Summer 2002. Rethinking Smokey. Whistleblower on the Angeles. B.C. Whistleblowers.

Smokey Bear: In Search of a New Image

Historian Stephen Pyne has observed that modern society’s “effort to extricate fire from the landscape must be viewed as something of an aberration.” Having grown up with Smokey Bear and Bambi, most of us have a difficult time grasping the accuracy of this statement. Sure, we may be familiar with stories of American Indians who lit fires in the landscape as part of their hunting and gathering culture. What may be less appreciated is how widespread was the belief in the benefits of fire, and not only among certain American Indians. Our very language—and the imagery we employ to communicate with one another—reflects this belief in fire’s noble qualities. We speak of fire as a source of power and authority when we talk of “passing the torch” to a new generation. We also speak of fire as a life-giving force. People who are lively, vibrant and energetic are said to be “on fire.”

It is a testimony to the power of imagery that today’s society largely views wildfire as harmful, as something that must be stamped out. We are a society raised on Smokey Bear posters and the slogan “Only you can prevent forest fires.” Smokey’s familiar message certainly has its place. However, the ecological knowledge gathered in the last fifty years indicates it is time for Smokey to embrace a new image. Smokey would do better to speak about fire’s natural role in the landscape and the need to reintroduce fire to improve the health of forest ecosystems.

This is no revolutionary concept among land managers. Indeed, one of nine key points in the Federal Wildland Fire Policy, approved in 1995 and reaffirmed last year, is “Wildland fire, as a critical natural process, must be reintroduced into the ecosystem. This will … be based upon the best science.”

Nevertheless, while land managers speak about the ecological benefits of fire, U.S. Forest Service culture remains attuned to Smokey’s old message. The Forest Service Manual instructs land managers to aggressively fight wildfires.

Even the National Fire Plan, developed in response to the major fires of 2000, lists firefighting and fire preparedness as number one of its five key points. The National Fire Plan has served to justify large increases in the firefighting budget of the Forest Service and other agencies.

Much tension exists between the new federal policy that would reintroduce fire into forest ecosystems and the growing pot of money earmarked for stamping out most wildfires on national forest lands. To help ease the tension and begin to nurture greater harmony between theory and practice, we must reexamine our priorities as a society. We must reexamine Smokey.

To this end, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics is sponsoring the development of a national fire plan that will truly reflect the increase in scientific understanding of fire’s role in ecosystems. We are assembling a team of scientists and natural resource professionals who will prepare a document that can guide agency decision makers, members of Congress and the Bush administration and hopefully redirect their thinking when it comes to setting budgetary priorities for fire management and firefighting.

This document and an accompanying national workshop will address a number of questions:

• In light of fire’s natural role, what is the desired condition by forest type (e.g., ponderosa pine, northern hardwood, longleaf pine, mixed conifer, spruce-fir?

• What are the most appropriate and beneficial fire management activities and practices if we are to progress toward the desired condition in each forest type?

• When and where would it be appropriate to allow wildfires to burn and under what conditions?

• How might we best use fire in the restoration of wildlife habitats?

• How can we approach special problems related to invasive species or exotic pests?

• What criteria can guide us in setting reasonable priorities for treatments in the wildland-urban interface?

• What activities are most appropriate (and under what circumstances) in order to improve ecological conditions following a significant fire event?

These are just a sampling of the types of questions we expect to address. Perhaps the answers will help create a new image for Smokey and in so doing, help us as a society to begin thinking of fire in the way our ancestors did, as something beneficial, powerful and even life-giving.

Don’t Ask Me to Break the Law

For twenty-three years, Bob Libershal has patrolled the Angeles National Forest in Southern California as a forest protection officer. He puts out fires, picks up litter, provides visitor information and issues citations.

Two years ago, Libershal noticed new “off-highway vehicle” signs posted on a road he knew was closed to OHV use (off-highway vehicles include dirt bikes, quads, three-wheelers and other all-terrain vehicles). The 1987 Angeles Forest Plan authorizes only certain roads and trails for OHV use. OHVs are banned from all other routes to ensure public safety and protect the environment.

