Whose Land Is It Anyway?

Since my novel, A Land Divided, revolves around the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation, I think it is appropriate to discuss the evolution of the ownership of the land that the refuge occupies. While discussing that, I will also reflect on the concept of ownership and the impact on public lands in general. Some of my information is taken from a non-fiction book by Christopher Ketcham, This Land, subtitled How Cowboys, Capitalism, and Corruption are Ruining the American West. I anticipate doing a review of this book in another blog post.

Maybe we should start with ownership. In fact the concept is simple. Ownership is the legal right to possess something to the exclusion of others unless it is clearly stated that others are involved in the ownership of said property. A potential problem in this simplicity exists when we consider who confers the right of ownership. In the case of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the federal government is the owner of the land. Hence, the people of the United States are the owners of the land that the refuge occupies. The irony here is that the concept of private ownership is a cornerstone of the capitalist economic system, and yet, the refuge is held in common in the public domain.

It is interesting and sad that the Native Americans who lived in the area of land where the refuge is delineated had no legal rights as determined by the United States government. Might makes right; the powerful define the rules. This may sound like a polemic against the United States government. It’s not. Despite the many warts of the democratic process, leaders of the elected government have had moments of enlightened thinking (and many that were ignorant and destructive) in the development and management of federal land. The establishment of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is an example of advanced thinking.

When Europeans initially settled in the Americas it was primarily to provide raw materials for the various European crowns that existed in those days. I won’t go into detail about the early history of that mind set, but it mean’t that most people came to this continent with the plan and hope to obtain land and wealth that was no longer available to them on their homeland. This often resulted in the degradation and destruction of the land and the creatures that lived there. This attitude continued from before the creation of the United States through the Louisiana Purchase, the treaty with Great Britain for the Oregon Territory, the Mexican Cession and the Alaskan Purchase, until the present, and will continue with some humans well into the future). The difference is that over time some changes began to appear in the vision for the developing country.

These changes make their first appearance in response to the establishment by congress of The General Land Office in 1812, and the Homestead Act of 1862. Based on abuse of land giveaways and rampant utilization of natural resources, some officials became concerned about the unrestricted behavior shown by those using the land owned by the people of the United States. Authors associated with this change in attitude and hopefully consciousness include John James Audubon, Susan Fenimore Cooper, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Burroughs, and John Muir. Later authors include Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, Edward Abbey and Barry Lopez. Examples of photographers that influenced conservation and environmental consciousness include Carleton Watkins, and William Henry Jackson, (Yosemite), William L. Finley and Herman T. Bohlman (Malheur). There are other influential authors, and photographers (Ansel Adams comes to mind), but these are most specific to the changes in the consciousness of the leaders of the United States as it relates to the evolution of the national attitude toward the natural world in the early years.

There are many steps leading to the development of the improved federal land policies. The establishment of Forest Reserve Act (1891) was a beginning of the concept of preservation in public land policies. In fact, users of the land, frustrated by the increased focus on conservation, insisted that the act be relaxed for mining and logging. President Teddy Roosevelt established the US Forest Service (under the Department of Agriculture) in 1905. In 1908 Roosevelt established the Lake Malheur Reservation, a precursor of the refuge.

Regarding the evolution of the Bureau of Land Management (1970) the next step was the Taylor Grazing Act (1934). The goal of the act was to manage mineral extraction and grazing activities on public land that had been especially destructive. Eventually this led to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. This act codified federal ownership and mandated management practices of pubic lands. Some of the mandates included the protection and preservation of the natural state of the land and wildlife, management and regulation of domestic animals’ utilization of the land, and outdoor recreation. Under the act, the BLM manages the National Landscape Conservation System and National Monuments. Based on my readings, the goals of conservation, preservation and protection often suffered under the national and local management of public lands–again another subject.

The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has grown over time, primarily through the purchase of private land. It currently encompasses 187,757 acres. It was the center of the question of ownership asserted by Ammon Bundy. The apparent goal of the occupation in 2016 was to demand that the government relinquish control (and ownership) of the refuge. Their apparent argument was that the government was not able to own land based on a small excerpt from the constitution of the United States. I am not a constitutional attorney, but from what I have read, this has been discounted as irrational and unfounded by multiple courts. So far, this has not deterred the Bundys, but it has clearly established the authority of the government to manage public lands, including the refuge in behalf of the people of the United States in general.

This reminds me of the song by Woody Guthrie “This Land Is Your Land”. I fully embrace that mind set. I feel grateful for the foresight and effort that has gone into the development of public lands for the benefit of those of us who would visit the varied and unique lands without the compulsion to rearrange, destroy and degrade the landscape and the creatures that abide there. Management of public lands has been far from perfect, and many examples of political and economic manipulations for the sake of private gains exist, but it would be far worse if some enlightened people had not interrupted this ugly side of human nature. I understand there is a different point of view that exists, and I am glad that it has not prevailed in wrenching away the opportunity to enjoy the land without changing it.

A Land Divided explores these issues in the context of fiction, but in fiction sometimes truth resonates most clearly.