Malhuer National Wildlife Reserve Armed Protest

[TxMusky]

It seems to me when the government carves out a state, all of non-privately owned land should become the property of the new state. The only exceptions should be for national parks and such.

I agree. A bunch of clowns in DC should not be given control over something the have nothing to do with.

[wacojoe]

It seems to me when the government carves out a state, all of non-privately owned land should become the property of the new state. The only exceptions should be for national parks and such.

Get with the program. All the land and all the income is the state's, and they let you use what they decide you need to continue serving it.

[blaze]

was reading some of the live internet bloggers in Burns, Ore on facebook and the FBI has moved in Beatcats, two helicopters and set up a tent city at the Burn Municipal airport. Looks no diffirent than a military base now. Oregon governor wants this resolved NOW in her speech yesterday,,,didnt say how she is resolving it.

[Phillbo]

Like someone said earlier. Seal off the roads and do not allow anyone that wants to leave reentry to the area. It will come down to a hungry few who either give up or die. their choice.

[Dave Grubb]

It seems to me when the government carves out a state, all of non-privately owned land should become the property of the new state. The only exceptions should be for national parks and such.

Being a devils advocate here----but let me understand this: The Federal Government representing the people of these United States acquires land through treaty or purchase. That land becomes a State, some of it privately owned and some publicly owned---by those same people of these United States---and now since there is a lower government for this new State the people of this new State gain ownership of this land previously owned by all the people of this United States---who can now go pound sand----do I have that right?

[Mike]

Why should the govt. carve out a state unless they want the people of the state to be in control? If the government wants to maintain ownership, they shouldn't make a new state in their land. Just keep it a federal territory.

[Dave Grubb]

Why should the govt. carve out a state unless they want the people of the state to be in control? If the government wants to maintain ownership, they shouldn't make a new state in their land. Just keep it a federal territory.

There are significant legal distinctions between a territory and a state. Possible the most weighty is the issue of civil rights bestowed to citizens of a state and those of a territory.

You haven't addressed the inequity of conveying title of property from the "ownership" of the people of the United States to the people of a single State.

This only applies to land not titled to some specific entity---individuals for example. To take it one step further the native people of Alaska ultimately presented a very complex legal conundrum. Prior to becoming a territory (pre-purchase) there was no legal system. There was no way to "own" land. Ultimately the courts ruled that the First Nations Peoples "owned" huge amounts of land collectively---but we could go on about that for days!

In any event there appears to me an issue of "redistribution of wealth" in what is being proposed here which I think highly questionable.

[mgrist]

The land that these ranchers are fighting about is basically shot! It will be all desert in not that long. It was done by the money people the ones that control the government basically, the ones that control the purse strings. The feds because of their blundering in the past have tried to be nice depending on which argument you listen to. Is it the states fault or the feds fault that the land was destroyed by the ranchers? I don't know At least the money grabbing ignorant feds were trying to do something. My only concern is the land, don't care who wins this, I just want the land taken care of!

[blaze]

what I'm hearing is half the town works for the BLM or Forest Service and other gov't jobs. They had a town hall meeting "live" on one of the radio bloggers and that was probably the rowdiest town hall meeting I ever saw...the deputy's escorted one guy out right away and never finished watching it. Sounds like this town is completely split apart from this thing too. They even mentioned Facebook threats at the meeting. They want this to go away ASAP. It appears the local business are doing well with the attraction. All the hotels are rented out. Place reminds me of here with everyone working for the gov't. I can picture that happening here. No different. Eastern Washington is the same as Eastern Oregon with land use issues. I could go on and on with the local mismanaged D and R land , Colville National Forest,,,its a mess that could be easily fixed and create jobs.

[Wannabe]

Mgrist,
How did the ranchers destroy the land?

[blaze]

Studies have shown that when the ranchers develop this land for grazing with water sources strategically placed etc improves and increases wild life habitat. Over grazing? Not really these grazing allotments at least here on very strict timed events. Cattle in on a certain day and out on a certain day to prevent over grazing. Where cattle conga grate near water sources and salt licks is about the only damage I see here.

