Burns Oregon Refuge Takeover Ends In Blood

Let's remember however that the people dictating these policies were empowered to do so through the legislative process.

Not saying that justifies any sort of abuse of power or that they shouldn't be kept in check or periodically reviewed, but there is a legislative process that authorizes these policies.


I'm just trying to figure out exactly how they are doing this? I mean the obvious answers as to "why" is "money and authority over who uses the land and how," but if they're not declaring eminent domain, how are they forcing ranchers to sell, and if they are declaring eminent domain, is there public record stating it?

I ask because eminent domain can be very messy and difficult to play through to the end, evidenced by the saga in Centralia, and that was for people who are out of their *** minds for staying.

Legislative process? The only power the legislative branch of the government has over the BLM is how much money they have (granted, through the Department of the Interior budget).

Bureau of Land Management is a completely executive branch of the government, controlled by the Department of the Interior and overseen by the president.

I'm just trying to figure out exactly how they are doing this? I mean the obvious answers as to "why" is "money and authority over who uses the land and how," but if they're not declaring eminent domain, how are they forcing ranchers to sell, and if they are declaring eminent domain, is there public record stating it?

I ask because eminent domain can be very messy and difficult to play through to the end, evidenced by the saga in Centralia, and that was for people who are out of their *** minds for staying.

The neighborhood I live in sits right smack against a BLM wilderness area now managed by a local land trust. It's a nice 2 mile stretch of wooded hiking trails that hunters as well as bird watchers also use. There's a nice horseshoe crab sanctuary nearby where fishing during fishing season is also allowed within catch size limits. So literally, if I step outside and go one way, I can either hike or hunt, or if I go the other way I can go fishing, and the land will always be there because it's protected.

The neighborhood I live in sits right smack against a BLM wilderness area now managed by a local land trust. It's a nice 2 mile stretch of wooded hiking trails that hunters as well as bird watchers also use. There's a nice horseshoe crab sanctuary nearby where fishing during fishing season is also allowed within catch size limits. So literally, if I step outside and go one way, I can either hike or hunt, or if I go the other way I can go fishing, and the land will always be there because it's protected.

Also, I'm not some blind empire-worshipper. I just get where the BLM is coming from in restricting certain patches of land from certain uses to give the land time to recover and restore itself for future use. It's idiots like Cliven Bundy who only care about their own bottom line and don't give a ***if that land will do them any good when there's no grass left, that don't get it.

I personally have been put out of business by government regulation that has not been through the legislative process. So I can tend to believe the BLM is doing exactly what they say it is doing. Especially since none of this was happening at all until the BLM took over the General land office and the grazing agency.

I'm glad you are taking the time to research your opinion rather than just believing everything MSN and FOX news tells everyone.

In no way have I said the BLM isn't needed! I have said they have over stepped their authority and need to be but back into place.

Also, I am curious as to how lack of regulation put you out of business. PM me if don't want to put it here.

They are forcing ranchers to sell by taking away the grazing rights that have been part of their adjacent property's for over 100 years.

Okay. This is what I was looking for.

Is there a "why" involved? Again, beyond the assumed money/power issue?

What benefit does this serve the BLM or the taxpayer?

Were the ranchers misusing the land? In a real or imagined fashion? (ie: is this some sort of consequence of a misdeed, real or imagined on the part of the BLM?)

I just can't imagine this is one or two people with a petty grudge against every rancher, so I have to ask who this serves. Taxpayers? The BLM's position/funding? Someone's political clout? Some environmentalist agenda whose lobby is pressuring this? (I'm being purely speculative here, just trying to figure out the why.)

Under a federal law, the BLM, an arm of the Department of the Interior, has begun buying private properties that carve into federal wildlife refuges, national parks, national forests, and their ilk, making those lands difficult to access or manage. Though the law—the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act—was passed in 2000, federal agencies had not used it to make a land acquisition until this fall. In September, the BLM, working with the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, offered $18 million to snap up 19 parcels of private land in seven states. Overall, some 9,000 acres of land were acquired in New Mexico, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Oregon, and California.

