Blog Archives
Shovels, Sagebrush, and Cattle: Nevada’s Rural Violence Problem
“Knowledge is a weapon Jon. Arm yourself well before you ride into battle.”
~ George R.R. Martin, A Feast for Crows
If the Cliven Bundy standoff has show us anything, it is that a strain of fringe, anti-federalists not only exist in the county, but are willing to act at the least provocation. The resort to violence by rural people in Nevada is not an anomaly and is not an isolated incident. The unrest, angst, and itch for violence against federal agents and employees is always there under the surface. This county has a long and inglorious history of such factions and groups, and though not limited to the West, they seem to be unduly present not only in rural communities but by leaders and politicians hankering to wrest control of public lands from the Federal Government. There were outcries over the BLM’s show of force in April toward the ranchers and militias, of their preparation for violence, but it will be shown that the BLM had good reason to come prepared. Their good faith effort in 2012 to round up Bundy’s cattle without weapons was called off due to violent threats, which as will be shown, have been real and acted upon in the past.
Anti-federalism groups, or Constitutional vigilantes, have a long and colorful history, beginning with the most notorious faction, the KKK followed up by the Posse Comitatus who put the hit out on the Federal Government (6). These organizations go beyond the mainstream into a fanatical fringe that all have a few things in common. First, they do not have a just or moral cause (though they think they do). Their defiance and acts of violence largely stem from disagreement with the mainstream on specific laws, such as gun restrictions, income taxes, the Federal Reserve, the 14th Amendment, and public lands regulation. Second, they believe that the federal government acts in opposition to the Constitution and believe that they not only are protecting and upholding the values set forth in the Constitution, but that they are the ones who truly understand it. Third, they have a very narrow view of which parts of the Constitution they deem worthy of protection and interpretation, and they largely ignore all case law and precedent set between the time of the writing of the Constitution and the present day. And Forth, they act outside of the law.
It is a dangerous mixture of narcissism, hatred, and ignorance. The most alarming aspect is that while they cloak themselves in the flag and Constitution, they shred the very principles behind them at the same time. We could rightfully dismiss Cliven Bundy as an ego-maniac with a hero complex, but the problem goes further than his cause célèbre when he takes on followers willing to do his bidding through acts and threats of violence. While it is true that the government can act outside of Constitutional principles or can be corrupt, the mainstream fights it within the confines of the law. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, but while they are fighting bad law, the way they go about it shows respect for the rule of law in the process. It is the right and patriotic way to keep out-of-control government in check. There is much to complain about in regard to the legal system and how it works, but allowing radical militias, who interpret the Constitution through an arbitrary and selfish lens, is worse.
Photo courtesy of http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com
The first such case of a militia taking up arms against the United States Government was a group of whiskey distillers in Pennsylvania in 1791 in response to a tax on whiskey. Treasury Secretary Hamilton needed to find a steady source of revenue for the fledgling government and so he proposed an excise tax on whiskey produced in the United States. Congress instituted the levy in 1791 (1). The whiskey distillers, like modern day Cliven Bundy and his supporters, didn’t like the tax. In response, the hostile farmers “attacked and destroyed the home of a tax inspector (1).” The hostility grew and threatened to spread to other states. At the time, the government was weak and could not withstand this kind of insubordination if it was to succeed. George Washington was President at the time and Hamilton advised him to send in the military. George Washington did not take his advice and first sent in negotiators, but they failed to resolve the issue with the farmers. When diplomacy failed, President Washington sent in a force of 13,000 militia troops, led by Hamilton and Virginia governor Henry Lee, to put the rebellion down in western Pennsylvania. According to Richard H. Kohn, in his article The Washington Administration’s Decision to Crush the Whiskey Rebellion,
“One of the fundamental questions raised in the debates over the Constitution in 1787 and 1788 was on what foundation the ultimate authority of government rested. When they discussed the problem men who differed over the Constitution as much as James Madison and Richard Henry Lee agreed that government was based either on law or on force and that law was the only firm basis on which to build a healthy republican society. And they also agreed that once the law failed, either through individual disobedience or riot and rebellion, force would be necessary to restore order and compel citizens to fulfill their social obligations (2).”
