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 cattle category.

Judge dismisses lawsuit against grazing on eight Oregon allotments

Agriculture, cattle, Courts, Endangered Species Act, Lawsuits, Liberty

PNP comment: Finally, a judge that makes some sense from outrageous claims — the claims are just plain wrong! — Editor Liz Bowen

A federal judge has rejected arguments that cattle grazing hurts endangered sucker fish in violation of forest management law.

Capital Press

Mateusz Perkowski

Published on March 11, 2017 2:39PM

A federal judge has rejected environmentalist arguments that cattle grazing has unlawfully harmed endangered sucker fish in Oregon’s Fremont-Winema National Forest.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has thrown out a lawsuit by three environmental groups — Oregon Wild, Friends of Living Oregon Waters and the Western Watersheds Project — which claimed that grazing was unlawfully authorized on eight allotments in the Lost River watershed.

The plaintiffs accused the U.S. Forest Service of “ignoring widespread evidence of riparian problems” that adversely affected the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker, which are federally protected under the Endangered Species Act.

However, the judge has ruled that plaintiffs failed to prove that grazing degraded streams in violation of the National Forest Management Act.

Conditions have improved in many riparians areas despite continued grazing while recovery trends are “not significantly different” among sites that are grazed and those that are not, Clarke said.

“This would tend to indicate grazing is not the reason for any failure to attain (riparian management objectives) in streams found on the challenged allotments,” he said.

While the environmental groups have pointed to evidence of deterioration along portions of some creeks, they haven’t shown “watershed level” and “landscape-scale” failures to live up to fish-recovery objectives, Clarke said.

The “creek-specific observations” by environmental groups aren’t enough to “successfully rebut” the Forest Service’s interpretation of the data, he said.

“Finally, many of the creek assessments plaintiffs point to as evidence of a failure to attain (riparian management objectives) actually show improving or stable trends,” the judge said.

The Forest Service’s decision to authorize grazing on the eight allotments was based on “reasonably gathered and evaluated data” related to fish recovery strategies mandated under the National Forest Management Act, he said.

Clarke also dismissed the plaintiffs’ Endangered Species Act arguments, ruling they were moot because future grazing approvals will rely on a new consultation among federal agencies on the two fish species.

The environmental groups’ claims of National Environmental Policy Act violations were likewise dismissed because the plaintiffs hadn’t fully “exhausted” administrative challenges against grazing plans, the ruling said.

New information that’s emerged about threats to the fish and their critical habitat doesn’t rise to the level of requiring additional environmental analysis of grazing, Clarke said.

For example, although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reached the “alarming” conclusion that shortnose suckers face a “high degree of threat of extinction,” this finding doesn’t influence the Forest Service’s assessment of grazing, he said.

“While FWS concluded that significant threats to shortnose suckers’ viability remain and thus that their chance of extinction is high, it did not identify grazing as one of those threats; in fact, it made no mention of grazing at all,” the judge said.

http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20170311/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-grazing-on-eight-oregon-allotments

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

US judge: Nevada rancher’s son must pay $587K, remove cattle

cattle, Federal gov & land grabs, Property rights, Threats to agriculture, Water rights

PNP comment: This was originally over Hage’s water right and conveyance of his water right, by ditch, over USFS property. I attended a workshop where Wayne Hage spoke in 2004 in Reno and was surprised his original lawsuit was over his water right. The USFS did also steal his cattle and sell them over the situation. — Editor Liz Bowen

Miami Herald

March 2, 2017

A lawyer for a Nevada rancher whose father fought the government for decades over grazing and property rights said Thursday he’ll appeal a federal judge’s order to pay $587,000 and remove his livestock from federal lands by the end of the month.

Mark Pollot, attorney for Wayne N. Hage, said in a brief email that they disagree with the judge’s decision and that he was working on a notice of appeal.

Hage is the son of cattleman and longtime Sagebrush Rebellion figure Wayne Hage, who died in 2006.

The father’s fight began in 1991, more than a decade after the movement to wrest control of federal land got its start in the late 1970s and was labeled the Sagebrush Rebellion. But the elder Hage became iconic among ranchers and cattlemen who chafe at grazing and use restrictions on vast expanses of land under government control in states in the West.

