Mark

We are at an all time low with presidential candidates and politicians in general. Debates are a joke. One minute to answer questions on complicated issues result in same ol' canned campaign party rhetoric and nothing of substance - just say what people want to hear and speak in general terms only - it's theater with bad actors. Really doesn't matter - Congress runs the country and lobbyists and big money runs Congress. God help us!!

Surprise at some criticism. It's a movie!! After of couple years of Hobbitt and Star Wars movies, it was a great movie compared to the crap coming out nowadays. Was "Titanic" the actual events??? I'll take a good old western anytime, fiction or fact or loosely based on actual events.

If only they had married 13 year old girls for their 8th wife, they would all probably be safe from the law.

I guess this is about as good of ending as we could have hoped. Sorry one man had to lose his life. I found it ironic that none of the men arrested were from Oregon. I did keep an open mind on the situation until I learned the facts. These men did not have a leg to stand on - they were wrong from the get go.

Maybe heap too much peyote and firewater???

Turd was revived by Chief Grey Bear. Mitch was last post on April 11, 2011. Chief revived it Jan 23, 2016.

Opening scene was cool. With the arrows zinging by, it reminded me of the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan on the Normandy beach, when the bullets were zinging by. Many did not live thru the winters, but some did. I think that was the point. Surprised it has taken some criticism on here. It's been a couple years since there was a good movie I wanted to see at the theater.

What a thread!!! I did a quick read of all 13 pages. It took me from a high to a low and back again many times. Sort of lost some respect for some of yuns!! I have to agree, this is Phil's operation and if he wants to delete something or ban someone, then it's his right. If you don't like it, do start your own forum and call it whatever you want.

What struck me most about the movie is the depiction of everyday life in the times - not knowing exactly where you're were going, constant hunger, danger, and fear. Yeah, just a movie, not a documentary, so read the whole story if wanting a factual account. I often think about what life must have been like back then, 100, 200, 300 years ago, especially around home here in Ste. Genevieve County. Surely you all have thought the same thing out in a canoe or in the woods. Hobby of mine is reading local and Missouri history, tying in to researching into family genealogy. My 5X Great Grandpa Derouuse was among the original French settlers in Kaskaskia, Illinois, arriving by around 1720. I found out in the past 10 years that he married a half blood princess daughter of an Illini chief. Pretty cool. I always knew I had Indian blood!! My mind does wonder sometimes with what it must have been like in settlers times. That's what I got out of the Revenant - it drew me in with the characters' life struggles in the time period, plus the scenery and surround sound on the big screen. Good movie - you guys won't be disappointed.

Sure it wasn't exact depiction of the story, not all true, but won't ruin it for others. Most "based on actual events" movies take liberties. While on the dark side, I thought the depiction of how life must have been for early mountain men and explorers in the west was realistic and portrayed well. I wouldn't have made it long as a mountain man. Agree Tom Hardy character was awesome. Still think it is a great movie and holds your interest. BTW Jim Bridger ended up in Missouri and was buried in Kansas City area.

Attention Outdoorsmen!! Best movie I have seen in a long time!! See it in the theater, awesome scenery, best western adventure movie since Dances With Wolves.

Jumped to 17 yippea

I started this post because I was intrigued by the situation, but really didn't understand what it was all about. I feel like I have a better understanding now, thanks to all of your comments and explanations. I see that these people are in the wrong. I do hope law enforcements uses restraint and patience in bringing the standoff to a peaceful conclusion. None of them deserve to die in a shootout. I don't know exactly how many people are holed up in the reserve building, but doubt if they are all fanatical nuts. Maybe just a little misguided. Still, there is something about people in the NW US that have a much different political view than other parts of the US. Many seem to be extremely liberal and extremely conservative, with a dose of extreme indivdualism, and a pinch of fanaticalism, all at the same time. So many different political views. There is always some political hot spots in that area of the country. Right or wrong, at least we live in a country where people can do these things without being massacred or locked up for life because of their political views. I would expect the leaders will serve a year or two in fed pen, and rest will get a slap on the wrist. And I'm not opposed to that if the situations is resolved peacefully. Good discussion guys. Forum was getting boring.

I just happened to notice on my personal page the "Community reputation". Mine was "11" and "Good", but it sucks compared to others. How is that score determined? Did I do something to only have an 11? Just curious - feels like I have a low credit rating or something.

