Oregon Protest

[wsushox1]

So many thoughts on this one, and coming from so many different angles as I have a unique perspective.

1. I have spent two summers working in rangeland management for the United States Forest Service on the Sawtooth National Forest and the ranchers out there are notoriously hard to deal with. We have been told to not deal with ranchers and not talk to them or confront them without the presence of a federal LEO. Ranchers consistently violate their lease agreements and run their livestock onto public non-grazing land as an act of spite. Their livestock trashes riparian areas, destroys sage leks, spread noxious weeds, and many other things. I've repaired hundreds of yards of fence in Idaho that was destroyed by ranchers to allow their cattle to leak onto federal non-grazing land because they overstocked their leased lands. I'm not ant-ranching either as I've worked on ranches in Butler County for 4 years in high school and enjoyed every minute of it.

2. My family actually leases a tract of land in the Sawtooth National Forest as well, and the forest service is admittedly hard to deal with. A lot of it is because of congressional acts of NEPA, and Wilderness/National Recreation laws in the Early 70's. For example, if we don't fireproof our buildings on the property the Forest Service could fine or change our lease agreement, but we aren't allowed to put on a flame resistant roof because our buildings are deemed "historical or cultural". We have to stick with highly flammable shake shingle and then pay for expensive treatment to make it flame resistant. They don't allow us to cut down trees on our lease, but have the right to come in and tell us what trees to cut down and fine us if we don't in a certain time. We can't repair our driveway that goes over a creek without submitting a 5 page request for approval. You get the feeling that the FS just wants nature to take its course and overrun our property. But ultimately you have to deal with it or lose your lease. We understand it is a privilege to be able to lease federal land for over 30+ years, even though we've had the property since the 1910's. So, I do understand slightly where these guys are coming from but burning 130 acres of federal property is arson.

Sticky situation and very mixed feelings.

[SB Shock]

I don't know the details behind these and other protests. I would hope that the protest would remain lawful and peaceful. We are nation of laws, and that sets us apart from the world. If we deviate from being a nation that abides by the rule of law - we will then become like these third world nations.

But that being said - should the U.S. Government really be controlling this much land? Elections have consequences.

[ShockTalk]

I am far from speaking knowledgeably, but there is probably some sort of middle ground for these disputes. @wsushox1:, being familiar with both sides, might be able to address this.

As far as the total amount of lands "controlled" by the Federal government, a high percentage are in Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Alaska where much of the land here and in some other places are not likely used for much. There is also a great deal of forested lands which, for me, probably need to be protected/controlled. Your map also includes lands designated for Native Americans.

This map breaks the areas down a bit more:

US_federal_land_agencies_svg.jpg

[wufan]

Why does the forested land need to be controlled, and in what way? I kinda get the argument, but would like a better understanding.

[WuDrWu]

Why does the forested land need to be controlled, and in what way? I kinda get the argument, but would like a better understanding.

Clearly it's because we can now control the climate, the seas, the polar pack and we need to allow smart people in Washington to control the land. Then we can just control the earth's orbit, then space in general, and finally time, and we'll have everything whipped.

[ShockTalk]

Why does the forested land need to be controlled, and in what way? I kinda get the argument, but would like a better understanding.

To start with, I admit that I have a strong love of the "great outdoors" so I am probably somewhat biased. I hope that most of those lands will be preserved for future generations to love and appreciated.

Probably the easiest to understand is control of logging. Instead of indiscriminate denuding of forests, you have balances to ensure proper cutting and replanting.

I believe that most of the controlled forested lands are in areas of very light populations. I think something like 1/3 of the "controlled" lands do not even have roads.

Recreation. Not all areas and trails are in national and state parks. The forest service maintains a lot of those areas including trail systems. One area that comes to mind for me is Indian Peaks Wilderness Area on the south side of Rocky Mountain National Park. While there are some small state parks within that area, many of the maintained trails and vistas are in the Forest Service areas.

I'm sure there are more, maybe even better, reasons than I can think of.

[wufan]

Some good reasons there. I would be in favor of privately owned land being leased for logging, and if necessary, regulated.

[ShockTalk]

Some good reasons there. I would be in favor of privately owned land being leased for logging, and if necessary, regulated.

There probably is.

Questions are, 1) Are you going to sell off Federal lands and 2) Still be able to regulate as well (that's not saying it's being regulated as well and fairly as it could be now)?

[pinstripers]

In my limited experience, I would say that the local ranchers and hunters tend to protect the land and it's cover far better than some beaurocrat.

[Play Angry]

100% free market all day, every day for rural folks unless it affects access to subsidies, crop insurance, loans, etc. amirite?

[shocka khan]

Clearly it's because we can now control the climate, the seas, the polar pack and we need to allow smart people in Washington to control the land. Then we can just control the earth's orbit, then space in general, and finally time, and we'll have everything whipped.

