WILD BILL

The Absurdity We Call “Public Involvement”

By Bill Schneider, 3-09-06

This column might be a bit of a rant, but this subject has been giving me high blood pressure for a long time. It had to erupt.

In early January, I suggested Idaho had not made a smooth move when it launched a controversial wolf-killing plan before the ink had dried on the documents transferring management from the feds to the state wildlife agency. To me, this seemed like getting off on the wrong foot and could discourage or delay transfer of state control in other states and for other species—or even create enough political backlash to prompt the feds to re-take control of wolf management in Idaho.

But the toothpaste was already out of the tube, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (DFG) charged ahead with the next step, soliciting comments from the public. That’s the subject of this column, the embarrassing craziness we commonly but incorrectly refer to as “public involvement.”

In thirty years of working for and with agencies and writing about citizen-initiated conservation efforts, I have yet to see a proposal yanked or substantially altered due to the results of “public involvement.” I have, however, seen many examples of agencies coming up with their plan, going through the motions of soliciting public comment, and then going ahead when they feel they’ve met legal requirements. With cosmetic adjustments at best, the “draft” plan morphs into the final plan, regardless of how lopsided the public comments. This sends a strong message that most agencies consider “public involvement” little more than an annoying delay.

I’m not saying Idaho shouldn’t kill a few wolves, but the wolf-killing plan, good or bad, is great example of the absurdity we call “public involvement.” All along this has not been what Idaho is doing, but how the state is doing it.

The DFG received 42,000 comments. I haven’t been able to get an exact percentage, but in interpreting the comments, I suspect 90 percent or more opposed to the plan, but the department dismissed the comments because many of them resulted from an e-mail alert sent out by the Defenders of Wildlife. The official DFG press release admitted the “vast majority opposed the proposal.” Even comments not resulting from the Defenders e-mail campaign, according to the release, were “stacked up 2 to 1 against the proposal.”

But these facts didn’t even slow down the train. At the earliest opportunity (March 3), the Idaho Fish and Game Commission not only unanimously gave the green light to submit the plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for approval but also ordered the department to do it fast, within 30 days.

To the 42,000 people who took the time to send comments, this says “you don’t matter.” At least the commission could apologize for wasting peoples’ time by perpetrating a charade under the guise of “public involvement.” Anybody taking the time to send a comment to a public agency on an public resource issue maters. Even a form letter or e-mail takes time and effort to send, and it matters.

The bitter truth is, of course, that all 42,000 comments could have come from rural Idahoans, written in long hand on tear-soaked paper, but it still wouldn’t have mattered. The fix was in on this plan, and Idaho politics dictates that it goes to the FWS for review. If the evil feds reject it, well, that’s okay, because state political appointees can feel secure in their positions for the immediate future, and the federal government can be the scapegoat once again.

I’m generally in support of the state’s right to manage wildlife, but if this is the way it works, maybe we should leave power with the feds. I challenge any public official in Idaho to say with a straight face that this whole process wasn’t driven by politics.

There’s a perception among agency managers that they should do what they believe is right (or what their boss, the governor or president, thinks is right) instead of what the public wants them to do. With a narrowly split constituency, this might be true, but not when nine out of ten people want change. Everybody understands this process is not an election, but when comments are solidly one-sided against a plan, the agency should re-consider. Public comments should not be dismissed because they disagree with the intended plan or come from nonresidents or from mass-mail or Internet-based programs.

I dearly wish the Idaho situation was an isolated case, but this public snubbing happens all the time. The Idaho case is, in fact, far down the list of bad examples of misuse of the “public involvement” process. It just happens to be the most current. A few weeks ago, for example, I wrote about the Roadless Rule, which netted the most public comments ever, 1.2 million almost all of them in favor of the rule, but that didn’t stop the Bush administration from quickly scuttling it.

For a decade or more, we’ve been hearing about the snowmobile controversy in Yellowstone National Park. Several “public involvement” efforts have brought in many, many thousands of comments. Again, 90 percent or more wanted snowmobiles banned in the park, but did this happen?

Here’s one more. As I write this, the FWS is doing “public involvement” on the delistng of the Yellowstone grizzly. I’ll give anybody long odds that 90 percent of more will oppose removing the big bear from the protections of the Endangered Species Act, but I can guarantee you—yes, I meant to say guarantee—that the delisting will go forward regardless of what happens at the public hearings or what comments come in. Why are we even wasting time having these hearings and asking for written comments? Let’s save everybody’s time and money and go right to the courthouse.

Agencies say “public involvement” is not a popularity contest. Instead, it’s about science, about finding ‘substantive” comments. But even when comments show—as they frequently do—that science is on shaky ground at best, there’s still no change in course.

And I have to ask, should it be all about science? These are public agencies managing public resources. You’d think they should listen to people who own these resources. When most people agree on scientific facts, incidentally, there’s rarely much controversy.

In defending their dismissal of lopsided adverse comments, government officials frequently claim lots of people support them but aren’t the type of folks that get actively involved in issues. I’m sure this is true with some people, but in my town, little old Helena, Montana, we recently had a great example of the fallacy of this argument.

The Helena City Commission wanted to build a road through the downtown walking mall, but numerous polls, surveys and petition drives showed the vast majority of the people of Helena opposed the plan. The city officials ignored this and kept supporting the road, which caused citizens to place an initiative on the 2005 city election ballot to, in essence, prevent the destruction of the walking mall. The results? A hair under 77 percent voted to save the walking mall, which means the “silent support” theory wasn’t really valid in this case—and probably isn’t in most cases. Anybody in politics knows how rare it is to get 77 percent majority voting the same way in any election, so obviously, the unscientific polls and surveys—not unlike the “public involvement” process—revealed the true sentiment of the populace.

One thing that bothers me is why the other side doesn’t do it? Why don’t people who want to kill wolves or ride snowmobiles or hunt grizzly bears or build more roads into the last wilderness mount form letter and e-mail campaigns to add some balance to the process? They have computers and blogs and websites and all the same tools, as well as more cash usually, as green groups, but they don’t stress about being proportionally represented in the results.

Here’s my answer to that one. They know that “public involvement” won’t change the plan. They spend their time and money on behind-the-scenes, non-public lobbying that keeps their plan on course. They know sending out an e-mail alert would be a waste of time, and they probably couldn’t match the passion and numbers generated by green groups.

Here’s another question. Why do green groups continue whipping up their members and supporters to send in comments that they know will be discarded and most likely not even read?

I have an answer for that one, too. They have to. If they have any chance of overturning a bad plan, they have to show support for doing it. They know lopsided results won’t mean anything to an agency director on a mission, but it sometimes gets the attention of the judge in litigation that commonly follows these follies.

In conclusion, this column is not about the merits of the wolf-killing plan. It’s about how politics jams things down the public’s throat with no remorse. Something needs to change because the “public involvement” system is broken. It would actually be refreshing to hear an agency rep be honest with us and say it’s about politics and as soon as token attention to legal requirements for “public involvement” are finished, the agency will go ahead with the plan. But I probably shouldn’t hold my breath until I hear a government official say this. It could be life threatening.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.