General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSome "backstory" on the bird sanctuary occupation (in need of debunking)
Last edited Mon Jan 4, 2016, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)
Sorry to link to a conservative nutjob site, but that's the only sort of place where one would find a supporting view for the occupation, and this article is, at least, coherently written and pretty well stocked with arguable statements.
It begins: "The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north."
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/
Of course this is easily dismissed. The Harney Basin was long a Paiute Tribe homeland, and was set aside as a reservation by Grant after the civil war. Gold was discovered in the area, and other settlement pressures led to the dissolution of the reservation in 1879, when it was taken over mostly by ranchers (the soil and climate there not being well suited for farming). The Harney basin is a basin; that is, whatever precipitation falls there stays, and it has fundamentally been a seasonal wetlands since the pluvial. Irrigation "to water the meadows" is likely a gross misrepresentation, as draining wetlands has been the basic goal of ranchers and farmers for ages. Typically, levees are built around the main low areas and water flow controlled to eliminate seasonal wetlands in favor of a year-round water supply. The Harney basin was likely always an important stop on the western flyway, and its absurd that the article credits the ranchers for the bird population.
Many species that frequented the area were nearly extinct within a generation. Most people aren't familiar with the old "hunting" techniques that were common. It was more like take-no-prisoners warfare, of the same sort that extinguished the passenger pigeon and nearly killed all the buffalo. I've seen pictures and read stories at the museum where there were barges had huge guns like trench mortars installed, loaded with gunpowder and birdshot, and they'd fire straight up blowing whole flocks out of the sky. People in canoes would collect the birds and deliver them to markets by the wagon or freightcar load. In one year on the Malheur lake every single great egret was killed, thousands, for the feather trade. The numbers took over a decade to recover, and that was one of the reasons Roosevelt formed the preserve.
Anyway, I haven't gone through the rest of the article, but I imagine there are many other debunkable things talking points that we'll be hearing about from the other side as this goes along.
On edit, looking at the Hammond conviction, why was he convicted under Title 18:I:40:844 (probably using the wrong punctuation)? Which covers the IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE OF EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS. Witnesses say he used matches. The 2001 incident clearly involved poaching, as witnesses present testified, but if there was insufficient evidence to convict him on that, why not convict fairly on simple arson, which has pretty severe penalties anyway? Unless perhaps it was pled down from that. The 2006 case of the backfires seems pretty straightforward; he should have been liable for damages if it went badly, but it seems to have been done competently, and perhaps even accomplished what it was intended to do, which was control existing wildfires. Without the existing prejudice of the 2001 incident I don't think it would have gone to court.
(Not that this has any real connection to taking over a bird sanctuary)
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)bhikkhu
(10,722 posts)so its public land, federal government. I guess when the reservation was dissolved (or stolen, as the case may be), it all reverted to federal management, and people could use the homestead act or a couple of other means to claim lands under certain conditions. In 1908 the unclaimed land remaining was still under federal stewardship, and it was fairly simple for Roosevelt to create the refuge. Inholders were gradually bought out over the years, and the refuge was gradually expanded. Knowing the area, ranching is very hard work and it as easy to go under as it is to stay afloat, so it probably wasn't too hard building up the refuge.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)This has NOTHING to do with any local ranchers, and least not local ranchers who are not Mormon.
This is about a radical belief that federally held Western Lands are, by right, the property of the Nation of Deseret:
This is about religious kooks wanting land for their own religious nation.
bhikkhu
(10,722 posts)Harney basin should fall just inside the border.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It falls within the borders of Deseret.
Not all Mormons follow the doctrine of the mainstream LDS church in Salt Lake City.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)some ones hindend? Remember,today is the opening session of Congress in Obama's last year and the Rethug Agenda is not people friendly. Usually,we see payback legislation for those who elected them,and pass what is called blocking legislation just in case they are not reelected. You will see tons of feel good wedge garbage coming and what is happening in Burns will just feed the TeaBillie Caucus to amp up the rhetoric for the advantage of people such as the Koch's and Walton's.
bhikkhu
(10,722 posts)From the same article (and, having hunted a bit, repeated ad nauseum online) : "The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water bypassing the vast meadow lands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed."
...implying that the government intentionally destroyed livelihoods in order to force ranchers off their lands. The first clue to an alternative explanation would be that Silvies Plain" is everywhere else actually called "Silvies River Floodplain", and lies quite a few miles from the lake. The second, again, that the Harney Basin is actually a basin, and in years of heavy rainfall the lake grows, because the water has no outlet. In years of heavy rainfall floodplains also tend to flood...simple enough, and not likely even Obama is to blame for that one.
Apparently some of the ranches still there are very progressive about undoing past damage, as they have also been in my area. This one has some good information: http://www.silviesvalleyranch.com/our_land.php . Grazing is essential for healthy rangeland and wetland, in moderation. In the past it was migratory deer, elk and antelope, but migration routes have been so compromised through so much of the west that's hardly possible to re-establish. Well-managed ranches can be an asset.