Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Threats to agriculture category.

US judge: Nevada rancher’s son must pay $587K, remove cattle

cattle, Federal gov & land grabs, Property rights, Threats to agriculture, Water rights

PNP comment: This was originally over Hage’s water right and conveyance of his water right, by ditch, over USFS property. I attended a workshop where Wayne Hage spoke in 2004 in Reno and was surprised his original lawsuit was over his water right. The USFS did also steal his cattle and sell them over the situation. — Editor Liz Bowen

Miami Herald

March 2, 2017

A lawyer for a Nevada rancher whose father fought the government for decades over grazing and property rights said Thursday he’ll appeal a federal judge’s order to pay $587,000 and remove his livestock from federal lands by the end of the month.

Mark Pollot, attorney for Wayne N. Hage, said in a brief email that they disagree with the judge’s decision and that he was working on a notice of appeal.

Hage is the son of cattleman and longtime Sagebrush Rebellion figure Wayne Hage, who died in 2006.

The father’s fight began in 1991, more than a decade after the movement to wrest control of federal land got its start in the late 1970s and was labeled the Sagebrush Rebellion. But the elder Hage became iconic among ranchers and cattlemen who chafe at grazing and use restrictions on vast expanses of land under government control in states in the West.

Federal agencies control some 85 percent of land in Nevada, 66 percent in Utah, 62 percent in both Idaho and Alaska, and 53 percent in Oregon, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The movement then has echoes today in states like in Utah, where lawmakers have for years tried to seize control of land from the federal government. One law passed by the Legislature in 2012 even set a 2015 land transfer deadline that came and went.

In Congress, a federal-to-state land transfer bill by Nevada Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei got a subcommittee hearing in November, along with another measure called the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2015.

Opponents argue that states don’t have the money to manage and protect vast expanses of rangeland or fight wildfires, and that they would allow oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive places.

U.S. park, forest, military and other agencies also control significant amounts of land in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Washington state and Wyoming.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Las Vegas on Monday ruled that federal grazing permits held by Wayne Hage and his wife until the mid-1990s didn’t transfer to their estate or to their son.

The judge gave Wayne N. Hage 30 days to pay grazing fees and penalties racked up from November 2004 to June 2011, and 15 additional days to provide proof that he had complied.

The judge’s order also banned the Hage family from grazing livestock on any public land administered by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management.

The battle over some 11,000 square miles of property in and around Nye County, northwest of Las Vegas, preceded the fight involving federal agencies and rancher Cliven Bundy and an armed standoff in April 2014 near Bunkerville, 90 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Five Bundy family members and 12 accused co-defendants are now facing trial before Navarro in Las Vegas on conspiracy, weapon, assault on a federal officer and other charges relating to the standoff. Two other defendants have pleaded guilty to federal charges.

Hage told the Las Vegas Review-Journal (http://bit.ly/2m04XcV ) he doesn’t have livestock on the range in question. He declined to say if he could pay the judgment.

He cast the court ruling as a “bellweather” step in government efforts to extinguish private property rights on public land.

The Hage case has a long and complicated history. Navarro’s ruling follows a 2013 decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Clive Jones in Nevada that was overturned on appeal by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Read it here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article135980203.html#storylink=cpy

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment

Hage Set to Appeal Ninth Circuit Ruling in Forage Right

Agriculture, cattle, Federal gov & land grabs, Forestry & USFS, Lawsuits, Property rights, Threats to agriculture, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

MARCH 31, 2016

Case to U.S.  Supreme Court; Western Water Law Hangs in the Balance

             In January, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Susan P. Graber, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges, in an opinion by Judge Graber, handed down a decision reversing all of the findings of Nevada Federal District Court Chief Judge Robert C. Jones in his 103-page decision in U.S. v. Hage (2007).  Judge Jones had found among other things that government officials had “entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their (grazing) permits but also of their vested water rights.”  The Court added, “This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm…”

            During the 21-day trial in 2012, the lead Justice Department attorney assured Wayne Hage and the Estate’s attorney that the Ninth Circuit would almost certainly rule in favor of the BLM and USFS.  He said the United States government was not concerned if Judge Jones ruled against them because the DOJ could get any decision they wanted out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

