Bundy Ranch Standoff

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by BRUTE » Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:50 pm

implication being that government is better at oversight than private market, which brute finds is usually not the case.

even if government is accepted as the legitimate steward, showing up with an army of federally sponsored thugs to murder the little human who dares oppose fed power seems.. inappropriate.

enigmaT120
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by enigmaT120 » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:41 am

BRUTE wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:11 pm
45% of California, 85% of Arizona belong to the federal government, according to some websites. similar in all western states. brute finds these numbers unreasonably high.
The land belongs to you and me, and is managed by the federal government. I'm fine with the numbers. I can go hike and camp on that land now, unlike the private land that now surrounds my property. And Weyerhauser is preventing me from accessing my public land (lots of BLM land west of me) by locking all the gate on roads they didn't build, unless I pay them every year for a permit.

If the Bundys had their way only people who make money off the land could go there.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2056
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Riggerjack » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:24 pm

There have been several appeals for better management by government on this thread. That somehow, our priorities got a bit out of wack, but overall, the management and oversight of public lands by government is done well, and in the interests of the public.

To me, this seems fantastically ignorant. Replacing the reality of the situation with a comforting daydream. Everywhere I have looked, I see counterexamples.

But, this could be a function of where I am looking, and what I am looking for. Does anyone have any examples of this well managed, government controlled, public resource? This opinion is very common, surely proponents have some example, somewhere, where this worked out in a manner they approve of. Please, give me a link. Give me an example. Hell, give me the story you heard one time about the good guy district manager TM, and his talking raccoon. I would like to see something different than what I have, to help me see your side of this.

Thanks.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by BRUTE » Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:16 pm

enigmaT120 wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:41 am
The land belongs to you and me, and is managed by the federal government. I'm fine with the numbers. I can go hike and camp on that land now, unlike the private land that now surrounds my property. And Weyerhauser is preventing me from accessing my public land (lots of BLM land west of me) by locking all the gate on roads they didn't build, unless I pay them every year for a permit.

If the Bundys had their way only people who make money off the land could go there.
as brute has absolutely no use for most of these lands 99.9% of the time, he would much rather have investors add capital and make money from them, improving global wealth.

once in a while brute goes to a national or state park and happily pays $10 or $25 to look at the mountains for a few minutes. but that could be achieved with <1% of all land, no need for on average 50% in the west.

brute thinks it is quite absurd that somehow he, who doesn't even like nature, has a vote in deciding what should be done with land many thousand miles away. or anyone else, for that matter.

brute would not appreciate it if the Bundy family suddenly got a vote in how he can use the stuff or land in his city. he can't imagine they appreciate him messing in their business, many states away.

property rights can be tricky, especially with regards to land, which can't be "made", and especially corner cases like these. but it seems quite intuitive to brute that humans who live thousands of miles away from a given piece of land they've never even seen have no say in its use.

brute is somewhat willing to accept the idea that in some instances, federal management of resources is a local optimum in use strategy. maybe oceans, or air. strong externalities that are extremely hard to coordinate. but some land in Arizona? if anything, the externalities of excessive cow poop are more localized than driving a car, drinking tap water, or any other thing humans do regularly.

and even if the government is legitimately the best steward for some resource, they should be under more scrutiny and have higher standards for appropriate enforcement. with great power comes great responsibility. just like cops should be under extra scrutiny when they choke black men to death, federal agents shouldn't murder civilians the first time they find a legal technicality.

enigmaT120
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by enigmaT120 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 12:38 pm

Riggerjack wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:24 pm
But, this could be a function of where I am looking, and what I am looking for. Does anyone have any examples of this well managed, government controlled, public resource? This opinion is very common, surely proponents have some example, somewhere, where this worked out in a manner they approve of. Please, give me a link. Give me an example. Hell, give me the story you heard one time about the good guy district manager TM, and his talking raccoon. I would like to see something different than what I have, to help me see your side of this.

