This morning my local paper ran a strong editorial about current events in
Oregon, condemning the armed criminals who have taken over a wildlife refuge
with threats of deadly force. These people may pretend to be family-friendly,
but the fact is they've threatened the lives of federal employees and they're
preventing the lawful use of public lands.
While I can appreciate there may be local considerations, allowing an armed
takeover of a protected area sets a terrible precedent. When thugs are given
carte blanche to threaten other citizens away from public property, it sends
the message that weapons and extremist rhetoric can somehow justify gross
violations of the law. It's hard to imagine these takeovers won't become more
common as a result, with an increased threat to the lives of natural resource
professionals as well as the lands they work on.
This is what conservationists have to deal with in developing countries,
where corruption is rampant at every level and legal protections are
wafer-thin; but what does it say when we allow it to happen in the United
States? Don't we have some responsibility to speak out against it?
- J. A.