            Consistent with the Justice Department’s prediction, the Ninth Circuit panel issued a scathing ruling reversing all of the trial court’s decisions, excoriating Judge Jones for supposed bias against the government Defendants. Wayne N. Hage and the Estate of E. Wayne Hage are appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

         The ruling from the Ninth Circuit runs contrary to 150 years of western water law and precedent as well as the laws governing the infrastructure across federally administered lands in the West.  It denies that there is right of access to vested livestock watering rights.   The Ninth Circuit decision, as handed down by the three-judge panel, is also in direct conflict with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in the related case, Hage v. U.S., (1991), (between the same parties regarding the same property).  There the Court recognized access as an essential component of a water right.  If a right to access to a vested water right can be subject to a government bureaucrats will, either in its use or its maintenance, then you have no water right.  A person’s ownership of water becomes a mirage.  State law no longer controls the time, place, or manner of use of water.  A federal agency, and more particularly a federal bureaucrat, would now control the access to that water.

         In addition to a conflict between rulings in two different federal courts, due to the appellate panel’s brazen violations of the appellate rules of procedure regarding findings of fact and other procedural errors, analysts believe there is an increased likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling.   (Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions are available upon request.)

         In order for the Ninth Circuit to overturn the findings of the trial court in U.S. v. Hage, they had no option but to assert Judge Jones had bias against the government Defendants.  Under the rules of appellate procedure the Ninth Circuit was bound by Judge Jones’ findings of fact, unless the justices went to the extraordinary measure of finding the judge had bias and had abused his discretion, which they did.  Interestingly, Judge Jones was not the only trier of fact to make such findings.  Chief Judge Loren Smith, from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington D.C., after hearing similar testimony during two separate trials in the related case of Hage v. U.S. (1991), made virtually identical findings of fact.  Two well respected, experienced jurists, both Chief Judges of their respective courts, separated by the width of the country, separated by decades of hearings, having nothing in common but considering the conduct of the U.S. Forest Service and BLM employees against the Hage family, both reached virtually identical conclusions.

         Two generations of the Hage family, beginning during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, have spent nearly 40 years in courts defending their Constitutionally protected property interests in federally administered land and their right to be allowed to graze their livestock around their vested waters as Congress clearly sanctioned.   They have prevailed in three administrative appeals.  They have successfully litigated three substantial federal court cases at the trial level in two separate federal courts.  They have successfully defended their vested water rights against competing claims by the United States in a state water adjudication.  The courts in multiple published decisions have repeatedly recognized their vested water rights, easements, rights-of-ways, forage, and improvements on federally administered land.  Those rights stand on appeal in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

         It is only the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel, after a 45 minute hearing, which determined that they are better arbiters of the truth than the two judges from two separate federal courts who actually saw the evidence and heard witnesses testify over a combined period of 43 trial days.  The Ninth Circuit panel, in reaching their desired outcome in U.S. v. Hage has managed to significantly diminish western water law and the laws governing rights of ways for roads, ditches and canals across federally administered lands, leaving the Hages no choice but to seek relief at the U.S. Supreme Court. (Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions are available upon request.)

# # # # #

For those who support the Hages and their efforts to protect western water rights and ranching, donations to help fund the Supreme Court appeal would be greatly appreciated.  Tax-deductible donations are being accepted and earmarked for U.S. v. Hage by:

Protect the Harvest

480 Southpoint Circle

Brownsburg, IN 46112

Phone:  (844) 360-8300; Email: info@protecttheharvest.com.

(Please identify as being for “U.S. v. Hage”)

Direct contributions can also be sent directly to:

Wayne N. Hage

P.O. Box 513

Tonopah, NV 89049

Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions available upon request.  Also, for those interested in filing Amicus or Friend of the Court Briefs, contact:

Ramona Hage Morrison:  (775) 722-2517; rhmorrison@sbcglobal.net

Mark Pollot, Esq.:  (208) 867-8389; ConResCtr@cableone.net

For a Summary of Hage saga:

FOX NEWS SPECIAL, “Enemies of the State”

https://youtu.be/67yR-Gj5u70

“Enemies of the State” (shorter version)

https://youtu.be/wJpapKqv2mE

Range Magazine Article and Winner of the “Freedom of the Press Award”

Click on article in red titled, “Eye of the Storm”

http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/winter-13/range-wi13-contents.htm

Ramona Morrison

rhmorrison@sbcglobal.net

775.722.2517

1 Comment

Wolf attacks calf in Klamath – KBC News update 2-16-16

Klamath Basin Crisis.org, Klamath River & Dams, Threats to agriculture, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality, Wolves

Find these article links on the Klamath Basin Crisis front page —

www.klamathbasincrisis.org

KBC News

Calf attacked by wolf in Swan Lake Valley, OR-33 the culprit, still on the move, H&N posted 2/25/16. “He is the fifth radio-collared wolf to make its way to Klamath County.”

