Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 272

Thread: BLM controversy in Southern Utah

  1. #241
    Apparently, it's actually 17 buildings.
    Utah is a very special and unique place. There is no where else like it on earth. Please take care of it and keep the remaining wild areas in pristine condition. The world will be a better place if you do.

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #242
    Ammon Bundy took $530,000 Federal Loan:


    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2486508


    Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

    It seems Ammon Bundy, the militia leader camping out against the federal government, has no problem taking federal dollars from it — and taxpayers.

    Public records show that the gun-toting movement leader holed up in an Oregon wildlife refuge took out a $530,000 loan from the Small Business Administration in 2010 for his Arizona venture, Valet Fleet Services......

    ...The loan was for small businesses that could not get financial help through private means, according to the project description.....

    While Bundy sees green with the government’s loan programs, lately he’s been seeing red over federal laws.

    Bundy, along with his brother Ryan and a ragtag crew of armed “protesters,” stormed the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Saturday night in a rally against the federal government.

    Calling himself a patriot, Bundy took a staunch stance against the United States government, claiming it went too far by enforcing jurisdiction on federally owned land.

    Despite his political philosophy, Bundy claims he is not a hypocrite for taking the federal handout.

    “I am not anti-government,” the militia leader told CNN. He said the loan “was an effort in assisting the people in using their rights.”
    Utah is a very special and unique place. There is no where else like it on earth. Please take care of it and keep the remaining wild areas in pristine condition. The world will be a better place if you do.

  4. #243
    Tribe to protesters occupying Oregon wildlife refuge: ‘We were here first … get the hell out’

    Before the Bundy brothers and fellow occupiers took over the remote headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and claimed it for private citizens, before there was even a federal wildlife refuge to occupy, there were the Northern Paiute, a tribe that hunted, fished, lived and worshiped in this harshly beautiful landscape for more than 13 centuries.

    The area that is now the refuge was once their wintering grounds, but the Paiute were restricted to a reservation in 1868 after signing a treaty that would guarantee them federal recognition and protection from encroaching white settlers. Over time, that land allotment became even smaller, until the central Oregon Paiute were confined to a few thousand acres along what is now Highway 20 — the Burns Paiute Indian Reservation.

    As the anti-government protesters dug in for their fifth day at the wildlife refuge, insisting that they would leave only once the land had been “returned to its rightful owners,” the Burns Paiute council convened at its tribal offices 30 minutes away. They all had one, angry question on their minds:

    Who exactly did the occupiers think those “rightful owners” might be?


    Don’t tell me any of these ranchers came across the Bering Strait,” the tribal chairwoman, Charlotte Rodrique, said at a news conference Wednesday. “We were here first,” she added. “We’d like the public to acknowledge that.”

    Jarvis Kennedy, a member of the tribal council, put his demand bluntly: “They just need to get the hell out of here.”

    Although the wildlife refuge is not part of the Burns Paiute reservation, tribe members consider it sacred ancestral land. The Paiute are guaranteed access to the refuge for activities important to their heritage — hunting, fishing, gathering reeds for basket weaving and precious seeds. The tribe is also working with the Bureau of Land Management to preserve its archaeological sites.


    “We have had a good working relationship with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge,” Rodrique said, according to the Oregonian newspaper. “We view them as a protector of our cultural rights in that area.”

    The occupiers, she added, are “desecrating” a site that was inhabited to the Paiute long before white settlers had even set foot in the United States. If anyone is to be angry about who the land belongs to, surely it is the tribe members who were forced off of it a century ago.....

    A century later, the descendants of the wildlife refuge’s only other “owners” — the Northern Paiute — say that they’re worried about the effect that the militia members’ occupation might have on their ancestral land. The tribal council met with archaeologists for the refuge Tuesday, according to the Oregonian, to talk about protecting the area’s historic sites. The refuge also houses important papers documenting the tribe’s history and relationship to the land....


