Feds Sentence Oregon Ranchers to 5 Years in Prison for Setting Preventative Fire

[Wilikon]

Today two Oregon ranchers were sentenced to five years in federal prison under terrorism statutes for setting preventative fires on their own land. We are gravely disappointed at this outcome.

Elderly Harney County rancher Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, a former OFB Board member and Harney County Farm Bureau president, have already served time in federal prison for their mistakes and paid their debt to society for the less-than-140 acres of BLM land that was accidentally impacted by the fires.

This is an example of gross government overreach, and the public should be outraged.

Today’s verdict is also hypocritical given BLM’s own harm to public and private grazing lands, which goes without consequence. It is unjust. OFB worked on this case quietly behind the scenes with BLM through the spring and summer. That diligent diplomatic effort was fruitless.

This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers, foresters, and others who rely on federal allotments and permits. It will harm the positive relationship many ranchers and organizations have worked to forge with the BLM, and undermine the cooperative spirit most ranchers have brought to the bureau in helping the health of the range.


http://www.oregonfb.org/2015/10/07/statement-oregon-farm-bureau-president-barry-bushue-sentencing-steve-dwight-hammond-years-federal-prison/

[pungopete468]

That constructive relationship between ranchers and the BLM is no longer required...

Who wouldn't have seen this coming though? These lessons exist in human history; going back millenia in human history...

Oh well, we only exist within the frame of a century anyways, it's easy to selfishly throw the unborn generations under the bus...

[BADecker]

Some thoughts.

All charges done under terrorism laws are trumped-up charges.

Probably, the sentences were excessive. These ranchers were probably being made an example of to other ranchers in the area.

Let's check for damages done by the fires. If damages were done to public property, restitution should be made by the ranchers.

If the fires were done on public property under contract to the ranchers, they may have broken some terms of the contract.

If the property was wholly owned by the ranchers, and if they had the fires completely under control, the judgment was unjust.

If there was no harm to people, or damages done to property of others, the ranchers should have brought, and still can bring, claims of unjust complaints against them by whomever brought the complaints against them in the first place.


The point is, we don't know enough about the details of this case to make a right judgment... except in one area. The usage of terrorism laws should be against the legal system whenever it is used in this manner.