Irrigation District Dissent, H&N posted to KBC 2/25/16. “…the board voted 3-1 to accept KID Manager Mark Stuntebeck’s resignation and to reinstate office manager Rachelle Gates immediately. Stuntebeck and Gates were both placed on administrative leave following a KID executive session Feb. 10. Nearly 100 people and two Oregon State Police officers were present at the standing-room only meeting.”

Oregon Senate Passes Minimum Wage Hike Costing Oregon Businesses $1.2 Billion, posted to KBC 2/25/16.

No Comments

Water board raises water reporting requirements

Agriculture - California, Air, Climate & Weather, CA & OR, California water, Ranch life, Threats to agriculture, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

PNP comment: This is bad news for water rights. — Editor Liz Bowen

Tim Hearden

Capital Press

California’s State Water Resources Control Board has increased reporting requirements for water right holders, putting aside requests from the California Cattlemen’s Association and others for relief for some producers in remote areas.

SACRAMENTO — Citing an emergency because of the drought, the state’s water board has ramped up reporting requirements for California’s roughly 12,000 landowners and users who have rights to divert water from nearby streams.

The regulations require annual reporting of water diversions rather than reporting once every three years, as previous law required of senior right holders. Those who divert more than 10 acre-feet of water per year must also measure their diversions.

The new rules adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board cover all surface water diversions, including those under pre-1914 and riparian water rights. State officials say the aim of the new rules is to provide more accurate and timely information on water use in California.

“Knowing when, where and how much water is being used is essential to managing the system fairly for all,” board chairwoman Felicia Marcus said in prepared remarks. “We’ve historically not had a complete picture, and these past two years have made it even more essential to take this common-sense move.”

The regulations provide for phasing in requirements for installing measurement devices and a tiered approach to accuracy and recording frequency standards, all based on the size of the diversion, a board news release explained.

For instance, large diverters with a claimed right to take 1,000 acre-feet of water or more per year must have a measuring device in place by Jan. 1, 2017, while those with rights for 100 acre-feet or more have until July 1, 2017, to install the devices. Those with rights to divert 10 acre-feet must comply by Jan. 1, 2018.

The California Cattlemen’s Association had sought relief for some ranchers in remote areas and requested that watermaster reports be deemed to fulfill the monitoring and reporting requirements.

However, the board decided that landowners served by a watermaster must nonetheless meet reporting and measuring requirements individually.

The board did away with an exemption for landowners who deemed previous measuring requirements “not locally cost-effective” — which about 70 percent of diverters claimed, according to state officials. Failure to comply with the new regulations could bring fines of up to $500 per day, according to the board.

The emergency regulations — which will take effect immediately — were required by Senate Bill 88, which was passed as trailer language in the 2015-16 state budget. The bill, authored by the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, passed in June on mostly party-line votes — 52-28 in the Assembly and 24-14 in the Senate.

The rules were adopted Jan. 19 after minor revisions were made following a Dec. 17 workshop with affected parties, including representatives from the CCA.

The rules come as state water officials have said stop-diversion orders for water right holders could be more targeted to specific watersheds this year because regulators have learned so much about water needs in the past two years.

The board has yet to send out letters warning right holders of potential shutoffs — a move that had been done by this point last year — because recent storms have raised hopes that large-scale curtailment orders won’t be necessary.

