30-year-old former yoga teacher accused of arson in destructive Northern California blaze

 Authorities in Northern California last week announced the arrest of a woman who they say ignited a wind-whipped wildfire that quickly tore through steep, rugged terrain, destroying 144 buildings, prompting the evacuation of thousands of people and becoming one of the state's more destructive blazes this year.

The womalexandra Souverneva, 30, a onetime yoga teacher from the San Francisco Bay Area whom a former colleague recalled as "brilliant," is among more than 100 people who have been accused of wildland arson and arrested this year by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire.

The charge alleges a rare but significant act that has come into sharper focus as parched, overgrown forests explode across thousands of acres in days...MORE

But is she a terrorist? That was the charge against two Oregon ranchers. 

In November of 2015 I wrote:

After a two-week trial in July of 2012, Oregon rancher Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, were found guilty of setting fires that caused damage to federal property.  One fire burned 139 acres of federal land, the other only 1 acre.  The Hammonds claimed the fires were for range management purposes, the federal prosecutors said they were set for more nefarious reasons.  Now-retired U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan sentenced Steven Hammond to one year and a day in prison for setting intentional fires in 2001 and 2006, and ordered Dwight Hammond to spend three months behind bars for his involvement in the 2001 blaze.

That should have been the end of the story.  But it wasn’t.

The feds appealed claiming the ranchers should have received mandatory sentences of five years.  They had charged the ranchers with violation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.  

That’s right, the feds were using a law aimed at terrorists to prosecute the ranchers and that law required the mandatory sentences. Judge Hogan had ruled that 5-year sentences would “shock the conscience”, would be grossly disproportionate to the offenses committed and violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.  A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the feds, however, and returned the case for sentencing. On October 7 of this year, both Hammonds received the mandatory minimum sentence of five years for deliberately setting fires that spread from their property onto federal land.  For comparison, other federal laws that carry five-year minimum sentences are for treason, child pornography, using a gun while committing a violent crime or importing drugs.

The ranchers set backfires to protect their own property, accidently burn a total of 140 acres of federal property and they are labeled as terrorists.

She sets a fire that burns thousands of acres, destroys 144 buildings and forces thousands to evacuate, but is not charged or labeled as a terrorist?

Actually, neither is, but this just demonstrates the glaring inappropriateness of the charges against the ranchers.

The ranchers should have claimed they were former yoga teachers and were just protecting the karma of their cattle.

Whoopy ti yi yoga!

'Right-wing' attacks: Biden DOJ considering domestic terrorism law

 

A day after President Biden declared white supremacism "the most lethal" terrorist threat, a senior official said the Justice Deparment is "actively considering" whether to seek a new law allowing prosecutors to bring specific charges for plotting and carrying out acts of domestic terrorism.

"One of the things we’re looking at is would we need new authorities," Brad Wiegmann, deputy assistant attorney general for the DOJ's national security division, said during a House hearing Thursday, Bloomberg reported.

"This is a cancer on our country," he said. "Right-wing extremist attacks and plots have greatly outnumbered those from all other groups combined and caused more deaths as well."

However, both Islamic and white supremacist terror have become rare, never accounting for more than 1% of all homicides in any given year, with the notable exception of 2001, argues Matt Palumbo for The Bongino Report.

At the hearing Thursday, Wiegmann said the Justice Department has combatted domestic violations through laws regarding weapons, explosives, hate crimes and arson.

"The question we’re really wrestling with is: Are there gaps?" Wiegmann told a House Appropriations subcommittee. "Is there some type of conduct that we can envision that we can’t cover or would it be an otherwise benefit in having something else other than what we’re having now?"

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Remember the Hammond family who were pardoned by Trump, were declared domestic terrorist because of the arson provision in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. See here and for more info on the case go here.

Hammond family loses grazing permit for third time

Mateusz Perkowski

Roughly a month after their grazing permit was restored, Oregon’s Hammond family has again lost access to four federal allotments totaling 26,400 acres. The U.S. Interior Department has reversed its decision to re-issue the Hammonds’ grazing permit after several environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the decision, claiming it violated administrative, environmental and land management laws. The federal government re-authorized the 10-year grazing permit on Jan. 19, the Trump administration’s final day in office, after initially announcing the proposal on Dec. 31. However, the Interior Department now says that interested parties weren’t notified of the proposed re-authorization for several days, which means they didn’t get the required 15 days to file a protest. The agency said the rescission isn’t a “final determination” in the case and has ordered the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which regulates the allotments, to reconsider the decision. “On remand, the BLM is encouraged to initiate any additional processes and opportunities for public involvement that it may determine appropriate under applicable law following a careful and considered review of protests,” the rescission notice said.In previously re-issuing the grazing permit, the Interior Department cited the Hammond family’s historic use and proximity to the federal property... The Western Watersheds Project, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Wildearth Guardians and Center for Biological Diversity filed another lawsuit seeking to rescind the grazing permit’s most recent approval. The environmental plaintiffs argued the federal government’s decision involved “rushed, opaque, and highly unusual public processes” that were “tainted by political influence and are not the product of reasoned, lawful decision-making,” the complaint said. According to the complaint, the federal government approved the grazing permit “without opportunities for public participation required by law” and wrongly determined the Hammonds were more qualified than other applicants...MORE

From the January 29, 2019 edition of  THE WESTERNER is the info you need to understand this case

Some background on the Hammond case

Some may have forgotten. Others may not be aware of the facts and significance of what happened to the Hammonds.

