If he knew what a mockery the U.S. Forest Service has made of the Freedom of Information Act, (redacted name) would probably demand the removal of his picture from the one dollar bill. (Redacted) Bear and (redacted) Owl might even chuck their shovel and feathered hat, respectively, in disgust. Then again, they, like their agency colleagues, might not give a hoot about government transparency.

The Bulletin reported in July that Deschutes National Forest officials were considering a proposal to give off-leash dogs more room to roam in areas used heavily by cross-country skiers. The story noted an upcoming public meeting on the matter and explained how to submit comments to the Forest Service in advance. Last month, a Bulletin reporter requested copies of those and other public comments. Several days ago, the Forest Service duly provided scores of e-mails submitted by people from Bend, Sunriver, Sisters, Portland and elsewhere.

However, the agency’s public information gurus redacted names, addresses and other identifying information from all letters. The following comment is the only exception, as far as we can tell:

“A loose dog is a wild animal undre (sic) no ones (sic) control and should be harvested at will.”

Then again, there was no identifying information to redact, as the comment was sent anonymously. Perhaps the writer was sensitive about his spelling.

Moreover, the Forest Service wasn’t content to obscure the names of the people commenting. They also blacked out the names of local organizations engaged in the debate.

How does the Forest Service justify such censorship? To begin with, they argue, the comments weren’t submitted under the umbrella of a formal National Environmental Policy Act process, in which case they and the names of their authors would have been released in full.

For this reason, the comments were covered by an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act, says Rich Thomas, the agency’s regional FOIA specialist. As described by the agency’s FOIA handbook, the “exception protects against disclosure of information about individuals in ‘personnel and medical files and similar files’ when release would constitute a ‘clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.’ The threshold requirement is that the records requested must fall within ‘personnel and medical files and similar files.’ These terms are interpreted broadly and generally include any record that contains information about an individual.”

In complying with The Bulletin’s records request, the Forest Service embraced the broad-interpretation recommendation as zealously as (redacted) Bear would stomp out a cigarette butt. Here are some examples of its handiwork:

— “During the winter months I take my Springer Spaniel (redacted) to Winoga (sic) at least 2-3X/week.” If the dog could talk, we’re sure it would thank the Forest Service profusely for preventing a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.

— “I remember parking along the highway and skiing (with (redacted) and (redacted), both of whom must be turning over in their graves with this discussion!)” Do the deceased have an expectation of privacy?

— “(redacted) seems to think that an exercised dog is a happy dog, but not according to dog whisperer (redacted). He stress the importance of exercise, obedience, and affection …”

Having protected the identity of the dog whisperer, the Forest Service carefully masks the identity of the American Kennel Club in the very same letter:

“Is there a way to … differentiate between responsible owners and those who just don’t take ownership seriously? I think there is and it is a program developed by The (redacted) called the (redacted). You can check out the details at http://www.akc.org/events/cgc/program.cfm.” Call up the URL the Forest Service failed to redact, and you can read all about the program, which was developed by The American Kennel Club and called the Canine Good Citizen Program. Why anybody would choose to redact such information is beyond us.

The thought of the Forest Service’s official censor blundering through page after page of public comments, blacking out proper nouns seemingly at random, is funny. What isn’t in the least bit funny, though, is the agency’s hostility to openness. It has taken what is clearly a narrow exemption to the Freedom of Information Act — one that covers sensitive information contained in medical, personnel and similar files — and wielded it so brainlessly that its bureaucrats refuse to divulge the names of dogs, dog whisperers and dead people. Calling the Forest Service brainless is harsh, we admit. But as the famous movie character (redacted) once said, “stupid is as stupid does.”

The only people who should be pleased about the agency’s behavior are those who want to bring their dogs to places in which they’re now prohibited. Given the eagerness of Forest Service bureaucrats to twist rules and regulations in ways that suit their purposes, no matter how absurd the results, they surely can’t fault forest users for taking the same liberties.