Oregon Occupiers

Anything that wont fit in any of the other forums

Moderators: greenyellow, UOducksTK1

User avatar
greenyellow
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35675
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:54 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: Oregon Occupiers

Post by greenyellow »

As someone who had both parents work for the BLM for over 20 years and retire out, I know quite a bit about how the BLM's duties and focus started changing. They said they could see the increased environmental focus coming in the Department of the Interior, starting in the mid to late 90s. The typical managers, assistant managers, and directors of BLM were those who'd worked through the ranks their entire careers but then they sort of started bringing in lawyers (who had little knowledge of actual forest and land management) and people from the US Forest Service (who used junk environmental/biological science and studies to shape their view of how BLM should be run) to become the new managers and directors. With this new focus, instead of letting people use the lands in an efficient process and manner, they started going more into preservation and conservation mode, which included lots of red tape, excessive permits and fees, and environmental impact studies.
Image
User avatar
duckduckgoose
Five Star Recruit
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:45 pm

Re: Oregon Occupiers

Post by duckduckgoose »

UOducksTK1 wrote:
Phalanx wrote:They obviously are getting publicity, or Bud wouldn't have heard about it.

It seems like the Hammonds have a strong case - even the congressman of that district who wrote the applicable law is getting involved. The militia folks are like many other activist groups - they posture to get attention. I sympathize with some of their issues, but a lot of them, like the Bundy family, are just trying to keep their low-cost access to government land going. It essentially amounts to welfare.

The government controls too much land in the western states, and like a lot of other government agencies, the BLM is out of control and their lack of proper accountability has led to the kind of tyrannical operation that we see with the Hammond family, who have been labeled 'terrorists' for doing their own brush fire work out in the middle of nowhere. The BLM is trying to gobble up their ranch like they have so many others in the West.
Yup, well said. Bureau of Land Management + Fish and Wildlife Service = control freaks and bullies. They've basically forced all the farmers out by jacking up fees on grazing and by revoking permits, and then inherited all the land and infrastructure such as irrigation. The lack of accountability for their actions baffles me.
That is just plain wrong TK. They pay pennies on the dollar to run their cattle on federal land. Grazing cattle to n private land can cost 15 times more than on BLM land.
One of the reasons the BLM bought up so much of he land is the farmers were overgrazing much of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
Phalanx
Senior
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm

Re: Oregon Occupiers

Post by Phalanx »

duckduckgoose wrote:
That is just plain wrong TK. They pay pennies on the dollar to run their cattle on federal land. Grazing cattle to n private land can cost 15 times more than on BLM land.
One of the reasons the BLM bought up so much of he land is the farmers were overgrazing much of it.
The idea that the BLM can force people to sell their ranches because of 'overgrazing' is ludicrous. Total government overreach. Land belongs to people, and those people have a right to make decisions on levels of grazing, etc. In any case, the government isn't buying up land in that area to somehow protect it from evil ranchers, they do it for control, particularly of mining rights for things like gold and uranium for nuclear weapons.

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-1 ... unity.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... or_go.html

Kinda puts that whole 'overgrazing' argument in perspective. The ranchers are just the little guy in the way of big business.

It isn't an argument, but I do see a lot of ignorance from people who never had their own land. People don't ruin their own land - they work hard to maintain it. The notion that Big Brother needs to come in and save private land from people who have lived there for generations is just feeding a particular agenda.
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37589
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Oregon Occupiers

Post by UOducksTK1 »

duckduckgoose wrote:
UOducksTK1 wrote:
Phalanx wrote:They obviously are getting publicity, or Bud wouldn't have heard about it.

It seems like the Hammonds have a strong case - even the congressman of that district who wrote the applicable law is getting involved. The militia folks are like many other activist groups - they posture to get attention. I sympathize with some of their issues, but a lot of them, like the Bundy family, are just trying to keep their low-cost access to government land going. It essentially amounts to welfare.

The government controls too much land in the western states, and like a lot of other government agencies, the BLM is out of control and their lack of proper accountability has led to the kind of tyrannical operation that we see with the Hammond family, who have been labeled 'terrorists' for doing their own brush fire work out in the middle of nowhere. The BLM is trying to gobble up their ranch like they have so many others in the West.
Yup, well said. Bureau of Land Management + Fish and Wildlife Service = control freaks and bullies. They've basically forced all the farmers out by jacking up fees on grazing and by revoking permits, and then inherited all the land and infrastructure such as irrigation. The lack of accountability for their actions baffles me.
That is just plain wrong TK. They pay pennies on the dollar to run their cattle on federal land. Grazing cattle to n private land can cost 15 times more than on BLM land.
One of the reasons the BLM bought up so much of he land is the farmers were overgrazing much of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grazing is just one aspect. What about the cost of permits? and renewing a permit if revoked? What about the cost for FWS? FWS charges a lot more ($11.24 per AUM). Also, Oregon has a grazing fee charge by state land agencies. And that's at $5.30 per AUM.

