Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Federal gov & land grabs category.

Butte County says it will file lawsuit to oppose “twin tunnels” proposal

Lawsuits, State gov, Water, Resources & Quality

County to file suit to oppose ‘twin tunnels’ proposal

Chico Enterprise-Record

Butte County plans to file a lawsuit over the plan to bury a pair of tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to move Sacramento River water south.

County supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to file the suit against the Department of Water Resources over the so-called “California WaterFix,” the largest part of which is the “twin tunnels” proposal.

No Comments

LA County Admits Number Of Registered Voters At 144% Of Resident Citizens Of Voting Age

CA & OR, Elections, State gov

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-05/california-has-11-counties-more-registered-voters-voting-age-citizens

PNP comment: This is a very interesting read! — Editor Liz Bowen

No Comments

Militias, Martyrs and McVeigh, Oh My!

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Lawsuits, Liberty

Redoubt News.com

August 5, 2017

This has been a very eventful week in the Bunkerville Retrial of four defendants. The prosecution has demonized these good men at every turn. They have portrayed them as lawless militia, anti-government radicals, and immoral propagandists.

by Shari Dovale

I Guess I Was Wrong”

The week began with more government agents taking the witness stand to tell how afraid they were of these gun-totin’ cowboys. BLM Special Agent Robert Shilaikis took some video of the events on April 12, 2014, because he was expecting a gunfight and wanted documentation. He was afraid that memories would fade over time.

He did not video record any protesters firing weapons. He admitted that some of his commentary of the videos was based on reviewing the footage later, not on what he saw at the time. He had to clarify some of his commentary, and his identification, as he was shown to be mistaken during his testimony.

“I Guess I Was Wrong,” he would say at least twice when confronted with his own video proof contradicting his testimony.

Shilaikis showed his bias repeatedly during his testimony, and the defense called him out on it. Profiling everyone as militia based on their clothing was a point for the defense to grill him on. He testified as to the defendants “ideology” and was asked how he could “see” that on the videos?

Special Agent in Charge Dan Love, April 12, 2014

Judge Gloria Navarro jumped in on the bias when the defense attempted to compare and contrast the witnesses statements towards the defendants when they began to question the witness about Special Agent in Charge Dan Love, and his dress of camo, tactical gear, and a black hat turned backwards on his head. After all, they had demonized “Black Hat” Eric Parker over these very points. The theory put forth was that, by turning his ball cap around, Parker was ready to shoot his long gun.

Judge Navarro wasn’t having that in her courtroom and refused to allow the testimony.

Sling Your Long Guns”

The jury picked up on several points and asked Shilaikis if anyone pointed a weapon at him. Of course, he had to admit that they did not. The jury also wanted to know about the order to “Sling Your Long Guns” and whether that was meant for just the BLM or all Law Enforcement.

Shilaikis attempted to imply that the order to “Sling” their long guns was more of a suggestion, and that it was a discretionary order. “Each law enforcement officer can make the decision to put away their long gun based on what they perceive as a threat.”

The defense jumped all over that one and the jury did not seem to buy it either.

AUSA Myhre used Special Agent Willis to introduce multiple photos that depicted the same thing. How many times can you see the same picture and not call it “cumulative”? They introduced several photos as evidence that they did not take, but downloaded from various sites on the internet.

Evidence was introduced from the “Frontline” documentary aired on PBS in May 2017. This brings up questions of how PBS was able to obtain sealed discovery for this show. The court is not addressing this issue, but the people want to know.

The prosecutors do not plan to prosecute PBS for releasing sealed discovery evidence. How about they release the rest of the evidence for the public to review?

Another unusual event this week, when a juror was questioned this week about a text message she received from an outside source concerning this trial. The message said, “You have 2 hours more to finished. Pass death sentence on this prisoner.” The juror immediately brought it to the court’s attention and said it would not affect her ability to be impartial. The court accepted that.

What is an FBI Employee?

A very controversial witness took the stand by name of FBI Special Agent Sarah Gibson Draper, of Idaho. Draper was placed in charge of gathering Facebook evidence on Parker, Drexlar and Stewart.

The posts that she introduced discussed the events, but did not directly show any law breaking.

