It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Native American Tribe Says Oregon Armed Occupiers Desecrating Land

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:53 PM
a reply to: dawnstar

Obviously, you've only listened to the "Sound-Bite" Tribe's account of this. If you are interested in actually hearing a coherent presentation of the issues, take some time and listen to this 20 minute interview where the issue is presented in full---not sound bites.

Note: They are not claiming rights to this piece of land. They are pointing out the abuses by the federal government.

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 07:21 PM
a reply to: diggindirt

Actually, I've been looking into it beyond the native tribe's talking point.
and well...
first, I don't think the hammond's ranch even borders that refuge. could be wrong, and if you know of a link that actually shows the bondaries of this refuge, fine. otherwise, it looks like it's a good distance away from it.


The Bureau of Land Management is the same agency that has riled up Nevada rancher Ammon Bundy and the armed protesters who joined him from out of state. The men took over the wildlife refuge headquarters, saying they would stay until the land was returned to who they consider its owners, the 100 or so ranchers and farmers who worked the land as far back as 1900.
"We are exercising our constitutional rights. We won't leave until these lands have been turned over to the their rightful owners," Bundy said. "More than 100 ranchers and farmers used to work this land, which was taken illegally by the federal government."

it seems to me they are talking about the land that the refuge is sitting on, I am also trying to find out if it has been expanded recently and dislocated some ranchers and farmers. if you know of a link that will substatiate that, well....let me know. but the refuge was set up in 1908, so I am wondering just who are these farmers and ranchers that used to work this land, how old are they, and well, how long were they there working it.

and well, the bundys are from where? nevada is it? If I have a gripe about something the gov't is doing, I don't think that I would go and occupy a piece of land that is unrelated to the gripe I have... how far did these people travel?

as far as the hammonds....well, what can I say, there's two sides to every story and according to the gov't side they started the fires to cover the fact that they were poaching on gov't land. ya, the penalty might have been a little steep, but well, hey we're all for protecting ourselves against the terrorists aren't we?

and according to your video, it seems to be saying that the danged gov't didn't have any right to force the original inhabitants (the native tribes) off those lands to begin with, so well, if anything it should go back to the natives if any action is taken. according to those videos, the gov't had no right to give that land to anyone to begin with. but, those occupiers don't want to go that far do they??

But, the idea that the gov't should be holding land as national parks, wildlife refuges, ect, has been accepted as legal for over a hundred years. I seriously doubt if anyone is going to accept the idea that it's not constitutional at this point.

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 09:11 PM
a reply to: dawnstar
I expect that the families impacted by these illegal takings of property will accept the decision that the move was never lawful. When families have held, protected and utilized land for generations, the memories go pretty deep.
The land was transferred from the tribes to the federals. I don't know the specifics of the treaty but I'm guessing that they got something of value in return for the land. As I understand it the refuge was set up by the ranchers and community members to protect the birds. In our area we had a similar situation with protection for wild turkeys, which had practically disappeared from our region. The locals got together, set up a refuge and began managing it for the benefit of the wildlife. A resource to see how this works is here: It is quite a read and well worth it if you've never had the pleasure of having the government step into your life.

If you want to dig a bit deeper into the background of the woman who wanted these two men in prison for protecting their lives and livelihood you might just google her name or have a look at her record as outlined here: mily-problem/#more-110548

Perhaps the media would do well to expose the dirt on both sides. The prosecutor didn't approve of their methods of disciplining an errant teenager who was experimenting with tobacco and alcohol and cutting himself with paper clips. So, did she seek help for the teenager? Or did she decide to teach them a lesson by extending a sentence that a judge with decades more experience than hers had handed down. Then, as soon as she got her wish, she resigned for vague health reasons....yeah, my health wouldn't hold up if I treated people that way either!

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 09:26 PM

originally posted by: Moegotti
I love how liberals are always quick to point out that the white man ruined Native American civilization but that accepting millions of Muslims Africans and whatever else the cat drags in will simply be culturally enriching.

Or liberals aren't so governed by fear as to think letting in a few tens of thousands of refugees into a country of more than 300 million is going to lead to sharia law.

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:12 PM
I don't care what anyone else thinks I form my own perspective based on the evidence.

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:32 PM

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: MystikMushroom

This whole thing thing is getting zanier and weirder by the minute. What does ATS think about this latest development? Should these guys listen to the Native Americans?

Why should they? Right Wing Conservatives consider Native Americans a conquered people. Thus SOL....Take your casino money, stay on the Rez and stfu.

Wow, what an ignorant statement. Left wing liberals ALSO consider the same thing, not that I buy any of that anyway, but what has the the left done for a single native lately, or any time in this country's history to UN-CONQUER them?

Not one damn single thing,. Except to say someone else is doing the bad. Maybe it's Bush's fault?

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:04 AM
Oregon Militia Standoff Spotlights Federal-Tribal Quandary over Artifacts

Leaders of Oregon's Paiute tribe are demanding that authorities investigate whether the armed occupiers have stolen or damaged any of the protected artifacts housed at the wildlife refuge.

The federal government plays an outsized role in the preservation of the Burns Paiute artifacts, protecting the tribe’s property under the terms of an 1868 treaty. With fewer than 400 members, the tribe must rely almost entirely on the government’s assistance.

“We’re such a small tribe, we can’t afford a building to store this volume of artifacts,” says Rodrique. The collection numbers more than 4,000 pieces, including stone arrowheads, woven baskets, site records, maps, and confidential documents that pinpoint other archaeological sites throughout the wildlife refuge, which humans have inhabited for at least 9,800 years.

... again, if we're going back to "the original owners of the land ..."

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:06 AM
beyond that ... anyone else notice here that this concern about the Paiute lands and artifacts are being ignored to be spun in to insipid slurs on "liberals."

This righteous faux-anger on behalf of the erstwhile Bundy Gang gets more transparent with every post.

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:02 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66
How about the occupiers were attempting to open a dialog with the local Paiutes by showing them that the BLM was violating their promise to keep the materials safe and properly stored. What you see in this video is shameful. If any private company charged with storage of cultural material did this, their permits would be revoked and they would be shut down and fined. But because it is the federal government---complaints are ignored or brushed aside.

Just the quick glance we get from that video shows they have not been abiding by the laws enacted to protect such materials.

s 79.9 Standards to determine when a repository possesses the capability to provide adequate long-term curatorial services. The Federal Agency Official shall determine that a repository has the capability to provide adequate long-term curatorial services when the repository is able to:
(3) Keep the collection under physically secure conditions within storage, laboratory, study and any exhibition areas by:
(i) Having the physical plant meet local electrical, fire, building, health and safety codes;
(ii) Having an appropriate and operational fire detection and suppression system;
(iii) Having an appropriate and operational intrusion detection and deterrent system;
(iv) Having an adequate emergency management plan that establishes procedures for responding to fires, floods, natural disasters, civil unrest, acts of violence, structural failures and failures of mechanical systems within the physical plant;
(v) Providing fragile or valuable items in a collection with additional security such as locking the items in a safe, vault or museum specimen cabinet, as appropriate;
(vi) Limiting and controlling access to keys, the collection and the physical plant; and
(vii) Inspecting the physical plant in accordance with s 79.11 of this part for possible security weaknesses and environmental control problems, and taking necessary actions to maintain the integrity of the collection;
(4) Require staff and any consultants who are responsible for managing and preserving the collection to be qualified museum professionals;
(5) Handle, store, clean, conserve and, if exhibited, exhibit the collection in a manner that:
(i) Is appropriate to the nature of the material remains and associated records;
(ii) Protects them from breakage and possible deterioration from adverse temperature and relative humidity, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, dust, soot, gases, mold, fungus, insects, rodents and general neglect; and
(iii) Preserves data that may be studied in future laboratory analyses. When material remains in a collection are to be treated with chemical solutions or preservatives that will permanently alter the remains, when possible, retain untreated representative samples of each affected artifact type, environmental specimen or other category of material remains to be treated. Untreated samples should not be stabilized or conserved beyond dry brushing;

ETA: If the museum with which I am associated had a storage area that looked like the mess in that video we would have been closed down years ago. It is shameful. Just another example of the feds violating the very laws they are supposed to be upholding. See, it is only profitable to enforce those laws on private concerns or state facilities where fines can be collected or collections confiscated. As usual---follow the money.
edit on 7-2-2016 by diggindirt because: addition

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:08 PM
so, because they US gov't has been neglectful in that respect, they should just accept these people's claim to the land that they've been contesting is theres for so long? that have been part of this preserve long before any of these occupiers were alive?

