Oregon Ranching Family
Persecuted By Feds On Bogus Charges
Oregon Ranching Family
Persecuted By Feds On Bogus Charges
http://www.tsln.com/news/17302049-113/story.html
An
eastern Oregon family with a long history in ranching is fighting to keep its
cow/calf operation afloat against an onslaught of blows from the federal
government. Two members of the Hammond family have been charged under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 for starting two range
fires that ended up on federal land.
One
of the fires, set in 2001, was a prescribed burn on Hammond’s private property;
a routine rangeimprovement practice. The other fire, set on Hammond’s private property
in 2006, was a back-burn intended to protect the ranch’s winter pasture from a
lightening fire on adjacent federal land. Combined, the two fires burned about
140 acres of federal land. Now, although two Hammond family members have
already done time in federal prison for setting these fires, they are facing a
resentencing—now scheduled for late October—that could land them back in
prison.
The
Hammonds hold grazing rights on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and own
private grazing acres intermingled with BLM land in the Steens Mountains. For
45 years, the Hammonds have used their BLM grazing rights and private property
to run a successful operation. But now, their operation is being threatened not
only by criminal and civil charges brought by the federal government, but with
the loss of their grazing permits, as well. The BLM has refused to renew their
grazing permits for two years running.
Although
the family has refrained from making a public splash, the story is slowly
getting out. Court documents are beginning to circulate. Those documents paint
a picture of a family that serves on the local school board, volunteers in
community clubs and counsels, and donates time, money and meat each year to
local youth organizations and senior groups. District Court Judge Michael
Hogan, the federal judge who first saw their case, went on record calling the
Hammonds “the salt of their community.”
The
fires
Why
did Hammonds start the fires? According to court documents, the 2001
“Hardie-Hammond” fire was set under a long-standing plan between Hammonds and
their BLM range conservationist to burn off invasive species on that section.
They had called the BLM at noon that day to see if burning was permitted. After
being told there was no burn ban in effect, the Hammonds told the BLM that they
would be setting a fire on that section.
The
fire later spread to approximately 139 acres of public land, land that happened
to be one of Hammond’s grazing allotments. The Hammonds presented evidence that
the spread onto public land was not intentional. However, back in 1999, a
similar scenario had occurred (a prescribed burn on their land spread to public
land), and the Hammonds had been warned that they would face serious
consequences should it happen again. As an aside, according to the BLM itself,
the 2001 Hardie-Hammond fire had, in fact, “improved range conditions” on the
public lands.
The
2006 “Krumbo Butte” fire was started by lightening on public land adjacent to
Hammond’s private land, where they grow their winter feed. Hammonds set a
backfire that successfully kept the Krumbo Butte fire from burning a large
portion of their private land. Their backfire burned about one acre of federal
land.
Years
later, BLM pressed charges for the above-mentioned fires, citing endangerment
of human lives and damage to federal property. However, the district court
found that no one had been endangered by the fires, and that the fires had
caused minimal damage. In fact, the court found, the fire had arguably
increased the value of the land for grazing.
Original
jail sentence
Dwight
and Steven Hammond (father and son operators of the family ranch) admitted to
having started the above fires. In determining the Hammonds’ sentences, Judge
Hogan had decided that applying the “mandatory minimum” of five years cited in
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act would “shock the conscience…”
He referenced the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which states,
“Excessive bail shall not be required…nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.”
To
call for five years’ imprisonment, he said, “would result in a sentence which
is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here…” He said that
Hammonds’ actions “could not have been conduct intended under [the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]…” Judge Hogan used his
discretion under the Eighth Amendment to sentence Dwight (now 74) to three
months in prison, followed by three years’ “supervised release.” Dwight’s son
Steven (45), father of three, was sentenced to one year and one day in
prison—also to be followed by three years’ “supervised release.” The men served
their sentences starting in 2013.
Their
firearms were taken, as was Dwight’s pilot’s license.
Back
to prison?
Not
satisfied by Judge Hogan’s reasoning or sentencing decisions, the federal
government is now coming back for more: It wants the men to serve at least five
years’ time. The government appealed the judge’s decision to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and that court agreed that Judge Hogan’s ruling must be
remanded back to another judge. The Hammonds appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
in hopes of overturning the Ninth Circuit decision, but their case was not
taken up by the high court.
Thus,
the case is now in the hands of Chief Judge of the District Court of Oregon,
Judge Ann Aiken. She will decide whether to institute the five-year minimum or
more. The resentencing hearing, once scheduled for July 9, has been delayed to
late October 2015.
Meanwhile,
on the civil side, a wholly separate civil case is being considered. The ranch
is also paying $400,000 as part of a settlement agreement with BLM for the
alleged costs of fighting fires for which BLM claims the Hammonds are
responsible. If the Ham monds have to sell part of their ranch to make the
payment, BLM managed (as part of the settlement agreement) to get first option
to buy.
Meanwhile,
due to BLM’s refusal to renew the family’s grazing permits, the Hammonds have
had to find alternative feed for their cattle for large parts of the year, all
while working to come up with the $400,000 settlement sum. Hammonds own grazing
preferences and hold an associated permit on the BLM land. What’s more, they
own private property intermingled with the BLM land. This two-year denial of
their grazing permits has preventing them from using their grazing rights and
private land.
After
a “45-year record of exemplary stewardship” on Hammonds’ part, the family’s
counsel wrote, BLM’s refusal of permits is an act of “zeal,” an effort to “make
an example of” the family. The Hammonds are currently appealing to get their permits
reinstated.
“The
public has an interest in maintaining and stabilizing the livestock operations
that are dependent upon the public lands,” said the Hammonds’ appeal. “However,
contrary to this interest, the… BLM Decision destabilizes [Hammonds’] current
livestock operation which is dependent upon the public lands…” Watch for
updates on both the criminal and civil aspects of the Hammond family’s story in
future editions.
–Reprinted
with permission from the Western Livestock Journal
