SUMMER 2005 • RANGE MAGAZINE • 15

“Our opponents don’t use science, they sub-vert science,” says Arizona rancher JimChilton. “Endangered species are just theirtools to raise money and to impose theirantiproduction philosophy.”

Chilton wants to expose the way the Cen-ter for Biological Diversity (CBD) does busi-ness and is incensed over the lost livelihoodsof tens of thousands of rural westerners: tim-ber workers, ranchers and miners who lostproductive, well-paid employment. “Toomany other victims just couldn’t defendthemselves against relentless attacks by CBDor Forest Guardians.”

Brothers Jim and Tom Chilton and theirfather Ken, partners in Chilton Ranch andCattle Company, recently won a defamationsuit against CBD.

“Environmental activist organizationswear people down until they can no longerfunction,”a witness in court asserted.

“That’s exactly the problem,” emphasizesJim, who persevered through seven years ofpredatory political action, litigious attacks,slander and libel to protect the family’s multi-generational heritage. “Ranching is not a job;it’s a culture. It is a unique western Americanway of life and a national cultural treasureworthy of preservation. This [defamation]case is more about the truth, values and sci-ence than about money.”

Jim, a fifth-generation Arizona rancher,and his ancestors have a long history of envi-ronmental stewardship. Since 1905 when theU.S. Forest Service (USFS) replaced “openrange” with regulated private allotments, theChiltons have stocked their ranches conserva-

tively and improved forage, infrastructure andherd quality. “You’ll hit poor years,” Ken says,“and you’ll still have good grass cover.”

In 1978 the Chilton Ranch and CattleCompany left northern Arizona where thefamily had raised cattle since 1888, and pur-chased the Diamond Bell Ranch southwest ofTucson. On their own initiative, they invitedthe Natural Resources Conservation Serviceto help create a range conservation plan forthe Diamond Bell.

“We [still] needed a bigger place to sup-port two generations,” says Jim, “so when agood ranch came on the market in 1987 just30 miles south of the Diamond Bell, wedecided to buy it.” They established their newhome in Arivaca, a small historic ranchingcommunity first put on the map in 1695 byFather Eusebio Kino, Arizona’s originalrancher. Jim worked cattle while his wife Sue,a hobby naturalist, continued collecting plantspecimens and learning to identify the localsubtropical migratory birds.

“Sue’s natural history avocation led to herappointment to the Arizona Game and FishCommission in 2000, adding to a genera-tions-long tradition of volunteer civic leader-ship by individual Chiltons,” Ken explains.“We take pride in our name.”

Jim adds, “Three things are the mostimportant in a person’s life: his love for family,his word, and his integrity and reputation.”

In 1991, Jim enlarged the ranch with pur-chase of the Montana Allotment in the Coro-nado National Forest between the Mexicanborder and Arivaca. He immediately imple-mented a rest-rotation grazing system incooperation with the Forest Service. The sys-tem gives lowland pastures 20 months’ restout of 24 to increase perennial grass cover andrapidly recruit riparian vegetation. Today theallotment provides habitat for wildlife includ-

GOT’CHA!A Fed-up Arizona family sues radical enviros for their lies—AND WINS!By Cindy Coping

Heritage and integrity with deep roots spurred theChiltons to fight back. FROM LEFT: Jim, father Ken,and brother Tom.

16 • RANGE MAGAZINE • SUMMER 2005

ing javelina, deer, coatimundi, songbirds andMearns quail.“There is absolutely no inherent‘incompatibility’ between raising livestockand providing habitat for wildlife,” Sue ishappy to point out.“A good ranch is good forboth.”

Despite impressive stewardship, however,the Chiltons found themselves perpetually atodds with CBD, supposedly over threefederally listed species: the Sonorachub, the lesser long-nosed bat and theChiricahua leopard frog.

