Oregon

[bmags]

Except you are literally supporting the mandatory minimum overriding that judges decision in this case.

[StrangeSox]

Except you are literally supporting the mandatory minimum overriding that judges decision in this case.

 

I disagree that Obama should pardon the two ranchers or that a five year sentence "looks ridiculous." Whether or not there was any mandatory minimum, I think five years sounds like a reasonable sentence for their crimes and history. Unless you think the President should pardon every person who receives a mandatory minimum sentence that is harsher than what the sentencing judge would have imposed, these guys shouldn't receive any special treatment and don't have a very sympathetic case anyway.

 

As the law stands right now, yeah, I do support the circuit court enforcing the law instead of letting a district judge arbitrarily decide to ignore the law because it sets a pretty terrible precedent and not just for sentencing. I think appellate courts forcing lower courts to follow existing law is necessary for a fair justice system. Re-sentencing when trial judges don't follow the law is what happens routinely.

 

I also support the abolition of mandatory minimums. This is not contradictory to also believing that judges need to adhere to the law as it currently stands. If there had been no mandatory minimum, there would not even be a mechanism for the government to appeal the initial sentence (which absolutely everyone was aware would happen when the initial sentence was handed down), and that would be fine.

[StrangeSox]

Unless you think the President should pardon every person who receives a mandatory minimum sentence that is harsher than what the sentencing judge would have imposed

 

actually that would be pretty awesome

[bmags]

I disagree that Obama should pardon the two ranchers or that a five year sentence "looks ridiculous." Whether or not there was any mandatory minimum, I think five years sounds like a reasonable sentence for their crimes and history. Unless you think the President should pardon every person who receives a mandatory minimum sentence that is harsher than what the sentencing judge would have imposed, these guys shouldn't receive any special treatment and don't have a very sympathetic case anyway.

 

As the law stands right now, yeah, I do support the circuit court enforcing the law instead of letting a district judge arbitrarily decide to ignore the law because it sets a pretty terrible precedent and not just for sentencing. I think appellate courts forcing lower courts to follow existing law is necessary for a fair justice system. Re-sentencing when trial judges don't follow the law is what happens routinely.

 

I also support the abolition of mandatory minimums. This is not contradictory to also believing that judges need to adhere to the law as it currently stands. If there had been no mandatory minimum, there would not even be a mechanism for the government to appeal the initial sentence (which absolutely everyone was aware would happen when the initial sentence was handed down), and that would be fine.

 

There's an argument.

 

I'm not advocating that any law be imposed. By law, they should go back for the correct sentencing. Hence the pardon, a legal maneuver. The pardon is a political move. For one, there is clearly something rotten in the west right now between BLM and local population. Sending someone back for more time after time served seems more cruel than the correct sentencing applied already. If you want to send them back for child abuse, that's a different case entirely.

 

While the environmental cases should be held strong, the general use of the land as park space seems to be a huge opportunity for good will there and should be looked at.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

There's an argument.

 

I'm not advocating that any law be imposed. By law, they should go back for the correct sentencing. Hence the pardon, a legal maneuver. The pardon is a political move. For one, there is clearly something rotten in the west right now between BLM and local population. Sending someone back for more time after time served seems more cruel than the correct sentencing applied already. If you want to send them back for child abuse, that's a different case entirely.

 

While the environmental cases should be held strong, the general use of the land as park space seems to be a huge opportunity for good will there and should be looked at.

 

As far as the sentencing was concerned, all parties knew upfront that the judge was disregarding the law, that the prosecution was going to appeal and that resentencing was almost 100% going to be the outcome. To add to that, the original plea deal that the Hammonds agreed to included five year sentences. The judge decided to throw that agreement out and impose his own sentencing in direct contradiction of the law. As the Popehat link explains, this is pretty banal legally. There's nothing abnormal about resentencing when a judge doesn't follow the law, and that includes sending people back to prison to serve the appropriate sentence even if they've already been released from the initial sentence.

 

What is the positive political outcome of pardoning these guys? Why them instead of countless of others that are far more deserving? Have they even asked/petitioned for a pardon, or has it been a bunch of out-of-staters? What message does it send to the Yokel Haram clowns if that's your response?

