Oregon standoff update: things are pretty calm

posted at 5:01 pm on January 10, 2016 by Taylor Millard

Things are actually pretty calm in Oregon, where Ammon Bundy and federal authorities are facing off over the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The biggest news is a group which claimed to want to de-escalate the situation was told to leave by Bundy’s group. Pacific Patriots Network showed up Saturday to meet with Bundy’s group on being a security detail for the perimeter. But Bundy’s group told reporters later the group was told to go away. Via The Oregonian:

Todd MacFarlane, a Utah lawyer acting as a mediator, said occupation leader Ammon Bundy doesn’t want the armed visitors there.

Bundy’s message: “We don’t need that. We don’t want it and we’re asking you to leave,” MacFarlane told reporters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

MacFarlane said he had just met with Bundy and other leaders of the occupation.

They’re “alarmed” by the arrival of Pacific Patriots Network members, some carrying rifles, and concerned about the perception they convey.

“This was the last thing in the world they wanted to see happen,” MacFarlane said.

Bundy didn’t request the presence of the network, he said, and has “tried to put out the word: ‘We don’t need you.'”

Pacific Patriots Network has a slightly different opinion of what went down. Again, via The Oregonian:

Joseph Rice, a spokesman for the network, told reporters that his group presented occupation leader Ammon Bundy and other protesters with “articles of resolution.”

He didn’t say what was in the document, but noted that his group wants to move the sides to an end to the standoff.

There are a few tea leaves to sift through on this. For one, PPN had been publicly claiming for a few days they wanted to put the perimeter together to make sure there wasn’t a repeat of the Waco siege from 1993. PPN also claimed it wanted to make sure they didn’t elevate any tensions by showing up in military or tactical-style clothing. The problem is, they may not have been able to accomplish this. The Oregonian posted pictures of some people on the perimeter, who appeared to be wearing tactical-style harnesses for their rifles. PPN even admitted to having people in full kit in a post on 3% of Idaho’s Facebook page (emphasis mine).

Due to threats to members of our network and local residents, and as a deterrent to fringe groups that may have malicious intent, we arrived at the refuge in numbers, with our security teams openly armed and in full kit for everyone’s safety. Our presence is strictly to ensure peaceful resolution to the situation, and serve as a neutral mediator between parties. We offered the Proposed Articles of Resolution to the occupiers of refuge and encouraged them to seek open dialog with all pertinent agencies to begin the process of bringing this situation to a peaceful conclusion. After delivering the proposal, our teams withdrew from the location, and will remain off site. We are not part of the Malheur occupation.

From the refuge we proceeded to the FBI outpost and again, advised open dialog between the FBI and those occupying the refuge.

The process was repeated to the sheriff, as well.

So it appears PPN showed up uninvited, and possibly screwed up by being all decked out in full kit. One thing Open Carry Texas was good at doing during the push for open carry in Texas was NOT showing up in tactical garb and just carrying around their AR-15 and other rifles. That’s a lot less threatening than being in a full kit. So PPN made a tactical error (pun intended) by showing up fully armed and decked out. It would make sense for Bundy’s group to say, “No, no, we’re fine. Go home,” if they’re trying to keep things calm and copacetic. It could also mean Bundy doesn’t agree with the articles PPN drew up. But it doesn’t mean everyone involved in what’s going on are freaking out. III% Idaho (which is part of PPN) had a pretty normal conversation with the FBI on Saturday, where they presented their articles of resolution to them (video on YouTube is here). One thing which is interesting is it doesn’t appear any of the group were carrying weapons. It doesn’t mean they weren’t (based on the title of the video they were) but the FBI agents were the only ones visibly armed.

It’s also important to remember Bundy seems to want to keep this a low-key event. Yes, his group is armed, but we have no idea how many are carrying and what kind of weapons are there. Bundy told reporters on Friday his meeting with the Harney County sheriff went well, and they have an understanding on what’s going on. The III% Idaho YouTube video shows the FBI is staged and armed, but they aren’t acting like “evil government agents” and are just monitoring what’s going on. The Idaho 3%-ers are talking about wanting an open dialogue and aren’t being confrontational either. So this is a good thing. There’s no real stress, no real tension, and both sides are being respectful.

It’s possible one reason these things were so calm is because of all the cameras and smart phones. This situation is as much of a PR fight as it is a “fight” against the federal government. If one side appears more confrontational than the other, then they lose in the court of public opinion. So for everyone to be having a good dialogue, even if they disagree, is a good thing and pushes back against the idea Bundy’s group (and groups like it) is just a bunch of anti-government crazies. This is probably why Bundy told PPN to leave because it makes it appear like they’re ready for war, when they’re not. It also pushes against the idea the FBI is cocked, locked, and ready to storm where Bundy and his friends are. This is why it was important for law enforcement to not storm the refuge when Bundy’s group occupied it. They’ve learned the lessons of Waco and Ruby Ridge, and are letting things play out. This doesn’t mean mistakes aren’t being made, but at least they’re minimal at best. Bundy is dug in and not leaving. Law enforcement is waiting and both sides are talking. It doesn’t mean everything is going to go to hell eventually, but it’s nice they haven’t yet.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I’d agree with that for $20.

TheMadHessian on January 10, 2016 at 5:05 PM

I’d agree with that for $20.

TheMadHessian on January 10, 2016 at 5:05 PM

…I think it was $25.

JugEarsButtHurt on January 10, 2016 at 5:14 PM

“We don’t need that. We don’t want it and we’re asking you to leave,”
—sane ranchers, town and county locals and sheriff to Bundy and his Merry Men

“Send vanilla creamer”
—Bundy bandits

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 5:28 PM

It’s also important to remember Bundy seems to want to keep this a low-key event. Yes, his group is armed

lmao.

everdiso on January 10, 2016 at 5:30 PM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . . .

listens2glenn on January 10, 2016 at 5:32 PM

“We don’t need that. We don’t want it and we’re asking you to leave,”
—victims family and actual residents of the town to Soros Shock Troops

“Let’s Burn this B!tch Down”
—BLM Bandits

HumpBot Salvation on January 10, 2016 at 5:33 PM

Right. Mostly Bundy is upset because the PPN came in and set up a perimeter that excludes reporter access. The PPN are not fans of what he’s doing.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 5:33 PM

Like I said, get some black people to join you then go looting and burn down some building then you will get the sympathy of liberals and the media.

The Notorious G.O.P on January 10, 2016 at 5:34 PM

…I think it was $25.

JugEarsButtHurt on January 10, 2016 at 5:14 PM

Was it really? That GoFundMe disaster was taken down so fast.

TheMadHessian on January 10, 2016 at 5:39 PM

So how the hell does someone show up at the refuge when supposedly the FBI are manning the roads…?

NeoKong on January 10, 2016 at 5:40 PM

Smart. Build momentum and awareness. One incident at a time. More citizens (excluding fascist libs) are beginning to awaken to the fact that the federal government is the biggest threat to liberty in the coming century.

Trump/Cruz 2016!!

Exninja on January 10, 2016 at 5:41 PM

Right. Mostly Bundy is upset because the PPN came in and set up a perimeter that excludes reporter access. The PPN are not fans of what he’s doing.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 5:33 PM

Got a link? I mean, you’re always demanding links, I’d like to see a link that backs up what you just said.

fossten on January 10, 2016 at 5:52 PM

“Send vanilla creamer”
—Bundy bandits

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 5:28 PM

Is that some sort of racist crack?

fossten on January 10, 2016 at 5:53 PM

Smart. Build momentum and awareness. One incident at a time. More citizens (excluding fascist libs) are beginning to awaken to the fact that the federal government is the biggest threat to liberty in the coming century.

Trump/Cruz 2016!!

Exninja on January 10, 2016 at 5:41 PM

Yup:

I’m an Oregon rancher. Here’s what you don’t understand about the Bundy standoff.
The Obama administration has pushed our livelihood to the brink.

Fallon on January 10, 2016 at 5:54 PM

Why is it that the leftist protesters are given carte blanche?

That tells you all you need to know about the proclivities of the federal government. They are against you, hate you, and will kill you.

jukin3 on January 10, 2016 at 5:54 PM

I mean, you’re always demanding links,

fossten on January 10, 2016 at 5:52 PM

Am I? Am I always demanding links? Who are you talking about?

The PPN want them gone.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 6:02 PM

Fallon,

Thanks for the link. What was stunning to me were the comments associated with the editorial. So much dislike from the left for those who feed us. It is almost as if mass starvation is imprinted in the DNA of leftists. Every time they have taken control of an economic system, the death of millions was the result.

