Latest news with #Finchem
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Finchem's land disposal resolution emboldened by fringe legal theories and Project 2025
Eagletrail Mountains Wilderness, an area west of Phoenix managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Photo by Bob Wick | Bureau of Land Management If Arizona loses even a single acre of land from its tax base, the state is doomed, Republican Sen. Mark Finchem told legislators on the Senate Federalism Committee in February. That's one of the many reasons that Finchem said he sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 1018, which encourages the transfer of federally-owned land within Arizona to state or private control. Resolutions like SCR1018 don't have the force of law, but rather are intended to send a message. In this case, the message is that legislators don't believe the federal Bureau of Land Management is doing an adequate job of managing the land under its control — and that the ownership of that land should be transferred to the state so that it can be better managed and used for 'economic purposes.' Those purposes could include sales to private corporations or leases for things like coal mining and oil drilling. 'Once land is taken by the federal government, it is often squandered, locked away forever from economic production,' the resolution reads, avowing that, if the land isn't making money, it is being misused. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SCR1018 also renounces former President Joe Biden's plan to conserve 30% of the country's land and water by 2030, commonly referred to as the 30×30 plan. The Biden administration described the plan as a way to maintain biodiversity, preserve nature and provide equitable access to the outdoors, which was part of a larger global conservation effort. Finchem's resolution describes the plan as a land grab by the federal government, which he compared to the actions of Chinese dictator Mao Zedong when he created the People's Republic of China in the mid-20th century. 'The Biden administration wanted to take 30% of privately held land and put it under control of the federal government,' Finchem said. 'So, I ask anybody who's watching this: What is the first step towards communism? The government that controls the land controls the people. The first thing that Mao did was confiscate land from everybody. It all became the people's land.' One of the guiding principles of the 30×30 plans was to honor private property rights and support voluntary stewardship efforts of private landowners. Finchem didn't mention that President Donald Trump immediately rescinded the 30×30 plan via executive order when he took office on Jan. 20. The far-right Project 2025, the 900-page political instruction manual for the second Trump administration that was created by the conservative Heritage Fund, called for both the recission of the 30×30 plan and the transfer of federally-owned land to the states. Upon taking office for his second term just over two months ago, Trump immediately began implementing the project's directives, undermining his campaign claims that he had nothing to do with Project 2025 and hadn't even read it. Finchem is not only taking direction from Project 2025 and the Trump administration in his efforts to encourage the federal government to give up federally-owned land to the state. On Jan. 27, Finchem's friend, Daniel Martinez, a rancher who lives in Nevada but owns property in Greenlee County, gave the legislators on the Senate Federalism Committee a lesson of sorts in his interpretation of land rights law. 'He has come to be one of probably the most trustworthy individuals in my world when I have a question about what's the history of land law in Arizona,' Finchem said of Martinez. During a meandering 30-minute presentation full of outrageous and legally dubious claims, Martinez claimed that the federal government doesn't have the authority to own land in Arizona in the first place, nor does it have police powers within its boundaries, because the state hasn't specifically granted those rights to the federal government. 'It's a fraud,' Martinez said. 'It's a sham that they've been telling. One of the 10 points of the communism manifesto says if you tell a lie long enough, people would begin to believe it. Well, everybody believes these agencies, that they own federal land.' The quote that Martinez is referencing is not one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, but is often attributed to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Martinez also called the Endangered Species Act a 'fraud' and questioned why the U.S. government was enforcing it since he claimed it was international law. Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 and it was signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The committee didn't hear about Martinez's own conflicts with the federal government. In 2005, he sued employees of the U.S. Forest Service for what he described as 'rustling' some 300 cattle from his ranch in Greenlee County, which borders the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. He accused the Forest Service employees of being involved in a 'criminal enterprise.' Martinez purchased the ranch and its cattle from his father in early 2004 but did not update his grazing rights permits for neighboring national forest land. After he continued to allow the cattle to graze on the federal land without following the rules of the original permit, renewing it or paying for it, the U.S. Forest Service ordered him to remove his cattle. Martinez claimed that preexisting water and forage rights accompanied the property, and said he wasn't required to