What cost "justice"

The Park Service told Mr. Frederick that they did not have money for trail repair.

Actually, during the summer of 2002 the NPS Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program was the recipient of a $30,000 grant from the State Recreation Trail Grant program. Incredibly, they elected to spend the money on a trail 30 miles outside the park, on BLM land.

Yet the NPS had money to prosecute Mr. Frederick. Mr. Darnell costs $108,573 a year, Mr. Candelaria about $100,000 per year, Mr. Sharp about $85,000 per year, Mr. Dalton and Mr. Larrabee another

$70,000 each. Ms. Hendrick costs approximately $108,000 a year assuming she is a GS 13-14 like Candelaria. The Judge must cost in excess of $120,000.

This trial was costing over $350 dollars an hour on the prosecution side alone. Mr. Darnell put in dozens of hours as well as the NPS personnel in preparation for this trial. Each one of the Wrangell-St. Elias personnel receive $81 per day per diem, $85 per day for lodging and over $200 for travel expenses, according to the Park Service Public Information Officer. How many total man-hours were invested in this affair? My guess would be their side cost in excess of $20,000.

Mr. Frederick told me that his costs were $11,000 in legal fees so far, over $2,000 in out of town living expenses, 300 hours of time, untold loss of business as lodge clients stayed away when they assumed he had lost access to his property, personal pain and suffering from the stress of the citation, the preparation of his defense and the loss of his daughter caused directly by his need to be in Anchorage because of his trial. His monetary costs exceed $20,000.

So, over $40,000 dollars later, the trails are exactly as they were when this whole thing started. We now know the cost. On a cost-benefit analysis, what was the benefit?

Was it necessary for the Park Service to take this course to stop Mr. Frederick? We will never know because they tried no other means; no telephone call, no letter, no nothing. According to Mr. Frederick a phone call would have been plenty.

Did this citation return the trail to it original condition? No, the efforts and materials of Frederick et al are still in place, being used by trail users, reducing further erosion.

Was this prosecution necessary to convince others that a permit is needed to work in the park? No, Mr. Sharp could have just told the good folks of the community that they needed a permit when he spoke for an hour and a half back in July, 2002. It doesn’t seem likely that the Park Service would spend that kind of dough to back up Mr. Sharp so he could prove his claim to Mr. Frederick that “I’ve got a lot more push than you’ve got shove.”

Did the Park Service need to take this course in order to recover investigation costs? Not likely. Why spend $20,000 in the hope of getting a conviction with a maximum penalty of $5,000?

You decide.