Chiltons sue environmental group

[diablo]

Rancher's suit puts enviros on defense

Jim Chilton says he was libeled in a press release and Web posting.

 

 

?By Mitch Tobin

ARIZONA DAILY STAR

 

Tucson's Center for Biological Diversity is no stranger to lawsuits related to grazing.

 

But in a turning of the tables, the litigious group now finds itself as the defendant in a Pima County courtroom.

 

Arivaca rancher Jim Chilton is suing the environmentalists, alleging they defamed him in a two-page press release and 21 photographs posted on the center's Web site in July 2002.

 

Chilton's libel suit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, argues that the news advisory and photo captions contain "false, unfair, libelous and defamatory statements" about Chilton's management of his 21,500-acre Montana Allotment, northwest of Nogales.

 

"These are lies masquerading as facts," Kraig Marton, Chilton's attorney, said in an interview. "This case also shows how photographs can lie."

 

Chilton's wife, Sue, was appointed to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission in 2001 over the strenuous objections of environmentalists. The center's advisory says she "tried to suppress" Game and Fish recommendations about the allotment on the Coronado National Forest and that the Chiltons "have an agenda hostile to wildlife and endangered species."

 

The center, which has built a national reputation for aggressive litigation and media work on behalf of endangered species, says its actions weren't libelous because they were opinions.

 

"The news advisory and the pictures are not false information - they're the truth," said Robert Royal, the center's attorney.

 

The center also says documents on the Web site can't be libelous because they were public records that were part of its unsuccessful effort to block renewal of Chilton's grazing permit.

 

"The Chiltons are really trying to create a chill effect to scare people away from commenting on public lands and the actions of public agencies," said Kieran Suckling, the center's policy director.

 

Judge Richard Fields has already ruled the Chiltons are public figures, which raises the bar for proving libel. The jury of six women and four men is expected to get the case next week.

 

Marton said he'll reveal in his closing statement how much money his client is seeking.

 

"The primary focus of the case is to prove the center made false statements," he said.

 

The suit names not only the center, but three of its current and former employees: Martin Taylor, author of the release; Shane Jimerfield, the Web site designer who posted it; and A.J. Schneller, who was responsible for some photos and captions.

 

The suit alleges the center hurt Chilton's ranching business and caused him "to suffer great mental anguish, humiliation, public hatred, contempt, ridicule" and damage to his "integrity and reputation."

 

"I'm outraged," Chilton said after Tuesday's hearing before a nearly empty courtroom. "For five generations we've ranched in Arizona as stewards of the land and all evidence indicates we're doing a wonderful job."

 

Larry Medlock, a now-retired Forest Service official who concluded grazing on the allotment didn't have a negative environmental impact, testified Tuesday that the press release had several false statements.

 

Medlock, who visited the allotment some 20 times, disputed the center's claim that part of the allotment was "grazed to bare dirt." He said it was true cattle had broken into a preserve for Sonora chub, a threatened fish, but the cows had come up from Mexico and weren't Chilton's.

 

Chilton's lawyer asked if the photos showing denuded areas were an accurate representation of the allotment.

 

"It doesn't give a true picture of what the Montana Allotment looks like," Medlock said, adding the ground could have been laid bare by activities other than grazing.

 

Taylor, author of the release, then took the stand for nearly two hours of sharp questioning from Chilton's lawyer.

 

Taylor said he wrote the release in an hour, faxed it to the news media, then called some reporters in a failed bid to drum up coverage of the controversy.

 

"I wasn't biased against the Chiltons," said Taylor, an entomologist who left the center in 2003. He flew in from his native Australia for the trial.

 

Marton sought to prove Taylor had an anti-grazing agenda and an ax to grind when he went out to inspect the allotment. The lawyer said Taylor willfully ignored scientific studies showing positive effects of grazing and said he took photos that focused on bare sections rather than areas around them covered by vegetation.

 

"I wanted to document the problem areas," Taylor said. "I wasn't attempting or pretending to do good science."

 

"Did you ever call the Chiltons before you wrote the news advisory to get their side of the story?" Marton asked.

 

"That's for journalists to do," Taylor said. "Not us."

 

● Contact reporter Mitch Tobin at 573-4185 or mtobin@azstarnet.com.

__________________