Details on the ranchers being persecuted in Oregon. This is no joke right here.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

71buickfreak

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
4,790
Reaction score
30
Location
stillwater
http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Here’s the long version: including history, details, links, video(s) and explanations:



Hammond Family
Hammond Family

HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds’ purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres, stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told: “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”; 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water bypassing the vast meadow lands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers who once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede; now the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers who still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling facts about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced four times more ducks and geese than the refuge. The study also showed the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights, and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily, the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). Dwight spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland. He was then hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds still intended to use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sell their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges; they accused them of being “Terrorists” under the Federal Anti terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.

too long to post it all here. Go read it, very interesting stuff.
 

Larry Morgan

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
91
Location
ATX
If all this true, then it certainly seems as though they got a pretty raw deal. But, in this day and age, it's pretty hard to take one website as the complete picture of the story, especially when they don't really have any official sources cited for their information...
 

Ace_on_the_Turn

Sharpshooter
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
418
Location
OKC
If all this true, then it certainly seems as though they got a pretty raw deal. But, in this day and age, it's pretty hard to take one website as the complete picture of the story, especially when they don't really have any official sources cited for their information...

You mean an article that includes this, "When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds...This further enraged the BLM & FWS." may not be completely unbiased?

There is some horrible, really horrible, writing. It's also extremely biased and, as you said, unsourced.
 

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
32,901
Reaction score
45,996
Location
Tulsa
http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Here’s the long version: including history, details, links, video(s) and explanations:



Hammond Family
Hammond Family

HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds’ purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres, stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told: “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”; 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water bypassing the vast meadow lands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers who once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede; now the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers who still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling facts about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced four times more ducks and geese than the refuge. The study also showed the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights, and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily, the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). Dwight spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland. He was then hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds still intended to use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sell their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges; they accused them of being “Terrorists” under the Federal Anti terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.

too long to post it all here. Go read it, very interesting stuff.

I posted this in the other thread... .yesterday or the day before?
 

SMS

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
15,320
Reaction score
4,271
Location
OKC area
So the ranchers felt like they should continue to be given free or below market value sh*t, in the form of access to property they didn't own, and never owned?

How is this different from the Sanders crowd? Oh, they're white and look like cowboys...so it's all good.

(That's me playing devil's advocate...discuss)
 

71buickfreak

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
4,790
Reaction score
30
Location
stillwater
I didn't write it, it definitely has some issues. I also would like some sources. We have all heard stories of the USF&W or BLM doing things like this to people, it is absolutely inside the scope of the US government to bend citizens over just because they wanted to. I give you the IRS v right-wing anything scandal.
 

Defnestor

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
1
Location
Tulsa
Yeah, let's return this land to the Ranchers who rightfully stole it from the Paiutes.
Uh, the land was "liberated" GW style from the Paiutes by the U.S. Government, then sold to ranchers (who sold it to other ranchers, etc) and now the ranchers are claiming the U.S. Government is trying to "liberate" it again.
I don't know enough to pick a side, do you?
 

Hobbes

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
8,737
Reaction score
749
Location
The Nations
Here's an alternative version




The Hammonds' connection with the refuge is exhaustive. In Harney County where the Hammonds lived and own a 12,000-acre ranch, much of their land was surrounded by the refuge, an arrangement that spurred decades-worth of conflicts between the prominent family and the feds.

While the Hammonds have distanced themselves from the unknown number of militia members now occupying the refuge, the armed militia's list of grievances are not all that different from the ones the Hammonds have harbored.

According to the High Country News, Dwight Hammond, now 73, was known to refuge workers as far back as the 1980s as a reactionary who allegedly made repeated death threats against Malheur Wildlife Refuge managers in 1986, 1988, 1991 and 1994.

Dwight Hammond was repeatedly accused of moving his cows across the refuge's lands at times that violated a permit from the refuge. He did little to deter his cattle from "trespassing along the streams and trampling young willows that refuge workers had planted to repair damage wrought by years of overgrazing."

According to that same High Country News story from 1994, "a thick file" at the refuge headquarters painted a picture of law-defying father and son duo who tested the patience of federal officials for decades and repeatedly ignored refuge orders.

It was not until August 3, 1994, however, that the Hammonds had their first criminal confrontation with the refuge.

It began as a long simmering water dispute. The Hammonds had had grazing access to "a lush waterfowl haven," but had repeatedly trespassed on the land at times outside of what a permit allowed. The feds blocked the Hammonds access to the area and planned to erect a fence to keep the Hammonds away. But, to stop the construction, news reports from the incident allege Dwight Hammond "parked his Caterpillar scraper squarely on the boundary line and disabled it, removing the battery and draining fuel lines." Then, when agents attempted to move the vehicle, Dwight Hammond entered the scene, "leaped to the controls of the scraper and hit a lever that lowered the bucket, narrowly missing another special agent." His son Steven, meanwhile, verbally assaulted authorities. According to a report from the Oregonian, nine federal officers arrested Dwight Hammond and took him into custody.

Much like today, the arrest became a cause de jour for some western ranchers in the Oregon high dessert. In the days following, an estimated 500 people rallied on the Hammonds' behalf. Stickers circulated that urged individuals to “Stop Clinton’s War on the West" and locals set up a legal defense fund to help the Hammond family. According to the High Country News, the conflict attracted the attention of the American Land Rights Association and Congressman Bob Smith (R-OR) who actually wrote a letter to assist the Hammonds to then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

Dwight Hammond was never prosecuted for the 1994 incident.

In the meantime, the Hammonds continued to be fixtures in the community. "They and their wives became civic anchors," an Oregonian story published last week chronicled. "They served on school boards and non-profit boards. They were active in industry groups."

Still, the Hammonds legal entanglements continued. In 1999, the Oregonian reported that Steven Hammond had yet another run-in with authorities. Hammond allegedly "confronted" a group of hunters who were on public lands near ranch property. The next day the same hunters were startled by the sound of Steven Hammond's gun, but Hammond maintained that "he was shooting at rabbits." According to the Oregonian, Hammond was convicted for "interfering with use of public land."

It was, however, the most recent arson charges and conviction that became the catalyst for out-of-state militia types. In 2012 Dwight and Steven were convicted of setting fires to territory managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The Hammonds were accused of setting two separate fires; one in 2001 and another in 2006.

According to several news reports and Department of Justice files, the Hammonds maintained that their fire in 2001 was merely meant to be a "control burn" to rid their property of invasive species, but witnesses testified at the trial that the fire that scorched 139 acres of BLM land had actually been set to cover up the illegal hunting of deer.

Steven Hammond was also convicted of setting another fire in 2006 in an effort to protect his own property from a series of lightening fires that had started.

One of the key witnesses in the case against the Hammonds was family member Dusty Hammond, who as a young man had lived with Dwight. Dusty Hammond kept details of the 2001 fire under wraps for nearly a decade out of fear of retribution. In 2004, it was alleged that he had been abused by the Hammonds. According to a report from the New York Daily News, Steven and Dwight Hammond allegedly engaged in a long list of cruelty from forcing 16-year-old Dusty Hammond to consume chewing tobacco to sand papering his chest and leaving scars in an effort to "erase a home-brew tattoo from Dusty's chest."

Early this week--just as protesters dug in at the Malheur refuge–the Hammonds turned themselves in to serve their sentences for arson.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...ife-preserve-is-relevant-in-the-militia-fight
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom