Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Oregon

[Que]

This thread has now given new meaning to the expression "in the weeds".

Laughs. Right?

As far as the actual root of the matter whether these people who have taken over this building have a lick of sense that's a whole 'nother matter.

I don't really see where it helps the people that are in jail, and I don't see how it helps the cause of publicizing the problems of government over reach on western lands. There's no point in preaching to the choir because those in the West to agree with the mismanagement by the federal government of western lands don't really need to be convinced. Those in the East who are afraid of guns are not likely to be persuaded by some armed protesters

 

[Que]

I thought it was awkward using the browser that came with my new phone for posting anything of substance. It's even worse now that I've downloaded Firefox which I thought would improve things. I love Firefox on my laptop but it's horrible on the phone for some reason until I get used to it at least

 

[allateup]

Which idiots? The ones at the refuge? Or some of those contributing to this thread?

It's too bad you're incapable of reading without your partisanly progressive-colored glasses so then you could see ALL the idiots posting in this thread.

 

[oggbashan]

It's too bad you're incapable of reading without your partisanly progressive-colored glasses so then you could see ALL the idiots posting in this thread.

But I can see all except one, and he's been quoted.

What I don't need to see is more evidence of your limited vocabulary of abuse which reveals your pathetic alt disguise, eyer.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Are you aware of the difference between a ranch and a farm? Ranchers don't raise crops.

The alleged poaching which clearly couldn't have been poaching seems like sort of a side issue but I'm just amazed at the lengths to which those are going to insist that poaching might have happened when it clearly couldn't have according to the government's version of things.

You're belief that it couldn't have been poaching is absurd without knowing who the people are and what they are like. Which as I and many others have stated is ultimately settled, they weren't found guilty or as far as I can tell even charged.

 

[Que]

You're belief that it couldn't have been poaching is absurd without knowing who the people are and what they are like. Which as I and many others have stated is ultimately settled, they weren't found guilty or as far as I can tell even charged.

That the fire would not have been started for the speculated purpose of removing evidence of poaching is absurd as has been thoroughly explained.

The idea that ranchers would shoot deer to provide rangeland for cows is absurd for a myriad of reasons as already explained not to mention the fact that venison on the hoof or butchered is worth more than beef.

The idea that ranchers with huge tracts of owned lland where the could legally harvest deer would bother to wander over to poach is absurd. Why pack the meat back when bambi will come to the doorstep of your smokehouse?

 

[allateup]

...your pathetic alt disguise, eyer.

Too friggin' funny.

 

[oggbashan]

Too friggin' funny.

Please invest some of your welfare check and buy a dictionary.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That the fire would not have been started for the speculated purpose of removing evidence of poaching is absurd as has been thoroughly explained.

The idea that ranchers would shoot deer to provide rangeland for cows is absurd for a myriad of reasons as already explained not to mention the fact that venison on the hoof or butchered is worth more than beef.

The idea that ranchers with huge tracts of owned lland where the could legally harvest deer would bother to wander over to poach is absurd. Why pack the meat back when bambi will come to the doorstep of your smokehouse?

It's absurd in your opionion and ultimately that's all it is.

I don't know why they would have shot the dear. In the stories posted I've never even seen the word deer to begin with that's just the critter we all settled on. As a Californian the idea that you had an endangered mouse on your property and would be charged with a crime for cutting your grass is something that actually happens and has cost money, houses and I presume lives even if the latter I can't point to a story.

Maybe it's legal to kill deer on your property there. In California and in Florida where I've also spent some time animals that are illegal to hunt, or are out of season are illegal to hunt. You better have proof your life was in immediate danger. A deer chillin in your backyard drinking from your pool is a job for animal control not the Grillmaster 9000.

 

[allateup]

Please invest some of your welfare check and buy a dictionary.

Has it just been since you've been posting on the GB, or have you been that impotent all of your life?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

clearly, we can all agree that if America had:

a. a real American as POTUS
b. a leader as POTUS


that this would never have happened.

however, we have the obama but hey, it wears pretty panties

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Please invest some of your welfare check and buy a dictionary.

I want a welfare check. why should the obama kind have all the fun and never go to work?

