The Ideological Roots of the Oregon Standoff

For the eleven states west of the 105 meridian, the Federal Government "owns" an average of 47.22 percent of the land, excluding Alaska (69.1%) and Hawaii. For the rest of the 37 states, the average is 2.2 percent. Just wondering how all you easterners would feel if an additional 45% of your property was usurped by fiat.

I live in Wyoming beef country and I know one person who says he supports the Bundy family thievery. He is not a rancher. Most ranchers who deal with BLM and Forest Service complain about some of the rules and interactions. Ranchers who own their land complain about the sweet deal given to those who lease grazing land. So it is true that complaining about the government is akin to complaining about the weather. That is a far cry from taking up weapons and trying to steal resources that belong to all of us. What I hate most about these incompetent angry people ocupying a bird refuge is the media attention makes it seem as if they have a lot of support from ranchers and farmers. They do not. But they manage to make good people appear bad to those outside the rural West.

This essay disgust me as has nearly all the coverage of this event where the press presupposes that these people (Y'All Qaeda) have something legitimate to say and that using guns to say it is ok.

Y'All Qaeda searches online reveal much that we are not seeing in the main mainstream press. Check out what other respected news organizations have to say about Y'All Qaeda.

Would it not be fair to grant a few words to the land use and political control exercised by big timber and mining interest in the guided age and those who pushed back rather than this rot-propaganda painting the usual thieves as some kind of patriots?

It is odd that the root word of conservative is conserve. To conserve is to think through the matter arriving at the best use of whatever it is we wish to harvest.
The best use of farming to grow fuel products would not be corn, it would be switch grass and hemp, but corn has a big lobby so conserving our farm lands in not an option with the current crew of law makers.
The best use of most Western deserts is to let them be, but that gets in the way of the current "conservative" like koch bothers (lumber barons on top of oil barons) who wish nothing more that to rape and pillage our land for their private profit.
Coal mining jobs are going away because of two things: automation and the bottoming out of the need to burn coal.
Same thing with lumbering, there are better ways to make paper and plywood that to clear cut our forests. The times they are a changin'.
I hate to admit, but a part of me wants to see these guys in Oregon just smoked out, with their hands over their heads or feet first.
But President Obama is smarter than I and he doesn't want a Ruby Ridge or Waco in his final year.

This article has got me to thinking just how far we (the United States) are from becoming a system of local militias controlling their territory by force. Like in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the mid east. Think about it: there are these guys carrying guns who chase away government officials. The Bundy's faced off government opposition and seemingly won. The current group in Oregon seems to be doing it again. Sure, their ground gains are small and most of the country views them as whackos but one cannot deny that they are gaining power. Their outreach seems to be growing as well.

Given current concerns over immigration and the "outlandish" remarks by the Republican wannabes (especially Trump), I can foresee how these small land-use militias might grow to include a much broader social agenda. They will become local tribal leaders. And neither the States nor the feds will know exactly how to deal with them.

The Federal Government on behalf of all of us should not put up with any of this nonsense by these armed and dangerous terroristic self-styled 'militia' land grabbers and do as Washington did with the Whiskey rebellion: send in the army to disperse or capture them, or, if they offer armed resistance, put them out of their misery if they begin shooting at government forces. This kind of illegal rebelliousness should not be permitted.

I surely don't want to see bloodshed nor do I want to see any action taken that would unnecessarily raise Ammon Bundy's stature. But it would please me a whole bunch to see Bundy in jail.

What what makes these clowns with guns think they are "the people"? The truth is they represent very specific business interests that want to exploit the land owned by "the people". Federal protection of land is the only way the people can preserve the land and its ecosystems for future generations.

The underlying issue is the greater good of conservation vs.
the local economy. We hear about how in Africa similar problems
are being solved by reorienting the local economy toward tourism
and away from resource extraction. Assignment: compare and
contrast Africa and U.S. situations.

My home is in right-wing rancher land in the upper foothills of the sierra nevada mountain range. The tea party is big here. The gun stores are large and popular. Anyone of color is looked upon as completely out of place. The true irony of this, is that the ranchers' grandparents or great grandparents were awarded large chunks of grazing land by the federal government. The one and the same federal government that the loonies want to dismantle. The people "of color" (miwuk indians) were slaughtered and displaced, the land was fenced off in large chunks for cattle to this day. What are the loonies afraid of? They have been handed everything to them. What more could they want?

