Backcountry Hunters & Anglers’ Response to Acquittal of Bundy Brothers

Ammon Bundy
Ammon Bundy
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers

MISSOULA, Mont. -(Ammoland.com)- Backcountry Hunters & Anglers reacted with “profound disappointment” to the acquittal of a group of anti-government extremists, including Ammon and Ryan Bundy, in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in January.

BHA President and CEO Land Tawney issued the following statement:

“On behalf of the American sportsmen who pay for and help maintain our national wildlife refuges, we are profoundly disappointed in the jury’s decision. It shows we have a lot to do to educate the American people about our public lands – and that we must continue to be vigilant in the face of ongoing attempts to seize, transfer or otherwise divest them from their owners, the citizens of the United States.”

Tawney continued:

“The jury’s decision flies in the face of the basic principle that America’s national wildlife refuges and other public lands belong to all Americans. We, the rightful owners of these lands, can – and should – debate their management. But threatening public servants, hijacking public lands and damaging our shared natural resources serve no beneficial purpose and have no place in a democracy like ours.”

Longtime BHA member Mark Heckert offered this comment:

“These lands are not ‘revenue streams’ or playgrounds for the wealthy; they are treasures bequeathed to all of us by our far-thinking ancestors and a priceless inheritance for our descendants. They speak to us across time – of real value, and the heart-filling wonder of wildness. We must stand, and stand together. These thieves covet our public lands, and if we don’t want them more, they will be stolen from under our feet.”

Heckert, of Puyallup, Washington, was among the first to journey to Malheur to witness the occupation. Video footage of him removing a tarp placed over the refuge sign by the extremists was viewed millions of times.

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the sportsmen’s voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife. 

Learn more about BHA:

Visit their website.
Connect with them on Facebook.
Follow them on Twitter.
Find them on Instagram.

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/

  • 34 thoughts on “Backcountry Hunters & Anglers’ Response to Acquittal of Bundy Brothers

    1. A Democracy can also be called “The Pigs at The Trough Government”. The pigs never vote for less slop irregardless of who pays it. Usually it is those who can least afford it who ends up with the bill. Trying to redistribute wealth to the piggies who are to irresponsible to provide for themselves (Socialism) never works.

    2. I hope to see the Bundys grow old together in federal prison. Domestic, terrorist, lying, thieving thugs. Hey Ammin when are you going to pay back that $530k loan you took out from the tyrannical federal government, SCUMBAG?

    3. to these two elitist nanny state promoters: specifically in regards the Malheur refuge where these men made a stand against FedGov’e illegal control, go and learn the history of how those lands were gradually taken over by FedGov from their (still) rightful owners. That will mean you must also learn the history of the Hammond Family, a father and son of which are now illegally in federal prison on trumped up charges carried by a corrupt prosecutor, lying federal witnesses, and lawbreaking Fed agents. Lands under private ownership and lease patents for generations have been seized by Feds after pulling stunts like diverting a spring, to which Hammonds owned water rights, to fill a large depression in the area with water… flooding out thousands of acres of former pasture land. After the owners/lawful users were forced out, the feds left the lake there for a while, then reverted the water to allow that lake to drain… now THEY had seized the land on default issues…. they closed private roads which gave access to other lands, ending their use by those rightfully entitiled to its use… again, running local ranchers out by financial pressures. They started fires to destroy rangelands, some also destroying homes and outbuildings, thus driving the owners/land users out financially….. and committing arson (deliberate setting of fire that destroys a dwelling), THEN charged the Hammonds with “arson” for setting back-burns to keep the BLM set fires from destroying their (Hammonds’) homes and outbuiildings and charged Hammonds with arson… when no structures were harmed by Hammonds’ fires. This pracitce ran out still more of the former ranchers…. and enabled Fed takeover of even MORE lands.

      SO, take your ignorant whinge elsewhere… the Bundy and Hammond and other families involved in Harney County Oregon were merely standing against the illegal and immoral practices of FedGov in the seizure of lands not theirs, to add to the lands thjey already have no authority to control, and then deny accerss to others rightly entitiled to that access. The Malheur Refuge is stolen land… and is in the unlawful possession of a government agency that has NO authority or cause to exist per our federal Constitution.. the Supreme Law of the Land.

      Take yor Sierra ClubGreenpeace values back to the swamp from which you dragged it.
      I suppose you also support the federal and international takeover of the INdian lands scattered throughout Montana, as wel? And favoured the corrupt and illegal court “decision” that promoted the introduction of a non-native and invasive strain of wolf into Montana, Idaho, Washington, to “replace” the weaker Lesser Grey Wolf…. supposedly becoming extinct, and that extinction now all but asssured due to the stress on the Leser Grey from the introduced species that is non native and invasive…. and manded by stupid federal agents/courts?

