Desert ranch confrontation

[Ibidem]

Flash, I've beeen seeing claims that a solar company is involved less directly: namely, that the BLM wants the area used for environmental mitigation or something like that, and his cattle are an obstacle to that...
Of course, the details don't quite support the "BLM money-grabbing" theory-the BLM was ordered by a court to remove the cattle after it got sued by an environmentalist group.

I don't think Bundy has much of a leg to stand on at present, because he ceased to pay any fees to the US.

On the other hand, grazing rights cost a certain price for a certain number of head of cattle. If the BLM decided to reduce the number of cattle allowed, there is no way they _should_ have the right to the same amount of money.
So I'm saying the BLM was in the wrong first.


Anyhow, environmentalists...sure, there are some abuses of the land that are completely unacceptable.
But when someone would rather see Inuit die for lack of medical treatment than see the duck nests disturbed by a one-lane gravel road;
when farms get shut down for a little fish;
when a wood-boring beetle that lives in an alternate host for pine rust can stop a fiberoptic cable that was going to run from Canada through California, even after people lose their land by eminent domain...
something's grossly out of proportion.
There are a number of environmentalists who would seem to be better described as sociopaths.

[greengeek]

when someone would rather see Inuit die for lack of medical treatment than see the duck nests disturbed by a one-lane gravel road; when farms get shut down for a little fish;...... something's grossly out of proportion..

In a way that sums up the whole issue - how well do we succeed at balancing competing rights and needs?

[Flash]

Ibidem, regarding the proposed solar farm on BLM land that Bundy claims for his own, did you see this?

As for something being grossly out of proportion, I'll say! People act like we're the only thing that matters. We have appropriated all of the good land for our exclusive use and left nothing for the rest of creation. As if that weren't bad enough, we polluted much of the best land with our cities and waste.

Most of the 7 billion people on Earth would probably choose to live like we do in the U.S. if they could, but, with just 300 million people, the U.S. lifestyle has managed to measurably pollute the rest of the world. It would completely ruin the planet for everyone on Earth to live like we do in the U.S.. The solution is to colonize Mars?

[Ibidem]

Ibidem, regarding the proposed solar farm on BLM land that Bundy claims for his own, did you see this?

As for something being grossly out of proportion, I'll say! People act like we're the only thing that matters. We have appropriated all of the good land for our exclusive use and left nothing for the rest of creation. As if that weren't bad enough, we polluted much of the best land with our cities and waste.

Yes; I was commenting to point out that there's another version that actually seems to be more widely believed. If you re-read that part of my post you might see that , along with the hole in it.

Now as far as the other half of that goes: sure, there are problems...so how far is a reasonable solution?

Does King Cove (the Inuit town I mentioned) actually sound like the approach you want?
(That's not just a rhetorical question; I'd like an opinion on it.)

You say "People act like we're the only thing that matters", I see environmentalists who seem to think that humans are the only species that doesn't matter.

[RSH]

As for something being grossly out of proportion, I'll say! People act like we're the only thing that matters. We have appropriated all of the good land for our exclusive use and left nothing for the rest of creation. As if that weren't bad enough, we polluted much of the best land with our cities and waste.

Most of the 7 billion people on Earth would probably choose to live like we do in the U.S. if they could, but, with just 300 million people, the U.S. lifestyle has managed to measurably pollute the rest of the world. It would completely ruin the planet for everyone on Earth to live like we do in the U.S.

Really, I do it rarely.

But I feel the need to agree completely.

Also, really: there is a lot from the US that I do like, and I'm grateful to the US-People for fighting in 2nd World War to remove the Nazi-Regime and to teach the Germans Democrazy, so we could grow to what we are today and to make me allowed to "throw dead cats into the middle of a party"

Unfortunately many countries -like we do in Germany- are trying to adopt this US-Lifestyle more or less completely. I don't have any exact Data, but from my daily experience I can say, the Germans do love more and more to buy and drive so-called SUV's. And then they act if they are the only one that matters on the current street.

I'm convinced, if Germany would have similar laws in owning and using guns, the Germans would act similar to the US-People.

From my point of few, it looks like the US-People -when teaching us democrazy and given to us the federal republic of Germany- did give to us Germans much more as they do allow to give to themselves.

