Okanogan Co. landowners concerned about future of land

[Special T]

The 2 parts that really caught my attention was the fact that 1 the state can back-burn private property with out permission or liability for the damage the back burn  causes, and 2 the wdfw is shorting the county about a million dollars in tax revenue.

So the Hammonds get charged with terrorism for backburning thier property/ lands in thier care, but if the state comes onto my land  they arnt even liable for damages.  Im not really sure what the right answer is but these 2 things run a little contrary  to me.


There is 8 min of video at the news site.
http://www.krem.com/news/local/okanogan-county/okanogan-co-landowners-upset-over-land-use-practices/33446424

OKANOGAN CO., Wash. – Evidence of the summer's catastrophic wildfires can still be seen across Okanogan County. Landowners across the county are sharing some of the same frustrations as the militia group connected to the controversial standoff at an Oregon wildlife refuge.

Landowners are frustrated over land use practices, ranging from grazing to timber harvesting.

Landowners said they have been talking for years about how land use practices in the area need to change. They said the extreme wildfire risk in the county will not change until the state does a better job of managing the land.

“I think most of the people in agriculture that have cattle, understand the roots of what happened there,” said Rod Haeberle.

Haeberle said Ammon Bundy and his fellow occupiers at the wildlife refuge in Oregon finally got attention for what Western ranchers have been saying for years. Haeberle added that neglect and over-regulation is eroding the backbone of American agriculture and is making it more susceptible to devastating wildfires.

READ: Okanogan crews almost on their own to fight wildfires

Nicole Kuchenbuch and her family have been cattle ranching public and private land outside of Conconully for decades. For the last several years, they have been the first line of defense against the biggest wildfires in state history.

“We actually pay to use state and federal grounds, and within those contracts, we are legally required to be the first responders in a fire scenario,” said Kuchenbuch.

Kuchenbuch said it has become a losing battle over the years.

“For the last four generations, we’ve seen a steady decline in the health of the forest,” said Kuchenbuch. “Over the years of non-logging up there, what we’ve got is trees that are growing so densely, they’re not healthy trees.”

Kuchenbuch said that when fire comes through the area, their heavy fuel load causes it to become a catastrophic fire.

Many in Okanogan County said during last year’s catastrophic fire, state and federal firefighters used back burning to try and control the spread, even on private property.

Scott Vejraska lost almost 300,000 acres to the wildfire.

“120,000 of that was back-burn. We didn’t ask to be back-burned. Even on my private property on Omak Mountain. They showed up. I told them not to and they did it anyways,” said Vejraska.

Vejraska said at the point, fire is fire. It had tremendous impact on his family and countless others across the region.

“We understand there’s a way of controlling it, and sometimes, that’s a back-burn. But when you don’t have enough resources, and you light another fire, there’s nowhere to go. It’s just going to keep going,” said Vejraska.

Haeberle said the fires grew and grew. Some of the set backfires were as large as the fire.

Landowners said the worst part of the whole situation is there is no way of recouping those losses, like timber, even for a fire that was technically started at the hands of the government.

“It never gets recovered. That’s half of the sad story. The rest of the story is, in the years ensuing, because it never gets cleaned up and removed. It’s very ready to burn again. It will pile up like toothpicks and the next time it burns, if you think first fire was bad, wait until you see the next one,” said Haeberle.

Okanogan County is the biggest county in Washington. More than 80 percent of the public land is either state or federally managed.

County Commissioner Sheilah Kennedy said it is the 20 percent private land owners burdened with maintaining it.

“That, right there, pretty much points out how much pressure is on the private individuals to be able to carry the weight,” said Kennedy.

[bobcat]

First of all, the Hammonds were not convicted of terrorism. They were convicted of arson.

Second- the state doesn't own much land in Okanogan county compared to the federal government, so if it's being mis-managed that's on the federal government, not the state.

Third, they complain about the fire fighters using back burns on private property- well, that land would have burned anyway. The only difference is the fire fighters got to choose when it burned.

And my last point- professional fire fighters know how to use back burning properly and safely. Private landowners do not. 

[emac]

First of all, the Hammonds were not convicted of terrorism. They were convicted of arson.

Second- the state doesn't own much land in Okanogan county compared to the federal government, so if it's being mis-managed that's on the federal government, not the state.

Third, they complain about the fire fighters using back burns on private property- well, that land would have burned anyway. The only difference is the fire fighters got to choose when it burned.

And my last point- professional fire fighters know how to use back burning properly and safely. Private landowners do not.

Didnt the Hammond's get 5 years for an act of terrorism?

Who's to say all that land that they set back fires on would of burned if they didn't set backfires. I have first hand knowledge of backfires being set on those fires that weren't needed.

