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 Hammonds and the Bundys have ALWAYS had Grazing Rights on Public Land!
Hammond Family Facts & Events - Pastebin.com
The Harney Basin (were 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- ln 1908 President Theodore 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
ln 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.
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 and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide- The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond's ranch- Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell- Other ranchers also choose not to sell-
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- 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 intended to still use their private property for grazing- However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”-
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. The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale 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.
The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back. 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.
Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.
During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.
Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their resentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). l fthe Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.
Conclusion;
The abuses and corruptions affecting people like the Hammonds are symptoms of a more encompassing problem. Government employees (full time & elected) have changed their culture from one of sen/ice to, and respect for the people, to the roll of being a masters. On the subject of the land, it is evident that government employees are no longer assisting the people in claiming, using and defending property. Instead, they have become the people’s competitor to the benefits of the land, and are willing to use force on those who they erroneously compete against.
The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the subsurface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.
Stop believing you have the right any time you want to go on federal land......because it really is NOT Public Land! These people were given PUBLIC grazing rights in their agreements with the government.........lies and more lies, broken treaties and broken promises!
Hammond Family Facts & Events - Pastebin.com
The Harney Basin (were 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- ln 1908 President Theodore 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
ln 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.
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 and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide- The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond's ranch- Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell- Other ranchers also choose not to sell-
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- 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 intended to still use their private property for grazing- However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”-
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. The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale 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.
The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back. 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.
Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.
During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.
Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their resentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). l fthe Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.
Conclusion;
The abuses and corruptions affecting people like the Hammonds are symptoms of a more encompassing problem. Government employees (full time & elected) have changed their culture from one of sen/ice to, and respect for the people, to the roll of being a masters. On the subject of the land, it is evident that government employees are no longer assisting the people in claiming, using and defending property. Instead, they have become the people’s competitor to the benefits of the land, and are willing to use force on those who they erroneously compete against.
The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the subsurface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.
Stop believing you have the right any time you want to go on federal land......because it really is NOT Public Land! These people were given PUBLIC grazing rights in their agreements with the government.........lies and more lies, broken treaties and broken promises!
And the Hammonds told the Bundy bunch that they did not want them there. Not one local rancher sided with the Bundy bunch. The out of state non-ranchers took it upon themselves to butt in where they were not wanted or needed.
If the Bundys have a beef, why didn't they start some crap in their own back yard instead of messing with another state and people that didn't want them there?
Hammond Family Facts & Events - Pastebin.com
The Harney Basin (were 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- ln 1908 President Theodore 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
ln 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.
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 and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide- The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond's ranch- Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell- Other ranchers also choose not to sell-
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- 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 intended to still use their private property for grazing- However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”-
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. The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale 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.
The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back. 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.
Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.
During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.
Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their resentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). l fthe Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.
Conclusion;
The abuses and corruptions affecting people like the Hammonds are symptoms of a more encompassing problem. Government employees (full time & elected) have changed their culture from one of sen/ice to, and respect for the people, to the roll of being a masters. On the subject of the land, it is evident that government employees are no longer assisting the people in claiming, using and defending property. Instead, they have become the people’s competitor to the benefits of the land, and are willing to use force on those who they erroneously compete against.
The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the subsurface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.
Stop believing you have the right any time you want to go on federal land......because it really is NOT Public Land! These people were given PUBLIC grazing rights in their agreements with the government.........lies and more lies, broken treaties and broken promises!
It would be nice if you could quote from a newspaper archive rather than an unknown blogger, if what is stated is true it should be easy to find an article.
Last edited by Goodnight; 02-06-2016 at 06:49 PM..
And the Hammonds told the Bundy bunch that they did not want them there. Not one local rancher sided with the Bundy bunch. The out of state non-ranchers took it upon themselves to butt in where they were not wanted or needed.
If the Bundys have a beef, why didn't they start some crap in their own back yard instead of messing with another state and people that didn't want them there?
The local people were not all against the Bundy group, and some accounts had it at about a 50/50 split between those that opposed the group, and those that either supported, or were neutral. The group also had several meeting with local people, and the last meeting alone attracted 400 people. So, no, not all of the locals wanted them out, and in fact there were a lot of people that were believed in the cause.
Oregon has a lot of people that have been economically effected negatively by the BLM, and the government tying up some much of the land. The truth is that there is the same issues in Oregon, that this is in Nevada, so there were indeed many supporters for the Bundys.
