What exactly are the Oregon Arsonists guilty of?

[reACTIONary]

According to the typical news article they claim to have lit the fires to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.

Acording to the Justice Department:

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. 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.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

[jberryhill]

1. Apparently, the jury did not buy their defense

...and neither did the appellate court.

[reACTIONary]

3. Unfortunately, news accounts are not ....

.... making that clear and are not informing the public as to the nature of their crimes.

[roguevalley]

42. Oregon has air quality laws and a low tolerance 4 idiots who abuse land

[tazkcmo]

2. Thank you for posting this.

I appreciate the info and it's why I keep coming back to DU, for the informational links to important issues.

[sunnystarr]

8. This is the background ...

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. 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 jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

[handmade34]

4. $600,000 of taxpayer's money

was spent fighting these fires...

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters..."

[cali]

5. I've read they did it to cover illegal poaching on federal grounds

[cleanhippie]

6. They intentionally set fire to federal property.

That's arson. Period.

[MohRokTah]

7. K&R eom

[LiberalArkie]

9. It is the same thing I would be guilty of if I was burning my grass and it

spread to the Ouachita National Forest next to me. They would put me in Jail for not paying the fees for putting out the fire I started.

[OregonBlue]

11. Actually, they set the fires intentionally to cover up poaching on public land.

Not the same at all.

[LiberalArkie]

12. It doesn't make that much different the act that they did to cover it up was arson on

Federal property, same as if I allowed my burning to spread to the forest. When I burn the leaves in my yard, I am very careful, it can get expensive very quick.

[2naSalit]

10. Here's some history on the Hammonds...

Left over Cliven Bundy militants appear in Burns, OR. Occupy Malheur wildlife refuge headquarters

The event galvanizing the self-styled militia members and supporters is the scheduled return to prison on Jan. 4 of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. They were convicted several years ago of setting arson fires on U.S. public land. The Hammonds have already served the sentences ordered by a federal judge, but the sentences themselves were later determined to be illegally short. U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan had given them the light prison sentences. Judge Hogan said that mandatory minimum five-year sentences were “grossly disproportionate. Hogan wrote this as he was about to retire.

Prosecutors appealed the sentence, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the appeal. “A minimum sentence mandated by the statute is not a suggestion that courts have discretion to disregard.” So wrote appellate judge Judge Stephen J. Murphy II about the minimum sentence prescribed by the law the Hammonds were convicted by a jury of violating. The Hammonds report to prison in California on Jan. 4, 2016. So far they have not called for support from the militants and seem ready to report to prison.

Here are previous stories in The Wildlife News on the Hammonds.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2010/06/21/oregon-ranchers-charged/

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/06/04/trial-set-for-june-12-for-oregon-ranchers-accused-of-multiple-range-fire-arson/

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/06/13/striking-testimony-in-oregon-ranchers-trial-for-rangeland-arson/

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/06/22/east-oregon-ranchers-convicted-of-setting-public-lands-afire/

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2015/10/11/public-land-arson-ranchers-finally-get-the-prison-time-the-law-requires/

[LooseWilly]

13. Uhhmm, did you read your own title? How about- arson?

n/t

[reACTIONary]

22. The point of my post us that....

.....reporting on the story uncritically repeats the arsonists defense making it seem almost just an accident. I had to dig around to find and full explination of the serriousness of their crime and thought others would like to know.

[Logical]

14. Read more, get back to us. nt

[PufPuf23]

15. The federal government has been entering "stewardship contracts" to restore

wildlands surrounding Burns, OR (by forest thinning and prescribed fire) and providing jobs to local businesses since the mid-1990s.

I have been personally out of the loop for over 20 years (my work there was 1991-1993) but less than a 90 second internet search indicates the program continues on local lands managed by the US Forest Service and various Department of Interior agencies (Park Service, Fish and WL Service, Bureau of Land Management).

The program began in response to the decline in the timber industry to introduce more ecological management (fire and thinning mostly) mandated to be performed by local labor and businesses where immediate $ return to Treasury was secondary.

I don't know the current size of the program but would wager that it could still be expanded substantially.. The odd thing about programs like this as folks on both the "wise use" and "environmentalist" sides often do not make the decision to support or work in good faith with the federal managers. Back in 1991 the two sawmills had closed in Burns and there was a recent very large forest fire nearby. I worked for a management consulting firm in Portland that was hired by a group from the Burns business community to work with the US Forest Service for strategies to replace the jobs losses, give locals more stake in the nearby forests, and improve wildland management. We had recently worked in northeastern California on a similar regional program. Now such programs are quite common and standard (and could still stand a major expansion in most cases).

