Who's Land?

Burns Oregon 2016, A small band of Militiamen have taken siege of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County. Burns Paiute Indian Tribal Leadership along with a local judge are vocally being critics of Armed Militia, Led by one Ammon Bundy. It is said that the occupation of the Federal Wildlife Headquarters to protest land regulation and imprisonment of two Harney County ranchers in an arson case, could cost the county $60K - $70K a week and the pleas for the group to leave by local residents being ignored and the threat of a stand off continuing for six months will result in an overall cost of a million. By shutting down nearby buildins that are used for extra supplies and food for workers and law enforcement, the County loses money because it's ability to raise tax revenue is limited because 75% of the land is ironically Federally controlled. Essentially this is a dispute over land management where Bundy's men have destroyed a fence, property of US Fish and Wildlife to give what they say is nearby access for cattle to graze on public land. This is a good place to provide background on the groups leader by adding that he is the son of a one Cliven Bundy who in 1993 protested changes in grazing rules. On March 27, 2014 145,604 acres were closed in Clark County, Nevada for the capture, impound & removal of trespass cattle owned by the elder rancher/cattleman. The BLM and law enforcement rangers began to roundup the livestock and on April 5 made an arrest the next day. On April 12, a group of armed protesters advanced on the "Cattle Gather," Sheriff Doug Gillespie negotiated with Bundy and the newly confirmed BLM director, Neil Kornze to release the cattle and de-escalate the situation. At the end of 2015, Bundy grazes his cattle and has still not paid a fee. So here is gist of the situation, cattle feed off of the land and because they are bought and sold for profit there are fees related to grazing associated with this type of business. My family is familiar with this type of arrangement as my great grandmother's brother's, father and relatives were the first cattle men established here in the Pacific Northwest at the turn of the 20th century. When you go into the mountains, there are many brooks streams and creeks named for the family as well as meadows, camps and other areas. Cattle Ranching is a staple the western frontier and to much documented information contributed to the phenomenon of Manifest Destiny. I feel confident in bringing this up because I am a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe who has witnessed the direct impact of grazing cattle on free & open land. As you know or if this is your first rodeo, cattle trample the land by eating natural grass to the root in which you have to constantly move or push the cattle to other areas. So land mass and grazing acreage is essential to producing good healthy livestock which in turn provides good quality beef to the local market. It's a business where numbers come into play such as headcount versus sale value divided by upkeep fees in transporting cattle or land use fees which brings us to the topic in question. How much is enough to charge for the grazing of free roaming livestock? If a market value determines the price, how does the BLM or any equivalent come up with the price? Obviously in Mr. Cliven Bundy's case he didn't agree with the fee, so he chose to not pay anything. In our stretch of the woods that is called "Coyote the land," which means you tricked somebody or as Cliven did used the land for free. In the old west there was another practice of getting something for free and it was called Cattle Rustling which was stealing cattle. This practice resulted in bandits and gun fighters of history which also brought about famous lawmen such as Wyatt Earp and the Earp brothers famous for the shootout at the OK Corral in Tombstone, Arizona. Many western legends are attributed to the practice and development of laws made to keep the peace, so to speak and that is how the gun got it's name the Peace keeper. Fast forward to 2016 and return to modern Burns, Oregon for an exaggerated interpretation in which I will be happy to oblige. If these men were representatives of the Armed Services, we would respect their character and integrity for standing up for our rights, but their is a little thing called the Constitution that directly provides language unto what an Armed Militia is and under what circumstances it is Constitutional for a group to form an aggregate resistance to a government. So if they don't fit that definition then what are they? Removing a fence and damaging refuge property by illegal occupants makes them militants. Another part of the problem is there grievance is to protest the imprisonment of Oregon Ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond who have publicly dismissed that the group doesn't represent them and urge them to leave the area. The life long residents of Burns say the Militants don't represent the locals and they are outsiders. The group broke into the Bunkhouse during the takeover and patrol the area on ATVs taking shifts on a watchtower to await authorities arrival. Local Authorities say, "Go Home," it isn't what the Burns residents want. The Militia should disband, but more are coming to join the group. What does this say about modern day philosophy and civil disobedience? Now I can easily switch my philosophy and claim land use fees are increasing unfairly and string a monument of evidence together to support my claim, but the problem is that under the circumstances I would still be presented with the fact that the local residents view my actions as apolitical exhibition and neither the people nor the government are taking me seriously. With that said, I would be emboldened with my actions and continue to try to bring forth publicity to my one man cause by bringing in the media which Armmon has already done. The portrayal of his crew and their demeanor resulted in my opinion as rebel rousers with to much time on their hands. They make statements like they are ready to die for their cause and other exaggerated claims to going out in a blaze of glory. This suspiciously sounds like extremist propaganda and terrorist philosophy. Now see how I didn't call them an extremist group or terrorists because that would need evidence to likely define them as such, so again the question arises "What are they?" They don't have any demands to negotiate, so they're not hostage takers. They essentially are media whores looking for a spot light, but under what cost to they intend to find it. Giving a life for some publicity? Or is there something else going on here? I'm very impartial to demonstrations because my people (aboriginal)have been arrested, threatened or worse for much lighter demonstrations and these band of hooligans feel entitled to storm a federal building and stake out news conference in a state where the aren't citizens or have any immediate interests other then subjugation of the local citizens to unwanted attention. To me that isn't honorable or even justified in any way shape or form, but then I'm not risking my freedom so I have to ask anyone who will listen, What are the consequences of these actions? Maybe I answered my own question when I said, "ask anyone who will listen," because that is apparently exactly what they are doing, but to whom is this expense falling? The Locals, tax payers of Oregon or the county? Maybe even the very people they wish to speak for the ranchers will have extra cost being personnel will be shifted to other duties while this matter is being resolved. Having a plan is the fundamental part of any demonstration and these guys lack the message of clearly unveiling what that is. Do they want a violent confrontation because that is what it looks like. Are they Martyrs for the working man because if they are they need a little more inclusive action that involves more then storming the nearest convenience store for snacks. With any rallying point, a group needs consensus other than just being angry. Although motivated individuals do provide enthusiastic support, bullets are not a negotiation tool unless a crime is already being committed. There in lies my point that these guys are just outlaws that felt when they demonstrated in the elder Bundy case that they progressed their issue to a successful outcome which isn't necessarily true. Government changes in policy take years to implement unless a full vote has passed with provisions to ascertain immediate reform. So why hasn't the government re-issued fees or attempted to roundup the cattle again? These will become important questions to ask if the issue isn't resolved peacefully. I used the word resolve once in the present and future tense with specific framing to provide that I don't wish ill will upon these guys because I am a descendant of the same livelihood. I've heard ranchers and cattlemen complain all my life, but nobody ever suggested we go down to the livestock show and shoot off a few rounds. The Indian Tribe is 30 miles north of the refuge and they are concerned not just with a violent threat, but the impact to the ancestral land. We believe that are ancestors treated the sacred land with a certain amount of dignity & respect. What are the connotations to outsiders being allowed to set up shop for a violent confrontation when your just trying to send your kids to school in peace? This whole episode brings up more questions then it answers and if you have read any of the previous blog posts other than this one, you know I only write when a broad objective is within reach. I've even thought about Nazi environmental types which isn't hard to find here in the Northwest haven't made a comment other than "Go Home Bundy." Even they know when something is worth fighting for and when the rest is just media fluff. These guys make references to Waco, TX like it's a barbecue. The Federal Government has had more response to peaceful college protesters than these guys. Can anyone say Pepper Spray?