The last of those states provides a good example of the law’s intent. The BLM and other agencies spent $850,000 to buy 321 acres near the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Preserve, a tongue-twisting federal wildlife refuge near Palm Springs. The preserve features both sand dunes and rocky hills and is home to the threatened fringe-toed lizard, which is found nowhere else in the world. The reason the BLM wanted the land was that it separated the preserve from the Joshua Tree National Park.

The equally tongue-twisting Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act can also work the other way around. In cases where federal lands are isolated by surrounding private properties, making them of little value to the government, the BLM can offer those parcels for sale. It can also sell off lands that have clear residential or commercial worth. The BLM has made $95 million from such sales so far.

Most of that money is required to go to further land acquisitions, like the purchases the BLM made in September. “These purchases promote conservation while helping ensure efficient and effective public lands management,” said Lynn Scarlett, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, during the dedication ceremony for the Coachella Valley property.

And if you’re wondering: No, this is not eminent domain. The act stipulates that government agencies only buy property from willing sellers.

Step 1) Gather land in the west/pacific northwest
Step 2) ???
Step 3) Profit.

Again, can you provide an unbiased source that is neither left nor right-leaning to cite that information? Like Ramy said, the only sources out there are the far-right tinfoil hat recruitment centers. Some actual sane information.

And if you’re wondering: No, this is not eminent domain. The act stipulates that government agencies only buy property from willing sellers.

And they take away grazing rights and who knows what other tactics are used to make the owners more willing to sell. And those owners are unable to sell to other private citizens and in some cases not even family, only to the government!

$18mill divided by 19 is still a nice chunk of change for whoever sold the parcels. Roughly $947,368.42 per lot of land sold.

$18mill divided by 19 is still a nice chunk of change for whoever sold the parcels. Roughly $947,368.42 per lot of land sold.

offered $18 million to snap up 19 parcels of private land in seven states. Overall, some 9,000 acres of land were acquired in New Mexico, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Oregon, and California.

Altima still doesn't get it, I'm afraid. We've been asking him to prove the government's been strongarming these ranchers off their lands and he refuses to cough up evidence that isn't a far-right crazy-fringe source. All I see is the government is merely making an offer in cash, and it's up to the individual ranchers as to whether or not they accept the money or walk away from it. There actually does come a time when ranchers might have a need to sell plots of land in order to raise funds to stay in operation. $900,000.00+ can go a long way for most people.

My desire for the government to act in the public's best interest and belief that they try to do that first and foremost doesn't mean it's always the case.

I'd sort of like a few more hard facts one way or another.

While it doesn't really change my opinion of the poor choices the militia members/occupiers made -- taking over a government facility was stupid regardless, and doing so without a better plan was worse still -- it may sway me a little on their motives.

Just because the government wants to do what's right and what's best doesn't mean it always does.

Too true. Again, another look at Centralia, they (The DEP) had tried installing vent pipes in an effort to put out the fire to save the town, and that plan failed.

It may very well be we're looking at a situation in which all involved have gone about things entirely the wrong way.

My desire for the government to act in the public's best interest and belief that they try to do that first and foremost doesn't mean it's always the case.

I'd sort of like a few more hard facts one way or another.

While it doesn't really change my opinion of the poor choices the militia members/occupiers made -- taking over a government facility was stupid regardless, and doing so without a better plan was worse still -- it may sway me a little on their motives.

Just because the government wants to do what's right and what's best doesn't mean it always does.

Too true. Again, another look at this thing that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being talked about and see that I am still totally wrong and worship at the alter of the Empire.

Okay this is what I don't understand. Did they really take over a government facility? Americans have the right to assemble in protest, they are allowed to carry firearms, yet to do both at the same time is illegal? That's stupid.

It's not like they took hostages or shot at anyone.