by Pops » Tue 05 Jan 2016, 17:33:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')hey lit a back fire to stop a lightning strike fire from destroying the ranch land they leased from the BLM.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he jury convicted Steven Hammond of two counts and Dwight Hammond of
one count of maliciously damaging real property of the United States by use of fire,
in violation of 18 U.SC. § 844(f)(1), based on their respective roles in the September
2001 and August 2006 fires.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later summarized their crimes:
“The Hammonds have longed ranched private and public land in Eastern
Oregon. Although they lease public lands for grazing, the Hammonds are
not permitted to burn it without prior authorization from the Bureau of
Land Management. Government employees reminded Steven of this
restriction in 1999 after he started a fire that escaped onto public land.
But in September 2001, the Hammonds again set fire on their property that
spread to nearby public land. Although the Hammonds claimed that the
fire was designed to burn off invasive species on their property, a teenage
relative of theirs testified that Steven had instructed him to drop lit
matches on the ground so as to “light up the whole country on fire.” And
the teenager did just that. The resulting flames, which were eight to ten
feet high, spread quickly and forced the teenager to shelter in a creek. The
fire ultimately consumed 139 acres of public land and took the acreage out of
production for two growing seasons.
In August 2006, the lightning storm kindled several fires near where the
Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back
burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect,
Steven did not seek a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land.”