Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895

    BLM Denies Land Grab—Texas Officials Stand Ground

    H2 Note the difference between 'STAND DOWN' and 'STAND GROUND'

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


    BLM Denies Land Grab—Texas Officials Stand Ground



    Breitbart
    by Bob Price 23 Apr 2014,

    In a statement posted on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management website (BLM), federal officials denied any expansion of holdings along the Red River after Breitbart Texas brought the matter to national attention. The nuanced denial has drawn critical reactions from a number of elected Texas officials.

    BLM spokesman Paul McGuire said “The 140-acres in question were determined to be public land in 1986 when the U.S. District Court ruled on a case brought by two private landowners, each seeking to adjust boundary lines for their respective properties. The BLM was not a party to any litigation between landowners. The 140-acres were at no time held in private ownership.”

    Jerry Stickland in Office of the Texas Attorney General took exception to the BLM’s statement. In response to an inquiry from Breitbart Texas, “In 1994, the BLM said that depending on the outcome of the Red River Boundary Compact, there might be an additional 90,000 acres of land under BLM's control despite the fact that most if not all of that acreage was owned, used and cultivated by Texans.”

    “The Red River Boundary Compact was ratified by Congress in 2000 and BLM now appears to have re-raised the possibility of seizing 90,000 acres along the Red River during recent field hearings. Texans still deserve to know what, if any, additional land BLM intends to federalize. The BLM should definitively state that it has no title and does not seek any claim to the 90,000 acres along the Red River—and until it does, Texas will be forced to pursue all available legal options,” Stickland concluded.

    Commissioner Patterson told Breitbart Texas, “The Red River situation is very unusual when it comes to river boundaries between states.” He explained that in most cases, the states retain ownership up to the middle of the river. However, because of an odd set of circumstances in this case, the BLM actually appears to own the area from the center of the river to the southern vegetation line.

    Texas State Senators Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls) and Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) both represent farmers and ranchers who are potentially affected by this potential BLM land grab. The Senators called on Governor Rick Perry and Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson in letters to come to the assistance of their constituents who are deeply troubled by the possible loss of private lands.

    The Senators also contacted Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to request legal assistance.
    Rep. Stickland is leading a contingent of concerned Texas Legislators and other officials to the Red River Region near Wichita Falls on April 28.
    Last edited by HAPPY2BME; 04-23-2014 at 07:49 PM.
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Texas rancher: How the federal government took my property - and didn't pay me one cent

    Fox News
    Published April 22, 2014 | On the Record | On the Record
    With: Gene Hall, Texas Farm Bureau; Tommy Henderson, Texas Rancher

    * video at source *

    This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," April 22, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

    GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: It's not just Nevada ranchers. Now Texas ranchers gearing up for a fierce fight with the federal government. The ranchers bracing for what they call a land grab. But the Bureau of Land Management insists it is categorically not expanding federal holdings. What's really going on here?

    Gene Hall with the Texas Farm Bureau
    joins us. Good evening, Gene.

    GENE HALL, TEXAS FARM BUREAU:
    Hi, Greta.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    So, explain this dispute to me.

    HALL:
    Well, it's happened before. The border of Texas and Oklahoma moves. The Red River, the border between the two states moves. And when that does, the way those ancient compacts are written, it's not supposed to effect private property lines. But for some reason, 30 years ago, in the case of one of our members, who went to court to preserve his property rights, he lost the case, but for some reason, the BLM now has authority over that land. We don't know why. I'm not an attorney and I can't pretend to understand it. What I know is this, that he has owned that land, some 130-some-odd acres. His family has owned it for generations for almost 100 years. Suddenly, one day after a court battle, they don't. He had paid taxes. He had clear title and a deed to it, and then suddenly, he doesn't. We're wondering under what kind of pretext the federal government could act, and why do they need to be looking at this? We were told they were coming back because they were going to take another bite. There is a 116-mile stretch of that border, so we did a video that you probably have seen, where we allowed those Texas farm and ranch families to tell their story.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    Well, how come when -- OK, the river moves, which means that, you know, the question is then, where is the border? Is it where the river was or where is it the new edge of the river? I understand that's a little bit of the dispute. But how come the land becomes the federal land and not at least the state of Texas? I don't know why the rancher loses it, but why does the federal government get it over the state of Texas?