Federal agencies control some 85 percent of land in Nevada, 66 percent in Utah, 62 percent in both Idaho and Alaska, and 53 percent in Oregon, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The movement then has echoes today in states like in Utah, where lawmakers have for years tried to seize control of land from the federal government. One law passed by the Legislature in 2012 even set a 2015 land transfer deadline that came and went.

In Congress, a federal-to-state land transfer bill by Nevada Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei got a subcommittee hearing in November, along with another measure called the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2015.

Opponents argue that states don’t have the money to manage and protect vast expanses of rangeland or fight wildfires, and that they would allow oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive places.

U.S. park, forest, military and other agencies also control significant amounts of land in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Washington state and Wyoming.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Las Vegas on Monday ruled that federal grazing permits held by Wayne Hage and his wife until the mid-1990s didn’t transfer to their estate or to their son.

The judge gave Wayne N. Hage 30 days to pay grazing fees and penalties racked up from November 2004 to June 2011, and 15 additional days to provide proof that he had complied.

The judge’s order also banned the Hage family from grazing livestock on any public land administered by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management.

The battle over some 11,000 square miles of property in and around Nye County, northwest of Las Vegas, preceded the fight involving federal agencies and rancher Cliven Bundy and an armed standoff in April 2014 near Bunkerville, 90 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Five Bundy family members and 12 accused co-defendants are now facing trial before Navarro in Las Vegas on conspiracy, weapon, assault on a federal officer and other charges relating to the standoff. Two other defendants have pleaded guilty to federal charges.

Hage told the Las Vegas Review-Journal (http://bit.ly/2m04XcV ) he doesn’t have livestock on the range in question. He declined to say if he could pay the judgment.

He cast the court ruling as a “bellweather” step in government efforts to extinguish private property rights on public land.

The Hage case has a long and complicated history. Navarro’s ruling follows a 2013 decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Clive Jones in Nevada that was overturned on appeal by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Read it here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article135980203.html#storylink=cpy

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

Bundy: RJ asks appeals court to overturn order sealing documents in Bundy case

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

Review Journal.com

Describing the government’s case against Bunkerville cattle rancher Cliven Bundy as one of “extreme public importance,” the Las Vegas Review-Journal and other media outlets Friday asked a federal appeals court to overturn a sweeping ruling that blocks public access to nearly all of the evidence gathered in the lengthy investigation.

Lawyers for the Review-Journal, the Associated Press and Battle Born Media filed the request with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco after a U.S. District Court ruling last month upheld a broad seal of documents that are ordinarily part of the public record.

“The concerns of the media are that they’re effectively locked out of a lot of the case,” Review-Journal attorney Maggie McLetchie said. “The protective order in the case is so broad that it cloaks almost everything the government does or hands over in discovery with secrecy.”

Bundy, four of his sons and 14 supporters were indicted in March in connection with an armed standoff that occurred after the Bureau of Land Management tried to round up hundreds of the rancher’s cattle following a decades-long dispute over grazing fees.

Within months of bringing charges, federal prosecutors, citing witness safety concerns, asked the court for a protective order that would automatically seal virtually all evidence produced during the pretrial portion of the case.

“The public’s right to inspect certain criminal court records is protected by the First Amendment,” media lawyers wrote in the new filing.

They acknowledged that there were, in some cases, legitimate reasons to block access to sensitive documents. But, they argued, “a court cannot rely on stale evidence and speculation about possible threats or intimidation to limit access to virtually all discovery in a criminal case.”

The media’s fight over access is not the first time First Amendment issues have come up in the case, and it is unlikely to be the last. Some of the defendants, who likewise oppose the far-reaching seal, have signaled that their defense strategy may include a freedom of assembly component.

Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/rj-asks-appeals-court-overturn-order-sealing-documents-bundy-case

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

Widow of slain Oregon standoff leader carries on his mission

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, cattle, CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs, LaVoy Finicum, Over-regulations, RALLY, Ranch life

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865671176/Widow-of-slain-Oregon-standoff-leader-carries-on-his-mission.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

Locked out: Jeanette Finicum struggles with BLM after shooting death of her husband, LaVoy, by Oregon State Troopers

Agriculture, Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, cattle, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, LaVoy Finicum, Lawsuits, Liberty, OCCUPY whatever

Tri-State Livestock News

Back to: News

Her husband will never return to trail the cows to winter range again, but Jeanette Finicum is determined that she will get the job done, eventually.

