11676. Trillium - 1/28/2016 9:53:30 PM
One person has already been killed. I don't look at anyone as human garbage, especially as a way of emphasizing a personal disagreement. I am repelled by the expression, iiibbb.
The Hammonds and the militia are separate entities, and in your post you conflate the two. The Hammonds distanced themselves from the militia takeover, immediately.
The following link provides details of the Hammond conflict involving water drainage (drives away birds), juniper overgrowth (sucks up ground water) and carp overgrowth in ponds (diminishes other fish populations). The following site is also anti-Israeli, based on what I read, which repels me -- but the details and links they provide about Malheur are nonetheless relevant:
"What the Oregon Standoff is really about"
The Hammonds are accused of threatening others, poaching and setting fires without permits -- however, there are large amounts of money and political pull at stake, and someone/entity in the background covets the Hammond land deeds. So, no, I do not immediately buy the accusations. Not because the Hammonds appear as "martyrs", but because I wasn't born yesterday, and I'm aware that money and politics can influence events on behalf of the monied and the powerful.
Your correction about the jail terms is accurate; the two men were sentenced to five years each, and had already served over one year. The question is whether a vendetta and smear campaign is being waged to remove inconvenient citizens from land that they have legally owned and managed for decades, for the profit of a more powerful agenda.
11677. iiibbb - 1/28/2016 10:04:48 PM
I refer to them as garbage because they are online telling people to converge on the site and kill officers.
I watched "defendyourbase" channel all day yesterday. All kinds of talk about killing feds.
I'll admit I take this standoff personally as someone who studies and practices scientific land management and conservation.... The right wing assault on science is an afront and I'm sick of it.
LeVoy had a death wish. He spoke of death before arrest frequently before he was shot. What's interesting is that all of the "leaders" are safe in jail while this chump took a bullet for them. Clever game to wind up the rabble so they're willing to take a bullet for you.
11678. iiibbb - 1/28/2016 10:06:52 PM
They're terrorists... as much as they try to compare themselves to black lives matter...
Shit... none of them cared about #BLM until a white guy gets shot.
And I still watched some of them on defendyourbasis' feed talking about Obama being a Muslim and devising this whole thing.
It is to laugh.
11679. Trillium - 1/28/2016 11:28:22 PM
For purposes of this discussion, it is going to confuse readers if "BLM" is used to refer to "Black Lives Matter" instead of "Bureau of Land Management" which is the relevant organization in this conflict. Which are you talking about, iiibbb?
11680. Trillium - 1/28/2016 11:28:59 PM
I tried to watch the "defend your base" video from the UK Daily Mail link that you provided, but it froze my computer. I will try again later -- but once again, the Hammonds and their coveted land deed are a separate conflict from the militia takeover (which for all I know is packed with agents provocateurs, that's happened elsewhere).
The Oregon conflict has activated all sorts of unbalanced characters -- including, by the way, the prosecutor of the Hammands, Amanda Marshall, who had to step down from office because her mental stability is questionable.
"Fatal Attraction Fallout"--Willamette Week March 17, 2015
"Wyden instead tapped Marshall, largely an unknown in Oregon legal circles. She had been an assistant district attorney in Coos County for five years and worked at the Oregon Department of Justice for a decade, specializing in parental rights termination...She gained attention with a Facebook page expressing interest in becoming U.S. attorney, a novel approach to seeking a federal appointment... Wyden was under political pressure at the time from the Oregon Women Lawyers, who'd blasted the earlier selection processes...
"Then, in October 2014, allegations of influence peddling and conflict of interest arose around Kitzhaber and Hayes.
"Soon, the FBI was investigating. That gave Marshall's office a head start on the Oregon Department of Justice, which reluctantly started its own criminal investigation of Kitzhaber and Hayes in early February....Having the feds take charge made sense: They have more resources, more experience making big political corruption cases, and more distance from Oregon's Democratic Party machine.
"Marshall's moment in the sun was soon eclipsed by allegations about her own behavior." (Short summary, Marshall was apparently stalking a subordinate who was under 24/7 protection while working a drug cartel prosecution)
11681. Trillium - 1/28/2016 11:41:09 PM
Additionally, through her earlier Child Protection work, Marshall may have had access to influence over the Hammond grandson who was used to testify against them.
