True Ownership of Roger Barnett's Ranch
Roger Barnett is the worst of the vigilante ranchers! He has bragged that he has made thousands of armed arrests of illegal Mexican migrants on his ranch.
At the June 3, 2000 "Strategy Meeting" to establish peace at the border, Mr. Randy Serraglio of the Southwest Alliance to Resist Militarization (SWARM) made a presentation on his research concerning the true ownership of Roger Barnett's ranch. The following map and study was prepared by Mr. Serraglio. It looks like approximately 80% of the ranch actually belongs to the taxpayers of Arizona. Other participants gave information that leads one to conclude that Mr. Barnett is well connected to State of Arizona bureucrats. His "lease" agreement with the state is at the cost of the taxpayers. Also, Mr. Barnett owns a lucrative vehicle hauling business and it was stated that a principal client of his is the U.S. Border Patrol.
Land Tenure Situation of Vigilante Ranchers-Preliminary Research
Barnett Ranch - According to his Arizona State Land Department lease file (05-670), Roger Barnett leases almost 14,000 acres of state trust lands from AZ taxpayers. He claims a little over 4000 acres in adjacent private holdings on the grazing lease application, meaning at least 75% of his ranch is public land. The 10-year lease was assumed by Barnett in 1995 and is due for expiration/renewal in 2005. Barnett has consistently stated in the media that his ranch is 22,000 acres. The discrepancy is probably the result of a sub-lease of about 4000 acres from some adjacent ranch, but this has not yet been verified. (Such sub-leases are not recorded at the Land Dept.)
Lease Terms - The relevant clause in the lease gives Barnett the right to protect the property and improvements from damage and trespass as long as he doesn’t create a “breach of the peace” in the process. The clause remains to be defined by a judge, since this situation apparently has never been tried in court. But probably the worst risk here for Barnett would be getting his lease stripped based on a violation of the terms. However, there is a potential here to involve the State Land Dept. in any civil rights case that involves activities on public lands, which may be of some benefit in bringing pressure to halt the vigilante activity.
Benefits/liabilities to taxpayers - Barnett pays $2.18 per head of cattle per month to lease the state trust land, and is current on his payments. This is only a fraction of what he would pay ($6-8) to lease the same type of land from a private source. This represents a substantial subsidy to the ranching industry, at the expense of taxpayers. Grazing on federal land alone costs U.S. taxpayers $500 million a year, with untold millions more at the state level.
“Eco-terrorists” - Barnett has called the undocumented workers crossing his land “eco-terrorists”, in typically dehumanizing fashion, because of the trash they leave on his ranch. However, grazing has been shown in environmental studies to be the most destructive environmental factor in Arizona-worse than mining, timber cutting or urban sprawl. Cattle have helped destroy and degrade 95% of AZ riparian areas and contributed to the endangerment and extinction of numerous species. Not all ranchers abuse the privilege of public lands grazing, but on the whole the grazing is simply not suited to the dry desert habitat of Arizona.
The Spotlight - Ranchers are a small (only about 1200 AZ state trust grazing leases statewide), insulated “family” of basically conservative folks, many of whom are clinging to the past and a certain “traditional lifestyle”. The area of public lands grazing leases is basically an extension of this “good ol’ boy” network, involving the very rancher-friendly State Land Dept. Within this community there is usually very little public dissension. However, many ranchers do not support Barnett’s rabid anti-immigrant stance, even though they may well be concerned about the situation and their own ranches. This presents the opportunity for careful cultivation of such dissension and the potential for peer pressure to be brought by other ranchers against Barnett, et al. The perception that Barnett speaks for all ranchers is false and should be exposed as such.