Although she’s provided a check to fully cover fines assessed over the last year, the Arizona rancher continues to be locked out of both her winter and summer grazing ranges.

Jeanette, whose husband Robert “LaVoy” Fincium was shot and killed by Oregon State Troopers last January, has managed grazing decisions on their northern Arizona ranch alone since his Jan. 26, 2016 death.

Pounding staples, doctoring sick calves and putting out mineral are on Jeanette’s list of tasks to complete throughout the year. Those are the easy jobs. She can soon add a much more painful item to the list: filing suit against the Bureau of Land Management. She plans to file suit within the next two weeks.

“My husband is dead because he went out to help the Hammonds. He stood for them and now they (the federal government) are trying real hard to make an example out of my husband. This is what will happen if you dare stand up. It’s like they are saying ‘you get in your place and don’t get out of it again or we’ll put you in solitary confinement or we’ll kill you.’ That’s what I see happening — innocent people are in jail right now.” Jeanette Finicum

The Finicums manage two separate grazing permits – summer and winter. Their 16,000 acres of winter range is to be grazed between Oct. 15 and May 15.

During the fall of 2015, LaVoy decided to utilize one pasture of his of winter range that hadn’t been grazed in six years. “The grass was really tall and he said, ‘I’m going to let the cows use the grass.’” Although his range allotment agreement allows him 169 AUMs, LaVoy had never turned out more than 70 head of cows on his winter range – in fact, many years it was less than that. He put his cattle on this pasture about 40 days before Oct. 15.

In order to best utilize the grass, some of the 70 cows remained on that pasture throughout the winter, and others were moved “on top” to the “mountain” where the rest of the winter range is located.

“As ranchers we take into consideration all of these things – we want to use the grass in a way that is best for the grass,” Jeanette said.

Jeanette explains that the land that she and LaVoy always considered their “summer” range is actually a small allotment that allows for maintenance of 35 AUMS year round, but they only used the land in the summer.

“It wouldn’t serve that property well (to graze it year round). We want to be good stewards of the range,” she said. “I know there are bad apples out there but most ranchers want the land to be well taken care of to be able to produce and stay healthy.”

The Finicums’ grazing fees have always been paid in full, she explains. Before traveling to Oregon to join protesters in opposition to the arrest of federal land ranchers Steven and Dwight Hammond, LaVoy had announced his plan to begin to pay his grazing fees to the county rather then the feds. He believed that constitutionally the state and county should be managing the land. “He made the announcement that he was no longer going to sign the contract, but the contracts were still in effect.” Because of of LaVoy’s untimely death, the contract remained intact and grazing fees were paid, Jeanette said.

Jeanette said that the BLM fined her trespass fees for the days the cattle were on the winter allotment prior to Oct. 15, and fees continued to accrue, even after the Oct . 15 turn-out date came and went.

In an effort to reduce the trespass fees to a more reasonable figure, Jeanette negotiated with the BLM throughout the spring. It came to her attention that she would not be allowed to use her “summer” range and she began to look for alternative pasture. Finding none, she felt like she had “nowhere to go,” and finally decided to dry-lot her cows and calves, taking them off winter range the first weekend in July.

Although Tri-State Livestock News asked Arizona state BLM representatives a number of questions relating to this subject, their response was brief:

“The Bureau of Land Management has been in contact with attorneys representing Jeanette Finicum and LaVoy Finicum’s estate since May 2016, in an attempt to resolve fines associated with a nearly year-long grazing trespass on the Tuckup Allotment,” said Amber Cargile, director of communications for Arizona’s BLM department.

Jeanette continued negotiations with the BLM to not only lessen the trespass fines, but also to complete other paperwork the BLM was calling for because they were not recognizing her as the allotment owner.

