Those with money at stake would want this ended quickly and quietly.
The Pacific Patriots Network rolls into the situation.
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/armed-convoy-arrives-at-harney-county-courthouse/
A right wing media personality is cited as the organizer?
I say that someone with money at stake in the grazing issue is perhaps at the source of this group. I could see them coming. The Feds are letting this issue fester. The longer it does the more attention will be paid to the basic issue. Not constitutional issues but grazing rights privileges on public land. What it costs the public at the expense of big bucks in the pocket of guys with big hats with big cattle underneath them. They do not want to be in the spotlight center of attention that is being generated by little guys with guns and no cattle under their hats.
Follow the money.
Exactly who makes the most money out of grazing on public lands would be interesting. Is this a 1% situation where the 1% are happy in their warm pile of money but are smart enough not to make any noise attracting unwanted attention to their situation.
For a long time fortunate people were leasing government owned recreational cabins on public land with no increase in lease price over a long period of time and the holders of the lease seemed to be in the nice position of holding it as long as they wished. Perhaps to the happy extent that their recreation was being subsidized at government revenue expense.
Then someone called attention to this situation as being contrary to Mr. market rules and the "Market Rules" philosophy. The lease price went up to more competitive rates. The 1% who benefit to a great extent from the "Rules" love this rule: "Rules for me but not for thee". I am sure they are content with the current government grazing rules. Money does control the rule makers.
It would be a great risk if the 1% ventured to establish state control of the rules for public lands. However, perhaps control of state politicians with 1% money in the Western states would solidify their future?
That is a big risk but look at Texas.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/gov-greg-abbott-calls-for-constitutional-convention-to-take-back-states-rights.html/
The big bucks 1% behind this might not be just the 1% that have the big cattle bucks.
The motivation however is the same: Protect their money and make more of it by buying politicians. Protect their money from public dissatisfaction by not attracting attention to the disparity of a situation and "rules" that gives them the big bucks.
Just speculating from my position on a high horse riding the range.
All men are created equal but Colt made them equal.
I'm a gonna pull out my Google six shooter and aim it at finding out more about grazing rights and who benefits the most from them.
All men are created equal but Google and the World Wide Web are making them more equal. Google shoots faster and farther and hits more targets.
In the bigger picture there may be special interests relationships to other "rights" granted by the government related to big bucks. Like water rights. Mining rights and claims. Lumber. Oil?? Bigger picture = bigger bucks!
Wikipedia: Grazing Rights
"Though grazing rights have never been codified in United States law, the concept of such rights descends from the English concept of the commons, a piece of land over which people, often neighboring landowners, could exercise one of a number of traditional rights, including livestock grazing.[1]"
This is a very interesting situation! Grazing rights deriving from the English notion of the commons. The commons being a socialist leaning idea of public collective ownership of a resource. Not exactly what the right wing would rise up to defend. Not unless they want to put a fence around it.
The "Taylor Grazing Act"
The BLM :
"The BLM administers nearly 18,000 permits and leases held by ranchers who graze their livestock, mostly cattle and sheep, at least part of the year on more than 21,000 allotments under BLM management.
"In Fiscal Year 2014, the BLM was allocated $79.9 million for its rangeland management program. Of that figure, the agency spent $34.3 million (43 percent) on livestock grazing administration."
"In 2014, the BLM collected $12.1 million in grazing fees"
Who holds those 18,000 permits. Who is the biggest holder? Good question. The six gun is out of the holster and aiming.
Maybe these people would like to deliver beer and chips to the cowboys holed up in Harney county:
http://saveourwildhorses.rallycongress.com/2526/end-welfare-ranching-on-public-lands-revoke-all-grazing-permits
Nothing like free publicity for your cause. It is as elegant as the cat skinning itself.
But I digress. Who are these grazing rights holders and what do they hold. Give me the data base so I can mine it. Give me that mining rights data base too. Lumber, oil....Strange how some big business want a little government. We already have a little government when it comes to controlling special interest.
Who are these grazing rights holders?
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/04/21/blm-fights-keep-secret-names-ranchers-grazing-permits/
"The battle dates back to August 2007, when WildEarth Guardians and another conservation group filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking copies of all livestock grazing permits and the names and addresses of permit holders. The BLM eventually referred them to its Rangeland Administration System, a publicly searchable database on grazing allotments. But that database does not include names and addresses of every grazing operator permitted by BLM.".
Rangeland Administration System (RAS)
From the archives: http://harpers.org/blog/2016/01/the-great-republican-land-heist/
If we can't get names of the specific grazing rights holder we know who they are by the outfits they wear. If you get an outfit you can be a Republican (Cowboy) too. I am sure that all those Republicans were relieved when Cliven went out of the spotlight with his statement about "The Negro". Funny how things work to save your butt sometimes. It could be what you least expect.
Privacy is a wonderful thing for me but not for thee!
From the link: "The cattle barons were not cowboys, though they came to veil themselves in the cowboy mythos. They were bankers and lawyers, or mining and timber and railroad tycoons."
This is beginning to look like the old comedy skit on a stage where the clown is trying to avoid the spotlight. Maybe the movie with the guy behind the curtain.
Might Alec be behind the curtain?.....https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/01/08/the-malheur-rebellion-beyond-the-snark/ Or is it just tin foil stuff? Maybe the stuff of a good movie like the Big Short? If ALEC is a player behind this then there are certainly unintended consequences in their political philosophy being adopted by fringe groups that really have no financial skin in the game, just blind dedication to thinking with an agenda that is best kept secret. Fringe groups are a great danger to their cause.
ALEC's oar in the water: http://www.alec.org/model-policy/public-lands-policy-coordination-act/
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/alec-behind-recent-sagebrush-rebellion/
It is amusing that the Hammonds were fighting fire with fire and got in trouble. It is like a fringe group going in to fight a fringe group to get some special interest out of trouble causing attention. Yeah, but that fringe group is our s.o.b fringe group! Bought and paid for?
I am beginning to see some smoke here and maybe a little of the fire is revealing itself.
Who are these grazing permit holders and is the situation a Trojan horse for the broader 1% that extracts resources from us via all related government control?
Who is this Ken Ivory guy? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ken-ivory-federal-land-bundy
Who are these grazing permit holders?
My high horse is wandering on the course to answer this question.
This is hearing on Public Land Bills from 2012 Chaired by senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon The senator I admired until he is behind the give away of TPP and TPIP. Everything gets thrown into bills like this and all sorts of things crawl out of the woodwork. Previously I mentioned the cabin leases on Federal land.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
"Finally I want to say a word about S. 16--I'm sorry, 1906, the Cabin User Fee Act of 2011. This is the second time Congress has been asked to modify the Forest Service Cabin User Fee law. The Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 has proven unworkable and has resulted in excessive fees for cabin owners. I know my colleagues from Oregon, California, Washington and other States have heard from cabin owners who lease Federal Forest Service land for their cabins. Unless changes are made to the 2000 fee structure a good number of these folks will lose their cabins."
Excessive fees? They lost that one and are still crying over it....just for the record.
What a pile of BS this hearing is. Read it and see how little gets done. However there is a pony under all that BS for those that have a special financial interest related to all that picturesque talk about the beauty of the environment...and the money.
This is an interesting section from the hearing:
Prepared Statement of Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, on S. 303
.....
"The BLM administers the range program through issuance of grazing permits or leases. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) provides for a 10-year (or less) term for grazing permits. In a typical year, the BLM processes over 2,000 permit renewals or transfers. In 1999 and 2000, the BLM saw a spike in permit renewals, when over 7,200 permits were due for renewal. The BLM was unable to process all those permits before expiration, which resulted in a backlog of grazing permit renewals that remains today. By the end of the 2012 Fiscal Year, BLM anticipates that a backlog of 4,200 unprocessed permits will remain."
The hearing date was 2012! They are working on a bow wave backlog from 1999-2000 renewals?
That is about a two year backlog!
"S. 1129 would revise the permitting process for grazing in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Specifically, the bill would extend the duration of the permit from 10 years to 20 years."
Got to get this high horse back on the trail of who are these Grazing Rights Holders!
Maybe time for just getting a fresh horse for a new start on a new blog entry.
No comments:
Post a Comment