Radical US ranchers

[burnt]

More information for you malleefarmer -

http://www.thefencepost.com/news/18847695-113/two-members-of-oregons-hammond-family-to-serve

Short version - a 74 year-old man and his son are re-sentenced to completing 5 years in prison for 'arson' when a legal burn that they started to clear invasive species from their land spread over a fence and burned 127 acres of federal grass land.

Never mind that over the recent years, thousands of acres of private land have been burned by federal employees' fires - without any repercussions against those who started them.

Also, they were charged with another count(s) of arson for starting a backfire on their own land when lightening strikes started massive fires on neighboring federal land. The backfire saved much of their feed and buildings.

The federal government is calling them 'arsonists' and 'terrorists'.

What this demonstrates is the determined spread of Marxist, totalitarian government oppression.

But some people feel secure with this rapacious mindset that completely disregards the inherent dignity of a human being.

This egregious violation of their human rights is made palatable to the uninformed, gullible public by the application of such labels as 'terrorist' or 'arsonist'.

Or they at least feel secure in this nanny state until it is their own rights that are trampled underfoot.

[dmlfarmer]

Mallee: Burnt has provided links to one side of the story. Here are some links to the other side of the story. It is far different than Burnt's version of legal burning.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/01/dwight-steven-hammond-oregon-ranchers-protest-prison-arson-fire-land-charges-sentences-age-bundy-armed-militia-judge-photos-family/

http://katu.com/news/local/criminal-history-of-the-hammond-familys-arson-conviction

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/03/461831737/of-ranchers-and-rancor-the-roots-of-the-armed-occupation-in-oregon

I am not sure which is right but if your own relatives testify against you in court that you committed arson on federal lands to cover up another crime I am not sure that I buy the story it was a legal burning of weeds.

[grassfarmer]

#YallQaeda #YeeHawd

[Braveheart]

To Forrest Gumpify the situation, and it applies to both gov't and ranchers, radical is as radical does.

[stonepicker]

I'm glad your not my neighbour grassfarmer. Life is too short.

[Grahamp]

i don't feel I have enough information to make much of a comment about Hammonds.

But I will say 5 years for burning 100 acres seems harsh. The first judge thought so as well and gave what seem to me to be a reasonable sentence for what they were convicted of. Unfortunately the penal system in U.S. is beyond crazy so it is not too surprising. What is odd to me is how 2 countries so similar (Canada and U.S.) can have such completely opposite approaches to incarceration. I mean in Canada to actually serve 5 years what would you have to do? In the U.S. Jaywalking would probably do the trick.

[furrowtickler]

What is interesting is when you look at google maps of the south west - from Arizona north through Utah to Oregon you see how much federal land there is in "special" pockets . A lot of special wilderness areas that used to be big ranch lands . It is very interesting to see.
Agree with other comments here , most likely 3 sides to the real stories over these lands and the people involved

[burnt]

dmlfarmer - Some good info in those links.

Your comment about the family member's testimony deserves attention as well since it was instrumental in making a story, laying a charge and gaining a subsequent conviction.

Usually a court of law will not allow the proceeds of a family tension or feud to influence a trial - unless it serves their purpose, which in this case, it did.

This part of the story is one of those "layers of an onion" that also needs to be peeled back to get to the heart of the matter.

Just as in the Cliven Bundy situation, he is accused with not paying grazing fees, making him look like the wrong-doer in that case.

However, did anyone do the research to see when and why he stopped paying the fees? Because that information provides the rest of the story.

Should the Bundys be there? All I can say is that it makes a very complicated and messy situation far more dangerous. And some of their support is not the most desirable either.

But there seems to be an awfully thin crowd of "ordinary people" who will stand up against tyranny such as the Hammonds are enduring so this is what you get...

[Happytrails]

Burnt, you are to be commended for providing some very good information and comments.

It does seem to be a complicated situation until you step back and see the pattern of government actions for the last 40 years. Just one example is how do you justify taking 187,000 acres away from the ranchers to protect birds that are only there because of the rancher's water development? Do people think that the ranchers left willingly? They were bullied out and the Hammonds are just the last ones left to get rid of.

Anyone interested in ranching and rangeland politics should check out Range magazine. www.rangemagazine.com

The politicization of land management is a very big deal in the western states where a lot of land is controlled by Washington.

[Happytrails]

Another link (I hope).

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Might be slanted but sets out the general drift. Don't know how to make it clickable.