Rather than allow Jeanette to take over the grazing allotments after LaVoy’s death, state BLM representatives said she was not considered the heir to the allotments, even though she was the widow of one. They told her the grazing permits terminated upon his death and that she would have to start at square one with the application process to graze her (their) cattle on the allotment. Jeanette said the BLM also told her that her grazing rights are not “inheritable,” but she and her attorney disagree. “It is property and an asset to our estate,” she said.

The BLM said an environmental impact study would have to be conducted to determine whether or not she was eligible to graze the allotments.

Jeanette’s attorney advised her that under BLM rule 43 CFR 4110.2-3, the BLM is required to provide her two years to meet any paperwork requirements, and must allow her to continue to graze her cattle during those two years. Jeanette said she and her attorneys brought this law to the attention of BLM representatives and were told, “we don’t do it that way.”

“The BLM recognizes that Mrs. Finicum is a personal representative of her late husband’s estate. The BLM has been working with Mrs. Finicum and her legal counsel on issues related to both the fees associated with her husband’s estate as well as the future of the permit. Due to the ongoing nature of these discussions, we’re not at liberty to provide additional details at this time,” said BLM’s Cargile.

Jeannette drylotted the cows and calves throughout the summer to avoid selling the entire herd. She worked to meet BLM requirements, planning to turn her cattle out on winter range at the proper time without incident. Fines of over $12,000 had mounted over the trespass and when negotiations continued to dead-end, Jeanette decided to pay those fines in full.

With a 50-mile trail to her winter range, Mrs. Finicum had begun moving cattle on Oct. 13, planning to make about 15 miles per day until she arrived. Her mother in law had agreed to deliver a check for $12,355.47, the amount of the trespass fines, and her application required for the BLM’s environmental impact study. “I was told we had a deal with the BLM,” she remembers.

About one full day into the trail, a messenger arrived telling her that the BLM would not take her check and that she would not be allowed to turn her cattle onto her BLM winter range allotment.

“They said they weren’t accepting my check I’m 14 miles into the middle of the desert with cows and calves and nowhere to go,” she recalls.

“I had to find another range. My attorney and I, at that point, were still trying to negotiate. We thought it would be less than 30 days and I’d be back on my range. Finally my attorney said, ‘Jeanette, this is ridiculous.’ They won’t even follow their own laws, you need to do something, you need to move forward.”

So she decided to file suit.

Jeanette said her sister in law stepped in and offered pasture for her cattle for now.

While she and her late husband always maintained a cordial working relationship with their local BLM office, the state office has now been in communication with her regarding all of these issues, Jeanette said. “My husband and I liked the local range conservationists. We always got along with them. But their hands are tied.” She said that the state BLM office only communicates vaguely, such as offering to negotiate but not following through. “They say they want to work with you but then they do nothing.

“They don’t want my cows back out there.”

She’s “a little angry,” at the whole situation. “My husband is dead because he went out to help the Hammonds. He stood for them and now they (the federal government) are trying real hard to make an example out of my husband. This is what will happen if you dare stand up. It’s like they are saying ‘you get in your place and don’t get out of it again or we’ll put you in solitary confinement or we’ll kill you.’ That’s what I see happening – innocent people are in jail right now,” she said, referencing Steven and Dwight Hammond and five members of the Bundy family.

LaVoy was shot to death during last January’s protest headquartered on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon. While traveling with a caravan of peaceful protesters to a community meeting about federal land issues in nearby John Day,

Oregon, state and federal officers arrested all members of the party except LaVoy, who they killed after he exited his vehicle at a police stop point. The Oregon State Police later claimed that LaVoy was reaching for a weapon.

The Oregon State Police were cleared of any wrongdoing in March when the local investigators determined that the state troopers’ fatal shots were justified. But two shots from FBI agents remain under investigation. Initially FBI agents denied taking the shots toward LaVoy as he exited the vehicle with his hands in the air, but it was later proven that the shells were deployed from FBI weapons.

Jeanette said she has filed an intent to sue for wrongful death over LaVoy’s murder.

Locked out: Jeanette Finicum struggles with BLM after shooting death of her husband, LaVoy, by Oregon State Troopers

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

Judge Sides with R-CALF Against Beef Checkoff

cattle, Courts

Northern Ag.net

Thursday, December 15, 2016

NAFB reports: 

A federal judge this week sided with R-CALF by recommending the Montana U.S. District Court grant a preliminary injunction request by R-CALF in a case involving the beef checkoff. The injunction would stop the Department of Agriculture from allowing the Montana State Beef Council to use checkoff dollars to fund its advertising campaigns.