God, give the land back to the tribe, along with the artifacts, and charge them with preserving the natural resources to it...
that would be better and more just than giving to a bunch of ranchers!
edit on 7-2-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:04 PM
a reply to: dawnstar
It's not that they've been neglectful and disrespectful in this one area of interest. That seems to be what people aren't seeing. This is a very long-term, multi-issue problem. Here's a link to a speech given on the floor of the US House by their Rep. to Congress. Is he a nutter too? He claims they have legitimate gripes and gives examples. He understands the frustrations.

Take just a few minutes to read his speech and understand that what the msm has reported is a mixture of disinformation and distortions. This guy has been there on the ground fighting for those few souls for years.
This is just his summation. He gives a fair presentation of the problems he's seen---too much to quote here. Please take the time to read it if you want to understand the real issues, not what msm and the bureaucrats have been putting forth.
People who have never lived on the land, worked it and attempted to protect it, people who grew up in cities and suburbs simply can't comprehend some of these issues because they've never faced them. Please understand, that's not a criticism, it's just fact.

Now, there aren't many times, Mr. Speaker, in this job when you can say I know what the intent of the law was, but in this case I could because I wrote the law, I knew the intent. Oh, that wasn't good enough.
No, no, no. No, no, no. The arrogance of these agency people was such that we had to go to the archives and drag out the boxes from 2000, 1999-2000, when we wrote this law, from the hearings that had all the records for the hearings and the floor discussions to talk about the intent. And our retired Member, George Miller, actually we used some of his information where he said the government would provide the fencing. They were still reluctant to follow it. So I put language in the appropriations bill that restated the Federal law.
Do you understand how frustrated I am at this?
Can you imagine how the people on the ground feel? Can you imagine?
If you are not there, you can't. If you are not there, you can't. You ridicule them.
The Portland Oregonian is running a thing, what do you send? Meals for militia. Let's have fun with this.
This is not a laughing matter from any consequence. Nobody is going to win out of this thing.
This is a government that has gone too far for too long. Now, I am not condoning this takeover in any way. I want to make that clear. I don't think it is appropriate. There is a right to protest. I think they have gone too far. But I understand and hear their anger.

As for the "Give back the land to the natives" mantra---are you in the US or Canada? The same could be said for the ground on which you make your home unless you live on a rez. It was all either "bought" or "ceded" by the Indian nations. Or just plain stolen by the feds, as with the Five Civilized Tribes, then despite a SCOTUS ruling, they were rounded up like livestock and marched to Oklahoma. You can learn much about that episode here:
One of my ancestors was in that group rounded up and marched westward. Her mother didn't survive the trip. She was taken in by a white family, sick with the same fever that killed her mother. She was nursed back to health and adopted by that family, saved from the horrors that other members of the nation had to endure on the rest of the journey and in Oklahoma. She never saw or heard from a single member of her family after that. It was a full three generations before her descendants found out what had happened to the rest of their family.
Like Rep. Walton, I do not agree with the methods employed in this occupation but also like him, I know how frustrating dealing with arrogant federal bureaucrazies can be. Anyone who has not had this pleasure can't possibly understand what these folks are experiencing.

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 08:53 PM
a reply to: diggindirt

As for the "give the land back to the natives mantra" the point is that these radicals were demanding that the land be turned over to ranchers when in fact none had ever owned it. It went straight from the Paiutes to the federal government. So, if anyone had a right to it it was the natives and they wanted the occupiers to leave.

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:10 PM
a reply to: DelMarvel
These protesters are demanding that the federal government follow federal law. Do you not understand that? Do you really believe what the bubble-headed bleached blonde told on msm? Someone who probably hasn't even had a civics class much less knows the background of these issues? Did you even read the comments made on the floor by the people's elected representative? I've linked his entire speech above.
I do believe that Rep. Walden has a much better idea of the issues than either you or I. Are you saying he's a radical nutter for attempting to reign in the power of the federal agencies? He wrote and passed a law. Do you know how much time, energy and effort goes into such a thing? Only to have the BLM ignore the law!

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:15 PM

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: DelMarvel
Are you saying he's a radical nutter for attempting to reign in the power of the federal agencies?

No. But I am saying these "protesters" are violent radicals as they conducted an armed occupation of a wildlife refuge and intimidated people in the town.

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:18 PM

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
How about the occupiers were attempting to open a dialog with the local Paiutes by showing them that the BLM was violating their promise to keep the materials safe and properly stored. .

How about you give a tiny bit of credence to what the Paiute have stated, clearly, over and over rather than your Camouflage Cavalry heroes?

They didn't want them there. They didn't want them on their ancestral lands. And they sure as heck didn't want them desecrating their cultural artifacts.

You are really blind to anything but one-side on this issue.

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:42 PM
a reply to: DelMarvel
And both you and Mr. Gryphone66 are blindly accepting the words of msm and government agents as God's honest truth rather than taking the time to look into the issues and make a rational, informed decision.
Featured on the msm were people aligned with government---what do you expect them to say? Do you honestly expect them to admit to their crimes? Do you expect the sheriff to admit that he was a fool when it was proven that the very men he claimed were from the militia were actually from governmental agencies---that it was the government's agents posing as militia who were intimidating people? He's not about to admit that short of being put under oath. He can lie, as can all the governments' representatives.
Please understand. I am not anti-government. Neither are the protesters at the refuge despite what you've heard repeatedly from msm and the government's agents.
They have repeatedly proven to us that they will kill people and lie about it if they are threatened. (See Ruby Ridge) If you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it. If you believe that the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, as it proclaims itself to be, then you must see that the punishment of the Hammonds falls, as the original federal judge declared, under the prohibition in Amendment VIII against cruel and unusual punishment.
As I said in another thread, if our president had wanted this to end peacefully, he could have simply used that famous pen of his to pardon the Hammonds. The list of coc aine and meth dealers, illegal arms dealers and such is long. Why would he not step in? The buck stops with him.

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:46 PM
a reply to: diggindirt

Whose words are you accepting again? Gods?

How about the words of the Paiute?

You're dancing right by that one.

AND THERE IT IS ... It's Obama's fault!

Thanks Obama.

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:27 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66
I'm accepting the words of the man that the people of the district elected to represent them in Congress. Did you not read his speech? Here are his words, not mine.

Do you understand how frustrated I am at this? Can you imagine how the people on the ground feel? Can you imagine? If you are not there, you can't.
You ridicule them. The Portland Oregonian is running a thing, what do you send? Meals for militia. Let's have fun with this.
This is not a laughing matter from any consequence.
Nobody is going to win out of this thing.
This is a government that has gone too far for too long. Now, I am not condoning this takeover in any way. I want to make that clear. I don't think it is appropriate. There is a right to protest. I think they have gone too far. But I understand and hear their anger.

Do you not understand that the Paiutes depend on the federal government for everything they have? Do you not understand that 500 years of oppression and genocide takes it toll on a culture? Do you not understand that except for the casino and RV park, that tiny tribe depends entirely on the federal government for their livelihood? And that they have learned, from centuries of experience, not to bite the hands that feed them? Their leadership is going to say exactly what the feds tell them to say.
Do you have no experience or knowledge of how these things work?
I suspect that you and some of the other posters here have never had the pleasure of being at odds with any form of government and have never attempted to bring about any sort of change in any significant manner. Your lack of knowledge about reality in these situations is apparent. And quite sad really. The lack of civics classes in our schools is showing up and it is alarming.

Yes, as to your Obama comment---it rests with him ultimately. The suggestion that he could have stopped it actually came to me from a retired federal judge. It hadn't actually crossed my mind until he made the statement and suggested I go look up the list of pardoned people.
No, it's all his fault. The problems go back much further than his administration, as outlined by Rep. Walden. But the fact remains that had he wanted to prevent the protest march in Burns which led to the occupation, he would have used that famous pen.
edit on 8-2-2016 by diggindirt because: addition

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:37 PM
actuallly, I am going by the words of the protesters themselves I think...
did they not say that they would occupy that land till the gov't turned it over to the ranchers?? that land, they were on, has been a natural preserve before anyone alive was born!!! there was only a short amount of time that it was even open for them to use... and that was quite awhile ago.

so it went from being the tribes land, to a brief period (under 100 years It think that it was open for settlers, to being a natural preserve. which is why I say if you don't like who controls it now, then just give it back to the danged tribe!! no one that these occupiers could possibly be representing, has any claim on the land that they are occupying except that tribe!

“We will be here for as long as it takes,” said Ryan Payne, an Army veteran who characterized the group’s action as a liberation of public lands. “People have talked about returning land to the people for a long time. Finally, someone is making an effort in that direction.”

you can't "return land" to people unless they had that land to begin with, and the only ones that can do that is the tribe, and I am sure they aren't talking about giving back to them!

"We are exercising our constitutional rights. We won't leave until these lands have been turned over to the their rightful owners," Bundy said. "More than 100 ranchers and farmers used to work this land, which was taken illegally by the federal government."

I believe the land that these people were/are occupying has been set aside as a wildlife refuge since before 1910.... anyone who used to work that land is more than likely dead, if there does happen to be any alive, I am pretty sure that they are way too old to actually care! I also remember an article where they said they were going to use it as something like a headquarters....
yes, there is a small part of it that was aquired after the initial refuge was created, but then the occupants were paid a fair value for that land, which was much more than what the tribe got when they were force to vacate it, and it really didn't count to me like the occupiers were talking about that small part of it, they were talking about the whole refuge!

and yes, I am European, and no, I don't expect all the land to be given back to the indians. that this refuge has been in gov't hands this long, the tribe still claims it as their own, and at least at this stage it would be much easier for the gov't to give it back to them than, let's say the senacas who went to court for their land, and well, they didn't get their back either but ended up with a nice settlement instead because well, their land was developed and had a whole mess of families on it, towns even! Turning that refuge over to a bunch of loggers and cattlemen would be like a slap in the face for this tribe. and well, I think much of that refuge was only settle for maybe around 50 years if I remember right. way back, in the 1800's and very early part of the 1900's.

edit on 8-2-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 02:09 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

actuallly, I am going by the words of the protesters themselves I think... did they not say that they would occupy that land till the gov't turned it over to the ranchers??

No. The media reported that. Listen to the words of Ammon Bundy as he answers questions at the press conference.
You can see the entire press conference with the reading of the complaint here:
You can see LaVoy Finicum, another member of leadership, explain the issue of returning the land here:
They made very clear that they believe the land should be returned to the state and county. They also made very clear their demands as presented in the press conference linked above. At that point, the ball was in the court of those to which their demands were handed. Instead of dispatching negotiators to the scheme, as would be the custom in civilized countries, or if the protesters were holding hostages---those addressed in the complaint ignored the complaint completely and called in federal troops. They shirked their duties in the eyes of the law when they failed to fully communicate.
(Just as aside here, if I were advising the governor of Oregon I would have advised that she get someone down there pronto for talks and to look over their supposed evidence. Likewise with the local sheriff, instead of going all Alpha Male and saying, in effect, "Get outta my town boys." But I understand. She's a Democrat so she toed the line and called in the feds rather than doing her duty to stand up for the rights of her citizens.)
Here's a former prosecutor and attorney explaining the Constitutional aspects at issue.
Ryan Bundy speaks with a reporter here:
He's pretty clear and explains at length their intentions are and aren't.

With the exception of the attorney, the people speaking are just citizens like you and me. You're not seeing highly-paid, slick-talking, media consultants. You hear their words coming from their hearts, not words written in a script for them to read. Take that for what it's worth.
It's a long-standing issue. All the way back to the homesteading days.
A branch of our family homesteaded in the Wallowa River Valley. Their letters say the location reminded them of the home they'd left on the Tennessee River. They settled there just after the turn of the 20th century, three families traveled by train to a new life in the west. They prospered and bought more land as the families grew. They and other homesteaders built a thriving community by making use of the abundant resources as their homestead agreement with the government bade them do. Two generations later they were bullied, threatened and harassed into selling that land to the federal government for a pittance of its worth.
These stories are abundant throughout the country. If a piece of ground has been allowed to remain in a state that somewhat resembles paradise on earth, the federal government covets it and will do whatever it takes to get it.
Thomas Jefferson warned of this concentration of power in the hands of one branch of government during the debates over the Bill of Rights.

"I am for preserving to the States the powers not yielded by them to the Union, and to the legislature of the Union its constitutional share in the division of powers; and I am not for transferring all the powers of the States to the General Government, and all those of that government to the executive branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77

He spoke of it at his inauguration:
"The support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321

and even later, he was still worried about what might be.

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332

When 75% of a county's land is owned by the federal government, who actually runs the county? Who has the biggest force---the money?
Un-elected federal bureaucracies with unlimited power.
Take the time to listen to their words without the insertions of media. See if you come away with a different message than the one being put out by trained media consultants for the government via the msm.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in