MORE

http://www.capitalpress.com/California/20160125/water-board-raises-water-reporting-requirements

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

What’s Going on In Oregon – Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution

Agriculture, Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, cattle, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs, FIRES, Lawsuits, Liberty, OCCUPY whatever, Oregon and Water, Oregon governments, Over-regulations, Police State or SWAT teams, PRAYER, Property rights, PROTESTS, Ranch life, Threats to agriculture, Water rights

PNP comment: This article on “The Conservative Tree House.com” blog provides the truthful time-line in the Hammond verses BLM situation and the federal agency’s egregious actions. It is plain to see that the feds have coveted the Hammond ranch land and persecuted the family for decades hoping to obtain the property. The situation has now been escalated by the Nevada Bundy ranch family, Oath Keepers and militia (typically U.S. retired military) in creating an extremely difficult situation. Federal courts will not be kind. They have proven that with the terrible “terror” accusation and verdict of 5 years in prison for Dwight and Steven Hammond. Please read this article as it will provide you with the nuances needed to understand these sad and frustrating events. Meanwhile, please PRAY there will be a peaceful solution. — Editor Liz Bowen

 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

 

Full Story on What’s Going on In Oregon – Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution…

Grab a coffee, because this is soup-to-nuts.

Many people will awaken today to the news of approximately 100 to 150 armed militia taking control of a closed Wildlife Park Headquarters, and not know the full back-story – so here it is:

burns 4burns 5

The short summary is:  in an effort to draw attention to a ridiculous arrest of a father and son pair of Oregon Ranchers (“Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46,) who are scheduled to begin five year prison sentences (turning themselves in tomorrow January 4th 2016), three brothers from the Cliven Bundy family and approximately 100/150 (and growing) heavily armed militia (former U.S. service members) have taken control of Malheur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in the wildlife reserve.  They are prepared to stay there indefinitely.

Here’s the long version: including history, details, links video(s) and explanations:

Hammond Family

Hammond Family

HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

(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 me”.

(l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified 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. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.

(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.

(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

THERE  IS  MUCH  MORE  at:

Full Story on What’s Going on In Oregon – Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution…

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Klamath Basin: Water pact crumbles in Congress after years of work

Agriculture, Agriculture - California, California water, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath County, Klamath River & Dams, Oregon governments, Property rights, Salmon and fish, Scott River & Valley, Shasta River, Siskiyou County, State gov, Threats to agriculture, Tribes

PNP comment: Destruction of the four hydro-electric Klamath dams and the resulting affect it would have on water rights in Oregon and California should have never been part of the KBRA. The Counties of Siskiyou and Oregon in a Bi-state Alliance asked that Klamath dam removal be taken out of the KBRA, but the stakeholders would have nothing to do with it. Demolition of Klamath dams will set a precedent that Congress was not willing to do and, more importantly, had nothing to do with irrigation in the Klamath Project as they store their water as part of the “reclamation” project. Please understand that the KBRA could have moved forward, but Klamath dam removal should not have been part of the agreement. It is environmentally ludicrous to take out the Klamath dams. The dams provide needed flood control, summer water flow sustainability for fish; and grow millions of salmon through the Irongate Fish Hatchery. — Editor Liz Bowen

By Jeff Mapes | The Oregonian/OregonLive

on December 19, 2015 at 10:00 AM, updated December 19, 2015 at 10:02 AM

For years, the Klamath Basin water agreement was a feel-good story about racial reconciliation, environmental recovery and the power of working together.

It was an uplifting sequel to the huge protests by farmers during an irrigation shutoff in 2001 and the death of thousands of salmon in the overheated waters of the Klamath River a year later.

After years of negotiation, ranchers, farmers and tribes in the Klamath Basin on the border of Oregon and California reached a water-sharing agreement that included the bold step of removing four aged dams on the Klamath River to restore the health of one of the West’s main salmon-producing waterways.

It became clear this week, however, that there won’t be any storybook ending, at least that anyone can see now.

Congress once again failed to pass legislation implementing the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and its associated pacts. The agreement is set to expire Jan. 1, and nobody’s quite sure what’s going to happen next.

“We collectively as a society missed an opportunity here, and I don’t think we’ll have it again,” said Greg Addington of the Klamath Water Users Association, one of the main players in the saga. “What it means for us in a nutshell is more continued uncertainty.”

The inspiring tale that attracted so much attention masked the fact that not everyone was singing Kumbaya. The agreement never sold well either in solidly Republican Klamath County or on the California side of the border, where the idea of removing dams and tilting the scale toward environmental and tribal purposes was regarded suspiciously.

“They try to say the community is for it, and it’s not true at all,” said Klamath County Chairman Tom Mallams, noting that almost all successful candidates in the area run against the agreement.

Legislation implementing the basin agreement has languished in Congress in the years since Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger staged a celebratory signing in Oregon’s Capitol in 2010.