It's nice to know that our tax dollars go into flying helicopters around to count cows. It also cracks me up that the government wants to use $1.1 billion for BLM, when they are already pulling in a $4 billion gross profit.

Everything seems screwy to me.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37589
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Oregon Occupiers

Post by UOducksTK1 »

BTW, thanks everyone for being civil about the discussions. I really appreciate it. It's sad a few bad apples argue more in the football forum than we do here about economical/social/political issues.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
User avatar
UofDuck
Senior
Posts: 3776
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Oregon Occupiers

Post by UofDuck »

UOducksTK1 wrote:BTW, thanks everyone for being civil about the discussions. I really appreciate it. It's sad a few bad apples argue more in the football forum than we do here about economical/social/political issues.
Totally agree. I'm clueless on this topic, but good reads by both sides. Very insightful.
User avatar
Bud Lee
All Pac-12
Posts: 5540
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:03 am
Location: Da Boot

Re: Oregon Occupiers

Post by Bud Lee »

UofDuck wrote:
UOducksTK1 wrote:BTW, thanks everyone for being civil about the discussions. I really appreciate it. It's sad a few bad apples argue more in the football forum than we do here about economical/social/political issues.
Totally agree. I'm clueless on this topic, but good reads by both sides. Very insightful.
I too find this thread helpful.

I saw someone post something about this on facebook the day after and then saw nothing else until some of my more left wing friends started complaining that the media should be calling them terrorist like they did with Ferguson and Baltimore. Honestly I don't remember the mass media calling the folks in Ferguson and Baltimore terrorist either but it spark my curiosity and there really isn't much that I could find in the news about it.
woundedknees
All-American
Posts: 12855
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:06 pm

Re: Oregon Occupiers

Post by woundedknees »

I come from a logging/ ranching background. My grandfather and his brothers arrived in Oregon by driving a herd of cattle to the Willamette Valley from somewhere around Stillwater, Oklahoma, at the beginning of the 20th century.
The level of government control and intervention in agricultural activitiesthat impact"public" land has been escalating for years, and that likely will continue.
While I/we do not believe that forcing the Hammond's to endure a second round of incarceration (does anybody else think this somehow breeches the concept of " double jeopardy?), I fail to see how the Brush Bundy Brigade intervention is a positive thing.
A bunch of armed cowboy wannabe's posing and spouting rhetoric in a desert stronghold seems like a good way to get somebody shot.
Autzen Stadium... Where great teams go to die...Hard!

Image
User avatar
fpsduck
Senior
Posts: 2863
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:10 am

Re: Oregon Occupiers

Post by fpsduck »

It's Eastern Oregon.

This is nothing compared to other things that have happened out there...
GrandpaDuck
Senior
Posts: 3100
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Oregon Occupiers

Post by GrandpaDuck »

Without getting into the who is right or wrong part, I have a hard time with armed civil disobedience. Bringing fire arms during the process of committing intentional crimes and misdemeanors in the name of civil protest increases the danger level to an unacceptable level and should be forcefully stomped out to avoid a precedence.

I'm all for a good sit-in or trespass to make a point against perceived outrageous government behavior but they need to cowboy up and take their clubbings (now tazerings) like we did in the late 60's.
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Oregon Occupiers

Post by Duck07 »

GrandpaDuck wrote:Without getting into the who is right or wrong part, I have a hard time with armed civil disobedience. Bringing fire arms during the process of committing intentional crimes and misdemeanors in the name of civil protest increases the danger level to an unacceptable level and should be forcefully stomped out to avoid a precedence.

I'm all for a good sit-in or trespass to make a point against perceived outrageous government behavior but they need to cowboy up and take their clubbings (now tazerings) like we did in the late 60's.
Bobby Seale disagrees with that as all laws are implemented at the barrel of a gun in every society. To say that the US govt should set a precedent by forcefully stomping this out is the very action that would lead to more violent insurrection. To say take your beatings is a rallying cry to defend yourself against tyrannical actions and we might as well send people to the gulags otherwise.

Further, where is the line for perceived outrageous action. Is the federal govt being the world's second largest public relations firm enough? What about being the largest thief in the world through civil asset forfeiture of its own citizens? The unfettered allowance of the Cia and state department to manipulate foreign governments and policy with zero recourse? The selective ignorance of some laws in favor of others? The pillaging of the justice department and other agencies to use as a tool for cronyism?

If the government's response to citizens with guns is to go get bigger guns, then they aren't really operating for or representing the people. Just like the nonsense about the Newport cops fearing for their lives and shooting a homeless man because they though he might have had a gun under his jacket? Some of these people have no business being in the positions they are.
Image
Post Reply