wadle5
New member
Another solid reference blog.....Good thing you dont have a double standard for where information comes from or what to refute with. :flame:
Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers' Prison Terms
- Thread starter ndcent
- Start date
Another solid reference blog.....Good thing you dont have a double standard for where information comes from or what to refute with. :flame:
20DYNAMITE07
New member
What abuses exactly? He disagrees with some of the regulations that BLM use, but that does not equate to abuse. He doesn't feel that the Sage Grouse is worth protecting and he and other ranchers want more autonomy with how they use Federal Land, but that is not their decision alone.
I hear him! I understand what he would like, and I also appreciate that he would prioritize usage rules differently. But these a public lands and are subject to public laws and regulations. He knows that - he just doesn't like that. But that doesn't mean he is being abused.
BrianSD_42
New member
This is really interesting because they can use those fines to issue an arrest warrant after some time goes by.
ndcent
New member
Not to mention an armed occupation is probably, oh I dunno, maybe the wrong way to go about affecting change. The lack of snacks could be impairing their judgement also.
Jimmy_D
Member
Those are readily available in the link I provided earlier that you mentioned you had read.
There's substantial disagreement regarding whether the Sage Grouse is indeed endangered (I recall seeing reports that were in juxtaposition to the population surveys used by the BLM). It was the environmental lobby's influence attempting to take in excess of 40 million acres away from use by the general public (yes.....the same general public that the land is purportedly held in trust for it to use and enjoy).
Last edited:
Looks like the occupiers have upped the ante. If they can be believed, news reports are that persons who are in support of those holed up at the refuge have been following government employees to their homes and verbally harassing them. In a town of that size it isn't hard to figure out who works where. Guess they got tired of the government non-response.
Messing with people is a bit more likely to provoke the response they want than breaking into an insignificant, unguarded building. Wonder what Obama will let law enforcement do if these guys hurt someone or take a hostage.
Messing with people is a bit more likely to provoke the response they want than breaking into an insignificant, unguarded building. Wonder what Obama will let law enforcement do if these guys hurt someone or take a hostage.
wadle5
New member
Great speculation. . I guess we can only assume he will let the Mayor of town speak on behalf of the actions of its citizens and justify. . .just like the Baltimore mayor in regards to the riots....
20DYNAMITE07
New member
Again- all I read were a series of regulations that he did not agree with. Or is it your contention that any regulation is an abuse of power?
Jimmy_D
Member
I’m not sure whether you’re visually challenged or just conveniently overlooking the relevant portions of the articles I’ve posted links to. Here are some key portions of the article in question:
(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.
(b) 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's size is in excess of 187,000 acres and covers an area over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew to surround to the Hammond’s ranch. Approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other local ranchers also chose not to sell.
(c) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management, 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 sell out and leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who chose to remain. Refuge personnel also took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.
(d) By 1980 a conflict was well underway 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, instead directing the water into the fast rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few years the surface area of the lakes had doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and grazing land were washed away and destroyed. The ranchers who once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destitute, begged the FWS to acquire their useless acreage. In 1989 the waters began to recede and the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains were now part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
(e) 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 that 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, she and her family became the subjects of a long series of abuses.
(f) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water rights from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management and US Fish and Wildlife Service found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they became even more belligerent and vindictive towards 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 had legally obtained the rights to the water in accordance with State law and therefore the use of the water belonged to the Hammonds.
(g) 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 on a daily basis, the Hammonds attempted to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff's department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with ‘disturbing and interfering with’ federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each one 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 judge never set another date.
(h) The FWS also began restricting access to upper portions of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to travel via 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.
(i) 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.
(j) 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 almost in half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.
(k) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch's herd being reduced. The Hammonds had to sell their ranch 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 sometime later.
(l) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade to get the ranch back.
I see that you’re in Washington so I’ll take a wild ass guess that you work for the government in some capacity; which would explain your penchant to see no wrong with anything the feds seem to do.
Last edited:
willbgood
New member
I thought I would mention here that two years ago I researched with my wife and uncovered dozens of articles on various BLM websites that clearly stated that the BLM was not accountable to congress. In one they stated that they they had transformed themselves into an environmental protection agency and acted autonomously, since 1976.
My posted these links on here Facebook page. Recently Facebook removed them and I can not find any of links remaining on the BLM websites. It also appears that most BLM currently available have been recently rewritten and are on available in PBF...they are clearly sanitized version of those earlier versions I found. I have been searching for days and can not any of the older version even in google archives.