Among western Republicans, the idea of removing the dams has been viewed with great suspicion, even though the aged structures are relatively small hydroelectric producers, aren’t used for irrigation and have major fish-passage problems. PacifiCorp, which owns the dams, has agreed to remove them instead of going through the uncertainty and huge expense of relicensing them.

But congressional critics have long fretted that it could create a precedent for fulfilling environmentalist fantasies for widespread dam removal in the West.

Republican Rep. Greg Walden, who represents the Oregon side of the basin, kept a careful distance from the agreement, particularly when it came to dam removal. In the last year, he softened his rhetoric about removing dams and has been negotiating with Oregon’s two senators, Democrats Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, on legislation to move the agreement forward.

But those talks came to an end two weeks ago after Walden unveiled a legislative draft that left out dam removal and called for turning over 100,000 acres of federal land to Klamath County and to California’s Siskiyou County.

Walden, suggesting that the dams could potentially be taken out through the regulatory process, said he was trying to figure out a creative way to build support for the agreement among his fellow Republicans.

In the short run, Walden’s proposal appeared to drive away Wyden and Merkley. They said the idea of turning federal forests over to the counties was a nonstarter in the Senate. The omnibus spending bill — once seen as a potential vehicle for Klamath Basin language – passed Friday, and Congress went home for holidays.

“We’re going to continue to work to find a solution that works for the people in the basin and that can be passed in the House and signed into law,” said Walden spokesman Andrew Malcolm. “We’re looking for a viable resolution.”

The senators released their own statement Friday, saying they hope they can make progress when Congress returns next month – but it’s clear they expect Walden to drop his more controversial ideas if anything is going to happen.

“We are hopeful that a path forward can still be found,” the senators said, “if there is an immediate commitment to put aside unnecessary and unrelated policy disputes and instead work toward legislative action first thing in January on an earnest attempt to implement the locally developed agreements.”

The path is getting rockier. One of the three tribes that signed the agreement – the Yuroks in California – have backed away from it, and Addington said some of the groups on the farm side are starting to peel away as well.

A PacifiCorp official told the Capitol Press, an agricultural newspaper, that the company will now seek to relicense its dams. Conversely, WaterWatch, a Portland-based environmental group that never supported the agreement, argues the dams can’t be brought up to modern standards and that it hopes to force their removal through the federal regulatory process.

Meanwhile, Addington said irrigators will probably have to unleash their lawyers to go into court to fight the Klamath Tribes over water rights in the upper basin. The tribes won a 2013 ruling that they hold the superior water rights, but there are still avenues for appeal.

Don Gentry, the Klamath tribal chairman, agreed that more litigation looms.

“We’re going to be basically back in court with one another,” Gentry said, “and that’s a difficult thing. But we have to represent our interests as best we can.”

Gentry noted that many of his tribal members are feeling restless. While they’ve lived within the terms of the agreement for five years, “we haven’t gotten any closer to all the things we want.”

The various signatories to the agreement are planning a conference call Dec. 28 to talk over what might happen next. Addington and Gentry say they hope the good will the signatories have built up over the years while help them continue to negotiate.

One thing everyone hopes for is a good water year to help smooth over conflicts.

In the meantime, Gentry said, supporters of the Klamath agreement are feeling shell-shocked.

“As one person said today,” he explained in a telephone interview, “we’re still going through the stages of grief.”

–Jeff Mapes

jmapes@oregonian.com

503-221-8209

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/12/klamath_basin_water_pact_crumb.html#incart_email

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

CA voter recommendations from Yreka Tea Party Patriots – Nov. 4, 2014 Ballot

Elections, Karuk Tribe on Klamath, TEA Party, Threats to agriculture

Hi Everyone,
Last night (Oct. 14, 2014) the Tea Party Patriots reviewed the ballot measures. Different Tea Party regulars volunteered to research the measures and did a presentation of their findings, group discussion followed and recommendations were made.

Here they are:

Prop. 1. Richard Marshall ( 2 weeks ago) and Louise Oct.. 14. We recommend a NO vote.
Prop. 2. Donna Bacigalupi…recommends a NO vote
Prop. 46 Mike Adams recommend a NO vote
Prop. 47 Mike Adams recommends a No Vote
Prop. 48 Betty Hall..recommends a No vote

Measure I Mike Adams Recommend a NO vote

Measure M Betty Hall Recommends a NO vote

Measure H. Samuel Bakes (Yreka High School Senior) Recommends Yes, Frank Tallerico Recommends Yes
Donna Bacigalupi is neutral

Samuel did great job. The Tea Pary would love to adopt him!!

I Recommend writing in Lydia Gutierrez for the State Superintendent of Schools. She is a conservative who will fight against Common Core. The other two candidates especially Tom Torlakson are very Liberal and support Common Core

JUDGES — Most voters have almost no info on judges so this is very helpful.

Craig Huey put this guide together. He rates the judges on their history of following the law in their rulings (as opposed to making up law as they rule, which isn’t a judge’s job).

Judge Voter Guide: http://www.judgevoterguide.com/
Court Recommendations

Justices of the Supreme Court

Goodwin Liu NO
Kathryn Mickle Werdegar YES
Mariano-Florentino Cuellar NO

Asscociate Justice Court of Appeals

Vance Raye YES
Elena Duarte NO
Ronald Robie YES
William Murray YES
Andrea Hoch YES
Louis Mauro YES
Jonathan Renner NO

Craig Alan Huey is an American Republican Party politician who was the Republican nominee in the redistricted 2012 66th State Assembly district election in California. He is a successful small business owner not a career politician. Craig has created jobs and knows how hard it is to make tough decisions having navigated 6 recessions and the ups and downs of owning a business. Craig is president of JudgeVoterGuide.com, LAVoterGuide.com and the ElectionForum.org where over 200,000 voters visited last election.
Also if there is no satisfactory candidate to vote for (like for governor!) you can leave it blank. (Perhaps it will send a message!)

More information on Prop.1

Proposition 001 – AB1471 Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014.
*A contributor whose name is marked with an asterisk made a contribution to a committee that simultaneously supported or opposed more than one statewide ballot measure on the November 4, 2014 ballot. Because of this it is not possible to determine the amount of the contribution that was spent specifically on the campaign for any particular measure. In these cases the contributions are listed for every ballot measure the committee has been formed to support or oppose. This results in the same contribution appearing multiple times – once for each ballot measure the committee supports or opposes.
Supporting
1 Sean Parker*
– $1,000,000
2 Brown for Governor 2014*
NEW $875,765
3 California Alliance for Jobs – Rebuild California Committee*
↓ $521,250
4 California Hospitals Committee on Issues, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems*
↑ $500,000
5 Doris Fisher*
NEW $499,000
6 L. John Doerr*
NEW $475,000
7 Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition – Issues PAC*
↓ $400,000
8 Robert Fisher*
NEW $400,000
9 John Fisher*
NEW $351,000
10 Western Growers Service Corporation*
↓ $250,000
11 Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Issues PAC*
↓ $250,000
12 Reed Hastings*
↓ $250,000
13 California American Council of Engineering Companies Issues Fund*
↓ $250,000
14 Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Issues Committee (including contributions from Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Legislative Improvement Committee)*
↓ $250,000
15 California Farm Bureau Federation*
↓ $250,000
16 William Fisher*
NEW $250,000
Total from top contributors $6,772,015

Opposing
No committee opposing this ballot measure raised enough money to reach the reporting threshold for this list.

From fair Political Practice Commission As of this posting, almost $7,000,000 spent on lobbying for Prop 1. Even Silicon Valley Sean Parker is in on the act with a cool $1,000,000! http://fppc.ca.gov/top10Nov2014/

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 1471, Rendon. Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014.

CHAPTER 6. PROTECTING RIVERS, LAKES, STREAMS, COASTAL WATERS AND WATERSHEDS
Page 14
79736. of the funds authorized by Section 79730, four hundred seventy-five million dollars ($475,000,000) shall be available to the Natural Resources Agency to support projects that fulfill the obligations of the State of California in complying with the terms of
Any of the following:

(e) Any intrastate or multiparty settlement agreement related to water acted upon or before December 31, 2013. (Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement signed around 2009-20010 some of the signers of this agreement were CA. OR, Tribes, upper basin irrigators and Environmental groups. Please note the word “Priority”)
Priority shall be given to projects that meet one or more of the following criteria:

(1)The project is of statewide significance. (Largest dam removal in the US history and the world, 4 dams).

