The Bundys and the Armed Occupation of a National Wildlife Refuge

The author's stand for a patient, bloodless resolution is admirable. I hope it ends that way, too.But as she notes, this has been going on for many years--more than 20 for Cliven Bundy, without consequence for him. The armed occupation is an escalation and has already provoked increased harassment of scientists and federal employees in the area.Patience can lead to understanding, but insulating people from the consequences of their actions too long leads to bad outcomes. Sometimes, forbearance begets nothing but license.The situation reminds me of Obama's first term, as he tried again and again to reach out beyond partisanship to the Congressional GOP. At some point, you have to accept that the other party has absolutely no interest in working with you, and your patience is seen as weakness.

I'm not going to post links since they are so available, but the internet trolling of the terrorists may be the most effective response we've seen: Y'all Qaeda, Vanilla ISIS... In response to their request that snacks be sent through the (government!) mail, many suggestions were made. My favorites are crow and humble pie, though M&Ms without the red commie ones is pretty good, too.Snickers.And I do like the tweet suggesting they might abandon their occupation to find their homes occupied by armed Native Americans who refuse to leave until all their lands are returned.The terrorists announced they would join a public meeting with local residents Friday to explain their actions and elicit support.Considerable support for federal restraint has come from various quarters, including retired FBI agents involved with previous stand-offs. The logic is that the place is isolated, thus not endangering the public; there are no hostages; the terrorists want confrontation. I suspect the widespread ridicule also looks attractive to the authorities, as it chafes the terrorists personally and erodes sympathy.Reportedly, there was some tension when another armed group joined them briefly, but they were sent away, and everyone relaxed. So this hands-off approach will work until it doesn't, I guess, and when it fails, it will fail spectacularly. What could go wrong with allowing armed felons on a mission from God to come and go freely?Imagine how this looks to anyone whose peaceful protest in public spaces were met with tear gas and tactical police. To Black Lives Matter folks, there could be no more vivid demonstration of white privilege: does anyone believe that a group of armed black men could seize anything, anywhere in the U.S., and enjoy this hands-off approach?The article from Tanypteryx's OP reminds me that the terrorists are a local, over-ripe fruit of the right's growing disdain for science, and their identification of it as a liberal tool. The public memory is short, and few people will remember how badly poor land use practices damaged the ecology of the west in previous decades. The terrorists complain of arbitrary, changing environmental regulations on their use of public land, as though they had been excellent stewards of it until the government intervened.Instead, they were despoiling public lands while paying pennies on the dollar cost of private grazing land (when they paid it). I'd like to know if private land owners give cattle ranchers a free hand to create the same damage. I doubt it.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

And a hat.

Greed, mixed with an ideological and historical antipathy to the Feds, creates a special breed of patriot.I followed a sidebar link on that page, Controversial Federal Grazing Fees Not A Great Deal For Anyone, to an article from Oregon Public Broadcasting. I'm still trying to work through all the points there, with some difficulty because it mixes numbers with general assertions, but many of the numbers there seem to contradict their headline.But the first chart on that page, Federal Grazing Fees Vs. State and Private, is of particular interest to me (sorry, lost my screen capture with the Windows 10 upgrade and can't duplicate it here). One can see that the federal fees dipped in the early 1980s and have remained essentially flat with only a minor uptick in recent years. Private grazing fees have risen steadily since the early 80s, more steeply recently, and are now about 2.5x what they were in the 80s.In the past five years, Oregon State grazing fees have risen more sharply than the others, after many flat years, and are now roughly 3x the federal rate.You'd think that radical ranchers would occupy Oregon state lands and take over state government first, given the purported support of Oregonians, and you have to wonder why Oregon state can't do a better job of providing low cost leases.The fact that federal fees cover a fraction of their management costs (we all make up the difference in taxes) suggests why Oregon's are so much higher, and makes it clear that, ultimately, only privitization could possibly serve the ranchers' land grab interests. But once they are private, the market rate of leases on that land would soar, as real world costs are recovered.But a lot of people would make a lot of money in the process.I've noticed in several reports the claim that Oregon is "land poor" because roughly half the state's 98K square miles are federal public lands. Oregon is the ninth largest state; 49K square miles weigh in as bigger than either Ohio or Pennsylvania. I understand that much of Oregon may not provide optimal terrain and climate for ranching, but that hardly seems an argument for turning it all over to what appears to be at best a marginally appropriate use.I live in a small village in the Adirondacks, just a few miles from the Blue Line that defines the Adirondack State Park. The tourism and hospitality industries provide major influxes of cash to communities nearby and within the Park. Many of the communities here feel disadvantaged by this, convinced that a free hand at logging, mining, and vacation home/resort development would rescue them from their economic doldrums. The kids wouldn't have to leave to find a future, and the standard of living would improve.They're probably right in the short term. A boom fueled by resource extraction and construction would probably lift all boats. But then what? People come here because it is beautiful and unspoiled: cut down the trees and mine the hills, ring the protected lakes with resorts and fill them with jet skis, and tourists could find everything we've got a lot closer to home. Despoiling these lands would be like using all your seed corn to make one great big enchilada: the boom would be a bomb.Driven through W. Virgina lately? I stopped and wept the last time I drove through their zone of mountaintop coal extraction. I haven't been back.The resentment of environmental and use laws also infuriate the local folks here. Winter sports--hunting, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing--are important attractors. There are 1,800 miles of snowmobile trails in the Park. But that's not enough--there is constant pressure to open up more, including into areas that enjoy the Park's highest protected status. If there is a one mile trail hike to a trout stream, the snowmobilers and 4-wheelers insist it is unfair to keep their vehicles off that trail. If a lake's pristine quiet is protected, then the lobbying is for opening up old fire and logging roads so that motorboats can use it, too.It's only fair, they say. We should be able to use every square inch accessible to deep back country hikers and campers. Every lake should enjoy the noise, fuel and invasive species pollution brought by motorboats.,This fight isn't going away anywhere. Some folks look at the natural world and see $$$ hanging from the trees or tumbling across the prairies and deserts. That extracting those $$$ would forever destroy a resource that banks many millions of dollars per year for local communities in perpetuity is irrelevant. We see again that there is no conserve in conservatives: drill it all, mine it all, cut it all down: our future generations can solve their own resource problems; the loss of truly wild nature isn't seen as a problem.There may be more toxic mixes than greed and ideology (faith and ethnic fear/hate?), but I don't know any that pose a greater threat to a natural heritage that belongs to us all. There are also many New Yorkers determind to protect the Park, and I suspect that the ranchers, while succeeding in rousing like-minded folks, have also galvanized many more Americans who are aghast at their actions and intentions. I hope so.Edited by Omnivorous, : Ack...fixed one thing, live with the rest.Edited by Omnivorous, : Just couldn't leave cross-country skiing without the second o...

