Why does the BLM allow drug-laced Burning Man fest?

When I read last weekend that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management had issued a permit for the annual Burning Man "Arts" Festival in the Black Rock Desert north of Gerlach, I asked myself a simple question: Why?

I wondered why a federal agency sworn to uphold the law would approve an event featuring the public consumption of hallucinogenic drugs - not to mention the presence of children at an adults-only drugfest.

My friend Ron Funk, a retired journalist who is now a Genoa-based artist, expressed my thoughts on the drug issue when he wrote to the BLM in May.

"No federal agency should approve the use of public lands by any organization which sponsors an activity where the use of illegal drugs is widespread," he wrote. "The U.S. is spending millions of dollars to try to stop the sale and use of illegal drugs in our society; so it's indefensible for a federal agency to permit unrestricted use of such drugs on public lands." But they do, and I wonder why.

Funk wrote to the agency after a friend who had attended Burning Man told him that illegal drugs were "all over the place." Although BLM officials didn't reply directly to the issues that Funk raised, they did send him a copy of their final decision approving this year's edition of Burning Man, scheduled for the Labor Day weekend. What is most incredible about the decision is that the BLM accepted without question the boilerplate language that Burning Man organizers submitted on drug usage at the event.

"Burning Man has adopted a zero tolerance drug use policy and supports all applicable federal, state and local laws, including prohibiting the sale of illegal substances," they declared. Oh sure, and if you believe that I still have that nice waterfront lot to sell you in Washoe Valley.

The BLM decision went on to state that primary responsibility for law enforcement within Burning Man's Black Rock City rests with the festival's own Black Rock Rangers, which means that the fox will be guarding the desert hen house.

An Associated Press account of the counter-culture event said it is "noted for art, dancing, concerts, nudity and drugs" (my emphasis). But we don't have to rely on the AP for our information. In "Burning Man," a 1997 book of nude photos and essays published by HardWired Books of San Francisco, participant Bruce Sterling rhapsodized about "drum-pounding maniacs in the grip of hallucinogens" in an essay subtitled, "Taking the Kids to Burning Man."

Sterling described his 9-year-old daughter's initial reaction to the surrounding chaos. "Amy is a sensitive and imaginative child. She bursts out suddenly: 'This is awful! It's like a living nightmare!'" Later, Sterling reported, his precocious daughter survived "the swarms of naked hippies" and enjoyed herself.

"There's no privacy to speak of," added Kevin Kelly, another participant. "Every other person is filming the hedonistic disrobing." That must be fun for the kids. Kelly also offered helpful advice to lawbreakers. "If you do something illegal, don't tell," he wrote.

n the same book, writer Erik Davis allowed as how "interacting with gawking locals was part of the fun: Dudes in dune buggies with Confederate flags, grinning cops, rosy-faced oldsters with bemused grins and plastic cups of Bud." At least the neo-hippies remembered to thank "Washau (sic) County deputies" for their cooperation. But since most of Burning Man's enlightened "free spirits" come from the Bay Area and Silicon Valley, why should they know or care anything about Nevada or Washoe County? We're the local yokels, and that's that.

Although Burning Man organizers always call it a "non-commercial" event, it's worth noting that each of the 28,000 participants in this year's psychedelic desert campout will pay an average of $180 to attend, resulting in gross revenues of more than $5 million. Meanwhile, BLM charges Burning Man "rental fees" totaling $466,800, which helps to explain why the Feds were so eager to approve the dubious event. My guess is that little, if any, of this money goes to state or local governments.

Aside from drugs and the presence of children at an X-rated event, another troublesome issue is possible damage to the delicate ecology of the Black Rock Desert. In its environmental assessment, the BLM acknowledged that anticipated traffic of 14,000 to 16,000 vehicles - including plenty of heavy RVs, SUVs and trucks - could cause "serious road and playa access damage" to the area. Another environmental concern is that Black Rock City will be adjacent to the historic Nobles trails and not far from the Applegate-Lassen Trail, described by the BLM as "part of the longest stretch of emigrant trail which can be traveled by the visitor while surrounded by fairly unaltered vistas." But not for long if Burning Man continues to scar the desert.

Nevertheless, BLM approved the new site despite opposition from history buffs and residents of the tiny desert community. "I'm very much opposed to the new site and everybody else out here is too," said John Bogard, owner of Planet X Pottery near Gerlach, in an AP interview. "They're going to make it so that no one else can use the area." And so they will but they'll be going back to California until next year. Now that Nevada senators Richard Bryan and Harry Reid are co-sponsoring legislation to protect the Black Rock Desert, however, why don't they speak up in opposition?

Only two questions remain: Why should Nevadans put up with this drug-riddled charade year after year? And isn't it about time to tell Burning Man to go back to Stinson Beach, or the Mohave Desert, or wherever he/it came from? I think the answers are obvious. How about you?

(Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.)