oregon situation

[MontanaMarine]

I have a feeling that land controlled by local authority would be about as accessible to the public, as the current BLM/State, lands that are landlocked by private ranches. In other words, no access at all. Not even corner crossing.

However, you know when wildfire breaks out, it will be taxpayer funded assets put to work to fight the fire.

And of course taxpayer funded farm subsidies would still be welcomed.

 

[Bonedalien]

Supporting public lands IS supporting the constitution. It is not a partisan issue. Hopefully all hunters can come together with other recreators and preserve this national treasure.

this is where I stand. proud to be a member of BHA because of their focus on this issue. Transfer of Federal lands to the states is the most serious threat to hunting and anything we do on OUR public lands.

 

[Bonedalien]

I have a feeling that land controlled by local authority would be about as accessible to the public, as the current BLM/State, lands that are landlocked by private ranches. In other words, no access at all. Not even corner crossing.

However, you know when wildfire breaks out, it will be taxpayer funded assets put to work to fight the fire.

And of course taxpayer funded farm subsidies would still be welcomed.

damn straight

 

[woods89]

What I can't understand is all the people who look at that video and say well maybe he wasn't trying to get his gun out, maybe this, maybe that. Folks, its not that hard not to get shot by LEO!

He had ample opportunity at the initial traffic stop to surrender. But he chose to leave! He could have stopped when he encountered the roadblock. But he chose to try and run it which put a bunch of lives in danger. Once his truck was stopped he could have put his hands on the dash and complied with orders. But he chose to jump out and try to flee. When he recognized that he was surrounded he could have stood very still with his hands in the air. But he chose to behave in a way that made it very possible that he was pulling a gun.

I know its trendy to bash the government for anything and everything these days but I would invite you to see how this would have gone in any number of third world countries. Trust me, a whole bunch of people would have wound up dead. To my uneducated view, it looks like they gave him every opportunity to surrender peacefully. To me, it looks like he was serious about not going to jail and was not going to give up.

Trust me, I didn't want to see anyone hurt in this deal. I feel for his family and also the trooper who has this to remember now. But he wasn't just out for a nature hike out there and he made some decisions that you don't make if you want to stay healthy.

Ya I know, I never have been able to figure out how to make those cool little tinfoil hats.

Rant over.

 

[tipsntails7]

For sure, there is no getting bias out of the media, even the big names. Yet, I can't say it is "a complete mess."

The major news sources, whether they lean left (MSNBC) or right (FOX) still have to somewhat adhere to some level of journalistic standards.

The conspiracy sites don't, of course.

This:



Is not journalism. It is propaganda. It is also interesting to note the author doesn't actually make any claims of conspiracy. He uses only innuendo in the form of "raising the question." He is actually careful not to make any outright accusations. The closest he comes is "present(ing) a circumstantial case for..."

Further, he only references another propaganda site (intellihub) and his OWN previous article (which also only raised "questions"). Clever.

I am no apologizer for the Clintons, but it is hard to imagine they are both radical environmentalists AND secret uranium miners for the Russians.

Anyway, it is again more deflections which try to take attention away from the real issues:

1. Public access and management of public lands.

2. Using insurrection to further an agenda when your representative government won't.

Supporting public lands IS supporting the constitution. It is not a partisan issue. Hopefully all hunters can come together with other recreators and preserve this national treasure.

Well said Matt. As I am sure you can tell from this thread, and any others when something like this comes up, those radical sights are always the ones sighted, at this point anyone with a domain name can put up whatever they want and call themselves a writer.

 

[orionsbrother]

I'm not a tinfoil hatter. My impression of the people who were occupying the Malheur comes from the videos in the media and it's not particularly flattering. But I have some questions about the whole Hammond situation.

1. Is it true that the BLM or the Wildlife refuge diverted their water allotment into the lakes and flooded out the land of ranchers who wouldn't sell, then, after obtaining the land from the ruined ranchers, allowed the lakes to return to their normal size?

2. Is it true that the BLM illegally attempted to barricade a county road and erected fencing around a water source that the Hammond had rights to?

3. Is there anyone other than the purportedly mentally ill grandson who claims that the fire was set to cover up poaching instead of as a burn to protect the Hammond's grazing area?

4. Is it true that a judge valued the damages of the acre of BLM ground burned at $100.00, but the Hammond's fine was $400,000.00?

5. Is it true that the BLM conducted burns at an unusual time of year, consuming summer feed, burning cattle and destroying some ranches?

6. Is it true that junipers have been allowed to proliferate on the refuge and BLM land, reducing the habitat for wildlife and the carp have been allowed to proliferate in the lakes, increasing the turbidity of the water, rendering it less habitable for waterfowl?

