"CICA is strictly a grassroots driven group,
as we represent private enterprise and the true
cattle growers of Colorado."

Hot Topics


Latest News   | Archives

Southeast Colorado Private Property Rights Council

PO Box 68

Rocky Ford, CO 81067


Information: Proposed National Heritage Area Designation in Southeast Colorado

The Southeast Colorado Private Property Rights Council, covering the southeast Colorado counties of Baca, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero, Prowers, and Pueblo, is dedicated to the protection of private property rights threatened by the proposed National Heritage Area designation for the same eight-county region, comprising 10,765,000 acres, 83 percent of which is private property. The Council endeavors to educate the public on the threat to private property rights through the National Heritage Area designation, and has compiled the information in the following links:


NHA Information Handout
NHA Opposition Flyer

The handout and flyer were created to spread awareness about the proposed NHA for southeast Colorado. Please take time to read through this information. It is very important that Colorado citizens research and become educated about NHAs. Canyons & Plains of Southeast Colorado plans to propose this NHA to Congress later this year or in early 2015. NHAs are created by Congressional designation and private property owners cannot opt-out. Through research we have found that Canyons & Plains has been working on this proposal since 2009. They are currently working on their feasibility study, which is one of the steps to become a NHA. We must spread awareness quickly and get this stopped. Please print and circulate this information. Please contact your local county commissioners, state senators, and representatives, as well as U.S. senators and representatives to let them know your position on this issue.

You can find important updates on Facebook at:

Southeast Colorado Private Property Rights Council Facebook Page

Thank you,
Kerry Lewis
Southeast Colorado Private Property Rights Council
P.O. Box 68
Rocky Ford, CO 81067

 

_______________________________________________________________

Secretary Vilsack
USDA
Washington DC

Secretary Vilsack

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Animal Disease Traceability Rules for the Colorado Independent Cattlegrowers Association (CICA). CICA represents independent grassroots cattle producers in Colorado all of whom own cattle. We have been a part of the process of improving animal disease traceability while minimizing the cost to producers and not impeding the speed of commerce for the past six years. The proposed rules have been the result of giant strides from where we started. However, they still need more improvement.

Standards set in the proposed rules call for the movement toward identification within the feeder cattle segment when 70% of the adult cattle meet the interstate shipment standards. Mr. Secretary, when I was in school 70% was a “D-“. The chances are the 70% standard would not have improved the traceability of the Alabama BSE Cow. If USDA cannot attain 90% compliance or higher with these standards, the system has serious flaws and is not ready to move to the feeder cattle phase. Mr. Secretary, surly the USDA is better than a “D-“.

An important part of Animal Disease Traceability is maintaining identification thru the harvest process. These proposed rules do not address this problem adequately. Slaughter facilities must be held to the same standards that producers are. The slaughter facilities must be required to maintain identification thru the harvest process to be able to ship meat products in interstate commerce. CICA understands that this will involve two USDA agencies, APHIS and FSIS. That means you, Mr. Secretary, must step forward to make this happen. If adequate identification thru the harvest process is not maintained the ADT system has no value and should not be implemented.

Brands have always been an important means of animal identification within the 17 brand states. The proposed rules downgrade brands from official to unofficial identification. This resulted in USDA rejecting the New Mexico cooperative agreement because it listed brands as official identification as required by state law (that decision was overturned after pressure from the livestock industry). The rules should designate brands as an official form of identification between states with agreements to accept brands.

As the industry moves into Animal Disease Traceability the requirements on what data is included on ICVI’s becomes critical to minimizing costs and maintaining the speed of commerce. Any requirement to list individual official identification numbers with the exception of official back tags on ICVI’s for adult cattle destined for slaughter will be too costly to the industry and unacceptable to CICA producers. The requirement to officially identify feeder cattle for interstate shipment may someday be part of ADT. Any requirement to list official identification numbers on ICVI’s for feeder cattle is unacceptable to CICA producers. These requirements will prove far too costly to the industry and provide little benefit to animal disease traceability.


Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed rules.

John Reid, Animal ID Coordinator
Colorado Independent Cattlegrowers Association

 

_______________________________________________________________

Not 1 More Acre!

