• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BLM Claims 90,000 Acres Does Not Belong To Texas, Attempts To Seize Ranch

People need to understand: Only mountain bums can do whatever they want. Hill bums, forest bums and flatland bums gotta follow the rules like the rest of us.
 
Does this agency have nothing better to do than ruin peoples lives?
Seems the illegal aliens aren't the only "squatters" in this Nation.
At least we know where the cowardly burned-out militias are "squatting" now .
 
Seems the illegal aliens aren't the only "squatters" in this Nation.
At least we know where the cowardly burned-out militias are "squatting" now .

Thanks for reading the article.

"Henderson holds a deed to the 90,000 acres, but such a legal document did not prevent him from losing the 140-acre parcel he had labored over and paid property taxes on for years."
 
Thanks for reading the article.

"Henderson holds a deed to the 90,000 acres, but such a legal document did not prevent him from losing the 140-acre parcel he had labored over and paid property taxes on for years."

I am awaiting ecofarm's apology.
 
You see, unlike Bundy, this fellow does have a case worth squawking about.

The article is a bit confusing on what is at issue here. Is it just 140 acres or the entire 90,000 acres he owns the deed for?
 
You see, unlike Bundy, this fellow does have a case worth squawking about.

The article is a bit confusing on what is at issue here. Is it just 140 acres or the entire 90,000 acres he owns the deed for?

The 90,000 acre deed is his. 140 of those acres have already been seized.
 
The 90,000 acre deed is his. 140 of those acres have already been seized.

Thanks. That bad in this case, but such a small percentage of his land it's hard to get worked up over. I do think the feds owe him for the land and/or should give allow a free grandfathered lease for the remainder of his days.
 
I didn't know you guys were into supporting freeloaders.
Now it's Texas.
Color me surprised when you guys decide which laws you will obey and which you won't.
And then threaten gun violence . :lamo
Thanks. That bad in this case, but such a small percentage of his land it's hard to get worked up over. I do think the feds owe him for the land and/or should give allow a free grandfathered lease for the remainder of his days.
 
Your right-wing militia with female shields should be arriving soon .
Thanks for reading the article.

"Henderson holds a deed to the 90,000 acres, but such a legal document did not prevent him from losing the 140-acre parcel he had labored over and paid property taxes on for years."
 
I didn't know you guys were into supporting freeloaders.
Now it's Texas.
Color me surprised when you guys decide which laws you will obey and which you won't.
And then threaten gun violence . :lamo

You really need to read the article first. The guy involved here is not freeloading at all. He OWNS the property and has paid all his taxes and fees.
 
You see, unlike Bundy, this fellow does have a case worth squawking about.

The article is a bit confusing on what is at issue here. Is it just 140 acres or the entire 90,000 acres he owns the deed for?

Click the lick which is assigned to his name in the article. The information at that link is a bit clearer. BLM already seized 140 acres of his land and didn't compensate him. They're intending to seize 90,000 acres along the river but that land is not only his, other ranchers will be affected by that proposed seizure. It's not clear how much more of his land they're going to take from him.

I don't see why he can't retain title to the land if the river shifts its course. The land would now be in Oklahoma and should simply be registered in the OK land registry.

The law seems to be pretending that a river shifting its course somehow erases title to the land which now finds itself on the wrong side of the border and so that land is free for the BLM to grab. That seems kind of insane to me.
 
Click the lick which is assigned to his name in the article. The information at that link is a bit clearer. BLM already seized 140 acres of his land and didn't compensate him. They're intending to seize 90,000 acres along the river but that land is not only his, other ranchers will be affected by that proposed seizure. It's not clear how much more of his land they're going to take from him.

I don't see why he can't retain title to the land if the river shifts its course. The land would now be in Oklahoma and should simply be registered in the OK land registry.

The law seems to be pretending that a river shifting its course somehow erases title to the land which now finds itself on the wrong side of the border and so that land is free for the BLM to grab. That seems kind of insane to me.

That seems perfectly natural and exactly the kind lunacy I've come to expect from our bloated, out of control and ever expanding federal government... I mean this is exactly the kinds of things that happen whenever any federal government has this much power and control, and is exactly why the founding fathers tried to prevent the federal government from getting this huge to prevent things just like this from ever happening.
 
Your right-wing militia with female shields should be arriving soon .

Peter_Nicolai_Arbo-Hervors_d%C3%B8d.jpg
 
This guy appears to have a pretty legitimate gripe against the BLM.
 
The only sources I can find are small right-wing blurbs about it so its still questionable how much of this is true.

Can somebody explain to me what is going on here it is not making sense...

If I understand correctly, the river is naturally moving and slowly pushing the border of Ok to expand into Texas so Oklahoma gets a little bigger and Texas gets a little smaller and the BLM controls the land on the Ok side, right?

