Reports of "Militia Takeover" in Oregon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey zuki: Posts 30 and 183 do not prove any significant concepts regarding land rights. What these protesters claim as "land rights" means that they want to use public land, which we all own, without paying fees that are high enough to pay for their negative impacts to the land, and without complying with modern environmental regulations that are needed to preserve the land for long term use by all of us owners. The Bundy's are neanderthals in my opinion. No, wait, that is an insult to proper neanderthals.
 
Last edited:
Hey zuki: Posts 30 and 183 do not make prove any significant concepts regarding land rights.
Click to expand...

On review, you will find that to be incorrect.

Those posts explain the problems encountered in less than optimal dealing by federal authorities in landowners' water and grazing rights. Water and grazing rights are land rights, which kilimanjaro unpacks somewhere on the second page, iirc.

What these protesters claim as "land rights" means that they want to use public land, which we all own, without paying fees that are high enough to pay for their negative impacts to the land, and without complying with modern environmental regulations that are needed to preserve the land for long term use by all of us owners.
Click to expand...

You are not an owner of the land; the government is.

The rights to which you refer are privately held subject to federal management. If they are managed so as to destroy their use to the beneficial owner of the grazing or water rights, that beneficial owner may complain.

Specific individuals may have polluted their own claims with their own poor behavior; that does not reasonably suggest that land rights are not an underlying issue.
 
Last edited:
If they are managed so as to destroy their use to the beneficial owner of the grazing or water rights, that beneficial owner may complain.
Click to expand...
Uhhh I know this is a hard concept for some to grasp, but...
A federal court case takes YEARS. I am currently involved in a case where the FBI raided an individuals abode six months ago, found an abundance of evidence, later received a confession, and it is still going to be 12 months more before that person steps into a courtroom. For a violent crime.
Ranchers can't wait multiple years to sort out grazing and water rights. In three years your dead cows can't walk down to the river and enjoy the cool refreshing water. That is why BLM has been so successful with these tactics. The linked court documents, if you take the time to read them, are pretty convincing. BLM doesn't even try to justify their actions on several accounts.
 
John--so what are the alternatives for the allegedly harmed rancher? If they do the gun/militia/occupation gig they will end up in jail. AKA Bundy. IF (big IF) a rancher has a grievance, then he needs to document the actions by the agency that wronged him, including values of grazing lost, number of cattle that had to be sold and value, etc. The courts are where we deal with grievances in this nation.

It is puzzling why "returning the lands" to states or private ownership is such a big deal. I know personally several ranchers(in Colorado) that have grazing permits on BLM or USFS lands. They are charged extremely reasonable fees, and the agency in charge tries to manage the lands in a manner that is beneficial to the lands as well as the ranchers. During droughts, grazing pasture lands into the dirt is not a good management tool. I also know a couple of ranchers that have State Land Trust lands and they are not managed like Federal grass lands. The lessee is essentially allowed to do whatever they want to, regardless of precipitation etc. Some of the state lands are literally nothing but rocks and prickly pear during dry spells. When the wetter times come, nothing but cheat grass and weeds are growing on some of those lands managed by the state.

So the loud braying about "returning" federal lands to the state seems suspicious to me---does that mean the protesting ranchers think they should be able to do whatever they please? If I owned lands that were used in similar fashion I would want to maintain the viability of the grass rather than switch to prickly pear and cheat grass.
 
An easy alternative is just eliminate all grazing or other rights on government land.
Click to expand...

An easy alternative to what? For whom is it easy?

Grazing and riparian rights are a property interest.

To take them without compensation raises constitutional problems.

John--so what are the alternatives for the allegedly harmed rancher? If they do the gun/militia/occupation gig they will end up in jail. AKA Bundy.
Click to expand...

Curiously, the Cliven Bundy episode indicates an efficacy in the similar tactic in stopping the BLM.

IF (big IF) a rancher has a grievance, ...
Click to expand...

Emphasis added. Does the parethetical mean that you believe it to be implausible that a rancher could have a grievance?

IF (big IF) a rancher has a grievance, then he needs to document the actions by the agency that wronged him, including values of grazing lost, number of cattle that had to be sold and value, etc. The courts are where we deal with grievances in this nation.
Click to expand...

I agree as a matter of policy that society is served by resolving disputes in courts or by the dispute resolution mechanisms that exist alongside them.

Let's recognise that being poorly treated by a federal agency doesn't transform an individual into a legal secretary, and that how information is collected and what gets documented can have determinative weight by the time one finds his matter in trial.

