Nevada rancher dodges jail sentence in high-profile Forest Service case

Scott Sonner

Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2001 | 5:28 a.m.

RENO, Nev. - A federal judge fined a Nevada rancher $1,000 for illegally grazing his cattle on national forest lands, but dismissed a second trespassing charge Wednesday and rejected the government's request to sentence him to jail.

Cliff Gardner, 62, Ruby Valley, faced up to six months in jail and a $5,000 fine for each of two trespassing charges stemming from a legal battle that already has been to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case has become a lightning rod for Western ranchers and private property activists who oppose government restrictions on livestock grazing on public land.

About 75 supporters packed the federal courtroom for the sentencing after the Independent American Party of Nevada had staged a fund-raiser for Gardner at a casino in neighboring Sparks on Tuesday night.

About a dozen picketed in front of the courthouse with signs that read, "Nevada is not a territory," and "Has the West been won, or has the fight just begun?"

Gardner and his backers indicated they were pleased with the outcome.

"It's what I expected," Gardner said.

"There's some penalty but we're in a good position to appeal. It's been our goal since we began this a decade ago to get this case before the U.S. Supreme Court," he told The Associated Press.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Sullivan urged a 30-day suspended sentence and a $5,000 fine, citing Gardner's insistence on grazing his cattle on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in northeast Nevada even after his federal permit was revoked in 1994.

But U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben set aside his earlier guilty verdict on one of the trespassing charges after deciding Gardner didn't get the proper three-day notice.

And while the Justice Department earlier won a civil case against Gardner, which was upheld by the U.S. appeals court, McKibben noted this was the first time Gardner had been convicted of criminal charges.

In addition to the fine, he placed Gardner on one year's probation, but postponed that as well until an appeal can be heard.

"I don't think incarceration is appropriate for a first offense," McKibben said.

"But if you continue to violate the law ... you are going down a slippery slope and at some point when you build up a pattern of behavior, you may face a more severe consequence than fine," he said.

"There are a lot of ranchers out there who may not like the Forest Service or the U.S. government but they abide by the law."

Sullivan argued Gardner already had established a pattern by defying the Forest Service's revocation of the grazing permit, as well as the 9th Circuit decision and the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal in that civil case.

"I think it should have been more, but the judge disagreed," Sullivan said afterward.