DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on January 07, 2016, 10:26:05 PM
-
https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/no-legal-issue-in-oregon
-
Yes the injustice is indeed supported by law.
-
These loons do not have the right to take over property that does not belong to them and hold it for ransom.
There is no justice in that.
One of these Bubbas took the donation money and used it to get drunk on.
It looks like they will leave without anyone getting hurt.
-
(https://securedrop.org/sites/all/themes/securedrop/images/washington_post.png)
I'm an Oregon rancher. Here's what you
don't understand about the Bundy standoff.
The Obama administration has pushed our livelihood to the brink.
By Keith Nantz - January 8 at 11:45 AM
(http://s24.postimg.org/lwzr5nped/opinion2_jpg_w_1484.jpg)
Keith Nantz on his farm. (Image courtesy of the Keith Nance the author.)
This week, the Ammon Bundy-led seizure of a federal wildlife refuge thrust Oregon's ranchers into the spotlight. While I don't agree with the occupiers' tactics, I sympathize with their position. Being a rancher was always challenging. And it has become increasingly difficult under the Obama administration.
I grew up in a ranching community in northeast Oregon. Even as a kid, I knew I wanted to be a rancher. After eight years as a firefighter, I?d saved enough to start my own business. I wanted to work on the land, raising delicious, wholesome beef for our growing population.
For almost a decade, I've done just that. Most days, I?m up before the sun rises. I spend my mornings tending to my horses, dogs and livestock. In the winter, when it's bitter cold, I'm outside with my cattle, making sure their water isn't frozen and that they're properly fed. In the summer, I often work 15-hour days, cultivating my crops and tending to the animals. In the afternoons, I'm in my office, reaching out to customers and handling the ranch's business side. Over the course of a given day, I act as a vet, a mechanic, an agronomist and accountant.
I love the work, but it's grueling. As a rancher, I'm always one bad year away from financial disaster. Every purchase I make from new cows ($2,000 each) to a new piece of equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, is a major investment. And my ranch operates on very slim margins, so I have to be savvy to make ends meet.
Money isn't the only challenge. Raising cattle requires a lot of land, much more than most ranchers can afford to own outright. I lease about a third of the space I use from private owners. But most ranchers aren't so lucky. The federal government controls a huge amount of land in the west (more than 50 percent in some states, like Oregon), and many ranchers must lease that space to create a sustainable operation.
Utilizing federal land requires ranchers to follow an unfair, complicated and constantly evolving set of rules. For example, a federal government agency might decide that it wants to limit the number of days a rancher can graze their cattle to protect a certain endangered plant or animal species, or they might unilaterally decide that ranchers can't use as much water as they need because of a fight over water rights. Or they might take over land that once belonged to the state or private individuals, imposing an entirely new set of restrictions.
I saw this play out firsthand when the federal government considered listing the sage grouse, a chicken-like bird, as endangered. That regulation would have shrunk the amount of land where ranchers could graze cattle, putting many out of business and decimating the industry. To avoid this, ranchers like myself and local officials spent months meeting with federal officials looking for compromise. We ultimately found middle ground. But we already have an enormous workload in our daily lives. The pressure of having to drop everything to lobby against a rule (which happens more often than you'd think) is a tremendous burden.
Most of the time, those regulations are written by people with no agriculture experience, and little understanding of what it takes to produce our nation's food. The agencies that control these lands can add burdensome regulations at any time. Often, they will begin aggressively enforcing them before ranchers have a chance to adjust.
This forces us to either find new grazing land, reduce the size of our herd or sell out completely. In rural communities, this can have a catastrophic effect on the local economy and environment. Ranching is a billion-dollar industry in Oregon. Overall, agriculture accounts for 15 percent of the state's economic activity and 12 percent of the state?s employment. The income of a local farm generates double the money for the local economy as a supermarket?s income in the same area, according to the London-based New Economics Foundation.
The siege on our industry has only increased under the Obama administration. Officials are effectively regulating us out of business by enforcing a string of unprecedented environmental restrictions. In Malhuer county (next to Harney county, where the current standoff is taking place), the Obama administration is considering a measure that will turn 2.5 million acres of federal land into a "national monument," a move that would severely restrict grazing. These restrictions would cause a huge economic downturn for those communities.
These decisions are being made by people who are four to five generations removed from food production. The rule-makers don?t quite understand our industry, and are being spurred on by extreme environmentalist groups asking for unreasonable policy changes.
It's not that I don't care what the environmental community wants. In every part of my business, I try to find a balance between economics, mother nature and our culture. I know that if we don't treat our land properly, we will go out of business by our own hands. It is of utmost importance for us to be true conservationists if we want to continue producing the most nutritious and safest protein in the world.
But all too often, I'm not given the autonomy to do so. I'm given rules, not a conversation about how ranchers and government officials and environmentalists might be able to work together. That's an approach that fails everyone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/08/im-an-oregon-rancher-heres-what-you-dont-understand-about-the-bundy-standoff/
-
This is a full description by a local about the whole thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XegdowqgJ4w
-
This is a full description by a local about the whole thing.
The "full description" by who's definition?
