Bundy Ranch Standoff

[George the original one]

Are you sure that is the "command center" and not the round-up contractors?

[Felix]

Yeah, that study is not particularly useful.
It is pretty hard to find decent info. At least I did not find much. Google results are filled with Bundy articles.

[JohnnyH]

99% sure that is a camp setup by government. Contractors get work done, efficiently and with minimal resources... Federal government might get work done eventually, but it is incredibly inefficient and uses a profane amount of resources.

The contractors are usually on the fringes of camp; a truck or two, a camper, whatever equipment they're being paid for.

[George the original one]

Well, if it's the federal agents, then they're guarding three pens of cattle and 6 horses.

[Felix]

More on that subsidy thing:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-869

The grazing fee BLM and the Forest Service charge, which was $1.43 per AUM in 2004, is established by formula and is generally much lower than the fees charged by the other federal agencies, states, and private ranchers. The other agencies, states, and ranchers generally established fees to obtain the market value of the forage. The formula used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service grazing fee incorporates ranchers' ability to pay; therefore the current purpose of the fee is not primarily to recover the agencies' expenditures or to capture the fair market value of forage.

[Chad]

4. Feds show up with OVERWHELMING numbers. The only place that references numbers under 250 I've heard were here. That doesn't make 250 right or wrong, but 50 seems entirely speculative, yet still overkill.

50 is completely speculative, but I haven't seen anything yet that would suggest the 200+ number is any better.

The more I think about it the less I think the number is important. The plan for using theses agents is the important part. You would need a lot of manpower to round up all those cattle if the manpower was inexperienced with rounding up cattle.

[Riggerjack]

Felix, you google fu is in fine form. I sincerely doubt you will find, or I will find a good source of fair market value for forage in deepest darkest NV. I concede.

Clearly, forage is being subsidized, if only because the forage for the region wouldn't pay for the massive enforcement mission that was called in.
You can call Bundy a welfare case if you like, it still seems like the kind of abuse of authority that should get the BLM liquidated, to me. Sell the land to the highest bidder, no more subsidy, no more enforcement costs. Impose the same ESA restrictions currently in place.

I'm guessing that means that in 6 months, promotions are in order, all the way down the line, and a bigger budget for BLM "law enforcement".

[jennypenny]

Re: 200 federal agents (I didn't forget )

After two days of looking into this, the biggest revelation is that most media are completely incompetent. I was told by several sources (including a producer at a top cable news show) that they couldn't get a lead on where the numbers came from, but as long as everyone was reporting the same thing they were in the clear using the unsubstantiated information. *sigh*

I found a couple of reporters in Nevada willing to talk to me. They said the earliest official reports they got from the BLM stated they were dispatching "several dozen additional agents" to secure the area. Private contractors were also hired to round up the cattle, adding to the number of "federal" people. Federal officials implied that they were doing this (closing off the area and limiting access for the public and media) to protect the public at large, but it was understood by the media present that the main purpose was to support the contractors trying to confiscate the cattle. That report was from April 3. If you can watch the video with this article, it will give you a good idea of the situation that week. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25168654/ ... blic-lands

Other facts I've learned that color that number somewhat ...

* Bundy sent letters in March to every official from the local sheriff to federal officials stating his intention to fight the issue any way he needed to, and call upon large groups of supporters to assist him if necessary. Off the record, Bundy was naming names of groups like Oath Keepers he said had agreed to help him and put the word out.

* The first use of '200' federal agents I can find comes from an interview with Sheriff Mack the second week of April. I'm a little surprised that media outlets, particularly the usually left-leaning MSM, used his number. Maybe they didn't realize it came from him, or maybe there's an earlier use that I missed.

* Reid didn't give specifics on the record, but constantly intimated to reporters that the entire area from Bundy's ranch to Las Vegas was "crawling" with "armed and ready federal agents." Both reporters used that language, so Reid probably used it.

* Local reporters feel the actual number of feds in the area (not necessarily at the ranch) was much, much higher by the end. They credit state and local law enforcement for convincing the feds that they couldn't win this round by repeatedly referencing Ruby Ridge.


My personal feelings have changed a bit. Bundy putting the feds on notice that he was going to call in the cavalry makes me think the BLM was just acting cautiously, and rightfully so. Whether the continued build-up of force was necessary, I'm not sure. They may have taken advantage of the opportunity to display a show of force. Reid is a loose cannon who seems to throw lighter fluid onto any situation and needs to go. His constant stoking of the 'domestic terrorist' idea is dangerous. So is the rhetoric of people like Sheriff Mack.

[jennypenny]

I just talked to a local camera operator who was out there filming a couple of days before Drudge picked up the story and it became a circus. He said he counted almost 100 feds himself from the BLM, National Park Service, and the Forest Service. He said that count is just who was visible to the press and doesn't include any law enforcement. He said they could see a camp beyond where they were allowed with dozens of cars and more people, but they were actively discouraged from filming it. He said he would agree to that 200 number even if you didn't include the contractors.

He said at the time there were fewer than 50 Bundy supporters, and most of them were 'the usual locals.'

I asked him how he felt when he was out there. He paused, and then said he'd been a little surprised that everyone was armed, and that it felt 'staged.' Because of that, he said there was speculation that it must be about something else other than Bundy. He also said (without being asked) that he was surprised and glad that it ended peacefully, and mentioned Ruby Ridge. (You gotta wonder if the Feds realize the full impact of that incident.)


I'm going back to work now. Good night, and good luck.

[Chad]

Holy shit! That's some impressive follow-up Jenny. Thanks.

It's fascinating how what appears to be a fairly simple story has so many levels and twists/turns.

