsistencies between federal and county operations. The National Forest Management Act requires coordination by Forest Service with the Sheriff; the National Environmental Policy Act requires the same during all NEPA planning and studying.
The legislative history of FLPMA shows clearly that Congress recognized the adverse impact on a County’s revenue base that would result from the monstrous number of federally non-taxed acres in western counties, and from management actions of the federal agencies that manage those federal acres. Congress thus mandated that federal agencies and personnel work closely with local officials to insure consistency of policy and management. The method through which this close work is to be performed is “coordination”.
Moreover, the agencies themselves understand the burden placed on them by Congress. The Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Corps of Engineers, the Highway Administration, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice all have issued regulations or planning rules setting forth how their personnel must coordinate with Sheriffs throughout the nation.
FLPMA has been interpreted and applied by the federal court in Utah where the Court set aside a Bureau of Land Management plan that was not consistent with the County plan. The National Forest Management Act has been interpreted and applied in the federal district court for the Northern District of California where the court set aside a Forest Service plan that was not consistent with a state policy as to providing roadless areas in the national forests. A California state appellate court has ruled that the “coordination” process means and demands far more than mere cooperation and working together. It means, according to the court, that local officials have a meaningful role in the planning and management process and that federal officials must attempt to reach a mutually acceptable result.
Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have issued Executive Orders directing all federal agencies to coordinate with local officials in the spirit of federalism that is required by the United States Constitution, particularly the Tenth Amendment. I have not read any other of Mr. Martin’s writings which, according to his bio, have appeared in Audubon, National Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy Magazine, Sierra, Outside, Trout, Discover, Wired, and Men’s Journal. But, based on my experiences of the last fifty years, my bet would be that he is not a fan of either federalism or the Tenth Amendment which Sheriff Lopey understands fully.
California’s legislature has also passed over twenty statutes that require California agencies such as the Fish and Game Department to “coordinate” with the Sheriff. I have not seen the letter from the Fish and Game Director to which Martin refers, but if it says what Martin attributes to it, the Director really needs to bone up on California law, as well as federal laws that apply to him
Martin obviously understands none of the above. He wrote without even researching the laws forming the base for Sheriff Lopey’s actions and words. Or, he intentionally ignored the truth. Had Martin even one iota of concern for the truth, he would have talked with Sheriff Lopey before accusing him of mis-using his position to gain personal esteem.
Martin attacks the Sheriff because of his opposition to the Klamath Agreement, knowing that most of his readers will not know the mischief that is inherent in that Agreement that calls for destruction of dams on the Klamath River, at least one of which is generating useful electricity that serves most of Siskiyou County. Putting aside the illegality of the Agreement (It was negotiated and settled in violation of California’s open meeting law), I move to Martin’s suggestion that destruction of the dams will restore to the Klamath “its once-mighty salmon runs.” What Martin does not tell his readers is that dam destruction will not save the salmon. It makes no provision for neutralizing the silt behind the dams, silt that contains heavy metal materials that are toxic to fish.
When dams were destroyed on the Rogue River in Oregon, the heavy metals from the silt killed all the fish in the river, salmon included. A year ago, Sheriff Gil Gilbertson took me to the River in Grants Pass where a mining expert demonstrated the black, sticky “glunk” of heavy metals that he could pick out of the water with a magnet—-analysis showed that it contained more than the amount of some toxins than would be permitted by federal agencies if a private company deposited them. The environmental study for the Klamath destruction ignored these facts in the agency’s analysis of impacts from destruction of dams.
The federal government’s own “independent” study and analysis acknowledged that it is only speculative that destruction of the dams will help salmon recovery. When the dams are destroyed, that silt will be moved so far through the countryside that it will almost assuredly affect coastal ports. It will move so slowly that it will take years and years to settle out, destroying valuable land, wet lands and waterways as it does.
Even with that environmental destruction assured, environmental organizations support destruction. The groups for which Martin writes stand ready to cash in on $93 MILLION a year authorized by the Agreement in grants to environmental organizations for salmon projects FOR YEARS FOLLOWING DESTRUCTION. Amazing that the Administration cannot determine how to stabilize social security and medicare, but can consider such massive expenditures.
Sheriff Lopey has the obligation to question the Agreement and its implementation. The economic loss to ranchers who will lose at least one harvest if irrigation storage is lost will have a huge effect on the economy of the County, and that will have a huge effect on the funds available to the Sheriff to fund keeping of the peace. Moreover, if the destruction results in economic loss from water loss, the Sheriff will have the duty to keep the peace among people desperate for water.
The Siskiyou County Supervisors, sharing Sheriff Lopey’s concerns about the County’s citizens, used their “coordination” authority to advise the Secretary of Interior that he had not complied with the law requiring him to “coordinate” with them and take into proper consideration the economic and environmental effects of the dam destruction. They and the County Attorney were prepared to file a lawsuit to prevent destruction on the grounds, among others, that Congress had never authorized such action on the Klamath River. At the very time that Supervisors were in Washington DC with representatives of Trademark America Foundation to discuss the Secretary’s action, he backed away, announcing that he would await Congressional authority. Had it not been for Siskiyou’s elected officials engaging the Secretary’s department through the “coordination” authority, the Secretary’s order would no doubt already have been issued.
Sheriff Lopey is rightfully concerned about his citizens’ losing their water rights because that loss constitutes a deprival of a private property interest. It is deprivation of a civil right which the United States Supreme Court has held to be one of the most critical to our ordered society. Martin cautions that the water rights of the Yurok and Karuk Indians “likely supersede those of the ranchers” along the Klamath. The active word is “likely” because Martin does not know the status of any such rights. Moreover, Martin ignores the fact that even if their rights “supersede”, the term “supersede” does not equate to “destroy all secondary” water rights. The Agreement will ultimately deprive ranchers, farmers and municipal populations of water rights—-and without the compensation that is required by both the California and United States Constitutions.
Martin also attacks the Sheriff for his efforts to see that logging resumes in Siskiyou County. Martin says, inaccurately, that there is no viable logging left because the forests were clear cut long ago. He uses his work in the Forest Service and information from the “70s” as his source. If Martin is as active with environmental groups as his writing would suggest, he knows this is a completely false statement. This is 2012, the forests are in sick and dying condition today, not from over-logging, but because of lawsuits and disruptions of logging caused by some of those for whom Martin writes. The Forest Service for which he worked even acknowledges that logging is critical today to return forest health. But obstructionist environmental organizations still work to prevent logging at the risk of seeing the forests die. Siskiyou County, as others throughout the northwest know that if they had the management decisions for even a portion of the Forests, they could let contracts that would put people back to work, and reduce federal expenditures that are being made in lieu of former logging receipts. Sheriff Lopey knows this, and it is his duty as the elected law enforcement representative of the County’s citizens to push the agencies toward getting past the environmentalist obstructionism.
Jon Lopey stands tall along with several other California sheriffs who have determined that they will exercise the authority granted them by federal and California law. Those grants of authority are consistent with the Tenth Amendment’s reservations of sovereign authority of states and local governments in matters related to the “police powers”, that is, those powers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. I am proud to have worked with him. He serves his citizens well, and is the kind of Sheriff every county deserves.
Contact
Subscribe
No Comments 
