Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Rancher beats the Enviro's

Nemont

Nemont

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
4,396
Location
Glasgow, Montana
News

Local rancher awarded $600,000 in battle with green group

By George G. McQueen
Posted: Thursday, January 27, 2005 3:54 PM PST

Nogales International

After seven years, a Santa Cruz County rancher has won a judgment of $600,000 for alleged libelous and false statements posted on the internet by an environmental activism group.

On Friday, Jan. 21, a Tucson jury found the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group based in Tucson, guilty of making "false, unfair, libelous and defamatory statements" against Jim Chilton, a Southern Arizona Rancher.

Chilton owns the Montana Allotment, which extends west of Nogales from the U.S./Mexico border, along the Buenos Aires Refuge around the hamlet of Oro Blanco and ghost town of Ruby and into Pima County, around the town and lake of Arivaca.

"Most of the land my cattle graze on is in Santa Cruz County," said Chilton, whose family has been ranching in Arizona for five generations.

The Tucson jury awarded Chilton $100,000 in actual damages, and $500,000 in punitive damages for defaming him and his family business.

In July 2002, the center posted a two-page press release with 21 photographs posted on their web-site that were "false and misleading regarding Chilton's 21,500 acre Montana grazing allotment northwest of Nogales," said Kraig Marton, Chilton's attorney.

In a phone interview Wednesday, Chilton explained that the Center for Biological Diversity "clearly demonstrates that they want to end all grazing in the western United States on state and federal land."

The suit was filed, according to Chilton, because he wanted to challenge the way the Center for Biological Diversity does business. "They don't use science, they use scare tactics," said Chilton. "They also use endangered species as surrogates to obtain their own goals and to raise money," he added.

The jury agreed with Chilton's claim, citing the Center did make false statements in a news advisory, and that misleading photographs were used in an unsuccessful effort to block renewal of Chilton's grazing permit. The jury also cited that the Center did not accurately describe the condition of the grazing allotment.Hmm you mean some of those pics they post all over could be false and misleading. I wonder what other info they have fabricated?
"Four of the photographs were of other people's private property," Chilton said.

"What they do is sue the forest service," Chilton explained.

"If the forest service doesn't do something they (Center for Biological Diversity) ask for an injunction to end grazing until the forest service rights its wrong."

"In 1999 I was involved in a lawsuit that affected 85 ranches in the southwest, including Santa Cruz County"

The source of these controversial lawsuits are two endangered animal species: the lesser long nosed bat and Sonoran chub, a small fish endemic to the Sonoran Desert.

Chilton explained that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published an opinion that cattle grazing would "likely adversely affect the Sonoran Chub."

In order for Chilton to continue grazing on certain pastures, a biologist, zoologist, fish biologist, rangeland conservation expert and botanist would have to inspect his pastures nine times a year.

"That would have wiped me out," said Chilton, adding, "I objected strenuously to this ruling and filed a lawsuit with the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association" and eventually had the ruling overturned.

A federal district court "ruled the FWS could not obtain 'regulatory jurisdiction' unless the species, in fact, existed. Even if they were on my allotment, the FWS would have to prove that cattle grazing would kill the chub, or the bat.

"It's been a seven-year struggle. I'm extremely gratified that the evidence has proven them to be liars," said Chilton.

When asked if ranchers and environmental activists did not have a common interest in conserving the environment, Chilton said. "Cattle have been grazing on the Montana Allotment for 300 years. We (ranchers) have to maintain the land so grazing can be sustainable for the next few centuries."

He added, "I, too, consider myself an environmentalist. Because every day is Earth Day for me."

The Center for Biological Diversity did not respond to telephone calls and emails for this story.
Click to expand...
 
Nemont, I pretty sure Marvel wouldn't show his mug at this meeting.
It's the Owyhee County Natural Resource Committee, comprised of primarily ranchers and other consumptive users.
WD
 
So what happens to the Sonoran Chub and the Bat???

Another missed opportunity for our kids, grandkids, great--- etc... to be able to enjoy our Public Lands and the animals native to the same.

R-I-P our Heritage
AD 2005
 
EG,
So one rancher winning one lawsuit against a blatantly dishonest set of pictures and no proof that the endangered species even existed on the allotment leads to the end of our heritage on public land? I thought the anti grazing forces were more dedicate then that.

I think all the ruling says is that if you want to drive a guy off of a grazing allotment you cannot use decieving propaganda nor lie regarding what is at stake. No where in the entire ruling nor the resulting decision was there anything saying the public didn't still have access or that proper grazing was not to be enforced.

I think it is at best a temporary set back for the anti grazing forces but it is nice to have a trial decided in favor of ranchers rather then always on the anti grazing side. I think in the end it will most likely galvanize the anti grazing crowd to dig deeper and find actual cases of damage rather then resorting to dishonest tactics. It should be viewed as a good thing by the rancher haters.



