I grew up in the sticks, in tidewater, mountains, and finally, most of my life, on the prairie.
I have worked all over the Rockies from Nevada to Canada as a geologist, well away from the tourist trails, and along the way, even worked cattle a little out here.
I know the land grab issue from back there where use of land and resources are denied by a wide variety of exclusions, setbacks, buffer zones, zoning and environmental rules which prevent harvesting millions of dollars worth of timber planted by an ancestor nearly two centuries ago.
From here, I have seen the stunts the environmentalists have tried, the attempts to limit access to water and land for ranchers, the attempts to have normally relatively rare critters declared "endangered" to force ranchers to carry land on tax rolls, but not be able to use it.
I understand the issues from the standpoints of water rights, grazing leases, private land inholding access, and denial of use of privately owned lands or the resources thereon--deeded acreage, not leases.
The issue I have with this situation (the original one) is that the BLM burns thousands of acres, homes, etc, in a runaway burn, and "Oops."
The Hammonds burn a few extra acres and they are tried as "terrorists".
This from an arm of an administration which does not even speak of Islamic Terrorists who shoot up a Christmas Party as "terrorists".
That should not have happened, those charges were inappropriate.
As far as back-burns to save their property, I have known that to be done here during a prairie fire, with access gained and backfires set despite the BLM who had blocked roads to prevent ranchers access to their private land, ranch buildings, and homes--and with rousing success. Ranches were saved, and the fire stopped by such 'rogue' measures.
Yes, this is a serious issue, but the American people want a victim before someone can be a martyr, and no one who can be portrayed in any way as justifiably wanting something for nothing (pay the lease fees!).
Those who do own something, and the diminishing number of us who understand what it is to be a steward to your land, to work it not for today but for future generations, are not understood by those who do not own, and who do not know the land but who think that something as dynamic as nature can be somehow preserved in stasis in perpetuity by simply not using it, whether they are Federal employees or just people who don't get it.
Strangely enough, hosts of people from the suburbs who realize that if they don't cut their lawn it will grow tall and turn brown don't get that pasture loses food value past a certain point, and just becomes fuel for the next wildfire, thick with indigestible cellulose of little if any food value.
Allow noxious weeds to proliferate in that grass, and they will take over, rendering the pasture useless for fodder. Allow those same weeds to take over adjacent land, and you will have trouble as seeds blow into good rangeland and choke it with weeds (Why I did not 'get' CRP--and why in a couple of years, the critters were out in the cultivated fields).
While I think the Hammonds were practicing basically sound practices, and should not have been charged, much less convicted of "terrorism", that is what it is.
For people to come there from outside to make this their cause is admirable in a way, that they would use protest to heighten awareness is good.
There is a limit.
Rally people, get information on other abuses and questionable cases, and then skedaddle.
Continuing there, with the various LE and Federal agencies exorbitantly racking up huge bills on the taxpayer's dime wins no one to the side of ranchers.
It only ticks people off, more than it wins over.
As a protest, the law of diminishing returns applies, as it does to any protest.
There comes a point where you can conceivably win, or it is time to quit while you are ahead in the court of public opinion.
This ran too long, gave the Feds a black eye, and swayed public opinion the wrong way among those who don't have knowledge of the problem.
Bad tactics.
Bad tactics.
Outstanding post. If FreeRepublic was given to stating policy, your post should be linked in the header.
Strangely enough, hosts of people from the suburbs who realize that if they don't cut their lawn it will grow tall and turn brown don't get that pasture loses food value past a certain point, and just becomes fuel for the next wildfire...
I'm sure you recall the 2011 wildfire in Arizona, up around Show Low. One of the residents addressed radical "environmentalists" -- not to mention the National Forest Service -- thusly: "Don't come up here in your luxury SUV, wearing designer jeans and tell me you 'love the woods'. You don't know a damn thing about the 'pristine' environment you profess to love."
To my mind, that is a quote for the ages.
I knew a couple in Alabama who spent their summer vacations up there building a cabin for their retirement. They retired, they moved out there...they got burned out and lost everything. Thanks to the NFS bureaucracy's 'environmental policies'....
Check, and mate.
Well done.