Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 22, 2016)
12 CapitalPress.com January 22, 2016 ‘Try to listen instead of forming a rebuttal’ DIVIDE from Page 1 disconnect between urban and rural. It’s a division on display as armed men occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Har- ney County and demand the federal government release area ranchers Dwight and Ste- ven Hammond and turn over all federally managed land to the states, counties or private ranchers. Many people living in Portland and other urban cen- ters mock the occupiers as “Y’all Qaeda” and ridicule their beliefs. They rail about “welfare cowboys” receiving “subsidized” grazing fees on federal land. Meanwhile, rural resi- dents, farming and ranching groups and elected officials have criticized the occupiers’ actions. But they say the un- derlying anger about lost eco- nomic opportunity in the rural West is real. U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, who represents Eastern Or- egon in Congress, said the thread tying the Hammond family’s case with the occu- piers’ demands is “decades of frustration, arrogance and betrayal that has contributed to the mistrust of the federal government.” In Portland and other ur- ban centers, that connection isn’t so clear. “Because it’s not on their radar,” said John Morgan, an economic development, civic and leadership planner and consultant who works with rural communities. Harney County, where fed- eral and state agencies manage about 75 percent of the land, has 1,200 fewer people and 10 percent fewer jobs than it did in the late 1970s. The number of logging and mill jobs in the county went from 768 in 1978 to just 6 in 2014, according to state figures. Meanwhile, the state’s urban areas, especially Port- land and surrounding Mult- nomah County, have grown dramatically. With its 14,000 employees, OHSU alone has nearly twice as many people as Harney County. Intel, the computer chip manufacturing company based in Hillsboro, employs about 18,000 peo- ple. Yet the wheat, timber, wine, livestock and other agri- cultural products pouring out With attention focused on the group occupying the Malheur Na- tional Wildlife Refuge, Oregon cattle rancher Keith Nantz wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post to explain ranching, grazing and the struggle to make a living in the rural West. Photos by Eric Mortenson/Capital Press Streetcars, MAX trains, bicyclists and cars crowd Portland’s South Waterfront district. The contrast with rural Oregon’s wide-open spaces make it difficult to explain the context of the militia occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Online • To see Rep. Greg Walden’s speech on the U.S. House floor, go to www.capitalpress.com. • To read rancher Keith Nantz’s opinion piece, go to https://www. washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/08/im-an-oregon- rancher-heres-what-you-dont-understand-about-the-bundy-stand- off/ • To read rancher Paul Schwennesen’s opinion piece, go to http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-schwennesen/the-stetson-rebel- lion-and_b_8949070.html of rural Oregon are crucial to cities, Morgan said. City ship- ping, trucking, processing, professional service and retail jobs depend on them. “The resource economy is intrinsically tied to the pros- perity of the rest of the state,” he said. “You couldn’t have urban prosperity without the fact that Oregon is still a re- source economy. Intel can only take us so far.” Getting that point across to city dwellers isn’t easy. “They’re more than happy to try and regulate what hap- pens to the Columbia River Gorge because they see it as their playground, without stopping to understand the (economic) impact,” Morgan said. But the Hammond case — they were ordered to serve additional prison time for burning BLM land — and the wildlife refuge occupation may have opened the conver- sation. Walden made an im- passioned speech in Congress about “federal overreach in the West” that was well-re- ceived and widely shared on social media. Rancher Keith Nantz, manager and partner of the Dillon Land and Cattle Co. south of The Dalles, Ore., wrote an opinion piece on the issue for the Washington Post that received more than 4,200 reader comments. In his piece, Nantz said management decisions are being made by people “four to five generations removed from food production” and who “don’t quite understand our industry.” “In every part of my busi- ness, I try to find a balance between economics, mother nature and our culture,” Nantz wrote. “I know that if we don’t treat our land properly, we will go out of business by our own hands. “But all too often, I’m not given the autonomy to do so. I’m given rules, not a conver- sation about how ranchers and government officials and en- vironmentalists might be able to work together. That’s an approach that fails everyone.” Nantz said online com- ments ranged from “absolute opposite ends of the spec- trum.” The issue now has the national stage, he said, and producers should not let the conversation die off. Farmers and ranchers are getting better at networking, he said, and must continue to engage the public and explain what they do without