Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2016, 01:29 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,003,949 times
Reputation: 7875

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Bunch of middle-aged armchair wannabe-Rambos getting boners together over their cool toys. Nothing serious going on here.
My favorite thing is their list of needs, they seriously were stupid enough to think this wouldn't last more than a day or two.

 
Old 01-10-2016, 05:22 AM
 
1,104 posts, read 1,327,751 times
Reputation: 2463
I've never heard of Pete Santilli so I can only guess he is a far right wing, anti government, conspiracy theorist looking for attention. He's probably the biggest obstacle to resolving this thing. Bigger problems mean bigger ratings, he'll be stirring it up for all it's worth.
 
Old 01-10-2016, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
3,040 posts, read 4,977,913 times
Reputation: 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyme4878 View Post
Can I vent a little? I know I shouldn't, but the argument against the land agencies has always been frustrating for me, and all the coverage of this "protest" has made it doubly so for me . I'm married to a federal land manager, and I know that makes me bias, but it also gives me insight into the agencies. The people like Bundy make it seem like the agencies are run by rogue CIA agents who pull in over six figures in salary. The truth? They work more hours than they get paid, and get paid less than they would in the private sector, but they don't complain because they get security, and get to work in beautiful places doing things they are passionate about. They try to work magic to do more with less and less money. They don't like all the bureaucracy either, but try to work with it. They are constantly aware of the tightrope they have to walk to ensure they meet as many shareholders' needs as possible while often looking further ahead.

Just like any large group of people, there are some less than stellar employees, but a majority of them love theirnjob and love the land. The people making the day to day decisions live in towns where the land they manage is, their kids go to the same schools, they are your neighbors.

So many people use public lands, for recreation, for business; can you really imagine an United States without that access? Where would you hunt? Fish? Camp? How would small ranchers succeed? Small logging operations? Who would own the previously federal land? Giving it away would drive down existing home and land values, and would not get the American people the price value of their collective property (money that could go towards the deficit, toward infrastructure, toward schools, etc.). Putting it up for the highest bidder would potentially mean a closing off of land to the 8middle and lower classes--often the very people Bundy et al are supposedly standing up for.

There are many worthy discussions to be had over specific policies, but this group doesn't seem all that interested in the nuances of management, instead they seem to be all about singular needs and wants--just their own.
I can understand the concern you have regarding public lands used for recreation. Does the people of Oregon need 56,000 square miles of public lands for recreation?
New York State is about 55,000 sq miles, federal government lands are .8% which means the fed owns about 500 sq miles of New York. Does that mean that New Yorkers have no place for recreation, camping, hunting or other outdoor activities? When was the last time you were in the Oregon Outback hunting, fishing or camping. I've been over there many times and most of the time it's just me and my wife out there, very seldom do we see anyone else, which is nice, but it goes to show just how much it is visited.

Just look at this site, it show percentage of lands the federal government has list by state. http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291...ands-in-the-us
 
Old 01-10-2016, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
988 posts, read 676,697 times
Reputation: 1132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj View Post
I can understand the concern you have regarding public lands used for recreation. Does the people of Oregon need 56,000 square miles of public lands for recreation?
New York State is about 55,000 sq miles, federal government lands are .8% which means the fed owns about 500 sq miles of New York. Does that mean that New Yorkers have no place for recreation, camping, hunting or other outdoor activities? When was the last time you were in the Oregon Outback hunting, fishing or camping. I've been over there many times and most of the time it's just me and my wife out there, very seldom do we see anyone else, which is nice, but it goes to show just how much it is visited.

Just look at this site, it show percentage of lands the federal government has list by state. Imbalance of Federal Land Ownership Sheds Light on Oregon Militia | Big Think
Why "the people of Oregon"? Isn't it federal land? It belongs to everybody.

I think it takes a lot of nerve for ranchers to ask for this land. It's been rented to them at far below market rate for many decades.

I live near national forests and BLM land in Arizona. They don't belong to me any more than they do to somebody living in Oregon, or to a rancher who has gotten a sweetheart lease for years and now thinks the land is his.
 
Old 01-10-2016, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
3,040 posts, read 4,977,913 times
Reputation: 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by unwillingphoenician View Post
Why "the people of Oregon"? Isn't it federal land? It belongs to everybody.

I think it takes a lot of nerve for ranchers to ask for this land. It's been rented to them at far below market rate for many decades.

I live near national forests and BLM land in Arizona. They don't belong to me any more than they do to somebody living in Oregon, or to a rancher who has gotten a sweetheart lease for years and now thinks the land is his.
All I'm saying is the Federal government doesn't need to own 56,000 sq miles of Oregon. Some of this land could be sold to ranchers, this way the land gets back on the tax roles and both the counties and state benefit from this. Oregon has some of the strictest environmental laws in the country regarding ranchers, logging and mining, these people are not going to trash their property as many think they might, they make their living off the land, the last thing they want to do is destroy their lively hood.
Oregon has 18 million acres of National Forest, 2.4 million acres of Wilderness areas that are in control of the Federal Government for everyone to enjoy, and I think it should be kept that way.
 
Old 01-10-2016, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
988 posts, read 676,697 times
Reputation: 1132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj View Post
All I'm saying is the Federal government doesn't need to own 56,000 sq miles of Oregon. Some of this land could be sold to ranchers, this way the land gets back on the tax roles and both the counties and state benefit from this. Oregon has some of the strictest environmental laws in the country regarding ranchers, logging and mining, these people are not going to trash their property as many think they might, they make their living off the land, the last thing they want to do is destroy their lively hood.
Oregon has 18 million acres of National Forest, 2.4 million acres of Wilderness areas that are in control of the Federal Government for everyone to enjoy, and I think it should be kept that way.
I see your point.

