Militia Takes Over Wildlife Refuge In Oregon

[IndyDave1776]

Hey let's not forget guns! This is a gun forum right?

Gun forum? Where?

 

[jamil]

My sympathy for the ranchers is limited. If they have to use someone elses property forever to make a buck, then get the hell out.

Regards,

Doug

Doug, I think you're oversimplifying it. They don't get the land use for free, generally, they have to lease it. Which implies a contract. Which is binding for both parties. The water rights were also purchased.

According to my source, the thing going on with Hammond is very separate from the Bundy take-over thing. He said that Bundy is deluded by some form of Mormon extremism which makes him believe that the Constitution is a divine document like scripture, and that he has a kind of warped understanding of what it says. So Bundy's holdout is kinda silly.

But the thing going on with the Hammonds is different and has been an ongoing fight with the tree-hugging bambifiles within the federal agencies in the area, who are trying to rid the land of cattle and make it once again unblemished by evil mankind, returning it to the Mother of Nature. This is also kinda silly.

Much of that land used to belong to the ranchers, privately held, until the FWS pulled some shenanigans to force them to sell, you know, because of the tree-hugger thing.

The fires that were set started on Hammond's land and spread to federal lands which were leased by Hammond. The whole "deer slaughter" cover-up narrative was "witnessed" by a person who at the time of the fire was a teenager who happened to have a grudge against the Hammonds.

 

[Expat]

Gun forum? Where?

I have always suspected that several people here would faint at the sight of one in real life... so don't upset them.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hey let's not forget guns! This is a gun forum right?

Speaking of which, I wonder how armed the "squatters" are. You think these guys are going with shotguns and bolt actions, or do they really have the tools needed to put up a fight that lasts more than 5 minutes?

 

[BogWalker]

Bundy Ranch stand-off seemed pretty AR-15 heavy so I'm guessing it'll be a similar mix here.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Doug, I think you're oversimplifying it. They don't get the land use for free, generally, they have to lease it. Which implies a contract. Which is binding for both parties. The water rights were also purchased.

According to my source, the thing going on with Hammond is very separate from the Bundy take-over thing. He said that Bundy is deluded by some form of Mormon extremism which makes him believe that the Constitution is a divine document like scripture, and that he has a kind of warped understanding of what it says. So Bundy's holdout is kinda silly.

But the thing going on with the Hammonds is different and has been an ongoing fight with the tree-hugging bambifiles within the federal agencies in the area, who are trying to rid the land of cattle and make it once again unblemished by evil mankind, returning it to the Mother of Nature. This is also kinda silly.

Much of that land used to belong to the ranchers, privately held, until the FWS pulled some shenanigans to force them to sell, you know, because of the tree-hugger thing.

The fires that were set started on Hammond's land and spread to federal lands which were leased by Hammond. The whole "deer slaughter" cover-up narrative was "witnessed" by a person who at the time of the fire was a teenager who happened to have a grudge against the Hammonds.

I think that Jamil's pretty close to accurate here.

To clarify the Bundy thing a bit. Mormons , like a lot of other folks , believe that the founding fathers were inspired in the writing of the Constitution. I suspect that anyone believing in [insert Diety of Choice here] that hangs around INGO would tend to agree. Those who choose not to believe in a Diety, not so much. But they would most probably believe that the folks writing it were brilliant, on a roll , or whatever. The Constitution is, and ought to be respected as a brilliant/inspired/noble/whatever document.

<EDIT> - based on Kut's point below - I want to clarify a potential misunderstanding: Mormons DO NOT believe that the Constitution is "akin to scripture". They DO believe that the founding fathers were inspired in writing the Constitution. Jacking it up to the point where it is view "akin to scripture" is an extreme and incorrect twist of Mormon doctrine that can and has been used by folks to serve their own purposes. As in the Bundy case.

