Sheriff urged to clamp down on armed militiamen around Bundy ranch

[puzzld]

I don't get any of it though. I'm not sure of the nuances, but isn't all land federal land, having been bought or conquered, until it is sold to individuals? I mean, wasn't that the whole homesteader thing?

Certainly most land in the west... Some of the eastern states were owned by other countries at the time they were settled, so technically never "federal" land. But these guys are doing something different than the homesteader thing.

Say my grandpa owned 100 acres (either he bought or inherited it, but he clearly holds the title) and his land is surrounded by land still owned by the feds. So no one really noticed or cared if he ran cattle on the 600 acres surrounding his land. After 100 years or so the family came to believe all this land they'd been using was theirs. Then the feds started caring. If you want to graze your cows on this land, you need to pay for the privilege. The feds reclaimed their water rights and so on. Well. So what? There are thousands of ranchers, ranching millions of acres. Who's to say I can't do what we've always done? How are you going to make them pay? Well, you're going to put a lien on the 100 acres we DO own to try to collect the many many dollars the fed claim we owe, for land we've been using as if it's our own for generations. That was the original "Bundy" situation. This deal in Oregon has is roots in the same sort of situations. The people who were charged with arson apparently caused a fire on their land, which spread to federal land that they pretty much considered their land... and so it goes.

[Boston Babe 73]

But in their defense, the Feds DID bully the other ranchers out of the land they actually did own by taking away easement rights etc. So, the Feds are being seriously mean about it trying to get them to leave.

[puzzld]

But in their defense, the Feds DID bully the other ranchers out of the land they actually did own by taking away easement rights etc. So, the Feds are being seriously mean about it trying to get them to leave.

Yeah. I haven't followed this case all that closely, but when the feds want your land for a dam or a bombing range or a pipeline? You're pretty much toast. There's wrong on both sides... people who hate welfare, feeding at the gov'ment trough. People losing land that's been their family's for generations...

[Boston Babe 73]

Yeah. I haven't followed this case all that closely, but when the feds want your land for a dam or a bombing range or a pipeline? You're pretty much toast. There's wrong on both sides... people who hate welfare, feeding at the gov'ment trough. People losing land that's been their family's for generations...

Exactly. Wrong on both sides and the double standard infuriates me. If they weren't white, this would have been over an hour after they pulled something and they'd all be dead.

[puzzld]

Exactly. Wrong on both sides and the double standard infuriates me. If they weren't white, this would have been over an hour after they pulled something and they'd all be dead.

Not necessarily. See my post re:Alcatraz.

[bermstalker]

Yeah. I haven't followed this case all that closely, but when the feds want your land for a dam or a bombing range or a pipeline? You're pretty much toast. There's wrong on both sides... people who hate welfare, feeding at the gov'ment trough. People losing land that's been their family's for generations...

Some pipeline companies will re-route if there is enough stink thrown by landowners. Sometimes it's not possible to re-route due to other issues (such as protected land, wildlife, rocks, mountains, etc)
You're right tho. If they need your land, they will get it. There's not much you can do if it's determined your land is the easiest/cheapest way to go.
I was on one job where they had a homeowners group that patrolled our work area. They were just waiting for one of us to get off the "right a away". These were homeowners that were pissed that the pipeline couldn't be stopped from coming on their land. It was a very scary situation.

The government has been taking pieces of the rancher's land for years. Most of the rancher's land is broken up in pieces. For example: they will have 20 acres surrounding their house, then another 50 one mile down the road. The government will own the chunk in the middle. Then the government closes off the road access to the seperated acres so the rancher can't get back there.
Land is valuable. Especially where these ranchers live. No so much valuable for the land you see.......but very valuable for the things that are UNDER the land AKA shale.

[bermstalker]

This is from the livestock news.
http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-11...e-theres-smoke

The Department of Justice news release said arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Judge Michael Hogan, however, did not give the two men the minimum sentence called for under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, saying it would have been ?grossly disproportionate? to the crime. He added that a longer sentence would not meet any idea he has of justice and that he didn?t believe congress intended that act to be applied in cases like the Hammond one. A longer sentence than the few months he gave them would ?shock his conscience? he said.

The Department of Justice appealed for a full sentence.

The first fire, in 2001, was a planned burn on Hammonds? own property to reduce juniper trees that have become invasive in that part of the country. That fire burned outside the Hammonds? private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.

