utah400elk
Well-known member
+1 Randy
BLM, Forest Service and Nevada Ranchers
- Thread starter Grizzley
- Start date
- Status
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Good link, Harley.
I didn't vote for Obama and I suspect neither did Bundy, nor the person writing that report. Yet, the writer ends by asking, "So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?" as if this is a recent phenomena of the last six years.
The ESA; the legislation this writer seems to see as the bell weather legislation that represents a changing of societal attitudes on landscapes and species, was passed in 1973. Signed into law by the one and the only, "Tricky Dick" Nixon. That was over 40 years ago and 36 years before Obama.
To state the question as though this long-term change in societal attitudes on environmental topics is an newly formed Obama-sponsored effort is intellectually lacking, only serving to fan the anti-Obama flames, and discounting what I think is a pretty valid question.
I would pose a similar question as did the writer, but it would be worded as, "So what possible place is there for the law abiding rural family whose livelihood is dependent upon public lands, in the Age of Urbanization?"
This trend of increased emphasis on landscape and species diversity has been a trend of society as a whole. As the country has urbanized and prospered, society has placed a higher importance on dictating the activities on Federal lands. The more removed one is from the impacts the societal decisions have, the easier it is to push for even more.
To say, as this and other writers have, that this is driven by agency "agendas" is hard to accept. Every single Federal agency has appointed Secretaries that lead them. Those agency leaders are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. To imply that the agencies are somehow autonomous and have organic agendas seems to be a stretch. Or, if it is true, somehow those agendas survived both Republican and Democratic regimes over the last 50 years.
To me, the author does a good job of explaining that Bundy has no legal rights. I think he does a good job of phrasing the issues to indirectly ask, "Why so much sympathy for Bundy, even if he has no legal rights?"
I disagree with some of his answers, as I view this as more an urban-rural divide than a split of any other ideas or affiliations. I think the writer falls into the trap of simplifying a very complex question about rural-urban values and takes the easy route of making it an Obama/anti-Obama discussion. These value debates were going on long before Obama came into office in January 2009 and they will continue long after he leaves in January 2017.
The connection to the land, whether private or public, is much less when you live in concrete jungles. Just a fact of what your surroundings are and what perspective is/isn't provided in your daily experiences. Your advocacy for land management decisions, one direction or the other, is influenced by your daily life experiences, which are influenced by your closeness or distance from the lands most impacted by the decisions.
That trend started in the 1950s as America left the farm. The change of Federal legislation since then reflects that shift in the urbanization of America. The ESA being one of many examples of the changing values of an increasingly urban American society.
So, to me, this is not about agency agendas. This is about large scale and long-period demographic shifts in our society, from rural to urban/suburban, and now shifting from rural/suburban to even more urban.
It is that part that I do not see changing. It is that part that will continue to create pivot points such as this event. None of that is cause for revolution or disregard for the Constitution.
It leaves unanswered the writer's question that I have rephrased here, "So what possible place is there for the law abiding rural family whose livelihood is dependent upon public lands, in the Age of Urbanization?"
That is a more important question than supposed conspiracies, political agendas, and all the other mix that people want to bring to the discussion.
Does an urbanizing society value, and therefore have a place for, rural lifestyles and those folks who have built businesses on the public lands of the west? I hope so. I think so.
Bundy and the militia folks have done nothing to make a compelling case that such rural values should be a priority for an urbanizing society, rather have confirmed all the stereotypes that make it easier for urban people to discount rural values; discounting those values to a point that the urban majority sees little need for such as they continue congregating in big cities and electing leaders who make arbitrary decisions on land management legislation that forces those terrible "Feds" to implement these laws.
I didn't vote for Obama and I suspect neither did Bundy, nor the person writing that report. Yet, the writer ends by asking, "So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?" as if this is a recent phenomena of the last six years.
The ESA; the legislation this writer seems to see as the bell weather legislation that represents a changing of societal attitudes on landscapes and species, was passed in 1973. Signed into law by the one and the only, "Tricky Dick" Nixon. That was over 40 years ago and 36 years before Obama.
To state the question as though this long-term change in societal attitudes on environmental topics is an newly formed Obama-sponsored effort is intellectually lacking, only serving to fan the anti-Obama flames, and discounting what I think is a pretty valid question.
I would pose a similar question as did the writer, but it would be worded as, "So what possible place is there for the law abiding rural family whose livelihood is dependent upon public lands, in the Age of Urbanization?"
This trend of increased emphasis on landscape and species diversity has been a trend of society as a whole. As the country has urbanized and prospered, society has placed a higher importance on dictating the activities on Federal lands. The more removed one is from the impacts the societal decisions have, the easier it is to push for even more.
To say, as this and other writers have, that this is driven by agency "agendas" is hard to accept. Every single Federal agency has appointed Secretaries that lead them. Those agency leaders are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. To imply that the agencies are somehow autonomous and have organic agendas seems to be a stretch. Or, if it is true, somehow those agendas survived both Republican and Democratic regimes over the last 50 years.
