Dear HCN,
After reading Ed
Marston’s Comb Wash “A Stark Victory in Utah” editorial in the
January issue of HCN, I am very disappointed.
I
am a long-time BLM employee but am not personally involved in Comb
Wash. However, I know enough about the issue and BLM to know that
your editorial is full of assumptions.
Let me
point out just a few of the “misunderstandings.”
You try to perpetuate the myth that BLM has a cowboy culture. That
is a tragic disservice to our many professionals who try very hard
to implement our many laws and policies, and who really have a
strong and proper land and resource ethic.
To
call the Moab BLM office “not only a bad cowboy, but a felon” seems
to reach beyond even your editorial licence.
Environmental interests did not “bring BLM to trial.” Hearings were
held, with the intent to see if proper decisions were made in light
of administrative procedure. The administrative law judge, Mr.
Rampton, said the decisions were wrong and instructed BLM Moab to
do differently. His decision may or may not have broader
implications for BLM; time will tell.
Your
characterization of the emotional state of Moab BLM employees is
not accurate. Knowing many of those employees personally, I am
inclined to say that their frustrations center primarily on the
fact that they find themselves swept away in constant paperwork
caused by endless appeals and inquiries from many sources,
including environmental activists.
Walk a mile
in their moccasins before you pretend to be knowledgeable enough to
mock them. One can only wonder how well you, Joe Feller, Scott
Groene, or John Rampton could do.
Deane H. Zeller
Salt Lake
City, Utah
Environmental interests did not “bring BLM to
trial”. Hearings were held, like hundreds of administrative
hearings have been held before on other public land issues. There
was no intent to find innocence or guilt, except perhaps on your
part or the part of other special interests. The intent was to see
if the proper decisions were made in light of administrative
procedure. The administrative law judge, Mr. Rampton, said the
decisions were wrong and instructed BLM Moab to do differently. His
decision may or may not have broader implications for BLM; time
will tell.
Your
characterization of the emotional state of Moab BLM employees is
not accurate. Pointing at the local managers as the cause of this
“collective whistleblowing”, as you call it, is convenient but
irresponsible reporting. If you wanted to be fair and accurate in
explaining their situation you could have mentioned the impact on
their morale of ongoing attacks by critics, the complexity of their
jobs, and working for a BLM Director that listened only to a few
local environmental representatives. Knowing many of those
employees personally, I am inclined to say that their frustrations
center primarily around the fact that they find themselves swept
away in constant paperwork caused by endless appeals and inquiries
from many sources, including environmental activists. They are
really frustrated because they find less time to do the things that
are most important to them: that is, properly manage the public’s
lands and resources. I believe what they really want is management
at all levels to do something about their
frustrations.
While it is
easy to criticize and discredit BLM managers like Gene Nodine,
Roger Zortman, Ed Scherick and BLM employees in general, and to
imply that they are less than good public servants, and felons, you
could take perhaps a more difficult road and express thanks that
people of this stature and competence are willing to endure the
stress of trying to manage your public lands. Walk a mile in their
moccasins, Mr. Marston, before you pretend to be knowledgeable
enough to mock them. One can only wonder how well you, Joe Feller,
Scott Groene, or John Rampton could do?
In your closing line you admonished BLM to
“obey the law and tell
the truth” Excellent
advice, sir, for all of us.
Deane H. Zeller
Salt Lake City, Utah
%
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Professionals, not cowboys.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
