The Oregon Revolt explained

[DanWeiss]

Saying that only one acre of land burned by an act of arson doesn't disqualify the act as arson. The same logic would then extend to an abutter lighting your garage on fire by intentionally setting a fire in his backyard. The fact that the fire only damaged your garage but spared your house is irrelevant to whether the act is categorized as arson or not. Likewise, if your neighbor put out the garage fire doesn't mean he didn't commit arson. It means only that he understood the danger and mitigated the damage he caused by his arson.

[mac]

Dan--clearly the convictions of the ranchers, and the animosity between the BLM and the refuge managers, developed over decades. The record, for those who can be troubled with facts, includes multiple violations of the lease terms over those years. Some were proved in a court of law, others could not or were ignored. But the decision to deny the lease is compelling both in establishing the limitations on controlled fires in the lease, and the multiple violations of that term. The resulting jail terms were a result of a pattern of persistent behavior, not for the accidental burning of scrub on a single acre.

Those who see every thing through the lens of government overreach are more than capable of selecting facts to fit that bias, and ignoring all that don't fit. Examine their comments on global warming and you will find the exact same pattern. Facts be damned, I know what I feel! And you want logic?

[mrgybe]

Wooden citation and application of the law without context serves us all poorly. If the great legal minds in Oregon and Mass. can't distinguish between a malicious or thoroughly reckless act, and the successful use of a long accepted fire remediation technique in an emergency situation.........albeit one which briefly spilled over onto a tiny sliver of the vast Federal wastelands..........then the law truly is "a ass - a idiot". By all means apply some sanction........a fine, probation perhaps. But to put a 73 year old man in jail for 5 years.......the same sentence that would be given to someone convicted of manslaughter.......appears entirely unreasonable. It is revealing to perform a little research into the US attorney who so rigorously, and unusually, pursued that sentence. "Activist" and "flake" are the words that spring to mind. Oregon residents will be relieved that she has now been booted out.

With the application of a little common sense, this sentence would not have been passed. The Federal judge at the men's original sentencing in 2012, said that such a term would be unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment. "It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience.". It is alarming that other members of the legal community seem so hell bent on driving this family out of business.

[swchandler]

Wow, it's pretty rare to see mrgybe bring out the violin and play us a tune of pity for a 73 year old man. Why don't we just look the other way, and give the poor man a break?

Yet, based on the man's past history concerning his actions and misuse of public land, I can see why the tables turned against him. Maybe the sentence is a bit stiff, but often there is a price to pay for the deliberate abuse of public land, and foolishly putting fire fighters at risk.

No doubt, getting rid of those junipers comes at a high price. If he wasn't so determined to get rid of them in such a dangerous way, he surely wouldn't be facing jail time. Also, I find it a bit specious that the Hammonds like to characterize junipers as an invasive species, and that burning them out is best for public lands. I'm willing to bet that they are a native species in the natural landscape of the area.

Given the present fate of Dwight and Steven Hammond, I guess they are dependent on whether President Obama feels pity for them, and elects to issue a pardon before he exits the presidency in January 2017. With that kind of hope, I can see why the Hammonds want nothing to do with the Bundy boys and their armed militia out commandeering federal property.

[mac]

Hilarious. Not only did mrgybe not read my cooment closely enough to discern that I understood that it was commenting about the Bundy's occupying the refuge, but he has completely ignored the facts. Arson occurred on Federal land that the Hammonds leased, not on their own land. It occurred repeatedly between 1999 and 2006 and put firefighters and other hunters at risk. The Hammonds interfered with the efforts of firefighters, and openly spoke of their intent to use lightning storms as an excuse to start more fires. They told BLM that BLM's efforts to perform controlled burns just weren't moving fast enough to suit them. They expressly opposed habitat management on BLM land that would benefit endangered grouse, not merely cattle. The poor ranchers are so deprived they used their own airplane to examine their crimes and figure out where to start the next fire. Poor 73-year old rancher? More like the patriarch of the crime family in this year's season of Fargo.

Mrgybe has no idea how difficult it is to secure a criminal conviction--in rural Oregon--for felony arson. But now we understand why he is so passionate about it. The arson destroyed habitat for an endangered species--something that seems to please the anti-environmentalist that gybe is.

[isobars]

[pointster]

[nw30]

Exactly, Western Red Cedar is right along side with Leafy Spurge, Morning Glory, and Canadian Thistle as being the worst of the worst for farmers and ranchers. Just about the only thing that can get rid of those are fire or goats. Herbicides can't touch that stuff, and unfortunately there aren't enough goats to go around, and goats poop out the seeds so that solution is only temporary.

[pointster]

[pointster]