Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because it is not part of the charges. Apparently the prosecutor was unaware of the poaching, did not care about the poaching or felt that the poaching could not be proven so did not file these charges. That does not mean that witnesses who were there and may have testified that the fires were set to cover up poaching were wrong.
Prosecutors do not like to lose and most will only take on strong cases. Prosecutors will overlook crimes if they feel that they have a strong case for a more serious crime. There usually is no need to muddy the waters if you have a strong case for a serious crime.
Also in some instances the law can prohibit a person from being found guilty of a person with a crime if they are convicted of another crime in the same incident. I know I am not saying this correctly but an example I know of would be the following.
In Virginia a person who was charged with a DUI and a another driving related crime, I think reckless driving is the one I am thinking of, for the same incident cannot be convicted of both. So people who were charged with DUI and Reckless driving as part of the same incident would often plead guilty to the reckless.
I am not sure if the law has changed.
So perhaps in this case the fact that several deer were killed by this group was nullified by the arson charges because it would be assumed that deer may be killed in a wildfire? I have no idea but I tend to believe that at least a few people believe he was poaching.
Well, I am all against poaching and have very little sympathy for that. Thanks for explaining this makes sense. If this fire was an accident or planned fire that got of control. Is this really about taking a ranchers land and using it for something else???
I stand by my question, seems like 5 yrs is a long time for........burnt land, barren dirt, have any of you been to Burns, Oregon?
There were two fires. I thought I read one of them was to kill invasive plant species. I'm not a rancher but that seems like a legitimate concern for someone who makes their living off the land.
My closest experience to this was having horses, we had no weeds in our pasture area until I took them on state land. They eat weeds ( mainly dandelions) and my pasture was polluted with weeds, I could never get rid of. My guess this was the same case the reason for the burn, some weeds will kill good pasture grass. If selling cattle for beef, any good rancher will not want their cattle to eat some weeds and certainly not poisonous ones.
Quote:
I agree. Its like blaming the Gray, Rice and Brown families for violent protesters.
I stand by my question, seems like 5 yrs is a long time for........burnt land, barren dirt, have any of you been to Burns, Oregon?
Though I have never been to Burns (ironic name in this case), Oregon, I agree that it is very strange that the government appealed the original sentence. The two ranchers were convicted of criminal acts and served the time that they were originally sentenced to and were released. That should be the end of the matter.
Given the anti government sentiments in the West and the fact that some people are looking for a confrontation with the federal govenrment, only a totally tone deaf bueracracy would uhmm.... "play with fire" (get it , get it) by having the two ranchers re-arrested and sent back to prison.
Well, I am all against poaching and have very little sympathy for that. Thanks for explaining this makes sense. If this fire was an accident or planned fire that got of control. Is this really about taking a ranchers land and using it for something else???
I stand by my question, seems like 5 yrs is a long time for........burnt land, barren dirt, have any of you been to Burns, Oregon?
The whole agreement of BLM land being used by ranchers is odd to me. I know there seem to be a lot of problems with ranchers being accused of all sorts of misuse and abuses. I am not even interested in this but stories seem to pop up every few years.
As for 5 years for arson. I actually think it is a little light. In California during fire season I would assume it could be much longer. Apparently the Government believes wildfires to be an issue since Smokey the Bear has been around for the last half century or so. I tend to agree.
I have never been to this part of Oregon but I love the North Western part a lot.
The Department of Justice news release said arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Judge Michael Hogan, however, did not give the two men the minimum sentence called for under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, saying it would have been “grossly disproportionate†to the crime. He added that a longer sentence would not meet any idea he has of justice and that he didn’t even believe congress intended that act to be applied in cases like the Hammond one. A longer sentence than the few months he gave them would “shock his conscience†he said.
Moving beyond your intentionally-distortive "They did nothing wrong!" propaganda, we can look at the effect here of mandatory minimums. The 'tough on crime' crowd loves them, though there's not a shred of evidence that they impact the crime rate. I agree that in this case, the sentence is excessive.