?They called and got permission to light the fire,? Dwight?s wife, Susan, said, adding that was customary for ranchers conducting range management burns ? a common practice in the area.

?We usually called the interagency fire outfit ? a main dispatch ? to be sure someone wasn?t in the way or that weather wouldn?t be a problem.? Susan said her son Steven was told that the BLM was conducting a burn of their own somewhere in the region the same day, and that they believed there would be no problem with the Hammonds going ahead with their planned fire. The court transcript includes a recording from that phone conversation.

In cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the court transcript also includes an admission from Mr. Ward, a range conservationist, that the 2001 fire improved the rangeland conditions on the BLM property.

Susan said the second fire, in 2006, was a backfire started by Steven to protect their property from lightning fires.

?There was fire all around them that was going to burn our house and all of our trees and everything. The opportunity to set a back-fire was there and it was very successful. It saved a bunch of land from burning,? she remembers.

The BLM asserts that one acre of federal land was burned by the Hammonds? backfire and Susan says determining which fire burned which land is ?a joke? because fire burned from every direction.

Neighbor Ruthie Danielson also remembers that evening and agrees. ?Lightning strikes were everywhere, fires were going off,? she said.

Charges

The Hammonds were charged with nine counts in the original court case.

The BLM accused the Hammonds of several 2006 fires, including a large one known as the Granddad, which blazed about 46,000 acres.

According to the 2012 sentencing document, the jury found the men innocent or were deadlocked on all but two counts ? the two fires the men admitted to starting ? burning a total of about 140 acres.

Judge Hogen dismissed testimony from a disgruntled grandson who testified that the 2001 fire endangered his life and that of local hunters, saying the boy was very young and referencing a feud that may have influenced the testimony.

?Well, the damage was juniper trees and sagebrush, and there might have been a hundred dollars,? he added.

More to the story?

During her tenure as a full time BLM employee from 1997-1999, Maupin recalls other fires accidentally spilling over onto BLM land, but only the Hammonds have been charged, arrested and sentenced, she said. Ranchers might be burning invasive species or maybe weeds in the ditch. ?They would call and the BLM would go and help put it out and it was not a big deal.?

On the flip side, Maupin remembers numerous times that BLM-lit fires jumped to private land. Neighbors lost significant numbers of cattle in more than one BLM fire that escaped intended containment lines and quickly swallowed up large amounts of private land. To her knowledge, no ranchers have been compensated for lost livestock or other loss of property such as fences.

Gary Miller, who ranches near Frenchglen, about 35 miles from the Hammonds? hometown, said that in 2012, the BLM lit numerous backfires that ended up burning his private land, BLM permit and killing about 65 cows.

A YouTube video named BLM Working at Burning Frenchglen-July 10, 2012 shows ?back burn? fires allegedly lit by BLM personnel that are upwind of the main fire, including around Gary Miller?s corrals. The fire that appeared ready to die down several times, eventually burned around 160,000 acres, Miller said.

Bill Wilber, a Harney County rancher, said five lightening strikes on July 13, 2014, merged to create a fire on Bartlett Mountain. The fire flew through his private ground, burned a BLM allotment and killed 39 cows and calves.

While the fire could have been contained and stopped, BLM restrictions prevent local firefighting efforts like building a fireline, so only after taking in 397,000 acres did the fire finally stop when it came up against a series of roads.

[bermstalker]

Sorry for the triple post, but I wanted to add in the "why the Hammond's?"


I really do believe the Hammonds were unfairly targeted. They're the only landowners left. I do believe the govern. wants their property.
Do I believe they're completely innocent? No. I think the Hammond's son is the one who kept egging the BLM on.

Why the Hammonds?

“The story is like an onion, you just keep peeling back the layers,” Maupin said.

In an effort to stave off what they feared was a pending Clinton/Babbitt monument designation in 2000, a group of ranchers on the scenic Steens Mountain worked with Oregon Representative Greg Walden, a Republican, to draft and enact the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act that would prevent such a deed. The ranchers agreed to work with special interest “environmental” groups like the aggressive Oregon Natural Desert Association and others to protect the higher-than 10,000-foot peak.

A number of ranchers at the top of the mountain traded their BLM permits and private property for land on the valley floor, allowing Congress to create a 170,000 acre wilderness in 2000, with almost 100,000 acres being “cow-free.”

“The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness are the Hammonds,” said Maupin. Though some still have BLM grazing permits, the Hammonds are the last private landowners in the area.

