The Oregon Revolt explained

[pointster]

While the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge cite it as example of federal government tyranny, over recent years the refuge has worked with the local ranchers, Native American Tribes and conservationists to come up with a mutually acceptable plan for land management.

According to this article in the Seattle Times http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/occupied-oregon-wildlife-refuge-known-for-listening-to-ranchers/,

"The plan affirmed that cattle, if carefully controlled and monitored, could help achieve refuge management goals, such as knocking back invasive plants. It called for rigorous and ongoing reviews to find out what strategies work, and what don’t, for the federal grazing leases now extended to 13 area ranches."

[nw30]

[mac]

Poinster--thanks for the link. There is much more afoot in Republican efforts to portray Federal land managers as incompetent--expropriation of land. During this Congress, Ted Cruz and Lisa Murkowski introduced bills or amendments to sell off public lands. BLM is the big prize--it manages 245 million acres. Most of it--160 million acres--are leased, through 18,000 leases. Another 700 million acres of subsurface mineral rights are leased, including land that provides about 40% of US coal.

The approach to these public lands from the right, as it has been since the James Watt era, is to get as much of it in private hands as possible, as fast as possible. To be sure, saturating the market with Federal lands drives down the price--that is the prize.

Many of those leases go back generations, but now public demand for recreation on BLM lands, and protection of endangered species must be taken into account. Most lessees comply with their leases--although overgrazing is a problem--and most will work with the BLM for approved vegetation management instead of arson.

There is a more sinister result if the arguments for fines here are heeded. The cost of fighting just one of the Hammond's fires was $1 million, and the proposed fine covered half or less of the cost. Only a few people have ever gone to jail for violating environmental laws, and only when they had ignored all efforts at restoration and mitigation. The Hammonds beat the rap in their first trial, so the cost of defending their activities at trial didn't discourage repeated arsons. If people who oppose environmental laws, and are unwilling to cooperate with other users, never have to face jail for their crimes, no matter how often they are repeated, enforcement is much weaker. That, of course, is the objective of those who don't want to share public lands with other users.

[swchandler]

"The trees in question are Juniperus virginiana, aka the Eastern Red Cedar, which is considered an invasive species west of the Mississippi River. They are very damaging to pastures and grasslands. Farmers and ranchers can get federal grants to pay for removal of the trees, which left unchecked can reduce habitat for native birds, such as the sage grouse, and also pose a fire hazard. Controlled burns can be effective for controlling junipers, but the emphasis should be on the controlled part."


Well pointster, with your clarification about the junipers in Eastern Oregon, I guess I would have lost my bet. Yet, you have to wonder whether the intrusion of Juniperus virginiana into sagebrush and grasslands is really a bad thing. Sure, the lost of grazing area wouldn't be the greatest outcome for cattle ranchers looking for profits, but a growing woodland might just offer something positive overall. From what I understand, juniper makes impeccable posts and lumber for fencing. Moreover, while the sage grouse might feel the pressure of declining sagebrush in some areas, there are a couple other grouses that like juniper trees and their berries. Nature tends to find its own balance.

[real-human]