Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE). Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Both ideas sound like good ideas?or do they? There is a force in the radical environmental movement that is now working from the inside, and it is definitely NOT a good idea. Both of the above mentioned groups exist, and FSEEE and PEER are influencing the way our public lands are managed?from the inside, and they see nothing wrong with it.

Recently, Andy Stahl, the Executive Director of FSEEE wrote an article in the High Country News that caught my attention. It was called "Forest Service Bosses Should Stay the Ecological Course", which turned out to be a cry of frustration on Mr. Stahl's part due to the fact that Mike Dombeck, probably the greenest Forest Service Chief of all time, was no longer going to be the man in charge with the Republicans now running the country. He lamented the fact that Dombeck was on his way out, and begged the new administration to please follow in his footsteps, that is, finding ways to close our public lands off to motorized recreation and wise use in general.

I expressed my concerns about FSEEE, its possible conflicts of interest, and its tactics to Mr. Stahl, and he replied back telling me I wasn't a defender of the constitution. My reply back to him on that was of course I am, I just have a problem with people hiding behind the first amendment to further their own narrow agenda in the name of constitutional freedom. It somehow seems wrong to me that the people directly involved with the early stages of the rulemaking on our public lands, including environmental and economic analysis, should have a philosophy much more akin to the Sierra Club or the Wilderness Society than to organizations that promote wise use such as The Blue Ribbon Coalition. But, that is exactly what is going on, and FSEEE is trying to legitimize it.

I still wasn't quite sure where Stahl was coming from, or exactly where he was going with his comment about free speech and the constitution. So, I visited FSEEE's website, and right there on the home page was a link to a document called "The FSEEE Guide to Free Speech in the Forest Service Workplace". I downloaded the booklet, and after reading it my eyes were really opened. It is a manual on how very green USFS employees can further their radical environmental agenda from within the service and still manage to keep their jobs by hiding behind the Whistleblower statutes and the first amendment! This booklet is so extreme that the USFS Human Resources staff wouldn't even allow the first draft to be circulated. From the introduction to the current edition, "The reviewer acknowledged the publication's factual accuracy, but claimed that it went "overboard" in encouraging employees to point out waste, fraud, and abuse. He directed that managers not permit the first edition to be distributed in the work-place." If the current edition is toned down, I would love to see that first edition, because the current one is pretty radical.

Let me point out that the FSEEE is not advocating anything illegal, or at least they claim not to be, but they do advocate things such as "strategic leaks to outside groups and litigation". They have done their homework when it comes to working from the inside, and they tell stories in their booklet about earlier employees that tried to further their green agendas and were frustrated and forced to resign. They tell the story of Inyo wilderness ranger Gary Guenther who tried to limit commercial uses in areas bordering wilderness areas in the Sierra Nevadas. He claimed the permitting practices were illegal, so he quit. Guess where he's working now, he's a representative of a radical environmental group called Wilderness Watch, which coincidentally is a co-plaintiff with FSEEE in a lawsuit against the Inyo and Sierra National Forests. But, they are learning from experiences such as Guenther's, and have fine tuned the manner in which they can work from the inside.

FSEEE currently has approximately 12,000 active members, of which approximately 500 are currently employed with the USFS! That's 500 employees of the Forest Service with an agenda that runs very contrary to anything to do with wise use. And to take this thought even further, the FSEEE Board of Directors is made up of current and former USFS employees, most of them being currently employed. Members of the board that currently work for the Forest Service include: Dave Iverson, President, Regional Economist in Region 4; Steve Horne, Vice-President, Staff Archaeologist in the Los Padres National Forest; Cynthia Reichelt, Secretary/Treasurer, Public Affairs Officer/Silviculturist in the Colville National Forest; Sally Claggett, board member, Botanist in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest; Barry Gall, board member, Fisheries Biologist in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest; and Amy Unthank, board member, Forest Fisheries Biologist in the Williamette National Forest. All of the people mentioned above as board members are the people that do the studies and give the managers input on managing the forests, they are all scientists that can have a huge influence on the outcome of an Environmental Impact Statement. And you can bet that quite a few of the other current employees that are FSEEE members also hold positions that can influence the outcome of management decisions to further their very green, anti wise use agendas. FSEEE is making sure that these people don't have an experience like Gary Guenther's, they are learning from experiences like his and using the current laws to make the changes they want to see made.

There are many pointers in their booklet on how to hide behind the first amendment. From page 16, "To gain the protection of the First Amendment, an employee's speech must address matters of public concern, rather than private concerns, and avoid, if possible, any disruption of government operations. Recently, the Supreme Court emphasized that a third interest must also be considered, and that is, the right of the public to hear what employees have to say." And from page 17, "In sum, the more political, or issue-oriented the employee's speech, the more protected it is by the First Amendment. Political speech is expression that concerns issues of public concern, such as the environment (italics added)."

But, the FSEEE has managed to stretch the above to include petitions circulated at the workplace, at least according to the soon to be ex-chief Mike Dombeck. In 1998 the FSEEE circulated a petition on roadless area protection, and the chief said that employees may use government equipment to convey their views on issues to the chief at any time. The chief's decision reversed an earlier one by the human resources department that found that employees views could be censored. But, I believe Dombeck and the FSEEE may be treading on shaky ground to some degree. Sure, the Code of Federal Regulations protects the employee's rights to participation in non-partisan political activities, but in Section 734.203(d) it says, "[An employee may] Participate fully in public affairs, except as prohibited by other Federal law, in a manner which does not compromise his or her efficiency or integrity as an employee or the neutrality, efficiency, or integrity of the agency or instrumentality of the United States Government or the District of Columbia Government in which he or she is employed." (italics added)

It is my opinion that the USFS employees that are also members of the FSEEE have a direct and possibly illegal conflict of interest while performing their jobs and being members of a radical environmental organization. These employees are hiding behind federal law and the First Amendment of our constitution, but at the same time possibly violating other federal laws while furthering an agenda not in keeping with the mandate of the Forest Service. The mandate is for multiple use, not the limited use that the radical environmental groups want to see. And, in my opinion, any employee of the USFS, BLM, USFWS or any other government agency that manages our public lands should not be allowed to have their personal views be part of the official views, policies and procedures of the agency. This is a direct conflict of interest, and the public needs to be made aware of this conflict. These groups are getting bolder, PEER is now a co-plaintiff with the Center for Biodiversity, the most radical environmental group in existence today, in a lawsuit against the BLM to close down the entire California desert. This has to stop and it isn't going to stop until these groups are forced to change their tactics due to public outrage. Unless it is stopped, it is going to get even worse, on page 50 of the FSEEE guide they are urging the Forest Service to "make space available on internal Forest Service comment forms so that employee's concerns will be elicited at an early stage in the planning and decision-making effort". (italics added)