(2) The project restores natural aquatic or riparian functions, or wetlands habitat for birds and aquatic species. (Breaching the dams will release 20 million cubic yards of toxic sediment and pollutants into the Klamath and Pacific ocean destroying a salmon fish hatchery, other aquatic life and habitat and obliterating water storage for fighting catastrophic wildfires. Not to worry, then they can spend millions to restore the river once they destroy it all in the name of protecting the “endangered salmon” can you say “spotted owl”)

(3) The project protects or promotes the restoration of endangered or threatened species. (The supposedly endanger salmon)

(4) The project enhances the reliability of water supplies on a regional or inter regional basis. (The only ones who were guaranteed water is the upper Klamath basin who were blackmailed into signing the agreement only after the fish get the water)

Please note that the notations in red are my comments. There is language and money hidden in this bill to remove the Klamath Dams If you were not familiar with the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement you would miss it. There are many things that are objectionable about this bill such as the cost to a State that has huge Debt, the Environmental pork and the unattainable stings attached to water storage.

The Siskyou County Board of Supervisors voted yesterday to do a resolution not to support Prop. 1, the water bond bill. The only no vote was Mr. Ed.!!!!

Help defeat this bill by sending this on to all on your email list and post it on your facebook pages.

I hope this information has been helpful.

The Time Has Come for 51
Louise Gliatto, Yreka Tea Party Patriots

No Comments

Ranchers vent frustrations over wolf management

cattle, Threats to agriculture, Wolves

Matthew Weaver

Capital Press

Matthew Weaver/Capital Press Diamond M rancher Len McIrvin makes a point to Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife director Phil Anderson during the department meeting Oct. 7 in Colville, Wash. He says wolves have cost him more than $100,000 in lost cattle.

Eastern Washington ranchers say the state isn’t doing enough to prevent wolf attacks on livestock.

COLVILLE, Wash. — Northeastern Washington ranchers expressed their continued frustrations over state Department of Fish and Wildlife efforts to manage wolves, telling officials at an Oct. 7 meeting that the agency had lost credibility and is driving the livestock industry out of the region.

Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association president Scott Nielsen told department director Phil Anderson and his staff that they had lost credibility after cattle and sheep losses by the Diamond M Ranch and Hunters, Wash, sheep producer Dave Dashiell. Both have lost livestock to wolves. Dashiell estimated 200 to 300 sheep from his flock are still missing. The department said 33 wolf depredations are confirmed.

“You’re not dealing with the issue, what’s happening is the livestock is leaving the landscape, and that’s what you told us wouldn’t happen,” Nielsen said.

He was one of several speakers who told the staff the solution would have to come at a local level.

“You say, ‘Well, we tried,’ and you did, you made an attempt, but especially the ranchers, we don’t get paid for trying,” Nielsen said.

More than 250 people filled a Stevens County Fairground building during the department’s meeting to provide an update on efforts to deal with various wolf packs, including the Huckleberry and Profanity Peak packs.

Dashiell said he plans to use more guard dogs and herders, although he was not certain how much good it would do, since the attacks on his sheep this year took place with department staff on site.

“There’s not any place in northeast Washington you can go that there isn’t a wolf pack,” Dashiell said, citing the emotional toll on top of financial losses.

Department wildlife program director Nate Pamplin said efforts to address the Huckleberry Pack, ultimately killing one adult female wolf, cost about $54,000. Non-lethal efforts cost roughly $27,000 and lethal efforts cost roughly $27,000.

Pamplin said the state may be able to achieve its statewide recovery objective by 2021, based on projections.

Several people in the audience expressed support for wolves, but the majority of comments were in favor of ranchers and expressed frustration with the department’s efforts.

“In five years, there will be no cattle, no sheep, no livestock, period, in the Pacific Northwest, at all, especially in this corner of the state,” said Diamond M Ranch co-owner Justin Hedrick, who attended with his grandfather, Len McIrvin, and uncle, Bill McIrvin. “When that’s gone, what is everyone going to eat, especially West Coasters?”

Diamond M Ranch owner Len McIrvin accused department director Phil Anderson of “promoting government-sponsored terrorism,” listing six “indictments,” including misuse of public funds to manage wolf-livestock conflicts, falsifying reports from the “crime scene” and being directly responsible for “well over $100,000 worth” of losses in cattle because of wolves.

