January, 2015


A Widow’s Response to the NPS/DOI

This editorial addresses grievances I have regarding the National Park Service’s treatment of victims who meet with accident in the Park system; specifically, the Agency’s ability: 1.)  to objectively assess current safety measures and protocol, and 2.) to investigate and report on such matters in a fair and just manner.

 

I lost my beloved husband John L. Wallace to one of the tragedies involving grizzlies at Yellowstone National Park during the summer of 2011.  Through what can only be an egregious oversight, the NPS is granted full authority to investigate itself in these types of cases despite the blatant conflict of interest concern in that it may well uncover errors or even negligence upon the part of the very Agency. 

 

The NPS waited a full six months before releasing its Official Report, and as I slowly began to acknowledge certain aspects of this tragedy, it became clear to me that the partisan and unprofessional elements of the NPS’ investigation and public reporting required an official review.  I attempted to seek redress through what I deemed were the proper channels – each step often involving weeks or even months of waiting - only to find, rather unbelievably, that there are no advocates or ombudsmen available to provide assistance to victims’ family members in this type of matter; therefore, I write this commentary both to inform the public and to finally be granted a voice in this matter. 

 

Initially I contacted a number of my elected officials, and more recently a civil liberties advocacy organization, with my complaints and to request that this matter be investigated through an organization without vested interest, to no remedy.   Senator Levin’s office, while by far the most responsive of those whom I contacted, forwarded my complaints to the Department of the Interior (the NPS’ parent organization) and eventually informed me that the NPS is allowed to perform these types of self-investigations through powers granted to the Agency through the Inspector General Act of 1978.  In addition to this unprecedented power to police itself, the NPS is also nearly immune from lawsuit due to the Federal Tort Claims Act.  These legal abilities, in my opinion, violate the democratic process; without any authentic oversight or accountability this Agency essentially acts as both judge and jury during its investigations, completely contrary to the Jeffersonian mandate that it is U.S. citizens who are to monitor and ‘exercise oversight’ of their governmental civil servants.

 

While I don’t believe that anyone wished for harm to befall John or any Park visitor, I will believe until my dying day that during the ensuing investigation, emboldened by these unrestricted powers, the NPS operated from a willful intent to focus attention on areas noncontroversial to the Agency, essentially whitewashing its actions and marketing this tragedy in such a way that would most protect its interests.  I feel that John and I would have received far more authentic, respectful representation had I been able to rely upon professional law enforcement officials from the private sector. 

 

Beyond the violation of my and John’s privacy and civil liberties through this inherently biased, public process, there is no resolution for me when I cannot place trust in the veracity of the NPS’ publicized ‘official report’ nor feel that it meets the standards held by professionals in the private sector:

 

Information potentially vital to the investigation was not included in the NPS’ disseminated official report.   The NPS’ team members initially informed my family that the attack was a surprise, predatory event in which the bear had come to John.  However, while in its official report the NPS chose to publicize witness statements completely unsubstantiated by any hard evidence (not even requiring an ‘under penalty of perjury’ declaration) it failed to document this crucial assessment of its very own team members.  This raises red flags in regard to both the quality and the scope of the disseminated material.  

 
The NPS’ report failed to examine what additional safeguards might be implemented to prevent another such tragedy. Shouldn’t the main purpose of these reports be to determine the underlying causes of an accident, review the systems in place, and recommend improvements in order to mitigate risk?  The same animal which had killed a gentleman only the month prior was also potentially implicated through DNA evidence in this attack and destroyed.   When the NPS made the decision not to euthanize this animal immediately after it had attacked and killed an individual, shouldn’t they have, at the least, tracked the bear for additional evaluation (they were already tracking other animals at the time for ‘routine population monitoring’)?  Had they done so, at minimum, they would have been well aware of the unusually high level of bear activity along the Mary Mountain trail, a trail which is often closed to the public for this very reason, and they would have known that every hiker walking along that trail was essentially walking through a landmine. 

