@alh RE post #122 . . . I live in WA state so not in the area myself. My parent and most family are Oregonians and I have an uncle who is a rancher in the Burns area as well as extended family who are or have been with the BLM including in fire fighting. I have no minute to minute “on the ground” information, though.
My totally speculative idea about the desired endgame is a martyr-like Ruby Ridge type stand. I think they want to inspire their cause and go down in song, is it were. I don’t personally think that they believe that the Federal Government is going to turn over public land (that have been public lands since they were taken from native peoples) to private citizens. I do think that they would like to feel justified in not paying taxes and grazing fees and in poaching and otherwise using the public lands as they choose for personal gain. Mostly, I think this whole thing just gives them a hard-on.
What does your rancher uncle think about the Bundys?
A lot of what I’ve been reading makes a point of this land having been originally taken from native peoples in spite of treaties.
It is probably difficult to reason with folks claiming ancestral rights to land, but overlooking the fact it was another group’s ancestral land before their ancestors claimed it for themselves by force.
Of course, Bundy’s family has no ancestral claim, as far as I can tell.
Saintfan: this is off topic, but I am just increasingly curious how this works. When cattle are grazed on public land, are they rotated around so that the land isn’t overgrazed and ruined? Are areas replanted? If so, is this the responsibility of the rancher or BLM? Does the rancher have to provide hay/feed in winter? I am just wondering what feeding expenses a cattle owner has, when using public land? I saw some leasing fees/formulas which looked like this was all an excellent deal, but not detailed information. It did state all fees collected were used for land management for the direct benefit of the ranchers paying those fees. I am happy for ranchers to make money and federal land to be used for grazing. Just trying to understand it all. Where I am from, sometimes private landowners have restrictions put on land use when animals on their land become endangered. So I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for those using public lands objecting to those restrictions.
I think that’s likely too. I can understand the feds wanting to plan carefully how to remove the rabble with no loss of life and minimal damage, but I hope they don’t wait too long. These guys need to go.
I get a kick out of this report: even though Ammon Bundy claims that his group is prepared to occupy this land “for years,” other members of his group have taken to social media to ask for snacks, socks, and money.
Really? Snacks and energy drinks? Maybe “years” was an overstatement.
Doesn’t sound like they stockpiled much for a “years” siege. I’m glad the feds are carefully thinking out their response–don’t want to give the idiots who are illegally occupying any satisfaction or publicity. Also, don’t want any federal employees injured or killed.
I don’t know what he thinks of them. My dad says that he is pretty AM radio right wing about general politics but very evidence based and pragmatic with all talk around actual ranching issues. He hasn’t spoken to him since Christmas, though. The issue that they aren’t evidence based on is climate change and the resulting shifts in weather patterns, fire, water and feed availability. All of those things impact the cost of ranching but if one can’t acknowledge them then the economic hardship has to be the fault of government. You have to put the blame someplace and tyranny seems to be the easier answer.
This. I have no patience with people like the traitors* in Oregon getting even the level of kid-glove-handling they’re receiving right now, except insofar as it eliminates potential casualties among the innocent.
Yes, it's a strong label, but they're undertaking an armed rebellion against the federal government. Seems a fitting word to me.
I don’t know the fine specifics of range management. However, the BLM has a range manager for each area who is in charge of all those numbers. The BLM has fire fighters, range managers and does plant grass. I hear that they have been working on a type of range grass that is less likely to burn down through the roots so can be grazed sooner after a fire. There have been disagreements about the BLM policy of how long to keep cattle off a burned area. Some ranchers feel that if the grass gets too long it burns hotter and more readily when fire does come. Ranchers lease summer range rights but purchase and/or grow their own hay/alfalfa for feed over winter. With unpredictable weather patterns (drought and rain at the wrong times) hay qualities and nutritional content are impacted. I remember him talking about the relative nutritional content of different cuttings but I don’t remember the details of that.
Edit: My understanding has been that BLM lands are managed for resource use rather than preservation. This may have shifted somewhat, but growing up the BLM lands were always the ones that were clear cut or mined in a heavy handed way that was less considerate of environmental impacts. Much of the west has a strange checkerboard ownership pattern where they alternated private and BLM in association with building the railroads. With forests this often resulted in a checkerboard of clearcut sections and no contiguous undisturbed areas for wildlife. Conservation groups have been working to try to alleviate some of that and Federal management has been getting more environmentally conscious. That change has rankled some people and communities that were living relatively high based on easy access to public resources and the associated economies.
It doesn’t seem a really comparable situation to me, even though the Bundys and their supporters keep making the comparison. I hope no one else is allowed in. I hope no one else shows up. That could get tricky.
ETA: Saintfan: Thanks. That is interesting to me that changing weather conditions may be driving some of this. Weather is one of those things beyond a farmer/rancher’s control.
Doing anything that would allow them to be “martyrs” or some misguided heroes would seem to “play into their drama,” so I’m glad that a measured response is being contemplated that hopefully will have them get the appropriate actions and punishments without injuries or deaths among federal employees who just want to do their jobs.
The trouble is, I’m afraid like minded people are going to be arriving, laden with Cheetos and gym socks. Orr they’ll try to mail care packages of Gatorade mix. I expect the Feds will arrest any of the rabble who drive to town for supplies.
Here is a link for the Steens Mountains BLM site just adjacent to this take-over area. It is really an amazingly beautiful area. There are lots of waterfowl and hot springs in the lowlands as well.
I seriously believe they should be ignored for quite awhile. Allow time for boredom to take hold and fighting within to begin. There will be attrition. Disrupt them as much as possible to make them uncomfortable . And an absolute blackout on news media. Misinformation never hurts either.
You know we have whole manuals for this stuff.
Then allow the US special forces to go in and pick them off ( capture them) one by one as a training mission.
I think it would be a good time for our new military to test out their alternate weaponry, like (cold) water cannons, sonic cannons, and the LED incapacitator (throw up lights). Make them a little less comfortable.
Nutritional content of cut hay depends mostly on when in the growing season it’s cut. Multiple cuttings are an option in some climates, though it precludes using the land for grazing.
Old grass has more bulk but less food value and if you don’t want to buy hay, you need to understock your acreage. That, and buy all the equipment needed to cut & bale hay. Lie awake in bed worrying about the weather, too.