What was most interesting about her testimony was the dancing around concerning “FBI Employees”. Each time an attorney would ask about an “Agent” she would correct them to say “Employee”.

What is the difference between an FBI Agent and an FBI Employee? Draper is attempting to avoid calling them paid informants. They are employees because they are being given compensation by the government, yet they are selecting their words carefully because of the negative connotations of the word “informant”. Judge Navarro does not want that word brought up in front of the jury, and she is very heavy-handed on this issue.

I have noted there seem to have been at least 5-6 informants referenced in this case.

The jurors are not asleep on this issue. Some of their questions were specifically about whether or not the FBI “provoked” or coerced the defendants. They want to know more about this, yet seem to know that the information is being kept from them,

The McVeigh Connection

Draper introduced a Facebook post of Parker’s that was strategically redacted. They omitted references to the “Miller’s: in which Parker praised the patriots for vetting these unstable people and removing them from Bunkerville.

The post also had redactions that told of the reasons the men crouched down on the bridge as they were being “green-lighted”. This means they identified government snipers that had their weapons aimed directly at them.

What they did not omit was a reference to “McVeigh”. The purpose of the government introducing this vague reference was to get Draper to say her “belief” is that this was referring to Timothy McVeigh, and explain to the jury that he was the “Oklahoma City Bomber” that killed over a hundred people. They intention was to imply that the defendants were either connected to McVeigh himself or at least his ideology.

The Prosecutor argued, “There is really not that much difference between what they did and what McVeigh did.”

Therefore, standing on a bridge in Nevada, where no shots were fired nor any person was harmed, afraid of the government’s hundreds of agents with firearms pointed at them, is not much different from blowing up a building and killing over 100 people?

“We or no one that we know of feel he is a martyr for anything,” said John Trochmann, spokesman for the Militia of Montana. “What would we have had to gain from blowing up public property?” asked Trochmann. “Who would gain anything unless someone wanted to pass some new type of anti-militia legislation?” – ABC News

This was completely misleading to the jury. They have cherry-picked evidence and the judge is allowing this. She sees no relevance to anything positive on behalf of the defense and has ruled it is fine to introduce obscure references and personal negative interpretations of those references.

Thumbs Up

Judge Gloria Navarro has stretched the limit of her lack of knowledge on the law. She continuously relies on the prosecution to give her foundations to admit evidence. She references her books while sitting in court to find ways to admit biased evidence.

An example of this is when the prosecution presented a Facebook “Thumbs Up” as a co-conspirator’s statement. If someone else posts a controversial statement, and you “Like” the post, you can now be prosecuted as a “Co-Conspirator”.

According to the rulings in this case, if you “Like” a post, then you have adopted that statement and taken ownership of it as your own statement.

*On a side note, I personally do not like all of the new social engineering emoji reaction buttons that Facebook has introduced. I general show my protest by only using a “Like”, not for agreeing with the post, but for appreciating people getting involved. I “Like” discussion. I “Like” debate. I want people to be involved. It’s the only way to get the truth to some people.

Bad Acts After The Fact

The prosecution has extended the dates of the “Conspiracy” to March 2016. This was deliberate so they could include information on Operation Gold Rush (Sugar Pine Mine, Oregon) and Operation Big Sky (White Hope Mine, Montana). Both operations took place at least a year after Bunkerville.

The government is attempting to show an ongoing agreement to threaten the government. They are attempting to portray these defendants as being so thrilled with their success at Bunkerville, that they formed a group called “Idaho 3%” and went around they country to wave their guns at Federal Agents and keep them from doing their jobs, like take someone’s property unconstitutionally.

They wore camo at these operations, and carried rifles. They conducted security patrols. All are being presented as horrible behavior, and anti-government. The prosecution, and Judge Navarro, have claimed that the ongoing conspiracy included the defendants glorifying the movement and recruiting to their ranks. By sharing the truth of what the government’s alphabet agencies are doing, they are furthering the conspiracy against the government.

The jury is questioning the government’s narrative, shown by the questions of whether or not these defendants are being charged for Sugar Pine or White Hope? Judge Navarro said that they are, as these events are part of the ongoing conspiracy. So now, anyone that was NOT at Bunkerville, yet did participate in Sugar Pine, OR White Hope, are now considered co-conspirators and can be prosecuted.

