Making Sense of the Oregon Militia Showdown
The standoff between law enforcement and the Bundy militia at a national wildlife refuge near Burns, Oregon raises many important questions about public lands in the wild west. The problem at the wildlife refuge is really important to every American no matter where you live, since the Bundy militia is part of larger movement that is trying to take away millions of acres of land that we all own together (public land) and transfer it to states and private commercial interests.
Q: What’s going on out in Eastern Oregon?
A: A group of right-wing gun owners has broken into federal buildings at a 187,000 acre national wildlife refuge and is demanding that the US Government give the refuge to local ranchers or they might get violent with military style firearms.
Q: Isn’t it against the law to break into federal buildings while armed?
A: Yes, breaking and entering federal facilities while armed is a felony. These men have also been driving federal trucks, rummaging files, using federal supplies, and perhaps other federal property and they have vandalized fencing and signs.
Q: Who owns this land?
A: A quick history: the Malheur National Wildlife refuge, like the rest of the United States, was inhabited by native people until the middle 1800s when they were pushed out by European settlers and the US Army. After this the land was “public domain” owned by the US Government. In 1908 President Theodore Roosevelt designated this parcel of land (and many others) “public land.” This particular piece of land was established as a “national wildlife refuge” because it is critical habitat for tens of millions of migratory birds who need the marshes there to survive. Thus, the refuge became permanently federal public land, owned by all Americans, and managed for us by the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
Q: Why haven’t police moved in to arrest the people who broke in to the buildings?
A: The FBI has a command post nearby and state and county police are amassed nearby, but so far no police have moved to stop the criminal behavior. This may be because the federal government is trying to avoid violence that could endanger officers and could give the far right a political football to play with in this election year.
Q: Has this happened before?
A: Sort of. The leader of this break-in is Ammon Bundy whose father Cliven owns a ranch in the Nevada desert. He grazes his cattle on a large piece of federal public land but hasn’t paid his grazing fees to the federal government in years. Under federal court order, officers from the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) came to remove his cattle from land owned by all Americans in 2014. A large group of armed men came and pointed automatic rifles at federal police. This is a felony. Wanting to avoid violence, the federal police retreated and no charges have ever been pressed against anyone for threatening a federal officer. Also, Cliven Bundy continues to graze cattle in the extremely dry desert illegally and in violation of at least two court orders.
Q: What are the Bundy militia demanding in Oregon?
A: They say the federal government illegally owns land in the Western states and that the land rightfully belongs to counties and ranchers.
Q: Are they right?
A: No. Most federal lands of the United States have been owned by the US Government on behalf of the people of the US ever since just after the Revolutionary War and the US Constitution in 1787.
Q: But they say it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to own land.
A: They are wrong again. They’re reading one narrow part of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) which gives limited powers to state legislatures over lands within states and they ignore two other key parts that totally negate their arguments. Article 4 sec 3 Paragraph 2 says: “The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” This was written by the “founding fathers” who intended for the federal government to own all land in the United States unless it had been sold or otherwise conveyed to private interests or state or local governments.
“The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.”
They also ignore the most important part of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause (Article 4 , Section 2)which says that the federal government and federal law are always supreme over state or local governments and law. So no state can ever pass a law that takes precedent over federal law. In 2015 the Utah legislature passed a law saying the federal government has to give Utah tens of millions of acres of federal public land. The law is unconstitutional based on both federal and state law.
Q: The right wing says that the federal government promised to give the states the federal lands when they became states.
A: All the states joined the Union with state constitutions that explicitly say that all federal lands in the states will continue to belong to the American people unless Congress decides otherwise.
Q: But the eastern states have almost no public lands. Some western states say they should have all the federal lands sold to private interests just as was done east of the Mississippi River.
A: Two things are important to know about the West: there are vast areas of wild land that is either desert or semi desert or mountains. This land is mostly unsuited to human settlement or agriculture because it is dry and high altitude. President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the amazing value these lands would have to the American people if they were owned by everyone and were conserved both for their natural values, recreation, and for limited commercial uses such as logging and grazing. Hundreds of millions of acres of land were set aside as National Forests or National Wildlife Refuges by Roosevelt. The agencies that manage these lands allow commercial use by locals or large companies, but they regulate use according to conservation principals based on scientific research.
It is critical to understand that federal agencies seek public input in their management plans and have legally mandated processes for collecting and responding to public comments from any American. At the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the federal managers have had years of discussion with Native Americans, ranchers, birders, hikers and hunters to understand their concerns and change their management to reflect public concerns while still protecting the land for wildlife and clean water.
Q: Why does the right wing, represented in this drama by the Bundys and their friends want the federal lands given to ranchers and the states?
A: They say the federal government “over-reaches” and limits their ability to make a living from the land.
Q: What are they actually talking about?
A: They reject the idea that ranchers need to be regulated in their use of public lands. The US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management or the US Fish and Wildlife Service all regulate users of our public lands to protect the land for the long run. Environmentalists will tell you that these rules for ranchers are overly lax and in fact grazing does tremendous damage to our public lands. Even so, the Bundys want no regulation at all and reject environmental laws and public process for input into land management decisions. A big reason President Roosevelt established permanent public lands in places like Oregon was the rampant abuse ranching and timber operations were imposing on the land before federal agencies came to protect the land.
It is also important to understand that the effort to transfer federal lands to the states is being led and bankrolled to some extent by the Koch brothers through various organizations they fund.
Q: Doesn’t the federal government help ranchers use public land?
A: Yes, in fact federal agencies subsidize ranching on federal land with artifically low grazing fees and the federal government builds fences, maintains water sources and even kills predators on behalf of ranchers. Taxpayers pay for all of these services, not the ranchers.
Q: The right says that ranchers can regulate themselves. Can’t they?
A: Private lands throughout the west are often overgrazed to the point where no wildlife can survive on them. Private wetlands necessary for birds are converted to hayfields etc. If the goal of the rancher is maximizing profit rather than protecting public values like clean water and wildlife, the land will suffer. The West is mostly arid and not suited for intensive grazing, farming or logging.
Q: Why is this wildlife refuge so special?
A: Theodore Roosevelt created the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 1908. The 300-square-mile refuge is partly a marshland that's a key resting area in the Oregon high desert for migrating birds. The millions of migrating shorebirds that use the refuge qualify the refuge as a Regional Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve, according to the fish and wildlife service. It also supports more than 20 percent of the state's breeding population of greater sandhill cranes, as well as many other threatened or endangered species. Birding is a popular pastime at the refuge, which also draws anglers, hunters and wildlife watchers who spend money in local towns producing sustainable jobs. If the refuge is overrun with cattle as the Bundys want, bird habitat would be destroyed and the water would be polluted.
If the refuge is overrun with cattle as the Bundys want, bird habitat would be destroyed and the water would be polluted.
Q: What’s going to happen now?
A: Hopefully the federal government will prosecute the Bundy gang for the crimes mentioned above. If they don’t, it will encourage more of the same behavior in the future. The government has an obligation to maintain the rule of law on the public lands to protect wildlife but also to maintain public safety. Our children and grandchildren will inherit these lands as their birthright only if we defend the American idea of public lands at this critical time.