    HALL:
    I'm not certain why. We can't think of a very good reason. But, we know now that some 130 acres that used to belong to Tommy Henderson is now under the control of the federal government. It's my understanding it has something to do with tribal lands and -- that were part of the land on the other side of the river. But I'm not an attorney. And I can't really debate those fine points. I don't know why. But we have seen an aggressive overreach by the federal government and in more than one instance. If you've got an agency like this that's very well funded with a lot of people involved, then you shouldn't be surprised if they are going to overreach and extend that aggressive approach.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    Well, what the BLM is now saying is that they are categorically not expanding federal holdings along the red river. So, is this just -- I mean, is it just a fear of Texas ranchers or is BLM not playing it straight with us? Which is it?

    HALL:
    Some of our people, who were contacted and were, told that there was a possibility that they were coming back along that 116-mile stretch that might be under federal control. We do know this happened before. We are concerned about it. Now, they are concerned about it now. And our attempt as a farm organization, Texas Farm Bureau were concerned about anything, if we are about anything its private property rights and we were invited to tell their story and explain their concerns.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    Gene, why would they even want this land? I mean, what are they even gonna use it for, the Feds, if they were to seize it?

    HALL:
    We understand there's a resource management plan underway. And that's all well and good. But we believe the highest, best use of this land is in private property, 97 percent of Texas is privately owned. We have heard that there have been meetings where they discuss horse trails. That's what it's being used for now, for recreation, the land that used to belong to Tommy Henderson, our member, now being used for recreation. We think it belongs in family farms.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    Gene, thank you.

    HALL:
    Thank you, Greta.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    And one long time Texas rancher who we just talked about knows first hand what it's like to fight the federal government. The Bureau Of Land Management ended up taking 140 acres of his property and didn't pay him one cent. Rancher Tommy Henderson joins us. Nice to have you join us, Tom. We were just talking about you.

    TOMMY HENDERSON, TEXAS RANCHER:
    Hello.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    So, Tommy, explain you -- explain what happened. You were paying taxes on this land for -- first of all, when did you get this land?

    HENDERSON:
    My great, great grandfather bought the land in 1904.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    And do you have a deed going back to 1904?

    HENDERSON:
    Yes, it goes back to 1904, and all the taxes have been paid on it since then. I bought it from a great aunt in 1979, who didn't have any children who wanted the farm. So, I'm the fifth generation here.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    And you have been paying all your taxes ever since?

    HENDERSON:
    All the taxes were paid until it was taken away from me in 1984. But all the taxes prior to that had been paid. But once BLM seized the land, I didn't feel like I owed the taxes on it anymore.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    All right. Now, why did BLM seize the land in 1984?

    HENDERSON:
    Well, there was a court case in Oklahoma City. And we were in the Oklahoma courts. And the judge there gave it to the BLM, even though the attorney general -- U.S. Attorney General John Greene sided with us on the Texas side.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    So, it's because this river changed and the river moved and so, the border moved and then the question was how do you define the border where the river was or where -- or the edge of the river or where it became? Is that it?

    HENDERSON:
    The -- underneath the repairing rights, the border moved with the river with erosion and abrasion. It stays sedimentary with avulsion. They claimed that it was avulsion but it was not an avulsion. It took 40 years for it to move. So, it was a slow and gradual process of erosion and abrasion (ph). But we never really made it to court. It was already decided before we could ever get to the courthouse.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    What has BLM done with this -- to 140 acres since 1984?

    HENDERSON:
    Well, in the beginning, they didn't really want it and they asked me to file a title for it and all of that and they would get back to me. And they told me they had no money to administer it back then and, you know, to administer it or do anything with it. And so, it's just been kind of open land where everyone that wanted to has come and hunted and fished and recreated on it. And just -- they really not done anything to it. And all of the sudden here in the last six months, they have shown back up and they are talking about taking another 90,000 acres by using my court case as the precedent to seize the other land.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    What are they going to do with these 90 thousand acres? That's the first question. Second question is why isn't it going to the -- if anyone could take it to you or the farmers, why isn't it going to the state and instead going to the feds, BLM?

    HENDERSON:
    Well, that's a good question except that BLM does own a little bit of land out here. And as the Attorney John Greene said, that they own the sliver of sand out there was his quote. But BLM round up with areas that's over a mile or mile and a quarter wide now.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    Why do they want it? What are they doing with it?

    HENDERSON:
    Well, that's kind of an odd question, too. Is what are their plans with it? They won't talk to us or be straight with us as to what their plans are. They keep talking about taking.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    And they seized it without any compensation?

