Page 29 - Flathead Beacon // 2.10.16

CLOSING RANGE DAVE SKINNER BUNDY BUNGLERS
GUEST COLUMN KOOTENAI FOREST STAKEHOLDERS COALITION
PARTNERSHIPS WORKING OFOR THE KOOTENAI
PEN THE NEWSPAPER OR sales like Sparring Bulls and South Fork start a conversation about the Fuels and know we make a di erence – Kootenai National Forest and the best way to move forward is from
WELL, LIKE MOST REALLY bad ideas, the Malheur Refuge occupation ended as expected – badly. But I want to discuss what started this mess, the egregious jailing of Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond.
Dwight is 73 and son Steven is 46, and neither are exactly angelic. In the 1980s the Hammonds illegally and secretly diverted water from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Steven Ham- mond has a state rap for “forging a land- owner’s hunting preference form,” and in 2000 was busted in federal court for interfering with hunters on public land. The Hammonds were verbally warned for setting a re in 1999 that slopped over onto public land, and in 2001, the family set a re that spilled over and burnt 139 acres of public land, which according to the Ninth Circuit ruling on the Ham- monds’ sentencing, “took the acreage out of production for two growing seasons.”
Then, in August 2006, while Bureau of Land Management crews were work- ing the Krumbo Butte re, as the U.S. attorneys state: “Despite [a county re] ban, without permission or noti cation to BLM, Steven Hammond started sev- eral ‘back res’ in an attempt [to] save the ranch’s winter feed.”
How large were the back res? The Ninth again: Hammond’s “ res burned about an acre of public land.” Federal prosecutors then brought felony charges under terrorism laws Congress passed in 1996 (in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing). The Hammonds were con- victed and sentenced in October 2012.
For burning grass that might have fed a handful of cows (and seriously ticking o re crews), Dwight Hammond got three months in jail, a year and a day for Steven Hammond. Trouble is, federal law mandates a ve-year minimum sentence, which Judge Michael Hogan refused to impose on what was his last day on the bench.
Judge Hogan ruled following the law would “result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the sever- ity of the o ense.” Doing so, he said, would “shock the conscience” – the sort of “cruel and unusual punishment” our Eighth Amendment prohibits.
But jail isn’t all of the punishment. In February 2014, Bureau of Land Manage- ment District Manager Brendan Cain
denied renewal of the Hammonds’ graz- ing permits, which the ranch had utilized since 1964, totaling roughly 1,500 animal unit months. Think that didn’t hurt?
Furthermore, parallel with the crim- inal prosecutions, the Feds brought civil litigation, reaching a settlement in which the Hammonds agreed to pay the government $400,000. Signi cantly, the civil settlement provided that if the Hammonds had to sell land to pay, the government had rst right of refusal to buy that land. The Hammonds somehow found the cash.
So with that, I’ve joined those who feel ve years in jail for the Hammonds is o -the-charts ridiculous, signing Ore- gon Farm Bureau’s petition for President Barack Obama to grant the Hammonds clemency. No less than the Portland Ore- gonian editorialized that while the Ham- monds “broke the law and should be pun- ished appropriately,” President Obama should “consider” clemency.
Would I sign a petition to go easy on any of the Bundy Bunch? Never. As Ore- gon Farm Bureau put it, the occupation “only harms the Hammonds and the rest of the community because it diverts pub- lic attention and scrutiny away from the injustice that the federal government perpetrated on this Oregon family.”
Getting a sense of déjà vu? Oh, yep. Remember the early 1990s and a cou- ple of government over-reaches, some bloody, ery “enforcements” that raised widespread concern? A congressional blowout election?
Then came the explosive massacre of 168 people in Oklahoma City – Timothy McVeigh’s gift to Bill Clinton’s re-elec- tion campaign – and in a twist of irony, the main reason Congress passed the 1996 anti-terrorism statute the Ham- monds are now being disproportionately punished with.
