Oregon Standoff: BLM’s “Burn ‘Em Out” Legacy — The Untold Backstory

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

You see, the problem here is that most of this is bs, by people with an axe to grind. You'll notice that 99% of this is peppered with words like "alleged" and "suspected" and "believe" - meaning they have no evidence for any of it.

Most of this is propaganda by the Bundy clan, rooted in an ignorance of the Constitution based on the knee-jerk loathing of the federal government, your elected government.

The locals who have gripes with the "big bad fed gubmint" are more butthurt about logging, mining and water, all things that we KNOW need to be controlled and regulated to prevent abuse of the natural environment.

In places where such regulation doesn't exist you end up with ranchers like the Bundy's stealing land, destroying natural ecosystems, wiping out endangered species... we know this, this is why such regulation was brought in, it's why it was created.

Most of the people who rage against legislation do it from a position of selfish ignorance, wilfully ignoring that it was their own parents who pushed for those changes to protect them and their environment. These things don't just happen, they are enforced because the people demand it, through their elected government, to protect the natural environment.

Go back a few generations and take a look at what life was like then, maybe then people will have a better understanding of why these things happen. Trust me on this, while you all rail against regulation and authority, you do so from a position of privileged ignorance of what things were like before.

If you all want to see first hand what happens when you don't have any enforced regulations protecting the environment, go to China or Russia and take a look for yourselves. I'm pretty sure than when you see the level of out of control pollution, take a look at the stats for endangered species, extinctions, irreversible damage to the ecosystem, you'll probably learn a thing or two about just why your "big bad gumbint" tells you you can't just go around doing what you damn well please on any piece of land you want to abuse.

a reply to: Rocker2013

I understand your sentiment, and I agree that the federal government is not all bad. It's not all butterflies and rainbows up there either though. I think we had better shine a big bright light on corruption of this sort wherever we find it, lest we be doomed to suffer it further. With that in mind...

I thought I should link to this thread authored by Boadicea:
Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies
Quite a few links pointing to BLM corruption, including links to information on two congressional hearings on the subject that have been conducted in the last ten years.

I also thought I should link this letter by Jimi O' Hagan, a Washington state farmer who was involved with the Oregon standoff to some extent. He brought a pen instead of a gun, by the way.
corruptwash.com...
Here's an excerpt:

I attended the January 11th 2016 “Bundy” meeting at the Highlanders High School. I would like to introduce my self to you I am James J. (Jimi) O’Hagan I am a 4th generation cranberry grower from Grayland Washington. I would like to be at home working on my farm with my children instead of being here. Cranberries are wetland plants that grow in wetlands of which are the highest regulated areas in the United States. I had to continually defend myself from wetland regulations from environmentalists who implied we were bad stewards of our land. We grow the same cranberries on the same ground that they were cultivated on before Washington became a state. The only thing that is different now days, is that lawyers are making a living on attempting to prevent me from making a living. Imagine that.

When the environmentalist came to my area to create the Elk River Natural Preservation I fought back with tooth and nails. They wanted to make the Elk river area (my family’s hunting grounds) into an area where all humans were prevented from entering, so they could see what an area would be like without human intervention. These environmentalists actually believe that humans should not be considered part of our environment, uh oh. Instead of allowing them to turn Elk River into this perverted state I stood in their way and together we locals created the Elk River Conservation Area. It is now completely controlled buy our local schools for our children to use as a tool to teach them the best management practices of logging, commercial fishing, tourism including hunting and fishing and allow them to experiment with other sustainable resource developments.

Several school land section 16s were originally placed into the Elk River Area which, as they planned it left the schools economic program which would’ve increased our property taxes, instead its timber is now being logged in a sustainable way, the kids have increased wildlife in the area and are directly involved in hatching salmon and inducing them into the river systems which has increased commercial and sport salmon seasons in our area considerably which has in turn also help fund our schools. Instead of being a tax burden it has become a tax relief. The children in our local schools are learning from their experiences and the amount they have yet to learn is immense. The people of Harney County should decide what they want done with the Malheur it is not my business it is your business but if I were you I would simply tell the federal government that you are not bad people and you think you can take care of it yourselves for your children. For what it is worth I suggest you use it to best benefit your children, and tell them to go home. The local people who work on it will still need to but they should be directly involved in teaching your children how to sustain ably manage it and make it productive to the best of its ability. Don’t just go on field trips to the Malheur hold classes on it and get your children involved in it. I think you hold a sustainable tax relief competition between the children in the various schools surrounding the Malheur, and reward them for their contribution to your society. As you can see by now I am very proud of my personal involvement in preventing the Elk River Natural Area Preserve from being established, but it is not what I came here for.

I came here specifically to get the Hammonds out of jail as I do not believe in human suffering. I completely understand and adamantly oppose governmental oppression as I and my children are victims of governmental oppression also. Instead of bringing a gun with me here to fight the government oppression that incarcerated the Hammons I brought my pen. My beautiful children are extremely afraid for me being here, and want me home as soon as possible.

Instead of helping me to go home Senator Cliff Bentz and Judge Grassey are directly involved in the reason I am here in the first place. Senator Cliff Bentz and Judge Grassey I am ashamed of both of you. Both of you implied about laws the “Bundy’s” are breaking yet both of you omitted to mention to the people the laws that you have been and are breaking, it is what is wrong with our entire country. Omission of the crimes that were used to incarcerate the Hammonds is a criminal act. Neither of you are fooling me with your art of deceit and deception.

Imagine that. The land being cared for and properly stewarded by the local citizenry instead of a federal agency, serving as a tax releif instead of a tax burden. It sounds like they have a sustainable system in place there. Of course he is biased(who isn't, really?), but I see no reason why it couldn't be made to work in many other federally managed wilderness areas throughout the nation. I think it would naturally depend upon the involvement level of the local community. It looks as though this community has made a go of it anyhow.

Accidental double post, so I'll turn it into something else.

Here are a couple of videos that I posted in my Robert LaVoy Finicum thread about some of his less than pleasant experiences with the Bureau of Land Management. Namely sabotage, in this case. Of course he was involved in a legal dispute with the BLM. Nevertheless, sabotage is sabotage.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Except in this case 2 people were charged with arson. Family members testified against them (and no their testimony was not thrown out) and a jury of their peers found them guilty. The courts, all the way to the US Supreme Court, ruled on the case.

What does that have to do with what the Bundy's are whining about?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I've created these threads that would be a good place for our 'side discussions', let's move that conversation there:
ATS Thread-The People Have A Right To Organize As A Militia, Regardless of Government Approval or Endorsement
ATS Thread-The US Constitution Does Not Authorize The Federal Government To Own Vast Tracts Of Land
I thought you'd like this one as well:
ATS Thread-The Sheriff is the Ultimate Authority Within His County

a reply to: tweetie

Good thoughts tweetie.

You took a stab at this idea we've brushed on a few times here.

When I look at this problem, it seems as though either 'solution' is the wrong one. I think I'm going states with how I feel about it, but I think that by itself is not a sufficient solution. Neither is leaving it all in federal hands. When I try to see through it in my mind, I think what we're seeing here is big business playing both ends against the middle. Not just mining, but ranching interests and other industries that will benefit from the chaos either way, often at the expense of smaller businesses. I think the states offer a higher chance of an outcome that will benefit the people, but that will take local involvement. The people are probably up against big money here, too. Even with local involvement, it would depend on the state as to how it would turn out for the people, I guess. The system as it is now is undesirable though, too. Dangerous even, to some people.

a reply to: Olivine

I thought how I replied to tweetie was how I was thinking about replying to you as well, so I thought I would include you in my reply.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That was a wonderful response and I thank you for it! I now have a better idea of where you're coming from.

Yesterday I came across another web page, posted in 2012, which helps me to further understand this land grab conflict which has been going on for a long time and why the applicable parts of the Constitution and the interpretation of it are being challenged so strongly in the west. Like I've stated, I don't live out there so I'm only a spectator. There was such a flurry of information being posted about this issue that I became hopelessly confused but I have more clarity now.

The federal government, Mr. Ivory and other proponents said, reneged on Congressional promises going back to the 1800s, which held that Washington’s control of tens of millions of acres in the West in national forests, rangelands and parks was only temporary. That pledge, they say, was written into contractual obligations in the founding documents of many states, and was followed through in some places but not others. The Midwest and Plains states, for example, are now almost entirely private lands, but hop a meridian or two west and the picture changes completely.

Utah wants 20 million acres back

Then there is this web page having to do with contracts:

From the American Constitution Society blog

I live in an eastern state where most of the land is privately owned though the state does own some of the land. Where I live is bordered on a large tract of land, (relatively speaking) which the state bought not long ago from long-term farmers and is a designated wildlife management area. Good grief! I've been horrified at some of the state's activities on this land (they're trying to force it to become a different type of habitat than it was for decades and decades) and I'm not the only one.

If Congress approved any land transfers to these states out west so many different interests would want a piece of the pie. My stating that doesn't mean I approve of federal BLM tactics and possible hidden motives.

It seems to me the country is being reworked by present day policies and there is much fall-out. A lot of people out west are being forced out of a way of life. They are the descendants and inheritors of the pioneers. If every remaining cattle rancher out west who is grazing their cattle on federal land was forced out I don't know what would be left as far as ranching goes.

a reply to: tweetie

* - The Antiquities Act
* - Property Clause US Constitution

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

Once again ignoring the parts of the constitution that does not support the argument does not a valid argument make.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie

* - The Antiquities Act
* - Property Clause US Constitution

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

Oops! Wrong thread.

edit on 17-2-2016 by tweetie because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie

* - The Antiquities Act
* - Property Clause US Constitution

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

Once again ignoring the parts of the constitution that does not support the argument does not a valid argument make.

I don't understand your reply. You are mistakenly assuming I am making an argument for or against this issue or ignoring parts of the Constitution. No. I'm just looking at what the people out west are basing their interpretations and protests on. We're not on the same page.

a reply to: tweetie

Nope I posted to both since it is discussing the same thing. Might as well post the facts to clear up the misinformation the bundy's are pushing.
I am showing you the info they are ignoring in order to push their agenda out west.


