- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 22,707
- Reaction score
- 9,469
- Location
- okla-freakin-homa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
BLM Claims 90,000 Acres Does Not Belong To Texas, Attempts To Seize Ranch Does this agency have nothing better to do than ruin peoples lives?
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.
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.
Here is a video clip that explains (see 1:21-2:27): Meet Tommy Henderson. The BLM took 140 acres and what they paid him is absurd! | Young Conservatives
Isn't that the most stupid BLM justification imaginable? When the river moves south it eroded but when it moved back it was via avulsion and so the border didn't change. Oh brother.
It is 119,000 acres in the local papers. It is also the Red River Bottom, notorious for being fought over by Oklahoma and Texas with each new flood. I live within spitting distance of the Red River, that sandy bottom is pretty rough and very salty, little grows there with any consistency. I was a bit amazed any one ranch used so much of it.
I'll let you 1/4 acre suburban types in on a little something... this crap goes on all the time, that it is now the focus of the hair on fire crowd is laughable.
If you had a clue just how crappy the border is defined along the Red River you damn sure wouldn't build a home there...
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.
Isn't that the most stupid BLM justification imaginable? When the river moves south it eroded but when it moved back it was via avulsion and so the border didn't change. Oh brother.
The Red isn't salty, nor sandy. It's called the "red" river because of the red color the stirred up silt creates. That silt used to be prized by Louisiana farmers. They no longer pump the silt into their fields because the locks have stopped the current between Shreveport and Alexandria.
BLM Claims 90,000 Acres Does Not Belong To Texas, Attempts To Seize Ranch
Does this agency have nothing better to do than ruin peoples lives?
The 90,000 acre deed is his. 140 of those acres have already been seized.
Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) represents the ranchers in this region of north Texas. According to Thornberry’s legislative analysts, the issue of the ownership of this land dates back to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.
TOM HENDERSON PULLS HIS PICKUP TRUCK off texas Highway 79 north of Byers, a small North Texas town near the Red River. He parks alongside a grassy bluff south of the long bridge over the river by a green sign that reads “State Line.” Since the south bank of the Red is supposedly the border between Texas and Oklahoma, you’d expect to see sandbars and muddy waters just ahead. But thanks to the forces of nature—aided by years of court rulings and lawsuits—the border is now half a mile south of the river in tall grass and woods. “I always liked that movie Red River, where John Wayne steps out of the river and says he’s in Texas,” says Henderson, whose family has farmed along the Red for a hundred years. “But he wouldn’t be in Texas now.”
Henderson is one of many landowners caught up in the politics of where to draw the line between Texas and Oklahoma. He’s also one of six people appointed in the summer of 1995 by Governor George W. Bush to a state commission charged with finally determining a permanent workable location of the boundary, which has been in dispute ever since the 1821 Treaty of Amity, Settlements and Limits set the Red River’s south bank as the divider between U.S. lands acquired from France in the Louisiana Purchase and Spanish possessions in North America.
<snip>
Indeed, the long-held notion that the Red River is the legal border between Texas and Oklahoma is more perception than reality. ... All this has caused predictable confusion. “The tax collector often doesn’t know which state the land is in,” Abney says. “There are some instances in which land is not being taxed and others in which Texas and Oklahoma are both trying to tax it.”... Henderson says he has had little recourse when deer hunters in the public lands behind his property have trampled his fences and killed two of his cows, even carving the hindquarters off one. Although his land is in Texas, the land behind his back fence is part of Oklahoma. “So do I call the game wardens in Oklahoma, who have to travel thirty miles and find a bridge to cross to get here?” he asks. “It’s just not feasible for them to do it.”
Here's a novel idea... set points for the border and leave it there. If the river moves it moves, but the points stay the same.
You need to go and read the originating article at Breitbart.com. Tommy Henderson does not own 90,000 acres, that is the total acreage along 116 miles of the Red River which is being examined by the BLM.
I did a bit of searching of the property records in Clay County, TX where Henderson lives - best estimate is that he owns a bit less than 250 acres. Then I did the Google thing and found Mr Henderson being quoted in a 1997 Texas Monthly article
Isn't that the most stupid BLM justification imaginable? When the river moves south it eroded but when it moved back it was via avulsion and so the border didn't change. Oh brother.
Channel Migration AssessmentI'd like an explanation of the science of this.
The 'Inquisitor'? Jeez, where do you find this crap?
Here is a video clip that explains (see 1:21-2:27): Meet Tommy Henderson. The BLM took 140 acres and what they paid him is absurd! | Young Conservatives
Doesn't eminent domain apply?
BLM Claims 90,000 Acres Does Not Belong To Texas, Attempts To Seize Ranch
Does this agency have nothing better to do than ruin peoples lives?
If the BLM seizes the land, claiming that is should never have been privately owned due to the boundary dispute, grazing of cattle could still be an option
Read more at BLM Claims 90,000 Acres Does Not Belong To Texas, Attempts To Seize RanchIf the BLM seizes the land, claiming that is should never have been privately owned due to the boundary dispute, grazing of cattle could still be an option
This administration has had in for Texas from the beginning, IMO.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?