150 "militia" take over wildlife refuge center

[BE911SC]

I think we're doing a damn fine job, so far, of keeping this out of PARF.

[aigel]

You can disagree with the feds, but armed take over of a facility is not going to end well. Maybe precedent was set in NV, where it ended well?

That said, I can relate from very poor experiences on federally managed land which was bought from my duck stamp, hunting license and excise tax money. Put a uniform on anyone and they will act like the own the place and forget who actually pays for it all. Strangely enough, it appears to affect the feds a lot more than the state guys.

G

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by aigel

You can disagree with the feds, but armed take over of a facility is not going to end well. Maybe precedent was set in NV, where it ended well?

That said, I can relate from very poor experiences on federally managed land which was bought from my duck stamp, hunting license and excise tax money. Put a uniform on anyone and they will act like the own the place and forget who actually pays for it all. Strangely enough, it appears to affect the feds a lot more than the state guys.

G

The feds have more muscle.

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by aigel

You can disagree with the feds, but armed take over of a facility is not going to end well.

A simpler analogy is you just don't argue with cops.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by aigel

Put a uniform on anyone and they will act like the own the place and forget who actually pays for it all. Strangely enough, it appears to affect the feds a lot more than the state guys.

"Gestapo? You ass*&$%, I'm the mailman!" - Lenny Bruce

[john70t]

Originally Posted by ficke

Here is another interesting read on the Hammond crime Two members of Oregon

Good read. The situation is not as cut-n-dry as I first thought.
Heavy hand by the government here.

Some snipettes from the article:
-The latest scene involved two ranchers being sentenced to five years in federal prison

-The Harney County ranchers are paying the BLM $400,000 in a separate settlement.

-Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt to save the ranch’s winter feed.

-That fire burned outside the Hammonds’ private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.

-collaborative burns between private ranchers and the BLM had become popular in the late 1990s

-The BLM asserts that one acre of federal land was burned by the Hammonds’ backfire

-The BLM accused the Hammonds of several 2006 fires, including a large one known as the Granddad, which blazed about 46,000 acres.

-Gary Miller, who ranches near Frenchglen, about 35 miles from the Hammonds’ hometown, said that in 2012, the BLM lit numerous backfires that ended up burning his private land, BLM permit and killed about 65 cows.

-Two South Dakota prescribed burns, ignited by the U.S. Forest Service, blew out of control, burning thousands of acres of federal and private land in 2013. Ranchers that suffered extensive property damage from the Perkins County, South Dakota, “Pautre fire,” filed tort claims in accordance with federal requirements, but will receive no compensation

-Property rights attorney Karen Budd-Falen from Cheyenne, Wyoming, agrees. “What totally amazes me is what these guys did – they burned 140 acres. If you compare that to the EPA spill in Colorado, it amazes me that nothing will happen to those EPA employees. You have cities down there with no drinking water. The Hammonds didn’t do anything like that,” Budd-Falen said.

[djmcmath]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

Yeah, that's just a bunch of allegation and conspiracy theory. If the rules were changed, then ALL the ranchers had to abide by them, not just these folks.

We agree there -- ALL of the ranchers were kicked off their land by the BLM over the last few decades. The only thing that makes the Hammonds "special" in any possible way is that they haven't succumbed to pressure to leave. In the end, the BLM wins, of course -- they've got first right of refusal should the Hammonds decide to sell, and the men-folk that used to run the ranch are in jail for the foreseeable future.

If you have any evidence for ulterior motive, go ahead and post it up. Make-believe is fun, but sticking to facts is better. And BTW, no, your interpretation of my post is not correct.

I don't have any evidence of ulterior motive here, but I'm inherently suspicious of faceless bureaucracies. I'm especially suspicious of bureaucracies that are big enough to take stuff from people (be that eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, or whatever), as well as bureaucracies that have a history of profiting from the sale or lease of stuff they've taken from private citizens. (shrug) No specific accusations, just being openly questioning.

[aigel]

Originally Posted by BE911SC

The feds have more muscle.

Indeed. And they are further removed from the money source ...

G

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by djmcmath

We agree there -- ALL of the ranchers were kicked off their land by the BLM over the last few decades. [...]
I don't have any evidence of ulterior motive here, but I'm inherently suspicious of faceless bureaucracies.

We do not agree. The BLM is not kicking anyone off of anything. That is an allegation without any evidence. Folks didn't like the rules, and they decided to do something else. If you don't have any evidence of an ulterior motive, quit saying stuff that speaks to the motivations about which you have no clue or information. Without any kind of evidence, we have no idea that the BLM is doing anything except what we all pay them to do. In fact, maybe we should be suspicious of the claims of folks who are demonstrated criminals? They seem to not want to take responsibility for their actions, and actively blame others for their own misdeeds. Why would you believe know liars and criminals over folks for which there is not a shred of evidence WRT malfeasance? Stick to the facts.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by john70t

Good read. The situation is not as cut-n-dry as I first thought.
Heavy hand by the government here.

I think that the prosecution of these folks under that statute was indeed heavy-handed, but this isn't the first time these folks have treated public land as their own, and for their own personal profit. If it was, then I would take a much more dim view of their treatment. But they have been flipping the bird at the feds for quite some time, and it caught up with them this time. Frankly, I don't care if they serve jail time or not, but I do care that they are sucking on the taxpayer teat. Time to cut them off of this federal welfare and make them earn their living on their own.

[john70t]

Treated public land as their own?
Yeah.
But it has been a relationship for a couple hundred years.

Two-way. Double-edged sword. No saints involved here.

[ficke]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

I think that the prosecution of these folks under that statute was indeed heavy-handed, but this isn't the first time these folks have treated public land as their own, and for their own personal profit. If it was, then I would take a much more dim view of their treatment. But they have been flipping the bird at the feds for quite some time, and it caught up with them this time. Frankly, I don't care if they serve jail time or not, but I do care that they are sucking on the taxpayer teat. Time to cut them off of this federal welfare and make them earn their living on their own.

The Hammonds and other ranchers pay for the permits to graze cattle on public land, It might be cheap, I do not know. but it is doing a disservice to the conversation to lump everybody together and say "treating land as their own" , since the Hammonds paid for a grazing permit it is their right to use it to graze, it is essentially their own, for grazing, that is what they paid for. Not exactly flipping the bird to the government and "sucking on the taxpayer tit" when the Hammonds followed the law and paid for the permits and have no record of illegal grazing.
The Hammonds issue is about going back to prison because a secondary judge ruled the first judge made a mistake in sentencing , after paying $400,000 in fines and serving time in prison for their crime of setting fires on their property that spread to public land. The second judge ruled it did not meet the minimum sentencing law the first judge felt was to harsh for the crime.

The Bundy are the ones , against the Hammond's wishes, and many locals, occupying and armed protesting against the feds about land issues.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by john70t

Treated public land as their own?
Yeah.
But it has been a relationship for a couple hundred years.

Two-way. Double-edged sword. No saints involved here.

No, the feds stole it fair and square from the natives. And owned it as a precondition for statehood. The plain fact of it is that this land is not theirs to do with as they please. They treated it that way, and broke the law. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime...

[ficke]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

No, the feds stole it fair and square from the natives. And owned it as a precondition for statehood. The plain fact of it is that this land is not theirs to do with as they please. They treated it that way, and broke the law. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime...

Get your facts straight, that is not what happened. reahttp://www.thefencepost.com/news/18847695-113/two-members-of-oregons-hammond-family-to-serve

Show me where you are reading this stuff of illegal land use.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by ficke

The Hammonds and other ranchers pay for the permits to graze cattle on public land, It might be cheap, I do not know.

You should educate yourself on what kind of sweet deal grazing rights are. And grazing rights are only that - for grazing. You don't get to "make improvements" or "control invasive species" or "hunt deer out of season" or do any other kind of thing without express permission from the appropriate agency. Just exactly as if you were renting a house from someone. You don't get to do anything to the house or property without the owners permission. Even if you think it's best for you, the neighborhood and your landlord. That's not your call to make. Just like a permit to graze your cattle doesn't make public land yours to do with as you choose.

Yes, grazing permits are dirt cheap, and have been for a couple of decades. The BLM used to make money on them. Now, because of how cheap those permits are, the rest of use actually subsidize ranching on BLM land.

OK, here's the deal. I will stipulate that the Hammonds got a raw deal in the prosecution from the Feds. I say this: No more jail time. BUT, the Hammonds have to pay every penny of the firefighting costs for the two fires they didn't put out themselves. Plus the fine for illegally burning public land (something they admit doing). And their grazing permits are revoked. No more sweet deals for these ranchers on the backs of taxpayers. How about that solution?

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by ficke

Get your facts straight, that is not what happened. reahttp://www.thefencepost.com/news/18847695-113/two-members-of-oregons-hammond-family-to-serve

Show me where you are reading this stuff of illegal land use.

Illegal burning. They have already admitted they did that. And yes, the public lands were stolen from the natives originally. I mean, if we're going to give the land back to the people, let's make sure we give it back to the people who originally owned it, right?

[Daves911L]

Originally Posted by john70t

Treated public land as their own?
Yeah.
But it has been a relationship for a couple hundred years.

Two-way. Double-edged sword. No saints involved here.

Correct, on both points, I would wager. Likely that neither side is lilly white.

As for relationships between ranchers and BLM, it is often lengthy and complex. Leases can have been in the same family for over a century. BLM has complex rules for preference that make it hard for BLM to not give a lease to a neighboring landowner. Once a rancher has a lease, its even harder for BLM not to renew it. Possibly not such a bad thing, when once considers that a lot of BLM land is "checkerboarded" with private land, or may be landlocked by surrounding private land. Ranchers make improvements on BLM land, fences, corrals, water development, etc. They can have a big investment in federal land. For most practical purposes, once a rancher has a lease, its hard for him to lose it unless he voluntarily gives it up. Maybe too sweet a deal? I suppose it depends on the land, and the rancher, and your point of view.

Some BLM managers may object to continuing leases that ranchers don't want to give up. Games can and have been played. Restrictions and conditions on herd size, improvements, and management practices can be used to force ranchers out of business, and thus unable or unwilling to renew the lease. NEPA and protests can drag renewals on forever and force ranchers out to free up a lease. Possibly so it can be dealt to someone friendlier, better connected, or with the right political leaning.

There is a constant parade of land deals (sales, swaps, leases, etc) occurring here locally (NM), involving BLM, USFS, State Land Office, Tribes, cities, businesses, and individuals. Often it is to consolidate checkerboards, or connect landlocked in-holdings for the betterment of all. But often also involving minerals, money, and politics. It ain't all sweetness and light, and you can't always tell the good guys from the bad.

[Daves911L]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

Now, because of how cheap those permits are, the rest of use actually subsidize ranching on BLM land.

The rest of us also subsidize hiking in national parks. Biking in national monuments. Recreating at national seashores. Trees in national forests. All manner of commercial and non-commercial activities, some of which I like, some of which I don't, are subsidized by all of us on federal lands. Don't know where you get your animosity towards cows, but in the big scheme of things, grazing is far from the worst use of what in most cases is not highly desirable or productive land.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by Daves911L

Ranchers make improvements on BLM land, fences, corrals, water development, etc. They can have a big investment in federal land. For most practical purposes, once a rancher has a lease, its hard for him to lose it unless he voluntarily gives it up. Maybe too sweet a deal? I suppose it depends on the land, and the rancher, and your point of view.

But you can't do any of that stuff (improvements) without permission from the BLM. And considering the amount of money the BLM spends managing wildfire, you might imagine that they'd be touchy on that subject. IIRC, firefighting is their single biggest budget item. There may be no heroes in this situation, but there appears to be no shortage of villains.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by Daves911L

The rest of us also subsidize hiking in national parks. Biking in national monuments. Recreating at national seashores. Trees in national forests. All manner of commercial and non-commercial activities, some of which I like, some of which I don't, are subsidized by all of us on federal lands. Don't know where you get your animosity towards cows, but in the big scheme of things, grazing is far from the worst use of what in most cases is not highly desirable or productive land.

The difference between recreation and subsidizing already-profitable businesses isn't readily apparent? I don't agree with 19th-century mining rights prices, nor logging fees in national forests. I think all these industries are being subsidized by the taxpayer, and should not be. Cows, miners, loggers, oil drilling - whatever the industry, it should never be a net negative from the taxpayer perspective.