“It’s become more and more obvious over the years that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch. It would tie in with what they have,” said Rusty Inglis, an area rancher and retired U.S. Forest Service employee.

The Hammonds also lost their ability to water cattle on one BLM permit when refuge personnel drained a watering hole that the Hammonds had always used.

Maupin said the government scientists and resource managers working “on the ground” supported the Hammonds’ use of the water but that the high level bureaucrats backed special interest anti-grazing groups. “There is a huge disconnect between employees on the ground and the decision-makers.” She said that divide builds tension between ranchers and federal agencies.

In the Hammonds’ plea agreement in the 2012 trial, the BLM obtained the first right of refusal should the family have to sell their private land, Maupin added.

The Maupins themselves had a small lease that also bordered the “cow-free wilderness” and the Oregon Natural Desert Association was “relentless in their pursuit to have us off, in order to expand the cow-free wilderness,” Maupin said. The group would criticize the ranchers’ water usage, causing them to pipe water to their cattle, which in turn instigated more complaints from the group.

Eventually the Maupins sold their permit and moved.

But the Hammonds remained.

Steve and Dwight Hammond will turn themselves in for their prison sentences in early January, Susan said.

The family has sold cattle. Their BLM permit has not been renewed for two years, leaving them unable to use a large amount of intermingled private land.

The family is in the “last challenge” to re-obtain their grazing permit. “I don’t know what happens after that,” Susan said. “We have done everything according to their rules and regulations and there is no reason that they should not give us back our permit. We don’t understand how a federal land management agency can ‘take’ personal private property (checkerboarded with BLM land) in this manner.

“We’ve been fighting it for five years. We don’t want to destroy people as we are fighting it even if it is a BLM employee,” she said, “They live in our community and they have families. We respect that.” The situation could get even more ugly but “it’s not going to be our fault,” she said.

And here is another article with a different point of view. I think those wacko Bundy brothers have all their information messed up.
http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/2016/...tion/78372334/

SInce I like history...here is the National Geo article. Some pretty good stuff.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...ation-history/

[Ron_NYC]

Certainly most land in the west... Some of the eastern states were owned by other countries at the time they were settled, so technically never "federal" land. But these guys are doing something different than the homesteader thing.

Say my grandpa owned 100 acres (either he bought or inherited it, but he clearly holds the title) and his land is surrounded by land still owned by the feds. So no one really noticed or cared if he ran cattle on the 600 acres surrounding his land. After 100 years or so the family came to believe all this land they'd been using was theirs. Then the feds started caring. If you want to graze your cows on this land, you need to pay for the privilege. The feds reclaimed their water rights and so on. Well. So what? There are thousands of ranchers, ranching millions of acres. Who's to say I can't do what we've always done? How are you going to make them pay? Well, you're going to put a lien on the 100 acres we DO own to try to collect the many many dollars the fed claim we owe, for land we've been using as if it's our own for generations. That was the original "Bundy" situation. This deal in Oregon has is roots in the same sort of situations. The people who were charged with arson apparently caused a fire on their land, which spread to federal land that they pretty much considered their land... and so it goes.

Wait, so people own land? And there are acres of land?

This whole post sounds like a Disney movie. I don't understand any of it. I just know laughing at Yallqueda never gets old.

[puzzld]

Some pipeline companies will re-route if there is enough stink thrown by landowners. Sometimes it's not possible to re-route due to other issues (such as protected land, wildlife, rocks, mountains, etc)
You're right tho. If they need your land, they will get it. There's not much you can do if it's determined your land is the easiest/cheapest way to go.
I was on one job where they had a homeowners group that patrolled our work area. They were just waiting for one of us to get off the "right a away". These were homeowners that were pissed that the pipeline couldn't be stopped from coming on their land. It was a very scary situation.

I can imagine. Some of these folks are scary as Hell. Great people, most of them, but some are really nuts and then you get them riled up and...woah Nelly.

The government has been taking pieces of the rancher's land for years. Most of the rancher's land is broken up in pieces. For example: they will have 20 acres surrounding their house, then another 50 one mile down the road. The government will own the chunk in the middle. Then the government closes off the road access to the seperated acres so the rancher can't get back there.
Land is valuable. Especially where these ranchers live. No so much valuable for the land you see.......but very valuable for the things that are UNDER the land AKA shale.

