April 20, 2011

It’s common knowledge that environmental groups (a.k.a. eco-activists) and the federal government are allies.
Who facilitates whose agenda remains the question.
Regardless, the agenda is to end domestic resource production like timber harvest and energy exploration; and in my case, cattle grazing.
We resource providers stewardship our private land in conjunction with contracted public land, in order to provide essential products for public consumption.
But, the federal government and eco-activists want to control this land and water; whether private or public.
So one tool they use to get this control, is the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
Here’s how it works: The federal government gives eco-activists money to first file a suit against…the federal government (to stop resource production).
The feds respond to the eco-activist suit by asking, “How much do you want,” and quickly write a check for an amount which oft times includes attorney fees at $650.00 an hour.
In contrast, the resource provider is forced to respond (or lose everything) on their own dime.
As a sponsor of a proposal to end payment of these attorney fees, Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said the “1980 law is a ‘“very fair law.”’
“But,” she continued, “Payments should stop because there’s no centralized information about which lawyers and plaintiffs are getting fee awards.”
Wyoming attorney Frank Falen once explained if a resource provider files suit against the federal government, “They (resource provider) have to win before they can try to collect. A process which takes years of jumping through all kinds of obstacles,”
Most don’t collect. This creates what eco-activists gleefully boast as their “willing” seller.
Whereas the resource provider, now out of time and money, finally succumbs to becoming a “forced” seller; and the federal government and eco-activists take over his land and water.
Now that you know more abour eco-activists, do you think your money should be used to fund them?

Chuck Sylvester