Ranchers demand government hand outs!

Post Reply New Topic

Ranchers in Oregon are terrorists. Their cause? More government hand outs for them! They want to use OUR land without paying rent (grazing fees)! What ever happened to rugged individualism?

Cites?

I admit that I haven't kept up on this, but from what I have heard it seemed that their argument was that the government was abrogating a long-term agreement between them.

There is a saying, "everyone is looking for an angle".

That means people are always looking for some way to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

Since we're just going one what you first heard;

from what I know it's about the criminal sentencing of some ranchers whose family have lived on their land since 1870s, they controlled burned some of their land which got out control and burned like a 100 acres of "federal" land which got them charged with arson which they had been sentenced to and served jail time for but now I believe federal prosecutors want to charge them again and send them to prison for 4 years. The stuff happening up there now doesn't have anything to do with the Hammond's, there was some militia protest and a group headed by Cliven Bundy's sons splinter off and is staging some sort of building occupation at some wildlife refuge outpost. Probably best to just wait them out, some people might scream kill them kill them kill them but building occupations have been apart of protest movements for decades so I believe everything can be resolved peacefully and hopefully nobody on either side provokes any unnecessary confrontation.

In every case I know of, ranchers pay for the rights to run their cattle on public land (it's a very common practice). So how is that categorized as wanting handouts?

I read something about them being charged and convicted with terrorism and that the prison sentences they served are below the minimums for terrorism.

How is it terrorism if your controlled burn escapes? How is that even criminal unless you have some intent to have the burn get out of control?

The prison time sounds excessive, especially since this wasn't deliberate. Just the same, I grew up around a rancher; he always seemed to think that his cows should've been allowed to graze on our property (they often broke past our gate).

This is a really bold protest, but nobody is getting hurt.

They protested the fact that they have to pay grazing fees. True, they are now protesting the arson case. But the catalyst was the fact that they cannot treat public land as if it was their personal property.

The first arson on federal land was to cover-up the illegal poaching of a deer.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but the way I'm reading this is that the govt under sentenced them the first time and is now trying to make them serve another sentence for the same crime (not that I agree that it was a crime in the first place) but under a different sentencing law. It smacks of double jeopardy if this is the case.


It's not but hat doesnt mean some sociopathic prosecutor can't throw that charge in there anyway and see if it sticks or not. It's no loss to them either way.

However, to commit arson,on land not yours to conceal a crime (if poaching is insignificant or not is superfluous. Actually, to commit arson to conceal an insignificant crime is more evil) is evil!

You can blame Mr Prez for backing down during the standoff in Nevada 2 years ago against Clive Bundy and the gang! Anti-government terrorists tried this tactic under Clinton in the 1990s and we all know what happened to them!
But in the late 90s a group of anti-government ranchers calling themselves the "Freemen" instigated a standoff in Montana that ended peacefully with them surrendering. I say send in the black helicopters and the armored vehicles. Give them 10 days to surrender peacefully to authorities or go in shooting. Yes people might be killed but it's a small price to pay to preserve civilization.

Sadly it isn't even Oregonians doing this, it's Ammon Bundy, a piece of crap from another state. Seems he took issue with this case then came here and took things into his own hands. I'm not big on violence but if this S.O.B. gets taken out because he wants to take on the federal government, I won't shed a tear over it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon ... &ocid=iehp

Many farmers/fishermen are heavily subsidised in many countries. I don't think the US is an exception.

The irony is that those ranchers are protesting for government hand outs while believing that the government shouldn't give hand outs. They proclaim "rugged individualism " for others but not themselves!

You are obviously talking about Bundy.

There's a lot to that situation that I am quite unsure about.

From what I've been told, the BLM was trying to drive him off. I don't know if you know anything about ranching economics, but the value of a ranch will include the value of its grazing rights. For example, a ranch that covers a quarter section but with grazing rights to five sections (more accurately, to the number of head of cattle that would need five sections) should typically be more valuable than a ranch that covers three sections but no grazing rights. Take away those grazing rights leaving only the quarter section would drastically reduce the value of that ranch.

If the BLM did take away much of his grazing rights in spite of the law governing those rights, then they would have destroyed a great portion of the value of the ranch. Reduce his rights too much and he likely would not be able to earn a living ranching.

If what I read is true, during the dispute he quit paying the grazing rights and the BLM applied every possible penalty they could think of to make it impossible for him to every pay off the penalty. Wasn't there some doubt about whether or not the penalties they applied were even legal?

The whole thing stinks. Bundy should have kept paying the grazing rights although there is some doubt about whether the BLM was ready to accept those payments since the BLM wanted him off of the land.

The thing in Oregon is a different issue. The only thing in common seems to be that Bundy went to Oregon to stir up problems and the ranchers in Oregon are trying to distance themselves from him and do not support the takeover of the offices.

As for those in Oregon, I'm curious how the government could argue terrorism for a fire that got out of control and spread onto the government land.

What I'm most curious about, though, is why you hate ranchers so much? You are clearly trying to smear all ranchers with the events of an isolated case.