    HENDERSON:
    Yes. I bought the land in 1979. As a matter of fact, I borrowed a portion of the money from Farmer's Home Administration, a government agency to purchase the land from my great aunt. And they came out and inspected the land and said it was all here, surveyed it, and forced me to buy a title policy. And when we lost it, they refused to pay, even though they said that they guaranteed the title to this place whenever I was buying it and so, I have continued to have to pay for this land or the federal government would seize everything else I had. I made my last payment this January on land that I lost in 1984 in a lawsuit.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    How much did you pay for that land in 1984?

    HENDERSON:
    Ma'am?

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    How much did you pay in 1984 for that land?

    HENDERSON:
    That 140 acres was probably valued at about $60,000 then.

    VAN SUSTEREN:
    Well, we'll be watching to see what happens, see what BLM does or does not do. They say that they are not expanding their federal holdings. We will see what goes on. Thank you for joining us.

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the...ay-me-one-cent
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    BLM Claims 90,000 Acres Does Not Belong To Texas, Attempts To Seize Ranch

    Posted by Eric Barlow on April 17, 2014
    www.inquisitr.com



    The BLM removed armed federal agents from Bunkeville and near the Bundy ranch, but another possible “land grab” or range war appears to be brewing in Texas. Fellow rancher Tommy Henderson has been fighting the BLM for 30 years, and appears to be losing yet another round in the battle.

    Tommy Henderson is locked in a property rights fight with the BLM. Although many students are taught in geography class that the border between Texas and Oklahoma is the Red River, the issue is far more complicated than that, according to the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM used an ongoing debate over the border to nab 140 acres of land Henderson’s failed lawsuit against the agency three decades ago.

    BLM is now using the Tommy Henderson lawsuit ruling as a precedent to seize even more of his land along a 116-mile stretch of the river which the agency claims never belonged to Texas in the first place. Henderson holds a deed to the 90,000 acres, but such a legal document did not prevent him from losing the 140-acre parcel he had labored over and paid property taxes on for years.

    Henderson had this to say about the emerging Red River range war in Texas:
    “They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us.”

    If the BLM is successful in its bid to seize the 90,000 owned by the Texas rancher, it would substantially alter the boundaries between the two states. The fight boils down to the difference between avulsion and accretion. The river has moved over time and the boundary is supposed to be noted as the vegetation line along the south side of the waterway. Both states use different semantics to define the boundary, according to the Americas Freedom Fighters website. The BLM has allegedly been able to capitalize on the confusion in the bid to seize Henderson’s land. Oklahoma state statute defines avulsion in a different manner than both the United States government and Texas.

    A statement from the BLM about the possible land seizure in Texas reads:
    “BLM officials believe they have a responsibility to manage land they believe is federal which includes an estimated 90,000 acres along 116 miles of the Red River. If the land is found to be public, BLM officials say they have three options: leave the land open, closed, or open with limitations.”

    The BLM also contends that in the Red River there is always accretion – the gradual accumulation of sediment, to the south. The federal agency also stated that avulsion, the rapid formation of a new river channel, occurs on the north side of the river. The Bureau of Land Management believes that since the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma only moves in one direction – and that direction has not favored the ranchers working the land along the Red River. If the agency is able to redraw the Red River boundary it will include Tommy Henderson’s 90,000 acre ranch. If the BLM seizes the land, claiming that is should never have been privately owned due to the boundary dispute, grazing of cattle could still be an option – but will come at a price.

    Tommy Henderson also had this to say about the very real possibility of losing his ranch:
    “How can BLM come in and say, ‘Hey, this isn’t yours.’ Even though its patented from the state, you’ve always paid taxes on it. Our family paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours. Originally, here the river was out there where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it’s always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north.”

    A boundary change could land families who have be considered Texans for generations on the other side of the line and actually suddenly find themselves Oklahoma residents.

    How do you feel about the ongoing actions by the BLM which could impact Texas ranch owned by Tommy Henderson?

    http://wearechange.org/blm-claims-90000-acres-belong-texas-attempts-seize-ranch/
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Perry rips ‘out-of-control’ federal government over Texas land dispute

    Published April 23, 2014FoxNews.com



    Texas Gov. Rick Perry joined his state’s top attorney on Wednesday in blasting the federal Bureau of Land Management over concerns that it may be looking at laying claim to thousands of acres of property in northern Texas.

    “The federal government already owns too much land,” Perry told Fox News.

    At issue are thousands of acres of land on the Texas side of the Red River, along the border between Texas and Oklahoma. Officials recently have raised concern that the BLM might be looking at claiming 90,000 acres of land as part of the public domain.

