Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[myboynoah]

I don't think that term has been used too much outside of social media. NYT called them "armed activists". WaPo called them "occupiers". CNN is calling them "armed protesters".

"Squatters" doesn't seem right given that they are armed have said that they are willing to die if necessary.

I just call them "idiots".

It doesn't appear to me that the "terrorist" label is limited to social media. Seeing it used a lot in mainstream news as well, especially in opinion pieces or on those stupid yelling/debate shows. Which then birth news stories about why or why not these yokels are terrorists.

Like I said, good hell, people.

[myboynoah]

Embedded Tweet

[Moliere]

so you basically don't know anything about it?

No, I know quite a bit about it. I haven't seen grazing fees come up as a material issue in any of this. Please show me where I'm wrong.

FTR, my in laws live in malheur county (I find that name funny ever since I first heard it in 1999). They own farm land and have many friends/neighbors that own land in the county. The BLM isn't exactly well regarded by any of them. For the most part they tolerate the BLM but they often find themselves at the mercy of the BLM in issues dealing with water rights or other things. It's probably my relationship with my in laws that makes me a bit more sympathetic to the Hammonds.

FTR, I still don't condone the occupiers tactics, but I get why they are doing it. I guess if they were unarmed then everyone would be fine with it, but I can't think of the last time that I saw an unarmed rancher in Malheur county.

[Northwestcoug]

No, I know quite a bit about it. I haven't seen grazing fees come up as a material issue in any of this. Please show me where I'm wrong.

FTR, my in laws live in malheur county (I find that name funny ever since I first heard it in 1999). They own farm land and have many friends/neighbors that own land in the county. The BLM isn't exactly well regarded by any of them. For the most part they tolerate the BLM but they often find themselves at the mercy of the BLM in issues dealing with water rights or other things. It's probably my relationship with my in laws that makes me a bit more sympathetic to the Hammonds.

FTR, I still don't condone the occupiers tactics, but I get why they are doing it. I guess if they were unarmed then everyone would be fine with it, but I can't think of the last time that I saw an unarmed rancher in Malheur county.

I do too. Bundy and his ilk are idiots who fundamentally misunderstand the proper role of government, and how political disputes should be resolved. Note that I am saying nothing about the Harney County people themselves, even though they might distrust the government as much as the 'foreign' occupiers.

I guess it's a good thing the protesters are armed, since it's a form of self-defense against the armed ranchers? Huh?

[Nakoma]

Embedded Tweet

That, or dumping some silly tea in a harbor.

[myboynoah]

That, or dumping some silly tea in a harbor.

Yeah, the similarities are stunning.

[Nakoma]

Yeah, the similarities are stunning.

Dumping tea to protest colonial taxes sounds much more noble than holing up in a visitor's center with weapons to protest government oppression.

[Jeff Lebowski]

As a gun owner, I have come to the sad conclusion that the single greatest threat to gun rights is stupid bible-thumping rednecks.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

It's amazing how little discussion there's been about stupid mandatory sentencing guidelines. Maybe I've missed it. But the judge tried to do the right thing in this case, but the DoJ came back and made the judge hold to the mandatory sentence. I don't exactly blame the DoJ either, they don't want to establish a precedent.

Aside from mandatory sentences, there's a discussion to be had about why the federal government owns 80% of the state of Nevada and 50% of Oregon, Utah's probably somewhere in between the two. Almost everyone's mineral rights are held by federal government in Utah.

Maybe Cowboy can correct me, but don't the ranchers get a pretty good deal on the grazing fees on federal land?

Whatever grievances ranchers have with the federal government, the Bundy people are not the best representatives for them.

[cowboy]

fivethirtyeight posted an interesting article yesterday about grazing fees. Here's an informative graphic:

[ATTACH]6598[/ATTACH]

Basically, grazing fees on public lands has been stable for over thirty years. It is much cheaper than private grazing fees, which continue to increase over time.

It ends with this paragraph, which I thought was a new way of thinking about the issue:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-armed-oregon-ranchers-who-want-free-land-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/

I admit that I only have a superficial understanding of the conflict between ranchers and the BLM, and I suppose this might attract the ire of Cowboy. I'll always lend a listening ear to the argument about federal overreach, and no doubt the feds have taken over a significant amount of land that was once owned privately. But I think the article adds an important viewpoint about the economics of grazing rights.

I wish I had time to address this more completely, but grazing leases with the FS and BLM are leasehold interests that, because the grazing fees are artificially low, ranchers pay for when they acquire the permit. The only people who realized a windfall from the current formula are those who obtained the grazing leases when the Taylor Grazing Act went into effect in the '30's. Every owner since then has paid for the subsidy in advance when they buy the permit. Also, though the fees are lower than they would be on the free market, comparing them to lease frees of private lands is an apples to oranges comparison because the federal permit owners cannot control trespass, have to pay for all range improvements, and most importantly, have no flexibility regarding dates and intensity of use.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's amazing how little discussion there's been about stupid mandatory sentencing guidelines. Maybe I've missed it. But the judge tried to do the right thing in this case, but the DoJ came back and made the judge hold to the mandatory sentence. I don't exactly blame the DoJ either, they don't want to establish a precedent.

Aside from mandatory sentences, there's a discussion to be had about why the federal government owns 80% of the state of Nevada and 50% of Oregon, Utah's probably somewhere in between the two. Almost everyone's mineral rights are held by federal government in Utah.

Maybe Cowboy can correct me, but don't the ranchers get a pretty good deal on the grazing fees on federal land?

Whatever grievances ranchers have with the federal government, the Bundy people are not the best representatives for them.

Mandatory sentencing, three strikes laws, etc. are a travesty. Maybe this episode will help wake some people up.

[Northwestcoug]

I wish I had time to address this more completely, but grazing leases with the FS and BLM are leasehold interests that, because the grazing fees are artificially low, ranchers pay for when they acquire the permit. The only people who realized a windfall from the current formula are those who obtained the grazing leases when the Taylor Grazing Act went into effect in the '30's. Every owner since then has paid for the subsidy in advance when they buy the permit. Also, though the fees are lower than they would be on the free market, comparing them to lease frees of private lands is an apples to oranges comparison because the federal permit owners cannot control trespass, have to pay for all range improvements, and most importantly, have no flexibility regarding dates and intensity of use.

I knew there would be a lot of details I wasn't aware of, so I appreciate your thoughts.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Send Snacks.jpg

[Commando]

[ATTACH]6600[/ATTACH]

[Jeff Lebowski]

The internet is winning again.