California's BLM website was worst, they clearly stated that their goal was to remove cattle operations from all BLM land, close all roads, and essentially protect the land from mining and oil exploration.
As I said in earlier post, that is the plan here in Southern Utah. The older and wiser BLM employees here have been either silenced, or forced into retirement and I know more than one that has told me clearly that BLM is wasteful, and not obeying the mandate they have from Congress.
Hunting groups and environmentalist have essentially controlled policy for over ten years. Road closures, and removal of public land from the public use has been what we have seen for years. If you do not have millions of dollars you will not get a meeting with them about mining claim or oil lease, and even then you likely will not get a lease or permit, in spite of the law which mandate this.
A side note, the BLM also had maps of abandoned claims available, but when gold went up to historic rates, those maps were made unavailable.
People talk about needing them for management and I tell them BS and of course they say what about firefighting...from what I have seen, even on that issue the local volunteers and the state would do a better job, and do it more cost effectively.
I say the same for our beloved National parks. Proof of this, is the fact, that during the government shutdown they closed Zion, but laid off no one. Utah said open them up we will pay the costs, and we did. (it has been said since the fess would have covered cost, and added no cost to the government. The really sad part of this, is the government funding to keep the park open was intact as well.
The closures were a political stunt to piss off the locals and tourists...UTAH said no, and we paid to keep them open, in spite of the fact that they were fully funded, and no one had been laid off.
In another situation, the BLM refused me a permit for group camp. The purpose of the group camp was to clean the a wild cat dumping area. I believe they did not want it cleaned up, because it was part of their reasoning for the closure of roads. This was on a very well traveled road and had been a dumping ground for years, actually years before we developed the great sanitation system and dump we have now..
The BLM originally tried to get us to clean another area that was a 60 mile round trip away, in a protected tortoise area. Then they wanted us to camp 20 miles away. But get this, the dump was mostly on Arizona state land. We finally got a camping permit, 10 miles away. Yeah right.
In the end, Arizona game and fish got us a state camping permit, and a local trash company provided 5 40' containers, which we filled and the area remains much cleaner than it has been in years.
Local rule and control is better then an autonomous, powerful, out of control federal agency, run from 1000's of miles away by pople with an agenda that the majority of American do not know about or hold, and if they new the full agenda (Agenda 21) they might just agree with Jefferson, that a little rebellion is good now and then...
20DYNAMITE07
New member
A couple of things-
In case I wasn't clear, I have been referring to the WP OP-Ed that you had posted... I haven't read the other articles you have posted in this thread - and never said that I had. So no, while I am not visually impaired, I also was not intentionally overlooking your other materials. Finally, where did I say the Feds are not capable of doing wrong? But hey, thanks for the wise crack - it really makes for an enjoyable experience.
Yes, I live in DC, and yes, I currently work for the Federal government... I've also lived in Pennsylvania, Utah, and California. I have worked in the public and private sectors... and as it relates to the topic at hand, my Aunt and Uncle are Dairy farmers, and my other Aunt and Uncle are Sheep and Cattle ranchers (and what do ya know, I've even worked for them)... so dial it back a little and consider that despite my having a different opinion than you, that does not mean I'm some sort of drone.
As for the points listed in your post-
Bullet points:
A - no comment
B - no comment
C - It's a point of fact that cattle ranching IS extremely hard on the environment... consider that the Hammonds owned 6000 acres of private land and that enormous parcel was not enough to sustain their herd.
D - that appears to suck, but I wonder what the land management plan was for the region at that time.
E - I'd love to see the report she found (I'm not asking you to produce it - just curious).
F - That sucks, but it makes sense that if BLM thought they controlled the water rights that they would pursue the matter in court. In and of itself, that's not abuse.
G - Now THAT is some BS on behalf of BLM. I totally agree with you on that.
H - Same as G. That is BS.
I - While that totally sucks - that's the law. (Laws can be changed)
J - That sucks, but again that's the law. (Laws can be changed)
K - Grazing permits get revoked and reinstated regularly. It depends upon the condition of the land in question, and the intended use. This isn't necessarily a diabolical plot to screw people, but I could see how it could be abused. Possibly that was the case here? I honestly don't know and don't have an opinion on the matter.