Out here in the peoples republic of Kalifornia, the same comments are prevalent whenever an article appears about our “greedy” farmers. A belief amongst the Marxists that run the left coast is that this state would be nirvana if only we could remove all water from farming and ranching.

Exninja on January 10, 2016 at 6:04 PM

“Send vanilla creamer”
—Bundy bandits

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 5:28 PM

Is that some sort of racist crack?

fossten on January 10, 2016 at 5:53 PM

Nope. It’s part of their wish list. You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?

These are not the heroes you’re looking for.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 6:06 PM

Was it really? That GoFundMe disaster was taken down so fast.

TheMadHessian on January 10, 2016 at 5:39 PM

…but not fast enough…where we couldn’t see the ‘character’ of our author.

JugEarsButtHurt on January 10, 2016 at 6:13 PM

Fallon on January 10, 2016 at 5:54 PM

Was linked here in HA headlines last night.

My take:

Heard Mr. Nantz talking in NPR interviews, and his is the most reasonable, realistic take I’ve heard available in the media so far—and much closer to the even-handed ranchers I know (and the ranch I lived on) who a) have grazing rights on BLM land and are thankful for the various subsidies they receive but are also b) frustrated with some of the regulations they feel that shouldn’t apply to their specific location and circumstance.

It’s a matter of approach, which is why nearly every one is asking for the militia to go away. They co-opted a peaceful demonstration and turned it into something that seems far more radical; their demands aren’t realistic—privatize all the land? Abolish the BLM?

This Mr. Nantz is a leader who has worked successfully with various agencies to enact change. That’s how it’s done. More of that, please.

CivilDiscourse on January 9, 2016 at 9:24 PM

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 6:15 PM

I honestly don’t understand the end-game for this. It’s seems like Taylor is pretty comfortable with the Bundy’s group taking this land in perpetuity. Or are they just going to get tired and leave? But why would they leave?

It just seems like we’re giving a level of difference to this group because they’re armed that we’d never give to an unarmed group of occupiers, and that’s probably not a good precedent.

segasagez on January 10, 2016 at 6:30 PM

…but not fast enough…where we couldn’t see the ‘character’ of our author.

JugEarsButtHurt on January 10, 2016 at 6:13 PM

Well $25 it is then. Thanks.

TheMadHessian on January 10, 2016 at 6:36 PM

It’s a matter of approach, which is why nearly every one is asking for the militia to go away. They co-opted a peaceful demonstration and turned it into something that seems far more radical; their demands aren’t realistic—privatize all the land? Abolish the BLM?

This Mr. Nantz is a leader who has worked successfully with various agencies to enact change. That’s how it’s done. More of that, please.

CivilDiscourse on January 9, 2016 at 9:24 PM

Why is it unrealistic to imagine the government selling off some of it’s property holdings at auction? The problem is that the government owns so much that it would take decades to divest itself without destroying property values, and it’s time to stop creating parks. We’ve got plenty, and they’re everywhere, unless there is some new reason to create one that page in history is over.

DFCtomm on January 10, 2016 at 6:39 PM

One thing Open Carry Texas was good at doing during the push for open carry in Texas was NOT showing up in tactical garb and just carrying around their AR-15 and other rifles. That’s a lot less threatening than being in a full kit.

*raises hand*

No, actually it is not. The AR-15 is the part that will kill people, not the rest of it.

Tlaloc on January 10, 2016 at 6:41 PM

It’s seems like Taylor is pretty comfortable with the Bundy’s group taking this land in perpetuity.
segasagez on January 10, 2016 at 6:30 PM

Things really aren’t as ducky as Taylor is making out—virtually no one wants the Bundy presence there. They don’t represent the so-called “victims” the protest group activated for, they don’t represent sane ranchers, the locals want them gone, local LE wants them gone, and other militia want them gone.

If you’re still holding out hope at this point that these are the heroes who will save us all from government overreach, you either haven’t been paying attention and don’t understand the facts, or you’re willfully ignoring the facts in favor of anti-government fervor. It’s hard to know which camp Taylor falls into.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 6:44 PM

I’m an Oregon rancher. Here’s what you don’t understand about the Bundy standoff.
The Obama administration has pushed our livelihood to the brink.

Fallon on January 10, 2016 at 5:54 PM

Don’t care. Vote for whomever you like but if you take up guns against your government…well, that won’t end well.