obtain a grazing permit. Martinez refused to move his cattle, claiming not just that the Forest Service didn't have the authority or jurisdiction to take them since, but that the federal government has no jurisdiction inside the boundaries of any of the 50 states. After sending him several warning letters, Forest Service employees rounded up his cattle, which he said were worth a total of $250,000, and sold them at auction. Martinez went on to return mailed notices from the U.S. District Court for Arizona and the 9th District Court of Appeals claiming that the court didn't have jurisdiction or that the judge wasn't truly a judge unless he'd taken a specific oath and provided a copy of it to Martinez. He also created his own 'criminal complaint' laying out the alleged crimes of the Forest Service employees and called the legal process 'a sham.' The U.S. District Court for Arizona, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and, years later, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims all dismissed Martinez's cases. 'Most of the time I've had to defend myself in court,' Martinez said. 'They (attorneys) won't take me on because I bring up issues that they don't want to discuss.' In 2012, Martinez was listed as a speaker at the Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming Convention, where Cliven Bundy was scheduled to speak later the same day. In 2014, Bundy, a large group of his family members and other volunteer 'militia' launched an armed standoff that successfully thwarted the efforts of the Bureau of Land Management to round up his cattle after he refused to pay for grazing rights on federal land for around 20 years. The federal government owns about 42% of Arizona's land, more than most other states. Around 13% of the state's land is owned by the state land trust and 18% is privately owned. The remaining 27% is held in trust by the federal government on behalf of Native American tribes. Zachary Santoyo, a member of Back Country Hunters and Anglers, argued during the Feb. 17 committee meeting that if the state takes over Arizona's federal land, it would be less accessible and was likely to be sold instead of maintained for recreational use. He pointed out that Arizona's state lands are managed specifically with the goal of generating the most money for the state, not to allow people to enjoy them, and that those lands can be closed to the public for various reasons and often are. 'Let's call the land transfer movement what it is, an attempt to privatize our public lands,' Santoyo said. He said he doesn't believe most Arizonans would opt for strip malls, warehouses and data centers — even if they add to the tax base — to replace affordable outdoor space for recreation. Sandy Bahr, the executive director of the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, told the House Land, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee on March 24 that Arizonans have shown their support for federal protection of public lands in numerous polls. She pointed out that federal public lands bolster the economy through recreation opportunities, protect watersheds and help to provide clean air. On Feb. 17, Finchem accused the people who praised the access that the federal government affords to its public lands and its management of those lands of 'reprehensible misrepresentation.' 'Now, I don't use the word lying very often, but some of the misrepresentation I've heard here today is epic,' he said, adding that he believes it's time for Arizona to 'take control of its own destiny, as it should have since 1912.' Legislators on the House Land, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee voted 6-3 along party lines to send SCR1018 to the full House for a vote. It already passed through the Senate by a party line vote of 17-9 on March 5. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Washington Post
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Arizona lawmakers invoke special immunity for speeding tickets
PHOENIX — Soon after his black sedan was clocked speeding 18 miles an hour over the limit through a western-themed town north of here, Arizona state Sen. Mark Finchem (R) wanted to make sure he would not be treated like an ordinary person. Writing on his office letterhead, Finchem sought assurances from a police chief that he would be spared from a traffic ticket. He cited a provision in the state constitution that shields lawmakers from certain penalties while the legislature is in session. 'Perhaps the officer is unaware of the law in this regard,' he wrote about his Jan. 25 citation. 'For my part, I was unaware that the stretch of the road I was driving on was 30 MPH … Regardless, under Article 4, Part 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, I ask that the citation be voided and stricken from the record.' The senator was one of three MAGA Republicans in the state pulled over for speeding over the past year who benefited from legislative immunity that either shielded them from punishment or delayed it. By using the law in their favor, they have sparked debate about the fairness of a constitutionally enshrined justice system that protects those in power from the same type of immediate consequences their constituents face every day. Their moves have been received by some members of their own party and Democrats as evidence they were acting with impunity. Supporters of the immunity provision say it ensures that those in power cannot use the law — even in the form of traffic violations — to target critics. The debate over Republicans far from Washington using the law for personal benefit comes at a time when President Donald Trump has avoided consequences in his own criminal cases and made sweeping changes across the federal government, including at the FBI, the Department of Justice and independent watchdogs responsible for investigating allegations of wrongdoing. But a Republican Arizona House member wants to end the two-tiered justice system for traffic scofflaws. Rep. Quang Nguyen has introduced a resolution that would let voters decide during the 2026 midterm election whether lawmakers should continue to be immune from traffic violations while they are in session. The resolution passed the House this month with bipartisan support, but its fate in the Senate is unclear. 