being combative. “We need to utilize the mo- mentum we have right now,” Nantz said. “We need to capi- talize on this movement.” Nantz said one of the tips in the book, “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” is to “first understand before being understood.” “We all have to live here in this great state and this great country,” he said. “We need some balance. Try to listen instead of forming a rebuttal. We can actually find answers to conflicting views.” Portland attorney Tim Ber- nasek, who heads an agricul- tural practice group for the Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue law firm, said he’s seeing increased urban curios- ity about rural life. He said city dwellers should understand farmers and ranchers are intelligent people who are drawn to agri- culture because it’s a calling, often a family legacy and a lifestyle preference. He said their career choice is analogous to that of teach- ers, who are likewise drawn to their jobs. “They could make more money doing something else,” he said. Paul Schwennesen, a Har- vard-educated Air Force vet- eran who raises grass-fed beef in Arizona, wrote a piece for the Huffington Post in which he described Western reaction to the Harney County situa- tion as “deeply American.” He said “urban elites” at both ends of the political spectrum have dismissed the standoff as ridiculous, and miss the point of it. “Like good Tories haugh- tily renouncing tea dumping in Boston ‘Harbour,’ we may be shocked to find that the ragamuffins are not only say- ing something important, but that their message is striking a chord, Schwennesen wrote. “What they are saying is that the federal government is too bloated, too heavy-hand- ed, and too corrupt, and that it is most spectacularly evident on the rugged rangelands of the West.” In a phone interview, Schwennesen said reaction to his piece “split along the ur- ban-rural divide.” He said the ground level is- sue is federal management of the overwhelming majority of the resource base in the West. Bureaucratic paralysis is the inevitable result when “one decision maker gets to make the decisions over a gigantic public resource,” he said. “I think a lot of what’s going on here is that the free market and capitalism real- ly aren’t thriving out West,” Schwennesen said. “While not all rural blight is the result of federal over- sight, it’s a big piece of the puzzle that goes unquestioned today,” he said. If Cargill or Monsanto owned the majority of the land and people were denied opportunity to make a living, all hell would break loose, he said. “I am an optimist at the end of the day,” Schwennesen said. “I do think logic prevails. The best I can hope to do is put out facts, and put them out in such a way that it’s not just ideological posturing. “There’s more to the issue than meets the preconceived eye.” Federal agencies may come after ranchers to collect payments for unpaid grazing fees FEES from Page 1 ranchers in grazing lawsuits. While the penalties would not be criminal, serious breaches of grazing contracts may effectively end a ranch- er’s ability to release livestock onto public lands. It’s similar to a contractor who has previ- ously defaulted on an agree- ment and is excluded from bidding on government proj- ects, Horngren said. “The real risk is they’ll be unable to graze on the al- lotment for which they’re not paying and it’s possible they could be disqualified from ac- quiring any allotments in the future,” he said. Federal agencies may also come after ranchers to collect payments for unpaid grazing fees, he said. Stock photo While the penalties would not be criminal, serious breaches of grazing contracts may effectively end a rancher’s ability to release livestock onto public lands. Ranchers and federal agencies usually resolve mi- nor contract disputes without actually voiding such deals, Horngren said. “Breaches happen on both sides.” Federal officials may not treat one missed payment as a serious issue, but tearing up a contract and refusing to pay at all would probably be considered a material breach, he said. Members of the armed pro- test group have cited examples of ranchers refusing to pay grazing fees without conse- quence, such as Cliven Bun- dy of Nevada, who continues to graze on public land even though the government claims he owes more than $1 million to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Federal officials backed off from seizing Bundy’s cattle in 2014 after an armed standoff, and his son, Ammon, is cur- rently leading the occupation in Oregon. Horngren said he’d ad- vise ranchers against relying on that case in their deci- sion-making and instead work through administrative and le- gal processes if they disagree with restrictions on grazing permits. “Withholding payment is a risky strategy for a rancher to try to make the point the BLM is not managing the range ap- propriately,” he said. Rancher Travis Williams said he’s considering the pro- testers’ proposal primarily be- cause the money raised by the federal government from graz- ing fees doesn’t benefit Harney County tax revenues. If he does withhold grazing fees, Williams said he doesn’t want to “freeload” and instead would make