Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Boy Scouts: BLM Eyeing Our Camp (Video)
Breitbart ^ | Apr. 28, 2014 10:44am | Sara Carter

Posted on 04/29/2014 7:15:54 AM PDT by Texas Fossil

WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS--With the focus on the possible loss of property held for generations of ranchland owners in north Texas, others who might also be affected by the BLM’s Red River Land Grab could be overlooked. During a meeting with Texas State Senator Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls), Breitbart Texas learned that land owned by the Northwest Texas Council of the Boy Scouts of America is also reportedly being targeted by the BLM land management study. Boy Scout Council President, Wayne Mansur, sat down with Breitbart Texas to explain what his organization and the young people he serves are facing.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: blm; boyscouts; land; texas
Rogue BLM Insanity.

It is TIME to DownSize DC! Close entire Rogue/Unconstitutional Departments including their SWAT Teams.

1 posted on 04/29/2014 7:15:54 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Barack Obama: “I can pretty much do whatever I want.”


2 posted on 04/29/2014 7:20:07 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

When you look at 90,000 acres along the Red in Texas it will involve a lot of
different owners/users. 90,000 acres is just a tad over 140 sq. miles.

The BLM is looking at TX/OK/KS with the intent of having new policies in place by
2017. The potential exist for major changes as to how the land will be utililzed.

BLM planning notice:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/219455667/OFO-Newsletter-Final-i


3 posted on 04/29/2014 7:30:14 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

I must be missing something here. Does the BLM own the Red River bed?

If the river moves to the South, parts of Texas could be in Oklahoma, but still owned by ranchers in Texas, and if the river moves North, parts of Oklahoma could be in Texas and owned by ranchers in Oklahoma.

So where does the BLM come in on this? This sounds more like a state issue than a BLM issue.


4 posted on 04/29/2014 7:38:46 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

And do it unilaterally, state by state. We need to demonstrate at our state capitals and demand that the EPA, NEA, OSHA, BLM, ATF, FBI, etc be removed from our states. Demand means just that, that we should say, “We will make this happen with without your approval.” Peaceful demonstrations you understand, but I don’t think there’s any reason to concern ourselves with popularity. After all, this isn’t a democracy. We’re subject to God, not the will of the masses.


5 posted on 04/29/2014 7:39:09 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

As long as the BSA is sure to raise their new rainbow flag over the camp...they’ll be fine.


6 posted on 04/29/2014 7:40:58 AM PDT by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

They claim the “waterways”.

Twisted legal logic.

All the property both sides of the Red River has deeds from statehood.

But BLM now claims it.


7 posted on 04/29/2014 7:43:29 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

States are the federal government’s tax collectors. I was looking at a map of the Mississippi River and saw that parts of Arkansas were on the east and parts of Ms were on the west. I guess borders don’t move with the river.


8 posted on 04/29/2014 7:43:45 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Hedley Lamarr: Wait a minute... there might be legal precedent. Of course! Land-snatching!

[grabs a law book]

Hedley Lamarr: Land, land... “Land: see Snatch.”

[flips back several pages]

Hedley Lamarr: Ah, Haley vs. United States. Haley: 7, United States: nothing. You see, it can be done!


9 posted on 04/29/2014 8:30:45 AM PDT by BradtotheBone (Record number of people on welfare. That's the State of the Union under Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar; Texas Fossil
The feds layed claim to the south half of the river bed at the time SCOTUS was hearing the case back then in 1918 or 1924, I don't recall the exact year.

And supposedly, this was upheld in 1984 when the feds got the 140 acres.

These numbers, 90,000 acres and 136 linear miles of river, are scientific wild ass guesses(SWAG). Its a strip on land, undetermined at this point.

10 posted on 04/29/2014 9:54:50 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Did everyone know that when Barry got elected he cancelled the tradition of sending Eagle Scouts a letter of congrats? Sure it was an auto-pen signature but still. I have mine, Reagan was President.


11 posted on 04/29/2014 10:48:24 AM PDT by freebird5850 (The only good thing about Barry getting re-elected is now we get to see him fall from a higher place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freebird5850

Doesn’t surprise me in the least. He has absolute contempt for everything the BSA DID represent (until last year.)


12 posted on 04/29/2014 11:13:09 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: deport

I think Rick Perry and Craig Abbott are going to be a little harder to deal with than Mr. Bundy. LOL!


13 posted on 04/29/2014 11:22:30 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

The 1984 (interesting year) case did not have Greg Abbott or Ted Cruz involved.

The Fed Gov is in Full Rogue mode. Long overdue cutting down to size defined in the Constitution.

It is TIME to DownSize DC. Close Entire Rogue/Unconstitutional Departments, including their SWAT Teams.


14 posted on 04/29/2014 6:22:03 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
The feds layed claim to the south half of the river bed at the time SCOTUS was hearing the case back then in 1918 or 1924, I don't recall the exact year.

And supposedly, this was upheld in 1984 when the feds got the 140 acres.

The Constitution's reservation of navigable waterways was for purposes of guaranteeing free trade across and between States. That implies that all they truly control is the surface plus the draft depth, not the banks.

15 posted on 04/29/2014 8:58:42 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

“Would you like some more beans there Mr. Taggart?”


16 posted on 04/30/2014 3:58:21 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil; All

Does the BSA still have a “marksmanship” badge???

;-)

Jus’ askin’...


17 posted on 04/30/2014 3:59:15 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; All

The issue of navigable waterways has always been a historical booger-boo in Texas...Where the founders believed Texas would have a plethora of rivers to go up and down with commerce...It would son be found out that was not the case...

Yes, there are a few waterways, but compared to the total of rivers that “might” be able to support navigation by large commercial shipping, there are not that many...And those that are, are close to the coast...Not very far inland...

At least that is what I have heard over the years...

The Red River, is one of those types that are not good for commerce in the normal convention...

Not in that area up there between Oklahoma and Texas...

There is something else called “natural resources” that could be brought into play, and that means someone or something stands to make a lot of money with a deal utilizing the government to displace citizens from their land that has been in their families for generations up there...

And that IS their main play at this time...

The government will not make the same mistake it made in Nevada...they know the public, or at least we are, who pay attention, will be forming opposition groups and facing off with them directly...

What we need are lawyers who believe as we do and take it to the government in the courts...

This is all far from over...And where you see the BLM SWAT guys forming up, that’s where we need to be in our capacity...

Just remember, we cannot shoot first...We will have to take a bloody nose first and foremost, we ill win the court of public opinion at that point, and anyone with that effort that anoints themselves as a “leader”: of those forces had better be well-spoken, measure every single syllable, and not say anything that could, and will be actively sought to be used against our efforts by the complicit media that works with the government to obtain these goals...

Just my opinion...


18 posted on 04/30/2014 4:11:27 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

I don’t know for sure, but I bet they do.


19 posted on 04/30/2014 5:20:45 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

Bump


20 posted on 04/30/2014 5:25:35 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

I guess borders don’t move with the river.

****************************************************
Sometimes they do. Which is a problem.


21 posted on 04/30/2014 6:08:06 AM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar; Texas Fossil; Ben Ficklin; Carry_Okie
I must be missing something here. Does the BLM own the Red River bed?

If the river moves to the South, parts of Texas could be in Oklahoma, but still owned by ranchers in Texas, and if the river moves North, parts of Oklahoma could be in Texas and owned by ranchers in Oklahoma.

So where does the BLM come in on this? This sounds more like a state issue than a BLM issue.

**********************************************************
I had similar questions, and here's what I have found so far:

Background info on the Henderson case and the Oklahoma/Texas Boundary are noted below:

The ADAMS/ONIS TREATY of 1819:
http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Adams_Onis_Treaty_1819.pdf

SUPREME COURT CASES:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/260/606

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/172

Rule of ERROSION and ACCRETION: If a stream changes gradually due to natural erosion and accretion, the boundary changes. (With current day technology, I don't know that this is even necessary).

Rule of AVULSION: If a river suddenly leaves it’s bed and forms a new one whether by natural or some other means, the boundary does not change, even though the course of the river changes.

A brief description of each and how they impact Texas and the HENDERSON CASE.

This treaty of 1819 settled the boundaries of USA purchase/ownership of land. One of the issues was the boundary between current day Oklahoma and Texas.

Adams was determined to have the whole of the Red River belong to the USA. The Spanish representative wanted it to be the medial point of the River, but eventually acquiesced to Adams.(Note many states do use the medial line of a river as the boundary between them). If the medial point had been chosen, there would not have been as much contention.

Both parties agreed that the people of both nations could continue to use the Red River. Any islands in the River were to also be the property of the USA. Any grants made prior to Jan 24, 1818 to individuals were to be honored.

The Supreme Court relied heavily on the Treaty in their decision regarding the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. There is also the treaty with the Indians to consider, which I haven’t had time to track down.

The various court rulings have resulted in the following:

1. Oklahoma Plaintiffs(Riparian Owners) awarded the lands north of the medial line of the Red River.

2. Lands lying in the bed of the river south of the medial line are in trust for the Indians (owned by USA -hence the BLM “management”).

3. Lands of the south bank belong to Texas Land Owners subject to the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion.(A bunch of twisted rules that should be outdated by modern technological ability - JMHO).

4. The bank of the river on the south side was determined by the Supreme Court to be the high water mark - not the low water mark.(I agree with the dissenting opinion here - it should have been the low water mark).

The judge who ruled on the Henderson case relied on the prior court rulings and the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion. Here’s a link to the case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220303420/Currington-v-Henderson-1986

It sucks. I think if Henderson could trace the ownership back to an original Spanish Land Grant which included ownership to the medial point of the River, or even to the low water mark, he might have been able to prevail.

His family had ownership back to the later 1800’s, IIRC from his interview with Greta, but not back to 1818.

Note: In all the agreements and info I have tracked down so far, the rights of individual landowners have been acknowledged. However, the courts are looking back to the Adams/Onis Treaty, and so far the deeds in the cases where the landowners lost have not gone back that far.

22 posted on 04/30/2014 6:24:08 AM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Texas Fossil; Ruy Dias de Bivar
Apparently it didn't have anything to do with navigation.

It goes back to claims that the US made on the northern half of the river bed and claims that Spain, Mexico, and Texas never made. And those claims that the US made on the northern half were inherited by OK when she became a state.

The issue that precipitated this particular court case was oil. Oil was discovered and some of these Texas drillers were directional drilling to the north and producing oil from lands owned by Okies. So Oklahoma sued Texas. And in this case the US claimed the southern half of the bed, AND THE MINERAL RIGHTS BENEATH THE BED.

The other dispute is where the Red intersects the longitudinal line border. In that corner there are 3 forks to the river. Texas established the north fork as the boundary, but in a treaty with the Indians, the US established the middle fork as the boundary.

We look at this issue backwards, literally. We need to go back to 1907 and look forward to get a different perspective. 1918 and 1924 are not long after 1907.

Also, you need to realize there are other issues in play. Texas has been trying to get the water out of Oklahoma's Kiamichi River and the courts(federal) keep ruling against Texas. And, it is campaign season in Texas.

23 posted on 04/30/2014 7:14:55 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

Ta daaaaaa!!! Bingo!!!

Natural resources...Ding ding ding winner winner winner...

Post of the thread award!!!


24 posted on 04/30/2014 10:30:18 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson