Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's easy to be unconcerned when you don't live in places where you're barred from thousands of acres of open land 'just because" nor care about anywhere but where you live.
But you're ok with your government accidentally doing so?
I agree. It is easy for you to be unconcerned about arson because it in not in YOUR backyard. I think you would have a different view if it were where YOU live.
The version of the other "tribe" is that the ranchers were pressured to sell after new and creative local land management regulations made it increasingly difficult to operate functioning ranches in the area. I dont know enough about accepted ranching practices nor accepted land management practices to have a well founded view of which "tribe's" version is more accurate. I also dont have any sympathy for the Hammonds and Bundys as individuals.
That aside, the root cause of the problem appears to be one tribe favoring traditional ranching activities taking priority and the other tribe wanting to balance ranching with conservation.
If this is true, then all the government needs to do is wait. The number of people who want to operate usually marginal ranches in the "Big Empty" is dwindling naturally. It seems that a lot of conflict could be avoided if the government just grandfathered the traditional ranching use of the land to current ranch operators. Then, just sit back and watch their numbers decline naturally. New ranch operators will then follow new rules. In a generation or two, most, if not nearly all ranches will be adhering to new rules.
I think you are correct about the federal government attempting to balance traditional ranching practices with conservation. The problem is that "traditional ranching practices" (like over-grazing), like "traditional logging practices" (like clear-cutting), resulted in ecological disasters in the past. It's the limitations on being able to run as many cows as they want, for free, on land that they don't own that's got these folks' jockeys in wads.
I'm sorry that the traditional ranching business is dying, but welcome to the 21st century. When I was a kid, there were hundreds of dairy farms and thousands of fruit farms, vineyards, and vegetable farms in my part of my state. Most are gone, many turned into subdivisions. You can rinse and repeat that same scenario all over the country from New England to Florida to Nebraska to Texas as well as in California.
I appreciate the BLM managing PUBLIC land. Do I trust a private corporation or even a private rancher to do it? Not a chance. And, even though I'm out here on the East coast, I consider that public land as much mine as it is theirs. I never dreamed of setting up a private enterprise or camp in the Green Mountain National Forest or Running a fishing charter from the Cape Cod National Sea Shore but I have enjoyed both, along with thousands of other Americans from every state. Welfare ranchers and their rabble rousing radio hater can cry all they want. I don't want my tax dollars paying for their welfare ranching.
I'm sorry that the traditional ranching business is dying, but welcome to the 21st century.
And that means that the ecological harm (or "harm") caused by traditional ranching is also diminishing. In short, the conservationist tribe is winning. But... the conservationist tribe does not seem satisfied with the pace of their victory. Instead, they seem to want to "win" faster and more decisively.
In the course of doing so, they seem to be forcing some confrontations with the ranching tribe that could be avoided by grandfathering the ability of current ranchers to follow "old school" practices- even if those practices might not be ideal from the conservationist point of view. New ranchers will follow new rules and practices.
I appreciate the BLM managing PUBLIC land. Do I trust a private corporation or even a private rancher to do it? Not a chance. And, even though I'm out here on the East coast, I consider that public land as much mine as it is theirs. I never dreamed of setting up a private enterprise or camp in the Green Mountain National Forest or Running a fishing charter from the Cape Cod National Sea Shore but I have enjoyed both, along with thousands of other Americans from every state. Welfare ranchers and their rabble rousing radio hater can cry all they want. I don't want my tax dollars paying for their welfare ranching.
Agreed. It's everybody's land, not some individual rancher's. A lot of these ranchers' predecessors/ancestors came out to this area in the 1800s, homesteaded a few plots around strategic water sources, and then used the rest of the public lands for their own because without water, most of this land is useless. If these ranchers didn't inherit their ranches, then they bought them ... at a lot less than if they had to buy all the acreage they use.