payments into an escrow account, with the mon- ey intended for the county. Though he doesn’t want to jeopardize his ranch, Williams doesn’t believe that ranchers “collaborating” with federal agencies has produced needed changes in land management. Refusing to pay grazing fees would likely be more ef- fective, he said. “That’s the only way we’re going to get anything done.” Shawn Mace, president of the Harney County Stock- growers Association, said his organization does not endorse illegal activity against the federal government, which re- flects the view of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. Some ranchers may feel a need to stand against the fed- eral government to protect their way of life, but Mace said it’s unclear what purpose refusing to pay grazing fees would achieve. Mace said he prefers to concentrate on his job of ranching. “Public grazing is vital to the survival of Harney Coun- ty ranchers,” he said. “I don’t see this as a real issue. Why would we bite the hand that feeds us?” Judge issued injunction barring government from interfering with Hage’s access to water rights HAGE from Page 1 spanned more than two de- cades. In the Nevada case re- cently reviewed by the 9th Circuit, U.S. District Judge Robert Jones said govern- ment officials entered into a “literal, intentional conspira- cy” against Hage that “shocks the conscience” and justifies an injunction prohibiting the agencies from continuing the behavior. That ruling sprang from a lawsuit that the federal govern- ment brought against Hage’s estate, accusing his ranch of trespassing by allowing its cat- tle to graze on public land. The case backfired against the government when the judge agreed with Hage’s counterclaims, which alleged that the agencies unlawfully refused to renew his grazing permits. While there’s no right to graze on federal land, the judge held that the government vio- lated administrative law when it refused to renew his grazing permits for reasons unrelated to proper rangeland usage. Jones found that the govern- ment “vindictively” withheld the permits because Hage made a note on a grazing contract refusing to waive his rights, which would not have affected the substance of the agreement. Because of the note, the government took the “nonsen- sical position” that the permit application hadn’t been prop- erly completed, and stopped al- lowing Hage to graze his cattle beginning in 1993, the judge said. The government also tried to transfer water rights owned by Hage and encouraged anoth- er rancher to apply for grazing permits on allotments tradition- ally used by Hage, Jones said. The agencies retaliated against people who sold cattle to Hage to pressure them to cease doing business with him or to prevent them from testify- ing in the lawsuit, he said. Jones ruled that Hage held water rights in streams on pub- lic land, which offered a valid defense against most of the government’s accusations of trespassing. It’s reasonable for cows to incidentally graze within a half-mile of Hage’s water rights as they cross federal land, the judge said. “It is not fair to say that cattle must be taken to the shore of a stream, kept there and watched constantly until they drink, and then taken off of the land,” Jones said. “The testimony at trial was uncon- troverted that cattle cannot be made to drink on command in this way.” The judge issued an in- junction that barred the gov- ernment from interfering with Hage’s access to water rights and ordered the agencies to renew his grazing permits, among other provisions. That ruling has now been reversed by the 9th Circuit, which held that Jones ignored longstanding legal precedent in his opinion. Ownership of water rights does not give a rancher the right to graze livestock on federal property, though he can divert water from a stream on such land, the appeals court held. As for the due process rights related to Hage’s graz- ing permits, the 9th Circuit held that the statute of limita- tions on such claims had run out. The appellate court reject- ed the judge’s finding that the statute of limitations hadn’t ex- pired because the government’s refusal to permit grazing was a continuing violation of his rights. The 9th Circuit sent the case back for reconsideration by a different federal judge due to Jones’ “bias,” “prejudgment” and “animus toward the federal agencies.” Mark Pollot, the attorney for Hage’s estate, said he plans to challenge the 9th Cir- cuit’s ruling, either by asking for reconsideration by a larger panel of appellate judges or by requesting a review from the U.S. Supreme Court. The possibility of the Su- preme Court weighing in on the case is likely because the 9th Circuit’s ruling is contrary to other legal precedents that prohibit interference with wa- ter rights, he said. “It really does undermine the basis of Western water law.” The three-judge panel that ruled against Hage also mis- interpreted a legal precedent related to grazing and water rights, he said. Water rights don’t allow for unlimited grazing on gov- ernment land, but they do al- low incidental usage of range- land by livestock as it travels to a water source, Pollot said. “That’s not a generalized grazing right.”