<END EDIT>

Most anyone here can see how it's a hop,step, and jump from "the Constitution was written by inspired men" to "it's scripture"... If you ratchet up the belief a couple of notches, mix in a little extremism , that's where you logically fall. Now add in the belief that the current Administration is a complete perversion of what this country stands for (and EVERYONE around here except the most ardent Democrats would buy THAT...), and what do you get? And then add in the fact that there's an occasional hothead in the crowd... and you land at??? <wait for it...>

Ammon Bundy.

Honestly, I think Bundy would rachet his belief up a notch and go anti-gubbamint if he were a Pentecostal, a Catholic, or any other sort. He is a Mormon and given where he's from, the anti-gubbamint runs strong out there.

So - Ammon Bundy uses a couple of phrases and titles that are common to Mormons and would be understood. Things that undoubtedly were said in an attempt to get others to join him.
The Mormon leadership responded almost immediately with this press release - leaving no question about where they stand.

Church Responds to Inquiries Regarding Oregon Armed Occupation

Once again - this shows the benefit of a unified cohesive organization, quickly responding to a relative hothead who may or may not be wrong in thinking that the Federales are unjust , but definitely early and completely out of line in calling for extreme action.

The muslims would benefit from similar action in disavowing terrorists - but they have no such "top-down" organization.
Similarly, Christians of most all stripes would benefit from similar action in disavowing folks like Eric Rudolf, the Westboro folks, etc.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'd have my reservations about a person who believes the Constitution is akin to scripture. I don't dislike any particular person due to their faith, but I hold Mormonism at the same level as I do Islam... which means I think they're both wrong. Christianity and Mormonism do not reconcile, and I think mos Christians would be surprised if they took time to learn about the faith.

 

[Libertarian01]

Responding to Jamil.

Regarding, "Doug, I think you're oversimplifying it. They don't get the land use for free, generally, they have to lease it. Which implies a contract. Which is binding for both parties. The water rights were also purchased."

I personally don't care if they pay above, below or at market value. I think you're missing the point that this is totally irrelevant to the fact that they have to use someone else's property in order to stay in business. This is not a sound, long term business model. I do agree that any and all provisions of a signed contract should be enforced without prejudice or preference. That said, I would also venture to guess that the contract may(?) have a provision for the government to do what it is doing with the Bundy's, repugnant or not. If such is the case then the Bundy's have no ground to stand on, literally.

Regarding, "According to my source, the thing going on with Hammond is very separate from the Bundy take-over thing. He said that Bundy is deluded by some form of Mormon extremism which makes him believe that the Constitution is a divine document like scripture, and that he has a kind of warped understanding of what it says. So Bundy's holdout is kinda silly."

I agree that these are two (2) separate incidents, but the "fighting big brother with force of arms" seems to run through both by a Bundy. I do not fault the Hammonds on this single issue. I really don't care what delusions Cliven Bundy or Ammon are under. They are criminals who try to use something that is not theirs. This is like Israel settling land that they claim isn't Palestinian. Fine, it's not Palestinian. HOWEVER, it isn't within your agreed upon 1967 boarders either, so it isn't yours and you shouldn't be settling there. Even if the Feds shouldn't own the land near the Bundys, the fact is the Bundy's didn't buy it so it is not theirs to use.

Regarding, "But the thing going on with the Hammonds is different and has been an ongoing fight with the tree-hugging bambifiles within the federal agencies in the area, who are trying to rid the land of cattle and make it once again unblemished by evil mankind, returning it to the Mother of Nature. This is also kinda silly."

Seeing as how we have witnessed the extinction of dozens of species of animals in the last century or so in our own country I find it difficult to be so flippant about this issue. It would be logical to presume that thousands of head of cattle would do so little damage to a vast area of land, especially as it isn't the most verdant in the first place. This damage would have a major impact on all wildlife in the area, so I don't see it as being completely unreasonable to protect said wildlife.

Regarding, "Much of that land used to belong to the ranchers, privately held, until the FWS pulled some shenanigans to force them to sell, you know, because of the tree-hugger thing."

