If the Bureau of Land Management is going to enforce the law, it needs to know the law.

When it comes to fencing on Steens Mountain, the BLM doesn’t know the law.

The Steens Act of 2000 turned Steens Mountain into a wilderness-like area. A major part of the agreement is that it would be livestock-free.

That was a big deal for ranchers. Traditionally, their cattle would graze on the rich grasses on the mountain. It was also a big deal because there are private inholdings within the wilderness and ranches that border the wilderness. Ranchers wanted guarantees about access to inholdings and protections from being held liable if cattle strayed.

They got those guarantees in the Steens Act.

A rancher, George Stroemple, sought permission in 2013 to trail his cattle across public land to get to privately held land within the Steens. A BLM decision gave him permission to trail the cattle across public land.

That made sense because the Steens Act directs the government to give reasonable access to private lands within public lands.

But the government doesn’t always make sense. Also, in that decision, the BLM asserted it is the rancher’s responsibility to fence in the cattle to ensure they don’t stray into the wilderness.

That’s not what the law says. That’s not the intent of the law.

The Steens Act mentions fencing twice:

1. “The Secretary shall also construct fencing and develop water systems as necessary to allow reasonable and efficient livestock use of the (replacement) forage resources.”

2. “The secretary (of the Interior) shall be responsible for installing and maintaining any fencing required for resource protection within the designated no livestock grazing area.”

Does it really need to be more clear than that?

The BLM says yes.

The BLM says that the first sentence applies only to the lands that were involved in land swaps that occurred in the act. And it says the second sentence applies only to resource protection and does not establish a BLM responsibility to pay for fencing to keep private livestock on private land.

Of course, we are not legal experts. But on this issue we have an advantage. We talked on Friday to the ranchers who helped negotiate the law. More importantly, we spoke with the law’s author — U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Hood River.

He personally negotiated the Steens Act with then-Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. As Walden said, he can’t say this in many cases, but in this case, he really did write the law. And we spoke with the BLM.

Walden met with ranchers and Jerry Perez, the Oregon/Washington state director for the BLM in Burns on Friday. At that meeting, it was clear who knew the law and who didn’t.

Perez has a lot of experience in natural resource issues and with the federal government. But he worked for the Forest Service until two years or so ago. The Steens Act was signed in 2000.

When asked by Walden: “What the heck is going on?”

“Some of this issue is in my blind spot,” Perez replied, adding later: “I need to get a better understanding of the act.”

He didn’t say anything more specific because of pending litigation with Stroemple.

Fred Otley, a rancher at the meeting, said when the Steens Act was being negotiated, ranchers were worried about the cost of fencing. They also knew lawsuits, fines or worse could follow if cattle weren’t fenced in. That’s why the language in the law specified the government would be responsible for fencing. Ranchers and Walden said there was no real disagreement on the matter. It made sense to everyone. Otley added that the BLM contracted with him to fence in some of his land.

That’s why Walden and ranchers were stunned to hear the BLM did not believe it was responsible for fencing in cattle or that it would be responsible only in certain areas.

The BLM can’t assign its own meaning to the language of the Steens Act. Unless it can prove that congressional intent is somehow different from what the law’s author says it was, it’s the BLM’s responsibility for fencing in cattle on the Steens.