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)
The idea that ranchers with huge tracts of owned lland where the could legally harvest deer would bother to wander over to poach is absurd. Why pack the meat back when bambi will come to the doorstep of your smokehouse?

Why bother at all when you can buy venison at a grocery store?

Have you zero comprehension of the psychology of hunting?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

A majority of the people here are either assigning potions are have no idea what I am arguing.

So I will attempt to break it down.


The Bundy's are idiots. I neither trust their motive nor believe their course of action is logical. The only issue I have here is with people who:

- Use the word terrorists rather than protesters.
- Use racial slurs
- Make the federal governments response (lack off) racial by comparing it to Ferguson.
- The whole BS "but but they got guns!!" argument. They sure do. Legally. Suck it up fruitcakes.

The Hammond's were legally charged with Arson. Their were sentenced. They served the sentence. The federal government appealed the sentence by correctly saying the anti-terrorist act demands a 5 year minimum and should apply.

I have several objections/suspicion about this.

- Does any one here believe that this case was the intent of the anti-terrorist act?
- For decades the BLM has been trying to obtain their ranch.
-Prescribed burns to prevent fires, create fire breaks, Get rid of useless scrub, increase a lands productivity are common. They are common by both the BLM, and by ranchers. These fires often cross the boundaries and I have never seen arson charges filed on either side.
- The government admits that one fire removed nuisance juniper. It admits one fire likely prevented another fire from destroying the Hammond graze land.

So why is poaching even relevant?

Given how common prescribed fires are, given that both fires ended up being beneficial, giving that both fires caused no harm, certainly one could see how a hook like poaching would be needed/help to prove arson?

I think it has been pretty well covered that there is more than enough reasonable
logical/real evidence that poaching makes 0 sense.

If you still believe in poaching 100%...... well, I truly do pity you.

 

[allateup]

blah, blah, blah, blah...blah

This is turning out to be just like you and your pop's infamous, serially arcane, Muslim posting sprees, frat boy.

Good job.

 

[Pookie]

...

The idea that ranchers with huge tracts of owned lland where the could legally harvest deer would bother to wander over to poach is absurd. Why pack the meat back when bambi will come to the doorstep of your smokehouse?

The idea of a lot of things is absurd, but it doesn't stop people from doing absurd things for a variety of reasons.

The appeals to incredulity in this thread have been ... totally unbelievable! <--- see what I did there?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

A majority of the people here are either assigning potions are have no idea what I am arguing.

So I will attempt to break it down.


The Bundy's are idiots. I neither trust their motive nor believe their course of action is logical. The only issue I have here is with people who:

- Use the word terrorists rather than protesters.
- Use racial slurs
- Make the federal governments response (lack off) racial by comparing it to Ferguson.
- The whole BS "but but they got guns!!" argument. They sure do. Legally. Suck it up fruitcakes.

The Hammond's were legally charged with Arson. Their were sentenced. They served the sentence. The federal government appealed the sentence by correctly saying the anti-terrorist act demands a 5 year minimum and should apply.

I have several objections/suspicion about this.

- Does any one here believe that this case was the intent of the anti-terrorist act?
- For decades the BLM has been trying to obtain their ranch.
-Prescribed burns to prevent fires, create fire breaks, Get rid of useless scrub, increase a lands productivity are common. They are common by both the BLM, and by ranchers. These fires often cross the boundaries and I have never seen arson charges filed on either side.
- The government admits that one fire removed nuisance juniper. It admits one fire likely prevented another fire from destroying the Hammond graze land.

So why is poaching even relevant?

Given how common prescribed fires are, given that both fires ended up being beneficial, giving that both fires caused no harm, certainly one could see how a hook like poaching would be needed/help to prove arson?

I think it has been pretty well covered that there is more than enough reasonable
logical/real evidence that poaching makes 0 sense.

If you still believe in poaching 100%...... well, I truly do pity you.

Armed men took over a government facility then told police if they try to evict them that they will be met with violence. You object to them being called terrorists?
How about traitors? Seditionists?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The authorities should march in there and evict their stupid asses. If they make good on their threat of violence then it's on them.