Nemont
 
Chilton explained that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published an opinion that cattle grazing would "likely adversely affect the Sonoran Chub."

In order for Chilton to continue grazing on certain pastures, a biologist, zoologist, fish biologist, rangeland conservation expert and botanist would have to inspect his pastures nine times a year.

"That would have wiped me out," said Chilton, adding, "I objected strenuously to this ruling and filed a lawsuit with the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association" and eventually had the ruling overturned.

A federal district court "ruled the FWS could not obtain 'regulatory jurisdiction' unless the species, in fact, existed. Even if they were on my allotment, the FWS would have to prove that cattle grazing would kill the chub, or the bat.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the land Managers for the Agency said he needed to have inspections. And the "Earth Day" rancher said that checking the status of endangered species on his land would "wipe him out". How could one not agree that a grazing cow stepping on a chub or bat would kill it??? |oo Why do we celebrate "Activist" judges legislating from the bench and removing the ESA for this rancher? :rolleyes:
 
It really goes to show, with the rancher winning this one, is that these radical fringe groups will go to any extreme to have them selves seen and heard.
Fortunately cooler heads won this battle. I would suppose they will have to go to another mislead movie star for more $$$ to pay for that loss... :)

I will use the same argument I remember seeing just not to long ago about Marvel.
If they weren't in the right, or at least legally in the right, why did they win this one?... :)
 
As I see it, it boils down to this. Accountability. Any Gov't agency or organization must insure that data utilized to support an argument for anything is correct. If only the masses were aware of how blatantly and often this principle is violated!
WD
 
I like the way EG portrays the use of ficticious material as okay since they were just trying to stop grazing. EG's agenda, not mine. I like how a rancher, apparently capable to keep grazing conditions in good enough shape that the enviro-wackos had to resort to false information in order to try to shut him down. LMAO.
 
EG, Your sounding kinda stupid.
back up a bit.
Using false evidence sure goes a long ways proving your integrity
 
Ten Bears said:
I like the way EG portrays the use of ficticious material as okay since they were just trying to stop grazing. EG's agenda, not mine. I like how a rancher, apparently capable to keep grazing conditions in good enough shape that the enviro-wackos had to resort to false information in order to try to shut him down. LMAO.
Click to expand...

Ten Beers,

Where did I portray the use of ficticious material as okay? Please go ask your bus driver or the lady in the cafeteria to re-read my posts to you. Maybe then you will be able to understand. I have to admidt, I do admire your persistance in trying to increase your reading level to 3rd Grade. Many would have quit school after that many attempts at getting thru the 3rd grade.


My concerns center around the Management Agency not being able to apply their science, and some "activist" judge legislating from the bench. If there was libel, then good that it was found. But that still does not explain why you celebrate the judge overturning the science.
 
My concerns center around the Management Agency not being able to apply their science, and some "activist" judge legislating from the bench. If there was libel, then good that it was found. But that still does not explain why you celebrate the judge overturning the science.
Click to expand...
I have seen the science of these people, and they will go on what ever any one say's that justifies what they think, no matter how outlandish, trumped up, or false it may be, just to justify thier own side.
Then they "feel" it is their right to do 'what ever' it takes to get to the end of their means.
 
ELKCHSR said:
I have seen the science of these people, and they will go on what ever any one say's that justifies what they think, no matter how outlandish, trumped up, or false it may be, just to justify thier own side.
Then they "feel" it is their right to do 'what ever' it takes to get to the end of their means.
Click to expand...

Hey ElkCheese,

"these people" are the FWS. Are you saying their science is is faulty? What do you base the accusations on MtMiller's work? You really are clueless, aren't you?
 
HAHAHA!!! gunner, your a riot.... :D
I don't ever in my wildest dreams remember saying Craig had or showed an agenda in any of the things he does... He, as far as I have ever seen, keeps a pretty objective idea on his work and what he doe's...
Keep digging... you have a long way to go.... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cheeser
Press Release February 7, 2024 Legal action launched to protect wolves in northern Rocky Mountains
Replies
1
Views
752
bayoublaster7527
B
Sytes
U.S. Vision: Development Within National Forests.
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
10K
Irishman
I
M
Our public lands need balanced — not extremist — leadership
2 3
Replies
47
Views
7K
el unit
el unit
M
How the fight to save a bird species shows how to bridge the red/blue divide
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
mtmiller
mtmiller
G
Plowing away the prairie, at a price
Replies
1
Views
3K
Gunflint
G

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,621
Messages
2,027,029
Members
36,248
Latest member
chrishutchinson79

Share this page

Back
Top