The U.S. Forest Service's decision to delay implementation of a

for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and seek more public input is a victory for all sides.

Those who supported the previously approved plan will benefit from a more open process that results in rules that everyone understands. Those who opposed the plan will get another chance to express their concerns about issues ranging from inadequate maps to the number of roads open for recreation.

But it's important that all sides in the debate over appropriate rules for the national forest conduct themselves better than they did when the original plan was developed.

The Forest Service developed the plan

Controversy was inevitable, given the service's far-reaching responsibility for managing the national forest and the sometimes contradictory goals of stakeholders in the sprawling natural area stretching across three counties.

The goal of the plan was to:

*Meet national travel management regulations.

*Specify when, where and how motor vehicles could be used on roads and trails.

*Reduce adverse impacts to resources from motor vehicle use.

*Better align public motor vehicle travel routes.

Those are the right goals. But this time, the Forest Service must do a better job of listening to the community.

Forest Service employees held public meetings and gathered input from 2007-2009. Then the process veered off course and no other public meetings were held.

When an approved plan was introduced earlier this year, northeast Oregon erupted.

Forest Service officials acknowledged they did not schedule public meetings on the topic -- though they did accept input through other venues -- because they thought emotions were too high.

On March 22, U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., wrote the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. On Monday, by phone and letter, he asked Kent Connaughton, regional forester for the Pacific Northwest, to start over on the travel plan.

On Tuesday, Monica Schwalbach, supervisor for the national forest,

The plan was in the appeals stage, with implementation scheduled for June.

Schwalbach made the right decision, but the difficult part remains. Both sides need to engage in civil conversations and compromise.

The Forest Service, first and foremost, needs to make sure rules and maps are clear and understandable. It needs to be open to suggestions on issues from availability of firewood to access to specific roads or trails.

Recreational users might need to make the bigger concession. To balance all concerns, the final plan inevitably will reduce access for motorized vehicles. We continue to support that overall goal.

But we think the most important goal is one expressed by Walden spokesman Andrew Whelan: "Let's re-instill some integrity into the public process. That's goal No. 1."