Ranchers set fire to land that they did not own without the permission of the owner, the reason they did so is irrelevant. It was arson and was prosecuted under the relevant federal statute. The judge handed down a sentence that was much less than the mandatory one required by federal law. You know what mandatory means yes? Obviously the judge did not.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

This is turning out to be just like you and your pop's infamous, serially arcane, Muslim posting sprees, frat boy.

Good job.

if you say so Luke....

You and Eyeor both continue to post here with out actually saying a thing. Odd that.

 

[chillywilly2]

Armed men took over a government facility then told police if they try to evict them that they will be met with violence. You object to them being called terrorists?
How about traitors? Seditionists?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The authorities should march in there and evict their stupid asses. If they make good on their threat of violence then it's on them.

Ranchers set fire to land that they did not own without the permission of the owner, the reason they did so is irrelevant. It was arson and was prosecuted under the relevant federal statute. The judge handed down a sentence that was much less than the mandatory one required by federal law. You know what mandatory means yes? Obviously the judge did not.

You crawled out of a politicians ass to say that didn't you

 

[Pookie]

...

The Hammond's were legally charged with Arson. Their were sentenced. They served the sentence. The federal government appealed the sentence by correctly saying the anti-terrorist act demands a 5 year minimum and should apply.

I have several objections/suspicion about this.

- Does any one here believe that this case was the intent of the anti-terrorist act?

Likely not the original intent, but laws are made like sausage. It ain't pretty.

...
-Prescribed burns to prevent fires, create fire breaks, Get rid of useless scrub, increase a lands productivity are common. They are common by both the BLM, and by ranchers. These fires often cross the boundaries and I have never seen arson charges filed on either side.
- The government admits that one fire removed nuisance juniper. It admits one fire likely prevented another fire from destroying the Hammond graze land.

Claiming my neighbor won't have to ever paint his house, mop the floors, dust the shelves, etc. because I burned his house down isn't likely gonna earn me any points with the judge.

So why is poaching even relevant?

Because it was mentioned as the motivation for the arson by the nephew who was there. Duh.

Given how common prescribed fires are, given that both fires ended up being beneficial, giving that both fires caused no harm, certainly one could see how a hook like poaching would be needed/help to prove arson?

I think it has been pretty well covered that there is more than enough reasonable
logical/real evidence that poaching makes 0 sense.

If you still believe in poaching 100%...... well, I truly do pity you.

If I speed down the highway at 200 mph, but end up causing no harm, should the trooper not give me a ticket?

But one could see how a hook like my wearing a bikini at the time would be needed to prove a reason for the trooper pulling me over.

Also, just because burning something can be beneficial, it's not likely going to cut you any slack when you do it illegally. We have rules and regulations for a reason.

And seriously, the appeals to incredulity aren't very helpful to making your case. Leave the logical fallacies to busyboobie.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Know what's even odder, frat boy?

You endlessly posting here and fantasizing you're actually posting something other than fap fodder for you and pops.

Is that the mental image stuck in your head Luke?

Fuck...no wonder you can not post a coherent thought.

 

[snugglestruggle]

The BLM has been overbearing for decades in it's policies and not just with Ranchers. The BLM by federal Law is mandated to protect wild horses yet look at their treatment of horses in their custody at the Palomino facility in NV. There are dozens of stories citing incidents of bureaucratic Jihad against wild horses & Burros.

http://rtfitchauthor.com/2015/07/11...trapped-in-blm-s-palomino-valley-nv-facility/

The Bundy's are idiots. They may have been the inspiration for the TV show.

These guys that took over the FWS buildings are attention seekers and they are going about it all wrong. I'm guessing they want the Feds to "Rambo up" for their cause. The smart play is to cut off electricity, water and starve them out.

 

[Pookie]

Know what's even odder, frat boy?

You endlessly posting here and fantasizing you're actually posting something other than fap fodder for you and pops.

You are quite the expert at fap fodder fantasies ...

Right, crusader wannabe?

 

[Aglaopheme]

So some say. Odd how they where never charged with poaching...

(i)" 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.

