PIÑON CANYON*
ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION

A TALK AT THE GOOD NEIGHBOR FORUM

LA JUNTA, COLORADO
22 SEPTEMBER 2007

by Jim Beers

Thank you for inviting me to speak at your gathering today.

Generally my talks are grounded in current developments regarding the abusive growth of government and the actions of citizens across this nation to successfully fend off the harms of such growth. My background is a mix of government service as a wildlife biologist and law enforcement officer in 6 states and over 20 years in Washington, DC. I am considered a foe of environmental extremism and animal rights radicalism: even though I have dedicated my life to the management and use of wild animals in healthy and sustainable environments. My advocacy for the Constitution and property rights in particular has placed me in several open and persistent conflicts with bureaucrats, radicals, conservation organizations, and "scientists".

Today I will not speak of these things. The current developments of Indians and casino money being added to the complex pressures on rural communities; Wilderness Designations; Federal land acquisition; tax-subsidized easements by Non-Government organizations; closure of State and County highways by Federal actions; increasingly outrageous use of Endangered Species powers to take private and public property without compensation as in the current proposal to designate the Yellowstone bison herd as "Endangered" (thereby taking them away from State jurisdiction); the buyouts of grazing leases; diminishment of logging and the wastage of timber on Federal lands; preventable catastrophic forest fires; the spread and protection of deadly predators that close down ranches, kill dogs, endanger children and unarmed elderly persons, and eradicate big game herds; transfer of National Forest lands to the US Park Service for permanent closure and elimination of all natural resource management; the co-opting of State agencies by Federal agencies directing the use of Federal funding; proposed UN Conventions meant to act as Treaties and thereby subvert the Constitution; "Wildlands" schemes and Federal "Invasive Species" legislation; the steady loss of State sovereignty and local controls to Federal and International authorities: none of these will be topics today. Today I will give you my reading of this Fort Carson expansion proposal and suggest what I see as the only real remedy.

Rural America, and western rural America in particular, is under assault. Although honest and comprehensive national Federal land ownership summaries are hard to come by (when is the last time you saw a US map with the totals of the Park Service, Forest Service, Refuge System, BLM, DOD, Reclamation, etc. shown in total as part of the total US land mass as in "the total acreage of the following states added together" or as in "X percent of the total US land mass"?) we know it is enormous but exact figures are scattered, questionable, and "asterisked" to make public awareness both limited and unclear. There is at least 25% of the nation so owned outright, or more than half a billion acres. Add in the similarly murky acreages of "cooperatively owned" acreages such as mitigation areas (for past Federal funding or to appease Federal permit granters or to get some 'project approved') or even State areas purchased with Federal funding and remaining under Federal direction and the total acreage effectively under Federal control soars considerably. Then there are the truly unavailable many millions of "acres under conservation easement" that are the result of tax-exempt, tax-subsidized, and amazingly unaccountable organizations like The Nature Conservancy and other such "conservation" outfits dealing in the "nether worlds" surrounding government actions like Piñon Canyon or long-extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker "sightings" in the South or threatened Refuge or Park acquisitions unless local "cooperation" can be "displayed" or land purchases for future Federal purchase (at a hefty profit) "when Appropriations are available". Setting aside all of these current problems I agreed not to talk of today, the mere size and constant growth of this Federal presence is without a doubt the greatest threat to private property, rural communities, and our system of government in the history of the Republic. The issue parallels exactly the debate over "what percent of the national (or "my") income should go to State and Federal taxes"? The question before the nation and facing us is "what percent of the nation should go into (supposedly irreversible) government ownership and control"?

For our purposes today, there are two kinds of Federal land ownership growth. First, there is the outright acquisition through condemnation and/or purchase from "willing" sellers. Second, there is the "Critical Habitat" designations and unchallenged claims ("viewsheds", denial of State authorities, claims of "new" Federal authorities, etc.) by overly powerful bureaucrats and indifferent courts disregarding private property rights and "coordinating" the use of easements, grants to State agencies, and tools like road closures and elimination of rural economy supports like ranching and logging etc. that devalues the rural properties and local government protections for all but the very rich and government bureaucracies as means to expand their "estates" like aristocrats in the Europe our Founding Fathers intended to leave behind. It is this first method we will examine further.