PO Box 773

Trinidad, Colorado 81082

news@not1moreacre.net


Army picks Fort Carson for helicopter brigade

Move worries opponents of Pinon Canyon expansion.

By PETER ROPER | The Pueblo Chieftain

In a decision that's been expected, the Army announced Friday it intends to base a new, 120-helicopter Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Carson, a move that will add 2,700 soldiers to the Mountain Post.

It also is likely to intensify the conflict over the Army's use of the 238,000-acre Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

The Army has been deliberating for more than a year about where to base two aviation brigades. Fort Carson has been one of the choices, given that it already has a helicopter field - Butts Airfield - and has seen a steady buildup of troops. The 4th Infantry Division and its four combat brigades shifted to Fort Carson three years ago.

On Friday, the Army Environmental Command at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, announced that a final regulatory step in choosing where to base the helicopter units was complete - the release of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. That report will be available for review for 30 days before the Army announces a final decision March 5. The report can be read on the Internet at http://aec.army.mil/usaec/nepa/topics00.html

The Army has been looking at two bases: Fort Carson and Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Wash.

"Fort Carson and JBLM are the only stationing alternatives that meet all of the Army's stationing requirements for (aviation) stationing," the Army said in its announcement. Those two bases locations have existing runways and airfields, as well as adequate maneuver and airspace for training, it said.

The environmental report looks at the impact of the helicopter brigade participating in training exercises at Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site northeast of Trinidad. The Army and ranchers in that area have been battling for five years over the Defense Department's desire to acquire more land for Pinon Canyon.

Not 1 More Acre! is an opposition group that successfully sued the Army over an environmental study intended to justify a heavier training schedule at Pinon Canyon. The Army's analysis and decision to ramp up training were both set aside by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch in September 2009. Matsch called the environmental study inadequate.

The group filed comments with the Army in January that any study of using the helicopter brigade at Pinon Canyon would defy Matsch's decision that the Army had not met the regulatory requirements to justify more training activities at Pinon Canyon.

"We're alarmed that despite the order by US District Court Judge Matsch 19 months ago prohibiting expanded training at Pinon Canyon - and with a comprehensive funding ban in Congress prohibiting any expansion at Pinon Canyon - the Pentagon and its contractors are proceeding," said Jim Herrell, a board member of the group.

The Army has filed a new environmental assessment on Pinon Canyon, which it considers to be an answer to Matsch's criticisms.

The Army's intention to put the helicopter brigade at Fort Carson was applauded by Rep. Doug Lamborn, the Republican who represents Colorado Springs and the 5th Congressional District.

Lamborn said the decision would deepen the Army's commitment to Fort Carson, adding that the brigade would require $224 million in construction support.

"This move would allow our ground troops to do more joint exercises with the helicopters, thus more closely simulating actual combat situations," he said in a statement Friday.

A possible impact on the Pueblo area is Fort Carson officials recently said that the arrival of the helicopter brigade would justify the Army re-opening Gate 19 into Fort Carson. That gate would be just west of the Tomahawk truck stop south of Fountain on Interstate 25.

Not 1 More Acre!
Purgatoire, Apishapa & Comanche Grassland Trust
PO Box 773
Trinidad, Colorado 81082

Sister organizations working for the people, wildlife and places of southern Colorado and northern New Mexico.
_____________________________________________________________



Las Animas County denies Army covenant

Commissioners seek permanent ban of Piñon Canyon expansion
Posted: Saturday, February 5, 2011

By ANTHONY A. MESTAS | The Pueblo Chieftain

TRINIDAD - The Las Animas County commissioners said Wednesday that they will not sign a community covenant with the Army and instead have asked Colorado lawmakers and top military officials to terminate all efforts by the U.S. Army to ever expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

They also asked the Department of Defense to withdraw a 2006 waiver that would allow for the expansion of the maneuver site east of town

The commissioners on Tuesday approved a letter to be sent to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of the Army John McHugh, Joseph Westphal, undersecretary of the Army and Ashton B. Carter, undersecretary of the Army Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

Another letter was approved to be sent to Democratic Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet and Republican U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, who represents the 3rd Congressional District which includes Las Animas County.

The commissioners and city officials have recently been approached by Fort Carson Col. Robert McLaughlin, requesting that the two entities sign the covenant, created by the Army in 2007.