(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid"

Oh looky, a timeline.....

http://wildfiretoday.com/2016/01/05/the-timeline-for-the-oregon-rancher-arsonists/

The Timeline

1994, August 5 — Dwight and Steven Hammond were arrested and spent two nights in custody. Federal employees of the Malheur National Wildlife refuge were attempting to build a fence on refuge property to keep the Hammonds’ cattle from trespassing on federal land. (There is some dispute about this exact date, but court records show that it occurred on August 5, 1994.)

From High Country News:

On the day the fence was to be built, the crew and refuge officials arrived to find Hammond had parked his Caterpillar scraper squarely on the boundary line and disabled it, removing the battery and draining fuel lines. When a tow truck arrived to move it, Dwight Hammond showed up, leaped to the controls of the scraper and hit a lever that lowered the bucket, narrowly missing another special agent. Meanwhile, said [Special Agent Earl M.] Kisler, Steve Hammond shouted obscenities at federal officials. Neither Hammond resisted arrest.

The original charge was a felony, “Forcibly impede, intimidate and interfere with federal officers engaged in the performance of their official duties”.

The High Country News reported that many sources applied a great deal of pressure on the BLM and the Secretary of the Interior, protesting the arrests. Some employees received phone calls and death threats at their homes.

1994, August 15 — The charges were reduced to a misdemeanor for both Steven and Dwight Hammond, to “Interfering with Government Employees and Private Parties”.

1997, July 16 — the “Interfering” cases were dismissed by the U.S. Attorney’s office.

1999 — Steven was arrested and convicted for interfering with lawful users of public lands. On Oct. 9, 1999, he interfered with a lawful hunt being conducted by a hunting guide and his party. On March 9, 2000, he was sentenced to 3 years of probation.

2001, September 30 — Hardie-Hammond Fire.

According to testimony from a commercial hunting guide, his two clients, and Dusty Hammond the grandson to Dwight Hammond and nephew to Steven Hammond, their family and friends were hunting when shots were fired from the group into a herd of deer on BLM land. The guide said four bucks were crippled, but the Hammond hunting party did not track or collect any deer.

Later, Steven, with Dwight at his side, handed out boxes of matches to everyone in the party including 13-year old Dusty. Their instructions were to “light up the whole country on fire”. They went off in different directions and began igniting fires, but Dusty was by himself, following a path pointed out by Steven. He was at first unsuccessful in getting the vegetation to ignite, but after Steven showed him how to use several of the “strike anywhere” matches together, he was creating eight to ten-foot flames which at one point surrounded and entrapped him causing him to fear for his life — “I thought I was going to get burned up”, he said. The fires were lit along the line between their property and public land, and spread onto public land.

Gerri Badden, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office, said the motive for setting the fires was to cover up the illegal slaughter of the deer which was witnessed by the hunting guide, the guide’s two hunters, and was affirmed by Dusty.

Two hours after igniting the fires Steven called the BLM to report that they were going to burn invasive species.

The hunting guide saw that the fire was moving toward their camp and was concerned about his safety and that of his two clients from Utah. The three of them evacuated from the area without even taking the time to break down and remove their equipment at the camp. As they drove away they were able to see the flames of the fire in the area they had left. Testimony in the trial indicated that the Hammonds were aware of the location of the guide and his clients before lighting the fires since they flew their airplane over the area earlier that morning.

Later in the day Dwight and Steven took to the sky again in their airplane to examine the burnt area, telling Dusty they were going to check to see if the fire got rid of the juniper, which is an invasive species that robs water from grasses grazed by cattle.

Dusty said that when the Hammond hunting party returned to the house after setting the fires, “Dwight told me to keep my mouth shut, that nobody needed to know about the fire”. Eight years later 21-year old Dusty told investigators why he waited so long to speak up about the arson, saying that if Steven heard he provided information he would come to Dusty’s front door and kill him.

The writers of the sentencing report said the setting of the fires created a “conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury” to individuals including Dusty Hammond. The fires burned 139 acres of federal land.


2004 — Steven allegedly “sandpapered” off the chest of Dusty Hammond, then age 16, two initials he had tattooed on himself. Steven was charged with Criminal Mistreatment, but the charges were dismissed in 2005 when he entered into a diversion program.

