The Tortoise, the Rancher and J. Edgar Hoover

You have probably heard about the standoff between the Nevada rancher and federal officials.  The rancher, whose family has grazed cattle on those same public land for some 130 years, was ordered by federal court to remove his cattle in 1993, he refused, counter-suing that his rights pre-dated the BLM and implying that there needs to be some sort of pre-eminence due to his families long use. Needless to say, neither the BLM nor the court agreed.  Since then it has been ricocheting in and out of courts and government offices.  Other ranchers who did use the land have since left, and only one rancher remains.

The issue might have remained of little significance until in the last year or so a suit was filed in federal court that posited that the cattle threatened the desert tortoise.  Interestingly, the desert tortoise, formerly listed as ‘endangered,’ was recently re-listed by the federal government as ‘threatened,’ a lesser classification of risk. This is apparently partly the product of a survey of the region, which showed more tortoises then previously believed. Of course, cattle and tortoise have gotten along fine for nearly a century and a half.  But now, suddenly the cattle pose a threat.  Who knew?

In any case, the Bureau of Land Management police, with the help of the FBI, moved forces into the area.  I say forces because this is more than simply the sheriff showing up and say: “Mister, you’ve got to get your cattle of the land.”

So, some 200 federal officers, to include SWAT teams, K-9 teams, 4 sniper teams and 8 helicopters, have staked out the grazing area.

Bureau of Land Management. Cattle. Tortoises. SWAT.  Really.

Before going further, consider this: suppose you are an FBI agent. You walk into the corner drug store to buy aspirin. You see a man with a baseball bat beating the man behind the counter.  Are you required to lend assistance? You have no jurisdiction, you are a federal agent, no federal crime is being committed. The answer: of course you are. Not only has it always been assumed and expected, the LEOSA – Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 – was drafted to codify the concept that off-duty and even retired police retain a responsibility to public safety. 

Here’s another: what federal office has a 200 man uniformed police force, a 75 man special investigations unit and several incident command units (those neat command trailers we see in movies)?  In 2012 they engaged in more than 11,000 police actions, of which 1,920 were drug related.

Give up.  It’s the Bureau of Land Management, within the Interior Department.  The BLM, whose mission is: “to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield.” BLM manages 245 million acres of land (380,000 square miles, almost 1/9^th of the U.S.); 155 million acres of which are used for grazing livestock.

But that doesn’t explain why BLM has SWAT teams or needs snipers (borrowed from the FBI) and command trailers and all. Before you try to grasp that, consider this:

The Federal Reserve – you know, the bankers – has a 1,000 man security force with 5 special response teams, EOD, and Active Shooter response teams.

The Department of Education, which insists it doesn’t have SWAT teams, has a police force trained, per their spokesman, to use weapons and serve warrants, which sounds a bit like ‘high risk warrant serving,’ part of most SWAT training. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, dresses in body armor like a duck…

The EPA not only has SWAT teams, it has its own ‘ten most wanted’ list - EPA fugitives.

More than 40 different federal departments and agencies have their own police forces that are trained and equipped for special tactics.  Why do most departments and agencies need anything beyond security police to watch the doors and check people entering the buildings? Beyond security guards to protect facilities, why would, for example, the Department of Agriculture need specially trained police units? 

When asked, these departments all say they need a police force that has the full jurisdiction of the department – or some such nonsense. But, the fact is that if you are in violation of a federal statute, the federal marshal’s office can serve warrants and do all the things these various police forces do. For crisis response, every state police force, and the other federal police forces (FBI and federal marshals), have not only the ability but also the responsibility to respond and support – as noted for years, and as codified in law.

How did we get here?  Since the early days of J. Edgar Hoover’s reign as Director of the FBI, Hoover – and every director of any federal agency with any police powers, tried to expand its reach, all ‘necessary for increased public safety.’  The noted federal law – passed years after the Lindbergh baby kidnapping – making it a federal crime to transport a kidnap victim across state lines – can be seen as a major step down the road of rapidly expanding federal police authorities. Since then the federal government not only has created more and more federal police forces, it has continued to expand both their range of authorities and the actual capabilities of each office. Each director of each office wants his own police and SWAT, one that responds to him, without having to worry about justifying his actions to anyone else. 

It is worth noting that there is an excellent lesson in unintended consequences in all this.  In every case there were seemingly sound arguments as to why the Department of the Interior needed their own police force, their own criminal investigators to look into incidents on Department of Interior property. But, the solution is now worse than the problem, the cure worse then the cold.

And yet there is literally no need for it. The EPA, BLM, etc., would be just as secure if they relied on federal marshals for crisis response, and investigations. The only difference would be this: the Director of the EPA et al wouldn’t have his own SWAT team, but would have to request support from federal marshals, presenting a cogent argument as to the need to redirect assets. And that would make all of us more secure, knowing that police forces were focused on the most serious crimes.  And wouldn’t that be a good thing?

And let’s face facts: in the vast majority of cases the federal marshals would help if the manpower were available.  But it would also mean that there would be less chance of abuse because there would be a ‘check on the system’ by someone outside of the given department of agency.

And for the record: the Fish and Wildlife Service - responsible for monitoring and protecting the tortoises in question - is a bit short on cash.  So, they are going to ‘euthanize’ about 700 tortoises.  The same tortoises 200 federal officers are protecting from the rancher’s cattle.