In wet years, the “threatened”Sonora chub minnows swim under theMexican border fence and up an inter-mittent wash known as CaliforniaGulch. They venture only a few hun-dred yards into the United Statesbecause the border marks the end ofperennial water and the extremenorthern edge of their range. The Forest Ser-vice fenced and removed this tiny segment ofCalifornia Gulch from the Montana Allot-ment in 1997 in response to a CBD lawsuit.Any fish that cross the border when the washruns, die when the temporary water dries upin late spring. Although the leading researcheron the chub found the species secure andabundant in Mexico, it was listed because itwas rare in the United States. In fact, most fishare rare in dry washes.

The lesser long-nosed bat is anothersouth-of-the-border species. Adult males

never travel north into the United States.Pregnant females migrate each spring to a fewlocations in southern Arizona where theyremain for the summer. This species’ 1988“endangered” listing relied on a questionablereport finding only 135 specimens in theUnited States. More capable researchers pub-lished a paper exposing the very poor science

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) accept-ed to justify the bat’s listing. Evidence ismounting that the listing proponents lookedin the wrong places at the wrong time whenthey sounded the alarm of the species’ immi-nent demise. Experts counted more than14,000 in Arizona within a year of the listing.By 1993, they documented more than200,000 roosting along the border.

On June 13, 2002, FWS added the Chiri-cahua leopard frog to its “threatened” specieslist. Its status in Mexico is unknown. In itspetition to list the frog, CBD claimed: “More

than 75 percent of its habitat has beenlost to livestock grazing, dams, andwater diversions.” Ironically, the finalFWS listing rule indicates that the frogwas eradicated from major Arizonawaterways primarily by exotic bullfrogpredation, and more than one-third ofsurvivors are found in earthen cattletanks, to which the rule gives speciallegal protection. Recently, Arizonaranchers hauled water to save the frogfrom drought. The Chiltons alsoactively participate in recovery efforts.

“We and our neighbors in the AltarValley Conservation Alliance,” Jimsays, “have been working on a plan toreintroduce this frog as soon as we geta management plan from the ForestService and consultation with Fishand Wildlife so our conservationefforts don’t lead to an activist law-suit.”

Jim Chilton’s 10-year grazing per-mit was up for renewal in 2003. In 1997, CBDand Forest Guardians sued to force the ForestService to consult FWS regarding endangeredspecies on 158 grazing allotments, includingthe Montana Allotment. USFS and CBD set-tled their lawsuit with an agreement to fencelivestock out of waters including the occa-sional water at the border in California Gulch.

In March 1997, Forest Service biologistJerry Stefferud, a CBD member, wrote theBiological Assessment for the Montana Allot-

ment as required by the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA). He declared thatgrazing was “likely to adversely affect”the Sonora chub, asserting cattle might“ingest” chub larvae, trample fish andincrease stream sedimentation in Cali-fornia Gulch. Mima Falk, a Forest Ser-vice botanist, concluded that grazingwould “likely adversely affect” the lesserlong-nosed bat although the specieshas never been located on the grazingallotment.

The Forest Service forwarded the Biologi-cal Assessment to FWS where Sally Stefferud,coincidentally Jerry Stefferud’s wife, wrote theBiological Opinion. Jim expressed dismay at“the obvious collusion and inappropriate lackof scientific detachment.”

The Biological Opinion mandated athree-times-per-pasture-per-year monitoringrequirement that would have cost Jim about$25,000 annually. He suspects that “it wasreally just a setup for another lawsuit.” Mean-while, activists were having a field day withthe official USFS file for the Montana Allot-

Forest Service biologist Jerry Stefferud complained cattle might stomp and chomp on fish in a wash thatappears occasionally. The Biological Opinion from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, negative toward cattle,was written by Stefferud’s wife. “This is a typical ranch riparian area,” Chilton says, “and I can prove it.”

It was listed because it was rare in the U.S.In fact, most fish are rare in dry washes.

PHO

TOS

COUR

TESY

CHIL

TON

FAM

ILY

SUMMER 2005 • RANGE MAGAZINE • 17

ment, which featured 30-year-old data andunchecked claims of poor soil and riparianconditions.