 
The NPS increased family members’ trauma by publishing uncorroborated hearsay, adding a sensationalist element to the reporting and giving the dishonest impression that my husband, an experienced outdoorsman, was somehow to blame for the attack.   The evidence clearly indicates that John was taking a break along the trail when the surprise attack occurred.  The fact that the NPS censored its publicized official report by blackening out all sorts of information within the document and yet refused my request (placed through Senator Levin) to redact this unsubstantiated defamatory hearsay has only served to confirm my belief that the NPS needed a red herring to limit scrutiny of any negligence on its part: questions as to how the Agency had handled the bear attack from the month prior, whether or not the NPS failed to properly monitor the Mary Mountain trail and/or expeditiously close the trail to visitation, and one can only theorize further since the NPS controlled all of the information.  When I informed the NPS’ spokesperson that the family was stunned with its inclusion of the red herring, he disingenuously replied that he had no control over the media, as though it were not the sole responsibility of the NPS, alone, to carefully vet its public reporting and to use extra care and sensitivity when representing someone who was no longer able to defend himself in such a highly publicized case which generated interest nationwide.

 

 

The NPS never acknowledged even the possibility of any error upon its part, an arrogance evident in the DOI spokesperson’s response to Senator Stabenow regarding an animal potentially implicated in two deaths during consecutive months: “Even if the bear was radio collared, it is not practical, or even possible, to track every bear, every hour, every day, over 2.2 million acres of remote, rugged, wilderness.”  

 

For the record, John and I have always been wilderness advocates, having hiked and camped extensively while employed in the National Parks after college, and wilderness backpacking remained an integral component throughout John’s life.  Some of John’s favorite areas include Isle Royale, Big Bend, the Grand Canyon, the Uintas, the Smoky Mountains, and Woodland Caribou Provincial Park.  Wilderness areas held a special place in his heart, and he was well-versed in backcountry travel in a multitude of diverse environments and conditions, very attuned to the land.

 

I cannot put into words how it feels to lose one’s loved one to that which is inconceivable and to then have been further victimized by the very individuals charged with assisting me during my time of need.  Someone should have been there for me to honorably and impartially represent John and all who love him, and to ask the hard questions required in order to best serve the interests of the public welfare.  I remain astonished that there is no advocate or ombudsman in place to assist a U.S. Citizen in this type of situation.  The employees of these federal agencies, having been granted the power to be a law unto themselves, have been placed in positions of trust which they cannot possibly hope to honor.  As there is not the political will to require that these Agencies conduct themselves in accordance with generally accepted legal and professional standards, park visitors – at minimum – need to understand that they forfeit rights they consider inviolable within a democracy upon setting foot within the boundaries of a U.S. National Park.

 

 

 

 

Lisa K. Wallace

Chassell, MI

lwallace@birchhollow.com


This editorial addresses grievances I have regarding the National Park Service’s treatment of victims who meet with accident in the Park system; specifically, the Agency’s ability: 1.)  to objectively assess current safety measures and protocol, and 2.) to investigate and report on such matters in a fair and just manner.
 
I lost my beloved husband John L. Wallace to one of the tragedies involving grizzlies at Yellowstone National Park during the summer of 2011.  Through what can only be an egregious oversight, the NPS is granted full authority to investigate itself in these types of cases despite the blatant conflict of interest concern in that it may well uncover errors or even negligence upon the part of the very Agency. 
 
The NPS waited a full six months before releasing its Official Report, and as I slowly began to acknowledge certain aspects of this tragedy, it became clear to me that the partisan and unprofessional elements of the NPS’ investigation and public reporting required an official review.  I attempted to seek redress through what I deemed were the proper channels – each step often involving weeks or even months of waiting - only to find, rather unbelievably, that there are no advocates or ombudsmen available to provide assistance to victims’ family members in this type of matter; therefore, I write this commentary both to inform the public and to finally be granted a voice in this matter. 
 
Initially I contacted a number of my elected officials, and more recently a civil liberties advocacy organization, with my complaints and to request that this matter be investigated through an organization without vested interest, to no remedy.   Senator Levin’s office, while by far the most responsive of those whom I contacted, forwarded my complaints to the Department of the Interior (the NPS’ parent organization) and eventually informed me that the NPS is allowed to perform these types of self-investigations through powers granted to the Agency through the Inspector General Act of 1978.  In addition to this unprecedented power to police itself, the NPS is also nearly immune from lawsuit due to the Federal Tort Claims Act.  These legal abilities, in my opinion, violate the democratic process; without any authentic oversight or accountability this Agency essentially acts as both judge and jury during its investigations, completely contrary to the Jeffersonian mandate that it is U.S. citizens who are to monitor and ‘exercise oversight’ of their governmental civil servants.
 
While I don’t believe that anyone wished for harm to befall John or any Park visitor, I will believe until my dying day that during the ensuing investigation, emboldened by these unrestricted powers, the NPS operated from a willful intent to focus attention on areas noncontroversial to the Agency, essentially whitewashing its actions and marketing this tragedy in such a way that would most protect its interests.  I feel that John and I would have received far more authentic, respectful representation had I been able to rely upon professional law enforcement officials from the private sector. 
 
