Forest Service Reorg - Progress or Politics

[sclancy27]

Wait, I thought USFS HQ was already in CO or NM?

 

[SAJ-99]

If you move your agency management & top experts away from congress, then less information gets to decision makers.

Given they are getting rid of regional offices, I think most of this is to get rid of the decentralized decision making. I've seen it in the corporate world hundreds of times. It almost never works because of the "less information" problem you mentioned and the limitations of a single person in processing the variations in that information. As Randy hinted at, failure is the point.

Wait, I thought USFS HQ was already in CO or NM?

Probably thinking BLM move in 2019- Grand Junction

 

[Ben Lamb]

Wait, I thought USFS HQ was already in CO or NM?

BLM moved their HQ to Grand Junction under Trump 1. Biden moved most functions back to DC, but left the office and call it the Western HQ .

 

[sclancy27]

BLM moved their HQ to Grand Junction under Trump 1. Biden moved most functions back to DC, but left the office and call it the Western HQ .

That's what I thought. I didn't realize Biden moved most back tho.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That's what I thought. I didn't realize Biden moved most back tho.

 

[daltrix99]

Given they are getting rid of regional offices, I think most of this is to get rid of the decentralized decision making. I've seen it in the corporate world hundreds of times. It almost never works because of the "less information" problem you mentioned and the limitations of a single person in processing the variations in that information. As Randy hinted at, failure is the point.


Probably thinking BLM move in 2019- Grand Junction

FWIW I'd be unbothered if the USFS were in CO, NM, or a lot of other places. It's Utah's public lands politics that concern me, not it's geographic location.

 

[Irrelevant]

I'm all about using business practices to make government more efficient. That requires following business principles in how changes are studies/debated/arrived at, and how improvements are implemented.

If people actually knew how incredibly inefficient big business actually was, it would turn this concept on its head.

Over my career, I have noticed that all big businesses run poorly, and many small businesses run poorly. There seems to be a sweet spot between ~20 and ~200 staff where things can actually be pretty efficient but it is all dictated by the quality of the individual managers or "boss". Which in my mind justifies and supports @Nameless Range comment about trust being tied to local control.

 

[rogerthat]

This is where our opinions diverge.

Ben’s never more right wiith that statement.

 

[rogerthat]

This admin couldn’t manage a Wendy’s drive through let alone a big reorg like this. This will be another giant waste of money. Will not be codified by Congress and will be undone just like all the other stupid crap these fools are doing.

Absolute chaotic stupidity day after day from these clowns. I’m not sure how much more of this crap I can take.

 

[sclancy27]

If people actually knew how incredibly inefficient big business actually was, it would turn this concept on its head.

Over my career, I have noticed that all big businesses run poorly, and many small businesses run poorly. There seems to be a sweet spot between ~20 and ~200 staff where things can actually be pretty efficient but it is all dictated by the quality of the individual managers or "boss". Which in my mind justifies and supports @Nameless Range comment about trust being tied to local control.

No doubt. I know numerous people who work in big business, including my wife (Boeing). They are shit shows.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

No doubt. I know numerous people who work in big business, including my wife (Boeing). They are shit shows.

My biotech buddy has a travel expense account that rivals my public sector salary.

Lean and mean, as they say.

 

[Irrelevant]

No doubt. I know numerous people who work in big business, including my wife (Boeing). They are shit shows.

I've watched msft piss away tens of millions in construction projects in the last several through incompetence or ignorance of common construction and design practices.

 

[SAJ-99]

FWIW I'd be unbothered if the USFS were in CO, NM, or a lot of other places. It's Utah's public lands politics that concern me, not it's geographic location.

Can you give an example of what your concern you be? Utah, CO ,NM, I don’t see how location of HQ changes much in regards to PLT risk, but could be missing something.

 

[Irrelevant]

I’m not sure how much more of this crap I can take.

What choice do you have?

