PiГ±on Canyon Showdown

7 thoughts on “PiГ±on Canyon Showdown”

1. It is ironic that the many of the folks who support continuation of the war in Iraq, a stronger military and beat the “war on terrorism”/”support our troops” drums the loudest are also vocal opponents of military expansion in Pinon Canyon.  The conservative argument against Pinon Canyon expansion is based on a general opposition to government taking of private property.

   The ranchers who decry the government’s attempt to take “their” property have a chain of title that fundamentally traces to government property grants/gifts (i.e., homesteads, mining claims or railroad section grants) of lands the government forceably took from Indians and Spaniards.

   If Indians showed up to protest how Pinon Canyon was taken away from them and they are entitled to compensation of some sort, they’d be laughed out of the room by the same folks who now complain about the Army’s heavy handedness.

   Hey, maybe we could resettle the ranchers to reservations?

    

   Log in to Reply

   1. I question “many of the folks who support continuation of the war in Iraq, a stronger military and beat the “war on terrorism”/”support our troops” drums the loudest are also vocal opponents of military expansion in Pinon Canyon.” 
      I don’t.

      If you go to http://www.pinyoncayon.com, you will see this coalition is much larger, involving across party lines, “folks” like the National Trust for Historic Preservation who has placed the area on the 11 National Most Endangered Places List. This is about the history of the emergence of the west and Colorado that is reflected in Place. The generations of families who live and work the ranches and farms (for those who have no clue about rural Colorado, these are different operations), maintaining a delicate short grass prairie habitat, supply food in an imperiled time. The expansion means taking productive agricultural land from not only the state and nation food supply, but also land rich in wildlife diversity, supporting a rich ecosystem, and ripe for renewable energy such as wind and solar, plus Heritage Tourism.

      Consider what is happening on food and beverage deficits of this country.
      Exports of food, feed and beverages totaled $65.9 billion in 2006 vs. $74.9 billion in Imports, a $9 billion deficit. Further
      January 2007 import statistics show Increases occurred in foods, feeds, and beverages (a negative$900 million) When will it stop?
      We as a nation cannot continue to reduce our agricultural community’s ability to produce food by reducing, productive land in our rural communities.

      There are many economic disadvantages to the region and state if the Expansion occurs that could be detailed.

      Implying that this is only about a private property issue of certain residents is inaccurate and not productive.

      It is alarming the number of acreage the Pentagon has to work with. Why take more when the Pentagon can use land it already owns and land that can better serve Homeland Security by producing food and energy.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Being the dependent of an Air Force Master Sergeant, growing up on bases and not in the officer’s enclave, I can say I do support the families and troops who are serving. But I understand the complexity of what life is like for those in the military who are not among the officer class. I was a part of the reality of my father being in Korea, of Viet Nam and the limited family support that was there.

         My father would be appalled at losing this area when there are alternatives. He and my grandfather were a part of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) helping to reclaim the land and build structures that still exist and are now our heritage, the lessons learned from the Depression. It is the bequest of the Dust Bowl years that could be so easily repeated.

         Log in to Reply

      2. The controversy swirling about Pinon Canyon would not be present if individual ranchers decided to sell their land to a Home Depot, a WalMart or shopping center or to a housing developer to contribute to urban sprawl.  The same folks who are now complaining about the Army’s acquisition of the land would not, in my opinion, utter a peep if the land fell victim to the same urban development and sprawl that enveloped the Monument corridor, Banning Lewis Ranch, Parker, Boulder-Broomfield, etc.  Why does the Army need the land — one could also legitimately ask why do we need another Home Depot, a WalMart or Flatirons Crossing?

         It strikes me as disingenuous to argue in support of the military, but oppose expansion of bases to faciliate training.  The “cost” of a military includes a lot of property.  As long as we demand our military engage in places like Iraq and Afghantistan, then part of the cost we have to pay is big swatches of land set aside for that military muscle.

         It also stikres me as disingenuous to use government muscle to take the land away from the Mexicans and Indians who lived on that land for centuries and then complain when the same muscle comes knocking at your door. 

         The Cheyenne and Arapahoe tribes — now residing in Oklahoma thanks to the US government — filed claims for 27 million arces of land in Colorado (called the Homecoming Project).  Of course, the government opposed those claims — and protects the ranchers and landowners in Pinon Canyon from these claims — and denies the tribes ANY compensation for their taking.  Why is it offensive for the Army to take land from the ancestors of the landowners and ranchers in Pinon Canyon who used the Army to take the land from the Indians and Mexicans who lived there for centuries?  And, continue to use the power of government in decades-long legal proceedings to deny compensation to Indians for that taking?