I don't understand the "pulled some shenanigans" part. Does this mean they may(?) have enforced some provision of the contract that I alluded to upstream? If so, then their reasoning is irrelevant to the fact that they are operating within the bounds of the contract that was signed.

Regarding, "The fires that were set started on Hammond's land and spread to federal lands which were leased by Hammond. The whole "deer slaughter" cover-up narrative was "witnessed" by a person who at the time of the fire was a teenager who happened to have a grudge against the Hammonds."

In the case point I read there were "witness's" to the deer slaughter, as in more than one (1). As this is the case, even IF we ignore the teenager who has had his credibility attacked there was at least one (1) other witness who testified against the Hammonds. Therefore, I find this premise to be on more solid ground than others. And even if I lease some wilderness from you, there will be certain stipulations that I cannot damage it in certain ways, like the Hammond's did.

I still have little sympathy for these folks. If it were their property that they had bought I WOULD SUPPORT THEM 100%. The fact is that it isn't theirs, and they have kept to a business model that requires their use of someone else's land.

My uncle was a cattle farmer right here in Indiana, down outside of Decatur. He owned two (2) properties with about 160 acres total. He raised cattle for dairy. He was able to support himself, his wife, and about seven (7) kids. I stayed with him for a week or two on my summer vacation. He got up before dawn and came in dirty and worn out after dusk. He always had something to do, whether it was feeding, milking, repairing, or maintaining. If cattle can be ranched profitably in Indiana or Ohio or Hawaii or Nebraska but not in certain sections of Oregon, guess what? Get the hell out of Oregon for cattle ranchers and seek business opportunities elsewhere.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Libertarian01]

I want to add one more thought without editing my above longwinded post.

This can be a very emotional issue for some. It is a very complex topic that could get lawyers and historians into long debates for many hours with good cigars and fine brandy's.

Note that for my part I am really not emotionally involved in this issue. I don't want to see anyone get screwed over by anyone else, whether it is ranchers in Oklahoma, business owners by workers, or workers by employers.

It just appears from my very limited understanding of a very long and complex topic that some of these ranchers, the Bundy's mostly, are trying to rally folks to protecting their Constitutional rights when they simply have not been violated to the level that they claim.

That said, I must admit that I may well be in error and need further information. But, given their propensity to push for a fight outside of the legal system, I simply don't care that much about them or their cause. In my case they have lost whatever moral support I could give.

Again, a very complex and nuanced issue that is being filtered through many different viewpoints, all of which seem to be slanted in very strong ways. This is why I wanted to post this and avoid having a single word or phrase picked out of a forum post when so much communication is lost in this manner. We fail here to see facial expressions, hear voice tone, and read body language.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I'd have my reservations about a person who believes the Constitution is akin to scripture. I don't dislike any particular person due to their faith, but I hold Mormonism at the same level as I do Islam... which means I think they're both wrong. Christianity and Mormonism do not reconcile, and I think mos Christians would be surprised if they took time to learn about the faith.

I'm all for anybody worshipping any way they please. I too have a problem with anyone taking the extreme position that the Constitution is akin to scripture. That is an extreme view - just like the others I mentioned. The LDS church came out swiftly AGAINST the folks in question and reiterated the basic belief that we work within the governments we live under to change things, and that if there was a beef here (excuse the pun) it belonged in a court of law. I provided the link. NOTE: I clarified things above


As for whether anyone believes as Mormons do (or any other religion), c'est la vie. My advice to all is this - if you wish to learn about Judaism, talk to a rabbi (or another Jewish resource). If you want to learn about Islam, talk to a local Imam. Heck if I wanted to learn about Glocks - talk to a Glock armorer like Charlie (NHT3). (Not sure who to talk to about those crazy Hi-Points, they are the Jehovah's Witnesses of the gun world - grin...) Same applies for anything. It's a free country - choose what you believe (or don't) and no worries.