Yep. Course that was often a deliberate choice on the land owners part... or at least their ancestors. I'll get this section. My kids will get this section and the one over there... and we can control the whole valley. We'll have the water tied up and it won't be worth it for anyone else to even try to farm the two sections in between us. Then as the years pass we end up with this delusion of ownership. Yes land and mineral rights are valuable, throw in a darned spotted owl or two that some durn fool in Washington wants to protect. Then have a few people set up meth labs on "government" land and you're ripe for trouble.

[puzzld]

Wait, so people own land? And there are acres of land?

This whole post sounds like a Disney movie. I don't understand any of it. I just know laughing at Yallqueda never gets old.

Millions of acres Ron. Millions. My brother farms about 1500 acres. A smallish spread for his neck of the woods. Figure each acre is roughly the size of a football field... now brother doesn't own all that land. Or even any of it? I don't know for sure. Some belongs to his Dad, some to an uncle some belongs to a neighbor who has retired to town. He's a quiet sensible chap, my brother. Would never occupy a bird sanctuary... but he understands why some would.

But yes these characters are fighting a losing battle and making fools of themselves in the process.

[Ron_NYC]

Millions of acres Ron. Millions. My brother farms about 1500 acres. A smallish spread for his neck of the woods. Figure each acre is roughly the size of a football field... now brother doesn't own all that land. Or even any of it? I don't know for sure. Some belongs to his Dad, some to an uncle some belongs to a neighbor who has retired to town. He's a quiet sensible chap, my brother. Would never occupy a bird sanctuary... but he understands why some would.

But yes these characters are fighting a losing battle and making fools of themselves in the process.

"Central Park is an urban park in middle-upper Manhattan, New York City. Central Park is the most visited urban park in the United States as well as one of the most filmed locations in the world. It was established in 1857 on 778 acres of city-owned land. .......
Construction continued during the American Civil War further south, and was expanded to its current size of 843 acres in 1873."


HOW AND WHY IS ANYTHING BIGGER THAN THAT AND HOW CAN ONE PERSON OWN IT!?!?!

I don't even understand how someone farms a football field. You people have too much fucking space. Take some of these people. We're out of room. Seriously.

The funny part is, just like with "guns for protection" the people yapping the loudest about refugees are the furthest removed from the whole situation. SMH "We don't want em here!" like a bunch of people are heading to Montana.



Yea, I have no idea what these guys are doing, but I'll be honest, I don't really care to understand. Their land gripes mean as much to me as construction on the A train means to them.

[puzzld]

"Central Park is an urban park in middle-upper Manhattan, New York City. Central Park is the most visited urban park in the United States as well as one of the most filmed locations in the world. It was established in 1857 on 778 acres of city-owned land. .......
Construction continued during the American Civil War further south, and was expanded to its current size of 843 acres in 1873."


HOW AND WHY IS ANYTHING BIGGER THAN THAT AND HOW CAN ONE PERSON OWN IT!?!?!

I don't even understand how someone farms a football field. You people have too much fucking space. Take some of these people. We're out of room. Seriously.

For an average corn yield of 182 bushels per acre at $4.55 per bushel, the 2013 net return is projected at $275 per acre. Soybean returns are estimated at $338 per acre in 2013 on 52-bushel per acre yields at a $12.80 per bushel.

So, if you raise 1500 acres of corn you have a $700,000 dollar crop. Assuming you don't get flooded, hailed or grasshoppered out. Of course then you have to subtract the cost of your operation. Fuel, equipment, hired help and so on. And of course you've got to buy seed etc., for next year. You can just about make a decent living farming 1500 acres out here. I would guess that my brother puts about $40,000 in his pocket and maybe pays his son about $20,000 for the work he does (they both have 'town' jobs too) Other parts of the country can get bigger yields or raise crops that sell for more money. But, you can see how every "free" acre you can control helps. Of course I don't think most of these Bundy yahoos are farmers, but rather ranchers, and there's no downside to the rancher who runs his cows on federal land, as long as no one notices.

The funny part is, just like with "guns for protection" the people yapping the loudest about refugees are the furthest removed from the whole situation. SMH "We don't want em here!" like a bunch of people are heading to Montana.



Yea, I have no idea what these guys are doing, but I'll be honest, I don't really care to understand. Their land gripes mean as much to me as construction on the A train means to them.

I don't hear people out here yapping about guns for protection. At least not from random humans. Cougars, skunks, coyotes yes. People no. Also they want to make sure they can still have guns to hunt and run the feds off...