Is this for real? Only in Gloria Navarro’s courtroom.

Is the Militia Illegal?

When the questioning is completed by the attorneys, the jurors are given the option of asking the witness questions. After the questions are written down and turned over to the judge, she calls a sidebar in which all of the attorneys go behind a wall and discuss these questions before asking them of the witness.

On this particular day, Navarro allowed the jury to go to lunch while the attorneys discussed the questions in the courtroom. This was notable because the gallery audience could now hear the questions and discussion.

One of the questions was “Are Militias Illegal?” The prosecution went so far as to argue, “Yes, they are illegal in many states, including Montana.”

Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Constitution of Montana — Article VI — THE EXECUTIVE

Section 13. Militia. (1) The governor is commander-in-chief of the militia forces of the state, except when they are in the actual service of the United States. He may call out any part or all of the forces to aid in the execution of the laws, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, or protect life and property in natural disasters.
(2) The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state except those exempted by law.

This is the false narrative that the government is using against these defendants. Militias are NOT illegal. It is in the Constitution and they are important to our Nation.

Martyrs

These men were prepared to be martyrs on April 12, 2014. This was evidenced by a video from Steven Stewart taken that day. In it, he states that, “They were threatening us with chemicals earlier, to back down. So we pushed forward. They couldn’t gas us. We were going to be martyrs if they wanted to continue this.” Stewart said on the video.

Conclusion

This entire trial is based on false evidence. They have thrown out the rules of evidence and denied the basic rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Every American should be upset by what is happening in Judge Navarro’s courtroom. If the government is allowed to proceed, and get away with, this mockery of justice, what will stop them from treating every other American the same way.

The prosecution is expected to rest their case on Monday, August 7th. The defense is then expected to take about a week to present their evidence, with the jury receiving the case for deliberations after that.

The target date for the next trial to begin is September 18, 2017. The jury questionnaires were mailed to prospective jurors last week.

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

Militias, Martyrs and McVeigh, Oh My!

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Bunkerville protesters on trial — for protesting

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

This charade of justice continues to devolve into something you’d expect more from a 3rd world government than our government.

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/08/bunkerville-protesters-trial-protesting/

There are a couple more new articles worth reading regarding this trial on the Redoubt News.com  home site.

No Comments

3 Percenters Demonized in Federal Court – Bunkerville Retrial

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Dept. of INTERIOR, Federal gov & land grabs

Oath Keepers.org

 

THESE EVENTS WERE ABOUT GOOD CITIZENS COMING TO THE AID OF THEIR NEIGHBORS.


by Shari Dovale

August 2, 2017


Though the defendants are actually Eric Parker, Scott Drexlar, Steven Stewart and Ricky Lovelein, the prosecution has made their association the the group “Idaho 3%” a material part of the case against them. It is enough to believe the government is trying to prosecute the group, as well as the individuals.

3 Percenters

The Three Percenters (also styled “3%ers”) is an American patriot movement which pledges resistance against the United States government regarding any restriction of the United States Constitution. Their primary purpose is to protect constitutional rights and characterized as being ideologically similar to the Oath Keepers.

The group’s name is based on the that the historical American Revolution military’s armed resistance against the British, in the American Revolution, constituted three percent of the population. This number has never been accurately calculated, and estimates vary depending on whether or not slaves are included in the colonial population numbers and women are counted as potential combatants. Wikipedia

Only two of the defendants show a membership connection to the group. Eric Parker and Scott Drexlar have the group’s logo tattooed on their forearms.

The prosecution has claimed that the defendants conspired against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and, by extension, the US Federal Government. The government has not shown much success with this charge against these defendants.

The previous trial showed the jury in favor of acquittal.

The government needs this charge validated to fully demonize anyone that challenges them on their policies that contradict the US Constitution.

The prosecution is claiming the conspiracy was continued with their association the the Idaho 3% group, between training and recruitment. They also claim a further conspiracy against the federal government by the Idaho 3% involvement in other “operations”, such as “Operation Gold Rush” in Oregon and “Operation Big Sky” in Montana.

These events were about good citizens coming to the aid of their neighbors for support against the land grab of the alphabet agencies within the federal government. However, it should be noted that these events did not take place until months, or years, after the Bunkerville Standoff in April 2014.

Bunkerville was over. These are events “After the Fact” and do not, by themselves, show a state of mind for a time that long in the past.

Judge Gloria Navarro has allowed these events to be brought in as evidence against these defendants over the objections of the defense.

The Idaho 3% was not formed until after the events in Bunkerville. The government seems to want you to believe otherwise. They would like you to believe that anyone in a group like this is a dissident. They would like the public to call them ‘Anti-government’ and lawless. This is simply not true.

Entered into evidence, and played for the jury, is the overview of the Idaho 3%

For video, go to:

3 Percenters Demonized in Federal Court – Bunkerville Retrial

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

No Comments

OREGON: Judge: Counties can sue state over forest lands

Courts, Forestry & USFS, Oregon governments

By CARISA CEGAVSKE Senior Staff Writer

The News-Review

Aug 2, 2017

Linn, Douglas and other Oregon counties can sue the state for breach of contract after all, a Linn County Circuit Court judge has ruled.

The ruling came in a $1.4 billion class action lawsuit that revolves around forest lands formerly owned by 15 Oregon counties and now held in trust by the state. The counties argued they gave up the lands to the state on the condition they would be managed for timber revenue that would be shared with the counties. They’ve alleged that amounted to a contract, which they argue the state has breached by leaving too much timber standing, depriving the counties of the money they say they were promised.

Judge Daniel Murphy had ruled June 20 that the state was protected from the counties’ claim by sovereign immunity. At the time, Murphy said the counties, as entities of the state, could seek more favorable timber management but they could not sue the state for money.

After a July 13 hearing, Murphy changed his mind. In a final letter opinion July 17, the judge reversed himself, rejected the state’s sovereign immunity defense, and ruled that the case could proceed.

The July 17 decision was actually the second time Murphy had reversed himself on the immunity question. He had initially ruled to strike the state’s sovereign immunity defense. With the immunity defense out of the way again now, the case can move forward.

A pre-trial conference is scheduled for Sept. 14.

Douglas County’s portion of the land involved in the lawsuit is mostly located in the Elliott State Forest, and the total acreage is relatively small compared with that in other counties; however, Douglas County Commissioner Tim Freeman said the 4,800 acres the county gave to the state could potentially generate around $1 million a year in timber revenues.

Freeman said if the counties win the lawsuit, the additional money coming in to Douglas County would help reduce the amount the county needs to draw from its reserves to pay for county services. The county currently draws about $9 million a year out of its reserves.

Freeman said $1 million a year is a substantial figure, amounting to about half the annual cost to operate the former Douglas County Library System, or half the cost to pay for the county’s deputy district attorneys.

“A million dollars a year is real money. It would certainly be an important part of a revenue stream for Douglas County,” Freeman said.

Freeman said the judge’s decision on sovereign immunity is good news for citizens because states and counties have many contracts with each other. Frequently, those contracts talk about resolving contract disputes in the courts.

MORE

http://www.nrtoday.com/news/government/douglas_county_government/judge-counties-can-sue-state-over-forest-lands/article_9a71fc67-1421-5ff6-b415-0fef9dbc2298.html

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Point Reyes National Seashore suit ends with settlement

Federal gov & land grabs, Lawsuits, Liberty

Western Livestock Journal

wlj, 07-24-2017 » Page 1

PRNS suit ends with settlement

— Ranching can continue — for now

A settlement agreement was announced July 12 in a dispute about the future of ranching at the Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) near San Francisco, CA. The agreement gives beef and dairy producers at least a temporary reprieve and the ability to continue operating their mostly organic businesses.

The suit was filed in February 2016 by environmental special interest groups against the National Park Service (NPS) as it was moving forward with a Ranch Comprehensive Management Plan/Environmental Assessment (RCMP) for the six dairies and 18 beef ranches that ranch on the peninsula.

The plaintiffs, which include the Resource Institute, Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project, challenged the RCMP alleging that NPS was moving forward without conducting adequate environmental studies. They also claimed lack of public input and that ranchers were being given special treatment.

Joining the NPS and PRNS Superintendent Cicely Muldoon as intervenors in the case were members of the Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association (PRSRA). In a statement, PRSRA said its members signed onto the case as individuals rather than an association.

