It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
I am indeed well aware of the case made by federal agents. I know that the mentally unstable young man who was a member of the family told a wild tale.
I am also well aware of the tactics of these agencies as illustrated so excellently in this thread.
Systematic abuse.
Why not have as much outrage about the abuse of citizens as the abuse of children?




You have been suckered into supporting Russias company.


You are obviously confused. I'm not Hillary or Bill Clinton. I have precious little influence on the deals made by Canadian, Russian and American politicians.
I'm supporting the people standing up for their rights and exercising those rights to expose the abuse.
I'll be questioning the people running for office in my district about their stance on these issues. If they aren't concerned they certainly won't be getting my vote.




posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: antar

I'm glad you like the thread! I'm even gladder that you recognize the government abuse of powers and the need to do something about it. Thanks for contributing.

Now, I need to catch up with the thread. Lots of comments since I signed off last night



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




I see the punishment as cruel and unusual because I don't believe the men should have ever been charged with any crimes at all.

The jury disagreed with your assessment. I disagreed with OJ's jury. In both cases our opinions are moot.

The jury convicted the Hammonds of a crime which bears a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison. They also rejected other charges against them.

edit on 1/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt
a reply to: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

dragonridr -- Thank you for adding the link!

I haven't really read up on the issue of federal property ownership since the fiasco at Bundy Ranch, and I was already familiar with the issues in some sense because it's long been an issue in our state, with the Feds owning almost half of the land. Let me preface this by saying that I don't beleive the federal government has any "rights." None. Nada. Zilch. They only have those powers that we the people and we the states grant them to perform for OUR benefit. Our contract -- the Constitution -- enumerates those powers. But that limited role has been convoluted out of all proportion to their enumerated roles. In many many ways -- property ownership is just one way.

In that role, yes, the Constitution granted property rights to the Feds to maintain buildings/offices within the states for the sole purpose of fulfilling their enumerated responsibilities within the states for the benefit of the people.

Roosevelt expanded that role to maintain and operate national parks and refuges -- again, for the benefit of the people (at least in theory).

So the guiding principle for the Feds -- as established by the Founding Fathers -- is really the Social Contract, which requires the feds to act in the best interests of the people... ALL the people.... in ALL matters relegated to their responsibility. Including property rights and ownership. But that's not what they're doing, that is not their guiding principle, and they are harming people in the process with absolutely no regard for their rights, much less their own limited powers.

Which goes back to the subject of this thread -- federal abuse of powers.

Is it in the best interests of the people -- ALL the people -- to maintain the current level of property ownership by the feds? Are the feds performing their responsibilities in the best interests of ALL the people? Not just in terms of grazing and water rights for ranchers either. How about real estate prices? Our housing market is (arguably) based on supply and demand. If the feds own almost half the state, thus restricting the availability of homes and properties for building homes, that naturally increases the price of property for everyone else. Is it to our benefit? Or some congress critter's benefit?



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




So the guiding principle for the Feds -- as established by the Founding Fathers -- is really the Social Contract, which requires the feds to act in the best interests of the people... ALL the people.... in ALL matters relegated to their responsibility.

There are many people, with many interests. The ranchers want wild horses gone. Others want them left alone. Some people think the federal government shouldn't own any land. Others think that National Parks are a really good idea.



Is it in the best interests of the people -- ALL the people -- to maintain the current level of property ownership by the feds?
There is nothing that can be done in the interest of ALL the people.



If the feds own almost half the state, thus restricting the availability of homes and properties for building homes, that naturally increases the price of property for everyone else.
Do you think unlimited development is good for ALL? Do you think Yosemite would be a good place for a subdivision?

edit on 1/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


There are many people, with many interests. The ranchers want wild horses gone. Others want them left alone. Some people think the federal government shouldn't own any land. Others think that National Parks are a really good idea.


You're right of course. That's where the balancing act comes in... and where we have to rely on general guiding principles as opposed to personal whim. Is it in everyone's best interests to have to travel to Washington DC to access federal services? No, it is not. Is it in everyone's best interests to have local/regional access to federal services? Yes, it is. Is it in everyone's best interests to sell every bit of land to the highest bidder for their own personal benefit? No, it's not. Is it in everyone's best interests to preserve and maintain some areas for the use and benefit and enjoyment of all? Yes it is. Is it in everyone's best interests to artificially restrict the availability of private property and shelter and cultivation/production and making a living? No, it's not. Is it in everyone's best interests to maximize the availability of private property and shelter and cultivation/production and making a living? Yes, it is.

It's all about balance and moderation and all that good stuff.


Do you think Yosemite would be a good place for a subdivision?


Of course not. But I'd sure love to live there!!!



