Oregon Protest

[Kung Wu]

Some of the rancher vs government problem starts when the government invokes "eminent domain" and takes land that has belonged to a ranchers family for generations. The ranchers often dispute the confiscation-for-compensation and continue running the cattle on those lands assuming that they will win the dispute and therefore the land was, is, and will continue to be their property. At least that's my limited understanding of how these families get fired up.

They don't want to give up family property with substantial historical sentimental value but they are coerced into it. And there IS some weird real estate law about the historical use of land by an owner sort of dictates who the owner is, so the ranchers have to continue using the land to prove they have been using it right along in the dispute.

Again thats a very fuzzy memory of how this sometimes happens and why it may play out the way it does. Sue me if I butchered it, but only for the amount you paid for it.

[Play Angry]

I'd say that scenario is outnumbered about 1000 to 1 by instances where ranchers are simply being unruly assholes.

Eminent domain takings are tricky and rarely used on raw pasture land without intent to develop.

[shockmonster]

[QUOTE=Play Angry;614284]100% free market all day, every day for rural folks unless it affects access to subsidies, crop insurance, loans, etc. amirite?[/QUOTE

Most of us know what you are talking about but in this case, it doesn't have anything to do with this issue.

[shockmonster]

This is what I know about this case. It has to do with a rancher and his son who own a ranch that bordered this wildlife preserve. They set fire to the preserve (I think that they maintained that they started the fire on their own land and it spread), and burned up some or a lot of the wildlife preserve. The government took them to criminal court and these men were convicted of Arson, and given light sentences. The government didn't agree with the sentence and took them back to court, and won, giving them heavier sentences (3-5 years or so). I am speculating here without facts (but from what I gathered from Trace Gallgher on Fox), there must have been some conflicts between the ranchers and the government and the government didn't feel like the fire was started accidentally. The men that are armed in the wildlife preserve are from Nevada and have had numerous skirmishes with the feds down there.

[pinstripers]

127 acres. I don't understand how they served their sentences and then the feds decided that their sentences were too light, afterwards.

[wufan]

127 acres. I don't understand how they served their sentences and then the feds decided that their sentences were to light, afterwards.

It carries a mandatory sentance. The original judge did not hold up the mandatory sentance and the Feds appealed the case and won.

[shockmonster]

I didn't think that they've served any time yet upon appeal. They just entered prison this week.

[DUShock]

[Kung Wu]

I'd say that scenario is outnumbered about 1000 to 1 by instances where ranchers are simply being unruly assholes.

Eminent domain takings are tricky and rarely used on raw pasture land without intent to develop.

Could be. I guess that was the case with the only one I really paid any attention to some time back.

[ShockdaWorld]

This

[wsushox1]

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

There is a lot to this.

I'm definitely pro-government management of forested land. However, the current strategy of no logging on a lot of managed land is something I disagree with. The parts of the forest on my district in Idaho that have been logged in the last 100 years are in much, much healthier shape than areas that haven't been. Areas that haven't been logged are over grown, have way too much undergrowth, are more disease prone (closer proximity between the trees), and burn MUCH hotter and faster in wildland fires. There needs to be logging.

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.

In regards to roadless areas....a huge majority of all public lands managed in Idaho are wilderness areas that have no roads, no development, and are uninhabitable. Hence, the "wilderness" designation. These are special places that deserve to be protected.

The most (or one of the most) recent wilderness areas (designated this July) in the United States was on the Sawtooth National Forest in central Idaho. This was a unique situation in the fact that EVERY single special interest group (including cattle ranchers, ATV/UTV Users, Stock Trail users, etc) supported the wilderness designation except for the local Mountain Bike Coalition. So, in this situation the ranchers did support losing their land for the development and protection of wilderness (they got paid an extremely fair market value for their land, not to mention millions of dollars poored into Custer County (new health center, library, public works, money for schools etc)). Also, I do no believe any private land was taken, just the wilderness designation terminated the ability to lease land to graze, though well established grazing areas were allowed to continue.

This brings me to my last point, though we have had this property since the 1910's and we believe we are the best caretakers of the land, we have seen people who lease land near us that are destructive to the land, break the law, and frankly are trashy people. Our family has such strong ties to the area that we would rather the government manage it, even with all their stupid and asinine logic, than it fall into someones hand that isn't going to take care of it.

[wsushox1]

I'd say that scenario is outnumbered about 1000 to 1 by instances where ranchers are simply being unruly assholes.

Eminent domain takings are tricky and rarely used on raw pasture land without intent to develop.

In the areas where I worked, it's more like 30-1 or so.

[wufan]

There is a lot to this.

I'm definitely pro-government management of forested land. However, the current strategy of no logging on a lot of managed land is something I disagree with. The parts of the forest on my district in Idaho that have been logged in the last 100 years are in much, much healthier shape than areas that haven't been. Areas that haven't been logged are over grown, have way too much undergrowth, are more disease prone (closer proximity between the trees), and burn MUCH hotter and faster in wildland fires. There needs to be logging.
.

Totally agree with this. Selective logging is good for th environment in the short term and is advantageous or neutral in the long term.

[wufan]

Our family has such strong ties to the area that we would rather the government manage it, even with all their stupid and asinine logic, than it fall into someones hand that isn't going to take care of it.

I hate this argument. My disagreement is philosophical in nature and my disdain for it is not intended to be derogatory towards you or others that hold this valid viewpoint.

[Play Angry]

In the areas where I worked, it's more like 30-1 or so.

Maybe with regard to whether the government is the relative antagonist, but I can promise you that is nowhere close to the case if you are referring to actual eminent domain takings. Not negotiated sales, not deed restrictions, not conservation easements, not privately-owned wetlands areas....eminent domain takings are a completely and totally different animal than all of the above and are extremely rare for pasture land unless a road is being built, etc. I probably should have said 10,000+ to 1.

The average person siding with ranchers on so many of these issues actually equates refusal by the government to renew a grazing lease (which the average rancher kills it on the rental rate for these to the tune of an average discount of more than 90% less than private party fair market value), which in reality is basically a government handout, to somehow depriving them of their God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because it means they have to relocate or sell their herd. In reality these guys are just pissed that they can't continue to get the deal of the century to use land almost-for-free on property for which they pay zero property taxes. These scenarios are what has caused much of the frustration leading up to this occupation - the prosecution of this Oregon family was just the catalyst that finally set it off.