[TxMusky]

Ranchers try not to destroy the places where they raise their cattle. What folks do not understand is that is their livelihood, the grazing is what supports the cattle and without it, ranchers are out of business. If the food runs out, the cattle starve or the rancher has to buy expensive feed to survive. I have 3 horses and their feed is not cheap and if I did not have some natural grazing areas for them they would have to go.

[mgrist]

Mgrist,
How did the ranchers destroy the land?

I can only quote what I have read

.Cattle have been implicated in the eradication of native plants, the pollution of springs and streams, the denuding of cover for birds and mammals, the deforestation of hardwoods, and the monoculturing of grasslands.

The ranchers are also accused of planting cheat grass which chokes out the natural foliage.There is so much he said she said that we'll probably never know what really happened or is happening. Can I see a bunch of ranchers cheating the government and over grazing? Hell Yes! These cowboys ain't the hero's of yesteryear, they are business men trying to make a buck and if they can make it off the government that's even better!
In answer to Dave's post, I don't want to give up my share of the land, so what now?

[Wannabe]

mgrist,
I have a dear friend who is a retired lawyer (and I do not hold that against him) who taught me to do my due diligence on things I read before repeating them which is a lesson I have not fully mastered. Cattle have been implicated (who implicated them) in the eradication of native plants (what kind of plants,were the plants natural fodder for cattle, if not how did they destroy them), the pollution of springs and streams (what did the cattle do to the water that other animals did not do to them), the denuding of cover for birds and mammals, the deforestation of hardwoods (cattle eat grass not bushes and other cover shrubs and why did the cattle not deforest the softwood trees and besides that were there ever any hardwood trees growing there to begin with), and the monoculturing of grasslands (Did the cattle or ranchers do that). These things need to be known because it has a bearing on how much truth is being told. Example- saying some bird,squirrel,or lizard has had it's ecosystem destroyed because of this or that and there were never any of them living in the area to begin with. I'm with Tex, ranchers watch out for and take care of their land they use because the wellbeing of their land determines how much money they make. There is so much Misinformation out there today you need to verify everything you see, hear, ar read in order not to appear silly repeating things like I have in the past and will probably do so again in the future.

[mgrist]

mgrist,
I have a dear friend who is a retired lawyer (and I do not hold that against him) who taught me to do my due diligence on things I read before repeating them which is a lesson I have not fully mastered. Cattle have been implicated (who implicated them) in the eradication of native plants (what kind of plants,were the plants natural fodder for cattle, if not how did they destroy them), the pollution of springs and streams (what did the cattle do to the water that other animals did not do to them), the denuding of cover for birds and mammals, the deforestation of hardwoods (cattle eat grass not bushes and other cover shrubs and why did the cattle not deforest the softwood trees and besides that were there ever any hardwood trees growing there to begin with), and the monoculturing of grasslands (Did the cattle or ranchers do that). These things need to be known because it has a bearing on how much truth is being told. Example- saying some bird,squirrel,or lizard has had it's ecosystem destroyed because of this or that and there were never any of them living in the area to begin with. I'm with Tex, ranchers watch out for and take care of their land they use because the wellbeing of their land determines how much money they make. There is so much Misinformation out there today you need to verify everything you see, hear, ar read in order not to appear silly repeating things like I have in the past and will probably do so again in the future.

Its just like the global warming debate, I'm outnumbered on it to but all we have are people with an agenda telling us what to believe. I totally agree with you about repeating what you hear but sometimes that is all we have, Somewhere down the line you have to take a stand. The only people with anything to gain here is the ranchers we all lose if the land is abused. My stance amounts to nothing, just heresy basically, I've had a lot of experience with people and the government. Could everything that has been said by the government be a lie? Damn well could be. Has everything that the ranchers have said been the truth, I doubt it.