         I suspect the Cheyenne and Arapahoe in Oklahoma would say “Welcome to the Indian world.”

         We already demand that Ft Carson soldiers to make multiple deployments in Iraq away from their families.  If they have to train at Ft Hood or in California, that only adds to the time we demand they spend away from their families.

         Log in to Reply

         1. “It’s all about land 
            The controversy swirling about Pinon Canyon would not be present if individual ranchers decided to sell their land to a Home Depot, a WalMart or shopping center or to a housing developer to contribute to urban sprawl.  The same folks who are now complaining about the Army’s acquisition of the land would not, in my opinion, utter a peep if the land fell victim to the same urban development and sprawl that enveloped the Monument corridor, Banning Lewis Ranch, Parker, Boulder-Broomfield, etc.  Why does the Army need the land — one could also legitimately ask why do we need another Home Depot, a WalMart or Flatirons Crossing?”

            This is ludicrous and arrogant. Visit the region learn some realities. The economy is agriculture not urban sprawl,not becoming indistinqishable from other towns and cities around the country. There is enough of this on the Front Range. We have water, we have land to raise cattle, raise crops, maintain the ecosystem, and preserve our cultural heritage. If the food supply is cut off to the US, we can feed ourselves, we are sustainable.

            The life we live is good and we value our land, water and air. We value the earth and are good stewards.

            Read today’s Pueblo Chieftain editorial http://www.chieftain…

            As for Fort Carson’s soldiers being away from their families, this is the new military and Fort Carson propaganda. This argument just emerged. Let’s face it the Military got caught when the 2002 planning map surfaced. It is the Military’s own documents and acknowledment that has given the Opposition its ammunition. This began with greed in the Pentagon. Look at the BRAC 2005 where it is stated that Fort Carson has the necessary space for training and it is not tied to the expansion of Pinon Canyon.

            And your argument about taking of land from the Indians is tired and inaccurate. These same ranchers with some having Apache and Spanish roots going back before the Homestead Act, were not the ones who took the land. If anything we are repeating history with another land grab.

            By the way did you even read the letter I posted from Doug Holdread? It sounds like you are caught up in some cultural
            world of your own and you do not know what you are talking about.

            Log in to Reply

            1. Here are the stats for agriculture in Las Animas county (from the USDA census of agriculture).

               302 farms and ranches had sales less than $10,000
               144 had sales between $10,000 and $50,000
               69 had sales between $50,000 and $100,000
               Only 93 had sales greater than $100,000

               Sales are revenues, NOT profits, so what folks actually earned on these farms/ranches is considerably less than sales.  The USDA reported that in Las Animas county about 350 farms reported losses and 220 farms reported net profits, with an average farm income of only $3,300 in 2002.

               Government subsidies in 2002 (the year of the census) to those farms and ranches totaled $1.4 million, or about $8,200 per farm/ranch.

               The average farm/ranch size in Las Animas county is 4,000 acres, so a lot of land is tied up to yield these small economic returns.

               The median household income in Colorado is about $50,000.  In Las Animas county, the median household income is about $31,000.

               With all due respect, those are hardly the indicators of a prosperous, vibrant agricultural economy.

               You argue that there are ranchers with roots going back to the Spanish and Indian days.  The statistics for Las Animas county don’t bear that out that assertion.  According to the USDA census of agriculture

               556 farms and ranches in Las Animas county are run by 858 whites who farm/ranch 2.3 million acres

               12 farms and ranches in Las Animas county are run by 14 Indians who farm/ranch only a total of 5,594 acres

               115 farms and ranches in Las Animas county are run by 152 Mexicans who farm/ranch 191,650 acres.

               Thus, whites account for 84% of ranchers and 81% of the farms and ranches and control 92% of the land in Las Animas county.  Indian ranchers/farmers are only 2% of the ranchers and control only 0.2% of the ranch land.  From where I sit, it sure looks like Indians got driven off the land in Las Animas.

               Log in to Reply

         2. ‘if individual ranchers decided to sell their land’

            the plans the army has talked about are either forced sale, or cutting hold out off from commercial centers.

            Not the same.

            Log in to Reply