 

[elkduds]

FWIW I'd be unbothered if the USFS were in CO, NM, or a lot of other places. It's Utah's public lands politics that concern me, not it's geographic location.

Maybe this move is calculated to soften the eternal UT opposition to the federal government in general and public lands specifically.

 

[rogerthat]

What choice do you have?

Stop paying attention. Stop caring. Move and pursue citizenship in a different nation. Just a few ideas that came to mind. I jest and get your point!

Edited to remove the insensitive darkness. My apologies to all that read that

 

[BuzzH]

The "who" is so infinitely more important than the "where" that I think this will result in no measurable difference in outcome than if it had remained in DC.

Then why waste the time, effort, and money if there is no measurable difference?

Give that some serious thought...

 

[R.K.]

The USFS announced a huge reorganization yesterday. It will be the continual debate around running government like an efficient business, and in the process of such, how much is truly the desire for efficiency and how much is politics?

National HQ will end up in Salt Lake City. Regions will be done away with. State offices will be the norm.

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2026/03/31/usda-prioritizing-common-sense-forest-management-moves-forest-service-headquarters-salt-lake-city

I'm all about using business practices to make government more efficient. That requires following business principles in how changes are studies/debated/arrived at, and how improvements are implemented. The DOGE efforts last year surely did nothing to make a compelling case that the process used or the manner in which changes are evaluated will result in anything beneficial or has any remote resemblance to how a business would do the same thing.

Call me a skeptic. Back in the early 2000s, I had a lunch meeting with someone who was tapped into the "Dispose of Public Lands" movement. He told me his side would eventually prevail, and not in one big sweep. Rather, they had a 25-year plan. It involved making Federal Land agencies ineffective and thus making it easier to transfer ownership to the states, who excel at disposing of lands. If successful in their efforts, the public would view the lands as a liability more than an asset. He gave examples of abuses that prevented better land management via litigation, Congressional/Executive mingling, and I had to nod in agreement that his examples did help further his cause.

Whether that strategy has remained, or is altered over the last 20 years, I took his comments seriously. Seeing the resulting work to defund agencies, defund PILT and SRS, lower financial returns from Federal lands, and politicizing public land policy with each new Congress/Administration, the strategy he explained is well down the path. And many in that land disposal movement who have succeeded him are promoting similar ideas.

Thus, my skepticism whenever politicians come up with ideas to make agencies more efficient. A business would hire consultants to interview management, customers (public land users), vendors, and others critical to the business success. A business would evaluation the market conditions, at the most basic level doing a SWOT analysis, and whatever helped gain as much information as helpful to making the recommended improvements. The consultants would then evaluate a series of alternatives, make recommendations to ownership, then advise on the best way to implement the new ideas.

That's a summary of how business does it. How DOGE did it, and how this USFS restructure has come to be has none of those processes. In my experience, when politicians are in such a hurry that they don't follow business examples, the mantra of "business principles" are merely a marketing bow wrapped around a politically motivated decision by those who hold the levers of power.

Sorry to be skeptical. Well, maybe not sorry. Better stated, a reality I've come to accept after 30 years of engaging in these issues. Only time will tell whether these changes result in better management of our Federal Lands.

If I had a Kalshi account where I could place a bet on such, history says easy money could be earned by betting against that predicted improvement.

To get this back on track, rather than just sniveling- is there any possible course of action on our part to stop this new Robber-Baron scheme to steal our public lands? How can we course-correct on this to improve management and secure the future of our public lands?

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Then why waste the time, effort, and money if there is no measurable difference?

Give that some serious thought...

HTFWIK, It's not my idea.

 

[Dougfirtree]

I can't think of any way to spin this as a positive (unless it's more outdoors-oriented people being pushed away from the President's cause). I think with this administration, the cruelty, the chaos and the destruction are the point. We're in deep doo doo. I hope that those of you employed by the USFS are not losing your jobs to this..