Militia Takes Over Wildlife Refuge In Oregon

[T.Lex]

...Some of our legal eagles may remember the case but it shows how murky the lands, land rights, what's federal, what's in trust, what can be taken out of said land etc.....

You see, land rights are a bundle of sticks....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Photo of kut taken on his last vacation.....

That's racist.

 

[HoughMade]

That's racist.

#blacksilhouettesmatter

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's racist.

Oh, I missed the cross in the background.

 

[IndyDave1776]

12,000 Acres?! Geez. You'd think there would be a viable water source they could use. Hell, they could actually probably create their own (could they?). Or would that be prohibitively expensive?

Not necessarily. There is a reason why being cut off from the water rights that you already own is a big deal.

 

[Libertarian01]

As I understand it, Bundy and the Hammonds never owned the land at issue. It was always owned by the federal government. At least since those groups were involved. The issue was them wanting to do as they pleased with the federal land rather than follow the (admittedly onerous). If you don't own land and you want to use it, you are at the mercy of the owner...even if "that's not the way it used to be".

This sounds like a poor long term business model when the business owner (aka rancher) could be put upon at any time.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This sounds like a poor long term business model when the business owner (aka rancher) could be put upon at any time.

At face value, it would. The problem is that with permanent or near permanent leases, even if we set aside the part about ranchers getting driven off the land they own(ed) outright, these leases are more like ownership as we know it in which we have theoretically permanent possession so long as we pay our payments to Caesar in form of property taxes--or in other words, it would be hard to argue that any of us 'own' our land any more than the ranchers can claim the leased grazing land. Not absolutely sure, but I also seem to recall that the grazing rights were more like water rights, mineral rights, and so forth, and the fees were for management, not rental as such. They have some strange ways of doing things out there were the feds have been kibitzing since the first white foot landed there.

 

[HoughMade]

This sounds like a poor long term business model when the business owner (aka rancher) could be put upon at any time.

Contracts (which are used) are one way to ameliorate the risks. But while all risks are not eliminated ny ownership (certainly) many are. It is, however, not always possible. Life has risks.

 

[dusty88]

https://twitter.com/LesZaitz/status/684086540461412353

Someone is asking that the Hammonds get clemency

This could be the type of thing that would give the protesters reason to leave, and put an end to this bad idea

 

[IndyDave1776]

Contracts (which are used) are one way to ameliorate the risks. But while all risks are not eliminated ny ownership (certainly) many are. It is, however, not always possible. Life has risks.

Yes it does, and government should NOT be in the business of deliberately manufacturing them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

https://twitter.com/LesZaitz/status/684086540461412353

Someone is asking that the Hammonds get clemency

This could be the type of thing that would give the protesters reason to leave, and put an end to this bad idea

 

[jamil]

As I understand it, Bundy and the Hammonds never owned the land at issue. It was always owned by the federal government. At least since those groups were involved. The issue was them wanting to do as they pleased with the federal land rather than follow the (admittedly onerous). If you don't own land and you want to use it, you are at the mercy of the owner...even if "that's not the way it used to be".

Thanks for the legal explanation upthread. That makes sense.

I'm currently in Portland visiting family and a friend who is a rancher of sorts tells a different story about the land ownership. The land at issue was apparently privately owned at one point. He basically called the FWS tree huggers who are ideologically opposed to exploiting land for profit, such as cattle ranching. According to him the feds have employed some dirty tricks years ago to force ranchers to sell much of their their land.

More recently, as part of one settlement with the Hammonds, they had to agree to sell their land to the feds if they had to sell land to pay off their fines. Their policies seem to be based on discouraging the use of land, even private land, for ranching because grazing land isn't "natural".

Of course, he's biased, but I do trust that he's telling me what he believes is happening.

 

[Route 45]

Thanks for the legal explanation upthread. That makes sense.

I'm currently in Portland visiting family and a friend who is a rancher of sorts tells a different story about the land ownership. The land at issue was apparently privately owned at one point. He basically called the FWS tree huggers who are ideologically opposed to exploiting land for profit, such as cattle ranching. According to him the feds have employed some dirty tricks years ago to force ranchers to sell much of their their land.

More recently, as part of one settlement with the Hammonds, they had to agree to sell their land to the feds if they had to sell land to pay off their fines. Their policies seem to be based on discouraging the use of land, even private land, for ranching because grazing land isn't "natural".

Of course, he's biased, but I do trust that he's telling me what he believes is happening.

So basically, this is a range war between the feds and the ranchers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_war

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Protester says group occupying Oregon wildlife building wishes to be called 'Citizens for Constitutional Freedom'

White House calls Oregon standoff a "local law enforcement matter"

 

[HoughMade]

...White House calls Oregon standoff a "local law enforcement matter"

Well, that's a first.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, that's a first.

The last thing the Kenyan wants is to have the feds and their dirty laundry set out front. Most people not only don't realize that the shenanigans that are happening are happening, but would believe that they are not possible unless the lid blows off this on national media. Obama wants to keep it that way.

 

[voidsherpa]

White House calls Oregon standoff a "local law enforcement matter"

What, no civil rights violations to investigate?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, that's a first.

You mean there is a sparrow that falls that he won't comment on?

A professor in Massachusetts got popped for Disorderly Conduct and there was a White House Beer Summit. Geez.

 

[KG1]

The last thing the Kenyan wants is to have the feds and their dirty laundry set out front. Most people not only don't realize that the shenanigans that are happening are happening, but would believe that they are not possible unless the lid blows off this on national media. Obama wants to keep it that way.

I think you have it right. This is telling me that he doesn't wanna take a chance on the Feds getting exposed. I believe it to be quite telling that he is so willing to defer to the locals on this one.

 

[rvb]

I think you have it right. This is telling me that he doesn't wanna take a chance on the Feds getting exposed. I believe it to be quite telling that he is so willing to defer to the locals on this one.

One of the few times an issue involves people who work for him while property that the exec branch controls is being "occupied" (Dept of Interior / BLM)..... and he wants to defer to locals and keep his mouth shut? shady.

-rvb