OCR Text |
Show Guest Editorial Wilderness plans deserve hearings before decisions (Editor's Note: The following editorial appeared in the Richfield Rich-field Reaper of July 27. The content is of sufficient interest that we are reprinting it in the interest of our readers. Similar situation, as explained in the editorial, have occurred not only with the Forest Service, but with the National Park Service, i.e., Zion National Park, and the Bureau of Land Management.) When Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg address that the government "of the people, by the people and for the people" would not perish from the earth he was making a prophecy that is becoming increasingly difficult to believe, at least within the spirit he meant it. One example of this is in the U.S. Forest Service's treatment of local residents in regard to the classification of federal lands as "wilderness." Seventy-two percent of the total land acreage in Utah is under the jurisdiction of the federal government; over 38 million acres. Of this, over eight million is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. Almost three million of the acres under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service is currently under consideration as "wilderness." "Wilderness," according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 cannot contain manmade roads, cannot be the scene of any commercial interprise, cannot have any structure or installation within it, and can have no motorized equipment, motorboats, motorcycles or any other type of motorized vehicle operate within its bounds. It seems that the Forest Service, Ser-vice, in its zeal to provide environmentalists en-vironmentalists some acreage to backpack in, has forgotten the fact that the government is, at least in theory, the servant of all the people, not the master of the people. The Wilderness Act specifically states that prior to any recommendation of any land as "wilderness," the agency (in this case, the Forest Service) shall, under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture "hold a public hearing or hearings at a location or locations convenient to the area affected. The hearings shall be announced through such means as appropriate, including notices in the Federal Register and in newspapers of general circulation in the area." Citizens of Circleville (in Piute County) are clamoring for a public hearing because their water rights are at stake. The Piute County commission has called for public hearings to discuss mining claims and other private lands involved in the "wilderness" controversy. The Six-County Commission has asked for a public hearing, because they claim their input to the Forest Service involving "wilderness" has been totally ignored. So far, the Forest Service has yet to announce or hold any public hearing in this area in respect to the designation of public lands as "wilderness," and the local Forest Service office has made it clear that no plans for a public hearing or hearings are being formulated, because, according to one Forest Service official, "nothing constructive con-structive is accomplished at such public hearings." This, regardless regar-dless of whether they are required by law or not. Instead of a program of public hearings, the Forest Service is sponsoring a series of "open houses" at their district offices to explain to the public the alternatives alter-natives under consideration by the Forest Service as to what to do with their public lands. One "open house", held from June 26 to June 30 was attended by no one at the Richfield District Office, according to Forest Service officials. The next "open houses" are scheduled for September 14, 15, and 16 in District offices. An "open house" held in a central district office is a poor excuse as a medium for public input and is not a public meeting or public hearing by any stretch of the imagination. It is blatant ridiculousness to believe that an "open house" in the Forest Service district office can have the same effect on either the few people who do participate or the Forest Service, as far as constructive public input is concerned, as a public meeting in a locale where the long-reaching effects of public decisions will be felt most. Aside from the obvious consideration con-sideration of how available the district office is to citizens of Piute County or other counties distant to Forest Service offices who have interests in Forest Service decisions, meeting the Forest Service on their own ground, so to speak, would seem to stifle, rather than stimulate, public input. It is indeed questionable whether public suggestions would be considered at all. The executive director of . the six-county organization has stated that all the suggestions that organization has made to the Forest Service in their offices have been ignored totally. It would seem that Forest Service officials have their minds made up as to what to do with public lands, regardless of what the public (to whom the land theoretically belongs) believes should be done and is using this method of dubious legality to get around the requirement of a public hearing. The Richfield Reaper suggests that the Forest Service, in order to truly represent the people of this area, hold a public hearing in each county to be affected by the proposed "wilderness" considerations, con-siderations, in order to get public opinion on the record. Only by getting such opinion on the record can the federal government govern-ment be held to make their decisions within the bounds of what the people they supposedly represent want and need. If the Forest Service makes their decisions in the dark through subterfuge and the ignorance of public opinion, they are not only defeating the justification of their own existence, but making a mockery of the democratic principle of representative government. |