7. Is it true that a wildlife survey reported that four times as many waterfowl use the habitat on the private land than on the refuge?

These are some of the things claimed on the internet that I'm curious about.

I come from somewhere where criminals are frequently patted on the head and sent on their way. I'd like to see some sentencing with teeth. Kill someone in Chicago and, on average, you will spend less than three years in prison. But $400,00.00 and five years seems unwarranted for an acre of burnt sage.

 

[AZ Vince]

I'm not a tinfoil hatter. My impression of the people who were occupying the Malheur comes from the videos in the media and it's not particularly flattering. But I have some questions about the whole Hammond situation.

1. Is it true that the BLM or the Wildlife refuge diverted their water allotment into the lakes and flooded out the land of ranchers who wouldn't sell, then, after obtaining the land from the ruined ranchers, allowed the lakes to return to their normal size?

2. Is it true that the BLM illegally attempted to barricade a county road and erected fencing around a water source that the Hammond had rights to?

3. Is there anyone other than the purportedly mentally ill grandson who claims that the fire was set to cover up poaching instead of as a burn to protect the Hammond's grazing area?

4. Is it true that a judge valued the damages of the acre of BLM ground burned at $100.00, but the Hammond's fine was $400,000.00?

5. Is it true that the BLM conducted burns at an unusual time of year, consuming summer feed, burning cattle and destroying some ranches?

6. Is it true that junipers have been allowed to proliferate on the refuge and BLM land, reducing the habitat for wildlife and the carp have been allowed to proliferate in the lakes, increasing the turbidity of the water, rendering it less habitable for waterfowl?

7. Is it true that a wildlife survey reported that four times as many waterfowl use the habitat on the private land than on the refuge?

These are some of the things claimed on the internet that I'm curious about.

I come from somewhere where criminals are frequently patted on the head and sent on their way. I'd like to see some sentencing with teeth. Kill someone in Chicago and, on average, you will spend less than three years in prison. But $400,00.00 and five years seems unwarranted for an acre of burnt sage.

You are raising salient questions.
Better be quiet or the federal goons will put you on a watch list.

 

[tipsntails7]

I'm not a tinfoil hatter. My impression of the people who were occupying the Malheur comes from the videos in the media and it's not particularly flattering. But I have some questions about the whole Hammond situation.

1. Is it true that the BLM or the Wildlife refuge diverted their water allotment into the lakes and flooded out the land of ranchers who wouldn't sell, then, after obtaining the land from the ruined ranchers, allowed the lakes to return to their normal size?

2. Is it true that the BLM illegally attempted to barricade a county road and erected fencing around a water source that the Hammond had rights to?

3. Is there anyone other than the purportedly mentally ill grandson who claims that the fire was set to cover up poaching instead of as a burn to protect the Hammond's grazing area?

4. Is it true that a judge valued the damages of the acre of BLM ground burned at $100.00, but the Hammond's fine was $400,000.00?

5. Is it true that the BLM conducted burns at an unusual time of year, consuming summer feed, burning cattle and destroying some ranches?

6. Is it true that junipers have been allowed to proliferate on the refuge and BLM land, reducing the habitat for wildlife and the carp have been allowed to proliferate in the lakes, increasing the turbidity of the water, rendering it less habitable for waterfowl?

7. Is it true that a wildlife survey reported that four times as many waterfowl use the habitat on the private land than on the refuge?

These are some of the things claimed on the internet that I'm curious about.

I come from somewhere where criminals are frequently patted on the head and sent on their way. I'd like to see some sentencing with teeth. Kill someone in Chicago and, on average, you will spend less than three years in prison. But $400,00.00 and five years seems unwarranted for an acre of burnt sage.

1. Don't know, although I do know that in the late 1800's that strategy was used by ranchers to buy land at a greatly reduced price under the swamp land act. They would flood an area, claim it as swamp or overflow land, buy the land cheap, then drain the land. I know that water is moved in and out of the refuge for environmental and habitat reasons, that may be in the grazing rights contracts, again I don't know.

2. Blm blocked a road, ended up not being owned by them but still by the county, they took it down. As far as the water, again who knows wether that actually happened or not. It could be swung either way, just because you have water rights doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it or to it, that goes for both sides.

3. A man and his son along with a guide saw the hammonds poach a bunch of dear in pretty much the same spot the fire was reported to have started, I cannot remember if the 3 saw the hammonds start the fire or not. In the press release it states witnesses', plural, so I assume it was more then one.

4. The hammonds fine was 400k this most likely included land damage, but also time and effort it took to contain the 2 fires. I can't find anywhere that the land was only worth 100 bucks, it was a couple hundred acres of land so I doubt it.