There are, again for our purposes today, two kinds of Federal land acquisition of private property through either condemnation or purchase from "willing" sellers. First there is the Congressional Declaration in an Authorization or Appropriation Bill passed by Congress and signed by the President to "establish" a Park or Refuge or Forest at a certain location because of a certain historical or biological or unique (there really is no limit here except the imagination of bureaucrats and advocates, the Constitutional respect of the Courts, and integrity of Federal politicians; slender reeds to be sure) quality. For instance, National Forests were generally authorized by Congress for "multiple use", each Refuge has an "authorized" purpose such as migratory bird winter habitat just as each Park is authorized to preserve a Battlefield or some geological feature. The "trashing" of the "multiple use" and management of National Forests along with Refuges becoming bastions of "Native Ecosystems" and Parks becoming merely units where hunting and logging and resource management are forever forbidden has come to typify how today's bureaucrats can dismiss legislative language to suit themselves on National Forests a well as National Parks, Refuges, and BLM lands. Roundouts (continued expansions and purchase of inholdings and adjacent lands) go on constantly and opportunistically both with and without further Congressional notice while simultaneously access, management, uses, and local Revenue-Sharing and Payment-in-Lieu-of Taxes to local governments wax and wane (mostly wane) at Federal pleasure.

It is the second kind of Federal land acquisition and expansion we are concerned with today. In the case of Defense Department land expansions for the Army, Navy, Marines, and the Air Force there is a unique factor at work that distinguishes it from all other Federal land acquisition. The lands to be acquired are identified and slated for acquisition by the Department AT THEIR OWN INITIATIVE AND FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES and often long before the targeted communities are aware of what is being planned. Between the National Defense "need" and generally sparsely populated locales (more populated locations are both more costly and more politically powerful to antagonize) such DOD expansions are often "slam dunks". Piñon Canyon was intended to be one of these "slam dunks".

Whether the "need" is for artillery or bombing or secret operations, the Department of Defense is assumedly not working with Non-Government Organizations (NGO's) with multiple hidden agendas TO THE EXTENT that the National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Forest Service and BLM do so routinely. That unique "purpose" for an expansion or establishment of a DOD facility and the opportunity for secrecy whether justified or not is what we must address.

Who, may I ask, believes that a Federal government that owns and controls between 25 and 45% of the nation's land mass should first and exclusively look to private property to "meet new needs" for more or larger Federal facilities? Those who answer that Federal ownership and control of land is SUPERIOR to private ownership and use, need to consider what they are advocating. Like acceptance of Federal authority to unilaterally deny animal ownership rights to horse owners wishing to dispose of their horse or public indifference to attempts to grant legal "rights" to animals, if you accept the basic premise that the absolute power of government is UNCHECKED BY LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION: NO ONE AND NOTHING IS SAFE FROM DESPOTS AND POLITICALLY POWERFUL FACTIONS that eventually occupy such points of power in government.

Now before going further, I believe it is necessary to make a statement about my personal politics in order to be as clear as possible about what I am about to propose. I was a Naval Reserve Line Officer. I served onboard a ship in the western Pacific and at the Naval Security Group Station on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. I am very proud of my Naval Service and am still benefiting from the discipline, teamwork, and seamanship I learned there. I would have stayed in the US Naval Reserve except that when I was transferred to Washington DC with the US Fish and Wildlife Service all of the Naval Reserve Officer billets were held by and passed onto politicians. (This is mentioned merely to point out yet another HIDDEN LOBBYING entanglement between bureaucracies and those that are entrusted to control and administer them. Imagine the readiness of politicians holding military slots reserved for them to be YOUR representative when the military wants YOUR property.) Also, I have never doubted our Iraq involvement. I say all this because I unstintingly support a strong national defense and a military that has all of the necessary support to fulfill the premiere function of our national government, defending the nation. I have no agenda to in any way harm or decrease our national defense capacities.

So, if as I mentioned, private property is the backbone of America and it is being diminished. If the DOD has major land needs, why do they not FIRST review the one-half billion to (three-quarters of a billion?) acres already owned or controlled by the Federal government BEFORE looking to condemn or other wise acquire private property?

As we consider this question, let's consider some recent history of DOD land dispositions to place our answer in perspective. Fort Monmouth, New Jersey and Fort Ben Harrison in Indiana recently downsized their landholdings. Where did this FORMER PRIVATE PROPERTY go? If you answered to "State government", you were correct. When the Rocky Mountain Arsenal downsized, where did that property go? If you answered to a Federal agency (US Fish and Wildlife Service) to create a Refuge you were correct.

Consider for a moment the "players" in all this DOD land "pluses and minuses" game.

When DOD DISPOSES of land:

- State politicians get "free" land to develop or make into a Park (named after themselves where possible) and lots of free publicity.

- Federal and State bureaucrats get "more" land to manage that increases budgets and grades, etc.

- Federal politicians claim responsibility for "getting" the land for "the public".

- "Conservation" groups, Environmental groups, and Animal Rights NGO's see this as an opportunity to impose their agendas and urban political power in a growing number of states over a growing number of acres. This means anti-rural values and radical agendas to eliminate and diminish hunting and guns and fishing and grazing and logging and natural resource management are strengthened. I would bet that there have been extensive discussions and planning about the future of SE Colorado as an initial "Buffalo Commons" project both while "partnering" with DOD and when the land is "disposed of" after the so-far murkily described DOD need for more land" is met. This is part of "Wildlands", "Rewilding", "Corridors", etc. agenda to vacate rural America and further control all Americans and all property.

- Reversion of ownership to private owners, other than "connected" developers as in all the recent "Kelo-like" scandals, is seldom found as government controls are not only not relinquished but, tightened. Thus far, Kelo-like developments wherein political favoritism and narrow benefits to connected individuals cause a popular outrage has not been noted in these Defense downsizing but the potential is there.

When DOD ACQUIRES land:

- State politicians get "more" Federal funding and lose many headaches like highway maintenance, school support, and law enforcement responsibilities in the acquired areas where rural distances make average costs higher.

- State bureaucrats see opportunities to "partner" with Federal "players" on "studies" and "mitigation" management projects and areas. Currying favor with Federal agencies for possible future employment or funding or the likelihood of eventual land transfers to the State also enter into the State bureaucrat's calculus.

- Federal bureaucrats know they can get "more" funding for things like "Inventories" and "Studies" as well as to "manage" mitigation sites or "buffer zones" and DOD (Ecosystem/Native Species/Invasive Species/etc.) "resources". They also anticipate getting "grants" for NGO's (minus a hefty fee for "administration") to also do "studies" and "identify needs" and conduct inventories and manage "buffers" until bureaucracies can get more funding to do it themselves . Like their State cousins they feel confident that they will "get" much of the land eventually.

- Federal politicians will blow hot and cold on the expansion based on their reading of local tempers and national issues such as an Iraq withdrawal or another terror attack or the Presidential election and how it all affects THEM.

- "Conservation" NGO's are so parochial that they continue to believe as they have for 50 years that ANY PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF LAND "protects" (fill-in-the-blank) "better" than private property ownership. I leave it to you to categorize the holders of that belief.

- Environmental extremist NGO's like The Nature Conservancy, Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, and all their "Alliances" do everything they can to be "involved" in order to advance their agendas that are possible over time under Federal ownership but difficult to unlikely where private property, local government, and strong communities persist.

- Animal Rights radical NGO's like National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, Humane Society of the US, Animal Welfare Institute, PETA, and all their "Leagues" and "Liberation Fronts" and terrorist cells and joint "Conferences" with the Environmental extremist NGO's are enthusiastic backers of DOD takeover of private property. In their view such lands, like other Federal acquisitions, are lands that will shortly, if not eventually, be free of grazing and hunting and trapping and wildlife management and dogs and fishing and guns and school bus stops and rural enclaves that are the most stubborn of their opponents: all this, while increasing "corridors" and "natural areas" to be expanded and connected to their other agenda items that capitalize on government land control.

- Urban newspapers and urban commuters going about their busy schedules apply their urban experiences to what they hear and quickly nod that their rural cousins should give more and do more. This is simply what we see every day between Chicago and Illinois, between Boston and Massachusetts, between Los Angeles/San Francisco and California. Whether the subject is gun control or horse slaughter or wild animal control or managing natural resources, the positions take on the red/blue, liberal/conservative confrontations so popular today. In this instance the vague notion that if the government owns the land "more" water will be available for urban lawns and development (not necessarily true); the idea of taking rancher's property and driving rural residents and towns out of existence seems a small price to pay for those not affected and quietly hoping to benefit personally.

