Militia Takes Over Wildlife Refuge In Oregon

[Kutnupe14]

I happen to Agree with the Bundys. All those federal lands should be returned to the people. All the people, Like all 300 million of us. I mean, our Army took it fair and square back in the day right? But it seems like it will be pretty difficult to manage, especially for those of use who live far away, so lets set up an organization to Manage the Land. Maybe some kind of Bureau. Hey that's catchy, the Bureau of land Management, we can call it the BLM for short. And this BLM can set up park stations, take care of forest fires, make space for scientific study, and preserve wilderness areas for wild herds to graze. Sounds good to me. And Some private interests may want to use that land for private enterprise to make a profit! Thats great! But they should have to pay for a lease, or fees, or an extra tax to compensate all of us for using our land. Nothing expensive, pennies on the dollar really compared to what other private landowners would charge, and that money could offset the costs of the running the BLM. Sound good to everyone? Awesome thanks Bundys!

Do you think the Bundy's would be ok if the feds opened up their lands to the general public to do as they please? Something tells me they wouldn't.

 

[BugI02]

First arrest

Police Make First Arrest In Connection To Oregon Militia Standoff

These boys sure don't like to pay for anything.

Huffpost, Kut? Doesn't that make your brain feel ..... I don't know ...... dirty?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Huffpost, Kut? Doesn't that make your brain feel ..... I don't know ...... dirty?

It's an easily navigable site. Sure, there's lots and LOTS of spin, so I tend to just focus on the stories that put down solid facts.

 

[BugI02]

Understood

 

[IndyDave1776]

Do you think the Bundy's would be ok if the feds opened up their lands to the general public to do as they please? Something tells me they wouldn't.

If the general public had bought water rights or had other interest in the property, it would be entirely different.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If the general public had bought water rights or had other interest in the property, it would be entirely different.

The feds should then revoke the water rights, return whatever money is owed to the Bundy's for the rental, and open the land up to competition. Given how vast the area is, and the water on the land, I think it's a safe bet that there would be other ranchers wanting to get in on that action. I'm betting that wouldn't go over all too well with the Bundy's. Just because the Bundy's were there first, doesn't allow them to restrict fair use of land owned by the general public.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The feds should then revoke the water rights, return whatever money is owed to the Bundy's for the rental, and open the land up to competition. Given how vast the area is, and the water on the land, I think it's a safe bet that there would be other ranchers wanting to get in on that action. I'm betting that wouldn't go over all too well with the Bundy's. Just because the Bundy's were there first, doesn't allow them to restrict fair use of land owned by the general public.

How do you do this? I would be a difficult argument under eminent domain. You have to remember that buying rights is tantamount to buying only one aspect of a piece of property, not a cash rent. Same deal with the grazing rights. The payments are a maintenance fee for the BLM to manage and juggle use of the assorted rights and needs of the owners of those rights, not cash rent on 'federal' ground. There is a reason why the call the money collected from ranchers 'fees' and not 'rent'.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How do you do this? I would be a difficult argument under eminent domain. You have to remember that buying rights is tantamount to buying only one aspect of a piece of property, not a cash rent. Same deal with the grazing rights. The payments are a maintenance fee for the BLM to manage and juggle use of the assorted rights and needs of the owners of those rights, not cash rent on 'federal' ground. There is a reason why the call the money collected from ranchers 'fees' and not 'rent'.

Fees, rent, it really makes no difference. Once the feds withdraw administration of the land, then it should be open to everybody. The only argument the Bundy's would have is that they had made a deal with the federal govt, and that certain parts of that agreement should remain intact (except now they don't have to pay fees for use). That argument would almost certainly make the Bundy's look hypocritical, so the either the state takes over the land, and auctions it off to the highest bidder, or the land is open for everybody to use. Regardless, the Bundy's won't be happy.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Fees, rent, it really makes no difference. Once the feds withdraw administration of the land, then it should be open to everybody. The only argument the Bundy's would have is that they had made a deal with the federal govt, and that certain parts of that agreement should remain intact (except now they don't have to pay fees for use). That argument would almost certainly make the Bundy's look hypocritical, so the either the state takes over the land, and auctions it off to the highest bidder, or the land is open for everybody to use. Regardless, the Bundy's won't be happy.

