Federal managers who try to protect public lands face threats and violence. Here’s what makes that much worse

Zoe Nemerever

Recently, the federal Bureau of Land Management fired a longtime employee, allegedly for blowing the whistle on the Trump administration’s refusal to enforce grazing policies on federal lands. The former employee, Craig Hoover, reported that agency managers have been instructing employees to stop enforcing grazing restrictions, thereby allowing ranchers and their cattle unfettered access to natural resources owned and managed by the federal government. This enforcement decision follows years of political violence and threats against public employees who manage federal lands. The most widely known was a 400-person standoff led by rancher Cliven Bundy in 2014 and the 2016 armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge led by Bundy’s son Ammon. But these high-profile episodes are just the tip of the iceberg. BLM employees often face violence and threats for enforcing unpopular restrictions on the use of public lands out west. The federal government owns more than 640 million acres of the country’s western lands. That volume means that the federal government relies on local county sheriffs to be their eyes and ears and backup. As a result, sheriffs’ attitudes make a big difference in how much violence BLM workers face, as my new research shows...Counties that elect constitutionalist sheriffs have higher rates of violence against employees of the federal Bureau of Land Management compared to other western counties that do not elect constitutionalist sheriffs. Over the two decades studied, civilians attacked BLM employees in one-third of the counties. In counties with a constitutionalist sheriff, the rate of violence was over twice as high. Even after accounting for other factors such as partisanship and household income, counties that elect constitutionalist sheriffs are nearly 55 percent more likely to have episodes of political violence against federal employees...MORE

In the research paper the author also indicts state legislatures that pass land transfer legislation:

First, constitutionalist sheriffs cam increase political violence against the federal government by stoking citizens’ anti-federal grievances and by making it difficult for the BLM employees to enforce land regulations. Second, passage of land transfer legislation by state legislatures can increase subsequent rates of political violence by vindicating individuals’ frustrations with the federal government.

Admittedly, I have only had time to briefly scan the paper. One question I don't see addressed is why was a "constitutionalist sheriff" elected in the first place? What actions by the feds created a political environment where a candidate of that type is elected? It very well could be that the root cause of violence is the presence of the federal government itself.

I also must question the objectivity and accuracy of an author begins their paper with the following sentence:

In 2014, a dozen Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees engaged in a standoff against four hundred armed protestors while attempting to round up Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle for unlawfully grazing on public land.

First, the protestors are described as armed, while there is no mention of whether the BLM employees were armed. Why use that adjective for one group and not the other?

But most importantly, the statement this was 12 versus 400? Has the author not seen the photos of federal officers at the site? Plus the snipers, park service officers and FBI agents who were at the scene?