Tlaloc on January 10, 2016 at 6:44 PM

While i don’t think what they’re doing is a good idea, for those who want to help, here’s how you can do it.

Food and supplies can be sent to:
36391 Sodhouse Lane
Princeton, Ore 97721
C/o shawna Cox

Financial donations can be sent to:
Lisa Bundy
P.O. Box 1072
Emmett, ID 83617

Or

Donate online using this link: http://c4cf.com/

They are looking for any of the items on this list:
Warm Blankets
Sleeping Bags
Jackets Large and Extra Large
Thermals Medium Large
and Extra Large mens
Wool Socks
Hand and Feet Warmers
Women Thermals Medium
and Large Top and Bottoms
Slippers Small, Medium Large
Snow Pants Medium and Large
Snow Boots 7/12 to 8, 9, and 10
Miracle Whip
Mayonaise
Mustard
Ketchup
Hamburgers
Hot dogs
Brats
Buns / Bread
Any Canned Foods
Camp dry water Repellent
John Radios Ham
Digital Camera with charger
Hay
Money
Markers

Magicjava on January 10, 2016 at 6:48 PM

Why is it unrealistic to imagine the government selling off some of it’s property holdings at auction?
DFCtomm on January 10, 2016 at 6:39 PM

It’s not unreasonable at all. But that’s not what they’re asking for. They’re extremists, plain and simple, and they want unrealistic extremes. Are there frustrations? Yes, but most ranchers—including Nantz—allow that the BLM does what state and local gov and private citizens wouldn’t be able to do as easily. And they’re glad for it, by and large.

The fed gives a tremendous amount of subsidy to cattle ranchers, for example, which results in the ranchers being able to graze their herds on “borrowed” land that is many, many times below the market rate of private land grazing rights. Of course the ranchers themselves—at least very, very few—would not be able to afford to buy the 30, 40, 50K acres outright to graze their herds. And if they did, the upkeep of fences alone, the legal navigation of any water rights issues that may apply to the land, just to name a couple things, would be cost prohibitive for private upkeep.

If the BLM gives up the land, it would first go to the states. States don’t give their land away to poor ranchers or homesteaders. They sell it to the highest bidder—usually developers or multinational corporations. Nor do states let ranchers graze for free. The market value of grazing land is many times greater than the inconsequential fee charged by the BLM (about $1.35 per cow per month, calves free). Transferring public lands to the states is unlikely to help small-time ranchers, whose economic problems stem largely from drought and the low prices paid by Eastern meat processors.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 6:54 PM

Please. These tards didn’t bring enough supplies for a week let alone alone anything past that. Don’t worry, I’m guessing the Meal Team 6 that’s occupying Oreogn has plenty of fat to live off of

wearyexclusive on January 10, 2016 at 6:55 PM

Don’t care. Vote for whomever you like but if you take up guns against your government…well, that won’t end well.

Tlaloc on January 10, 2016 at 6:44 PM

It sure won’t – for your beloved government. Count the guns in police’s hands, then counts the private guns. And once the rule of law (that your favorite president and the Occupoopers helped to bring down) is destroyed, it won’t take much time to decorate DC lampposts with some bodies.

Rix on January 10, 2016 at 6:56 PM

And i wish the government would sell their land. Then a private company can charge those moochers (I mean ranchers) market value for grazing rights (which is 10x what they pay now) and when the moochers can’t pay they can send them to collections (which I’m sure they’re in already) and repo their cattle.

wearyexclusive on January 10, 2016 at 6:57 PM

Don’t care. Vote for whomever you like but if you take up guns against your government…well, that won’t end well.

Tlaloc on January 10, 2016 at 6:44 PM

And when losers like you rob, threaten, commit burglary….guess what?

Strange,how you love to talk about defending a thuggish government over the people of this country . You’re phucked up ,freak.

