Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
PlasmaDogPlasma

Oregon Militia Takeover - Ammon Bundy arrested

Recommended Posts

They have to pay to graze their cattle there, something like 15% of what they'd have to pay to graze their cattle on someone else's private land. And using public land is subject to some rules (imagine that) like, um, no setting fires.

Their gripe is that that is all unfair to them.

About that fire setting thing, I assume it was for some resson like getting grass to grow better, when they were surrounded by other cattle owning landowners I imagine if a fire encroached on the other landowners land it wasn't a big deal because they were going to set fires anyways. But when the government bought all the landowners out and encircled a landowner then when a fire entered now public land, then it becomes a felony? That does seem unfair.

They set the first fire to cover up the fact that they had been poaching on federal property. They set the other fire on their property at a time when burning was not allowed and, iirc, that one spread to the public land.

I thought they bravely forced a kid to set the fires and also just generally treated him like a servant. And he eventually grew up and happily blew the whistle on them.

your pictures are awesome

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have to pay to graze their cattle there, something like 15% of what they'd have to pay to graze their cattle on someone else's private land. And using public land is subject to some rules (imagine that) like, um, no setting fires.

Their gripe is that that is all unfair to them.

About that fire setting thing, I assume it was for some resson like getting grass to grow better, when they were surrounded by other cattle owning landowners I imagine if a fire encroached on the other landowners land it wasn't a big deal because they were going to set fires anyways. But when the government bought all the landowners out and encircled a landowner then when a fire entered now public land, then it becomes a felony? That does seem unfair.

They set the first fire to cover up the fact that they had been poaching on federal property. They set the other fire on their property at a time when burning was not allowed and, iirc, that one spread to the public land.

I thought they bravely forced a kid to set the fires and also just generally treated him like a servant. And he eventually grew up and happily blew the whistle on them.

That kid had a rough time. See the police report where they used sandpaper to remove some skin from his chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have to pay to graze their cattle there, something like 15% of what they'd have to pay to graze their cattle on someone else's private land. And using public land is subject to some rules (imagine that) like, um, no setting fires.

Their gripe is that that is all unfair to them.

About that fire setting thing, I assume it was for some resson like getting grass to grow better, when they were surrounded by other cattle owning landowners I imagine if a fire encroached on the other landowners land it wasn't a big deal because they were going to set fires anyways. But when the government bought all the landowners out and encircled a landowner then when a fire entered now public land, then it becomes a felony? That does seem unfair.

They set the first fire to cover up the fact that they had been poaching on federal property. They set the other fire on their property at a time when burning was not allowed and, iirc, that one spread to the public land.

I thought they bravely forced a kid to set the fires and also just generally treated him like a servant. And he eventually grew up and happily blew the whistle on them.

That kid had a rough time. See the police report where they used sandpaper to remove some skin from his chest.

Brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatness/Lutherman - this to give you a perspective of how much land in the western states is public land vs. private land.

http://robbishop.house.gov/uploadedfiles/all_us_public_lands.jpg

because a private lands are rarer, of course they would have higher fees. The economic model that the ranchers are following is the one which was set up by the federal government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatness/Lutherman - this to give you a perspective of how much land in the western states is public land vs. private land.

http://robbishop.house.gov/uploadedfiles/all_us_public_lands.jpg

because a private lands are rarer, of course they would have higher fees. The economic model that the ranchers are following is the one which was set up by the federal government.

And those using federal land for grazing do not have to maintain fences, waterways, trails etc. Guess who provides those services at no extra cost to the ranchers?

Cheap grazing on managed property provide by the US, and a few of these ranchers want to piss and moan about that mean ole oppressive gobermint.

Ranks up there with "Keep the government out of my Medicare!"

Edited by Lutherman2112
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatness/Lutherman - this to give you a perspective of how much land in the western states is public land vs. private land.

http://robbishop.house.gov/uploadedfiles/all_us_public_lands.jpg

because a private lands are rarer, of course they would have higher fees. The economic model that the ranchers are following is the one which was set up by the federal government.

And those using federal land for grazing do not have to maintain fences, waterways, trails etc. Guess who provides those services at no extra cost to the ranchers?

Cheap grazing on managed property provide by the US, and a few of these ranchers want to piss and moan about that mean ole oppressive gobermint.

