|
prefect posted:Here's a lawyer explaining the sentencing: https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/ Huh, I had thought that Popehat was a SovCit, but that was fairly straightforward and even-handed. Maybe I was thinking of someone else. Thanks for the link!
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:But why are they buying even more? Is it just about wildlife conservation? What makes you think they're buying more? Areas like the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (which some of the fires were set in) were just carved out of existing federal property rather than acquired.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:But why are they buying even more? Is it just about wildlife conservation? The agencies you generally see "wanting" to expand are the Parks service and FWS, because they're trying to conserve beautiful landscapes or critical habitat, so yes. No one wants more shrub desert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:What makes you think they're buying more? Areas like the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (which some of the fires were set in) were just carved out of existing federal property rather than acquired. I heard some of the yeehawdists felt like federal agencies were bullying to try to get them to sell their land.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
They're mad that their grazing rights were revoked on public land and seem to think that historical use of that public land gives them right to continue to use it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I heard some of the yeehawdists felt like federal agencies were bullying to try to get them to sell their land. You should probably take anything they say with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Yeah there's a weird trend that causes them to flip out about obscure organizations. I was just on some militia site yesterday raging against the US Forest Service. Like, what? I dunno. Some people are just plain old nuts for animals. PETA and Sea Shepherd are two examples. When I used to be involved with Civil War reenacting my step mother got pissed and raved on about how we had a memorial service for those lost at Gettysburg but we didn't remember or mention the beautiful unicorn snowflake horses. The only response I could think of was why doesn't she remember the majestic pack mules which just sent her off enough that my dad took her home
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:So one thing I haven't heard an explanation for, why does the U.S. gov own so much land in western states? a lot of the land out there is really crappy and it's better for the government to own it and keep it in just a default undeveloped state than to sell it to some yahoo so he can build the world's largest tire fire or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:They're mad that their grazing rights were revoked on public land and seem to think that historical use of that public land gives them right to continue to use it. Well that was specifically Bundy Sr's grievance, I'm talking about something else. As a Millennial I posted:You should probably take anything they say with a grain of salt. Well I'm doubting the bullying part but it seemed weird for them to make up the government's desire to buy their land.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Well that was specifically Bundy Sr's grievance, I'm talking about something else. It was also a Hammond grievance when the USDFW wanted to erect a fence to prevent his cows from entering refuge land. Bundy was mad about endangered tortoises.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
How long until Trump flies out to visit with these yokels?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:How long until Trump flies out to visit with these yokels? After Obama's half-hearted gun control? It's gonna happen, and Trump will argue the president is no longer legally legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So according to this they were initially sentenced to less than five years, and then the appellate court sentenced them to more, correct? So it isn't actually a case of double-jeopardy. Yeah they weren't actually resentenced. A mistake made during their sentencing was fixed. And by "mistake" I mean "local judge let off local shitheads easy because gently caress you, feds."
