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.
Something about this story doesn’t smell right. That part of Oregon has pretty sparse growth. It is hard for me to imagine enough fuel to sustain the kind of fires they are talking about.
I think the informers are lying through their teeth. Juniper burns pretty hot, but you only see small clumps of it here and there.
What we are not hearing about is what created the obvious antagonism with the feds. My guess (because I am familiar with similar stories) is the feds would not allow them to destroy the invasive plant species that were reducing the graze. The feds are supposed to maintain and improve the grazing, but they rarely, if ever, do. They probably did a range assessment and noted the encroachment by the invasive species. Then either said they were going to reduce the number of animals allowed to graze (AUMs) or fine them for not maintaining the grazing properly - even though the feds are supposed to do it and are paid by the ranchers for “range management” (usually loosely interpreted by the feds as “cattlemen harassment”)
This kind of behavior is standard procedure. The feds tend to view the ranchers as adversaries and rarely form cooperative working relationships with them.
They invite these situations with their “high-horse”, heavy-handed approach.
The feds could help themselves immensely and avoid these confrontations, if they, as public servants, chose to work with the ranchers instead of against them. They are often young, with an “I’m with the government, I have a college degree, so I know more than you do and I will by God make you listen to me” attitude. Which doesn’t go over very well with guys who have been watching grass, graze and browse like their lives depended on it since the fed whippersnapper’s daddy was in diapers.
Federal Employees Started One of the biggest wildfires in Texas
Bet no Federal employee was sent to prison for that.
Say what? ALL Evidence? Think about that, Dusty, I have fought wildfires and there is always something left of a critter, even a gut pile would likely survive a grass fire (roasted, shriveled, but still there). No bones, no hide, no head, no skull, nothing? Not likely. Scavengers might do the clean up, but the fire alone would not likely eliminate all evidence, unless all there was was a blood trail.