 

 

 

Regarding public land in the west, there's been "something rotten" between BLM/various federal agencies and ranchers/miners/loggers for several decades, even in cases (such as this one and the Bundys!) where the ranchers who hate the BLM get sweetheart land lease deals that are about 10% of the normal grazing land lease rates. These people generally reject any sort of environmental concern and really any restriction whatsoever on how they use public land and only see agricultural, extractive industrial, or destructive recreational (e.g. guys who want to be able to blast through fragile ecosystems and culturally important sites on ATVs) purposes for the land. They want the land turned over to private parties (generally themselves!) for free, or they want to be able to graze/log/mine the land at will with no restrictions or requirements. It's not their land, it's all of ours, and they want that changed.

 

The refuge the bozos are occupying is open to the public, and tourism is an important part of the local economy. The park is crucial for migratory birds, so lots and lots of birders head there each year. The local population doesn't really seem to have a problem with the refuge. You also need to keep the ranchers and their sentencing separate from the militia guys--the ranchers aren't demanding that all BLM land be turned over or anything crazy like that. They're pursuing their legal fight through the courts on non-crazy/normal grounds.

Edited January 6, 2016 by StrangeSox

[illinilaw08]

As far as the sentencing was concerned, all parties knew upfront that the judge was disregarding the law, that the prosecution was going to appeal and that resentencing was almost 100% going to be the outcome. To add to that, the original plea deal that the Hammonds agreed to included five year sentences. The judge decided to throw that agreement out and impose his own sentencing in direct contradiction of the law. As the Popehat link explains, this is pretty banal legally. There's nothing abnormal about resentencing when a judge doesn't follow the law, and that includes sending people back to prison to serve the appropriate sentence even if they've already been released from the initial sentence.

 

What is the positive political outcome of pardoning these guys? Why them instead of countless of others that are far more deserving? Have they even asked/petitioned for a pardon, or has it been a bunch of out-of-staters? What message does it send to the Yokel Haram clowns if that's your response?

 

 

 

Regarding public land in the west, there's been "something rotten" between BLM/various federal agencies and ranchers/miners/loggers for several decades, even in cases (such as this one and the Bundys!) where the ranchers who hate the BLM get sweetheart land lease deals that are about 10% of the normal grazing land lease rates. These people generally reject any sort of environmental concern and really any restriction whatsoever on how they use public land and only see agricultural, extractive industrial, or destructive recreational (e.g. guys who want to be able to blast through fragile ecosystems and culturally important sites on ATVs) purposes for the land. They want the land turned over to private parties (generally themselves!) for free, or they want to be able to graze/log/mine the land at will with no restrictions or requirements. It's not their land, it's all of ours, and they want that changed.

 

The refuge the bozos are occupying is open to the public, and tourism is an important part of the local economy. The park is crucial for migratory birds, so lots and lots of birders head there each year. The local population doesn't really seem to have a problem with the refuge. You also need to keep the ranchers and their sentencing separate from the militia guys--the ranchers aren't demanding that all BLM land be turned over or anything crazy like that. They're pursuing their legal fight through the courts on non-crazy/normal grounds.

 

Vox with an interesting piece on the conflicts between the BLM and certain people in the West.

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10718128/feder...-oregon-militia

 

I live in close proximity to a lot of cool outdoors stuff here in Colorado and much of it is national forest. Letting that land go back to the states increases the likelihood that logging and mining will replace some of the recreational value of the places I spend a lot of my weekends in the summer.

 

There's a delicate balance out west between the economic value of the land (and a lot of the rural communities in the west depend on those industries) and the environmental and recreational value of that land (the value of federal protection of national forests is one of the few times environmental groups and hunters see eye-to-eye in Colorado). It's a difficult issue, but I don't see how that equates to "something rotten in the BLM."

 

Furthermore, why on Earth would you give in to these "protestors" and pardon these guys - even though they don't endorse the occupation of the federal building? There are plenty of people much more deserving of pardons and any pardon is a tacit endorsement of the illegal behavior of the protestors...

[NorthSideSox72]

One of the great hilarities in this whole Oregon thing is, they are so focused on "unwinding" (their word) the land deals that ended in the current federal ownership of the NWR. This is laughable for so many reasons, but three primarily...

 

1. The federal ownership means ranchers get to lease the land for cheaper than it would be to maintain it if they owned it. So they mostly don't want to anyway!