Thanks.
The BLM managed lands west of me are pretty well managed. Most of the stands seem to be in the 80 year age group and up, with some small patches of old growth. Some of the places I used to be able to go hunt mushrooms were over-crowded with trees, where the suppressed trees start dying and becoming potential ladder fuel in case of a forest fire, but really the taller stands like these are not nearly as vulnerable to fire as the surrounding younger forests. But even in the crowded areas, I have seen where the BLM managers have conducted some really well planned commercial thinning operations and removed all of the suppressed trees and left the remaining ones well-spaced for future growth. They could do it again in another 20 or 30 years. I don't know where to find the sales numbers, but thinning operations like I saw should have generated a lot of money, as they are selling tall trees with very few large limbs, and could have been fine for poles. I don't believe that public trees can be sold on the export market or they may have brought even more money. Anyway, the public lands that I used to be able to go visit were well-managed.

The surrounding private stands are generally clear cut roughly 40 years after they're replanted, so the trees never get very big, nor do those forests provide very good habitat for the species that were adapted to the old growth forests in Western Oregon. They're great for song birds, deer, and elk though. I'm not calling that bad management, just not what I prefer. Same age mono-cultures. My management plans for my own 32 acres (replanted in 1989) are more along the lines of what the BLM is doing.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2056
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Riggerjack » Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:16 pm

@enigmaT120

Good. I like seeing examples of public management that are well done.

My own experience with the forest service has been pretty good.

But as a counterexample, we had a scandal here, locally involving state managed lands. In Wa, over half the land is fed or state, and this scandal involved the WA DNR, Dept of Natural Resources. We have a few big national forests, surrounded by DNR land in most places, but there are a some bordering private timberlands.

A policy for land swaps was approved, with the goal of swapping uncut timberlands that didn't border state lands for clear-cuts that did. Now, this is trading land with timber for land without, so it was up to regional management to negotiate the deals. The expectation was that the state would gain acreage, and get a more consolidated footprint, that would be easier to manage.

Instead, we traded up to 3 timbered acres for 1 cut acre, at the section scale (in surveying terms, a township is a square, 6 miles on a side, a section is a square 1 mile wide, or 160 acres). Then, the manager who approved the deal retired, and went to work for the company he just "negotiated against".

Now, you might think that negotiation that resulted in a loss of 84% of the appraised value might be fraud. Or incompetence. Or maybe it was just charitable. But I would be hard pressed to call this competent management. Yet when you look at the incentives, they are lined up for this to happen, all the time. This is the goal, it's not an unintended consequence, when it is so clearly intended. Somebody catching on, and printing it in the newspaper was unintended, but the rest is why people go into government administration. It should be no more of a surprise than an army supply sergeant who "happens" to have all the batteries and gortex jackets he could ever use.

Farm_or
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:57 am
Contact:

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Farm_or » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:30 am

@riggerjack

Is that Fed incentive land grabbing? Or is that nepotism and corruption?

My experiences with land managers: in my teens, my father leased grazing from BLM and Forest service. Maybe it was due to my age or lack of experience, but my dad always had some "beef" with authority. I think it was his old school attitude and single sided view of life. We had to trail the cattle by barn sour horsebacks over five miles. My dad wanted to maximize the grazing opportunities, the managers wanted to limit that.

I have personally dealt with two range managers for the past dozen years. The first was a sob.

We started out on the wrong foot and it never improved. I believe that he had stereotyped me before I had half of a chance. We had one particular disagreement that was pretty well heated. I was quite pleased when he moved along and have gotten along splendidly with the new manager.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2056
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Riggerjack » Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:00 am

Well, from my perspective, of not really caring about grazing, or bribes for senators, I wasn't worked up by the land grabbing concept. My understanding was that it had been native land, then it was federal land, and then never sold in the 100 or so years of actively trying to sell it. So if the owner decides to stop leasing it for grazing, in hopes of generating a nice bribe for a senator, well that's just Federal business as usual.

When hundreds of agents start to convoy out to a remote ranch for anything but a convention, I get concerned. Because that is act 1 in the "massacre at Z" screenplay, and we saw massacre at X and Y already, we know how this movie goes.

Several times in this thread, we have had general support for our friendly agents of federal peace and love, against those horrible outgroup ranchers. My point is that peace and love are not their business, nor their tactics, and whatever methods we approve of Feds using against our outgroup is the same playbook the will use when the outgroup is in power.

