Jump to content

Oregon


StrangeSox
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 02:14 PM)
I have explained myself clearly. You have held two ideas in your head that

a) there is a fringe population in the west that has acted out in illegal and damaging activities due to an ideology that they have been slighted by the fed regulation of the land. There is a fringier population among them who is currently holding land hostage by force.

b) There is a larger population of people that do not support the first part of a and certainly second part of a, but do support policies in a range of exploitative grazing/mining or use of land for quads.

 

Yet actually hold them all together as one group.

 

My concerns are about group B, whom in all reports on your google searches on the matter, do not support the actions of A, but always caveat to sympathize with the handling of the lands under federal management.

 

You continue to read that, and assume it's about group A.

 

You remind me of discussions of Black Lives Matter, where no discussion of the actual grievances of human people matter because you really want to talk about the group that rioted. Nothing and no where have I stated anything that the group that stormed the federal land should receive leniency in punishment.

 

In a similar way that you may pardon a protestor arrested for legitimate reasons but has sympathetic support may be a strategic consideration to show understanding, pardons could be applied to groups StrangeSox doesn't actually agree with.

 

Also, the "years of government outreach" do not necessarily mean anything. Good governance is effective governance.

 

What does caveat to sympathize mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2016 -> 12:25 PM)
More heavily armed crazy people show up at the refuge

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/ja...avily-armed-men

Why didn't the US cutoff the refuge cabin? Just seems silly to let more people gather there and let supplies continue to flow in. Why wouldn't we just surround them and let them get hungry (or sober)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, maybe if we can get all the racist lunatic militia types all on this wildlife refuge, walk away and leave them there, never having to hear from them again... is that such a bad thing? I think I'd trade away one wildlife refuge if it meant all those idiots would voluntarily walk into a box and we wouldn't have to deal with them anywhere else. They kinda chose their own jail.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 07:16 AM)
You know, maybe if we can get all the racist lunatic militia types all on this wildlife refuge, walk away and leave them there, never having to hear from them again... is that such a bad thing? I think I'd trade away one wildlife refuge if it meant all those idiots would voluntarily walk into a box and we wouldn't have to deal with them anywhere else. They kinda chose their own jail.

As great as that sounds you know it would never be enough for those guys, once they get a small victory over the US on this and their populace continues to grow then they'll want to escalate because that's what these people do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 10, 2016 -> 10:44 PM)
Why didn't the US cutoff the refuge cabin? Just seems silly to let more people gather there and let supplies continue to flow in. Why wouldn't we just surround them and let them get hungry (or sober)?

 

I still don't understand this either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 08:56 AM)
As great as that sounds you know it would never be enough for those guys, once they get a small victory over the US on this and their populace continues to grow then they'll want to escalate because that's what these people do.

I was joking.

 

Mostly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/ja...ck-it-up-and-go

 

The local sheriff policing the occupation of a wildlife refuge in Oregon said he has received numerous death threats since armed militia took over the remote government outpost over the weekend.

 

Harney County sheriff David Ward told local residents on Wednesday that his wife had left town for her safety after strangers followed her home one night and someone slit her car tire. He said he had received anonymous letters with numerous misspellings that included death threats.

 

Worse still, the sheriff said, strangers had come to town to harass his elderly parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 04:14 PM)
They're taking down BLM fences to allow cattle to graze freely, rifling through government documents, accessing government computer systems, and driving around in stolen BLM vehicles.

 

l1g0LRY.jpg

More rope. More charges to be filed.

 

But these are signs it is time to up the response a bit. First level ultimatums have to come soon. They've had their chance to reach out meaningfully, and apparently haven't done so. Feds need to explain how things go from here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that these people deserve a fair trial and not just to be assassinated, this should be pretty easy to resolve peacefully.

 

But first, please God create a perimeter and stop letting them wander in and out of their play den. Cut off their supplies, cut off access to media...and it ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since they're taking down fences because the government shouldn't interfere with cattle grazing, this is where my part comes in.

 

This basin is in the middle of a desert, it receives on average about 10 inches of rain per year. However, Lake Malheur is a large lake maintained by runoff from snowmelt in mountains to the west and particularly to the South off of Steens Mountain, a pile of faulted volcanic rock. (Interestingly, the main river that supplies water is the Donner und Blitzen River, just had to note that).