    On Tuesday, state Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is running to replace Perry, raised the issue in a letter to the BLM director. He also told Breitbart.com he’s ready to “go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

    Abbott reiterated his comments Wednesday night on "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren."

    "At a minimum, (the federal government is) overreaching, trying to grab land that belongs to Texans, or worse, they are violating due process rights by just claiming that this land suddenly belongs to the federal government, swiping it away from our Texans," said Abbott, who threatened court action. "This is just the latest symptom of what seems to be a federal government run amok that is messing in states’ rights and now messing in private property rights."

    Perry told Fox News he stands with Abbott on this issue.

    “It’s not a dare, it’s a promise that we’re going to stand up for private property rights in the state of Texas,” Perry said, calling the federal government “out of control.”

    The federal government is currently in a preliminary review phase, and any action on the land would be years away.

    The BLM argues that any land in question was long ago determined to be public property anyway.

    “The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River,” a BLM spokeswoman said in a written statement on Tuesday.

    The spokeswoman referred to a 140-acre plot “determined to be public land in 1986” – an apparent reference to a 1986 federal court case. Texas landowner Tommy Henderson lost 140 acres to BLM in that case, and he claims the agency is now using that decision as precedent to pursue more property.

    Perry claimed private property would be affected here, and questioned the BLM’s position.

    “Is the federal government going to come back in and say, ‘you know what, Mexico used to own the state of Texas so let’s have a conversation of where the rightful ownership of this is’?” he said.

    The debate comes on the heels of a tense standoff earlier this month in Nevada, after BLM tried to round up cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy – the product of a long-running dispute over unpaid grazing fees. Hundreds of states’ rights supporters, some of them armed, showed up to protest, and BLM back off citing safety concerns.

    In the Texas matter, the Supreme Court incorporated the Red River as part of the border with Oklahoma nearly a century ago.

    It’s unclear how seriously BLM might be looking at laying claim to additional boundary land.

    BLM said it is merely in the “initial stages of developing options for management of public lands,” as part of a “transparent process with several opportunities for public input.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...-land-dispute/
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Western lands takeover: Former BLM chief, state lawmaker clash

    Debate stems from state and federal tension over control of millions of acres in the West.

    By Matt Canham
    The Salt Lake Tribune



    A conservative state lawmaker and a liberal former director of the Bureau of Land Management argued the merits of a debate that’s sweeping the West — whether states should take control of federal lands and would they manage them better.

    Their exchange, which included a few pointed barbs, during Wednesday’s Trib Talk may just be round one.

    Former BLM Director Pat Shea challenged state Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, to a formal debate at the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics, and the lawmaker said he would accept such a challenge.

    Wednesday’s conversation identified the deep philosophical disagreement that would underpin any such debate. Ivory argues the federal government used to own much of the land in states like Florida, Illinois and Nebraska and has since turned it over to private owners or the state. He believes it’s time for Western states to demand equal treatment in this matter and if Congress won’t comply, it may be time to launch a major court case. He said the land would be better managed and the profits from mining would help fund the state’s education system.

    Shea was dismissive of such an idea.

    "I don’t think states are capable of the complexity of managing these lands," he said, accusing Ivory of inflaming local officials to challenge federal land managers when the chances of the state’s gaining control of these lands are remote at best.

    The standoff in Nevada between BLM officials and rancher Cliven Bundy served as a backdrop to this philosophical discussion. Bundy has refused to pay federal grazing fees for more than two decades and now owes more than $1 million. In reaction, the BLM tried to confiscate some of his cattle, which resulted in a tense standoff between federal agents and militia members before the BLM backed down.

    Shea called it a dangerous situation and made a plea for more "civil discussions." Ivory declined to say whether he supported Bundy or not, instead arguing if Nevada controlled those lands instead of the BLM, then the dispute never would have risen to such a level.

    Morgan Lyon Cotti, with the Hinckley Institute, linked the latest flash point in the always-tense relationship between Western states and the federal government to a rise in tea-party conservatives, saying that elected officials are largely responding to the Republican delegates who helped them win office.

    Polls conducted by Dan Jones and Associates for the Utah Foundation in 2012 found that GOP delegates, often more conservative than the state as a whole, ranked state rights as their top issue and allowing more mining and grazing on federal land as their fourth most important issue. Neither issue was among the top priorities of general voters, who focused more on the economy and education.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...lands.html.csp
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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