oregon situation

[beachbunny]

Can someone explain to an eastcoaster exposed only to mainstream media, what is truly going on there?
thanks,BB

 

[tipsntails7]

I'm sure you will get tons of opinions on this but basically they want to give the land back to the "people". Ironic because it already belongs to all of them. What they want is to allow ranchers free grazing on public land. They will use whatever they can to cloak themselves from that exact fact, the flag, the Hammond family, the people of harney county, whatever at this point.

If you listen to Steven rinella's latest podcast he sums it up wonderfully.

Not a single person in that "group" is from Oregon, much less harney county. They have been asked to leave by the actual people that live there multiple times.

 

[elkyinzer]

Dudes get off on the idea of playing Paul Revere and overthrowing the government vis a vis the rights granted in the second amendment....

Dudes form 'militias' to exercise said rights...

Dudes search for a cause to mobilize said militia...

Media latches on because lets face it, a good batch of nutjobs are more entertaining than informative stories and news is all about entertainment these days

Public land is at risk, no doubt, but because of the almighty $ from the oil and gas lobbies purchasing politicians one by one, not these jackwagons.

 

[pyroducksx3]

Even if they are only doing it for their own benefit and "cloaking" themselves in other issues you have to agree the Hammonds are not terrorist. And the federal government has been land grabbing and managing land based on its interests.

 

[tttoadman]

This is my relatively uneducated opinion on the matter, so don't start "facting" me if you dis-agree.

The issue of the government managing public land is the key issue here. I believe it comes down to what direction the general public wants federal land to go. Harney county is largely consumed by a giant wildlife refuge(Malheur) and Steens MT Wilderness area. I am certain that 40 yrs ago there were cattle grazing on the slopes of Steens and all over the refuge lands. I believe people considered it "their" right to graze on the land because their grandfather did. The cost for these grazing rights is very cheap. If it were not for the ability to graze on these large public lands, cattle ranching for profit becomes increasingly difficult. The feds as the managing body of the public lands has the right to change how the land is managed as it sees fit in the best interest of the public. It is unfortunate that the ranchers, and especially ranchers that have had the same grazing lands for many years, are impacted by these decisions. I get pissed when the feds close the national forests in high fire season. I don't do things that can start fires, but I know there are millions of idiots that go shooting and off-roading that will start fires. I see it as a necessary step for the greater good. I don't see it as a malicious act by the govt.

Here are some truths as I know it:
The wildlife refuge would be trashed if not managed for the benefit of animals as a primary user. Steens MT would be packed full of windmills as far as you can see. It is likely an equal or better source of wind power than any place I can imagine. I can also guarantee due to it's location that all of the power would go right to NV and CA.

I think the human race as a whole is placing a higher value on precious places like these, and not just exploiting them to the highest bidder.

On a humorous note...5 or 6 of the first group arrested have court appointed council. I think it is interesting how they scream and yell about don't tread on me, but are more than willing to take the free govt handout when it suits them.

I love the Burns area, and I try to spend at least a few long weekends over there every year. It is unfortunate that this had to drag on and divide a small community like that.

 

[LostArra]

>>Even if they are only doing it for their own benefit and "cloaking" themselves in other issues you have to agree the Hammonds are not terrorist. >>

Sounds like they are just poachers who covered up their deeds by starting a fire on public land. But terrorists? No

And it appears the Hammonds have tried to somewhat distance themselves from the Bundys who don't want the land given to the "people"(it's already public land) they want it given to themselves.

 

[tttoadman]

>>Even if they are only doing it for their own benefit and "cloaking" themselves in other issues you have to agree the Hammonds are not terrorist. >>

Sounds like they are just poachers who covered up their deeds by starting a fire on public land. But terrorists? No

And it appears the Hammonds have tried to somewhat distance themselves from the Bundys who don't want the land given to the "people"(it's already public land) they want it given to themselves.

I agree that the Hammonds were just sucked into someone else's agenda. If they screwed up, they screwed up. There is obviously more to the story than just an accidental fire on public land. They are dealing with it the best they can, and should be left alone.

 

[mtnrunner260]

I joined Backcountry Hunters and Anglers after this started. So that should show what side of the public land fence I sit on.
What I don't understand is how is it serving the feds to grab more land?
I know and work with a handful of natural resource federal employees and I think they are good people and respect them but I can't see any of them wanting more land to manage or more responsibilities.
I can tell you that I have seen public land destroyed by improper grazing, I have also seem it improved for wildlife through a proper grazing regime.
I think it would be a travesty to have the feds lose control of public lands. Surely they don't always do the best but I think the alternative is much worse.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Everything tttoadman said but I'll add a few things. The conspiracy theorist in me sees this as a trojan horse to sway public opinion in favor of federal land transfer. These ass-clowns are supported by conservative politicians and big-money interests in development (profit) from these areas. I do not think the states can manage these lands and will eventually sell (not sure of the exact figure but Nevada has sold something like 98% of the land it was granted at statehood). As I've stated on other threads, whether you plan to vote for R or D in the upcoming election, I implore you to contact your chosen candidate to let them know that federal land transfer is a piss poor idea. Here is a link for one man's opinion which closely follows my own. The first 15 minutes of Steve Rinella's latest podcast also has a good summary.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article52356140.html

Not to mention the current budget for managing federal lands, which these jackasses say isn't managed properly, is 1% of our budget. It used to be 2%. Perhaps if these agencies were properly funded management wouldn't suffer.

 

[TJ]

If you have the time here is a link to an interview Congressman Walden gave.

https://soundcloud.com/thinkoutloudopb/congressman-walden-011316

As far as the statement "land grab". I call BS. This is land that no one owned when the state was formed. It may have been used, grazing etc, but not owned through the homestead act or other means. The Federal Govt is grabbing nothing.

If you listen to the interview you'll hear Walden comment on mismanagement by a few land managers, BLM or FS, which is part of the problem.

Also, Oregon did get a land transfer with the intention this land would be managed for logging to help pay for schools. The environmentalists have it so tied up in litigation that it will never be logged, and will most likely be sold, meaning possibly NO ACCESS.

Walden also discusses a few more details regarding the Hammonds case and the judge who initially sentenced them, who did not follow federal sentencing guidelines.

As far as I am concerned these "patriots" are a bunch of pathetic losers who need to adjust their tin foil conspiracy loving hats.

End of Rant.

 

[AZGUY]

I agree with most of the sentiment above and it is amazing to me the hypocrisy involved with this situation. When it comes down to it, "free" grazing is profiting off of a public resource that we all pay into with our taxes. In some states grazing fees on federal land are below $2 per cow. Contrast that with the price of grazing on private land ($4.50 and up) or per bail of hay per cow which lasts 2-3 days on average. In my mind this is a GREAT deal and the fact that the Bundy's and others will not pay these fee's is tantamount to them receiving their own welfare check every month. Just my opinion.

 

[wapitibob]

in a nutshell

Bundy's paid their NV lease for years
BLM changed the lease terms dropping the number of cattle allowed
Bundy's said F U, kept the cattle on there and decided not to pay at all
That started the NV standoff and gave them some courage after the BLM went home

In OR;
Hammonds set fire to BLM land, in part to cover their poaching of a cpl Deer, an offense that comes under mandatory sentencing in OR
first judge disregarded the sentencing, 2nd judge didn't and sent them to prison for 5 years
Bundy and his band of miscreants saw another photo opportunity and came to OR
Hammonds wanted nothing to do with them
Bundy's gang spewed constitutional mumbo jumbo much like radical bible thumpers or other religious nut cases.
feds had enough and set a road block when all the dip snits decided to go to a neighboring town
Finicum decided to run the road block, got stuck, then got out and charged about a dozen armed staters and feds ending up getting shot dead
There are a cpl nut cases left that aren't smart enough to go home and will likely get dragged out, whether on their feet or in a bag is up to them.

 

[TJ]

^^^^ Well said Bob.

 

[Ray]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the constitution makes it clear that the Feds are not to own more than 10 square miles in any state to support its offices, forts, or ports, unless purchased from or ceded by the states. This is the basis for many federal land issues in western states. You look at this law and then look at ANCSA and ANILCA and they would both be illegal as the State of AK never ceded those lands nor were they purchased by the Feds.

The other issue at play here is the legacy of W. Cleon Skousen. He annotated the constitution with his opinions, and that is the little pocket book the guys are pulling out and claiming to follow. Skousen's version of the constitution has not been ratified by the US, but these dudes are using it to justify their actions as if it was a valid legal document.

Then there is the specific history of the refuge being occupied. Great Basin scrub land was all it was until it was made an indian reservation. Indians got the boot for some reason and cattle men took over. Then Teddy R claimed large sections as refuge. Then some ranchers went under and the Feds bought them out. Other ranchers thought the Feds caused them to go under and the Feds bought them out, too. Whenever things get tight the Feds approach ranchers to buy their land to add to the refuge.

Now there is the crazing fees and closing of historic range lands across various parts of the Great Basin due to the decades of drought. Cattlemen are upset that the range lands are closed. For decades the BLM has been at odds with cattlemen in NV. Here is a good article on the NV situation. And here is another.

 

[tipsntails7]

Even if they are only doing it for their own benefit and "cloaking" themselves in other issues you have to agree the Hammonds are not terrorist. And the federal government has been land grabbing and managing land based on its interests.

No I don't think the hammonds are terrorists they were convicted of arson, I've not seen them called that either. The guys at the fed building are absolutely domestic terrorists, if these guys were Muslim this would have ended along time ago, swiftly without prejudice...

I would rather the Feds manage this land then states or these ass hats.

A lot of good point already brought up in this thread as well.

 

[gmajor]

The Hammonds are almost irrelevant to the occupiers. They don't support the occupiers and wan't to fight their own legal battles in court. Wapitibob summed up what they did in the first place.

It wouldn't be possible for me to have less sympathy for their actions, their tenuous retelling of history, and most importantly their ideas.

 

[Jason Snyder]

When Oregon Territory (and Nevada, Wyoming, others for that matter) was granted statehood, it came with the condition that all undesignated lands would be ceded to the federal government and the state relinquished claim to those lands. Of course, state school trust lands were designated as belonging to the states and railroad grants were made.

This little fact is commonly left out of the propaganda espoused by the Bundy family et al.

 

[tipsntails7]

When Oregon Territory (and Nevada, Wyoming, others for that matter) was granted statehood, it came with the condition that all undesignated lands would be ceded to the federal government and the state relinquished claim to those lands. Of course, state school trust lands were designated as belonging to the states and railroad grants were made.

This little fact is commonly left out of the propaganda espoused by the Bundy family et al.

Jason do you know where I could find this? I actually didn't know that.

 

[mmw194287]

Jason do you know where I could find this? I actually didn't know that.

It's written into the constitutions of the individual states I believe.

**edit--I was thinking of this article, which deals with federal supremacy instead of federal land ownership:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

and edited AGAIN**
From Nevada's constitution: "Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States."

 

[Jason Snyder]

It's under the Enabling Act of each of the territories when they sought statehood. It will pretty much read like that posted above.

At risk of high jacking the intent of this thread, I think it's interesting to note how many western states still own the majority of the school trust lands that they were granted at statehood. The Western Model appropriated Sections 16 and 36 of every township to the state to be held in trust for the state school system. Some states only still own a fraction of those lands.