Newspaper column: Pardon for Oregon ranchers just the first step

Etched in stone above the entrance of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington are the words: “Equal justice under law.”

The treatment of father and son Oregon ranchers by the federal judicial system makes a travesty of those words, though President Trump’s pardon this past week is a first step toward rectifying their injustice.

In 2001 Dwight Hammond and his son Steven started a fire on their own Harney County ranch to burn off juniper and sagebrush. The fire accidentally escaped their property and burned 139 acres of Bureau of Land Management land.

In 2006, lightning started several fires and the Hammonds set a backfire to try to prevent the fire from spreading to their crops and buildings. That fire burned a single acre of public land.

Hammonds return home. (AP pix)

The White House statement explaining the presidential pardon noted that the judge who originally sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months and Steven to a year had said that prosecutors’ demands that the pair be sentenced to a minimum mandatory five years under a 1996 anti-terrorism law passed after the Oklahoma City bombing would “shock the conscience” and be “grossly disproportionate to the severity” of their conduct.

“The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison,” the statement reads. “This was unjust.”

That resentencing is what prompted the 41-day takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in protest, though the Hammonds themselves did not condone the protest and instead quietly returned to prison.

Most of the protesters, including two of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy’s sons, were later acquitted of federal charges.

The White House statement concluded, “Dwight Hammond is now 76 years old and has served approximately three years in prison. Steven Hammond is 49 and has served approximately four years in prison. They have also paid $400,000 to the United States to settle a related civil suit. The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West. Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency.”

This is an understatement considering that in the five years after the passage of the 1996 anti-terrorism law at least 16 members of self-styled environmental groups ALF and ELF conspired to damage or destroy private and government property. None was sentenced to more than 36 months.

Then there were the two 2012 fires near the Hammonds’ ranch. Though started by lightning strikes, federal authorities used backfires in an attempt to contain the Long Draw and Miller Homestead fires. Instead, the fires consumed nearly 620,000 acres. No one was charged.

In 2000 the National Park Service decided to use a ‘’prescribed’’ burn to clear debris in the Bandelier National Monument area, but when winds picked up the fire destroyed 400 homes and forced the evacuation of 18,000 people in Los Alamos and shut down the nuclear weapons operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The supervisor who ordered the preventive fire, like the 2001 fire set by the Hammonds, was suspended but later retired. No charges.

A 2012 “prescribed” burn by a Colorado state agency southwest of Denver killed three people and destroyed or damaged more than two dozen homes. No charges.

In October 2016 a “prescribed” burn by a state agency in Northern Nevada consumed 2,300 acres, destroyed 23 homes and 17 out buildings and resulted in smoke inhalation injuries to four people. Damages estimated at $4 million. The state agency apologized.

A few weeks ago a “prescribed” burn in the Florida panhandle destroyed 36 homes and burned 800 areas.

Also earlier this summer, a “prescribed” burn in Emery County, Utah, meant to clear off 2,400 acres of dead timber and other fire fuel spread to cover more than 18,000 acres.

Meanwhile, after years in jail and supervised probation and a $400,000 fine, the Hammonds also lost their grazing permit in 2014.

The Hammonds have returned home, but equal justice under law will not be served until their property and livelihoods are restored.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

6 comments on “Newspaper column: Pardon for Oregon ranchers just the first step

  1. Wendy Ellis says:

    Excellent article. I am heartened by the pardons, but nothing can compensate for unjustly depriving one of their liberty. We all probably recognize by now that the expectation of equal treatment under the law is a foolish one; how many of us have modified our speech and behavior recently, to avoid being attacked or persecuted? I hate to admit it, but I have done so, in the past two years.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I don’t understand how a verdict from a jury, with the imposition of a sentence mandated by a law republicans and conservatives are most responsible for passing is in any way “unjust” and certainly while pardons are a presidential privilege the fact that this administration handed out this pardon on the basis of the fact that the defendants were white seems particularly unjust.

    But I guess equal under the law doesn’t mean what it used to.

  3. Bill says:

    There are also manifest issues of proportionality involved in the sentencing in this case. The 1996 law was an emotional reaction to an American Tragedy, Oklahoma City, which when blindly applied resulted in an inappropriate and disproportionate sentence.

  4. Anonymous says:

    “Manifest issues of proportionality”

    Interesting. I wonder what sort of “manifest issues of proportionality” there is in the 3 strikes laws promoted, and passed, by republicans, a cross the country, which resulted in people being sentenced to 25 years in jail for stealing a slice of pizza.

    Manifest issues of proportionality apparently apply when the person convicted when they’re white, but others….not so much.

    At least while the Dotard is in charge, and his sycophants are in support.

  5. Bill says:

    The shibboleth of playing the accusatory race card in every conversation is both tired and tiresome. It serves little purpose and hardly merits a response.

    Most of the people I know do not base their decisions on race but are concerned with equality and fairness regardless of race, religion, sex or ethnicity.

    The fact is that the Hammonds received, under all of the circumstances, a disproportionately severe sentence.

    This would be true regardless of their race.

  6. Anonymous says:

    The fact is that the sentence was mandatory and as I said, passed because republicans wanted it.

    And it always happens that the race, or group of people being favored by the laws want all those being disfavored by the law, to stop pointing it out every time it happens.

    Of course they get tired of hearing from the disfavored group; that’s part of why they’ve been oppressed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s