Skeen Wants Hearings In House
On Forest Service Secret Deals

WASHINGTON — A New Mexico congressman is pushing for a congressional hearing on what he has labeled "secret agreements" between the U.S. Forest Service and environmental activists that excluded ranchers, the one element adversely impacted by the outcome.

In response to lawsuits brought by activists, the Forest Service agreed to bar cattle from stream and river zones on dozens of grazing allotments on national forests in New Mexico and Arizona, supposedly to protect "endangered species."

The agreements were reached in closed-door negotiations, and only became public in court records.

It has been standard practice for decades for federal bureaucrats to invite lawsuits from activist groups, then go behind closed doors to "settle" them. That gives the agencies "cover" to do what they wanted to do all along, but which otherwise would have been politically dangerous.

Rep. Joe Skeen, R-N.M., said last week he had tentative approval for a July 15 hearing of the House Resources Committee to discuss the agreements between the agency and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity of Tucson, Ariz.

Skeen, who said he was troubled the agreements were reached without the influence of ranchers, said he would invite non-congressional witnesses to testify about the settlements.

"I have been extremely concerned about these back-room negotiations regarding the livelihood of individuals and families who have a right to use public lands," Skeen said in a news release.

He said he had let the Forest Service handle its endangered species concerns within established processes until now.

"However, with the latest agreement between the Forest Service and environmental groups, I have no other choice but to insert the authority of the Congress regarding this matter."

The same activists who had locked stockmen out of their deal-making sessions challenged Skeen to invite them to the hearings.

"It will be very interesting to see if we're invited," said Kieran Suckling, director of the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. "Will Joe Skeen invite the environmentalists who the hearing is about? Skeen is going to try to stack the deck against the environmentalists. I'll be pretty surprised if he does invite us."

Ranchers were given the chance to sign off on the agreements but refused, contended Suckling. He didn’t add that the offer was only to agree to a done deal they were given no part in reaching.

At Skeen's urging, the House Appropriations Committee last week approved $400,000 to help ranchers hurt by the agreements. The money would pay for fences and alternative water systems in fiscal 1999.

The activists, bent on driving livestock operations off public lands, protested even that effort to moderate the damage.

Suckling said the $400,000 appropriation sounded like socialism.

The settlements require ranchers to keep cattle away from streambeds. Skeen said ranchers should not have to bear the costs of adverse effects of the Endangered Species Act, such as fencing, particularly when the problem has been poor Forest Service management.

Skeen also requested that the Forest Service use independent parties to verify methods used in determining grazing capacity of allotments.

"The public has a right to use public lands according to the principles of multiple use and sound management practices. In my view, recent adverse actions taken by the Forest Service against the livestock industry are contrary to these principles," Skeen said.

Pat Jackson, appeals and litigation officer for the Forest Service's Southwest Region, said the agreements were part of a process that had been under way for years, and that the livestock industry was aware of it. Like Suckling, however, Jackson was careful not to address the question of whether the ranchers — some of whom might have been "aware" of the "process" — were actually allowed any part in it.