'It's important that we don't improperly use our privilege for nonwork-related reasons,' Nguyen said. 'I can tell you with the last three tickets, they were not going to the capitol; they were not doing any work at the capitol. If I get pulled over, I should get the same tickets and pay the same fine as you.' According to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, state constitutions generally grant two categories of immunity to lawmakers: speech or debate and preventing or limiting arrest while legislatures are in session. The immunity concept originated long ago in the English Bill of Rights as monarchs tried to intimidate lawmakers and was intended to underscore a separation of powers within the government. Lawmakers have invoked the privilege at various times over the years to either delay punishment until after legislative work ends or avoid it altogether. In 1996, a Virginia Republican state lawmaker invoked the privilege during the legislative session after exposing himself in a Richmond park. He got a charge of indecent exposure against him thrown out, but it was reinstated after the General Assembly adjourned, according to press reports. In 2019, a Democratic lawmaker from West Virginia claimed the privilege and then avoided a misdemeanor charge after he was accused of forcefully opening a door into a capitol employee and elbowing a colleague. In Arizona, legislators are free from arrest and questioning in all cases except for treason, felony and breach of the peace, starting 15 days before the legislature convenes and lasting throughout the session. In 2011, police said a Republican senator claimed immunity after a fight with his girlfriend; he disputed the allegation, according to press reports. He later pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge. In 2018, Rep. Paul Mosley (R), invoked immunity after he was stopped for driving 97 mph in a 55 mph zone. He did not get a ticket, and body-camera footage showed him telling a deputy that he sometimes drove up to 140 miles an hour. Mosley was charged with excessive speed after the session ended — and revelations emerged that he had been stopped several other times for speeding over a year-long stretch. The episode triggered outrage, and then-Gov. Doug Ducey (R) joined Democrats in calling for the immunity provision to be repealed. But it remained and is featured during new member orientation, lawmakers said. During his orientation before the 2023 session, Sen. Flavio Bravo (D) said presenters highlighted Mosley's speeding proclivities and legislative staffers told lawmakers the privilege 'was not something to abuse,' Bravo recalled. Nguyen said the privilege was described during his training as a way to make sure members were 'not late for a vote.' In the House, security officials have for decades given stickers to lawmakers who requested them to put on the backs of their driver's licenses or other items, a House spokesperson said. The stickers cite the constitutional immunity language. Paul Bender, a professor of law and dean emeritus for Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, said the privilege was supposed to protect lawmakers only from missing votes during the session if they got in minor legal trouble. 'The only justifiable reason that I can think of is that they fear prosecutors would be using speeding tickets to try to get lawmakers to do what they want them to do,' Bender said. 'I'm not aware of that happening.' Last year, during the legislature's session, then-Sen. Justine Wadsack (R) was pulled over by a Tucson police officer who alleged she was 'traveling at a high rate of speed.' The officer reported that she was driving her Tesla 71 mph in a 35 mph zone. 'My name is Sen. Justine Wadsack, and I am racing to get home because I have four miles left on my charger before I'm about to go down,' she told the officer. She added, 'I am a government employee.' After the officer contacted 'our legal adviser it was decided' that Wadsack 'was possibly immune from a violation,' the officer wrote in a report. The officer indicated a citation could be issued in the future. After the legislature adjourned in June, an officer called Wadsack, records said. She 'argued that she was in fact not speeding,' and 'she refused to meet to sign the citation and said she would not accept it.' According to the records, 'She demanded to speak with the Chief of Police and said that she was under 'political persecution.'' In July, Wadsack was charged with criminal excessive speeding. She claimed without evidence that city officials had targeted her for political reasons: 'Despite the clear legal prohibitions, the Democrat Mayor and Police Chief have decided to use the power of government to prosecute their political opponents,' she wrote in September on X. Wadsack tried to use legislative immunity to get the charge dismissed. A judge ruled against her, writing that her attorney's 'assertion that members of the legislature freely speed 'all the time'' was disturbing — 'especially in the context of excessive speed.' Wadsack took a defensive driving course, and the case was dismissed in early January. She maintains she was singled out. 