Here is an excerpt from a May, 2018 column by William Perry Pendley that lays out the facts of this case.

...The Hammonds’ crime? They set a legally permissible fire on their own property, which accidentally burned out of control onto neighboring federal land. Normally, that is an infraction covered by laws governing trespassing, and the guilty party is subject to paying for damages caused by the fire – if the neighboring land belongs to an ordinary citizen. But not when a vindictive federal government is involved. In the “high desert” environment of Harney County – and throughout the West – federal, state and private landowners use controlled or prescribed burns for prairie restoration, forest management and to reduce the buildup of underbrush that could fuel much bigger fires. But sometimes the controlled fires get out of control and sweep onto neighbors’ land. That is legally deemed a trespass, and the landowner who set the fire is liable for any damages. Only the federal government has the power to cite the trespasser criminally for his or her actions. That is what happened to the Hammonds. It did not happen in a vacuum. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has long coveted the Hammond Ranch for inclusion in its surrounding Malheur Wildlife Refuge. The federal agency pressured members of the Hammond family for decades to follow all of their neighbors in selling their property to the federal government. ...In 2001, after alerting the Bureau of Land Management, the Hammonds set a legal fire to eradicate noxious weeds. It spread onto 139 acres of vacant federal land. According to a government witness, the fire actually improved the federal land, as natural fires often do. In 2006, Steven Hammond started another prescribed fire in response to several blazes ignited by a lightning storm near his family’s field of winter feed. The counter-blaze burned a single acre of federal land. According to Steven Hammond’s mother, “the backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home.” The Bureau of Land Management took a different view. It filed a report with Harney County officials alleging several violations of Oregon law. However, after a review of the evidence, the Harney County district attorney dropped all charges in 2006. The Bureau of Land Management did not give up. In 2011, federal prosecutors – referencing both the 2001 and 2006 fires – charged the Hammonds with violating the ‘‘Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,” which carries a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years... 

And here is an excerpt from a January 2018 article by Carrie Stadheim that gives more of the background of what had been happening to the ranchers in this area:

Dwight Hammond and Steve Hammond are in the midst of their five year prison sentences under the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996," for burning – and subsequently putting out – about 140 acres of Bureau of Land Management-administered land in their area. But there is so much more to the story. The family has been denied the ability to use their grazing allotment for nearly four years. Many in the community including Erin Maupin and Travis Williams wonder "why?" No fences or other property were damaged in the fires and a range conservationist testified under oath that the larger fire improved the condition of the rangeland... Hammond Ranch, Incorporated (HRI)- incidentally the only ranching family that continues to maintain a large tract of private land and graze BLM-administered land on the top of the Steens Mountain – was denied a renewal of their grazing permit in 2014, prior to a judge imposing the full five year prison sentence on Dwight and Steven. According to Erin Maupin, former BLM watershed specialist and neighboring rancher, the other ranchers who had previously grazed BLM land in that area, traded allotments and large private inholdings to the government through the creation of the Steens Mountain Act. Much of the grazing allotments that were handed over were then declared a Wilderness Area of around 180,000 acres. Almost 100,000 acres were named "cow-free" wilderness due to pressure from environmental groups and from the Clinton administration, she recalls...The BLM denied them the renewal of their grazing permit in 2014, before the second sentencing, saying they have an "unacceptable record of performance."

Stadheim goes on to write of the significance of this case:

Because the Hammonds can't use their grazing allotment, they are also unable to use their private land which is not fenced, and nearly impossible to fence due to the rough terrain. "They own a significant amount (around 10,000 acres) of private land intermingled with their BLM allotment (around 60,000 acres total) that they are unable to use because there are no fences to separate the two," said Maupin. "Another thing people maybe don't understand – they've paid for their BLM allotment with the purchase of the land and grazing rights. It has real value," said Maupin. "This is why this case is so important. The government is taking real property without due process. If this stands and they can do this to the Hammonds, they can take any of our property whether it is a BLM administered allotment or a house or anything. That's the problem – there was no due process. They just said 'you're done. We're not renewing your permit. We're taking what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars without just compensation." 

