Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
I started this thread in response to
THIS
Thread.
The issues surrounding Bundy and his family are much greater than the Bundy's themselves. The initial confrontation at the Bundy ranch was NOT precipitated by the Bundy's themselves, at least not so far as the gathering of sympathizers. The second confrontation in Oregon was precipitated by the Bundy's. At that time, in that thread, I opined that the methods used were doomed to failure and they had picked the wrong place to make a stand. On the other hand I did voice sympathy for what they were trying to point out.
And what they were trying to point out is this. For the past several decades the Federal government has been seizing land throughout the west. Some by imminent domain, other lands by making it impossible for the owners to engage in legal trade. A form of extortion, or blackmail, if you will. Most often these seizures revolve around water, a priceless resource in the west.
The Federal government is acquiring more and more land while the budgets for the various agencies that are chartered to care for this land are dwindling. Forest roads are being gated and locked, some are cut to prevent access. Fire roads are no longer maintained. The government doesn't have the financial resources, or the manpower, to maintain the property they do have. The Federal government has proven themselves to be poor stewards of the land, very poor indeed. Significant damage has been caused by the poor decisions that the various agencies have made over the years. And most of the citizenry are only aware of the huge disasters caused. The hundreds of small disasters never make past the local news.
Forest fires are now becoming much larger as a direct result of Federal policy. At one time, in the fall, permits were issued for the collection of firewood. Trees were felled in designated areas so as to thin the forest (good for the forest and the critters that dwell therein). Not only were the felled trees removed but much of the overburden that is the main contributor to serious forest fires. The fees for the permits were nominal, $3.00 as I recall. The Forest Service made no money off the proposition, but they got a shit pot full of FREE labor. Private individuals cleared the felled timber and the overburden. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars were saved.
The lack of maintenance of the roads, and the fire roads in particular, have made it almost impossible for fire crews to get to the scene necessitating the use of 'Fire Bombers'. The costs of those aircraft are in the thousands of dollars per flight hour. I won't even begin to estimate the cost of the loss of property, habitat, and most of all lives.
The denial of access has placed even more of a burden on those areas that have been left open. A forced overcrowding of natural beauty. Which basically destroys those particular areas and removes the reasons that people visit the wilderness areas to begin with.
So why is the government hell bent on acquiring more and more property that it has neither the resources (money and equipment) nor the manpower to maintain? More particularly why is the concentration on acquiring lands that have water resources? Why, when time and time again they have proven themselves to be horrible stewards of the land?
If I can control your water, your access to health care, what you are able to buy, well, for all intents and purposes I have you by the balls. You are no longer a free man, you are a sharecropper, a laborer forced to buy from the 'company store.'
I can readily see how city dwellers would gravitate towards the governments position. After all, they've already become sharecroppers and slaves to the company store. They dream of those wide open spaces, spaces that 99.9% of them will never visit, don't understand, and if the government has it's way they never will. And a guided tour of Yellowstone is NOT visiting a wilderness.
The governments position is that only they know how to administer the land. A position sugar coated with all sorts of heart rending platitudes. "We're saving this for our children." "They're killing Bambi's mother." The rationalizations go on and on. But the reality is they are like the over-stretched king that is acquiring more and more but is unable to care for what he has. the properties fall into rack and ruin, but by God he controls it.
So you can argue about the Bundy's methods until the cows come home (driven there by government helicopters that manage to kill many before they ever get home). Make the Bundy's the subject all you want, apparently it serves your own short sided, and ignorant, purpose. But the underlying conflict that the Bundy's have served to bring to light, regardless of the wisdom of their methods, is very real.
So yes, I do sympathize with the underlying issue. That does NOT mean that I sympathize with the Bundy's methods.
Ishmael
THIS
Thread.
The issues surrounding Bundy and his family are much greater than the Bundy's themselves. The initial confrontation at the Bundy ranch was NOT precipitated by the Bundy's themselves, at least not so far as the gathering of sympathizers. The second confrontation in Oregon was precipitated by the Bundy's. At that time, in that thread, I opined that the methods used were doomed to failure and they had picked the wrong place to make a stand. On the other hand I did voice sympathy for what they were trying to point out.
And what they were trying to point out is this. For the past several decades the Federal government has been seizing land throughout the west. Some by imminent domain, other lands by making it impossible for the owners to engage in legal trade. A form of extortion, or blackmail, if you will. Most often these seizures revolve around water, a priceless resource in the west.
The Federal government is acquiring more and more land while the budgets for the various agencies that are chartered to care for this land are dwindling. Forest roads are being gated and locked, some are cut to prevent access. Fire roads are no longer maintained. The government doesn't have the financial resources, or the manpower, to maintain the property they do have. The Federal government has proven themselves to be poor stewards of the land, very poor indeed. Significant damage has been caused by the poor decisions that the various agencies have made over the years. And most of the citizenry are only aware of the huge disasters caused. The hundreds of small disasters never make past the local news.
Forest fires are now becoming much larger as a direct result of Federal policy. At one time, in the fall, permits were issued for the collection of firewood. Trees were felled in designated areas so as to thin the forest (good for the forest and the critters that dwell therein). Not only were the felled trees removed but much of the overburden that is the main contributor to serious forest fires. The fees for the permits were nominal, $3.00 as I recall. The Forest Service made no money off the proposition, but they got a shit pot full of FREE labor. Private individuals cleared the felled timber and the overburden. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars were saved.
The lack of maintenance of the roads, and the fire roads in particular, have made it almost impossible for fire crews to get to the scene necessitating the use of 'Fire Bombers'. The costs of those aircraft are in the thousands of dollars per flight hour. I won't even begin to estimate the cost of the loss of property, habitat, and most of all lives.
The denial of access has placed even more of a burden on those areas that have been left open. A forced overcrowding of natural beauty. Which basically destroys those particular areas and removes the reasons that people visit the wilderness areas to begin with.
So why is the government hell bent on acquiring more and more property that it has neither the resources (money and equipment) nor the manpower to maintain? More particularly why is the concentration on acquiring lands that have water resources? Why, when time and time again they have proven themselves to be horrible stewards of the land?
If I can control your water, your access to health care, what you are able to buy, well, for all intents and purposes I have you by the balls. You are no longer a free man, you are a sharecropper, a laborer forced to buy from the 'company store.'
I can readily see how city dwellers would gravitate towards the governments position. After all, they've already become sharecroppers and slaves to the company store. They dream of those wide open spaces, spaces that 99.9% of them will never visit, don't understand, and if the government has it's way they never will. And a guided tour of Yellowstone is NOT visiting a wilderness.
The governments position is that only they know how to administer the land. A position sugar coated with all sorts of heart rending platitudes. "We're saving this for our children." "They're killing Bambi's mother." The rationalizations go on and on. But the reality is they are like the over-stretched king that is acquiring more and more but is unable to care for what he has. the properties fall into rack and ruin, but by God he controls it.
So you can argue about the Bundy's methods until the cows come home (driven there by government helicopters that manage to kill many before they ever get home). Make the Bundy's the subject all you want, apparently it serves your own short sided, and ignorant, purpose. But the underlying conflict that the Bundy's have served to bring to light, regardless of the wisdom of their methods, is very real.
So yes, I do sympathize with the underlying issue. That does NOT mean that I sympathize with the Bundy's methods.
Ishmael