So to whom can the private property owner turn to when faced with a DOD declaration of "need" for their property? It is my belief that local "chess game" moves with these players are really long shots. It is as if you are faced with a wrestling "Tag Team" of a dozen or more players. Their (government and the NGO's) financial, media, and personnel resources are boundless. Their experience and lack of qualms are reminiscent of merchant marine barroom brawlers in old seaport bars of bygone years. They employ veterans of these scrapes, conduct training classes for "Facilitators" on how to "manage" meetings for government success and they build on past successes and avoid past failures experienced by all Federal bureaucracies over the years. They will do and have done whatever it takes to win. They are rewarded for THEIR success, not yours. Taking them on with anything less than this realistic understanding guarantees defeat before you begin.

Instead, I suggest that you look to a national solution based on solid American rights and freedoms. This is an approach with a long and revered history. The Declaration of Independence accused the King of both "raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands" and "affecting" (sic) "to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power" as two reasons "That these United Colonies are and ought to be Free and Independent States". The Preamble to the Constitution likewise mentions as purposes for why "We the People", "ordain and establish this Constitution" to both 1.) "establish Justice" and 2.) "insure domestic Tranquility" BEFORE mentioning "provide for the common defence". Such an approach as I propose to control national defense appropriation of private property by reforming the national exercise of authority should motivate support from a large portion of the electorate and all but eliminate the public opposition from all the supporters of the status quo already mentioned.

I propose a piece of national legislation. Now before you throw up your hands about the impossibility of obtaining a "new law", hear me out. There is the always-mentioned (usually by a politician that expresses support but shrugs about inevitable defeat) difficulty of getting legislation passed (Hearings, compromises, Senate approval, President's concurrence, etc.): all of which is true - up to a point. Legislation is frequently "dropped" into Appropriations Bills "in Conference" between the House and Senate. Legislation often comes out of nowhere as in the recent (as I wrote this talk) budget bill that simply was introduced in the House and Senate involving the shuffling of +/- $21 Billion in Federal Student Financial Assistance that according to Senator Gregg of New Hampshire "puts a stake through the heart of the budget process".

If you find committed Federal legislators (Senator and Representative) who will work with similarly situated counterparts like North Dakota (Grand Forks), South Dakota (Ellsworth), Oklahoma (Fort Sill), Kansas (Riley), Nevada (Bombing Range), Georgia (Benning), North Carolina (Lejeune) Virginia (Belvoir/Quantico), South Carolina (Shaw/Jackson), Texas (Hood), and Florida (Egelin) that are some examples of states with similar large bases surrounded by private property with expansion issues and should have potentially supportive national legislators) they could do all sorts of things with what I propose. Here is a working outline of what I believe is important for all Americans.

Title: An Act to Protect Rural Communities and Private Property from Department of Defense Expansions Whenever Suitable Public Property Will Serve the Needed Purpose.

Purpose: To provide that whenever the Department of Defense or any of its Departments or agencies establish or expand facilities by 500 acres or more that a Public Property Alternatives Assessment be completed before any taking by condemnation or "willing seller" of private property is proposed. Before Congress will approve any Appropriations for taking or purchasing land from private property owners for such Department of Defense facilities it must be assured that all alternatives within the Federal estate have been evaluated thoroughly before any private property is proposed for taking or purchase. This Public Property Alternatives Assessment must accompany and justify any Request to Congress for any authorization or funding to take any private property for expansion of a facility or establishment of a new facility. Only when there is no feasible current Federal ownership will any taking of private property be considered.

Policy: It is the policy of the government of the United States that private property ownership is not only a principal American right but also a beneficial fruit of and primary support for our Constitutional government. While recognizing the desirability of certain government land ownership and the evolving needs of the Defense Department for new lands as national challenges and new technologies dictate additional land needs for various purposes and recognizing the already vast land holdings of the Federal government for various Congressionally authorized purposes that are already a significant part of the American land mass and which are incrementally and annually increasing for a wide range of other purposes. Therefore we declare that before the Department of Defense plans for the acquisition or taking of any privately owned lands consisting of 500 acres or more, that all Federally owned or otherwise controlled Federal lands, regardless of any existing Congressionally authorized purposes such as National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, National Forest, Bureau of Land Management Unit or any other such Authorizations or any Declarations or Designations such as Wilderness or Roadless or any Orders such as Executive Orders shall be reviewed and evaluated as to their suitability for serving the identified Department of Defense need. Such analysis and recommendations shall be titled a Public Property Alternatives Assessment and accompany any Request to Congress for authorization to acquire any private property of over 500 acres by any means.