So here we go again: the Hammond asco was a chance to have an adult con- versation about widespread discontent and the federal policies that are driving that discontent in the rural West. Maybe the adults could at least discuss what con- stitutes cruel and unusual punishment?
Instead, we have the wrong people talking about the wrong issues at the wrong time in the wrong place for all the wrong reasons. Again.
Thanks for nothing, Bundy Bunch.
one topic is sure to come up: Lawsuits. Frankly, this theme can be heard wherever there is a national forest. Peo- ple often feel frustrated that lawyers and judges trump local professional land
managers.
In the Kootenai Forest Stakehold-
ers Coalition, we are waist-deep in for- ward-thinking e orts to restore our national forest lands, supporting our communities economically while pro- tecting diverse recreation, wildlife and wilderness values. We share public frus- tration, but aren’t content to sit on our hands and complain.
The Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition is a collaborative that includes a host of groups and individuals who have been closely tied to the Kootenai for decades. This self-initiated group contains representatives from the tim- ber industry, conservationists and wil- derness advocates, hunters and anglers, hikers, county government, snowmobil- ers and ATV riders.
After a decade of working together in the coalition, we’re proud to announce we’ve reached a signi cant step toward solutions for the forest and surrounding communities, providing an alternative roadmap to the perpetual litigation and divisiveness.
Our solution represents a practical approach made to function alongside the current Kootenai Forest Plan. The coali- tion has found common ground on how to manage the Kootenai National For- est for the greatest good for the great- est number, over the long haul. We’ve essentially adopted an internal guide- line document for land management that informs our comments and partic- ipation within the U.S. Forest Service processes. It’s comprised of three parts: timber harvest guidelines, recreation, and wilderness. This approach moves us beyond old con icts underscored by tired stereotypes, and supports a pro- ductive, diverse and resilient future.
We know that working together in col- laborative e orts can deliver real-world results. We can look at successful timber
the ground up. Although there is noth- ing easy about this approach, we actively participate in what makes our system so incredibly powerful: Democracy. We see collaboration as a way to nd solutions that move us ahead, rather than being mired in inactivity where no-one’s needs are met, including that of the wildlife, ecosystems and communities. In short, we focus on what we agree upon rather than what splits us apart.
We’re also involved in court proceed- ings for the East Reservoir Project. Our coalition played a key role in developing the project and worked hard to shape the project so it could earn full support across the coalition. Now that the proj- ect is the subject of a lawsuit, we have been allowed intervenor status in sup- port of the Forest Service decision. The litigation is moving forward, as litigants try to break down our multi-year e ort to develop a balanced project to bene- t the land, wildlife and communities. Restoring watersheds and creating pros- perous communities are not mutually exclusive endeavors.
The roadmap agreement developed in the coalition is our solution to produce results with a better chance of with- standing the courtroom. We understand the Forest Service is the ultimate deci- sion maker, and we believe our support improves their chances for success. We also recognize that collaboration is only one part of the public involvement pro- cess and it is intended to enhance, not replace the US Forest Service public pro- cess. We believe Montanans are practi- cal people and aren’t satis ed with being stymied by litigation or a status quo that isn’t working for anyone.
Standing together, we will continue to work cooperatively alongside com- munity members and the Forest Service to implement the recommendations. We welcome anyone to the table who is interested in working together from the grassroots up to nd common ground and solutions to di cult problems. In our eyes, this is how change begins.
“THANKS FOR NOTHING, BUNDY BUNCH.”
Mike (Uncommon Ground) Jopek and Dave (Closing Range) Skinner often fall on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to political and outdoor issues. Their columns alternate each week in the Flathead Beacon.
“WE KNOW THAT WORKING TOGETHER IN COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS CAN DELIVER REAL-WORLD RESULTS.”
Robyn King, Chair - Yaak Valley Forest Council; Tim Dougherty, Co-chair - Idaho Forest Group; Ed Levert, Secretary - Lincoln County Forester; Paul McKenzie, F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber; Amy Robinson, Montana Wilderness Association
FEBRUARY 10, 2016 // FLATHEADBEACON.COM
29