And here is an excerpt from a column I wrote in November of 2015 that shows the BLM was so vindictive they went so far as to use false names to attack the Hammonds in social media:

Ranchers as Terrorists
After a two-week trial in July of 2012, Oregon rancher Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, were found guilty of setting fires that caused damage to federal property. One fire burned 139 acres of federal land, the other only 1 acre. The Hammonds claimed the fires were for range management purposes, the federal prosecutors said they were set for more nefarious reasons. Now-retired U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan sentenced Steven Hammond to one year and a day in prison for setting intentional fires in 2001 and 2006, and ordered Dwight Hammond to spend three months behind bars for his involvement in the 2001 blaze. That should have been the end of the story. But it wasn’t. The feds appealed claiming the ranchers should have received mandatory sentences of five years. They had charged the ranchers with violation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. That’s right, the feds were using a law aimed at terrorists to prosecute the ranchers and that law required the mandatory sentences. Judge Hogan had ruled that 5-year sentences would “shock the conscience”, would be grossly disproportionate to the offenses committed and violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the feds, however, and returned the case for sentencing. On October 7 of this year, both Hammonds received the mandatory minimum sentence of five years for deliberately setting fires that spread from their property onto federal land. For comparison, other federal laws that carry five-year minimum sentences are for treason, child pornography, using a gun while committing a violent crime or importing drugs. That should have been the end of this sad story. But it wasn’t. Capital Press posted an online article about the five year sentences and a person who identified himself as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. The real Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, called Capital Press and complained he hadn’t posted those comments. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” Allum said. The publication undertook a search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments and discovered the computer was owned by one of BLM’s offices in Denver, Colo. Treat ranchers as terrorists and then use a government computer to publicly disparage them. One is an injustice and the other is an abuse of federal equipment to ridicule private citizens. 

What a sordid performance by the feds. Is there any wonder that Trump gave each a FULL pardon? And yet, it took BLM 7 months after the pardon to reissue their grazing permits.

Trump gives permit to ranchers whose case led to occupation

Dwight Hammond, left, is greeted by his wife after getting out of prison

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management in the final days of the Trump administration issued a grazing permit to Oregon ranchers whose imprisonment sparked the 2016 armed takeover of a federal wildlife refuge by right-wing extremists. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s restored Dwight and Steven Hammond’s grazing permit earlier this week, which lasts for 10 years, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported. The father and son had their permit revoked after a jury convicted them in 2012 of arson on public lands a decade earlier. The men went to prison, served time and were released, but the U.S. Department of Justice later ordered them back to prison to finish the mandatory minimum five-year sentence. That kicked off the 41-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which is 300 miles (483 kilometers) southeast of Portland. The Oregon State Police fatally shot one occupier, saying he reached for a pistol at a roadblock. The leaders of the takeover, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and five others were later acquitted of conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the refuge. In 2018, Then-President Donald Trump pardoned the Hammonds, allowing them to be freed from federal prison. In a proposal to grant the Hammonds grazing rights on Dec. 31, the land agency said Hammond Ranches should be allowed to graze their cattle on about 26,000 acres (10,522 hectares) in the high desert of eastern Oregon. The federal agency cited the Hammonds’ “extensive historic use of these allotments, past proper use of rangeland resources, a high level of general need, and advantages conferred by topography.” In 2014, when Barack Obama was president, the agency denied Hammond Ranches a renewal of its grazing permit, saying the business “does not have a satisfactory record of performance” and cited numerous incidents of arson...MORE

Trump administration pushes for grazing permits for men who inspired Bundy standoff

The Trump administration is once again pushing ahead with grazing permits for two men pardoned by President Trump whose arson conviction in part spurred the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. A new year’s eve proposal from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would allow Hammond Ranches to graze on lands in southeast Oregon. The ranch is operated by father-son duo Dwight and Steven Hammond who were convicted of setting fire to public lands in 2012. The BLM subsequently revoked their grazing privileges in 2014 — a move that caught the eye of Ammon Bundy, escalating to a 2016 takeover of the refuge’s headquarters. The notice from the BLM would give the Hammonds a permit “due to their extensive historic use of these allotments,” and gives the public 15 days to protest the decision...MORE

Ranchers at center of standoff drop appeal over lost grazing allotments

Hammond Ranches has dropped a legal challenge against the federal government, at least for now, to compete for cattle grazing allotments in eastern Oregon it lost last year. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management can now choose whether the Hammond family or one of three neighboring ranches can use the 26,000-acre BLM allotments, the Capital Press reported. Hammond Ranches hopes that U.S. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and the BLM will issue a permit to graze the four allotments as soon as possible, though it’s possible they may not be available for livestock this year, said Alan Schroeder, the company’s attorney. The agency will conduct an analysis of qualified candidates, but doesn’t have a specific timeframe for awarding the grazing permit, said Tara Thissell, BLM Burns District spokeswoman. In its application, Hammond Ranches warned that it would demand “immediate compensation” for its range improvements, water rights and intermingled private lands if BLM awards access to the allotments to another ranch...MORE

Judge revokes federal grazing permit for Hammond Ranches Inc.

