The Malheur Occupiers, Do They Have Any Legitimate Reasons to be there? (Salem: crimes, how much)

[redguard57]

I'm hoping those guys evacuate or are removed from the Malheur refuge fairly soon, because I was planning to go hike out there this spring.

I keep hearing that the occupiers are protesting some sort of governmental tyranny. Why they would take their anger out on a wildlife refuge is beyond me. As far as I can tell, they have no legitimate reasons for their actions.

1) The land was never under the control of area ranchers. It was Native American land, then a sort of Indian reservation after 1872, then in 1908 made into a wildlife refuge. Ranchers have no claim on it.

2) Grazing fees on BLM land are less than 1/10th what grazing fees are on private land. I get that private grazing land is going to be maintained and fertilized, but still, they are getting to graze for pennies on the dollar, subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. Ranchers should have no problem with grazing fees, which seem fair. It seems to me that the occupiers want welfare for the ranchers, essentially.

3) The father and son of the Hammond family were sentenced to 5 year minimum sentences for arson on federal land. After reading about their case, it seems to me that they willfully defied multiple warnings to cease breaking the law throughout the 1980s and 1990s. In 2001 they quite blatantly burned 130 acres to cover up poaching activity. They continued to engage in illegal hunting and burning, in 2006 endangering firefighters by lighting a back-burn behind them. Given that they were treated leniently for decades, the sentences are probably appropriate. 5 years as a minimum may be a bit long and I get that was created after the OKC bombing and maybe this situation calls for a bit shorter sentences. Still, that is for the family's lawyers to deal with through the justice system; a wildlife refuge has nothing to do with it.

Are there any other arguments they've been making. So far, I think their occupation has broken many more laws than anything they are actually protesting, and these people need to face justice for their crimes. If anyone can give me a reason their activity is warranted, I'm willing to hear it.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Do the occupiers have a legitimate reason? No, they don't. However the BLM has behaved very badly, blatantly violating federal law, so the local rancher do have a legitimate gripe. The rancher's gripe has nothing to do with the Malheur Wildlife refuge, and it is not local ranchers who are occupying the refuge buildings.

1) Local ranchers are not making any claims to the wildlife refuge

2) Grazing is important to the health of the land. The BLM grazing lands are poor quality and not worth as much as privately maintained lands (for grazing purposes, they have other value) The lower cost grazing brings American beef to the table at a lower cost. I suppose you could care less, if you are a vegan, but beef raised only on quality pasture lands for full cost expenses would cost you considerately more at the supermarket. So, the general public does get benefit from grazing rights.

3) Perhaps you should try a little discretion about what you believe from news sources. Your version is very skewed. If you love slanted news with an agenda, I suggest that you listen to both slants and hear both sides and then look for a more accurate news source.

4) If you want to go hiking out there, go ahead The Malheur refuge is enormous. the visitors center is quite small. There is no reason for you to go out there and only hang out at the visitors center. There are no occupiers in thousands of other Malheur acres. In fact, there are 187,757 acres in the refuge. Surely, you can find some place to hike.

5) if the goldarn press would just pack up and leave, the occupiers would go home.

[redguard57]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

Do the occupiers have a legitimate reason? No, they don't. However the BLM has behaved very badly, blatantly violating federal law, so the local rancher do have a legitimate gripe. The rancher's gripe has nothing to do with the Malheur Wildlife refuge, and it is not local ranchers who are occupying the refuge buildings.

1) Local ranchers are not making any claims to the wildlife refuge

2) Grazing is important to the health of the land. The BLM grazing lands are poor quality and not worth as much as privately maintained lands (for grazing purposes, they have other value) The lower cost grazing brings American beef to the table at a lower cost. I suppose you could care less, if you are a vegan, but beef raised only on quality pasture lands for full cost expenses would cost you considerately more at the supermarket. So, the general public does get benefit from grazing rights.

3) Perhaps you should try a little discretion about what you believe from news sources. Your version is very skewed. If you love slanted news with an agenda, I suggest that you listen to both slants and hear both sides and then look for a more accurate news source.

4) If you want to go hiking out there, go ahead The Malheur refuge is enormous. the visitors center is quite small. There is no reason for you to go out there and only hang out at the visitors center. There are no occupiers in thousands of other Malheur acres. In fact, there are 187,757 acres in the refuge. Surely, you can find some place to hike.

5) if the goldarn press would just pack up and leave, the occupiers would go home.

In response

2) - The rates are already quite low. The Bundys are up there arguing that grazing on public lands should be free! To me that seems like an egregious appeal for welfare. Since the land is poor quality grazing, I have my doubts about how much of our beef industry it supports. I imagined minimally maintained BLM land does not support a high density of cattle.

3) The Oregonian and Salem Statesman-Journal mostly. They reported the Hammonds' arguments - that they were clearing weeds in the first case and desperately trying to protect their winter feed in the 2nd. However, if those were legitimate defenses I think they would have held up in court. From what I've read about the case, the prosecution's witnesses pretty much destroyed their defense. The only thing I disagree with are the 5 year sentences. Seems like for what they did it should be about 2 years.

