Mike Falk, post: 352375, member: 442 wrote: ÛÏThere is a delight in the hardy life of the open. There are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy and its charm. The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired in value. Conservation means development as much as it does protection.Û
- Theodore Roosevelt
President of the United States
- See more at: http://wilderness.org/article/famous-quotes#sthash.JVVszIPv.dpuf
I routinely enjoy the wilderness areas and do not want to see species go extinct.
There is middle ground here that is not being explored.
I wonder about the withdraw because they already have the ability to regulate hunting and land use on an extremely large swath of public lands. Perhaps it is a state vs. federal thing.
Williwaw, post: 352369, member: 7066 wrote: Looks like they done pissed off the wrong crowd. :-@
Yes, Teddy was the "conservation president", but you'd think such enthusiasts would get their history correct. Lincoln set aside the first land (Yosemite, 1864, during the Civil War (busy man!)) and Grant created the first park (Yellowstone, 1872). Roosevelt didn't put anything "in place" 'til 1902 (Crater Lake). Wilson created the N.P. Service in 1916.
Signed,
Researched the National Parks just last night for daughters middle school report and couldn't resist sharing my vast knowledge 🙂
imaudigger, post: 352379, member: 7286 wrote: This guy actually sounds kind of unstable to me.
In the overall context of things, that's pretty funny!
Williwaw, post: 352396, member: 7066 wrote: In the overall context of things, that's pretty funny!
Well ya.............I see your point. 😀
However, eco-terrorism is no better than anti-government terrorism right?
I could see that guy chaining himself to the gates of the refuge to stop the bird hunters.
It seems kind of ignorant for a bird watcher/wildlife enthusiast to have such a hateful attitude towards ranchers and hunters.
Ranchers are probably the largest private contributor to wildlife conservation in the nation. They preserve open spaces and create and maintain wildlife habitat that would not otherwise exist. They participate in programs such as the Williamson Act and private conservation easements. Most would be much better off developing their land into housing and other developments.
Hunters - I'll let the managers of the Malheur wildlife refuge speak for that.
Here's my 2 cents worth.
99% of agents of the federal government are excluded from liability or accountability to federal laws and regulations.
I ask myself why would the federal government go after a rancher that accidental burned 150 acres of sagebrush land? When ever something dosn't add up, look for the hidden agenda. Right of first refusal? Send a message to Citizens. Don't push your luck or you will be next.
Where is the Hammond's Senator or Representative? Did anyone here a peep out of them? It must be ok with them.
How long would it take you to run out of money when you are in court, legally fighting a government that has unlimited funds and resource?
My final comment is about people thinking this can't happen to me, thats way over in SE Oregon. Wait until the EPA shows up at your water front home claiming you are polluting water and demand you remove all the "contaminates" from your property or you will be in court. The federal government dosn't have to prove anything they just have to run you out of money.
Just a Citizens 2 cents worth
The importance of any issue is directly related to the closeness to your own back yard. Next in order of importance is if the situation is such that it could be happening in your own back yard. As the population of the country has become more predominately urbanized those in the areas of lower population density feel threatened. They can't retaliate by putting up a massive army as the outsiders always far outnumber the locals. No matter what is of critical importance to someone, there are far more with the opposite view or have absolutely no opinion whatsoever. Money to wage battles tends to work the same way. There is more from a distance than what can be gathered locally.
johnbo, post: 352419, member: 8695 wrote: Here's my 2 cents worth.
99% of agents of the federal government are excluded from liability or accountability to federal laws and regulations.
I ask myself why would the federal government go after a rancher that accidental burned 150 acres of sagebrush land? When ever something dosn't add up, look for the hidden agenda. Right of first refusal? Send a message to Citizens. Don't push your luck or you will be next.
Where is the Hammond's Senator or Representative? Did anyone here a peep out of them? It must be ok with them.
How long would it take you to run out of money when you are in court, legally fighting a government that has unlimited funds and resource?
My final comment is about people thinking this can't happen to me, thats way over in SE Oregon. Wait until the EPA shows up at your water front home claiming you are polluting water and demand you remove all the "contaminates" from your property or you will be in court. The federal government dosn't have to prove anything they just have to run you out of money.
