How does one mask slaughtering several deer by burning off some scrubby sagebrush? That would be like attempting to mask the fact you used a chainsaw to cut down the 40' fir in his front yard by setting his lawn on fire.
Holy Cow, post: 351960, member: 50 wrote: How does one mask slaughtering several deer by burning off some scrubby sagebrush? That would be like attempting to mask the fact you used a chainsaw to cut down the 40' fir in his front yard by setting his lawn on fire.
I found a concrete monument in the Valley Fire Area (everything is black but the monuments survived). Near it is a burned-out deer carcass (I call it the "dead deer corner"). The carcass looks like a hollowed out deer. I would assume it died in the fire (or it could've been there before).
A fairly common scenario is to find a deceased deer missing the "hat rack" and no other apparent flaws. I'd be pretty sure the fire didn't do that.
If I was out to harvest meat, the consistency in which parts are missing on every deer that "died in the fire" would be amazing.
BTW, Dave, I love the fact you still call it the dead deer corner. I have a number of specific locations with similar appellations.
Dave Karoly, post: 351650, member: 94 wrote: You can read the Actual Ninth Circuit opinion here:
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Hammond_742_F3d_880_9th_Cir_2014_Court_Opinion?1451956657
There is definitely a constitutional problem with this case. Sentencing guidelines were determined unconstitutional if mandatory in about 2005. To get around that, federal and state governments put mandatory sentences into individual statutes. I haven't researched this, but there is something terribly wrong with it. As the decision notes; the district court judge DID use sentencing guidelines when sentencing the pair and did not go outside them. The problem is the sentence declared as a mandatory minimum in the terrorism statute. In my view sentencing is a judicial function and congress and state legislatures are unconstitutionally operating outside their authority. Separation of powers has been breeched. And we see the predictable result; using the judicial system to grind a political axe and further a congressional purpose (expanding the wildlife preserve). And whether legal or not, the feds went back on their plea agreement which shows a complete lack of honor or interest in justice. It is clearly harassment with an ulterior intent/motive.
But the building occupiers are worse than dumb; they are hurting what could be or could have been a strong political movement on behalf of the ranchers. Too bad the media will not cover injustice when it arises, but only sensationalism.
Duane Frymire, post: 351968, member: 110 wrote: There is definitely a constitutional problem with this case. Sentencing guidelines were determined unconstitutional if mandatory in about 2005. To get around that, federal and state governments put mandatory sentences into individual statutes. I haven't researched this, but there is something terribly wrong with it. As the decision notes; the district court judge DID use sentencing guidelines when sentencing the pair and did not go outside them. The problem is the sentence declared as a mandatory minimum in the terrorism statute. In my view sentencing is a judicial function and congress and state legislatures are unconstitutionally operating outside their authority. Separation of powers has been breeched. And we see the predictable result; using the judicial system to grind a political axe and further a congressional purpose (expanding the wildlife preserve). And whether legal or not, the feds went back on their plea agreement which shows a complete lack of honor or interest in justice. It is clearly harassment with an ulterior intent/motive.
But the building occupiers are worse than dumb; they are hurting what could be or could have been a strong political movement on behalf of the ranchers. Too bad the media will not cover injustice when it arises, but only sensationalism.
I thought their discussion of the plea agreement against appeals not applying to the government was a little weak. I can understand what they're saying but the Court could've turned away the appeal by saying the obvious goal of the plea agreement was to end the litigation. They kind of say it was but it wasn't.
But that is just me arm chair lawyering.
Bill93, post: 351950, member: 87 wrote: ...Indeed, true words can paint quite different pictures of the same thing.
I'm reminded of the Minnesota Viking's running back Adrian Peterson. Charged with child abuse for "beating his son with a limb of a tree".
While it made good fodder for the press, the reality was that Peterson disciplined his son with what we call a "switch" down here; a thin green shoot (possibly off a willow tree). I remember switches very well. The "limb of a tree" routine just made the mental picture that much more horrific.
Dave Karoly, post: 351981, member: 94 wrote: I thought their discussion of the plea agreement against appeals not applying to the government was a little weak. I can understand what they're saying but the Court could've turned away the appeal by saying the obvious goal of the plea agreement was to end the litigation. They kind of say it was but it wasn't.
But that is just me arm chair lawyering.
Yeah, they treat it like a contract and say it's clear so can't look at surrounding circumstances. I think there's a clue here on how they would determine the center of section:)
Mike Berry, post: 351672, member: 123 wrote: As far as what the locals are saying, Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward stated:
ÛÏThese men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,Û Ward said in a statement on Sunday afternoon.
I've got a friend who used to be Harney County Sheriff in the late 1990s and now is a state cop. Another who retired last year after 30 with the Harney District Attorney's Office. All indications are Sheriff Ward is a stand-up, A+ guy. However, the Bundy Bunch, believing the County Sheriff is the highest elected official in the land, wanted Sheriff Ward to provide sanctuary for the Hammonds and deny the federal court order. He declined the Nevadans interpretation of what he can or should do in his official capacity in his County and his State.
That didn't sit right with some folks in other states:
"Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward said he received death threat emails from people in other states after he told militia organizers he would not create a safe haven for the Hammonds to stay in Harney County."
Source: http://www.opb.org/news/article/burns-oregon-standoff-militia/And the Bundy Bunch apparently has other, more devine motivation beyond Sheriff Ward's assessment of the situation:
Bundy also confirmed to OPB that the familyÛªs motivation in this occupation is rooted in belief that their action is the modern-day equivalent of Captain MoroniÛªs ÛÏtitle of liberty.Û ÛÏThis is just like that,Û Bundy said. ÛÏMy Mormonism* plays a large part in what I do Û? the biggest part.Û
Source: http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/bundy-well-leave-occupied-buildings-if-community-wants-us-to/This post is probably not going to be very long lived, so for what it's worth I used to work in Burns and still know a lot of folks over there and this taking over the national refuge wasn't something formenting under the surface of the local psyche. For the most part they think the Hammonds got a bum deal, but aren't all that happy that these out of staters swooped into Oregon with this bait and switch.