Hammond Family

A federal judge on Friday revoked the grazing permit for Hammond Ranches Inc., finding that former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s order renewing it early this year was an “abuse of discretion.'' Dwight Hammond Jr. and his youngest son Steven Hammond can reapply for a new permit and go through the proper process to obtain one, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon said. Neither Zinke or the U.S. Bureau of Land Management made a finding that the Hammonds were in “substantial compliance,’’ with federal grazing regulations or had a “satisfactory history of performance,’’ as required, the judge found. “Secretary Zinke simply avoided the issue altogether. Under federal law and agency regulations, he may not do this,’’ Simon wrote in a 41-page ruling issued after he heard oral arguments on Thursday. “The Secretary’s failure to comply with the governing statutes and regulations, acknowledge his departure from agency policy and practices, and provide a reasoned explanation for that departure are all serious errors,’’ the judge found...MORE

And from the Western Watershed Project's press release:

A federal judge today overturned the Trump administration’s renewal of the Hammond Ranches’ livestock-grazing permit. The ruling throws out the ranchers’ permit on four allotments in eastern Oregon until further notice. This follows the temporary restraining order and partial injunction in the case that we won last summer.  Because of Hammond Ranches’ pattern of violating federal rules and the terms of its permit that disqualified it from renewal, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon found that then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s decision to renew the permit “was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, not rationally connected to the facts before the agency, inconsistent with the governing statutes and regulations, and an unexplained change in agency practice and procedure.”

Western Watersheds Project and our members believe that when ranchers break the law and abuse public lands, they should lose their grazing permit every time. Giving grazing leases to ranchers who violate the terms and conditions of their permits encourages the livestock industry to continue abusing public lands and degrading habitat for native fish and wildlife, and fans the flames of extremism, the likes of which resulted in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge debacle.

The BLM revoked the Hammonds Ranches’ grazing permits in 2014 after Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted of arson on federal lands in 2012. The permittees appealed the decision and the Oregon BLM stood firm. Then on January 2, 2019, Zinke abruptly overruled the local BLM and renewed the permit. By the time the BLM employees came back to work after the government shutdown, they had just a few days to follow their boss' orders and renew the same permits they had been fighting against since 2014.

So we're savoring this victory that restores the rule of law to public lands management and provides the proper process for the agency to consider livestock grazing's impacts on the sensitive resources of Steens Mountain, including sage-grouse and redband trout. These are places and species worth fighting for!

Environmentalists seek reversal of Hammonds' grazing permits

After winning a court order limiting grazing, environmentalists are now seeking to overturn the federal government’s grazing authorization for two Oregon ranchers convicted but later pardoned for arson. Dwight and Steven Hammond, a father and son who own a ranch near Diamond, Ore., recovered their grazing permits in early 2019 after receiving a full pardon last year from President Donald Trump for setting fire to public rangelands. Both were released from prison in July 2018 before completing their full 5-year mandatory minimum sentences but they were still prohibited from running cattle on four U.S. Bureau of Land Management allotments near their ranch. Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who oversaw the BLM, decided to reinstate their grazing permits in January because the pardons “constitute unique and important changed circumstances” that warranted a reversal of the agency’s 2014 denial of their permit renewal request. Several environmental groups — Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity and Wildearth Guardian — filed a lawsuit earlier this year arguing that Zinke’s decision violated federal environmental laws. In July, U.S. District Judge Michael Simon issued an injunction that reduced how much grass the Hammonds’ cattle can consume and restricting which areas they could graze. The environmental plaintiffs have now filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the judge to vacate the Hammonds’ grazing permits because their presidential pardons “did not alter the conduct, acts and behavior” that led up to the denial of their grazing permits. “BLM’s permit nonrenewal decision did not rely upon the Hammonds’ arson convictions alone; it also relied upon conduct underlying the other counts for which the Hammonds did not meet the criminal standard of guilt but could be held civilly liable,” according to the environmentalists. The plaintiffs argue that BLM’s reinstatement of the grazing permits violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, which requires “satisfactory record of performance and substantial compliance with federal regulations” that the Hammonds lack. The agency also violated the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, by granting a “categorical exclusion” — known as a CX — that exempted the permit renewals from an environmental assessment or a more thorough environmental impact statement, according to the plaintiffs. “The agency’s unsupported conclusion that there are no potentially significant impacts to ecologically significant areas cannot justify use of the CX,” the motion said...MORE

Federal judge limits cattle grazing for Harney County’s Hammond Ranches

A federal judge will allow Hammond Ranches Inc. to graze its cattle on parts of a federal allotment called Hardie Summer this season but must limit its use as three environmental advocacy groups challenge the Harney County ranchers’ federal grazing permit in court. U.S. District Judge ­Michael H. Simon issued a 58-page written ruling Tuesday, granting a partial preliminary injunction after two days of oral arguments. The judge approved an alternative grazing plan that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management had proposed at last month’s hearing. The three environmental groups suing the federal land agency rejected the alternative at the start of the hearing and urged a halt to any cattle grazing by the Harney County ranchers on federal land. The Hardie Summer allotment is about 9,800 acres, of which approximately 39 percent is owned by the Hammonds, and 61 percent, or 6,000 acres, is publicly owned. The allotment is subdivided into five pastures on which the cattle rotate during grazing. The restrictions will reduce harm to sage grouse and will lessen the harms to redband trout, Simon wrote in his ruling. The judge issued the restrictions amid a finding that the environmental groups had shown a likelihood of succeeding in proving that former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s order for the government to reissue a 10-year grazing permit to the Hammonds this year “was arbitrary and capricious” and unlawful...MORE

