This is not land surveying. ItÛªs actually a land grab ÛÓ with guns. These paramilitary types are powered by conspiracy theories. The Û÷PatriotÛª movement is a child of the White Power movement.
These ÛÏactivistsÛ claim that what is happening to the Hammonds is unconstitutional. This view of the Constitution is based on a position promoted by Posse Comitatus. They held that the Constitution could be interpreted by individual right-wing activists in a way that allowed them to have more jurisdiction than federal courts do. The Sovereign Citizens are the best-known movement that promotes these crank legal theories today.
The news reports this story as a situation that needs a delicate response. Well, when a twelve year old kid with a toy gun "requires" death in a matter of seconds... A bunch of white terrorists threaten to kill federal officers and occupy a federal building, and this "requires" a "delicate response"?
Y'all Qaeda!
Fellows. Chill out a bit. Otherwise this thread is going to disappear and some people may suffer Beerleg/Surveyorconnect penalties for misbehavior.
As a news story, this is a worthy thread.
As a discussion of politics, this is not a worthy thread.
I think this situation may actually be distracting from the very real issue of how the Federal Gov.'s public land management practices and policies are affecting rural Americans. These affects may not necessarily be noticed by everyone depending on their life situation and location. However most have very strong opinions on the matter.
Looking at the GE image, it is very clear that the gov. has acquired nearly every piece of land that could be irrigated as well as all of the water sources.
I'm all for wildlife sanctuaries, but the majority of the wetlands are there only because of the effort the ranchers have put into developing the ditch systems and management of the water resources.
imaudigger, post: 351735, member: 7286 wrote: I think this situation may actually be distracting from the very real issue of how the Federal Gov.'s public land management practices and policies are affecting rural Americans. These affects may not necessarily be noticed by everyone depending on their life situation and location. However most have very strong opinions on the matter.
That's true.
I have family that lives near NFS, NPS and BLM lands in Colorado and Wyoming. Although none of them are actively involved in any lease/ or land use; the stories concerning the government's treatment of citizens and land use/ access policy implementation would make most folks scratch their heads. And I don't think it's just individuals. The State governments have a difficult time dealing with Washington's BS, too.
But the number of folks it affects is so small we never see it on the national news.
You have to wonder if there isn't a map hanging on the wall somewhere that looks like this....
My wife's uncle and cousins own land adjacent to BLM lands and also are tenants for pasture on BLM lands. It is not a good deal. For the most part they are surrounded by BLM land because that land was so worthless when the homesteaders arrived that no one was interested in acquiring it. Primarily due to lack of water to support day to day life, let alone any kind of production. My view point upon seeing most of the BLM land in their area is that the only purpose it serves is to hold the rest of the world together instead of having a giant, gaping hole.
Those who may think that this is simply a right wing issue would be well to recall the case of Brandon Mayfield.
This situation reminds of a thread that was recently resurrected about the ex-chair or some other position of the BLM wanted answers from the head of the BLM regarding their policies and how they are not followed by the governing body as in cases with Rivers vs Lozeau. That particular case is besides the point, but this case seems to have some similarities on the surveying side as it pertains to water, grazing, and access rights. I am curious as to how much survey work was performed whether in an office only or both field and office together in all of the mumbo jumbo between the family and government entities involved. All of the articles I have read focus more on the fires, accusations, and militia men rather than the legality of the families rights to said water. With that being said, and with the maps presented it is no wonder a controlled burn went over their property line. Without a long fence or a John Deere GPS receiver in your tractor it would be hard to tell in some areas.
The Hammond cases and the occupation are two separate issues. The only tie is the Hammonds accepted support from a group with an agenda and the group hijacked a case without knowing anything about it. Both groups will probably have some serious alone time to consider their choices..
Remember folks- It's a "Legal System" not a "Justice System"...
Attached is the approved acquisition boundary for Malheur NWR. Some private inholdings remain.
thebionicman, post: 351768, member: 8136 wrote: The Hammond cases and the occupation are two separate issues. The only tie is the Hammonds accepted support from a group with an agenda and the group hijacked a case without knowing anything about it. Both groups will probably have some serious alone time to consider their choices..
There sure are some similarities between the BLM activities in Bunkerville, NV. and Diamond, OR.
1.) BLM's desire to enlarge wildlife protection areas surrounding the land owners.
2.) Ranchers expressing that they felt pressured by the BLM to sell by making their business un-profitable due to reduction and denial of grazing leases and access.
3.) Many homestead ranches sold their land to the BLM, which was in turn added to a wildlife preserve.
4.) Large fines imposed by the government.
5.) BLM expressing interest in obtaining the ranches.
6.) Both ranches were one of the last hold outs that refused to sell.
Am I the only one that finds it very odd that granting BLM right of first refusal on the sale of the Hammond ranch was part of the plea deal relating to arson/terrorist charges? What does one have to do with the other? Something stinks.
