Now that the armed takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge appears near its inevitable end game, it’s important to recognize how widespread and pervasive some of the anti-government sentiments about public lands exist throughout the West and understand the screwy philosophy behind it.
With the arrests of group leader Ammon Bundy and several others on Tuesday — along with the death of another militant facing arrest in the occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge — the FBI has sought to end the nearly month-long seige.
Of course, that only will fuel the animosity fomented by those convinced that a tyrannical federal government has vastly overstepped its bounds and does not have a constitutional right to control public lands.
Beyond the Bundy gang and its sympathizers are legions of conservatives who want states to take over ownership of millions of acres of federal lands to then give control to ranchers, oil, gas and coal claims, and timber companies.
National parks, national forests, wilderness areas, and vast tracts of undeveloped swaths of the West would be opened to development, stripped from the public realm, and essentially placed in private control. And while many consider the Oregon bird-refuge militants to be cuckoos, these ideas have purchase among a number of elected officials in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.
Two years ago, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez suggested on the campaign trail that Colorado should take over the federal lands that comprise about 35 percent of the state. State Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, tried unsuccessfully to create a commission to study the transfer of lands to the state, claiming that the federal government denies access to some lands that could be used for hunting, hiking and fishing as well as mineral rights and timber cutting.
In Utah, lawmakers actually passed a 2012 law demanding authority over federal land that, to date, has not prompted anything other than a few Sagebrush Rebellion re-enactors taking ATVs into previously unmarred canyons and destroying archeological relics.
And in Congress, Senate Republicans passed — without a single Democratic vote — a symbolic resolution supporting the transfer of federal lands to the states, in part fueled by what The New York Times called a “dust storm of rural anger at President Obama’s efforts to tighten regulations on fracking, air quality, small streams and other environmental issues.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a leading Republican presidential candidate, actually has proposed preventing the federal government from owning more than half of any state’s land, which it does now in five Western states.
Presumably the states would take over the management of the lands, including paying for rangers and maintenance of roads and facilities as well as enforce environmental regulations.
Practically, of course, many tracts would be sold off to the highest bidders — or maybe not even the highest bidders — to support the conservative ideal of ever-smaller government and, of course, short-term profit.
Proponents constantly cite the U.S. Constitution as their inspiration, but their idea of state sovereignty over public lands was not some antiquated notion lost to time; they are a fantasy unsupported by any history. Quite simply, the Bundys and others do not want to play by the rules to graze their cattle for pennies on the dollar on public lands — our lands — so they refuse to recognize the authority of the federal government.
(Remember that the family patriarch, Cliven Bundy, still owes more than $1 million in court-ordered penalties and fees for illegal cattle grazing in Nevada and, in the face of last year’s armed standoff, inexplicably has been able to continue the practice, undoubtedly emboldening the Malheur militants.)
It’s theft, pure and simple. When the militants armed themselves to take over the Oregon wildlife refuge, they were committing, in essence, armed robbery of the public’s property.
Ironically, it was another Republican, President Theodore Roosevelt, who recognized the value of setting aside public lands for preservation, recreation and, yes, even “productive” uses such as grazing and timber harvesting, within limits.
If he were alive today, he’d be rolling over in his grave.
Steve Lipsher (slipsher@ ) of Silverthorne writes a monthly column.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