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Well I'm doubting the bullying part but it seemed weird for them to make up the government's desire to buy their land. It's just rural small-town "The government wants to take our land!" paranoia that's literally centuries old in the US. The BLM does not want their land. The BLM wants them to stop illegally using (and burning) the BLM's land. The only cases you get where the BLM is trying to acquire more land, which is not the case here, is where the government is trying to acquire and preserve critical habitat for endangered wildlife.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:It's just rural small-town "The government wants to take our land!" paranoia that's literally centuries old in the US. The BLM does not want their land. The BLM wants them to stop illegally using (and burning) the BLM's land. They believe BLM land is their land.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:How long until Trump flies out to visit with these yokels? Yokel Haram.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
See this public land should be for The People. And by The People I mean me and my family and gently caress everyone else if they don't want us treating it poorly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with experts in militia warfare, with men who are the best, with guns, with steak knives, with sandpaper. Men who have been trained to ignore criticism, ignore common sense, to live off the goodwill of others, to eat things that would make a pro-gamer puke. In Oregon their job is to dispose of enemy deer. To kill! Period! Win by attrition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:So one thing I haven't heard an explanation for, why does the U.S. gov own so much land in western states? And why are they seeking more? Because the federal government owned at all (give or take some homesteaders and indian reservations) prior to statehood, and it was not all gifted to the states upon admission to the union. Quite the opposite, what land the federal government retained, and what land was given to the state was spelled out in the statehood legislation in each case. Why does the federal government continue to hold a lot of land? Because a lot of it is environmentally valuable and worth preserving. National park system units and national wildlife refuges are, more or less by definition, areas of significant natural or cultural value and we as a nation have decided that we would rather not bulldoze over and log every single last acre of land. In the case of national forests and BLM units, the natural and cultural values are not always as high as the NPS or USFWS lands, however, they are also generally managed in a far more extractive manner. For instance, there are timber sales and associated logging in many (most?) national forests, and mining / petroleum extraction on a lot of BLM land. States are not capable of administering these lands on their own. In a good fiscal situation they have skeleton staffs in the state units, and as soon as budgets tank state parks are among the first entities on the chopping block. Contrary to the narrative the Bundys are pushing, the federal government is not excluding the public from these lands. Certainly, they exclude people from converting public lands to their exclusive personal economic use. That is really what the Bundys want. They want it to be theirs, not yours, and they want it for free, because ARE POCKET CONSTITUTION says so. But do you like to camp? Hunt? Fish? Do basically anything outdoors? Federal public lands are there for you. Compare that to the eastern U.S. where if you want to go hunting you often have to pay a private land owner to use their land. That sure doesn't sound like land that is free and available to me. Gov. Jay Hammond of Alaska said it best: federal public lands are locked open, not locked up. We are one of the few nations in the world that has taken the opportunity to preserve ecosystems intact, at least in the west. That is a good thing. Why is the federal government trying to acquire more? It basically isn't. There are small scale land purchases to enhance existing units, but the federal government is not really in the business of scooping up large tracts of land at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Huh, I had thought that Popehat was a SovCit, but that was fairly straightforward and even-handed. Maybe I was thinking of someone else. Thanks for the link! Popehat is extreme right libertarian, but also has extensive legal bonafides. It's the go to for right wing academic law sourcing, and is why the post talks out of both sides of its mouth about the justice of the sentence and the conviction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
 They do have a point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Because the federal government owned at all (give or take some homesteaders and indian reservations) prior to statehood, and it was not all gifted to the states upon admission to the union. Quite the opposite, what land the federal government retained, and what land was given to the state was spelled out in the statehood legislation in each case. This is a very good breakdown of how Federal vs State land works, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:
The midwest is all suitable farmland, which is why I live like 6 hours from the nearest park. The east coast is more densely populated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Yokel Haram.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:
The vast majority of that is desert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:
Man, look at all that sweet land the feds are sitting on in the lush, verdant paradise that is Nevada.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
The gubmit is keeping me from my right to work the land
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:
Not really, have you ever actually been to those areas? They are either amazing natural vistas that rednecks are unfit to set foot on, or big rocks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
There's another big reason most of that land is federally owned: lots of people couldn't successfully homestead it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Those areas are all beautiful and I've trekked through a few of them, and am far happier letting the Feds own it than some bumblefuck rancher or mining company or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Oh no the federal government is protecting natural resources 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
prefect posted:Here's a lawyer explaining the sentencing: https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/ quote:
Probably the simplest and best explanation of why sending them back to prison is not somehow unjust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:For instance, there are timber sales and associated logging in many (most?) national forests All, actually. National forests are selectively logged and carefully maintained. It's weird that the right is so against environmentalism that they fail to realize that environmentalism is why such things exist in the first place. The whole point of national forests and game lands is so that people who want to log or hunt or whatever can have a way to do so, so long as you follow the rules which are set up specifically so you can keep loving doing it in the long term. All these chucklefucks can think about is "me me me now now now." Kazak_Hstan posted:Contrary to the narrative the Bundys are pushing, the federal government is not excluding the public from these lands. Certainly, they exclude people from converting public lands to their exclusive personal economic use. That is really what the Bundys want. They want it to be theirs, not yours, and they want it for free, because ARE POCKET CONSTITUTION says so. But do you like to camp? Hunt? Fish? Do basically anything outdoors? Federal public lands are there for you. Compare that to the eastern U.S. where if you want to go hunting you often have to pay a private land owner to use their land. That sure doesn't sound like land that is free and available to me. Gov. Jay Hammond of Alaska said it best: federal public lands are locked open, not locked up. That depends on where you go. I live in PA and we have national and state forests all over the place but then part of that is because our state got to see first hand what these chucklefucks want to do directly causes. Pretty much the entire state was logged clean into a barren wasteland that took decades to unfuck in the 19th century. The forests didn't grow back until people rolled in and planted them. Deer didn't come back until they were rounded up from elsewhere and moved back in. The state is still recovering to this day and let me tell you about all the environmental catastrophe the coal industry left behind. This is one of the major contests that rural agricultural types are always running into, though; part of the point of the BLM is that land is managed so that it stays useful in the long term. All these guys are thinking about is the short term. They want more land to graze their cattle on so they can have more money. If it hurts anybody else then gently caress 'em, they aren't me. Here in PA we have cow farms that tend to cause issues for people down river and it can be absolutely impossible to convince the cow farmers to quit making GBS threads up the water. Your bog standard right wing redneck twit wants to do whatever the hell he wants without regard to who it might hurt, especially if the harm won't happen for a decade. This is why they hate sustainability and federal land management. They could make money now if they were allowed to graze everything barren so they want to. The barren land won't be their problem; they'll just move somewhere else. It's Tragedy of the Commons stuff but all they see is "the government is keeping me down because I can't graze my cows there! I have a right to because I'm an angry white man with a gun!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Anyone catch their 'news conference'?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Anyone catch their 'news conference'? The one last night? It lasted about five minutes before they told people to get out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Huh, I had thought that Popehat was a SovCit, but that was fairly straightforward and even-handed. Maybe I was thinking of someone else. Thanks for the link! Multiple writers post articles on Popehat. From what I've seen, they range from "strongly distrusts government, but will acknowledge that society probably needs government of some kind to function" to full-on "abolish all government forever".
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
I live in that little lump on the illinois and iowa border and it sucks balls where there's absolutely no federal land. everything. EVERYTHING is corn/soybean fields. if you want to so much as go fishing, you have to have a friend who will let you use their land, or like in my town, there's one little pond that is owned in part by 3 separate people, and it's just sort of generally accepted that they don't care if you use it so long as you don't come up into their yards. the land is completely destroyed. it's an industrial hellscape in its own unique way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
OregonLive was implying one just happened, a livestream was on their homepage and now it's nothing. Someone sent me a summary of what they heard, was this last night's?quote:Ammon Bundy and another occupying rancher just spoke to the media. They claimed that they are here with full support of ranchers and families in Burns and that a lot of Harney County families have been coming to them and bringing food and supplies, thanking them. They still claim to be defending the safety of Burns residents who have been intimidated into silence by the government over losing their land to illegal federal seizure. They say they are not there to harm any local people and that the government are terrorists. In a nutshell. They plan to somehow go through historical real estate transactions and prove that these land sales were not signed off on by the state legislature and therefore illegal. They say they will stay until the locals can be taught to defend their own community and take back their resources and land, that they want the US to have more logging, mining, ranching and farming
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
I'm sure the rugged individualists in Harney County want some semi truck goober from Arizona teaching them how to defend themselves
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
ansel autisms posted:There's another big reason most of that land is federally owned: lots of people couldn't successfully homestead it. Well, that and we don't want Dust Bowl II when they try to either
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:37
|
|