Militia Takes Over Wildlife Refuge In Oregon

[dusty88]

Kind of...he was paying his grazing rights to the state, and when the feds took over that land he would still only pay to the state. He said his reason was to refuse to recognize their takover. If he didn't want to pay for the grazing rights at all, then yes, welfare, but his situation was a little different. I don't understand this fascination with this welfare rancher thing, people aren't simply refusing to pay any use fees. When they do, their grazing rights are revoked, no confusion there.

There is a little more to it than that. As one of his neighbors (a rancher who does pay her fees) explained it: they drastically cut the grazing rights of some ranches, including his. This was supposedly for the desert tortoise, while they were building a solar farm nearby for a friend of Harry Reid's (in which case the desert tortoise was considered um rather low on the totem pole). Anyway, to pay the fees you also have to sign an agreement which would basically say he was agreeing to the new terms.

Note that the attempted cattle roundup was not court-ordered because of his fees. It was ordered to remove the cattle because he continues to graze them where the BLM says he is not supposed to.

I don't know that I am in support of his argument, but it's not that he doesn't think he should pay $$ as far as I can tell.

Perhaps more importantly, grazing fees aren't the argument I hear from most of the ranchers. It is having water cut off to their private land, being told to put fences up in contrary to local law, and having their grazing or water rights removed.

 

[Punkinhead]

WHAT?? Leasing property from the government and raising livestock on it is welfare? .

it is if you're doing it below private market rates. If you build a business that makes you totally dependent on the government you're putting yourself at their mercy. That's why alternative energy companies fail when government incentives go away.

 

[Kutnupe14]

it is if you're doing it below private market rates. If you build a business that makes you totally dependent on the government you're putting yourself at their mercy. That's why alternative energy companies fail when government incentives go away.

No one seems to get that point.

 

[BugI02]

If you're meaning the ranchers, AP is generally not recognized against the government, but only between private parties.

Ranching on a government permit/lease isn't adverse, since they at some point obtained a permit, acknowledging that it was someone else's property.

They also have to AP publicly, for a period of years (many). And if they haven't been paying property tax on said land...

I know of a case in Indiana where a land owner had encroached on State property for many years. The DNR took no action, since AP was impossible. Didn't send the COs or sheriff in, or call the media, and the Dems (this was under O'Bannon) did not march in the streets calling for the owner to be prosecuted.

Thank you. Was not aware .gov exempted itself from AP. It figures the most egregious absentee propertyholder going would be immune.

 

[jbombelli]

Government exempts itself from all kinds of things... AP, bankruptcy rules, Do-Not-Call list rules...

Do as they SAY, not as they DO.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Government exempts itself from all kinds of things... AP, bankruptcy rules, Do-Not-Call list rules...

Do as they SAY, not as they DO.

....printing money, establishing binding courts, starting wars. Dagnabit, they have all the fun!

 

[HoughMade]

No one seems to get that point.

i wouldn't say "no one".

 

[Expat]

Government exempts itself from all kinds of things... AP, bankruptcy rules, Do-Not-Call list rules...

Do as they SAY, not as they DO.

It's good to be King... or the Kingsman.

 

[dusty88]

The town meeting in Burns is also worth reading/watching snippets.

An impressive lot of folks having a rational conversation, so much less one-sided than most of the internet. The basic consensus is that the outsiders need to go home, but many are grateful for the attention this has brought to their issues.

Residents near Oregon standoff like militants' message, but still want them to leave | OregonLive.com

 

[tyrajam]

it is if you're doing it below private market rates. If you build a business that makes you totally dependent on the government you're putting yourself at their mercy. That's why alternative energy companies fail when government incentives go away.

I think that is where you are missing an important point. They are not leasing land below market rate, this is darkside of the moon land with nearly no value. It is worth what someone will pay for it, and pretty much the only people willing to pay anything are the cattlemen. What they pay is the market value.That is completely different from an alternative energy company getting huge subsidies to produce a product that is not profitable.

 

[dusty88]

I think that is where you are missing an important point. They are not leasing land below market rate, this is darkside of the moon land with nearly no value. It is worth what someone will pay for it, and pretty much the only people willing to pay anything are the cattlemen. What they pay is the market value.That is completely different from an alternative energy company getting huge subsidies to produce a product that is not profitable.

particularly when the competing use has value largely influenced by mandate, not by market

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

it is if you're doing it below private market rates. If you build a business that makes you totally dependent on the government you're putting yourself at their mercy. That's why alternative energy companies fail when government incentives go away.