“We had no idea what the activists werestuffing in the agency record,” Jim sighs. “Itwas like having someone put false reports inyour credit file, and just as hard to fix.”

When Jim used the Freedom of Informa-tion Act to obtain the file, he was aghast. “Acowboy’s creed is honesty, integrity andstraightforwardness. The only way to correctthe data file and counteract baseless claimswould be to bring in top scientists.”

In April 1998, Jim retained Dr. JerryHolechek and Dr. Dee Galt to extensivelymonitor the allotment semiannually and pro-vide quantitative data to the file. Dr.Holechek, a tenured professor at New MexicoState University, literally “wrote the book” onrange management. More than 50 accrediteduniversity range management programs teachfrom Holechek’s textbook.

Holechek felt apprehensive when Jim andSue Chilton first contacted him. He had pre-viously donated his expertise to help environ-mentalists force an allegedly irresponsible

rancher out of business. After the team’s firstvisit to the Montana Allotment, however, Dr.Holechek exclaimed, “I was ecstatic” uponseeing the Chiltons had stocked conservative-ly. “The Montana Allotment has the richest,most diverse flora of any area I have everworked in.”

Following rigorous measurements,Holechek and Galt’s first report indicated sta-ble soils, excellent vegetation vigor andhealthy watersheds. They recommendedadditional steps, which the Chiltons eagerlyfollowed, to more evenly distribute grazingintensity.

In 1998, the Forest Service limited “utiliza-tion” (removal of primary range forage grass-es) to 55 percent. Holechek recommends 35percent averaged over a 10-year period.Holechek and Galt’s monitoring during 15site visits since 1998 documented that in mostyears the Chiltons have averaged 20-25 per-cent utilization across the Montana Allot-ment, including forage consumed by wildlife.

Holechek and Galt compared their pro-duction and utilization measurements against

detailed monitoringreports from perma-nent study sites, calledtransects, that the USFSestablished on the allot-ment in the 1960s. Theteam confirmed theground cover had dou-bled and desirablenative perennial

midgrasses had significantly replaced short-

grass species. Hundreds of trees had becomeestablished in riparian reaches where theywere absent 13 years earlier. Recently retiredUSFS conservation expert Duane Thwaits,who over 23 years made some 200 daylongmonitoring visits to the Montana Allotment,confirmed that he likewise observed “verydramatic improvements” in key indicators.He said Jim was “always out on the ground”and communicated frequently.

Holechek, Galt and hydrologist Dr.William Fleming, who evaluated eight ripari-an areas on the allotment, published two

Dr. Jerry Holechek, Marijuana Flat, 2002. The range scientist was retained with Dr. Dee Galt toextensively monitor Jim Chilton’s allotment. Holechek had previously helped environmentalists force anallegedly irresponsible rancher out of business but when he checked Chilton’s range he was “ecstatic. TheMontana Allotment has the richest most diverse flora of any area I have ever worked in.”

California Gulch riparian utilization survey area, between Tenaja and Ralph Griffin’s road, grazedsummer 1998, rested summer 1999. Photo taken July 1999.

“...the richest, most diverse flora of any area I have ever worked in.”

18 • RANGE MAGAZINE • SUMMER 2005

peer-reviewed papers, “10 Steps to EvaluateRange Riparian Health” and “The MontanaAllotment: A Grazing Success Story,” both inthe December 2001 issue of the prestigiousRangelands scientific journal.

Dr. Fleming returned in 2002 and rigor-ously proved the annual soil erosion on theallotment falls below the average naturalbackground rate, disproving the myth that

grazing on the allotment accelerates erosionand sedimentation. The Chiltons also hiredfish biologist Mary Darling to study theSonora chub. Her studies conducted on 20visits between 1998 and 2002 documentedthe presence of exotic predators and historicmining toxins in California Gulch. She con-cluded that the ultimate death sentence to theborder-crossing minnows occurs when the

wash dries up. She says it is dry,“the majorityof the time.”

