Rancher Sentenced to 5 years for a controlled burn and back burn on private property.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The first, in 2001, was a planned burn on Hammonds’ own property to reduce juniper trees that have become invasive in that part of the country. That fire burned outside the Hammonds’ private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.
“They called and got permission to light the fire,” she said, adding that was customary for ranchers conducting range management burns – a common practice in the area.
Susan said the second fire, in 2006, was a backfire started by Steven to protect their property from lightening fires.
“There was fire all around them that was going to burn our house and all of our trees and everything. The opportunity to set a back-fire was there and it was very successful. It saved a bunch of land from burning,” she remembers.
The BLM asserts that one acre of federal land was burned by the Hammonds’ backfire and Susan says determining which fire burned which land is “a joke” because fire burned from every direction.
Yeah. It's a ridiculous situation there. The Hammond men already did jail time from the first sentencing. Then the Feds come back, after the guys are out, and demand and get additional time.
How does that even happen legally? If that doesn't scare people...
Not to mention when the Feds burn slash piles, and those get away from them, or they fail to contain fire and it burns private land, or when they refuse to let someone push livestock through BLM controlled land during a fire and the animals perish... Nothing. No compensation. No consequences.
Rancher Sentenced to 5 years for a controlled burn and back burn on private property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpm1
hat fire burned outside the Hammonds’ private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out
Something doesn't match here. Your thread title says controlled back burn on private property, but the text from your article says it consumed 138 acres of public land before they got it put out. That sounds like neither control nor private property.
BLM employees reminded Steven Hammond that although his family leased public land for grazing, he couldn't burn it without a permit. But in September 2001, the Hammonds started another fire. This one ran off their property on Steens Mountain, consumed 139 acres of public land and took the acreage out of production for two growing seasons, according to court papers.
Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.”
One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.
The militia groups traveled to Burns to show their support for father-and-son ranchers after a judge ruled they served too little time for setting fires that spread to government lands they leased to graze cattle.
Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.
The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each, as arson on federal land carries a mandatory minimum five-year prison term.
Quote:
While most people in town support the ranching family, the militia groups' involvement has been sparking controversy for weeks.
"I don't like the militia's methods," said resident Monica McCannon who held up signs against the militia. "They had their rally. Now it's time for them to go home. People are afraid of them."
Others in town shared that sentiment.
"It's sort of frightening when there are people making threats and people toting guns," Jordan said.
Militia organizers insisted they weren't here to cause any harm to anybody.
"We're here for a peaceful rally," Curtiss said. "If the Hammonds decided not to go to prison and stand up for their rights, we would stand right by their side. What would entail after that, I don't know.
Something doesn't match here. Your thread title says controlled back burn on private property, but the text from your article says it consumed 138 acres of public land before they got it put out. That sounds like neither control nor private property.
BLM employees reminded Steven Hammond that although his family leased public land for grazing, he couldn't burn it without a permit. But in September 2001, the Hammonds started another fire. This one ran off their property on Steens Mountain, consumed 139 acres of public land and took the acreage out of production for two growing seasons, according to court papers.
It was started on private property and they got permission to do so, it spread to BLM land. Thats jail worthy while being an accomplice to the boston bombing is not? LOL
I am pretty sure that if any of us started a fire on private lands that we owned and it spread to surrounding areas owned by the govt or others there will be some type of jail time or fines coming our way.
If they think they are being treated unfairly we have a court of law for that, no one should be allowed to take matters into their own hands, take over govt property with weapons and threaten to use them to defend themselves from being evicted from buildings that don't belong to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
