I don’t want that either, not sure how you got that from my post?
If the government isn’t willing to protect the refuge from cattle grazing, now that they are in there taking down the fence. Then why not just let them do so when they asked to? If avoidance is the dance the Feds want to do, then why not start by avoiding it altogether and just let them have their way from the get go?
Makes about as much sense as levying fines against people who owe a cool mil in grazing fees already, that they adamantly refuse to pay, seemingly without consequence. All it seems to accomplish is ‘the appearance’ of taking action against them.
I find the Feds approach to this quite baffling. It makes less sense every day.
I think that the Feds are playing it smart. What would it take for the occupiers to stay? Something that galvanises them. An enemy. A fight. Some adversity. What will it take for them to fall apart? Boredom. Disinterest. Being ignored. A sense they are achieving nothing.
If nothing continues to happen the media will lose interest and then there will just be a bunch of sad idiots who are like toddlers whose parents are convincingly ignoring them.
As for the long term, don’t be surprised if the Feds are playing a long game. If the Feds are smart they will realise that they need to engage the enemy at a time and place of their choosing. That will not be a time when the media’s eyes are on them. It will not be a time when a bunch of crazies itching for a fight are wandering around in camo carrying long arms.
That thought had occurred to me, too. But I don’t see why the cops can’t make an arrest every time one of these clouds wanders into town for a pizza, or to drink away the donation fund.
They’re threatening to sell the dildos on eBay. Time for glitter bombs!
Apparently it is a local rancher/supporter who wanted the fence (which abuts his lands) down, not any of the yahoos in the refuge. And I’d guess the Sheriff may have been by his house (the local dude) to ‘unofficially’ say that grazing there would not be a good idea…
But I tend to concur with Princhester’s comments above, ignore them but document and identify, and bring the fight to your ground, not the ground that they are occupying. A flank attack is almost always the more effective stragety than a frontal assault.
That said, if one of the aforementioned yahoos shoots somebody (cop/civiian/government worker), well, the gloves will come off-fast. And I expect (if one of their people has indeed shot someone) that they’ll surrender faster than Lee at Appromattox.
I don’t disagree with what you say, at all. I totally understand the attitude being taken and definitely see it as the wisest course.
But in the big picture, a whole lot of everyone’s time and tax dollars could have be saved by just giving them what they wanted, when they asked, it seems.
Maybe it’s just me, but it looks like a lot of resources, airtime and media attention have been provided…for what? So that with some long, thought out, serious, strategic decisions, it all ends up kinda where it began. With them being permitted to do, what they wanted to do, all along.
Wouldn’t everybody involved have just been better served to simply let them do as they are now letting them do…graze their herd?
No, that’s an instance where the slippery slope argument is appropriate. What’s to say that we shouldn’t then just give away the land to people who forcefully demand it? Why not just let people graze their cattle anywhere without paying even if they are not threatening? Why not graze and clear cut national parks? These are not stupid hypothetical examples, they would be real consequences of doing nothing.
But how is it not, the exact same slippery slope, to just let them do just what they are doing? How is it not an object lesson in ‘just take what you want’ there won’t be any pushback if you make a big enough stink?
I think there’s a slippery slope here, either way. So where is the win?
Look at the fed side for a moment. How many strategy meetings do you think they’ve held? How many background checks? Conferences with state and local officials?
How is that all not a complete waste of everyone’s time, if you’re just going to let them do what they wanted in the first place?
I don’t know, it’s starting to look like a whole lot of busy work, for a lot of people, to no purpose whatsoever.
I suppose the Feds could be quietly hatching something, poised to act, etc. But I’m doubting that’s the case, to be honest.
If your long thought out approach is going to be ‘just let them be’, why not adopt that view initially and save everybody a lot of conferring, just to reach the exact same place? If you were footing the bill for all these people involved, just to end up where you started, I should think you’d be a little pissed, and rightly so.
They’re not going to get them do what they want. My guess is that the strategy is too ignore them and let the Militia raise the stakes. My guess is that they know the Militia needs to keep pushing the boundaries to get attention. They’re waiting until an act has been committed by them where there will be overwhelming public support for action against them. Or if the Militia gives up and goes home they can be collected later at their leisure.
Either way just because there is not action now doesn’t mean they will get away with it.
Of course they’re not going to allow the occupation to go on indefinitely, nor will the ranchers be allowed to graze their cattle on the refuge at will. (It should be noted that, as I understand it, some ranchers are allowed to graze cattle on the refuge in a regulated fashion already.) If the feds did so they would be subject to lawsuits from other interested parties such as conservation organizations.
Of course they’re not going to allow the occupation to go on indefinitely, nor will the ranchers be allowed to graze their cattle on the refuge at will in the long range. (It should be noted that, as I understand it, some ranchers are allowed to graze cattle on the refuge in a regulated fashion already.) If the feds did so they would be subject to lawsuits from other interested parties such as conservation organizations.
At the moment it’s midwinter, and management activities on the refuge are at a minimum. The conditions for the occupiers are at their worst. The feds can afford to wait them out.
This is not out of line with other protests or occupations. The feds didn’t go in guns blazing at the first opportunity. Instead they tried to wait people out for weeks or months before taking forcible action.
No because I think its better to think about decisions and collect information so that you can be sure your decision is correct, rather than going with the easiest and cheapest answer immediately. Deliberation and analysis before decision making is not a waste of money. Otherwise how can you be sure you are making the smart move if you don’t even think about it first? That sort of thinking would end up wasting much more money in the long run I would think.
I am honestly not being sarcastic when I ask this. Have the feds ever “gone in guns blazing” and had it turn out right? No innocents killed, few or no casualties among their own agents, and a more or less general public consensus that they done good?