86 



Our democratic system of governance usually reacts slowly to correcting excesses 

 enjoyed by a few at the expense and detriment to the majonty. Clearly the current and 

 existing appeals procedures are excessive and have benefited a very vocal and aggressive 

 minority in our society. The fact is, Forrest Service appeals rules are little more than a 

 governmental give-a-way program. These give-a-ways allow a very small number, who 

 care little for rural human communities much less a forest a free ticket to dismantle 

 months of work and effort. Just grab the appeals rules and let it fly. The Forest Service 

 usually just caves in, and the plan or projects are delayed, changed or canceled. Losses 

 accrue to us all by allowing appeals to be one sided favoring eco- activists while the rest 

 of have both arms tied off 



The magnitude of laws, rules, guidelines and procedures that project designers must 

 navigate to implement a successful forest plan or associated project are simply 

 overwhelming. An administrative appeal that stops a program has exploited the soft 

 belly of Forest Service requirements, procedures and internal politics. I have noted and 

 been involved with lousy projects, that were relatively challenge proof because process 

 steps were adequate. On the other hand I have reviewed projects that were well 

 conceived for benefiting forest resources, but were procedurally flawed and subsequently 

 dropped. The point is procedurally correct or incorrectly implemented plans and projects 

 are time consuming and costly. We are bearing these costs directly and indirectly 

 throughout, but the heaviest impacts are falling on communities like Orderville, Utah and 

 Fredonia, Arizona. 



