Hammond's get grazing rights back despite arson

I tend to think that the BLM was probably bending over backwards to accomodate the Hammonds. The fact that they were actually convicted of a felony tells me that they probably got away with others and lots of lesser infractions. Why the BLM would allow them back into the grazing system defies logic, thus it's politics. And politics can be played by both sides. I sent BLM my comment and hope that many more people do the same as well as contacting their elected officials.
 
OntarioHunter said:
Fighting wildfire properly is a science. And the officials who make the firefighting decisions have the experience and education to know how to best strategize the attack. Clearly the Hammonds do not have that knowledge ... they nearly burned up a bunch of firefighters. On big fires agencies will often hire ("pick up") locals to help out. If the Hammonds wanted to do their part they could have showed up in fire camp and offered their services. Instead they went onto federal land and lit a fire. It was my understanding they lit fires to get rid of evidence of their poaching activities. It was not an issue of them trying to do a good thing.
Click to expand...
In the past big fire agency's use the services of locals. Not any more. When I was a kid local ranchers handled the majority of the fire fighting on small fires on the Custer. Now they do almost none. If you do show up to a fire you will be asked to leave.
 
treedagain said:
The documentary I watched never mentioned the poaching part.
Click to expand...
The authorities knew for some time the Hammonds were running an illegal outfitting business on federal land (without a use permit). One of their cow hands ratted on them and they tried to burn up the campsite to erase evidence. I'm pretty sure that's what was presented in court.
 
antlerradar said:
In the past big fire agency's use the services of locals. Not any more. When I was a kid local ranchers handled the majority of the fire fighting on small fires on the Custer. Now they do almost none. If you do show up to a fire you will be asked to leave.
Click to expand...
You won't make it onto the fire line for sure but there's lots of jobs in camp, driving vehicles, serving food, hauling garbage, etc.
 
BLM has a new program in the last few years to facilitate locals defending their property as part of the incident management team, not sure all the details. The way resource orders and contracts work it's hard to just hire local equipment if you're not in the system, and if you are in the system they want the equipment available non local as well.
 
OntarioHunter said:
You won't make it onto the fire line for sure but there's lots of jobs in camp, driving vehicles, serving food, hauling garbage, etc.
Click to expand...
They are massive money grabs for all involved. Hearing stories from the helicopter and plane contactors about bending over uncle sam were alarming. But it's not just them, as you mentioned everyone from caterers to equipment rental companies have a hand in the cookie jar.

While at the same time there is no interest in utilizing that wood before the fires, but they have millions in cash to throw at fires to put them out.

It's a messed up system.

As far as this lease no other landowner would tolerate what these clowns do. The federal LEO's in charge of this land have allowed these people to not follow rules or contracts for years and to see it continuing is frustrating to say the least.
 
If they are meeting the requirements, as laid out in CFR, for holding a permit/preference, I cannot see a reason why it should not granted.

The requirements for holding a permit, IMO, is a different topic/argument.
 
1_pointer said:
If they are meeting the requirements, as laid out in CFR, for holding a permit/preference, I cannot see a reason why it should not granted.

The requirements for holding a permit, IMO, is a different topic/argument.
Click to expand...
I guess you are right, common sense has no place in the federal govt. I will ask my Congressman to push for language to be added to the appropriate CFR along the lines of, "No one convicted of committing arson on federal property shall be allowed to hold a permit, especially if said arson was committed on the property included in the permit."

I mean, come on. Are you serious? Does that really need to be codified? How are they separate topics in your mind?
 
Yes I am serious. Regarding codification, I would say yes. Without something being in the CFR or a land use plan the federal agencies cannot do it. Application vs. Rules is why I see them as separate topics. How the rules/laws are applied is different to me than what the rules or laws allow.

The BLM has stated that the applicants meet the definition of "good standing" (also listed in the CFR) and meet the requirements of holding a grazing permit. Therefore, IMO, they have no choice but to grant it to be within the laws that govern grazing administration on BLM lands. Were they to not grant the permit, the BLM would probably have had their butt handed to them in court based on their laws/rules and more than little precedence.
 
Unfortunately I think 1_pointer is right here, there's a lot of room for interpretation by the decision maker. Currently the regs read: "Applicants for the renewal or issuance of new permits and leases and any affiliates must be determined by the authorized officer to have a satisfactory record of performance." I also suspect there was a lot of pressure from higher than the field office level to make this decision. The regs are also pretty specific to violations regarding grazing use and not much mention of breaking of other laws. It does include unauthorized burning or other veg manipulation, but I'm sure the arguement was they did their time in prison. If the regs were more explicit it would be more clear cut what disqualifies a permitee/lessee and what constitutes "a satisfactory record of performance."
 
Last edited:
I genuinely have zero idea how anyone, but especially someone who's job is to manage the public estate, can believe these crooks have a satisfactory record of performance when they've violated the lease multiple times and have been convicted of arson on public lands.

If you owned land and they had a track history of similar behavior on your property would you give them another lease?
 
Hell no, and I'd like to think that the decision maker wouldn't have either if it wasn't for being forced to by political appointees, don't know that for sure but seems that prior to the previous administration BLM's stance was their lease should be canceled. If the regs were explicit that previous violations of grazing agreement and laws result in permanent cancelation there would be something to challenge but the current language is weak.
 
kwyeewyk said:
Hell no, and I'd like to think that the decision maker wouldn't have either if it wasn't for being forced to by political appointees, don't know that for sure but seems that prior to the previous administration BLM's stance was their lease should be canceled. If the regs were explicit that previous violations of grazing agreement and laws result in permanent cancelation there would be something to challenge but the current language is weak.
Click to expand...
That I suppose I can agree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ben Lamb
Bad Bill Alert - HB 5108 - Michigan legislature: Allowing Commercial harvest of sport fish in the Great Lakes
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
undercover
U
VikingsGuy
A timely lament . . .
6 7 8
Replies
150
Views
5K
Elky Welky
Elky Welky
SCliving Outdoors
My best whitetail in a few years
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Raisin Bran
Raisin Bran
Nameless Range
Artificial Intelligence and Public Comment
11 12 13
Replies
253
Views
14K
Nameless Range
Nameless Range
Big Fin
FWP Commission to change Gardiner Elk hunting
8 9 10
Replies
182
Views
20K
Wildabeest
Wildabeest

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,048
Messages
1,944,966
Members
34,990
Latest member
hotdeals

Share this page

Back
Top