Refuge under siege

As I write this, a group of armed, anti-government, militants is thinking about leaving a National Wildlife Refuge they have occupied since Jan. 2. Not to give it back to the public, but rather, to go into Burns Oregon and meet with residents to plead their case. Will law enforcement use this as an opportunity to arrest them? Is this just a ploy to provoke a shootout? It reads like some twisted installment of some paranoid novella.

Let’s face it. This is a takeover of public lands by private individuals through force and intimidation. A publicity stunt designed to get the media to focus on a particular point of view. It remains to be seen just how successful they will be at formulating a focused message. Early indication is they will go down in history as the occupiers who forgot to bring food and requested that people “mail them snacks.”

Unfortunately, this whole scenario is taking place on land that is a critical migratory stopover for hundreds of thousands of birds . . . a critical link in the Pacific flyway. President Theodore Roosevelt established Malheur National Wildlife refuge in 1908 to protect bird species that were being decimated by the plume trade. Over 320 different bird species use the Malheur refuge that encompasses three lakes in the Oregon high desert. Its 188,000 acres contain critical habitat not only for waterfowl and shorebirds, but also Sage Grouse and Pronghorn Antelope. It is an epicenter for biodiversity. Right now, the staff that cares for it, and the public who use it, are denied access by a group that is intent on “giving the land back to the people.” How can you give back to the people something that they already own?

In 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service went through a lengthy process to update its Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), something all refuges in the U.S.F.W.S do. Development of the plan included stakeholders from local and state agencies, business interests, ranchers and the community of Burns. I’m sure that not everyone agreed on everything, but like grown-ups, they came to a consensus on defining the mission, goals and action steps that were needed to have a successful refuge that would benefit the region. This has been the process for each update of the Refuge CCP for generations. This is how adults solve problems and get along in a society.

It’s safe to say, that not everyone plays by the rules. In Harney County Oregon (home to the refuge), a local father and son were convicted of setting several fires that took public grazing land out of production, endangered firefighters and damaged public property. They were sentenced to three months in jail even though the minimum mandatory sentence for their conviction was five years. Recently an appeals panel disagreed with the lesser sentence and called for the five-year minimum sentence to be served by the two men. They reported to prison to serve their time early January. Not everyone in the community likes the fact that these men must serve more time. In small-town America, we have the luxury of understanding that, even in the most rebellious person, there is a good side to their personality.

This incident spurred out-of state, anti-government activists (some would say terrorists) to converge on Burns Oregon to fan the flames of discourse. Heavily armed men took over the refuge visitor center and headquarters while it was closed for the holidays, and there they sit. Employees from the refuge cannot go to work, the public cannot visit a refuge that they own, and important time sensitive tasks to manage the natural resources at the refuge cannot be done. This will affect the ecological health of the refuge; impact the migratory birds that depend on the habitat, and ultimately impact the economic landscape of the communities that are near the refuge.

We can only hope that this will end with people behaving like grown-ups and that the better angels in our society will prevail. I have no doubt that there is plenty of room for what is bothering this group of armed occupiers to be discussed. There are ways to have their grievances aired, debated, and resolved in the public discourse. If, on the other hand, they insist on being schoolyard bullies and challenge the norms of society by threat of brute force, this will not end well.