I've got lots of friends of all different stripes. Some think I'm out of my freaking mind for believing as I do. Others respect it but don't choose to go there themselves. Doesn't mean I can't break bread, go shooting and have a good time with them.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Doug - I agree with many of the points that you are trying to make. PARTICULARLY about where Bundy and Co are going outside the law. That said, one point stands out kind of glaringly...

Do you really mean that I must own the land that my business relies on? What about the dude that runs a restaurant? Does he need to own the strip shopping center where he runs his business? Or is it ok to lease the property long term and invest his time and money in the business rather than his real estate? What about the convenience store owner? I've done work for a privately owned company that brings in 3.5 BILLION a year in revenue with around 200 convenience stores. They uhhhhh... LEASE the land that their stores sit on. This enables them to do what they do best with their capital.

I fail to see how the ranchers in Nevada or anywhere else are different. The reality is, the Fed gov't (well originally the State gov't owns massive chunks of the available land. So the cattlemen LEASE it from the owner. Long term.

One of the drawbacks of leasing is that landlord-tenant law applies, and as you state, sometimes that leads to disagreements. Contracts have a way of doing that. That is what we have courts for , in my opinion. And that is where Bundy/Hammond/whoever has a beef with it should be going

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug - I agree with many of the points that you are trying to make. PARTICULARLY about where Bundy and Co are going outside the law. That said, one point stands out kind of glaringly...

Do you really mean that I must own the land that my business relies on? What about the dude that runs a restaurant? Does he need to own the strip shopping center where he runs his business? Or is it ok to lease the property long term and invest his time and money in the business rather than his real estate? What about the convenience store owner? I've done work for a privately owned company that brings in 3.5 BILLION a year in revenue with around 200 convenience stores. They uhhhhh... LEASE the land that their stores sit on. This enables them to do what they do best with their capital.

I fail to see how the ranchers in Nevada or anywhere else are different. The reality is, the Fed gov't (well originally the State gov't owns massive chunks of the available land. So the cattlemen LEASE it from the owner. Long term.

One of the drawbacks of leasing is that landlord-tenant law applies, and as you state, sometimes that leads to disagreements. Contracts have a way of doing that. That is what we have courts for , in my opinion. And that is where Bundy/Hammond/whoever has a beef with it should be going

A good question.

If you own a company that makes widgets and you lease your factory I don't see that as being a problem. If the landlord wants to raise the rate to an astronomical amount you can move. It is inconvenient and possibly a significant threat to your business, but not necessarily a fatal flaw. And you would consider it prudent to plan for an eventual move, right?

If, on the other hand, you are planning to open a restaurant in the only place in town that it can survive, due to foot traffic or auto traffic or parking or whatever, AND YOU DO NOT OWN THE PROPERTY, then I suggest that you are embarking on a business venture that may be - unwise - in the long run. You are knowingly and intentionally placing yourself on a fault-line that could crack open any time the landlord decides that he, or his inheritors, don't like you any more. As I have worded it before, putting a business at the mercy of another individual is not a sound long term business model.

With the company that you mention I am certain they use their size and power to leverage the best deal they can, just as Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS do. However, I have also seen such companies up and move from point A to point B without gnashing their teeth.

I look at it this way, if I build a farm for animal stock that absolutely, positively, without a doubt will fail if the river EVER dries up OR changes its route, is this something you would think is a good idea for a long-term, multi-generational business? Would you not suggest that I dig deep wells or find another location or look into a different business venture? That river may last 100 years, or 1,000, or it may get hit by drought and dry up in five (5) months! Look at all the businesses that were dependent upon cassette tapes, or VCRs, or wrist-watches! All of these businesses that existed solely to support a single product were fine, until that product died.

These western ranchers have, as others have said, placed their ranches it what is simply put - land! They have known for generations that they MUST use vast tracts of it to survive, and those remaining have done nothing to try to move location to more fertile land or use a less needful animal or move into another industry. That is their fault, not the federal governments nor yours nor mine. Nothing in business nor life is guaranteed. That is why we prep, that is why we buy insurance, and that is why we retool both our businesses and ourselves to adapt to a changing world and a changing economy. And that is why my sympathy level for these folks is near zero (0).

