Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Oregon standoff

Official restraint is admirable, but risks encouraging the craziness of extremists

The situation in Oregon is bizarre. There are a number of unanswered questions and more for which the answers given are confusing or just goofy. One question that deserves a straight answer, however, is this: How long are the authorities going to let this go on? Patience and a desire to avoid violence are commendable, but at some point, it starts to look like outlandish and extreme behavior is being rewarded.

Saturday, a group of armed men took over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge some 30 miles outside of Burns in the eastern part of Oregon. The group, apparently led by Ammon and Randy Bundy, has vowed not to leave until there is an end to the federal government’s “tyranny.” The Bundys are sons of the Nevada rancher, Cliven Bundy, who had his own standoff with the feds over grazing fees in 2014.

This move was ostensibly triggered by a court ordering two men back to jail after ruling that their conviction for arson carried a longer sentence than they were originally handed. The two, Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, were convicted of setting fires on federal land. They said they did so to control invasive species. The prosecution said they did it to hide their having poached several deer.

Nothing about this makes sense.

Cliven Bundy seems not to understand what his sons are up to and says his family has no business in that county. Cliven’s sons call their group Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and want the federal government to give up control of the wildlife refuge (and perhaps, ultimately, all federal lands) and to cut the Hammonds’ sentences. The Hammonds say the Bundys do not speak for them and want nothing to do with them.

It is unclear how many are in the group holding the building. Reportedly, it includes an anti-Islamist who has compared himself to the signers of the Declaration of Independence, a rancher who refuses to pay grazing fees and a veteran from Montana who had claimed to be positioning snipers at Cliven Bundy’s standoff.

Much of the media are in a dither over what to call these guys. The terms “terrorists,” “armed protestors,” “occupiers” and “militia members” have all been thrown around. But there is no evidence this bunch is organized, and so far, they have not actually harmed anyone. The building is remote and was unoccupied when they got there.

And with that, there is no “or else” to this situation beyond the group’s refusing to leave a building that does not seem particularly important. So, it is understandable that the authorities do not want to storm the building and risk a shootout. Presumably, they can simply wait for the Bundys and company to tire of posturing.

But they should be seen to take some action. The federal government is not about to surrender public lands to groups like this or to local control, neither there nor elsewhere. That goal is delusional, but so too is the thinking behind it – and the Bundys are not alone in that.

The handling of this episode does not have to be violent or deadly. But it needs to be made clear to any other crazies who might be watching that the Bundys and their friends are in serious trouble.



Reader Comments