Harney County to environmental groups: Leave pardoned ranchers alone

Maxine Bernstein 

Harney County is coming to the defense of the Hammonds, the father-and-son ranchers pardoned last year by President Trump and now fighting to maintain a 10-year permit to graze cattle on federal land outside Burns. The county’s attorney, a commissioner, the sheriff and some residents argue much is at stake for southeastern Oregon’s high desert expanse, still reeling from the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016. On Friday, a federal judge will consider whether to issue an order that likely would stop Hammond Ranches Inc. from grazing its livestock this season on two federal allotments while three environmental groups challenge the cattle family’s permit as unlawful. Many of the people living in the state’s largest county rely on ranching and agriculture to fuel the regional economy and are watching closely to see how the jurisdictional battle plays out and what it could mean for them. Some see the lawsuit by the Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity and Wildearth Guardians as more unwanted attention from outside agitators, especially given that it involves the Hammonds – whose case inspired both the refuge occupation and the latest court fight. “It is time for the press, the courts, the politicians, the far rights, far lefts and the somewhere in between folks to let us get back to our lives here in Harney County,” Sheriff Dave Ward wrote to the Portland judge hearing the suit. “I deeply miss the culture we had here before everybody else came along trying to ‘educate’ us on how to live in our own community.’’ The environmental groups argue that renewed grazing will remove tall grass and other flowering plants in sage grouse habitat during nesting season. The birds depend on the vegetation for protection from predators and for food. The groups also contend the cattle will trample stream banks and harm redband trout. In early June, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon granted a temporary restraining order barring Hammond Ranches from grazing cattle on two allotments covered in the permit until early July. The order didn’t affect Hammond cows already grazing on two other government allotments. The judge cited concerns that Zinke’s one-paragraph analysis using the pardons as the basis for the permit approval had no supporting evidence. Simon found the environmental groups had shown that they’re likely to succeed in their claim that the government issued the permit in violation of federal laws causing “irreparable harm’’ to a sensitive species. He will consider granting a preliminary injunction that would extend the ban indefinitely until the groups’ suit is decided. The ranchers at the center of the debate so far haven’t moved to intervene in the lawsuit to fight the grazing ban. But Steven Hammond, president of Hammond Ranches, has called the suit more of a “personal attack’ on his family rather than a legitimate argument for environmental protections...MORE

New Lawsuit Filed to Block Hammond Family Grazing Decision

Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, and Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit today to block livestock turnout in Oregon sage-grouse habitat. The turnout would occur under a grazing permit that was renewed illegally after Secretary Ryan Zinke intervened in the appeals process. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had originally declined to renew the permit in 2014 because of the permittee’s record of arsons and other noncompliance with the permit terms and conditions. The livestock will spread cheatgrass, degrade recovering sage-grouse habitats, and increase thSome background on the Hammond case Some background on the Hammond case e flammability of these public lands. The grazing permittees in this case are Dwight and Steven Hammond, notoriously bad actors from Burns, Oregon. The Hammonds were sentenced to federal prison for committing arsons to increase forage for their cattle on the public lands and their sentence served as the excuse for anti-public lands extremists to stage an armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January 2016. They received a pardon from President Donald Trump after serving parts of their sentences. WWP supported the BLM's decision to cancel the permit, and we still do. The BLM itself had stood by its revocation of grazing privileges, and had been defending its decision until former Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke ordered it to back down on his last day in office on January 2, 2019, during the government shutdown. Zinke demanded that the BLM renew the Hammonds permit within 30 days, precluding environmental review and consideration of the impacts of resuming grazing on lands that had been recovering from livestock impacts for the past five years...MORE 

As if this family hasn't been through enough.
See my post Some background on the Hammond case for the sordid history of this affair.

Zinke signed document reinstating the Hammond's grazing permits

The Dept. of Interior's 1/2/2019 six page decision document is embedded below or you can view it here. And those who are a glutton for punishment can view the 2014, 21 page decision to not renew the grazing permits here.