'The targeting of Conservative lawmakers we are witnessing, is exactly why Legislative immunity was written into the Constitution the way it was,' she wrote in a statement to The Washington Post. City officials said she was treated like anyone else. Days after her case ended, Sen. Jake Hoffman (R), founding chair of the legislature's Freedom Caucus, was pulled over on Jan. 22 as he drove home. Hoffman was accused of driving 24 mph over the limit, records said. A state trooper recognized Hoffman, who told The Post he did not invoke immunity or identify himself as a lawmaker until he was asked. He got a warning. 'He will not be issued a citation once the session ends,' Sgt. Eric Andrews said in an email. Finchem was pulled over three days later in Prescott, about 90 minutes north of Phoenix. He immediately identified himself as a senator and said after he was issued a ticket, 'I'll take it up with legislative counsel.' Finchem did not respond to a request for comment. The episodes involving legislative immunity prompted Nguyen to peel his sticker citing the immunity language off of his driver's license and then mount an effort to get rid of the protection. His resolution would put a question on the 2026 general election ballot asking voters whether immunity for traffic violations should be excluded. He said the privilege is being abused: 'I've had enough of it.' The resolution passed out of the House judiciary committee with bipartisan support, but its future is uncertain, Nguyen and other lawmakers said. Hoffman, also a national committeeman for the Republican National Committee, said in a written statement that the immunity protects voters as much as anyone. 'In the current era of rampant weaponization of government, including right here in Arizona, legislative immunity serves as a protection for others to ensure that their legislators are not influenced, threatened, intimidated, or coerced in an effort to prevent them from serving their constituents,' he said. Several lawmakers and legislative staffers said they doubted the bill could muster support in the Senate. One former GOP legislator predicted its fate. 'There's no way it will ever be repealed,' said Mosley, who had bragged years ago of breaking the speed limit. 'It's kind of like a perk or a benefit. That's like saying to legislators, 'Hey, will you take a pay cut?''
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Voters added abortion rights to the Constitution. Republicans want abortion pill restrictions.
Photo via Getty Images Republicans in the Arizona Legislature want to put increased restrictions on medication abortions, in direct contradiction to a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion that voters approved in November. Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, claimed during a Wednesday Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee meeting that there was no way to know exactly why voters favored the Arizona Abortion Access Act. More than 61% of those who voted in the Grand Canyon State's 2024 general election chose to enshrine the right to abortion into the state constitution. But that hasn't stopped Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives and the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee from voting for House Bill 2681, which would impose a long list of new restrictions and requirements on those seeking medication-induced abortions. Finchem and Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Prescott, both argued that HB2681 would protect unborn children who cannot protect themselves. Pro-choice advocates described it as a backhanded way to place additional hurdles in the way of abortion access, defying the will of the voters, and making the most widely used way to carry out an abortion more difficult. 'I do hope you respect the will of the voters,' said Jodi Liggett, a lobbyist for Reproductive Freedom for All. 'They've spoken loudly, and they don't want politicians involved in their access to care.' In response, Finchem told Liggett that voters only indicated whether they were for or against the Arizona Abortion Access Act, and that no data existed to explain why, adding that it 'disturbs' him to hear Liggett make 'missassertions' about voters' motivations. Liggett answered that the abortion rights campaign did extensive polling before gathering signatures to put Prop. 139 on the ballot, and those polls indicated that voters don't want politicians making medical decisions for them. The Arizona Abortion Access Act, as the constitutional amendment was officially known, prohibits any law, regulation or policy that would deny, restrict or interfere with the fundamental right to abortion before fetal viability (generally around 24 weeks) unless it is for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of a person seeking an abortion, consistent with clinical practice standards and evidence-based medicine. It also prohibits any law or regulation that would interfere with access to abortion after fetal viability if the patient's health care provider believes it is necessary to protect the patient's life, physical or mental health. Additionally, Prop. 139 bars any law that penalizes a person for aiding or assisting someone in exercising their right to an abortion. House Bill 2681, sponsored by Republican Rep. Rachel Keshel, a member of the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus, would place numerous restrictions on abortions prior to fetal viability. Keshel's bill would require a doctor who prescribes medication to induce abortion to examine the patient in person, test the patient's blood and inform them