Nothing new here. Behind every conservative (Tea Partier, militia member, politician) is his corporate puppet-master pulling the strings in order to increase the oligarchy's wealth and power.

I look forward to attending the Bird Festival in April. I will be armed with my excellent 8x48 Nikon binoculars. I haven't marched in many years, but look forward to this march!

What alarms me the most about the Bundys and their ilk is they are creating a new culture of impunity.

Now, there's nothing new about impunity: just look at the dreadful history of big-city machine politics with webs of corruption linking politicians, law enforcement, unions and businessmen. They saw themselves as being above the law and for a time they were.

The difference is that Tammany Hall's operatives thrived on secrecy and didn't grandstand by brandishing weapons and threatening to kill if society didn't empty its pockets for them.

At the same time that the federal government is entrapping muslims on questionable terrorism charges, it is permitting an armed anti-government movement to operate without hindrance.

Not only is government failing to prevent confrontations from happening by penetrating the movement and arresting perpetrators on conspiracy charges, when the militias do break the law there are no consequences. Law enforcement is invisible while militants come and go at will in furtherance of their illegal occupation of federal facilities.

Where is this going to lead? Well, since the armed militants have seen they can act with impunity, they're going to be emboldened to escalate their actions.

The federal government's choice is to risk a skirmish today at a remote wildlife refuge or invite a bloodbath when antigovernment gunmen up the ante by occupying a Bureau of Land Management facility in an urban area.

“It’s a situation where business-oriented people see utility in rising militancy — until it spins out of control and creates huge liabilities for them.”

Isn't this the same dynamic destroying the Republican party from within, with the likes of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio; insisting on a mix of fear, no compromise, and an ecosystem of Dark Money as the keys to electoral success?

Also, the militia movement and its land-use corporate benefactors seem disturbingly similar in nature, if not yet in fact, to the corporate-sponsored (and US funded) South American ('Contra') death squads of the 1980s, ostensibly necessary to combat 'leftists and world communism'...until that communism collapsed under its own weight in 1989.

I suspect the real reason the NRA is against any form of gun ownership database has more to do with hiding the corporate connections of the militia movement(s) than it does with any quaint notions of threats to constitutional purity of the 2ndA. Guns, politics, and corporatism, have never been healthy to a republic.

Feuer succinctly captures the dynamic tension between right-wing paramilitaries fighting what they regard as a tyrannical federal government and the activists (and policy makers) in suits who seek to profit from the exploitation of public lands. I followed the cross-fertilization of the anti-environmental "wise use" and militia movements during the 1990s. The period provides some cautionary lessons for today

It was, ultimately, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that prompted the public disavowal of armed militias by "wise use" figures. For years, those paramilitaries incorporated wise use talking points and ratcheted up tensions with federal agencies in ways the suits found disquieting but useful. The bombing shattered the romantic image of the militias. Now, as groups like Oath Keepers and Three Percenters -- the heirs to the 1990s militias -- experience a national resurgence, history demands we take them seriously.

The locals do. Hundreds at a recent community meeting called by the Harney County sheriff declared they want the militias to leave, now. In this they are aligned with the Piute Tribe and the Cattlemen's Association. The paramilitaries are defying the community, digging in and calling for reinforcements.

Meanwhile, Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, author of a law requiring transfer of federal lands to state control, has become a favorite of the paramilitaries, and has spoek at an Oath Keepers event. It's time once again to challenge the alliance of suits and guns.

I get why these republican organizations support "county" rights, not only are they easier to bribe and corrupt than States, they are far easier and cheaper to corrupt than Federal. Just follow the money. Keep control by Federal.

There might be some moral high ground for the gun toting land "savers" if they intended to give it back to the people from whom it was originally stolen- Native Americans. But that is definitely not the case.

What in the Wide World of Sports is going on out west, with multiple instances of armed confrontations with federal agents? I guess the Feds back down in the interest of avoiding bloodshed, but at some point We the People simply must put an end to this seditious lawlessness. "Wise Use" is no more than a euphemism for a repetition of the rapacious exploitation of the land, land that belongs to all of us. The anarchic Dodge City element only makes it scarier.

Greed Over People strikes again.

Not only is the Randian right-wing a champion of unregulated commerce and mining the common land, water and air for unbridled psychopathic profit, but they are even more expert at culturing and then mining the worst psychopathic human instincts of fear, envy, paranoia, conspiracy and ill will toward others in order to hijack public policy for personal profit.

