SteppedInIt
Well-known member
Edit to add Rep Greg Walden (R.OR) address of the situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcYg1f3NERc
5 yrs for burning 139 acres of BLM
- Thread starter Cross-7
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
- Status
fenceman
Well-known member
Kathie in Thorp":3mq2mi9j said:
Not to change the subject but you keep bringing up elk getting in your hay. Now not being from that country I know I.should shut up. But why not just build a high fence around your hay stacks. It doesn't cost that much to do a few acres and when you spread it out over the decades the fence would last, cost would be practically nothing.
fenceman
Well-known member
People want to compare what Jesse Jackson and Sharpton stand for.
https://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/2015-0 ... 475-16.jpg
To what the Bundys stand for.
Give me a freakin break
http://images.usatourist.com/uploadedIm ... -drive.jpg
https://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/2015-0 ... 475-16.jpg
To what the Bundys stand for.
Give me a freakin break
http://images.usatourist.com/uploadedIm ... -drive.jpg
Dave
Well-known member
SteppedInIt":14uw1vwq said:
Having driven that road a number of times I have some idea of the country. Where I am thinking the road block occurred it is narrow with no shortage of corners. Also what you wouldn't be able to tell from the aerial shots is that it is pretty steep going up both sides for 70-80 yards. I would be surprised if there wasn't a sniper or two sitting up on the ridge behind cover.
True Grit Farms
Well-known member
Freedom of speech isn't free anymore.
I'm starting to think I'm getting to carried away with this........They didn't have a violent history. They did squat in a place that wasn't theirs. They never threatened anybody, but they did open carry. They never forced their views on anybody, but they didn't let others force their views on them. I mean really, what made them public enemy number one. I got a next door neighbor that's in and out of jail daily. Nobody but me, has their eye on him. At what point does exercising your rights get you on the radar?
JMJ Farms
Well-known member
Bigfoot":1qilwtr5 said:
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
SteppedInIt
Well-known member
When you call out the government for overreaching or breaking law, you are gonna have one HECK of a target on your back. If the BLM has done the area ranchers including the Hammonds the way they have, then I am glad someone called it out. Otherwise we would have no idea of what has happened. We are talking about government taking over private ranches. This isn't over grazing rights and public land.Bigfoot":1ludmc1p said:
Kathie in Thorp
Well-known member
fenceman":3gea6lra said:
Fenceman, we/us/our place don't have problems with the elk and hay. We've got a real barn, with doors that lock. The neighbors have hay barns, and we are along the path to those barns. So, it's our fences the elk are hard on; not our hay supply. As for those neighbors (one on each side of us), one has more problems with his hay ground than his hay barn; the barriers he has up around his barns are pretty good. He hays over 300 acres, so not easy to put up tall fences around that. We'd have alot less problems if that neighbor either chased the elk out when they first show up every year and/or allowed hunting on his property. The other neighbor has small hay ground, but feeds 30 head of horses (yes, 30!) and about same no. of cattle, so he buys lotsa hay. He's got livestock pipe-built panels around his barn, but the elk can get their heads through. State Fish & Wildlife has pledged some help tightening that barn up before 1st cutting this year, but not much they can do right now. He's going to have to re-stack everything PDQ, as several layers of bottom bales all the way around have been chewed on/undermined, so that the top edges are about to topple and maybe knock out the sides. The local hay barns are generally not solid-sided, but sometimes have metal siding up 8 ft. or so from the bottom, and are approx. 40' X 120' and better than 20' tall to the roof truss bottoms. Have been enjoying the pics of your fencing projects, by the way. This has been an unusual year for the elk traffic, with much more snow than we've had for quite some time. Normally, they'll show up for a week or two and then be gone, except for a few older bulls that hang around all winter.
Kathie in Thorp
Well-known member
This was posted on a FB cattle page, and I thought the guy (from Oregon) made some really good talking points about WHAT IF the fed lands went to state or county ownership. So, I'm hi-jacking it for here:
"So let's try to look at that issue from the Bundy perspective for a moment. The basic premise was to give ownership of Federal Land to the people. What is the fair and equitable way to do such a thing? Does that federal land go to the State, the County, or to the individual residents? In the case of federal land in Harney county, that's roughly 7,500 square miles of land.
If the State of Oregon takes ownership of the that land, it creates some problems. The state is not staffed, nor has the budget to manage that property right now. The State has more lenient environmental regulations that the feds do. Good for capitalism, bad for people, wildlife and the tourism industry. Not so good for cattle ranchers though. Their grazing fees would go from $1.50 per AUM (Animal Unit Month) to around $8.00 per AUM. If Harney County takes ownership of that land, it compounds the same problems the State would have – staffing for management and administration, budgeting, establishing fees and permit charges, etc.
