Militia takes over wildlife refuge headquarters

[JWP58]

Objection-Speculation-Sustained

Speculation: ideas or guesses about something that is not known

So in your opinion zero laws have been broken by these fake patriots?

I'm dying to learn the absolute facts, that you are aware of...

 

[Elkmagnet]

Columbia Falls Montana, and send me your personal contact info and we can accomadate the reset of your request? Still waiting.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea2Lb_WOBD0

 

[katqanna]

Roseburg state legislator ignores local warnings, visits protesters

In the latest bizarre turn of events surrounding the ongoing armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge, an Oregon state legislator from outside Harney County arrived here Saturday with out-of-state elected officials in tow and met with the protesters.

Oregon Rep. Cliff Bentz, a Republican from Ontario, and Harney County Judge Steven E. Grasty said that they tried to warn state Rep. Dallas Heard against traveling to Burns. But Heard, a Republican from Roseburg, arrived anyway, they said, and brought officials elected to state office in Washington, Idaho and Nevada with him...

"I find it really interesting that not only did law enforcement advise him not to go out there, [but] it seems to me that we now have a state representative who will not listen to local input," Grasty said. "And isn't that the same thing that our armed visitors are saying about the federal government? It's the same thing."

Grasty said at least one of the elected officials from outside Oregon was "clearly a Bundy supporter."

 

[Oak]

Bundy and his brothers Ryan and Mel were not at the refuge Sunday morning, Finicum said, adding that he thinks they went to church.

Count me still baffled why they are letting these guys come and go as they please.

 

[James Riley]

Count me still baffled why they are letting these guys come and go as they please.

As kids today would say: "I know, right?"

Remember how the right wing types complaining about the heavy-handed response at Waco kept saying all they had to do was arrest David Koresh (sp?) when he went to the post office. Well . . . ?

 

[noharleyyet]

No arrests until Sean Penn interviews them.

 

[Oneye]

A little off topic, but just looking through every site of "things to do" or "attractions" in Utah all are a list made up of places and things to do on these public lands and that are under the jurasdiction of the federal government. Even Utahs own site points you in the direction of these federal lands that are so terribly managed and need to be given to them so they can fix ASAP. Weird how the greatest things everyone finds about this state lie within these very lands they continually slander.

Get these assholes in Oregon off this land and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and get over this ridiculous and wrong headed, politically driven land grab of our amazing public lands.

 

[1_pointer]

If I recall, existing AUM lessees with appurtenant deeded land (i.e. the old timers) get priority shots at the lease renewals. Well, since Bundy, in Nevada, is so out of line, couldn't another appurtenant deed holder apply for and get the AUMs? Maybe they wouldn't want to piss off the neighbors (Bundy) if they too are old time ranchers in the area with their own leases, but . . . wouldn't this be an opportunity for a third party (a hunting/conservation group) to buy in on a 160 acres somewhere and get those AUMs? They would then have standing to sue the BLM and force removal of the Bundy cattle. Or, in the process of moving their own cattle around, deal with the Bundy cattle.

Thinking out loud. Could be way off base.

Even further off topic, could a hunting/conservation organization that ended up with some AUMs use them for wildlife, bison, whatever? Or must they be used for cattle or forfeited?

Yes, if a person or entity meets the requirements for holding a grazing permit, they could apply for and possibly be granted the use of those AUMs. IMO, the permit requirements are a pretty low hurdle. No, a permittee cannot use the AUMs on the permit for “wildlife, bison, whatever”. If they do not make “appreciable use” those un-used AUMs could be applied for and used by another entity meeting the requirements of holding a permit. It used to be that appreciable use had to be made every so often, but at least for the BLM that requirement has been weakened. The permittee can apply for non-use. If the authorizing officer grants that application, the permit cannot be used by someone else. I know of permits in Utah that have been in non-use for over a decade by doing so. IMO, though legal, that is not the proper way to administer those permits. Standing for the purposes of appealing a BLM decision is often easier/cheaper than buying property to be able to apply for an permit. Doing so would, IMO, very much give one adequate standing.

Just to clear up one other thing about BLM permits/leases. When they are renewed, they are not, very most often, not put out for a bid. The permittee that has the permit will be granted the permit upon renewal if they apply for the renewal. It’s much different than a bidding process that is often used for state land leases in my experience. If a permittee does not apply for renewal, it could be applied for by another entity. They buying and selling of permits is outside of the federal agencies purview. They are not, or should not, be involved in that part of the transaction. Generally, the permits are transferred to a new permittee when someone buys the land (base property) the land is tied to (BLM) or purchases the herd that uses the permit (USFS). In the BLM, a permit can be transferred between two parties without base property changing hands as long as the transferee has property they can offer up as base and meet the other requirements for holding a permit.

Regarding base property, for the BLM it is no longer a requirement for that property to be commensurate. Meaning, it has to provide the forage to feed the livestock when they are not on the allotment. It used to be the case that it did, but that put the agencies in a position of having to quantify the forage production of private property, which can and does influence it’s value. Folks did not like that and the commensurate provision was changed as it was acknowledged that feed could be brought to the animals like in a feedlot type situation. One thing that was mentioned, is the proximity of the allotment to base property. At the time of adjudication of allotments/grazing permits, that was a consideration, but is no longer a priority. The base property does not have to be adjacent or even close to the base property.

 

[James Riley]

Yes, if a person or entity meets the requirements for holding a grazing permit, they could apply for and possibly be granted the use of those AUMs. IMO, the permit requirements are a pretty low hurdle. No, a permittee cannot use the AUMs on the permit for “wildlife, bison, whatever”. If they do not make “appreciable use” those un-used AUMs could be applied for and used by another entity meeting the requirements of holding a permit. It used to be that appreciable use had to be made every so often, but at least for the BLM that requirement has been weakened. The permittee can apply for non-use. If the authorizing officer grants that application, the permit cannot be used by someone else. I know of permits in Utah that have been in non-use for over a decade by doing so. IMO, though legal, that is not the proper way to administer those permits. Standing for the purposes of appealing a BLM decision is often easier/cheaper than buying property to be able to apply for an permit. Doing so would, IMO, very much give one adequate standing.

Just to clear up one other thing about BLM permits/leases. When they are renewed, they are not, very most often, not put out for a bid. The permittee that has the permit will be granted the permit upon renewal if they apply for the renewal. It’s much different than a bidding process that is often used for state land leases in my experience. If a permittee does not apply for renewal, it could be applied for by another entity. They buying and selling of permits is outside of the federal agencies purview. They are not, or should not, be involved in that part of the transaction. Generally, the permits are transferred to a new permittee when someone buys the land (base property) the land is tied to (BLM) or purchases the herd that uses the permit (USFS). In the BLM, a permit can be transferred between two parties without base property changing hands as long as the transferee has property they can offer up as base and meet the other requirements for holding a permit.

Regarding base property, for the BLM it is no longer a requirement for that property to be commensurate. Meaning, it has to provide the forage to feed the livestock when they are not on the allotment. It used to be the case that it did, but that put the agencies in a position of having to quantify the forage production of private property, which can and does influence it’s value. Folks did not like that and the commensurate provision was changed as it was acknowledged that feed could be brought to the animals like in a feedlot type situation. One thing that was mentioned, is the proximity of the allotment to base property. At the time of adjudication of allotments/grazing permits, that was a consideration, but is no longer a priority. The base property does not have to be adjacent or even close to the base property.

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain that. Very enlightening, and interesting. I see unique ways people might be able to operate within they system, with ranchers and without them. As to the Bundy situation in particular, I wonder if he's still deemed "the permittee" and if so, why. I'd think the value of his deeded land would tank if he lost his status. Someone else should work their way into that status as permittee and have his cattle removed; the easy way or the hard way, up to him.

 

[1_pointer]

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain that. Very enlightening, and interesting. I see unique ways people might be able to operate within they system, with ranchers and without them. As to the Bundy situation in particular, I wonder if he's still deemed "the permittee" and if so, why. I'd think the value of his deeded land would tank if he lost his status. Someone else should work their way into that status as permittee and have his cattle removed; the easy way or the hard way, up to him.

I would hazard a guess that Bundy no longer has a permit and therefore would not be considered the permittee. The reason I hazard that, is that he hasn't paid his fees in over a decade, which is how long permits are generally issued. I do not think he could have his application for permit renewal granted as he would not be considered to be in "good standing".

I do not know if that permit/allotment is considering active for the purposes of livestock grazing. If it has been closed, there's no real way for someone to work their way into that status.

PS- FWIW, Bundy's Bunkerville Allotment is not shown as an allotment of geocommunicator. A quick search turned up a BLM map denoting it as the "Former Bunkerville Grazing Allotment". So it appears the allotment and thus the permit are not active.

 

[James Riley]

I would hazard a guess that Bundy no longer has a permit and therefore would not be considered the permittee. The reason I hazard that, is that he hasn't paid his fees in over a decade, which is how long permits are generally issued. I do not think he could have his application for permit renewal granted as he would not be considered to be in "good standing".

I do not know if that permit/allotment is considering active for the purposes of livestock grazing. If it has been closed, there's no real way for someone to work their way into that status.

PS- FWIW, Bundy's Bunkerville Allotment is not shown as an allotment of geocommunicator. A quick search turned up a BLM map denoting it as the "Former Bunkerville Grazing Allotment". So it appears the allotment and thus the permit are not active.

What is the controlling federal statute? FLPMA? I forgot. I wonder if it has a "citizen suit" provision. There has to be away to get his cattle off our land. Sorry to keep buggin you. I'll shut up.

 

[utah400elk]

I think the best way to clear the cattle in NV would be for BLM to sell tags. $5.00 per cow would work. Tell Bundy he had 7 days to clear his cows and any remaining cows were open to public hunting. Turn the tide on the bastards and have the militia types confront every other NRA member who are in the area legally exercising their rights to bear arms while filling their cow tags. NRA member against NRA member. I am at a loss. Why is it that the owners of the land (the people) are forgotten. In looking at Bundy's request/demand they want to purchase the property based on the rate of the AUM. What do you think would happen if another citizen outbid them for these areas. They would be up in arms claiming the Feds, the State, the Sheriff, insert whomever you like was trying to steal their land. This is a cry for welfare and an attempt to reinvent history to favor themselves.

The major mistake I see in all this, is that the Nevada United States Attorney's Office did not/has not prosecuted the original members from NV. They should go arrest him while his sons are in ID. Take a divide and concur approach.

 

[Oak]

So any word on who the 5 non-resident lawmakers were that visited the refuge with Heard yesterday?

 

[airlocksniffer]

These guys are just really loud but I think overestimate their support amongst the general public. I'm sure they think they are part of the silent majority and will rise up and overthrow the tyrannical government. Even those who dislike the federal government and support Bundy's welfare operation see this as maybe a little bit much. Not advocating for a violent end but at least setup a damn roadblock and cut the power!

 

[1_pointer]

What is the controlling federal statute? FLPMA? I forgot. I wonder if it has a "citizen suit" provision. There has to be away to get his cattle off our land. Sorry to keep buggin you. I'll shut up.

Not a bother. I am not an attorney, so I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "the controlling federal statute". It it is what I think it is, I would guess the Taylor Grazing Act moreso than FLPMA. Most of what I've posted is listed in the 43CFR4100.

The cows have been ordered off by multiple courts. Just need to go get them. However, I am unaware of the BLM doing livestock impoundments in house for some time. Those are generally contracted out and I'd guess the price and/or liability if something where to happen is a big factor after the previous standoff.

 

[noharleyyet]

Not a bother. I am not an attorney, so I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "the controlling federal statute". It it is what I think it is, I would guess the Taylor Grazing Act moreso than FLPMA. Most of what I've posted is listed in the 43CFR4100.

The cows have been ordered off by multiple courts. Just need to go get them. However, I am unaware of the BLM doing livestock impoundments in house for some time. Those are generally contracted out and I'd guess the price and/or liability if something where to happen is a big factor after the previous standoff.

IIRC, didn't their last Bundy round up cost about 900K?

 

[BuzzH]

I'd aerial gun the bundy cattle if I were the decision maker....would be cheap and you'd get them all, fast.

I would start as the sun was coming up, and before Cliven and his dead beat sons were having a welfare breakfast, their cattle would all be taken care of.

 

[James Riley]

Not a bother. I am not an attorney, so I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "the controlling federal statute". It it is what I think it is, I would guess the Taylor Grazing Act moreso than FLPMA. Most of what I've posted is listed in the 43CFR4100.

The cows have been ordered off by multiple courts. Just need to go get them. However, I am unaware of the BLM doing livestock impoundments in house for some time. Those are generally contracted out and I'd guess the price and/or liability if something where to happen is a big factor after the previous standoff.

Every CFR has "authority" from which it springs. It probably is the Taylor Grazing Act. I wasn't sure if that had been superseded by now. Maybe not.

I wonder if state private property abandonment statutes might allow some private citizen to go get them. BLM never gave me any sass for hauling garbage out that was left by target shooters (washing machines, fridges, cans, etc.). Hey, coyotes need to eat too, so there is always that. Surely there is some Kris Kyle wannabe out there who wants to hone his skill set.

 

[Oak]

So any word on who the 5 non-resident lawmakers were that visited the refuge with Heard yesterday?

Dallas Heard, OR state rep.
Graham Hunt, WA state rep.
Matt Shea, WA state rep.
Judy Boyle, ID state rep.
Heather Scott, ID state rep.
Sage Dixon, ID state rep.
Michele Fiore, NV state rep. (by phone)

 

[JDH]

This has been said a few times but why are they allowing anyone to go in to see these guys? Don't allow anyone in and anyone who comes out arrest them on the spot. With it being a refuge maybe this doesn't apply but have they been there for 14 days? Maybe they are letting them get their max camping in before they boot them.