I have no problem with ranchers using public land to graze their cattle as long as they obey the rules, most of which are there for valid reasons: to prevent over-grazing, erosion, destruction of native habitat, etc. I do have a problem with them acting like they have some God-given right to use and abuse public lands just because they've been squatting on it for years. Maybe if they actually held title to it, they'd treat it better, although probably not.
And that means that the ecological harm (or "harm") caused by traditional ranching is also diminishing. In short, the conservationist tribe is winning. But... the conservationist tribe does not seem satisfied with the pace of their victory. Instead, they seem to want to "win" faster and more decisively.
In the course of doing so, they seem to be forcing some confrontations with the ranching tribe that could be avoided by grandfathering the ability of current ranchers to follow "old school" practices- even if those practices might not be ideal from the conservationist point of view. New ranchers will follow new rules and practices.
The US government started requiring grazing permits and charging fees for them back in the mid-1930s. By 1946, the "sagebrush rebels" were already whining about it, and they've been whining and squawking and throwing temper tantrums ever since. These are public lands, held in trust by the federal government for all Americans, including those who aren't born yet.
The federal government didn't "force" anything. The Hammon brothers were poaching, and they deliberately lit a fire to cover up the evidence -- the remains of the animals they illegally killed. Poaching and arson have nothing to do with ranching, and both are illegal in every state in the union.
Furthermore, the federal government tried to avoid a confrontation by not removing the Bundy's cattle. Now the stupid son is leading his "militia" and looking for more confrontation ... so, how did kowtowing to the nutjobs work?
I'd let them stay at the wildlife refuge until they get so bored and hungry, they start leaving of their own accord. Hell, probably a day or two without smokes and/or a week or two without any pot/meth/booze will send 3/4 scurrying homeward. How long is that road in again? 30 miles? 50? A good snowstorm, and then they're really marooned. They'll be begging the Feds to come get 'em.
I think some of these guys have watched a few too many John Wayne movies. They're all strapped down like special force soldiers but Camo and dark glasses don't make you anything but a poser.
The federal government didn't "force" anything. The Hammon brothers were poaching, and they deliberately lit a fire to cover up the evidence.
I dont have any sympathy for the Hammonds as individuals. The conservationist vs tradiitional ranching dispute, however, goes beyond the Hammonds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
Furthermore, the federal government tried to avoid a confrontation by not removing the Bundy's cattle. Now the stupid son is leading his "militia" and looking for more confrontation ... so, how did kowtowing to the nutjobs work?
Yes, Bundy is a prime example of "Give an inch, take a mile". The dispute, however, is bigger than Bundy too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
I'd let them stay at the wildlife refuge until they get so bored and hungry, they start leaving of their own accord. Hell, probably a day or two without smokes and/or a week or two without any pot/meth/booze will send 3/4 scurrying homeward.
I agree. I am surprised that the road is still open and the electricity is still on. The government should also jam their cell phones. Allowing them to communicate and bring in supplies etc. only attracts a bigger and potentially more dangerous circus like the new group.
These things though will not solve the larger dispute in the far west. The best way to solve that dispute is by compromise and gradual change. This can be done by grandfathering the allowance of traditional ranching use to the dwindling number of current ranchers.
The Hammons got thrown in the pokey for arson. They set a brush fire on federal land to hide the fact that they were poaching wildlife, and at least one of their pals ratted them out. That they did this is not in question, and they may have even plead guilty. At any rate, they aren't part of this militia BS.
BTW, it's not "unconstitutional" for the federal government to own and manage land and/or to purchase land for a wildlife refuge or other use.
Yes, the government can own land, for Ports, Dock Yards, Military Bases, Arsenals and Magazines, see Article 1 Section 8 clause 17 of the Constitution. The government can establish National Parks, National Monuments and Wildlife Refuges at the consent of the governed, the government can purchase land to expand National Monuments and Wildlife Refuges, however, the government can not hold the title deed to the property, if the property is abandoned by the government it reverts back to the state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