In December 2000 a federal judge struckdown the Biological Opinion for the Mon-tana Allotment. While CBD and FWSappealed, FWS published a new Draft Bio-logical Opinion that characterized Califor-nia Gulch as a “stream” with “perennial ornear perennial water,” and would have elim-inated grazing on 1,200 acres parallel to it to“protect the chub.” Jim questions wryly:“Guess which Forest Service and FWS cou-

ple was behind this renewed attack?”At the same time CBD’s “Grazing Reform

Program Coordinator” Dr. Martin Taylor, anentomologist, wrote to USFS claiming proofof “clear violations,” and requesting suspen-sion or cancellation of Jim’s grazing permit.Two USFS experts independently investigatedthe Montana Allotment on-site and foundthe claims baseless. Outraged, Jim had anattorney demand a retraction. Taylor neverresponded.

In a landmark decision on December 17,2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsproclaimed the FWS Biological Opinion forMontana Allotment “arbitrary, capriciousand unlawful,” and prohibited incidental takestatements for unoccupied “potential or suit-able habitat.” The Court further ruled, if anendangered species is present, FWS has theburden to prove grazing would kill or injurethe species before it can issue an incidentaltake statement and demand regulatory juris-diction.

The Chiltons’ older son Ken recalled thereaction as he read the just-released decisionto some “activist” government agents whocame to see California Gulch. He “watchedtheir faces fall as they realized their favoritecontrol tool had just been zapped” by unani-mous decision of the most unlikely Court ofAppeals. “They tried to conceal their dismay,”

...their favoritecontrol tool hadjust been “zapped”by the mostunlikely Court ofAppeals.”

This is Ruby Japanese Tank. CBD photographed a tiny corner, trying to prove that bullfrogs were takingover, thanks to cattle. Bullfrogs were introduced by Arizona Game & Fish and they eat the endangeredChiricahua leopard frog, which is being devastated by a fungus. “Cattle are not the problem with theChiricahua,” USFWS told Jim Chilton. Wildlife and cattle have never seen this beautiful pond dry. It is fedby a spring. It was used by a Japanese farmer who grew and sold vegetables to miners in the 1890s.

The Chilton family showed true grit. It took seven years to get back their sanity and their reputation afterbeing abused by operatives for the Center for Biological Diversity. Even after the onslaught the familyremains strong. FROM LEFT: Ken, Sue, Jim and Tom.

SUMMER 2005 • RANGE MAGAZINE • 19

Ken says,“but they weren’t very good actors.”When USFS published the renewed graz-

ing authorization for the Montana Allotment,CBD’s Taylor, indicating intent to appeal,requested and received the allotment’s entirerecord. Taylor said he chose not to read thereports authored by Jim Chilton’s consultants.

“Holechek’s literature wasn’t convincingto me as a scientist,” Taylor recently recalled,contradicting the fact that he cited Holechek’srecommended utilization limits as the “bestavailable science”in CBD’s last failed appeal.

CBD’s appeal requested an Environmen-tal Impact Statement and suspension of graz-ing during the two-to-four years interim,marking their fourth formal attempt to stopJim Chilton’s permit. On Feb. 13, 2003, USFSrenewed Jim Chilton’s grazing permit.

On July 2, 2002, CBD issued a news advi-sory with online links to the appeal and to 21photographs with inaccurate captions.Activist Mike Hudak nominated the Mon-tana Allotment in an Internet contest for themost “overgrazed” allotment of 26,000nationwide. The photos led contest voters to“award” the Montana Allotment fourth place.

CBD issued a press release with the Internetaddress of poll results. Dr. Holechek com-mented: “[Environmental activists] have anagenda where the end justifies any means. Istrongly believe this is a primary example ofthis type of behavior.”

