An open letter to the Oregon Bureau of Land Management on Hammond Ranches, Inc. proposed permit

Photo grabbed from Maxine Bernstein/The Oregonian/OregonLive:

Dear Oregon Bureau of Land Management staffers,

I am writing today to ask you to please defend the proper administration of public lands. The recent decision to award Hammond Ranches, Inc. a livestock grazing permit and grazing preference to use four allotments in the Burns Field Office appears to have been politically influenced, and we need you to shed some light on the process.

In 2014, the Bureau refused to renew the Hammonds grazing permit, citing years of conflict and poor stewardship. The decision not to reissue the permit included the statement: “This narrative describes the actions of Dwight and Steven [Hammond] and demonstrates how the Hammonds violated BLM grazing regulations and the terms of Hammond Ranches, Inc.’s grazing permit, endangered the lives of numerous individuals including firefighters, and altered ecological conditions on public lands.” It goes on to describe multiple incidents of improper actions.

And let’s not forget how the Hammonds specifically threatened federal employees like yourselves. An article from 1994 includes this quote:

“The [Malheur National Wildlife] refuge has been trying to work with Hammond for many years,” said agency spokeswoman Susan Saul. A thick file at refuge headquarters reveals just how patient refuge managers have been. Hammond allegedly made death threats against previous managers in 1986 and 1988 and against Cameron, the current manager, in 1991 and again this year.

And let’s not overlook the recent history of overuse and disregard for turn-out dates demonstrated by the Hammonds during their temporary permitted use of 2019.

And yet, just the other day (December 31, 2020 in fact), the Bureau issued a proposed decision to award grazing preference and a grazing permit to Hammond Ranches, Inc., despite this history of abuse of the land. The NEPA analysis claims (emphasis added):

HRI was apportioned this preference based on the factors in 43 CFR 4130.1-2 due to their extensive historic use of these allotments, past proper use of rangeland resources, a high level of general need, and advantages conferred by topography. In addition, this applicant owns or manages the majority of the private property located within the Hammond, Hardie Summer, and Hammond FFR allotments. HRI holds the water rights associated with the spring that feeds the pipeline currently within the Hammond Allotment. Without access to water, and with water sources other than the pipeline being limited, the Hammond Allotment would be difficult for an outside operator to properly utilize. HRI owns the property associated with a spring in the current Hardie Summer Allotment. If this spring were to be developed and feed a pipeline (as currently described in this proposed decision), it would provide off stream water that would help pull livestock from riparian areas within the Hardie Summer Allotment, benefiting ecological conditions and better balancing resources within that allotment. No other applicants would be able to create this off-stream water source. No other applicant possesses the history on these grazing allotments that is held by HRI.

What are the chances that the proposed action was tailored so narrowly as to favor the Hammonds water access? Ninety percent?

And while I’m guessing at the odds that this decision wasn’t entirely neutral, here are a few other questions:

  • What are the chances that the Oregon State Office told the Burns District what to do, and when?
  • What are the chances that Secretary David Bernhardt and his anti-public lands henchman William Perry Pendley told the state office what to do?
  • What are the chances that Vice President Mike Pence told the Department of Interior what to do?
  • What are the chances that Forrest Lucas and his henchmen at the anti-environmental lobby group Protect the Harvest told VP Pence what to do?

Someone knows the answer to these questions, someone can describe the chain of command that resulted in the Hammonds getting a new permit to graze on 40,000 acres of public land, and someone needs to blow the whistle. That someone should come forward in defense of public lands and in defense of decision-making made freely and fairly based on accurate reporting of facts.

My email is and I’ll take all tips that lead us towards the truth.


Greta Anderson, Public Land Owner and Aficionado

Deputy Director, Western Watersheds Project






  1. Nancy Ostlie Avatar

    I wrote an official comment to the BLM on this proposal.

  2. Ida Lupine Avatar
    Ida Lupine

    I love it, “Public Lands Owner and Aficionado.” Thank you!

    This kind of water monopolizing does not bode well for the future. 🙁

  3. Maggie Frazier Avatar
    Maggie Frazier

    Exactly why and how to the Hammonds “own the water rights” on PUBLIC land? That right there seems to be a really good question! If it is public land – how does a private citizen “own” it?
    And yeah, all those other questions certainly apply. I hope with a new head of the DOI, there will also be a new head of the BLM – someone who will CLEAN HOUSE!
    Also will look for the proposal to comment on.
    Good letter, Greta

    1. Greta Anderson Avatar

      We’ll be putting out a “How To” guide for protesting this proposed decision. Stay tuned!

      1. Maggie Frazier Avatar
        Maggie Frazier

        Will be looking for it!

          1. Maggie Frazier Avatar
            Maggie Frazier

            Thanks Greta
            Sent my comment tonight.

  4. Laurie Ness Avatar

    I think that the Hammond’s track record of abuse and destruction of public lands is clear. Don’t let them do it again.

  5. Beeline Avatar

    Water: On public land but not of public ownership.

    The federal government rarely applies for water rights on public land. Private companies(oil, mining, movie corporations etc.) have applied and gotten water rights on public lands although these rights may not necessarily be permanent. Many of our waterfowl refuges do not even have water rights. FLPMA gives BLM authority to acquire water rights but they seldom if ever use it.

    Remember-“water is to fight over, whiskey is to drink”.

    BLM Manual 7250 gives the reader a little clue as to the complexity of water rights on public land.

  6. Maggie Frazier Avatar
    Maggie Frazier

    Tried to post the email from BLM I received this morning (January 20th)
    The BLM – in all their glory – have given a 10 year lease on the Bridge Creek Area to good old Hammond Ranches!!
    Anyone surprised?

    1. Maggie Frazier Avatar
      Maggie Frazier

      Finally – for some reason I couldnt copy & paste the actual email. Tried 2 or 3 times. Never had that problem before.

      1. Rich Avatar

        I noticed the announcement did include the words:

        “Please review the Final Decision carefully for a detailed explanation of the process for challenging this Final Decision.”

        I’m hoping WWP and others will challenge the irrational thinking that scofflaws with a long history of illegal activities will suddenly comply with the law and treat our public lands with respect.

  7. Clippertrees Avatar

    Thank you for sharing this open letter. I hope more people can read this.

Subscribe to get new posts right in your Inbox