Debunked: BLM land grab in Texas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe
  • Start date Start date
External Quote:

The agency, though, argues that any land in question was long ago determined to be public property.
"The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River," a BLM spokeswoman said in a written statement late Tuesday afternoon.
The spokeswoman referred to a 140-acre plot "determined to be public land in 1986" – an apparent reference to a 1986 federal court case
External Quote:

In the Texas matter, the Supreme Court incorporated the Red River as part of the border with Oklahoma nearly a century ago.
Congress further clarified the boundaries of the two states in 2000
External Quote:

BLM Field Manager Stephen Tryon, in a March 17 letter to Thornberry, said officials would eventually look to "ascertain the boundary" between federal and private land and acknowledged residents' concerns that new surveys could "create cloud to their private property title."
But he said no new surveys are currently planned, and reiterated that there are no federal claims to Texas land "as defined by multiple rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eyeing-land-grab-along-texas-oklahoma-border/

External Quote:
They suspect the BLM might use a 1988 federal court case that cited 140 acres along the Red River no longer belonged to a private landowner in Texas, because the water moved the property line, the Daily Mail said. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/23/texas-is-next-ag-warns-blm-wants-90000-acres-after/


I could be misunderstanding but sounds to me like the water is already theirs. no?
 
Remember my prediction after the Bundy thing about this sort of crap cropping up? Whether or not anything COMES of it, is a different matter.. but Bundy was just the beginning. I really really hope Im wrong.
 
Joe said:
Why I didnt think the BLM was a democrat or republican thing ?
Click to expand...

It's not. The issue is being exaggerated and misrepresented for political gain. A federal judge (Republican, by the way, nominated by President Ford) already ruled nearly 30 years ago that the land in question is owned by the federal government. There is no evidence of the BLM attempting to take additional land out of private owners' hands.

As per the Chronicle:

External Quote:
According to the BLM, land between the middle of the river and its south gradient bank always has been in the public domain and was never private, even if citizens bought, sold or cared for it.

A 1988 court case by Red River landowner Tommy Henderson, who lost his claim over a fairly large tract of land, gives the agency solid precedent, Texas Farm Bureau spokesman Gene Hall said.
...
The BLM's draft plan for the land will not be ready for 18 to 24 months yet, the agency said, and a final plan will not be released until 2018 at the earliest.
It was 1986, not 1988, but the point stands. The "land grab" claims are just an exercise in grandstanding during an election cycle, fresh on the heels of the story out of Nevada.
 
cosmic said:
It's not. The issue is being exaggerated and misrepresented for political gain. A federal judge (Republican, by the way, nominated by President Ford) already ruled nearly 30 years ago that the land in question is owned by the federal government. There is no evidence of the BLM attempting to take additional land out of private owners' hands.

As per the Chronicle:

External Quote:
According to the BLM, land between the middle of the river and its south gradient bank always has been in the public domain and was never private, even if citizens bought, sold or cared for it.

A 1988 court case by Red River landowner Tommy Henderson, who lost his claim over a fairly large tract of land, gives the agency solid precedent, Texas Farm Bureau spokesman Gene Hall said.
...
The BLM's draft plan for the land will not be ready for 18 to 24 months yet, the agency said, and a final plan will not be released until 2018 at the earliest.
It was 1986, not 1988, but the point stands. The "land grab" claims are just an exercise in grandstanding during an election cycle, fresh on the heels of the story out of Nevada.
Click to expand...
No I disagree . Its the Bundy issue that has shined a light on this . As if both parties dont grandstand ?
 
How did it shine a light on something that occured 20+ years ago and is completely unrelated? How is it a land grab or water grab? Sounds to me like someone is either dragging up BS from the past for personal gain, or as Cos pointed out.. its being dragged up by politicians for votes.
 
Svartbjørn said:
How did it shine a light on something that occured 20+ years ago and is completely unrelated? How is it a land grab or water grab? Sounds to me like someone is either dragging up BS from the past for personal gain, or as Cos pointed out.. its being dragged up by politicians for votes.
Click to expand...
Not what happened to Bundy 20 years ago . the fact that this person in Texas and many others might have thought now was the time while everyone is looking at the BLM to bring up the problems he is having . I think he said they want his land he has been paying taxes on for years . Sounds like a land grab . As far as political , what isn't political these days ? Plus what are politicians for if they cant help the people they are suppose to represent ? Are is it just the fact only one political party seemed to come to his aid ? Its happening today not in the past . Like with many cases how do you fight against the government ? Who has the money to fight when one side has to work for their money and the other side just steals theirs from taxpayers ? or Just prints it . Either way you lose . Unless you can get national attention .Ron Paul warns about armed bureaucrats such as the BLM 1997
 
WeedWhacker said:
Sorry but....Ron Paul (and his son Rand) amount to nothing more than "provocateurs" with no real substance.
Click to expand...
In your opinion Im sure they are . In my opinion they are not . Im curious on how this got debunked when its still in the news ? BLM said its been there land since the 1920s I guess they mean federal land but it still disputed so how can it be debunked ?
 
Joe said:
In your opinion Im sure they are . In my opinion they are not . Im curious on how this got debunked when its still in the news ? BLM said its been there land since the 1920s I guess they mean federal land but it still disputed so how can it be debunked ?
Click to expand...

The 'BLM' was there since 1785

External Quote:
The BLM's roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
I mean....some people (today) wish to re-write history, EVEN as they try to use the United States Constitution as their "backing"...but, reality sets in......
 
WeedWhacker said:
The 'BLM' was there since 1785

External Quote:
The BLM's roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
I mean....some people (today) wish to re-write history, EVEN as they try to use the United States Constitution as their "backing"...but, reality sets in......
Click to expand...
Its roots or revisionist history ? 1946 BLM was created
 
Joe said:
Its roots or revisionist history ? 1946 BLM was created
Click to expand...

Now, this delves into aspects of law, and "Land Use" rights, and stuff.

Really....wanna go there? I think that ANY Constitutional lawyer would be able to rip me (or you) a "new one", if we wished to tangle.

Frankly, I subscribe to the basics....in the United States of America,

The "process" is a "representative government", and as such, a "representative DEMOCRACY" (note the capital letters).

Have a "problem"? Then, VOTE!!!!!
 
Joe said:
how do you fight against the government ? Who has the money to fight
Click to expand...
all you have to do is start a 'gofundme' account and start a conspiracy blog, get picked up by alex jones and the money would be pouring in to take your claim to court. then to the supreme court etc.

not to mention the 'police state types' have lawyers that would work (near) pro bono just for the publicity.
 
Joe said:
Im curious on how this got debunked when its still in the news ? BLM said its been there land since the 1920s I guess they mean federal land but it still disputed so how can it be debunked ?
Click to expand...

It's appropriate that the claim has been marked as debunked because, contrary to the news stories you're describing, the BLM isn't arbitrarily confiscating land it didn't already possess. There's zero evidence of that to date. Those with property line disputes can have their day in court, and the issue is complicated primarily by the fact that the lay of the land on the southern side of the Red River changes naturally over time, which affects both governmental and private property lines.

More importantly, the BLM has not only been soliciting input from landowners and the general public for months now, but also has multiple options at their disposal for future management of the land in question. Politically motivated media sources and affiliates are neglecting to mention that, depending on the outcome of the bureau's review process, the BLM might not make any changes to how the land is managed. They (the Bureau) are, however, responding to multiple concerns (originating from land owners, mind you) from meth production to littering to the presence of abandoned oil equipment.

External Quote:
via the Dallas Morning News

The agency has never actively managed the land but is considering ways to do so as it updates its land management plans for the region. The plan, which will be finished sometime in 2018, could call for closing off sections of the land along the Red River, limiting certain activities like grazing to designated areas, or leaving it the way it is.
External Quote:
via Texas Tribune

Some statements from Texas officials have included misinterpretations of the border's history. Abbott, for instance, suggested that a 2000 compact, which clarified the jurisdictional and political boundaries between Texas and Oklahoma, should have nixed the bureau's claim. The compact, however, does not address property lines.
External Quote:
BLM, via Houston Chronicle

The development of a management plan is a very open and public process and will consider a wide range of options for what the best use of the lands might be.

Members of the public and interested communities will have many opportunities to review the ideas being put forward and to provide input. The planning process is expected to last until 2018 or beyond.

Some have claimed in recent days that the Bureau of Land Management is seeking to expand its presence in these areas or to gain ownership of lands that belongs to private parties. Neither of these claims is true.

We are committed to engaging and working with landowners, the states of Texas and Oklahoma and the broader public as we work to determine the best management options for the lands that we already manage. As with all of the work we do, this process will respect and honor private property rights.

We welcome your comments and feedback on our planning effort. We will be hosting public meetings throughout the region and look forward to robust discussions of how best to manage our nation's public lands.
*Edited for grammar, clarity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mick West
  • Locked
Debunked: Bundy Ranch Dispute as BLM exploiting Fracking Rights
8 9 10
Replies
387
Views
144K
Mick West
Mick West

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top