 

2. If you want to "unwind" it to the first time the feds acquired it, you'd end up with a million-plus acre Indian Reservation (Pauite or Klamath I think, I read it this morning). That tribe now has a tiny fraction of that, a larger fraction is the NWR, and the rest did indeed go to private owners, so there is more private ownership today than historically. At no point, from what I've read, did ranchers ever legally own any land (in this case) that was taken by the federal government. So if their efforts succeeded, they would accomplish the opposite of what they supposedly want.

 

3. As stated already here, the locals they supposedly are standing up for don't want any of this.

 

The whole thing is a farce. It's really about just one thing - they want less government presence. Which in itself isn't a problem- there are lots of good reasons for that. But these dolts are apparently, blissfully unaware of how things work, not to mention the whole armed sedition thing. If I was someone in favor of finding ways to roll back federal land ownership in the West, I'd be screaming at these morons to get off my side.

 

[StrangeSox]

Something else to keep in mind is that BLM, National Forest Service and Fish & Wildlife have different missions than the National Park Service. There's already lots of mining, logging and grazing on BLM and NFS land, it's just that it's controlled and restricted rather than clear-cut-the-trees, burn-everything-for-grazing, strip-mine-it-all anything goes environmental destruction. Drive around the Olympic Peninsula and you'll see lots of signs indicating when various tracts of NFS lands were last harvested and when they're next scheduled to be harvested.

 

As for turning control of various federal land over to the states, at least Utah has done a cost estimate on this. They found that it would be prohibitively expensive to maintain all that land at the state level, meaning it'd mostly get sold off to private interests and/or would be left in very poor states of management. They could be profitable only if they dumped most of the land, leased a bunch of it for oil extraction and oil prices stayed high.

 

And just gotta stress again, the ranchers that are in jail are not making crazy "ALL FEDERAL LAND OWNERSHIP IS ILLEGITIMATE!" demands, and they want the yahoos to go away. Those guys took the ranchers' issue over sentencing and made it about their much more ideological and much crazier fight over federal land ownership and management in the west.

 

 

[bmags]

Vox with an interesting piece on the conflicts between the BLM and certain people in the West.

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10718128/feder...-oregon-militia

 

I live in close proximity to a lot of cool outdoors stuff here in Colorado and much of it is national forest. Letting that land go back to the states increases the likelihood that logging and mining will replace some of the recreational value of the places I spend a lot of my weekends in the summer.

 

There's a delicate balance out west between the economic value of the land (and a lot of the rural communities in the west depend on those industries) and the environmental and recreational value of that land (the value of federal protection of national forests is one of the few times environmental groups and hunters see eye-to-eye in Colorado). It's a difficult issue, but I don't see how that equates to "something rotten in the BLM."

 

Furthermore, why on Earth would you give in to these "protestors" and pardon these guys - even though they don't endorse the occupation of the federal building? There are plenty of people much more deserving of pardons and any pardon is a tacit endorsement of the illegal behavior of the protestors...

 

I said something rotten between the BLM and the western states. BLM is not national park service.

 

I'm also not pardoning the protestors, which, the assumption would be are in for criminal prosecution at the point their snacks run out and get cold.

 

And you are allowed to use multiple pardons. Indeed, there is no limit.

[StrangeSox]

I said something rotten between the BLM and the western states. BLM is not national park service.

 

I'm also not pardoning the protestors, which, the assumption would be are in for criminal prosecution at the point their snacks run out and get cold.

 

And you are allowed to use multiple pardons. Indeed, there is no limit.

 

illini mentioned the national US forest service, not the national park service (which turns 100 this year! get out to your parks!). The USFS also gets plenty of grief in the west. As his Vox link and my prior post pointed out, there has been conflict over federal land ownership and management since the federal government started placing restrictions on their (very steeply discounted) land leases.

 

The land that the crazy loons are squatting on is already open to the public. Middle of winter isn't a great time, but if you like birds, it's fantastic during migration seasons. They want the public land we all can go visit any time to be turned over to private interests.

 

I still do not see where you've explained why these two ranchers deserve a commutation of their sentence in the first place.

 

 

edit: whoops wrong acronym for the forest service, it's USFS not NFS

Edited January 6, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

You assume any moves to understand the conflict where a significant group of people in interaction with the government service includes accommodating all demands.

 

There has been long festering issues here, and when consistent destructive acts continue to be applied, that atmosphere creates the atmosphere of "they may have went too far, but I hate the BLM...so"

 

That situation, if not resolved, creates a larger problem where if any major (and positive) action may need to be done on those lands with the help of local population, they will not have the trust and support of it.

