A reputation is worth something. When Jim Chilton's was damaged, he sought justice.

When an environmental group targeted rancher Jim Chilton in an anti-grazing campaign, they picked the wrong guy.

On Jan. 21, a jury awarded Chilton $600,000 in a libel suit against the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity. Pima County Superior Court jurors agreed that the center made "false, unfair, libelous and defamatory statements" regarding Chilton's grazing practices on his U.S. Forest Service allotment near Arivaca, Ariz., which is 55 miles southwest of Tucson.

"The Center for Biological Diversity tried to further its political agenda by alleging that he was mismanaging his grazing allotment, when nothing could be further from the truth," said Jeff Eisenberg, director of federal lands for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) in Washington, D.C.

"Ultimately, the goal of activist groups like these is to end grazing on public lands. We're glad there are folks like Jim Chilton who won't let that happen," Eisenberg said, adding that the verdict sets an important precedent, forcing groups to think twice before libeling ranchers. Such thinking will be important in the West where, he said, 40 percent of cattle spend some time on public lands.

A cowboy or a wimp?

Chilton entered the lawsuit when the center posted a news advisory on its Web site including 21 photos of barren ground on the Chilton ranch, accompanied by text blaming cattle for the damage.

"Pictures can lie, and liars can take pictures," Chilton said.

In court, Chilton's lawyer showed wide-angle photos taken at the same locations, arguing that the surroundings were "worthy of a postcard, with oaks and mesquites dotting lush, rolling hills." He said the center photos focused on land left barren by old mining operations and hunter camps.

Some members of the Chilton family and his lawyer urged him to settle rather than go to court. "I lay there many nights thinking about it," Chilton said. "We're spending our retirement fund on this case. But I asked myself, 'Are you a cowboy or a wimp?' I decided to take a stand."

Chilton, a fifth-generation Arizona rancher who earned master's degrees in both economics and political science, loves ranching, but he also owns an investment bank and a mortgage bank in Los Angeles with his son.

To him, the center attacked his way of life. "I love the cowboy culture," he said. "We've got our own clothes, music, stories and even poetry. We're honest, straightforward people. I won't let someone come in from the East and take away grazing traditions that go back more than 100 years."

Like many ranchers in the West, Chilton holds grazing rights on federal lands. Chilton, his brother and father run 950 cattle on a total of 50,000 acres stretching about 19 miles by 8 miles southwest to the Mexican border.

The family, which homesteaded in eastern Arizona in 1888, owns 2,000 acres, leases 35,000 from the Forest Service, and another 13,000 from the state of Arizona.

"The size of our ranch is above average, but it's not the biggest in the area," Chilton said. "You have to be big to gain economies of scale out here." The family runs Braford cows with red Angus bulls on the Arivaca ranch and on another ranch closer to Tucson.

Rainfall on the Arivaca ranch averages 17 inches a year. This spring, after an unusually wet winter, golden poppies and verdant grasses covered the land, making it hard to believe that it normally dries up from April through June.

Chilton has learned that Arizona's dry-weather cycles require rotating cattle. During the summer growing season, no part of his ranch is grazed more than 4 months in a 24-month cycle. The Chiltons and a couple of hired cowboys move cattle on horseback, since few roads exist and fenced pastures average 4,000 acres each. "It's the only way you can do it out here," Chilton said.

Not the first legal battle

In the libel case, the court determined that the Chiltons were public figures. A former governor appointed Jim's wife, Sue, as an Arizona Game and Fish Commissioner 5 years ago. "This means we were held to a higher standard," Chilton said. "We had to prove malicious intent."

This isn't the first legal battle that Chilton and his neighbors have faced. In 1997, the center and another group sued the Forest Service related to a piece of land called the Montana allotment, also cited in the libel case. The case was settled. In 1999, they struck again on other allotments in a similar vein.

In the 1997 case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which regulates the Environmental Species Act (ESA), battled Chilton and other ranchers related to two species on the endangered list in the U.S.Ñthe Sonoran chub fish and the lesser long-nosed bat.

More of these threatened species live in Mexico. The chub moves up to the area from Mexico in rainy years. "The bat hasn't even been seen within 10 miles of my ranch," said Chilton, who would like the FWS and the ESA to recognize special issues along the border. "Government employees should follow the rules, not personal agendas. I'd like to see all government agencies rely on good peer-reviewed science," he said.

The 1997 and 1999 suits would have required an injunction against grazing on more than 35,000 acres for 2 to 3 years while scientists from the Forest Service researched the charges. "It would have wiped us out financially," Chilton said.

Chilton and other ranchers fought all the way to a federal judge, who handed down another important ruling favorable to grazers. "As a result, the burden of proof rests on the government to prove that endangered species live on the property," Chilton explained. "Even if the species is present, the FWS has to show a link between grazing and damage to the species."

Base rules on science

In addition to being a ranching expert, Chilton has been forced to become an expert on science and the law. And the economics of ranching on public land are complex.