    When Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward, who ran the meeting, got up to speak, the crowd erupted into cheers.
    “You don’t get to come here and tell us how we get to live our lives,” he said, according to the Times. “I’m here to ask those folks to go home and let us go back to our lives in Harney County.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-the-hell-out/



    Utah is a very special and unique place. There is no where else like it on earth. Please take care of it and keep the remaining wild areas in pristine condition. The world will be a better place if you do.

  5. #244
    It's always "sacred ancestral land" when the Indians smell a possible payout...

  6. #245
    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Bundy's own affairs, kudos to them for drawing national attention to the egregious re-imprisonment of Dwight and Steve Hammond on charges of "terrorism" - exactly the kind of state abuse of power common in places like Iran and China - part of the ongoing war on traditional rural America by the Feds. The Hammonds already served their time, they are not terrorists by any stretch, and an extra five years is "cruel and unusual", i.e. unconstitutional.

  7. #246
    So if I understand this correctly, it's all because the ranchers lit a fire to control the over growth? Something that my family and I did all the time on our farmland growing up.

    My terrorist cell has been in sleeper mode ever since the late 80's. It's time to rise again and burn more weeds in the ditches.

  8. Likes offpiste liked this post
  9. #247
    Moderator jman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Above you and looking down
    Posts
    3,717
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombeech View Post
    So if I understand this correctly, it's all because the ranchers lit a fire to control the over growth? Something that my family and I did all the time on our farmland growing up.
    .
    It was to cover up their "illegal poaching" and the fire burned a little larger than they would have liked.

    But they did serve two years for that crime, but another judge(?) says that it should of been 5 years. It was because of that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ●Canyoneering 'Canyon Conditions' @ www.candition.com
    ●Hiking Treks (my younger brother's website): hiking guides @ www.thetrekplanner.com
    "He who walks on the edge...will eventually fall."
    "There are two ways to die in the desert - dehydration and drowning." -overhearing a Park Ranger at Capitol Reef N.P.
    "...the first law of gear-dynamics: gear is like a gas - it will expand to fit the available space." -Wortman, Outside magazine.
    "SEND IT, BRO!!"

  10. Likes Glenn liked this post
  11. #248
    Adventurer at Large! BruteForce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    locked, loaded and ready to rock!
    Posts
    2,893
    Sad, really. The BLM and USFS can burn entire forests, poison rivers and not be held accountable, but a family tries to burn back some brush and gets ~7 years prison! Have any of you seen this video regarding the BLM devastating the area in Oregon?

    http://www.examiner.com/article/blm-...d-cattle-alive
    2020 Jeep Gladiator (2" Lift, 37" Tires, Falcon 3.3 Shocks, Lockers, Sliders)
    2018 Polaris Sportsman XP 1000 (Hunter Edition)
    2014 Polaris Sportsman XP 850 HO EFI EPS (Browning Edition)
    2009 Dodge Ram 3500 Mega Laramie/Resistol DRW (~800HP/1400TQ)
    Yukon Charlies 930 Trail Series Snow Shoes
    5.11 Tactical Coyote Boots

    The random world and adventures of BruteForce

  12. #249

  13. #250
    Content Provider Emeritus ratagonia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Quiet and charming: Mount Carmel
    Posts
    7,158
    As they say, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

    Here is a pro-Hammond article I found that lays out the court case about the arson, for which the Hammonds were convicted, and the appeal of the illegally light sentence the judge gave them. The whole article is worth a read, and is pretty pro-Hammond (which I am not), but here is the crime/trial/sentencing/appeal etc. part:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...eds_spark.html

    The fires
    The first fire came in 2001: a simple prescribed burn, intended to take out invasive juniper, by Steve and Dwight Hammond's account.
    But federal prosecutors said the men's real motive for starting the blaze, which consumed 139 acres and forestalled grazing for two seasons, was to cover up evidence of an illegal slaughter of deer. The government presented evidence that Steven Hammond called an emergency dispatcher to ask if it was OK to burn -- roughly two hours after they already lit the fire. His attorney said in court that Hammond called the land bureau beforehand.
    The government acknowledged that the next fire, in 2006, was intended as a defensive move. Steve Hammond set backfires to keep a lightning-caused fire from burning onto the Hammonds' ranch and hitting their winter feed.
    But the government said Steve Hammond lit up on the flanks of a butte, despite a countywide burn ban and the knowledge that young part-time firefighters were camped up higher. Their crew boss spotted the fires, which were set at night, and moved the crew.
    How prosecutors pursued the ensuing criminal case over the two fires is what bothers Hammond supporters.
    When the men were indicted in 2010 on federal arson charges, they faced sentencing under the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Some Hammond backers and a host of recent social media posts translated that to mean the Hammonds were treated as terrorists.
    "When you starting bringing in the terrorism act for God-fearing livestock producers in eastern Oregon, something is wrong," said Barry Bushue, a Multnomah County berry farmer and president of the Oregon Farm Bureau.
    Federal prosecutors say they did no such thing.
    "At no time have I ever called these two men terrorists. Never," Papagni, the federal prosecutor, said in court last October. "They committed arson."
    But the five-year sentence mandated by terrorism law also concerned people. Among the critics: the federal judge who presided over the Hammonds' trial in Pendleton.
    U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan said at the men's original sentencing in 2012 that such a term would be unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.
    "It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience," Hogan said before sentencing Dwight to three months and Steve to one year.
    The men served their time and went home to raise cattle. But their case, it turned out, was far from settled.
    Amanda Marshall, then U.S. attorney for Oregon, said she recommended the government challenge Hogan's sentence as illegal.
    "If the government stands by and doesn't pursue the statutorily mandated sentence in this case, what kind of precedent does that set?" Marshall asked. Hogan, she said, imposed "an unlawful sentence."
    Papagni, the federal prosecutor, said in court last fall that "the government did what we are supposed to do when someone doesn't follow the law, be it a judge or be it two ranchers in eastern Oregon."
    The solicitor general at the U.S. Justice Department authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon judge's order.
    The appeals court sided with the prosecution, and the Hammonds trooped to federal court last October to face a second sentencing.
    Family and supporters filled the Eugene courtroom and U.S. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken gave the two convicted ranchers a chance to speak.
    "I have nothing to say," Steve Hammond said.
    "I have got nothing to say," Dwight Hammond said.
    "Really?" the judge asked. "That's so unusual."
    She sentenced them to prison to finish five-year terms but left them free until after the holidays.

  14. Likes Glenn liked this post
  15. #251
    Content Provider Emeritus ratagonia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Quiet and charming: Mount Carmel
    Posts
    7,158
    And just to be clear, they could have done a controlled burn with permission from the adjacent landowner (the BLM) and fire control at their ranch boundary. I'm pretty sure they had done at least several of these before.

    It is kinda duplicitous to say "Federal Prosecutors said..." That's not really the point. The point is that the Feds have evidence to prove those assertions, testimony from neutral persons.

    Judge Michael Hogan is controversial as he is ultra-ultra conservative, and has had decisions like this overturned before. The charge carries a mandatory minimum, which he did not follow. Appeal was made. Mandatory means mandatory.

    Original sentencing was to three months and one year. Which they served. The resentencing was to five-year terms, so they will have to serve out the REST of their terms. ie, four years for the one, four years 9 months for the other ---- less time for good behaviour (do they do that in the Fed system??).

    -----------------

    I am not interested in fighting out this case on Bogley. But I do want to point out that several different versions of the "facts" are available out there, and only one of them is factually correct. I don't think "youse guyz" need to make up facts to make your case... the true facts are troubling enough from YOUR viewpoint. From my viewpoint, not so much.

    Tom

  16. #252
    The point is that the Feds have evidence to prove those assertions, testimony from neutral persons.
    Actually, the witness testimony included their own family members. From the court records:

    Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out ‘Strike Anywhere’ matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to ‘light up the whole country on fire.’ One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.
    Utah is a very special and unique place. There is no where else like it on earth. Please take care of it and keep the remaining wild areas in pristine condition. The world will be a better place if you do.