Would uranium and gold mines be worth the trouble?
11682. iiibbb - 1/29/2016 1:26:54 AM
try this youtube link
11683. iiibbb - 1/29/2016 1:27:38 AM
That's just a sample... he was talking shit like that all day long.
11684. iiibbb - 1/29/2016 2:04:18 AM
Here is the rediculousness in its entirety. although there are many others that he posted.
11685. Trillium - 1/29/2016 7:22:23 AM
Inciting murder is not OK -- not by newscasters and not by individuals like the man on your Youtube link. I remember the 1998 case of a man (Jeremiah Locust) with mental illness who opened fire on park rangers in the Blue Ridge/Great Smokies, killing ranger Joe Kolodski. You can google the names if you like
I do not know anyone who would have suggested, though, that the entire Cherokee NC community should have been held responsible for Locust's violence, or that Locust's actions represented the citizens of Cherokee.
Great Smoky Mountains Park killing
iiibbb, the videos that you linked feature an extremely angry man who appears to be unbalanced. While the anonymous man on the video makes you feel unsafe, that is not the point of the Oregon land conflict -- some unnamed violent man on a public video was never authorized to represent the Hammonds or their side of the land conflict.
11686. Trillium - 1/29/2016 7:34:25 AM
On the other hand, Congressman Greg Walden was an elected representative of the Hammonds and mentions in this video that he had worked with the Hammonds and other people in their sparsely-populated county. (also from YouTube, I found it next to the video you posted, iiibbb -- have you listened to Congressman Walden already, or only the defendyourbaseguy?)
Walden talks about Oregon Standoff on CSPAN Rep. Walden compares the Hammond backburn to much larger fires, some of the fires set by BLM staff on private land, without permission, and without penalty.
Also Walden mentions that he helped to write a law around 1999-2000 that would have kept cows off the Steen Mountain govt preserve by having the federal government build the fences -- but the federal govt instead turned around and tried to force ranchers to build the fences at their own expense, although that was the exact opposite of what the law stipulated (and fences are costly, and some were burnt by BLM-set fires) Interesting video if you take the time
11687. iiibbb - 1/29/2016 2:50:27 PM
You are discussing the difference between individuals who conduct their business or government business legally, correctly, or non violently.
I'm discussing the premise and legacy of government land ownership and management--- and if those agencies misbehave, how does one respond? Well, if you behave as the Bundy's have, or these militia guys have you lose me.
The feds, for all the wackiness, are usually mandated by congress to manage a certain way or meet certain goals. They may decide how that is executed, but as a for instance Congress decides how many board feet of lumber the Forest Service is going to produce, and the Forest Service produces a plan for what gets harvested.
When government misbehaves, there are channels for redress.
This thing in Oregon is so many wrongs put together... mostly on the protest side.
The thing about people losing their land to government because they can't survive as ranchers... they can't survive as ranchers because beef markets are virtually monopolized and they can't compete with the economies of scale. It's not feds squeezing them out. The feds have environmental objectives for wildlife and land quality that they are mandated to meet.
11688. Trillium - 1/29/2016 5:56:51 PM
iiibbb, there is evidence that the feds did exert deliberate pressure to squeeze out ranchers:
"The FWS was keen to acquire privately owned land on the nearby Silvies Plain, so the refuge diverted the water, channeling it into Malheur Lake. Water levels rose, soon doubling, and over 30 ranches on the plain were utterly destroyed: homes, barns, and the verdant pastures on which cows once grazed were under water.
"This broke the back of the rancher resistance: most came to the FWS and gave their land away for a song ..."
From "What the Oregon Standoff Is Really About"
This is not a new phenomenon. When the Great Smoky Mountains National Park was set up in the 1920s-30s (primarily by influence of the Rockefeller family), many people were forced out of their cabins and farmlands for tiny compensations. I don't regret formation of the park, but I wouldn't minimize the human suffering that went into creating the Park, either.
TVA hydroelectric dam projects were also created at gunpoint. Decades later, farmlands that had been sold "for a song" were re-sold to powerful developers as they became very valuable "lakefront property".