      1. Further evidence to the feds abusive tactics is the continued incarceration of Bundy and others. What do they not understand about ‘right to post a reasonable bail’ ? The 8th Amendment says “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Bail is to encourage showing up in court. Bundy’s et al want their day in court. Why would they not show up ?
        The judge is attempting to silence them and their protest.

    4. “Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the sportsmen’s voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.”
      NO, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is SOME sportsmen’s voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife. They do not speak for all sportsmen. They are leftist environmentalists in camo and waders. Just a version of the Sierra Club elitists who say, Protect the lands from the people so the elite can enjoy them in solitude. They do not support local control. Many do not even understand the Constitution let alone the desires of many sportsmen. The federal policies they support are why our forests are burning into the ground. With no or very limited and delayed logging on federal lands, the fires burn into the ground making the forest virtually sterile for decades. Access to Idaho federal forests has been destroyed by roadless policies. Those green federal gates have gone up all over the state. Now, they plan on spending more tax dollars tearing out the logging roads that have existed for up to a century without having a negative impact on responsible land use. The forests are the people’s forests, not the bureaucrats and their cronies’ forests.

    5. It is interesting to note that the backcountry anglers and hunters group seems unaware of the constitutional limits on the federal government’s authority to own or manage land. The Constitution is quite specific in this regard, and limits the federal government’s authority to own land to land that they purchase for military or postal installations. The federal government has no authority, even if the state’s would prefer it, or even request it, to own land for any other purpose – including National Parks, Monuments, Forests, and Wildlife Refuges. Getting such authority can only be accomplished by amending the Constitution to grant such authority, which has never been done. I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t have National Parks, Monuments, and Forests, perhaps we should, but we currently have no authority for the federal government to do so.
      The big problem however, has occurred with the administration of BLM lands, for which there is also no legal authority under the Constitution. When a territory becomes a state, ALL land within that territory (other than federal military lands or postal roads and facilities) automatically becomes part of the new state’s property. That’s true even if the state can’t afford to administer them. The solution to that problem might be something like seeking new funds through state or local taxes, fees, government grants, or whatever – but it is NOT to permit the federal government to control those lands. That is unconstitutional, barring a constitutional amendment to grant such authority. THAT is what this whole “Sagebrush Revolution” is really all about, that and the way the BLM has arrogantly mismanaged and appropriated land in use by ranchers. The occupation of wildlife refuges or other spuriously “federal” lands was merely a necessary demonstration to get federal and media attention to the problem. Obviously the jury in this case thought the government was really overreaching its authority and persecuting the “Occupiers” too.

      1. This is an old argument that has been rejected by the Supreme Court. The legitimacy of Federal ownership of National Wildlife Refuges, National Forests, National Parks and Monuments, BLM lands, etc. is not a serious legal question.

        Take a look at Article Four, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution (otherwise known as the Property Clause):
        The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

        The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this section empowers Congress to retain federal lands and to regulate federal lands such as by limiting cattle grazing, etc. This is settled law.

        1. Chuck; as a member of those that occupied the refuge and a constitutional scholar I tell you your idea of the “property clause” is deeply flawed. Look at the emergency motion to dismiss filed with 9th circuit and the mounds of case law. There is 200 years and 38 states of precedence of how the property was applied. It has only been in the last four decades that the BLM and not the Supreme court has applied a new interpretation to the property clause. It may also come as a surprise to you that the word interpret can only be legally applied to a foreign language. The PEOPLE are the creators of the US Constitution and they alone determine what the CREATION (Constitution) states and cannot be alienated from it’s principles. The only power delegated to the Supreme Court was to rule against lesser courts that violated constitutional principles, it was NEVER given the power to interpret. The Constitution is written in the English language adapted to a intelligence level of eighth graders.

          1. Stay off of our land, you effing lowlife white trash!! What aren’t you in prison with the rest of the Bundy terrorists?

            1. Poor Lori, Just because your girl Killary is losing, there is no need to be such a angry b’ otch. The Bundy land was grazed by Bundys long before BLM took control. Same goes for Oregon. Try being a land owner of land that abuts federal land and see how the fed runs roughshod over the private property owners and local users.
              So, you want US citizens to give up federal lands so the bureaucrats can sell mining rights to foreign entities ???? Di Fi already did this with the Mohave Desert so her husband could do business deals with China.

