A spokesman said the agency is not barring all e-mail -- only e-mail that goes through an outside server such as a business or environmental Web site. The agency is also barring other "duplicative materials" such as form letters, printed post cards and lists that include spaces for respondents to check off statements they agree with.
Such comments, whether electronic or on paper, can be overwhelming and provide little useful information, said Forest Service spokesman Joseph Walsh. The Forest Service has counted such comments in the past, he said, adding that the new policy is subject to review.
"A bunch of e-mails that say the same thing with no specific comments don't tell us anything," Walsh said.
Under the new policy, thousands of comments routed through such third-party servers were bounced back to users by the Forest Service. Civil liberties groups and activists on both sides of forest debates complain that the Forest Service is thwarting public access to decision makers and reducing the role of average citizens in shaping forest policy.
Environmental groups and businesses increasingly encourage people who agree with their positions to contact the government through their Web sites. Many also use preprinted letters and cards so members of the public can easily express their opinions to government officials.
"By ignoring public comments, the Bush administration is telling the average person, 'Don't bother telling us what you think or how you feel, because we are not listening,'" said Robert Vandermark, co-director of the Heritage Forests Campaign, an environmental advocacy group.
But Walsh said the Forest Service is still accepting originally composed e-mail and letters from the public.
"If you're going to take the time to respond and you care, then put some effort into it," he said. "We'll take e-mails by the millions" if the correspondence is original and specific.
But critics say the new rule ignores a fact of modern life: that people are busy and often don't have time to compose original letters with substantive suggestions or criticisms.
Comments sent from a Web site are different from "spam" and other unwanted e-mail, because each person has to decide whether to send an e-mail and where, said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based group that promotes online civil liberties.
"If they are blocking Viagra ads, that's one thing," Cohn said. "If they are blocking public comments, that's not spam -- that's thwarting democracy. It's an issue of public access."
The foundation's Web site includes an "action center" that allows users to send comments to government officials with the click of a button. At least 130,000 e-mail messages have been sent to Congress through the site since last year, Cohn said.
A spokesman for the American Forest and Paper Association, a business group, agreed.
"It's a step backward to block e-mail," said spokesman John Mechem, whose organization features a "Washington Watch" link on its Web site, which allows users to send comments on the changes being proposed by the Forest Service.
The Heritage Forests campaign and other groups have similar links.
Just because a Web site user agrees with a comment suggested by a particular Web site does not make that person's opinion irrelevant, Cohn said.
"If one person has a problem with a new road or other policy, or if 100,000 people have the same problem, that's a substantive difference," she said.
Copyright 2003. Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