In November 2002, Maggie Malinovitch,editor of the free Arivaca Connection newspa-per, who has been a CBD member and finan-cial supporter, printed the press release foreveryone in the Chiltons’ hometown of 1,500citizens to read. Sue Chilton learned of itamidst rarely used “cowboy words” explodingfrom her husband. Jim’s lifelong sense ofhumor had finally met its match. He devel-oped insomnia and a stomach condition. “Itfelt to me just like how Martin Luther Kingdescribed he felt upon being hit with a brick.”

To top it off, Mary Darling, confused andconcerned for her own reputation, called Jim.“I wondered if [the Chiltons] had manipulat-ed what I saw so that I would write favorablereports,” she recalls. “[Jim] said those photosare not representative, and he was very angry.I heard the agitation in his voice.” Jim’s broth-er Tom remarks: “The worst part about this

whole deal is for my parents. Dad is 88, Momis 87, and they have to go through this. Wehave always tried to be good people.” CBDkept the inflammatory news advisory andphotos online for more than a year, until theChiltons sued.

“If I had not responded to their false accu-sations,” Jim explains, “I would always havebeen trying to explain to everyone that I reallywas a good rancher. My reputation, my dad’sand my brother’s reputations are very, veryimportant to us.”

During the trial, Martin Taylor hadreferred to CBD as a “watchdog” enforcinggovernment compliance with the ESA. TheChiltons’ attorney Kraig Marton asked Taylor:“Who performs the watchdog duty over theCenter for Biological Diversity?”

“I don’t know,” Taylor replied. Martonpointed beside him to 10 poker-faced menand women.

“This jury does, don’t they sir?” ■

Arizona rancher Cindy Coping is 2nd vicepresident of S. Ariz. Cattlemen’s ProtectiveAssn. and a member of People for the West.

“Photographs can lie, and liars take pho-tographs,” says Jim Chilton, who successfullysued the Center for Biological Diversity(CBD) for defamation in a jury trial thatlasted two weeks. The suit also individuallynamed Dr. Martin Taylor, Shane Jimerfield

and A.J. Schneller. Jurors awarded $100,000in actual damages and $500,000 in punitivedamages.

CBD’s July 2, 2002, news advisory alleged“much” of Chilton’s Forest Service allotmentis “grazed to bare dirt,” and repeated an earli-

er allegation by SierraClub and CBD thatJim and his wife Sue,chairman of the Ari-zona Game and FishCommission, “have anagenda hostile towildlife and endan-gered species.” CBDprovided links to 21photographs of “graz-ing damage” onChilton’s MontanaAllotment. Captionsincluded the phrases,“completely tram-pled,”“100 percent uti-lized” and “zerorecovery.”

Photos zoomed inon tiny patches of bare

ground including a roadside campsite. Attor-ney Kraig Marton showed the jury wide-angle photos taken in the same locations,revealing surrounding lush green landscapes.

The Chiltons tracked coordinates on fourCBD photos, supposedly representative ofthe allotment, to private lands they do notown. These included a mining area, a formercabin site and a muddy stock pond CBDalleged was a trampled spring. Anotherphoto featured “Marijuana Flat,” where hun-dreds of campers engage in annual May Dayrevelry. CBD’s “Range Reform Researcher”A.J. Schneller attended in 2002, returned twoweeks later, took the photo and captioned it:“California Gulch completely denuded...,”implying cattle were responsible.

Ranch broker James Webb testified thepress release reduced the Montana Allot-ment’s potential market value by $200,000.

All 10 jurors agreed that CBD’s newsadvisory did not “accurately describe thecondition of the Montana Allotment.” Ninevoted that CBD’s press release contained“false statements” and “misleading pho-tographs,” and that CBD had published it“with an evil mind.” ■

In the jury’s opinion: “an evil mind”

Marijuana Flat in September 2002. Activists from the Center forBiological Diversity listed this area on their Web site as “the most abusedranch country in the United States.” The fact is none of these cows eat fishand real range scientists found it among the healthiest in the Southwest.