CWforFreedom on January 10, 2016 at 7:03 PM

And i wish the government would sell their land. Then a private company can charge those moochers (I mean ranchers) market value for grazing rights (which is 10x what they pay now) and when the moochers can’t pay they can send them to collections (which I’m sure they’re in already) and repo their cattle.

wearyexclusive on January 10, 2016 at 6:57 PM

And this is very close to the way it would likely play out, driving beef prices up. The people who argue against the BLM on the grounds of fair market play to the ranchers or the American consumers don’t understand this point at all.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 7:05 PM

And i wish the government would sell their land. Then a private company can charge those moochers (I mean ranchers) market value for grazing rights (which is 10x what they pay now) and when the moochers can’t pay they can send them to collections (which I’m sure they’re in already) and repo their cattle.

wearyexclusive on January 10, 2016 at 6:57 PM

Oh good, another simplistic talking point spewing troll.

So you know who would buy the land? Do you? How do you know it would not be a group of these ranchers? You don’t really know what would be charged anyway. Pssst quit reading HUFFPO.

Es, you’re as laughable as tialoc.

CWforFreedom on January 10, 2016 at 7:06 PM

understand this point at all.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 7:05 PM

You’re so lost. It is truly pathetic.

You statist totalitarian types are truly garbage.

CWforFreedom on January 10, 2016 at 7:07 PM

Trolls are hilarious. Bunch of know nothing talking point regurgitating moochers.

CWforFreedom on January 10, 2016 at 7:08 PM

How do you know it would not be a group of these ranchers? You don’t really know what would be charged anyway
CWforFreedom on January 10, 2016 at 7:06 PM

They sell it to the highest bidder—usually developers or multinational corporations.

You don’t really know what would be charged anyway.

If it’s not federal subsidy—which is what it is now, you can bet they will be charged much more than they are currently for grazing rights.

I think you’re wish casting.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 7:10 PM

Make sure you send the phony soldiers and alcoholics your money!!!

wearyexclusive on January 10, 2016 at 7:11 PM

‘things are pretty calm’

That’s because it doesn’t involve the ‘Black Lives Matter’ aggressors.

Just stating the obvious…

locomotivebreath1901 on January 10, 2016 at 7:14 PM

CWforFreedom on January 10, 2016 at 7:06 PM

I’ve lived on a working ranch for four years, know many ranchers and their opinions on the subject, and am familiar with the actual issues between ranchers and the BLM. Tell me, what do you know on the subject that isn’t what others tell you to think?

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 7:14 PM

You statist totalitarian types are truly garbage.

CWforFreedom on January 10, 2016 at 7:07 PM

You don’t get it, do you? Real ranchers don’t agree with you. Bundy and his loser group are pretending to be Mormon Moroni warriors playing out the standoff between the feds and Deseret Utahns. Sorry to say, it’s you who doesn’t know what you’re talking about on the subject.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 7:19 PM

“Send vanilla creamer”
—Bundy bandits
CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 5:28 PM

Is that some sort of racist crack?

fossten on January 10, 2016 at 5:53 PM

Nope. It’s part of their wish list. You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?

These are not the heroes you’re looking for.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 6:06 PM

Did you see the amount of cigarettes they’re asking for? You can smoke in a Federal Building!

Everyone was laughing about the creamer, throw carpets, and tampons requested – but HAY?! I mean, seriously, HAY?!?

Marcus on January 10, 2016 at 7:22 PM

You can’t smoke in a Federal Building, that should be!

Marcus on January 10, 2016 at 7:23 PM

Just level the place. Not like any of the protesters will ever amount to anything.

wearyexclusive on January 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM

but HAY?! I mean, seriously, HAY?!?

Marcus on January 10, 2016 at 7:22 PM

I just think they have horses, is all—it’s one of the least silly items on the list.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 7:32 PM

Just level the place. Not like any of the protesters will ever amount to anything.

wearyexclusive on January 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM

Boo. Exactly the wrong sentiment no matter which side it comes from.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 7:34 PM

You can’t smoke in a Federal Building, that should be!

Marcus on January 10, 2016 at 7:23 PM

You should get off your ass and go to Oregon and perform a citizens arrest.

RickB on January 10, 2016 at 7:41 PM

Rix
Wow but you’re unhinged. Armed citizens overthrowing a democratically-elected government? Decorating DC lampposts with bodies? Holy cow. Open a window. Go for a hike. You need some air.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 8:01 PM

Wow but you’re unhinged. Armed citizens overthrowing a democratically-elected government? Decorating DC lampposts with bodies? Holy cow. Open a window. Go for a hike. You need some air.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 8:01 PM

Since he crushed your delicate sensibilities, you should do something about it.

