Maggie's Farm

I don't agree with the situation here in Oregon. There are multiple issues. The Hammonds who were sent to jail did indeed break numerous laws and much of what various bloggers have said about them and in their favor are either wrong or one sided.

Then there is the larger issue of the BLM. In Nevada the Bundy's were wrong, pure and simple. The BLM was right and they should prevail. I fully expect the senior Bundy to eventually go to jail for what he has done since he declared war on the BLM. As it relates to Oregon and the Hammonds, again the BLM is right. The Hammonds often acted provocatively towards the BLM kind of pushing them to see what they could get away with. Now introduce the wetland bird sanctuary issues which required the BLM to make changes to grazing and fencing and the Hammonds and other ranchers are not happy with the new rules. I do understand that; once they had it pretty good and now the land owner (the federal government) is doing something different with the land and the tenant (more accurately user who pays fees) is required to sign different grazing contracts with different rules. That's the way it is when the owner of the land decides to do different things with their land. The land in question does not belong to the local ranchers it belongs to the federal government (that means all Americans) and they set the rules.

The issue of Ammon Bundy and his stupid/suicidal associates occupying the refuge center is just stupid. It isn't a political demonstration anymore than Timothy McVeigh action in OK City. It is a crime. I would expect that sooner or later the Feds will pick him up when he isn't surrounded by his suicidal friends and he will stand trial and go to jail. I would expect that each of his suicidal friends will also be identified and brought before a judge and given an opportunity to explain their actions.

I can add that knowing a few ranchers that they tend to think of those BLM lands they graze their cattle on as 'theirs'. They have been known to chase off hunters and campers with bravado and bullying. It is, in other words, a common complaint among ranchers that the BLM is raising fees, setting limits on grazing, and sometimes putting land of limits. IMHO that is exactly the job of BLM. I assume if they are doing their job well that some will complain. But in the end the BLM manages the land for the federal government and all Americans and the ranchers do not own the BLM land, period.

A common comment will be something like: The ranchers are being pushed off the land and a way of life is being taken from them. This is simply not true as it relates to this sisues being discussed here. The land the Ranchers own is their land and the land they don't own but pay fees to graze their cattle on is not their land. It wasn't their land in the 20th century and it wasn't their land in the 19th century.

The last issue which is simmering underneath all of this but most aren't aware of it is that the federal government may well create the Steens Mountain National Monument. Most of that land is public land and some will indeed by private land. If you were to see the Steens Mountains I suspect that you would agree it is a national treasure and should be protected. I would support creating a national monument there and some people may not feel that way. But I would not be surprised to see it happen soon.

If you believe the bloggers the Hammonds merely set the fire to burn invasive plants or as a backfire to prevent another range fire from burning their fields. But that was a lie. The Hammonds poached 7 deer and did so while putting a group of hunters in danger. The Hammonds realized that the hunters had observed them poaching so they then set a fire to destroy the evidence. Two crimes one of them very serious with a mandatory minimum jail time. The judge in the trial made an error which the appeals court corrected. The Hammonds had a history of using fires to drive off hunters ON BLM LAND! Not their own land but on BLM land. The bloggers leave these things out because it might just make you think the Hammonds deserved what they got.

I do not know. If I had any info on that story I would be happy to share it. But it appears there might be a little truth and a little baloney. Burns itself is a very small town and everyone knows everyone. So all strangers stand out. But Burns is on a crossroads of two highways. Small highways to be sure, not a lot of traffic but on any given day probably 100-200 times as many strangers pass through town than there are residents in town. So did the ex fire department employee encounter strangers who were FBI people? Quite possible although he could have made it up to boost his creds. Were the FBI following and harassing towns people? This doesn't make sense, something doesn't smell right about that part of the story. An FBI agent in Burns would stand out like a Mormon missionary in South Chicago. Common sense would demand a somewhat low profile maybe to look like a tourist or someone passing through.
So I would guess this fire department employee is sympathetic to the Hammonds or the Bundys and is maybe even a wannabe militia and felt the need to be part of the story.

The Hammond’s shot 7 bucks and did this while shooting over the heads of three hunters. Very careless or brazen. One of the hunters is a local guide and he testified at the trial about the shooting and the subsequent fire which they almost didn’t escape. The hunters identified themselves to the Hammonds and acknowledged that they witnessed the poaching. The hammonds response was to set a fire. For some reason only the grandson’s testimony is mentioned in most of the stories of this event so that lack of reporting is part of the reason for the misunderstanding of what happened.

As you represent it and as it is represented in various blogs it would appear that Hammonds were innocently ranching and the BLM were abusing government power to harass them. But as I understand it it is actually the exact opposite. The Hammonds set more than one or two fires and they had a habit of setting the fire ‘on their land’ but adjacent to the fence to the BLM land where the fire would spread to. Understandably this caused problems between the Hammonds and the BLM. The Hammonds would also remove fences put in by the BLM, again on BLM property. For whatever reason the Hammonds followed a trend of harassing the BLM. Was the BLM always in the right? I truly don’t know. BUT many of the things the BLM is accused of doing that bothered the Hammonds were decisions made not by some paper pusher in his zeal to harass ranchers but simply under mandate by Washington to improve the conservation area. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is kinda unique. It sits in the high desert and no matter which direction you approach it from in the Summer you are in desert. Then suddenly you are in wetlands and it is a huge wetland with birds and deer and every native animal in Oregon. Bounded on the South and East by the Steens mountains it is a bowl that collects water. It is a huge oasis. Over the last 50 years the government (both federal and state) have been making changes to incorporate more lands into this and to improve it. Many of those things have indeed harmed ranchers. BUT the harm they experienced was that before they grazed on public lands without any limits and now there are limits, ditto for the water. In the big picture I suspect that the government is doing the right thing. The person on the ground making these changes and enforcing them is a BLM employee. So most likely the Hammonds and other ranchers complaints have some validity but it was not some poor BLM employee willfully trying to be a jerk with them. They should take it up with congress. However I can tell you that I don’t see anyone in government reversing this and turning this huge wildlife refuge into rangeland. If you were to see it I suspect you would agree it should be preserved and improved.

I have never poached a deer. But I have to admit if I owned a 1000 acres in the high desert and thought I could get away with it I might. The poaching wasn’t serious. They would have been fined, lost the guns they used, the game and lost their hunting license for a few years. But what they did was conspire to commit a felony i.e. arson to cover up a crime. That is what they were charged with not terrorism or poaching.

I have nothing against the Hammonds and would be quite happy if their sentence was reduced to time served. I would be happy if they and the authorities buried the hatchet and the Hammonds lived happily on their lands raising cattle. My only dog in all of this is that I too believed what I read until I looked into it. For whatever reason the various blogs have lied or at the least left out everything that

I agree that mandatory minimum sentences are a mistake. The judge and jury should decide with the facts and in the same place the crime occurred. I think mandatory minimums were a feel good law to make victims and victims families feel better.

I don't have a problem with push back. If they are right I will be behind them.

I will disagree about the taking over of the building. In my opinion it was a stupid mistake that could end with violence or more likely with the perps going to jail.

You have increased the scope of your position. I am opposed to breaking the law period, especially while armed.

Mandatory minimums are problematic but I don't really think Bundy gives two cents about the Hammonds he was simply seeking a sympathetic audience, politics on his part pure and simple.

Give the land to who??? I live in Oregon are they gonna give me 1000 acres? The land you are talking about has NEVER belonged to anyone other than the federal government (since 1848 or so, before that it was the Indians). I am not in favor of giving the land to anyone. It belongs to Americans NOT to congress or Obama it isn't theirs to give. I for one don't want to 'give' it away to ranchers or anyone. I can assure you that even in the state of Oregon if this exact issue was brought to a popular vote it would lose by at least a 2/3rds majority.

As I stated before it you saw the refuge you would agree it should be 'saved' not drained or the water used for irrigation and not 'grazed' but as a place for the native animals to flourish. I see nothing on the horizon that will change this, not Bundy and not congress. In fact I fully expect to see the Steens Mountains and the surrounding deserts and perhaps the adjacent refuge be designated a national monument. Should it be instead used as a kind of welfare for rich ranchers to graze more cattle??? Makes no sense to me.

I know a rancher who owns close to 10,000 acres and pays fees to graze on about 10,000 acres of BLM land. He too complains bitterly about the fee increase and new rules. He took action and bought a 300 acre flatland farm and now grows 300 acres of hay to supplement his grazing. He now rears more cattle, makes more money and all this in spite of the BLM rules he complains about. I begrudge him nothing, it's his money, his work and his land. But I siimply do not agree that he should somehow inherit the BLM land he has been using all those years. It was never his, it still isn't his and his actions proved there is a solution for all cattle ranchers that doesn't involve welfare or stealing America's lands.