5. I don't know enough about wildland fire or its practices to comment.

6. Prescribed burns both on public and private have been used to attempt the eradication of junipers, BLM also has cutting schedules that they implement . Since 2005 more than 173,000 acres have been cut burned or thinned in burns, vale, lakeview and prineville district.

Since 1950 steps have been taken to reduce the spread of Carp in the refuge. Dynamite, rotenone, and basically anything they can do has been tried, they have even gone as far to hire professional carp fisherman for 2 week stints to try to reduce numbers.

7. Again I cannot find that survey although it wouldn't shock me, since 1920 the waterfowl breeding rate is down 90 percent because of invasive carp in the refuge (scientific America). I can go right now to a wildlife refuge and right next to it is a private property, I'll give you a guess as to where all the birds are stacked up at, and it's certainly not because the private property is being managed for the betterment of wildlife.

The Hammond situation as already stated has literally nothing to do with the occupation. I agree that 5 years might be harsh, especially for an elderly man but they new the minimum sentence when they went to trial, I guarantee if they had plead out prior to trial they would have got less time, and fewer charges.

 

[Qfrog]

Interesting discussion. I spoke with my buddy who definitely keeps his tin foil hat on at all times (even in the back country). He told me to keep an eye on it in five years and count the number of mines that will be operating in the "refuge". I sure as hell hope not but I guess only time will tell.

 

[Chris Sloan]

.They were on their way to a meeting to try to reach some kind of resolve? They had been completely peaceful, away from everyone. Funny they had a roadblock and operators in the trees on a "routine traffic stop" . He could have dropped his hands because he was shot maybe? Its still against the laws that peace officers follow, to chase and corner a peaceful subject, putting them in the position that makes you use lethal force. They burned down half a suburbs worth of private property in st louis, actually endangering lots of innocent people, but none of them were shot in the head. They could have resolved this without killing him and no one would have gotten hurt. Watch Lavoys last interview, he wasnt a man on a rambo mission. Then listen to the interview of the woman that was there.

 

[gmajor]

.They were on their way to a meeting to try to reach some kind of resolve? They had been completely peaceful, away from everyone. Funny they had a roadblock and operators in the trees on a "routine traffic stop"

That was not a routine traffic block, nor should it have been. There were ample opportunities for it to end peacefully. In this case we even have the rare opportunity to see what happened if he had complied with officers - as the other vehicle did, which of course ended peacefully (despite the aggressive nature of the occupation forcing the FBI to prepare for possible conflict).

Do I believe that the federal government is without flaws? Of course not. I don't exactly wax poetic about the federal government in general. Do I believe that they are the best custodians, given the alternatives, for mixed-use and wild lands in the west? Without question.

Just my $.02

 

[Chris Sloan]

I think they were going to meet with a sheriff, why stop them? Im saying there are more skilled lawmen that would have avoided the confrontation and found another solution. I cant remember the exact ruling, but the supreme has even ruled as to the extent officers are bound to NOT use lethal force.

 

[Chris Sloan]

Plus they were only keeping the employees off the refuge, the wildlife was still enjoying full access, so its still serving its purpose. Just thought they seemed pretty harmless.

 

[tttoadman]

I think they were going to meet with a sheriff, why stop them? Im saying there are more skilled lawmen that would have avoided the confrontation and found another solution. I cant remember the exact ruling, but the supreme has even ruled as to the extent officers are bound to NOT use lethal force.

These dumb asses had plenty of qualified people to talk to right in front of them. The time came to quit letting them dictate the path forward. He got what he deserved, and hopefully the rest do do. I hope when this is all done, the Bundy "clan" and its merry band of followers is charged a few million dollars to cover the expenses of this bullshit, and I don't care if it bankrupts all of them.

We are still spending money arguing with a bunch of idiots that "just want go home" without being charged a felony. Perhaps they should have thought that through a few weeks ago before they became a giant welfare cost to the public they claim to be protecting.

 

[tipsntails7]

I think they were going to meet with a sheriff, why stop them? Im saying there are more skilled lawmen that would have avoided the confrontation and found another solution. I cant remember the exact ruling, but the supreme has even ruled as to the extent officers are bound to NOT use lethal force.

They avoided the confrontation for a month, seriously what exactly was their end game? Do you even know? Because there was not going to be a solution unless the Feds handed over all that land to them for free cattle grazing, which sure as shit wasn't going to happen. I'm surprised they didn't kick the door in and take it back. The government showed some pretty damn good restraint in this situation.

If you don't comply with instructions you run the risk of being seen as a threat, you reach in your coat or in a pocket, makes it even worse. Once you are viewed as a threat to them or others they can deal with you swiftly..