Ranks up there with "Keep the government out of my Medicare!"

nobody claimed these guys were rocket surgeons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have to pay to graze their cattle there, something like 15% of what they'd have to pay to graze their cattle on someone else's private land. And using public land is subject to some rules (imagine that) like, um, no setting fires.

Their gripe is that that is all unfair to them.

About that fire setting thing, I assume it was for some resson like getting grass to grow better, when they were surrounded by other cattle owning landowners I imagine if a fire encroached on the other landowners land it wasn't a big deal because they were going to set fires anyways. But when the government bought all the landowners out and encircled a landowner then when a fire entered now public land, then it becomes a felony? That does seem unfair.

They set the first fire to cover up the fact that they had been poaching on federal property. They set the other fire on their property at a time when burning was not allowed and, iirc, that one spread to the public land.

I thought they bravely forced a kid to set the fires and also just generally treated him like a servant. And he eventually grew up and happily blew the whistle on them.

That kid had a rough time. See the police report where they used sandpaper to remove some skin from his chest.

Brilliant.

He turned out fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have quite an imagination.

Did you read the witness account of how one of the Hammonds ordered setting the fire to cover up his poaching, and burned 139 acres?

I just did, if the poaching version of the story is the true version then they are the worlds dumbest poachers. Why would a poacher light up the forest and draw attention to the poaching? Usually poachers are more secretive. Plus it would not get rid of the evidence, the charbroiled meat and bones and bullet lead would still be there.

Do the people holed up in the wildlife refuge seem particularly intelligent to you?

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TarpMan apparently has written a novel. It features heroic ranchers, bad gubmint, guns, killing, a cowboy lynching a mayor, cannibalism, a DHS guy forcing people to give up guns and getting shot in the head, guns, killing, and ranchers ranchers heroic ranchers. :lmao:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/oregon-militia-members-post-apocalyptic-book-bears-striking?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link#.iu65ZNlBR

“The bullet took Zachary Williams between the eyes,” Bonham narrates, adding a few lines later that “The bodies of my enemies lay before me, not a twitch coming from them. Holding the old revolver in my hand, I could not help but spin it around my finger once before sliding it back into the holster.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have quite an imagination.

Did you read the witness account of how one of the Hammonds ordered setting the fire to cover up his poaching, and burned 139 acres?

I just did, if the poaching version of the story is the true version then they are the worlds dumbest poachers. Why would a poacher light up the forest and draw attention to the poaching? Usually poachers are more secretive. Plus it would not get rid of the evidence, the charbroiled meat and bones and bullet lead would still be there.

They killed several deer to eliminate competition for food with their herd. They didn't take the meat, and set the fire to cover-up their crime.

I'm ok with shooting deer for just about any reason. Giant suburban rats, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatness/Lutherman - this to give you a perspective of how much land in the western states is public land vs. private land.

http://robbishop.house.gov/uploadedfiles/all_us_public_lands.jpg

because a private lands are rarer, of course they would have higher fees. The economic model that the ranchers are following is the one which was set up by the federal government.

This makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they want control of federal lands be transferred to private ownership, or state control?

My understanding of western concerns is so much control of local interests in Washington. If you gave management to the State, they wouldn't feel quite so...subjugated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think their demands are very coherent. But in the case of the Bundys, who are the idiots now occupying the bird house, they just stopped paying the grazing fees in 1993 and somehow felt that they could use the land as they saw fit for free to the point where they came to an armed standoff with the authorities. I think they were trying to claim they had some sort of grandfathered rights to the land and the federal government didn't really own it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think their demands are very coherent. But in the case of the Bundys, who are the idiots now occupying the bird house, they just stopped paying the grazing fees in 1993 and somehow felt that they could use the land as they saw fit for free to the point where they came to an armed standoff with the authorities. I think they were trying to claim they had some sort of grandfathered rights to the land and the federal government didn't really own it.

They claimed "ancestral rights" to the land. So one news organization researched the land transfer history in the area and their first ancestor in the area acquired land well after public lands had been established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatness/Lutherman - this to give you a perspective of how much land in the western states is public land vs. private land.

http://robbishop.house.gov/uploadedfiles/all_us_public_lands.jpg

because a private lands are rarer, of course they would have higher fees. The economic model that the ranchers are following is the one which was set up by the federal government.