You're missing the point. The problem is that the land was sold peacemeal. A bought the water rights, B bought the grazing rights, C bought the rights to another resource, D bought another resource, and the federal government charges an administrative fee for playing referee. the feds have been trying for decades to rewrite this to their satisfaction (i.e., theft of what isn't theirs to take) while doing well to make it play out to the outsiders that they simply have a pack of freeloaders on their hands, but it really is more complex and nefarious than that. Now, if the feds want to take what was originally paid for those rights, adjust for inflation, and pay interest on it, and pay replacement value for the ranches which are not viable without the water and grazing rights so that the ranchers can set up shop elsewhere, I would still see the issue with being driven off the ranch that great-great-great-great grandpa originally established, but at least it would be reasonable rather than getting unceremoniously relieved of something for which the right to use was purchased as a completed past action and sent down the road without a viable means to support themselves as a product of being denied what is rightfully theirs to possess.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You're missing the point. The problem is that the land was sold peacemeal. A bought the water rights, B bought the grazing rights, C bought the rights to another resource, D bought another resource, and the federal government charges an administrative fee for playing referee. the feds have been trying for decades to rewrite this to their satisfaction (i.e., theft of what isn't theirs to take) while doing well to make it play out to the outsiders that they simply have a pack of freeloaders on their hands, but it really is more complex and nefarious than that. Now, if the feds want to take what was originally paid for those rights, adjust for inflation, and pay interest on it, and pay replacement value for the ranches which are not viable without the water and grazing rights so that the ranchers can set up shop elsewhere, I would still see the issue with being driven off the ranch that great-great-great-great grandpa originally established, but at least it would be reasonable rather than getting unceremoniously relieved of something for which the right to use was purchased as a completed past action and sent down the road without a viable means to support themselves as a product of being denied what is rightfully theirs to possess.

Why would the feds return all the fees they took, and then tack on interest? The Bundy's have used that land for years with no issue until relatively recently. I can see reimbursement for the years they had difficulties using the land because of the feds, and Hell, I'd even give them back the money they spent on litigation. However, there's no way they get all their money back, as they benefited for years based on their agreement.
Ill put it to you this way, let's say the Bundy's paid $100 to ride a bike, owned by the govt for, for 10 years. After 8 of those years, the govt decides to take the bike back. There may be a penalty for terminating the contract 2 years early, but not to the level where the Bundy's get their full payment back.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Why would the feds return all the fees they took, and then tack on interest? The Bundy's have used that land for years with no issue until relatively recently. I can see reimbursement for the years they had difficulties using the land because of the feds, and Hell, I'd even give them back the money they spent on litigation. However, there's no way they get all their money back, as they benefited for years based on their agreement.
Ill put it to you this way, let's say the Bundy's paid $100 to ride a bike, owned by the govt for, for 10 years. After 8 of those years, the govt decides to take the bike back. There may be a penalty for terminating the contract 2 years early, but not to the level where the Bundy's get their full payment back.

You apparently just don't get it. Those rights were PURCHASED not rented.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You apparently just don't get it. Those rights were PURCHASED not rented.

Purchased implies perpetrated ownership, while rent implies periodic ownership based on a regular exchange of money. The Bundy's paid periodic fees to the BLM, and once they stopped paying, his right to use the land was understandably revoked.
Why did Bundy after 40+ years of paying, decide in 1993 to stop? What action had the govt taken to inspire him to do so?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Purchased implies perpetrated ownership, while rent implies periodic ownership based on a regular exchange of money. The Bundy's paid periodic fees to the BLM, and once they stopped paying, his right to use the land was understandably revoked.
Why did Bundy after 40+ years of paying, decide in 1993 to stop? What action had the govt taken to inspire him to do so?

Purchasing rights and paying the BLM management fees are two different things. In your bicycle analogy, it would be like paying a lifetime flat fee for the use of your bicycle and then paying a maintenance fee periodically. The BLM quits providing maintenance, or worse yet, pulls sh*t like locking the bicycle inside of a fence or a building (as was done fencing ranchers out of their water rights), so you quit paying for maintenance you're not getting.

 

[HoughMade]

Honestly, these guys seem to have been hoping for Waco and what they got was....ignored, largely.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Purchasing rights and paying the BLM management fees are two different things. In your bicycle analogy, it would be like paying a lifetime flat fee for the use of your bicycle and then paying a maintenance fee periodically. The BLM quits providing maintenance, or worse yet, pulls sh*t like locking the bicycle inside of a fence or a building (as was done fencing ranchers out of their water rights), so you quit paying for maintenance you're not getting.

Where is it mentioned that A. Bundy has lifetime rights to the use of the land? I may be able to agree that the Feds should stop administering the land, but if they do, it's fair game for everybody, as the Bundy's have no legitimate right to it over anyone else.

 

[actaeon277]

Honestly, these guys seem to have been hoping for Waco and what they got was....ignored, largely.

You mean except for Dave and Lando?

 

[HoughMade]

You mean except for Dave and Lando?

Truth, the man speaks it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Honestly, these guys seem to have been hoping for Waco and what they got was....ignored, largely.

I see it a bit different. I don't think they were really angling for that, but rather had reached a point of exasperation. Given my own occupation, I can easily understand how people would get tired of the federal government constantly d**king with them.

 

[HoughMade]

This guy doesn't really seem to think he's going off for a protest, to be back after the feds see the light and change their policies.

[video=youtube;zcOIdVMa4-0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcOIdVMa4-0[/video]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-ranchers-reject-cliven-bundy-family-occupation/

 

[Punkinhead]

You'd think they'd come up with a better salute.