The Black Oak Ridge people who had to sell their land to create the Oak Ridge National Laboratory site in Tennessee were largely patriotic and willing, but they weren't given much choice either... and aside from radioactive contamination, the government also poured mercury into local streams to get rid of it. Let's not be naive about the environmental impulses of government; the record speaks for itself.
This is not about assigning virtue points to different citizens. There is huge potential for abuse here, and evidence that abuse is occurring.
11689. Trillium - 1/29/2016 6:03:23 PM
[Aside and apart from this discussion, I'd be interested in anything you have to write about forestry practices that you see in Alaska and elsewhere]
The Great Smokies National Park was created about a century ago, and it takes about 80 years for the most valuable trees to reach full maturity, from what I understand. So it's probably about time to log the Smokies, if it can be done responsibly; but I don't know enough about it to know what to ask and vote for.
The hemlocks in the Smokies have been devastated by adelgid infestations, and there are huge patches of dead trees where there used to be beautiful dark hemlock stands. Also dogwoods which used to be everywhere have died off. These aren't Alaskan trees but I wonder how forests are managed in Alaska, and if there are similar problems of tree disease
11690. Ms. No - 1/29/2016 6:24:23 PM
I would imagine that one of the biggest differences between Alaska and the Smokies is that, comparatively, nobody lives in Alaska's forests. Most of the entire state of Alaska is an uninhabited wilderness area, whereas the Smokies are relatively full of people and towns and industry. There are certainly patches of true wilderness, but they're only large when you compare them to Central Park. By Alaskan standards, they may as well be a median strip.
11691. iiibbb - 1/29/2016 8:07:36 PM
Can't log the Smokey's it's a National Park not a National Forest. The NPS has a exceedingly strong no harvesting, let nature take it's course approach to management. In such a fragmented landscape as the eastern US, such a decision has consequences given the pressures of acid rain, climate change, invasive species, and introduced pests.
In National Forests, forest management can take place, but they have 2 problems ... 1 years of fire prevention have built up fuel loads so high that virtually their entire budget is spent protecting inhabited areas from forest fires. Second, Environmental groups fight even reasonable scientific management of forests to the point it's very difficult to execute proven silvicultural practices. Now, no clear-cutting is a viable management decision, one that the public supports, but you have to understand that such decisions will not result in forests that we are familiar with.
The consequences of removing tools such as clear cutting from land managers will have consequences on insect outbreaks. Maine, after a decades ban, is preparing itself for what will probably be a huge budworm outbreak... but the well is so poisoned by anti-science politicized and emotional environmental legislation and activism, I really have no solution for you. People want black/white policies that apply to every landscape and they don't exist.
Made becoming a forester and environmental scientist not the best career choice I suppose. What's ironic is that the people who really know the art of silviculture are all retiring and new and mid-career land managers will have a lot of catching up to do because they don't/can't practice the art.
11692. iiibbb - 1/29/2016 9:03:45 PM
Entitled welfare queens
11693. iiibbb - 1/29/2016 9:04:15 PM
11694. iiibbb - 1/29/2016 9:09:00 PM
Does WAY more good than harm even if petulant ranchers don't agree.
There's a lot about government I don't like... but protecting the environment is a key role of federal government in my mind because they are the ones who can develop a cohesive science-base policy. Otherwise, these lands would be abused to the point of ruin... watch what's happening in China environmentally to truly understand what a country that puts extraction and growth ahead of management.
But I am not a preservationist. I believe these lands can and should be used. But it should be based on the best available science.
11695. Trillium - 1/30/2016 3:25:25 AM
Thanks for the Maine budworm article. The pictures look similar to what happens in the Smokies when afflicted hemlocks die out. I've lost about 8 dogwoods in my little yard that were attractive when I bought my house.
I won't be able to burn off the disease on my little lot, but I'm curious about what the remedies might be for the Park. Prescribed burns sound a lot better to me than spraying with pesticides, although other people more familiar with prescribed burns would know more about it.
Purdue University news: "Fire may be key to reviving dogwood trees in Eastern forests""Jenkins said prescribed burning on an approximately 10-year rotation might offer a way to maintain dogwood populations in infected forests..."