I am not a fire fighter but I have been part of setting backfires before with other non fire fighters that were effective. These people were made up of mostly farmers that in small communities that don't have big fire departments have to fend for themselves sometimes and are very capable of setting backfires correctly and effectively

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Special T]

http://federalcrimesblog.com/2012/10/31/a-eugene-federal-judge-rejected-mandatory-minimum-sentences/
A Eugene Federal Judge Rejected Mandatory Minimum Sentences

The Register Guard on October 31, 2012 released the following:

“Mandatory sentences rejected

A judge refuses to send a father and son to prison for five years for burning trees and brush on federal land

BY KAREN MCCOWAN

Rejecting mandatory minimum five-year sentences as “grossly disproportionate” to the crimes, a federal judge in Eugene on Tuesday sentenced an Eastern Oregon rancher to three months in prison and his adult son to one year and a day for deliberately setting fires on federal land.

A federal jury in June convicted the Harney County pair after a two-week trial in Pendleton.

Jurors convicted Dwight Hammond Jr., 70, on a single count of arson for “intentionally and maliciously” setting the 2001 Hardie-Hammond Fire in the Steens Mountain federal management and protection area. They convicted Steven Dwight Hammond, 43, of the same crime and of a second arson count for similarly setting the 2006 Krumbo Butte Fire. It burned in the same area and in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The jury acquitted both men on arson charges in two 2006 fires.

U.S. Judge Michael Hogan agreed with the Hammonds’ defense lawyers that setting fire to juniper trees and sagebrush in the wilderness was not the type of crime that Congress had in mind when it set mandatory sentences of five to 20 years for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy by means of fire” any federal property. The mandate was part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

[bobcat]

Bigtex has explained this many times. It was still just an arson charge. What you have in red is simply a title of the legislation. (Or something like that)

[Special T]

First of all, the Hammonds were not convicted of terrorism. They were convicted of arson.using a terrorism statue for 5 year min see my documentation

Second- the state doesn't own much land in Okanogan county compared to the federal government, so if it's being mis-managed that's on the federal government, not the state. while this is true it doesnt excuse the wdfw for not making its million dollar payments

Third, they complain about the fire fighters using back burns on private property- well, that land would have burned anyway. that is an assumption that is not provableThe only difference is the fire fighters got to choose when it burned.

And my last point- professional fire fighters know how to use back burning properly and safely. Private landowners do not. I know a slew of private land owners who have taken plenty of wildland fire fighting course via thier volunteer fire department. To dismiss someone because they are not a professional in you mind is short sided.

I mostly feel for private land owners who are in a catch 22. Its harder to get permission to log. If i set a fire and it hits federal property i can be charged 5 year min in prision, and perhaps im willing to take the chance that my place might not burn and dont want a back burn on my place.

Im not a firefighter, I dont own any land in the area we are discussing. I am however pointing out the catch 22 Citizens are in and apparently the Government is not.

[bigtex]

Bigtex has explained this many times. It was still just an arson charge. What you have in red is simply a title of the legislation. (Or something like that)

That is correct. The arson charge is not a terrorism charge, it's penalty was simply enhanced by a law/bill that had the word terrorism in it. The same bill/law could've been called the "Federal Lands Protection Act" and nobody would say anything about terrorism. It's not even found in the terrorism section of the US Code.

Nobody in the US Attorney's Office (federal prosecutor) has called the Hammond's terrorists.

And in fact, Oregon state law also carries a 5 year minimum sentence for arson...

[Special T]

Ok i will take the word "Terrorism" out of my argument, but the facts still remain that whats good for the feds or State should also be good for the citizens... This catch 22 is neither fair or right.

[bigtex]

2 the wdfw is shorting the county about a million dollars in tax revenue.

It's not WDFW shorting the county $, it's actually the legislature.

It's the legislature who has actually written into law the past 10 years or so how much $ counties get for WDFW land, before that time it was a calculated formula. Budgets went bad and the legislature said we cant give all this money to all these counties so were just going to give you X amount. As part of this they limited the payments to only eastern WA counties. WDFW has worked with the WA Assoc. of Counties the past 2 years to create legislation which well benefit both WDFW and counties, but legislators won't pass it.

And to top it off, counties now retain all fine money for fish and wildlife offenses (with the exception of civil fines). Prior to a few years ago counties either got fine money or $ for WDFW lands, not both. Now they get both.

[Special T]

As always thank you for clarifying Big Tex

[Landowner]

The reality is that farmers and ranchers are often the first line of defense against a fire on the move.  Farmers and ranchers put out a lot of fires.  Unlike the "professional" firefighters, farmers and ranchers (usually) immediately and aggressively attack fires very effectively. 

But backfires?  Bad idea and often risky for anyone to do it.    And the "pros" should not be setting back fires on private ground without permission of the landowner, or unless  imminent danger to life is present without a backfire. 

