• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radical US ranchers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #25
    I'm glad your not my neighbour grassfarmer. Life is too short.

    Comment


      #26
      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.

      Comment


        #27
        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

        Comment


          #28
          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...

          Comment


            #29
            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.

            Comment


              #30
              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.

              Comment


                #31
                There is no doubt this land grab by the US Feds has some conspiracy behind it. Be it oil, rare earth minerals, defence or water, there will be an ulterior motive.

                One has to admire any people (like those standing with the Hammonds) who will risk their own future and freedom to stand for what they believe is right.

                I remember from the Wheat Board Wars that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms really didn't protect much in the way of rights and freedoms.

                Comment


                  #32
                  Agree on the land grab .
                  Between big business , investment groups and government they are trying desperately behind the scenes to pull land from the farm families . Been going on since the land was first settled.
                  People in power hate to see the average Joe own valuable assets .

                  Comment


                    #33
                    Hopefully not, but i think the hammond and bundys are going to be hung out to dry.It looks like any group who can gain positive exposure from this is gonna throw them under the bus. Now where is it said again?, wrong will be right and right will be wrong.

                    Comment


                      #34
                      Numerous revolutions started because the peasants had no access to land because rich wealthy landowners owned it all. The biggest threat is a repeat of the wealthy owning all the land. If the free market was to replace our regulated ownership you would have lots of American, Saudi and Chinese owners as neighbours. Libertarians would argue in favour of deregulation. Most of you are in favour of less regulations except when you have to compete for land with wealthy foreigners.

                      Comment


                        #35
                        Another point of interest in this situation is presented in the person who appealed the original sentence - Oregon U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall, a Barak Hussein Obama appointee (which matter has its own set of interesting circumstances).

                        Marshall's colorful journey to this position was immensely surprising to many, if not most, who worked in the circles of Oregon justice.

                        Very briefly, she was predominantly raised by her "free-spirited" mother who is described by her daughters as "a granola girl" and "eccentric". She was also known by her peers as a person of dogged persistence in her pursuit of her goals and a champion of justice.

                        So it came as a bit of a surprise when she resigned from her very prestigious position last April shortly after coming under investigation for stalking one of her subordinates - Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott M. Kerin.

                        Strangely, Marshall responded to press inquires by making it appear that it was Kerin who was the target of the investigation. Not so, according to court documents...

                        Marshall wanted the Hammonds to go back to prison for a conviction that did not sit well with the original Judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan.

                        However, in a remarkable deviation from her usual drive to put criminals behind bars for as long as possible, Marshall was very relieved, several years ago, when her sister was merely sentenced to probation for the criminal charges with which she was convicted.

                        Who said that Justice is Blind?

                        Strange, isn't it.

                        Comment


                          #36
                          The story as told by someone quite familiar with it -

                          http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/fall-15/range-hammond-sp13-enemies_of_the_state.pdf

                          Wow.

                          Comment

                          • Reply to this Thread
                          • Return to Topic List
                          Working...