It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: Indigo5 Surely shooting at someone on land you have no permit for is grounds for assault or attempted murder? Also all minerals removed without permit is theft, And any houses built there are the property of the people of Oregon
originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: Indigo5
I think the whole Nevada debacle embarrassed them, and they are desperate for a new cause...pity they went in half cocked guns blazing....again.
The concept of a public militia given the current state of corrupt policing, they could have been useful to the public if they didn't make such idiots of themselves.
I agree totally with your assessment on the mining.
BLM aren't perfect, but I do remember when applying to make a claim with them in Cali and Nevada (for a fun social Gold mining group) thinking how extraordinary it is I can mine land I don't own, pay pennies to be there, can enforce no trespasses, and make a damn fortune if I strike it rich with the minerals whilst paying the BLM nothing for it....All if I keep my paperwork up to date, hide nothing and follow the law. I don't think there is another country on earth that does makes it that user friendly and cheap for claim stakes.
""can enforce no trespasses""
No you can not unless you are actively mining then only around the area where you are working not around the rest of the claim.
The Rogue River Treaty – 1853
The accord of 1853 was signed near the Table Rocks of the southwest Oregon Territory. The treaty was initially signed with an X mark by Chief Sam, known as Ko-Ko-Ha-Wah, meaning “wealthy,” and four other chiefs of the so-called Rogue River Indian Tribe* along with General Joseph Lane and others representing the United States.
The result was a vast tract of land, reckoned at more than two million acres fit for settlement, ceded to the federal government. The selling price was $60,000 — minus $15,000 to be paid to settlers for miscellaneous expenses incurred prior to the treaty.
The document was the first in the Oregon Territory (present-day Oregon and Washington) to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, when it was approved in April 1854. President Franklin Pierce signed the treaty in 1855.
In addition to supposedly securing an end to hostilities between natives and settlers, the treaty established a temporary reservation situated around the Table Rocks. The people were impoverished by their removal to the reservation: It wrenched the traditional tribal economy and social system into disarray
Trail of Tears
In 1854, the Oregon Territory Legislature passed a law making it illegal to sell guns or ammunition to Indians.
By then the Cow Creek Umpquas had been drawn into the Rogue Indian Wars to help their cousins to the south. In 1854, Superintendent Palmer visited several bands of Umpqua Indians, and he reported:
"I found many of them wretched, sickly and almost starving ... They said, truly, they were once numerous and powerful, but now few and weak; that they had always been friendly to the non-Indians, and desired them to occupy their lands; that they wanted but a small spot on which they might live in quiet. Many of their number they said had been killed by the non-Indians, in retaliation for wrongs committed by Indians of other tribes, but they had never offered violence in return."
originally posted by: TwoRavens
If there are demonstrations that have "cowboys and Indians" TOGETHER that are concerned, like say, protesting fracking or the proposed Coos Bay LNG pipeline, to ensure a world fit for children to live in, that is one I will be interested in. This one, not so much, I will be honest.
originally posted by: JohnnyAnonymous
originally posted by: Indigo5[/post]
originally posted by: JohnnyAnonymous
Miners today are environmentalist minded and want to see these lands restored back to their original beauty.
Nothing personal Johnny...but "Conjecture" is what you are repeatedly offering vs. the links to both the BLM and the Miners citing the nature of the dispute, which I have provided.
Your claim of these specific miners being environmentalists (based on nothing) is disputed by the Miners themselves, as it is BLM 3809 which they have cited as the regulation they feel they are not beholden to and 3809 specifically calls for no unnecessary environmental damage and for restoration of mining sites.
I wont get baited into something that I've suggested we wait and see what unfolds in this current scenario (but thanks for playing, here are some lovely parting gifts).
Federal officials said in a letter to the owners they needed to file plans for the gold mining and equipment on the land or cease operations. The miners argue they have exclusive surface rights and do not have to follow federal regulations.
April 16 --The co-owner of a Josephine County mining claim at the center of a land-use dispute with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management says an armed security presence by members of the Oath Keepers movement has "taken on a life of its own," and he is pleading for calm after supporters apparently phoned in threats to BLM employees.
"We don't need any more volunteers, we're not under attack, this is not the Bundy Ranch ," said Sugar Pine Mine co-owner Rick Barclay . "Please stop calling the BLM and threatening their personnel."