First the rancher must purchase deeded landÑsay $2 million for 2,000 acres. With the deed can come a historic right to graze nearby public land. A one-time grazing permit cost Chilton $1,500 per cow on one allotment where he runs 500 cows, for a total up-front cost of $750,000. Annual grazing fees run about $26 per cow per year. Multiply that times 770 cows, and you might pay about $20,000 a year.

It all adds up, especially since Chilton's permit allows, on average, just one cow per 50 acres. Chilton points out that the cost of trucks, trailers, fencing and providing waterers-and the time involved covering such a large areaÑall make ranching in the West expensive on a per-cow basis.

"Ranchers constantly improve our land to increase productivity," Chilton said. "It would be short-sighted to overgraze and destroy our investment."

Because the Center for Biological Diversity plans to appeal the libel case, both the center and the Forest Service refused to comment for this article. But a Forest Service 2002 report on the Chilton permits found that grazing caused no significant impact on the Montana allotment.

"The current management scheme was established in a 1988 allotment management plan and was implemented with an aggressive range improvement program," the finding states. "The one common theme that all resource experts agreed with was that É conditions on the allotment have improved since the 1980s."

In 1998, Chilton hired his own scientist who verified that he's improving the Montana allotment. He called on Jerry Holechek, Ph.D., of New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, N.M. Many universities use his textbook, Range Management.

"Grazing intensity across all pastures on the Montana allotment averaged light (22 percent use) in 2004," said Holechek in summarizing his surveys. "None of the pastures have been moderately, heavily or severely grazed."

Holechek expanded on his survey recently. "I rate the Chiltons as among the very best ranchers in the Southwest and the West in their husbandry of rangelands," he said.

Chilton thinks he may have made an impact. "The Forest Service now bases their grazing practices on Holechek's methods," he said.

Taking his case to DC

In April, Chilton took his fight to Washington, testifying before a House subcommittee on forests about changes he'd like to see on grazing issues. His testimony was part of an annual NCBA grassroots lobbying effort.

"Congress has a fundamental choice now before it," Chilton stated. "That choice is to do nothing and allow the ESA to continue to be used as a surrogate to effect sweeping, socio-political change in the United States by shutting down the production-based economies of many Western States in the utter absence of due process or benefit to ESA listed species, or, to enact appropriate checks, balances, and realistic appeals provisions within the ESA to ensure that both due process and species recovery are served."

NCBA's Jeff Eisenberg adds his view to what eliminating grazing rights would do. "Ranchers had a huge role in developing the West," he said. "If we took that away, the fabric of the West would be ripped apart."

He hopes that the Chilton case will lead to environmental organizations taking a different tack in the future. "I'd like to see more groups devote their resources to conservation on the ground rather than litigation," he said. "If you eliminate public land ranchers by debasing their income, it puts a lot of open space at risk."

Hoping for a happy ending

Looking back, Chilton offers a theory about why the center picked his ranch to challenge. "They want to create a nature reserve that extends from Arivaca to Mexico, and I'm in the way," he said. His ranch lies near the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and other environmentally sensitive areas.

While an appeal may be pending, Chilton basks in the response from cattlemen, which has been "unbelievable," he said. Ranchers rush to shake his hand at industry meetings, and the Arizona and New Mexico Coalition for Stable Economic Growth recently named him Outstanding Individual of the Year.

 With a legal bill of $65,000 for January alone, has it been worth it? Since the center plans to appeal, it hasn't yet delivered the $100,000 in actual damages and the $500,000 in punitive damages awarded by the court. Chilton said he'll donate whatever he receives above his costs to the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association to fight off future grazing challenges.

What's it mean to you?

The Arizona case may help ranchers who lease public lands in the West, but it may also be good news for producers in Missouri and surrounding states.

Brent Bryant, executive vice president of the Missouri Cattlemen's Association in Columbia, said the Chilton case may prove helpful in future battles to preserve grazing rights. "This case could have a major impact in making environmental groups play by the rules," he said.

Missouri houses some public grazing lands, mostly in the southern and central parts of the state. When the Forest Service recently proposed cutting back grazing on the Mark Twain National Forest, Bryant's association, together with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, successfully negotiated to replace the lost acreage with land in other parts of the forest.

"There's a new attitude with the Forest Service in Washington and in Missouri," Bryant said. "We simply explained that we didn't want to lose our grazing rights, and they were accommodating."

Bryant, whose association counts 4,000 members, said Missouri is the second-largest cow and calf producing state, behind Texas.

Arizona rancher Jim Chilton said that many of his cattle end up in states such as Kansas. "If grazing rights aren't preserved in the West, cattle prices might rise for producers who finish Western cattle with corn or soybean rations or corn stubble before they go to the feedlot," he said.

Chilton spins an old story that illustrates the difference between a Missouri farmer and an Arizona cowboy. "You can drive all day and you still won't cover my land," the cowboy said. "Yeah, I had a pick-up like that once, too," replied the farmer.