Meat industry publication Meatingplace reports the ruling relates to a lawsuit R-CALF filed against the national beef checkoff program in May. The lawsuit alleges it is unconstitutional for the government to allow private beef councils to keep and spend one-half of all checkoff dollars to pay for the beef council’s private speech when R-CALF members disagree with such speech. The court must now conduct an independent review and has 14 days to respond.

R-CALF USA filed a lawsuit on May 2 against the USDA and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack alleging the use of government mandated beef checkoff money by private beef councils fund private speech some producers oppose.

“The private speech our members disagree with is the beef council’s message that foreign beef is the same as, and is just as good as, beef produced exclusively from cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States of America,” wrote Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, in a letter to members.

http://northernag.net/AGNews/AgNewsStories/TabId/657/ArtMID/2927/ArticleID/7577/Judge-Sides-with-R-CALF-Against-Beef-Checkoff.aspx

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

Butte County Rancher David Daley is new California Cattlemen Assoc. President

Agriculture - California, cattle

President Dave Daley, Ph.D.

In addition to being a well-known animal scientist, educator and agriculture advocate, Butte County’s Dave Daley is primarily a rancher. Dave Daley was elected to serve a two year term as CCA President in Sparks, Nev. at the 100th CCA & CCW Annual Convention.

Daley runs the family ranch near Oroville alongside his children, Kyle, Kate and Rob, who are all passionate about the family business. Daley is also a professor of animal science and interim dean of the College of Agriculture at California State University, Chico, where he has been influential in the lives of other current and up-and-coming young cattlemen throughout the state.

Daley’s experience as a cow-calf producer and an educator make him invaluable to CCA and California’s beef producers. In addition to being heavily involved with CCA, Daley is also a past-president of Butte County Cattlemen’s Association, has been active in land use issues for the Farm Bureau and cattlemen; was a member of the University of California’s Animal Welfare Task Force, and co-chair of CCA’s Animal Welfare Task Force. He also serves as advisor to the Young Cattlemen’s Association at Chico State.

 

No Comments

Bundy brothers refuse to attend US court hearing in Vegas

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

By The Associated Press
Follow on Twitter
on December 09, 2016 at 4:26 PM,

updated December 09, 2016 at 4:31 PM

 LAS VEGAS — Two sons of Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy refused to attend, and several co-defendants shouted an oath of defiance at the end of a Friday court appearance for 17 men accused of conspiring and taking up arms against federal agents near the Bundy ranch in Nevada in April 2014.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen decided not to order marshals to bring Ammon and Ryan Bundy to court by force, so the two Bundy sons remained in a nearby holding cell. Marshals were instructed to provide a speaker so they could hear audio of the court proceedings.

Another defendant, Peter Santilli, blurted out that the Bundy brothers didn’t want to be shackled. Leen admonished Santilli that he didn’t get to speak on their behalf.

So began a contentious three-hour hearing during which the judge didn’t make immediate rulings on a range of arguments, including the government’s request to have three trials and defendants’ requests to be tried together or in groups of their choosing.

Trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 6. Leen called it “physically and logistically impossible” to try all 17 defendants together, and suggested it would be unfair for a 17th defendant to have to wait months or years to resolve his case if they were tried individually. She said she’ll issue a written scheduling order soon.

Leen also is considering multiple requests to dismiss charges; a plea for a change of venue to Reno or another city; a suggestion that federal officials shredded documents that would be relevant to the case as they packed up and left temporary offices near Bunkerville; and Cliven Bundy’s lawyer’s insistence that the federal government has no jurisdiction in Clark County.

Santilli’s attorney argued that he’s a journalist, and that his calls in Internet postings for supporters to rally to the Bundy ranch to lawfully carry guns and protest federal Bureau of Land Management action were constitutionally protected free speech.

At least two defendants, Ryan Payne and Scott Engel, stood the moment court was adjourned and loudly declared, “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God!”

Santilli chimed in that he expected that when Donald Trump becomes president, he’ll intervene in the case on the defendants’ behalf.