[Ron_NYC]

I don't hear people out here yapping about guns for protection. At least not from random humans. Cougars, skunks, coyotes yes. People no. Also they want to make sure they can still have guns to hunt and run the feds off...

Oh, the online crazies do. That's the most I'm really exposed to it.

And the next time some rube talks about how "HUGE" NYC is, I'm going to remind them that their farm is bigger

[marycontrary]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ild-abuse.html

These ranchers that just went to jail have been investigated for child abuse of the troubled teen who testified against them. Pictures of the abuse are at the link. I don't understand why charges weren't brought forth.

[puzzld]

For whatever it's worth...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/0...s?detail=email

[Boston Babe 73]

You can't take these assholes seriously. They're doing this because to most of them it's a good time, not standing up for what is right. Fucking twats. To even compare them to actual Patriots is an insult.

[bowieluva]

You can't take these assholes seriously. They're doing this because to most of them it's a good time, not standing up for what is right. Fucking twats. To even compare them to actual Patriots is an insult.

They're doing it because they want to occupy the land long enough to have legal rights to profit off it with their ranches.

[Ron_NYC]

This is America. If you don't like it, you can get out.

[Boston Babe 73]

They're doing it because they want to occupy the land long enough to have legal rights to profit off it with their ranches.

By drinking donations. Mmmmmkay.

[blighted star]

Oh, the online crazies do. That's the most I'm really exposed to it.

And the next time some rube talks about how "HUGE" NYC is, I'm going to remind them that their farm is bigger

LOL, I had cousins on 50,000 hectares in central west NSW (that's abour 123, 552 acres). It was an overnight trip to check the back fence - & while their property was the biggest in their tiny town, it wasn't on the list of biggest in the country, or even the state.


I think the biggest one here is Anna Creek Station which is 11 million hectares (an acre is .4047 of a hectare)



There's a lot of land out there & it's really hard to visualise it if you haven't spent much time out of the cities.

[Boston Babe 73]

I'm wondering. Do they have actual plumbing at this joint? Or is it latrines or porta potties. Because someone is going to be sorry after a week or so.

[puzzld]

I'm wondering. Do they have actual plumbing at this joint? Or is it latrines or porta potties. Because someone is going to be sorry after a week or so.

I'm sure it does have plumbing and a septic system at least. It sounds like a cool place.

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Malheur/about.html
https://www.facebook.com/malheurrefuge

[puzzld]

Update at 2 p.m.: Armed members of the Pacific Patriot Network are leaving the occupied Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Joseph Rice, a spokesman for the network, told reporters that his group presented occupation leader Ammon Bundy and other protesters with "articles of resolution."

He didn't say what was in the document, but noted that his group wants to move the sides to an end to the standoff.

Then network members got into most of the cars and trucks they'd parked nearby and started heading out of the reserve.

Rice didn't address whether his group would return, saying only: "We are moving on to present them (the articles of resolution) to other government agencies."

The network is maintaining a neutral stance in the dispute, he said.

Update at 1:45 p.m.: Todd MacFarlane, a Utah lawyer acting as a mediator, said occupation leader Ammon Bundy doesn't want the armed visitors there.

Bundy's message: "We don't need that. We don't want it and we're asking you to leave," MacFarlane told reporters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

MacFarlane said he had just met with Bundy and other leaders of the occupation.

They're "alarmed" by the arrival of Pacific Patriot Network members, some carrying rifles, and concerned about the perception they convey.

"This was the last thing in the world they wanted to see happen," MacFarlane said.

Bundy didn't request the presence of the network, he said, and has "tried to put out the word: 'We don't need you.'"

*****

12:30 p.m.:

BURNS -- A week into their standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Ammon Bundy and his band of militants have given the place a new name and acquired a rifle-wielding "security detail."

Members of the Pacific Patriot Network, a consortium of several groups from Oregon, Washington and Idaho, arrived mid-morning, carrying rifles and sidearms and clad in military attire and bulletproof vests.

Their leader, Brandon Curtiss, said the group came to "de-escalate" the situation by providing security for those inside and outside the compound. About a half-dozen rifles were visible among the two dozen new arrivals. They aren't staying in the compound, Curtiss said, but are patrolling the perimeter of the reserve.