Terms of the case require the NPS to proceed with a General Management Plan (GMP) amendment rather than one focused specifically on ranching. Terms of the settlement stipulate that an environmental impact study (EIS) be completed and a new plan issued within four years of the date the agreement is accepted by the U.S. District Court. The process requires public comment on the proposed policies and priorities of the park.

Melanie Gunn, PRNS outreach coordinator, told WLJ that the GMP amendment will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and a public planning process that will involve park ranchers.” She added that although the NPS will terminate the RCMP process, some of the information developed through that process can and will be adapted for use in the GMP amendment.

Details about the lawsuit and planning process are available online at http://tinyurl.com/PRNS-Plan.

The EIS must consider action alternatives including; a no ranching alternative; no dairy ranching; and a reduced ranching alternative. The NPS may also consider other action alternatives. Those actions could include agricultural diversification, increased operational flexibility, the promotion of sustainable operational practices and succession planning.

Acting PRNS Superintendent Steve Meitz said of the settlement, “We are pleased that park ranchers, local government, environmental groups, and the park were able to come together and agree to move forward on this important topic. This approach initiates a comprehensive, robust, and durable planning process to define future uses of these lands managed by the park while providing interim stability and authorizations for park ranchers during the new planning process.”

An area of particular concern for the livestock and dairy producers was the length of leases. Historically, producers held fiveyear leases, however during the RCMP process those leases were reduced to one-year renewals; the settlement will allow interim five-year lease renewals during the review period. Ranchers had sought 20-year lease renewals in an attempt to provide more certainty and long-term planning for their operations.

David Evans, a fourth generation organic and grass-fed beef rancher in the PRNS and CEO of Marin Sun Farms, said, “I am encouraged that the ranchers, the plaintiffs, and the National Park Service have come together on a settlement that sets the stage for much needed long-term planning in the Point Reyes National Seashore.”

He continued, “Today, my ranch provides habitat for several threatened California native species including the California red-legged frog, is home to several native grasses, and provides pastoral habitat for an extremely diverse ecosystem.

Issuing five-year leases, while still too short-term to truly secure the viability of small scale ranching, is a step in the right direction towards long-term security for the families who, for generations, have made their livelihood growing food for our community and maintaining habitat for wild species here in the Seashore.”

Evans said he is also pleased that the agreement requires a GMP. “We look forward to the support of the general public through the review period of the planning process, and to securing at least 20-year leases after this planning phase, thereby confirming the critical role that ranching plays in maintaining our thriving and beautiful working landscape.”

Tule elk

The settlement also addresses management of tule elk. The elk herd is often in conflict with ranchers by eating forage and destroying fences. The settlement says NPS will “preserve and manage tule elk at the Seashore under its lawful authority, and shall endeavor to use non-lethal management techniques to manage the population of the Drakes Beach herd.”

The Drakes Beach herd is a free-ranging group, considered a subherd of the Limantour Beach herd which was established after elk from the Tomales Elk Preserve were released in 1998.

The preserve is a 2,600-acre fenced enclosure where the species, which was thought to be extinct, was reestablished in the 1970s.

Historical overview

The PRNS was created in 1962 with the intent of preserving the livestock operations that had inhabited that area of the seashore for several generations, and to help prevent urban encroachment from nearby San Francisco.

The agreement at that time provided that the NPS would purchase the land from existing farmers and ranchers and lease it back to the original owner for 25 years or the lifetime of the owner. Since that time a few lifetime leases are still in place with the others replaced with short-term leases that are renewed every five to 10 years.

CCA support

The California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), although not directly involved in the lawsuit has been following the case and was pleased with the settlement agreement. Although most of the ranchers that would be impacted by the decision are members of the PRSRA, many are also members of CCA.

Kirk Wilbur, CCA director of government affairs, told WLJ that PRNS is expected to begin the GMP amendment process this fall. As that process moves forward CCA will be involved with the scoping process and in talks with the acting park superintendent, and subsequently, the superintendent, when named. Wilbur said, CCA wants to have input to “make sure that ranching remains an active part of the environment at Point Reyes National Seashore.” — Rae Price, WLJ editor

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment

National Park settlement leaves concerns over future

Federal gov & land grabs

Point Reyes Light

By Anna Guth

07/27/2017

Two weeks after a settlement agreement was announced by the National Park Service and three nonprofit environmental groups over the future of ranching in the Point Reyes National Seashore, the fate of the historic landscape remains uncertain. Though both sides characterized the agreement as a victory, concerns continue to swirl for ranchers and their supporters, including Congressman Jared Huffman.