The rw militias are of the "wise use" type and are whiny babies. The stewardship program around Burns is heavy to introducing fire at pre-historic levels to improve wildlife habitat and reduce susceptibility to wildfire. They could support the Feds who are trying to funnel monies into the community and involve locals directly in land management. But then we know these asshats are not acting in good faith, want something given to them, and will resist the Feds by definition.

Public announcement (2012) of two recent BLM stewardship contracts out of Burns:

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/burns/files/BU-StewardshipAwarding2012.pdf

Presentation on the stewardship contract program on the Malheur National Forest at a 2014 conference:

http://www.sustainablenorthwest.org/uploads/general/Steve_Beverlin_PPT.pdf

[hfojvt]

17. interesting

although the "whiny babies" apparently do not just want things "given to them". They are also willing to use guns to take things, be it wildlife or federal buildings.

[PufPuf23]

20. The "whiny babies" are obviously making excuses.

Good example of folks that should not have guns and hopefully never will again.

I thought this background sort of provided a context and highlighted their bullshit.

Burns is way out in the middle of no where!!

Thanks for noticing.

[hfojvt]

25. middle of nowhere?

It's only two miles from the metropolis of Hines.

A short 126 miles to Bend.

It's probably pretty rough country and a pretty hardscrabble life. Harney County is about the size of Rhode Island from the look of it, and with less than 7,000 people.

[PufPuf23]

27. I actually live where there are less people and services local

plus more mountainous terrain immediate albeit 90 miles to a small city similar to size and utility to Bend.

Still is in the middle of no where to most people.

[hfojvt]

29. I was way off on the size

Harney county is bigger than New Jersey and Rhode Island combined. Holy cows!

Being from South Dakota, I don't normally think of Oregon as being sparsely populated. After all, it has 5 times as many people as So Dak. I guess most of them are in the Portland-Eugene corridor, and west of Bend it's about like Montana.

Bend, itself, however, would be the 2nd largest city in South Dakota, and not that much smaller than the largest.

[PufPuf23]

31. You are correct now. South Dakota is sparsely populated and so is eastern Oregon (and Montana).

from wiki:

Burns is a city in and the county seat of Harney County, in the U.S. state of Oregon. According to the 2010 census, the population was 2,806. Burns and the nearby city of Hines are home to about 60 percent of the people in the sparsely populated county, the largest in Oregon and the ninth largest in the United States.

The Burns–Hines region has a high-desert climate but was much wetter in the recent geologic past. The Harney Basin was the largest of many depressions in which lakes formed in southeastern Oregon during the late Pleistocene. Remnants of an ancient lake that reached as far north as Burns are at the center of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, south of the city.

Northern Paiutes or their ancestors, who were hunter-gatherers, have lived in the region for thousands of years. Since the arrival of Euro-Americans in the 19th century, cattle ranching and other forms of agriculture have dominated land use in the area. In 1930, logging in the mountains north of Burns led to the creation of Hines, a lumber company town, and the timber industry remained important to the local economy until the 1990s. In addition to ranching, a variety of private and public enterprises support the Burns–Hines economy in the 21st century. Annual events include a migratory bird festival, the county fair, and a country music jamboree.

[PufPuf23]

30. A major claim of the militia is they believe they have a constitutional right to the land.

from: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/armed-militia-bundy-brothers-take-over-federal-building-in-rural-oregon/ar-BBoa6sU?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

Noting that the group isn’t holding hostages, Ryan Bundy echoed his brother, telling the Oregonian that the group doesn’t want to resort to violence but will not rule it out if authorities attempt to remove the occupiers from the property. He said many of the occupiers would be willing to fight — and die — to reclaim constitutionally protected rights for local land management, according to the Associated Press.

snip

“The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control,” Ryan Bundy told the Oregonian. “What we’re doing is not rebellious. What we’re doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.”

The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was established on August 18, 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds,” according to the park’s website.

snip

At Sunday’s news conference, Ammon Bundy said the refuge’s creation was “an unconstitutional act,” one that removed local ranchers from their lands, thrusting the county into an economic depression.