 

[Eli346]

Bobcat
 The Hammonds were sentenced on an arson charge and served their sentence. Then a corrupt federal judge accused of stalking an attorney came in and reviewed the case and upgraded it to terrorism and said they had to do at least 5 years instead of the original 8 mos and 12 mos that they served.
 Now they've got the same thing happening in New Mexico over water rights. It's going to be fiasco just like the Hammond's case and it's not going to end there. Coming soon to a county or state near you!

[Special T]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=post;topic=191088.0;last_msg=2528385

Farm bureau leader calls out feds on burn policy

By Dan Wheat

Capital Press
Published:
January 13, 2016 12:01AM
Last changed:
January 13, 2016 10:22AM
Courtesy of Nicole Kuchenbuch
Nicole Kuchenbuch, foreground, and her husband, Casey, background, herd their cattle down the highway to a home field during the Okanogan fire in August.
1
 of
3
Same practice landed ranchers in jail

OKANOGAN, Wash. — It’s “outrageous and hypocritical” that the federal government imprisoned two Oregon ranchers for a backburn that got away from them and burned a little over 100 acres of public land while federal and state agencies backburned thousands of acres of private land in Okanogan County last summer and were not held accountable, the president of the Okanogan County Farm Bureau says.

“My definition of homeland security is America’s ability to feed itself. There is nothing more important. America has to stop the war on agriculture,” said Nicole Kuchenbuch, a rancher and county farm bureau president.

“If this nation’s farmers and ranchers are forced out of business, America has succeeded in staging her own famine,” she said.

“The media tendency is to turn things into racial or socio-economic issues and vilify ranchers as a bunch of ignorant *censored*s. It’s important to realize the American government is oppressive to all colors of people and everyone just wants to be free, healthy and prosperous,” she said.

Incidents like ranchers and militia occupying the seasonally closed Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns happen when people feel so “abused” by government that “they feel they have no other choice,” Kuchenbuch said.

“I don’t agree with having a standoff, but they captured the attention of the United States,” she said.

The resentencing of Harney County ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond to five years in prison is just one of many examples throughout ranching areas of the West in the last several decades of the heavy handedness of federal agencies in acquiring more land and squeezing out ranches to satisfy environmentalists who want a national park from the Yukon to Yellowstone, Kuchenbuch said.

The government agencies deny squeezing ranches.

It’s not coincidence that agencies have bought many Okanogan County ranches and that there have been problems between the government and ranchers in Nevada and other Western states, she said.

“We believe they are systematically squeezing us out. They use every means possible. Direct buyouts, conservation easements, fire, sage grouse and wolves. The Endangered Species Act. Sometimes they pay 10 times the market value and every parcel sold jeopardizes those left,” Kuchenbuch said.

“We do not trust that they will leave people alone, as witnessed with the Hammond family,” she said.

Burned out by wildfires

A couple of dozen ranches have been burned out by wildfires that burned more than 1 million acres of Okanogan County in the past two summers. State and federal grazing allotments cover 50 to 80 percent of that, Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen’s Association, has said.

Ranchers are hard-pressed to find grazing land. One-third of 600,000 acres burned in the Okanogan, Tunk Block and North Star fires in 2015 was caused by agency backburning, Okanogan County Commissioner Jim DeTro has said.

Ranches in several parts of the county lost private timber, grazing grounds, hay, barns and equipment to agency backburning that ranchers opposed.

Kuchenbuch, her husband, Casey, and her father, Rod Haeberle, fought a fire alongside firefighters on their ranch last summer and begged them not to backburn 1,000 acres of their private land.

The agency did it anyway to protect homes but destroyed Haeberle Ranch timber, miles of fencing, the family’s mountain cabin and a set of corrals.

“We were told afterward that there is no restitution for our losses,” Kuchenbuch said.

Touchy subject

Backburning is so touchy that agencies don’t talk about it on their radios, rather commands are given in person, she said.

The homes could have been protected had the U.S. Forest Service allowed the Kuchenbuchs and Gebbers Farms to continue building a firebreak from private ranch land onto forest service property, she said. But the agency never fought the fire offensively, only defended homes, she said.

The forest service has said it doesn’t attack fires when it’s not safe to do so but that its goal in the Okanogan was to put them out.

Protecting towns was the priority and fire resources were spread so thin that rural residents were left to fend for themselves in many places, Kuchenbuch said.

When that happens, they don’t have time to wonder whether a backburn they do or other efforts are legal, she said.

“We are forced to defend ourselves in any manner we know. If the Hammonds (in Oregon) are arson-terrorists, then so were a whole lot of people up here including the agencies and civilians who did whatever they needed to save their property,” she said.

“It’s hypocritical for the government to employ the same practices they convicted the Hammonds of,” she said.

The Hammonds, who have already served sentences in jail, should be pardoned, she said.

“The law needs to be fixed,” she said. “So they don’t make common citizens into criminals.”