REGIONAL— Several disabled veterans and a Minnesota-based veterans’ organization, Warriors Next Adventure, have joined Christine Wyrobek as plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against St. Louis …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, below, or purchase a new subscription.
Please log in to continue |
REGIONAL— Several disabled veterans and a Minnesota-based veterans’ organization, Warriors Next Adventure, have joined Christine Wyrobek as plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against St. Louis County over the county’s refusal to permit her proposed campground on Lake Vermilion. In a recent court filing, the veterans describe Rough-N-It campground on Lake Vermilion’s Black Bay as a therapeutic retreat space they say provides restorative experiences for veterans dealing with PTSD and service-connected disabilities.
The declarations were filed on May 22 in support of a request for a preliminary injunction that would temporarily halt county enforcement actions against the campground while the lawsuit proceeds in federal court.
Wyrobek and Rough-N-It sued St. Louis County and Beatty Township alleging county enforcement efforts tied to the campground violated constitutional protections. The county and township have claimed that the campground was developed and operated without approvals they contend were required.
The newly filed declarations offer a more personal look at the role plaintiffs say the campground has played for disabled veterans and organizations serving them.
Nelson Prince, a disabled Army veteran from Texas who joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff, said he worked closely with Wyrobek as Rough-N-It was being developed, helping shape campsites and programming intended specifically for veterans dealing with PTSD and other disabilities.
Prince described the property as offering “quiet, private, primitive sites that minimize sensory overload, promote solitude when desired, facilitate safe reconnection with nature, and provide opportunities for healthy social interaction among veterans.”
Nick Rahn, president of the veterans’ organization Warriors Next Adventure, said Rough-N-It had the potential to dramatically expand his group’s work with veterans suffering from PTSD and other service-related struggles.
Rahn, who said he served four overseas deployments in Qatar, Iraq, and Afghanistan, said he suffered four traumatic brain injuries, multiple physical injuries to his back and knees, and PTSD during his military service. He described himself in his declaration as a 100 percent permanent and totally disabled veteran.
Rahn said Warriors Next Adventure has provided peer-to-peer support and recreational therapy to more than 2,000 veterans since its founding in 2019. The group currently hosts annual mental wellness retreats in Colorado, but Rahn said Rough-N-It’s free campsites could allow the organization to host multiple retreats in Minnesota at a fraction of the cost.
“Rough-N-It’s campsites are literally a perfect match for Warrior’s Next Adventure,” Rahn wrote.
Rahn said outdoor settings and shared experiences among fellow veterans can create an environment where veterans feel more comfortable opening up about struggles connected to PTSD and military service.
“One of the things veterans miss the most about military service is spending time out in the field/desert together,” Rahn wrote. “When we get out, we lose that bond.”
Other plaintiffs described more personal experiences at the campground itself.
Perry Gunderson, a retired Minnesota Army National Guard master sergeant who served 27 years, including deployments supporting Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, said he initially had little interest in camping after years of military field exercises and deployments.
But Gunderson, who said he suffers from service-connected disabilities including a cervical spine fusion, permanent nerve damage, and tinnitus, said Rough-N-It’s accommodations made the experience accessible for him and his family.
“Due to my disabilities, a traditional camping experience would not have been feasible,” Gunderson wrote.
Gunderson described the secluded setting as peaceful and restorative, saying what began as “a reluctant commitment became a meaningful and memorable experience for our entire family.”
Jennifer Worden, another disabled veteran and plaintiff, described using the campground with her husband following the loss of a pregnancy. Worden said she suffers from PTSD and autoimmune conditions and is currently pursuing graduate studies in clinical mental health counseling.
“Veterans with PTSD often do not respond well to a typical therapeutic setting,” Worden wrote while describing hopes of eventually incorporating recreational therapy opportunities for veterans into her counseling work.
Steve Haiden, a 25-year retired Navy veteran with a service-connected disability, also described Rough-N-It as uniquely accommodating to disabled veterans through transportation assistance, site support, and affordable access to outdoor experiences.
“Being able to find affordable, accommodating, and welcoming venues to engage in outdoors activities with loved ones, friends, fellow service members, or alone, that aid in the recovery of traumatic experiences suffered during service cannot be overstated nor should they be undervalued,” Haiden wrote.
A declaration for the remaining plaintiff in the lawsuit, Thomas Zierman, was not found by the Timberjay in court records.
Taken collectively, the declarations offer the clearest independent statements yet supportive of Wyrobek’s stated mission for Rough-N-It as a retreat space intended for disabled veterans and veterans organizations focused on mental health and peer support. The plaintiffs argue that restricting or shutting down those operations would deprive veterans of experiences and opportunities they say have provided meaningful therapeutic and restorative benefits.
A federal judge has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. The broader lawsuit, which remains pending, will ultimately determine whether the county and township’s actions violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.