Beyond the violation of my and John’s privacy and civil liberties through this inherently biased, public process, there is no resolution for me when I cannot place trust in the veracity of the NPS’ publicized ‘official report’ nor feel that it meets the standards held by professionals in the private sector:
 
  • Information potentially vital to the investigation was not included in the NPS’ disseminated official report.   The NPS’ team members initially informed my family that the attack was a surprise, predatory event in which the bear had come to John.  However, while in its official report the NPS chose to publicize witness statements completely unsubstantiated by any hard evidence (not even requiring an ‘under penalty of perjury’ declaration) it failed to document this crucial assessment of its very own team members.  This raises red flags in regard to both the quality and the scope of the disseminated material.  
  •  The NPS’ report failed to examine what additional safeguards might be implemented to prevent another such tragedy. Shouldn’t the main purpose of these reports be to determine the underlying causes of an accident, review the systems in place, and recommend improvements in order to mitigate risk?  The same animal which had killed a gentleman only the month prior was also potentially implicated through DNA evidence in this attack and destroyed.   When the NPS made the decision not to euthanize this animal immediately after it had attacked and killed an individual, shouldn’t they have, at the least, tracked the bear for additional evaluation (they were already tracking other animals at the time for ‘routine population monitoring’)?  Had they done so, at minimum, they would have been well aware of the unusually high level of bear activity along the Mary Mountain trail, a trail which is often closed to the public for this very reason, and they would have known that every hiker walking along that trail was essentially walking through a landmine. 
  •  The NPS increased family members’ trauma by publishing uncorroborated hearsay, adding a sensationalist element to the reporting and giving the dishonest impression that my husband, an experienced outdoorsman, was somehow to blame for the attack.   The evidence clearly indicates that John was taking a break along the trail when the surprise attack occurred.  The fact that the NPS censored its publicized official report by blackening out all sorts of information within the document and yet refused my request (placed through Senator Levin) to redact this unsubstantiated defamatory hearsay has only served to confirm my belief that the NPS needed a red herring to limit scrutiny of any negligence on its part: questions as to how the Agency had handled the bear attack from the month prior, whether or not the NPS failed to properly monitor the Mary Mountain trail and/or expeditiously close the trail to visitation, and one can only theorize further since the NPS controlled all of the information.  When I informed the NPS’ spokesperson that the family was stunned with its inclusion of the red herring, he disingenuously replied that he had no control over the media, as though it were not the sole responsibility of the NPS, alone, to carefully vet its public reporting and to use extra care and sensitivity when representing someone who was no longer able to defend himself in such a highly publicized case which generated interest nationwide.
 
 
The NPS never acknowledged even the possibility of any error upon its part, an arrogance evident in the DOI spokesperson’s response to Senator Stabenow regarding an animal potentially implicated in two deaths during consecutive months: “Even if the bear was radio collared, it is not practical, or even possible, to track every bear, every hour, every day, over 2.2 million acres of remote, rugged, wilderness.”  
 
For the record, John and I have always been wilderness advocates, having hiked and camped extensively while employed in the National Parks after college, and wilderness backpacking remained an integral component throughout John’s life.  Some of John’s favorite areas include Isle Royale, Big Bend, the Grand Canyon, the Uintas, the Smoky Mountains, and Woodland Caribou Provincial Park.  Wilderness areas held a special place in his heart, and he was well-versed in backcountry travel in a multitude of diverse environments and conditions, very attuned to the land.
 
I cannot put into words how it feels to lose one’s loved one to that which is inconceivable and to then have been further victimized by the very individuals charged with assisting me during my time of need.  Someone should have been there for me to honorably and impartially represent John and all who love him, and to ask the hard questions required in order to best serve the interests of the public welfare.  I remain astonished that there is no advocate or ombudsman in place to assist a U.S. Citizen in this type of situation.  The employees of these federal agencies, having been granted the power to be a law unto themselves, have been placed in positions of trust which they cannot possibly hope to honor.  As there is not the political will to require that these Agencies conduct themselves in accordance with generally accepted legal and professional standards, park visitors – at minimum – need to understand that they forfeit rights they consider inviolable within a democracy upon setting foot within the boundaries of a U.S. National Park.

