PORTLAND, Ore. - Two Oregon filmmakers are among those who will closely follow the trial of Ammon and Ryan Bundy and their co-defendants on federal conspiracy and weapons charges.

Documentary filmmakers Sue Arbuthnot and Richard Wilhelm live part-time in Burns, where they noticed an anti-government rally in a local parking lot in January and decided to film it.

They didn't know that gathering would precede the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, or that it would spark their next documentary.

Since then, Wilhelm said they've amassed hours of footage, including interviews with insiders in the militia movement, voicing frustration over federal laws and land use.

"They have a lot of intentions toward finding a way to offer a local voice back to the people," he said. "And that resonated, but it didn't resonate in the way that they were doing it. The tactics were wrong; the message may have hit home."

The filmmakers said their documentary will focus on finding solutions to land-use issues and other challenges of rural life, and show that people can overcome their differences without resorting to extreme actions.

Sue Arbuthnot thinks hashing out those issues in person instead of on social media would be helpful. She said the armed takeover stole the spotlight from collaborations already underway between ranchers and tribes, federal agencies and townspeople.

"It's really not a land problem as much as it is a people problem, like everything," she explained. "And it is incremental, in terms of progressing beyond distrust to a situation of respect for other opinions, and finding that sliver of common ground."

The U.S. District Court judge in the Malheur refuge takeover case has said community members' fear during the armed occupation isn't relevant in proving the conspiracy charges against the defendants. But Arbuthnot said that fear lingers in Harney County nonetheless.

"I think a lot of people who have worked hard to build a community here have a palpable fear of that sort of disregard for law and order taking over," she added. "And I think that that has remained and has not really subsided, to this day. We do know people who are still quite anxious."

The film's working title is "Refuge," and it should be finished late next year.

Jury selection in the trial begins on Wednesday.


get more stories like this via email

April is National Native Plant Month, an observance at the core of South Dakota's identity.

People wanting to protect the state's beloved grasslands encourage landowners in urban and rural areas to set aside growing space. South Dakota's prairies often conjure up images of species like tallgrass, which have deep roots good at absorbing water. But some varieties have not fared as well because of different types of land use. The World Wildlife Fund said only 53% of the Great Plains region's grassland remains intact.

Drew Anderson, a farmer, rancher and conservation advocate from Lemmon, conserves native plants, noting every little bit helps, and they do not have to just grow in rural settings.

"There's just a growing appreciation for the native grasslands that are making their way into urban areas," Anderson pointed out. "People are using big bluestem in front of commercial buildings and places like that."

The desire is reflected in a recent ad campaign from the South Dakota Grasslands Coalition and statewide polling. In a survey commissioned by the group, there was broad bipartisan support among voters to prioritize effective grassland management. Anderson added patience is a challenge they are up against because it can take a year or two to see real evidence of native plant growth.

Anderson added it is not just livestock grazing standing to benefit from an abundance of grasslands.

"The grasses help provide habitat for many different wildlife species, whether it's migratory songbirds (or) pollinators," Anderson emphasized.

If you want to grow some native plants on your property but are unsure how to get started, Anderson recommended visiting your local Natural Resources Conservation Service office. The Grasslands Coalition also has guidance and other key information on its website.

New Mexico's national parks generally operate year-round - but they might not operate at 100% efficiency this year due to employee firings, layoffs and buyouts. Earlier this year, the Trump administration told some 2,500 National Park Service workers to resign or retire and promised still more cuts to the agency. Responding to criticism about the move, the U.S. Interior Secretary ordered national parks and historic sites to "remain open and accessible."

Kate Groetzinger, communications manager of the Center for Western Priorities, believes that's a dilemma for park-goers.

"Visitors could be put at risk by not having adequate search and rescue staff available. So, ordering the parks to reopen without adequate staff is a bad idea," she contended. "It doesn't serve anyone."

Frequent park users worry that cuts could result in staffing problems this summer, along with closed restrooms and maintenance issues including limited trash removal. New Mexico has 15 areas within the National Park System, including parks, monuments, historic sites and trails.

A former oil executive with links to the Department of Energy Efficiency led by Elon Musk has been promoted to oversee policy, management and budget at the Interior Department. Groetzinger says Western Priorities is concerned the public could be left in the dark about future park decisions being made by unelected officials.

"It really just is a full-on attack on outdoor recreation in the United States. Anyone who camps, hikes, bikes, climbs - anyone who enjoys our public lands should be shocked and concerned about the attacks," she continued.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also has ordered a detailed review of every park's operating hours, trail closures and other visitor services. Groetzinger believes trust in federal institutions like the parks is being eroded - opening the door to privatization and ultimately increased costs for users.


get more stories like this via email

The number of mining claims on U.S. public lands is growing. A 27% increase since 2019 has brought the total to nearly a half-million.

A new study showed many are in close proximity to, and could threaten, national parks. In Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, more than 15,000 mining claims are within 30 miles of a national park or monument, according to the National Parks Conservation Association.

Beau Kiklis, associate director of landscape conservation and energy policy for the association, said claims are easy to get, based on a system dating back to 1872. He added a bill now in the U.S. Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources could make it even simpler.

"We're seeing agencies and institutions being dismantled and protections for landscapes being reviewed and compromised," Kiklis pointed out. "When we look at this data, our parks and our monuments, they are threatened from the possibility of future mining."

Kiklis noted mining claims are not held to the same standards of review and public process as other public land uses, and residents receive no royalties from the claims. According to the report, holders of mining claims in 2023 paid less than $10 per acre.

Kiklis emphasized it takes, on average, just three years to permit a mine.

"That's pretty fast when you think about the potential threats that are associated with mining, like impacts to groundwater and water supply for communities, wildlife migration and habitat, air impacts," Kiklis outlined. "You think about other public land uses, like recreation and conservation and so forth."

Across the northern Rockies, there are 141 mining claims within the boundaries of national parks and monuments, including Yellowstone National Park and Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area.