Now... this river moving is a slight process right? We're talking about less than 100 yards yes? How is it that this river moving is swallowing this guy's 90,000 acre ranch and homes will no longer be in Texas but Oklahoma? I.... I don't understand... wouldn't the river have to move over the home and destroy it as it moves to the other side? It doesn't say anything about the river diverting and shooting around another track swallowing entire swaths of area either.

If you look at the math with this river swallowing his ranch, if it is taking it by moving 100 yards, then his ranch would have to be 2,475 miles long and 100 yards wide. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre * 90,000 acres = ~3.9 billion square feet / 300 feet (lost to erosion) leaving ~13 million feet in length which is about 2,476 miles.

Then there is talk about erosion and accretion. The rancher is claiming that the river is moving back and forth but the feds only consider the boundary as changing when it is not in his favor.

Nothing about this story makes a lick of sense...

edit: What actually would make sense, would be if this guy is pissed that he lost 140 acres due to erosion.
 
Nothing about this story makes a lick of sense...

Here's a report from a TV station:

Henderson lost a lawsuit 30 years ago that moved part of the northern Texas border over a mile to the south.

The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.

Now, they want to use his case as precedent to seize land along a 116-mile stretch of the river.

“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us,” Henderson explained.

BLM, which oversees public land in the United States, claims this land never belonged to Texas.

The Texas landowners who have lived and cared for that land for hundreds of years beg to differ.

BLM plans on taking the land anyway. Property owners will be forced to spend money on lawsuits to keep what is theirs.

For many, that property has been in their family for generations.

"How can BLM come in and say, "Hey, this isn't yours." Even though it’s patented from the state, you've always paid taxes on it. Our family has paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We've got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn't ours," said Henderson.

Ever since the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, there has been controversy over where Oklahoma ends and Texas begins.

In layman’s terms the boundary is the vegetation line on the south side of the Red River.​

A more technical explanation continues at the link.
 
Here's a report from a TV station:

Henderson lost a lawsuit 30 years ago that moved part of the northern Texas border over a mile to the south.

The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.

Now, they want to use his case as precedent to seize land along a 116-mile stretch of the river.

“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us,” Henderson explained.

BLM, which oversees public land in the United States, claims this land never belonged to Texas.

The Texas landowners who have lived and cared for that land for hundreds of years beg to differ.

BLM plans on taking the land anyway. Property owners will be forced to spend money on lawsuits to keep what is theirs.

For many, that property has been in their family for generations.

"How can BLM come in and say, "Hey, this isn't yours." Even though it’s patented from the state, you've always paid taxes on it. Our family has paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We've got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn't ours," said Henderson.

Ever since the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, there has been controversy over where Oklahoma ends and Texas begins.

In layman’s terms the boundary is the vegetation line on the south side of the Red River.​

A more technical explanation continues at the link.

It's apparent the OP link absolutely massacred the story it links to. Even then it is still unclear what this 90,000 acre number is supposed to apply to. The river is not 2,475 miles long and is not moving 100 yards.

If you do the math with the 140 lost acres it works out to about ~10 feet lost down a 116 mile stretch which makes sense in the rancher's case.

Absolutely terrible OP article, should be shot to death and cremated.
 
It's apparent the OP link absolutely massacred the story it links to. Even then it is still unclear what this 90,000 acre number is supposed to apply to. The river is not 2,475 miles long and is not moving 100 yards.

If you do the math with the 140 lost acres it works out to about ~10 feet lost down a 116 mile stretch which makes sense in the rancher's case.

Absolutely terrible OP article, should be shot to death and cremated.

The 90,000 acre figure is explained in the text.

What part of having 140 acres seized without compensation do you find justifiable?
 
Wtf? Land is land. Water is water. He shouldnt be allowed to restrict the water but the parameters shoudl be the same regardless. Even if the river is right on the middle point.
 
The 90,000 acre figure is explained in the text.

What part of having 140 acres seized without compensation do you find justifiable?

No it does not explain what 90,000 acres are going to be taken. All it says is the BLM is going to seize it along the new border but it doesn't elaborate exactly what. The math doesn't make sense if they were to only take the newly eroded land, they would have to be taking 1,000 or 2,000 feet beyond that, which again makes no sense.

I never said taking 140 acres was justified, only that the original OP article is complete crap and misrepresents the story entirely. The article should have plainly stated they are attempting to steal 140 acres from this guy through a natural process that short changes the rancher because of the rules or misapplication of the rules.
 
If they "never owned it" then they should get a full refund for all taxes paid. At the least.

Won't happen, of course, but it should.
 
Your right-wing militia with female shields should be arriving soon .


Moderator's Warning:
NIMBY, knock off the irrelevant baiting remarks.
 
Back
Top Bottom