If I could persuade everyone to read one article on the public land use issue, it would be this one.I recently read a history of the transcontinental railroad, so I had some idea of the land grab associated with it; similarly, I was aware of the abuses by large ranchers of the Homestead Act--as the article notes, even Hollywood westerns made that clear.But I found the scale of the loss/theft of public lands over the last 150 years staggering.I'm not going to quote to illustrate it here. Read it.

Hunters Push Back, Tear Down Militants' Sign At Malheur Refuge

quote:

---

A group of Oregon sportsmen are attempting to drum up a formal opposition to the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon.

​

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, a sportsmen’s group based in Joseph, Oregon, posted a video to its Facebook page Tuesday showing a man tearing a makeshift sign used by militants to cover a refuge sign.

​

...

​

In the video released by the sportsmen, they say by tearing down the sign they are removing extremist attempts to grab our public lands.

​

...

​

It’s a baldfaced grab at the lands that belong to the people of the United States, Heckert said.

​

I can guarantee what that means is that pretty soon they’ll start saying, ‘Well, you guys can’t come out on this land because it’s ranchland.’

---

I've quoted most of the meat, but there's a heart-warming video Hunters vs. ranchers: just when I was wondering, where's Gary Cooper when you need him?I'm pleased to report hearing similar sentiments from hunters (everybody hunts here); and while New York cattle ranching is miniscule compared to the western states, the ranchers I know, who work hard to make a living without subsidies, show nothing but disdain for the terrorists.Big Ken (Rocky to his friends), who shares my fondness for biscuits and gravy at Motors, and who supplements his ranching income by hauling other folks' cattle to market, says of the occupiers' long absence from their ranches, "Those guys ain't ranchers, they're investors."

Well, yeah, me too.I've found opb.org really helpful at delivering some reassurance about local and regional sentiment out west: a 2013 survey showing western residents favor the benefits of public lands and parks over profit-driven exploitation by a wide margin; that 40% of Harney County residents are federal employees, with most families including both federal employees and ranchers, and that even local folks sympathetic to the Bundy's complaints reject their methods.I'm a bit obsessed and considerably frightened, perhaps in part because I made my first wide-ranging visit to western states just a few years ago and have seriously considered relocating, spellbound by the splendor of it (Beartooth Pass is a life-changing sight); and because I fear a perfect storm of conservative electoral success and corporate-funded movements to take public lands for private profit.Also, I have kids and grandkids. It's their land, too, and I'll be damned if I'll let these guys take it.

I'm trying to cut back but I found some useful links and encouraging Oregonian reactions here: Wildlife enthusiasts plan protests over Oregon occupation

quote:

---

Friends of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has gained about 400 new members to its original circle of about 150 since Bundy and about 20 other protesters took over the refuge on Jan. 2 after a rally to support the imprisoned local ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond.

​

New members and other donors have given about $10,000 to the group since the takeover began, Ivey said.

​

While the Friends would typically spend that money on projects, Ivey said, some of it now might have to go to fix things that they suspect occupiers have broken.

​

And while the Friends are careful about criticizing the law enforcement response, some are pushing the FBI and other agencies to act.

​

An online petition created on a White House Web page raises the point that continuing to allow the occupation could lead to similar actions in the future.