A police report about the incident was introduced in the 2012 trial as evidence along with photos after the Hammonds referred to themselves as “dedicated family men who are highly regarded in their community”.

2006, August 17 — Steven told a BLM employee that he and Dwight had been setting fires in the area for years. Steven also said to not be surprised if more fires appeared after the next lightning storm in the area.

(Note from Bill: a resident who lives in a forested area told me that he has used lightning storms as cover for lighting fires. He assumed that one more fire, if several were started in the county, would not be looked at closely by investigators.)

2006, August 21 — A lightning storm hit the Steens Mountain area and ignited several fires, including the Krumbo Butte Fire. Dwight encountered the same BLM employee he had talked with on August 17 who was assigned to suppress the fire, telling him he wished the fires were larger.

2006, August 22 — A firefighter assigned to the Krumbo Butte Fire with his crew that was spending the night on a hill saw three small fires below their location. The fire behavior and calm winds at the time made it very unlikely that they could have been spot fires started from embers generated by the main fire. When the three fires grew together he worried that the new fire could run up the hill endangering the crew. Concerned there was an active arsonist in the area, he moved the crew to a safer location.

2006, August 23 — Steven admitted to one of the firefighters that he set the fires the previous night “to provide feed for his cattle”, according to the BLM report about the Hammonds’ grazing permit. The report also goes into much detail about suspicious fires that started that day in an area near where Steven and Dwight were seen in the general vicinity of the main fire, the Krumbo Butte Fire. These new ignitions compromised the safety of firefighters nearby, some of whom were forced to retreat from the area. They were given advice and led to safety via radio by an orbiting Air Attack. Again, this occurred in a location that virtually ruled out ignition caused by embers from the main fire; one was three miles away.

Dwight had disappeared into the vegetation but when he was spotted by a firefighter who told him to stop, fled, but he eventually stopped.

Later a fire investigator determined that seven fires were intentionally set.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, Hammonds’ motive for setting the fires was to protect their winter feed. Steven ignited the fires during a county wide burn ban and while a “red flag warning” was in effect, without notice or permission and while knowing BLM contract firefighters were in the area.

2006, August 24 — Steven was arrested for questioning about the suspicious fires.

2011 — Steven was convicted of unsworn falsification in state court for forging a landowner’s preference hunting form.

2012, June 21 — After a trial over arson charges, the jury found Dwight and Steven Hammond guilty of the 2001 arson and Steven Hammond of the 2006 arson, and not guilty of other arson charges. While the jury was deliberating on the remaining charges, the Hammonds negotiated a settlement with the government which resulted in acceptance of the guilty verdicts, the dismissal of the remaining charges, and a promise from the government not to recommend a sentence greater than the mandatory minimum of 5 years. The Hammonds acknowledged in open court that they knew the mandatory minimum prison term they were facing was 5 years.

2012, October 25 — The sentencing report prepared by the U.S. Probation Office recommend a 78-month prison sentence for Steven Hammond and a 63-month prison sentence for Dwight Hammond. The government kept its promise and asked for the minimum mandated by law, five years. The government argued the Hammonds were “arsonists,” not “terrorists.”

2012, October 30 — Dwight was given 12 months in prison and Steven received 3 months.

The U.S. Attorney appealed the sentences, since they did not conform to federal sentencing laws, and the appeals court imposed the required five year sentence. The Hammonds appealed that revised sentence all the way to the Supreme Court and lost in March, 2015.

2013, January 4 — The Hammonds began serving their prison time. Dwight was released in March, 2013 and Steven in January, 2014.

2014, February 14 — The BLM denied the renewal of the Hammonds’ grazing permit, citing the arson convictions and other issues.

2014, December 4 — A civil suit related to the arson brought against the Hammonds by the federal government was settled, with Dwight and Steven agreeing to pay $200,000 each. If they had to sell their property in order to make the payments, under the agreement the government had first right of refusal. However the two payments of $200,000 were received, and there was no sale of property.

2015, October 7 — A federal judge re-sentenced the Hammonds to five years. They were scheduled to return to prison January 4, 2016.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I know it's not a fb/twitter meme but will try anyway.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bx4ocLdWE90&feature=youtu.be