Reports of "Militia Takeover" in Oregon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just for the record, a grazing right, or permit, on federal land is a property right. It cannot be unilaterally altered or cancelled without cause, and is transferable. The permit 'runs with the land' that the permittee holds in fee.

When a permittee is unable to determine from one year to the next what a Government range specialist may require, and is unable to make or expect a return on prudent investment of capital due to mercurial requirements, there is a genuine grievance.
 
Just watching this on CNN and their position is a little hard for outsiders (or me at least) to follow. They should have hired a PR man and come up with a half a dozen bullet points (pun intended) to explain their position.
Like a lot of Americans, I don't live on a ranch. I've never even visited one. I don't know what water rights or road rights entail, not to mention the history of these people & the government over the last few years. It's like walking into a foreign movie halfway through it.
I don't think they've thought their presentation through very well.
 
k said:
Just for the record, a grazing right, or permit, on federal land is a property right. It cannot be unilaterally altered or cancelled without cause, and is transferable. The permit 'runs with the land' that the permittee holds in fee.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that.

If it is part of the fee interest, why does a permit or rights holder pay a fee to the government?
 
I don't think they've thought their presentation through very well.
Click to expand...
I'm quite certain their media presentation isn't the only thing they didn't think through.

The more I read about issues with BLM the more I think there might be an issue that deserves a congressional hearing and some public attention. Blockading access roads to grazing areas, fencing off water to which people have rights, etc are all pretty deplorable practices that should be looked at, but who in their right mind thinks seizing a federal building is the way to do that? Even if desperate for attention to your cause, there are other ways. Even if to the extent of needing to be armed and cause some peaceful disruption. Seizing a federal building... You might as well seize Fort Sumter.

I didn't realize that about the grazing right either, although in the link I posted it does talk about them buying other ranches to obtain grazing rights and then those being removed.
 
Last edited:
It is a right running with the land so long as reasonable fees are paid. As for the rights that the protestors CLAIM to have been violated, that is their story.
 
I believe many (myself included) would have more sympathy for them if we had heard of attempts to resolve the issue at all before the extreme solution. I haven't heard of any these guys standing before Congress, writing bills, or creating petitions before they jumped to armed sit in
 
Several things that have occurred over the last century are interesting to note.

Much of the federal lands in the west were overgrazed by ranchers that considered their rights to manage that land as superior to the government responsibility to manage the land as good stewards. Lots of top soil erosion was the result of those actions by ranchers. In the past 40 years or so there has been a concerted effort by the managing agencies to do better, and require compliance by ranchers to only graze the allotted number of livestock. That number would likely vary based on the precipitation which western grazing lands depend on. Precipitation cycles make life hard for cattle and sheep businesses. But the government cannot control the weather.

Federal lands are a feature of many recreational activities. Hunting is one of the widest uses of federal lands. Many of us in Colorado are leery as hell of returning public lands to the states to manage. Money buys politicians, and people with untold wealth seem to have a penchant for owning big hunks of beautiful real estate. Pretending that private ownership would result in better uses of public lands is just wrong on so many levels.

I have a good friend that worked for BLM in AZ many years ago. He grew up on a huge ranch (96 sections). There was a rancher not too many miles from where my friend grew up that was grazing BLM land into the sand, not paying his fees, and he refused to allow BLM folks onto the land to count cattle. He was warned several times, and a couple of times he ran BLM employees off with threats of bodily harm (death.) Federal marshals were called in and one morning early, the BLM rounded up all of that guys livestock and took them to Tuscon and sold them at auction. The guy was later convicted of some serious charges and sat in prison for a couple of years.

To pretend this type of contentious situation is all due to the government is disingenuous as hell.
 
Sadly, people working for the government have a long history of immorally, and sometimes even illegally expanding their power and authority.

You can find many examples, over various administrations of this happening. It's not just a REP or DEM thing.

Look and see how people who own land, in a place the government (or more correctly someone in the gov) want to add to their holdings.

Legal harassment, charges, sometimes even convictions, raids and in one case I heard of even what amounted to murder (though it was an "accident", officially).

In the case of the Hammond's, it appears their ranch is the only one left in the valley that the gov has NOT (yet) bought so it could be added to the wildlife refuge.

A lot of people in the west know these things go on. They know it from personal experience (and not just in the west). When some bureaucrat in an alphabet agency decides they want YOUR land to add to their domain, they have lots of ways of making your life miserable, until you finally agree to sell.

Its not right, and it should not happen, but it does, and it is. The Hammond case appears to be one such (if the reported backstory is even remotely true).

The other bunch, the ones using the Hammond case as their justification for occupying federal property, is, in my opinion, in the wrong.

Not all of their complaints about the government's practices are without merit, as I see it. However, real valid issues are being driven under by their extremist stance. I fear they will do more harm, than good, in the end.
 
Not all of their complaints about the government's practices are without merit, as I see it. However, real valid issues are being driven under by their extremist stance. I fear they will do more harm, than good, in the end.
Click to expand...
I'm still willing to bet this ends in body bags and I'd take long odds if it isn't resolved in the next few days. So, for them, they will be doing a lot of harm. On the other hand, they have brought considerable awareness to an issue no one cared about a few days ago. The US has a long history of small rebellions being put down with devestating effects for the extremists only to see the moderates quickly provided a lot of what they asked for in the first place.

