Ed, there is a HUGE difference between the students and anti-war protesters of the 60's and 70's (and the recent Occupy Movement) which you seem to miss in your statement below. Those student protesters were non-violent, they did not arm themselves to the teeth with semi-automatic weapons like the Bundy terrorists. And the Bundy terrorists are very explicit that they will shoot to kill if they are challenged. The students and anti-war protesters were willing to be arrested and dragged off to prison - all non-violently.
The Bundy terrorists are engaged in armed rebellion and sedition. They need to be locked up for a long, long time. Peter Morrison From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Fredrickson Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 2:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Armed Thugs & Protected Areas It does sound somewhat like the 1960's and 70's: "students take over university dean's office" or "anti war protestors occupy army recruiter's office". Even the recent Occupy Movement shares some similarities. This is a typical action for people that feel they have no voice. Maybe we should suspend the name calling and angry spin this time. Perhaps we should be listening, understanding, and working to seek viable solutions. Progressives are beginning to sound a lot like radical conservatives. Let's change the dialog and show the power of reasoning guided by simple compassion. Just a thought. Sent from my iPad On Jan 5, 2016, at 2:29 PM, John A. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: This morning my local paper ran a strong editorial about current events in Oregon, condemning the armed criminals who have taken over a wildlife refuge with threats of deadly force. These people may pretend to be family-friendly, but the fact is they've threatened the lives of federal employees and they're preventing the lawful use of public lands. While I can appreciate there may be local considerations, allowing an armed takeover of a protected area sets a terrible precedent. When thugs are given carte blanche to threaten other citizens away from public property, it sends the message that weapons and extremist rhetoric can somehow justify gross violations of the law. It's hard to imagine these takeovers won't become more common as a result, with an increased threat to the lives of natural resource professionals as well as the lands they work on. This is what conservationists have to deal with in developing countries, where corruption is rampant at every level and legal protections are wafer-thin; but what does it say when we allow it to happen in the United States? Don't we have some responsibility to speak out against it? - J. A. Sent from my iPad On Jan 5, 2016, at 2:29 PM, John A. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: This morning my local paper ran a strong editorial about current events in Oregon, condemning the armed criminals who have taken over a wildlife refuge with threats of deadly force. These people may pretend to be family-friendly, but the fact is they've threatened the lives of federal employees and they're preventing the lawful use of public lands. While I can appreciate there may be local considerations, allowing an armed takeover of a protected area sets a terrible precedent. When thugs are given carte blanche to threaten other citizens away from public property, it sends the message that weapons and extremist rhetoric can somehow justify gross violations of the law. It's hard to imagine these takeovers won't become more common as a result, with an increased threat to the lives of natural resource professionals as well as the lands they work on. This is what conservationists have to deal with in developing countries, where corruption is rampant at every level and legal protections are wafer-thin; but what does it say when we allow it to happen in the United States? Don't we have some responsibility to speak out against it? - J. A.
