Jump to content
OzarkAnglers.Com Forum
Mark

The Oregon Standoff

Recommended Posts

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 9:53 AM, Mark said:

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.

yeah right like the protestors in Ferguson who were Black for the most part and allowed to burn down several businesses and spat in LEO's faces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys are "rugged individualists" in their own mind; considerably less so than else here on this board who isn't on food stamps.    The Hammonds - the arsonists who set the fire - have, like many "ranchers" out West, received nearly $300,000 in cold hard federal cash subsidies between '95 and 2012; aka public lands rancher welfare.  And, as someone noted above, they get to graze BLM lands for pennies on the dollar compared to private grazing.   Of course, BLM lands are often not prime grazing lands and probably shouldn't be so used, but that's another story.  Maybe the subsidies are defensible, I don't know, but these guys are not  uniquely self-reliant and productive folks.  Hard-working, you bet, but very reliant on largesse from the same govt. that supposedly tramples over them.   As for Bundy, he didn't pay grazing fees for like two decades and overstocked his grazing allotment for most of that time.   These guys are not heroes, they are not "rugged individualists," they are oppotunistic criminals.  

Source is here (if I linked it right): http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2015/IM_2015-056.print.htm

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The federal does own land, period.  5he fact 5hat the Bundy group doesn't like it has no bearing on that fact.  Being that it is federally owned land there are resteictions, and yes they will change over time, generally more restrictive.  No different if I was renting pasture land from my neighbor and he decided I could only graze red cows every other month, I can either live with it or stop renting.  I have no legal recourse that without that rental land I cannot make a profit raising cattle.  The Hammonds want nothing to do with the Bundy clan.  The single thing that still KS to high heaven is the federal judge who required that the Hammonds must go back and serve more time.  In my opinion the judge should have said, "The Hannes have served their time and been released, the mistake was not theirs, I have decided to set aside any additional time for the crime that they were already punished for".  I will also add that while the federally owned land does not provide tax revenue to the county where located, there is also something called PILT, which is Payment In Lieu of Taxes, that the federal government pays instead.  

Sadly I got tired or sorting through PILT information on my phone, and have failed on adding the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Smalliebigs said:

yeah right like the protestors in Ferguson who were Black for the most part and allowed to burn down several businesses and spat in LEO's faces

But because they are poor, black, oppressed, and have bad hair, as well as knowing that 150 yrs ago one of their GREAT GREAT grandparents may have been a slave (to nobody who is still alive) its ok, they are just struggling, trying to get by in the (urban) jungle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brian Sloss said:

Think of it this way, I work in the outfitting business on the 11 Point and I am licensed to do so with the US gov't as the own the land and river.  I rightly pay the gov't every year to do so.  Do I always agree with every decision they make regarding the management of the resource? Of course not, no one ever will.  We all have different priorities at times.  But if I were to not pay my license fees to the gov't because I didn't like a management decision in regard to the river, but still continued to run my business utilizing gov't property, I would rightly expect to be punished (ie loose my license and then they would go after me in court for payment of said fees).  Now, if in protest I armed myself to the teeth and took over the Greer campground and access area,  I would rightly assume my next stop would be prison and I assume all the fishermen on here would agree that I should be "sent up the river" for holding your land and recreational ground hostage.  That quite simply is what the Bundy clowns have been up to.

Well said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't studied this fiasco.  Who are the ranchers harming?    Who is being made a victim?  

I'm not down with prison time for anyone who has not seriously victimized someone.  

Shorting the government some cash doesn't get me there. They can scratch it off the individuals social security.... Or hey, call it a push since they likely unconstitutionally forced income tax deductions from his father/grandfather/great grandfather.  

Not one soul on this earth is born owing the US government a friggin' dime.  They rightfully owe us.  It's true.    What did THEY pay for the land?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was bought via the Louisiana Purchase.  Key word "purchase".  During the time of the homestead act they gave a lot of it away to ranchers and other individuals who were willing to homestead.  A lot of land was not claimed, so they (gov't)  continued to own a lot of land.  The only group that might have a claim on gov't land are the native Americans as they actually had land stolen and generally got screwed over during the time of manifest destiny.   As for victims...Anyone that wants to use the wildlife refuge besides them. Granted it is winter and it isn't high tourism season, but as someone who lives by a federal river, even during the winter when numbers of users is lower, there are people who use it.  They have no right to do this.  The surrounding community has closed schools and beefed up security because these guys are intimidating people.  All that costs money.  They have vandalized the property, using gov't backhoes and trucks.  They have accessed the buildings computers to get personal info on employees and threatened said employees.  Followed people around town who express opposition to their cause and watched them form their cars in their homes.  That is a short list of who they are victimizing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the govt. came down on them though.   Was anyone (besides the govt) truly put out about the specific area where they were grazing their livestock, or where they burned ?    I'm assuming that it isn't prime fishing/hunting land, just miles of otherwise useless grassland prairie ? 

Would I be allowed to run a bird dog on it, let him poop, that sort of thing ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrench, first of all, ANYPLACE on federal land that has usable grazing for cattle is, or has the potential to be, good land for wildlife and hence for hunting.  I say "has the potential to be" because a LOT of western public land is overgrazed by cattle or sheep and hence NOT as good for hunting as it should be.  But anyplace in the West that grows grass is good habitat for wildlife of some kinds.  And even more importantly, ANYPLACE in the West that has good water is EXTREMELY important for wildlife.

The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was partially public land when Theodore Roosevelt designated it a game preserve, because it is an important stopping point for waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway.  Through the years, the refuge was increased in size by the Feds buying private land around the core of the refuge.  It is open to hunting and fishing, and is well used for both, but it is an even more popular site for birding, one of the best sites in Oregon for birds and birding.  It is estimated that refuge visitation brings in $15 million a year to the region.

There has always been grazing in much of the refuge, but in the 1970s refuge managers began to cut down on the amount of grazing allowed to better protect the wildlife resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.