BLM reissues permits to Dwight and Steven Hammond

Dwight and Steven Hammond’s journey from ranchers to convicted domestic terrorists back to ranchers concluded this week when the federal government reissued permits allowing the father and son to graze cattle again on public land. A Bureau of Land Management spokesman confirmed Tuesday that the agency had reinstated grazing permits for Hammond Ranches in Harney County, Oregon, who received full pardons from President Trump in July. The Hammonds were sentenced to five-year mandatory minimum sentences in 2015 under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act for two prescribed burns that spread to public land, a sentence that stoked outrage in the rural West. Public Lands Council president Bob Skinner and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association president Kevin Kester called the reinstated permits “the final step in righting the egregious injustices the Hammonds faced.” “This is the culmination of years of effort on behalf of this industry to restore a family’s livelihood,” said their statement. “We speak on behalf of the livestock producers nationwide in saying thank you to Acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and his team who worked to correct the hardships this family faced.” Ethan Lane, senior executive director of PLC and NCBA Federal Lands, said the Hammonds learned Monday through their attorney that their grazing permits had been restored...MORE

Some background on the Hammond case

Some may have forgotten. Others may not be aware of the facts and significance of what happened to the Hammonds.

Here is an excerpt from a May, 2018 column by William Perry Pendley that lays out the facts of this case.

...The Hammonds’ crime? They set a legally permissible fire on their own property, which accidentally burned out of control onto neighboring federal land. Normally, that is an infraction covered by laws governing trespassing, and the guilty party is subject to paying for damages caused by the fire – if the neighboring land belongs to an ordinary citizen. But not when a vindictive federal government is involved. In the “high desert” environment of Harney County – and throughout the West – federal, state and private landowners use controlled or prescribed burns for prairie restoration, forest management and to reduce the buildup of underbrush that could fuel much bigger fires. But sometimes the controlled fires get out of control and sweep onto neighbors’ land. That is legally deemed a trespass, and the landowner who set the fire is liable for any damages. Only the federal government has the power to cite the trespasser criminally for his or her actions. That is what happened to the Hammonds. It did not happen in a vacuum. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has long coveted the Hammond Ranch for inclusion in its surrounding Malheur Wildlife Refuge. The federal agency pressured members of the Hammond family for decades to follow all of their neighbors in selling their property to the federal government. ...In 2001, after alerting the Bureau of Land Management, the Hammonds set a legal fire to eradicate noxious weeds. It spread onto 139 acres of vacant federal land. According to a government witness, the fire actually improved the federal land, as natural fires often do. In 2006, Steven Hammond started another prescribed fire in response to several blazes ignited by a lightning storm near his family’s field of winter feed. The counter-blaze burned a single acre of federal land. According to Steven Hammond’s mother, “the backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home.” The Bureau of Land Management took a different view. It filed a report with Harney County officials alleging several violations of Oregon law. However, after a review of the evidence, the Harney County district attorney dropped all charges in 2006. The Bureau of Land Management did not give up. In 2011, federal prosecutors – referencing both the 2001 and 2006 fires – charged the Hammonds with violating the ‘‘Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,” which carries a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years... 

And here is an excerpt from a January 2018 article by Carrie Stadheim that gives more of the background of what had been happening to the ranchers in this area:

Dwight Hammond and Steve Hammond are in the midst of their five year prison sentences under the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996," for burning – and subsequently putting out – about 140 acres of Bureau of Land Management-administered land in their area. But there is so much more to the story. The family has been denied the ability to use their grazing allotment for nearly four years. Many in the community including Erin Maupin and Travis Williams wonder "why?" No fences or other property were damaged in the fires and a range conservationist testified under oath that the larger fire improved the condition of the rangeland... Hammond Ranch, Incorporated (HRI)- incidentally the only ranching family that continues to maintain a large tract of private land and graze BLM-administered land on the top of the Steens Mountain – was denied a renewal of their grazing permit in 2014, prior to a judge imposing the full five year prison sentence on Dwight and Steven. According to Erin Maupin, former BLM watershed specialist and neighboring rancher, the other ranchers who had previously grazed BLM land in that area, traded allotments and large private inholdings to the government through the creation of the Steens Mountain Act. Much of the grazing allotments that were handed over were then declared a Wilderness Area of around 180,000 acres. Almost 100,000 acres were named "cow-free" wilderness due to pressure from environmental groups and from the Clinton administration, she recalls...The BLM denied them the renewal of their grazing permit in 2014, before the second sentencing, saying they have an "unacceptable record of performance."

Stadheim goes on to write of the significance of this case:

Because the Hammonds can't use their grazing allotment, they are also unable to use their private land which is not fenced, and nearly impossible to fence due to the rough terrain. "They own a significant amount (around 10,000 acres) of private land intermingled with their BLM allotment (around 60,000 acres total) that they are unable to use because there are no fences to separate the two," said Maupin. "Another thing people maybe don't understand – they've paid for their BLM allotment with the purchase of the land and grazing rights. It has real value," said Maupin. "This is why this case is so important. The government is taking real property without due process. If this stands and they can do this to the Hammonds, they can take any of our property whether it is a BLM administered allotment or a house or anything. That's the problem – there was no due process. They just said 'you're done. We're not renewing your permit. We're taking what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars without just compensation." 

