Bundy Ranch Standoff

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
User avatar
C40
Posts: 2748
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by C40 »

There are tons of details that I don't know about the history of public lands relating to disputes like this Bundy one. I don't have a specific point in this post, just some observations.

I have spent a lot of time on U.S. public lands in the last couple years. A good deal of the land is public not because the government is hoarding it from people. It's because the land is of little use and in little demand. That's the case for a good deal of the public land in Arizona, and probably even more of the public land in Nevada (which is almost all public land).

I've been surprised how much animal grazing takes place in National Forests and BLM land. It's mostly cows, and in some places, sheep. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. On one hand, it's a way of making use of the natural vegetation that can grow in places that can't reasonably be farmed. But I also wonder what impact this grazing has on the plants and other animals - surely it is a significant impact. So, a great deal of this land is not nearly as wild or natural or unused by humans as one might imagine when seeing how much land is government-owned.

There is probably some ideal balance of mixed use for land like this - where it can be used by the different interested groups and fulfill their own individual wishes. (like the story about the two ladies who want the orange, where one of them only wants the peel, and one only wants the fruit inside), and this setup is WAY better than just letting or requiring ranchers, for example, to buy up all the land and then likely fence it off from all others. Problem is, politics get in the way, and then some groups use an all-or-nothing style of change.

The recent changes in Utah have been interesting. I was in Utah while it was being discussed, and sometimes heard the politician's comments on radio stations. It was obvious that they were snakes, being intentionally deceptive about what they were doing. So obviously, that just the way they did and communicated the change was a clear additional "fuck you" to those who didn't like it. Utah has so much great public land that, personally, I don't see it as a horrible thing that it is reduced. Problem is, it's hard to put these changes in long-term perspective. And, change with public lands often happen on a long time scale in order to minimize perceived impact by single generations, but accomplish big change in the direction the groups or politicians desire. So, even while I don't think it's a huge deal if Bear's Ears and Escalante get reduced, I can definitely see why some groups will oppose it strongly.

Escalante has some really really awesome things in it. Incredible little slot canyons, rocks formations, an awesome river canyon with huge arches over it. I hope those specific things, at the very least, are maintained and protected. It's also one of the best places to see the night sky clearly in the U.S. That alone may be worth keeping a large chunk of land government-owned and limiting any development and light-pollution.
Last edited by C40 on Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

theanimal
Posts: 2627
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by theanimal »

To clarify- Arizona is nowhere near 85%. It is at 38%. Nevada is the highest in the country at 79%. Most of it land managed by the BLM. Utah is at 62%, Alaska and Idaho are at ~61%.

For the country as a whole, 27% falls under the category of federal public lands.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

theanimal
Posts: 2627
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by theanimal »

I guess my situation is unique because for the past 3 years I have lived in an area that is essentially all public land. Everything in the surrounding area is managed by the National Park Service, BLM, the fish and wildlife service or the state, outside of the 129 acres of private property in the town in which I was living. The size of the area is hard to describe and numbers won't necessarily paint the whole picture, but we are talking about an area greater than 50,000 sq miles. Bigger than New York State. Outside of the varied villages and the 20,000 people or so that live within them, all of northern Alaska is public land. Most of it federally managed.

It's the same story as everywhere else. Miners complain because they feel like access is restricted and they are discriminated against. They'll move from creek to creek, leaving tailings and trash behind with no reprimand from the BLM. Hunters want greater access and the ability to use motorized vehicles off the road. Oil companies want to drill and the state wants to put in a natural gas pipeline.

But all of these activities are nonetheless permitted on public lands. You can mine. Oil companies do drill. And there are ample hunting opportunities throughout these areas. Not to mention other activities like logging and commercial fishing elsewhere.

The movement to state control has never been one that I've been a fan of because it seems like it would benefit a few to the detriment of many. Nobody is ever going to be completely happy under the current system, but everyone is still able to use it in some sense.

Most activities don't bother me that much, but cattle grazing on public lands is something that doesn't sit well with me. They shit everywhere, foul the water, crowd out local species and turn grasslands into deserts. I have no sympathy for the Bundys.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by BRUTE »

whoops, brute must've read the wrong number for Arizona. the 85% probably referred to Nevada.

somehow the western states are different. in many other states, the percentages are e.g. 0.8%, 2.8%, 7.3%, with 10% on the high end. in the west, the lowest number is Montana with around 30%, and up to 80-85% (depending on who measures what when) in Nevada, with an average of about 48%.

while brute would prefer 0% everywhere, some <10% public land doesn't seem that outrageous. but claiming on average 50% of all land and then completely Waco'ing it when humans aren't 100% satisfied with the decree just smells like military dictatorship to brute.

theanimal
Posts: 2627
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by theanimal »

Most of it is desert land though. It can't be used for traditional agriculture. Cattle grazing is inefficient since vegetation is so sparse. Some of it (like in Utah) holds minerals like uranium or gold. Others the terrain is full of mountains, canyons or other rough features. Would you rather it be privately held just to say the government doesn't own it? Even though in most cases it likely sees greater use now?

nestbuilder
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:22 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by nestbuilder »

@Brute
Not sure how mismanaging the Bundy response equates to mismanagement of public lands. The Bundys and then the fools who showed up at Malheur to cut barbed-wire, trash federal offices and put snipers up in a lookout could never even piece together a coherent argument for what they were trying to do other than waving around a mini constitution, talking about God's will and how they were victims of federal overreach.

