At the heart of the dispute of the Bundy family and their occupying group of ranchers and sympathizers is a strongly-held belief that they are entitled to a “Western Way of Life.” It is not entirely clear what a Western Way of Life really means, but we might infer some meaning from the manner in which the armed occupiers entered the Wildlife Refuge. This belief is further underscored by a steadfast understanding that this Way of Life is a sacred and God-given right, and supersedes all others. The Bundys and their supporters appear to genuinely believe that they have God’s mandate to use the land for what they perceive as their highest good. By implication, this perspective may not always take into account the other species, plant and animal, that comprise these lands, or the ancient history belonging to the Paiute Indians. This understanding primarily values the Western Way of Life as interpreted by the Bundy family.
The ranchers’ perceived rights are rooted in a consciousness that believes some people are more entitled than others, and that some ways of life are more sacred and godly, regardless of the impact and consequences on other people, animals, and ecosystems, as well as the land’s actual ancestral history. Whether you believe that raising and slaughtering cattle for their meat is conscionable and/or ecologically appropriate, and/or abetted by the Almighty or not, the facts are indisputable. Cattle ranching, which requires thousands of acres of land, has not been sustainable for quite some time. Cattle ranching will continue to disrupt the lives of species whose habitats have been taken from them, and will also harm the ecosystems that comprise those habitats. The manifesto behind these deeds observes no universal consensus; it is merely a private agenda. There are other costs as well – American taxpayers are subsidizing the grazing of these lands. From whence issues this magnitude of hubris that can demand such tribute?
The History of Ranching is Violent
The history of ranching in this country has often been marked by violence and bloodshed. Ranchers have been at odds with anyone and anything that deliberately or innocently stood in the way of their right to graze cattle on federal lands. And yet, they have been legally aided and abetted. And yet, they continue to force access to Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon illegally. Remember 2014’s standoff with the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), courtesy of Cliven Bundy? That standoff was an armed confrontation between protesters and law enforcement that developed from a 20-year legal dispute between the BLM and cattle rancher Cliven Bundy over unpaid grazing fees on federally owned land in southeastern Nevada. Cliven Bundy still owes over $1 million in costs. Moreover, the land, which Cliven Bundy claims is his to use as he pleases, is said to have been originally inhabited by the Moapa Paiute people, who hold ancestral rights to the area. At Malheur, the Paiute Indians’ claim to sacred, ancestral land dates back 15,000 years, long before the Bundys and their kin arrived. Yet, the Bundys insist that these lands belong to them.
The Bundy family states that the federal government behaves oppressively by not transferring public lands—such as national parks and wildlife refuges—to their stewardship. Some observers note irony in these claims of oppression, considering that the Bundys and their community have benefited from federal business loans, below-market grazing fees, federal agricultural subsidies, and social security programs.
Dwight and Steven Hammond Incinerate Federal Land
Some of the occupiers at Malheur also disagreed with the imprisonment of a father and son, Dwight and Steven Hammond, who intentionally set fire to several acres of federal land, resulting in harm to local wildlife and habitat. The Hammonds, like the Bundys, framed their actions as a protest against what they view as federal overreach in land management.
Meeting the Needs of a Few Humans At Everyone’s Expense
Those occupying the refuge have expressed priorities that do not focus on ecology or riparian habitats vital to other species. Their concerns center on meeting their own needs, sometimes resulting in actions such as dismantling fences at Malheur to facilitate access for local cattle ranchers. This approach reveals a distinct set of values regarding land preservation efforts at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The practice of cattle ranching on federal lands has raised sustainability concerns and is viewed by some as not fully addressing the needs of other people, animals, plants, or ecosystems. There are also debates surrounding whether wild horses contribute to land degradation; some argue that cattle have a more significant impact in this regard. Additionally, questions persist about the broader environmental consequences of commercial beef production, including its effects on other species and the cattle themselves.
Supporting the Destruction of Other Species
The Bundys and other ranchers benefit from the “animal damage control” program in which federal employees kill off nearby predators that allegedly present a danger to cattle. The livestock predation myth is another big lie. The myth is that black bears, mountain lions, bobcats, foxes, wolves, and coyotes kill a large number of cattle. The truth is that less than a quarter of one percent of the American cattle inventory was lost to native carnivores and dogs in 2010, according to a Department of Agriculture report. The government’s own data shows that the real killers of cattle are not a few endangered wolves or other wildlife; it’s illness and weather. Yet, the predation myth has directly contributed to a federal, 100-year, paramilitary assault on millions of native carnivores. This taking of animal life is outrageous, all the more so because it is in support of an extremely narrow band of self-serving interests.
In addition to the debated impact on wildlife, some estimates suggest that Western ranchers receive more taxpayer subsidies than those in other regions. For example, in 1994, the program reportedly cost $55.9 million nationwide, with approximately $22 million allocated to Western livestock operations.
All Beings Have a Right to the Tree of Life
All beings have the right to have their basic needs met. Human beings need shelter, food, water, clothing, education, medicine, and opportunities to develop their gifts, so that each is personally fulfilled and able to contribute according to their unique skills and interests. Plant and animal consciousness have as much right as human consciousness to be here.
Their ecological contributions have been scientifically documented. Beyond that, the beauty, diversity, joy, art, and spirituality that animals and nature inspire are not measurable in material terms. There is an evolutionary contribution, both spiritual and physical, that animal consciousness offers. Shamans would argue that without animal consciousness, humans would go crazy and eventually cease to exist. With the death of every animal, we lose a vital aspect of universal consciousness. We lose multiple strands of evolution. This is further underscored when species go extinct.
Human Beings Need to Support Goals that Will Benefit Everyone
Human beings need to support goals that will benefit everyone, not just partisan interests. Until all beings have their needs met, conflict and violence will persist. This is where visionary leadership is called for. This is where grassroots communities come together – to understand the core principles of sustainability, the sacredness of life and the right to life, and the mandate to support this. There is an insidious and dark undercurrent at work in the occupation of Malheur – the fear that there is not enough for everyone; that everyone’s needs cannot be met. That kind of thinking inevitably creates the myth that only some deserve access to resources – and who decides that? Armed militias? Terrorists? Wealth and privilege? Legislative cronyism?
What if it’s not true that global or local resources are insufficient to meet everyone’s needs? What if, collectively, each brought their unique talents to the table and agreed to focus on creating solutions based on the assumption that there is enough to go around? What if, by co-creating, we can innovate systems and methods that employ the spirit of cooperation to make that happen? What if we genuinely believed that everyone has a right to the tree of life and that any other perception was unthinkable and unacceptable? What if? To be sure, none of these questions is new or particularly insightful. We’ve been asking them for a long, long time. When do we plan to answer them?
© | Gloria Constantin | All Rights Reserved |
Need help or have questions? Contact Me