150 "militia" take over wildlife refuge center

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by dlockhart

A good read.

No Heroes in the West: Fire, Feds, and Freeloaders | Foundation for Economic Education

That's a very good read. I agree with most of it, and will go further: I think the Hammonds served enough time for the arsons, with the stipulation that they never do it again and face some amount of suspended sentence time for a repeat offense. What I think should have been done is that every single penny spent for putting out the second fire should have been charged to them, in addition to a fine. Even this article, which is about the most balanced I've seen, paints the Hammonds as entitled, and having an attitude of the rules being only for the little people.

[jyl]

Its not about the Hammonds at this point.

[Shifter]

Stop
Mobilize and listen
#VanillaISIS back w/ a brand new militia
BLM grab the land so tightly
Illegally graze my cattle nightly
#YallQaeda

[TechnoViking]

[Daves911L]

The choice of a nearly deserted wildlife refuge in a remote location makes perfect sense. Highly symbolic of government overreach. Resources for animals given higher priority than humans. A nice place for birds, maintained far far away from the rest of the genteel population, intruding on the lives of only a few troublesome locals. Managed by a vast federal bureaucracy remote and un-interested in how it affects those who live nearby.

I know nothing about this situation, aside from a very quick scan through a few of the linked articles. Possibly the "arson" originated from fires set on the owners land that then spread to federal land. Or perhaps it was set on fed land originally? Would not surprise me though either way, if these men felt they needed to do this because poor range management on the federal side was impacting their lands. Ranchers are generally practical, and problems need fixing. Weeds may need burning to prevent spread. 130 acres in this sort of country would be an extremely light burn, and whether you believe it is arson, or just range management, 5 years seems like an absurd sentence. A fine would have been appropriate. Looking at the DOJ response to the initial lesser sentence, I can see how it is being perceived as Govt. persecution.

I deal regularly with a very well known USFWS wildlife refuge. One of their missions is to grow grain to feed wintering waterfowl. They try to contract the farming to commercial growers, but rarely get any interest. It is not possible to produce the required yield using the methods specified by the refuge. They often resort to farming by staff. So, on the refuge side of the fence yields are miniscule to zero. Across the border on private lands is plentiful grain. Then the birds come in the fall before harvest and sit on the non-refuge lands eating their fill and creating a lot of hostility between locals and the refuge.

Water is another problem. The refuge has an old and well quantified water right, which no one objects to. In fact almost everyone locally thinks the refuge is a wonderful asset to the region. But the refuge consumes about 4 times as much water as their right specifies. People do object to this, prompting refuge managers to go off about endangered species, the migratory bird act, federal reserved rights, and how they can use whatever they need. At the same time USFWS (acting indirectly with local environmentalist groups) hammers the local farmers about their water use, insisting more water be left in the river for endangered species.

A few years ago, being knowledgeable about water use and measurement (including the specific devices the refuge uses to monitor and report water use), I was told by the refuge manager I was not permitted to enter the refuge without informing him in advance. My precise response is not printable in a public forum (even this one!), but it boiled down to the fact that it was not "his" refuge, it was "ours" and I would go down there any time I wished.

So, while not having personal knowledge of the Oregon case, some of the claims of these "yeehawdists" (hey, if you can't laugh at yourself, you have no hope!) are believe-able. Perhaps some of you highly educated, well fed, and oh-so-sophisticated urbanites should be a little more open-minded about life in the rural west and local residents interactions with federal bureaucracies.

[tchanson]

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by Daves911L

Perhaps some of you highly educated, well fed, and oh-so-sophisticated urbanites should be a little more open-minded about life in the rural west and local residents interactions with federal bureaucracies.

I grew up on a farm in the rural west near a wildlife refuge. Dealing with the feds can be exasperating, but there are remedies under the law. Read the Hammond's court case for a little eye-opener on how entitled these folks are. Our farm followed the applicable laws, always, and I expect other farmers to do the same, even if they don't like the laws they are following. If you don't like the law, you aren't just free to break it as you desire. Get it changed, or find a new line of work.

[cstreit]

Originally Posted by yetibone

Read that a new term for the "patriots" had been coined:

"Yeehadists"

Nope. Ya'll-Queda

[speeder]

And if they become martyred, they think they're getting 72 cousins in heaven.

[group911@aol.co]

Originally Posted by speeder

And if they become martyred, they think they're getting 72 cousins in heaven.

Would that be 72 more cousins?

[GH85Carrera]

I have never been to that part of the country. I have a honest question.

Does ANYONE regularly use Y'all in conversation up there? It is common or only heard when a southerner comes for a visit?

I do understand YallQaeda is funny, but those folks are a LONG way from the southern part of the country. I am guessing that y'all is as common up there as "yous guys" or a Brooklyn accent is around here.

The facts are the Federal Government owns and controls vast parts of the country. I am glad they do. It would be a shame to see some super rich dude buy up Yellowstone or that bird sanctuary and fence it off from public visitation or build his mega mansion in the middle of it all.


From 0.3 to 81.1: What percentage of each state is owned by the federal government? | Deseret News

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by Daves911L

So, while not having personal knowledge of the Oregon case, some of the claims of these "yeehawdists" (hey, if you can't laugh at yourself, you have no hope!) are believe-able. Perhaps some of you highly educated, well fed, and oh-so-sophisticated urbanites should be a little more open-minded about life in the rural west and local residents interactions with federal bureaucracies.

Um, yeah... because none of us city folk have to deal bureaucracies?

Cutting off the water and power to force the 'militia' out is the common sense thing to do... but I'm not holding my breath on that...

[Daves911L]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

I grew up on a farm in the rural west near a wildlife refuge. Dealing with the feds can be exasperating, but there are remedies under the law. Read the Hammond's court case for a little eye-opener on how entitled these folks are. Our farm followed the applicable laws, always, and I expect other farmers to do the same, even if they don't like the laws they are following. If you don't like the law, you aren't just free to break it as you desire. Get it changed, or find a new line of work.

True, but today I think the level of exasperation is reaching boil-over levels. It is not so much Law, but administrative rule-making that is driving this. Federal (and state) agencies are given broad authority by laws to implement rules. Rules often get little vetting, and those affected often have no remedy. I think you would find the rules your family's farm has to follow today are significantly more onerous than when you were growing up.

I'm not anti-government. I work for a local government. The public pays my salary. But government (and its employees) must remember that its job is serve the people. Government should be to assist people, not to control people. Unfortunately many people I work with forget this. They put personal agendas and their own sense of importance above the people they should be helping.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

I have never been to that part of the country. I have a honest question.

Does ANYONE regularly use Y'all in conversation up there? It is common or only heard when a southerner comes for a visit?

My wife is from Medford/Ashland the moved to Portland as an adult... I have spent a lot of time up there and never heard a Y'all.

Now my relatives in Kansas and Texas... that is a different story.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by Daves911L

True, but today I think the level of exasperation is reaching boil-over levels. It is not so much Law, but administrative rule-making that is driving this. Federal (and state) agencies are given broad authority by laws to implement rules. Rules often get little vetting, and those affected often have no remedy. I think you would find the rules your family's farm has to follow today are significantly more onerous than when you were growing up.

I'm not anti-government. I work for a local government. The public pays my salary. But government (and its employees) must remember that its job is serve the people. Government should be to assist people, not to control people. Unfortunately many people I work with forget this. They put personal agendas and their own sense of importance above the people they should be helping.

I also work for the government and totally agree with that statement.

Problem is the local and federal government has gone so wrong and become so bad for so long I don't know how we can turn this ship around.

[porsche4life]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

I have never been to that part of the country. I have a honest question.

Does ANYONE regularly use Y'all in conversation up there? It is common or only heard when a southerner comes for a visit?

I do understand YallQaeda is funny, but those folks are a LONG way from the southern part of the country. I am guessing that y'all is as common up there as "yous guys" or a Brooklyn accent is around here.

I think it's more a play on the fact that these guys tend to be of more the redneck variety. And the lead idiot, Bundy is a rancher from AZ. While you don't here Y'all around here, there are plenty of rednecks here!

[Daves911L]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

Um, yeah... because none of us city folk have to deal bureaucracies?

Yeah, city folks have to deal with bureaucracies too, and its not any more fun. But (and its only my opinion) in the city you have more potential recourse because population numbers are on your side and there may be more sympathetic media coverage when there is a problem. If some twit in the P&Z office stalls the building you want to put up, the local news will be on your side because their boss got jerked around by the same guy two years ago, along with half the rest of the town.

For the rural guys, there is not much attention because there are so few people directly affected and media tends to be urban-centric. What attention there is to rural issues is often like we are seeing here with the media, who mostly are making fun of what they a consider redneck loonies. When they do get a little more serious, its along the lines of: OMG, these people are "terrorists", they (gasp!) carry (openly!) guns, and they start fires. Common daily activity in remote farming and ranching communities, less common in urban settings.

Yes, I say y'all. But I was born and raised in the Lone Star State, where Texas history is (used to be anyway) taught in school before US history, and thus don't know any better.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by Daves911L

I think you would find the rules your family's farm has to follow today are significantly more onerous than when you were growing up.

Apples and oranges. Public vs. private.
(though I agree both may be very true...)

At the end of the day it is government land. Our land.
Gov leases are often pennies on the dollar compared to the private sector.
Bundy has the option of buying his own land.
No one has the right to make money off it for free just because they consider themselves privileged or special.

"The BLM said the illegal grazing was unfair to thousands of other ranchers who abide by range laws,"
U.S. seizes cattle in rare fight over federal land use in Nevada | Reuters

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by Daves911L

True, but today I think the level of exasperation is reaching boil-over levels.

I think you missed the point. Everyone has to play by the same rules. If you don't like the rules, one of the options is NOT "just ignore them". Another option is NOT "break more rules to protest the rules we ignored before." If you don't like the rules, change them. If you can't get them changed, find another line of work.

The problem is that folks seem to think that somehow they are overburdened with rules. They have absolutely no idea how good they have it in that regard. Just try farming or ranching in ANY other first-world nation, then complain about the rules we have here. The real problem here is entitlement. It's the idea that if I don't like the rules in place, I can just ignore them because I don't like them.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by john70t

Apples and oranges. Public vs. private.
(though I agree both may be very true...)

At the end of the day it is government land. Our land.
Gov leases are often pennies on the dollar compared to the private sector.
Bundy has the option of buying his own land.
No one has the right to make money off it for free just because they consider themselves privileged or special.

"The BLM said the illegal grazing was unfair to thousands of other ranchers who abide by range laws,"
U.S. seizes cattle in rare fight over federal land use in Nevada | Reuters

Exactly. If everyone pays the same fees, then everyone is on a level playing field. If everyone has to abide by the same rules, then nobody is at a disadvantage. Whether or not you agree with the extent of federal land ownership, you don't get to ignore laws because they don't allow you to be profitable enough. That's where the hard work comes in - figuring out how to be profitable under the current rules, just like your neighbor, and everyone else. Oh, and BTW, that public land isn't yours to use as you please. It belongs to everyone, and you're already getting a really sweet deal from the feds. Maybe it's time to revisit grazing fees vs. what it actually costs to maintain federal lands?