And those using federal land for grazing do not have to maintain fences, waterways, trails etc. Guess who provides those services at no extra cost to the ranchers?

Cheap grazing on managed property provide by the US, and a few of these ranchers want to piss and moan about that mean ole oppressive gobermint.

Ranks up there with "Keep the government out of my Medicare!"

In the Bundy case, they took away his grazing rights, which negatively impacted his livelihood, he decided to let his cows graze anyway

The accusations are around the gift having the power to manipulate grazing and water rights in order to buy up land from ranchers at discounted rates. Only the KooKs approve of insurrection, but you need to be cognizant of why soem of these people are upset,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a guy who had his driving rights taken away. He elected to drive anyway. Something about unpaid fines, I believe it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatness/Lutherman - this to give you a perspective of how much land in the western states is public land vs. private land.

http://robbishop.house.gov/uploadedfiles/all_us_public_lands.jpg

because a private lands are rarer, of course they would have higher fees. The economic model that the ranchers are following is the one which was set up by the federal government.

And those using federal land for grazing do not have to maintain fences, waterways, trails etc. Guess who provides those services at no extra cost to the ranchers?

Cheap grazing on managed property provide by the US, and a few of these ranchers want to piss and moan about that mean ole oppressive gobermint.

Ranks up there with "Keep the government out of my Medicare!"

In the Bundy case, they took away his grazing rights, which negatively impacted his livelihood, he decided to let his cows graze anyway

The accusations are around the gift having the power to manipulate grazing and water rights in order to buy up land from ranchers at discounted rates. Only the KooKs approve of insurrection, but you need to be cognizant of why soem of these people are upset,

The government didn't take away his "grazing rights". The government chose not to renew grazing permits. Bundy kept on letting his cattle graze on federal land anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even think that is true either. From what I read, he refused to renew his own permit in 1993 because he was pissed off about something, then he kept using the land anyway. And he repeatedly rejected court orders to remove his cattle from the land he wasn't paying for. The conservative media spin was a bit different than that story.

I know it's Wikipedia, but here is what it says there:

The Bundy standoff was an armed confrontation between protesters and law enforcement that developed from a 20-year legal dispute between the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, over unpaid grazing fees on federally owned land in southeastern Nevada.

The ongoing dispute started in 1993, when, in protest against changes to grazing rules,[2] Bundy declined to renew his permit for cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville, Nevada.[3] According to the BLM, Bundy continued to graze his cattle on public lands without a permit.[4] In 1998, Bundy was prohibited by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada from grazing his cattle on an area of land later called the Bunkerville Allotment.[3] In July 2013, the BLM complaint was supplemented when federal judge Lloyd D. George ordered that Bundy refrain from trespassing on federally administered land in the Gold Butte area of Clark County.[5]

On March 27, 2014, 145,604 acres of federal land in Clark County were temporarily closed for the "capture, impound, and removal of trespass cattle".[6] BLM officials and law enforcement rangers began a roundup of such livestock on April 5, and an arrest was made the next day. On April 12, a group of protesters, some of them armed,[7] advanced on what the BLM described as a "cattle gather."[8] Sheriff Doug Gillespie negotiated with Bundy and newly confirmed BLM director Neil Kornze,[9] who elected to release the cattle and de-escalate the situation.[10][11]

As of the end of 2015, Bundy continued to graze his cattle on Federal land and had not paid the fees.[12][13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The federal government began shutting its offices in eastern Oregon days before the showdown with armed anti-government protesters began this week, because of mounting hostility and security threats, officials said Thursday.

With threats against individual employees and a campaign of intimidation by out-of-town ranchers who had been in the isolated area for weeks, federal officials at agencies from the U.S. Forest Service to the Bureau of Land Management started sending more than 150 people home as early as Dec. 30.

That was three days before a group calling itself Citizens for Constitutional Freedom holed up with guns inside a wildlife sanctuary in remote Harney County to protest the arson conviction of two local cattle ranchers who set fires to federal lands.