[rokytnji]

Off topic. Watching the news. I saw in South Africa elections the Ubuntu party.

http://www.ubuntuparty.org.za/p/home.html

Back on topic. To the guys overseas. Don't judge us all as redneck republicans. Living in the West like I do I can say they are not in the majority.

Conservative Hispanics are the majority.

Bundy's cause will die down when the money runs out for his support
group and also due to lack of interest.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/fbi-i ... ndy-2014-5

Funny I have to go down under to get the above link/news item.

PS. Sorry RSH. I can be a crazy American when my buttons are pushed.
I apologize.

[greengeek]

Does King Cove (the Inuit town I mentioned) actually sound like the approach you want?
(That's not just a rhetorical question; I'd like an opinion on it.).

I've just read this link and if the article is as balanced as it seems to me, then it sounds as if it would be 50/50 whether the road would be beneficial overall or not.

There do have to be limits on the expansion of human settlements or else everywhere will end up like India. If the road could be built without impinging on valuable wilderness areas (which species need for survival) then that would be a different matter. That would then just leave the issue of whether or not it would be a safe route for medical emergency travel in winter weather (as referred to in the article), or whether it would merely tempt sick people to make a dangerous trip on a snowed-out road in the middle of a blizzard.

It would be easy to say yes to the road, but hard decisions have to be taken to limit human expansion. Maybe if there was some way to enforce a ban on further expansion, and to limit road traffic to emergency usage only that would be a suitable compromise?

[Ibidem]

Does King Cove (the Inuit town I mentioned) actually sound like the approach you want?
(That's not just a rhetorical question; I'd like an opinion on it.).

I've just read this link and if the article is as balanced as it seems to me, then it sounds as if it would be 50/50 whether the road would be beneficial overall or not.

There do have to be limits on the expansion of human settlements or else everywhere will end up like India. If the road could be built without impinging on valuable wilderness areas (which species need for survival) then that would be a different matter. That would then just leave the issue of whether or not it would be a safe route for medical emergency travel in winter weather (as referred to in the article), or whether it would merely tempt sick people to make a dangerous trip on a snowed-out road in the middle of a blizzard.

It would be easy to say yes to the road, but hard decisions have to be taken to limit human expansion. Maybe if there was some way to enforce a ban on further expansion, and to limit road traffic to emergency usage only that would be a suitable compromise?

That article is pretty good; my main complaint is that they forgot to mention that the study attributed to the Center for Sustainable Economy (CSE) was done "in cooperation with The Wilderness Society" (TWS).
Now, having read it, read the study, making sure to note what got omitted in the study. I noticed that they (CSE/TWS) did not consider the medical value that was the primary motivation.
Yes, it may feel wrong to assign a value to a human life: it's worse to treat it as worth nothing, or ignore it.
(Note: many of the costs they cite are quite theoretical.)

Elsewhere, CSE and TWS assert that "Congress already spent 37.5 million dollars for transportation"; this spending is more accurately represented in the study. The money included improved medical facilities and purchase of a hovercraft to be operated by the borough; the borough ceased operating it after 3 seasons.

As far as expansion of human population goes: to the best of my knowledge, a person not of Native ancestry cannot reside on a reservation without approval from the relevant authorities. And nobody is allowed to settle on wilderness lands; the problem is because the village is entirely surrounded by wilderness, so expansion isn't going to happen there.
That aside, the idea that northern Alaska might end up like India is rather amusing.

[Flash]

...Does King Cove (the Inuit town I mentioned) actually sound like the approach you want?
(That's not just a rhetorical question; I'd like an opinion on it.)

You say "People act like we're the only thing that matters", I see environmentalists who seem to think that humans are the only species that doesn't matter.

It only seems to you that environmentalists are disrespecting the human race. They are merely desperately trying to correct a gross imbalance.

As for King Cove and every other remote settlement on the planet, here's my reasoning:
All I know about the Inuit is what I read in the paper. I gather they've been living more or less where they are for hundreds of years at least, possibly thousands. In other words, they've been there since long before doctors were invented.
Naturally they would like to have access to modern medical care when they get sick or hurt. Who wouldn't? However, unless they can convince a doctor to live in their small village, modern medical care will only be found in a city of some size. If they want to live like their ancestors did in a remote village, fine. If they want modern medical care, then they should move to the city or send their kids to medical school.
This road you mention would be useless to the Inuit without cars and snowmobiles, which I'm betting the Inuit do not build. Cars and snowmobiles are built in factories. Again, cities.
If you want a whole bunch of people, cities are the most efficient and beneficial arrangement, probably least damaging to the environment if the pollution is controlled, which is much easier to do if everyone is concentrated in a city. If you want to live in the country, then you should be prepared to do without some of the benefits of living in a city, like hospitals and sewage treatment plants.
People who take their cell phone along when they go hiking in the wilderness are a pet peeve of mine. What kind of wilderness experience is it when you can call a helicopter to rescue you when you get hurt or lost? It's no longer a wilderness, it's a theme park.

[technosaurus]

It only seems to you that environmentalists are disrespecting the human race. They are merely desperately trying to correct a gross imbalance.

It would help if they weren't so damn stupid

People who take their cell phone along when they go hiking in the wilderness are a pet peeve of mine. What kind of wilderness experience is it when you can call a helicopter to rescue you when you get hurt or lost? It's no longer a wilderness, it's a theme park.

GPS compass still works, as does the flashlight, camera for taking pictures of said wilderness, and its nice to here some tunes or flick some angry birds

[Ibidem]

...Does King Cove (the Inuit town I mentioned) actually sound like the approach you want?
(That's not just a rhetorical question; I'd like an opinion on it.)

You say "People act like we're the only thing that matters", I see environmentalists who seem to think that humans are the only species that doesn't matter.

It only seems to you that environmentalists are disrespecting the human race. They are merely desperately trying to correct a gross imbalance.

Minor objection: so if we have a group that disrespects everything but man, and a group that has no regard for man but only for "Nature", and each one gets all of its way some of the time, is this balance? Is it how you get balance? I would have to say no, unless the existence of Communists calls for the John Birch Society.

As for King Cove and every other remote settlement on the planet, here's my reasoning:
All I know about the Inuit is what I read in the paper. I gather they've been living more or less where they are for hundreds of years at least, possibly thousands. In other words, they've been there since long before doctors were invented.
Naturally they would like to have access to modern medical care when they get sick or hurt. Who wouldn't? However, unless they can convince a doctor to live in their small village, modern medical care will only be found in a city of some size. If they want to live like their ancestors did in a remote village, fine. If they want modern medical care, then they should move to the city or send their kids to medical school.
This road you mention would be useless to the Inuit without cars and snowmobiles, which I'm betting the Inuit do not build. Cars and snowmobiles are built in factories. Again, cities.
If you want a whole bunch of people, cities are the most efficient and beneficial arrangement, probably least damaging to the environment if the pollution is controlled, which is much easier to do if everyone is concentrated in a city. If you want to live in the country, then you should be prepared to do without some of the benefits of living in a city, like hospitals and sewage treatment plants.

First, I've spent most of my life in the country (on a small farm). While I thank you for your forthrightness, be advised that this attitude will not convince or make amicable relations with most country people.

As to snowmobiles and cars: some vehicles are already transported to the town by boat (see the study in question); my understanding is that just about everyone in Alaska has access to snowmobiles already, including the Inuit of King Cove.

Sewage treatment plants? Fine. Most folks here have no problem with that.
But you think hospitals should be considered a benefit of city life?

This seems to reflect a general principle: "If you want x, live where it's best produced or provided."
And given that hospitals aren't very far from most rural areas, it implies a very strict spatial limit.
So, how close do you live to where the grain for your bread is grown?
Why would "If you want to eat bread, live where the wheat is grown" be less valid than "If you want to have hospital access, live close to a city where hospitals are"?
I would argue that the relative frequency and necessity of meals vs. hospital visits would tend to make "live where the food is" more valid.

But if you argue "food is more readily transported", that makes your original argument little better than begging the question.

[gcmartin]

Wow! No respect for US laws, no respect for Black Minorities and no respect for America's First Nation People's History. Wow! <=== click
Is this an attempt to thrust US into a real Civil War? Anyone else see where this is going?
edit: Others views of the fronts, funny <=== click 2

[Flash]

so if we have a group that disrespects everything but man, and a group that has no regard for man but only for "Nature", and each one gets all of its way some of the time, is this balance? Is it how you get balance? I would have to say no, unless the existence of Communists calls for the John Birch Society.