Were reporters during the time when broadcast companies expected to lose money on the news better than today? Probably difficult to determine, but it would be interesting to know. I'm referencing the use of the unsubstantiated "200" number in Jenny's first response (seems semi-substantiated in 2nd post, but other reporters don't reference it).

[jacob]

I recommend this again:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Watch-TV-News ... 0143113771

The media is not reporting the news. They're not selling a product. They're in the business of keeping eyeballs at intermittent advertising at the highest efficiency and greatest "inventory turnaround" possible. There's a reason why the anchors on practically all networks look like some idealized archetypical family.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Holy shit! That's some impressive follow-up Jenny. Thanks.

x2! Nice detective work.

[Dragline]

I recommend this again:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Watch-TV-News ... 0143113771

The media is not reporting the news. They're not selling a product. They're in the business of keeping eyeballs at intermittent advertising at the highest efficiency and greatest "inventory turnaround" possible. There's a reason why the anchors on practically all networks look like some idealized archetypical family.

Yes, I completely agree. Almost everything on TV has a staged quality to it, because the real purpose is as you say, keeping eyeballs on ads. I remember during the government shutdown, there were some tourist veterans who went to the WWII memorial when it was closed. That was a small news story. For the next week, the WWII memorial was covered with politicians and reporters, with nary a veteran in sight. I would ride my bike by in the morning watching them get "set up" to "make news" -- it was one big staged story.

[jennypenny]

An update to the Bundy story ... http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... misco.html

"A scathing memo from the lead investigator who assessed how federal officers handled the 2014 armed standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy accuses agents of far-reaching misconduct, recklessness and unrestrained antipathy toward the family."

[BRUTE]

no surprise. this shit had Waco/Ruby Ridge written all over it. brute suspects it must be some kind of in-group/out-group penis size battle between federal agents and <whoever dares question agency power>. with the good old over the top violence proving to the rest of the in-group that they're still boss.

[Farm_or]

I missed the earlier conversation because I was too busy working. That is what I have to offer to this story.

This all went down in my backyard, my hometown. I grew up on a ranch in harney county.

Every "hard working" rancher I know would be too busy taking care of the cows to start a range war over low, low cost grazing fees. Or start a fire on the prairie.

Government overreaching goes with the territory. So does ranching over bolding. Many of gunsmoke episodes written about cattleman greed. Might is not right, but you have to be careful with picking your battles.

[Riggerjack]

This all went down in my backyard, my hometown. I grew up on a ranch in harney county.

Busy working? But you were needed here!

If you go through the thread, there's some confusion about grazing, DNR land and subsidies, from a few members just speculating and linking (yeah, mainly me.)

How far off were we? This is really your area of expertise, isn't it?

[Riggerjack]

So I read the Oregon live article. It seemed... biased and not quite accurate.

But then I thought I'd look at what Google had. Just more partisan clickbaity "news sites". Some with the same story word for word. But then I found this article:
https://thewashingtonstandard.com/inves ... -evidence/
Also from that kind of site. But if you can read between the lines, it looks about as messed up as it did back when this was going down.

The leader of the feds gets fired for stealing the (low value)evidence in a separate case, where he bragged about hounding a suspect until he committed suicide. Could be coincidence, except that he bragged about 2 others, as well. I don't have unrealistic expectations of law enforcement, but bragging about hounding people until they commit suicide isn't the kind of thing I would look to promote. I certainly wouldn't think, "massive fed display of power, this guy seems like he'll handle that responsibility with aplomb." Which kinda reaffirms the narrative that they were there for a Waco re-enactment.

I'd be interested in the 18 page report that the story was taken from. Currently, this Wooten guy sounds like a disgruntled, really petty dickhead. But that's what I got from a biased reporter, going through looking for "gotchas" to make the story.

For instance, this insistence that investigators not giving exculpatory evidence to the prosecutor is some kind of malfeasance worthy of a mistrial.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the defense gets whatever evidence that the prosecutor gets. And that investigators investigate the crimes, make a case, and run it past the DAs office to see if that's enough to prosecute. There is no obligation, nor is it in the investigator's interest to weaken his case by revealing any weaknesses to the prosecutor that the defense is unlikely to discover. (The real reason that the poor are disproportionately represented in our justice system is the defense of the poor have few resources to discover much of anything, so they are just easier targets)

So, I don't know if the reporter doesn't know better, just thinks his readers won't know better, or if I'm just wrong on that point.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

[George the original one]

So I read the Oregon live article. It seemed... biased and not quite accurate.
[...]
So, I don't know if the reporter doesn't know better, just thinks his readers won't know better, or if I'm just wrong on that point.

You're making the mistake of conflating the memo contents with the reporter relating what's in the memo. The entire article is a condensed version of what is in the memo and the reporter has not added anything to that report other than remarks in court from judge, defense, & prosecutor. Short of including the entire memo, there is no way to make the article less biased in my opinion.

Now if you found that the condensed version omitted major statements or misquoted the memo, then that would show bias.

On the other hand, in TheWashingtonStandard article, definitely has colored statements from its reporter, where the reporter makes a judgement of the lead federal agent outside the quoted memo. This is something the reader could do on their own and thus crosses the line from reporting and goes on into the grounds of an editorial.

[Farm_or]

@Riggerjack Sorry, didn't read the whole six pages of comments. Don't know if I fully understand your question.

Grazing public land? It's not too complicated. It's certainly not expensive. It is a bargain half the time and necessary to stay in business the other half. Ranchers and Farmers are the only producers that pay retail for all their inputs, but sell at wholesale. Grazing public land is one exception.

There's limitations and most ranchers don't like limitations. And there's federal employees with Napoleon syndrome.

The big issue is the huge land grabbing going on by the feds. Most locals want state owned land to succeed the feds. Funny how much that is out of whack here in the West?