Theodore Roosevelt's Malheur refuge and the 2016 armed occupation

Malhauer National Wildlife Center Occupation

In 1908, the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt established the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (Langston 15). His aim was to safeguard the populations of water birds killed from the wanton plume trade in the area. The Refuge rests on an approximately 188,000-acre piece of land, representing some of the most crucial bird species on the Pacific Flyway (Littlefield 11). It is regarded as one of the crown jewels of the country's Wildlife Refuge structure owned by Americans. In the wake of 2013, the Refuge embraced a lasting management plan created via an inclusive, cooperative procedure that saw the state and federal agencies, local community, tribes, conservation groups and other stakeholders work together. Since then, the stakeholders have been collaborating to implement the strategy that focuses on one of the largest wetland restoration attempts ever undertaken.

In January 2013, a loosely organized movement of armed anti-government extremists headed by Ammon Bundy seized control of the Oregon-based Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Their action is attributable to the fact that two local ranchers, Steve, and Dwight Hammond had been ordered to report to the government prison for an arson sentence (Littlefield 39). According to the extremists, this punishment was unjust because the Hammonds had already served sentences handed down during a previous sentencing. After the seizure of the headquarters, the group has declined to vacate and instead are using social media platforms intensively to garner support from individuals and other right-wing extremist movements. More so, the mainstream national press has similarly been flocking the scene, interviewing as many of the occupants as possible, about the takeover. The following sections analyze the case of the Mahluer National Wildlife Refuge Occupation from three criminological perspectives: Control, Critical, and Patriarchy.

Control theory

The seizure of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters is a control, land grab with guns. Despite the argument about supporting the Hammond family, the takeover of the property is one of the historical campaigns by a radical movement to dismantle government land ownership in the West (Langston 21). A group of elected officials is fighting via mainstream platforms to have lands transferred to county or state government or to give them equal say over their utility. As such, the Refuge takeover appears to be an effort to spread a tactic of armed federal land takeovers. The extremists are said to be part of a "Patriot organization" that has re-surfaced following the election of Barack Obama as president. This incident has shifted the responsibility of guns away from who holds them. In most cases, the presence of a firearm serves to escalate things. The difference between acquiring control of property by locking the place or people chaining themselves to a fence and how these extremists have taken control of the Refuge is guns. The theory that the two are peaceful demonstrations and that the guns are merely meant for self-defense is nothing but a fallacy. By assuming their occupation might be confronted with violence, these men armed up and created a situation where such violence was inevitable.

Patriarchy Theory

Although the occupants of the refuge claimed to rescue public land, they left the tyranny of patriarchy unquestioned. Their organization and actions highlight the structure of patriarchy. Masculinity advocates that to feel powerless is a sign of failure. To be jailed, constrained, regulated and fined is to confront challenges of masculinity. Therefore, when men fail to feel like "real men," they tend to dominate someone or something to reassert their masculinity. This means that it is unlikely to dominate over "real men." Thus, for these "real men" to re-establish their masculinity, they threatened federal agents, took up firearms and destroyed government property (Steubner 39). It seems walking all over with guns and to keep the law enforcement officers at bay made them feel tough or "real men." In many ways, their feeling of masculinity was displayed by their sense of entitlement and white privilege. As men from the white race, they believe that success, power and ownership are their birthrights. They believe the federal should hear them first. They think they have the right to demand anything even if it is against the wishes of the regional people or above the law.

Critical theory

The motive behind the refuge occupation was the use and control of the federal land, which the militias wanted, transferred to Harney County control or private ownership (Langston 40). Regarding the refuge, the occupiers demand that the federal government transfer control so that according to them, "the people can have their resources." However, the critical criminological theory holds that there is unease regarding the possible effects of an extended occupancy. Among the concerns under this theory is that the delayed implementation of work to enhance the conditions for annual spring migration of birds, protection of archaeological sites and halting of efforts to manage invasive common carp within the refuge (Littlefield 48). Since the settlement into the Refuge, the militants adopted defensive positions. Although law enforcements have distanced themselves from the refuge, they have implemented various security measures within the surrounding areas. Nonetheless, the militia leaders argue to have roughly 150-armed followers on location contrary to media reports that not more than a dozen militias are on the scene. As seen from the Oregon Police Department, roughly 30 people are present on the site and have assumed defensive positions (Langston 84).