thebionicman, post: 354285, member: 8136 wrote: When you tell Federal agents there will be violence if they enforce the law, it's called assault. When you follow up by showing your weapon to reinforce the threat it's called flourishing. Flourishing is a felony.
The fence that was destroyed was private property. The rancher did not want it removed. Destruction of private property may be a felony depending on value. They have also cut new roads on the refuge. That is our property they are destroying.
At every turn they prove that their agenda is the only thing they care about. They are liars and criminals. That not emotion, it's fact.
"flourishing" is a felony?
I think you meant brandishing. :-$
Edit: flourishing is a synonym of brandishing, but only when done in a way to intimidate. Have not seen any evidence of that. My possible error.
imaudigger, post: 354294, member: 7286 wrote: just trying to dissect what they will end up getting charged with in the end.
Just making a guess. The FBI are waiting until they can prosecute some federal charge. They don't want to depend on the State courts to issue the punishment that the Feds think is appropriate.
Again, just a guess.
James
And my guess is that the charges will include conspiracy of some sort. The fact that they acted in concert according to a prearranged plan raised the bar considerably higher than would be the case if it has been a lone actor.
The FBI could even be tying this together with the other BLM related issues that the Bundys have been involved in. Maybe they are just letting them hang themselves since they obviously do not feel they are a danger to society.
Statute of Limitations drags on for a long time (as the Hammonds can attest to).
not my real name, post: 354259, member: 8199 wrote: Please... A professional would not defend domestic terrorism. A professional would be able to recognize the difference between opinion and a treasonous act of terror. These occupiers need to be imprisoned. There is no excuse. I don't think their behavior should be encouraged. Not reacting with force will only serve to encourage these recalcitrants.
It is because some seemingly cannot respond to opposing opinions with any modicum of respect that P&R was removed from the site. I find this sort of disrespect for people with opposing opinions more disturbing than any opinions I may disagree with. The Harness' have shown a great deal of tolerance in letting the discussion of this obviously politically charged subject remain on their forum, I expect because the participants, or at least the majority of participants have managed to express strong diverging opinions while keeping it civil, or close enough to stop short of personal attacks. If you can't respectfully disagree, please avoid the discussion altogether.
eapls2708, post: 354309, member: 589 wrote: It is because some seemingly cannot respond to opposing opinions with any modicum of respect that P&R was removed from the site. I find this sort of disrespect for people with opposing opinions more disturbing than any opinions I may disagree with. The Harness' have shown a great deal of tolerance in letting the discussion of this obviously politically charged subject remain on their forum, I expect because the participants, or at least the majority of participants have managed to express strong diverging opinions while keeping it civil, or close enough to stop short of personal attacks. If you can't respectfully disagree, please avoid the discussion altogether.
As usual, well said Evan. I have been really impressed by the level of discourse and restraint shown in this thread. When this topic was posted I thought that it would be gone in less than 24 hours. I have been happily surprised at the effort people have made to consider an opposing view point. It really is impressive. Please respect the other posters and try to let the conversation remain at the same high level.
I, too, have been amazed that this thread not only survived the first 24 hours but is still here today. Most have been able to be less blunt than normal.
Brad Ott, post: 351802, member: 197 wrote: Wendell, I honestly very much appreciate this thread. It is helping to give me a balanced perspective of these current events from my peers whom I respect. Thank you for keeping this thread alive (for now). Brad
01.05.2016 ~ 01.21.2016...
I have a dog in this fight in that I'm friends with some employees there and have visited many times, so I'm trying to keep on top of developments and have an internal email connection concerning particulars.
One thing that's puzzled me is why the Feds haven't cut the power and Web access to the Headquarters to freeze these guys out. Surely a simple thing to do to hurry the denouement along. Well, they have cut power to the Fire Station at the south end of the refuge to keep the Bundys from occupying it. But apparently cutting power to the Headquarters is problematical because the HQ feeder line is on the distribution line to two ranches downline. Of course a bypass could be wired, but it would involve physically accessing the service drop line at the HQ, risky business. Also, killing the HQ power for more than a few days in winter could damage infrastructure, most notably the water system, and delicate displays in the museum.