L - Good for them!
Question... why do you suppose the poaching and arson actions taken by the Hammonds omitted from the list? Bias maybe? Or are people from DC the only one's capable of such a thing? Surely that's it.
All snark (on my part) aside... thanks for the other information (I'm not kidding). It's good to know and food for thought.
wadle5
New member
I understand we have seen it before you have to support your employer even if they are in the wrong. But come on from an outsiders/bystander point of view what the agency has been doing is not in the best interest of all parties involved. Yes it may have been "legal" what they were doing, but our entire legal system couldn't even be covered properly in multiple threads. To justify by law, does not make it justifiable morally. And this is where I believe the BLM to fault.
20DYNAMITE07
New member
I totally agree with you. Yet, at the same time I do not agree that ranchers should be given free reign over public lands. Does BLM need to be reformed? Quite possibly, and certainly many people think so. Are these incidents indicative of the agency as a whole - probably not. But it's worth looking into further.
But hey... that's just my $.02
Last edited:
Jimmy_D
Member
Again I’ll refer you to (i), (j) & (k) in my previous post, which I would assume you would have read thoroughly before posting anything relative to the content (or lack thereof) contained therein.
Yet again I’ll refer you to my post which linked to the article containlng the list chronicling the various abuses by the BLM and the FWS.......but here’s a short synopsis of the events in question. There was a 2001 fire that burned 127 acres of federal land and a 2006 fire that burned 1 acre of federal land (for a total of less than 130 acres out of a total of over 187,000 acres). In both instances the Hammonds extinguished the fires themselves without the need for federal assistance. The Harney Co. District Attorney declined to prosecute the Hammonds after reviewing the complaint filed by the BLM for the 2006 fire. It was 2011 when the US Attorney’s Office filed charges against the Hammonds at the behest of the BLM under the 1996 Federal Anti Terrorism Act which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. They were convicted because they had readily admitted to starting both fires. The charge of poaching deer on federal land and using one of the fires to conceal evidence was predicated on the testimony of a relative who was 13 at the time of the alleged incident and 24 when he testified; and suffers from severe mental problems (and we all know that pressure from a federal prosecutor on a mentally challenged person wouldn’t influence his testimony in any way). The federal judge in the case overruled the minimum sentence required under the terrorist statute, commenting that the full sentence would be ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment'. It was 2014 when the BLM filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals contesting the judges ruling. The Appeals Court overturned the judges original sentencing guidelines and imposed the full 5 year sentence. So, the Hammonds will serve 5 years in federal prison and were fined $400,000.00 for burning less than 130 acres of federal grassland. Oh, and the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM the first right of refusal on the sale of their property should it be placed on the market. Yeah, that all seems fair to me and the BLM and FWS don't seem vengeful or retaliatory.
Last edited:
20DYNAMITE07
New member
Indeed I did read your post... specifically-
The Hammonds' purchased 6K acres and 4 grazing rights on public land. They had this from the jump. So regardless, of what happened later shows that even from the beginning, 6K acres was not enough to sustain a sizable herd. Meaning, grazing cattle at any meaningful economic scale is pretty freak'n hard on the environment. Which is why I stated
I totally grant you that what happened in the years to follow put even more strain on their private land making it even less likely to be able to maintain their herd... but that wasn't my point, my point was that it takes a whole lot of land to ranch, which is why they bought a huge parcel + grazing rights... and they needed that much land because ranching is hard on the environment.
Jimmy_D
Member
As are a good many other outdoor activities. Raising cattle has been going on for hundreds of years on private ranches throughout the US and they seem to be holding up pretty well in spite of the strain the cattle place on the land. I've spent a good deal of time on the largest contiguous ranch in the US, with a huge cattle operation and I never witnessed any problems stemming from the large number of cattle present. Are you suggesting that the public should do without beef in order to lessen the burden it places on the acreage used to support the cattle. And as far as the Hammonds situation goes, it wasn't until the BLM and FWS required them to fence a major portion of their property in order to run cattle on it that they had to reduce the size of the herd because they didn't have the financial resources required to build a sizable fence. Also, existing grazing rights are an economic benefit that add to the cost of an existing property when it's purchased and when those rights are revoked can have a significant negative effect on the land's value. Fundamentally it's nothing more than economic warfare when it's used in the manner it was in this instance, but you don't appear to have a problem with it.
Last edited:
