Three Ohio Republicans are questioning the federal government’s plans to rename the state’s Wayne National Forest to the Buckeye National Forest and they want justifications for the proposed name change.
U.S. Reps. Troy Balderson (R-OH), Bill Johnson (R-OH), and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) raised concerns about the name change in a Sept. 8 letter sent to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Forest Service Chief Randy Moore regarding the Aug. 21 announcement by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
“While we have general concerns with removing Anthony Wayne as the namesake of the forest, and whether it is worth the $400,000 price tag, we would like additional information as to why, after 70 years, the decision to rename the forest was done with little to no community involvement,” the members wrote. “As you know, the [USFS] provided only a 15-day public engagement period on whether the proposed name, Buckeye National Forest, ‘would be unacceptable.’”
The forest, which is located in each of the representatives’ congressional districts, covers a quarter million acres of land in southeast Ohio and is named after Gen. Anthony Wayne, a Revolutionary War general and Founding Father of the United States.
Gen. Wayne’s “complicated legacy includes leading a violent campaign” against the indigenous peoples of Ohio that resulted in their removal from their homelands, according to the USFS announcement for the proposed name change, which the agency says is in response to requests from American Indian Tribes and local community members.
“The current forest name is offensive because of this history of violence,” USFS said. “Buckeye National Forest is one of the names suggested to the Forest Service by American Indian Tribes. The effort to change the forest name to Buckeye National Forest is based in respect and inclusion for all Ohio communities.”
In an effort to “truly respect and solicit feedback from local communities in southeastern Ohio,” Reps. Balderson, Johnson, and Wenstrup requested that the USFS provide the local communities with detailed information on why USFS thinks it is in the communities’ best interest to remove the forest’s current name, to provide information on the procedure for selecting a new name, and to provide a justification as to why renaming the forest is a responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
The lawmakers also requested that USFS extend the public comment period to hear local residents’ perspective on the proposed name and solicit alternative names for the forest, according to their letter, and commit to community forums with local residents in southeast Ohio to explain the forest name change.