 


Lisa K. Wallace
Chassell, MI
lwallace@birchhollow.com
This editorial addresses grievances I have regarding the National Park Service’s treatment of victims who meet with accident in the Park system; specifically, the Agency’s ability: 1.)  to objectively assess current safety measures and protocol, and 2.) to investigate and report on such matters in a fair and just manner.
 
I lost my beloved husband John L. Wallace to one of the tragedies involving grizzlies at Yellowstone National Park during the summer of 2011.  Through what can only be an egregious oversight, the NPS is granted full authority to investigate itself in these types of cases despite the blatant conflict of interest concern in that it may well uncover errors or even negligence upon the part of the very Agency. 
 
The NPS waited a full six months before releasing its Official Report, and as I slowly began to acknowledge certain aspects of this tragedy, it became clear to me that the partisan and unprofessional elements of the NPS’ investigation and public reporting required an official review.  I attempted to seek redress through what I deemed were the proper channels – each step often involving weeks or even months of waiting - only to find, rather unbelievably, that there are no advocates or ombudsmen available to provide assistance to victims’ family members in this type of matter; therefore, I write this commentary both to inform the public and to finally be granted a voice in this matter. 
 
Initially I contacted a number of my elected officials, and more recently a civil liberties advocacy organization, with my complaints and to request that this matter be investigated through an organization without vested interest, to no remedy.   Senator Levin’s office, while by far the most responsive of those whom I contacted, forwarded my complaints to the Department of the Interior (the NPS’ parent organization) and eventually informed me that the NPS is allowed to perform these types of self-investigations through powers granted to the Agency through the Inspector General Act of 1978.  In addition to this unprecedented power to police itself, the NPS is also nearly immune from lawsuit due to the Federal Tort Claims Act.  These legal abilities, in my opinion, violate the democratic process; without any authentic oversight or accountability this Agency essentially acts as both judge and jury during its investigations, completely contrary to the Jeffersonian mandate that it is U.S. citizens who are to monitor and ‘exercise oversight’ of their governmental civil servants.
 
While I don’t believe that anyone wished for harm to befall John or any Park visitor, I will believe until my dying day that during the ensuing investigation, emboldened by these unrestricted powers, the NPS operated from a willful intent to focus attention on areas noncontroversial to the Agency, essentially whitewashing its actions and marketing this tragedy in such a way that would most protect its interests.  I feel that John and I would have received far more authentic, respectful representation had I been able to rely upon professional law enforcement officials from the private sector. 
 
Beyond the violation of my and John’s privacy and civil liberties through this inherently biased, public process, there is no resolution for me when I cannot place trust in the veracity of the NPS’ publicized ‘official report’ nor feel that it meets the standards held by professionals in the private sector:
 
Information potentially vital to the investigation was not included in the NPS’ disseminated official report.   The NPS’ team members initially informed my family that the attack was a surprise, predatory event in which the bear had come to John.  However, while in its official report the NPS chose to publicize witness statements completely unsubstantiated by any hard evidence (not even requiring an ‘under penalty of perjury’ declaration) it failed to document this crucial assessment of its very own team members.  This raises red flags in regard to both the quality and the scope of the disseminated material.  
 
The NPS’ report failed to examine what additional safeguards might be implemented to prevent another such tragedy. Shouldn’t the main purpose of these reports be to determine the underlying causes of an accident, review the systems in place, and recommend improvements in order to mitigate risk?  The same animal which had killed a gentleman only the month prior was also potentially implicated through DNA evidence in this attack and destroyed.   When the NPS made the decision not to euthanize this animal immediately after it had attacked and killed an individual, shouldn’t they have, at the least, tracked the bear for additional evaluation (they were already tracking other animals at the time for ‘routine population monitoring’)?  Had they done so, at minimum, they would have been well aware of the unusually high level of bear activity along the Mary Mountain trail, a trail which is often closed to the public for this very reason, and they would have known that every hiker walking along that trail was essentially walking through a landmine. 
 