Because "you" say so?
I find many of the comments below the video interesting to say the least.
-
I said a full description because there are two issues: the guys who were arrested for starting a fire and damaging a neighbor's land and did not complete their sentences, and the Bundys who have nothing to do with the Hammonds and are occupied a government building illegally, and he covered both.
I hope that this is resolved without anyone getting shot.
I don't think that breaking and entering a government facility is legal or should be legal, not that it is any valid way to protest government policies. The land belongs to the government, and just like you or me, they should have the authority about how to manage what they own.
-
I said a full description because there are two issues: the guys who were arrested for starting a fire and damaging a neighbor's land and did not complete their sentences, and the Bundys who have nothing to do with the Hammonds and are occupied a government building illegally, and he covered both.
I hope that this is resolved without anyone getting shot.
I don't think that breaking and entering a government facility is legal or should be legal, not that it is any valid way to protest government policies. The land belongs to the government, and just like you or me, they should have the authority about how to manage what they own.
-
The Feds charge only a fraction as much as private owners for the use of pasture. It is based on the amount needed to feed one cow and a calf, and of course varies depending on water and available forage.
-
The Feds charge only a fraction as much as private owners for the use of pasture. It is based on the amount needed to feed one cow and a calf, and of course varies depending on water and available forage.
Perhaps, but it is rules produced by people who are not ranchers or agronomists at all. So how good a fit to the situation can be expected?
When you were teaching , did you never find a rule made by non-teachers to be wrongly conceived?
Don't loose this part of the issue, the Government is the worst landlord, when the peasantry rebel against their feudal masters the law never favors the pheasants.
-
The Federal government has a LOT of agronomists. Many were raised on farms and ranches. If the government makes bad decisions, it is rarely the experts who make them. I imagine that timber companies that want cheap timber, Oilmen who want to frack, and miners who want to mine are the causes of many bad decisions.
And of course, there are botanists and zoologists who want to preserve native species. They often clash with ranchers, oilmen and miners.
I reject your concept that the government cannot do anything right. Reagan has a number of appointees who were particularly awful, James Watt being at least te most famous.
-
I reject your concept that the government cannot do anything right. Reagan has a number of appointees who were particularly awful, James Watt being at least te most famous.
This looks like you accept my contention that the government cannot do anything right , for very long.
-
I accept that when Republicans form a government they cannot do anything right more often than when Democrats form a government.
If a political movement starts with the basic premise that government will always fail, then all it can produce are failing governments.
It is like a drug company that starts with the premise that no malady can be cured with drugs.
-
Would it be good for a Drug Company to operate in the premise that drugs are the fix for all problems?
-
You are missing the point.
This makes no sense.
-
Of course it makes no sense.
Were you trying to make sense?
A party that believes that the answer to every problem is government is going to create more government than anyone needs and cover itself with power at the peoples expense.
So the analogy to a drug company that uses drugs to fix everything from piles to broken bones is apt.
But the reality of excessive government is a drug on everything that a free people want to do.
-
Governments can certainly take care of people's health, both mental and physical
Republicans like the idea of having an underclass waiting in the wings to frighten the employed into not forming unions and demand to be treated with respect. They also find that lumpenproletarians and religious nuts and gun nuts to support them.
-
Governments can certainly take care of people's health, both mental and physical
Republicans like the idea of having an underclass waiting in the wings to frighten the employed into not forming unions and demand to be treated with respect. They also find that lumpenproletarians and religious nuts and gun nuts to support them.
This why the Democrats want the unemployed of four continents to flow this direction?
Are unions really well served by lax immigration policies?
-
The entire system is based upon growth of the population. The population must grow constantly. Since the government cannot mandate reproduction, it must admit immigrants, lest we find ourselves in the sort of stagnation now afflicting Japan. Unions can deal with moderate immigration, but not with irregular waves of immigration of peasant farmers.
A lower rate of population growth could succeed using robotics, but the profits that come from the productivity of robots must be equitably distributed. as seems to have occurred in the world of Star Trek TNG and DS9, in which everyone has enough and no one seeks to dominate. This is utopian, and poorly described in the series.as a sort of background.
-
The entire system is based upon growth of the population.
Well there's your problem.
Didn't we used to increase our own population, and bear the cost of raising them to adulthood ourselves?
Are we getting a bargain by stealing the productive age people of poorer countries?
Or are we getting too many and can't make them into citizens ?
-
Well, no, not really. This country has always had a robust rate of immigration. The birth rate was once higher as well. But of course, there are limits to growth. A population cannot grow forever.
Republicans refuse to think about making them into citizens.
-
A population cannot grow forever.
What would be the sign that we are nearing the point at which further growth is counterproductive?
Might this be a point we passed in the past?
-
We are perhaps not there yet, but the point is that constant growth is not sustainable. The same is true of the consumer economy.
-
We could quite well be past sustainable numbers already.
In the USA about 2% of us are involved in farming and ranching, this requires a lot of automation, fuel , pesticide and fertilizer.
Our soil quality and available water for agriculture is in decline.
It really will not matter how sophisticated anything else is if the basics fail.