Have you been out to this area? Have you seen this land? I have. How do you know that they are getting it below private market rates? I hear a lot of keyboard indiana commandos talking that have never been out to eastern oregon.. Take a long hard look at what the ranchers are paying for the use of the land. I don't know what they are paying - so I'm not going to pass judgment on that. But I _will_ say that one acre of the WORST land in Indiana will hold more cattle than 50 acres of the area in question in Oregon. That's why the leases cover such a vast area. What I would ask everyone to consider is NOT to project an Indiana view of land values onto that heaven forsaken piece of scrub desert, unless and until you've been there. THEN if it's so underpriced - go into the cattle business out there.

Then come talk to us.

Most of the families that ranch those areas have been there for generations. For a lot of them, that long term tie to the area is the ONLY reason that they are willing to endure the beating and the hard work. It's very similar to some of the family farms out here in Indiana. To assume that they are getting some kind of a sweetheart deal out there shows a decided ignorance of the true conditions.

 

[level.eleven]

It's good to be King... or the Kingsman.

I thought capitalism ensured the American Dream! Anyone can become a king and throw around Citizens United money.

What gives? Are you one of those temporarily embarrassed millionaires that JS wrote about?

 

[Punkinhead]

But I _will_ say that one acre of the WORST land in Indiana will hold more cattle than 50 acres of the area in question in Oregon.

If the cattle business doesn't work out for them they could always build a beach front resort in Antarctica or a water bottling factory in the Mojave desert.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If the cattle business doesn't work out for them they could always build a beach front resort in Antarctica or a water bottling factory in the Mojave desert.

You're absolutely right. The cattle business just can't work there. That's why they have only been succeeding at doing it for over 100 years.

You apparently don't understand the difference between things which are impossible or impractical and things which can be workable so long as they are done right. The entire point is that the federal government wants to change the situation so that it is not workable because some green freaks who should not be breathing our air along with the standard cadre of federal grabbers of other people's property ( I refer you back to the terms of the plea agreement imposed by the .gov giving itself the right to purchase the Hammond ranch before it is offered to anyone else) have decided that their own goals can best be met by stripping the area of ranchers.

It seems to me that in standing back, allowing the federal government to stand with one foot on each side of a gray area while engaging in some extremely dirty tricks, that those who are applauding the .gov and demonstrating their personal holiness by cheering it on and calling for cattle-herding heads on pikes are cheerleading some precedents that they are really not going to like when it turns around and bites them in their collective ass. For example, how would YOU like to be forced into a plea agreement requiring you to sell property to the government that you may prefer to transfer otherwise? Whether you like the Hammonds or not, you are supporting that precedent. Don't even try to tell me that you could never be placed in that position. Given that we have a body of federal law that no single professional attorney can handle adequately, how can you guarantee that you didn't do something yesterday that could land you in the clink without even realizing it?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

If the cattle business doesn't work out for them they could always build a beach front resort in Antarctica or a water bottling factory in the Mojave desert.

I am no fan of the folks occupying the Wildlife reserve or whatever it is. I'm on the record as saying that they should see court for it. Yeesh.

If your hatred of these folks has blinded you to the fact that there's a LOT of room between "water bottling in the Mojave desert" and "corporate welfare" then I'm not sure that I can help things.

SImple fact - that is some REALLY rough country that requires a LOT of acres per head of cattle to work. It is a TOUGH way to make a living, but it can absolutely be done.
My point was that a lot of people see the acreage involved, apply Indiana prices to the land , and if you do that it LOOKS like a sweetheart deal. If you've ever driven through that area, you know it's NOT.

That's all I was trying to point out.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Should I post this quote here? I can only assume they mean militias.

BREAKING: White House says Departments of Homeland Security, Justice to establish task force to counter violent extremism in the U.S.

 

[ArmedNerds]

Should I post this quote here? I can only assume they mean people who don't toe the line of the status quo and don't believe that the government is always right.

There, fixed it for you.

 

[Libertarian01]

I understand that things "used to be a certain way", but that does not mean that they MUST remain that way forever.

California is going through one hell of a drought. Water rights for certain farmers or not, when the numbers get so damned low that a crisis needs to be avoided OR suffering on a massive scale will ensue, those "old water rights" are going to be thrown out the window. Hopefully with some method in place of compensation and "justice" (whatever that means) but the fact remains that what was is not guaranteed to be.

The same goes for some of this federal land. Perhaps there are too many tree-huggers pushing that agenda, but that does not mean they are wrong. It only means that we have shifted our priorities. And before we poo-poo said ecological warriors I will name a small amount of species that have gone extinct in the last century in the North America ALONE!

Anthony's Woodrat (1926)
California Golden Bear (1922)
Cascade mountain wolf (1940)
Eastern cougar (2011)
Eastern Elk (1887)
Goff's pocket gopher (1955)
Mexican grizzly bear (1964)
Smith Island cottontail (1987)
Carolina parakeet (1918)
Dusky seaside sparrow (1987)
Heath hen (1932)
Labrador duck (1878)
Passenger pigeon (1914)
Navassa curley-tailed lizard (1917)
Ainsworths salamander (1964)
Alvord cutthroat trout (1920's)
Amistad gambusa (1987)
Ash meadows killifish (1948)
Blue walleye (1983)
Maryland darter (1988)
Phantom shiner (1975)
Yellowfin cutthroat trout (1903+)

This is just a partial list. While many may ask, "what is so important about a Carolina parakeet or a blue walleye" I would gently remind the questioner that it is called an ecosystem for a reason! These animals may not have any great intrinsic value on their own, but by removing even the smallest Goff's pocket gopher a strain is put upon all other animals, plants and insects in that region. Adaption will occur - to a point! Other animals will move in and expand, but what happens when they go extinct? There will come a point when something else doesn't move in or expand or adapt and the system will collapse.

I would also remind some to understand that while you as a child may have fished for or fished for some of these animals as a child it is now impossible for your children or grandchildren to have the same enjoyment. Whomever on here may have been blessed to hear the song of the dusky seaside sparrow their children and all future generations will be devoid of that experience.

So I submit that the "tree-huggers" concerns are not entirely unreasonable.

But let us also look at the setup as a pure business aspect. The land the ranchers use is not theirs. They have no more right to extend the lease on it than does a lessee of any other property. How many other business models require that someone else's property MUST ALWAYS be used for that business to exist? I submit very few. I really cannot think of any, but I'm sure some exist. If an accountant or a lawyer loses the property they lease for an office, they can buy their own or rent somewhere else. If a widget maker leases a factory and the new owner gets a better offer, or needs to liquidate it for other reasons, the widget maker can move as he is not tied to a single, specific region.

Some will say that it is hard work, and these guys bust their butts for this business. To which I respond, "So the hell what? Big damn deal." Show me the auto mechanic who doesn't work hard! Show me the plumber (imagine some seriously backed up toilets) or electrician or roofer that doesn't go home sore at the end of a very long day - only to be called out on an emergency. Show me the medical doctor who hasn't been called at all times of the day and night. My stupid attack got my surgeon and anesthesiologist both out of bed near midnight on a Sunday to come in and save my finger! To which I say "thank you!" Lots of people work hard, not just cattle ranchers. My accountant friends are about to face 60 - 80 hour work weeks dealing with clients bringing in incomplete information demanding service in a timely manner, all while taking care of their home and kids along with standard business needs that must be addressed.

English taxi drivers lost a lot of money when some darned fool invented the umbrella, because before its invention most people would use a taxi to get out of the rain. The last factory standing making buggy whips at the turn of the century probably made a fine buggywhip, but Henry Ford still put them out of business. Firemen in New York fought like hell to keep the steam engine from being used to pump water, and when they lost a lot of jobs went to the wayside. Throughout the centuries especially in the last several hundred years olde professions have died and new ones sprung up. Guys who delivered coal lost out when modern furnaces came into being. Do we hang on to the olde way just because we don't like the new?

I will not claim that the federal government is not being a bully or abusive. Perhaps the western ranchers have legitimate grudges against the fed. However, as of today the writing should well be on the wall for them. The times, they are a changin'. Perhaps, whether for good or ill, they need to start looking for new careers.

I will leave on a story I remember as a teenager. My family was sitting around the TV watching 60 Minutes or some other documentary story about coal mines going out of business in West Virginia or somewhere nearby. They were interviewing a chap living in a beatup trailer, complaining that he hadn't had a days work in almost ten (10) years because the coal mine had gone out of business and as a coal miner there was no work in the county. My father piped up for me and my sister, "That guy is not a coal miner, he is a BUM! Anyone that goes for several years without doing the work they were doing needs to change jobs or admit to being a bum." My father had earlier shifted from banking where he couldn't get promoted due to no college to insurance where he could make as much as he produced. Things were tight for several years while my father hit the books and got started in his new business, but years later he did quite well.

My sympathy for the ranchers is limited. If they have to use someone elses property forever to make a buck, then get the hell out.

Regards,

Doug

 

[RobbyMaQ]

....printing money, establishing binding courts, starting wars. Dagnabit, they have all the fun!

Hey let's not forget guns! This is a gun forum right?