The desert, or any land for that matter, is not empty. It is a hardy, but fragile and complex ecosystem that grazing damages(as do many other human-related activities). The amount of cow-poop fouling waterways on public lands(and then downstream to everyone else) is everywhere in the West. Not to mention denuding of the land. There are federal and private efforts across the West to work with ranchers and conservation groups to ranch better but that does not mean all lands are suitable and it does require ranchers to modify practices. Just because something was done a certain way in the past, doesn't mean that is how it should be done moving forward and certainly does not mean one is entitled to do it however they want.

I was raised in a place where approximately 1% of the land is federally held. That certainly does not make the place feel more free in anyway, in fact quite the opposite. The wall-to-wall corn is stunning for a Halloween horror flick but with modern-day farming practices where corn is planted inches apart and $500,000 combines are required and when the boom is on intelligent humans tear out the old wind-breaks planted during the Dust Bowl just to squeeze some more $, I guess I would rather have some public input in how that land is managed. Not to mention the chemicals used that blow and flow around to everyone as well as sucking the limited waterways and aquifer dry for a heavily subsidized "food" product that as a Nurse I am not sure truly benefits us all. I see the federal land agencies as deeply flawed and struggling to evolve in the modern era, but that is no reason to sell off publically held lands. It is pretty well documented that even if feds sell to states for greater local oversight, that land usually ends up in private hands due to budgetary pressures of the state.

Many peoples within the U.S. have had to adapt and change over history for a variety of reasons. Many folks don't ever get a say in having to change, they simple grab their bootstraps and adapt because that is what has to be done to survive. When I hear the Bundy-folks whine about federal overreach, what I hear is anger about Change and channeling that anger into fighting Don Quixote-style without really understanding or appreciating the depth and complexity of that change. It is not just about cows, cowboys or turtles. It reminds me a bit of my second cousin who owns a huge coal mining company. He will die thinking he is doing best by coal-miners by getting Trump to deregulate and kneecap environmental protections to the hilt even while he admits the coal-market, independent of regulation, is pretty well toast at this point. I keep thinking, if he really does give a shit about his coal-mining roots and the people of that community, he would spend his $ on retraining folks for viable professions that have a chance in the future and overall support a more healthy community. Instead, he has a serious axe to grind with Obama and the Environmentalists as they are his perceived reasons for Change, and will focus his great wealth on pursuing that vendetta 'til his dying day.

Finally, I just cannot wrap my head around the hypocrisy of Bundy-style "patriots" thinking they have more of a right to the land then say Native Americans. If anyone should be getting land back or unfettered access...

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by BRUTE »

Would you rather it be privately held just to say the government doesn't own it? Even though in most cases it likely sees greater use now?
yes, privately held, or, if truly uninteresting, unowned. brute's goal isn't to maximize use of land, but optimal usage. brute believes that free markets are better at achieving this.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by BRUTE »

nestbuilder wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:44 pm
The amount of cow-poop fouling waterways on public lands(and then downstream to everyone else) is everywhere in the West. Not to mention denuding of the land.
this is called Tragedy of the Commons and is a result of public ownership of said land.

theanimal
Posts: 2627
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by theanimal »

Tragedy of the Commons results from no communication and strategy within a large space among its users. It can happen in both private and public ownership scenarios.

On a small scale, commercial fishing is a perfect example of the opposite of this. With no regulation or 3rd party management, there'd be no fish. Regionally this works. Globally, there's nothing set up, leading to tragedy of the commons.

nestbuilder
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:22 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by nestbuilder »

I would add air and water and the like are shared resources and for that very reason benefit from oversight as most individuals tendency is to pursue self-interest at the expense of the commons whether private or public. Whether ranchers graze on public or private land (or maybe we rethink the scale of the whole cow thing?) their practice impacts shared resources. This is true for much of human behavior and therefore the whole "get government outta my life until I am directly impacted then where are you" approach seems a bit short-sighted.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by BRUTE »

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: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by enigmaT120 »

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.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Riggerjack »

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.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by BRUTE »

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: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by enigmaT120 »

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.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Riggerjack »

@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: 412
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:57 am
Contact:

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Farm_or »

@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.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Riggerjack »

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: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Campitor »

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.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Standoff

Post by Riggerjack »

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.

Locked