While the U.S. government is no longer a fledgling one, the similarities between the whiskey farmers in the 1790s and modern day Cliven Bundy and his supporters are striking. The only real difference is the amount of force used by the government to quell the Bunkerville insurrection. But the question about the breakdown of law and the use of force is still relevant. The prospect of force being the final arbiter of justice is truly frightening because it indicates that the rule of law has been breached. This breach of law is the chipping away at the foundation on which this country rests; contrary to the popular and romantic view that it is based on peoples’ willingness to rise up against the government. Furthermore, it puts everyone at risk, including the rebels themselves. The very laws that they are undermining are also protecting them against a real Wild West showdown, not just between them and the government, but by other citizens willing to play by their rules. What is truly shocking, however, is how prevalent this rural defiance is and how it has been allowed, some might even say encouraged, to go unchallenged for so long in the state of Nevada.
There is a certain romanticism attached to the West, and it holds throughout the country, not just in the West. There is some reason for it. When the West was being settled, it really was wild. Justice was largely held in the streets and tough, hardscrabble people had to find a way to survive in what was an unruly part of the country lacking law and order. Against all the odds, tenacious individuals managed to tame the land, endure the lack of law and order, and settle here. Those who came here had to rely on themselves in part because the government was not established enough to do it. But with that self-reliance and individualism came an almost inherited attitude of entitlement to be free from all restraints, regulations, or rules, including from the government. Of course when the government did grow in strength and capability, the rough and tumble settlers of the West viewed it as the new and ever encroaching monster they must now face, and it fit well in their Wild West worldview. In fact, when the Bundy showdown began, the phrase, “It’s about to get western down there,” was touted repeatedly by Bundy supporters. It appeared that these people were excited at the prospect of going toe-to-toe with the government and felt they were following in a glorious tradition started by none other than, the Founding Fathers.
On Independence Day in 2000 a group of roughly 300 people in the small town of Jarbridge Nevada took up shovels and headed to a narrow road on federal land that had been closed by the Forest Service in 1995 after a flood had washed it out. The Forest Service determined that the construction to repair the road would cause more harm than good by endangering the river’s dwindling population of bull trout via erosion. “Long angered by federal restrictions on everything from water access to grazing rights, county officials and anti-federalists across the West seized upon the obscure road as a symbol of their discontent. “We will rebuild the road, come hell or high water,” declared Tony Lesperance, an Elko County commissioner. The demonstrators, met by dozens of law enforcement officers and media cameras, paraded down Main Street, brandishing their shovels and singing The Star Spangled Banner (3).” Due to the media being there, and people excitedly giving interviews, it got a lot of coverage.
“It was a classic fin-de-siècle American protest: a staged telegenic moment steeped in Western symbolism,” according to Mother Jones reporter Florence Williams.
But that’s not the worst of it. According to Williams, Elko County Nevada has earned the reputation as the most lawless county in the West. “In 1995, on the same day a bomb exploded in a Forest Service building across the state in Carson City, a detonated pipe bomb was discovered in an outhouse at a campground near Elko, the county seat (3).” On August 5, 1995 according to the AP, “A bomb exploded under a van at the home of a U.S. Forest Service ranger whose office was shattered by a pipe bomb four months earlier. The bomb was either thrown or placed underneath the van of District Ranger Guy Pence, parked in the driveway of his house. The explosion destroyed the van and broke a few windows in Pence’s home. Pence was on a horseback trip in central Nevada but his wife and three children were in the house in a quiet residential neighborhood on the south side of Nevada’s capital city.”
Photo courtesy http://www.blm.gov
Luckily, none of them were hurt. This happened around the time that the Unabomber killed the head of the California Forestry Association and the Oklahoma City bombings occurred (Timothy McVeigh was associated with the Sovereign Citizen Movement, an anti-federal movement, that showed up to support Cliven Bundy, among others). The bombing at Pence’s office and home were the first on a federal facility or employee in Nevada since Halloween 1993, when a bomb was tossed onto the roof of the federal Bureau of Land Management’s state headquarters in Reno. It is shocking to consider that rural ranchers were so upset over land issues that they would risk killing innocent federal employees trying to do their jobs.