Also, it seems the authorities are overreacting to what appears to be nonexistent threats. They shut down the schools in Burns for a week, closed the BLM regional headquarters in Burns, barricaded the Courthouse, relocated MNWR employees to other facilities out of town (which allowed some of them to continue their work via telecommuting). Burns is 30 miles away from the HQ; I doubt the occupiers plan to jump in their pickups and rain fire on a schoolhouse in Burns. Agreed in a military scenario, removing potential civilian targets is wise, but I suspect the purpose here is to put the hurt on the locals so they won't align with the occupier's manifesto; some locals have been burnt by the Fed's policies for decades. It's really an insurrection prevention strategy. It's similar to what happens when there's a Fed government budget shutdown; close all the national parks, local Fed service centers, etc., to put the hurt on citizens who naturally become outraged at the party(s) who forced the shutdown; but the Feds continue to fully fund the Military, FBI, BATF, etc., because that's "Mission Critical."
Lastly, it's winter in Malheur so there's not a lot of needs concerning managing the wetlands now, but come spring there's a lot for the employees to do; it's a complex ecosystem with lots of weirs, dams, access maintenance, monitoring activities (even allowing local rancher access cows in the fall to cut down on invasive species) and thousands of spring birders which need accommodation and are a big part of Burn's economy. Bundy's people are woefully inadequate to handle the complexities and, although I'm highly amused by their receipt of dildoes, entertaining YouTube mashups, braggadocio press conferences by the Bundys, etc.; come spring those guys have to be out of there so the heavy lifting of maintaining a delicate bird flyway site returns to the experts (and actually the locals too, a General Management Plan has been put into place after years of discussion).
My position? Let these yahoos occupy for a few months more and allow more crazies to occupy the site. Let them witness the nation refuse to escalate the Sagebrush rebellion to a National level. Come the spring waters coursing down the Donner und Blitzen River means it's time to neutralize the occupiers, either by surrender or a blood and thunder assault, which they claim they're willing to suffer. But *do not let* these yahoos wreck a wonderful part of our national heritage.
Found a couple of articles posted today. OR. Governor Appeals to Obama and Bundy Negotiates with FBI
Seems like some sort of progress is being made toward a resolution.
Mike, I have known people that got jobs at wildlife refuges and the work they did was not unlike ranch hand work. Basically maintaining irrigation systems, fixing fences, roads, landscape work, prescribed burns, flood irrigating, planting/harvesting crops, ect. Then of course there is the work the biologists do to monitor the numbers and species of birds. Basically there is no stopping the birds from coming as long as it is wet.
It's hard to say how long this could go on. I read where a group of American Indian activists took over a federally owned Coast Guard Station and were allowed to run a school out of it from 1971 to 1980. That's kind of strange. In another instance, Native Americans occupied Alcatraz Island from 1969 to 1971. I don't believe there were any arrests in either of these occupations.
Oregon ranchers reject Cliven Bundy family occupation
"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.
Sources: Malheur data breach concerns Fish & Wildlife
"A data breach by militia at the Malheur Wildlife National Refuge has led the US Fish and Wildlife Service to ask some of its employees to relocate from their homes until the situation is resolved...
...While Ammon Bundy has told reporters that his group has not accessed computer files, a reporter for OPB witnessed them doing just that....
...As folks from out of town arrived over the past few weeks, harassment of our employees has increased,Û
In my opinion, the following statement points to the root of all the problems, not the occupation but everything in the 22 years before that.
The Bureau of Land Management is in discussions with the family of Dwight and Steven Hammond to restore the familyÛªs grazing access to federal lands.
ItÛªs unclear how far along those talks are in producing an agreement, but Bureau of Land Management spokeswoman Jody Weil said the talks have been underway since May 2015.
That should have been an hour long conversation. The BLM is killing the local ranchers with bureaucracy. It's too bad that bureaucracy is not a crime.
James
The Hammond family specifically have a very checkered past with the BLM, ignoring grazing areas, shooting coyotes on their land, overstaying their grazing time, lighting it on fire, and a few others. It's pretty low level shit, and the BLM itself was always trying to solve it with conversation, but now are likely a little more wary about just letting them have their grazing permits back.
I would imagine the hold up is that the BLM wants some sort of gaurantee of compliance to give the grazing rights, and with the BLM, that's probably either financial penalties or land. I would imagine the Hammonds don't want to give it, as they don't want to get forced off their land for grazing disputes. It's probably mainly stalled over finding some sort of collateral that both wouldn't wreck the Hammonds and isn't so light as to just be immediately ignored.