If a governmental agency of any sort owns the land (State or County), there will be a drive to privatize it. If they can't charge enough in fees to cover the expenses, the land would likely be sold to the highest bidder at some point down the road. Politicians will be involved. Who do you think will end up with the land in that scenario? Small family ranchers, well funded environmental groups, large corporate timber-mining-cattle operations? My guess is that it won't be the small family rancher like my old friend in Idaho. My fear is that it will be large corporations. I doubt there will even be a public bidding process for it – the politicians are beholding to others that have funded their campaigns and I'd bet the land is already divided up to contributors just waiting for things to become official. In that case, the resources will be exploited, the environment will be destroyed and small time cattle, timber and agriculture operations will turn to dust. Those cattle ranchers that survive may get the opportunity down the road to obtain grazing leases on that land, but only after all the uranium, gold, silver, trees and everything else has been extracted from the open pit mines and clear cuts. The water supplies will likely be contaminated with solvents, heavy metals and other waste materials, so they'll have to bring in their own water.
So what happens if we "give it to the people". The first question I ask is "what people"? Is it divided up to every man, woman and child who is a resident of the State of Oregon? If that's the case, we all get 1.22 acres of land in Harney County. Yeehaw! I'll take my one acre straddling the Donner und Blitzen River, thank you very much. Is that land in question divided up among the residents of Harney County? They'd all get 908 acres of land to do with as they please. That's enough to make me want to establish residency there so I get a share of it. Oh wait. If I own it, then I'm going to be on the hook for the State of Oregon property taxes levied against it. How will the single mother who works at the McDonald's in Burns, OR afford to pay the property tax on her 908 acres? Well, she could lease it out as private grazing land and make the going rate of $24.00 per AUM. I'm sure the local ranchers will be knocking down her door with those sort of offers. Or she call sell it to a corporate mining or timber company. We already explored that path and it doesn't end well.
As a final idea, let's give it to the original inhabitants of the area – The members of the Paiute Indian Tribe. They'd each receive 15,693 acres. Historically, they have the best track record when it comes to being stewards of the land. They used the resources from that land very efficiently for hundreds of years without exploiting or destroying it.
Sure, the options I've laid out are worse case scenarios. But what my old friend is advocating does have some serious consequences. If the land remains in the public trust, managed by the federal government, ranchers are asked to pay the $1.50 AUM for grazing, Sportsmen get access for hunting, fishing, camping, bird watching and some level of oversight is there from an environmental perspective to make sure the land is taken care of.
If the land goes into State ownership, the ranchers pay $8.00 AUM, Sportsmen likely lose some access, environmental protections are reduced and ultimately, the ownership will transfer to corporate interests.
And finally, if the land goes to private individuals, ranchers will pay $24.00 AUM, Sportsman will likely lose ALL access, environmental protections are a free for all and dependent on each individual's views. Most likely, that land will find it's way into corporate interests as well at some point.
For me, it all leads back to the status quo, with the addition of things like Malheur Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the Klamath Basin Agreement worked out jointly by the local stakeholders – farmers, ranchers, conservation groups, environmentalists, local residents, sportsmen, utility providers, politicians and governmental management agencies. Although the second example died while collecting dust in DC, the idea was a great one and many of it's key components will happen regardless. The point being is that all parties can come to the table and come up with a workable solution. No one party wins, but we all get a place at the table and get something in the end. Ultimately, we're just borrowing this earth from future generations and we have a responsibility to pass it on to them in better shape that we found it. So far, we haven't done a very good job of that."
"So let's try to look at that issue from the Bundy perspective for a moment. The basic premise was to give ownership of Federal Land to the people. What is the fair and equitable way to do such a thing? Does that federal land go to the State, the County, or to the individual residents? In the case of federal land in Harney county, that's roughly 7,500 square miles of land.
If the State of Oregon takes ownership of the that land, it creates some problems. The state is not staffed, nor has the budget to manage that property right now. The State has more lenient environmental regulations that the feds do. Good for capitalism, bad for people, wildlife and the tourism industry. Not so good for cattle ranchers though. Their grazing fees would go from $1.50 per AUM (Animal Unit Month) to around $8.00 per AUM. If Harney County takes ownership of that land, it compounds the same problems the State would have – staffing for management and administration, budgeting, establishing fees and permit charges, etc.