“Federal employees and their families have been harassed and threatened by local residents, prompting some to resign. Snowmobilers venture into protected habitats, ranchers ‘trespass’ their cows on pastures set aside as off-limits, and residents take firewood from federal lands and forests without permits. In Jarbidge, even local politicians have abandoned civility and due process. Two county commissioners feuding over floor time at a public meeting had to be physically separated by the sheriff, and the former publisher of the local paper expressed his civic spirit by shooting an officer’s dog in the middle of town (3).” I recently spoke with a former Forest Service employee who worked in Nevada who said,
“It was very isolated and we were warned from the beginning that most of the people in town were not fond of the Forest Service or BLM. We were the “outsiders”. We were advised to live in the “compound” (government housing). We didn’t eat at the local café because we were told that they would mess with our food. Some people were nice to us but not many. So, we USFS employees just stuck to ourselves mostly. The residents had more disdain for federal law enforcement officers, though. And, there were certain families or individuals that were more notorious about it than others. I would say that most people were just indifferent to us, though. In fact, we never locked our front door. It was a very odd situation. On the one hand, we knew the political history of the area and who the more vocal main players were. We were always careful and safe, but I never felt like I was in any real danger while we lived there. It was just understood that certain residents got away with certain things because they knew that there was little that we could do about it. We were just too short staffed and had too large of an area to cover. It was more an atmosphere of veiled threats and intimidation.
That being said, there were certain people who stirred the pot quite a bit. Wayne Hage and his wife, former US Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth, were the ones who informed my husband of his illegitimacy as an armed federal law enforcement officer and that he was a trespasser. I remember sitting in their beautiful ranch home and listening to them smugly recite their ideology and attempt to justify it by quoting parts of the US Constitution.
Another infamous character was Dick Carver of Nye County. He was a former county commissioner and Sagebrush rebel who was known to carry a copy of the US Constitution in his shirt pocket. He took it upon himself to use his bulldozer to open up a closed FS road. Also, the Nye county sheriff’s office was well known to support Carver and his ideology. They were openly uncooperative with any federal law enforcement efforts.”
But worse than that, they were and are undermining their very own State Constitution. Their paradoxical and contradictory stance is astounding to the reasonable mind, especially when assertions of illegal federal law enforcement within the state is brought up. Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority (7).
Why is this happening? Furthermore, why are politicians promoting this type of behavior instead up upholding the laws of the land and the state? Part of the answer is that there is an ideological shift taking place in the West, at a national level, from the extractive industries to an increased emphasis on protecting the environment. As these national priorities have shifted, the rural way of life has slowly declined and has left many feeling insignificant and neglected. Because most of the growth in Nevada has happened in Las Vegas and Reno, many rural people feel left out of the loop. Perhaps they feel that violence and rebellion is their only option to get heard, but in the continued conflict over how to deal with the change and growing divide over land use, violence and outright defiance to the law is doing more to hurt their cause – even if they have a worthy one. Furthermore, any reasonable person with a sympathetic or willing ear will disappear when this road is taken.
“In Nevada, resentment over the land dates back to the state’s founding. Settlers had expected to take possession of much of the land after the territory was admitted to the Union in 1864. But to the dismay of miners, ranchers, and loggers, most of the state remained in the public domain, and millions of acres were eventually preserved as national forests or placed under the direction of the federal Bureau of Land Management. The deep-seated seething came to a head in 1977. Angered by federal moves to increase fees for ranchers who grazed livestock on public lands and to set aside millions of acres as wilderness areas, the Nevada legislature backed a legal challenge to claim most of the federal land. Other Western states quickly followed suit, launching a regional movement that became known as the Sagebrush Rebellion (3).”
Photo courtesy of http://www.quickmoneyanswers.com
The Sagebrush Rebellion did have rural support and was fought by politicians, but ultimately a federal judge ruled against them. Much of the bravado and angst is egged on by politicians who may gain political capital, but who do not feel the national pinch that comes in response to such rebellions. “Federal ownership of western lands powerfully shapes the regional economy and society. Along with aridity, it is perhaps the defining characteristic of the West. Though a national park can be a source of pride; most federal land ownership (especially BLM jurisdiction) has always been a politically attractive whipping boy for western politicians (5).”
One such politician was Richard H. Bryan, who used the cause as a stepping stone to higher office. He argued before the court that Nevada, along with other states, had an expectancy upon admission into the Union that the unappropriated, unreserved and vacant lands within their borders would be disposed of by patents to private individuals or by grants to the States and that federal control of lands within western states’ borders prevented those states from standing on an equal footing with other states, as required by the Constitution. U.S. District Court Judge Reed cited the Property Clause within the Constitution and ruled against him. But like Nevada before, states such as Utah and Montana are still willing to gamble with the opportunity to successfully fail and further chip away at the harmony that law and knowledge of the law provide (5).
In the battle in Jarbridge over the Forest Service road, Republican state assemblyman John Carpenter and other elected officials were leading the charge (among many before it). Elko County claimed that it, not the federal government, owned South Canyon Road under an obscure federal statute dating from 1866, known as R.S. 2477. The statute essentially guaranteed settlers rights-of-way across federal land. When the Forest Service failed to repair the road after the flood, the County Commission decided to do it on its own, without bothering to obtain the appropriate permits. After the county had already filled in 900 feet of wetlands and changed the course of the Jarbidge River, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection got an injunction against the county for violating the Clean Water Act. In 1999, Carpenter and two of his allies — attorney Grant Gerber and county GOP chairman O.Q. Chris Johnson — organized a group to reopen the road. Threatened with a federal restraining order, the men turned back, but they continued to spur on the Shovel Brigade (3).
Photo courtesy of news.blogs.cnn.com
A federal district judge ordered Elko County and the Forest Service into mediation to resolve their dispute over the road. After 100 days, the two sides reached a proposed settlement that gave the county essentially everything it wanted: a nice new road farther away from the fish, paid for by the feds. The agency even agreed to give the county the authority to maintain the road in the future. But the agreement stopped short of explicitly stating that the county “owned” the road. That wasn’t enough to satisfy Carpenter and many county officials, even though the county’s own negotiators had hammered out the terms. The County Commission refused to sign the settlement (3). This refusal to compromise is a consistent trend amongst such radicals, as we saw when Cliven Bundy refused to cooperate and demanded all law enforcement officers hand over the guns, the government disband the BLM and NPS, and that gates be torn down at National Parks.
Such actions and bravado are exasperating to citizens and county officials who are fed up with the anti-federalists. According to Williams, Karen Dredge, who retired after 17 years as Elko County clerk, pointed out how nobody stepped forward to help underwrite the county’s failed lawsuit over rancher Don Duval’s water rights. “The county is broke,” says Dredge. “We were told to cut all our departments’ budgets, and they want to fight a cause that really strays from county business. Some of our commissioners are activists, not leaders. It’s a room full of the same radical people with the same radical words, and they want us to foot the bill.” In Elko County, the anti-federal attitude comes from the top. In the late 1990s the district attorney drafted a public service announcement advocating discrimination against Forest Service employees. “This message is brought to you by the Elko County Commission, who encourages you to let the Forest Service know what you think about this by not cooperating with them,” the draft read. “Don’t sell goods or services to them until they come to their senses.” The commission did not act on the district attorney’s advice, but hostilities became so great that Gloria Flora, supervisor of the Humboldt-Toiyabe, resigned from her job in 1999, saying she feared for the safety of her employees (4).
This sort of rhetoric can be heard around St. George and on the Stand with the Bundy’s Facebook page encouraging people to refuse service to federal employees. Several federal employees at the St. George Field Office, who had nothing to do with Bundy’s roundup, got enough threats that they were sent home. It is people in positions of authority, whether they are church leaders, media types, or politicians, who are culpable if not flat out guilty, in promoting this destructive attitude and lawlessness. But they are not the ones who will pay. They may get a pat on the back from their fellow church goers, or their buddies, or gain some political clout, but once it’s over, they will go back to their regular jobs, homes, and life while the rural community suffers the backlash. Some of those local politicians include Utah Senator Mike Lee (who ran against Senator Bennett on none other than the issue of public lands) and Governor Herbert (suing the Federal Government for public lands and access roads), the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, and Governor Sandoval in Nevada.
But political maneuvering aside, this really hurts rural communities and people. The trend across the West is changing, whether people like it or not. It is going to take smart people to find fair and equitable solutions, not ignorant people bent on working out their differences through violence. People in rural communities need to be included in the march of progress and helped economically rather than left behind once they have helped greedy politicians move up the political ladder. According to Williams, “Many residents fear that the alpha-male approach to conflict resolution prevents the local economy from diversifying beyond casinos and gold mining. This is certainly not good for economic development, worries Glen Guttry, an Elko city councilman. Some people are afraid to move in because of all the controversy (3).”
Seething anger, conflict, and a stubborn hold on the past will kill any attempt at a flourishing economy for rural communities by scaring away investors, businesses, and people who might otherwise be interested. I once spoke with a rancher who was bemoaning snotty east coast college graduates that come out to the West and tell him how the range works. I suggested that he offer internships so that they could learn what he was talking about. He mused on that. I would posit that rural people need to take time off to get degrees in biology, geology, law enforcement, environmental science, and law, etc., and then go back to their communities better equipped to help them. Perhaps even get jobs within land management agencies where their unique perspective can shed light on situations that would otherwise not get it.
As old Marshal Cogburn said in True Grit, “If you don’t have no schooling you are up against it in this country, sis. That is the way of it. No sir, that man has no chance any more. No matter if he has got sand in his craw, others will push him aside, little thin fellows that have won spelling bees back home.” Might and grit will only get you so far, and will do more for opportunistic politicians than the regular citizen. It appears that Nevada is as lawless as ever. It is time for those with sway and power to be the voice of reason and help the people of rural Nevada transition to the New West with respect and dignity and encourage rural Nevadans to give dignity, respect, and fair treatment to the federal employees caught in the middle. Smarter not harder comes to mind. Cliven Bundy is in the limelight right now, but it won’t last, and the consequences of his actions may turn out to be more toxic to the rural individual than the Federal Government ever could be.
For more history on the Posse Comitatus that started during the reconstruction of the South, the Sovereigns Movement, and Cliven Bundy’s link to them and his stance on sheriffs being the final authority, etc.
Sources:
(1) PBS Whiskey Rebellion: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande22.html
(2) Richard H. Kohn, The Washington Administration’s Decision to Crush the Whiskey Rebellion: http://arch.neicon.ru/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/4145794/JournalofAmericanHistoryjah_59_3_59-3-567.pdf?sequence=1
(3) Mother Jones, The Shovel Rebellion: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/01/shovel-rebellion
(5) Story of Kleppe v. New Mexico: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=facpub
(6) A long history of armed Constitutional vigilantism predates Bundy Ranch: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/04/bundy_ranch_vigilantism_going_mainstream_the_idea_that_the_constitution.2.html
(7) The Irony of Cliven Bundy’s Unconstitutional Stand, by Matt Ford: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/
Congress’s Impossible Mandate, States Playing Politics, and Tragedy on the Range
Photo Courtesy of Wikipedia
We are witnessing the passing of an era, a changing of the guards if you will. Like the change our country went through from being an agrarian society to an industrial one, we are witnessing the slow but steady transition from the Old West to the New West. Like a train gathering speed, this change has been in the process and happening for a long time. The Bundy standoff is just one episode, happening in real time, in the long struggle of those fighting to keep the Old West. Those clinging to the past feel the change acutely as their way of life gives way to the new. Though it feels like an anomaly, it is not. Many throughout our history have been caught in such transition zones and either had to adapt to the tides of change, or suffer while tenaciously refusing to give. But it is worse than that, Bundy and those like him are pawns in the ruthless game of politics in this stage of the game. They are not real players.
Right now Utah is in a legal battle against the U.S. Government for control of its federal lands. The Governor of Utah is spending $3 million dollars of the state’s school trust fund to fight a legal battle that does not stand a chance at winning, and they know this, so why are they doing it? In the The Story of Kleppe vs. New Mexico Robert L. Fischman and Jeremiah I. Williamson say,
“Why would Utah throw millions of dollars down the drain of futile litigation? Indeed, why even promote end-run tactics around federal authority instead of employing existing statutory avenues to influence public land management? The answer, of course, is politics. Utah is investing in fuel to stoke the fires of local frustration with federal control over public natural resources. The political movement feeding on this frustration, compounded by judicial setbacks, goes by many names today. But the original label is the Sagebrush Rebellion.”
Fischman and Williamson go on to say that, “…litigation itself, even when it yields no judicial relief, can serve as a powerful organizing tool for political movements.” They go on to explain that the process of fueling anti-federal social and political movements can be sustained through “successful failure.” They don’t care if they are engaging in a frivolous lawsuit that wastes precious money that could be spent in better and more responsible ways, they don’t care about the ranchers and people supporting their cause, they don’t even care that they are going to lose since they know they are going to; they care about their own political expediency and agendas.
Governor of Utah Gary Herbert, Photo Courtesy of utahpoliticalcapital.com
After the Civil War, when the western territories were being admitted into the Union, Congress had specific stipulations for their entry based on a real fear of loyalty, or lack thereof. Given that most of the Eastern U.S. is private land, they could secede from the Union. But, if Western states were largely federal land, it would be much harder to secede. Congress was particularly worried about territories with people who were seen as outside of the mainstream. In The Price of Admission: Causes, Effects, and Patterns of Conditions Imposed on States Entering the Union Eric Biber states,
“A review of the types of conditions that have been imposed on admitted states, and the historical context for those conditions, reveals a significant pattern: Congress has imposed conditions on the admission of states where it has concerns about whether the citizenry of the new state can be assimilated as a loyal, democratic unit of government within the United States, sometimes because that citizenry has been perceived as fundamentally different from mainstream American politics and society. For example, admitted states that had conditions imposed upon them for their admission (or in some cases, readmission) to the Union include Louisiana (predominantly French at the time of its admission in the early 1800s), the Southern states during Reconstruction, Utah (populated by Mormons that were perceived as disloyal and different from the rest of the Union), and New Mexico (with a substantial Mexican population). These conditions have also often been part of a broader process of assimilation and “Americanization” which the admitted state went through-voluntarily or not-in order to become a member of the Union. (2)”
When the Sagebrush Rebellion was at its heyday, it lost in court because it was literally a rebellion against the United States by the states themselves. They pitted their rights and powers against the Federal Government’s and lost. They lost under the Property and Sovereignty Clauses of the Constitution and that is why they will continue to lose, to say nothing of the relinquishment of the lands within their borders as stipulated in their own state constitutions in exchange for statehood. It is troubling, however, because this started over bad law and legitimate complaints by ranchers in the beginning.
In the early 1950s the American public became outraged at what was happening to wild horses and burros on the western range lands by profiteers rounding them up, often utilizing appalling tactics, for pet food (1). “Low-flying airplanes drove the wild horses towards mounted cowboys who fired shotguns at the horses to make them run faster. Captured horses were tied to large truck tires to exhaust them and make them easier to handle. Exhausted, they would be packed into trucks so tight that only their weight against each other held them up. Foals, weighing less, often were abandoned to die. Seeking maximum profits, often six and a half cents a pound, the hunters seldom fed or watered the horses and many died en route to the slaughterhouse.”
When these tactics were exposed by the media, the American public demanded action and Congress passed the Wild Horse Annie Act, which prohibited poisoning watering holes and hunting horses on motorized vehicles. But it wasn’t enough because hunters then just went out on foot. Because these hunters would not abide by the law, and for whatever reason could not be held accountable under the law, Congress passed a protective law: The Wild and Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA). In essence, the WFRHBA made the wild horses and burros property of the United States that could only be managed and handled by federal land management agencies.