America's National Parks, Monuments and federal lands are one of the country's grandest achievements, and the right wing wants to paint that accomplishment with unregulated snowmobile and motocross noise pollution, unregulated gunshots, Whites R Us subsidized ranching and unregulated mining for profit.

Mining the anarchic instincts and cultured misanthropy of gun-toting Western whites unwilling to work for a living is just one more natural resource for corporations to mine and drill into for more profit.

Republican states are disproportionate federal dollar welfare states, almost all receiving more federal dollars than residents pay in.

These federal welfare states and their disproportionately white residents demand more welfare in the form of free land and federal subsidies to support their parasitic minds, much like the oil, timber and resource extraction corporate industries behind them who buy themselves tax breaks and diminished regulation via Congressional bribery.

The Bundy's are demonstrated federal welfare queens, perfect bedfellows for America's corporate welfare queens.

There are many more birders than anarchists in America and I have a feeling they will come from all over the world in April to reclaim OUR land for OUR public use from these land grabbers.
http://www.fws.gov/refuge/malheur/events/bird_festival.html

Thank you for a very informative background article which, once again, shows the duplicity of "conservatives" who want it all for themselves with no social or moral responsibility. These armed gunmen who are trying to take over OUR public land and threaten OUR government officials are terrorists just as bad as those calling themselves a religious state in the middle east. WE must not allow this behavior to continue and WE can change it all with OUR votes on November 8 - just a few short months from now. Arrest the trespassers and strip any government benefits they are receiving. WE who love democracy in America refuse to support them for one more day in any way.

What's more cynical than wealthy guys in expensive suits using warmed over, misunderstood Revolutionary War rhetoric to appeal to citizen militias in order to stir their passions to the point that they'll do their bidding in order to increase their profits.

It's just a variation on the game that is played by politicians who inflame hatred toward immigrants, racial minorities, and women -- any who can be framed as "others" -- to get voters to the polls so that they can gain political power and increase the profits of the elites who fund their sinister campaigns.

One way or another corporate and financial elites control the political system for their own ends; the rest of us are just pawns in their game.

Who speaks for the wildlife that has no voice? The American people through their government - that's who ! The federal lands were/are meant to be set aside for perpetuity. It is our job as American people to make sure they stay that way.

Yes Their forefathers travelled westwards.,braved harsh conditions,declared land as their own. But many years before them all these animals, plants trees & may be American Indians( called Indians by early settlers) were there.Why not give same logic logic & hand over this land to them.Secondly, resources are not infinite. If these are exhausted or polluted in future their own ( in their opinion) land will be useless Why they are not thinking in these angles?

I, personally, am willing to concede the principle of 'wise use,' defined thusly: The land shall be just as valuable, in real terms, in 20 years as it is today; just as valuable in 40 years as it is in 20; just as valuable in 1000 years as it is in 40. Under these conditions, and with the posting of a surety bond against mismanagement and resulting damage, (a bond which need not all be posted up front, but most may be accumulated as a percent of profits,) I would be willing to concede the *management* of a portion of public land to private agency, who may extract such profit as they can subject to these conditions. Also a royalty.

This does restrict the use of the land to the sustainable extraction of renewable resources. No extraction of non-renewable resources for private profit should be allowed, but the extraction of non-renewable resources would only be allowed in the event of national emergency, with all profits accruing to the people.

Since, though the land would be privately managed but still publicly owned, all rights of passage and inspection would be retained by the people, for whom the government is the agent.

Now, since *any greater rate of exploitation* would be at the expense of future generations of the people, such is morally unsupportable. Thus, any who seek greater rights to the land propose to enrich themselves at the expense of the people, damaging and endangering the future prospects, and the prospects of the children, of the people.

Regarding my previous comment: Give them what they say they want. Wise use is sustainable use. Unsustainable use is folly. To open more large regions of the nation than are already being exploited to unsustainable use is madness.

Ideological? hardly...just little boys who have gotten older but haven't grown up playing fort games with real guns. school yard bullies taking advantage of the moment.