Would you like to refute the info or continue to deflect? God forbid people get to see the parts being left out of their "position".

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie

Nope I posted to both since it is discussing the same thing. Might as well post the facts to clear up the misinformation the bundy's are pushing.
I am showing you the info they are ignoring in order to push their agenda out west.


Would you like to refute the info or continue to deflect? God forbid people get to see the parts being left out of their "position".

I don't have a position for or against. I'm looking at all sides of what happened. I don't have a vested interest in either side - the Bundy's or law enforcement.

The way I see things is if I polarize to one side or the other I can never see what the truth really is.

a reply to: tweetie

Considering the stated views of the Bundy's there is only one correct side and its not theirs, unless we go back to only taking the parts of the constitution / laws we like while ignoring the parts we don't.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie

Considering the stated views of the Bundy's there is only one correct side and its not theirs, unless we go back to only taking the parts of the constitution / laws we like while ignoring the parts we don't.

I am hoping that since Ben Swan and Truth In Media were deemed worthy of a forum here that this post isn't thrown out as irrelevant. KrisAnn Hall is a Constitutional Attorney who cared enough to risk her day job rather than be intimidated into shutting down the Constitutional workshops she was doing. There's a newsclip Here.

You make a pretty cut & dried assertion. I have some reading to do myself, but please go to the 10:00 mark to hear her address the Constitution, the Gov't and Territories & Properties. She sure sounds like there are only three areas in the Constitution that apply to the back & forth in this thread. The first two apply to the ten square miles of Washington D.C. and the Forts & Ports with the consent of the states. The third applies to Territories & Properties. It would be silly for me to type it all out when she states the case pretty clearly.

It's pretty hard to make an argument that someone else is picking and choosing what part of the Constitution they care to follow if there are no other areas in the document that apply. The assertion is pretty originalist, so any wiggle room sought through legal decisions etc. shouldn't be fair game, imo.

I'll just leave it at that for now and let you check out the vid.

While there is definitely corruption here and there in government, as a government employee I find these claims to be highly doubtful.

Until you can prove without doubt that they purposefully let fires burn these areas rather than just not being able to stop them, then your theory is just another far-fetched rant.

a reply to: CornShucker

An interesting listen however she is doing the very same she acuses others of doing. She cant dismiss a scotus ruling simply because she doesnt agree wirh it. Scotus has the ability to interpret the constitution on a case by case basis. Even the federalist papers talked about that ability.

Nothing prevents the feds from owning land so long as the state approves it which has happened.

The antiquoties act allowd for the creation of national parks.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I've often wondered how long it will be before enough SC decisions have been made for the "Law of the Land" to impossible to relate to the Constitution.

Another topic for another time... Just wanted to say thanks.

a reply to: CornShucker

Thanks for posting it. To be honest I think that discussion should be held before we reach a point of no return on interpreting the constitution. Its one of the reasons im concerned about a republican presidential candidate wanting to make changes that would eviscerate the judicial branch.

We need a balanced court and obamas latest nomination is scary.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Here's an article about a congressional subcomitee hearing on it a few years back. Those are real people with real livelihoods in there, getting ground up in the gears of this dirty machine.
BLM bullying: ranchers testify on abuse

Much of the abuse presented in testimony revolved around water rights and litigation. Tim Lowry, who ranches out of Owyhee County, ID, related his tale of a 10-year legal battle with the U.S. over his water rights.

“The U.S. [Department of Interior] insisted that only the U.S. could hold a water right on federal land and that we must withdraw our claims,” he said. “When I did not acquiesce to their ‘convoluted legal theories’ as they were aptly described by the judge in one decision, the U.S. changed tactics.”

He characterized those tactics as the “veiled threat of financial ruin” through court cases. Lowry said over those 10 years he has accrued over $800,000 in attorney fees. Despite having been vindicated by the Idaho supreme court recently, Lowry was denied being awarded attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The cost, he said, wasn’t even the most disheartening element.

“What is most discouraging to me is that the U.S. knew that their position was contrary to western water law and court decisions. This was simply a continued, deliberate attempt to overthrow western water law and to send a message to other private claimants of water on federal law.”

Here's some more evidence of Bureau of Land Management corruption courtesy of Oathkeepers:
Oath Keepers Reveal Massive Corruption, Destruction of Property and Cover-Up By BLM Over Sugar Pine Mine

The evidence received by the Oath Keepers consists of:

Signed and notarized affidavits regarding missing or destroyed documentation within the BLM
Emails from BLM employees regarding the destruction and disposal of documents
Emails from BLM employees regarding the destruction of mines, equipment and structures
Emails regarding the use of foam by the BLM to close mines, forcing miners to dig through the obstruction to continue operations

The mine owner has submitted 14 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests and has received only 3 responses. One man, however, walked into the Portland BLM office, verbally asked for the Sugar Pine Mine records on file and the BLM mailed them out the next day!

A FOIA request must be responded to within 20 days by law and most of the Sugar Pine mine requests date back to February.

The Oath Keepers have submitted the received evidence to the FBI.