It was designed to reflect support for U.S. military troops and their families as they undertake their missions.

In their letter, the commissioners said their reluctance in signing the covenant is not for lack of support of military troops but rather their concern that such a document would be misconstrued to suggest that they support an expansion of the maneuver site.

McLaughlin has said several times that the covenant has nothing to do with the expansion, but officials and citizens said they do not trust the Army.

"Without equivocation, this board, and all of Las Animas County extends its support for our military troops and their families," the letter stated.

"It has been and always will be our strongest desire that our military troops be as well-trained as possible so that they can attain their military objectives in as safe a manner as possible."

Las Animas County and city officials have until Tuesday to decide whether they will sign the agreement.

City Council members also have shown reluctance to signing the covenant. City Council may adopt a resolution supporting military troops rather than signing the covenant.

A meeting to take up the resolution was canceled Tuesday because of weather. The resolution will be on the agenda at a future meeting.

The commissioners said taking the waiver off the table should be accomplished by legislative action.

In the letter to Colorado delegates, the commissioners requested them to persuade the U.S. Army command to withdraw the waiver.

"Your affirmative action is requested to legislatively adopt a permanent ban on any and all funding that allows for or supports efforts by the U.S. Army to ever expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site," the commissioners wrote.

The commissioners said the possible expansion has been a threat to adjacent landowners and the entire community for far too long.

They said it has created limitations for landowners to realize the full benefits of their land and their lifestyle and has caused a significant devaluation of their properties.

"The Army has never definitively proven a need to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site and has only minimally used the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in its current configuration."

The commissioners urged officials to take the necessary steps to, once and for all, remove the threat of expansion so that adjacent land owners and the community can live their lives in peace.

Not 1 More Acre!
Purgatoire, Apishapa & Comanche Grassland Trust
PO Box 773
Trinidad, Colorado 81082

Sister organizations working for the people, wildlife and places of southern Colorado and northern New Mexico.



_______________________________________________________________

Archives:

Duped, hoodwinked, and misinformed!!

On June 21, GIPSA, Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration announced some proposed rule changes to the 90 year old Packers and Stockyards Act. These proposed rules attempt to clarify and define the "Act" as it relates to market actions between producers and processors in the poultry, swine, and beef markets. The Act was originally written in the 1920's by Congress with the recognition that the Sherman Anti-Trust laws did not go far enough in protecting unorganized independent livestock producers when selling into a concentrated market place. Congress recognized independent producers needed more protection from market abuse and deceptive buying practices than Anti-Trust laws afforded. Thus finally after over 90 years the 2008 Farm Bill directed USDA and GIPSA to develop rules and clarification that would make P&S enforceable and attempt to rectify market power abuse between individual producers who sell into a highly concentrated procurement system, i.e., in beef four firms harvest around 85% of all beef production.


Since that announcement on June 21 of these proposed changes the AMI, American Meat Institute, and some national livestock organizations, primarily NCBA and NPPC and their state affiliates have been crying foul. It is not surprising that AMI, the powerful representative for the packers would be lobbying against these changes but the degree to which so called producer organizations have aligned themselves with the effort to undermine, distort, deceive, and create paranoia among producers is a bit confounding. The concentration in the meat protein processing and procurement business is well documented. This power is not only domestic but international. In the last 20 years beef producers have lost $.20 of the retail beef dollar slipping from $.62 back to $.42. It is no wonder that the packing and retailing segment s of the processing industry do not want enforcement of the P&S Act. But for producers and their so called commodity organizations to be the spokesmen for defeat of these proposed changes is incomprehensible to me and suggests ignorance of how the dynamics of our current market actually works.
Just in the last few weeks CCA put out a news release entitled GIPSA rules could have unintended consequences. I am tired of hearing this rhetoric and suggest that we should be discussing and debating the intended consequences of continued market concentration upon independent beef producers and feeders. For the dynamics of any market to work, where producers have the ability to negotiate effectively with packers to get profitable returns from a market place equal power must exist. This cannot happen when an individual seller deals with a packer buyer. This was recognized in the 1920's and 90 years later as the industry has evolved and become even more concentrated than the times leading up to the original P&S Act of 1921.


