Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

Basically, the protestors are trying to keep up a front that they are occupying the buildings and sticking it out, but it's not true. Even from the first week it was obvious that these guys were renting motel or hotel rooms and sleeping there, and just going back and forth to that preserve for appearance-that's why the O'Shaughnessy guy was accused of drinking up the donations in bars. They were all staying in hotel or motel rooms, maybe had a crew on all night just in case someone tries to re-take the building.

Considering that they really weren't disrupting anything much by taking over a bird preserve, and it's cold as hell in that area, (whatever happened to those "mild" winters I hear about in the Pacific Northwest?), I figure the cops will just keep tabs on these guys and wait until they get tired of nothing happening while they wait in the cold. Very likely bickering and arguments will commence as the winter continues, informers can possibly be had as time goes on, and then the authorities can come up with a non-violent plan.

Quote Blickers:


Quote coldjoint:


Ah! So you just admitted you DO want Bundy & Co as martyrs. You didn't even bother to deny it.

Why would good parents take their children out of school and then take over a Federal Park, show off their guns then forget to bring food?

Thanks for the clarity.

Quote Blickers:

Quote coldjoint:


Sorry, when your response to a direct accusation is the equivalent of, "Oh yeah, you do it too", it counts as a confirmation.

At protest, only one rancher renounces federal grazing contract
Source: Associated Press

At protest, only one rancher renounces federal grazing contract
Associated Press
Saturday, January 23, 2016 9:13pm

BURNS, Ore. — A rancher from New Mexico on Saturday renounced his U.S. Forest Service grazing contract at an event held by an armed group occupying a national wildlife refuge in Oregon to protest federal land use policies.

Adrian Sewell of Grant County, N.M., took the action at the event attended by about 120 people at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. A group led by Ammon Bundy began occupying the area in eastern Oregon on Jan. 2.

Bundy has said the federal government has no authority to enforce federal grazing contracts with ranchers.

Sewell said he didn't mind being the only rancher to renounce his federal contract at Saturday's gathering. "I don't mind standing out and standing alone," he said.

Read more: http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/at-protest-only-one-rancher-renounces-federal-grazing-contract/2262566

So in other words, out of that 150 militants taking over the bird sanctuary, only one of them actually repudiated the issue the whole protest is about. All the other militants don't even know why the hell they are there.

What a crew.

If they think the price of federally owned land is too steep, they can always buy their feed on the open market. I'd be happy, knowing the robber ranchers had to pay fair price as determined by their rancher neighbors and cronies of the huge farms. Unfortunately, most who sniff around at the booths hoppind I actually wouldn't care if the

They believe hypocrisy is a virtue.

Bullies of Burns: the Backstory on the Hammonds
January 22, 2016

by George Wuerthner
Dwight Hammond and his son Steve, the ranchers who sparked the recent Harney County protests, were characterized as “responsible ranchers” by Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR) in a speech before Congress.

Walden sought to minimize the crimes the Hammonds have committed by suggesting they merely burned a bit more than a hundred acres, something that he tried to compare to normal everyday range management by federal agencies. So what’s the problem? The problem is that Walden is ignoring decades of violations and other crimes committed by the Hammonds.

Despite their bad behavior, it has been revealed that the Hammonds are negotiating with the BLM to get their grazing permit reinstated after the BLM revoked it for their numerous violations and crimes.

The Bundy gang that is holding the Malheur Refuge and Harney County residents as hostages, characterized the Hammonds as victims of government “overreach” and are demanding that the Hammonds get their permit reinstated as one of the conditions they required to leave Harney County.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/22/bullies-of-burns-the-backstory-on-the-hammonds/

Oregon Ranchers Who Sparked Standoff Threatened to Wrap Official’s Son in Barbed Wire and Drown Him

There are new revelations on the conflict between two local ranchers who have clashed with federal government agencies for decades.
By Arun Gupta / Raw Story
January 22, 2016


With the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge almost three weeks old and tempers fraying at a community meeting in the nearby town of Burns, Oregon, one voice has been absent from the drama: the Fish and Wildlife Service employees whose work has been disrupted and offices turned into an armed camp by anti-government militants.

In a Raw Story exclusive, former and current employees of the Malheur Refuge have provided new revelations on the conflict between Dwight and Steve Hammond, two local ranchers who have clashed with federal government agencies for decades. The employees claim the Hammonds illegal grazing was damaging the refuge that’s home to 320 bird and 58 mammal species. They allege the Hammonds lawbreaking ranged from aerial hunting of animals in the refuge to death threats against employees and their families to cattle grazing that was altering the entire species composition of critical ecosystems.
ADVERTISING

The Fish and Wildlife Service did not return a request for comment. Sources say there is a gag order on employees now that the FBI is in charge of monitoring the occupation by Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and his supporters.