“This is absolutely a government taking and theft of our private property,” McIrvin said. “My civil rights are definitely being violated. My rights are just as important right here as the whole voting bloc of Seattle and their rights.”

Stevens County Commissioner Wes McCart said he was angry about the way the department treated county residents who are personally impacted by wolves.

“We live in a very economically depressed area, and we are being slaughtered by mismanagement of the department,” McCart said.

At the end of the meeting, Anderson said he was most struck by comments that the solutions would come from residents. He asked McCart and state Rep. Shelly Short, R-Addy, to identify several residents to meet with the department about the next steps.

“We are committed to work with you and try to get this problem addressed,” Anderson said. “We’re probably not going to bring the same set of objectives into the room, because I’m in a position where wolf recovery’s got to be part of the equation and a healthy livestock industry has to be in the equation.”

http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20141008/ranchers-vent-frustrations-over-wolf-management?utm_source=Capital+Press+Newsletters&utm_campaign=97e0082082-Top_Stories_of_the_Week&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4b7e61b049-97e0082082-69636365

No Comments

Fish and Game Commission to Adopt Findings on Gray Wolf

Dept. Fish & Game, State gov, Threats to agriculture, Wildlife, Wolves

On Wednesday, Oct. 8, the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) will meet at the Mount Shasta Hatchery Museum in Mount Shasta. Among the items on the Commission’s agenda is the possible ratification of the Commission’s findings to list the gray wolf as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These findings will represent the Commission’s rationale for determining that the species is “endangered” within California under CESA-despite the fact that no gray wolves are present within the state.

On Thursday the Commission finally released its Draft Notice of Findings and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the gray wolf, available here. CCA has reviewed the findings thoroughly. Unsurprisingly, the document lacks convincing evidence that the gray wolf is eligible for listing or should be listed under CESA.

CCA staff will be present in Mount Shasta to once again voice opposition to listing of the gray wolf, presenting the Commission with extensive legal, policy, and factual arguments in opposition to the Commission’s Findings and decision to list. CCA members who are able to attend are encouraged to do so to voice their opposition to the Commission’s decision.For more information, contact Kirk Wilbur in the CCA office.

1 Comment

Cowboy (horseback) Express is headed to WA D.C. to demand “redress of grievances”

Agriculture, cattle, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Declarations, Federal gov & land grabs, Freedoms - Individual, Liberty, Property rights, PROTESTS, Threats to agriculture

The Grass March Cowboy Express is a coast-to-coast cowboy express relay ride, beginning at the Pacific Ocean at Bodega Bay, Calif., on September 26. Riders will travel a distance of over 2,800 miles to Washington, D.C., and ultimately to the Atlantic Ocean. They will deliver county resolutions and petitions calling for relief from federal agencies which operate outside the laws of Congress and support for transfer of federal lands to the states.

The Grass March calls attention to the plight of ranchers, miners, hunters and property owners everywhere carrying the slogan, “Government regulation without representation is tyranny.”

Petitions seek relief from unlawful application of laws by federal agencies regarding endangered species, water, wildfires, wetlands, wilderness, livestock grazing and private property rights. Widespread mismanagement of lands by the federal government has not only destroyed the lands they purport to protect, but also families and the economy dependent upon those lands.

Award-winning country-and-western music artist Michael Martin Murphey is expected to join the ride in Wyoming. Cowboy poet favorite, Waddie Mitchell, will be holding a benefit concert in Salt Lake City, Utah, Oct. 2, 2014, at 7 p.m., at the Salt Lake City State Fairgrounds.

Those interested in meeting the crew can join the Cowboy Express at designated stops along the route. Riders are encouraged and welcome. Please contact Jess Jones at the number below if interested. Donations are being accepted to support this monumental undertaking to shed light on federal abuse of power and its impact the land and people.

Like us on Face book: https://www.facebook.com/CowboyExpress/
Find more information on our website at: http://www.grassmarchcowboyexpress.com

Contact: Ramona Hage Morrison

EVENT COORDINATOR: KATE JONES (925) 640-1102; email: ktklotzbach@yahoo.com

TRAIL BOSS: JESS JONES (775) 340-1836

Email: GRASSMARCHCOWBOYEXPRESS@GMAIL.COM

PLEASE MAIL DONATIONS
Grass March Cowboy Express
491 4th Street
Elko, NV 89801
(775) 738-2009

No Comments
« Older Posts