I don't like the Bundy's. I didn't like the Weaver's, I didn't like the Branch Davidians, and I don't like the KKK, or Nazis, or Antifa. But I dislike the inappropriate use of massive deadly force against any of them far more.

We don't have to go back very far to see this same overwhelming force used against black activists in the 70's. Hell, if I remember correctly, Cincinnati burnt 16 blocks to kill off some guys with a loudspeaker, for being outgroup. We've seen this go back and forth several times now, to the point that I find myself losing respect for anyone cheering for the abuse of their outgroup, knowing that soon the tables will turn, and today's oppressors will be tomorrow's oppressed.

Campitor
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Campitor » Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:32 am

We don't have to go back very far to see this same overwhelming force used against black activists in the 70's. Hell, if I remember correctly, Cincinnati burnt 16 blocks to kill off some guys with a loudspeaker, for being outgroup. We've seen this go back and forth several times now, to the point that I find myself losing respect for anyone cheering for the abuse of their outgroup, knowing that soon the tables will turn, and today's oppressors will be tomorrow's oppressed.
I don't see how people overlook this blatant fact. Everyone on team X is fine and dandy when violence or laws are enacted against team Y but fail to see how it will cost them if team Y ever get into power.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2056
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Riggerjack » Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:34 pm

Or how beating up team Y gives their cause legitimacy and sympathy, and strong motivation to aspire to wrest power from the hands of their oppressors.

Cheering the defeat of your outgroup is inviting a turn in sentiment. Cheering the massacre of your outgroup makes them martyrs, and when sentiments change, makes you at best an embarrassing liability, at worst, a target. How do we feel today for the "law and order" crowd that cheered the beating and killing of black activists in the 50-70's? Do you think at the time they felt less righteous and justified than anyone does today about say, antifa?

We evolved as tribal. It is part of who we are. But if we are to handle problems at a modern scale, we have to overcome our more primitive urges. The urge to splinter and hate if the group is too big is hardwired into us. Simple narratives with a "bad guy" is the easiest way to do that.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by BRUTE » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:47 pm

bravo, Rigger.

Augustus
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:15 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Augustus » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:06 pm

Riggerjack wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:24 pm
There have been several appeals for better management by government on this thread. That somehow, our priorities got a bit out of wack, but overall, the management and oversight of public lands by government is done well, and in the interests of the public.

To me, this seems fantastically ignorant. Replacing the reality of the situation with a comforting daydream. Everywhere I have looked, I see counterexamples.

But, this could be a function of where I am looking, and what I am looking for. Does anyone have any examples of this well managed, government controlled, public resource? This opinion is very common, surely proponents have some example, somewhere, where this worked out in a manner they approve of. Please, give me a link. Give me an example. Hell, give me the story you heard one time about the good guy district manager TM, and his talking raccoon. I would like to see something different than what I have, to help me see your side of this.

Thanks.
I think you have to look back in time. I loooove old magazines, I feel like their writing and reasoning is far superior to the crap that gets printed today. I bought ~500 national geographic magazines from someone I am assume is now dead, I've read in quite a few of the old issues (80 years old or more) where the Nat Geo society got a bunch of land conserved that was in imminent danger of getting ruined or polluted or whatever. If you go back 100 years the prevailing idea was that all land should be exploited because there was plenty of it, and conservation was a new idea that actually had merits, because they had a bunch of cases where bad things were happening and they wanted to preserve them for future generations, again this was a completely novel concept at the time.

So if you need places to look and horror stories of mismanaged non-public lands, look back about 100 years, there are lots of well written, compelling articles to read. It seems to me that the conservationists accomplished their goals and then some, so now it's going in the other direction, and now we don't remember why it was important at one time to pioneer the idea.


User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2056
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Riggerjack » Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:40 am

Ooh! Great soundtrack for that story! That was nice, thanks.

Augustus, is your point that Nat Geo is capable of doing great stories about their own greatness? Or that conservationists actually solve the issues they address, in contrast to environmental groups? Or that a 100 years ago government was better or worse? Honestly, I'm just not getting your point.

Post Reply