The Hammonds were convicted by a jury of their peers after a two week trial. That is a fact. There was a burn ban in place when they lit at least one of the fires. That is also a fact. Outside of that I think the sentence was harsh and I would hope that an exception could be made on their behalf, but they had their day in court and 12 people who heard the facts and evidence convicted them.
I live on acreage in wildfire country and homes/property have burned or been damaged near me from wildfires. I have helped my neighbors fight lightning induced fires on their properties with a shovel and my tractor. I burn only when burning is authorized so that I don’t endanger my neighbors or firefighters - I will not burn a brush pile when there is a burn ban in place, much less burn off my pasture to kill weeds (I use Milestone herbicide for that). I view my refusal to light a fire when it’s forbidden as simple courtesy to my neighbors and community - the fact that it is also the law is secondary to me.
I am guessing it’s the same in Oregon, but where I am at the local Fire Marshal and Fire District is the deciding authority on when the burn ban is in place - I believe BLM and the National Forest Service follow their lead or use the same criteria. Wildfires are serious business and cost millions of dollars to fight. My neighbor does not have the right to light a fire on his own property if there is a chance it could jump onto mine and burn my forest, home, and pasture or that of my neighbors.
Thanks for making my point.
The Hammonds had already served (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months) for arson.
The arson charge stems from a back-fire the Hammonds set on their property to stop a lightening caused fire. The back-fire also burnt 127 acres of adjoining refuge land. Prior to starting the back-fire they called the fire department notifying them of their plans.
Five years later the government charged them with terrorism.