To me, the author does a good job of explaining that Bundy has no legal rights. I think he does a good job of phrasing the issues to indirectly ask, "Why so much sympathy for Bundy, even if he has no legal rights?"
I disagree with some of his answers, as I view this as more an urban-rural divide than a split of any other ideas or affiliations. I think the writer falls into the trap of simplifying a very complex question about rural-urban values and takes the easy route of making it an Obama/anti-Obama discussion. These value debates were going on long before Obama came into office in January 2009 and they will continue long after he leaves in January 2017.
The connection to the land, whether private or public, is much less when you live in concrete jungles. Just a fact of what your surroundings are and what perspective is/isn't provided in your daily experiences. Your advocacy for land management decisions, one direction or the other, is influenced by your daily life experiences, which are influenced by your closeness or distance from the lands most impacted by the decisions.
That trend started in the 1950s as America left the farm. The change of Federal legislation since then reflects that shift in the urbanization of America. The ESA being one of many examples of the changing values of an increasingly urban American society.
So, to me, this is not about agency agendas. This is about large scale and long-period demographic shifts in our society, from rural to urban/suburban, and now shifting from rural/suburban to even more urban.
It is that part that I do not see changing. It is that part that will continue to create pivot points such as this event. None of that is cause for revolution or disregard for the Constitution.
It leaves unanswered the writer's question that I have rephrased here, "So what possible place is there for the law abiding rural family whose livelihood is dependent upon public lands, in the Age of Urbanization?"
That is a more important question than supposed conspiracies, political agendas, and all the other mix that people want to bring to the discussion.
Does an urbanizing society value, and therefore have a place for, rural lifestyles and those folks who have built businesses on the public lands of the west? I hope so. I think so.
Bundy and the militia folks have done nothing to make a compelling case that such rural values should be a priority for an urbanizing society, rather have confirmed all the stereotypes that make it easier for urban people to discount rural values; discounting those values to a point that the urban majority sees little need for such as they continue congregating in big cities and electing leaders who make arbitrary decisions on land management legislation that forces those terrible "Feds" to implement these laws.
Grizzley
Member
This may really show my ignorance but I WAS a Fox News watcher until this story. I understand the idea of partisan politics and news reporting but after listening to Hannity, Kelly, and the others that support this criminal of a so-called rancher I just can't see past not following the law and just as importantly, I can't stomach those on FOX. Like most of you so grandly stated, this rancher is a theft and is stealing from all of us! What if everyone did this? It makes no sense! I surely did not mean to bring up a subject like this but it sure did show the true colors of a few of you!
spook12
New member
There's alot of wisdom in these words.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I think you can safely assume that the message of pretty much every media outlet, salesman, and politician has an agenda that goes beyond educating you to the facts of the matter at hand, and they will use the convenient facts to manipulate you towards buying what they are selling, figuratively and literally. The sooner we all accept this and learn how to sort through it, the better off we will all be.
howler
Active member
there's nothing wrong with Fox,, as long as you know its not news your ok
RobG
Well-known member
If only the fools that listen to them knew what they were buying... I think there is a lot wrong with either side selling vitriol.
JoseCuervo
New member
JoseCuervo
New member
No. There are plenty of sources of news that don't have an agenda to manipulate you.
If you can't see them, that speaks far more about you than the news sources.
I am far from an attorney. I posted what I did for clarrification. I do not know the details of this specific issue other than what I've read, but I do have knowledge/experience with BLM grazing issues. I do admit that I was a off on the calculation of willfull tresspass fees, it is 2X the non-willful rate. I was going off memory and it failed me. Let me know which parts of my post you found 'nitpicky' and I will try to clarrify them. Feel free to point out any other place I am wrong as I'm not against being corrected.
Last edited:
noharleyyet
Well-known member
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
That was a very passionate response...
Bambistew
Well-known member
The desert tortoise conspiracy theory cracks me up.
The commies and Reids want to use this area for mitigation but can't because of cows.... who are there illegally.
We're supposed to some how be sympathetic of a criminal because someone else wants to use the land he's squatting on?
What I want to know... Where is the ACLU!!!
The commies and Reids want to use this area for mitigation but can't because of cows.... who are there illegally.
We're supposed to some how be sympathetic of a criminal because someone else wants to use the land he's squatting on?
What I want to know... Where is the ACLU!!!
OK Jose, I am game. Let's just assume I am a complete blind moron. Where would you recommend I go for unbiased news? Yes, we do agree in that Fox leans hard right. I believe MSNBC is hard left. Where is the middle anymore?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
OYA HuntTalk is where.
B
big28hunter
Guest
I certainly believe that Bundy should be held accountable for an just debt to the US. However, does this regime in DC pick and chose which law breakers to go after. I guess with a potential for 11+ million votes why go after the illegals. Every single tax payer in the country should be ticked with the full wheel barrel that their pushing. To me laws are laws and each should be followed to the "T".
- Status
Similar threads