The local people were not all against the Bundy group, and some accounts had it at about a 50/50 split between those that opposed the group, and those that either supported, or were neutral. The group also had several meeting with local people, and the last meeting alone attracted 400 people. So, no, not all of the locals wanted them out, and in fact there were a lot of people that were believed in the cause.
Oregon has a lot of people that have been economically effected negatively by the BLM, and the government tying up some much of the land. The truth is that there is the same issues in Oregon, that this is in Nevada, so there were indeed many supporters for the Bundys.
I would say their support is a small but violent percentage, virtually none of the government representatives, local leaders, BLM employees, the sheriff, governor, local congressional representatives, Paiutes and many ranchers. All they did was divide the community.
The local economy has not been impacted by the BLM, if the BLM gave them all the land tomorrow nothing would change, They are blaming their economic problems on the BLM when in fact it is a lack of education and opportunities.
A little alternate history of the Malheur wildlife refuge:
As part of the plan, Harney County ranchers signed a 30-year-agreement with the government promising to protect the native, endangered sage grouse on their land — a first in the nation. The entire project was dubbed one of the “biggest wetland restoration efforts ever undertaken.”
“That’s what makes this recent standoff even sadder to me,” she said. “Malheur had done more work to listen and help its community than any other federal refuge out there. They all really wanted to make this happen. And then this.”
But the federal government never forced the ranchers to sell, as the occupiers at Malheur claimed, and the sale did not impoverish the community. In fact, it was just the opposite: During the Depression years of the 1930s, the federal government paid the Swift Corp. $675,000 for ruined grazing lands. Impoverished homesteaders who had squatted on refuge lands eventually received payments substantial enough to set them up as cattle ranchers nearby.
In 1935, the Swift Meatpacking Corp. sold 65,000 acres to the federal government, funding for which came from Duck Stamp sales and New Deal monies; over the years, willing sellers added the remaining acres to the refuge’s expanse. Ammon Bundy’s protestations to the contrary, no ranchers were ever evicted from the refuge.
...in 1911 in a pair of landmark decisions – Light vs. U.S. and U.S. vs. Grimaud – the Supreme Court asserted that the public lands were, in fact, public; that federal ownership of them was indisputable; and that Congress through a series of legislative acts had granted the Executive Branch, and by extension the federal land management agencies, administrative authority to manage these acres in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations.
The dispute between the Hammonds and the federal government dates back decades. HCN reported in 1994 that Dwight Hammond, now 73, had made death threats against managers of the refuge in 1986, ’88 and ’91. He had also allegedly repeatedly violated a special permit that allowed him to move his cows across the refuge only at specific times. Hammond was briefly jailed in 1994 for "disturbing and interfering with" federal officials and then released after two nights in jail. Afterwards, nearly 500 ranchers apparently rallied in Burns to support the Hammonds in their ongoing dispute.
I would say their support is a small but violent percentage, virtually none of the government representatives, local leaders, BLM employees, the sheriff, governor, local congressional representatives, Paiutes and many ranchers. All they did was divide the community.
The local economy has not been impacted by the BLM, if the BLM gave them all the land tomorrow nothing would change, They are blaming their economic problems on the BLM when in fact it is a lack of education and opportunities.
I personally never made any claims as to how much the BLM may be effecting the local economies, truthfully, I don't know. There is no doubt that there are economic problems everywhere, so the BLM surely are not the sole problem. However, I have no doubt that the federal government locking up such a high percentage of the land does have a economic impact on many areas.
However, I have no doubt that the federal government locking up such a high percentage of the land does have a economic impact on many areas.
I also have no doubt regarding the economic impact that the Refuge has on the local economy in which 40% of the residents work for state and federal government. Then of course there are the tourist dollars as Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Jen Hoke stated at a recent economic development meeting said that she thought the county’s top-drawing attractions were on public land – hunting, birding, the Steens Mountain, the Malheur National Widlife Refuge.
I also have no doubt regarding the economic impact that the Refuge has on the local economy in which 40% of the residents work for state and federal government. Then of course there are the tourist dollars as Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Jen Hoke stated at a recent economic development meeting said that she thought the county’s top-drawing attractions were on public land – hunting, birding, the Steens Mountain, the Malheur National Widlife Refuge.
Not much happening right now this time of the year.
Businesses in Burns and the surrounding communities, have seen a rise in their monthly revenues, since the occupation. With a population spike, so did the consumption of goods and services.
They are tearing the community apart, because more want them to stay, than those bully liberals want them to go. Guess who screams the loudest.
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.
The Hammonds and the Bundys have ALWAYS had Grazing Rights on Public Land!