The beef the Hammonds currently have with the feds is over access to land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. More than 20 years ago the Hammonds also had a permit for grazing on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. That was canceled in the mid-90s because of what officials say was the Hammonds’ constant violation of the permit’s terms. Today, the FWS is still caught in the middle because the Hammonds need to cross the 187,700 acres of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge to access the BLM land on which their cattle are allowed to graze.

Marvin Plenert, 80, who served as Northwest regional director for the Fish and Wildlife Service from 1986 to 1994, says the agency tried to accommodate the Hammonds. “We gave them a day to cross through the refuge and they took two or three weeks to do it. They were in your face about everything. They kept pushing the envelope, cut fences, cattle wound up in the refuge illegally.”

Plenert’s tenure overlapped with that of Forrest Cameron, 67, who served as the Fish and Wildlife Service manager of the Malheur Refuge from 1989 to 1999. Cameron, who now lives in Portland and is retired like Plenert, had numerous run-ins with the Hammonds.

In his first in-depth interview since the occupation began, Cameron says the conflict between the Hammonds and the Fish and Wildlife Service goes back to the 1980s when they leveled death threats against the previous refuge manager. Cameron says during his time “one way or another the Hammonds were violating their permit” for grazing cattle on refuge lands. He says it was an ongoing issue and, “They’ve done so many illegal activities that never got to a courtroom.”

“Some violations were not significant,” says Cameron, “and we figured we could correct it by talking to them.”

Once, however, a biologist employed at the refuge reported, “The Hammonds were aerial gunning coyotes on the Malheur Refuge, which is illegal.” Cameron claims the Hammonds had an airplane at the time. “They were flying to shoot coyotes on their (own) land, and we didn’t have a problem with that.” The biologist allegedly witnessed the Hammonds’ plane “flying low, turning tight corners, and shooting, and it was over refuge property.” The issue was raised with the Hammonds “and they claimed they were not over the refuge.” Cameron says, “There were so many other contentious things going on that was one incident we didn’t push.”

In the 1990s the conflict with the Hammonds stemmed from the Fish and Wildlife view that their cattle were damaging the Malheur refuge. It was the following decade that the Hammonds illegally torched BLM lands, landing them in the clink for five years each and sparking the takeover.

It’s now well-known that Malheur, an oasis in the arid Great Basin that spans six states, is called “one of the crown jewels of the National Wildlife Refuge System.” It’s a “crucial stop along the Pacific Flyway and offers resting, breeding and nesting habitat for hundreds of migratory birds and other wildlife.” But the little-known story is how years of uncontrolled grazing by Hammonds and other ranchers were sending shockwaves through the refuge.

Cameron says when he arrived at Malheur in 1989, relations were “fairly good” with local ranchers, and about 30 of them had permits for grazing and haying on refuge land. Prior to his arrival changes had been made to match grazing policies with enforcement. He says National Wildlife Refuges allow public recreation in any way feasible. “That can be hunting, fishing, birdwatching, hiking — as long as it’s compatible with the wildlife on the refuge.” Cattle had been grazing year-round on Malheur, but the policy has a higher threshold for economic uses like grazing. “It has to be beneficial to wildlife or otherwise we don’t allow it.”

Implementing the prescribed grazing practices led the Hammonds and Fish and Wildlife Service to butt heads in the early 1990s over the Bridge and Mud creeks and a watering hole for birds. Cameron says Hammonds’ cattle would get into Bridge Creek, a deep canyon, “until someone drove them out.” The cattle would devour woody plant species crucial to the ecosystem.

With the loss of the anchoring trees, the banks started eroding. Cameron says the creek would “become like a drainage ditch and the water table in the meadows around the creek would start dropping.” The effects rippled through the meadow, altering the entire species composition. Unable to reach water, grass would die off, sagebrush and other undesirable species would take root, and ground-nesting birds would lose breeding sites. He says, “Studies show 80 percent of the wildlife that lives in the Great Basin depends on a healthy riparian habitat, and that’s what was along Bridge Creek.”

Cameron oversaw the rebuilding of fences around the refuge that had been wiped out by floods in the 1980s, removing some corrals for cattle that were of little use under the new grazing guidelines, and restoring habitat. He claims corrals in areas where cattle grazed “enticed the Hammonds to leave them there and they would get into the riparian areas, rather than moving them through the refuge.” Both Cameron and Plenert, the former regional director, say the Hammonds would leave their cattle on the refuge for weeks at a time, damaging the land despite the clear rules.

Cameron says, “The cattle like to eat the young plants, willows, elderberries we were trying to introduce in the creek banks, it’s like candy for them.” An entire replanting was wiped out by the Hammonds’ cattle and “a year or two later we would go back and try to restore the habitat to stabilize the creek banks.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service built new corrals for ranchers. Cameron says, “It was on dry land, had a water supply, and trucks could get in and out to haul cattle if needed.” As for the 30 other permittees, “We were able to work with them very well. It was really mainly Dwight Hammond. We tried to work with Hammonds but they didn’t want to lose the free grazing they had for a long time. But the grazing was illegal to begin with because it’s wasn’t their property.”

In August 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service tried to fence a waterhole used by the Hammonds cattle as well as by waterfowl. The family disabled a Caterpillar vehicle, blocking construction of the fence, and Dwight and Steve Hammond were arrested and charged with felonies for impeding, intimidating and interfering with federal officers.

The charges were lessened and eventually dropped after the Hammonds entered into an agreement with provisions including a halt to interfering with fence construction and moving their cattle through the refuge in one day, which Cameron says is doable.

Leading up to the 1994 incident were the death threats. Cameron says, “My wife would take these phone calls, it was terribly vulgar language. They said they were going to wrap my son in barbed wire and throw him down a well. They said they knew exactly which rooms my kids slept in, in Burns. There were death threats to my wife and two other staff members and their wives. My family went to Bend rather than be in the community because it was so volatile at the time. The families of my biologist and my deputy manager family had to relocate as well for a short time.”

“At the refuge headquarters, one of the Hammonds said they would tear my head off and **** down the hole. One of the Hammonds told my Deputy Manager, Dan Walsworth, they were going to ‘put a chain around his neck and drag him behind a pickup.’” Cameron says it became practice “never to meet with the Hammonds alone and usually to have a law enforcement officer present.”

Despite the mediated settlement the Hammonds continually violated the permit for the Malheur refuge, says Cameron, so he cancelled their permit. The Hammonds went through an appeals process with Plenert upholding the decision to revoke the permit.

By the time he left Malheur Refuge in 1999, Cameron says the “Bridge Creek canyon was slowly healing. But if the cattle got in there for a week, all the restoration would be lost.”

Cameron says he does not know the conditions of the habitat now, but the atmosphere in Burns and Malheur seems to have deteriorated.

One current employee at Malheur refuge, who asked to be identified as “Steven,” says, “It is a really frightening time for workers on the refuge. They are demoralized and afraid. Workers have asked to be transferred out of Harney County.”

Steven claims Malheur Refuge employees were told last year, “Pull Fish and Wildlife Service insignia off trucks. We were warned to keep our heads down and not get near the Hammonds property.”

The occupation by the Bundys and their armed supporters are also affecting wildlife. Steven says, “There are a pair of great horned owls that are nesting in the watchtower that the militia is occupying as a sniper tower. Last year the owls had five fledglings, which is outstanding, and they are supposed to be coming back in January to nest. This is about the habitat, not the Bundys.”

An open letter from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge staff that appeared on its Facebook page on January 19, stated, “We believe many in the media (as well as those sympathetic to the illegal occupiers) were surprised to hear that the community—while frustrated with the Hammond situation—did not leap to the support of the militants. We are not surprised.” The unnamed writers said refuge employees had been part of Harney County for over 100 years, and “nearly 40% of working adults” were employed by the government. They concluded with the hope that “ this difficult situation will lead to even stronger bonds between the Refuge and the community that has supported us. We feel for you, because we are you.”

No one knows how it will end, particularly now that a militia spokesperson says they have “no plans to leave.”

Marvin Plenert says that worries him as it “sets a precedent for other wildlife refuges. There are about 500 refuges, and a lot are isolated refuges in rural areas. A group could take over any refuge, any BLM headquarters, like they did at Malheur. It’s a scary situation, I hope we can end this in a peaceful way.”

Arun Gupta contributes to The Washington Post, YES! Magazine, In These Times, The Progressive, Telesur, and The Nation. He is author of the forthcoming, Bacon as a Weapon of Mass Destruction: A Junk-Food Loving Chef’s Inquiry into Taste, from The New Press. Follow him @arunindy or email at arun_dot_indypendent_at_gmail_dot_com.

I thought we were waiting for the new A2K to post our conspiracy theories?

Feeling a tad petulant?

So they didn't threaten a Fed with wrapping his son in barbed wire and drowning him?

You're going to have to actually be specific this time. What did I post that presents a stretch to you?

Did they? All I see is a bunch of undocumented hearsay by Arun Gupta that is backed up by zero evidence. That's is basically the definition of a conspiracy theory.

There is only one conspiracy theory.

"Hoodwinkers are hoodwinking you!"

This theory was advanced in the 1800s by a consortium of earmuff manufacturers who realized they were losing sales with the advent of the the hood, sold by competing clothiers.

Bullshit.

So taking the word of a person who claims to be threatened is a conspiracy theory, especially since other people who worked for the sanctuary had similar accounts? Don't think so.

A conspiracy theory is something like Sandy Hook was a "false flag operation" and that the school supposedly had been closed for several months before the date of the shooting. That's a conspiracy theory.