Ith researched the effect of clear-cuts and second-growth forests on Sitka black-tailed deer habitat. Photo © Amy Gulick
U.S. Forest Service wildlife biologist Glen Ith never planned on being a whistleblower. An avid hunter and fisherman, he didn’t even consider himself particularly “green.” “I’m a class C [logging] feller,” he says. “I can cut the big boys. I always thought I was as redneck as any of my friends.”
But when Ith, who worked on the Petersburg District of the Tongass National Forest, observed what he considered inconsistencies in the way in which the Forest Service was analyzing how proposed timber sales would affect wildlife habitat, and then discovered illegal road building, he spoke out. When that didn’t make a difference, he filed a lawsuit—and won. In July of 2006, he was placed on administrative leave, where he remains while the agency reviews his supervisor’s recommendation that he be fired.
“It’s not a matter of being green,” he says. “It’s about being honest about evaluating and displaying how logging old-growth habitat impacts wildlife. It’s about being consistent in applying Forest Plan direction when proposed logging is evaluated within the context of NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act].”
Lanky and weathered, Ith, forty-eight, has worked for the Forest Service in varying capacities since 1982, when he volunteered on a trail crew in the Tongass National Forest after graduating from Utah State University with a degree in wildlife science. He worked seasonally for several years, conducting wildlife surveys that mainly focused on the Sitka black-tailed deer. He was hired as a full-time wildlife biologist in 2001 and was assigned to an interdisciplinary team working on the Scott Peak timber sale environmental impact statement. A year later he became the team leader.
Ith relished the opportunity to dive into the analysis required by NEPA. A by-the-book kind of guy, he had studied the act in school and was familiar with its complexities. “You apply all the wildlife research you can in making these decisions,” he says.
But Ith became frustrated with how the process was being conducted and how decisions were being made on the forest. His suggestions to reconcile these inconsistencies went unheard. In 2004, he commented publicly on a proposed timber sale on the Juneau Ranger District, saying that the draft environmental impact statement’s conclusions about the effects of logging on wildlife habitat were inadequate. A few months later, despite a performance review that rated him “fully successful” and having completed a dispute resolution process with his supervisor, Ith was removed from his position as the district interagency contact biologist for goose, marten, owl and bat studies. He was also banned from conducting further work on deer habitat issues and on the deer model he had been developing.
His supervisor said the reason was that Ith had been slow to complete assigned tasks. Ith felt the actions were retaliation for speaking out.
“I was trying to follow correct channels in going through the dispute resolution process and using Forest Service procedure,” he says. But after his supervisor made the changes, “I threw up my hands and said, ‘This can’t work for me.’ I thought they were trying to silence me.”
In 2005, Ith testified at a subsistence hearing regarding the Overlook timber sale, again challenging how wildlife habitat issues were presented. Subsequently, he learned the Forest Service was building a road into the sale area before the environmental assessment had been completed. He took photos and called Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics.
“I knew that if I said anything it would jeopardize my job,” he says. “But I felt I didn’t have any recourse, since it would be unlawful for me to keep it secret.” Ith and FSEEE appealed the sale, but the appeal was dismissed. Then they filed suit. Ith also signed a fundraising letter on FSEEE letterhead that asked for donations to help cover court costs.
Both proved to be costly moves. Ith was reassigned to the Supervisor’s Office in Petersburg. He was questioned at length by a Forest Service special investigator regarding his documentation of the Overlook road construction and his signing of the fundraising letter.
Several months later, in December, Alaska District Court Judge John Sedwick agreed that constructing the road into the Overlook sale violated NEPA. But for Ith, the victory was temporary. In early 2007, he was questioned again, this time about releasing a resource report to Greenpeace that he had prepared for the draft environmental impact statement on the Scott Peak timber sale.
Ith had written the wildlife and biological diversity report, but in the final record it had been replaced with a report written by another wildlife biologist that had different findings. Ith considered his report a public document, and he made a copy available to Greenpeace.
This past July, Ith received a letter informing him of his proposed termination, citing the agency’s “loss of trust” in the wake of his signing of the fund-raising letter and sharing his report. “I see no potential for rehabilitation in your case,” wrote Olleke Rappe-Daniels, Deputy Forest Supervisor for the Tongass National Forest.
Petersburg is a small town, with a population of about 3,000, two grocery stores and a downtown that spans three blocks. Ith often passes by the buildings where he used to work. He is unable to access any of his past research, and spends his days hunting, fishing, tackling home repair jobs and recreating with his family. He continues to monitor proposed timber sales and other developments on the Tongass National Forest.
“I can’t stop doing that,” he says. “I’m still going to be a public participant in areas that have some effect on the Tongass. I’m not ready to hang up on anything.”