Of course some people will say it's simple - one guy didn't pay his grazing permit fee and the other lit public lands on fire, then there is this crazy group of armed men wanting to overthrow the federal gov. (yet plaster American flags over everything and take their hats off and place their hands over their hearts when the national anthem is sung).
imaudigger, post: 351789, member: 7286 wrote: There sure are some similarities between the BLM activities in Bunkerville, NV. and Diamond, OR.
1.) BLM's desire to enlarge wildlife protection areas surrounding the land owners.
2.) Ranchers expressing that they felt pressured by the BLM to sell by making their business un-profitable due to reduction and denial of grazing leases and access.
3.) Many homestead ranches sold their land to the BLM, which was in turn added to a wildlife preserve.
4.) Large fines imposed by the government.
5.) BLM expressing interest in obtaining the ranches.
6.) Both ranches were one of the last hold outs that refused to sell.Am I the only one that finds it very odd that granting BLM right of first refusal on the sale of the Hammond ranch was part of the plea deal relating to arson/terrorist charges? What does one have to do with the other? Something stinks.
According to one website that I looked at, the Hammonds did sell at one point to another private owner and acquired another ranch elsewhere. The new owner died and the Hammonds did a trade/swap with the heir(s). So I could see how the BLM would like to have first chance if the Hammonds do decide to sell...again. Note: I have not confirmed this information, but the page was definitely pro-Hammond.
This article makes a good point in my opinion about lands being given to the individual states to decide how to manage them.
http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/21/federal-arrogance-fuels-new-sagebrush-rebellion/
imaudigger, post: 351789, member: 7286 wrote: There sure are some similarities between the BLM activities in Bunkerville, NV. and Diamond, OR.
1.) BLM's desire to enlarge wildlife protection areas surrounding the land owners.
2.) Ranchers expressing that they felt pressured by the BLM to sell by making their business un-profitable due to reduction and denial of grazing leases and access.
3.) Many homestead ranches sold their land to the BLM, which was in turn added to a wildlife preserve.
4.) Large fines imposed by the government.
5.) BLM expressing interest in obtaining the ranches.
6.) Both ranches were one of the last hold outs that refused to sell.Am I the only one that finds it very odd that granting BLM right of first refusal on the sale of the Hammond ranch was part of the plea deal relating to arson/terrorist charges? What does one have to do with the other? Something stinks.
Of course some people will say it's simple - one guy didn't pay his grazing permit fee and the other lit public lands on fire, then there is this crazy group of armed men wanting to overthrow the federal gov. (yet plaster American flags over everything and take their hats off and place their hands over their hearts when the national anthem is sung).
mkennedy, post: 351795, member: 7183 wrote: According to one website that I looked at, the Hammonds did sell at one point to another private owner and acquired another ranch elsewhere. The new owner died and the Hammonds did a trade/swap with the heir(s). So I could see how the BLM would like to have first chance if the Hammonds do decide to sell...again. Note: I have not confirmed this information, but the page was definitely pro-Hammond.
I completely understand why the BLM wants first rights, but what does it have to do with an arson case?
From the outside looking in (with limited facts), there is the appearance that there is the potential for abuse of power. The BLM wants the Hammonds land...Hammonds refuse to sell to BLM....the BLM hits them with a huge fine....Hammonds still refuse to sell to BLM.....BLM brings a case against them and offers the Hammonds reduced sentencing if they give them first right of refusal on their land....Hammonds accept and serve their time....They pay $200,000 of the fine.....BLM pursues re-sentencing with the goal of 5 years of federal prison.....
Will their ranch be part of a refuge when they get out in 5 years?
Wendell, I honestly very much appreciate this thread. It is helping to give me a balanced perspective of these current events from my peers whom I respect. Thank you for keeping this thread alive (for now). Brad
paden cash, post: 351694, member: 20 wrote: The rigidity of some federal laws has been questioned several times. One judge was quoted (on the subject of Congress's free range ability to make mandatory sentencing laws) as saying, "It is entirely possible for Congress to pass a law requiring a life-sentence for an overtime parking violation.".
As I see it this situation brings to like a couple of issues.
The first being minimum sentences, in this case the original federal judge felt that 5 years was to long a sentence for the crime. As a citizen I would agree with the judge but federal and state governments have passed laws, at the request of the law and order crowd, setting minimum sentencing. I did not see the militia making a big fuss in 2008 when the Fed's used the same laws to sentence Tre Arrow to 78 months as an eco-terrorist for burning log trucks. I'm not making a judgement call but my mom told me you can't have your cake and eat it to.
The second point is the way that some people see federal land as their own. It was not like the 2006 fire was their first run in with the BLM. It was the third fire, the first being in 1996. They had to know it was wrong, they just felt entitled to do it. The Oregonian article also mentions cased of reported intimidation of people hunting of the BLM Lands. Federal land belongs to all of us, grazing leases give you rights to run you cattle not claim it as your own.
Finally from a fiscal stand point. The citizens of this great country spent well over a million dollars to fight these fires. While the Hammonds repaid $400,000 you and I are still on the hook for over $600,000. That money could be used to manage a hell of a lot of sage brush.
I hope this is resolved peacfully
Sage brush is "managed" by ignoring it. There is nothing humans can do to make it useful.