If a governmental agency of any sort owns the land (State or County), there will be a drive to privatize it. If they can't charge enough in fees to cover the expenses, the land would likely be sold to the highest bidder at some point down the road. Politicians will be involved. Who do you think will end up with the land in that scenario? Small family ranchers, well funded environmental groups, large corporate timber-mining-cattle operations? My guess is that it won't be the small family rancher like my old friend in Idaho. My fear is that it will be large corporations. I doubt there will even be a public bidding process for it – the politicians are beholding to others that have funded their campaigns and I'd bet the land is already divided up to contributors just waiting for things to become official. In that case, the resources will be exploited, the environment will be destroyed and small time cattle, timber and agriculture operations will turn to dust. Those cattle ranchers that survive may get the opportunity down the road to obtain grazing leases on that land, but only after all the uranium, gold, silver, trees and everything else has been extracted from the open pit mines and clear cuts. The water supplies will likely be contaminated with solvents, heavy metals and other waste materials, so they'll have to bring in their own water.
So what happens if we "give it to the people". The first question I ask is "what people"? Is it divided up to every man, woman and child who is a resident of the State of Oregon? If that's the case, we all get 1.22 acres of land in Harney County. Yeehaw! I'll take my one acre straddling the Donner und Blitzen River, thank you very much. Is that land in question divided up among the residents of Harney County? They'd all get 908 acres of land to do with as they please. That's enough to make me want to establish residency there so I get a share of it. Oh wait. If I own it, then I'm going to be on the hook for the State of Oregon property taxes levied against it. How will the single mother who works at the McDonald's in Burns, OR afford to pay the property tax on her 908 acres? Well, she could lease it out as private grazing land and make the going rate of $24.00 per AUM. I'm sure the local ranchers will be knocking down her door with those sort of offers. Or she call sell it to a corporate mining or timber company. We already explored that path and it doesn't end well.
As a final idea, let's give it to the original inhabitants of the area – The members of the Paiute Indian Tribe. They'd each receive 15,693 acres. Historically, they have the best track record when it comes to being stewards of the land. They used the resources from that land very efficiently for hundreds of years without exploiting or destroying it.
Sure, the options I've laid out are worse case scenarios. But what my old friend is advocating does have some serious consequences. If the land remains in the public trust, managed by the federal government, ranchers are asked to pay the $1.50 AUM for grazing, Sportsmen get access for hunting, fishing, camping, bird watching and some level of oversight is there from an environmental perspective to make sure the land is taken care of.
If the land goes into State ownership, the ranchers pay $8.00 AUM, Sportsmen likely lose some access, environmental protections are reduced and ultimately, the ownership will transfer to corporate interests.
And finally, if the land goes to private individuals, ranchers will pay $24.00 AUM, Sportsman will likely lose ALL access, environmental protections are a free for all and dependent on each individual's views. Most likely, that land will find it's way into corporate interests as well at some point.
For me, it all leads back to the status quo, with the addition of things like Malheur Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the Klamath Basin Agreement worked out jointly by the local stakeholders – farmers, ranchers, conservation groups, environmentalists, local residents, sportsmen, utility providers, politicians and governmental management agencies. Although the second example died while collecting dust in DC, the idea was a great one and many of it's key components will happen regardless. The point being is that all parties can come to the table and come up with a workable solution. No one party wins, but we all get a place at the table and get something in the end. Ultimately, we're just borrowing this earth from future generations and we have a responsibility to pass it on to them in better shape that we found it. So far, we haven't done a very good job of that."
TexasBred
Well-known member
Thanks Kathie. Someone actually thought it through instead of just shooting from the hip.
boondocks
Well-known member
TexasBred":eugi393o said:
x2.
Getting tired of knee-jerk reactions that don't actually try to figure out what an alternative scenario might look like.
Cross-7
Well-known member
I've watched this a 1000 times
At 9:34 after the agent that appears to be the shooter that took out LaVoy reaches to his right hip/back region and it appears he is gets another magazine and reloads his weapon.
Why would he have emptied his weapon if there was only one round fired at the time LaVoy made a threatening move towards him ?
[youtube]https://youtu.be/gaMcht_HLA0[/youtube]
At 9:34 after the agent that appears to be the shooter that took out LaVoy reaches to his right hip/back region and it appears he is gets another magazine and reloads his weapon.
Why would he have emptied his weapon if there was only one round fired at the time LaVoy made a threatening move towards him ?
[youtube]https://youtu.be/gaMcht_HLA0[/youtube]
Cross-7
Well-known member
boondocks":3jnhtmqc said:
I don't think many would agree that the militias' idea was well thought out or even conceivable , but side with them because the believe the sentence the Hammonds received was unfair and the tactics the BLM has used the past to remove cattle from public lands
Cross-7
Well-known member
When LaVoy goes around the roadblock and supposedly nearly runs over an agent
You can see that agent step our from behind the roadblock in the pathway and it appears he is putting rounds into the vehicle
You can see that agent step our from behind the roadblock in the pathway and it appears he is putting rounds into the vehicle
- Status
