You obviously neglected to peruse the chronological list of retaliatory actions taken by the BLM and Fish and Wildlife departments outlined in the link I provided in a later post that have negatively affected the private land owners in close proximity to the wildlife refuge.
Nope. I read it. But all of it seemed to be purely from the land owners' and anti-government folks' points of view. There are two sides to every story, just as there are
reasons for many of the things the federal government does, especially with respect to natural resource agencies. These are agencies that traditionally haven't been well-funded, meaning they normally don't have the time or money to screw around with people, just to be vindictive. Much of what they do is designed to cut enough corners so that they can simply
survive, and if they limit access to one area of the land or another, there is almost always clear and publicly-stated justification for it. It's not done just to hurt your neighbor's business, which wouldn't pass the smell test, anyway.
But reasons for doing
anything really don't matter to people who already dislike the government are are looking for one more excuse, do they?
Not that the federal government isn't perfect - far from it. When you're faced with the task of trying to serve a country as big as ours and make so many different individuals and groups happy at the same time (which is impossible), there's always going to be a group that doesn't like you.
But if you’re comfortable with the feds in Washington dictating how local acreage is utilized then good luck to you
Again, this is not "local acreage" we're talking about. It's
federal land, no different than a 40-acre portion of any military base. Yup, it's owned by "the people," but ALL of us. Not just the people who live nearby and who (coincidentally) want to make money from it.
What this boils down to is that the vast majority of western federal lands - most of which are actually owned by BLM and the Forest Service - were set aside to be used by
everyone. That includes a rancher in Oregon and a guy in NYC, the latter of whom
may never visit those lands, yet who pays taxes to support them, and has the ability to suddenly decide to visit them and do a little offroading if he so chooses.
Problem is, the people who live in close proximity to these lands and who usually have a commercial interest in using them have a heightened sense of entitlement to use those lands. Partly due to proximity, but also partly due to the fact that - in the Bundy family's case - they've usually been using them without permission or without paying, anyway.
I think the people’s interests would be much better served if the states owned and controlled that acreage.
Yeah, because if a
federal government agency like the USFWS is as "retaliatory" and vindictive as you claim, a
state government agency would be so much better...
BTW, that "retaliatory" and vindictive nature I just mentioned has been clearly evidenced by all the actions taken by the USFWS since this all started: essentially none.
Keep in mind that this agency is led by the former head of REI, who is about as aggressive as a teddy bear, so not only is the agency's reaction to armed idiots taking over their facilities an expected one, I really don't think they have the backbone that would be required to bully people into selling land, put people out of business, etc., a la some Hollywood-esque story line. Yeah, it makes for a great David-vs.-Goliath tale for the anti-fed crowd, but I don't buy it - not when the agency won't enforce criminal laws on their own property. I don't think they have it in them.