The consequences of doing nothing are evident in every agriculture community every year. There are less independent ranchers and farmers raising and/or feeding cattle. The trend since 1980 is staggering - those of us left are getting older. Look at our rural schools and any rural town that depends on agriculture, I submit that unless an agriculture community is next to a developing urban corridor you will be experiencing a state of decline.

So, CCA, CLA NCBA, NPPC go ahead keep carrying the water for the meat packers with their absurd propaganda and their ridiculous accusations about the unintended consequences of the proposed rule changes to the P&S Act. The 'Study" referenced by John Dunham and Associates was nothing more than a spin piece created by a New York firm with a history of media influence on issues such as this. If your organizations are going to oppose something - at least do your own homework.


This is an historic time for beef producers. There is an opportunity to empower P&S to help balance the market place in the beef producer segment so we do not end up like the chicken and pork industries, and yes maybe even help halt the decline of our rural communities. No, nothing is perfect but to do nothing is a vote for more concentration and less beef producers and yet smaller rural communities

Gerald Schreiber
Vice President Colorado Independent CattleGrowers Association

An E&E Publishing Service

MILITARY LANDS: Study details Army's plans to acquire 7M acres in southeast Colo.  (Thursday, October 30, 2008)
Eryn Gable, special to Land Letter

For years, opponents of the Army's plan to expand the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site have pointed to 'the big map' as evidence that the military plans to take over the entire southeastern corner of Colorado.
Army officials, however, have dismissed the map over the past two years whenever ranchers fighting the expansion have held it up as the Defense Department's ultimate goal. But that tactic has hit a hurdle now that opponents have uncovered the May 2004 study by Fort Carson planners that explains the big map, an analysis they say makes clear that the land acquisition was designed to take place in many phases, with the ultimate goal of garnering almost 7 million acres.

The study urges the Army to purchase 5.9 million acres of private land around Piñon Canyon plus 1 million acres of public land across five counties to form an installation for training all branches of the U.S. military as well as 'allied forces.' The multi-service battlefield would be more than triple the size of the enormous White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, which, at 2.2 million acres, is currently the largest military installation in the United States.

The plan puts the land acquisition costs at almost $1.4 billion and says that 17,263 people in five counties would be 'displaced' to establish the sprawling military base.

And the first step in the plan calls for the Army to purchase 80,000 acres directly south of the current training site, which opponents say bears a striking resemblance to the Army's current push for 100,000 acres south of the Piñon Canyon site.

The Army proposed purchasing 100,000 acres adjacent to the southern boundary of the existing Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site, rather than its original plan of 418,000 acres, in a report to Congress this summer. Faced with a battle that had spilled into Congress as ranchers and their supporters fought the expansion, Keith Eastin, the army's assistant secretary for installations and environment, characterized the move as 'an honest effort to find common ground.'

'A blunt instrument'
The May 2004 policy document prepared by Fort Carson was obtained as part of a federal court challenge to Pentagon plans to expand the size and boundaries of the 238,000-acre Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site. The opposition group Not 1 More Acre! is suing the Army in U.S. District Court in Denver over alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act associated with the Piñon Canyon 'transformation' environmental impact statement issued in 2006.


Mack Louden, a rancher in Branson, Colo., and a Not 1 More Acre! board member, said the document revealed the true scale of the Pentagon's ambitions to swallow southeastern Colorado. 'It was like a blunt instrument between the eyes, realizing that they wanted 6.9 million acres,' Louden said.

Army spokesman Dave Foster called the ranchers' claims 'absolutely false.' 'The 2004 document was a working document at Fort Carson,' Foster said. 'It was never provided to higher headquarters, to the Department of the Army level.'


Foster said military installations nationwide prepare many such documents, but 'many of those documents never go anywhere.'
The spokesman also reiterated that the Army has no intention of acquiring more than the additional 100,000 acres near the site, even though it maintains that an additional 436,000 acres is needed to best train soldiers for combat. 'Because of our understanding of the sensitivities surrounding the issue of land expansion around Piñon Canyon, we would not seek any more than 100,000 acres from willing sellers.'


But Louden noted that the Army has used the Fort Carson study in its preparation of the environmental impact statement for the build-out of Piñon Canyon. 'If it was an obsolete document, then the EIS must be obsolete,' he said.