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

If you want to see thr mess caused by thr feds selling land look at Las Vegas. Local and state politicians grabbed up huge tracts of federal land. They purchased it for pennies and sold it for millions. Thr process is still on going to make matters worse Las Vegas doesn't have the resources to maintain this land as its added to their metropolitan area.

Couple of big factors your bit taking into account the federal lands remaining are very difficult to use as anything buy residential housing. And that only occurs near major cities. But this requires one resource in short supply water. You can't farm federal lands even most isn't adequate for grazing. Very limited areas and those areas have ti be shared with wildlife as well. When cattle graze an area they leave nothing for deer or even wild horses. Giving this land to Oregon would be a disaster for thr state and the wild life.

The only use for this land is mineral rights meaning a Russian company buying thr land and strip mining it for uranium. Think I'd prefer the feds to keep it instead of huge tracts of desert being dug up so corporations can make money. Bottom line is a couple of ranchers want to extend the range of their grazing without paying for it. Others want to sell it to corporations for minerals and others just hate any sort of federal control. In all three instances the land is safer with the feds.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You bring up many relevant issues involved in this whole mess. And for the sake of this discussion, I won't argue about the feds being the best one to manage the land...

But if they are indeed the best managers of the land, then all the more reason we need to end their reign of terror and abuses, and demand accountability -- for the ranchers, for the environment and wildlife, and for the people. Even wildlife advocates are challenging the competency and motivations of the fed agencies and how they manage the lands.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

One more thing. I come from a long line of farmers -- dairy and agriculture. My husband's family has been ranching the same land since before we were a state. These people love and even revere the land and the critters and the fruits of nature. This is not just their livelihood, but their life. They are wonderful conscientious stewards of the earth. They can and should and must be part of the solutions.

We can cooperate and work together and explore the options and find the best answers. Unfortunately, right now, the feds are doing all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons, with no oversight or accountability.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea
Hear! Hear!

Determination of land use should never, ever be left to a board of bureaucrats, most of whom have never set foot on the land.
Timbering can be done responsibly. Local people can see to it.
Grazing can be done responsibly. Local people can see to it.
Mining can be done responsibly. Local people can see to it.
When it isn't being done responsibly, local people shouldn't have to travel to Washington to complain and be heard. They shouldn't have to occupy federal building to bring attention to the problems.

I can tell you that it is far easier to look my state senator or representative in the eye than it is to speak face to face with my federal representatives. It is also far easier to impact state legislation due to the fact that our legislature is limited in session length. They're not sitting in their offices year-round thinking up ways to separate me from my money. States already have laws in place regarding all the activities mentioned above. Having the state take the lands now owned by the feds would be far more economical than the present system.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dragonridr

You bring up many relevant issues involved in this whole mess. And for the sake of this discussion, I won't argue about the feds being the best one to manage the land...

But if they are indeed the best managers of the land, then all the more reason we need to end their reign of terror and abuses, and demand accountability -- for the ranchers, for the environment and wildlife, and for the people. Even wildlife advocates are challenging the competency and motivations of the fed agencies and how they manage the lands.



Problem is animal rights groups want to stop cattle grazing on fed lands. Because as I'm sure you know cattle destroy vegetation. The prwoblems you percieve as port management is ywryong to balance the needs of the people and thr wild life. The easiest answer would be to stop thr practice of allowing ranchers to pay to graze. However this is hardly fair to the ranchers that can't support their herds on just their property. But the same land they want to use is the one that supports the wild population. So what's good for cattle is bad for the wild animals. What's thr ranchers proposed solution kill them off. Or in the case of wild horses condone rounding them up for sale.

Bottom line is no matter what you decide as responsible others will disagree. You can't nor should you try to make everyone happy.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Boadicea
Hear! Hear!

Determination of land use should never, ever be left to a board of bureaucrats, most of whom have never set foot on the land.
Timbering can be done responsibly. Local people can see to it.
Grazing can be done responsibly. Local people can see to it.
Mining can be done responsibly. Local people can see to it.
When it isn't being done responsibly, local people shouldn't have to travel to Washington to complain and be heard. They shouldn't have to occupy federal building to bring attention to the problems.

I can tell you that it is far easier to look my state senator or representative in the eye than it is to speak face to face with my federal representatives. It is also far easier to impact state legislation due to the fact that our legislature is limited in session length. They're not sitting in their offices year-round thinking up ways to separate me from my money. States already have laws in place regarding all the activities mentioned above. Having the state take the lands now owned by the feds would be far more economical than the present system.


Your argument is just switching the board of bureaucrats in charge from federal to state. Doesn't change a thing except it adds the posibilty for corruption again see what happened to federal lands purchased around Las vegas. Did not go to just families wanting to buy a house. Brides kickbacks and not to mention the use of limited supplies so companies could make money. As much as I'd haye to admit it but thr federal government is a better Stuart because if their inability to govern. Makes it difficult to sell land when it required vote for congress. They also have a hard time creati ng new rules again because congress is inept. But the advantage in this is wildlife wins.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
Yes, some bureaucrat is going to be in charge so I opt for the state because it is easier to deal with those guys. It is also easier to watch where a million dollars go than to watch where a billion dollars go. The bigger the budget, the greater the potential for corruption.
Your example of Las Vegas is an excellent teaching moment---don't let it happen again. Send the crooks to jail and work your butt off to send honest people to replace them.
Congress has no problems whatsoever passing a law and leaving the regulations to un-elected bureaucrats. The devil is in the details....



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


Problem is animal rights groups want to stop cattle grazing on fed lands. Because as I'm sure you know cattle destroy vegetation


I am far from an expert on the matter, and many make this claim, but I don't believe cattle "destroy" vegetation. At least not like other grazers. When cattle graze, unlike horses and sheep, they eat the vegetation above ground, rather like mowing the lawn. Horses and sheep (and perhaps others) eat the whole plant, roots and all. So, whereas cattle leave some behind to regrow, the horses (in this case, the wild horses) are far more devastating to the vegatation.


The easiest answer would be to stop thr practice of allowing ranchers to pay to graze. However this is hardly fair to the ranchers that can't support their herds on just their property. But the same land they want to use is the one that supports the wild population. So what's good for cattle is bad for the wild animals.


That's definitely the answer preferred by the (self-appointed and self-annointed) wildlife advocates; I'm not sure it's the easiest answer though, because there is federal legislation authorizing/regulating cattle grazing on public lands, with "rights" that granted to ranchers. And the ranchers also provide water and other services for the privileges. I'm not even sure the claims of the wildlife advocates are sound. Some of the reading I've done indicates much mis- and dis-information on the subject. And many simply want the ranchers eliminated -- which, in the end, isn't any better for the wildlife, including the wild horse herds, as the animals lose the benefits provided by the ranchers.


What's thr ranchers proposed solution kill them off. Or in the case of wild horses condone rounding them up for sale.


I don't think it's the ranchers making that call. As I understand it, the BLM has determined what numbers of wild horses are appropriate and sustainable, and the BLM removes the horses as they see fit. Ranchers don't seem to have a problem working with and around the wild horses, making sure there's "enough" for all the critters. But they do understand that mares start producing foals at about 2 to 3 years, and will produce one a year for another 15 years or so. Ranchers prefer sterilization via injections to reduce growth and maintain sustainability.


Bottom line is no matter what you decide as responsible others will disagree. You can't nor should you try to make everyone happy.


Yes, very true. To paraphrase, we can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but we cannot please all of the people all of the time. But that's life. That's what makes us the grown-ups. We have to understand that no one will ever get everything they want all of the time. This situation included. There are many factors and people and animals to consider. Those who cannot consider or respect the rights and needs of the many are part of the problem, not the solution.


edit on 19-1-2016 by Boadicea because: spelling



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


States already have laws in place regarding all the activities mentioned above. Having the state take the lands now owned by the feds would be far more economical than the present system.


I'm also a big advocate of local control and decision-making, for all of the reasons you mentioned. It's simply more practical, efficient and effective -- and most beneficial for the locals who are most affected. Trying to get those lands out of the federal mitts won't be easy though! However, continuing to demand more and more local control until we can is definitely part of the answer.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   





The attitude,the attitude!



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Sunwolf

Thanks for the video -- but I can't watch videos right now! Any chance you could sum it up for me pretty please???



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Federal employees bragging about land acquistions by hook or crook at a retirement party.Vide appears to be taken surrepticiously.It appears to be BLM but it could be National Parks.
The Feds should not be acquiring any more land in the west,they already own most of it.I suggest that they try to eminent domain land on the east coast at the same rate they did in the west.





edit on 19-1-2016 by Sunwolf because: addition



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Sunwolf

Thank you! Attitude indeed!!!

Reminds me of the ranchers in Oregon (the Hammonds' neighbors) that the BLM deliberately flooded out to force them to sell.... and, of course, at rock bottom prices.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Great thread Boadicea! I haven't read it all yet, but I wanted to reply and give it a bump. I also thought I'd link this Breaking Alternative News topic I did posting an article about the Bureau of Land Management's 'burn 'em out' legacy. I've been trying to take that thread in the direction this one was aimed, even though it keeps trying to morph into another 'everything else about the occupation except government corruption' thread. I'll probably post more links from it over here eventually once we see what shakes out.
ATS Thread-Oregon Standoff: BLM’s “Burn ‘Em Out” Legacy — The Untold Backstory



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join