OK…I’m reading up on an alternative hypothesis right now…combo of poorly watered lands and a misapplication of Eastern government land management policies in the West (mainly, divvying the land up into unsustainably small parcels like they did back east) seems to be emerging from what I am reading.
Which led to a history of it actually being easier for competing interests in the West to try and leverage government to get them what they wanted as opposed to seeing what would happen if the land was managed privately.
He should have renewed his permit for cattle grazing in 1993 and tried to sue within the system or something along those lines. Instead he grazed his cattle for five years “illegally” and let the issue fester.
I don’t dispute that at all, especially with Clinton just elected to office. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think however, that the permit was there for the taking.
And I am not shilling for the BLM, I certainly don’t support every action they have taken.
But in the end, the Hammond’s choose the route of confrontation. Yes, I understand things have happened to them that perhaps should not have happened in the past. But that does not justify the route they took. If the government was to give in and renew their permit, that would encourage every extremist in the west to rise up. Denying the permit will let everybody know, once and for all, confrontational tactics and arson will NOT be rewarded.
Bottom line, if they feel they have been aggrieved by the BLM, the federal courts are their ONLY option for seeking redress.
I certainly don’t stand with the Plaintiffs in this case, who frankly have pushed policies that have led to the situation we have now, particularly by stopping LAWFUL BLM sanctioned controlled burns. But they had standing to bring this case against the BLM and the limited outcome of this case, denial of Hammond’s permit, is acceptable.
Yes, city slickers have no idea the problems they cause for rural farmers. It seems they don’t care or want to hear what they have to say. And it plays out all across the country, not just out west.
That is an amazing post. Simply amazing. And it’s horse manure.
That one statement alone is worth the price of admission. It completely ignores 230 of American history.
Are you claiming you knew Hammond had permission for a fire for which he was later prosecuted and that there was a recording? For example.
Civil disobedience in the face of government oppression by petty bureaucrats is as American as it gets.
Rosa Parks, get your ass in the back of the bus, the judge king has ruled. Samuel Adams, don’t touch that tea! Sit ins in universities, you’re trespassing.
I would disagree with you here. The west is the west. I live in the east. I privately own several hundred acres over several States. All rural, all non-agricultural, most either old growth forest or regrown forest.
Some of that is pure hunting and recreational acreage, totally unimproved in any way. Some of it surrounds my two main residences. With all that excess acreage having one goal in mind, keeping the neighbors at a distance.
Moreover, private land ownership is one of the three key components of production, land, labor and capital. Capitalism (and thus civilization) cannot prosper in its absence.
The deal out west is that much of the west is a **** hole, undesirable for most purposes, while most of the east is a garden.
The BLM generally controls either useless or marginally useful lands. And fortunately, that means the BLM is mostly a western phenomenon.