JOHN DAY, Ore. - The small-town sheriff who made front-page headlines in Oregon this week also tops an investigative report by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group says Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer is part of a growing movement of law-enforcement officers who swear to uphold the Constitution - but only as they interpret it.

Mark Potock, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the movement is anti-gun-control and recognizes the county as the highest legitimate form of government, and the sheriff as the ultimate authority within the county.

"If you believe the federal government has a secret plot to seize all Americans' weapons and that kind of thing," Potock said, "our view is that this can only lead to very serious conflicts within the law-enforcement community, and to making all the rest of us less safe."

At least a dozen Oregon counties have sheriffs with similar views, according to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. That group describes sheriffs as "the first line of defense in preserving the Constitutional rights of a citizen."

Palmer gained prominence in the movement for backing the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Across the West, the Southern Poverty Law Center report said, these tensions have led to more conflicts between local law enforcement and federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, and to sheriffs deputizing people even with no law-enforcement training.

When a sheriff decides to adopt a far-right stance, Potock said, the most effective counter may be public input.

"I think the most important thing we all can do is expose the beliefs of some of these radicalized sheriffs and hold them up to the light of public examination," he said. "Ultimately, the voters in each county can decide whether these people should continue to represent them."

All sides in the debate over sheriffs' roles agree that law enforcement has gotten tougher and more dangerous. However, Potock said it isn't helpful that rural officers are being "bombarded with propaganda from groups like the Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs," trying to get them to sign up.



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.