I'm not a tinfoil hatter. My impression of the people who were occupying the Malheur comes from the videos in the media and it's not particularly flattering. But I have some questions about the whole Hammond situation.
1. Is it true that the BLM or the Wildlife refuge diverted their water allotment into the lakes and flooded out the land of ranchers who wouldn't sell, then, after obtaining the land from the ruined ranchers, allowed the lakes to return to their normal size?
2. Is it true that the BLM illegally attempted to barricade a county road and erected fencing around a water source that the Hammond had rights to?
3. Is there anyone other than the purportedly mentally ill grandson who claims that the fire was set to cover up poaching instead of as a burn to protect the Hammond's grazing area?
4. Is it true that a judge valued the damages of the acre of BLM ground burned at $100.00, but the Hammond's fine was $400,000.00?
5. Is it true that the BLM conducted burns at an unusual time of year, consuming summer feed, burning cattle and destroying some ranches?
6. Is it true that junipers have been allowed to proliferate on the refuge and BLM land, reducing the habitat for wildlife and the carp have been allowed to proliferate in the lakes, increasing the turbidity of the water, rendering it less habitable for waterfowl?
7. Is it true that a wildlife survey reported that four times as many waterfowl use the habitat on the private land than on the refuge?
These are some of the things claimed on the internet that I'm curious about.
I come from somewhere where criminals are frequently patted on the head and sent on their way. I'd like to see some sentencing with teeth. Kill someone in Chicago and, on average, you will spend less than three years in prison. But $400,00.00 and five years seems unwarranted for an acre of burnt sage.
1. Don't know, although I do know that in the late 1800's that strategy was used by ranchers to buy land at a greatly reduced price under the swamp land act. They would flood an area, claim it as swamp or overflow land, buy the land cheap, then drain the land. I know that water is moved in and out of the refuge for environmental and habitat reasons, that may be in the grazing rights contracts, again I don't know.
2. Blm blocked a road, ended up not being owned by them but still by the county, they took it down. As far as the water, again who knows wether that actually happened or not. It could be swung either way, just because you have water rights doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it or to it, that goes for both sides.
3. A man and his son along with a guide saw the hammonds poach a bunch of dear in pretty much the same spot the fire was reported to have started, I cannot remember if the 3 saw the hammonds start the fire or not. In the press release it states witnesses', plural, so I assume it was more then one.
4. The hammonds fine was 400k this most likely included land damage, but also time and effort it took to contain the 2 fires. I can't find anywhere that the land was only worth 100 bucks, it was a couple hundred acres of land so I doubt it.
5. I don't know enough about wildland fire or its practices to comment.
6. Prescribed burns both on public and private have been used to attempt the eradication of junipers, BLM also has cutting schedules that they implement . Since 2005 more than 173,000 acres have been cut burned or thinned in burns, vale, lakeview and prineville district.
Since 1950 steps have been taken to reduce the spread of Carp in the refuge. Dynamite, rotenone, and basically anything they can do has been tried, they have even gone as far to hire professional carp fisherman for 2 week stints to try to reduce numbers.
7. Again I cannot find that survey although it wouldn't shock me, since 1920 the waterfowl breeding rate is down 90 percent because of invasive carp in the refuge (scientific America). I can go right now to a wildlife refuge and right next to it is a private property, I'll give you a guess as to where all the birds are stacked up at, and it's certainly not because the private property is being managed for the betterment of wildlife.
The Hammond situation as already stated has literally nothing to do with the occupation. I agree that 5 years might be harsh, especially for an elderly man but they new the minimum sentence when they went to trial, I guarantee if they had plead out prior to trial they would have got less time, and fewer charges.