And here is an excerpt from a column I wrote in November of 2015 that shows the BLM was so vindictive they went so far as to use false names to attack the Hammonds in social media:

Ranchers as Terrorists
After a two-week trial in July of 2012, Oregon rancher Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, were found guilty of setting fires that caused damage to federal property. One fire burned 139 acres of federal land, the other only 1 acre. The Hammonds claimed the fires were for range management purposes, the federal prosecutors said they were set for more nefarious reasons. Now-retired U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan sentenced Steven Hammond to one year and a day in prison for setting intentional fires in 2001 and 2006, and ordered Dwight Hammond to spend three months behind bars for his involvement in the 2001 blaze. That should have been the end of the story. But it wasn’t. The feds appealed claiming the ranchers should have received mandatory sentences of five years. They had charged the ranchers with violation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. That’s right, the feds were using a law aimed at terrorists to prosecute the ranchers and that law required the mandatory sentences. Judge Hogan had ruled that 5-year sentences would “shock the conscience”, would be grossly disproportionate to the offenses committed and violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the feds, however, and returned the case for sentencing. On October 7 of this year, both Hammonds received the mandatory minimum sentence of five years for deliberately setting fires that spread from their property onto federal land. For comparison, other federal laws that carry five-year minimum sentences are for treason, child pornography, using a gun while committing a violent crime or importing drugs. That should have been the end of this sad story. But it wasn’t. Capital Press posted an online article about the five year sentences and a person who identified himself as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. The real Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, called Capital Press and complained he hadn’t posted those comments. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” Allum said. The publication undertook a search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments and discovered the computer was owned by one of BLM’s offices in Denver, Colo. Treat ranchers as terrorists and then use a government computer to publicly disparage them. One is an injustice and the other is an abuse of federal equipment to ridicule private citizens. 

What a sordid performance by the feds. Is there any wonder that Trump gave each a FULL pardon? And yet, it took BLM 7 months after the pardon to reissue their grazing permits.

Hammonds are home: Dwight and Steven out of prison and back to Oregon

Dave Duquette with Protect the Harvest, Steve Hammond, Dwight Hammond and Forrest Lucas, founder of Protect the Harvest,

Carrie Stadheim

Dwight and Steven Hammond have returned home to Burns, Ore., after President Donald Trump announced yesterday that he was granting them a full pardon. The two men have served collectively over seven years in prison for the approximately 140 acres of federal land they burned in two separate fires. One fire was a backburn, set to protect their home quarters, the other was a management fire that spilled over and burned a small amount of federal land, but no fences or structures. Upon arrival in Oregon, the two men met with a group of media and supporters. "We received thousands of letters," said Steven, with strong emotion in his voice...The Hammonds look forward to returning to their daily ranch work, and seeking a semblance of normalcy. Friend and neighbor Erin Maupin, Burns, Ore., was with Susie Hammond within a few moments of Susie taking the call from the White House that her husband and son had been pardoned. Maupin said that as of now, the Hammonds' grazing permit still has not been renewed. The family has leased other land and sold cattle in order to continue their ranching enterprise, but those measures are not sustainable in the long term, and they will need their grazing permit renewed in order to remain viable, Maupin said. Supporters are encouraged to continue asking congressmen, representatives and the Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, for a renewal of the Hammonds' grazing permits. The Hammonds have been unable to utilize their BLM permits, as well as about 10,000 acres of their own private property that is unfenced and intermingled with the federal lands...MORE

Unlikely alliance set Oregon ranchers' pardons in motion

When Dwight and Steven Hammond left federal prison Tuesday, it was in large part thanks to a Portland attorney who was politically and culturally their opposite. Larry Matasar, 68, is a political progressive who volunteered on Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. He's a self-described child of the '60s and rock aficionado who has attended more than 100 Bruce Springsteen shows. He's an urban creature from Chicago's South Side. "It's a long, long way from Burns," he said in reference to the Eastern Oregon town nearest the Hammonds' remote 12,000-acre ranch. Yet Matasar has represented the family for 25 years and connected with them personally. It was Matasar who represented the father and son in the controversial arson case that made them unwitting heroes in the anti-government land rights movement. "Everything about them rings true, the way they interact with one another, with their children," Matasar said. "They're good people. I'm glad I got to know them." Matasar was also part of the legal team that petitioned the White House to commute the Hammonds' sentences. On Tuesday, he was thrilled when President Donald Trump instead granted them full pardons. "Trump gave them more than they asked for," said Margaret Love, a former pardons lawyer in the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations who was hired by the Hammonds. "It was unexpected, to say the least."...MORE