Just a Citizens 2 cents worth
They started a fire below a sleeping fire crew. This is a reckless and dangerous act. Wildland fires running uphill are extremely dangerous...more than one entire crew has been lost in this type of burn over. I think the government has ample justification for pursuing this case. Of course, it sends a message, deterrence is one of the chief reasons for criminal punishment.
Dave Karoly, post: 352478, member: 94 wrote: I think the government has ample justification for pursuing this case. Of course, it sends a message, deterrence is one of the chief reasons for criminal punishment.
Do you think the prosecution of Terrorist charges are warranted?
just curious,
James
An interesting webinar from the NGS for those that are tired of the back-and-forth about Malheur. Be advised it's 24 minutes long.
:gammon:
JaRo, post: 352495, member: 292 wrote: An interesting webinar from the NGS for those that are tired of the back-and-forth about Malheur. Be advised it's 24 minutes long.
:gammon:
Murphy, post: 351691, member: 9787 wrote: I am continually greatful that I survey in a Metes and Bounds state and have no involvement with the BLM. There's still a modicum of accountability at the local level.
Five years in a federal prison is an extreme punishment for any crime where the damage is of questionable permanence.
You've got that right.
I wonder who with the EPA went to prison for polluting that river in Colorado?
9, January 2016
Update from the front
The invading Vanilla ISIS force refuses to go home as Turdish rebels arrive to further lower the aggregate IQ of the besieged federal gift shop. The Turds brought more weapons, body armor and much need snacks.
The body language of this local speaks volumes. His pleas to mullah Osama bin Ammon were ignored-
Welcome to Oregon!
The Oregon Admission Act (Act of Congress Admitting Oregon into Union, February 14, 1859), seems pretty clear that the Federal Government retained land when admitting Oregon into the Union.
Brief summary (actually, it's already pretty short)
Section 1 gives the boundaries of the State.
Section 2 deals with navigable waters of the State.
Section 3 establishes initial representation in Congress
Section 4 deals with conditions of acceptance by citizens of Oregon
- Sections 16 and 36 are are granted to the state for schools (Also by the Donation Land Claim Act of 1850), unless already patented or disposed of, in which case equivalent sections shall be offered.
- 72 sections to be granted the State for a state university.
- 10 sections to be granted for a seat of government.
- Salt springs, 12 or fewer, and 6 adjoining sections be granted to the state.
- 5% of net proceeds of land sales shall go to the State for roads and improvements.
- The proceeding are contingent on the State not interfering with the primary disposal of the soil (land?) with the state boundaries or with existing patents or bona fide purchasers (there were still a lot of Donation Land Claims which had not yet been patented), and non residents shall not be taxed higher than residents.
- The State shall not tax lands or property of the US.
Section 5 established the remainder of the Oregon Territory as the Washington Territory.
By thie time Oregon was admitted as a state (1859), the US had already patented much land within the state to settlers and other private individuals and granted land to other entities such as railroads and continued to do so afterward. There was also considerable land granted to the state, but far from the bulk of the acreage. I don't see anything that indicated that there was ever an intent to grant land to the state beyond what was contained in the establishing document or subsequently granted for whatever reason.
Oregon militia turns away another armed militia's help
I guess that the Pacific Patriot Network is a little much, even for the Bundys?
Mike Falk, post: 352554, member: 442 wrote: Oregon militia turns away another armed militia's help
I guess that the Pacific Patriot Network is a little much, even for the Bundys?
Well there goes the neighborhood as they say.
Dave Karoly, post: 352478, member: 94 wrote: They started a fire below a sleeping fire crew. This is a reckless and dangerous act. Wildland fires running uphill are extremely dangerous...more than one entire crew has been lost in this type of burn over. I think the government has ample justification for pursuing this case. Of course, it sends a message, deterrence is one of the chief reasons for criminal punishment.
Without reading the court transcript we cannot really know what the risk actually consisted of.
The Hammonds admitted to lighting the fires intentionally. What more do you need to prosecute them for arson.
imaudigger, post: 352638, member: 7286 wrote: The Hammonds admitted to lighting the fires intentionally. What more do you need to prosecute them for arson.
They would need to prove intent to do some harm. If their intent was to preserve or maintain property, then at worst, the accidental loss of control of the fire is reckless endangerment.
If simply lighting a fire was sufficient for an arson conviction, then every landowner, including the federal government would be guilty of arson for every controlled burn.