 

Your assertion here that "what they want" is the list of demands from disparate parties to have unlimited use of the lands. This reminds me of the Missouri protests where people looked at certain ridiculous demands and said "they want this but X, X, X!"

 

What I see here is a situation where a large constituency who may have illegitimate demands, but the real issue is a a group who does not feel that they have a process to raise and legitimately address their concerns. When it comes to the federal government controlling local land all around you, yes I can see that being a huge concern.

 

Pardoning some local participants with local support and addressing how a process can be created to create a more consistent and transparent process to the changing of rules that affect this people would help prevent a situation like now where people get lockstep behind the craziest demands just because they are so fed up.

 

If you can't empathize with these people, I'd suggest looking at your own run-ins with local gov't and land use situations. I get frustrated often, and I have clear and transparent areas where I can address it.

[StrangeSox]

Perhaps you should try reading the Vox link and the numerous links therein for some background on 1) the source of the tension over federal land management in the west and 2) the efforts to improve relations with local populations by federal agencies for years now. There are a lot of competing interests that the federal agencies need to balance, and resource extraction/grazing is explicitly one of them.

 

When I refer to "what they want," I'm referring to the fringe of the fringe, the types that are occupying the wildlife refuge and believe that federal ownership of the land isn't even constitutional. I have no empathy for them or their ideologies, and they represent a tiny minority.

 

Pardoning some local ranchers who repeatedly broke the law and endangered others' lives will not improve relations. They were convicted by a jury of their peers in rural Eastern Oregon. These ranchers aren't even demanding what the crazy people are demanding. The ranchers don't appear to believe that BLM regulations apply to them, but they're also not the ones turning this into a spectacle. The locals don't support the crazy land transfer demands, the ranchers don't, this is a tiny fringe and there's no reason to appease them. The local population is lockstep behind rejecting these idiots and wanting them to GTFO of there and go back to their own state.

[StrangeSox]

Here's a decent primer on formation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and the Sagebrush Rebellion more broadly.

 

 

[bmags]

None of what I said is arguing against your second and third paragraphs, except that I disagree that pardoning does nothing.

 

Please, for the love of god, stop posting a bunch of article put together by 24 year olds who googled this for 3 hours. I have already THEM and already read the articles that they GOOGLED.

[StrangeSox]

Then I remain confused as to why you seem to have zero understanding and think pardoning a couple of ranchers who have broken the law repeatedly for over 20 years, threatened various federal employees, and endangered the lives of others would have a positive impact on local relations with the BLM.

 

eta Nancy Langston, the author of the NYT piece I linked, is a professor of environmental history and published her first book in 1995. I am reasonably sure that she is not 24 years old and has spent more than 3 hours of google research on this topic.

 

eta2: also I would appreciate if you would acknowledge that the Hammonds were made explicitly aware that the government was going to appeal the original sentence, that the government wase guaranteed to win that appeal, and that the sentence that would be imposed was the same deal that the Hammonds agreed to. It doesn't seem particularly "cruel" but absolutely routine.

Edited January 6, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

While the environmental cases should be held strong, the general use of the land as park space seems to be a huge opportunity for good will there and should be looked at.

 

Can you explain what you mean here? The wildlife refuge is already open to the public and provides a decent amount of tourism for the local economy. If you acceded to the ranchers' demands, though, the ecosystem would be damaged, wildlife would suffer and tourism would decline.

[bmags]

Then I remain confused as to why you seem to have zero understanding and think pardoning a couple of ranchers who have broken the law repeatedly for over 20 years, threatened various federal employees, and endangered the lives of others would have a positive impact on local relations with the BLM.

 

eta Nancy Langston, the author of the NYT piece I linked, is a professor of environmental science and published her first book in 1995. I am reasonably sure that she is not 24 years old.

 

eta2: also I would appreciate if you would acknowledge that the Hammonds were made explicitly aware that the government was going to appeal the original sentence, that the government wase guaranteed to win that appeal, and that the sentence that would be imposed was the same deal that the Hammonds agreed to. It doesn't seem particularly "cruel" but absolutely routine.

 

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.