Photo Courtesy hedweb.com
There are many problems with this law, first and foremost being that Congress did not consult ecologists, and thus protected what has become an invasive, non-native, and destructive species on the range. But furthermore, the horses started competing with cattle on the range for forage and water. While the ranchers were paying for grazing permits, learning to rotate their cattle to ensure the health of the land, and paying for range improvement projects and drilling for water, the horses were using those lands and resources at the ranchers’ expense. “While rangeland reform of the 1930s aimed at soil conservation imposed new regulations on public land graziers, that purpose served the long-term interest of ranchers. In contrast, the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act displaced ranching as the de facto priority use of public rangelands and helped trigger the Sagebrush Rebellion. The Act indirectly required ranchers to subsidize horse and burro access to water with extra fuel to run well pumps and repair horse and burrocaused damage, thus increasing the operating costs of an already marginally profitable industry.(1)”
Furthermore, the ranchers were not being compensated for this added expense. The ranchers were legitimately concerned. They didn’t have any problem with the horses, only the management of them. In New Mexico a local rancher named Kelley Stephenson, appealed to the BLM to handle the horses, who told him no. So he went to his state for help and they rounded up the horses under state sovereignty. But when the BLM heard of it, they demanded the horses back. Under the WFRHBA, only the BLM can remove the horses. Of course the rancher sued. The problem, in my opinion, with the argument brought before the courts is that they argued the limits of federal power. They based their argument on state’s rights, not individual rights. And of course they lost.
I am no lawyer, but I would argue that the ranchers are getting unfair treatment under the WFRHBA. They are currently a minority in this country and their rights are being trampled on by horses. When they pay their grazing fees, they have a right to their grazing allotments and resources on it and therefore, the horses and by proxy the U.S. government, is taking their property without due process. It is not about the states, it’s about the individuals. I would argue under the 14th and 5th Amendments. Furthermore, let’s talk about the conflicting and impossible mandate that Congress has given the BLM and Forest Service to manage rangelands for optimum health and to protect endangered species, while also protecting and managing a species that does not belong there. They cannot do both in the same time and space. And all without adequate funding!
As Fischman and Williamson point out, “The new law could not change the fact that wild horses and burros alter the ecosystems by consuming native plants, competing with native mammals such as the Desert Bighorn Sheep, fouling springs, and contributing to erosion by wearing trails on the steep desert hillsides (1).” Furthermore, they are 10,000 head over the carrying capacity of the land (1). Congress is being delinquent in its duties by letting the BLM and other land management agencies take the brunt of it. While they may have jumped on the public bandwagon against brutal hunting practices against horses, they have also trampled on individual rights and current environmental law in the process. Should all invasive species be given protection under the law? How about kudzu, cheatgrass, or the quagga mussel? Should tumbleweeds, also a symbol of the west, get special protection? You see how absurd it is. The Federal Government stands to lose nothing by letting the states handle the horses. Where the states went wrong was when they got into a pissing contest with the Federal Government over whose power supersedes whose.
Photo courtesy of http://www.bodybagcatholic.com
But if Congress were to pass the Ranchers Heritage and Tradition Act, they would be in virtually the same place, passing law that conflicts with current law which cannot be carried out adequately. While it is true that no livestock is native to the West, and cattle and sheep do immense damage to the range, I would make the distinction that the people have rights to be there and unlike the wild horses, can be held accountable for their livestock. It is the native species such as buffalo, bighorn sheep, and mule deer that deserve the protection as native, indigenous species. While I think that grazing is immensely harmful and economically unsustainable, I do believe that the traditions and heritage of ranching have immense value and should be given some credence. The American public can decide if the massively subsidized grazing industry is worth continuing to pay for. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, in 2005 the program brought in $21 million in fees paid by ranchers, but cost $144 million to run (Think Progress Article.) Perhaps we could let the free market decide, but that being said, we subsidize a whole lot of industries, which leads me back to the reality that the government cannot please everyone, hence giving credence to law being the final arbiter.
The problem with politicians is that they are always playing politics. Of course, part of that role is legitimate when the public demands legislative action, as they are beholden to represent their people, but part of it is playing and maneuvering for political gain. It seems that they largely due this with the Nation’s purse strings. We saw this in the battle over the Affordable Care Act in 2013 when the government got shut down over it. I suppose that sometimes it works in their favor, otherwise they wouldn’t do it. But when one of their favorite departments to hold hostage is the Department of Interior, it hurts all of us. It seems to be first on the chopping block when important legislation must be passed. That being said, the general sentiment amongst ranchers that “the policy arena was distinctly biased in favor of environmental values,” arose for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the BLM’s only effective tool for managing horse and burro populations in accordance with the law was to reduce livestock grazing allotments.
But what fundamentally stoked the rebellion was the ranchers’ loss of control over federal lands. Until the WFRBHA, “overt competition for use of specific areas of public lands was rare, and local ranchers held sway over rangelands (1).” Congress had, under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the drafting of which was dominated by westerners, “peppered FLPMA with several provisions inviting states to influence federal management through the tools of cooperative federalism. The BLM resource management plans, in particular, must be attentive to state and local management goals. The legislation promotes consistency in planning between levels of government. But the Sagebrush Rebellion had little patience for jumping through the hoops to qualify for FLPMA consideration. What distinguished the Sagebrush Rebellion from other efforts to promote traditional and local economic interests was its rejection of cooperative federalism. (1)”
FLPMA was the attempt to consider all levels of government in deciding how to use and manage public lands. Indeed, FLPMA placed new environmental restrictions on BLM authority, including limits on grazing that caused unnecessary and undue degradation. Sudeenly ranchers had to compete not only with wild horses and burros, but also with anyone else who wanted to use the public lands, including recreationists and environmentalists. In addition to providing the BLM with expansive rangeland management authority, including the ability to designate and regulate areas of critical environmental concern, FLPMA explicitly affirmed that the public lands [will] be retained in Federal ownership. (1)”
What is unfortunate, however, is that land management agencies cannot do their jobs without adequate budgets, and then get caught in the crossfire between Congress and the public, often suffering lawsuits that further dwindle down their already insufficient budgets. It is time to hold Congress accountable. If they are going to continue passing laws that require adequate funding to accomplish, especially conflicting laws, then they need to back it up with a realistic budget. It is time to look at who routinely slashes budgets for the Department of the Interior and hold their feet to the fire and then maybe, just maybe, these range wars can be put to bed. Perhaps we the people can do something that helps the ranchers, the rangeland ecosystems, and this country. The states have not done a very good job, and are now actively trying to stoke the flames of angst and unrest rather than work to really help the people they represent.
Photo courtesy of http://www.mypubliclands.tumblr.com
Because states have these avenues to work with the federal government over public land management, yet continue to pull the wool over the public’s eyes in regard to public land management, they are partly to blame for encouraging people like the Bundy’s in their brazen stands against the government. They are selling misinformation and misleading the public for their own political gain at the expense of the ranchers in these standoffs who will certainly pay the price. This is how Bundy and those like him have gone wrong and actually hurt their own cause. They are not sympathetic characters; they are scary and irrational people who are terrorizing the country. The law does have avenues for addressing these issues, though it does not guarantee you will get your way. Law abiding ranchers and all citizens are being hurt by the actions of this radical minority.
What we need are people with solutions, not people who insist on settling disputes with guns. This is not the Old West anymore. Federal land management employees should not be thrust onto the front line and put into harm’s way because Congress is derelict in its duties, and ranchers should not be pushed to the point of desperation or led to believe in false notions and wishful thinking by their own representatives who are only looking out for their own political future and gain. With the changing times we may decide that range health is the most important mandate, thus trumping all livestock on the range, but until then the land is managed on a multiple-use mandate. Right, wrong or indifferent competing interests must learn to compromise and work together under the law. Perhaps someday the Brave New West will set out on uncharted territory by implementing a suggestion that someone who commented on this blog suggested, “One New West solution would be to let market forces sort things out by legalizing permanent retirement of grazing permits by buyout.” We shall see.
Sources:
(1) The Story of Kleppe vs. New Mexico: The Sagebrush Rebellion as Un-Cooperative Federalism: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=facpub
(2) The Price of Admission: Causes, Effects, and Patterns of Conditions Imposed on States Entering the Union: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2031&context=facpubs
Nevada Cattleman Association Press Release on Bundy: http://www.nevadacattlemen.org/CMDocs/NevadaCattlemen/NCA%20Post%20Gather%20Statement.pdf
The Southwest Journal 