Several people among about three dozen family members and friends responded with words of love and support as they filed out of the courtroom gallery under watchful eyes of U.S. marshals.

The protest-by-absence of Ammon and Ryan Bundy echoed the refusal by their father last March to enter a plea to federal charges that he led the tense armed standoff that stopped a government round-up of cattle on public land about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. A magistrate judge entered a not-guilty plea for him.

No shots were fired, and no one was injured in the standoff. But images of Bundy backers with assault rifles on a freeway overpass forcing federal agents to back off in a dry river bed below have become iconic in an ongoing battle about states’ rights and federal authority.

That dispute has roots a nearly half-century fight over grazing rights in Nevada and the West, where the federal government controls vast expanses of land. Calls for action have grown louder and more frequent in the Internet age, with bloggers protesting federal agency decisions to designate protected areas for endangered species and set aside tracts for mining, wind farms and natural gas exploration.

The Bundy case defendants face conspiracy, obstruction, weapon, threat and assault on a federal officer charges that could get them decades in prison if they’re convicted. They and two others who have pleaded guilty in the case remain in federal custody in southern Nevada.

Federal prosecutors want three trials, with the first to start Feb. 6 for accused conspiracy leaders Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Payne and Santilli.

A second trial would start in May for six alleged “mid-level” standoff leaders and organizers: Bundy sons Dave and Mel Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Micah McGuire, Joseph O’Shaughnessy and Jason Woods.

A third trial would begin in August for six accused “followers and gunmen.” They are Gregory Burleson, O. Scott Drexler, Todd Engel, Ricky Lovelien, Eric Parker and Steven Stewart.

Woods’ lawyer, Kristine Kuzemka, protested Friday that labeling defendants as “gunmen” is unfair because it suggests guilt or culpability.

Leen said a description used for now, during pretrial proceedings, might never be suggested to a jury.

Burleson’s attorney, Terrence Jackson, asked again for the judge to consider releasing his client before trial for medical reasons.

Jackson said Burleson, 53, of Arizona, is blind, diabetic and uses a wheelchair.

Burleson told Leen he isn’t getting medical treatment in federal custody.

“I don’t want to end up dying in here,” he said.

— The Associated Press

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/bundy_brothers_refuse_to_atten.html#incart_2box

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

Santa Barbara defenders of wolves will give presentation to Siskiyou Supervisors on Dec. 6, 2016

Agriculture - California, cattle, Wildlife, Wolves

PNP comment: I doubt if any of their suggestions refer to the reduction of wolf numbers! We do not need wolves in Siskiyou County. There are plenty in other areas and in Canada. Wolves are not threatened or endangered with extinction. The species are thriving! WE have an over abundance of predators like mt. lions, bears, bobcats, foxes and coyotes. There isn’t enough wildlife to support the additional predator of wolves in Siskiyou County. — Editor Liz Bowen

From Dec. 6, 2016 Siskiyou County Board meeting agenda

10:15 A.M. – PUBLIC REQUESTS

A.            SISKIYOU COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Presentation of the annual Siskiyou County Tourism Improvement District report and progress to-date information.

B.            NATURAL RESOURCES/UC SANTA BARBARA-DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

Presentation of findings from a study aimed at helping livestock producers in Northern California to reduce the likelihood of conflicts with wolves.

No Comments

OR-7’s wolf pack suspected of 3 attacks on cattle

cattle, Wolves

Oregon Live

October 7, 2016

By Tony Hernandez | The Oregonian/OregonLive

A pack of wolves, started by the well-known OR-7, could be responsible for the killing two calves and injuring a third last week in western Klamath County, authorities say.

The Mail Tribune reports the area where the animals were killed is known to be frequented by the Rogue Pack. But authorities haven’t confirmed whether the pack is to blame.

An Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife report says wolves killed an 800-pound calf Oct. 2, and three wolves were observed feeding on the carcass the next day. A 600-pound calf was killed Oct. 4 and a third calf suffered wolf bites the following night.

John Stephenson with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it’s now a higher priority to have a Rogue Pack member collared to keep track of the animals.

MORE –

OR-7’s pack suspected in 3 attacks on cattle | OregonLive.com

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
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »