As protesters continue to engage in a standoff against the government at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, conservatives agree the events have elevated the debate over federal land ownership.

But, lawmakers stop short of endorsing the actions of the protesters occupying a federal building located south of Burns, Ore.

“It’s brought attention to a problem issue,” Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told The Daily Signal. “I’m not an advocate of trespassing, taking over federal property, but now that they’ve brought attention to the issue, they don’t need to be violating laws, either—local, state or federal.”

“We do need to get to the bottom of what happened to the Hammonds. It sounds very abusive,” Gohmert, chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, continued. “We’ve got too much power in the hands of the [Bureau of Land Management], too much power in the hands of Fish and Wildlife [Service], too much power in the Department of the Interior.”

The federal government currently owns more than 630 million acres of land across the United States, and the Texas Republican warned that the federal government is beginning to creep further east in terms of the land it controls.

“If they’re doing it in the West, then eventually they’re going to come do it in the East, and people all over the country will feel the crush as the federal government takes over the land at a theater near you,” he said.

On Saturday, armed protesters took over an empty federal building located on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. It’s unknown how many people are in the group, called Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and led by Ammon Bundy.

Ammon Bundy’s father, Cliven Bundy, engaged in an 11-day standoff with the Bureau of Land Management in 2014.

The protesters plan to occupy the refuge until the federal government returns the land to private ownership.

Citizens for Constitutional Freedom traveled to Burns to protest the five-year prison sentence of Dwight and Steven Hammond, ranchers who were convicted of arson on federal land.

Dwight and Steven Hammond originally received three month and one year sentences, respectively, for setting fires that spread to federal land in 2001 and 2006. However, the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals resentenced the father and son in October and said they have to serve out a five-year sentence mandated under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the law under which they were sentenced.

The trial judge who sentenced Dwight and Steven Hammond originally said the five-year mandatory minimum for arson on federal land was excessive.

Protesters with Citizens for Constitutional Freedom oppose not only the Hammonds’ sentence, which they say is unjust, but also the government’s control of land.

The latter issue, conservatives from western states say, has been the cause of frustration for many Americans for years, particularly as they see the federal government take more land from private citizens trying to make a living and feed their families.

“The issue in the West that people here in the East don’t understand is that, in Idaho, it’s over 65 percent of our lands are owned by the federal government. It’s the same thing in most of the states in the West,” Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, told reporters yesterday. “And what we have is frustration where you have the BLM, you have these other federal agencies that keep taking over the lands.”

In Oregon, specifically, the federal government owns 53 percent of the land, with the Bureau of Land Management managing the largest amount largest amount—more than 16 million acres— according to a 2014 report from the Congressional Research Service.

Labrador said the government’s attempts to take control of more and more land likely served as the catalyst for the current standoff in Oregon, which has so far been a peaceful takeover by Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.

“You have just a frustration that they feel the federal government is not listening to them, and that’s what leads to what so far has been a peaceful takeover of an abandoned building,” he said. Labrador continued:

I hope my colleagues who are not from the West can understand what’s happening in the West. There’s such a level of frustration with the federal government. … The laws are making it more difficult for us to enjoy the fruits of our labor and enjoy the freedoms out in the West.

Not only do lawmakers contend the protesters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge are voicing concerns shared by many in the West, but Rep. Steve Pearce R-N.M., said the federal government was hypocritical in its punishment of the Hammonds for employing the same techniques the government does, and damaging far more land.

According to reports, the 2001 fire set by the Hammonds, which they said they had approval from the Bureau of Land Management to start, damaged 139 acres of federal land. The 2006 backfires set by Steven Hammond destroyed one acre of federal land.

“Now keep in mind we in the West are watching the backfires that were set [by the government] exactly the way [the Hammonds] set, the backfires are burning 300,000 acres when an agency sets them. They’re burning 255 houses in my district in one 30,000 acre fire,” Pearce said. He continued:

You get people put in jail for five years for burning 130 acres that they were given permission, it looks like they were given permission to set the fire, and the agency can burn 300,000 acres and nobody is accountable.

Such hypocrisy from the government, the New Mexico Republican said, has sparked outrage from Americans living in the West.

“That’s the reason people in the West are furious,” he said. “They’re furious going into this situation. Now, I’m not taking a side on the Bundys. I think that’s a side show. I think the Hammonds are the ones who have been badly treated, and that’s what we’re expressing in the West. We’re fed up.” (For more from the author of “Conservatives Agree Standoff in Oregon Elevates Debate on Federal Land Ownership” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dwight and Steven Hammond, a father and son who own a family ranch in southern Oregon, have returned to federal prison to serve more time for setting controlled fires on federal land they were leasing, fires that spread to other federal lands. The additional prison time sparked a national outcry, with armed supporters even taking over the federal Malheur Wildlife Refuge headquarters near the Hammond’s ranch. As of this morning, they remain holed up there, while local sheriff Dave Ward is urging calm and reassuring the community that steps are being taken behind the scenes. “It takes only one unstable person to show up with a skewed belief window to create something that can’t be taken back,” he said.

The larger issue is the increasing frustration among ranchers toward the federal government for taking over so much private land in the West. The federal government now owns 28 percent of the land in the country. The percentage in the Western half of the United States is much higher than this. And that doesn’t even include land owned by state and local governments.

Land that has been in the families of ranchers for years is being taken away from them through various methods. After the government confiscates the property, it may lease some of it back to the ranchers — but steadily increases the leasing fees. This is what provoked the Bundy standoff in spring of 2014 between protesters and law enforcement. Cliven Bundy stopped paying the grazing fees to use federal lands in Nevada, declaring that the federal government had no authority over the land. He continued to let his cattle graze on the land, until the government closed off the land to seize his cattle. After protesters showed up, law enforcement backed down and left him alone. Since then, he has continued to use the land without paying the fees.

Some believe the government’s aggressive seizure of land is a part of Agenda 21, the United Nations program launched in 1992 for the vague purpose of saving the environment. One of the goals of Agenda 21 is said to be moving people out of rural areas and into large urban areas, with the government finding ways to force people to sell off their property for reasons like saving endangered species. Whatever the public or ulterior motivations, the reality is that large swaths of land around the country are now blocked off from human habitation and often poorly managed by a highly centralized federal bureaucracy.

In Oregon, the government set up the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in 1908, and began gradually expanding it throughout much of southern Oregon. It has grown to 187,000 acres. The protesters assert that the government forced local ranchers out of their property to make way for the expansion by diverting water during the 1980s to flood their homes and property, rendering them uninhabitable. If the government hadn’t seized so much land, the Hammonds would likely not have been forced to lease property from the government, and any controlled burns they set would have been on their own property, not involving the government. This isn’t to say the Hammonds did nothing wrong. It’s simply context for understanding the ranchers’ long-simmering frustrations with the federal government.

Civil Disobedience by the Hammonds’ Supporters

While many people are rallying around the Hammonds, some think their armed supporters have taken things too far. Occupying the Malheur Wildlife Refuge headquarters for days is trespassing. Several of the supporters have said they are prepared to shoot back at law enforcement if necessary. The Hammonds’ attorney distanced his clients from the protesters, saying the protesters do not speak for the Hammonds.

So far, law enforcement has not tried to evict the occupants, but is deliberating on how to handle the situation. There is a real concern that a confrontation could result in another Ruby Ridge or Waco, incidents where law enforcement heavy-handedly came after radical patriot types who were barricaded in buildings and wouldn’t leave. Both showdowns tragically resulted in the loss of life, and left a black mark on federal law enforcement.

Some are comparing the standoff to the tactics of the Occupy and Black Lives Matter movements. Both of those groups also engaged in trespassing. While the Occupy movement mostly stuck to public parks for their multiple day protests, since parks close in the evenings, staying overnight constituted trespassing. Unlike the Hammonds’ supporters, Black Lives Matter protesters rioted and looted, and Occupy activists caused extensive property damage during their extended stays. Both groups have violently confronted the police, also unlike the Hammonds’ supporters. In fact, during the Baltimore riots earlier this year, the mayor of Baltimore said to give the Black Lives Matter protesters “their space,” even if it meant giving them space to riot and loot. In contrast to some of the destructive actors involved with Black Lives Matter protests, the Hammonds’ supporters have been, thus far, peaceful.

The longer the Hammonds’ supporters remain in the building, the more clamoring there is to arrest them. However, since they haven’t done anything other than trespassing similar to the Occupy movement, which was allowed to camp out for months in public areas, it seems unfair to single them out for arrest.

On the other hand, since even the Hammonds have made it clear that occupying the headquarters is not endorsed by them, most people think the best resolution would be for the protesters to disband. Their actions are highly unlikely to change the outcome legally, since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a federal district court judge have now ruled firmly against them. The Oregon Farm Bureau intends to send a petition to President Obama asking him to pardon the Hammonds. However, since Obama ultimately controls the Department of Justice and its attorneys who successfully demanded the longer sentences, it is highly unlikely he will issue a pardon.

What could the protesters realistically accomplish? Instead of occupying the building indefinitely, the Hammonds’ supporters might consider urging Congress to investigate the prosecution. The DOJ has a history of some of its attorneys targeting people for political reasons. Supporters could also ask Congress to reform the Bureau of Land Management and other responsible federal agencies to stop the land grabs and return much of the land to private ownership. An armed confrontation would serve only to give Obama another opportunity to call for more gun control. While they may have good intentions, and the publicity has brought much needed attention to the federal land grabs, trespassing is complicating sympathy for the Hammonds and the overall land problem faced by Western ranchers. (For more from the author of “Oregon Wildlife Refuge Protesters Dig in as Decades-Old Grievances Fester” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.