You've mixed two misconceptions together there, and I just can't let them go without trying to set them right. First, as I think I said before, environmentalists have plenty of regard for man, they just see that man is not the only thing there is in the universe and they're trying to right an imbalance. Even the most extreme "ecoterrorists" have been very careful not to harm any people, and they do not carry arms for self protection or to attack the authorities. Contrast that with the Bundys and their supporters.

Second, the whole notion of "balance" in this context is just wrong. Just because a group makes outrageous demands, is there a law, natural or otherwise, that says its demands must then be satisfied in a balanced way? What about the Nazis and the Jews? Students and teachers? Parents and their children? The Bundys and their supporters are like children. They say, "If it's not yours, then it's mine." They want what they want when they want it, and when they're told they can't have it they get mad and throw a tantrum.

[technosaurus]

sure, most environmentalists have their hearts in the right place. unfortunately too often their heart is so big it displaces their brain. This causes most environmental law to be knee-jerk reactionary problem solving that results in whack-a-mole bill pushing. We need more pragmatic environmentalists that can approach the issues with the big picture and outcomes in mind.

[greengeek]

The Bundys and their supporters are like children. They say, "If it's not yours, then it's mine." They want what they want when they want it, and when they're told they can't have it they get mad and throw a tantrum.

I can see that point of view if you believe this is about the survival of the desert tortoise. However, if it is more about the right of 'central power' to ride roughshod over the freedoms of individuals, then it needs to be seen for what it is.

I'lll offer an example - here in NZ a person can work and save for 60 years to ensure they have a debt free house to live in during their retirement. During that low-budget retirement the government can come along and say "we have decided to build commercial properties in this area and your ground rates are going up from $600 per year to $6000 per year. Sorry love - thats just the way it is"

The powers of central government often benefit one party (usually wealthy or powerful) while crushing another. I would rate the desrt tortoise as more important than Bundy (in which case relocate him at the expense of the government's environmental agencies) or leave him alone and stop letting Reid strongarm ordinary citizens that are just trying to earn a buck the way their family has done for decades. Seems like he always paid his taxes to the state authorities, and he's probably happy to pay the Shoshone...

[gcmartin]

... he's probably happy to pay the Shoshone...

Bundy is NOT that kind of individual. @Flash and others here understand the views we have seen from individuals in the US about government and minorities.

Here's one persons analogy
"Government is an instrument to protect and serve minorities." This was one comment I remember when a roommate of mine in college dorm shared what he though after having to go to a government office for a copy of some record he needed. Not everyone has this view, of course, but there are those that do. So, for example, (although I could be wrong) Bundy sees a government of minorities trying to tell him what to do. America's First Nations people, to him, are a minority. This is a part of his behavior and his views.

This does not mean he should/could use the legal means at his disposal, but, it means "lets git our guns and kill those bastards" to start his version of the US Civil War to root out those undesirables.

[greengeek]

Although the Bundy Ranch episode has gone quiet (as far as I know...) I ocassionally see information popping up that offers insights into what might be happening in that region of the US. It certainly appears that the Bureau of Land Management has well developed plans for something.
This report from the BLM is good reading.

I got the link from a recently updated website which expresses concerns about the degree to which Chinese (and other foreign) investors are getting access to areas of the U.S where they can develop energy businesses and harvest resources. The website probably goes a bit too far claiming that the Chinese want their troops on the ground ready to protect their industrial developments in Utah, Nevada, California etc but as far as I can tell something is definitely on the move - possibly a resource handover to balance debt?

Here is a snip from the website - I am keen to know if you locals think theres an validity?

Code: Select all

21 Aug, 2015
The Bundy Ranch and Other BLM Land Seizures Are Being Done On Behalf of the Chinese

The Bundy Ranch confrontation, along with many other unreported BLM land grabs on behalf of the Chinese are being carried out in preparation for a total resource hand off to the Chinese. My military sources and researcher, Vicky Davis tell me that a series of international “inland ports

[bark_bark_bark]

It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but not the good kind that make sense; It sounds like one of those crazy ramblings from a mentally ill old homeless person that is too crazy to be true.

[Flash]

There may be a nugget of truth buried in all that bullshit. For instance, the Chinese may be big investors in companies that want to build solar farms on federal land. I personally don't see why they wouldn't want to first cover the roofs and parking lots of the cities that use the electricity, then build on desert land if necessary, but whatever it takes to get us off fossil fuels, and the sooner the better.

[starhawk]

I have this theory that it's all a load of expired cow manure, but I can't prove it...