Regards,

Doug

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm all for anybody worshipping any way they please. I too have a problem with anyone taking the extreme position that the Constitution is akin to scripture. That is an extreme view - just like the others I mentioned. The LDS church came out swiftly AGAINST the folks in question and reiterated the basic belief that we work within the governments we live under to change things, and that if there was a beef here (excuse the pun) it belonged in a court of law. I provided the link. NOTE: I clarified things above


As for whether anyone believes as Mormons do (or any other religion), c'est la vie. My advice to all is this - if you wish to learn about Judaism, talk to a rabbi (or another Jewish resource). If you want to learn about Islam, talk to a local Imam. Heck if I wanted to learn about Glocks - talk to a Glock armorer like Charlie (NHT3). (Not sure who to talk to about those crazy Hi-Points, they are the Jehovah's Witnesses of the gun world - grin...) Same applies for anything. It's a free country - choose what you believe (or don't) and no worries.

I've got lots of friends of all different stripes. Some think I'm out of my freaking mind for believing as I do. Others respect it but don't choose to go there themselves. Doesn't mean I can't break bread, go shooting and have a good time with them.

To be fair to Mormons, I have never met one that was anything but welcoming. I can't say the same for Islam. But some of their beliefs are concerning. But to be fair, I worship what non-Christians would call a zombie, so I really can't throw stones from my glass house.

 

[dusty88]

Before we all decide these communities have an unsustainable business model, we might consider whether it would be far more successful if they were allowed to run it rather than regulated off of it.

I also care about the environment and the ecosystem. That's one reason we bought a section of land, let some of it re-wild, and use permaculture practices on some of it as well. Most of the "tree huggers" (I use that term only to simplify here not to disparage) are sitting on a property that is now asphalt and want to fulfill their idealistic goals by having the central government control someone else's neighborhood. If they put their few bucks a year into a refuge, the refuges will continue.

I don't know about this particular county, but some western counties are government-dependent because the government starved out their businesses.

BTW, more interesting stuff going on in that county (not the protesters). Though they generally disagree with what Ammon Bundy has done, they are admitting he has brought them attention and emboldened them to take a stand for their own county.

I only listened to the first 15 min of this while I was driving, but some very intelligent, encouraging organization going on there

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELXMyTjMmXk&list=WL&index=4

 

[jamil]

Responding to Jamil.

Doug, first, I want to make it clear that the Bundy's are nuts. Whatever objection I have about the whole ordeal is how ****ty the government has been towards the ranchers in the area. When they reroute waterways to flood private grazing land OWNED BY RANCHERS so that they will sell, that's ****ty. I don't give a flying **** if the entire existence of snail darters is in dire jeopardy. The government doesn't have a right to do that.

I think you're missing the point that this is totally irrelevant to the fact that they have to use someone else's property in order to stay in business. This is not a sound, long term business model.

So, let me get this straight. Any business that has to lease property in order to stay in business does not have a long term business model? Have you thought this through?

I agree that these are two (2) separate incidents, but the "fighting big brother with force of arms" seems to run through both by a Bundy. I do not fault the Hammonds on this single issue. I really don't care what delusions Cliven Bundy or Ammon are under. They are criminals who try to use something that is not theirs. This is like Israel settling land that they claim isn't Palestinian. Fine, it's not Palestinian. HOWEVER, it isn't within your agreed upon 1967 boarders either, so it isn't yours and you shouldn't be settling there. Even if the Feds shouldn't own the land near the Bundys, the fact is the Bundy's didn't buy it so it is not theirs to use.

The Bundys are nuts. That's all I have to say about that.

Seeing as how we have witnessed the extinction of dozens of species of animals in the last century or so in our own country I find it difficult to be so flippant about this issue. It would be logical to presume that thousands of head of cattle would do so little damage to a vast area of land, especially as it isn't the most verdant in the first place. This damage would have a major impact on all wildlife in the area, so I don't see it as being completely unreasonable to protect said wildlife.