If my life is all about scratching a living out of the pasture by getting cattle to water then pasture daily so I can get the cattle to market and hope to break even that year and I find a BLM fence keeping my cattle from my water, both of the following are possible:

1. I may not foresee how to document my harm so that it can be presented to a court, and

2. I may not have previously retained counsel to talk me through the process as my stock stand unwatered.

It is puzzling why "returning the lands" to states or private ownership is such a big deal. I know personally several ranchers(in Colorado) that have grazing permits on BLM or USFS lands. They are charged extremely reasonable fees, and the agency in charge tries to manage the lands in a manner that is beneficial to the lands as well as the ranchers.
Click to expand...

That sounds very much like what kilimanjaro described as the way the process should work. That experience may not be ubiquitous.
 
Zuki--The emphasis indicates exactly that---I remain dubious until the facts have been established. Somebody like Cliven Bundy saying he has property rights does not actually establish that as the truth. As I related in another post---I have been involved with a ranch family that some of the neighbors thought were the salt of the earth. But I also dealt with one of the family members that was drunk, threatened me (even though they had cut fence and lost cattle as a result.) They also called the news media and told them a story of woe---that was all BS. So you see--just because so and so says something doesn't mean a thing until there is validation for the assertions. That is where court comes in. The evidence is laid out in public for prosecutors and defenders to see and deal with. Then a decision is made based on that evidence.

I hope we don't get into generalities here. I have good friends that are ranchers. Good people. But I have dealt with some ranchers that were not such. I support ag very strongly. Grew up on a farm and earned a BS degree in Animal Science. Guys like Ammon Bundy makes ranchers look bad IMO.

I respect that the cattle industry is a tough go. People like you described that are working hard to make a business go, sadly, are disappearing. Our nation needs to support ag. We also need to uphold the law and work within the regulations of our various public agencies. :)
 
Zuki--The emphasis indicates exactly that---I remain dubious until the facts have been established. Somebody like Cliven Bundy saying he has property rights does not actually establish that as the truth.
Click to expand...

Whether someone with a grazing permit has a property right isn't something yet to be established, a fact as yet undetermined.

Whether they have a meritorious claim against the government may need to be adjudicated, but the existence of an underlying property right isn't disputed.
 
Colorado Redneck,
Did you read the court documents linked? In one case BLM removed their rights without cause. As in, made no claim to cause. Just said you no longer have these rights you are legally entitled to. BLM then failed to even claim cause in federal court. BLM very clearly must provide reason for removing rights related to the preservation of the land, such as in response to a drought. BLM lost that case for obvious reasons. If BLM never even made a claim, even a fraudulent one, to begin with, then lost their case in federal court and that isn't enough to substantiate reasons for a grievance then what exactly would you need to feel on is substantiated? To continue saying what you are saying, you obviously haven't taken the time to read the court documents provided to you in the previous posts. They aren't blogger posts or news articles. The actual court documents are linked to in one of the articles.

A lot of people think that you get all the money you "deserve" when you win a civil case. You don't. Court costs are not always covered. Any cattle liquidated would have been sent to market at fair market value correct? Sure they would be worth more if they matured, but the rancher did not have to invest time or money in their care. If they are liquidated for 25% of their eventual potential value, the court is unlikely to find judgement equal to 75% later. In the their case I believe the water rights were restored without any further compensation. Even if one wins a large punitive judgement, who paid the bills in the 3-4 years between? What about breeding stock and production during that time? 'Take it to court and win it there' sounds like a great idea and has been at the center of many great works of art, but in reality it doesn't work out for the individual 'fighting the good fight.' Look up the individuals in most of those movie featured court cases and how things end up for them when the dust settles. Most of them still had ruined lives.

Why did you think members of the legal team are the protagonists in all those films and not the plaintiffs?

There are ways to protest that are effective and there are ways to protest that are not effective. I'm involved in a protest right now over government policy.
 
Last edited:
JW said:
A lot of people think that you get all the money you "deserve" when you win a civil case. You don't.
Click to expand...

If you run me down in a crosswalk and I spend the rest of my days in a wheelchair, the court may award me the full measure of my damages. My lawyer has a family and a mortgage to pay, so he needs a third of my full damages. So I am left with 2/3s of what I could prove, and I am still in a wheelchair.

It can be true that the law provides the opportunity to get my full damages, but I also might not view being run down dispassionately. I may be very opposed to being run-over in the first place.
 
And the gov't attorneys are there anyways, so it doesn't really cost BLM to get into these scuffles, at least in the way bureaucrats think about it. More legal problems means they need more legal resources in their division, which means more head count and payroll, which makes management look more important, which results in new management positions or raising the GS level of those in existence. Even if the individual wins, the abusive bureaucrat doesn't lose.

Just like you said some ranchers are good with some bad mixed in, I am sure that goes for a big organization like BLM. I'm sure there are some hippie environmentalist at BLM who think the ranchers, oilmen, and loggers should all be dragged into the public square and shot, but have just enough control not to come out and say it directly. I've met one or two who seem to have those feelings bubbling just under the surface in Ohio's state department, even if the overwhelming majority are very happy to see me show up with my gas guzzling chainsaw to cut japanese honeysuckle.
 
John--I went back and re-read the entire documents you linked. I am not going to research public documents regarding this issue with the Hammonds. The "Conservative Tree" recounts what supposedly happened to the Hammonds. I did not find any sources for that recounting. The other document---the affidavit--was a document filed by a citizen.

Look---this is no longer a positive discussion. In my opinion, what the Bundys did was none of their business. How they did it got them into trouble and one of the people that accompanied them is dead. That is a sad way for things to turn out. What Cliven Bundy did was a long ways from justified, given all that I have read. He wanted to continue grazing on lands that he refused to pay the fees on, claiming the government didn't own the land. That has not been validated, even though there may be many people that believe them. The Bundys showed up again with guns to fight the government. IMO they are going at this the wrong way.

Ya'll can think differently. End of discussion for me.
 
Look---this is no longer a positive discussion.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, in some respects it may have been illuminating.

No one supports a loon trying to intimidate a sheriff's family, and there isn't any thoughtful support for BLM naked assertions of power beyond it's legal authority. There is enough grey area between those two poles for reasonable discussion of policy and whether specific acts are well reasoned.
 
If they originally had a legitimate grievance, and that to me is suspect, all the armed take over did was make them look like lunatics, criminals, or terrorists in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans. They proved nothing, accomplished nothing but getting one of their supporters killed, and odds are that the vast majority of them will spend time in prison. Add to that the fact that the armed take over of this federal property harmed the pro-gun side and more damage than good was done all around. Great work! :rolleyes:

To me the fact that 4 people are still holding out just points out how ludicrous this whole thing is. Unless they are hoping for an armed assault and to be injured or killed in an attempt to become martyrs that will soon be forgotten.

This isn't Ruby Ridge, nor is it even Waco. Its criminals who weren't obeying Federal Law being supported by more criminals breaking more Federal Law for self serving purposes.
 
If they originally had a legitimate grievance, and that to me is suspect, all the armed take over did was make them look like lunatics, criminals, or terrorists in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans.
Click to expand...
They actually do have several legitimate grievances. The BLM has run amok in Nevada, and the Bundys were somewhat caught in the middle.

That said, there were and are legal ways to pursue justice. The silly armed standoffs (which have now resulted in violence and death) only turned the majority of public opinion against them and ruined the chances for a valid public conversation on the issues involved.
 
I've said this before, but if they had arranged to pull 200 miles of fence overnight, no one would be dead and their 'cause' would have been advanced. Instead, they applied Looney Tunes statements and tactics that alienated the country.

This was the wrong place, the wrong time, and certainly the wrong people.
 
I agree pulling as much fence as possible, especially any limiting access to water sources, would have made a much better statement.

I've taken some round about steps towards accessing complete original court documents for several of the the Hammond cases. Not being able to walk to the court house and request them as usual, I am not sure on time frame or whether I will actual get them.

When I google search anything with Hammond in it concerning the lost federal case I just get pages and pages with that same couple of lines copied or paraphrased.
 
I agree pulling as much fence as possible, especially any limiting access to water sources, would have made a much better statement.
Click to expand...

The Bundy bunch made a media extravaganza of tearing out one fence "at the request of the rancher". Turns out the rancher did not give the Bundy bunch permission to rip out the fence. In fact the rancher had the fence re-built.

"I work with BLM," Puckett said. "I have no problem with them." He said government officials told him of their plans to erect the fence, which he said "has not nor will it affect my cattle operation."

"I am a good steward of the land. ... In no way do I feel that I am entitled to the refuge for grazing," he said.
Click to expand...

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/rancher_i_didnt_know_anything.html

BTW: Has anyone here ever seen what cattle do to a small stream or spring? i have: Cattle turn it into a knee deep mess of mud and cow crap.

The federal charge sheets are available on line along with the appeals court ruling on re-sentencing the Hammonds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top