Feel free to actually oppose mandatory sentencing and support judicial discretion on principle - and not only selectively, when you happen to like the criminals being sentenced under a mandatory sentencing law.
A few people in the West despise the Federal government and deeply resent that the Feds own (representing the rest of us) and want to be paid for the land and the water we own for their own profit. Some are willing to build up a great deal of debt by not paying for water or grazing. Other ranchers make a decent profit while paying their bills.
If you want to hear Western Ranchers p**s and moan just suggest having the people benefitting from Federally supplied and distributed water stored by Federally built dams pay the full amortized cost for that water. they are even louder if you try to make them pay the full cost of the damage done to the federal grazing land by the overgrazing by privately owned cattle.
Lets cut the Federal Welfare Payments to the people of the West. That would be interesting.
The whole agreement of BLM land being used by ranchers is odd to me. I know there seem to be a lot of problems with ranchers being accused of all sorts of misuse and abuses. I am not even interested in this but stories seem to pop up every few years.
Actually from what I have seen this is an advantage for the BLM and the ranchers. The ranchers pay the state to put their animals on it and the animals eat the weeds, this keeps fire dangers down. Without this arrangement the forest would be really overgrown. One drawback to living near this land, if those animals come onto your property, there is not much a person can do about it. Neither rancher or BLM are there to help.
Quote:
As for 5 years for arson. I actually think it is a little light. In California during fire season I would assume it could be much longer. Apparently the Government believes wildfires to be an issue since Smokey the Bear has been around for the last half century or so. I tend to agree.
Seems they are disputing and even BLM can't say for sure this was intentional. I am seeing more articles about the poaching, this part really makes little sense, unless, they were selling antlers.......seems these would be on the property.
Quote:
I have never been to this part of Oregon but I love the North Western part a lot.
It looks like Northern Nevada........one can drive for miles only to see desert, a possible antelope or the few wild horses left. Once one gets to Bend, the scenery changes for the better.
A few people in the West despise the Federal government and deeply resent that the Feds own (representing the rest of us) and want to be paid for the land and the water we own for their own profit. Some are willing to build up a great deal of debt by not paying for water or grazing. Other ranchers make a decent profit while paying their bills.
If you want to hear Western Ranchers p**s and moan just suggest having the people benefitting from Federally supplied and distributed water stored by Federally built dams pay the full amortized cost for that water. they are even louder if you try to make them pay the full cost of the damage done to the federal grazing land by the overgrazing by privately owned cattle.
Lets cut the Federal Welfare Payments to the people of the West. That would be interesting.
Desert cattle hardly eat a lot of grass, have you seen desert cattle? As for the Rockies you will not see cattle in the forest much, due to the introducing of the wolf, this does not benefit the rancher. Plus, BLM does not secure their fence lines, this is why Bundy's cattle kept going through. It was not Bundy's fencing that was the problem, BLM refused to fix theirs!
Actually from what I have seen this is an advantage for the BLM and the ranchers. The ranchers pay the state to put their animals on it and the animals eat the weeds, this keeps fire dangers down. Without this arrangement the forest would be really overgrown. One drawback to living near this land, if those animals come onto your property, there is not much a person can do about it. Neither rancher or BLM are there to help.
No doubt it seems like a win/win until something goes wrong. Like ranchers killing endangered species because they feel it interferes with their animals or the farmers blocking others from using it, even if they are entitled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds
Seems they are disputing and even BLM can't say for sure this was intentional. I am seeing more articles about the poaching, this part really makes little sense, unless, they were selling antlers.......seems these would be on the property.
Does it matter if it was intentional? Also they have been found to be guilty by a jury of their peers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds
It looks like Northern Nevada........one can drive for miles only to see desert, a possible antelope or the few wild horses left. Once one gets to Bend, the scenery changes for the better.
So perhaps if there are plants growing there someone should not set them on fire?
Also if it is a desert what is the rancher grazing there? What is he doing with this BLM land? Why is he a rancher in a desert?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