Who owns the land? the federal government, full stop. if you don't consider the various Supreme Court rulings on the subject, then consider the Supremacy and Property Clauses of the Constitution, as well as the Enabling Acts the western states (indeed all states, starting with Vermont in 1791) signed, in which they agreed to give up all claims to federal lands within their borders- FOREVER. you cant change your mind about such agreements now 150 years after the fact. Wise use, as Pinchot understood, was to allow various uses on federal lands, like what happens now in National Forests. this was in contrast to Muir, who wanted most federal lands to be treated like wilderness areas- left in their primitive state with little human interference. rather than handing land over to the states, the feds should be adding more to the public commons. 21 states and 2 territories have no national monuments at all, nationwide we only have 59 national parks, there are least 100 more sites worthy of park status and 500 worthy of monument status. Bristol Bay in Alaska, for instance, is a prime national park candidate. Currently the feds own between 28-30% of the land in this country, depending on how you measure it, many other countries own much more of their respective territories, Canada, for instance owns 41% of the land in Canada, like with us, much of it is parks, and other protected areas. I think having the government own exactly half the country is a reasonable figure.

I thought the US Constitution allowed REGULATED militia to bear arms. Why are these UNREGULATED militia of misfits allowed by the US Supreme Court to terrorise the US population armed to their teeth?

Why was McVeigh executed before the investigation was thoroughly and completely carried out to uncover any possible connections of his heinous act of mass murder to these terrorists?

The controversy surrounding federal ownership of so much western land deserves a thorough hearing, in Congress and the press. Are these lands suitable for farming and ranching? Can resource extraction proceed without serious harm to the environment? The answers to these and similar questions will help determine how to meet the needs of local people as well as those of the rest of the country.

Feuer's analysis demonstrates, however, that neither the Wise Use movement nor the militias have any interest in pursuing such a reasonable approach. The former represents corporate entities bent on opening these lands for their own use, without any concern for the needs of local residents. The militias, judging by the Bundys, also want to exploit federal lands at no cost to themselves. The fact that the occupiers originate from states other than Oregon, and that local residents have repudiated them, strongly suggest that their invasion serves outside interests.

This standoff does not involve an effort to advance economic democracy. Stripped of its bogus rhetoric, the movement stands exposed as a tool of economic oligarchy. Time to lock up these anarchists. (And, oh, by the way, take away their guns, too.)

You can put as much lipstick and perfume as you want on this pig, it still reeks of sedition. Time for these cowboys to pack up and start playing by the rules instead of trying to make up new rules on their own.

These fools want something for nothing and for the public to pay for cleaning up the mess they will inevitably leave behind.
If they were black or brown and armed they would already be dead.
Arrest these fools and throw them in the pokey!

As a practical matter, almost all prudent local and state government officials don't want anything to do with having the public lands managed by BLM returned to private hands. The public safety costs alone would be ruinous, and that's not the biggest problem which would be road maintenance.

And the government gives them a very good deal. It manages the lands at no cost to local and state governments, provides police and fire protection, plus road maintenance. Since 1976 the federal government has actually paid counties money in lieu of property taxes. In 2015 1900 counties shared a total of $439 million. BLM has a budget of over $1 billion and 10,000 employees nationwide.

The BLM offices in western states provide lots good steady jobs as compared to a lot of the seasonal and boom and bust nature of natural resource industries. Recreation and wildlife management brings in tourism which is also a source of jobs and tax revenue for local governments.

So when wackos like the group holding a bird sanctuary hostage in Oregon carry on about the rights of states, they might just as well be spitting in the wind. Uncle Sam is the proverbial rich uncle for many western counties who want things to stay exactly the way they are.

This is not news to anyone who has worked on public lands issues.

"Wise Use" and issues between the BLM and "ranchers "has always be a smokescreen to disguise the influence of the big corporations.The term "local control" in the American West has been a disingenuous euphemism for ownership by big agricultural, logging, and mining interests, since the time of Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt fought tooth and nail to preserve public land from "local control".He oversaw the creation of 5 National parks, 18 national monuments, which included an epic battle with mining interests over the Grand Canyon, 51 bird sanctuaries like Malheur, and 150 national forests. The "local control"referred to by Mr.Bundy and Congressmen like Idaho's Raul Labrador is a far more sinister concept than it would appear.

Greed and illogic seep like water into any cracks in the bedrock of better intentions. Perhaps the fact that our whole claim to the lands in question rests upon dubious enterprise and faulty pretension, there is an awkwardness in resisting thuggish forces in the guise of friendly words and "patriotism." Something for nothing, a perversion of the American Dream.

The most important role of the federal government is to prevent selfish and short-sighted use of resources, avoiding disastrous long term consequences such as the famous "Dust Bowl" the Midwest became after years of poor management by short-sighted farmers. The colonial "rape and pillage for profit and growth" mentality among Americans rich and poor needs to be replaced with a focus on sustainability and conservation, or our country is doomed.

If Wise Use means increasing the private ownership of public land we will see that land eventually sold to investors from places like China. Before that happens more remote estates will be built on that land that is becoming ever more dry, which in turn will require more wildfire control.

These militia groups are NOT patriots. They are loners, anti-social groups who have distorted Enlightenment and democratic ideals. They do not understand, nor do they seem capable of understanding, the tension in a democratic society between the individual and community, i.e., state, needs. They only understand violence, which is a problem. Meeting their stand with state violence will perpetuate more violence...so, keep talking.

I think the title of the article reflects the biggest issue for me with this event. It's declared to be ideology based. But is that only a social media front.

To date I haven't seen any information about where this wise use ideology has actually worked with individuals and communities. It appears to only have worked when large corporate interests are involved.

So this doesn't really appear to be a land grab by rugged individuals. Has anyone wondered how this occupation is getting financed?

Look no further than the politicians supporting this "ideology". The Bundy political supporter in Nevada mentioned in the article, Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, had ~$380,000 of campaign contributions in 2014, and nearly 75% of it (~$280,000) is in dark money.

However, as a corporate sponsor, you have to beware of what you wish for with the convenient synergy with the media friendly militia groups. As the last sentence from Mr. Ramos declares, “It’s a situation where business-oriented people see utility in rising militancy — until it spins out of control and creates huge liabilities for them.”

I think if the corporate interests were publicly disclosed, the current manifestation of this "ideology" just may return to it's not-on-the-radar former life.

Bundy and his cohorts need to return to their Armageddon bunkers that they've probably built underground on Federal land, where they won't have to file permits and pay taxes.

It's one thing to disagree with the government and lobby to change the laws associated with the use of federal land. But we should all be concerned that the tactics by Bundy, and apparently now corporations who can profit from a change in the policies advocated by these so-called "militias", who achieve their goals through threats of violence and lawlessness. This is destabilizing to our country and very dangerous.

What Cliven Bundy and his sons are is clear. They are not driven by some sort of intellectual ideology. They are driven by the desire for power and to have free range for their ranching enterprises just because they live there.

It is the same motivation that "wall street" has when they want to get their hands on taxpayers money -- i.e.: privatize social security, privatize education.

They see these resources (public land and our tax money) as opportunities to gain their own personal profit.

Personal gain is their ideology, the rest is rationalization and excuses.

"Why" is irrelevant. That these terrorists are sauntering about with impunity is all that matters.

This is another example of the foulness of the republicans, and their misdirected notions. The notion of exploitation of federal land by profiteering lumber, mining, and ranching, along with ATV use guarantees the destruction of national parks and forests and all for private individuals and their greedy profiteering motives and wishes to benefit themselves at the cost of all the rest of us, i.e., all U.S. citizens who, in fact, via the Federal Government, the land belongs to and for whom it should be preserved. These republicans are, as usual, mouthpieces for opposition of environmental safety and wellbeing, and to the general population.

Get your money for nothing
And your land for free.
This is not an ideology, it 's a land grab.
Here's a bulletin, there is plenty of timberland and ranchland in private hands. Much of it is for sale.
You want some, buy it.

Isn't it about time to call the conservative/tea party freedom mantra for what is is? Nihilism

Rights without responsibility.
Freedom without duty or obligation.
Protesting tyranny without any clue as to what tyranny really is, or what it would to "protesters" such as these.
Ignorance, willful and ideological.

These "protesters", and those like them, are simply spoiled, selfish, ill-read, ill-educated and stand for nothing.

Don't over think this folks. The Bundy's and their friends are just criminals. Just look at the criminal records of some of them:
"Booda" Cavalier
Hicks/Cooper, and
Ryan Bundy.
Moreover, some or all of them claim to be military, but have never actually served.

It seems that "Wise Use" always seem to turn out meaning that conservatives always get to do whatever they want with the land at little or no expense to them.

For reasons such as the ideas behind Wise Use and the Militia movement, i love America. Hostility to a powerful and distant government; what is more American?

The illegal Oregon occupation presents a big-time political dilemma for the Obama administration and the various authorities at the federal, state and local levels.

You don't want a Waco-style assault amid the current charged and angry winds that are blowing across our land. Gun sales would quadruple even the current surge.

On the other hand, we can't be a nation of laws and countenance the Oregon occupation. Then, again, laws? Repub presidential candidates? SCOTUS?

I don't know the answers here. It's creepy. I keep thinking about Michael Moore's "Where's My Country, Dude?"