---

The comments are interesting as well, with some folks offering to run 'em off.Don't mess with birders.

I appreciate your remarks, Hyroglyphx. I know we disagree on much, but the Oregon occupation should upset anyone who believes in the rule of law.The current stand-off is a bipartisan failure of governance. Cliven Bundy has defied the law for two decades, through both Republican and Democratic administrtaions. I don't believe this extraordinary restraint was due to any desire to avoid bloodshed--rather, no one wanted to pay the political price for enforcing the law. Republicans didn't want to alienate their conservative supporters; Democrats didn't want to energize the conservative opposition or increase its ranks. Both failed in their duty to uphold the law and protect the interests of all the people.Federal officials say only that the elder Bundy's crimes remain "under investigation."It is curious that this heroic restraint persisted through a period where law enforcement embraced the "broken window" model of policing: tolerate minor infractions, and you encourage more serious crime. Bundy has serenely continued his crimes, while in the great liberal cities, young black men are stopped and frisked for walking while black.I'd be okay with waiting these yahoos out if I thought they'd face consequences later. It defies belief that Cliven Bundy for 20 years managed to avoid any scenario where he could be uneventfully arrested: law enforcement simply lacked the will.So I'm not optimistic about an aggressive prosecution of the occupiers once they leave the refuge.But the occupiers may not feel so sanguine. Social and news media ring with cries for their prosecution, even among folks from whom they expected support.
They face the risk of financial ruin and prison terms once they no longer stand as an armed group. I don't think they set out to be martyrs--they made a fine calculation based on the expectation of an impotent federal response--but they might well prefer martyrdom to incarceration.So, okay, wait them out. But the scenario needs to change. They need to be contained: one of them steals a refuge truck and is only stopped in town where he went for supplies? That's absurd. They need to be made more uncomfortable--no utilities, no mail, no in-and-out traffic for supplies. Block their cell phones. The local sherriff's offer to escort them to the state line was well-intentioned but wrong-headed: no parades.Preventing these guys from staying, and leaving, on their own terms is essential.

In recent days, The Bodacious Bundy Bros. traveled out of state to recruit more ranchers to stop paying grazing leases.They've paved a road through ancestral Paiute lands.They've ransacked federal personnel records.The founder of the Oath Keepers has warned the government not to "Waco" the occupiers unless it wants a "bloody brutal civil war."What to do, what to do?After surfing some right-wing sites, I suggest a few flyovers that use the mind control chemtrail technology the feds keep under wraps.

I volunteer to make the mix tape.

I expect the Bundys et al. have made that politically impossible.

I'm afraid they'd like that too much.In 1989, U.S. forces used deafening music to persuade Noriega to surrender from sanctuary in the Apostolic Nunciature. Wiki

quote:

---

Reportedly the song "I Fought The Law" by The Clash was played repeatedly along with "Welcome to the Jungle" by Guns N' Roses; another song in the line-up was "Too Old To Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young to Die" by Jethro Tull.

---

Guns N' Roses suck, but The Clash and Tull were too good for Noriega. Still, it seemed to work, though the Holy See was not amused.I was thinking more along the lines of what the occupiers would find most distasteful: some serious hip-hop, perhaps, featuring Who Let The Dogs Out (Baha Men); definitely all of Straight Outta Compton (N.W.A). For racial balance, maybe mix in some Morrissey, who could whine anyone into submission; a few hours of ear-splitting, outta-tune-flat Cher could work, too. Hell, throw in some Gogol Bordello and The Klezmatics.Black, gay, Native American, Gypsy and Jewish: these guys hate difference. They'll crack overnight.While writing this, your idea grew on me. Hours of Big Bird and Barney would drive anyone into the slough of despair.Really, I'd appreciate any federal effort, any at all.

We wanna drive 'em out, not push all of Oregon into open rebellion.

I think that may be true. They got their community meeting, where they heard chants to go! go! go! Alpha Bundy repeated his insistence on staying until the Hammonds were released and federal lands surrendered.At long last, having made a mental note a dozen times, I googled 'Hammond arson trial'. I recommend it. Not only were the Hammonds serial arsonists, the feds reacted to their first (of at least three) arson with only a warning.The Hammonds claim they started one of the prosecuted fires to clear invasive species, and the other as a back-burn to stop a fire on federal lands from reaching their winter feed. They also endangered a working fire-fighting crew on a butte above them with the latter and concealed evidence of deer poaching with the former. They fired at hunters on public lands.They instructed a young nephew to start one fire; he had to shelter in a creek to survive it. He was also later subjected to abuse: forced to eat two cans of chewing tobacco and then hike 10 miles; subjected to crude dermabrasionof his chest with coarse sandpaper because the family disliked the initials he carved there with a safety pin.The sanding took about five minutes. The family won't tell who did the sanding: 'It was a family decision. He agreed to it.' He testified against the two Hammonds now in jail. "Light the whole county on fire!" he said he was told.There's more, a lot more.A lot of this stuff is glossed over in coverage of the occupation. It's revealing to learn what kind of jamokes they're threatening bloodshed to free.