My feeling is that the amount of public land in the U.S. differentiates us from other countries. We are the envy of other places in the world. I have lived in New York, and it is nothing like the west, even though it has two very large parks for an Eastern State, the Catskills and the Adirondacks.

There is a place I wanted to go explore for brook trout in New York, the Tug Hill Plateau. It is just east of Lake Ontario. It receives very high snowfall totals and has some cold creeks. It also has a lot of undeveloped land. To make a long story short, it was frustrating. There is some public land up there, patches that you have study maps to make sure you don't wander off of them. A great deal of the land is private, posted by private hunting and fishing clubs, etc. It was very different than living in the west.

As far as the lifestyle of the ranchers dying out, I'm not indifferent to that, but change happens everywhere. It is not a good thing or a happy thing, but it may just be part of life. There are stone walls in forests all over New England because it used to be farmed. Those people had to stop many decades ago because it was no longer economically viable. Or there is the case of auto workers in Detroit. I'm sure you know there are tens of thousands of other examples of the same kind of thing, from all over the country. People lose their jobs, can't make it, and have to move on. It has happened in all of our families. I sympathize with the ranchers, but giving up control of public lands so that their lifestyle can continue is a very high price to pay in my opinion. All of us have a stake in those lands, and even if we can't get out there very often, we dream about the day that we can.
 
Old 01-10-2016, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
3,040 posts, read 4,977,913 times
Reputation: 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by unwillingphoenician View Post
I see your point.

My feeling is that the amount of public land in the U.S. differentiates us from other countries. We are the envy of other places in the world. I have lived in New York, and it is nothing like the west, even though it has two very large parks for an Eastern State, the Catskills and the Adirondacks.

There is a place I wanted to go explore for brook trout in New York, the Tug Hill Plateau. It is just east of Lake Ontario. It receives very high snowfall totals and has some cold creeks. It also has a lot of undeveloped land. To make a long story short, it was frustrating. There is some public land up there, patches that you have study maps to make sure you don't wander off of them. A great deal of the land is private, posted by private hunting and fishing clubs, etc. It was very different than living in the west.

As far as the lifestyle of the ranchers dying out, I'm not indifferent to that, but change happens everywhere. It is not a good thing or a happy thing, but it may just be part of life. There are stone walls in forests all over New England because it used to be farmed. Those people had to stop many decades ago because it was no longer economically viable. Or there is the case of auto workers in Detroit. I'm sure you know there are tens of thousands of other examples of the same kind of thing, from all over the country. People lose their jobs, can't make it, and have to move on. It has happened in all of our families. I sympathize with the ranchers, but giving up control of public lands so that their lifestyle can continue is a very high price to pay in my opinion. All of us have a stake in those lands, and even if we can't get out there very often, we dream about the day that we can.
I understand what you are saying, I agree to an extent. I do enjoy our public lands, we visit them often and I do like the remoteness that some of these have to offer. It's not the fact that these rancher can not make it, most of them have done pretty good and they lease the grazing rights from BLM. This is income that never sees the county or the state coffers even though the property resides in that county.
I don't see a problem with setting aside lands for wildlife habitat, but over half of the sate is just to much government property. I have been to places in Oregon to where I have to access public lands via private property, most of the property owners don't mind as long as you ask for permission to cross the lands, just be mindful that it's their property. Most of them just tell us to make sure we don't burn down the property and make sure all gates are secured after we pass through them and don't take the vehicle off the roads.
 
Old 01-10-2016, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 10,971,829 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj View Post
I can understand the concern you have regarding public lands used for recreation. Does the people of Oregon need 56,000 square miles of public lands for recreation?
New York State is about 55,000 sq miles, federal government lands are .8% which means the fed owns about 500 sq miles of New York. Does that mean that New Yorkers have no place for recreation, camping, hunting or other outdoor activities? When was the last time you were in the Oregon Outback hunting, fishing or camping. I've been over there many times and most of the time it's just me and my wife out there, very seldom do we see anyone else, which is nice, but it goes to show just how much it is visited.
This is one of the reasons I live in Oregon, and not New York. If you don’t like public lands, and being able to go to places where you seldom see other people, then feel free to move to New York. It’s sounds like you might like Manhattan. No public land there, except the streets, and you will never be alone. But thats not the life all of us want, so please don’t turn Oregon into New York. We need more public land, not less.
 
Old 01-10-2016, 02:14 PM
 
1,104 posts, read 1,327,751 times
Reputation: 2463
Those of us on the East Coast are fiercely protective of public land. We know what happens when it is sold... strip malls, private beaches and fenced off estates. If anything, we need to create MORE, not give it to welfare ranchers who think they are above the taxes the rest of us pay. I'd much rather see that tax money used for more public parks than many other foolish expenditures.
 
Old 01-10-2016, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
15,293 posts, read 17,575,011 times
Reputation: 25225
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
This is one of the reasons I live in Oregon, and not New York. If you don’t like public lands, and being able to go to places where you seldom see other people, then feel free to move to New York. It’s sounds like you might like Manhattan. No public land there, except the streets, and you will never be alone. But thats not the life all of us want, so please don’t turn Oregon into New York. We need more public land, not less.
You are a tourist. You don't live there. Most tourists never go anywhere that doesn't have a road to it. The Federal Government is an absentee landlord that sets up third hand rules, and then hires people with a college degree in biology to administer those rules. They would be happy if all 155 million acres of BLM grazing leases were taken out of production, no matter what that would do to the nation's beef herd or to the life of rural people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top