See, there you have it. Do I believe fishinwrench and FBI agents were involved in deceptive practices? Or believe SpoonDog and it was all a hoax? You never know what to believe on the internet.

I don't think the government is out to get me, or take my guns away (if I actually owned any) or people like the Bundy bunch have my best interests in mind, but have seen enough underhanded stuff in my lifetime from FBI and CIA to know I wouldn't put anything past them, illegal or unethical. The end doesn't always justify the means, IMO. No one has been hurt or died, and no one is being held against their will as far as we know. If an agency representing our federal government has indeed used undercover methods to incite others against the protesters, they are acting beyond the scope of law enforcement. If our federal government is in the right with regard to policies and procedures that this so far peaceful protest revolves around, then let's let the card play out. No need to stack the deck.

Sounds about right, fishinwrench, feds planting undercover agents to harass locals to stir up more animosity against the ranchers. This type of underhandedness only reinforces people's suspicions of our fed govt. I don't blindly trust our federal government. Why was some covert operation necessary if the feds are in the right to begin with? While nothing about the operation is illegal, I presume, it certainly paints a negative picture of the law enforcement handling the situation. Not hard to wonder why so many people in that part of the country are leery of the feds anyway.

So are law enforcement agencies going to wait them out and then arrest them?

I was keeping an open mind because I didn't know the facts. Thanks to all for sharing.

All true, but if there is some truth that the feds have been discriminating on the use of the federal land for grazing purposes, then the protesters have some weight to their argument. Not sure we have the entire story yet.

I agree with others on this issue - I immediately thought it was total BS for the two men to be sent back to prison after being released after serving the original sentence. If they did not serve the minimum required originally, that is on the shoulders of the original judge. I have been hesitant to condemn the protesters because I didn't know all of the facts, and maybe still don't. If this is a harmless act of civil disobedience, I applaud the guts to do it. But there are people in the NW US that are militants, anti government, even racists, so I don't know if that is the case with all of the protesters, some of them, or a small percentage. And I also recall Ruby Ridge and Waco, and how that all turned out and is a scar on our nation, even if the victims were wrong, they didn't deserve to die. And I may be wrong, but I can't help but agree with some national journalists who make the claim that if this wasn't a white group of protesters, the situation would be viewed as different and the law enforcement reactions would be different. Finally, the ranchers claim that there has been discrimination in how the BLM has dictated who and how much the ranchers can use the fed land for grazing. I don't know if that is true, but I am suspicious enough of the federal govt to, at the very least, not rule it out.

Question: How did the fed govt acquire all of the fed land? Has it been fed land since the birth of the state of Oregon? I read that one issue that ranchers have is the questionable methods the govt used to acquire the land. Oregon is a big state, and if half the land is fed owned, that's alot of land that the state is not receiving any tax revenue on. Is any of the land ever for sale? Or is the land designated fed land for eternity? Trying to understand the entire situation.

Isn't the crux of the matter that the feds are restricting the ranchers freedom to graze on public grounds. I did read that 1/2 of al land in Oregon is federal public ground that draws no property taxes. I had no idea it was that much land.

I find this story so interesting. I try to look at both sides of the controversy. And I understand the rugged individualism of the people of the Northwest. While I agree with the approach taken so far by law enforcement of just letting the protesters be, not antagonizing, and remaining peaceful, I have to agree with a couple of national reporters who have written stories that made the point that if the protest group were someone other than white, conservative ranchers who had overtaken a government facility, this situation would be handled differently than just a civil disobedience. I think we do have different standards for different groups. I guess this will fall under the political discussion category that is not suppose to be discussed on OAF, but what conservation issue is not political.

We saw a couple locals we recognized who were camping on the river, fishing, and deer hunting last weekend. Talked a minute and they had a doe hanging up in camp. We didn't ask them but it got us wondering - what are the hunting regs while on the river? Such as; can you hunt on any of the federally owned land along the river? can you hunt out of they boat? can you actually shoot out of the boat? or do you have to be on land to shoot? and then can you use the boat to haul out?is there a restricted distance from the water you have to be to shoot a deer? a squirrel? can you duck hunt?, we guessed you could and shoot ducks from boat. They weren't hiding the hanging deer so obviously all was legal. Is hunting on most rivers along federally owned land legal? None of us hunt, so no worries here. Sounds like an ideal place to hunt, and get in some fishing at same time.