Seems to me that the press converged after the occupation, not before. I feel sorry for people in Burns. This will be all anyone knows about it, like all anyone knows about Waco are the Branch Davidians.

[bler144]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

Do the occupiers have a legitimate reason? No, they don't. However the BLM has behaved very badly, blatantly violating federal law, so the local rancher do have a legitimate gripe. The rancher's gripe has nothing to do with the Malheur Wildlife refuge, and it is not local ranchers who are occupying the refuge buildings.

I'm unaware of where BLM "blatantly violated the law" though there seems to be common agreement that the BLM was quite aggressive in purchasing private lands a few decades back, and their behavior angered many. If could be proven as illegal, presumably we'd be seeing lawsuits rather than grumbling, no?

1) They did bulldoze the fences between the refuge and private land with the intent of enabling herds to move into the refuge, so whether or not they're "claiming" the land they are potentially harming it.

2) It's not universally lower-quality by any stretch. The constant difference, and part of the reason the fees are lower, is that those using the land are required to pay for certain improvements if they desire them, and that does legitimately explain some of the cost differential between federal/private market rates.

Still, because the BLM uses a standard national fee structure, in some cases it still works out for ranching interests such that their net cost is still below what current market value for that area would command. Whether that's true for Malheur or not, IDK.

4) True.

5) Maybe, but personally I doubt it.

[pdxMIKEpdx]

The Malhuer thing finally made it to Snopes!

FALSE: 79-Year-Old Bird Watcher Takes Down Oregon Militant : snopes.com


The **** is getting real now!

[pdxMIKEpdx]

1. True
2. True
3. Like you said that is between the Hammond's lawyers and the justice system.

Most Oregonians I know kind of understand their "message", but don't appreciate them coming to Oregon to preach it.
I do agree that the MWR issues have been around for a long time, and maybe this will bring some national attention to what was previously a very local thing.

Why don't they close down the visitor center and open up a temporary one in town or close by.
Then just shut off the power and utilities and restrict access in or out for everyone?
Arrest anyone that tries to get in or out.
That might end it.

Of course the big plan might be to frustrate the occupiers (through non-action) until they provoke some kind of fight or do something really stupid, and then...........have the legal justification (and public opinion) to remove them forcibly.

This is interesting, but turned out to be totally false:
https://www.intellihub.com/fbi-possi...uge-occupiers/

Psyop stuff maybe?

OP pretty much nailed.

These are nothing more than a bunch of freeloading leachers who are mad that taxpayers only cover 85%+ of the cost of having grazing on public lands. They're getting a fantastic deal but, being freeloading takers, won't be content until they don't have to pay anything at all.

Not surprisingly, they've lined up in support of a couple of poachers/serial arsonists who have a decades-long history of run ins with BLM and flagrantly violating the law.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by redguard57

I'm hoping those guys evacuate or are removed from the Malheur refuge fairly soon, because I was planning to go hike out there this spring.

I keep hearing that the occupiers are protesting some sort of governmental tyranny. Why they would take their anger out on a wildlife refuge is beyond me. As far as I can tell, they have no legitimate reasons for their actions.

1) The land was never under the control of area ranchers. It was Native American land, then a sort of Indian reservation after 1872, then in 1908 made into a wildlife refuge. Ranchers have no claim on it.

2) Grazing fees on BLM land are less than 1/10th what grazing fees are on private land. I get that private grazing land is going to be maintained and fertilized, but still, they are getting to graze for pennies on the dollar, subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. Ranchers should have no problem with grazing fees, which seem fair. It seems to me that the occupiers want welfare for the ranchers, essentially.

3) The father and son of the Hammond family were sentenced to 5 year minimum sentences for arson on federal land. After reading about their case, it seems to me that they willfully defied multiple warnings to cease breaking the law throughout the 1980s and 1990s. In 2001 they quite blatantly burned 130 acres to cover up poaching activity. They continued to engage in illegal hunting and burning, in 2006 endangering firefighters by lighting a back-burn behind them. Given that they were treated leniently for decades, the sentences are probably appropriate. 5 years as a minimum may be a bit long and I get that was created after the OKC bombing and maybe this situation calls for a bit shorter sentences. Still, that is for the family's lawyers to deal with through the justice system; a wildlife refuge has nothing to do with it.

Are there any other arguments they've been making. So far, I think their occupation has broken many more laws than anything they are actually protesting, and these people need to face justice for their crimes. If anyone can give me a reason their activity is warranted, I'm willing to hear it.

4) They are entitled, because they are The Militia, and that makes them superior to all other Americans. Government subsidized grazing for their cattle (that normal Americans have to pay full price for on private land) is not enough for The Militia. They should be given free land, and pay no taxes or fees for anything.

[McFrostyJ]

They are the definition of Right Wing Wackos and should be in jail right now.

[Larry Caldwell]

Nobody wants another Waco in an election year. I expect that after the weather warms up to prevent freeze damage to the facility, they will shut off the power. Without water, the occupation won't last long. Be patient.