“The biggest national environmental groups were conspicuous by their absence in this litigation, yet the small minority of the environmental community that are not comfortable with continued ranching in the pastoral zone are probably enough to create a cloud of uncertainty for years to come,” Congressman Huffman said.

Under the settlement agreement, the park service has four years to prepare an amendment to its general management plan that will determine the future use of lands leased for ranching in Point Reyes and in the north district of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Per the terms of the settlement, the park must evaluate a no-action alternative, a no-ranching alternative, a reduced-action alternative and a no-dairy ranching alternative, though it could also evaluate others.

During this process, which will include public scoping meetings held as early as this fall, the dairies and ranches will operate on five-year leases. The park will also continue to manage the tule elk—which have threatened the viability of some ranches in recent years—in accordance with its current practices. According to the settlement, it must prioritize non-lethal management techniques to manage the Drakes Beach herd specifically.

“There are other parts of the country where environmentalists and agriculturists can’t ever come together, but it has always been different here,” David Evans, a fourth-generation rancher in the seashore and a member of the Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association, an intervener in the lawsuit, said. “The park service has been supporting ranching since [the seashore’s] inception, and I expect it will continue to do so. I think it was right to settle on this.”

But, Mr. Evans said, “now that the general management plan is coming, let’s sit down and talk about it, let’s get excited about it. This is no time to go hide.”

When the suit was brought last February by the three groups—the Center for Biological Diversity, the Resource Renewal Institute and the Western Watershed Project—the park was working on a ranch comprehensive management plan. That document, and a related environmental impact statement, were considering the impacts of 20-year leases, diversified production and the best strategy for managing tule elk in the pastoral zone, among other things.

In 2012, then-Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar directed the seashore to start issuing 20-year leases. The order was part of a memorandum announcing that the park would not grant a special use permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company, but that it would give explicit support for continued ranching.

But the lawsuit stopped the ranch plan in its tracks, leaving families in the seashore in a lurch. They had been making due with one-year letters of authorization from the park as a temporary solution ever since the agency started working on the ranch plan in 2015. (The seashore has issued ranch leases and permits since at least the ‘90s, when the original reservations of use started to expire.)

In their suit, the plaintiffs said the ranch management plan was taking precedence over an update to the park’s general management plan, which was certified in 1980. Under park service policy, general plans should be updated every 10 to 15 years, and they argued that the park was unlawfully prioritizing ranching over other uses in the seashore. The unreasonable delay in revising the general management plan was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the suit stated.

“When the park service started on the ranch management plan, that was the final straw,” Jeff Miller, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity, said. “There was a predetermined outcome there: the plan wasn’t going to address any of the negative impacts of cattle grazing and actually defined tule elk as a problem. It was all backwards: commercial activities should not trump the protection of natural resources.”

The center, which has challenged grazing nationally, previously threatened to sue the seashore in the early 2000s. As a result, the park prepared a biological assessment that analyzed the impacts of grazing on a handful of specific flora and fauna, and the lawsuit was not filed.

The environmental groups also allege that the park violated federal environmental law by failing to examine environmental impacts when renewing ranch leases or issuing short-term allowances like the current letters of authorization in the six years it has been working on the ranch plan. The suit claimed this violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Park Service Act and Point Reyes National Seashore’s enabling legislation.

The suit stated that cattle grazing is “generally known to impair water quality, alter stream channels and hydrology, compact riparian soils, reduce riparian and upland vegetation and native biodiversity, and increase runoff, erosion, and sediment loads into water bodies.” It continued, “Such impacts are detrimental to riparian areas, impair or eliminate important fish habitat components, and adversely affect salmonids and other fish species.”

The settlement agreement states that all the claims that concerned the potential inadequacy of the leases were dismissed “with prejudice,” meaning they cannot be filed again at least until the park fulfills its mandate in the next four years. Though the claim that concerns the general management plan was also dismissed, it was done so “without prejudice” and was therefore the subject of the compromise reached in the agreement.