of the 'possible physical and psychological aftereffects and side effects' of taking the medication. The physician would also be compelled to inform the patient that they 'may see the remains of the unborn child in the process of completing the abortion.' The proposed legislation would also force the doctor to schedule a follow-up visit with the patient, to make 'all reasonable' efforts to ensure the patient attends that appointment and include a record of those attempts in the patient's chart. A medical provider who violates HB2681 could be held civilly liable by the patient who obtained the abortion — their parents if they're a minor — or by the person who impregnated them. Any of them could file a lawsuit against the physician to recover monetary damages for psychological, emotional and physical injuries, statutory damages up to $5,000 and attorney fees. Marilyn Rodriguez, a lobbyist for Planned Parent Advocates of Arizona, called HB2681 'fear mongering based on junk science.' She accused Republican lawmakers on Wednesday of trying to make the process 'as difficult and scary as possible to put abortion out of reach for as many Arizonans as possible.' As abortion restrictions have been for decades, Keshel's bill is couched in language about patient safety. It ignores that the drugs widely used to induce abortion in early pregnancy, mifepristone and misoprostol, are considered safe for use up to 10 weeks of gestation, according to the FDA. Elizabeth Lee, a reproductive medicine expert who spoke on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All, said that the measure would make it more difficult for women in rural areas to get abortions since in-person visits to a physician could be out of reach for them. Currently, doctors can prescribe medication for abortion through a telehealth visit. If doctors' offices are too far away, or appointments aren't available, rural women could be pushed past 11 weeks of gestation and have to undergo a more invasive surgical abortion that comes with an increased risk of complications. Lee added that the blood testing requirement in the proposed legislation, for RH incompatibility, was completely unnecessary. RH incompatibility is a potentially dangerous condition that happens when a mother's immune system attacks the red blood cells of her fetus, but Lee said that patients typically aren't treated for it until 20 weeks of gestation. Before voting to forward House Bill 2681 on to the full Senate, Rogers said that the legislature should 'protect those that cannot protect themselves' adding that everyone will have to answer to God for their decisions. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Magic money': Arizona Republicans advance bills to legitimize cryptocurrency
Illustration via Getty Images Republican measures aimed at bolstering cryptocurrency usage in the state by deeming it 'legal tender' and creating a 'strategic reserve' moved forward, despite concerns over volatility and the lawmakers connections to the cryptocurrency world. Those connections to crypto were on full display, and ultimately a source of humor for state representatives as they plowed ahead on embracing cryptocurrencies. 'I hope I'm not advertising here, but now would be a good time to invest in XRP and Bitcoin,' Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, said as his colleagues on the House Commerce Committee laughed while he testified in support of his legislation, Senate Bill 1373. That legislation, which is similar to another Republican-backed bill that was heard in committee on Tuesday, is part of a larger GOP push to legitimize cryptocurrency in the Grand Canyon State. The bills mirror moves by 22 other states that have introduced similar legislation authorizing the state treasurer or state pension funds to invest in cryptocurrency, often dubbed the 'Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act.' The state-level actions come as President Donald Trump, who was backed by crypto investors during the 2024 campaign, has pushed for similar proposals regarding cryptocurrency at the federal level. The Arizona legislation would create a 'digital assets strategic reserve fund' that would be funded both by the state budget and through cryptocurrencies the state seizes. The state treasurer would administer the fund, and would be allowed to invest up to 10% of the fund's value each year. Cryptocurrencies are digital money that have no innate value. Unlike gold or oil, which have practical uses and intrinsic value, crypto's chief uses are for speculation and gambling — and as tools for money launderers, ransomware extortionists, tax evaders, terrorists and rogue states. Just last month, Finchem was speaking at an event held by conspiracy theorists who have been promoting the XRP coin, which Finchem mentioned multiple times during the committee hearing Tuesday. The event's host, Mel Carmine, claimed God told him to push the cryptocurrency by having it appear to him in the clouds. He also has been accused of being behind a number of fraudulent XRP schemes. At the event, Finchem called XRP his 'favorite' of all the digital coins, according to reporting by Arizona Right Wing Watch. Finchem also promoted SB1373 and his other cryptocurrency legislation at the event, and, as noted by Arizona Right Wing Watch, has previously published his intent to make XRP a 'legal tender' in a letter on disgraced former Republican lawmaker David Stringer's news website. Finchem directly mentioned XRP when testifying in support of his Senate Bill 1062. State law currently defers to legal tenders authorized by the U.S. Constitution and Congress, but Finchem's proposal would go beyond that. It would make cryptocurrency a form of 'legal tender' that could be used in the state, as well as any coins made of gold or silver — not just coins issued by the U.S. mint. The bill's language specifically mentions XRP, among other cryptocurrencies. County treasurers told lawmakers that they had no way to actually implement using or accepting cryptocurrencies. 