BLM Texas land grab

[Leaveammoforme]

The Nevada thread got shut down due to arguments between members. I don't think we are going to have the same problem here. This is an easy one. BLM is trying to steal north Texas privately owned property. I wasn't going to pack up & head to Nevada. But this one here, I'm already there waiting on the word.


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...me-and-Take-It

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...o-2943182.html

[platoonDaddy]

The AG is very pro-active and letting BLM know where he stands.

“Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box,” wrote Abbott, also a Republican gubernatorial candidate.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...cmp=latestnews

[Whiskey_Bravo]

Following this one closely. I mentioned the story in the first page or two on the Bundy ranch thread when the Texas Farm Bureau released a video on it. The BLM would be pretty damn stupid to try to attempt this, especially after the Bundy ranch debacle.

[montanadave]

Seems to me that when folks agreed to define the Texas-Oklahoma boundary on the basis of a riverbank which naturally shifts over time there's gonna be one party that stands to gain land and one that stands to lose land. I'm not picking sides in this particular dispute, just noting that the Red River Boundary Compact signed into law by Governors George Bush and Frank Keating in 1999, which was subsequently ratified by the U.S. Congress in 2000, was bound to make somebody unhappy sooner or later.

And if the party who gains is the BLM and the party that loses is a individual party, somebody's gonna make political hay out of it.

[Eurodriver]

You guys are quite amusing.

We all know if the BLM showed up at your house with an eminent domain order you'd pack your shit up, cash the check, and move someplace else.

All of this BS talk on this forum of sticking it to the government is just that - BS talk.

[SteveS]

The federal government and their goons in uniform are more of a threat to our lives and freedom than Al CIA da or the Taliban or Russia and China combined. Study up on Agenda 21.

[TAZ]

Seems to me that when folks agreed to define the Texas-Oklahoma boundary on the basis of a riverbank which naturally shifts over time there's gonna be one party that stands to gain land and one that stands to lose land. I'm not picking sides in this particular dispute, just noting that the Red River Boundary Compact signed into law by Governors George Bush and Frank Keating in 1999, which was subsequently ratified by the U.S. Congress in 2000, was bound to make somebody unhappy sooner or later.

And if the party who gains is the BLM and the party that loses is a individual party, somebody's gonna make political hay out of it.

I'm no lawyer and far from any kind of expert in land debates, but having scanned the 1999 agreement I see no mention of the BLM in it. Pretty much states that one variable means of a border are replaced with yet another. Riverbanks change over time as do the vegetation lines associated with them. Seems logical t me that as the river erodes the bank the vegetation like will move accordingly. No rocket science needed there to figure that out. Accordingly TX will shrink over the coming decades and OK will grow.

Still have no clue why the BLM needs to be involved.

[Safetyhit]

You guys are quite amusing.

We all know if the BLM showed up at your house with an eminent domain order you'd pack your shit up, cash the check, and move someplace else.

All of this BS talk on this forum of sticking it to the government is just that - BS talk.

Maybe try watching or reading the news since the very scenario you so adamantly debunk just took place.

[Doc Safari]

We all know if the BLM showed up at your house with an eminent domain order you'd pack your shit up, cash the check, and move someplace else.

Frankly, with the economy the way it is, and my desire to move on, if they show up with a check for anywhere near what it's worth I'd happily take it.

The problem is in cases where any federal agency, not just BLM, moves in and takes things seemingly against the law or common decency.

I have researched the Clive Bundy thing enough to have genuine mixed feelings about it now.

[montanadave]

I'm no lawyer and far from any kind of expert in land debates, but having scanned the 1999 agreement I see no mention of the BLM in it. Pretty much states that one variable means of a border are replaced with yet another. Riverbanks change over time as do the vegetation lines associated with them. Seems logical t me that as the river erodes the bank the vegetation like will move accordingly. No rocket science needed there to figure that out. Accordingly TX will shrink over the coming decades and OK will grow.

Still have no clue why the BLM needs to be involved.

Because there are lands along the Red River that are administered by the BLM. The land ownership along the Texas-Oklahoma border includes federal lands, state lands, private lands, and tribal lands. The Dept. of Interior announced plans in 2013 to conduct an environmental impact study to guide federal agencies in formulating a Resource Management Plan for an area encompassing portions of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs administer hundreds of thousands of acres in the region and there are also millions of acres of split-estate lands where the surface ownership is private but the minerals were reserved by the federal government. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/219455667/...letter-Final-i)

The story is making headlines now for almost entirely political reasons. The BLM just got a ton of bad press with the Bundy Ranch cluster**** out in Nevada and there are several Texas politicians looking to score political points by hitching their star to the Bundy Bandwagon and leading a crusade against "Obama's BLM goons" looking to steal land from Texas ranchers.

It's a lot of election year smoke with little or no fire.