I don't necessarily agree with the tactics of the militia folks but I do think they have some basis for being there in order to protest the government's actions. Evidently the Fish and Wildlife department bought up all the land around the Hammond's property to create a wildlife sanctuary and then took a number of retaliatory actions against them when they refused to sell. The first fire was a result of a planned burn on their property to reduce Juniper trees (for which they received permission). It burned 138 acres of unfenced federal land in 2001 but no BLM firefighters were needed to extinguish the fire. The second one alleged was 1 acre in 2006 with lightening induced fires burning all around. For that they're facing 5 years in Federal Prison (at least the son is). The dad apparently is facing 1 year. The feds already own more than 53% of the land in Oregon but that doesn't appear to be sufficient for them.
As far as I know, the land used to establish the refuge was purchased over 100 years ago, when both Hammond men were a twinkle in someone's eye.
I have also not heard of any "retaliatory actions" against the Hammonds. What you list as the first of those actions - the fire of 2001 - was actually an action that was taken
by the Hammonds, to cover up the evidence of their deer poaching activities. That's very clear, as a jury of their peers convicted them at trial and a relative even testified against them.
Killing deer on a federal wildlife refuge without a license is a crime. In some jurisdictions - depending on the size of the deer/trophy status, the penalties are extremely high, especially out west.
Destroying the evidence of those crimes makes it even worse. And committing another crime (arson) in order to do so is simply icing on the cake. In my opinion, there's a reason why neither of the Hammonds were noted to be kicking and screaming while beginning their prison term.
They're actually lucky they weren't charged with false statements regarding their "we-were-just-trying-to-kill-the-invasive-plants" story.
I think we should all be thankful that the government owns 53% of the land in Oregon. That means it belongs to ALL of us and we can all enjoy it whenever we want.
Who do you think owns the rest? Cattle barons and ranchers who fence it all off, then charge outrageous usage fees to wealthy hunters from out of state. I guarantee that if that refuge was divvied up and handed out to the locals, today, that's exactly what would happen to the land.
Apologies to all if any of this has been pointed out, already - late to the thread and not enough time right now to read the rest of it!