'We don't have a mechanism to deal with that as a payment method,' Megan Kintner, a lobbyist for the Arizona Association of Counties speaking on behalf of the County Treasurers, said. Kintner explained that their concern would be that, by the time they are able to accept the payment, the value of the currency will have changed. Cryptocurrencies are notoriously volatile, fluctuating wildly, making them a risky investment. 'If you wanted to convert your Bitcoin into cash, we would gladly accept that,' Kintner added. Republican lawmakers were not swayed by the concerns, though, and felt that they needed to jump on this new technology bandwagon — even as they made clear they didn't understand what cryptocurrencies are or how they work. 'I don't know much about this, what I call magic money,' Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake said. 'We think about the debit card. There is nothing behind the debit card but magic and somebody had to innovate behind that… Maybe this will become the new debit card.' Finchem's legislation that would make cryptocurrency a legal tender passed out of committee along party lines and will head to the full House of Representatives for consideration. If it passes the full chamber, it will head to Gov. Katie Hobbs. The strategic bitcoin reserve bills, which have largely been pushed by groups behind Project 2025 who have intentions of dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency, passed along party lines as well. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Telegraph
13-03-2025
- Sport
- Telegraph
The most hated tree in golf is back
A gimmicky joke of an oak or a return to the roots of the Stadium Course? Whatever the pros make of the foreboding obstacle that has been plonked in front of the sixth tee box, it will undoubtedly be a central talking point here at the Players Championship. Even the PGA Tour refers to the 500,000lb tree as 'diabolical' on its own website before explaining how this nifty piece of reforestation has actually restored an iconic feature of Pete Dye's original design. The late American architect was proud of his moniker as 'golf's evil genius' and it is fair to say that this particular characteristic on the 413-yarder came from the more mischievous corner of his warped mind. Over the years, the tree with the huge branch that overhangs the tee was, amongst other things, called 'sinister' by Ernie Els who infamously clattered his ball into it in 2010 and 'unnecessarily annoying' by Graeme McDowell. As the branch grew, Bob Estes went further. 'We are only a few years away from having to tee off with a putter,' the American said. However, the club members adored their Live Oak and when disease forced its removal 11 years ago, a statement was issued in the tear-filled tone of a farewell to a loved one. 'A sad day at TPC Sawgrass as we have lost our most recognisable tree due to poor health,' it read. Continuing the grieving theme, Tim Finchem, the then PGA Tour commissioner, was similarly sombre about the sudden glaring absence on the layout adjacent to the Tour's HQ. 'A significant fissure developed in its trunk, making it a safety concern,' Finchem said. 'There simply was no way to save it, as much as we tried.' An emotional time, although many were glad to hear the news, including Brian Harman. 'It should never have been there,' he told the Florida-Times Union. 'You shouldn't have things like that right in your face on a par-four tee box.' Yet, if the 2023 Open champion believed it was gone for good, he was badly mistaken. Last year, the Tour decided to replant and their choice of the former champion to oversee the job was ironic. View this post on Instagram A post shared by ZIRE GOLF (@ziregolf) Davis Love III, a two-time winner of the circuit's 'flagship event', would annually seek out Finchem on arrival at Sawgrass and say 'Tim, have you removed that darned tree yet?' Yet, as the romantics always say, sometimes you never know what you had until you have lost it, and Love was only too happy to help out when asked. 'What would Pete say if he could see that we did that? – you know, that's what we wanted to do,' Love said. 'We wanted to honour Pete.' They did so by scouring the course and finding a lookalike, which was not at all straightforward as the tree was seemingly unique with the branch at that angle. But a replacement was found and the torment is back. In truth, it is rather like the island-green 17th, as the challenge is far more mental than technical. Before it was chopped up to make mementoes, players invariably elected to discard their drivers to coax their balls into the wide part of the fairway and set up a wedge. But the occasional boomer with a high drive did occasionally locate the branch before dropping 30 yards in front of the tee box. On Wednesday, world No 2 Rory McIlroy explained the task that will be at hand when he arrives there alongside world No 1 Scottie Scheffler and world No 3 Xander Schauffele in their first round on Thursday afternoon. 'It frames the hole and forces you to play the shot,' he said. 'I certainly will have to hit it a little lower than my preferred launch window.' Love will be on site ready for at least a measure of havoc to play out and, yes, to receive criticism from the victims. 'I'm sure I'll get comments from some of the guys,' he said. 'But I'm telling you, I can't wait to watch.'