Lon Robertson, a rancher near Kim who heads the Piñon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition, said the document 'erases any doubt' about the Army's plans. 'I think it's just more evidence that backs up what we're seeing,' he said.


Roberston also noted that taking so much agricultural land out of production could have dire economic consequences. 'Hopefully, this will wake up people to the fact that this is going to affect the entire state and I really do think the entire country,' he said.


The ranchers also contend that putting the whole southeastern corner of Colorado east of the Rockies under military control would destroy some of the last intact shortgrass prairie remaining in the Great Plains. The region was overcome by the Dust Bowl in the 1930s and includes the Comanche National Grassland, the largest expanse of prairie set aside for restoration from that era.


Louden said a military takeover of southeastern Colorado could be detrimental for the fragile region's ecosystem. 'We know what happened 70 years ago, and the same thing could happen again,' he said.

Training needs
The May 2004 Fort Carson study, titled 'Analysis of Alternatives Study: Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado,' says Piñon Canyon is the most attractive site in the United States for creating a training area that would allow the Army to engage in large-scale, live-fire maneuvers.


Nationwide, the Army is about 5 million acres short of the training space it says it needs. The Fort Carson study appears to indicate that that entire shortfall -- and more -- could be gained through expansion of the Piñon Canyon site.


The report noted the current training area's military assets, including eight parachute drop zones, a 5,000-foot landing strip capable of servicing four C-130 aircraft at a time and a railhead that can handle 165 railcars at once.


'Given its size, remote location, diverse terrain and infrastructure, PCMS far surpasses the training experience of any Combat Training Center' in the United States, the report said.


Currently, the Army is prohibited by Congress from spending any 2009 funds on the expansion effort. The Government Accountability Office is expected to issue a report later this year on whether the Army has violated that funding ban.


Click here to read the 2004 study.

Gable is an independent energy and environmental writer in Woodland Park, Colo.

to top

Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site Expansion

By: Kimmi Lewis, CICA Secretary

On February 14, 2007, the United States Dept. of the Army formally announced their plans to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site training area, located 140 miles southeast of the Fort Carson base, Colorado Springs, CO. The maneuver site was originally put together by the United States Dept. of Defense in 1983 using condemnation and land purchases. At that time, the Dept. of Army officials stated they would never increase the size of Pinon Canyon nor use live rounds. In the past two years they have changed their minds and are using live artillery to train with, plus they have big plans of expansion.

pinon canyon expansion map Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site consists of 235,000 acres of short grass prairie habitat and deep canyonland, which are part of the Purgatoire Canyonlands as well as the Purgatoire River. The original site was over 285,000 acres. Nine years after the acquisition, the Army gifted 40,000 acres to the United States Forest Service as this parcel had the largest set of dinosaur tracks in the world.

The expansion that the Army is hoping for takes in ranch and farmland from the acreage of 415,000 more acres up to 5 million. One of the “planning maps” in which Fort Carson proposed dated in 1997 showed the whole southeast corner of Colorado being part of the maneuver site, which would have been an additional 2.5 million acres. A new map (pictured above) was just released by the Dept. of Army and it consists of 415,000 acres of private property that expands west towards Walsenburg (including the Apishipa River) and south. The Dept. of Defense is wanting to make Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site the largest training site in the United States.

The Dept. of Defense has control of 25 million acres in which to train and house soldiers. Right now the Dept. of Defense Military Construction Bill is setting in the Senate, waiting for approval and funding for this large acquisition of private property. Congresswoman Musgrave and Congressman John Salazar, both from Colorado, attached an amendment to the bill preventing the government from spending any money on Pinon Canyon. This initiative passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives. Now, we are waiting to see what the Senate will do with it and if the amendment will stay attached.

On December 14, 2000 the Dept. of the Army and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed a memorandum of understanding with The Nature Conservancy. This MOU has led the Army into the Army Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) program, which is a program that leads private property owners into a contract to relinquish control on their land. These ACUB’s are nationwide with 8 other installations currently enrolled and more on the list. ACUB’s are legally binding agreements between Army installations and another party (nongovernmental, state or local government) that enables the other party to acquire land or interest in land from a willing private landowner in the vicinity of Army training areas.

This agreement or conservation easement will be held by this NGO and not by the Army. The Army will help fund the conservation easement, but not hold the contract. The Nature Conservancy and their partners which are other, smaller land trusts, which exist within these training site areas are waiting for this opportunity to get control of private land.