            2. Low life white trash huh. good for you in expanding your vocabulary to meet your IQ level. So tell me who do you mean when you say our land? And what land do you speak of? The land that you will never set foot on in a thousand life times! Or is it the land that you never paid one cent to improve or liberate ? The land you just dream about in your convoluted world?

              Those that obtained the rights to those lands through prior appropriation or preemptive rights over 100 years ago, those that have actually worked the lands with their hands and backs, they are those that have the rights to those lands. Not some mentally entitled millennial brat that that lives in a distorted reality.

      2. Hundreds of years of judicial interpretation and case law show that YOU ARE WRONG ON THE LAW. You may not personally reinterpret the Constitution for the benefit of The Millionaire Bundy Brothers and their wealthy (and shadowy) special interest backers and friends as well as their rediculous, bigoted and foolishly militant anti-government supporters. Ammond bin Bundy and the rest of his Y’all Qaeda terrorist cell have no right to steal land belonging to We The People!

        1. Bundy & co. are Libertarians who believe if land “belongs to everyone” it belongs to no one and as such they were simply homesteading unowned land.

      3. Hundreds of years of judicial interpretation and case law show that YOU ARE WRONG ON THE LAW. You may not personally reinterpret the Constitution for the benefit of The Millionaire Bundy Brothers and their wealthy (and shadowy) special interest backers and friends as well as their rediculous, bigoted and foolishly militant anti-government supporters. Ammond bin Bundy and the rest of his Y’all Qaeda terrorist cell have no right to steal land belonging to We The People!

        1. Hundreds of years of judicial interpretation ???? And to think that you likely vote. Another low information voter.
          The Constitution was understood as it was written for almost 150 years and as a result very little land east of the Rockies is federally controlled. Only the western states had their Constitutional rights ignored and the feds continue to do so with the aid of the Sierra Club and other big government organizations.

    6. BHA President and CEO Land Tawney believes that all authority should emanate from Washington D.C.. As a globalist, he will be happier when it all comes from the United Nations. http://www.academia.org/john-podestas-new-global-order/

      Our National Parks are already under UN control and if Hillary gets elected so will the entire USA. Go to the website and learn what’s happening to our America.

    7. Who will stand with the hunters when the usfs. and the BLM ban access to public lands for hunting and fishing?

    8. Sounds like a bunch of whiny tree huggers here. If you all want to give all your land to the federal government, fine, but they will never stop being the bully that they are. You may not like their tactics, but the Bundy’s are standing up for what is right while you enable the wrongdoing of this country. Shame on you!

      1. We are the government, you speak of government as if it were some type of alien invasion, we created this oligarchy, we can undo this at the polls. Stop voting for the rich and connected. Find a common person with sensible ideas, vote them in.

      1. Dumbass has spoken. The law did its job and they were found not guilty. You can’t claim they broke the law then say justice was not served when a jury found them NOT GUILTY. They had the federal government stacked against them and they were found not guilty. Many Brits think the US should still be under British rule. They claim the protesters in Concord broke the law. Would you agree ?

    9. They were acquitted because the prosecutor overreached in trying to get them convicted for conspiracy, which has a high burden of proof.

      1. Actually, the BLM administrator told the workers to not go to work at the Refuge before the protestors set up camp there. It sounds to me like the administrator prevented/interfered with the workers doing their work and the protestors just occupied the buildings. Maybe a trespass charge would have stuck…..

    10. Rather the country was founded by men with guns using force to seize land hence they figure they can use force to grab public land.

    11. Among other things, Mr. Tawny needs to learn that we are not a democracy. Only ignorant asses and socialists refer to our REPUBLIC as a democracy.

          1. No, all caps. It is both a Republic and a Democracy. Get a friggin’ clue you ignorant redneck teabilly.

            1. The truth is the US is a Constitutional republic with democratic elections. Neither is capitalized because that indicates a Party. It is a republic that governs (or is supposed to) under the limitations of the Constitution that elects the President and Legislature by quasi democratic elections. The Electoral College means the majority of those voting do not always rule the presidential election. The Congress members are elected by plurality vote, not majority vote. Plus less than 60 percent of the vote eligible population actually vote. Again, not a democratic result.
              The US has become a judicially legislated country in many respects as the party with influence, power and money often rules in the courts. Governments want to be bigger so they use the courts to fight the little man and the result is the government gets bigger.

        1. I take it you have never actually read the Constitution. I have a couple of times. I also took an oath to uphold and defend it. No where in it did I ever read the word democratic or democracy. I believe it states in Art. 4 Sec. 4 that every state is guaranteed a republican form of government. To call it a democratic republic is wrong. It is also a very bad form of composition. You can’t use democratic as an adjective to describe a republic. Very bad grammar to do so.

    Comments are closed.