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.
Control burns aren't arson, everybody does them. You never know for sure that they won't get out of hand. I think they are pretty scary myself, but they are the best method for getting rid of junipers.
The fire in question was not a 'controlled burn', it was arson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elan
Control burns aren't arson, everybody does them. You never know for sure that they won't get out of hand. I think they are pretty scary myself, but they are the best method for getting rid of junipers.
From what I am reading I can't find "poaching" being an issue as some are claiming. Why would cattle ranchers poach......this makes very little sense.
As for the fire most likely not a wise move, but fines can be placed and that seems would help to regain some loss of barren land. My guess a lot of dirt was on fire in that area, this is not the forest out there. The old man is 73, should he really be in jail for an accidental fire or as the family is saying, "a fire they were trying to stop it from coming on to their land?"
Another thing I read, this is not the Hammond Family involved in the stand-off, we most likely shouldn't blame them for more than is already being told.
First off, no one in the government is blaming the Hammonds; they are obeying the order that they return to jail and they have stated they are not connected to the insurrection. Those people, connected to Cliven Bundy, have been looking for a cause célèbre some time and apparently they've found it. (Prior to this, one of them was in Phoenix causing trouble at mosques.)
No, there is not a forest on the land the Hammonds were renting, there is grasslands where deer and other wildlife graze, just as their cattle do. Most wildfires that start in a desert climate are wildfires, not forest fires.
According to evidence presented at their trial, the Hammonds were setting off small controlled burns on the land they did not own, in the hopes of keeping the grasses intact so they could continue the illegal poaching they were said to be doing. The fires got out of control and more than 100 acres of Federal land burned. Just because people own cattle doesn't mean they have no desire to kill other animals.
Citizens can't be setting fires on public land FOR ANY REASON. It's illegal for safety as well as financial reasons. In any case that has little to do with the people who are currently demonstrating. They are angry malcontents, spoiling for a fight with government agencies for some time, whose actions are now moving toward domestic terrorism.
As I noted before, PEACEFUL demonstrators do not carry weapons capable of mass murder.
Citizens can't be setting fires on public land FOR ANY REASON. It's illegal for safety as well as financial reasons. In any case that has little to do with the people who are currently demonstrating. They are angry malcontents, spoiling for a fight with government agencies for some time, whose actions are now moving toward domestic terrorism.
As I noted before, PEACEFUL demonstrators do not carry weapons capable of mass murder.
The fire to burn noxious cover, in this case juniper, was legal and started on their own land.
Yes. It got away from them. The Hammonds put it out and self-reported.
Contrast that with the current lawsuit by South Dakota farmers against the Feds when a fire started by the Feds burned 10,000 private acres which benefited both wildlife and livestock, and the Feds refuse to pay for damages.
Or a fire started by the National Guard in southeast Wyoming a couple years that burned thousands of acres of forage used by wildlife and livestock on private land, where again, the Feds refuse to pay.
And your comment about peaceful demonstrates don't... blah, blah, blah. Pure hyperbole.
The fire to burn noxious cover, in this case juniper, was legal and started on their own land.
Yes. It got away from them. The Hammonds put it out and self-reported.
Contrast that with the current lawsuit by South Dakota farmers against the Feds when a fire started by the Feds burned 10,000 private acres which benefited both wildlife and livestock, and the Feds refuse to pay for damages.
Or a fire started by the National Guard in southeast Wyoming a couple years that burned thousands of acres of forage used by wildlife and livestock on private land, where again, the Feds refuse to pay.
And your comment about peaceful demonstrates don't... blah, blah, blah. Pure hyperbole.
The jury found that the fire was deliberately started on federally owned land.
Their opinion is the one that counts.
Last edited by markg91359; 01-04-2016 at 11:07 PM..
Sigh, you folks should read a LOT more of the details on the case.
For example-they threatened to frame one of the firefighters for it if he reported them. Or that one of the witnesses was their nephew-whom they had abused physically.
These folks aren't exactly the nicest people.
As for the charges...they were found guilty by a jury, the judge imposed a illegal sentence, and it was appealed....and they lost. Additionally they dont want the Yall'queda involved.
They didn't harm the land, and they already paid a financial settlement to the federal government for damages (??) and costs it claimed were incurred in fighting the fire (some $400K).
The poaching allegation seems to be fabricated by an unreliable witness. But in any case, they are charged under a terrorism statute, the intent of which is plainly stated to combat TERRORISM, which means deliberate and specific intentional acts directed against "government property" or government employees. It is an abuse of the justice system.
The law should only be applied to the subject matter with which it is concerned. Arson laws already existed. There is no reason to invoke terror statutes designed to deter terrorism for incidents which have no nexus to terror. It is abusive.
Very controversial topics should also be placed in the Politics and Other Controversies or another forum about them. No threads about gun laws, religion, gay marriage, abortion, unions, immigration, healthcare laws, minimum wage, taxes, etc. should be here.
The reason these threads go on and on centers on one aspect of American political polarity, precisely, the notion that the government is, at an aggregate level, a bad thing, and further, that the government is actually an enemy of the people. Any and all actions of the federal government are, in this crowds view, improper, and illegal. Protesting in order for their views to be aired in public is a sacred right here in America, but even that action has boundaries.
The tons of verbiage flowing around this view is simply a redundant mantra of that anti government sentiment. We are a nation of laws, and in spite of this, a huge consideration in a democratic society, many here defend the breaking of those laws when it suits their notions of righteousness. Running red lights, speeding on the highways, jaywalking, driving while intoxicated, hunters trespassing, poaching wildlife, it doesn't matter to these people that they are committing a crime, what does matter to them is their twisted views of right and wrong.
When George Zimmerman was found not guilty these same people were viewing that as a "practical" exercise in American jurisprudence, OJ Simpson, not guilty, and all hell breaks loose. We have laws, we have courts, we have juries, everything is in place for the justice system to work, it doesn't always work to our satisfaction and that should be the final word in any synopsis of our system.
The Hammond's are one thing and the militia is another. It seems as though no one is even remotely interested in the fact that many many ranching families are peacefully operating all around the SW United States, maybe the Hammond's could have taken a lesson in civil decorum from their brethren ranchers. This is about civility, we have protections against the excesses of government, AND we have protection against those excesses from the civilian side of things.
But we know this isn't about ranching, we know this isn't about planned burn strategies, we also know that people who defy the law are more than likely going to feel it's sting, and we all know it is supposed to hurt and restrain, that serves as the divider between those who know and respect the law and those who feel the law is theirs to redefine. Black, white, gangsta, or rancher, drunk, or just plain stupid, all lawbreakers are criminals, and all criminals are subject to our collective punishment.
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.