On November 8, 2006 the Dept. of the Army signed a Conservation Partnership Agreement with the United States Dept. of Agriculture at Fort Riley, KS. This cooperative agreement will be one of the biggest factors in the whole conservation scenario around military bases. Sen. Allard and Rep. Hefley of Colorado gave $7 Million to The Nature Conservancy to hold the ACUB south of Fort Carson in Colorado and Sen. Allard has already secured millions of tax dollars for more buffer zone easements throughout the United States. Sen. Allard’s Fort Carson Conservation Act of 2005 vaguely blocks condemnation but puts TNC in charge of buffer zones ensuring the survival of critical habitats.

The Endangered Species Act also has a part in this ACUB process. There are studies being done right now in Southeast Colorado, which were funded by GOCO (lottery funds) and The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association Ag Land Trust that will lead the area into the grips of The Endangered Species Act. Now, instead of just worrying the Army is going to take these farmers and rancher’s land, the ESA is the biggest threat of all. The Endangered Species Act does exactly as it was set out to do and that is to take private property owners off the land.

Most of the ranches and farms in the area are fourth and fifth generation families. The fight isn’t just against the Army to save the land, its also against their biggest partner, TNC as the sad reality is the ranches and farms could be taken to “preserve” them for future generations. In 1983, the Army took the land in the area and if they are allowed to do it again, they will “gift” some of it away and the rest of the area they want in control will be through the use of ACUB’s. The Army will use the conservation concept with the help of land trusts and nongovernmental organizations as a preservation tool to get control of Southeast Colorado.

We need to thank our two Colorado representatives Musgrave and Salazar for standing up for all of us in agriculture. Please contact senators Salazar and Allard and tell them to keep Musgrave’s amendment attached to the bill. Let them know that we will proudly provide our U.S. soldiers with USA Beef.

to top

Opposition to Pinon Valley Expansion Videos

 
  • Video 1: A Branding at Muddy Valley Ranch, with ranch owner Kimmi Lewis sharing her thoughts on the Pinon Valley Expansion.


  • Video 2: Landowner Ted Lee gives his opinion of Pinon Valley Expansion

to top

  • Attend the Good Neighbor Convention, Sept. 22, 2007: The Good Neighbor Convention is for anyone concerned about the erosion of private property rights, the continuing absorption of state and local Constitutional authorities by the Federal government, or the growth of power and influence by non-governmental organizations.


  • September 4, 2007 Press Release: Jim Beers, a wildlife biologist that retired from the US Fish & Wildlife Service will speak at the Good Neighbor Forum in La Junta on Saturday, September 22nd.  Jim is a writer, speaker, and consultant to communities being harmed by growing government powers all over the country.

  • No Premises Registration Poster: Help us spread the word! Print and post it on stalls at the fair or anywhere.


  • July 30, 2007 Press Release: How To Remove Your Property From NAIS Premises Registration.


  • July 23, 2007 Press Release: The Coalition Wants Mandatory 4-H Premises Registrations Halted Until Cost-Benefit Study is Completed.
  •  

  • June 29, 2007 Press Release: Coalition Disputes Credibility of CSU Cooperative Extension's Survey on Mandatory 4-H Premises Registration. read complete discussion here

  • June 13, 2007 Press Release: State-Wide Coalition Urges CSU’s Cooperative Extension To Return To Its Mission of Education and Outreach.

  • June 5, 2007: Responses to Colorado State University Bullet Points on La Plata County Board of Commissioners Resolution 2007-27 Opposing Mandatory 4-H and FFA Premises Registration.

More:

Document Description
Sign Up Form

To join the Colorado Coalition Opposing Mandatory 4‑H and FFA Animal I.D., complete this form and mail to:

Colorado Independent CattleGrowers
43200 Hwy. 109
La Junta, CO 81050

7 Steps Action Plan Follow these 7 steps opposing the mandatory premises registration for 4-H and FFA members.
Talking Points Use these facts in your letters opposing the mandatory
4-H and FFA Animal ID.
May 14, 2007 Press Release This is the document that CICA sent out as a press release.
County Commission Resolution Draft County Commission Resolution created by CICA.

to top