Sunday, April 13, 2014

Sagebrush rebellion grrrrrrrrrrr

 Okay, for you city folk, listen up. You need to pay a little attention to what is going on beyond your suburban borders. I know. You think anything important happens in cities. Well there's a lot of land out there, and a movement which just sees itself as having won a big victory by using force. 

The ones who are crowing over this 'victory' want no federal government-- except maybe the military. Never you mind how they get the freeways they used to travel to the confrontation or the one they blocked as a show of force. Logic is not a factor. Read their comments. They consider this a victory over Obama (though he had no connection to this) and one for the little guy who of course, as usual is NOT a little guy.

 This guy wasn't the first to do this but might turn out to be the most successful in challenging the right of management on federal lands. There have always been those who wanted no public lands

Most likely it doesn't surprise most folks that the militia movement showed up with their guns to support this guy who is breaking a law but after all, it's a federal law. The fact that he's refusing to pay for what he is using is different because of who he is... Does support for force in this case sound like it should come from the law and order party? Well if they are listening to Rush Limbaugh, and who else can you hear in that sagebrush country, they know this is about the workers and takers. Everybody who isn't them is a taker and has no clue how to work! Enforcing law and order all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it!

The Sagebrush Rebellion got its name back in 60s. Some have thought it was no longer active; but if they paid attention to the talk and signs in many areas of the Plains and Mountain West, they would know it had gone nowhere. It is still active and filled with resentment.  The people who support it think those who do not don't know how to work up a sweat.

In this movement, some want the states (which they consider easier for them to control) to manage all federal lands within their borders. Others, like the man in the above link, claim it should be theirs because they live nearest it. 

Regulation on use of the land? You have to be kidding! Regulations are communist plots, designed by environmental wackos and promoted by city folk who do not know how to work.

I should add during a drought, they are the first ones to blame the government for not enough canals to get them water from somewhere else.

So here is this big rancher north of Las Vegas in the Virgin River country and he's been grazing his cattle on the federal lands for twenty years and paying nothing. He competes to sell those beef with those like us who not only own our own land for all grazing but pay someone else to lease any extra land we use. Pay for it? How unAmerican by the Sagebrush Rebellion thinking. Besides when he sells his beef and he didn't have to buy hay or lease land, he has more profit and isn't profit what it's all about-- for some.

Into this morass, causing the whole thing to rise again as an issue, stepped the klutzy BLM with a cattle round-up from which they just had to back down thanks to the guns of cowboys and militia bunches. Too dangerous BLM authorities said as they even gave back the cattle they'd rounded up. Idiots! You do not start something you cannot finish and earn respect by cowboys or any rural living folks. Backing down handed a big victory to the we hate order movement. The chortling can be heard all across the West with AR-15 owners leading the howling. And I'd bet those cowboys who had worked to round up the trespassing cattle are taking a lot of antacid about now.

So if the country is going to just let Americans have the 650 million acres of federally owned land, why should it all go to someone like this cattle rancher? You know some would want it to go to the highest bidders which means Koch brothers and their ilk. Instead, to be fair, how about we divide up-- out of federal hands and into ours as individuals. 

Exactly how much land will that be? Well we have to take out of the mix the military lands for training and forts-- 19 million acres. Most would say take out the national parks like the Grand Canyon which would take 83 million out. 55 million for the Indian reservations But that still leaves a tidy amount for us to all own... 500 million acres. Let's see, there are 313 million of us. That divides down to what a little over 1 1/3 acres each.

Of course, you have to keep in mind a lot of that land is nothing but sagebrush, rock and sand. Some includes mountains that are too steep to walk on let alone live. A lottery could determine who gets what. Americans love lotteries.

So then that rancher in Nevada could work out a lease deal with his new neighbors, all 25,000 of them or however many ended up owning that land he's been taking for free. That's fair, dontchathink?


Celia said...

I read about that yesterday article and I'm still sputtering. Love your lottery idea Rain.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

How do I claim my one and a third acre? I want a deed. LOL

Ingineer66 said...

I was thinking the same thing. How does this guy get off not paying his fees? If I tried to cut a Christmas tree on Federal land without a permit a Barney Fife ranger would likely Taser me or something. I understand the protests when the Feds try to cut off access to Federal lands, but that is not the case here. He could still graze his cattle on the land, but he had to pay for the right to do so. And you are correct this is not some small time family farmer. He owns thousands of head of cattle.

I am against the build up of the size and strength of the Federal Government and against the militarization of our police, but this case appears to be different than either of those situations.

Ingineer66 said...

Diane just go down to the local city park and set up a tent and a sign that says Occupy "your city here" and you can live and use the lawn for a toilet and trash the place just like you own it and nobody will bother you. But don't say that you are with a conservative group or you will have to pay a fee and hire security and rent porta potties and get insurance.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

I want a deed only in gest because I dont' need one afterall I am a citizen.

Rain Trueax said...

Ingineer, are you saying someone is still camping in your city parks? That was tolerated for awhile as a protest against big business-- although some police got rough even then up here. Every so often many homeless parks are cleared out.

Obviously we agree about that rancher getting off without paying for what he used but the dig at city governments doesn't fit for my area anyway-- don't know about yours.

Ingineer66 said...

Diane, I know you were joking. I was being facetious. Rain, we have homeless still living in our parks but not under the guise of Occupy. They are here because our city councel likes homeless druggies more than tax payers.

Rain Trueax said...

I know in Portland there are homeless camps but they are not in the city parks. They are usually watched over to some degree by the police.

So what would you do about the homeless who have no jobs, no money and yet are there? Do you have a solution? I don't think the left likes it that there are homeless folks often sleeping in streets but reality is reality; so instead of slamming the left for the poverty of some (often veterans) what would you do about the issue?

Ingineer66 said...

I would allow the ones that want to be homeless camp at a designated place but not in parks where kids play. Our liberal city leaders want to allow them to camp anywhere they want including allowing them to use downtown sidewalks as bathrooms.
The ones that want help I would work to get them off the street and or get help.
I believe in real compassion not just saying that you care like most politicians left and right.

Rain Trueax said...

What city would that be, ingineer? They don't have that in Oregon anywhere that I am aware. The homeless camps are separate