The NPS increased family members’ trauma by publishing uncorroborated hearsay, adding a sensationalist element to the reporting and giving the dishonest impression that my husband, an experienced outdoorsman, was somehow to blame for the attack.   The evidence clearly indicates that John was taking a break along the trail when the surprise attack occurred.  The fact that the NPS censored its publicized official report by blackening out all sorts of information within the document and yet refused my request (placed through Senator Levin) to redact this unsubstantiated defamatory hearsay has only served to confirm my belief that the NPS needed a red herring to limit scrutiny of any negligence on its part: questions as to how the Agency had handled the bear attack from the month prior, whether or not the NPS failed to properly monitor the Mary Mountain trail and/or expeditiously close the trail to visitation, and one can only theorize further since the NPS controlled all of the information.  When I informed the NPS’ spokesperson that the family was stunned with its inclusion of the red herring, he disingenuously replied that he had no control over the media, as though it were not the sole responsibility of the NPS, alone, to carefully vet its public reporting and to use extra care and sensitivity when representing someone who was no longer able to defend himself in such a highly publicized case which generated interest nationwide.
 
 
The NPS never acknowledged even the possibility of any error upon its part, an arrogance evident in the DOI spokesperson’s response to Senator Stabenow regarding an animal potentially implicated in two deaths during consecutive months: “Even if the bear was radio collared, it is not practical, or even possible, to track every bear, every hour, every day, over 2.2 million acres of remote, rugged, wilderness.”  
 
For the record, John and I have always been wilderness advocates, having hiked and camped extensively while employed in the National Parks after college, and wilderness backpacking remained an integral component throughout John’s life.  Some of John’s favorite areas include Isle Royale, Big Bend, the Grand Canyon, the Uintas, the Smoky Mountains, and Woodland Caribou Provincial Park.  Wilderness areas held a special place in his heart, and he was well-versed in backcountry travel in a multitude of diverse environments and conditions, very attuned to the land.
 
I cannot put into words how it feels to lose one’s loved one to that which is inconceivable and to then have been further victimized by the very individuals charged with assisting me during my time of need.  Someone should have been there for me to honorably and impartially represent John and all who love him, and to ask the hard questions required in order to best serve the interests of the public welfare.  I remain astonished that there is no advocate or ombudsman in place to assist a U.S. Citizen in this type of situation.  The employees of these federal agencies, having been granted the power to be a law unto themselves, have been placed in positions of trust which they cannot possibly hope to honor.  As there is not the political will to require that these Agencies conduct themselves in accordance with generally accepted legal and professional standards, park visitors – at minimum – need to understand that they forfeit rights they consider inviolable within a democracy upon setting foot within the boundaries of a U.S. National Park.
 
 
 
 
Lisa K. Wallace
Chassell, MI
lwallace@birchhollow.com
This editorial addresses grievances I have regarding the National Park Service’s treatment of victims who meet with accident in the Park system; specifically, the Agency’s ability: 1.)  to objectively assess current safety measures and protocol, and 2.) to investigate and report on such matters in a fair and just manner.
 
I lost my beloved husband John L. Wallace to one of the tragedies involving grizzlies at Yellowstone National Park during the summer of 2011.  Through what can only be an egregious oversight, the NPS is granted full authority to investigate itself in these types of cases despite the blatant conflict of interest concern in that it may well uncover errors or even negligence upon the part of the very Agency. 
 
The NPS waited a full six months before releasing its Official Report, and as I slowly began to acknowledge certain aspects of this tragedy, it became clear to me that the partisan and unprofessional elements of the NPS’ investigation and public reporting required an official review.  I attempted to seek redress through what I deemed were the proper channels – each step often involving weeks or even months of waiting - only to find, rather unbelievably, that there are no advocates or ombudsmen available to provide assistance to victims’ family members in this type of matter; therefore, I write this commentary both to inform the public and to finally be granted a voice in this matter. 
 
Initially I contacted a number of my elected officials, and more recently a civil liberties advocacy organization, with my complaints and to request that this matter be investigated through an organization without vested interest, to no remedy.   Senator Levin’s office, while by far the most responsive of those whom I contacted, forwarded my complaints to the Department of the Interior (the NPS’ parent organization) and eventually informed me that the NPS is allowed to perform these types of self-investigations through powers granted to the Agency through the Inspector General Act of 1978.  In addition to this unprecedented power to police itself, the NPS is also nearly immune from lawsuit due to the Federal Tort Claims Act.  These legal abilities, in my opinion, violate the democratic process; without any authentic oversight or accountability this Agency essentially acts as both judge and jury during its investigations, completely contrary to the Jeffersonian mandate that it is U.S. citizens who are to monitor and ‘exercise oversight’ of their governmental civil servants.
 
While I don’t believe that anyone wished for harm to befall John or any Park visitor, I will believe until my dying day that during the ensuing investigation, emboldened by these unrestricted powers, the NPS operated from a willful intent to focus attention on areas noncontroversial to the Agency, essentially whitewashing its actions and marketing this tragedy in such a way that would most protect its interests.  I feel that John and I would have received far more authentic, respectful representation had I been able to rely upon professional law enforcement officials from the private sector. 
 