None of Libershal’s superiors could explain where the unauthorized signs came from or who posted them. About a year ago, Libershal started removing the OHV signs.

In October, Libershal’s bosses told him to reinstall the OHV signs that he had removed. He asked them if there was any authority for the signs. The bosses refused to answer his many questions. Libershal said he couldn’t follow their orders, knowing that they were telling him to act contrary to the Angeles Forest Plan and, thus, violate the National Forest Management Act.

On March 21, 2002, Angeles forest supervisor Jody Cook told Libershal he would be suspended from work without pay for three days “for failure to follow a direct order” to reinstall the OHV signs. Cook never explained why the OHV signs are legal.

Federal employees, both civilian and military, are generally required to follow direct orders. However, the Whistleblower Protection Act bars the federal government from disciplining an employee for refusing to follow an order that would cause the employee to act illegally. This provision has received little scrutiny by the courts or the Merit Systems Protection Board, which oversees federal whistleblower and personnel actions.

In a case analogous to Libershal’s, a federal district court reinstated a U.S. Foreign Service officer who was terminated for refusing an order to use racial and ethnic criteria to evaluate visa applications. In the Olsen v. Albright decision, the court wrote, “Congress contemplated that there would be certain instances when a government employee would be asked to violate the law, and Congress determined that government would function best if each employee exercised good judgment and respect for the law rather than follow orders blindly and thoughtlessly ... In this case, Plaintiff faced the difficult tension of carrying out the responsibilities of his job while trying to avoid applying policies he rightly concluded were improper.”

Perhaps it is not so remarkable that the Olsen case appears to be the only occasion the federal courts have had to enforce the illegal order provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Three criteria must be met to create an impasse of the type Libershal faces. First, the government must order its employee to act illegally. Although this no doubt happens more frequently than is commonly known, Libershal points out that this is the first time in his twenty-three-year career he had ever been given such an order.

Second, the employee must refuse the direct order. That’s uncommon in a workforce conditioned to follow orders. Third, the agency must be sufficiently bull-headed and stupid to take direct action against the employee, even when the employee has explained why the order is illegal.

Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics has filed a complaint on Libershal’s behalf with the Office of Special Counsel, the government’s whistleblower-protection agency. In addition, Libershal and FSEEE are preparing litigation to enforce the Angeles Forest Plan and ensure that OHV use be restricted to routes designated in the plan.

We are also asking our members and Forest Magazine readers to encourage Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat who represents the Pasadena area and neighboring towns where Libershal lives and works, to help Libershal. Please call or write Schiff at:

Braley Building

35 S. Raymond Ave. #205

Pasadena, CA 91105

Phone (626) 304-2727

Fax (626) 304-0572

Ask Schiff to “help U.S. Forest Service protection officer Bob Libershal do his job enforcing OHV rules designed to ensure public safety and protect the environment. Don’t let the Forest Service suspend its dedicated public servant for blowing the whistle on illegal OHV use.”

B.C. Whistleblowers

In March, our Canadian cousins at Public Service Employees for Environmental Ethics held their first press conference calling on the B.C. government to enact whistleblower-protection legislation. It’s one thing to blow the whistle when the law protects your right to do so, as it does in the United States, but PSE is doing so without those legal niceties.

Standing before Canada’s major television news networks and wire service reporters were most of the PSE board, including Jim Pojar, PSE’s president. When asked what could happen to him for appearing at the press conference, Pojar said, “I could be fired.” The message was not lost on the media. Here was a group of government employees risking their jobs and careers for environmental quality.

PSE’s existence has already stirred rumblings within the British Columbia parliament. In a colloquy between Opposition member Jenny Kwan and Joyce Murray, minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, Kwan challenged Murray on PSE asking if she knew of the group’s message and if she supports its efforts.

“[What] I heard from the minister is that if they did come forward, there would be no protection, and they may well be reprimanded if they breach the protocol that the minister talks about.”

PSE has its work cut out for it.

Forest Magazine | FSEEE