Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the BLM is successful it would affect many land owners along the Texas/Oklahoma border. The difference between this and the Bundy Ranch case is that this rancher has the deed to the land and has paid taxes on it for decades.
Open grazing of cattle has always been a common law right in America. It is time for the American people to rise up against the theft of private lands and property by a government that is out of control. Ranchers have contact Texas Representative Mac Thornberry for assistance. We will monitor this situation as it progresses.
Common sense and a long time standing common law gets in the way of people thinking what is legal and what is not.
Texas and Oklahoma reached an agreement in 2000 that the boundary is the southern edge of the river. If the river shifts north then then southern landowner gets more property and the northern owner gets less. Texas and Oklahoma counties then adjust their property taxes accordingly. There is no federal government seizing the land. Also note that the river is shifting north, so Tommy Henderson in Texas (in the OP's link) is getting land not losing land.
this is just another reason why we need to shrink the size of government. the feds are getting far too big for their britches, and we as the people need to slap them down.
Please give a credible link to back up the unsubstantiated claims in that article - that the BLM is seizing land along the Red River
.
There ya go. Google is your friend. It's okay though Obama is president. As long as we bow to him and touch the hem of his garment we'll all be washed.
That appears to be existing federal land - not grabbing it from anyone. Maybe it varies by state but I've owned land on a river and on lakes. In each case I only owned down to the high water mark - I didn't own the shoreline or the exposed river bed. In this case it appears the feds own that shore-to-shore land and they are exploring if they should make it open for public recreation (1 of their 3 options). With the shifting river it appears some portions of the boundary are not clear or up to date.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