  17. Likes Glenn liked this post
  18. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott P View Post
    Actually, the witness testimony included their own family members. From the court records:

    Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out ‘Strike Anywhere’ matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to ‘light up the whole country on fire.’ One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

    Regardless, they already served time for this: the five-year mandatory sentence is for "terrorism". Are these men guilty of arson and poaching? Looks like it. Terrorism? If these men are terrorists, then what are ISIS? Reavers?

  19. #254
    And so it ends with blood.
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/ore...sts/index.html

    (CNN)Ammon Bundy, leader of the armed protesters who took over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, was arrested and one of his followers killed in a highway traffic stop Tuesday.

    A law enforcement official told CNN that authorities pulled over two vehicles. Everyone obeyed orders to surrender except two people: LaVoy Finicum and Bundy's brother, Ryan Bundy, the official said.


    Shots were fired, but it's not known who fired first, the official said. Ryan Bundy was injured, but Finicum died, the official added.
    Finicum was among the most outspoken of the occupiers who took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns on January 2 to protest federal land policies.
    Earlier this month, he said he'd rather be killed than arrested.
    "Absolutely ... I have no intention of spending any of my days in a concrete box," he told NBC News. "There are things more important than your life and freedom is one of them," he said. "I'm prepared to defend freedom."
    All together, police arrested seven people: five in the traffic stop on Highway 395 with Ammon Bundy; and two others in Burns.
    All seven arrested face a federal felony charge relating to their occupation of the refuge: conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats, authorities said.
    "It appears that America was fired upon by our government. One of liberty's finest patriots is fallen. He will not go silent into eternity," the occupiers said on the Bundy Ranch Facebook page.
    Those arrested are: Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox and Ryan Waylen Payne.
    The other two are: Joseph Donald O'Shaughnessy and Peter Santilli.
    "I have some sons and other people there trying to protect our rights and liberties and freedoms, and now we've got one killed, and all I can say is, he's sacrificed for a good purpose," Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy told the Los Angeles Times when informed of his sons' arrests.

  20. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn View Post
    Shots were fired, but it's not known who fired first,
    I could take a wild guess.

    The Ranchers were not promoting a violent outcome. It's been a month with their "occupation", invasion, or campout, whatever you call it. And this is the first bloodshed.

    You've gotta ask yourself, who was losing their patience? Are the Ranchers sick and tired of being there, or is the Law Enforcement sick and tired of being there?

  21. #256

  22. #257
    FBI released video



    (washington post: While the video is low-quality and leaves room for interpretation, FBI spokesman Greg Bretzing said the officers who fired at LaVoy Finicum believed he made two moves with his right hand to reach toward the loaded 9mm semiautomatic handgun inside his jacket.
    Special Agent Greg Bretzing's comments - http://flashalertbend.net/?alert=1

  23. #258
    Wow, they had a drone on him and everything. I must have missed the invasion of privacy outrage aimed at Obama. Maybe I scrolled right past it.

  24. #259
    Content Provider Emeritus ratagonia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Quiet and charming: Mount Carmel
    Posts
    7,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombeech View Post
    Wow, they had a drone on him and everything. I must have missed the invasion of privacy outrage aimed at Obama. Maybe I scrolled right past it.
    Pretty thorough analysis here: http://bearingarms.com/lavoy-finicum...-police-shoot/

    Tom

  25. #260
    Boom! This is a huge setback for the Fed's.

    Jury refuses to convict 4 in Nevada ranch standoff retrial
    http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=45510596&nid=151

Similar Threads

  1. [Trip Report] Southern Utah Ice
    By nieder in forum Climbing, Caving & Mountaineering
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-19-2014, 08:04 PM
  2. [Album] Southern Utah & the CP
    By stefan in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: 02-15-2012, 09:34 PM
  3. How well do you know Southern Utah?
    By oldno7 in forum Hiking, Scrambling & Peak Bagging
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-06-2010, 05:48 PM
  4. How well do you know Southern Utah? II
    By Win in forum Hiking, Scrambling & Peak Bagging
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-07-2008, 05:08 PM
  5. southern utah
    By stefan in forum Canyoneering
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-05-2007, 11:07 AM

Visitors found this page by searching for:

blm controversy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •