The Hammonds were clearly subjected to double jeopardy, at least in spirit, if not by letter of law.
With a nut prosecutor like this, I would have hoped that the judge on the appeal would give more deference to the original judge than to this overzealous prosecutor. That’s the second line of defense (or self-correction) in the system. Do we know anything about the second judge? It should have been thrown out of court, and the prosecutor admonished for over-reach.
People who live in cities on a parcel 100 x 50 have no idea what this is all about.
Taking both the father & the son off the ranch for 5 years each at the same time is a death knell for this ranch. I suspect that other ranchers will step in to help keep it going, but they also have their own ranches to take care of.
The Feds have a stranglehold on millions of acres of AMERICAN land——and they make arbitrary rules & regs for same. Most of these rules NEVER see the daylight of Congressional review. The state of Nevada has 87% of it’s land mass controlled by the FEDS. That means thee isn’t a dime of tax coming from all those acres, and the Feds go out of their way to keep American citizens out of those areas.
The state of Utah has 84% of such control there. These kinds of control do not happen in any meaningful amount EAST of the Mississippi. This is a Western USA problem.
What if the Feds suddenly came down your street & told you what kind of lawn you could have? What kind of flowers you could plant? What kind of trees or shrubs you could plant? What kind of fencing you could have?
The further OVER REACH in this case is that these 2 ranchers set backfires against a range fire & burned small acreage off to stop toxic plants. Since they have GRAZING RIHTS on Federal land,they got charged with TERRORIST actions on Federal land.
That kind of charge belongs with the San Bernardino shootings & the Fed building bombings in Oklahoma. It certainly doesn’t apply here.
Setting backfires against range fires is normal——every single fire fighter does this. In such a remote area, ranchers take the initiative to stop fires on their own. They can NOT wait for some sort of approval from some sort of Fed employee. Also- they would NEVER get such approval in writing, so they would still be in possible jeopardy.
Burning land to help curb toxic weeds is also an everyday occurance. IF they had not worked in such fashion to CONTROL the toxic weeds, would the Feds have charged them with delinquent actions for not being pro-active in such prevention?
When a rancher has GRAZING RIGHTS, they are responsible for all the fencing, the enhancement of water sources (which help wildlife), and other maintenance. It is expensive to keep up those standards, but IF the ranchers don’t use the land for grazing, then the grasses, weeds, scrub brush & other plants create a wealth of fuel for lightning caused fires. Obama cannot control the lightning—I promise you.
The charges of TERRORISM on FEDERAL LAND is waaaaay over the top.
The father & son already served the term that the judge imposed upon them. The FEDS demanding a ‘do over’ with a harsh sentence a thousand miles away from the family is totally wrong.