While I understand your libertarian views, I feel the situation is less government's fault (in general) and more the armed protesters in particular:
1) The ranchers had their prison sentences extended by a judge (which I don't agree with and I hope they are successful in their appeals) and reported to prison this morning, so they're not part of this 'occupy movement' and have said so publicly.
2) The 'protestors' are led by Cliven Bundy's son, Ammon. Cliven Bundy owes the federal government $1 million dollars for grazing his cattle on federal land. That is not in dispute. Cliven Bundy got a bunch of grifters and freeloaders to come to his place in Nevada to camp out and openly carrying assault rifles, setting up roadblocks and assuming functions that they were neither approved to do nor appointed to do. That really peeved the locals off.
3) Although Ammon says he represents 'we the people', it's rather obvious that he does not represent 'we the people', because there are people in Harney County, Oregon (including at least one pastor) who don't support or approve of what he is doing. I neither support or approve of grifting freeloaders seizing government property and brazenly establishing their own version of 'law and order' because they say they represent 'we the people'. Doc, both you and I play by the rules, pay our taxes and most importantly, pay our bills when they are due. These folks don't play by the rules. They want their freebies. They don't want to pay their bills. That makes them grifters and freeloaders in my book.

My opinion is (and if I were king of the world for a day) that someone should drop 1,000 pound bombs on these gun-toting grifter's seized compound to eliminate the Bundy family from the face of the earth. If a bunch of their wacko friends from Arizona, Idaho and Utah join them and get killed, it would just be collateral damage to me. And it would save the taxpayers a lot of money, as this will definitely require a lot of LEO resource involvement to maintain order (to the extent they can).

The people who are the most affected by this miscarriage of justice are doing it the right way. They reported to prison to serve their time while a legal team appeals the judges imposition of the extra prison time. They as much as anyone understands what a pain in the neck the government can be, but at least they are prosecuting their disagreement of what the system is doing to them in a civil manner.

Al Bundy and his family I like. Cliven Bundy and his family should have been thrown in jail and had the key thrown away.

[DUShock]

Every one of these "occupiers" is an idiot in the truest sense of the word.

[pinstripers]

100% free market all day, every day for rural folks unless it affects access to subsidies, crop insurance, loans, etc. amirite?

I dunno what this is supposed to mean, but I guess it is cute and an insult?

[SB Shock]

“Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds. But we don't have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others. And so it is our hope that the protesters there will stand down peaceably, that there will not be a violent confrontation.”


--Ted Cruz

Cruz went on to say he is praying for everyone involved in the dispute, particularly law enforcement officials who “are risking their lives.”

[wufan]

While I understand your libertarian views, I feel the situation is less government's fault (in general) and more the armed protesters in particular:
1) The ranchers had their prison sentences extended by a judge (which I don't agree with and I hope they are successful in their appeals) and reported to prison this morning, so they're not part of this 'occupy movement' and have said so publicly.
2) The 'protestors' are led by Cliven Bundy's son, Ammon. Cliven Bundy owes the federal government $1 million dollars for grazing his cattle on federal land. That is not in dispute. Cliven Bundy got a bunch of grifters and freeloaders to come to his place in Nevada to camp out and openly carrying assault rifles, setting up roadblocks and assuming functions that they were neither approved to do nor appointed to do. That really peeved the locals off.
3) Although Ammon says he represents 'we the people', it's rather obvious that he does not represent 'we the people', because there are people in Harney County, Oregon (including at least one pastor) who don't support or approve of what he is doing. I neither support or approve of grifting freeloaders seizing government property and brazenly establishing their own version of 'law and order' because they say they represent 'we the people'. Doc, both you and I play by the rules, pay our taxes and most importantly, pay our bills when they are due. These folks don't play by the rules. They want their freebies. They don't want to pay their bills. That makes them grifters and freeloaders in my book.

My opinion is (and if I were king of the world for a day) that someone should drop 1,000 pound bombs on these gun-toting grifter's seized compound to eliminate the Bundy family from the face of the earth. If a bunch of their wacko friends from Arizona, Idaho and Utah join them and get killed, it would just be collateral damage to me. And it would save the taxpayers a lot of money, as this will definitely require a lot of LEO resource involvement to maintain order (to the extent they can).

The people who are the most affected by this miscarriage of justice are doing it the right way. They reported to prison to serve their time while a legal team appeals the judges imposition of the extra prison time. They as much as anyone understands what a pain in the neck the government can be, but at least they are prosecuting their disagreement of what the system is doing to them in a civil manner.

Al Bundy and his family I like. Cliven Bundy and his family should have been thrown in jail and had the key thrown away.

Sounds like the rural version of "occupy Wall Street".