 

Cattle ranching in this area began in the late 1800s when laws were changed in California that gave fixed agriculture better access to land and water resources than cattle ranching. Ranchers moved out to other states, including Oregon. They settled in this area and set up ranches.

 

In the process, they took much of the water supply that otherwise flowed into Lake Malheur, and two smaller lakes knwon as Mud Lake and Harney Lake. The bottom of those lakes is filled with fine-grained, glacially-ground sediment that is covered with salt; the inflowing water carries lots of salt with it that binds to sediments as it sinks. This mixture of salty, fine-grained sediment is terrible for people to breathe and a major pollution hazard; it also carries trace metals and other nasty things with it. While there is a lake on top of the sediment, the lake water keeps it buried, but if you bring it to the surface, it becomes a rapid environmental disaster.

 

The Malheur Wildlife Refuge was established in 1908 IIRC, but it only covered the lake area, it didn't include the water supply. As the water supply was used up in ranching, water to the lake trickled and the lake volume began decreasing. As the lake volume decreased, the fine-grained sediment at the bottom parched and was exposed to the wind. This sets up and creates dust storms, which impact the climate of the local area and can bury and kill vegetation and ranches. Similar examples include the now-desertified Aral Sea in the former Soviet Union and Owens Lake in California, which became a gigantic environmental disaster after Los Angeles stole its water supply.

 

The lack of water inflow into the lake was literally on the verge of killing ranching in the entire area. In the mid 1930s, the Federal Government finally was able to purchase the main water supply heading into the lake, and as water inflow resumed, the lake volume increased and the desertification of the area was avoided.

 

From that point, ranching gradually recovered over the next several decades until in the 1960s it reached a point where the government began limiting the amount of ranching because they have that authority and they control the water supply.

 

This, of course, is an unconstitutional set of limits on ranching in the area to these people and so now they're cutting down fences because the government has no right to limit ranching on that land.

 

The irony, of course, is that had the government not stepped in and limited ranching in that area, there would be zero ranchers or anyone else living in that now desertified, uninhabitable, dust-covered area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwes...gon_stando.html

 

Since the occupation began, there have been reports of law enforcement being followed home or watched, Sheriff Ward said in a written statement. A recent call to action by one of the groups drew many more people to Harney County, and the intimidating behavior continued, he said.

 

Although the sheriff did not identify any specific groups or individuals, the Pacific Patriot Network, a coalition of anti-government groups, put out a statement Jan. 7 urging its members to come to the wildlife refuge.

 

One of the network's founders bristled at the idea that his organization could be responsible for harassing law enforcement.

 

"That's not anything we tolerate and its not anything that we're doing," Joseph Rice said.

 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife employees have told the Sheriff that they've been approached by self-styled militia members while grocery shopping or running errands with their families. The militia members would "engage employees and family members in debates about their status as Federal employees," Sheriff Ward said.

 

Nothing happened to the guys who threatened the local businesses at the Bundy Ranch standoff, so it's not shocking to seem them emboldened by another huge non-response here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 11:00 AM)
County manager says he'll be billing them for the tens of thousands of dollars per day or so that it costs them to maintain the place and deal with their B.S. So there will be a combo of fines and civil action against these idiots to when it's all over.

I hope so, but at the same time, Cliven Bundy has owed the federal government millions of dollars for years now and, as far as I know, is still illegally grazing his cattle on BLM land. Fines don't mean much if they won't enforce them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 11:07 AM)
I hope so, but at the same time, Cliven Bundy has owed the federal government millions of dollars for years now and, as far as I know, is still illegally grazing his cattle on BLM land. Fines don't mean much if they won't enforce them.

 

So, is there really no way to "garnish" wages? Surely the man takes out loans, etc. He gets electricity, presumably. I feel like with normal people these would be effected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he's a wage earner--he runs his own ranch. But yeah you'd think they'd be able to seize his bank accounts or something. Maybe the fines are still being litigated?

 

Either way he's still illegally grazing his animals on BLM land without paying the appropriate fees or abiding by the appropriate regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...