Seems a conversation that could easily take over an hour.
mattyoclock, post: 354426, member: 10773 wrote: The Hammond family specifically have a very checkered past with the BLM, ignoring grazing areas, shooting coyotes on their land, overstaying their grazing time, lighting it on fire, and a few others.
Coyote hunting is legal year round in Oregon. A hunting license is required, but to hunt on your own land the license is free.
Mike Marks, post: 354443, member: 1108 wrote: Coyote hunting is legal year round in Oregon. A hunting license is required, but to hunt on your own land the license is free.
my apologies, I should have been more clear, there were reports of them aerially shooting yotes on BLM land
Does Merriam-Webster create and assign meaning to the words that we use or do they define them based on the spirit of the times and antiquated usage? In light of the San Bernadino massacre and other such events that caused death and true terror (you know the kind, it's where people scream and run), the implied severity of the term "domestic terrorists" makes it an inappropriate label for the Bundy group. One commonality I've seen with real terrorists is the habit of targeting areas where they can cause maximum carnage. The Bundys did the exact opposite, making it reasonable to say that their intent (a detail important to judges) was to avoid causing maximum carnage. This situation puts a much needed spotlight on the perversion of the term by our federal government.
Good outcomes could come from this if reporters actually interviewed some of the more docile ranchers and cataloged their experiences with the BLM. We have reached the point where "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is no longer acceptable when failure to comply results in severe punishment and the only hope of redress requires substantial capital. The complexities of modern life have pushed us well past the point where it is reasonable to assume that the layman knows the law. Government apologists can continue to claim that the law is easily accessed, but access is no longer sufficient especially with overlapping regulatory zones. IÛªve heard that regulators in Australia have a different approach to gaining compliance to their mandates and it involves more guidance and fewer threats. Whether that is true or not, it might be worth exploring.
I'm reminded of a situation my father found himself in many years ago. He was logging an unremarkable lot in Northern New Hampshire and the owner thought it wise to hire a forester who promptly insisted that my father knock down all dead standing trees to comply with OSHA rules. Dad refused because the EPA had laws in place protecting dead standing trees due to their importance to various animals for shelter and sustenance (flying squirrels were high on the list). If someone from the EPA had witnessed my father pushing down a dead standing tree with his skidder I doubt very seriously that he would have been absolved from all responsibility simply because the Forester told him to do it. Likewise if an OSHA official caught him working near a dead standing tree that could potentially fall on him.
mattyoclock, post: 354444, member: 10773 wrote: my apologies, I should have been more clear, there were reports of them aerially shooting yotes on BLM land
Aerial shooting of coyotes is permitted in Oregon, as long as you get approval of the landowner. Oddly, "The five coyotes killed on the HammondsÛª ranch were shot from the air between 2009 and 2013 at a cost of over $2,200 per animal.", courtesy of the USDA.
"The Hammond family specifically have a very checkered past with the BLM, ignoring grazing areas, shooting coyotes on their land..."
Just a couple points:
First - Shooting coyotes on public and private land is legal year round in Oregon. They can be killed for sport, for fur, and for predator management.
There is no regulated hunting season for coyotes because they are considered varmints (defined as troublesome wild animals).
The wildlife refuge is a different matter when it comes to hunting. The ranchers grazing their cattle on the refuge have additional rights to protect their property than the general public does when simply hunting.
Second - This is a big one. It is not "their" land. It is USA public land, where the BLM has been delegated the job of managing certain aspects of land use to ensure the resources are available for all future generations to utilize.
Because there are certain public lands (through consensus of the public), determined to be particularly unique and special, legislation has been passed giving these areas special designations such as primitive areas, wilderness areas, national parks, national grasslands, and national monuments. There is a very distinct difference between legislation, executive orders, and policy regulations. The public is provided the opportunity to participate in the decision making process when it comes to legislation. The trouble begins when the Federal Gov. starts managing ALL public lands as if they held those special designations. This is what is happening. In the name of the environment, the majority of the country appears to support this, even though the BLM has not gone through the lawful steps to achieve those designations. To me it is short cutting the democratic system. I have strayed from the point a little, but it's NOT "their" land.
EDIT - I see now that you meant that the Hammonds were killing Coyotes on "their" own land. Sorry.