Nope. That does not justify ****ing land owners out of their private land, which happened. Federal law provides for leasing land and water rights to these ranchers. We're not a nation of laws if administrators can abuse the law to implement their personal ideological agendas.

I don't understand the "pulled some shenanigans" part. Does this mean they may(?) have enforced some provision of the contract that I alluded to upstream? If so, then their reasoning is irrelevant to the fact that they are operating within the bounds of the contract that was signed.

No, Doug, "shenanigans" are generally doing things to prevent ranchers from ranching. On their own land or land they've leased.

In the case point I read there were "witness's" to the deer slaughter, as in more than one (1). As this is the case, even IF we ignore the teenager who has had his credibility attacked there was at least one (1) other witness who testified against the Hammonds. Therefore, I find this premise to be on more solid ground than others. And even if I lease some wilderness from you, there will be certain stipulations that I cannot damage it in certain ways, like the Hammond's did.

Again, the land they started the fire on was their own. Not leased land. Theirs. 100%. However, it spread to some leased land. Given how they were charged, it's pretty obvious that the charges served an agenda.

I still have little sympathy for these folks. If it were their property that they had bought I WOULD SUPPORT THEM 100%. The fact is that it isn't theirs, and they have kept to a business model that requires their use of someone else's land.

It's up to you how you side on this. But at least base it on a fair reasoning of both sides of the argument.

My uncle was a cattle farmer right here in Indiana, down outside of Decatur. He owned two (2) properties with about 160 acres total. He raised cattle for dairy. He was able to support himself, his wife, and about seven (7) kids. I stayed with him for a week or two on my summer vacation. He got up before dawn and came in dirty and worn out after dusk. He always had something to do, whether it was feeding, milking, repairing, or maintaining. If cattle can be ranched profitably in Indiana or Ohio or Hawaii or Nebraska but not in certain sections of Oregon, guess what? Get the hell out of Oregon for cattle ranchers and seek business opportunities elsewhere.

Well, Doug, you get to vote for a POTUS and representatives who can change the federal laws that provide for public grazing lands. As a resident of Indiana I don't think what they do in Oregon is my business. But what the federal government does to people who live in Oregon IS my business. I prefer candidates who will snip the sack from federal agencies who use their power to implement their own personal ideologies.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Another standoff ends: Miles Away From Oregon, the Longest Armed Standoff in U.S. History Quietly Comes to a Close in Texas After 15 Years | TheBlaze.com

 

[jamil]

Another standoff ends: Miles Away From Oregon, the Longest Armed Standoff in U.S. History Quietly Comes to a Close in Texas After 15 Years | TheBlaze.com

It may not have been a Judge's order, but whatever justice required of him was surely fulfilled in a 15 year self-imposed house arrest.

 

[dusty88]

Most of us agree the original source of this controversy, the Hammonds being resentenced to 5 years was unjust. The only legal recourse for them now is to have the president commute their sentence.

I do hope that someone, somewhere has learned that flexing the government muscle isn't always the right choice (in this case appealing the original sentence).

One thing you can do for these people (who are NOT the people taking over the wildlife refuge) is sign the petition. It may go nowhere, but it's worth a shot.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...even-dwight-hammond-both-harney-county-oregon

 

[IndyDave1776]

Most of us agree the original source of this controversy, the Hammonds being resentenced to 5 years was unjust. The only legal recourse for them now is to have the president commute their sentence.

I do hope that someone, somewhere has learned that flexing the government muscle isn't always the right choice (in this case appealing the original sentence).

One thing you can do for these people (who are NOT the people taking over the wildlife refuge) is sign the petition. It may go nowhere, but it's worth a shot.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...even-dwight-hammond-both-harney-county-oregon

 

[Destro]

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/07/12-30337.pdf

sounds like they had a dunce lawyer