Provisions: Any Request to Congress for Funding for any Department of Defense land expansion of 500 acres or more must be accompanied by a completed Public Property Alternatives Assessment detailing the appropriateness of the most suitable ten Federal landholdings that could serve the identified Department of Defense need. Unless authorized differently by Congress due to extenuating circumstances, a Public Property Alternatives Assessment shall examine at least one suitable National Forest unit, one suitable National Park, one suitable national Wildlife Refuge, and two suitable Bureau of Land Management units. Additionally, at least two of the ten Federal landholdings evaluated and detailed in the Public Property Alternatives Assessment shall have been identified by interested citizens solicited for public comments after the above (no more than eight) units having been selected for review have been published and the Department of Defense need for additional land has also been published: such public solicitation shall include but not be limited to the identified need and the potential private property areas of the country that might otherwise be affected if no suitable Federal alternative is identified and selected. Points evaluated and reported on in the Public Property Alternatives Assessment shall include, but not be limited to: 1. An overall suitability rating for comparing the evaluated units to meet the Department of Defense need. 2. Financial cost comparisons among the public land alternatives and any private property identified as potentially necessary if the public lands are not selected to meet the need. 3. Environmental considerations. 4. Any necessary legislative modifications of Congressional legislation or Presidential Orders needed for modifications of administration of evaluated units of the Federal land estate. 5. A Summary Analysis that recommends the least damaging alternative to the rights of private property owners and the communities and economies affected by proposed Department of Defense expansions that meets the national defense need include comparable recommendations.

I could go on here but I am not a lawyer and I think you see where it goes. YOU get to name AT LEAST two alternatives to private property condemnation of your homes and communities. For instance, what about Wichita Mountains Refuge in Oklahoma (adjacent to Ft. Sill) or Charles Russell Refuge in Montana or several of the "Grasslands" Park Units in ND or Ok, or Montana? What about Cabeza Prieta Refuge on the Arizona/Mexico border? It was once prime hunting country but was transferred from BLM to US Fish and Wildlife and then made into a "Wilderness" that closed any real access, management or use in that harsh environment and this led to un-maintained "guzzlers" that diminished water for desert species and therefore further depressed desert animal populations and their management. This Refuge is near a large Air Force Base (Luke) and if maintained as a secure Army Base would greatly constrict illegal immigrant traffic into the US from a large part of the border with Mexico. Landscapes in all these areas are central Asian and the charismatic natural resources there are replaceable (elk, deer, antelope, etc.) and actually are less threatened by artillery than by the wolves and bears which the Federal agencies are using to eradicate herds of these same animals and thereby big game hunting for all but the rich all over the West. What about BLM units in Utah and Nevada and Wyoming ? There are at least a dozen that would be as good or better than Piñon Canyon for artillery practice. What about current "bombing ranges"? Are joint uses of such areas for training and operations really infeasible? Are Air Force and Army "needs" so different: so incompatible? What about New Mexico Federal land units where they are forcing out grazing, shutting down logging, and eliminating rural communities? What about Wilderness Areas on western plains or certain Forest Service Roadless Areas that look more like Afghanistan than does Kabul? What about the large "Grasslands" units of the Forest service and Park Service in the Dakotas, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and elsewhere? What about oil shale Reserves or Coal areas closed needlessly to mining and other uses as nearby urban areas scream for energy assistance from others? When I attended Utah State University I was told that Utah State had more Iranian students than any other University BECAUSE THE CLIMATE, TOPOGRAPHY AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF UTAH WERE MORE LIKE IRAN THAN ANY OTHER AMERICAN STATE. Honest persons with minimal skill could identify literally dozens of FEDERAL OWNERSHIPS as good or far better than the private property slated to be condemned in the Piñon Canyon, Colorado Proposal.

Honestly, it is my belief that causing the Department of Defense to contemplate "taking" other Federal units instead of convincing Congress to give them lots of money to buy out private property owners (like the Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service do routinely and annually) will make for more thoughtful, better justified, and smaller-scaled additional land requests.

I believe it is inarguable in a public forum to oppose a proposal that all Federally owned or controlled areas should be evaluated and eliminated BEFORE any private property is targeted for acquisition or condemnation in a Republic such as the United States of America. I for one would dearly welcome such a public debate on this issue. Does anyone really want to argue publicly that a Wilderness unit is more valuable than a community of families and schools and churches? Who will stand and argue that a refuge for big game is more valuable than a rural county or that the contributions of strong American families do not dwarf the vacuums of so many Federal acres today: when the same government is eradicating the same big game animals by spreading and protecting deadly predators and the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force scour the countryside for men and women from strong families and healthy communities to defend the nation?

