There is an interesting blog on ThinkProgress by Alex Zielinski and Alan Pyke. I’ll just quote a few paragraphs here so you can get a sense of the gist of it:
Just a few years ago, however, stakeholders including ranchers, environmentalists, and federal agents unveiled an agreed-upon conservation plan for the wildlife refuge sitting in the heart of the basin. It had taken three years to negotiate, but the result — which took into consideration ranchers’ livelihoods, ecological concerns, and local economic sustainability — became a beacon of hope in the region, as well as in other rural communities wrought with similar conflict.
Now, Ammon Bundy’s headline-grabbing occupation is imperiling that accord.
…
In the following decades, tensions grew. Environmentalists wanted to protect the salmon in the basin’s watershed by labeling them an endangered species, which meant taking back huge portions of rancher land along the rivers. Ranchers continued to fight the government for water rights. Government workers — which made up 32 percent of the county — needed reliable paychecks. The Paiute Indians needed the government to protect the ancient grounds promised to them. The Malheur refuge needed to keep its diverse bird population safe.
By 2010, these conflicting interests had reached a breaking point. Stakeholders set aside their grudges to move toward finding a solution.
Ranchers, tribal members, conservation groups, community business owners, and state and federal agencies joined together to hash out an official conservation plan that would consider all parties’ needs. After three years of work, the refuge adopted a 779-page long-term management plan.
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/11/3737719/rancher-history-oregon/
The authors suggest that the Bundy crowd is putting all this in jeopardy, and they quote locals who appear to agree.
What do you think?