The protesters, with harsh anti-government rhetoric and an aggressive social media campaign, began stalking some federal employees as they left work and leaving threatening messages on office phones, officials said. Some employees reported cars they did not recognize parking on the street outside their homes at night.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2016/01/08/the-government-closed-its-offices-in-oregon-days-before-the-armed-takeover-due-to-fears-of-violence/?tid=sm_tw

Edited by fatness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatness/Lutherman - this to give you a perspective of how much land in the western states is public land vs. private land.

http://robbishop.house.gov/uploadedfiles/all_us_public_lands.jpg

because a private lands are rarer, of course they would have higher fees. The economic model that the ranchers are following is the one which was set up by the federal government.

And those using federal land for grazing do not have to maintain fences, waterways, trails etc. Guess who provides those services at no extra cost to the ranchers?

Cheap grazing on managed property provide by the US, and a few of these ranchers want to piss and moan about that mean ole oppressive gobermint.

Ranks up there with "Keep the government out of my Medicare!"

In the Bundy case, they took away his grazing rights, which negatively impacted his livelihood, he decided to let his cows graze anyway

The accusations are around the gift having the power to manipulate grazing and water rights in order to buy up land from ranchers at discounted rates. Only the KooKs approve of insurrection, but you need to be cognizant of why soem of these people are upset,

The government didn't take away his "grazing rights". The government chose not to renew grazing permits. Bundy kept on letting his cattle graze on federal land anyway.

I only skimmed this thread, and know very little of the situation at hand, but just from what you wrote and who you quoted, I don't think you two are disagreeing with each other on what happened. Pretty sure most people think that grazing permits give people the 'right to graze' in an area.

Edited by Pots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even think that is true either. From what I read, he refused to renew his own permit in 1993 because he was pissed off about something, then he kept using the land anyway. And he repeatedly rejected court orders to remove his cattle from the land he wasn't paying for. The conservative media spin was a bit different than that story.

I know it's Wikipedia, but here is what it says there:

The Bundy standoff was an armed confrontation between protesters and law enforcement that developed from a 20-year legal dispute between the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, over unpaid grazing fees on federally owned land in southeastern Nevada.

The ongoing dispute started in 1993, when, in protest against changes to grazing rules,[2] Bundy declined to renew his permit for cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville, Nevada.[3] According to the BLM, Bundy continued to graze his cattle on public lands without a permit.[4] In 1998, Bundy was prohibited by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada from grazing his cattle on an area of land later called the Bunkerville Allotment.[3] In July 2013, the BLM complaint was supplemented when federal judge Lloyd D. George ordered that Bundy refrain from trespassing on federally administered land in the Gold Butte area of Clark County.[5]

On March 27, 2014, 145,604 acres of federal land in Clark County were temporarily closed for the "capture, impound, and removal of trespass cattle".[6] BLM officials and law enforcement rangers began a roundup of such livestock on April 5, and an arrest was made the next day. On April 12, a group of protesters, some of them armed,[7] advanced on what the BLM described as a "cattle gather."[8] Sheriff Doug Gillespie negotiated with Bundy and newly confirmed BLM director Neil Kornze,[9] who elected to release the cattle and de-escalate the situation.[10][11]

As of the end of 2015, Bundy continued to graze his cattle on Federal land and had not paid the fees.[12][13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

So which is it? Did Bundy refuse to pay 'grazing fees' for ~20 years and he's protesting that he shouldn't have to pay them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a bit of a mixed story. I did some more reading.

Yes it is true that Bundy has not paid grazing fees in over 20 years yet continues to use federal land for his cattle.

It seems like the initial dispute may have been over an area of the land that the federal government wanted to protect and wouldn't let him use that particular land. But he could have purchased grazing permits for other land and refused to do so.

His argument is centered around the fact that the federal government has no right to the land, even though they have owned the land since the initial acquisition from Mexico in the 1800s. And he was trying to claim that because his ancestors used the land, that it was theirs. He also does not recognize the authority of the federal government.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bag of ##### :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When push comes to shove and they continue to be hungry, they will eat a ####. Lots of them.

These guys are psycho, delusional people that need to be arrested when this is "done".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bag of ##### :lmao:

link

The occupation has reached a new level here. Ritzheimer is a little hate monger; watching him hold up a huge dildo and complain about people mailing this to him transcends farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.