(*Please note that Bundy's Mormonism differs quite a bit from that of my friends and family who are Mormons)
Proof that you can use scriptures and religion to justify just about anything.
However, I think the Hammonds are in a bad spot and I can't help but think that acquiring their last bit of land can't be a motivation on at least some level.
I also find it hard to believe that the nephew is the ONLY witness and they are basing their entire prosecution on that testimony. Seems a lot of nonsense of high desert sage brush...0.02'
imaudigger, post: 351857, member: 7286 wrote: Coming from a rural county, I have a different perspective.
That is a good explanation of how things are supposed to work in theory. It's an awesome idea that probably worked very well many years ago.
For small town America today, it is a much different story.Seriously - Find me one person from Burns, Oregon that thinks their vote counts or their voice is being heard (other than at the city/county level).
Around here, the presidential election is already decided before my vote is even counted.
People don't get to vote on federal land management regulations. The NEPA process is a joke. The regulations are dictated from Washington DC.
Contact your representative these days and they send you to a multiple choice form to fill out....click 1 for positive, click 2 for negative...nobody even reads letters anymore. The best you will get is a canned response thanking you for taking the time.We just deal with whatever comes down the pipe.
Am I wrong?
EDIT: I do agree with your idea on this being the best country in the world....and that there is a legal system in place for appeals and it should be utilized. I just don't think this is the type of case the Supreme Court would even hear. I'm also not justifying what they are doing. I just understand the source of frustration.
I'm a liberal living in a conservative city and county so my vote usually doesn't "count" either.
I agree 100%. This may be the first week, but I say it's a contender for post of the year.
Some more back history, from 1994,
It should open a pdf.
If not, then google "waterhole fence dispute results in rancher's arrest"
JaRo, post: 352027, member: 292 wrote: Some more back history, from 1994,
It should open a pdf.
If not, then google "waterhole fence dispute results in rancher's arrest"https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc ="s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjvpcPlnZbKAhWE1RQKHSy0ANAQFggcMAA&url= https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1630025/societyadvo00003.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGApOPK3sNeWp2QNSeB7D4SQGPDHw&sig2=9HK6qhcDFt6NQdRRx9nz9A&bvm=bv.110151844,d.bGQ&cad=rj a"
[sarcasm]Living free definitely appears to have dire consequences.[/sarcasm]
You can't fight city hall.
Glad to see Native Americans looking for their piece of the pie as well. Wouldn't their claim supersede the Bundy's?
Saw this interesting article regarding the native american claims. Interesting from a land title/rights/claim perspective as the article states that the Paiute tribe never gave up any of their rights to the land.
These issues are very real and are not isolated to the Bunkerville, NV. and Diamond, OR areas. Nor are they isolated to affecting just ranchers.
In my county, there is a push to create a new National Monument that would span 600,000 acres (via. executive order). This would fall on the shoulders of the next president. Private land within and surrounding the monument would experience the same BLM pressure as the ranchers have in these other cases.
In addition, there is a native American tribe that is formulating plans to convert some of that land to tribal lands.
I do not object to preserving wild areas....but where does it stop?
imaudigger, post: 352122, member: 7286 wrote: These issues are very real and are not isolated to the Bunkerville, NV. and Diamond, OR areas. Nor are they isolated to affecting just ranchers.
In my county, there is a push to create a new National Monument that would span 600,000 acres (via. executive order). This would fall on the shoulders of the next president. Private land within and surrounding the monument would experience the same BLM pressure as the ranchers have in these other cases.
In addition, there is a native American tribe that is formulating plans to convert some of that land to tribal lands.
I do not object to preserving wild areas....but where does it stop?
There have been these conflicts for a long time, many argue the feds have constitutional rights to lands as described in Article 1, Section 8 (the ten miles square section) and that is the limiting power of the feds.
However, that's not what the reality of the situation is today in the western states, so much of the land in each western state is run by people in the other 49 states and that will always create conflicts.
The BLM is claiming about 90,000 acres in Texas when absolutely none of the land in Texas was ever federal land unless they bought it. ALL of the land in Texas came from Spain, Mexico, Republic of Texas, State of Texas, in that order.
JaRo, post: 352141, member: 292 wrote: The BLM is claiming about 90,000 acres in Texas when absolutely none of the land in Texas was ever federal land unless they bought it. ALL of the land in Texas came from Spain, Mexico, Republic of Texas, State of Texas, in that order.
Yeah, there's a letter or memo from the BLM somewhere that says, "We've reviewed the documents of the Sovereign of Texas and the constitutionality of their acceptance to the Union and have determined we can own land anywhere we damned well please."
gschrock, post: 351866, member: 556 wrote:
Say, I just thought of an possible solution: just have those folks pay a daily rental for the facility... probably that shack would not cost much to rent, probably far less than renting a Chuck-e-Cheeses for a birthday party. :woot:
I've spent several weeks total at the MNWR over the years. The refuge Headquarters is not a "shack", it's actually quite a nice place with a stonework visitor's center, museum, landscaping, viewing decks, employee housing (the boss's house is especially nice), and is the operations base for the refuge, with equipment sheds, shops, and a large materiel storage yard.
As an aside, the refuge brochure has pictures and an explanation of the use of controlled burns on the refuge as a management tool. Ironic, eh?
Insider info: The fire tower presently being used as a lookout by the occupiers has been off limits for years, with the lower stair flights removed, because of nesting owls. I guess the occupiers don't care about owls.
