I do not favor it for New Mexico. I think it does have applications for the other States. In spite of the fact that we offered the amendment, we cannot prevent the standards and precedent. I think it would be a bigger problem if all of the eight States were involved as opposed to New Mexico with this five-member commission. But I would point out also, he suggests what about the private individuals that, in good faith, bought the property in New Mexico or the Federal Government that has established a forest. I remember the controversy over the issue with regards to the Hopi-Navaho Conflict when, in fact, Secretary Lujan recommended a couple hundred thousand acres of forest be given to the Navaho in Arizona. That is the sort of issue that we are setting up here over the next 10 years. Furthermore, if one has title to the property and one bought it in good faith, this legislation says that that property will go back to the individuals we recommended and that the Federal Government will do the compensation. That is dollars and cents.
Bruce F. Vento: “I do not favor it for New Mexico. I think it does have applications for the other States. In spite of the fact that we…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of legislation affecting property rights in New Mexico.
Share
More from Bruce F. Vento
I wish both of them continued success in their endeavors and congratulate them on an outstanding season.
It is time that Congress breath new life into Wilderness Preservation System and expand on its already diverse portfolio.
It is time for Congress to push forward a wilderness agenda and teach our children a land use ethic that will protect the land and its creatures for generations to come.
this is a bad rule and a bad deal, but it is the only option we will get in this Republican controlled House. The effort here is to try and defeat, and if not to defeat to undercut, any positive step to make a downpayment upon true…





