On the Rural Land Rights Advocates (RLRA) page:
There has been a wide spread misunderstanding by myself and many others regarding the BLM's "first right of refusal" on the potential sale of the Hammond Ranch.
I just spoke with Dwight Hammond and he explained what the BLM's first right of refusal was about concerning any sale of the Hammond Ranch. Apparently that first right of refusal only pertained to any possibility that the ranch would have to be sold to pay the $400,000 fine to the government. The Hammonds were able to make that payment and retain the ranch. So that right of refusal has expired and the Hammonds are free to sell or not sell their ranch to anyone they choose.
They have not yet received back the four grazing allotments the BLM took away from them in February 2014.
Joani Baxter Sad that they had to pay that amount! The grazing allotments are rights and should have never been taken away.
Bill Goode Of that $400,000 the Hammond's insurance company paid half I believe, which was a big help.
Bill Goode Yes, the Hammonds did actually PURCHASE their grazing allotments, so it amounts to theft by the BLM.
Clint Anderson another not insignificant point. The $400K was the settlement from the civil suit - not part of the criminal indictment.
Clint Anderson ......basically restitution for the costs of firefighting. If memory serves, there were about four fires that escaped the Hammonds included
Edit: I don't know where to post stuff. This is about the Hammonds. But I don't consider it "Bundy Gossip"