The very notion that Federal land ownerships are more valuable than rural communities and private property is both false and repugnant. Private property owners and rural communities grow the soldiers, sailors and airmen that defend this country. We need a strong national defense to defend and preserve private property and American communities: NOT to preserve Federal land ownership! Who can argue that a rural America that is being diminished in so many ways (demographically, economically, politically, socially, and freedom-wise) is not in need of a national policy of utilizing currently held public lands, where feasible and suitable, for national defense needs? Is this not sound public policy?

Absent the sort of national legislation I am proposing, Americans near Department of Defense facilities will remain subject to the arbitrary and capricious treatment of Federal bureaucrats and their allies that also seek the steady expansion of Eased Lands and National Parks, Refuges and Forests. That is to say, all of the chicanery involved in secret initial planning; highly trained "facilitators" and "meeting" coordinators to make staged "hearings" look "open" and "comment" gathering and "analysis" that makes "input" appear "considered"; promises from one bureaucrat changed by bosses or new employees or different Solicitors or new appointees of a "new" administration; and even apparent delays that simply mask behind-the-scenes planning with Congressional staffs to coordinate the bureaucrats plans with the politician's plans for reelection. Open discussion, clearly stated law, and the opportunity of citizens to intervene (look no farther than the use of lawsuits by environmental NGO's utilizing "NEPA" and "EIS" requirements to change or oppose projects of all stripes) are the rightful expectations of all citizens. Absent NEPA, all the environmental chicanery and local "chess moves" by environmentalists would be simply grousing by people ignored by the powerful. This proposal is, in a sense, an American Private Property and Rural Community "NEPA" regarding the Department of Defense. If local owners and communities are favorably disposed, expansions can go through expeditiously.

Now I already went over the current "players" and what we can or cannot expect from them but there is now one more group we need to be alert to: I speak here of the Quasi-Government Organizations (QGO's). These are the retired Park Superintendents and Refuge Employees and the Public Employee Environmental Groups and all the "Friends" of the Refuge System or of a particular National Park (usually a nearby one that they helped get authorized by Congress or that they "protect), Historical Societies, Audubon Chapters, etc. They have webs of influence to Congress both to and thru the Federal agency of their choice and they act as surrogates for bureaucrats and agencies as they lobby Congress and guard their "pet heritage" like AARP "guards" social security and Medicare. These QGO's will arise like an electrified spider web when they perceive this "threat" from "uppity" rural communities and private property owners that think they are more important than some agency or "expert" or NGO or Wilderness when national defense needs are expressed (how silly and un-American that sounds when written out or spoken). However, you need only be aware of their presence and if you have a law like I outlined above on your side, you can challenge things in Court and hold public discourse that will win the day considering all the Federal lands available across the nation.

None of these people who will fight this have truth or right on their side. They must depend on intimidation and subterfuge. Like any fight worth fighting, either you fight them and win or you just fold up your tent and turn your back on your heritage and America's traditions of freedom and rights and steal away into the night. We need to provide for the best national defense possible but, not at the expense of what we are purporting to defend. Unless there is no portion of more than a half-billion acres of Federal lands that is suitable to meet Department of Defense needs: NO PRIVATE PROPERTY SHOULD BE CONVERTED TO FEDERAL OWNERSHIP to meet defense needs! This is the "Justice" and "Domestic Tranquility" referred to in the Preamble to the US Constitution.

I think it can be done and I think this is the best way I know of to protect citizens from government that looks on itself as sacrosanct and private property merely as theirs for the taking.. ONLY IF the Department of Defense accepts the sound approach of evaluating all Federal lands before taking private property, and only when the bureaucrats and their web of supporters understand that Federal land ownerships support the national defense and not vice versa, can you and I hope to preserve our rights and our communities. It has always been true that it is only when people face a severe loss of their liberties that solutions that provide for their rights and freedom are found. Success depends on your commitment to save your communities and your rights thereby saving the rights and freedoms of all Americans now and in the future.

I hope this has helped at least spur some ideas or even to suggest a practical strategy to keep Piñon Canyon the cradle of liberty and freedom that it has been for the past 150 years.

Thanks for inviting me to speak here today.

Jim Beers

- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)

- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact: jimbeers7@verizon.net

- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.

Good Neighbor Committee
P.O. Box 155 - La Salle, CO  80645
info@goodneighborlaw.com

| Good Neighbor Law© 2006 |