“This refuge here is rightfully owned by the people and we intend to use it,” he said, adding that they plan to assisting ranchers, loggers, hunters and campers who want to use the land. “We will be here as a unified body of people that understand the principles of the Constitution.”

-------------------------------------------------------------

The fact is that the federal lands "belong" to a variety of competing uses, needs, and interest groups and that the Feds have put in place means to favor locals in economic matters over non-locals as the status quo and foster local input and direction in land management.

[reACTIONary]

23. Thanks for the background information eom

[hfojvt]

16. if you can start a 139 acre fire

with just a handful of matches, then the place sounds like a bit of a fire hazard.

In 1987 I bought some land. Spent a few months cutting down underbrush and small trees. By 1988 I had a fairly large brush pile. Which I piled up in the hole where I had tried to hand dig a well (a hole perhaps 4 feet deep).

Like an idiot, I decided to burn it.

At one point it sorta felt like a small piece of the sun had come down onto my field. Flames were shooting well over ten feet into the air. In fact the top of a tree some forty feet above it got toasted. (The fire was in a large pit at the bottom of an eight foot slope, where an open area had been carved out)

Total acres burned - 0.01

Admittedly I spent something like an hour running around like a maniac with a shovel trying to put dirt on various fires (I say 'trying' because it seemed like every time I tried to get a shovel full of dirt, my shovel would hit roots and not get much of anything) and stomping on some others, but that did not make much difference.

Point is, even with a brush pile, which I started blazing using some newspapers, I failed to burn even an acre (thankfully). Yet they started a 139 acre fire with just a few matches? No paper? No lighter fluid? No gasoline?

I am not saying it didn't happen. Only that if it did, seems like the woods were kind of an accident waiting to happen.

[XemaSab]

18. You haven't spent much time in the west, have you?

Half of the country is a fire hazard.

[EL34x4]

19. Driving across the Colorado Rockies a few years back

I marveled at the amount of deadwood I saw and thought to myself, "One of these days, this whole place is going to explode like the Hindenburg."

It's only a matter of time.

[hfojvt]

26. to some people

even Ohio is in the mid WEST, and I am well west of that.

Difference between pine forests and deciduous ones, also probably higher rainfall and more humidity (leading to more dew).

[Ms. Toad]

43. Nice try. Ohio is mid EAST. It is 2/3 of the way from the center of the country

to the EAST coast. When I lived in Nebraska, I still lived EAST of the center of the country.

"Some people" are severely geographically challenged.

[hfojvt]

44. I think it is insane too

but Ohio is, somehow, considered part of the midWEST. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States

I don't make the rules, the Federal Government does.

[Iggo]

21. Arson. (n/t)

[Quixote1818]

24. K and R. nt

[larkrake]

28. Origionally,, poaching on the reserve

then the fire

[NobodyHere]

37. Were they ever convicted of poaching?

[NobodyHere]

32. Does anybody besides me

have a problem with a judge handing a prison sentence to someone who had just served a prison sentence for the same crime?

[rtw]

33. It doesn't sound right to me either.

It's also very medieval, "poaching deer on the king's land".

[NobodyHere]

34. Were they even convicted of poaching?

[rtw]

36. Don't think so

DOJ said several witnesses said they had and used the fire as cover.

[JanMichael]

35. the judge that gave the first reduced sentence was a wingnut who had no RIGHT to do so.

When that happens the original failed sentence is increased to what it should have originally been per the statute. There are 5 year minimums on the crimes thst their own family members testified against them on. There was poaching and a BLM agent was almost trapped by the reckless fire starting. Then it could have been a capitsl case, would that make more sense to you?

The judge promptly retired just like the affuenza judge. The judges daddy was a right wing troll.

So no I have no problem with it. And neither do the defendents.

[rtw]

38. I'm not sure I'd equate

agreeing to fulfill their new sentences with having no problem with it.

[JanMichael]

40. nit picking point. they are going and not playing cowfucking gunhumpers with the out of towners. nt

[rtw]

41. Well, the Bundy brothers are not out of towners

And let's keep in mind a 73 year old man will spend the next 4 years in jail.

[truebluegreen]

39. Nope.

Initial sentence was inappropriate, and against federal mandatory sentencing guidelines. Appeals of the "new" sentence went all the way to the Supremes, who refused to accept the case...i.e. they had no problem with the outcome.