Though the plaintiffs had called for an update to the entire general management plan, the settlement only directs the park to produce an amendment and environmental impact statement that deal with ranching specifically.

In other words, the park will now embark on a process similar to that of creating the ranch comprehensive management plan—which included extensive public meetings to gather input from the community—but this time in the form of an amendment to the general plan. Importantly, the E.I.S. will include an established range of alternatives agreed upon in the settlement—from no change to the current status of ranching to its complete elimination.

This part of the settlement is particularly troubling to Laura Watt, an environmental historian and author of “The Paradox of Preservation: Wilderness and Working Landscapes at Point Reyes National Seashore.”

“Generally, for an environmental assessment, public scoping meetings take place before the range of alternatives is determined,” she said. “There may be a bias in the planning process as determined by the settlement—a presumption that ranching is detrimental to the landscape. How will the park allow for, say, expanded ranching, given these alternatives?”

The park service started the process of updating its general management plan back in 1997, but a final draft was never released.

Park spokeswoman Melanie Gunn declined to offer a reason why that update stalled, but said the upcoming amendment will terminate the former process.

“Some of the information developed through the ranch comprehensive management plan process can and will be adapted for use in the general management plan amendment,” she added.

MORE

https://www.ptreyeslight.com/article/park-settlement-leaves-concerns-over-future

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Interior Head To Stop In The Bundy Family’s Nevada Hometown

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Federal gov & land grabs, Zinke - DOI Sec 2017

OPB.org

by Ken Ritter and Scott Sonner AP

| July 30, 2017 1:49 p.m. | Las Vegas

U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke was expected to make a stop Sunday in the hometown of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher accused of organizing an armed standoff three years ago that forced federal agents to end a roundup of his cattle.

Zinke’s planned stop in Bunkerville, Nevada — about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas — is part of his tour of national monuments being scrutinized by the Trump administration.

Trump announced the review of 27 monuments in May, saying the designations imposed by previous presidents amounted to a massive federal land grab. Monument designations protect federal land from energy development and other activities.

Zinke plans the stop in Bunkerville ahead of visits Monday to the nearby Gold Butte and Basin and Range national monuments, which cover a combined 1,500 square miles — more than twice the size of Delaware.

RELATED COVERAGE

Retrial Set For Defendants In Bundy Standoff Case In Nevada

Gold Butte is the grazing area at the center of the cattle round-up and armed standoff in April 2014 involving Bundy and federal land management agents.

The monument is home to pioneer-era and Native American artifacts, and rare and threatened wildlife, including the Mojave desert tortoise and desert bighorn sheep.

A recent study by the Bureau of Land Management documented nearly 400 ancient rock art panels and more than 3,500 individual petroglyphs scattered throughout the Gold Butte area

President Obama designated the Gold Butte National Monument in 2016 under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

Bundy argues that the federal government has no jurisdiction in such vast rangelands of the West.

He and four of his sons are in jail awaiting federal trial on felony charges that they organized an armed insurrection to turn away Bureau of Land Management agents and contract cowboys and to release cattle collected from the Gold Butte range.

FULL COVERAGE

An Occupation In Eastern Oregon

Ongoing coverage of the federal case against the people involved in the 41-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and how life has changed in Harney County, Oregon.

Federal officials say the bureau, an agency within the Interior Department, was trying to enforce court orders issued for Bundy’s years-long failure to pay federal grazing fees.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Nevada Democrat, recently made a two-minute videotape and Rep. Jacky Rosen, a Democrat running for Republican Sen. Dean Heller’s seat in 2018, sent a letter to Zinke urging him to keep his hands off Nevada’s natural treasures.

In addition to preserving cultural history, native wildlife and scenic beauty, Gold Butte and Basin and Range generate more than $150 million annually for Nevada’s economy, they said.

MORE

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/bundy-family-nevada-standoff-bunkerville-ryan-zinke/

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment

New articles on the Nevada Bundy trials

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Hypocrisy, LAWS or law, Liberty

Redoubt.com news has a flurry of new articles regarding sentencing of defendants how Nevada’s Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro is handling the court room. 

Go to:  https://redoubtnews.com/

No Comments
« Older Posts