STATEMENT FROM HAMMOND FAMILY

The Pardon: Rep. Waldren, Oregon Farm Bureau & H.R. 983

Greg Walden applauds pardon of Dwight and Steven Hammond
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Representative Greg Walden (R-Hood River) today released the following statement applauding the pardon of Dwight and Steven Hammond:
“Today is a win for justice, and an acknowledgement of our unique way of life in the high desert, rural West. I applaud President Trump for thoroughly reviewing the facts of this case, rightly determining the Hammonds were treated unfairly, and taking action to correct this injustice. “For far too long, Dwight and Steven Hammond have been serving a mandatory minimum sentence that was established for terrorists. This is something that would ‘shock the conscience,’ according to Federal Judge Michael Hogan, who presided over the case and used his discretion in sentencing which later was reversed.  As ranchers across eastern Oregon frequently tell me, the Hammonds didn’t deserve a five year sentence for using fire as a management tool, something the federal government does all the time.  “Moving forward, I’m encouraging the House Judiciary Committee to act on my legislation to prevent this situation from happening to other ranchers. H.R. 983 would ensure farmers and ranchers are not prosecuted as terrorists for using fire for range-management purposes. “For now, though, I am pleased that Dwight and Steven Hammond will return to their families and ranches in Harney County. I look forward to welcoming them back home to eastern Oregon.”

Oregon Farm Bureau statement on Hammonds pardon
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 10, 2018, SALEM, OREGON: Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB) thanks the president, Congressman Walden, and all of those who worked to end the injustice done to Steven and Dwight Hammond by granting them clemency. While nobody can restore what they’ve lost to this prosecutorial overreach and bureaucratic vendetta, we are happy that this awful chapter will be coming to a close soon. OFB has publicly advocated for the Hammonds, including gathering over 25,000 online signatures, and also supported clemency through officials in Oregon and Washington, D.C. OFB President Barry Bushue said, “Our thoughts and prayers are with Steven and Dwight as they get back to the people and the land they love. We will continue to do whatever we can to ensure that this injustice is never repeated.” The federal judge who heard the Hammonds’ case, Michael Hogan, said in his ruling that a five-year prison sentence is “grossly disproportionate to the severity of [petitioners’] offenses.” He added that it does “not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionately” and “would shock the conscience to me.” Hogan also noted that the 1996 Anti-Terrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act was never meant to apply to ranchers simply trying to protect their land. We agree.

Embedded below is H.R. 983, the Resource Management Practices Protection Act:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kRo5-B6cfMuFA6p2Mnz7a684dtA30Bu8/view?usp=sharing

Walden: Trump 'seriously considering' pardon of Hammonds

Rep. Greg Walden , R-Ore., said he received a phone call Saturday from President Trump, who said he is "seriously considering" pardoning Eastern Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, now serving a 5-year federal prison sentence. “Late Saturday afternoon, President Trump called me to say he is 'seriously considering' pardoning Dwight and Steven Hammond," the congressman said in a statement released Sunday. "The sentencing of Dwight and Steve Hammond to five years in federal prison is unjust. Period. Federal Judge Michael Hogan agreed, when he used his discretion to apply more appropriate sentences, calling the mandatory minimum sentence for this case something that would ‘shock the conscious.' Multiple editorial boards across Oregon have concurred...MORE

Walden seeks presidential pardon for 2 Oregon ranchers in prison for range fire

U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Hood River, on Wednesday came to the defense of two Harney County ranchers, requesting that President Donald Trump pardon Dwight and Steven Hammond. In his remarks on the U.S. House floor, Walden noted that the two ranchers were sent to prison for starting a fire on the range, which Walden said was being used as a management tool. After the ranchers’ original trial, the federal judge hearing the case refused to sentence them, Walden said. However, the Justice Department, in the Obama Administration, appealed and the pair were sentenced to five years. “But they never should have been sentenced to this,” said Walden in his comments. Commenting the Hammond’s fire only burned 139 acres, he said, “We burn hundreds of thousands of acres every year. The government starts fires that burn onto private land nothing seems to happen. “It is time for the President to review this situation and to grant a pardon to Steven and Dwight Hammond — pull them back to their families,” Walden continued. “It’s time for real justice, and President Trump can administer that.”...MORE

from the Congressional Record

                    PARDON STEVEN AND DWIGHT HAMMOND

  (Mr. WALDEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to raise an issue that would 
``shock the conscience.'' Those are not my words. Those are the words 
of a distinguished Federal judge when he refused to sentence two 
ranchers in my district to 5 years in prison. Judge Hogan looked at the 
case and he said: That is not right. It would ``shock the conscience.''
  This Friday, the younger of those two ranchers will mark his fourth 
year in prison for starting a fire--by the way, fire on the range, high 
desert, is a management tool. They were using it for that purpose. They 
were tried. They were convicted. They never should have been sentenced 
to this.
  The Obama administration came back and resentenced them to 5 years 
for 139 acres. We burn hundreds of thousands of acres every year. The 
government starts fires that burn onto private land. Nothing seems to 
happen.
  It is time for the President to review this situation and to grant a 
pardon to Steven and Dwight Hammond, pull them back together with their 
families. They have served long enough.
  This is an issue that shocks the conscience. It is time for real 
justice, and President Trump can administer that.