To pretend this type of contentious situation is all due to the government is disingenuous as hell.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't think anyone is saying this is entirely BLMs fault. One thing to keep in mind, and I know this from having family with livestock, cattle can't wait until a court case is over to drink. If BLM is paying a contractor to build a fence cutting you off from your water you don't have even the days required for a temporary injunction. If you don't immediately defend your water rights you are finished.
 
To pretend this type of contentious situation is all due to the government is disingenuous as hell.
Click to expand...

Best post i've read today.

Did anyone here read the federal appeals court decision? There's a lot of good information in that document.

Did you know that the Hammonds signed onto a plea agreement?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1656649.html


1. Did you know that a close relative of the Hammonds, a 13 year old boy at the time, was nearly burned to death in the fire?

2. Did you know that the person in 2. above testified against the Hammonds in court?

3. Did you know one fire endangered the lives of hunters and BLM firefighters camped nearby?

http://federalcrimesblog.com/tag/dwight-hammond-jr/
 
Thallub---I was a public servant for over 30 years. It was really interesting to have some joker think he knew how I should do my job, and light into me like I was dirt under his feet. Public servants side of the story is often untold, as it is really not media worthy to inform the public that John Landowner thought he was going to straighten out some public employee.

I hate government over reach, and also had to work with other government agencies that made my life miserable due to their idea of regulations.

This story is unusual, as some guys are making public press out of a scenario that was created by lack of respect for laws by private citizens. Worked good for Cliven Bundy--I haven't heard any updates on him. But the guy in AZ that I referenced in an earlier post sat behind bars for a while. What amazes me is the lineup of people that are ready to bandwagon jump about how evil the government is. Often, these same people are getting benefits of some kind from the Fed's. Social Security, Medicare, subsidies, low interest loans, free education, disability benefits, whatever.

In the end, this Oregon story will eventually peter out. Guys claim they don't want a gun fight.
 
a teenage relative of theirs
Click to expand...
A relative who many have indicated is mentally handicapped and something like 11 at the time of the fire approximately 11 years before testiying on the matter.
Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1656649.html#sthash.vAmCda7K.dpuf
Click to expand...
Paperwork before a backburn to stop the spread of an active wildfire...

I think getting caught up on the Hammond case is foolhardy though. I think they are well beyond the resolution of issues in one case having any effect.

Guys claim they don't want a gun fight.
Click to expand...
The leader makes that claim. The Davidians in Waco seemed much less interested in a gunfight and they still got one.
 
Often, these same people are getting benefits of some kind from the Fed's. Social Security, Medicare, subsidies, low interest loans, free education, disability benefits, whatever.
Click to expand...

Many, if not most "militia" members fall into these categories.

A big time rancher at our breakfast klache really bugged me. He constantly whined about Obama, the US government, it's employees and folks on welfare; especially folks on welfare.

One morning i told him to the cent how much farm welfare money he received in 2012. Thought the guy would have a seizure. He never came to breakfast again.
 
Colorado Redneck said:
What amazes me is the lineup of people that are ready to bandwagon jump about how evil the government is. Often, these same people are getting benefits of some kind from the Fed's. Social Security, Medicare, subsidies, low interest loans, free education, disability benefits, whatever.
Click to expand...

In a place in which the government is by far the largest employer and government consumes a quarter of the GDP, it isn't amazing that people who see the government as too large or powerful will be accepting a benefit of some kind from the same government.
 
I spent 40 years with USFS in the west. If the Hammond's are truthful, some employees need transferred. If F&WS is correct, ranchers need to come to jesus about permit terms.

You can work with the feds or you can fight them. One way works, the other is futile.

Whatever the issues, it's illegal to try and force a landowner into a sale. You administer the permits fairly, for both the permittee and the public interest, with no actions that are arbitrary or designed to force a sale, no matter what the Land Acquisition Map back in the office says is the desired ownership pattern.

You look at the landscape long-term. In 50 or 100 years, the property will come in from a willing seller. Until then, an acceptable level of resource use and exploitation has to be found and allowed.
 
k said:
You can work with the feds or you can fight them. One way works, the other is futile.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of practical wisdom in that. Tilting at a big federal windmill will carry a cost.

NPR this morning noted that Cliven Bundy's family view last year's episode as a limited victory in that they retained their cattle and the BLM withdrew. I would view that as a very limited victory without the kind of endurance a real legal precedent would have.

k said:
Whatever the issues, it's illegal to try and force a landowner into a sale.
Click to expand...

It is also illegal for the EPA to use compliance orders and denial of basic due process to harass, bully and otherwise mistreat landowners over whom they have no legal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, but the Agency doesn't appear generally deterred by adverse court rulings.

One's quandary as the recipient of a bad compliance order is to stand up and do the right thing, i.e. litigate it, or do the financially prudent thing, i.e. acknowledge as legitimate a dubious assertion of authority and try to minimise one's losses.

My sense isn't that the people in these episodes are blameless, but that a high profile episode serves as a lightning rod for a lot of people who wrestle with copious federal involvement in their lives and need to do the financially prudent thing rather than the right thing.
 
The trouble with these things are as you say, when they reach a stage that precipitates an event like this, is that both sides are to blame. Hopefully the folks inside the Refuge will realize they have made their statement and it's time to return to square one. So far, the Feds are not amping up an armed response, hopefully they realize they can return to square one, too. As soon as people realize they can use this event to further their own ends, it can metastasize into a real problem. This has already started on a local level when the peaceful protest in Burns splintered off into the occupation at the Refuge when outsiders hijacked the issue for their own personal purposes. Now the same process is beginning on a national level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top