Harlan: Some see Forest Service process as Orwellian

By Bill Harlan, Journal Staff Writer | Sunday, November 19, 2006

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

Only one person of more than 200 participants stormed out of Thursday's off-roading workshop in Rapid City.

Lew Wight angrily accused the U.S. Forest Service of plotting to rob us of our rightful use of public lands. "Why should I stay and listen to a proposal that's right out of George Orwell," Wight shouted, loud enough for everyone in the big conference room to hear. Then, he walked out.

Naturally, I followed him into the hall.

Wight, who lives in Mystic in the high country of the Black Hills, told me he's a prospector and gold miner who teaches others to do the same. Wight's battered, wide-brimmed hat, his well-worn leather jacket and his weathered, bearded face gave him the look of a rugged Western individualist.

Wight is no fan of government regulation. He's especially upset about new rules coming for off-roading in Black Hills National Forest. Within two or three years, dirt bikes, ATVs and larger four-wheel-drive outfits will be restricted to designated trails - not only here but in national forests nationwide.

The Forest Service has already "blocked, bermed or bouldered" many of Wight's favorite trails, he told me. "If we wanted a theme park, we'd go to Six Flags or Disneyworld," he said.

The purpose of Thursday's workshop - one of four in the Black Hills last week - was to gather public comments about a coming trail system. Participants got to draw their proposals for trails - or for off-roading restrictions - on large maps.

What drove Wight out of the room, however, were the four questions posed to workshop participants.

Here they are, verbatim:

1. What does the forest offer in terms of outstanding travelway opportunities and experiences?

2. In what ways are you satisfied with the forest's travelways and why?

3. What is the role of the community in helping to provide a quality travelway system?

4. What do you want to be sure is part of the travelways in the future?

I'll admit these questions put me off, too, mainly because of the word "travelway." That's like calling scenery a "viewshed" and hikers "non-motorized forest users" - both of which the Forest Service does. I know these words have their purposes, but they can only lead to phrases such as "outstanding travelway opportunity," which has a slightly Orwellian ring to it.

The Forest Service had solicited written responses to the four questions well in advance of the workshops - in newspaper ads, news releases and on the Internet.

During the workshop, the questions were displayed on four large posters, along with summaries of written responses received so far. (You can still respond. See the box.) Workshop participants were asked to place colored stickers next to the responses that most closely fit their own views.

Wight noticed immediately that something was missing from the posters - mainly, his view that the whole idea was bad. He wanted to know why none of the questions asked people what they opposed.

"Tonight is not the night for that," a workshop organizer told him, which is when Wight stormed out.

I think it's fair to say Wight is not a mainstream political thinker. For example, he told me that Gov. Mike Rounds could take over Black Hills National Forest anytime because so-called federal ownership is a sham.

Still, the four questions did have a positive-thinking, glass-half-full bias, which several workshop participants complained about. Many participants were there to oppose something - either off-roading closures or off-roading incursions. The four questions seemed to ignore that perspective.

Kathy Ludlow, a workshop organizer, told me the questions were worded to fit the purpose of the workshop. "It's based on the concept of a sense of place, that people have a connection to the land," she said.

Ludlow is a retired Forest Service landscape architect from Portland, Ore., and now she's part of the Forest Service "enterprise team" that conducts workshops all over the country.

"This is a passion for me," she said.

Any negative proposition, Ludlow said, has a flip side.

For example, if you hate the noise and damage caused by motorized vehicles, you probably love peace and quiet and pristine landscapes.

Similarly, if you oppose restrictions to off-roading, you likely love the freedom to ride wherever you want.

If Lew Wight had stuck around, he could have framed his views similarly. For example: "The Black Hills offer the outstanding travelway opportunity of NOT BEING DISNEYLAND!!!"

OK, maybe that would not quite capture Wight's point of view, nor would it be in the spirit of the four questions.

Still, Ludlow made a persuasive case about the value of discovering what people want, not just what they oppose. That's what the Forest Service did last week, collecting data on more than a dozen giant maps and posters and in hundreds of questionnaires.

Ludlow also pointed out there will be plenty of time to object to the new rules, during the long, formal process of creating an "environmental impact statement." Opponents will be able to comment, appeal and even file lawsuits.

None of which is likely to give Lew Wight comfort. Even though new off-roading rules are coming, Gov. Rounds, I'm guessing, will not annex the national forest.

Reporter Bill Harlan's column runs every other Sunday. Contact him at 394-8424 or bill.harlan@rapidcityjournal.com