The ornate sign that used to greet visitors with "Welcome To Your National Wildlife Refuge" now advertises the headquarters of the "Harney County Resource Center" in white block letters over a blue background.
Idaho 3% president and LaVoy Finicum speak about arrival of additional militants at Burns occupation At what has become the regular 11am press conference given by the militants occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Brandon Curtis of the Idaho 3% and LaVoy Finicum spoke about the presence of as many as 100 additional armed men who have arrived at the compound on Saturday, January 9, 2016.

The new name gives credence to the protesters' claim that the refuge and all on-site buildings, equipment and supplies now belong to the people of Harney County. It also hints at their intent to stay here for the long haul.

LaVoy Finicum, one of the group's most vocal members, said the Bundy crew appreciates the Pacific Patriot Network's help, but "we want the long guns put away." Bundy didn't appear at the daily morning news conference.

Finicum said the refuge occupiers are now taking up the cause of other area ranchers who have complaints against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. He wouldn't name the ranchers, but said the militants plan to dismantle a fence that keeps one rancher's cattle off some federal land.

It's all part of an increasingly bizarre scene at the bird sanctuary 30 miles south of the county's largest town, where a standoff that has often resembled a friendly bonfire party is beginning to look more like an armed occupation.

Bundy, an Arizona businessman and son of controversial Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, led a group of militant protesters last Saturday in a sudden takeover of the refuge. The group's leaders say they plan to stay until local rancher Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven, are released from prison and the 187,000-acre refuge is divvied up among area residents to be used for livestock grazing and logging.

A federal court judge ordered the Hammonds back to prison to finish out five-year arson sentences for setting fires that damaged federal land. They reported Monday to a prison in California after earlier serving lighter sentences in the case.

Public officials from the Burns mayor to Oregon Gov. Kate Brown have ordered the militants to pack up and leave, but Bundy has made it clear he has no immediate plans to comply.

So far, law enforcement officers have made no attempt to force him out, although Bundy and the group have a standing offer from Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward to avoid arrest if they leave peacefully. It's unclear whether that offer comes with a deadline.

Other than the presence of the new visitors, the refuge headquarters remained much the same as it has throughout the week: Power remains on in the buildings, militants and local residents can travel back and forth to town freely and no roadblocks exist on the way to the refuge.

Meanwhile, the new sign at the refuge seems to indicate that the militants are digging their heels in deeper. The sign comes with a fresh moniker for the group members, who now call themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom. Their ranks appear to have grown beyond the core 20 to 25 protesters, but it's impossible to say by how many because of all the comings and goings.

The Pacific Patriot Network members say they don't support the refuge takeover, but agree with Bundy's crusade against federal land managers.

On Saturday morning, Curtiss said he intends to meet with standoff organizers as well as local public officials and law enforcement to come to a "peaceful resolution."

"We are not the militia, and we are not a militia," he said, adding that he "they're here for everybody's safety, on both sides."

Law enforcement authorities including the FBI and sheriff's deputies from across the state have converted the Burns school district headquarters into a makeshift command post with around-the-clock security. However, they have no evident presence in or around the refuge.

On Saturday, militants openly drove government-owned vehicles and heavy equipment around the compound, proclaiming that the trucks and backhoes now belong to the local community. At the same time, they limited access to the refuge buildings, arguing that letting reporters and photographers inside would pose a safety hazard.

Meanwhile, members of the Pacific Patriot Network guarded the refuge entrance with guns in their hands and masks concealing their faces.

"No comment," one of them responded when asked what kind of gun he was carrying.

-- Kelly House
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...ty_detail.html

[blighted star]

Sorry. Had to.




http://www.theshovel.com.au/2016/01/...e-paint-fades/

The gang of black and Middle-Eastern terrorists who stormed and seized a wildlife refuge in the US have been shot and killed, bringing to an end the tense nine-day standoff.

The heavily armed group ? who many assumed to be white until their face paint faded ? had demanded that two members of their organisation be released from incarceration. They also threatened to shoot any Federal officers who approached the wildlife office they had taken by force.

After negotiations broke down and the white face paint began to sweat off the terrorists? faces, Federal forces saw their chance, surrounding and then opening fire on the building. All twenty-four terrorists were killed.

?The face paint was getting in their eyes, so that?s when we realised it would be a good time to strike,? an FBI spokesperson said.

Earlier, the group had asked their supporters to send tubs of Miracle Whip ? a white salad dressing cream ? which it is now believed was to be used to top up face paint supplies