Edited January 6, 2016 by bmags

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

This is just simply not true. It's not easy keeping the different parts clear, but I'm the one who first pointed out to you that the Sagebrush Rebellion was a thing going back a couple of decades while you seem to have just been made aware of western tensions with federal land management (the Hammonds being sentenced for arson for repeatedly committing arson is not indicative of tensions with the BLM). I also posted the article from the not-24-years-old environmental historian describing the roots of this tension. I am very far from any sort of expert, but I have read about these issues going back several years now, so this isn't just quick google research like you keep trying to claim.

 

Western ranchers, loggers and miners face a similar plight to that of factory workers in the Rust Belt and coal miners in Appalachia. The world has changed over the last several decades, and their way of life has largely disappeared with it for a complex web of reasons. They deserve empathy, even if I don't agree with them ideologically.

 

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.

 

No, you want leniency for the guys who repeatedly violated BLM regulations and threatened and endangered people while obstructing federal operations for over two decades now. I do not believe they deserve any, and the jury that heard their case didn't believe they deserved any.

 

You keep implying that the Hammonds are some sort of symbol for a larger movement here. They weren't engaged in protest actions, it was just arson for their own personal gain/coverup of poaching. Who would be on the receiving end of that particular fig leaf? Who is asking for them to be released?

 

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

 

What you said here doesn't really mean anything, though. The way the federal agencies engage with local populations has changed since the regulations first started being applied in the 70's, and it tends to be a more cooperative process now than simply "here are new regulations, follow them or be fined/jailed." Collaboration with locals is crucial, and nothing about imprisoning a couple of ranchers who showed repeatedly that they didn't think the law applied to them for malicious arson does not undermine that.

Edited January 6, 2016 by StrangeSox

[illinilaw08]

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.

 

The crux of the issue between the citizenry and the BLM/other federal agencies (largely the US Forest Service) is in regards to economic activity on that land. Rural communities in the West are dependent on extracting resources from that land for economic livelihood. That economic need is balanced against environmental, climate, and conservation needs. Most of the economic drivers are hard on the land.

 

The not-fringe position is returning the land operated by the BLM/USFS to the states. The Senate actually took up a vote earlier this year that would have paved the way for this transfer of land (couldn't get to 60 votes). As mentioned earlier in this thread, there are significant costs associated with the states taking on that land including, but not limited to, the massive amount of funds the feds spend fighting forest fires on federal land (and private land) each year.

 

The BLM has its problems, but the critics of the BLM and the USFS is economic in nature. Calling the feds the bad guy and those opposed to the feds the good guys (your category B), grossly misstates the actual issue regarding the use and control of federal land in the West.

 

Finally, on the pardoning, in light of the economic costs associated with wildfires in the West, if the Hammonds were pardoned it would exclusively be because a bunch of armed militia occupied federal land. Even in the event that a pardon was justified, and the occupiers themselves faced prison time for their acts, it emboldens militia in these land use disputes. After the incident at the Bundy ranch, the feds really can't embolden those groups further. I disagree with mandatory minimums, but I've in practice seen them used in scenarios much, much worse than this. And honestly, arson in the west is a pretty terrible thing. Forest fires cost billions to fight every year, push insurance costs through the roof, and endanger hundreds of lives. It's a more serious issue than I think you are giving it credit for.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by illinilaw08

[bmags]

The crux of the issue between the citizenry and the BLM/other federal agencies (largely the US Forest Service) is in regards to economic activity on that land. Rural communities in the West are dependent on extracting resources from that land for economic livelihood. That economic need is balanced against environmental, climate, and conservation needs. Most of the economic drivers are hard on the land.

 

The not-fringe position is returning the land operated by the BLM/USFS to the states. The Senate actually took up a vote earlier this year that would have paved the way for this transfer of land (couldn't get to 60 votes). As mentioned earlier in this thread, there are significant costs associated with the states taking on that land including, but not limited to, the massive amount of funds the feds spend fighting forest fires on federal land (and private land) each year.

 

The BLM has its problems, but the critics of the BLM and the USFS is economic in nature. Calling the feds the bad guy and those opposed to the feds the good guys (your category B), grossly misstates the actual issue regarding the use and control of federal land in the West.

 

Finally, on the pardoning, in light of the economic costs associated with wildfires in the West, if the Hammonds were pardoned it would exclusively be because a bunch of armed militia occupied federal land. Even in the event that a pardon was justified, and the occupiers themselves faced prison time for their acts, it emboldens militia in these land use disputes. After the incident at the Bundy ranch, the feds really can't embolden those groups further. I disagree with mandatory minimums, but I've in practice seen them used in scenarios much, much worse than this. And honestly, arson in the west is a pretty terrible thing. Forest fires cost billions to fight every year, push insurance costs through the roof, and endanger hundreds of lives. It's a more serious issue than I think you are giving it credit for.

 

Thank you, I enjoyed all of this post.

 

"The BLM has its problems, but the critics of the BLM and the USFS is economic in nature. Calling the feds the bad guy and those opposed to the feds the good guys (your category B), grossly misstates the actual issue regarding the use and control of federal land in the West."

 

I agree. I don't actually support many of the economic arguments. The grazing rights are already subsidized, and quite frankly, in a degree that would be difficult for the states to accomplish as easily as the Fed Gov't.

 

But currently there seems to be too much tacit local sympathy of violent and destructive measures just because of the negative view toward those federal agencies.

 

Usually when that happens, the viewpoint of group B is "yeah they went too far, but they had no choice" Whether or not is is usually patently absurd.

 

With cases like this where:

- The economic changes they request are a non-starter

- Restrictions are likely to increase (as they have in last 4 years)

 

A responsible way to still accommodate that population is to make sure there is a structure in place to hear their concerns and recommendations. While moving to the states would obviously also give it a huge advantage to reduce local restrictions, it's also evidence of a lack of process.

 

The bolsheviks did not support the leftist parties in Europe, as their piecemeal socialist victories like 40 hour work week were enough to satiate the local population and weakened their foothold for recruitment and revolution.

 

The lesson there is when there is destructive, adamant minority, the local population is especially prone to submitting to the will of that group. Undercutting that with some goodwill measures can go a long way toward stability.

 

For your last paragraph, you are probably right. The likelihood is they have no control of what happened after starting the fire, and that it wasn't larger was luck.

But, despite SS's claims, there are many reports I've read that they have a lot of local support. The father here is older, admitted guilt and served time. Frankly, to me, reducing a federal statute applying more time to a local man is a pretty good symbol to start some outreach.

[illinilaw08]

Thank you, I enjoyed all of this post.

 

"The BLM has its problems, but the critics of the BLM and the USFS is economic in nature. Calling the feds the bad guy and those opposed to the feds the good guys (your category B), grossly misstates the actual issue regarding the use and control of federal land in the West."

 

I agree. I don't actually support many of the economic arguments. The grazing rights are already subsidized, and quite frankly, in a degree that would be difficult for the states to accomplish as easily as the Fed Gov't.

 

But currently there seems to be too much tacit local sympathy of violent and destructive measures just because of the negative view toward those federal agencies.

 

Usually when that happens, the viewpoint of group B is "yeah they went too far, but they had no choice" Whether or not is is usually patently absurd.

 

With cases like this where:

- The economic changes they request are a non-starter

- Restrictions are likely to increase (as they have in last 4 years)

 

A responsible way to still accommodate that population is to make sure there is a structure in place to hear their concerns and recommendations. While moving to the states would obviously also give it a huge advantage to reduce local restrictions, it's also evidence of a lack of process.

 

The bolsheviks did not support the leftist parties in Europe, as their piecemeal socialist victories like 40 hour work week were enough to satiate the local population and weakened their foothold for recruitment and revolution.

 

The lesson there is when there is destructive, adamant minority, the local population is especially prone to submitting to the will of that group. Undercutting that with some goodwill measures can go a long way toward stability.

 

For your last paragraph, you are probably right. The likelihood is they have no control of what happened after starting the fire, and that it wasn't larger was luck.

But, despite SS's claims, there are many reports I've read that they have a lot of local support. The father here is older, admitted guilt and served time. Frankly, to me, reducing a federal statute applying more time to a local man is a pretty good symbol to start some outreach.

 

This article is more on point to the current land use discussion than to the actual Oregon case, but it's pretty relevant.

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10718316/fossil-fuels-colorado

 

Long story short, it's the conflict between economic interests in rural, mountainous, Colorado, and climate. Offered without comment...

[StrangeSox]

FWIW, BLM Public Lands Grazing Accounts for Only 0.41% of Nation’s Livestock Receipts

[StrangeSox]

[bmags]

I was surprised Oregon police have let the men go in and out for supplies.

[StrangeSox]

That entire county has 6 police officers.