Beyond the violation of my and John’s privacy and civil liberties through this inherently biased, public process, there is no resolution for me when I cannot place trust in the veracity of the NPS’ publicized ‘official report’ nor feel that it meets the standards held by professionals in the private sector:
 
  • Information potentially vital to the investigation was not included in the NPS’ disseminated official report.   The NPS’ team members initially informed my family that the attack was a surprise, predatory event in which the bear had come to John.  However, while in its official report the NPS chose to publicize witness statements completely unsubstantiated by any hard evidence (not even requiring an ‘under penalty of perjury’ declaration) it failed to document this crucial assessment of its very own team members.  This raises red flags in regard to both the quality and the scope of the disseminated material.  

  •  The NPS’ report failed to examine what additional safeguards might be implemented to prevent another such tragedy. Shouldn’t the main purpose of these reports be to determine the underlying causes of an accident, review the systems in place, and recommend improvements in order to mitigate risk?  The same animal which had killed a gentleman only the month prior was also potentially implicated through DNA evidence in this attack and destroyed.   When the NPS made the decision not to euthanize this animal immediately after it had attacked and killed an individual, shouldn’t they have, at the least, tracked the bear for additional evaluation (they were already tracking other animals at the time for ‘routine population monitoring’)?  Had they done so, at minimum, they would have been well aware of the unusually high level of bear activity along the Mary Mountain trail, a trail which is often closed to the public for this very reason, and they would have known that every hiker walking along that trail was essentially walking through a landmine. 

  •  The NPS increased family members’ trauma by publishing uncorroborated hearsay, adding a sensationalist element to the reporting and giving the dishonest impression that my husband, an experienced outdoorsman, was somehow to blame for the attack.   The evidence clearly indicates that John was taking a break along the trail when the surprise attack occurred.  The fact that the NPS censored its publicized official report by blackening out all sorts of information within the document and yet refused my request (placed through Senator Levin) to redact this unsubstantiated defamatory hearsay has only served to confirm my belief that the NPS needed a red herring to limit scrutiny of any negligence on its part: questions as to how the Agency had handled the bear attack from the month prior, whether or not the NPS failed to properly monitor the Mary Mountain trail and/or expeditiously close the trail to visitation, and one can only theorize further since the NPS controlled all of the information.  When I informed the NPS’ spokesperson that the family was stunned with its inclusion of the red herring, he disingenuously replied that he had no control over the media, as though it were not the sole responsibility of the NPS, alone, to carefully vet its public reporting and to use extra care and sensitivity when representing someone who was no longer able to defend himself in such a highly publicized case which generated interest nationwide.
 
The NPS never acknowledged even the possibility of any error upon its part, an arrogance evident in the DOI spokesperson’s response to Senator Stabenow regarding an animal potentially implicated in two deaths during consecutive months: “Even if the bear was radio collared, it is not practical, or even possible, to track every bear, every hour, every day, over 2.2 million acres of remote, rugged, wilderness.”  
 
For the record, John and I have always been wilderness advocates, having hiked and camped extensively while employed in the National Parks after college, and wilderness backpacking remained an integral component throughout John’s life.  Some of John’s favorite areas include Isle Royale, Big Bend, the Grand Canyon, the Uintas, the Smoky Mountains, and Woodland Caribou Provincial Park.  Wilderness areas held a special place in his heart, and he was well-versed in backcountry travel in a multitude of diverse environments and conditions, very attuned to the land.
 
I cannot put into words how it feels to lose one’s loved one to that which is inconceivable and to then have been further victimized by the very individuals charged with assisting me during my time of need.  Someone should have been there for me to honorably and impartially represent John and all who love him, and to ask the hard questions required in order to best serve the interests of the public welfare.  I remain astonished that there is no advocate or ombudsman in place to assist a U.S. Citizen in this type of situation.  The employees of these federal agencies, having been granted the power to be a law unto themselves, have been placed in positions of trust which they cannot possibly hope to honor.  As there is not the political will to require that these Agencies conduct themselves in accordance with generally accepted legal and professional standards, park visitors – at minimum – need to understand that they forfeit rights they consider inviolable within a democracy upon setting foot within the boundaries of a U.S. National Park.
 
 
Lisa K. Wallace
Chassell, MI
lwallace@birchhollow.com