RickB on January 10, 2016 at 8:06 PM

RickB
He crushed nothing. Only proved that he cray. And also that he might want to rethink whether posting on a public forum is right for him.

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 8:10 PM

Why dont they kill two birds with one stone and just smoke the tampons????

Indiana Jim on January 10, 2016 at 8:38 PM

So what, that’s like 100’s of armed rednecks, going on, like a week?

And still no-one shot dead???

How embarrassing for some.

WryTrvllr on January 10, 2016 at 9:42 PM

Why dont they kill two birds with one stone and just smoke the tampons????

Indiana Jim on January 10, 2016 at 8:38 PM

Smoking usually makes things taste better but probably not in this case.

RickB on January 10, 2016 at 10:06 PM

LOL the troll “worked on a ranch.” Next, “dodged sniper fire in Bosnia.” HA gets the smart ones. Somehow.

Kenosha Kid on January 10, 2016 at 11:51 PM

Oh no, not “worked”, but “lived”. Still, SME, no doubt.

Kenosha Kid on January 11, 2016 at 12:18 AM

^ Any questions, kid?

CivilDiscourse on January 11, 2016 at 1:15 AM

Is that some sort of racist crack?

fossten on January 10, 2016 at 5:53 PM

Everybody loves vanilla creamer. I can only go for short amounts of time without.

claudius on January 11, 2016 at 2:35 AM

Warm Blankets
Sleeping Bags
Jackets Large and Extra Large
Thermals Medium Large
and Extra Large mens
Wool Socks
Hand and Feet Warmers
Women Thermals Medium
and Large Top and Bottoms
Slippers Small, Medium Large
Snow Pants Medium and Large
Snow Boots 7/12 to 8, 9, and 10
Miracle Whip
Mayonaise
Mustard
Ketchup
Hamburgers
Hot dogs
Brats
Buns / Bread
Any Canned Foods
Camp dry water Repellent
John Radios Ham
Digital Camera with charger
Hay
Money
Markers

Magicjava on January 10, 2016 at 6:48 PM

I bring most of that on an overnight hunting trip when there’s snow on the ground.

claudius on January 11, 2016 at 2:43 AM

Is that where you get your fugged up notions on racism?? The ranchers you live with?? Lol!!!

Indiana Jim on January 11, 2016 at 7:21 AM

Claudius. Even womens thermals?? :-D

Indiana Jim on January 11, 2016 at 7:56 AM

I’ve lived on a working ranch for four years

CivilDiscourse on January 10, 2016 at 7:14 PM

= Lifting heifer tails at the petting zoo

Younggod on January 11, 2016 at 8:49 AM

Don’t care. Vote for whomever you like but if you take up guns against your government…well, that won’t end well.

Tlaloc on January 10, 2016 at 6:44 PM

But if you just burn down your town and loot the stores, the President himself will send you messages of support.

Funny how that works, huh?

GrumpyOldFart on January 11, 2016 at 8:53 AM

The problem is that the government owns so much that it would take decades to divest itself without destroying property values, —–

If the BLM gives up the land, it would first go to the states. States don’t give their land away to poor ranchers or homesteaders. They sell it to the highest bidder—usually developers or multinational corporations. Nor do states let ranchers graze for free. The market value of grazing land is many times greater than the inconsequential fee charged by the BLM (about $1.35 per cow per month, calves free).

How would letting the market sort it out equal destroying property values? How does getting ten times the production out of the land and selling to the highest bidders drive property values down?

papertiger on January 11, 2016 at 9:10 AM

petting zoo

Younggod on January 11, 2016 at 8:49 AM

Uh . . . I know this is for jokes, but—petting zoo? Lol. How many ranches have you been on? I think you mean the local orchard during apple picking season. You know, the one with hay rides and warm cider. Pet the bunnies, feed the goats. Ranches? Not so much.

CivilDiscourse on January 11, 2016 at 11:57 AM

How would letting the market sort it out equal destroying property values? How does getting ten times the production out of the land and selling to the highest bidders drive property values down?

papertiger on January 11, 2016 at 9:10 AM

It definitely wouldn’t. Not sure how DFC arrives at that conjecture. Because of the massive amount of land involved, it may drive the prices down a bit, but certainly not “destroying property values.” Even so, the buyoff would be from either state or local gov, most likely parceled out, not solid chunks of interstate square mileage.

CivilDiscourse on January 11, 2016 at 3:44 PM